The Narodniks accused the Marxists of breaking the democratic thread, because of their criticism of the Reform etc. Far from it, Lenin replies. In supporting all of these kinds of reforms, and on insisting on them being applied consistently they “want to develop and strengthen this trend, they want to bring it closer to life, they want to take up the “thread” that “society” and the “intelligentsia” are letting slip out of their hands.” (p 504)
On this latter point, Lenin quotes an article from Vorontsov in Nedelya in which he argued that social relations had mirrored those in Western Europe, in the period of active political struggle, but had then sunk into social indifferentism. This was no accident, Lenin says, because, as shown in Chapter 1, the bourgeoisie, whilst suffering disadvantages as a result of the Tsarist regime, also enjoys advantages from the existence of a capitalist state, and from the fact that other social classes have no access to the political regime.
Presaging his writings against Economism, Lenin notes,
“This demand—not to discard the “thread,” but, on the contrary, to strengthen it—is not the accidental result of the personal mood of some “Marxists” or other, but is necessarily determined by the position and interests of the class they wish to serve, is necessarily and unconditionally dictated by the fundamental requirements of their “doctrine.”” (p 505)
But, the Marxists raise these demands in a different manner to the Narodniks. The latter talk about modern science, morality and so on, as though the failure to act was simply an error, failure of understanding, and so on, rather than the manifestation of class interest. The Marxists, identifying these class interests, emanating from the productive relations, both understand the reasons that particular policies are pursued, and seek consistent democracy so as to pursue their own set of class interests, those of the proletariat.
“Such a way of posing the problem will absolutely eliminate the possibility of their “theories” being utilised for professorial arguments that rise above classes, for projects and reports that promise “splendid success.” That, of course, is just an indirect merit of the change of viewpoint referred to, but it is also a very great one, if we bear in mind how steep is the slope down which contemporary Narodism is slipping into the bog of opportunism. But the matter is not limited to mere indirect merit. If the same problems are posed in their application to the theory of class antagonism [and this, of course, requires a “reconsideration of the facts” of Russian history and reality], then the replies to them will provide a formulation of the vital interests of certain classes; these replies will be intended for practical utilisation by those interested classes and by them alone—these replies will, to use the splendid expression of a certain Marxist, break out of the “cramped chamber of the intelligentsia” towards those who themselves participate in production relations in their most highly developed and pure form, towards those who are most strongly affected by the “breaking of the thread,” and who “need” “ideals” because they are badly off without them. Such a way of raising issues will instil a new stream of life into all these old problems—taxes, passports, migration, Volost boards of administration, etc.—problems that our “society” has discussed and interpreted, chewed over again and again, solved and re-solved, and for which it has now begun to lose all taste.” (p 506)
But, Lenin notes, this consistent democracy that opens the door to the political struggle, as a class struggle, in the true sense, does not make Socialism an immediate agenda item, because it requires a long preparatory period. The political struggle itself requires the organisation and education of the workers to become a class for itself, fully conscious of its own interests, and it required the continued development of capitalism, because the reality was, contrary to the Narodnik pious wishes, there was no realistic alternative.
“Of course, for this “utilisation” to take place a tremendous amount of preparatory work is required, and what is more, work that by its very nature goes unseen. Before this utilisation takes place a more or less considerable period may pass during which we shall say out right that there is no force capable of providing better paths for the fatherland—as against the “sugary optimism” of Messrs. the Narodniks who assert that such forces exist and that all that remains to be done is to advise them to “leave the wrong path.” (Note **, p 506)
Whether considered from the economic sphere or the political sphere, the conclusion to be reached was the fundamental progressive role played by the advanced working-class, the working-class in the shape of the industrial proletariat, which had been completely separated from all previous modes of production, and on whose shoulders rested the future development of society and humankind.
“... a task advanced by the epoch in which we live, that of the universal significance of the idea of this class.” (p 507)
No comments:
Post a Comment