"...turn to social science and its alleged conclusion that the capitalist system of society is irresistibly tending towards its own destruction by virtue of the contradictions developing within it. The necessary explanations we find in Kautsky's 'Erfurt Programme'" (p. 147). Before indicating the content of the passage cited by Mr. Prokopovich, let us note the following peculiarity, extremely characteristic of Mr. Prokopovich and those like him who would reform the theory. Why does our "critical investigator," in turning to "social science," seek "explanations" only in Kautsky's popular booklet? Does he really imagine that this booklet constitutes the whole of "social science"? He knows perfectly well that Kautsky is a "faithful guardian of Marx's traditions" (I, p. 187), that it is precisely in the latter's politico-economic treatises that one must seek the exposition and substantiation of the "conclusions" of a definite school of "social science," yet he proceeds as though he did not even know this. What are we to think of an "investigator" who confines himself to attacks on the "guardians" of a theory, never once in his whole book venturing to settle accounts openly and directly with the theory itself?

In the passage cited by Mr. Prokopovich, Kautsky speaks of the ever more rapid advance of the technological revolution and the accumulation of capital, of the need for expansion of production inherent in the very basic properties of capitalism, and of the necessarily continuous nature of this expansion, while the expansion of the market, meanwhile, "for a certain time proceeds too slowly"; "the moment seems to be near when the European industrial market will not only cease to expand further, but will even begin to contract. This event will mean nothing other than the bankruptcy of the entire capitalist society." Mr. Prokopovich "criticises" the "conclusions of social science" (i.e., Kautsky's indication of one of the laws of development deduced by Marx): "In this substantiation of the inevitability of the destruction of capitalist society, the main role is played by the opposition of 'the constant striving to expand production — to the increasingly slower expansion of the market and, finally, its contraction.' This contradiction, according to Kautsky, must destroy the capitalist system of society. But after all" (listen!) "the expansion of production presupposes 'productive consumption' of part of the surplus value — i.e., initially its realisation, then its expenditure on machinery, buildings, etc. for new production. In other words, the expansion of production is most intimately connected with the existence of a market for goods already produced; therefore the constant expansion of production with a relative contraction of the market is an impossible thing" (p. 148). And Mr. Prokopovich is so pleased with his excursion into the realm of "social science" that on the very next line he speaks with condescending disdain of the "scientific" (in quotation marks) substantiation of the faith, and so forth. Such cavalry-charge criticism would be revolting were it not above all and most of all amusing. The good Mr. Prokopovich has heard the bell ringing, but does not know where the sound comes from. Mr. Prokopovich has heard about the abstract theory of realisation, which has recently been hotly discussed in Russian literature, and in which the role of "productive consumption" has been particularly emphasised in view of the errors of Narodnik economics. Not having properly understood this theory, Mr. Prokopovich has imagined that it denies (!) those basic and elementary contradictions in capitalism which Kautsky points out here. If we were to take Mr. Prokopovich at his word, we should have to think that "productive consumption" can develop quite independently of personal consumption (and in personal consumption the predominant role is played by the consumption of the masses), i.e., that capitalism includes within itself no contradiction between production and consumption. This is simply absurd, and Marx and his Russian followers have expressly spoken against such a distortion. From the fact that "the expansion of production presupposes productive consumption," there not only does not follow the bourgeois-apologetic theory towards which our "critical investigator" is sliding, but, on the contrary, there follows precisely the contradiction inherent in capitalism and bound to lead to its destruction — the contradiction between the tendency towards the unlimited growth of production and the limited nature of consumption.

It is also worth noting the following interesting circumstance in connection with the above. Mr. Prokopovich is an ardent supporter of Bernstein, whose journal articles he cites and translates over several pages. Bernstein in his well-known book, "Die Voraussetzungen etc.," even recommends Mr. S. Prokopovich to the German public as his Russian follower, although he makes a reservation to the effect that Mr. Prokopovich is more of a Bernsteinian than Bernstein himself. And now, curiously enough, both Bernstein and his Russian imitator distort the theory of realisation, but in diametrically opposite directions, so that they mutually refute each other. Bernstein, firstly, detected a "contradiction" in Marx in the fact that, while opposing the crisis theory of Rodbertus, Marx at the same time declares "the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses" to be "the ultimate cause of all real crises." In reality, however, there is no contradiction here, as I have already had occasion to show elsewhere ("Studies," p. 30; "The Development of Capitalism in Russia," p. 19). Secondly, Bernstein reasons in exactly the same way as our Mr. V. V., that the enormous growth of the surplus product must necessarily mean an increase in the number of propertied people (or a rise in the welfare of the workers), for the capitalists themselves and their servants (sic!) cannot, after all, "consume" the entire surplus product ("Die Voraussetzungen etc.," pp. 51–52). This naive reasoning completely ignores the role of productive consumption, as Kautsky pointed out in his book against Bernstein (Kautsky: "Gegen Bernstein," Abschnitt III — the paragraph on the "use of surplus value"). But now comes the Russian Bernsteinian recommended by Bernstein, and says precisely the opposite, reads Kautsky a lesson about the role of "productive consumption," and in doing so exaggerates Marx's discovery to such an absurdity as to suggest that productive consumption can develop quite independently of personal consumption! As though the realisation of surplus value by converting it into the production of means of production eliminates the dependence in the last analysis of production on consumption, and consequently the contradiction between the first and the second! The reader can judge from this example whether it is really "investigations" that have caused Mr. Prokopovich to "lose a good half of his theoretical premises," or whether this "bewilderment" of our "critical investigator" is due to some other causes.

Another example. In three small pages (pp. 25–27) our author has "investigated" the question of peasant co-operatives in Germany. Having given a list of various kinds of co-operatives and statistical data on their rapid development (especially dairy co-operatives), Mr. Prokopovich reasons: "Whereas the artisan has already almost been deprived of roots in the modern economic system, the peasant continues to hold firmly (!) in it." Is it not simple? The underfed condition of German peasants, their exhaustion through excessive labour, the mass flight from the villages to the cities — all this is apparently an invention. It is sufficient to point to the rapid growth of co-operatives (especially dairy co-operatives, which lead to the taking of milk from peasant children and the strengthening of the dependence of peasants on capitalists) in order to prove the "firmness" of the peasantry. "The development of capitalist relations in manufacturing industry, while ruining the artisan, improves the position of the peasant. It prevents the penetration of capitalism into agriculture." How novel! Until now it was thought that it is precisely the development of capitalism in manufacturing industry that is the main force engendering and developing capitalism in agriculture. But Mr. Prokopovich, like his German models, could with full right say of himself: nous avons changé tout ça — we have changed all that! But is that really so, gentlemen? Have you really changed anything at all, have you really proved the fallacy of even one basic proposition of the theory you are "demolishing" and replaced it with a more correct one? Have you not, on the contrary, been returning to old prejudices?

..."On the other hand, the development of manufacturing industry provides the peasant with supplementary earnings"... The revival of the doctrine of Mr. V. V. and company about the supplementary earnings of the peasantry! That these "earnings" in the majority of cases signify the transformation of the peasant into a wage-worker — this Mr. Prokopovich considers superfluous to mention. He prefers to conclude his "investigation" with the resounding phrase: "The vital juices have not yet deserted the peasant class." True, it was precisely in relation to Germany that Kautsky showed that agricultural co-operatives are a transitional stage to capitalism — but then we have already seen how the terrible Mr. Prokopovich has demolished Kautsky!

The revival of Narodnik views (Narodnik views precisely of the shade of Mr. V. V.) we see not only in the above-mentioned passage, but also in very many other passages of the "critical investigation" of Mr. Prokopovich. The reader probably knows what notoriety (unenviable notoriety) Mr. V. V. has won for himself by his immoderate narrowing and vulgarisation of the doctrine of so-called "economic" materialism: in Mr. V. V.'s "revision" this doctrine consisted not in that all factors are reduced in the last analysis to the development of the productive forces, but in that one can neglect many extremely important (although derivative in the last analysis) factors. A precisely similar distortion is offered to us by Mr. Prokopovich, who attempts to convict Kautsky of allegedly failing to understand the significance of "material forces" (p. 144), while Mr. Prokopovich himself carelessly confuses "economic organisations" (p. 145) with "economic force" (pp. 146 and 149 especially). We cannot, unfortunately, dwell with sufficient detail on an analysis of this error of Mr. Prokopovich, and must refer the reader to the above-mentioned book of Kautsky against Bernstein (Abschnitt III, § a), where the originals of Mr. Prokopovich's imitations are examined in detail. We also hope that the reader who carefully reads Mr. Prokopovich's book will easily see that the theory which is being "demolished" by our "critical investigator" (Mr. Prokopovich here too, however, modestly keeps silent about the views of the founders of the theory and refrains from examining them, preferring to confine himself to excerpts from speeches and articles of the modern adherents of this theory) — that this theory is wholly guiltless of this disgraceful narrowing of "economic" materialism (cf., for example, the statements of authoritative Belgian figures on pp. 74, 90, 92, 100 in Part Two).

In what relation to the views of the majority of those West European figures about whom our brave critic bravely writes stands the "freedom from lack of principle"... that is to say, the "freedom of science" preached by Mr. Prokopovich — this is evident from the following quotations from Mr. Prokopovich's own book: ... "Of course, without betraying principles" (p. 159)... "Without in any way violating his independence, fidelity to principles"... "I deny compromise only in the case... if it leads to the renunciation of principles or even to the hushing up of principles" (p. 171)... "Without introducing unprincipledness" (p. 174)... "Of course, without selling one's soul, in the given case — principles" (p. 176)... "Now principles have been firmly established" (p. 183)... (There is need for) "a compass which would save from groping in the dark," against "short-sighted empiricism," against "being careless about principles" (p. 195)... "The chief significance belongs to the principled, theoretical part"... (p. 103 of Part II), etc.

In conclusion — another couple of quotations: "If German Social-Democracy were an expression of socialism, and not of the proletariat coming out in defence of its interests in modern society, a proletariat for the first time recognising its significance, then — since not all Germans are idealists — alongside this party pursuing idealistic aims we should see an even more powerful party — a labour party representing the practical interests of the non-idealist section of the German proletariat"... "If socialism played in this movement not the role of a mere label distinguishing one particular organisation, if it were a moving idea, a principle demanding from party members a definite specific service — in that case the socialist party would separate from the general workers' party, and the mass of the proletariat, striving for a better arrangement on the basis of the existing order and thinking little about the ideal future, would form an independent labour party." The reader will probably again think that these are quotations from Mr. Prokopovich's investigation? No, they are quotations from "Sketches of Theoretical Economics" by Mr. V. V. (St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 248, 249–250). "Our well-known" Mr. V. V. anticipated as long ago as five years the results of the latest "critical investigation" of Mr. Prokopovich...

Enough, however. We should, of course, not have devoted so much time to such an "investigation," repeating the well-known refrain: "our time is not a time for broad tasks," repeating the preaching of "small deeds" and "gratifying phenomena," had not the name of Mr. S. Prokopovich been already recommended to the whole of Europe, had "bewilderment" not been elevated by many in our day to something like a merit, had the fashion not been spreading of kicking "orthodoxy" and "dogma" in passing...

Written at the end of 1899.

First published in 1928 in Lenin Miscellany VII.

Printed from the manuscript.