Lenin sets out the second fundamental characteristic of Narodism.
“2) Belief in the exceptional character of the Russian economic system in general, and of the peasantry, with its village community, artel, etc., in particular. It is not considered necessary to apply to Russian economic relationships the concepts elaborated by modern science concerning the different social classes and their conflicts. The village— community peasantry is regarded as something higher and better than capitalism; there is a disposition to idealise the “foundations.” The existence among the peasantry of contradictions characteristic of every commodity and capitalist economy is denied or slurred over; it is denied that any connection exists between these contradictions and their more developed form in capitalist industry and capitalist agriculture.” (p 513-4)
Exceptionalism, parochialism and nationalism is endemic within the ideologies of the petty-bourgeoisie, whether of petty-bourgeois nationalism, liberalism, or social-democracy. In the latter, given that it is based of the needs of large-scale, socialised capital, and its role in achieving that via a mediating role between capital and labour, it finds itself in an inevitable contradiction, as soon as capital expands to a degree in which the nation state becomes a fetter on its further development. It must respond to this need to burst out of the constraints of the nation state, and yet it is led ideologically to do so, whilst promoting its continued allegiance to “the nation”. Electoralism imposes this requirement on it all the more, given the tenacious grip that inherited notions of parochialism and nationalism retain over electorates.
So, in the 19th/20th century, it manifests in the form of dominant nations, such as France and Germany, seeking to break out of nation state bounds by subordinating other European nations to them, as an extension of the process by which the nation state itself had been formed. The Franco-Prussian War, and the European Wars of 1914-18/1939-45, were of that nature. Even within the construction of the EU as a peaceful accomplishment of that necessity for a large European state, the social-democrats, in each country, felt compelled to argue on the basis of the national interest rather than a communal European interest, let alone interest of the European proletariat. The glaring example of that is Brexit.
Social-democracy, and reformist socialism, always puts forward the notion that, in the given country, progress towards Socialism, or a domesticated capitalism, can be achieved by peaceful democratic methods, in the face of all history, which shows the opposite. Its response to that is either the exceptionalism of the country, or else a claim that capitalism, and its democracy have now changed, so that the capitalist leopard has changed its spots. The ridiculous arguments by Paul Mason, in that regard, suggesting that the past actions of the US and NATO were somehow aberrations, or errors, is typical of that kind of petty-bourgeois apologia, which can be seen also from pro-imperialist liberals such as the AWL.
Similarly, the arguments put forward for the AES, in the 1970's and 80's, are consistent with this kind of exceptionalism, arguing the need for nationalistic measures of protection, for some specific national capital, on the basis that, having done so, the specific conditions within the country enable a development towards Socialism. In reality, no such development is possible, and what is conceived is only some form of reactionary national socialism. The whole foundation of the Stalinist “National Roads To Socialism”, as an extension of the theory of Socialism In One Country, is based upon this kind of social-democratic nationalism, and exceptionalism.
All of it suggests a Popular Front between the workers and bourgeoisie within each country, which necessarily puts them into opposition to the workers and capitalists of other countries. It is the antithesis of internationalism, and specifically proletarian internationalism. But, the ruling class is already a global class, not just in itself, but for itself. It owns its wealth in the most mobile and fungible form, as fictitious-capital, meaning it has no material connection to any nation state. It can move its ownership of French bonds and shares into German or Japanese bonds and shares at the press of a button. It can live anywhere and everywhere, and it does, usually having mansions in many different countries, as well as super yachts and jets. It has an interest, itself, therefore, in creating open borders and the free movement of goods, capital and labour, as the best means of the rational development of capital, and its ability to increase its revenues – interest/dividends – deducted from profits. It is progressive in its outlook.
No comments:
Post a Comment