The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter V. The First Stages of Capitalism in Industry

II. Small Commodity-Producers In Industry. The Craft Spirit In
The Small Industries

We have seen that the artisan appears on the market, although not with the
wares he produces. Naturally, once he comes into contact with the market,
he begins in time to produce for the market, i.e., becomes a commodity producer . This transition takes place gradually, at first as an
experiment: goods are sold which are left on his hands by chance, or are
produced in his spare time. The gradualness of the transition is
heightened by the fact that the market for wares is at first extremely
restricted, so that the distance between the producer and the consumer
increases very slightly, and the product passes as hitherto directly from
the producer to the consumer, its sale sometimes being preceded by its
exchange for agricultural produce. [1]

The further development of commodity production is expressed in the expansion of
commerce in the appearance of specialist merchants, buyers-up; the market
for wares is not the small village bazaar or the district fair, [2] but the whole region,
then the whole country, and sometimes even other countries. The production
of industrial wares in the shape of commodities is the first step to the
separation of industry from agriculture, and to mutual exchange between
them. Mr. N.-on, with his characteristically stereotyped and abstract way
of understanding things, limits himself to declaring that the
“separation of industry from agriculture” is a quality of
“capitalism” in general, without taking the trouble to examine
either the different forms of this separation or the different stages of
capitalism. It is important to note, therefore, that commodity production
on the smallest scale in the peasant industries already begins to separate
industry from agriculture, although at that stage of development the
industrialist does not, in the majority of cases, separate from the
agriculturist. Later on we shall show how the more developed stages of
capitalism lead to the separation of industrial from agricultural
enterprises, to the separation of industrial workers from agriculturists.

In the rudimentary forms of commodity production, competition among the
“handicraftsmen” is still very slight, but as the market
expands and embraces wide areas, this competition grows steadily stronger
and disturbs the small industrialist’s patriarchal prosperity, the
basis of which is his virtually monopolist position. The small
commodity-producer feels that his interests, as opposed to the interests
of the rest of society, demand the preservation of this monopolist
position, and he therefore fears competition. He exerts every
effort, individually and with others, to check competition, “not to
let” rivals into his district, and to consolidate his assured
position as a small master possessing a definite circle of customers. This fear of competition so strikingly
reveals the true social nature of the small commodity-producer that we
think it necessary to examine the relative facts in greater detail. In the
first place, let us quote an example relative to handicraft. The Kaluga
sheepskin dressers go off to other gubernias to treat sheepskins; this
industry has declined since the abolition of serfdom; the landlords, when
they released serfs for “sheepskinning,” in return for a
sizable tribute, took great care that the sheepskinners knew their
“definite places” and did not permit other dressers to invade
their districts. Organised on these lines the industry was so profitable
that “places” were transferred for as much as 500 and 1,000
rubles, and if an artisan came to a district other than his own, it
sometimes led to sanguinary clashes. The abolition of serfdom undermined
this medieval prosperity: “the convenience of railway travel in this
case also aids competition.” [3]

One of the phenomena of the same type observed in a number of industries and bearing fully the character of a general rule,
is the desire of the small industrialists to keep technical inventions and
improvements secret, to conceal profitable occupations from others, in
order to stave off “fatal competition.” Those who establish a
new industry or introduce some improvement in an old one, do their utmost
to conceal these profitable occupations from their fellow-villagers and
resort to all sorts of devices for this purpose (e.g., as a make-believe
they keep the old arrangements in the establishment), let no one enter
their workshops, work in garrets and say nothing about their work even to
their own children. [4]

The slow development of the brush-making industry in Moscow Gubernia “is usually attributed to
the present producers’ objection to having new competitors. It is
said that they do all they can to conceal their work from strangers, and
so only one producer has apprentices from outside.” [5]

Concerning the village of Bezvodnoye, Nizhni-Novgorod Gubernia, famous for its metalware
industry, we read the following: “It is remarkable that to this
day” (the beginning of the 80s; the industry has existed since the
beginning of the 50s) “the inhabitants of Bezvodnoye carefully
conceal their craft from the neighbouring peasants. They have made more
than one attempt to induce the volost administration to issue an
instruction making it a punishable offence to carry the craft to another
village; though they have failed to get this formality adopted, each of
them seems to be morally bound by such an instruction, in virtue of which
they refrain from giving their daughters in marriage to inhabitants of
neighbouring villages, and as far as possible avoid taking girls in
marriage from those villages.” [6]

The Narodnik economists have not only tried to obscure the fact that the
bulk of the small peasant industrialists belong to the category of
commodity-producers, but have even created quite a legend about some
profound antagonism allegedly existing between the economic organisation
of the small peasant industries and large-scale industry. The unsoundness
of this view is also evident, by the way, from the above-quoted data. If
the big industrialist stops at nothing to ensure himself a monopoly, the
peasant engaging in “handicrafts” is in this respect his twin
brother; the petty bourgeois endeavours with his petty resources to uphold
substantially the same class interests the big manufacturer seeks to
protect when he clamours for protection, bonuses, privileges, etc. [7]

---
Notes:
[1]
E.g., the exchange of earthenware utensils for grain, etc. When grain was
cheap the equivalent of a pot was sometimes considered to be the amount of
grain the pot would hold. Cf. Reports and Investigations , I,
340.— Industries of Vladimir Gubernia , V, 140.— Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , I, 61.— Lenin

[2]
An investigation of one of these country fairs showed that 31% of the
total turnover (about 15,000 rubles out of 50,000 rubles) was accounted
for by “handicraft” goods. See Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , I, 38. How restricted the market is at first
for the small commodity-producers is seen, for example, from the fact that
the Poltava boot-makers sell their wares within a radius of some 60 vorsts
from their village, Reports and Investigations , I, 287.— Lenin

[3]
Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , I, 35-36.— Lenin

[4]
See Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , I, 81. V, 460; IX,
25-26.— Industries of Moscow Gubernia , Vol. VI, Pt. 1,
6-7; 253; Vol. VI, Pt. 2, 142; Vol. VII, Pt. 1, Sec. 2 about the founder
of the “printing industry.” Industries of Vladimir Gubernia , I, 145, 149.— Reports and Investigations ,
1, 89.—Grigoryev: Handicraft Lock- and Cutlery-Making in Pavlow District (Supplement to Volga publication, Moscow,
1881), p. 39.—Mr V. V. cited some of these facts in his Essay on Handicraft Industry (St. Petersburg, 1886), p. 192 and foll.;
the only conclusion he draws from them is that the handicraftsmen are
not afraid of innovations; it never enters his head that these facts
characterise the class position and the class interests of the small
commodity-producers in contemporary society.— Lenin

[5]
Industries of Moscow Gubernia, VI, 2, 193.— Lenin

[6]
Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , IX, 2404.— Lenin

[7]
Sensing that competition will be fatal to him, the petty bourgeois strives
to stave it off, just as his ideologist, the Narodnik, senses that
capitalism is fatal to the “foundations” so dear to his heart,
and for that reason strives to “avert,” to prevent, to stave
off, etc., etc.— Lenin