V. I.

Lenin

Book Review: S. N. Prokopovich. The Working-Class Movement in the West

S. N. Prokopovich .

The Working-Class Movement in the West [6] “...to turn to social science and to its alleged conclusion that the
capitalist system of society is hastening inexorably to Its doom by virtue
of the contradictions developing within It. We find the relevant
explanations in Kautsky’s Erfurt Programme” (147). Before
dealing with the content of the passage quoted by Mr. Prokopovich, we must
take note of a peculiarity highly typical of him and similar reformers of
theory. Why is it that our “critical investigator,” in turning to
“social science,” looks for “explanations” in Kautsky’s
popular booklet and nowhere else? Does he really believe that the whole of
“social science” is contained in that little booklet? He knows
perfectly well that Kautsky is “a faithful custodian of the
traditions of Marx” (I, 187) and that an exposition and a
substantiation of the “conclusions” of a certain school of
“social science” are to be found precisely in Marx’s treatises
on political economy; yet he acts as though such a thing were altogether
unknown to him. What are we to think of an “investigator” who
confines himself to attacks on “custodians” of a theory but
who does not once, throughout his book, risk crossing swords openly and
directly with the theory itself?

In the passage quoted by Mr. Prokopovich, Kautsky says that the
technological revolution and the accumulation of capital are progressing
with increasing rapidity, that the expansion of production is made
necessary by the fundamental properties of capitalism and must be
uninterrupted, while the expansion of the market “has for some time
been proceeding too slowly” and that “the time is apparently at hand when the
market for European industry will not only cease its further expansion but
will even begin to shrink. This event can only mean the bankruptcy of the
entire capitalist society.” Mr. Prokopovich “criticises” the
“conclusions” drawn by “social science” ( i.e. , Kautsky’s citation of one of the laws of
development evolved by Marx): “The basis thus given for the
inevitability of the collapse of capitalist society allots the chief role
to the contradiction between ’the constant drive to expand production and
the ever slower expansion of the market and, finally, its shrinkage.’ It
is this contradiction, according to Kautsky, that must bring about the
collapse of the capitalist system of society. But [listen well!] the
expansion of production presumes the ’productive consumption’ of part of
the surplus—value—i.e., first its realisation and then its
expenditure on machinery, buildings, etc., for new production. In other
words, the expansion of production is most closely connected with the
existence of a market for the commodities already produced; the constant
expansion of production with a market that is relatively shrinking is,
therefore, an impossibility” (148). And Mr. Prokopovich is so well
satisfied with his excursion into the sphere of “social
science” that in the very next line he speaks with condescending
disdain of a “scientific” (in inverted commas) substantiation
of faith, etc. Such jockeying with criticism would be outrageous, were it
not for the fact that it is, more than anything else, amusing. Our good
Mr. Prokopovich has heard a knell, but knows not from what
bell. Mr. Prokopovich has heard of the abstract theory of realisation that
has recently been heatedly discussed in Russian literature in the course
of which the role of “productive consumption” has been particularly stressed on account of errors in Narodnik
economics. Mr. Prokopovich has not properly understood this theory and
imagines that it denies (!) the existence in capitalism of those
basic and elementary contradictions Kautsky speaks of. To listen to
Mr. Prokopovich. we would have to believe that “productive
consumption” could develop quite independently of individual consumption (in which consumption by the masses plays the
dominant role), i.e., that capitalism does not contain within itself any
contradiction between production and consumption. This is simply absurd, and Marx and his Russian supporters [1] have clearly opposed such misconstructions. Not only does the
bourgeois-apologetic theory into which our “critical investigator” has wandered not follow from the fact that “the
expansion of production presumes productive consumption,” but, on the
contrary, from it follows the contradiction between the tendency towards
the unlimited growth of production and limited consumption that is
inherent precisely in capitalism and that must bring about its collapse.

Apropos of what has been said, it is worth while mentioning the following
interesting point. Mr. Prokopovich is a fervent follower of Bernstein,
whose magazine articles he quotes and translates for several pages. In his
well-known book, Die Voraussetzungen, etc ., [2]

Bernstein even recommends Mr. Prokopovich to the German public as his
Russian supporter, but he makes a reservation, the substance of which is
that Mr. Prokopovich is more Bernsteinian than Bern stein. And, a
remarkable thing, Bernstein and his Russian yesman both distort the theory
of realisation, but in diametrically opposite directions , so that
they cancel each other out. Firstly, Bernstein regarded as a
“contradiction” the fact that Marx turned against Rodbertus’
theory of crises and at the same time declared that “the ultimate
cause of all real crises is the poverty and limited consumption of the
masses.” Actually there is no contradiction here at all, as I have had
occasion to point out in other places ( Studies ,

p. 30, [3]
The Development of Capitalism in Russia ,

p. 19 [4]

).

Secondly, Bernstein argues in precisely the same manner as does Mr.
V. V. here in Russia, that the tremendous growth of the surplus-product
must inevitably mean an increase in the number of well-to-do (or the
greater prosperity of the workers), since the capitalists themselves and their servants ( sic I)
cannot “consume” the entire surplus-product ( Die Voraussetzungen, etc. , S. 51-52). This naïve argument completely
ignores the role of productive consumption, as Kautsky pointed out in his book against Bernstein (Kautsky, Gegen Bernstein ,
II.

Abschnitt , [5]

–the

paragraph on “the employment of surplus-value”). And now there
appears a Russian Bernsteinian, recommended by Bernstein, who says exactly
the opposite, who lectures Kautsky on the role of “productive
consumption” and then reduces Marx’s discovery to the absurdity that
productive consumption can develop quite independently of individual
consumption (I), that the realisation of surplus-value by its use for the
production of means of production does away with the dependence, in the
final analysis, of production on consumption and, consequently, with the
contradiction between them! By this example the reader may judge whether
Mr. Prokopovich’s “loss of a good half of the theoretical
premises” is due to the “investigations” or whether our
“critical investigator” is “at a loss” due to some other cause.

A second example. Taking up three pages (25-27), our author
“investigated” the question of peasant associations in
Germany. He gave a list of the various kinds of associations and
statistical data on their rapid growth (especially of dairy associations)
and argued: “The artisan has been almost deprived of his roots in
the modern economic system, whereas the peasant continues to stand firm
[!] in it.” How very simple, isn’t it really? The undernourishment of the
German peasants, their exhaustion from excessive labour, the mass flight
of people from the countryside to the towns— all that must be mere
invention. It suffices to point to the rapid growth of associations
(especially dairy associations that result in depriving the peasants’
children of milk and lead to the peasants’ greater dependence on
capitalists) in order to prove the “stability” of the peasantry. “The development of capitalist relations in the
manufacturing industry ruins the artisan but improves the condition of the
peasant. It [the condition? I hinders the penetration of capitalism into
agriculture.” This is new! Until now it has been believed that it is the development of capitalism in the manufacturing
industry that is the main force which gives rise to, and develops,
capitalism in agriculture. But Mr. Prokopovich, like his German
prototypes, could truly say of him self: nous avons changé tout ca —we have changed all that! But would that be true,
gentlemen? Have you really changed anything at all , have you
shown the error in even one of the basic postulates of the theory you have
“torn to pieces” and replaced it by a truer postulate? Have
you not, on the contrary, returned to the old prejudices?... “On the
other hand, the development of the manufacturing industry ensures
subsidiary earnings for the peasant.”... A return to the doctrine of
Messrs. V. V. & Co. on the subsidiary earnings of the peasantry!
Mr. Prokopovich does not deem it worth mentioning the fact that in a large
number of cases these “earnings” express the conversion of the
peasant into a wage-labourer. He prefers to conclude his
“investigation” with the high-sounding sentence: “The sap of life has not yet left the peasant class.” It is true that Kautsky
has shown, precisely in respect of Germany, that agricultural associations
are a transition stage on the way to capitalism —but, you
see, we already know how the terrible Mr. Prokopovich has crushed Kautsky!

We see this resurrection of Narodnik views (Narodnik views of the
V. V. hue) not only in the above passage but in many other places in
Mr. Prokopovich’s “critical investigation.” The reader probably
knows the fame (a sorry fame) that Mr. V. V. earned for himself by his
excessive narrowing and debasing of the theory known as
“economic” materialism: this theory, as “adapted” by Mr. V. V., did not postulate that in the final analysis all factors are
reduced to the development of the productive forces, but postulated that
many extremely important (although in the final analysis secondary)
factors could be neglected. Mr. Prokopovich offers us a very similar
distortion when he attempts to expose Kautsky as one who does not
understand the significance of “material forces” (144), in the
course of which Mr. Prokopovich himself light-mindedly confuses
“economic organisation” (145) with “economic force” (on 146 and especially 149). Unfortunately we cannot dwell to
the needed extent on an analysis of this error of Mr. Prokopovich, but
must refer the reader to the above-mentioned book by Kautsky against Bernstein ( Abschnitt III, Section a), where the original
versions of Mr. Prokopovich’s rehashings are discussed at length. We also
hope that the reader who peruses Mr. Prokopovich’s book attentively will
see quite easily that the theory torn to pieces by our “critical
investigator” (Mr. Prokopovich, incidentally, here, too, maintains a
modest silence about the views of the founders of the theory and refrains
from examining them, preferring to confine himself to extracts from the
speeches and articles of present-day adherents of this theory)—that
the theory is in no way to blame for this disgraceful narrowing of
“economic” materialism (cf., for example, statements by
authoritative Belgian spokesmen on pp. 74, 90, 92, 100 in the second
part).

As far as the extracts quoted by Mr. Prokopovich are concerned, it should
be said that he often seizes on individual passages and gives the reader a
distorted impression of views and arguments that have not been expounded
in Russian literature. On account of this, Mr. Prokopovich’s jockeying
with criticism creates a most repulsive impression. In some cases it would
be worth the while of those who read Mr. Prokopovich’s book to refer even
to a book by Professor Herkner that has recently been translated into
Russian: Wage-Labour in Western Europe (St. Petersburg, 1899,
published by the magazine Obrazovaniye). For instance, in a note
to page 24 (Part I) Mr. Prokopovich writes that the Congress of 1892
“adopted a resolution sympathising with the organisation of
producers’ associations” and follows this up with a quotation which,
first, does not fully support the words of the author and, secondly,
breaks o/J precisely at the point where It speaks of the
necessity “to conduct a particular struggle against the belief that
associations are in a position to bring any influence to bear on
capitalist production relations, etc.” (Herkner, Notes, pp. xi-xii, Note 6
to Chapter IX).

Mr. Prokopovich is just as successful in his crushing of Kautsky on pages 56,
150, 156, 198, and in many other places as he is in the case we have
examined. Mr. Prokopovich’s assertions that Liebknecht, in the sixties, for a
time renounced his ideals, betrayed them, etc. (111, 112), are in no sense to
be taken seriously. We have had occasion to see how well-founded his judgements
are, and the following sentence (once again directed, not against the founder of the theory, but
against its “custodian”) will, for example, show us to what Pillars
of Hercules the insolence and self-assurance of our “investigator” will take him: “We should be acting
superficially, if we undertook to criticise this whole conception of the
working-class movement from the stand point of its conformity to the true
course taken by the development of this movement—from the standpoint
of its scientific basis [Mr. Prokopovich’s italics]. There is not
and can not be ( sic! ) a grain of science in it” (156). This
is what you call categorical criticism! All this Marxism, it isn’t even
worth criticising, and that’s that! Obviously we have be fore us either a
man who is destined to make a great revolution in the science “of
which there cannot be even a grain in the theory that is dominant in
Germany, or ... or—how can it be put delicately?—or a man who,
when “at a loss,” repeats the phrases of others. Mr. Prokopovich
prostrates him self with such fervour before this very latest of gods who
has pronounced those words for the thousandth time that he has no pity on
his own forehead. Bernstein, if you please, “has some shortcomings
in his theoretical views” (198) that consist—can you imagine
it?—in his belief in the necessity of a scientific theory that
defines the aims of the men of action concerned. “Critical
investigators” are not subject to this strange belief. “Science will become free,” utters Mr. Prokopovich,
“only when it is admitted that it must serve the aims of a
party and not define them. It must be recognised that science
cannot define the aims of a practical party” (197). Be it noted that
Bernstein renounced precisely these views of his follower. “A
principled programme inevitably leads to dogmatism and is only a hindrance
in the way of the party’s sound development.... Theoretical principles are
all very well In propaganda but not in a programme” (157). “Programmes are unnecessary; they are harmful.” “The
individual himself may be a programme if he is sensitive to, and has a
fine feeling for, the needs of the times.”... The reader probably thinks
that I am continuing to quote Mr. Prokopovich. But no, I am now quoting
the newspaper Novoye Vremya , [7] which recently published articles on a programme that attracted a great
deal of attention—not the programme of a party, of course, but of
the new Minister for Internal Affairs....

The relationship of the freedom of unprincipledness—excuse me,
“freedom of science”—preached by Mr. Prokopovich to the views
of the majority of the West-European personalities of whom our valiant
critic so valiantly writes, may be seen from the following quotations
drawn from that same book by Mr. Prokopovich: “Of course, without a
betrayal of principles...” (159). “Not in any way violating one’s
independence, loyalty to principle....” “I renounce compromise only
in the case ... in which it leads to a renunciation of principles or even
to the ignoring of principles...” (171). “Introducing no
unprincipledness...” (174). “Not, of course, selling one’s soul, in
the present case, one’s principles...” (176). “The principles are
now firmly established...” (183). “A compass [is needed] that would
rid us of the need to grope our way,” against “short-sighted
empiricism,” against “a thoughtless attitude to principles”
(195). “Primary importance attaches to principles, to the
theoretical part...” (103, Part II), etc.

In conclusion, two more quotations: “If German Social-Democracy
were the expression of socialism and not of the proletariat that is acting
in defence of its own interests in present-day society, for the first time
recognising its significance, then—since not all Germans are
idealists—side by side with this party that pursues idealist aims we
should see another, stronger party, a working-class party that represents
the practical interests of that part of the German proletariat that is not
idealist.”... “If socialism were not to play the role of a mere
symbol in that movement, a symbol distinguishing one definite
organisation, if it were the motive idea, the principle that demands of
party members a certain specific service—in that case the socialist
party would separate from the general labour party, and the mass of the
proletariat, which strives for better living conditions under the existing
system and cares little for the ideal future, would form an independent
labour party.” The reader will again probably think....