In short, capitalism is a necessary development from earlier modes of production, and is progressive relative to them. We are “pro-capitalist” as against those earlier forms. Imperialism, the domination of monopoly capital, and the world market, is a necessary development towards Socialism, compared to free market capitalism, and the nation state, and we are, therefore, “pro-imperialist” as against those less mature forms of capitalism, but our goal is not capitalism nor imperialism, it is Socialism, and so we are most certainly not pro-capitalist, nor pro-imperialist as against that goal, or as against the interests of workers in the process of development towards it. We oppose a move back from monopoly capital, from the world market, towards less mature forms of capital and the nation state, but we do not propose monopoly nor imperialism, we propose workers ownership and control of capital, and the voluntary integration of nations into multinational states, the better to organise a cooperative, planned and regulated use of the means of production.
The investment in industrial capital by multinational companies, in developing economies, for all the reasons Lenin had set out in the articles in this series, leads to a more rapid development of commodity production and exchange, displacing peasant and artisan production, it develops the domestic market, and, thereby, domestic industrial capital, and it creates a domestic industrial proletariat, the main requirement for Socialism. In all of these aspects, it is progressive, and so gives no reason for socialists to oppose it. But, not opposing it, does not require us to support it, or be content with it either. In all of this development, we seek to focus on the progressive elements of it, pushing it forward, and being the partisan advocates of the working-class within it.
In short, we are not “anti-capitalists” nor “anti-imperialists”, but neither are we “pro-capitalists” nor “pro-imperialists”. We are “pro-socialists”, which means that, at each stage, we are pro-everything that facilitates the development of the industrial proletariat, and of the productive forces it requires for the construction of socialism. Trotsky made this clear, in discussing the second Six Year Plan in Mexico. Having nationalised British oil interests, Mexico faced the possibility of military opposition by imperialism, but he wrote,
“Considerable international capital is seeking areas of investment at the present time, even where only a modest (but sure) return is possible. Turning one’s back on foreign capital and speaking of collectivisation and industrialisation is mere intoxication with words.”
“Despite all these advantages (enjoyed by the USSR, AB) the industrial reconstruction of the country was begun with the granting of concessions. Lenin accorded great importance to these concessions for the economic development of the country and for the technical and administrative education of Soviet personnel. There has been no socialist revolution in Mexico. The international situation does not even allow for the cancellation of the public debt. The country we repeat is poor. Under such conditions it would be almost suicidal to close the doors to foreign capital. To construct state capitalism, capital is necessary.”
(On Mexico's Second Six Year Plan)
No comments:
Post a Comment