The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter V. The First Stages of Capitalism in Industry

IV. The Differentiation Of The Small Commodity-Producers. Data
On House-To-House Censuses Of Handicraftsmen In Moscow Gubernia

Let us now examine the social and economic relations that develop among
the small commodity-producers in industry. The task of defining the
character of these relations is similar to the one outlined above, in
Chapter II, in relation to the small farmers. Instead of the scale of
farming, we must now take as our basis the size of the industrial
establishments; we must classify the small industrialists according to the
size of their output, ascertain the part wage-labour plays in each group,
the conditions of technique, etc. [1]

The handicraft house-to-house censuses that we need for such an analysis are available for Moscow

Gubernia. [2]

For

a number of industries the investigators quote precise statistics on
output, and sometimes also on the farms of each separate craftsman (date
of origin of establishment, number of workers, family and hired, total
annual output, number of horses owned by craftsmen, method of cultivating
the soil, etc.). The investigators provide no classified tables, however,
and we have therefore been obliged to compile them ourselves, dividing the
craftsmen in each industry into grades (I, bottom; II, middle and III,
top) according to the number of workers (family and hired) per
establishment, and sometimes according to the volume of output, technical
organisation, etc. In general, the criteria according to which the
craftsmen have been divided into grades are based on all the data given in
the description of the industry; but in different industries we have found
it necessary to take different criteria for dividing the craftsmen into
grades. For example, in very small industries we have placed in the bottom
grade establishments with 1 worker, in the middle grade those with 2, and
in the top grade those with 3 and more; whereas in the bigger industries
we have placed in the bottom grade establishments with 1 to 5 workers, in
the middle grade those with 6 to 10, etc. Had we not employed different
methods of classification we could not have presented for each industry
data concerning establishments of different size. The table drawn up on
these lines is given in the Appendix (see Appendix I); it shows the
criteria according to which the craftsmen in each industry are divided up
into grades, gives for each grade in each industry absolute figures of the
number of establishments, workers (family and hired combined), aggregate
output, establishments employing wage-workers, number of wage-workers. To
describe the farms of the handicraftsmen we have calculated the average
number of horses per peasant household in each grade and the percentage of
craftsmen who cultivate their land with the aid of “a labourer” (i.e., resort to the hire of rural workers). The table covers a total of 37
industries, with 2,278 establishments and 11,833 employed and an aggregate
output valued at over 5 million rubles; but if we subtract the 4
industries not included in the general list because of incompleteness of
data, or because of their exceptional character, [3] there is a total of 33 industries, 2,085
establishments, 9,427 workers and an aggregate output of 3,466,000 rubles,
or, with corrections (in the case of 2 industries), about 3 3/4 million
rubles.

Since there is no need to examine the data for all the 33 industries, and
as it would be too arduous a task, we have divided these industries into
four categories: 1) 9 industries with an average of 1.6 to 2.5 workers
(family and hired combined) per establishment; 2) 9 industries with an
average of 2.7 to 4.4 workers; 3) 10 industries with an average of 5.1 to
8.4 workers; and 4) 5 industries with an average of 11.5 to 17.8
workers. Thus, in each category we have combined industries that are
fairly similar as regards the number of workers per establishment, and in
our further exposition we shall limit ourselves to the data for these four
categories of industries. We give these data in extenso . (See
Table on p. 347.)

This table combines those principal data on the relations between the top
and bottom grades of handicrafts men that will serve us for our subsequent
conclusions. We can illustrate the summarised data for all four categories
with a chart drawn up in exactly the same way as the one with which, in
Chapter II, we illustrated the differentiation of the agricultural
peasantry. We ascertain what percentage each grade constitutes of the
total number of establishments, of the total number of family workers, of
the total number of establishments with wage-workers, of the total number
of workers (family and wage combined), of the aggregate output and of the
total number of wage-workers, and we indicate these percentages (in the
manner described in Chapter II) on the chart (see chart on p. 349).

Let us now examine the conclusions to be drawn from these data.

We begin with the role of wage-labour. In the 33 industries wage-labour
predominates over family labour: 51% of the workers are hired; for the
“handicraftsmen” of Moscow Gubernia this percentage is even
lower than the actual one. We have computed the data for 54 industries of
Moscow Gubernia for which exact figures as to wage-workers employed are
available, and got the figure of 17,566 wage-workers out of a total of
29,446 workers, i.e., 59.65%. For Perm Gubernia the percentage of
wage-workers among all handicraftsmen and artisans combined was
established as 24.5%, and among commodity-producers alone, as from 29.4 to
31.2%. But these gross figures, as we shall see below, embrace not only
small commodity-producers, but also capitalist manufacture. Far more
interesting, therefore, is the conclusion that the role of wage-labour
rises parallel to the increase in the size of establishments: this is
observed both in comparing one category with another and in comparing the
different grades in the same category. The larger the establishments, the
higher the percentage of those employing wage-workers and the higher the
percentage of wage-workers. The Narodnik economists usually limit
themselves to declaring that among the “handicraftsmen” small
establishments with exclusively family workers prevail, and in support of
this often cite “average” figures. As is evident from the data
given, these “averages” are unsuitable for characterising the
phenomenon in this regard, and the numerical preponderance of small
establishments with family workers does not in the least eliminate the
basic fact that the tendency of small commodity production is towards the ever-growing employment of wage-labour , towards the formation of capitalist workshops . Moreover, the data cited also refute
another, no less widespread, Narodnik assertion, namely, that wage-labour
in “handicraft” production really serves to “supplement” family labour, that it is resorted to not for the
purpose of profit-making, etc. [4]

Actually, however, it turns out that among the small industrialists—just as among the small agriculturists—the
growing employment of wage-labour runs parallel to the increase in the number of family workers . In the majority of industries we see that
the employment of wage-labour increases as we pass from the bottom grade
to the top, notwithstanding the fact that the number of family
workers per establishment also increases. The employment of wage-labour
does not smooth out differences in the size of the “handicraftsmen’s” families, but accentuates them. The
chart very clearly shows this common feature of the small industries: the
top grade employs the bulk of the wage-workers, despite the fact that it
is best provided with family workers. “ Family co-operation ” is thus the basis of capitalist co-operation . [5]

It goes without saying, of course, that this “law” applies only to the
smallest commodity-producers, only to the rudiments of capitalism; this
law proves that the tendency of the peasantry is to turn into petty
bourgeois. As soon as workshops with a fairly large number of wage-workers
arise, the significance of “family co-operation” must inevitably decline. And we see, indeed, from our data that this law does
not apply to the biggest grades of the top categories. When the
“handicraftsman” turns into a real capitalist employing from
15 to 30 wage-workers, the part played by family labour in his workshops
declines and becomes quite insignificant (for example, in the top grade of
the top category, family workers constitute only 7% of the total number of
workers). In other words, to the extent that the “handicraft”
industries are so small that “family co-operation” predominates in them, this family co-operation is the surest guarantee of
the development of capitalist co-operation. Here, consequently, stand out
in full relief the dialectics of commodity production, which transform
“working with our own hands” into working with others’ hands, into exploitation.

Let us pass to the data on productivity of labour. The data on total
output per worker in each grade show that with the increase in the size of the establishment labour productivity improves . This is to be
observed in the overwhelming majority of the industries, and in all categories of industries without
exception; the chart graphically illustrates this law, showing that the
share of the top grade in total output is greater than is its share in the
total number of workers; in the bottom grade the reverse is the case. The
total output per worker in the establishments of the top grades is from 20
to 40 per cent higher than that in the bottom grade establishments. It is
true that the big establishments usually have a longer working period and
sometimes handle more valuable material than do the small ones, but these
two circumstances cannot eliminate the fact that labour productivity is
considerably higher in the big workshops than in the small ones. [6]

Nor can it be otherwise. The big establishments have from 3 to 5 times as many workers
(family and hired combined) as the small ones, and co-operation on a
larger scale cannot but increase the productivity of labour. The big
workshops are always better equipped technically, they have better
implements, tools, accessories, machines, etc. For example, in the brush
industry, a “properly organised workshop” must have as many as
15 workers, and in hook-making 9 to 10 workers. In the toy industry the
majority of handicraftsmen make shift with ordinary stoves for drying
their goods; the bigger toy-makers have special drying ovens, and the
biggest makers have special drying premises. In metal toy-making, 8 makers
out of 16 have special workshops, divided as follows: I) 6 have none; II)
5 have 3; and III) 5 have 5. A total of 142 mirror and picture-frame
makers have 18 special workshops, the figures by grades being: I) 99 have
3; II) 27 have 4; and III) 16 have 11. In the screen-plaiting industry
screens are plaited by hand (in grade I), and woven mechanically (in
grades II and III). In the tailoring industry the number of
sewing-machines per owner according to grade is as follows: I) 1.3; II)
2.1; and III) 3.4, etc., etc. In investigating the furniture industry,
Mr. Isayev notes that the one-man business suffers the following
disadvantages: 1) lack of a complete set of tools; 2) limited assortment of articles made, because
there is no room in the craftsman’s hut for bulky articles; 3) much
higher cost of materials when bought retail (30 to 35% higher); 4)
necessity of selling wares cheaper, partly due to lack of confidence in
the small “handicraftsman” and partly to his need of money. [7]

It is well known that exactly the same sort of thing is to be observed not only in
the furniture industry, but also in the vast majority of small peasant
industries. Lastly, it must be added that the value of the goods produced
per worker not only increases from the bottom to the top grade in the
majority of industries, but also from the small to the big industries. In
the first category of industries the average output per worker is 202
rubles, in the second and third about 400 rubles, and in the fourth over
500 rubles (the figure 381 should, for the reason stated above, be
increased by about fifty per cent). This circumstance points to the
connection between the rise in the price of raw materials and the ousting
of the small establishments by the big ones. Every step in the development
of capitalist society is inevitably accompanied by a rise in the price of
such materials as timber, etc., and thus hastens the doom of the small
establishments.

From the foregoing it follows that the relatively big capitalist
establishments also play a tremendous part in the small peasant
industries. While constituting a small minority of the total number of
establishments, they concentrate, however, quite a big share of the total
number of workers, and a still bigger share of the total output. Thus, in
33 industries of Moscow Gubernia, the top-grade establishments,
constituting 15% of the total, account for 45% of the aggregate output;
while the bottom-grade establishments, constituting 53% of the total,
account for only 21% of the aggregate output. It goes without saying that
the distribution of the net income from the industries must be far more
uneven. The data of the Perm handicraft census of 1894-95 clearly
illustrate this. Selecting the largest establishments in 7 industries we get the following picture of the
relations between the small and big establishments. [8]

An insignificant number of big establishments (less than 1/10 of the total
number), which employ about 1/5 of the total number of workers, account
for almost half the total output and nearly 2/5 of the total income
(combining the workers’ wages and the employers’ incomes). The
small proprietors obtain a net income considerably below the wages of the
hired workers employed in the big establishments; elsewhere we have shown
in detail that this phenomenon is no exception but is a general rule for
small peasant industries. [9]

Summing up the conclusions that follow from the data we have analysed, we
must say that the economic system of the small peasant industries is
typically petty bourgeois, the same as that which we have seen among the
small farmers. The expansion, development and improvement of the small
peasant industries cannot take place in the present social and economic
atmosphere except by generating a minority of small capitalists on the one
hand, and a majority of wage-workers, or of “independent
craftsmen” who lead a harder and worse life than the wage-workers,
on the other. We observe, consequently, in the smallest peasant industries
the most pronounced rudiments of capitalism—of that very capitalism
which various economists of the

Manilov [11] type depict as something divorced from “people’s production.” From the viewpoint of the home
market theory the facts we have examined are also of no little
importance. The development of small peasant industries leads to an
expansion of the demand by the more prosperous industrialists for means of
production and for labour-power, which is drawn from the ranks of the
rural proletariat. The number of wage-workers employed by village artisans
and small industrialists all over Russia should be quite impressive, if in
the Perm Gubernia alone, for example, there are about

6,500. [10]

---
Notes:
[1]
Describing “handicraft” industry in Chernigov Gubernia,
Mr. Varzer notes “the variety of economic units” (on the one
hand families with incomes from 500 to 800 rubles, and on the other,
“almost paupers”) and makes the following observation:
“Under such circumstances, the only way to present a full picture of
the economic life of the craftsmen is to make a house-to-house inventory
and to classify their establishments in a number of average types with all
their accessories. Anything else will be either a fantasy of casual
impressions or arm-chair exercises in arithmetical calculations based on a
diversity of average norms. . . “ ( Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , Vol. V, p. 354).— Lenin

[2]
Statistical Returns for Moscow Gubernia , Vols. VI and
VII. Industries of Moscow Gubernia , and A. Isayev’s
Industries of Moscow Gubernia , Moscow, 1876-1877, 2 vols. For a
small number of industries similar information is given in Industries of
Vladimir Gubernia . It goes without saying that in the present
chapter we confine ourselves to an examination of only those industries in
which the small commodity-producers work for the market and not for
buyers-up,—at all events, in the overwhelming majority of
cases. Work for buyers-up is a more complicated phenomenon, one that we
shall examine separately later on. The house-to-house censuses of
handicraftsmen who work for buyers-up are unsuitable for judging the
relations existing among small commodity-producers.— Lenin

[3]
On these grounds the pottery “industry,” in which 20 establishments employ 1,817 wage-workers, has been excluded. It is
characteristic of the confusion of terms prevailing among us that the
Moscow statisticians included this industry, too, among the
“handicraft” industries (see combined tables in Part III of
Vol. VII, loc . cit .).— Lenin

[4]
See, for example, Statistical Returns for Moscow Gubernia ,
Vol. VI, Pt. 1, p. 21.— Lenin

[5]
The same conclusion follows from the data regarding the Perm
“handicraftsmen”, see our Studies , pp. 126-128. (See present edition, Vol. 2, The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm Gubernia .— Ed .)— Lenin

[6]
For the starch-making industry, which is included in our tables, data are
available on the duration of the working period in establishments of
various sizes. It appears (as we have seen above) that even in an equal
period the output per worker in a big establishment is higher than that in
a small one.— Lenin

[7]
The small producer tries to make up for these unfavourable conditions by
working longer hours and with greater intensity (loc cit., p 38). Under
commodity production, the small producer both in agriculture and in
industry carries on only by cutting down his requirements.— Lenin

[8]
See our Studies , p. l53 and foll. (see present edition, Vol. 2,
The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm Gubernia .— Ed .) where data are given for each industry
separately. Let us note that all these data refer to handicraftsmen
cultivators who work for the market.— Lenin

[9]
From the data given in the text it can be seen that in the small peasant
industries a tremendous, and even predominant, part is played by
establishments with an output exceeding 1,000 rubles. Let us recall that
in our official statistics establishments of this kind have always been,
and still are, classed among “factories and works”
[cf. Studies , pp. 267 and 270 (see present edition, Vol, 4,
“On the Question of Our Factory Statistics.” Ed .) and
Chapter VII, § II]. Thus, if we thought it permissible for an economist to
use the current, traditional terminology beyond which our Narodniks have
never gone, we would be entitled to establish the following
“law”: among peasant “handicraft” establishments a predominant part is played by “factories and works,” not
included in official statistics because of their unsatisfactory nature.— Lenin

[10]
Let us add that in other gubernias, besides Moscow and Perm, the sources
note quite analogous relations among the small commodity producers. See,
for instance, Industries of Vladimir Gubernia , Vol. II,
house-to-house censuses of shoemakers and fullers; Transactions of the Handicraft Commission , Vol II—on the wheelwrights of Medyn
Uyezd; Vol. II—on the sheepskin dressers of the same uyezd;
Vol. III—on the furriers of Arzamas Uyezd, Vol. IV—on the
fullers of Semyonov Uyezd and on the tanners of Vasil Uyezd,
etc. Cf. Nizhni-Novgorod Handbook , Vol. IV,
p. 137,—A. S. Gatsisky’s general remarks about the small
industries speak of the rise of big workshops. Cf, Annensky’s report
on the Pavlovo handicraftsmen (mentioned above), on the classification of
families according to weekly earnings, etc. etc. All these sources differ
from the house-to-house census data we have examined only in their
incompleteness and poverty. The essence of the matter, however, is
identical everywhere.— Lenin

[11]
Manilov —a character in Gogol’s Dead Souls , typifying the weak willed, hollow dreamer and inert windbag. [p. 355]