Chapter 2
The Character of the Romanticists’ Criticism of Capitalism
Part I - The Sentimental Criticism of Capitalism
Lenin, in this chapter, turns from an analysis of Sismondi's theoretical objections to capitalism, to an analysis of his practical objections and alternative prescriptions. As Lenin puts it, from his head to his heart. Lenin begins with a series of quotes from Sismondi to set out this stall of Sismondi's general attitude. In the process, Lenin points to the same moralistic and romantic evaluation of the Narodniks. Having provided these quotes to establish what it is he is analysing, Lenin summarises Sismondi's position, and that of the romantic in general.
“The arguments we have quoted may be summed up as follows: 1) money economy is condemned for destroying the small producers’ security and the close relations among them (in the shape of the nearness of the artisan to his customers, or of the tiller to other tillers, his equals); 2) small production is extolled for ensuring the independence of the producer and eliminating the contradictions of capitalism.
Let us note that both these ideas constitute an essential part of Narodism, and endeavour to probe their meaning.” (p 212-3)
Sismondi, and the Narodniks bemoaned the fact that, under capitalism, industry develops faster than agricultural production, seeing in this an unsustainable contradiction. The same objection is raised, today, by environmentalists and petty-bourgeois romantics. They see in this contradiction unreality and unsustainability. But, it is inevitable, not only that capitalist production arises first in industry, and only later in agriculture, but also that industry continues to develop faster than agriculture, on the basis of increasing social division of labour.
“As capitalism develops, agriculture always and everywhere, lags behind commerce and industry, it is always subordinate to them and is exploited by them and it is always drawn by them, only later on, onto the path of capitalist production.” (Note *, p 210)
A characteristic of romanticism is its failure to recognise that contradiction is inherent in reality, and forms the basis of movement, and development. They see in contradictions, crises and so on something disturbing and unnatural. As I wrote in the preface to my book, “Marx and Engels Theories of Crisis”, in fact, throughout Nature, we see such contradiction and crises, not as something unnatural, but the very opposite. An earthquake, for example, is the result of contradiction, as two opposing plates release the friction that has built up between them, in the form of a sudden movement – a crisis. There is nothing unnatural in this. It is the consequence of plate tectonics, of the fact that the Earth is a living planet. Without such periodic crises, it would mean the Earth was no longer a living planet, undergoing continual development.
“This argument is a repetition of the typical error of romanticism, namely: the conclusion that since capitalism is torn by contradictions it is not a higher form of social organisation. Does not capitalism, which destroys the medieval village community, guild, artel and similar ties, substitute others for them? Is not commodity economy already a tie between the producers, a tie established by the market? The antagonistic character of this tie, which is full of fluctuations and contradictions, gives one no right to deny its existence.” (p 213)
The romantic sees competition at the heart of this contradiction. Indeed, that competition does lead to division and destruction. It divides producers one against another, it destroys the old paternalistic social relations, and monopolies. At the same time, it unites, and creates new, superior, social forms. In place of the parochialism of feudalism and the village economy, it creates the nation state, and then much larger federations of states, such as the EU. It unites thousands of workers, based upon cooperative, socialised labour, in place of the individual labour of the artisan or peasant, within the factory, and it unites millions of workers, on the same basis, across the globe, on the basis of globalisation, of a global social division of labour.
“And we know that it is the development of contradictions that with ever-growing force reveals the strength of this tie, compels all the individual elements and classes of society to strive to unite, and to unite no longer within the narrow limits of one village community, or of one district, but to unite all the members of the given class in a whole nation and even in different countries. Only a romanticist, with his reactionary point of view, can deny the existence of these ties and their deeper importance, which is based on the common role played in the national economy and not upon territorial, professional, religious and other such interests.” (p 213-4)
When, for example, we saw the opposition to the creation of a European Super League, for football, it was an expression of this same reactionary nationalism and romanticism. Indeed, the arguments used reflected not just a collapse into reactionary nationalism, but into the same kind of reactionary parochialism as that set out by Sismondi and the Narodniks. We saw arguments based upon the same kind of romantic idealisation of the village, but now in the form of defining the fans of football clubs as only those tiny proportion that physically attend the matches of the clubs from their home town! The reality, of course, is that, in today's global village, the top teams number fans in the hundreds of millions, spread across the Earth's surface. And, when Newcastle United faced the reality of thee economics of modern football, any consideration of such parochialism disappeared in a puff of smoke as they turned to the good graces of the feudalists of Saudi Arabia to take over ownership of the club!
“If arguments of this kind earned the name of romanticist for Sismondi, who wrote at a time when these new ties engendered by capitalism were still in the embryo, all the more do our Narodniks deserve such an estimation; for today, the enormous importance of these ties can only be denied by those who are totally blind.” (p 214)
And, in today's globalised economy, those that still deny these ties, and their progressive nature, even more deserve the description romantic, and reactionary. The romantic and reactionary, sees in such competition only uncertainty and instability. It is why they seek refuge in various forms of protectionism, as with Brexit, opposition to the creation of the ESL, etc. But, it is precisely in this instability that the Marxist sees the progressive nature of capitalism, arising out of that competition, and when capitalism itself develops further, and is led itself towards monopoly, then as Marx sets out in The Poverty of Philosophy, it is not the same as the old feudal or guild monopoly, but monopoly at a higher level, a level which creates the basis of the transition to Socialism.
“Attacks of this kind betray the romanticist who fearfully condemns precisely that which scientific theory values most in capitalism: its inherent striving for development, its irresistible urge onwards, its inability to halt or to reproduce the economic processes in their former, rigid dimensions. Only a utopian who concocts fantastic plans for spreading medieval associations (such as the village community) to the whole of society can ignore the fact that it is the “instability” of capitalism that is an enormously progressive factor, one which accelerates social development, draws larger and larger masses of the population into the whirlpool of social life, compels them to ponder over its structure, and to “forge their happiness” with their own hands.” (p 214)
No comments:
Post a Comment