But, this illustrates another point. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky could identify this objectively progressive role of capitalism, and of imperialism, without in any way supporting the means by which they achieve these progressive aims. On the contrary, it is the struggle of the working-class against these means that creates the dynamic of forward movement to a new higher form of society. Capitalism drives up productivity via technological development, whose consequence is a higher rate of exploitation of labour. The former is historically progressive, but this does not mean that we acquiesce in that greater exploitation of labour, rather than waging a struggle for workers' control over the much expanded surplus product.
Imperialism does away with all of the outmoded nation states, borders and peculiarities, which is progressive, as it creates a world economy and larger single markets, along with a global working-class. But, it does so via imperialist wars, colonisation and annexations. We do not acquiesce in the use of these means, but fight against them, and, in the process, posit the alternative of a new socialist society, able to fully realise those progressive aims, of the end of nation states, and the creation of a world single market and world state.
As Marx put it,
“Suppose, as M. Proudhon does, that social genius produced, or rather improvised, the feudal lords with the providential aim of transforming the settlers into responsible and equally-placed workers: and you will have effected a substitution of aims and of persons worthy of the Providence that instituted landed property in Scotland, in order to give itself the malicious pleasure of driving out men by sheep.
But since M. Proudhon takes such a tender interest in Providence, we refer him to the Histoire de l’économie politique of M. de Villeneuve-Bargemont, who likewise goes in pursuit of a providential aim. This aim, however, is not equality, but Catholicism.” (p 112)
It is not necessary to adopt the reactionary, providential aim of “anti-capitalism”, or “anti-imperialism”, to oppose NATO, or imperialist war, etc., but, nor is it necessary to support NATO and imperialist militarism, in order to argue for the progressive role that imperialism brings about, of a global equalisation, via competition and spread of capitalist production, development of productive forces, raising and equalising of living standards, creation of a world economy and so on.
For us those bourgeois ends are not our ends, but merely moments on the path to our ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment