V. I.

Lenin

(Regarding Mr. P. Skvortsov’s Article “Commodity Fetishism” in Nauchnoye Obozreniye , No. 12, 1899.)

“Joveis wrathful” . . . . This has long been known as a very amusing
sort of spectacle, and actually the anger of the stern Thunderer
merely calls forth laughter. Further confirmation of this old truth
has been supplied by Mr.P. Skvortsov, who has let loose a host of the
choicest “wratliful” remarks against my book on the process of
the formation of a home market for Russian capitalism.

“Todepict the process as a whole,” Mr. Skvortsov grandly
instructs me, “one must set forth one’s understanding of
the capitalist mode of production; to confine oneself to mere
references to the theory of realisation is quite superfluous.”
Why references to the theory of the home market are “superfluous” In a book devoted to an analysis of data on
the home market, remains the secret of our stern Jove, who by
“setting forth one’s understanding,” “understands”. giving extracts from Capital, half of
which are irrelevant. “The author may be reproached for the
dialectical (a specimen of Mr. Skvortsov’s wit!)
“contradiction that, having set himself the aim of examining a problem” (of how the home market is being
formed for Russian capitalism), “he comes, at the end of
his references to theory , to the conclusion that no such
problem exists at all,” Mr. Skvortsov is so pleased with this
remark of his that he repeats it several times, not seeing, or
not wishing to see, that it is based on a gross error. At the
end of the first chapter of my book I say that “the problem of the home market as a separate, self-sufficient problem not depending on that of the degree of capitalist development does not exist at all” (69). [11]
Well, does the critic disagree with that? No, he agrees with it, for on the preceding page he says
that my remarks are “fair.” That being the case, what has
occasioned his clamour and attempt to divest my conclusion of
its most important part? That also remains a secret. At the end
of the introductory, theoretical chapter, I definitely indicate
the theme of interest to me: “the question of how a home
market is being formed for Russian capitalism reduces itself to
the following: How and in what direction are the diverse aspects
of the Russian national economy developing? What constitutes
the connection between and interdependence of these diverse
aspects?” (69). Does the critic consider these questions
unworthy of examination? No, he prefers to avoid the issue of
the theme I set myself and to point to other themes with
which, at Jove’s behest, I should have occupied myself. I
should, in his opinion, have “described the reproduction
and circulation both of that part of the product which is
produced in agriculture and in industry capitalistically, and of
that part which is produced by independent peasant producers. . . and shown the relation between them, i.e., the
magnitudes of constant and variable capital and of surplus-value
in each of the indicated departments of social labour” (2278). Now that is simply a high-sounding and totally
meaningless phrase! Before attempting to describe the reproduction and circulation of the product which is produced in
agriculture capitalistically, one must first ascertain exactly how and to what extent agriculture becomes
capitalist, among peasants or among landlords, in one district
or in another, etc. Unless this is done (and that is what I have
done in my book), the description suggested by Mr. Skvortsov
will remain a series of commonplaces. Before we can speak of the
part of the product which is produced in industry capitalistically, we must first ascertain exactly which industry
in Russia is becoming capitalist and to what extent it is doing
so. That is precisely what I tried to do by processing the data
on the handicraft industry, for example; our stern critic
grandly passes all this by in silence and with a supremely
serious air invites me to mark time and to dispose of the matter with empty commonplaces about capitalist
industry! The question as to exactly which peasants in Russia are
“independent producers” also requires a study of the facts,
and that is what I tried to undertake in my book; had
Mr. Skvortsov pondered over this question, he would not have
made the nonsensical assertion that the categories of constant
capital, variable capital and surplus-value may, without further
ado, be applied to the economy of “independent peasant producers.” In a word, the elaboration of the theme proposed by
Mr. Skvortsov is possible only after clearing up the questions I have indicated. Under the guise of amending my
formulation of the problem, our stern critic beats a retreat
from an analysis of concrete and historically specific reality
to simply copying Marx.

Incidentally,we cannot pass by in silence the following trick
by Mr. P. Skvortsov, one that splendidly characterises our
critic’s methods. Prof. Sombart (says Mr. P. Skvortsov) shows
that German exports lag behind the development of German
industry. “These data,” Mr. P. Skvortsov explains, “go to confirm my conception of markets.” Good, isn’t it?
Mr. Skvortsov’s arguments illustrate the meaning of the
well-known saying: there’s a bush in the garden, and my uncle’s
in Kiev. . . . We are discussing the theory of realisation, and
he tells us: capitalism, like feudalism, lives on surplus-labour! If we add to such inimitable trick  a number of
stern rebukes, we shall get the sum-total of Mr. Skvortsov’s
“criticism.

Butlet the reader judge for himself: to show my “failure
to understand,” Mr. P. Skvortsov cites, on pages 2279 and 2280,
extracts from various parts of the first chapter, picks out
isolated words from isolated sentences and exclaims:
“ The finding, the exchange , the theory of the home market, the finding of the replacing, and finally,
the compensating! I do not think such precision of terms
can be taken as evidence that Mr. Ilyin clearly understands
Marx’s ‘remarkable’ theory of realisation!?” Now that is
precisely the sort of “criticism” that was once ridiculed
by Chernyshevsky; a man takes up The Adventures of Chichikov and begins to “criticise”: “Chi-chi-kov,
tchi-tchi. . . Oh how funny! The finding, the exchange.... I do
not think that is clear...”  [12]
Oh, what destructive criticism!

Onpage 52 of my book I say that it was not; necessary to divide
the product according to its natural form in analysing the
production of individual capital, but that it was absolutely
necessary in analysing the reproduction of social capital, for
in the latter case (and only in the latter case) are we dealing
with the replacement of the natural form of the product. Mr. Skvortsov asserts that I “failed to under
stand” Marx, severely reprimands me for “translating freely,” considers it “necessary to quote Capital at
length” (the passages quoted stating exactly what I said), and
pounces upon the following words of mine: “Now, however,
the question,” i.e., in analysing the reproduction of social,
and not of individual, capital, “Is: where will the workers
and the capitalists obtain their articles of consumption, where
will the capitalists obtain their means of production, how will
the finished product meet all these demands and enable production to expand?” Underlining this passage, Mr. Skvortsov
goes on to say: “The passages I have underlined do Indeed
contain a theory of realisation, only not Marx’s, but
Mr. Ilyin’s, a theory which has nothing in common with Marx’s
theory” (2282). Strongly put! But let us see what sort of proof
is advanced. The proofs, of course, are quotations from Marx,
including the following: “The question as it immediately
forelies (sic!) [1] is this: How is the capital consumed in production replaced in value out of the annual product, and how
is the movement of this replacement intertwined with the
consumption of surplus-value by the capitalists, and of wages
by the workers?” Conclusion: “I believe that I have shown
sufficiently that the theory of realisation which Mr. Ilyin
presents as Marx’s has nothing in common with the analysis given
by Marx,” etc. All I can do is to ask once again: Good, isn’t
it? What the difference is between what I say and what is said
in the quotations from Marx remains the secret of our stern
critic. All that is clear is that my mortal sin lies in
“translating freely,” or perhaps in that I explain Marx in
my “own words,” as Mr. Skvortsov expresses it in another
part of his article (2287). Just think of it! To expound Marx in
one’s “own words”! “Genuine” Marxism consists in learning Capital by heart and quoting passages from it,
in season and out . . . à la Mr. Nikolai —on.

Hereis an illustration confirming this last remark. In my book
I say that capitalism “makes its appearance only as a result of widely developed commodity circulation,” and, in
another place, that “capitalism is that stage in the development of commodity-production in which labour-power, too,
becomes a commodity.” Midst thunder and lightning our stern Jove
announces: “under what conditions capitalism makes its appearance . . . is known to every more or less educated reader”
(sic!), “Mr. Ilyin’s bourgeois horizon,” and other pearls
adorning the polemics of the wrathful Mr. Skvortsov. Then
follow quotations from Marx: the first says exactly what I said
(the purchase and sale of labour-power is the basic condition of
capitalist production); the second says that the mode of
circulation derives from the social character of production and
not vice versa (Das Kapital, II. B., 93). [13]
Mr. Skvortsov imagines he has utterly confuted his opponent
with this last quotation. Actually, however, he has replaced the
question I raised by another one and given proof of his ability
to offer irrelevant quotations. What did I speak of in the
incriminating passage? Of the fact that capitalism is the result
of commodity circulation, i.e., of the historical relation
between capitalist production and commodity circulation. And
what is spoken of in the passage quoted from Volume II of
Capital (the volume devoted to the circulation of capital)? The relation between capitalist production and capitalist circulation; Marx is polemising in
this passage (S. 92. II.

B.) [14] against the economists who contrasted natural economy, money economy and
credit economy as three characteristic economic forms of
movement in social production; Marx says that that is wrong,
because money and credit economy are merely modes of circulation
peculiar to different stages in the development of capitalist
production, and he concludes with a remark about the “bourgeois
horizon” of these economists. Mr. Skvortsov thinks that “genuine” Marxism consists in clutching at the last
word of Marx and repeating it, even against an opponent who did
not dream of discussing the relation between natural, money and
credit economy. We leave it to the reader to determine which
party displays “failure to understand,” and among what sort
of literature such tricks are classified. Behind the clamour of
his stern rebukes Mr. Skvortsov not only resorted to the
“point of replacing” but also completely evaded the problem
of the relation between capitalist production and commodity
circulation. That is a very important problem, to which I revert
many times in my book, emphasising the historical role of
merchant’s capital as the predecessor of capitalist production. Mr. Skvortsov would seem to have no objection to
this (judging by the fact that he says nothing about it). That
being the case, what sense is there in the noise he makes about
my statement that capitalism is a result of commodity circulation? Does not merchant’s capital express the
development of commerce, i.e., commodity circulation without
capitalist production? These questions too, once again, remain
the secret of the wrathful Jove.

Tofinish with the “criticism” Mr. Skvortsov directs against the theoretical part of my book, I have to examine a few
more of the stern rebukes and gross errors which abound in the
article “Commodity Fetishism.”

Inmy book I say: “The need for a capitalist country to have a foreign market is . . . determined . . . by the fact that
capitalism makes its appearance only as a result of widely
developed commodity circulation, which transcends the limits of the state. It is therefore impossible to conceive a
capitalist nation without foreign trade, nor is there any such
nation. As the reader sees, this reason is of a historical
order” (65). The stern Jove “criticises”: “I, as a reader, do not see that this reason is of a historical order. A
totally unfounded assertion” (2284), etc. If commodity circulation is the necessary historical predecessor of
capitalism, is there any need to explain in addition why
“this reason is of a historical order”?

Forthe abstract theory of capitalism all that exists is
developed and fully established capitalism, and the question of
its origin is eliminated.

“Mr. Ilyin . . . for the realisation of the product in capitalist society . . . turns to the aid of the foreign
market” (2286). To the reader who is familiar with my Studies and The Development of Capitalism in Russia I need
scarcely explain that this, too, is a trick performed by the
same method as the preceding ones. A quotation from Marx:
“. . . foreign commerce only replaces home products by articles of other use or bodily form . . . .” [15]
Conclusion: “Every literate person, with the exception of
critically-minded individuals, will understand that Marx says
the very opposite of Mr. Ilyin’s theory that there is no need to
go to the foreign market to find ‘an equivalent for that part of
the product which is being sold,’ to find ‘another part of the
capitalist product that can replace the first’” (2284). Oh,
splendid Mr. Skvortsov!

“Mr. Ilyin . . . by ignoring the essential features of capitalist society and thus converting it into planned production
—proportion in the development of different trades undoubtedly means planned production—nicely realises, In
the end, the same quantity of products within the country”
(2286). Our “critic’s” new trick consists in attributing
to me the notion that capitalism ensures regular proportion. Constant, deliberately maintained proportion would,
indeed, signify the existence of planning; but this is not the
proportion which is “established only as the average magnitude of a number of continual fluctuations” (that is what
I say in the passage quoted by Mr. Skvortsov). I definitely say
that proportion (or conformity) is “ assumed ” by theory, but in fact it is “ constantly disturbed ,”
that to replace one distribution of capital by another and
so create proportion “ there must be a crisis ” (all the words underlined are to be found on that very page 66, which
is quoted by Mr. Skvortsov). The question arises, what can one think of a critic who ascribes to his opponent the transformation of
capitalism into planned production, while making reference to the very page and the very paragraph where that
opponent says that for capitalism there must be a crisis so as to create a constantly disturbed proportion??

Letus pass to the second part of Mr. Skvortsov’s article, which
is devoted to a criticism of the factual data quoted and
analysed in my book. Maybe here, at least, we shall find some
serious criticism relating to problems of which a special study
has been made by Mr. Skvortsov.

Thesocial division of labour is the basis of commodity economy
and is the basic process of the formation of a home market—says Mr. Skvortsov, quoting my words—“while
plain ‘division of labour’—not social, we must assume—is the basis of manufacture....” In this
“attempt at irony” the critic reveals his failure to understand the elementary difference between division of labour
in society and division of labour in the workshop: the former
creates (under commodity production—a condition which I
definitely specified, so that Mr. Skvortsov’s reminder about the
division of labour in the Indian village community relates to
that author’s deplorable weakness for quoting irrelevant
passages from Marx) isolated commodity-producers, who, independently and separately from one another, produce different
products which enter into exchange; the latter does not alter
the relation of the producers to society, but merely transforms
their position in the workshop. That is the reason, so far as I
can judge, why Marx sometimes speaks of “social division of labour” [2] and at others simply of division of labour. If Mr. Skvortsov thinks otherwise, he
should formulate and explain his opinion instead of dealing out
stern but wholly meaningless remarks.

“Divisionof labour is not in the least a characteristic
feature of manufacture, for division of labour exists in the
factory too.”

Verywell, Mr. Skvortsov! But have I said that this is the only
feature that distinguishes manufacture from the factory? Had the
critic at all seriously wanted to discover whether I correctly
understand the “characteristic features of manufacture” (a
very interesting and by no means as simple a problem as may
appear at first sight), could he have kept silent about the fact
that in the very section concerned I definitely say: “We
have had occasion elsewhere to enumerate the principal features
of the concept of manufacture according to Marx ( Studies , 179 [3]

)”

(385, footnote 1)? In the Studies, division of labour figures as only one of a series of features. The
reader of Mr. Skvortsov’s article might, therefore, get an
absolutely distorted notion of my views, and no notion whatever
of the critic  s views.

Toproceed. The attempt to present a whole number of so-called
“handicraft” industries as the manufactory stage of Russian
capitalism is made in my book, if I am not mistaken, for the first time, and I, of course, am far from imagining that
this problem has been altogether settled (particularly since I
have examined it from a specific point of view). I accordingly
anticipated criticism of my views, and did so with all the more
reason, and all the more Interest, because certain Russian
Marxists had expressed somewhat different views (see The Development of Capitalism, p. 550, footnote). But how has
the problem been treated by Mr. P. Skvortsov? His “criticism” amounts in its entirety to an exhortation,
magnificent for its laconic severity, not to confine myself to a
“mechanical enumeration of the number of wage-workers, of
aggregate output in such and such years in this or that sphere
of production” (2278). If this exhortation does not refer to the
section of my book which deals with the question of factory
statistics (Mr. Skvortsov does not say a word about this), it must refer to the chapter on
manufacture, the greater part of which consists of factual
data. How they might have been dispensed with is a secret that
our stern critic does not reveal, and I continue to hold to the
opinion that it is better to incur the charge of my exposition
being dry than to give the reader cause to think that my opinion
is based on “quotations” from Capital, and not on a study of Russian data. If Mr. Skvortsov thinks my enumeration is
“mechanical,” are we to take it that he considers as wrong
the conclusions which I have drawn from these data in the second
half of Chapter VI, and repeated in Chapter VII, §XI I
?—Are we to take it that he does not agree that these data
show a specific structure of industry characterised by a
specific system of: 1) technique, 2) economy and 3) culture? The
stern Jove had not a single word to say about this in his
“criticism,” which, if we discount the wrathful rebukes,
is left without any content whatsoever. That’s rather little,
most respected Mr. Skvortsov!

Letus pass to the part played by peasant taxes in developing
commodity economy. I asserted that at one time poll-taxes had
been an important factor in the development of exchange, but
that now commodity-production had become so firmly established
that the importance of taxes “is becoming altogether secondary.” Against this Mr. Skvortsov launches a host of
paltry and fearful words such as, “fetishism of commodities,” unite everything, “omnipotence,” potency of
commodity-production, etc.; but alas, these potent words merely
cover up the stern critic’s impotence to refute the conclusion I
drew. “Even Mr. Kautsky,” writes Mr. Skvortsov, “to whom Mr. Ilyin bears resemblance in many respects” . . . (poor
“Mr. Kautsky,” who “bears resemblance” to the “commodity fetishist,” completely fails to understand
Capital, and resembles that man who is weighed down by a
“bourgeois horizon,” Mr. Ilyin! Will he recover from the
blow struck by a “genuine” Marxist?)... “says that-the conversion of peasant dues in kind into dues in cash increases
the peasants’ demand for money” (2288). Very well, stern
Mr. Critic, but surely that has absolutely nothing to do with
the problem of the part played by taxes in the peasants’ cash expenditure as compared with outlays on the rest of their
needs and requirements. This problem is not even touched upon by Kautsky. Mr. Skvortsov over and over again
reveals his remarkable talent for offering irrelevant quotations. “The main question,” says Mr. Skvortsov,
advancing his second objection, “which is not explained
even by the budget data, is as follows: where is the horseless
peasant to obtain 25 rubles to pay his taxes” (25 per cent of his cash expenditure, 25 rubles out of 100 rubles has
been turned by Mr. Skvortsov simply into 25 rubles!) “and
the horse-owning peasant 10 rubles? The question is not what
part of the income (?) taxes constitute in the peasants’ total
cash expenditure” (2290). I advise Mr. Skvortsov to take out a
patent for a remarkable invention: the very latest and very
easiest method of “scientific criticism” that radically
destroys an opponent. On one out of several hundred pages of his
book your opponent incidentally raises the question of the
share of tax expenditure in the total cash expenditure; all you
have to do is to quote this passage, foist another question on your opponent, and you brilliantly prove that
he is a “commodity fetishist,” who, monster that he is,
does not give a thought to where the poor horseless peasant is
to get 25 rubles! And then, as to other pages in the book,
which deal with the ratio of taxes to income, with the items and
with the source of income, you can omit them and thus prove that
your opponent has a “bourgeois horizon.” Really, take out
a patent, Mr. Skvortsov!

Here·is another example of how Mr. Skvortsov utilises his invention. I ask the reader’s attention: such gems of
“scientific criticism” are the only ones of their kind.

Werefer to the same page 156, which deals with the budget
figures for peasant taxes. After showing the role of taxes in
the peasants’ total cash expenditure, I continue: “If, however, we do not take the role of taxes in the development of
exchange, but take them relative to income, we shall see that it
is an excessively high one. How heavily the traditions of the
pre-Reform epoch weigh down upon the peasant of today is seen
most strikingly in the existence of taxes which absorb one-seventh of the gross expenditure of the small farmer, or
even of the allotment holding farm labourer. Moreover, the
distribution of taxes within the village community is astonishingly uneven: the better off the peasant, the smaller
the part of his total expenditure that goes in taxes. The
horseless peasant pays in proportion to his income nearly three
times as much as the peasant owning many horses (see above,
table on distribution of expenditure). . . ." Any reader
who is at all attentive in his approach to what he reads must
naturally ask: Why do I speak of the distribution of taxes
within the village community, when the budgets relate to the
farms of peasants not only of different communities, but even of
different uyezds? Perhaps the uneven distribution is here
fortuitous—perhaps it depends on the different assessment
of one dessiatine of allotment land in the different uyezds or
in the different village communities from which the farms were
taken for compiling the typical budgets? And so, in order to
eliminate this inevitable objection, I immediately went on,
after what I had said, to explain: “. . . We speak of the distribution of taxes within the village community, because if we calculate the amount of taxes and duties per dessiatine of allotment land, it will be found to be nearly uniform. . . .” Had the critic wanted to verify these
words, all he needed to do was to compare the table on page 151
(amount of taxes and dues per farm) with the table on p. 157
(quantity of allotment land per household) to convince himself
with ease that, judging by the budget data, although the
budgeted farms belong to different communities, and even to
different uyezds, the amounts of taxes and dues per dessiatine
of allotment land are nearly uniform.

Andnow, observe what methods Mr. Critic uses to destroy
his opponent! He picks out the words I underlined about the
amount of taxes per dessiatine of allotment land; fails to notice (sic!) that these words relate only to the budget data; ascribes to these words the meaning that the amount of
taxes per dessiatine of allotment land is nearly uniform for the
whole of the Russian peasantry; triumphantly accuses me,
because of this latter conclusion, of not being acquainted with
Zemstvo statistical publications, and cites two tables to
confirm the (generally known) fact that in different village
communities, volosts and uyezds, the amounts of taxes per
dessiatine of allotment land are far from being uniform. Having
performed this trick, the critic goes on to add: “Indeed,
within a village community where one and the same size of
allotment is received, the payments will be not nearly but
actually uniform in size. The whole point is that Mr. Ilyin does
not know which village community he is talking about. To finish
with Mr. Ilyin’s abuse of the Zemstvo statistics,” etc. . . (2292). I would like very much to know whether another
example could be found in scientific literature of this sort of
criticism.

Havingacquainted ourselves with the methods by which
Mr. Skvortsov “has proved” the utter “worthlessness” of the budget data I have given, we may presumably ignore the
potent (and impotent) terms in which the critic expresses his
dissatisfaction with the very use of budget data. In demanding
mass data on budgets, Mr. Skvortsov is evidently talking
again about something that has nothing to do with the case, for
descriptions of specific farms, such as I made use of, never are and never can be of a mass nature. The
literature relating to the budgets of specific farms is
indicated by me at the beginning of the section criticised, and
I would, of course, only be grateful to the critic if he
supplemented or corrected me. But Mr. Skvortsov knows how to
“criticise” without touching on the substance of the point
at issue! I attempted to prove that the budgets were typical by
comparing the average sizes of family, crop area, land rented
and number of animals per horseless and one- horse households,
according to the budget data and the “mass data” (p. 158 of
my book); but our stern critic simply calls this a “curiosity”—on what grounds, nobody knows. Perhaps
for the same reason that a certain “critic” found the name
Chichikov so funny? The budgets "are not typical. .. if
only because the disposal of . . . grain . . . from the autumn
onwards and its acquisition in the spring are very rarely met
with in Voronezh Gubernia, whereas for the whole of Russia”
such disposal has been proved to be the case, supposedly, by
Mr. Nik. —on (2291). It is a true proverb which says that
les beaux esprits se rencontrent*: That “genuine” Marxist,
Mr. Pavel Skvortsov, coming up against a contradiction between
the assertions of the “genuine” Marxist, Mr. Nikolai
—on, and Zemstvo statistical data, unhesitatingly settles
the problem along the lines that the data are not typical, and
not that Mr. Nik.—on’s statements are wrong, or too general. Besides, what has the question of selling grain in autumn
and buying grain in spring to do with the controversy over whether
or not certain budgets are typical, budgets which, in examining
the problem, I do not use at all?

Afterthe thankless job of explaining the things imputed to me,
it is a pleasure to meet, at last, with an objection on
fundamentals, even if formulated in terms of the stein rebukes
(“fetishism,” “utter failure to understand”) which
Mr. Skvortsov evidently considers very convincing, and even if
the critic’s own opinions have had to be surmised rather than
seen plainly stated. Mr. Skvortsov is quite right when he says
that my views “are the central theme of the entire book.”

Inorder to set off our points of disagreement more sharply, I
will compare two extreme formulations of our opposite views:
Mr. Skvortsov probably thinks (at all events, it follows from
his objections) that the less the land the peas ants received
when they were emancipated, and the higher the price they paid
for it, the faster would have been the development of capitalism
in Russia. I think the opposite: the more the land the peasants received when they were emancipated, and the lower the price they paid for it, the faster, wider and freer would have been the development of capitalism in Russia, the higher
would have been the standard of living of the population, the
wider would have been the home market, the faster would have
been the introduction of machinery into production; the more, in
a word, would the economic development of Russia have resembled
that of America. I shall confine myself to indicating two
circumstances which, in my opinion, confirm the correctness of
the latter view: 1) land-poverty and the burden of taxation have
led to the development over a very considerable area of Russia
of the labour-service system of private-landowner farming, i.e.,
a direct survival of serfdom, [4] and not at all to the development of capitalism; 2) it is in our border regions, where
serfdom was either entirely unknown, or was feeblest,. and where
the peasants suffer least from land shortage,. labour-service
and the burden of taxation, that there has been the greatest
development of capitalism in agriculture. This. comparison is
necessary precisely for an analysis of the conditions of the
“transition from the one social formation to the other "
which I am so fiercely and so sweepingly accused of ignoring by
Mr. Skvortsov.

Theextremely stereotyped nature of Mr. Skvortsov’s views on the
economic processes in peasant economy in this country is also
revealed by his remarks on migration and on the way capitalism
breaks down medieval barriers. Now, was I not right in drawing a
comparison between Mr.  Pavel Skvortsov and Mr. Nikolai
—on? Both “solve” the problem of migration by an extremely simple and entirely negative criticism of those
“who attach importance” to migration. But that conclusion
is worthy only of the most primitive —to wit, “genuine”—Marxism, which contents itself with
absolutely abstract. . . commonplaces. What does; “attach
importance” to migration mean? If we take these  words in their
literal sense, can there be a single economist of sound mind and
good memory who does not attach importance to the annual
migrations? If we take these words in the specific sense of
capitalism, then, firstly, Mr. Skvortsov distort.s my meaning, for I say the very opposite in the pas sage he
quotes. Secondly, an economist who sets out to study the
characteristics of the economic system and development of Russia
(not only to bring lengthy, and often irrelevant, quotations
from Marx) must necessarily ask: what influence is exerted by
the migrations in Russia? Without making a special study of the
question, I remarked in the passage indicated by Mr. Skvortsov
that my conclusions on the differentiation of the peasantry
fully correspond to those of

Mr. Hourwich. [5]

Moreover, I repeatedly touch on the subject of migration in other parts of my
book. Maybe my views on this subject are wrong, but Mr. Skvortsov
does absolutely nothing to correct or to supplement them;
he totally obscures the issue with his stern rebukes. Further,
my remarks give Mr. Skvortsov grounds for concluding that the
“commodity fetishist believes in the miraculous power of
his fetish now” (sic!). Now, that is truly “crushing”! But
do you deny that I am right, most respected Mr. Critic? Why not
share your factual considerations with the public and examine the data of at least one uyezd? That would be so
natural for a person who makes a special study of Zemstvo
statistics! And I take the liberty of holding this view, in
spite of Mr. Skvortsov’s terrible words (fetishism, miraculous
power), which—does anyone doubt it?—are enough to frighten anybody. [6]

Finally,the last point on which one can discuss fundamentals with Mr. Skvortsov is that of the classification of Zemstvo
statistics on the peasantry. Mr. Skvortsov has made a special
study of Zemstvo statistics, and, if we are not mistaken, still
continues to do so. One would, therefore, be justified in
expecting him to say something based on facts and explaining
this controversial and extremely interesting subject. I wrote:
“we reject a limine any classification according to allotment and exclusively employ classification according to
economic strength (draught animals, area under crops),” and I
went on to say that classification according to allotment, which
is far more common in our Zemstvo statistics, is absolutely
unsuitable because life disturbs the equality (within the
village community) of allotment land tenure: it is sufficient to
recall such universally known and unchallenged facts as the
leasing of allotments, their abandonment, the purchase and the
renting of land and the supplementing of agriculture with
commercial and industrial enterprises and with work for
hire. “Economic statistics must necessarily take the scale and type of farm as the basis of classification”
(105). Mr. Skvortsov’s “criticism” consists in the following: “Mr. Ilyin is displeased with the classification of statistics on the peasantry according to
allotment. There are two (sic!) classifications of statistics. One is the historical classification, according to
which village communities (!) having the same amount of
allotment land per registered person are gathered into one
group. The other is a factual classification, according to which
peasant farms having allotments of equal size, regardless of the
communities to which they belong, are gathered into one
group. What makes the historical classification important is
that it clearly shows what the conditions were under which the
peasantry passed from feudal to capitalist society. . ."
and so forth on this theme, also examined above the classification Mr. Ilyin proposes. . . utterly confuses the
historical conception of the conditions of our peasantry’s
transition from the one social formation to the other. Mr. Ilyin’s proposal is more in the nature of an
industrial census (sic!), such as is taken in Germany” (2289). This is a sample of Mr. Skvortsov’s criticism on a
subject on which he specialises, and on a question on which,
with the best will in the world, it is impossible to “quote” Marx. The question is: What is the
point of this argument about the “historical” classification of village communities, when I am dealing
with the classification of house-to-house data? By what
miraculous means can the classification of present-day house-to-house data “utterly confuse” the long-established
historical data on village communities? Mr. Skvortsov is
entitled to use the word “historical” in this connection
only to the extent that he turns his back on history: if
the classification of village communities according to size of
allotment per registered person relates to the history of what
happened 40 years ago, then what is going on before our eyes
with ever-increasing rapidity is also history. Further, it is
altogether inexplicable how a man who studies Zemstvo statistics
and talks of all things in nothing less than the tone of a
prophet can write that “there are two classifications” (of
village communities according to allotment and of households
according to allotment), when everyone knows that there are very many classifications: according to area under crops,
number of draught animals, number of working members, number of
farm labourers, house owner ship, and so forth? How can
Mr. Skvortsov declare so categorically, and without a shadow of proof, that only classification according to allotment is
“factual,” when the point at issue is precisely: is this classification a factual one? I show for a number of uyezds
that the distribution of allotment land among the peasant farms
continues to this day to be marked by an “equality” that is
relatively very great (20% of well-to-do households, 26-30% of
the population, account for 29-36% of the allotment land in
various uyezds or groups of uyezds), whereas the distribution of
the factual indices of farming, draught animals, area under crops, improved implements, etc., is everywhere, without
exception, incomparably less equal. Mr. Skvortsov contrives
to criticise, and even berate, my statements, without saying a word about fundamentals.

Itgoes without saying that, not being a professional statistician, I laid no claims to solving the problem of classification. I think, however, that the basic problems of Zemstvo
statistics (and the problem of the methods of classifying
information concerning bouseholds is a basic one, as I point out
in the passage quoted by Mr. Skvortsov) are things which not merely Zemstvo statisticians, but all economists, have
a right and even a duty to discuss. One cannot conceive of an
economist who is studying the actual economic situation in
Russia being able to dispense with Zemstvo statistics; and if
the elaboration of Zemstvo statistics and the work of economists
proceed independently, each in its own way, neither the one nor
the other can achieve satisfactory results. That classification
according to allotment is not a satisfactory factual classification has been admitted in part by the Zemstvo
statisticians themselves, who have given a number of classifications according to draught animals and to area under
crops of which I made use in my book. Just now, when the
importance of the problem is particularly emphasised by
practically all Marxists and is not denied even by economists of
other trends, a re-examination of the problem should be
particularly necessary. But Mr. Skvortsov, instead of offering
criticism, presents us with pompous but quite vapid phrases like
the following: “we need a summary of Zemstvo returns which
gives .a detailed account of the production and reproduction of
peasant farming, so that anyone who desires may take up such an
abstract and verify the ’conclusions’ of Messrs. Ilyin,
Postnikov and Hourwich” (2292). Yes, of course, “we need a
summary”; but if these words are not to remain an empty sound,
and if the summary is really to succeed in answering the main
problems advanced by Russia’s present economic system and by
that system’s evolution, what is needed is to raise and to
discuss from all angles the fundamental problem of the methods
to be employed in drawing up the summary,  to discuss it
without fail in general publications, and not merely among
Zemstvo statisticians, and still less within the four walls of
this or that Zemstvo statistical bureau. I raised this problem
in my book and attempted to indicate its solution. It is not, of
course, for me to judge whether the solution is a correct
one. But I am justified in drawing the conclusion that
Mr. Skvortsov, for all his sternness, has said nothing whatever
about the problem, but has instead, without grounds for so
doing, advocated routine methods, advocated a point of view that
was already old in 1885 (see footnote on page 103 of The Development of Capitalism, where I quote from Mr. V. V.’s article “A New Type of Local Statistical Publication” his
admission that “the statistical data must be adapted to the
groups themselves and not to such a conglomeration of the most
diverse economic groups of peasants as the village or the
village community,” and where I raise the question as to why
Mr. V. V. himself never once made use of the data on these most
diverse groups).

Inconclusion, a few words about “orthodoxy,” which will
not be superfluous, since Mr. Skvortsov’s appearance in the role
of “genuine” Marxist renders particularly urgent the precisest possible definition of what, if it may be so
expressed, is one’s position. While not in the least desiring to
place Mr. B. Avilov on a par with Mr. Skvortsov, I nevertheless
find it necessary to touch on a passage in the former’s article
in the same issue of the Nauchnoye Obozreniye. At the end
of a postscript to this article Mr. B. Avilov says:
“Mr. Ilyin stands also for orthodoxy. But I think there is
still plenty of room for ’orthodoxy,’ i.e., the simple interpretation of Marx ...” (p. 2308). I think that words I
have italicised are probably a slip of the pen, for I said quite
definitely that by orthodoxy I do not at all mean the simple interpretation of Marx . In the article which Mr. B. Avilov
has in mind, after the words: “No, let us better remain
‘under the sign of orthodoxy,’” I say: “Let us not believe
that orthodoxy means taking things on trust, that orthodoxy
precludes critical application and further development, that it
permits historical problems to be obscured by abstract schemes. If there are orthodox disciples who are guilty of these
truly grievous sins, the blame must rest entirely with those
disciples and not by any means with orthodoxy, which is
distinguished by diametrically opposite qualities” (Nauchnoye Obozreniye, 1899, No. 8, p.

1579). [16]
Thus I definitely said that to accept anything on trust, to preclude
critical application and development, is a grievous sin; and in
order to apply and develop, “simple interpretation” is obviously not enough. The disagreement between those Marxists
who stand for the so-called “new critical trend” and those
who stand for so-called “orthodoxy” is that they want to
apply and develop Marxism in different directions: the one group want to remain consistent Marxists, developing the
basic tenets of

Marxism in accordance with the changing conditions and with the local characteristics of the different
countries, and further elaborating the theory of dialectical
materialism and the political-economic teachings of Marx; the
other group reject certain more or less important aspects of
Marx’s teachings, and in philosophy, for instance, take the
side, not of dialectical materialism, but of neo-Kantianism, and
in political economy the side of those who label some of Marx’s
teachings as “tendentious,” etc. The former on this account
accuse the latter of eclecticism, and in my opinion have very
good grounds for doing so. The latter call the former “orthodox,” and it should never be forgotten that use of
this term has been made by opponents in controversy, that the
“orthodox” do not reject criticism in general, but only
“criticism” by eclectics (who would only be entitled to
call themselves advocates of “criticism” to the extent that
in the history of philosophy the teachings of Kant and of his
followers are called “criticism,” “critical philosophy”). In the same article I named authors (p. 1569,
footnote, and p. 1570, footnote [7]

)

who, in my opinion, are representatives of the consistent and integral, and not
eclectic, development of Marxism, and who have done for this
development—in the field of philosophy, in the field of
political economy and in the field of history and politics—incomparably more than, for example, Sombart or

Stammler, [8] the mere repetition of whose eclectic views is
regarded by many today as a big step forward. It is scarcely
necessary for me to add that latterly the representatives of the
eclectic trend have grouped themselves around E. Bernstein. I
shall limit myself to these brief remarks on the question of my
“orthodoxy,” both because it is not immediately relevant to
the subject of my article, and because I am unable here to
elaborate in detail the views of the former, and must refer
those who are Interested to the German literature. On this
subject the Russian controversies are merely echoes of the
German, and unless one is familiar with the latter one cannot obtain a really
precise idea of the point at issue. [9]

---
Notes:
[1]
By the way, about translations. Quoting from my book the
following passage: “... as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their (the productive
forces’) outer limit” (57), Mr. Skvortsov gives me the following
strict admonition: “Mr. Ilyin ... did not notice the clumsiness of his translation, whereas the original says simply
and clearly: ‘als ob nur die absolute Konsumptionsfähigkeit der
Gesellschaft ihre Grenze bilde’” (2286). What is wrong with this
(quite correct) translation the critic does not indicate. But to
show how strict he is, it will be sufficient to quote a couple
of his translations. Page 2284: “But when the normal annual reproduction is shown on a given scale ... thereby it is
also shown...” (in the original: ist damit auch unterstellt);
page 2285: “We are dealing, primarily, with simple reproduction. Further on it will be shown” (in the original:
Ferner wird unterstellt) “not only that products are exchanged at their value,” etc. Thus, good Mr. Skvortsov is no
doubt firmly convinced that “unterstellen” means “to show,” and that “wird interstellt” is future tense.

Isay nothing about the style of our stern critic, who treats us
to such phrases as: “now the capitalist mode of production
equals agricultural industry” (2293).
— Lenin

[2]
In chapter twelve, volume one of Capital [in the
English edition it is Chapter XIV.—Ed.], which deals with manufacture, there is a special section entitled
“Division of Labour in Manufacture, and Division of
Labour in Society.” At the beginning of this section Marx
says: “We shall now lightly touch upon the relation between the division of labour in manufacture, and the social
division of labour, which forms the foundation of all production of commodities” (Das Kapital , 12,

S. 362). [17]
How truly instructive it is to contrast this to the trick of
our wrathful Jove!
— Lenin

[3]
See present edition, Vol. 2, The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm Gubernia.—Ed.
— Lenin

[4]
Incidentally, in my book I definitely advance this thesis (that
labour-service is a survival of serfdom). Mr. Skvortsov says
nothing about this, but takes my remark that, fundamentally,
labour-service has existed ever since the time of Russkaya Pravda and storms about it; he cites a quotation from
Klyuchevsky, talks of home markets in the 12th century, and of
commodity fetishism, and asserts that

I think that “commodity production is the miraculous and all-explaining
starting-point in history (sic!) since the days of Russkaya Pravda ”(sic!). This, apparently, is some more of the
“tchi-tchi” type of criticism to which, as it is, I think I
devoted too much time at the beginning of this article.
— Lenin

[5]
A propos of Mr. Hourwich, Mr. Skvortsov, by his unwarranted and
supercilious attitude towards the “conclusions” of this
writer, who is known in Marxist literature as the author of two
books and as a Contributor to magazines, only reveals his own
conceit.
— Lenin

[6]
My words: “Before capitalism appeared, agriculture in
Russia was the business of the gentry, a lord’s bobby for some,
and a duty, an obligation for others” (313), in Mr. Skvortsov’s
opinion “indicate that a whole social formation, the feudal
mode of production, was merely a lord’s hobby.” No, Mr. Skvortsov, they do not “indicate” this at all, for I
pointed out elsewhere that “feudal economy was a definite,
regular and complete system” (192), and here I merely described
one of the features of this system. That landlord economy
contained an element of the “lord’s hobby” can easily be
seen by anyone who remembers the “Oblomovs of the feudal or
bondage-suffering countryside” (218); and it is borne out by the
Zemstvo statisticians who invented the expression “lord’s
hobby” (213);—it is p roved even by the data on a certain
period in the development of the agricultural- machinery
industry in Russia: the attempts of landlords simply to import
both workers and machines from abroad (193), which (219) were
nothing but a “lord’s hobby.”—“When and where the transformation by capitalism of the lord of the manor
[votchinnik]” (Mr. P. S. is wrong in thinking that this category
is applicable only to the period “prior to the rise of serfdom”; it is also applicable to the period of serfdom)
“and of the dependent peasant into industrialists was completed Mr. Ilyin does not, unfortunately, tell us.” (2293) I
speak of this in chapters II and III, and particularly IV, of my
book, where I deal precisely with the transformation of
agriculture into commercial and industrial enterprise. Very possibly, what I say about this process
requires supplementing and correcting; I have no doubt that any
serious and well-informed critic could do this; but
Mr. Skvortsov, unfortunately, has utterly obscured the issue by
simply voicing stern rebukes. That’s hardly enough!
— Lenin

[7]
See present edition, Vol. 4, Once More on the Theory of Realisation.—Ed.
— Lenin

[8]
Cf. against Stammler the very proper remarks made by G. Cunow,
part of whose article was translated and published in the
Nauchnoye Obozreniye in 1899; then B. Lvov’s The Social Law (ibid.), and the translation of Mr. Sadi Gunter’s
article which the Nauchnoye Obozreniye promises to publish in 1900.
— Lenin

[9]
It is this eclecticism, in my opinion, which is the substance of
the “new” “critical” trend that has “begun to take shape” in our literature latterly (cf. Struve’s articles in
Zhizn, 1899, No. 10, and 1900, No. 2; and
Tugan-Baranovsky’s in Nauchnoye Obozreniye, 1899, No. 5,
and 1900, No. 3). The first-mentioned author began to “give
shape” to leanings towards eclecticism over five years ago in
his Critical Remarks, and immediately after that book appeared an attempt was made (as Struve will be good enough to
recall) to “open the eyes” of the public to the mixture of
Marxism and bourgeois science in his views. [18]
It is strange, therefore, to hear the following from Struve: “Simply to
close one’s eyes to the so-called (wrongly so-called, perhaps?— V. I. ) ‘bourgeois’ criticism of Marx’s
teachings and to engage in repeating and paraphrasing them, has
hitherto proved not only useless but even harmful” (Zhizn ,
No. 2, 305). “Simply to close one’s eyes,” not only to bourgeois science, but even to the most absurd NOTES doctrines,
up to and including extreme obscurantism is, of course,
’undoubtedly harmful; that is a banal commonplace. It is one
thing, however, not to close one’s eyes to bourgeois science, by
keeping watch on it, and using it, but being critical towards it, and refusing to surrender the integrity and
definiteness of one’s world outlook; but it is another thing to
give way to bourgeois science and to repeat, for example,
catchwords about Marx being “tendentious,” etc., which have
a very definite meaning and significance. As for “repeating
and paraphrasing,” does the repeating and paraphrasing of
Bohm-Bawerk and Wieser, Sombart and Stammler, in itself, a
priori, deserve more attention than the repeating and paraphrasing of Marx? Has Struve, who has managed to discern (in
Russian literature, mind you) the “harmfulness” (sic!) of
repeating Marx, failed to notice the harmfulness of uncritically repeating the fashionable corrections of
fashionable bourgeois “science”? How far must one have departed from Marxism to have arrived at such an opinion, and at
such an unpardonable “closing of eyes” to the present-day
“vacillation of thought”! At the end of his article Struve
particularly requests my views on the questions raised by the
so-called “critics.” I would reply to this that what specially interests me just now is the contemporary eclectic
trend in philosophy and in political economy, and that I still
hope at some future date to present a systematic analysis of
this

trend; [19] but to chase after every single “fundamental error” and “fundamental antinomy” ... of
eclecticism is (I ask the pardon of the respected “critics”!) simply uninteresting. That is why I shall confine myself
for the moment to putting forward a counter-suggestion: Let the
new “critical trend” take the most definite shape, and not
limit itself to mere hints. The sooner this happens the better,
for then the less will be the confusion and the more clearly
will the public appreciate the difference between Marxism and
the new “trend” in the bourgeois criticism of Marx.
— Lenin

[10]
Lenin’s article “Uncritical Criticism” is an answer to a hostile review
of The Development of Capitalism in Russia by P. N. Skvortsov, a
“Legal Marxist.” Lenin began working on the article in January 1900,
during his last weeks of exile at Shushenskoye. This information is
contained in a letter written by N. K. Krupskaya to Lenin’s
mother. M. A. Ulyanova, dated January 19, 1900. The article was finished
in March 1900, after Lenin’s return from exile, and appeared in the
magazine Nauchnoye Obozreniye ( Scientific Review ) in May
and June, 1900. This was the last of Lenin’s articles to appear in the
Russian legal press before he went abroad.

[11]
In his references to The Development of Capitalism in Russia Lenin gives the page numbers of the 1899 edition. These have
been changed to correspond to the pages of the present edition.

[12]
The words in inverted commas “Chi-chi-kov ... etc.,” are a
paraphrase of the following extract from Chernyshevsky’s
Essays on the Gogol Period in Russian Literature . “...A witty examination of Dead Souls might be written as follows: After giving the book’s title:
The Adventures [pokhozhdeniya] of Chichikov, or Dead Souls,
begin directly in the following way: ’The cooling down lprokhlazhdeniyal of Tchi! tchi! kov—don’t think, reader,
that I have sneezed ... etc., etc.’ Some twenty years ago there
were readers who thought that witty” (see N. G. Chernyshevsky,
Essays on the Gogol Period in Russian Literature, St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 64).

[13]
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1957, pp. 116-17.

[14]
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1957, p. 115.

[15]
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1957, p. 470.

[17]
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, pp. 350-351.

[16]
Lenin’s article “Once More on the Theory of Realisation,”
signed V. Ilyin, appeared in Nauchnoye Obozreniye, Issue
No. 8, August 1899. (See present edition, Vol. 4.)

[18]
“An attempt to ‘open the eyes’ of the public to the mixture
of Marxism and bourgeois science” is a reference to Lenin’s
criticism of Struveism, “Legal Marxism,” in his essay
The Economic Con tent of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book. This essay, contained in Volume 1 of the