[Reader-list] Book Review: The Agrarian Question in Marx and Successors

[A. Mani]

Source: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120601291007600.htm	

BOOKS

Lenin's argument

C.T. KURIEN

A useful text for those who take the agrarian situation in India
seriously either for academic studies or for purposive intervention.


THE book under review is the second volume of writings of Karl Marx
and his successors on the agrarian question. The contents of this
volume are, however, largely from Lenin's works. It is not unusual for
a writer to refer to the writings on Marx, Lenin and others in
contemporary discussions on economics and politics, for their
scholarly credentials have never been in doubt. But since this volume
reproduces some of Lenin's writings on the agrarian question in Russia
more than a century ago, it is quite legitimate to consider what their
relevance to the contemporary Indian situation is.

A brief reference to the context in which these writings first
appeared may be helpful. About half the volume consists of selections
from Lenin's definitive work, The Development of Capitalism in Russia
(1898). It discussed in some detail the role of agriculture in
Russia's transition to capitalism, a theme that was being debated at
that time, particularly by a group of scholars and activists, the
Narodniks. They took the position that since the vast majority of
those involved in agriculture in Russia at that time were peasants, it
should be possible to move to a peasant-dominated socio-economic
order, which would be different from the rapidly disappearing feudal
order, without passing through capitalism. In other words, the
Narodniks were, like Lenin and his associates, championing an economic
system other than the status quo. Both sides were, thus, committed to
change. Lenin's argument was that that was not enough. He insisted
that those who were committed to change must have a detailed and clear
understanding of the existing situation as also the path to be taken
to move to another order. That position is valid even today,
particularly for countries such as ours where, by all accounts,
traditional agriculture is giving way; but it is not clear what shape
it is taking and how it is to be directed. It is important to recall
that if Lenin was critical of the Narodnik position, he was equally
critical of some Marxists (whom he designated “short-sighted” Marxists
and even “caricature” Marxists!) who, without proper understanding of
the actual situation, simply quoted passages from earlier writings in
support of their arguments. Such approaches are not uncommon even
today.

This is not to say that earlier writings as such do not have any
relevance in today's context. To give just one example, here is a
passage from Rosa Luxemburg's classic work The Accumulation of Capital
in which the author pointed out the significance of colonies for the
growth of capitalism.

In one of the chapters of that book, included in the present volume,
she said: “It is an illusion to hope that capitalism will ever be
content with the means of production which it can acquire by way of
commodity exchange…. The most important of these productive forces is
of course the land, its hidden mineral treasure, and its meadows, wood
and water…. If capital were here to rely on the process of slow
internal disintegration, it might take centuries…. Hence derives the
vital necessity for capitalism in its relation with colonial countries
to appropriate the most important means of production” (quoted on page
219 in the present volume).

Further, “Each new colonial expansion is accompanied, as a matter of
course, by a relentless battle of capital against the social and
economic ties of the natives, who are also forcibly robbed of their
means of production and labour power…. Force is the only solution open
to capital; the accumulation of capital, seen as a historical process,
employs forces as a permanent weapon, not only at its genesis but
further on down to the present day” (page 220). How very true.

Utsa Patnaik, in her brief but helpful introduction to Volume II, says
on the same theme: “[T]here is an aggressive process of primitive
accumulation by the domestic corporate sector often in collusion with
foreign firms to take over peasant lands mainly for speculative
purposes and to exploit mineral resources” (page 28). The actors may
have changed but the play remains the same. And so writings from the
past are of direct relevance, too.

Lenin himself draws out the general issues arising from his polemics
with the Narodniks (pages 80 to 92 in the volume under review). The
Narodniks, points out Lenin, were dealing with agriculture in the
aggregate or in terms of averages. But the problem of the peasants
cannot be understood in terms of these categories for there are
peasants and peasants. Some cultivate large plots; some small. Some
use the services of the members of their families entirely; others
depend on hired workers. Some use up their entire produce; others sell
part of their produce in the market. Some rely on primitive tools;
others go in for modern ones. Some depend solely on their own
resources; others borrow or lend. Under such circumstances, the
differentiation of the peasantry is crucial for analytical purposes.
It is important to decide also what characteristics are to be used to
appreciate the differentiation.

Understanding the differentiation is also crucial to giving meaning to
the widely used expression “the rural (or village) community”,
particularly because, as some people view it, there is a very cohesive
sense of “community” inherent to rural areas; and there is a tendency
to make policy recommendations on the basis of such imagined sense of
community. Indeed, while from outside the rural scene may appear to be
stable and static, it is in fact in a state of flux. External forces
impact the rural situation and changes are taking place from within as
well. For instance, a change from payment of wages in kind to money
wages is of tremendous significance, though, viewed from outside, it
may appear to be of little consequence as long as the imputed values
of the two do not differ. Changes that come from outside, such as the
construction of a road from a city to a village, will have
differential impacts on different sections within the village.

ARUNANGSU ROY CHOWDHURY [Picture]
[Caption
THE FACTORY OF Vedanta Aluminium Ltd in the backdrop of a paddy field
in the foothills of Niyamgiri hills in Kalahandi district of Odisha.
Rosa Luxemburg said: "It is an illusion to hope that capitalism will
ever be content with the means of production which it can acquire by
way of commodity exchange.. The most important of these productive
forces is of course the land, its hidden mineral treasure, and its
meadows, wood and water."]

A lesson that Lenin draws is that it is imperative to be specific,
taking each situation in terms of the variety of its own features.
These are questions of fact, questions that must be examined in terms
of all the variety of interactions that particular facts give rise to.
They cannot be, and should not be, viewed solely on the basis of
theoretical reasoning, says Lenin.

And yet theory is important, too, to decide how facts are to be
analysed and interpreted. Indeed, this was the crucial difference
between the Narodniks and Lenin and his colleagues. Interestingly, the
two sides were making use of the same database, data gathered by other
scholars.

Says Utsa Patnaik in her Introduction: “Most of the first part of The
Development of Capitalism in Russia is reproduced here, for it is an
outstanding example of how the theoretical perspective determines
statistical analysis. Using the same data sources as the Populists
[Narodniks] did, Lenin showed how their methods of analysis relying on
averages obscured the actually existing class reality of an
increasingly economically differentiated peasantry and himself used an
alternative method to bring out this class reality” (page 10). Patnaik
also points out that in the Indian context, along with class
differences, the reality of caste also should be taken into account to
understand the grossly unequal access to land and resources in rural
India.

This volume is meant mainly for those who take the agrarian situation
in the country seriously either for academic studies or for purposive
intervention. Gaining a clear understanding of the rapidly changing
scene is the essence of the task.

Following the writings of Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg or Mao (two writings
from Mao Zedong included here show that the pre-revolutionary agrarian
situations in Russia and China were different) literally is not what
is called for. And yet a careful study of their approach to the
conditions they faced can be of great value.

____________________________________________________________________________________



Best

A. Mani




-- 
A. Mani
CU, ASL, CLC,  AMS, CMS
http://www.logicamani.co.cc