Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:16:25.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Marxism and the “Fate of Capitalism in Russia”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Theodore H. Von Laue
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the eighteen-nineties there took place in Russia, at a time of rapid industrial advance under the “Witte System,” one of those great debates which seem to catch hold of the basic problems shaping the destiny of generations. In those years a group of narodnik writers led by Vasilii Vorontsov and Nikolai Daniel'son disputed with a young generation of Marxists the future of capitalism in Russia. By capitalism these writers understood the current process of industrialization, which had been started after the Crimean War and had reached such extraordinary proportions by the mid-nineties. In surveying and evaluating the effects of this unprecedented development these writers, both narodnik and Marxist, laid bare an intricate fabric of economic difficulties and hostile emotional responses, which has accompanied, if not altogether determined the course of industrialization in Russia. And not in Russia alone: this great debate had its counterparts in backward countries all over the world. Its echoes are still heard in the discussions of Point Four projects and United Nations publications on the industrialization of underdeveloped areas.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1956 , pp. 23 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This article, the author gratefully acknowledges, represents part of a research project undertaken under the auspices of the Russian Institute, Columbia University.

1 Von Laue, T. H., “The Fate of Capitalism in Russia, the Narodnik Version,” American Slavic and East European Review, XIII (1954), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For the following see Potresov, A.: “Evolutsia obshchestvenno-politicheskoi mysli v predrevolutsionnuu epokhu” (The evolution of social-political thought in the pre-revolutionary period) in Obshchestvennoie dvizhenie v Rossii v nachala XX-go veka, (The social movement in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century), ed. Martov, L., Maslov, P., and Potresov, A., Vol. I. (St. Petersburg, 1909).Google Scholar Also Angarskii, N., Legal'nyi Marksizm, (Legal Marxism) 1870–1897 (Moscow, 1925).Google Scholar

3 This simile was used by V. V. Vorovskii in a letter to A. N. Potresov in 1900. Sotsialdemokraticheskoie dvizhenie v Rossii. Materialy (The social-democratic movement in Russia. Materials). Ed. by Potresov, A. N. and Nikolaievskii, Boris N. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), Vol. I, p. 53.Google Scholar

4 Chernov, Victor, Zapiski Sotsialista Revoliutsionera (Berlin, 1922), p. 274.Google Scholar

5 This formulation from Sharapov, the editor of the extreme Slavophile magazine Russkii Trud (Russian Labor), 1897–1899.Google Scholar

6 See the biographical sketch of Struve's early career by Nikolaievskii, B. I., “P. B. Struve, 1870–1944,” in Novyi Zhurnal, X (1945), 314 ff.Google Scholar See also Struve, 's autobiographical articles “My Contacts with Rodichev,” Slavonic and East European Review, XII, 347 ffGoogle Scholar; and “My Contacts and Conflicts with Lenin,” ibid., 573 ff. Struve's work as an economist was evaluated by Ishboldin, B. S. “Peter Struve kak ekonomist,” (Peter Struve as an economist), Novyi Zhurnal, IX (1944), 349 ff.Google Scholar

7 As stated in the first issue of the Sozialpolitisches Zentralblatt, 01, 1892.Google Scholar

8 Chernov, , op. cit., p. 182.Google Scholar

9 In this context he cited with approval the work of Friedrich List, “the victory song of triumphant production as a civilizing historical force.” No work was more convincing, he wrote, than List's on the historical inevitability and validity of capitalism. Kriticheskie Zametki, p. 123.Google Scholar There was much praise of List in articles written by him at the same time.

10 Ibid., p. 251.

11 Ibid., p. 281.

12 The concluding paragraphs of this book are very revealing; they show Struve's ambivalent attitude towards capitalism:

“Capitalism, as the exploitation of man by man, is evil from the point of view of our ideals. But if we look at it only from that point of view, we come by a straight road to the simple conclusion: capitalism is not what we want. Once that conclusion dominates our thinking it is difficult to understand the objective process in capitalism. With its companion protectionism, etc., it appears in our eyes only as an evil influence. But capitalism, all the same, has its justification, and the categories of good and evil cannot be used to understand it. It is from this point of view that we look at the economic development of Russia. Capitalism, it is said, destroys the so-called foundations of our society. But it succeeds in this only because these foundations are worthless and fall apart by themselves. In short, capitalism develops because under the given conditions it is the natural, suitable form for the growth of the economic forces of the country. And such growth is demanded by the increase in the population, not to speak of the increase in consumer demand.

Hence capitalism is not an unmitigated evil, but the most powerful factor of cultural progress, not only a destructive but also a creative factor. That was and is well understood in the West by those who in the name of social justice entered the struggle with capitalism.

All contemporary material and spiritual culture is closely tied to capitalism; it grew together with it or on its basis. But we, blinded by some excessive national vanity, think we can replace the difficult cultural labor of whole generations, of the bitter struggle of social classes and of economic forces, by the constructions of our peculiar critical thought, which reveal a touching coincidence of native forms with our peculiar ideals (Struve here alluded to the idealization by the narodniks of the primitive commune and the artels)….

Sympathy with the toiling popular masses is not the monopoly of the narodniki, and we feel deep compassion with the harried and long-suffering people. But the sight of its ruin shows us above all its cultural helplessness. On that basis, one might almost say, serfdom might appear less Utopian than the socialization of labor.

No, let us recognize our lack of culture and turn to capitalism for instruction.”

13 By the testimony of Vorovskii, V. V., in Sotsialdemokraticheskoie Dvizhenie, Vol. I, p. 55.Google Scholar

14 He had even planned a footnote endorsing the “Witte system,” but was dissuaded by A. N. Potresov, a Marxist with more discrete inclinations. See Struve, , “My Contacts and Conflicts with Lenin,” op. cit., p. 586Google Scholar; There were, incidentally, complaints by other Marxists about the concluding clause of Struve's book. Yet, even Lenin found it necessary after the seizure of power to voice similar sentiments when talking to workers' delegations.

15 The question whether Russia could omit the capitalist stage had been put to Marx and Engels quite early. They had answered it hesitatingly and non-committally, making their replies dependent upon the prospect of revolution in Russia. After Marx's death, however, the revolution receded; and in the period of reaction commerce and industry expanded. Engels, partly under Plekhanov's influence, then accepted the fact that Russian capitalism had reached the point of no return; the commune was doomed and an industrial proletariat in the making. See the analysis in Shtein, V. M., Ocherki Razvitiia Russkoi obshchestvenno-ekonomicheskoi mysli XIX–XX vekov, (Studies in the development of Russian social-economic thought in the 19th and 20th century) (Leningrad, 1948)Google Scholar, Chapter VII. See also Mitrany, D.'s analysis, Marx against the Peasant (Chapel Hill, 1951), pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar

16 The correspondence of Marx and Engels with Russian writers, carefully selected and cut by the Soviet editors, can be found in Perepiska K. Marksa i F. Engelsa s russkim politischeskim deiateliami (The correspondence of K. Marx and F. Engels with Russian political leaders) (Ogiz, 1947).Google Scholar This quotation in Engels' letter of June 18, 1892.

17 Engels, F., Internationales aus dem Volkstaat, 1871–1875, “Postscript 1894” (Berlin, 1894), pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar

18 The variety of his literary activities is reflected in a collection of articles which he published under the title Na raznyie temy (On various themes) 1878–1901 (St. Petersburg, 1902).Google Scholar

19 For an account of Potresov's activities in these years see Nikolaievskii, B. I., A, N. Potresov, Opyt literaturno-politicheskoi biografii (A. N. Potresov, An attempt at a literary and political biography), (Paris, 1937).Google Scholar

20 Biographical sketches of Tugan-Baranovskii can be found in Gringauz, S., M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky und seine Stellung in der theoretischen National-ökonomie (Kaunas, 1928)Google Scholar, and Kondratiev, N. D., Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovskii (Leningrad, 1923).Google Scholar

21 This was the volume suppressed by the censor because of Lenin's article.

22 The publisher, Mme. O. N. Popova, was hailed before a court of honor of the Union of Russian Writers for turning the magazine over to the Marxists. For the proceedings of this court see Vopros o cketyrekh nravstvennykh osnovaniiakh pred sudom chesti soiuza russkikh pisatelei, (The question about four moral fundamentals before the court of honor of the union of Russian writers), (St. Petersburg, 1897).Google Scholar Under Marxist management the circulation of Novoe Slovo rose from 1,600 copies to 5,000.

23 The censor was for immediate suspension, but the Ministry of the Interior, which had planted the spy, would not accept the censor's recommendation. Evgen'iev-Maksimov, , Ocherhi po istorii sotsiatisticheskoi zhurnalistiki v Rossii XIX veka.Google Scholar

24 The censor's documents on these magazines can be found in the Krasnyi Arkhiv, IX, 226 ffGoogle Scholar, and XVIII, 163 ff. For an analysis of this material see Utechin, Sergei, Das zaristische Regime und die Revolutionäre Bewegung in Russland, 1887–1917. Dissertation (Kiel, 1948).Google Scholar It should be stated here, that non-Marxist periodicals like Mir Bozhi, Nauchnoie Obozrenie, also carried articles by Struve and Tugan-Baranovskii.

25 Such as Beltov, (Piekhanov), K voprosu razvitiia monisticheskago vzgliada na istoriiu (On the question of the development of the monistic view of history) (St. Petersburg 1894)Google Scholar; Volgin, (Piekhanov), Obosnovaniie narodnichestva v trudakh G-na Vorontsova, Kritichestkii etiud (The foundations of narod-nichestvo in the works of Mr. Vorontsov. A critical study) (St. Petersburg, 1896)Google Scholar; Bulgakov, , O rynkakh pri kapitalisticheskom proizvodstvie (On the market in capitalist production) (St. Petersburg, 1897)Google Scholar; Kapitalizm i zemliedeliie (Capitalism and agriculture), 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1900)Google Scholar; Tugan-Baranovskii, , Russkaia fabrika v proshlom i nastoiashchem (St. Petersburg, 1899).Google Scholar Incidentally, the German edition, Geschichte der russischen fabrik (Berlin, 1900)Google Scholar, not handicapped by censorship, is more complete than the Russian edition; and Ilin, (Lenin), Razvitiie kapitalizma v Rossii (St. Peters-burg, 1899).Google Scholar

26 Ilin, Vladimir, Razvitie kapitalizma v Rossi. Protsess obrazovaniia vnutrennago rynka dlia krupnoi promyshlennosti. (The development of capitalism in Russia. The process of the formation of the domestic market for heavy industry) (St. Petersburg, 1899).Google Scholar Lenin's book rather than Tugan-Baranovskii's work on the Russian factory has been selected here for analysis. It stands closer to the main theme of the controversy. It should be stated here that the sharpest and most dramatic phase of the controversy ended around 1900 with a generally acknowledged victory of the Marxists: capitalism had come to stay. Yet it was resumed in new forms soon thereafter to accompany Russian industrial expansion well into the Soviet period.

27 There is, however, one serious flaw in Lenin's analysis: he overlooked entirely the leading role of the government, specifically of the Ministry of Finance, in the promotion of Russian industries and of capitalist economy. This influence is now admitted by Liashchenko, , Istoriia Narodnogo Khoziaistva SSSR, 3rd ed., vol. II, p. 183.Google Scholar “The influence of the entire system of government economy was never as great in Russian economic life as in the eighteen nineties.”

28 Ibid., p. 115.

29 Ibid., p. 127.

30 Ibid., p. 457.

31 Lenin, , Sochineniia, Vol. III, (1930), p. 390.Google Scholar

32 The relevance of the Marxist analysis to contemporary Russian realities is outside the scope of this article and cannot be argued here. Suffice it to say that all but the Marxists and Witteans took the view that Russia was not yet ready for the government's experiment in “capitalism.” See for instance a liberal's evaluation of Russian economic realities in Ozerov, , Ekonomicheskaia Rossiia (Economic Russia), 1905.Google Scholar In later years, incidentally, Lenin gave greater prominence to peasant backwardness than he did in his first substantial work. There exists, unfortunately, no objective economic history of Russia in this period of the same quality as E. H. Norman's study of Japan in a somewhat similar stage of development, Japan's Emergence as a Modern State, Political and Economic Problems of the Meiji Period. (Institute of Pacific Relations, 1940)Google Scholar, or as Robert, H.'s Rumania (Yale, 1952).Google Scholar

33 There was a way out of this difficulty, as stated by Struve in the (illegal) Manifesto of the first congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party in 1898. In eastern Europe, so he said, the bourgeoisie was weak, cowardly and ignoble. Hence its political and cultural tasks fell on the proletariat. Did conditions in eastern Europe then modify Marxist dialectics? It was the narodniks who had always said that they did (although in a different way from Struve).

34 Viestnik Evropy, 12 1894, pp. 875 ff.Google Scholar

35 In his preface to the Russian translation of Schulze-Gävernitz, , Ocherki obshchestvennago khoziaistva i ekonomicheskoi politiki Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1901), p. xiv.Google Scholar

36 Op. cit., p. 233.Google Scholar

37 See Nikolaievskii, B. I., “P. B. Struve,” in op. cit., p. 319.Google Scholar