Re: [Pen-l] democracy

[Ted Winslow <egwinslow@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Brown wrote:

> Do you consider that
> therefore China had
> to go through a
> capitalist stage to
> develop the requisite
> integration of every
> individual producer's
> personality for
> socialism ?

Marx's idea of "socialism" requires, he himself claims, a significant  
degree of "integral development of every individual producer".  One  
measure of the required degree is that required to "appropriate" the  
productive forces developed within "capitalism", "integral  
development" having, as an essential part of its meaning, the  
development of the intellectual and other "powers"  required to  
"appropriate" the "ideas" objectified in these forces and use them to  
build a social form from which all barriers to the full development of  
these "powers" had been eliminated.

The general claim made in Marx's 1881 surmises about the Russian  
peasant commune is that capitalist relations of production are not the  
only relations capable of developing the required degree of "integral  
development".

In particular and as he had previously been argued in Capital, some  
kinds of peasant conditions, those characteristic of the yeomanry of  
Shakespeare's England and of the peasant citizens of  "classical  
communities at their best", had produced a significant degree of  
"integral development" in this sense (such "integral development"  
being identified in these passages with "free individuality").

A key factor he identified as facilitating this development was "the  
private property of the laborer in his means of production".

"The private property of the laborer in his means of production is the  
foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or  
both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the  
development of social production and of the free individuality of the  
laborer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also  
under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it  
flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate  
classical form, only where the laborer is the private owner of his own  
means of labor set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which  
he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm>

"Peasant agriculture on a small scale, and the carrying on of  
independent handicrafts, which together form the basis of the feudal  
mode of production, and after the dissolution of that system, continue  
side by side with the capitalist mode, also form the economic  
foundation of the classical communities at their best, after the  
primitive form of ownership of land in common had disappeared, and  
before slavery had seized on production in earnest."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm>

Another key factor was "real connections" with others since "the real  
intellectual wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth  
of his real connections".  The absence of such connections was, he  
claimed, one of the main "fetters", on "integral development" in the  
case of the Indian peasant commune and of "masses" of 19th century  
French peasants.

He also pointed to this as a "fetter" in his 1881 surmises about the  
Russian peasant commune.

"There is one characteristic of the 'agricultural commune' in Russia  
which afflicts it with weakness, hostile in every sense. That is its  
isolation, the lack of connexion between the life of one commune and  
that of the others, this localised microcosm which is not encountered  
everywhere as an immanent characteristic of this type but which,  
wherever it is found, has caused a more or less centralised despotism  
to arise on top of the communes. The federation of Russian republics  
of the North proves that this isolation, which seems to have been  
originally imposed by the vast expanse of the territory, was largely  
consolidated by the political destinies which Russia had to suffer  
after the Mongol invasion. Today it is an obstacle which could easily  
be eliminated. It would simply be necessary to replace the volost, the  
government body, with an assembly of peasants elected by the communes  
themselves, serving as the economic and administrative organ for their  
interests."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm>

So, as Marx understands the conditions that would make possible the  
required degree of "integral development of every individual  
producer", capitalist relations are not the only relations capable of  
doing this.

In order to know, however, whether any particular non-capitalist  
relations will produce such development, it's necessary to know what's  
meant by "integral development" and what's necessary for such  
development.

Marx's understanding of "integral development" appropriates Kant and  
Hegel on the "educated" individual.  One characteristic of such an  
individual is freedom from "superstition" and "prejudice".

Consequently, a social context productive of an "individuality"  
characterized by a significant degree of "superstition" and  
"prejudice" is not a social context productive of the degree of  
"integral development" - "free individuality" - required to create  
"socialism" in Marx's sense.

In fact, as the passage from the Brumaire claims and as is repeated in  
the passage above, "a more or less centralised despotism" is "caused"  
by such an "individuality".

In the Russian and Chinese cases then, an analysis in terms of these  
ideas would examine the extent to which peasant conditions in each  
case were productive of an "individuality" characterized by  
significant "superstition" and "prejudice" and the extent to which the  
"revolutions" in question led to a "more or less centralised despotism".

In so far as they were so productive and did so lead, they not only  
did not create "socialist" productive relations in Marx's sense, they  
instead created relations incapable of producing the degree of  
"integral development of every individual producer" required to create  
such such relations.  They would eventually lead, therefore, not to  
"socialism", but to a social form consistent with the actual kind of  
"individuality" they did produce.

Ted



_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l