22.12.2012 Views

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

UNCRITICAL CRITICISM<br />

617<br />

see that this reason is <strong>of</strong> a his<strong>to</strong>rical order. A <strong>to</strong>tally unfounded<br />

assertion” (2284), etc. If commodity circulation is the<br />

necessary his<strong>to</strong>rical predecessor <strong>of</strong> capitalism, is there any<br />

need <strong>to</strong> explain in addition why “this reason is <strong>of</strong> a his<strong>to</strong>rical<br />

order”?<br />

For the abstract theory <strong>of</strong> capitalism all that exists is<br />

developed and fully established capitalism, and the question<br />

<strong>of</strong> its origin is eliminated.<br />

“Mr. Ilyin . . . for the realisation <strong>of</strong> the product in capitalist<br />

society . . . turns <strong>to</strong> the aid <strong>of</strong> the foreign market” (2286).<br />

To the reader who is familiar with my Studies and The<br />

Development <strong>of</strong> Capitalism in Russia I need scarcely explain<br />

that this, <strong>to</strong>o, is a trick performed by the same method as<br />

the preceding ones. A quotation from <strong>Marx</strong>: “. . . foreign commerce<br />

only replaces home products by articles <strong>of</strong> other use<br />

or bodily form. . . .” 174 Conclusion: “Every literate person,<br />

with the exception <strong>of</strong> critically-minded individuals, will<br />

understand that <strong>Marx</strong> says the very opposite <strong>of</strong> Mr. Ilyin’s<br />

theory that there is no need <strong>to</strong> go <strong>to</strong> the foreign market <strong>to</strong><br />

find ‘an equivalent for that part <strong>of</strong> the product which is<br />

being sold,’ <strong>to</strong> find ‘another part <strong>of</strong> the capitalist product<br />

that can replace the first”’ (2284). Oh, splendid Mr. Skvortsov!<br />

“Mr. Ilyin . . . by ignoring the essential features <strong>of</strong><br />

capitalist society and thus converting it in<strong>to</strong> planned production—proportion<br />

in the development <strong>of</strong> different trades<br />

undoubtedly means planned production—nicely realises,<br />

in the end, the same quantity <strong>of</strong> products within the<br />

country” (2286). Our “critic’s” new trick consists in attributing<br />

<strong>to</strong> me the notion that capitalism ensures regular<br />

proportion. Constant, deliberately maintained proportion<br />

would, indeed, signify the existence <strong>of</strong> planning; but this<br />

is not the proportion which is “established only as the<br />

average magnitude <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> continual fluctuations”<br />

(that is what I say in the passage quoted by Mr. Skvortsov).<br />

I definitely say that proportion (or conformity) is<br />

“assumed” by theory, but in fact it is “constantly disturbed,”<br />

that <strong>to</strong> replace one distribution <strong>of</strong> capital by another and so<br />

create proportion “there must be a crisis” (all the words<br />

underlined are <strong>to</strong> be found on that very page 66, which is<br />

quoted by Mr. Skvortsov). The question arises, what can one

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!