Lenin CW-Vol. 23.pdf - From Marx to Mao

A CARICATURE OF MARXISM49was this the intention. That is exactly the point made inour theses. We indicated that self-determination concernsonly politics, and it would therefore be wrong even to raisethe question of its economic unachievability. But here isKievsky “refuting” this by citing an example of politicalbans being powerless against the economy! What a “refutation”!To proceed. “One or even many instances of small-scaleindustry prevailing over large-scale industry is not sufficientto refute Marx’s correct proposition that the general developmentof capitalism is attended by the concentration andcentralisation of production.”Again, the argument is based on an unfortunate example,chosen to divert the attention (of the reader and the author)from the substance of the issue.We maintain that it would be wrong to speak of the economicunachievability of self-determination in the same senseas we speak of the unachievability of labour money undercapitalism. Not a single “example” of such achievabilitycan be cited. Kievsky tacitly admits we are correcton this point when he shifts to another interpretation of“unachievability”.Why does he not do so directly? Why does he not openlyand precisely formulate his proposition: “self-determination,while achievable in the sense that it is economically possibleunder capitalism, contradicts development and is thereforeeither reactionary or merely an exception”?He does not do so because a clear formulation of thiscounter-proposition would immediately expose its author,and he therefore tries to conceal it.The law of economic concentration, of the victory of largescaleproduction over small, is recognised in our own and theErfurt programmes. Kievsky conceals the fact that nowhereis the law of political or state concentration recognised.If it were the same kind of law—if there were such a law—thenwhy should not Kievsky formulate it and suggest that it beadded to our programme? Is it right for him to leave us witha bad, incomplete programme, considering that he has discoveredthis new law of state concentration, which is ofpractical significance since it would rid our programme oferroneous conclusions?