The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter I. The Theoretical Mistakes of the Narodnik Economists

III. The Ruin of the Small Producers

So far we have dealt with simple commodity production. Now we pass to
capitalist production, that is, we presume that instead of simple
commodity producers we have, on the one hand, the owner of means of
production and, on the other, the wage-worker, the seller of
labour-power. The conversion of the small producer into a wage-worker
presumes that he has lost the means of production—land, tools,
workshop, etc.—i.e., that he is “impoverished,” “ruined.” The view is advanced that this ruin
“diminishes the purchasing power of the population,” “diminishes the home market” for capitalism (Mr. N.–on,
loc. cit., p. 185. Also pp. 203, 275, 287, 339-340, etc. The same view is
held by Mr. V. V. in the majority of his writings). We do not deal here
with the factual data relating to this process in Russia—they will be
examined in detail in later chapters. At the moment the question is posed
purely theoretically, i.e., it relates to commodity production in general
where it is transformed into capitalist production. The writers mentioned
also pose this question theoretically, i.e., from the mere fact of the ruin of the small producers they deduce a shrinkage of the
home market. This view is absolutely incorrect, and its persistent
survival in our economic literature can only be explained by the romantic
prejudices of Narodism (see the article referred to in the footnote). It
is forgotten that the “freeing” of one section of the producers from the means of production necessarily presumes the passage of
the latter into other hands, their conversion into capital; presumes,
consequently, that the new owners of these means of production produce as
commodities the products formerly consumed by the producer himself, i.e.,
expand the home market; that in expanding production the new owners of the
means of production present a demand to the market for new implements, raw
materials, means of transport, etc., and also for articles of consumption
(the enrichment of these new owners naturally presumes an increase in
their consumption). It is forgotten that it is by no means the well-being
of the producer that is important for the market but his possession of
money; the decline in the well-being of the patriarchal peasant, who
formerly conducted a mainly natural economy, is quite compatible with an
increase in the amount of money in his possession, for the more such a
peasant is ruined, the more he is compelled to resort to the sale of his
labour-power, and the greater is the share of his (albeit scantier) means
of subsistence that he must acquire in the market. “With the setting
free (from the land) of a part of the agricultural population, therefore,
their former means of nourishment were also set free. They were now
transformed into material elements of variable capital” (capital
spent on the purchase of labour-power) ( Das Kapital, I,
776). “The expropriation and eviction of a part of the agricultural
population not only set free for industrial capital the labourers, their
means of subsistence, and material for labour; it also created the home market ” (ibid., 778). [1] Thus, from the standpoint of abstract theory, the
ruin of the small producers in a society of developing commodity economy
and capitalism means the very opposite to what Messrs. N.–on and
V. V. want to deduce therefrom; it means the creation and not the
shrinkage of the home market. If the very same Mr. N.–on, who declares a
priori that the ruin of the Russian small producers means the shrinkage of
the home market, nevertheless cites the just quoted contrary assertions of
Marx ( Sketches, pp. 71 and 114), it only proves the remarkable
ability of that writer to belabour himself with quotations from
Capital .

---
Notes:
[1]
Karl Marx, Capital , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, pp. 745 and
747.