V. I.

Lenin

Book Review: A. Bogdanov. A Short Course of Economic Science

A. Bogdanov. A Short Course of Economic Science .
Moscow, 1897. Publ. A. Murinova’s Bookshop. 290 pp. Price 2 rubles.

Mr. Bogdanov’s book is a remarkable manifestation in our economic
literature; not only is it “no superfluous” guide among a
number of others (as the author “hopes” in his preface), it is
by far the best of them. In this note, therefore, we intend to call the
reader’s attention to the outstanding merits of the book and to indicate a
few minor points which could, in our opinion, be improved upon in future
editions; in view of the lively interest displayed by our reading public
in economic questions, it is to be expected that further editions of this
useful book will soon be forth coming.

Thechief merit of Mr. Bogdanov’s Course is the strict adherence
to a definite line from the first page to the last, in a book that treats
of many and very extensive problems. From the outset the author gives a
clear-cut and precise definition of political economy as “the
science that studies the social relations of production and distribution
in their development” (3), and he never deviates from this point of
view, one that is often but poorly understood by learned professors of
political economy who lapse from “the social relations of
production” to production in general and fill their ponderous
courses with a pile of empty banalities and examples that have nothing to
do with social science. Alien to the author is the scholasticism that
often impels compilers of textbooks to indulge in “definitions” and in an analysis of every aspect of each
definition; the clarity of his exposition, actually gains, rather than loses, by this, and the reader
gets a clear conception, for example, of such a category as
capital , both in the social and in the historical sense. In his
Course , Mr. Bogdanov bases the sequence of his exposition on the
view that political economy is the science of the historically developing
systems of social production. He begins his Course with a brief
exposition of “general concepts” (pp. 1-19) of the science and ends with a brief “history of economic views”
(pp. 235-90), outlining the subject of the science in Section C:
“The Process of Economic Development”; he does not give his
outline dogmatically (as is the case with the majority of textbooks), but
by means of a characteristic of the periods of economic development in
their proper sequence: the periods of primitive clan communism, slavery,
feudalism and guilds, and, finally, capitalism. This is precisely what an
exposition of political economy should be. The objection may be raised
that under these circumstances the author is inevitably compelled to break
up one and the same theoretical division (e. g., money) between different
periods and thereby repeat himself. But this purely formal short coming is
more than compensated by the fundamental mer its of the historical
exposition. And is it really a short coming? The repetitions are quite
insignificant and are of benefit to the beginner because he is better able
to grasp the more important postulates. The treatment of the various
functions of money in the various periods of economic development, for
example, shows the student clearly that the theoretical analysis of these
functions is not based on abstract speculation but on a precise study of
what actually happened in the course of the historical development of
mankind. It provides a more complete conception of the particular,
historically determined, systems of social economy. The whole task of a
handbook of political economy is, of course, to give the student of that
science the fundamental concepts of the different systems of social
economy and of the basic features of each system; the whole task is one of
placing in the hands of the student who has mastered the elementary
handbook a reliable guide to the further study of the subject, so that,
having understood that the most important problems of contemporary social life are intimately bound up with problems of economic science, he may
acquire an interest in this study. In ninety nine cases out of a hundred
this is precisely what is lacking in handbooks of political economy. Their
shortcoming is due not so much to the fact that they are usually limited
to one system of social economy (i.e., the capitalist system) as to their
inability to focus the reader’s attention on the basic features of that
system; they are unable to give a clear definition of its historical
significance and to show the process (and the conditions) of its
emergence, on the one hand, and the tendencies of its further development,
on the other; they are unable to represent the different aspects and
different manifestations of contemporary economic life as component parts
of a definite system of social economy, as manifestations of the basic
features of that system; they are unable to give the reader reliable
guidance, because they do not usually adhere to one particular line with
complete consistency; and, lastly, they are unable to interest the
student, because they have an extremely narrow and incoherent conception
of the significance of economic questions and present economic, political,
moral, and other “factors” in “poetic disorder.” Only the materialist conception of history can bring light into this
chaos and open up the possibility for a broad, coherent, and intelligent
view of a specific system of social economy as the foundation of a
specific system of man’s entire social life.

Theoutstanding merit of Mr. Bogdanov’s Course is that the author
adheres consistently to historical materialism. In outlining a definite
period of economic development in his “exposition” he usually
gives a sketch of the political institutions, the family relations, and
the main currents of social thought in connection with the basic
features of the economic system under discussion. The author explains how
the particular economic system gave rise to a certain division of society
into classes and shows how these classes manifested themselves in
the political, family, and intellectual life of that historical period,
and how the interests of these classes were reflected in certain schools
of economic thought, for example, how the interests of developing
capitalism were expressed by the school of free competition and how, at a
later period, the interests of the same class were expressed by the school of vulgar economists (284), the apologist
school. The author rightly points out the connection between the position of
definite classes and the historical school (284), as well as the school of

Katheder-reformers [7] (the “realistic” or “historico-ethical” school),
which, with its empty and false conception of the “non-class”
origin and significance of juridico-political institutions (288), etc.,
must be characterised as the school of “compromise” (287). The
author connects the theories of Sismondi and Proudhon with the development
of capitalism and with good reason relegates them to the category of
petty-bourgeois economists; he shows the roots of their ideas in the
interests of a specific class in capitalist society, the class that
occupies the “middle, transitional place” (279), and recognises without circumlocution the reactionary import of such ideas
(280-81). Thanks to the consistency of his views and his ability to
examine the different aspects of economic life in their relation to the
fundamental features of the economic system under discussion, the author
has given a correct assessment of such phenomena as the participation of
the workers in the profits of an enterprise (one of the “forms of
wages” that “can very rarely prove profitable for the employer” [pp. 132-331) or the production associations which,
“being organised within capitalist relations,” “in reality
serve only to increase the petty-bourgeoisie” (187).

Weknow that it is precisely these features of Mr. Bogdanov’s
Course that will give rise to more than a few reproaches. It
stands to reason that representatives and supporters of the
“ethico-sociological” school in

Russia [8] will be dissatisfied. Among the dissatisfied there will also be those who assume
that “the question of the economic conception of history is purely academic,” [1] and many others.... But apart from this, one might say
partisan, dissatisfaction, the objection will be raised that the posing of
questions so extensively has led to the extraordinarily condensed
exposition of the Short Course which, in the brief space of 290 pages, deals with all periods of economic development, from
the clan community and savagery to capitalist cartels and trusts, as well
as the political and family life of the world of antiquity and the Middle
Ages, and with the history of economic views. Mr. A. Bogdanov’s exposition
really is condensed to the highest degree, as he him self states in his
preface, wherein he says plainly that his book is a “conspectus.”
There is no doubt that some of the author’s terse notes, dealing mostly
with facts of a historical character, but sometimes with more detailed
problems of theoretical economics, will not be understood by the beginner
who wishes to learn something of political economy. We, however, do not
think that the author should be blamed for this. We would even say,
without fear of being accused of paradoxes, that such notes should be
regarded as a merit and not a shortcoming of the book under review. For,
indeed, were the author to think of giving a detailed exposition,
explanation and basis for every such note, his book would have attained
immeasurable dimensions quite out of keeping with the purposes of a short
guide. And it would be impossible to outline, in any course, no matter how
extensive, all the data of modern science on all periods of economic
development and on the history of economic views from Aristotle to
Wagner. Had he discraded all such notes, his book would positively have
been worsened by the reduction of the scope and significance of political
economy. In their present form these terse notes will, we think, be of
great benefit both to teachers and students who use the book. Concerning
the former this is more than true. The latter will see from the sum total
of these notes that political economy cannot be studied carelessly,
mir nichts dir nichts, [2] without any previous knowledge, and
without making the acquaintance of very many and very important problems
in history, statistics, etc. Students will see that they cannot become
acquainted with problems of social economy in its development and its
influence on social life from one or even from several textbooks or
courses that are often distinguished by their “facility of
exposition” as well as by their amazing emptiness, their meaning less
phrase-mongering; that the most vitally important questions of history and
present-day reality are indissolubly bound up with economic questions and
that the roots of the latter are to be found in the social relations of
production. Such, indeed, is the chief purpose of any guidebook—to
give the basic concepts of the subject under discussion and to show in
what direction it is to be studied in greater detail and why such a study
is important.

Letus now turn to the second part of our remarks and point out those places in
Mr. Bogdanov’s book that, in our opinion, stand in need of correction or
expansion. We hope the respected author will not demur at the trivial and even
hole-picking nature of these remarks: in a conspectus individual phrases and
even individual words have incomparably greater significance than in an
extensive and detailed exposition.

Mr. Bogdanov, in general, uses only the terminology of the school of
economics to which he adheres. But when he speaks of the form of value he
replaces that term by the expression “formula of exchange”
(p. 39, et seq.). This seems to us to be an unfortunate expression; the
term “form of value” is really inconvenient in a brief handbook, and it would probably be better to say instead: form of exchange
or stage of development of exchange, since, otherwise, we get such
expressions as “predominance of the second formula of exchange” (43) (?). In speaking of capital, the author was mistaken
in omitting the general formula of capital which would have helped the
student to master the fact that trading and industrial capital are of the
same kind.

Indescribing capitalism, the author omitted the question of the growth of
the commercial-industrial population at the expense of the agricultural
population and that of the concentration of the population in the big
cities; this gap is felt all the more because the author, in speaking of
the Middle Ages, dealt in detail with the relations between countryside
and town (63-66), while in respect of the modern town he said only a
couple of words about the countryside being subordinated to it (174).

Indiscussing the history of industry, the author determinedly placed the
“domestic system of capitalist production” [3] “mid-way between artisan production and manufacture” (p. 156,
Thesis 6). This simplification does not seem to us, in the
present case, to be very convenient. The author of Capital
described capitalist domestic industry in the section on machine industry
and attributed it directly to the transforming effect which the latter
exerts on old forms of labour. Actually those forms of domestic labour
that prevail, both in Europe and in Russia, in the dressmaking industry,
for example, cannot by any means be placed “mid way between artisan
production and manufacture.” They come later than manufacture in
the historical development of capitalism and it would have been worth
while, we think, to say a few words about this.

Inthe chapter on the machine period of capitalism, [4] a noticeable gap is the absence of a paragraph on the reserve army and
capitalist over-population, engendered by machine industry, on its
significance in the cyclical development of industry, and on its chief
forms. The very scanty mention the author makes of these phenomena on
pages 205 and 270 are clearly insufficient.

Theauthor’s statement that “during the past fifty years”
“profit has been increasing more rapidly than rent” (179) is
too bold an assertion. Not only Ricardo (against whom Mr. Bogdanov
mentions the point), but Marx as well affirms the general tendency of rent
to increase with particular rapidity under all and any circumstances (rent
may even increase when the price of grain is decreasing). That reduction
in grain prices (and in rent under certain circumstances), brought about
recently by the competition of the virgin fields of America, Australia,
etc., became acute only in the seventies, and Engels’ note to the section
on rent (Das Kapital , III, 2, 259-60 [9] ), devoted to the present-day agrarian crisis, is formulated with
much greater caution. Engels here postulates the “law” of the
growth of rent in civilised countries, which explains the “amazing vitality of the class of big
landlords,” and further says only that this vitality “is gradually being
exhausted” (allmählig sich erschöpft ).

Theparagraphs devoted to farming are also marked by excessive
brevity. The paragraph on (capitalist) rent shows only in the barest
outline that it is conditioned by capitalist farming (“In the period
of capitalism land remains private property and takes on the role of capital," 127—and that is all!). In order to avoid all sorts of
misunderstandings, a few words, in greater detail, should have been said
about the emergence of the rural bourgeoisie, the condition of the farm
labourers, and the difference in their condition and that of the factory
workers (a lower standard of living and requirements, remnants of their
attachment to the land or of various

Gesindeordnungen, [5] etc.). It is also a pity that the author did not touch on the genesis of capitalist
rent. After the mention he made of the coloni [10] and dependent peasants and, further, of the rent paid by our
peasants, he should have given a brief characteristic of the course taken
by the development of rent from labour rent (Arbeitsrente ) to
rent in kind (Produktenrente ), then to money rent (Geldrente ), and finally to capitalist rent (cf. Das Kapital , III, 2, Kap.

47 [11] )

Intreating of the supplanting of subsidiary industries by capitalism and
the resultant loss of stability experienced by peasant economy, the author
expresses himself as follows: “In general the peasant economy
becomes poorer— the sum total of values produced decreases”
(148). This is most inexact. The process of the ruination of the peasantry
by capitalism consists in its dispossession by the rural bourgeoisie,
which derives from that same peasantry. Mr. Bogdanov could hardly, for
example, describe the decline of peasant farming in Germany without
mentioning the

Vollbauer. [6]

In the place mentioned the author speaks of the peasantry in general, and
follows this up immediately with an example from Russian reality; well, to
speak of the

Russian peasantry “in general” is a more than risky business. On the same page the author says: “The peasant either
engages in farming alone or he goes to the manufactory,” that is, we add
on our own part, he becomes either a rural bourgeois or a proletarian
(with a tiny piece of land). Mention should have been made of this
two-sided process.

Lastly,we must mention the absence of examples from Russian life as a
general drawback of the book. On very many questions (for instance, on the
organisation of production in the Middle Ages, the development of machine
industry and railways, the growth of the urban population, crises and
syndicates, the difference between manufactories and factories, etc.) such
examples taken from our economic literature would have been of great
importance, since the absence of examples with which he is familiar makes
it much more difficult for the beginner to master the subject. It seems to
us that the filling of these gaps would not greatly increase the size of
the book and would not increase the difficulty of distributing it widely,
which is very desirable in all respects.

---
Notes:
[1]
This is the opinion of the Russkaya Mysl” [12] reviewer (1897;
November, bibliographical section, p. 517). And to think that there are
such comedians in the world!
— Lenin

[2]
As Kautsky aptly remarked in the preface to his well-known book,
Marx’s Oekonomische Lehren. (Marx’s Economic Teachings — Ed .)
— Lenin

[3]
Pp. 93, 95, 147, 156. It seems to us that this term is a successful
substitution for the expression “domestic system of large-scale
production” that was introduced into our literature by Korsak.
— Lenin

[4]
The strict division of capitalism into a period of manufacture and a period of machine industry is one of the most valuable
features of Mr. Bogdanov’s Course .
— Lenin

[5]
Legal injunctions fixing tile relations between landowners
and serfs.— Ed .

[6]
A peasant who is in possession of a full (undivided) plot of
land.— Ed .

[7]
Katheder-reformers or Katheder-Socialists— representatives of a trend in bourgeois political economy in the 1870s and
1880s who, under the guise of socialism, advocated bourgeois-liberal
reformism from university chairs (Katheder in German). The fear
aroused among the exploiting classes by the spread of Marxism and the
growth of the working-class movement, as well as the efforts of bourgeois
ideologists to find fresh means of keeping the working people in
subjugation, brought Katheder-Socialism into being.

The Katheder-Socialists, among whom were Adolf Wagner, Gustav Schmoller,
Lorenz Brentano, and Werner Sombart, asserted that the bourgeois state is
above classes; that it can reconcile mutually hostile classes, and that it
can gradually introduce “socialism,” without affecting the interests
of the capitalists, while giving every possible consideration to the
demands of the working people. They suggested the legalisation of
police-regulated wage-labour and the revival of the medieval guilds. Marx
and Engels exposed Katheder-Socialism , showing how essentially
reactionary it was. Lenin called the Katheder-Socialists the bed bugs of
“police-bourgeois university science” who hated Marx’s revolutionary teachings. In Russia the views of the Katheder-Socialists
were disseminated by the “legal Marxists.”

[8]
Lenin refers to the liberal Narodniks headed by N. M. Mikhailovsky; he
criticised the views of the “school” in his What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (see present edition, Vol. 1).

[12]
Russkaya Mysl (Russian Thought)—a monthly literary and political magazine published in Moscow from 1880 to 1918; until 1905 it
was liberal Narodnik in its views; the editor from 1880 to 1885 was
V. M. Lavrov. During the struggle between the Marxists and the liberal
Narodniks in the nineties the magazine occasionally carried articles by
Marxists. In this period Russkaya Mysl published the democratic
writers D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, G. I. Uspensky, V. G. Korolenko,
A. M. Gorky, A. P. Chekhov, and others. After the Revolution of 1905 it
became the organ of the counter-revolutionary liberals and was edited by
P. B. Struve. It was an advocate of nationalism, reaction, and
clericalism, and it defended landlordism. Lenin termed the journal
“Black-Hundred Thought” (see present edition, Vol. 13, “Police-Patriotic Demonstration to Order”).

[9]
Karl Marx, Capital , Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 709-10.

[10]
Coloni— tenant farmers renting small parcels of land from
big landowners in the Roman Empire. The coloni paid in cash or
kind for the right to use the land. The coloni later became bound
serfs by virtue of their indebtedness to the landowners.

[11]
Karl Marx, Capital , Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 763-93.