“Turning to the fundamental views of Narodism outlined above, the first thing we must note is that the “heritage” has absolutely no part in them.” (p 515)
On the one hand, Lenin says, there are well known liberal defenders of “the heritage” who do not believe in any exceptional character of Russia, its peasants or the ability of the intelligentsia to bring about a divergence from the path. On the other, there are well known Narodniks “who plainly and frankly “renounce the heritage”—we might mention, for example, the same Mr. Y. Abramov to whom Mr. Mikhailovsky refers, or Mr. Yuzov.” (p 515) In fact, Lenin says, the Narodism that the Marxists oppose did not exist in the 1860's, when the heritage was “bequeathed”. Certain elements of it existed as early of the 1840's. To the extent that some Narodniks did defend the heritage, Lenin says, it is only by adding to it in a way that corrupts and perverts it. The same is true about those present day “Marxists”, who defend it by a similar petty-bourgeois corruption.
Narodism did contribute something positive, Lenin says. It is the same thing that Sismondi contributed. As Marx sets out in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 9, Smith, Ricardo and Mill, as ideologists of a revolutionary industrial bourgeoisie, only focused on its progressive aspects. It is most clearly expressed in Say's Law, and the idea that there can be no overproduction of commodities. Sismondi's positive contribution was in recognising that such overproduction of commodities is not only possible but inevitable, although his explanation of why was wrong. Sismondi, however, did not take political economy any further forward, because, where Smith, Mill and Ricardo could only see progress, at least until such time that wages squeezed profits to an extent of causing catastrophe, Sismondi could only see the negative aspects of capitalist development.
Both were bourgeois, because both viewed these developments only within the confines of capitalist production. Neither saw how these contradictions lead to conditions in which they can be overcome, not within capitalist production but by going beyond its limitations, and how capital itself is led to bring about changes that transform both property and social relations. Smith, Mill and Ricardo were progressive vis a vis Sismondi, because they argued for pushing ahead with that development, whereas Sismondi argued for holding it back. It was that aspect that was adopted by Malthus, as he plagiarised Sismondi's work, and its that aspect that can be seen today in the reactionary ideas of modern Malthusians.
The Narodniks also adopted Sismondi's ideas, and the positive role they played was in also posing the questions a seamless, crisis-free development of capitalism in Russia that the liberals, who provided “the heritage” could never have conceived.
“In posing these problems the Narodniks performed a great historical service, and it is quite natural and understandable, that, having offered a solution (whatever it maybe worth) for these problems, Narodism thereby occupied a foremost place among the progressive trends of Russian social thought.” (p 515-6)
But, the solutions offered by the Narodniks were useless. They only had traction in conditions in which industrial capitalism, in Russia, was still very weak and undeveloped, and so where its inherent contradictions were not themselves at a heightened state. As with Sismondi, their solutions were reactionary, because they involved trying to defend existing social forms and institutions, or else they were bourgeois, and so simply led to the development of the very capitalist relations they opposed, or else they were simply irrelevant and not connected to reality. Even with the measures that were bourgeois in nature, to the extent they had any Narodnik content, they attempted to provide bourgeois measures that were constrained, in which case, they were reactionary, or else they were entirely bourgeois, and contained no element of Narodism.
No comments:
Post a Comment