The “anti-capitalists”, in reality, are simply opponents of the most mature, progressive forms of capital, i.e. of large-scale monopoly capital, and the immediate corollary of that is to posit, the less mature forms of capital, as in some sense a “lesser-evil”. That is what the Stalinoid “anti-monopoly alliance” is all about. Marxists, by contrast, see the petty-bourgeoisie, as the main immediate threat, as Lenin set out, in Left-Wing Childishness, and far from being “anti-capitalist”, see in its more mature forms, the basis for the creation of Socialism, the next rung on the ladder, as Lenin puts it. Our goal is not to be “anti-capitalists”, not to seek to negate that large-scale capital, which, as socialised capital, is already the collective property of the working-class, by setting it to zero, as in crushing it under foot, but is to negate it by taking it to its next level, raising it to a higher power, as we take control of what is already our collective property. To negate it by sublating it, as Engels puts it.
The same is true with the “anti-imperialists”, who confuse the methods of imperialism for achieving its aims, as against the aims themselves, as Trotsky set out in The Program of Peace. The aim of imperialism, its historic task, of creating a single world market, via ever larger single markets, and, thereby, the destruction of all national borders, nation states, and other such limitations, is entirely rational and progressive. Its means of doing so by imperialist wars, and annexations, however, is not, which is why we seek to pursue the former, and oppose the latter. In its place, we argue and organise for the voluntary association of nations, and, at all times, for the unity of, and self-determination of workers across existing borders.
Marx and Engels saw no difficulty in recognising the historic role of capital as being progressive, without having to accept any requirement to call on workers to simply lie down, and allow it to roll over them. On the contrary, the struggle of workers, within that capitalist development, to defend their own interests within it, is what creates the dynamic for its ultimate transformation into Socialism. Capitalism played a progressive role, not just in developing the forces of production, required for Socialism, and by sweeping away all of the old feudal monopolies, rural idiocies, and provincial borders, but, also, in mobilising the working-class behind it, to fight their common enemy, the old landed aristocracy and so on.
“At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.”
(ibid)
No comments:
Post a Comment