V. I. Lenin

1894

2

To:   P. P. MASLOV

30.V.94

Received your letter the day before yesterday. I indeed had almost
forgotten about our correspondence and about the review, but I am of course
very pleased to resume correspondence on the questions raised by it, as
well as on other questions.

One thing surprises me—why did you have to “search” for me? Didn’t
N. M. A. [1]

see you on his return to Tiflis from St. Petersburg and inform you (as I
asked him to) that I have a permanent address—for the winter at
least—namely: Bar Council, Advocate N. N.

Concerning your comments, [2]

I should like to say this. First, as regards the conclusions being too
cautious, it should be borne in mind that this shortcoming

[[LEFT-OPEN-BRACKET: I fully agree that this is really a shortcoming ]] is due to my intention to have the article published in a liberal
journal. I actually was naïve enough to send it to Russkaya Mysl , which of course turned it down: I fully understood why when I
read in Russkaya Mysl No. 2 an article about Postnikov by “our
well-known” liberal vulgariser, Mr. V. V. It takes some artistry to
mutilate splendid material so thoroughly and to bury the facts in sheer
verbiage!

The fact is that I draw from these data some major conclusions. Namely,
that the data, in my opinion, point to the bourgeois nature of the economic
relationships existing among the peasantry. They strikingly reveal the
existence of antagonistic classes in this “communal” peasantry; moreover,
of classes that are characteristic only of capitalist organisation of the
social economy. This is the cardinal conclusion, and one fully applicable
to the rest of the Russian peasantry. Another conclusion is that already
now a huge proportion (probably no less than half and most likely more) of
peasant-grown grain goes to the market, and that the principal producer of
this grain is the top group of the present-day village—the peasant
bourgeoisie. [3]

Further, I attach much importance to the fact established by Postnikov
that as a rule throughout Russia the productivity of labour is 2–2 1/2
times higher in the upper groups of the peasantry. This is of enormous
importance from the theoretical standpoint, as is the ascertaining of the
commercial farm area (a point so dangerous for the Russian
exceptionalists that I fully appreciate Mr. V. V.’s careful avoidance of
the question).

As for your second remark—concerning the norm of natural economy—I
must admit that I do not quite understand you.

The question of a “norm”, to my mind, is meaningful only in this
sense: it is important to know how big an area the average peasant must
cultivate to meet all his needs (both production and personal) and manage
without outside earnings.

This is important to know since all peasant farms below this level fall
into the category of those selling labour power, and the size of the farm
is a fairly accurate indicator to what extent it depends on this source of
income. Households in the higher groups are petty-bourgeois pure and
simple.

As regards the share of “natural” economy, I believe it is invariably
the greatest in the middle group of peasants, but there too commodity
economy is bound to account for a substantial (probably some 40 per cent of
the

total budget must be in monetary form). Farms of the lower and top groups
will always be more of a commodity type, for the first sells labour power
and the second, surpluses of grain.

The analysis of the groups given in the article on Postnikov is along
these lines.

You speak of the “norm of natural economy” and the “norm of
commodity economy” as of two separate things. If I understood you right,
the latter is my average norm

[[SINGLE-BOX-ENDS:

17–18 dessiatines of crop area according to Postnikov’s figures ]] in which, of course, it is important to separate and calculate exactly the natural and money components . I do not see that there is any
self-contained “norm of natural economy”; our contemporary peasant
economy cannot be a pure natural economy whatever its dimensions.

However, here it is better to wait for a more detailed explanation from
you.

As regards the criticism of N. K. Mikhailovsky, I also believe that no
publication will print it, not so much because of considerations of
censorship (rumour has it that the censors are exorcising Russian Marxism
following the commotion raised by Russkoye Bogatstvo [4] ) as of disagreement with you and fear of an impudent
and conceited “big wig”. I’ve had some experience in this respect.

[[DOUBLE-BOX-ENDS: Nor do I think it possible or worth while to
reply to him in our press. ]]

It would give me pleasure to read your reply.

I shall probably be here until June 12, and perhaps longer. I shall let
you know my new address when I leave. In the meantime you can write (after
the 12th) through M.H.H.; it will be quicker to forward mail from there.