In this short article, Lenin discusses one of the similar Utopian schemes put forward by the Narodniks. It was for the establishment of schools combined with farms, providing secondary education. The proposal is similar to the kibbutzim created in Israel. The Narodniks, as seen in the previous articles, in this series, were petty-bourgeois, and the proposal is fully in keeping with that. Once again, there was no reason why the bourgeoisie and its state would adopt the Narodnik proposal, which amounts to the creation of large communal farms that would employ a considerable proportion of the working population. But, also, as Lenin sets out, there was little reason why workers would be attracted to the Narodnik proposals either.
As petty-bourgeois, the Narodniks had one foot in the future, and the other in the past. Their foot in the future led them towards bourgeois relations, but at a slower pace, and in a less mature form. Their foot in the past led them to relations that were the foundations of feudalism. Here, for example, not only do they propose compulsory unpaid labour, in exchange for education, but also the tying of the worker to the land, and even control over whether the workers – up to the age of 27 – were able to marry. In other words, many of the features of serfdom.
““We must,” say the Narodniks, “choose different paths for the fatherland,” leave the capitalist path and “communalise” production, making use of the existing forces of the “whole” of “society,” which, so they say, is already beginning to be convinced that there is no basis for capitalism.” (p 73)
This kind of Utopianism can be seen today amongst those who, whatever the particular problem, propose as their solution “Socialism Now”. For example, writing on Michael Roberts' Blog, on the question of COVID19, Brian Green (Ucanbpolitical) tells us that the situation shows that what we need is socialism.
“In all ways, this plague has been visited upon a society and a world made sick by Capital, and kept sick by its pharmaceutical industry which has exploited chronic illness. Our slogan should be “Capitalism is making us sick, revolution will heal us”.”
One is inclined to thank Green for this useful insight, and to enquire whether he thought that no one else had previously arrived at this miraculous conclusion that only his unique intellect and insight had just now uncovered? One is prompted to suggest to Green that he rush out immediately and proclaim this gospel in the streets, so that the world's unenlightened masses should have the scales lifted from their eyes, and join him in bringing about this transformation forthwith! On the other hand, we might refer Green to the words of Lenin, in response to the Narodniks' similar approach.
“Obviously, if a different path may be chosen for the fatherland, if the whole of society is beginning to understand the need for this, then the “communalising” of production presents no great difficulties and requires no preparatory historical period. One has only to draw up a plan of such communalisation and to convince the appropriate persons of its feasibility–and the “fatherland” will turn from the mistaken path of capitalism to the road of socialisation.” (p 73)
Lenin, of course, was also being sardonic in his response to the Narodniks, as is my response to Green. To attract society to such a plan, Lenin says, it must be extremely attractive. Indeed, one wonders why Green, and those who think like him, have also not provided such an extremely attractive proposition to society so that they would by now have flocked to their banner, and begun to construct the new Jerusalem. The Narodnik proposals were set out by Yuzhakov in Russkoye Bogatsvo.
“The author plans to set up in every volost a gymnasium embracing the entire male and female population of school age (from 8 to 20 years, and to a maximum of 25 years). Such gymnasia should be productive associations that engage in farming and moral undertakings, that by their labour not only maintain the population of the gymnasia (which, according to Mr. Yuzhakov, constitutes a fifth of the entire population), but additionally provide resources for the maintenance of the entire child population. The detailed account made by the author for a typical volost gymnasium (or “gymnasium farm,” or “agricultural gymnasium”) shows that all in all the gymnasium will maintain over a half of the entire local population.” (p 74)
To pay for setting up these gymnasia (schools), the Narodniks proposed selling government backed, 4½% Zemstvo bonds.
“Production is socialised for a total of half the population. At one blow, then, a different path is chosen for the fatherland! And that is achieved “without any expenditure (sic!) on the part of the government, Zemstvo, or people.”” (p 74)
It may appear a Utopia, at first sight, Yuzhakov proclaims, but is, he says, far more feasible than universal elementary education. The reason being that the proposal involves the young workers, in the gymnasia, providing compulsory, unpaid labour, in exchange for their education. Yuzhakov sets out details of the numbers involved, comprising 500 male and 500 female students per gymnasium, with 50 per class, as well as the numbers of teaching and other staff required. In all, 20,000 such gymnasia would be required.
Such an enthralling plan, Lenin says, sarcastically, must have won the attention of the government, especially as it involves matters relating to the Ministry of Public Education, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture, and even the Ministry of War, as one proposal involves conscription of a third of the students. Lenin then examines the details of the scheme. In the Summer, there are no studies, as the students have to engage in agricultural work. Additionally, even after graduating students are still required to remain on the farm for some time. This is to cover the costs of other students, including those drafted into the military. These students are then also employed in Winter work, on the farm, and industrial work to supplement it.
Even with all of this compulsory labour from students of working-age, additional workers are required. Yuzhavov sees the farms making a profit, and so he proposes that some labour could be hired, some of whom might get a share of any profits, but the other labour comes from students who have graduated, who have to remain tied to the farm for sufficient time to cover the costs of their own education in the years before they were of working-age.
“It already enables us to see what sort of different path for the fatherland will be chosen. Wage-labour, which at the present time serves as the only source of livelihood for people who “cannot pay the cost of tuition” and living, is replaced by compulsory unpaid labour.” (p 77)
Yuzhakov's proposal was also for separate male and female schools, rather than coeducation schools, which were more rational.
A third of all graduating students would undertake military service, for three years, and again other graduating students have to cover the work they would otherwise have done.
“The pattern of the new system, arranged for the fatherland that has chosen a different path, is assuming increasingly clear outlines. Now all Russian citizens are obliged to undergo military service and, since the number of persons of military age is larger than the number of soldiers required, the latter are chosen by lot. In communalised production the recruits will also be selected by lot, but as for the rest, it is proposed “to place them in the same conditions,” i.e., to make it obligatory for them to spend three years in service, not military, it is true, but doing work in the gymnasium. They have to work off the cost of keeping their comrades who have been called to the colours. Have all to do so? No. Only those who cannot pay the cost of the tuition.” (p 77)
In other words, students from those more affluent families who could afford to pay the tuition fees were excused from such obligations. In fact, Yuzhakov proposed separate schools for all those who could pay tuition fees. The consequence of Yuzhakov's proposal was that the cost of supporting the military fell on those who could not afford to pay the tuition fees rather than those who could, because the latter had to perform no unpaid labour.
“In what way is the new system different? In the fact that nowadays those who have no resources can sell their labour-power, while under the new system they will be obliged to work gratis (i.e., for their keep alone). There cannot be the slightest doubt that Russia will thus avoid all the vicissitudes of the capitalist system. Hired labour, which contains the threat of the “ulcer of the proletariat is driven out and makes way for ... unpaid compulsory labour.” (p 78-9)
The Narodniks proposal was “anti-capitalist”, but its alternative was the continuation of the pre-capitalist forms of exploitation.
“And there is nothing surprising in the fact that people placed in relationships in which labour is compulsory and unpaid should find themselves in conditions corresponding to these relationships.” (p 79)
So, we then find the proposal that the gymnasium would have control over whether its students, who now, with additional required service, could be as old as 27, were to be allowed to marry. Lenin continues in sarcastic tone.
“Is it not obvious that such advantageous conditions will impel the population to bend every effort to gain admittance to the gymnasia? Judge for yourselves: firstly, they will be permitted to marry. True, according to the now existing civil legislation such permission (from the authorities) is not required at all. But bear in mind that these will be gymnasium pupils, male and female, true, as old as 25 years, but still gymnasium pupils. If university students are not permitted to marry, could gymnasium pupils be permitted to do so? And what is more, the permission will depend on the school authorities, consequently, on people with a higher education: obviously, there are no grounds for fearing abuses. Those who graduate the gymnasium and remain as regular workers there, are, however, no longer pupils. Nevertheless, they too, people between 21 and 27 years of age, have to obtain permission to marry. We cannot but recognise that the new path selected by the fatherland involves some curtailment of the civil rights of Russian citizens, but, after all, it must be admitted that the blessings of universal secondary education cannot be acquired without sacrifices.” (p 79)
Lenin mocks the miserable vision of the new society that, in fact, looks more like the conditions that existed before capitalism. It shouldn't be necessary to highlight this, and yet there are plenty today who proclaim themselves socialists, but whose “anti-capitalism” leads them to a vision of socialism not that different to that proposed here by the Narodniks. It is a vision based not on lifting everyone to unprecedented heights, but reducing everyone to the same miserable low levels, and that is all the more the case where such socialists align themselves with the Malthusians. Take this view expressed by “jm” on Coatesy's Blog , where he would like to see cinemas and other such unnecessary things scrapped.
“Which leaves that kind of suffering of the first hand: Those not earned wages can’t be used to buy the TV sets which weren’t produced either, and they can’t be used to go to the cinema which needs to be closed anyway.”
“Whether we like to admit it or not most of our jobs are non-essential, nay, most jobs are non-jobs. There are many people who work in what are effectively job creation schemes drawing large salaries. They are not missed. ‘Coronavirus’ has flushed out the parasites and passengers.”
Now, its true that "jm" and "Rachel" are probably trolls, as with many more who put out such nonsense, but, unfortunately, there is increasingly little distance between the views expressed by trolls and the brain dead elements of many left sects. For example, how are we to understand the SWP's slogan that “We Are All Hezbollah Now” other than as support for such similar soulless, medievalism, and a vision of society closer to that of the Taliban than that of Marx?
Lenin continuing his sarcastic response notes,
“Undoubtedly, the population will prefer the advantages of a quiet life under the wing of the authorities to the turmoils of capitalism, will prefer them to such a degree that some workers will stay permanently at the gymnasium (very likely out of gratitude for being allowed to marry): “The small contingent of regular workers, who remain at the gymnasium altogether and associate (sic!!) themselves with it, supplements these labour forces of the gymnasium farm. Such are the possible and by no means utopian labour forces of our agricultural gymnasium.
Have mercy on us! What is there “utopian” in all this? Regular unpaid workers, who have “associated themselves” with their masters, by whom they are permitted to marry—just ask any old peasant, and he will tell you from his own experience that all this is quite feasible.” (p 79-80)
No comments:
Post a Comment