The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter VIII. The Formation of the Home Market

VI. The “Mission” of Capitalism

We still have, in conclusion, to sum up on the question which in
literature has come to be known as that of the “mission” of
capitalism, i.e., of its historical role in the economic development of
Russia. Recognition of the progressiveness of this role is quite
compatible (as we have tried to show in detail at every stage in our
exposition of the facts) with the full recognition of the negative and
dark sides of capitalism, with the full recognition of the profound and
all-round social contradictions which are inevitably inherent in
capitalism, and which reveal the historically transient character of this
economic regime. It is the Narodniks—who exert every effort to show
that an admission of the historically progressive nature of capitalism
means an apology for capitalism—who are at fault in underrating (and
some times in even ignoring) the most profound contradictions of Russian
capitalism, by glossing over the differentiation of the peasantry, the
capitalist character of the evolution of our agriculture, and the rise of
a class of rural and industrial allotment-holding wage-labourers, by
glossing over the complete predominance of the lowest and worst forms of
capitalism in the celebrated “handicraft” industries.

The progressive historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two
brief propositions: increase in the productive forces of social labour,
and the socialisation of that labour. But both these facts manifest
themselves in extremely diverse processes in different branches of the
national economy.

The development of the productive forces of social labour is to be
observed in full relief only in the epoch of large-scale machine
industry. Until that highest stage of capitalism was reached, there still
remained hand production and primitive technique, which developed quite
spontaneously and exceedingly slowly. The post-Reform epoch differs
radically in this respect from previous epochs in Russian history. The Russia of the
wooden plough and the flail, of the water-mill and the hand-loom, began
rapidly to be transformed into the Russia of the iron plough and the
threshing machine, of the steam-mill and the power-loom. An equally
thorough transformation of technique is seen in every branch of the
national economy where capitalist production predominates. This process of
transformation must, by the very nature of capitalism, take place in the
midst of much that is uneven and disproportionate: periods of prosperity
alternate with periods of crisis, the development of one industry leads to
the decline of another, there is progress in one aspect of agriculture in
one area and in another aspect in another area, the growth of trade and
industry outstrips the growth of agriculture, etc. A large number of
errors made by Narodnik writers spring from their efforts to prove that
this disproportionate, spasmodic, feverish development is not development. [1]

Another feature of the development by capitalism of the social productive
forces is that the growth of the means of production (productive
consumption) outstrips by far the growth of personal consumption: we have
indicated on more than one occasion how this is manifested in agriculture
and in industry. This feature springs from the general laws of the realisation of the product in capitalist society, and fully
conforms to the antagonistic nature of this society. [2]

The socialisation of labour by capitalism is manifested in the following
processes. Firstly, the very growth of commodity-production destroys the
scattered condition of small economic units that is characteristic of
natural economy and draws together the small local markets into an
enormous national (and then world) market. Production for oneself is
transformed into production for the whole of society; and the greater the
development of capitalism, the stronger becomes the contradiction between
this collective character of production and the individual character of
appropriation. Secondly, capitalism replaces the former scattered
production by an unprecedented concentration both in agriculture and in
industry. That is the most striking and outstanding, but not the only,
manifestation of the feature of capitalism under review. Thirdly,
capitalism eliminates the forms of personal dependence that constituted an
inalienable component of preceding systems of economy. In Russia, the
progressive character of capitalism in this respect is particularly
marked, since the personal dependence of the producer existed in our
country (and partly continues to exist to this day), not only in
agriculture, but in manufacturing industry (“factories”
employing serf labour), in the mining and metallurgical industries, in the
fishing industry, etc. [3]

Compared with the labour of the dependent or bonded peasant, the labour of the hired
worker is progressive in all branches of the national economy. Fourthly,
capitalism necessarily creates mobility of the population, something not
required by previous systems of social economy and impossible under them
on anything like a large scale. Fifthly, capitalism constantly reduces the
proportion of the population engaged in agriculture (where the most
backward forms of social and economic relationships always prevail), and
increases the number of large industrial centres. Sixthly, capitalist
society increases the population’s need for association, for
organisation, and lends these organisations a character distinct from
those of former times. While breaking down the narrow, local,
social-estate associations of medieval society and creating fierce
competition, capitalism at the same time splits the whole of society into
large groups of persons occupying different positions in production, and
gives a tremendous impetus to organisation within each such group. [4]

Seventhly, all the above-mentioned changes effected in the old economic system by
capitalism inevitably lead also to a change in the mentality of the
population. The spasmodic character of economic development, the rapid
transformation of the methods of production and the enormous concentration
of production, the disappearance of all forms of personal dependence and
patriarchalism in relationships, the mobility of the population, the
influence of the big industrial centres, etc.—all this cannot but
lead to a profound change in the very character of the producers, and we have had occasion to note the corresponding observations of Russian
investigators.

Turning now to Narodnik economics, with whose representatives we have
constantly had to polemise, we may sum up the causes of our differences
with them as follows. First, we cannot but regard as absolutely wrong the
Narodniks’ very conception of the process of capitalist development
in Russia, and their notion of the system of economic relationships that
preceded capitalism in Russia; and what is particularly important, from
our point of view, is their ignoring of the capitalist contradictions in
the structure of peasant economy (both agricultural and
industrial). Furthermore, whether the development of capitalism in Russia
is slow or rapid, depends entirely on what we compare this development
with. If we compare the pre-capitalist epoch in Russia with the capitalist
(and that is the comparison which is needed for arriving at a correct
solution of the problem), the development of social economy under
capitalism must be considered as extremely rapid. If, however, we compare
the present rapidity of development with that which could be achieved with
the general level of technique and culture as it is today, the present
rate of development of capitalism in Russia really must be considered as
slow. And it cannot but be slow, for in no single capitalist country has
there been such an abundant survival of ancient institutions that are
incompatible with capitalism, retard its development, and immeasurably
worsen the condition of the producers, who “suffer not only from the
development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of
that

development.” [5] Finally, perhaps the profoundest cause of
disagreement with the Narodniks is the difference in our fundamental views
on social and economic processes. When studying the latter, the Narodnik
usually draws conclusions that point to some moral; he does not regard the
diverse groups of persons taking part in production as creators of various
forms of life; he does not set out to present the sum-total of social and
economic relationships as the result of the mutual relations between these
groups, which have different interests and different historical
roles. . . . If the writer of these lines has succeeded in providing some
material for clarifying these problems, he may regard his labours as not
having been fruitless.

---
Notes:
[1]
“Let us see what the further development of capitalism could bring
even if we succeeded in sinking Britain to the bottom of the sea and in
taking her place” (Mr. N.–on, Sketches , 210). The cotton
industry of Britain and America, which meets 2/3 of the world’s
demand, employs only a little over 600,000 people all told. “And it
follows, that even if we got a considerable part of the world market...
capitalism would still be unable to exploit the whole mass of labouring
people which it is now continuously depriving of employment. What, indeed,
are some 600,000 British and American workers compared with millions of
peasants left for months on end without employment?” (211).

“History has gone on till now, but goes on no longer.” Till
now every step in the development of capitalism in the textile industry
has been accompanied by the differentiation of the peasantry, by the
growth of commercial agriculture and agricultural capitalism, by the
diversion of population from agriculture to industry, by “millions
of peasants” turning to building, lumbering and all sorts of other
non-agricultural work for hire, by the migration of masses of people to
the outer regions and by the conversion of these regions into a market for
capitalism. All this, however, has only gone on till now; nothing of the
sort occurs any longer!— Lenin

[2]
His ignoring of the significance of the means of production and his
careless attitude to “statistics” have led to the following
utterly untenable statement by Mr. N.–on: “. . . all (!)
capitalist production in the sphere of manufacturing industry at most
produces new values to the amount of not more than 400 to 500 million
rubles” ( Sketches , 328). Mr. N.–on bases this calculation
on the returns of the three-per-cent tax and the extra profits tax,
without stopping to think whether such returns can cover “all
capitalist production in the sphere of manufacturing industry.”
Moreover, he takes returns which (on his own admission) do not cover the
mining and metallurgical industries, and yet he includes in “new
values” only surplus-value and variable capital. Our theoretician
has forgotten that, in those branches of industry which produce goods for
personal consumption, constant capital also represents new value for society and is exchanged for the variable capital and surplus-value
of those branches of industry which produce means of production (mining
and metallurgical industries, building, lumbering, railway construction,
etc.). Had Mr. N.–on not confused the number of “factory”
workers with the total number of workers capitalistically employed in
manufacturing industry, he would easily have perceived the errors in his
calculations.— Lenin

[3]
For example, in one of the principal centres of the Russian fishing
industry, the Murmansk coast, the “age-old” and truly “time hallowed” form of economic relationships was the “pokrut,” [6] which was already fully established in the 17th
century and continued almost without change until recent times. “The
relations between the pokrutmen and their masters are not limited to the
time spent at the fisheries: on the contrary, they embrace the whole life
of the pokrutmen, who are permanently dependent economically on their
masters” ( Material on Artels in Russia , Vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1874, p. 33). Fortunately, in this branch of industry
also, capitalism is apparently marked by a “contemptuous attitude to
its own historical past.” “Monopoly . . . is giving way to
. . . the capitalist organisation of the industry with hired
labourers” ( Productive Forces , V, pp. 2-4).— Lenin

[4]
Cf Studies , p. 91, footnote 85, p. 198. (See present edition,
Vol. 2, “A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism.”
– Ed .)— Lenin

[6]
Pokrut —the form of economic relations that existed among
members of artels engaged in hunting sea animals or fishing in the north
of Russia; the means of production in the artel belonged to an employer to
whom the workers were in bondage. The employer usually received two-thirds
of the catch, and the workers only one-third. The workers were compelled
to sell part of their catch to the employer at a low price, payment being
made in goods, which was very much to the disadvantage of the workers.
[p. 599]

[5]
Karl Marx, Capital , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 9. [p. 600]