and poured into new bottles... err cardboard containers.

Just as the critique of Marxist economics does not seem to have moved an inch forward from the 19th century (that bombastic flea: Eugen Böhm-Bawerk), so too "human nature". It is not capitalism which must be expiated but the common sin which is in our collective bosom.

The following is by V.I. Lenin in one of his first major pamphlets, 20 years before the Russian Revolution (1894). It is a critique of the radical Liberal N. Mikhailovsky's polemic against Marxism. The depiction of capitalist nature as a human trait (for use against the socialists) was already more than a century old but recently resurrected based on new "scientific discoveries". That old human nature just popped right up under the microscope.

Deja-vu, y'all?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/friends/01.htm#v01zz99h-131-GUESS


Now let us examine this basic idea of Capital, which our subjective philosopher so adroitly tried to evade. In what, properly speaking, does the concept of the economic formation of society consist? and in what sense can and must the development of such a formation be regarded as a process of natural history?—such are the questions that now confront us. I have already pointed out that from the standpoint of the old (not old for Russia) economists and sociologists, the concept of the economic formation of society is entirely superfluous: they talk of society in general, they argue with the Spencers about the nature of society in general, about the aim and essence of society in general, and so forth. In their reasonings, these subjective sociologists rely on arguments such as—the aim of society is to benefit all its members, that justice, therefore, demands such and such an organisation, and that a system that is out of harmony with this ideal organisation (“Sociology must start with some utopia”—these words of Mr. Mikhailovsky’s, one of the authors of the subjective method, splendidly typify the essence of their methods) is abnormal and should be set aside. “The essential task of sociology,” Mr. Mikhailovsky, for instance, argues, “is to ascertain the social conditions under which any particular requirement of human nature is satisfied.” As you see, what interests this sociologist is only a society that satisfies human nature, and not at all some strange formations of society, which, moreover, may be based on a phenomenon so out of harmony with “human nature” as the enslavement of the majority by the minority. You also see that from the standpoint of this sociologist there can be no question of regarding the development of society as a process of natural history. (“Having accepted something as desirable or undesirable, the sociologist must discover the conditions under which the desirable can be realised, or the undesirable eliminated”—“under which such and such ideals can be realised”—this same Mr. Mikhailovsky reasons.) What is more, there can be no talk even of development, but only of various deviations from the “desirable,” of “defects” that have occurred in history as a result . . . as a result of the fact that people were not clever enough, were unable properly to understand what human nature demands, were unable to discover the conditions for the realisation of such a rational system. It is obvious that Marx’s basic idea that the development of the social-economic formations is a process of natural history cuts at the very root of this childish morality which lays claim to the title of sociology. By what means did Marx arrive at this basic idea? He did so by singling out the economic sphere from the various spheres of social life, by singling out production relations from all social relations as being basic, primary, determining all other relations.

But, but, that's so Materialist...

Thanks, Anax. Their trump card has cut corners... in generosity I will say that an aquarium fish cannot conceive what's on the other side of the glass.

This passage is good, both concise and comprehensive.


He took one of the social-economic formations -- the system of commodity production -- and on the basis of a vast mass of data (which he studied for not less than twenty five years) gave a most detailed analysis of the laws governing the functioning of this formation and its development. This analysis is confined exclusively to production relations between members of society: without ever resorting to features outside the sphere of these production relations for an explanation, Marx makes it possible to discern how the commodity organisation of social economy develops, how it becomes transformed into capitalist organisation, creating antagonistic classes (antagonistic within the bounds of production relations), the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, how it develops the productivity of social labour, and thereby introduces an element that becomes irreconcilably contradictory to the foundations of this capitalist organisation itself.

Such is the skeleton of Capital. The whole point, however, is that Marx did not content himself with this skeleton, that he did not confine himself to "economic theory" in the ordinary sense of the term, that, while explaining the structure and development of the given formation of society exclusively through production relations, he nevertheless everywhere and incessantly scrutinised the superstructure corresponding to these production relations and clothed the skeleton in flesh and blood. The reason Capital has enjoyed such tremendous success is that this book by a "German economist" showed the whole capitalist social formation to the reader as a living thing -- with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of the class antagonism inherent in production relations, with the bourgeois political superstructure that protects the rule of the capitalist class, with the bourgeois ideas of liberty, equality and so forth, with the bourgeois family relationships.

We are having the same debates today with people. We are looking at and talking about "the whole capitalist social formation to the reader as a living thing -- with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of the class antagonism inherent in production relations, with the bourgeois political superstructure that protects the rule of the capitalist class, with the bourgeois ideas of liberty, equality and so forth, with the bourgeois family relationships." Our opponents do want that to be examined, do not even want that to be seen as a discrete historical phenomenon, but rather to be seen as eternal, as inevitable, as "human nature." They want to start with the conclusion - that Capitalism arose from capitalist social formation and not the other way around, and that this social formation always existed and that none other could exist - and then fit their observations to that conclusion.

I don't know if you remember the arguments we had about theory - I was supposedly against it. I didn't have a solid enough framework to express what I was trying to say. This passage talks about that -


Mr. Mikhailovsky blames him for beginning at the beginning and not at the end, for having begun with an analysis of the facts and not with final conclusions, with a study of particular, historically-determined social relations and not with general theories about what these social relations consist of in general!

I had a vague and imperfectly formed notion that talk about theories would lead us away from talking about objective reality. I was resistant to "general theories about social relations" and mistakenly thought that was where you and Rusty were going.


Not without interest is the next thing Mr. Mikhailovsky has to say about historical necessity, because it reveals, if only partly, the real ideological stock-in-trade of "our well-known sociologist" (the title enjoyed by Mr. Mikhailovsky, equally with Mr. V. V., among the liberal members of our "cultured society"). He speaks of "the conflict between the idea of historical necessity and the significance of individual activity": socially active figures err in regarding themselves as active, when as a matter of fact they are "activated," "marionettes, manipulated from a mysterious underground by the immanent laws of historical necessity"-- such, he claims, is the conclusion to be drawn from this idea, which he therefore characterises as "sterile" and "diffuse." Probably not every reader knows where Mr. Mikhailovsky got all this nonsense about marionettes and the like. The point is that this is one of the favourite hobby-horses of the subjective philosopher -- the idea of the conflict between determinism and morality, between historical necessity and the significance of the individual. He has filled reams of paper on the subject and has uttered an infinite amount of sentimental, philistine nonsense in order to settle this conflict in favour of morality and the role of the individual. Actually, there is no conflict here at all; it has been invented by Mr. Mikhailovsky, who feared (not without reason) that determinism would cut the ground from under the philistine morality he loves so dearly. The idea of determinism, which postulates that human acts are necessitated and rejects the absurd tale about free will, in no way destroys mans reason or conscience, or appraisal of his actions. Quite the contrary, only the determinist view makes a strict and correct appraisal possible instead of attributing everything you please to free will. Similarly, the idea of historical necessity does not in the least undermine the role of the individual in history: all history is made up of the actions of individuals, who are undoubtedly active figures. The real question that arises in appraising the social activity of an individual is: what conditions ensure the success of his actions, what guarantee is there that these actions will not remain an isolated act lost in a welter of contrary acts? This also is a question answered differently by Social-Democrats and by the other Russian socialists: how must actions aimed at bringing about the socialist system attract the masses in order to yield serious fruits? Obviously, the answer to this question depends directly and immediately on the way in which the grouping of social forces in Russia and the class struggle which forms the substance of Russian reality are understood; and here too Mr. Mikhailovsky merely wanders all round the question, without even attempting to formulate it precisely and furnish an answer. The Social-Democratic answer to the question is based, as we know, on the view that the Russian economic system constitutes a bourgeois society, from which there can be only one way out, the one that necessarily follows from the very nature of the bourgeois system, namely, the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Obviously, criticism that is serious should be directed either against the view that ours is a bourgeois system, or against the conception of the nature of this system and the laws of its development; but Mr. Mikhailovsky does not even dream of dealing with serious questions. He prefers to dispose of matters with vapid phrase-mongering about necessity being too general a bracket and so on. But then, Mr. Mikhailovsky, any idea will be too general a bracket if you treat it like an egg from which you throw out the meat and then begin playing with the shell! This outer shell, which hides the really serious and burning questions of the day, is Mr. Mikhailovskys favourite sphere, and with particular pride he stresses the point, for example, that "economic materialism ignores or throws a wrong light on the question of heroes and the crowd." P

ray note -- the question which are the conflicting classes that make up contemporary Russian reality and what is its basis, is probably too general for Mr. Mikhailovsky, and he evades it. On the other hand, the question of what relations exist between the hero and the crowd -- whether it is a crowd of workers, peasants, factory owners, or landlords, is one that interests him extremely. Maybe these questions are "interesting," but to rebuke the materialists for devoting all their efforts to the settlement of problems that directly concern the liberation of the labouring class is to be an admirer of philistine science, nothing more.

I think that Hamden, and others obsessed with attacking us, fear that we "would cut the ground from under the philistine morality" that "he loves so dearly." But why so animated, so motivated, so aggressive? Could it not be that they see a place for themselves personally in any "Socialist" movement as "heroes" to "the crowd?" One particular critic who shows up periodically, then to then disappear again for long stretches, seems always to be scurrying back and forth - over to DU to get in front of and lead the Socialist parade, and then back here to savage the Socialists. Reminds me again of that passage from Reed, with the arrogant student presenting himself as a hero and playing to the crowd as he torments the soldier.

Here is a description of arguments we hear today - that we are being "unrealistic" and "oversimplifying things." This also relates to the "but you are alienating potential allies!" and the "you are advocating utopia!" arguments we hear.


Having tried to evade the real reasons for the success of materialism among the workers by ascribing the attitude of this doctrine to "prospects" in a manner directly contrary to the truth, Mr. Mikhailovsky goes on to scoff in the most vulgar and philistine way at the ideas and tactics of the West-European working-class movement. As we have seen, he was unable to adduce a single argument against Marx's proofs of the inevitability of the capitalist system being transformed into a socialist system as a result of the socialisation of labour. And yet he jeers in the most blatant manner at the idea of an "army of proletarians" preparing to expropriate the capitalists, "whereupon all class conflict will cease and peace on earth and goodwill among men will reign." He, Mr. Mikhailovsky, knows far simpler and surer paths to the achievement of socialism than this: all that is required is that the "friends of the people" should indicate in greater detail the "clear and unalterable" paths of the "desired economic evolution"--and then these friends of the people will most likely "be called in" to solve "practical economic problems" (see the article "Problems of Russia's Economic Development" by Mr. Yuzhakov in Russkoye Bogatstvo, No. 11) and meanwhile -- meanwhile the workers must wait, must rely on the friends of the people and not begin, with "unjustified self-assurance," an independent struggle against the exploiters. Desiring to strike a deathblow at this "unjustified self-assurance," our author waxes highly indignant at "this science that can almost fit into a pocket dictionary." How terrible, indeed! Science -- and Social-Democratic penny pamphlets that can fit into the pocket!! Is it not obvious how unjustifiably self-assured are those who value science only insofar as it teaches the exploited to wage an independent struggle for their emancipation, teaches them to keep away from all "friends of the people" engaged in glossing over class antagonisms and desirous of taking the whole business upon themselves-- those who, therefore, expound this science in penny publications which so shock the philistines? How different it would be if the workers placed their fate in the hands of the "friends of the people"! They would show them a real, voluminous, university and philistine science; they would acquaint them in detail with a social organisation that conforms to human nature, provided only -- the workers agreed to wait and did not themselves begin the struggle with such unjustified self-assurance!

A strange variation on the "workers must agree to wait" argument that we hear today is the idea that "we" - the "friends of the people" - are waiting for and must wait for the people. So the same people who will ridicule our supposed desire to see an "army of proletarians" rise up will turn around and say that because "the sheeple are stupid," we must wait before we do or say anything because the people are not ready to rise up, and so long as that is the case no social change can occur.

Nice analysis...

A historical footnote for you:

In 1894, the Russian Social Democrats -- the Marxists -- were still a tiny, despised group. Russkoye Bogatstvo, on the other hand, was one of the newspapers of the famous Narodniks, the radical populists who had waged a decades long war for Peace, Justice, and Fairness against Russian Tsarism. If only the new revolutionaries could understand the real lessons of the previous epoch... human nature, alternative systems, true revolution... in place of the theoretical nonsense and Utopian notions of German economists. They were the Friends of the People, like Marat's famous newspaper, but not "of" the people... not the people themselves. The people, love them though we may, were still sheeple.

When the stump of Narodnism became the Social Revolutionaries, Russkoye Bogatstvo left that movement, eventually becoming the organ of the Trudoviks. This last party's only claim to fame was that they elected Alexander Kerensky, the infamous revolutionary sell-out, to the 4th Duma. Eventually, Russkoye Bogatstvo merged for all practical purposes with the Cadets, the most reactionary of Russian Liberal parties.

It is as if they sat on the station platform and watched Russian society pull away, laughing that the train was going in the wrong direction and secure in the knowledge that they themselves had not moved an inch. Of course, from the standpoint of the train, they were first a jeering clump, and then stick figures, and then a speck... and finally indistinguishable on the flat horizon of the Russian steppe.

A small piece of the Russian "middle-class" had broken off, flown solo for a while, and then silently returned from whence it came.

Nice analysis...

A historical footnote for you:

In 1894, the Russian Social Democrats -- the Marxists -- were still a tiny, despised group. Russkoye Bogatstvo, on the other hand, was one of the newspapers of the famous Narodniks, the radical populists who had waged a decades long war for Peace, Justice, and Fairness against Russian Tsarism. If only the new revolutionaries could understand the real lessons of the previous epoch... human nature, alternative systems, true revolution... in place of the theoretical nonsense and Utopian notions of German economists. They were the Friends of the People, like Marat's famous newspaper, but not "of" the people... not the people themselves. The people, love them though we may, were still sheeple.

When the stump of Narodnism became the Social Revolutionaries, Russkoye Bogatstvo left that movement, eventually becoming the organ of the Trudoviks. This last party's only claim to fame was that they elected Alexander Kerensky, the infamous revolutionary sell-out, to the 4th Duma. Eventually, Russkoye Bogatstvo merged for all practical purposes with the Cadets, the most reactionary of Russian Liberal parties.

It is as if they sat on the station platform and watched Russian society pull away, laughing that the train was going in the wrong direction and secure in the knowledge that they themselves had not moved an inch. Of course, from the standpoint of the train, they were first a jeering clump, and then stick figures, and then a speck... and finally indistinguishable on the flat horizon of the Russian steppe.

A small piece of the Russian "middle-class" had broken off, flown solo for a while, and then silently returned from whence it came.



Very good, thanks.