Written: Chapters I–IX in June– September 1901; Chapters X–XII in autumn 1907.

First published: Chapters I–IV in December 1901 in the journal *Zarya* No. 2–3; Chapters V–lX in February 1906 in the journal *Obrazovaniye* No. 2; Chapters X–XI in 1908 in the collection: Vl. Ilyin. *The Agrarian Question*. Part I. St. Petersburg; Chapter XII in 1908 in the collection *Current Life*, St. Petersburg.

Printed: Chapters I–IX according to the text of the journals, checked against the text of the collection *The Agrarian Question*; Chapters X–XI according to the text of the collection *The Agrarian Question*; Chapter XII according to the text of the collection *Current Life*

Title page of the journal *Obrazovaniye* No. 2, 1906, in which were printed Chapters V–IX of V. I. Lenin's work *The Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx"*

"…To prove…. that dogmatic Marxism has been dislodged from its position in the sphere of agrarian questions would be to force an open door"… Thus declared *Russkoye Bogatstvo*{50} last year through the mouth of Mr. V. Chernov (1900, No. 8, p. 204). A strange property does this "dogmatic Marxism" possess! For many years now, learned and most learned men of Europe have been solemnly declaring (and newspapermen and journalists repeating and retelling) that Marxism has already been dislodged from its position by "criticism" – and yet every new critic again begins by laboring to bombard this position, supposedly already demolished. Mr. V. Chernov, for example, both in the journal *Russkoye Bogatstvo* and in the collection *At the Glorious Post*, over a full 240 pages, "forces an open door," "conversing" with the reader about Hertz's book. The work of Hertz, so circumstantially retold, who, in his turn, converses about Kautsky's book, has already been translated into Russian. Mr. Bulgakov, fulfilling his promise to refute the same Kautsky, has issued a whole two-volume study. Now, surely, no one will find any remnants of "dogmatic Marxism," crushed to death by these mountains of critical printed paper.

I. The "Law" of Diminishing Soil Fertility

Let us first examine the general theoretical physiognomy of the critics. Mr. Bulgakov came forward as early as in the journal *Nachalo*{51} with an article against Kautsky's *Agrarian Question* and immediately revealed all his "critical" methods. With the extraordinary dash and unceremoniousness of a true bravo, he "trounced" Kautsky, foisting upon him what he did not say; accusing him, Kautsky, of ignoring circumstances and considerations that he, Kautsky, had precisely set forth; presenting to the reader, as his own critical conclusions, conclusions drawn by Kautsky. With the air of an expert, Mr. Bulgakov accused Kautsky of confusing technique and economics – and at the same time himself promptly revealed not only incredible confusion, but also his unwillingness to read to the end the pages he quoted from his opponent. It goes without saying that the future professor's article teemed with trite sallies against socialists, against the "theory of collapse," utopianism, belief in miracles, etc.[29] Now, in his doctoral dissertation (*Capitalism and Agriculture*, St. Petersburg. 1900), Mr. Bulgakov has settled all accounts with Marxism and carried his "critical" evolution to its logical conclusion.

At the head of his "theory of agrarian development," Mr. Bulgakov places the "law of diminishing soil fertility." We are given extracts from the works of the classics who established this "law" (by virtue of which each additional investment of labour and capital in the land is accompanied not by a corresponding, but by a decreasing quantity of product obtained). We are given a list of English economists who recognise this law. We are assured that it "has universal significance," that it is "an entirely obvious truth which it is quite impossible to deny," "which it is sufficient merely to state clearly," and so on and so forth. The more decisively Mr. Bulgakov expresses himself, the more clearly one sees that he is backing away into bourgeois political economy, which obscured social relations with fictitious "eternal laws." Indeed, what does the "obviousness" of the notorious "law of diminishing soil fertility" amount to? To the fact that if subsequent applications of labour and capital to the land yielded not a decreasing but an equal quantity of product, then there would be no need at all to extend the cultivated area, then an additional quantity of grain could be produced on the same area of land, no matter how small this area might be, then "the agriculture of the whole globe could be forced onto one desyatin". Such is the usual (and only) argument in favour of the "universal" law. And the slightest reflection will show anyone that this argument is a hollow abstraction which leaves aside the most essential thing: the level of technology, the state of the productive forces. Essentially, the very concept of "additional (or: successive) investments of labour and capital" *presupposes* a change in methods of production, a transformation of technique. To increase the amount of capital invested in the land to any considerable extent, it is necessary to invent new machines, new systems of field cultivation, new methods of keeping livestock, transporting products, etc., etc. Of course, on a comparatively small scale, "additional investments of labour and capital" may occur (and do occur) on the basis of a given, unchanged level of technique: in this case, the "law of diminishing soil fertility" is applicable to some extent, applicable in the sense that an unchanged state of technique sets comparatively very narrow limits to additional investments of labour and capital. Instead of a universal law, we get, consequently, an extremely relative "law" – so relative that no talk of any "law" or even of any cardinal feature of agriculture can be entertained.

Let us take as given: the three-field system, sowings of traditional grain crops, manure-fed livestock raising, the absence of improved meadows and improved implements. It is obvious that, under the condition of the invariability of these data, the limits of additional investments of labour and capital in the land are extremely narrow. But even within those narrow limits within which, after all, additional investments of labour and capital are possible, a decrease in the productivity of each such additional investment will by no means always and unconditionally be observed. Take industry. Let us imagine flour milling or iron making in the epoch preceding world trade and the invention of steam engines. With that state of technique, the limits of additional investments of labour and capital in hand forges, wind and water mills were extremely narrow; a huge spread of small forges and mills was inevitably to be observed, until a radical transformation of the methods of production created a basis for new forms of industry.

Thus: the "law of diminishing soil fertility" is not at all applicable to cases where technique is progressing, where methods of production are being transformed; it has only a very relative and conditional application to cases where technique remains unchanged. That is why neither Marx nor the Marxists speak of this "law," but only representatives of bourgeois science, like Brentano, shout about it, who cannot break free from the prejudices of the old political economy with its abstract, eternal and natural laws.

Mr. Bulgakov defends the "universal law" with arguments that are worth laughing at.

"That which was a free gift of nature must now be made by man: wind and rain loosened the soil, full of nutrient elements, only a small effort on man's part was required to obtain what was necessary. In the course of time, an ever greater and greater part of the productive work falls to man's lot; as everywhere, artificial processes increasingly take the place of natural ones. But while in industry this expresses man's victory over nature, in agriculture it indicates a growing difficulty of existence, for which nature curtails her gifts.

In this case, it is immaterial whether the growing difficulty of producing food is expressed in an increase of human labour or of its products, e.g., implements of production or fertilisers, etc." (Mr. Bulgakov means to say: whether the growing difficulty of producing food is expressed in an increase of human labour or in an increase of its products); "the only important thing is that it costs man ever more and more. In this substitution of human labour for the forces of nature, of natural factors of production by artificial ones, consists the law of diminishing soil fertility" (16).

Obviously, Mr. Bulgakov is haunted by the laurels of Messrs. Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky, who hit upon the idea that it is not man who works with the aid of a machine, but the machine with the aid of man. Like these critics, he too sinks to the level of vulgar economy, talking about the substitution of human labour for the forces of nature, etc. Generally speaking, it is as impossible to substitute human labour for the forces of nature as it is to substitute arshins for poods. In industry as in agriculture, man can only utilise the action of the forces of nature if he has cognised their action, and facilitate this utilisation by means of machines, implements, etc. That primitive man obtained what was necessary as a free gift of nature – is a silly fable, for which even beginning students can whistle Mr. Bulgakov down. No golden age lay behind us, and primitive man was completely crushed by the difficulty of existence, the difficulty of struggle with nature. The introduction of machines and improved methods of production immeasurably eased for man this struggle in general and the production of food in particular. Not the difficulty of producing food increased, but the difficulty of obtaining food for the worker increased – because capitalist development inflated ground rent and the price of land, concentrated agriculture in the hands of large and small capitalists, concentrated still more the machines, implements, money, without which successful production is impossible. To explain this growing difficulty of existence of the workers by the fact that nature curtails her gifts is to become a bourgeois apologist.

"By accepting this law," continues Mr. Bulgakov, "we do not at all assert a continuous increase of the difficulty of producing food or deny agricultural progress: to assert the former and deny the latter would be to fly in the face of the obvious. It is indisputable that this difficulty does not grow continuously, that development moves in zigzags. Agronomic discoveries, technical improvements turn barren lands into fertile ones, temporarily abolish the tendency noted in the law of diminishing soil fertility" (ibid.[30]).

Profound, isn't it?

Technical progress is a "temporary" tendency, while the law of diminishing soil fertility, i.e., the law of decreasing (and even then not always) productivity of additional investments of capital on the basis of an unchanged technique, "has universal significance"! That is exactly the same as saying: train stops at stations represent a universal law of steam transport, while the movement of trains between stations is a temporary tendency paralysing the operation of the universal law of standing still.

Finally, there are also mass data that graphically refute the universality of the law of diminishing fertility: the data on the agricultural and non-agricultural population. Mr. Bulgakov himself admits that "the production of food would require a constantly increasing relative" (note this!) "quantity of labour and, consequently, agricultural population, if each country were limited to its natural resources" (19). If in Western Europe the agricultural population is diminishing, this is explained by the fact that, by means of the import of grain, it has been possible to avert from oneself the operation of the law of diminishing fertility. – A fine explanation, indeed! Our scholar forgot the trifle that a relative decrease of the agricultural population is observed in *all* capitalist countries, including agricultural ones and grain-importing ones. The agricultural population is relatively decreasing in America and in Russia, it is decreasing in France since the end of the eighteenth century (see the figures in the same work of Mr. Bulgakov, II, p. 168), this relative decrease sometimes even passing into an absolute one, whereas the excess of grain imports over exports was still quite negligible in the 1830s and 1840s, and only since 1878 there have been no years at all with an excess of exports over imports[31]. In Prussia, the rural population decreased relatively from 73.5% in 1816 to 71.7% in 1849 and 67.5% in 1871, while the import of rye began only from the beginning of the sixties, wheat – from the beginning of the seventies (ibid., II, 70 and 88). Finally, if we take the European grain-importing countries – for example, France and Germany of the last decade – we see undoubted progress of agriculture alongside an absolute decrease in the number of workers occupied in it: in France this number decreased from 1882 to 1892 – from 6,913,504 to 6,663,135 (*Statist. agric.*, Part II, pp. 248–251), in Germany from 1882 to 1895 – from 8,064,000 to 8,045,000[32]. Thus, one can say that the whole history of the nineteenth century, by mass data relating to the most diverse countries, irrefutably proves that the "universal" law of diminishing fertility is completely paralysed by the "temporary" tendency of technical progress, which enables a relatively (and sometimes even absolutely) decreasing agricultural population to produce an increasing quantity of agricultural products for an increasing mass of population.

Incidentally, these mass statistical data also completely refute the following two central points of Mr. Bulgakov's "theory": namely, firstly, his assertion that "to agriculture the theory of the more rapid growth of constant capital (implements and materials of production) as compared with variable capital (labour power) is completely inapplicable." Mr. Bulgakov declares with great importance that this theory is incorrect, referring in confirmation of his opinion: a) to "Prof. A. Skvortsov" (famous most of all for having attributed Marx's theory of the average rate of profit to agitational malevolence) and b) to the fact that, with the intensification of farming, the number of workers per unit of area increases. This is one of those deliberate misunderstandings of Marx which the representatives of fashionable criticism constantly display. Just think: the theory of the more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable is refuted by the fact of an increase of variable capital per unit of area! And Mr. Bulgakov does not notice that the statistical data which he himself cites in such abundance confirm Marx's theory. If in the whole of German agriculture the number of workers from 1882 to 1895 decreased from 8,064,000 to 8,045,000 (and, with the addition of persons engaged in agriculture as a subsidiary occupation, increased from 11,208,000 to 11,623,000, i.e., by only 3.7%), while the number of livestock during that time increased from 23.0 million to 25.4 million (converting all livestock into large cattle), i.e., by more than 10%, the number of cases of use of the five principal machines increased from 458,000 to 922,000, i.e., more than doubled, the quantity of imported fertilisers from 636,000 tons (1883) to 1,961,000 tons (1892) and the quantity of potash salts from 304,000 double centners to 2,400,000[33], – is it not clear that the ratio of constant capital to variable is increasing? Need we add that these wholesale data conceal to a vast extent the progress of large-scale production. More of this below.

Secondly, the progress of agriculture with a decrease or an insignificant absolute increase of the agricultural population completely refutes the absurd attempt of Mr. Bulgakov to resurrect Malthusianism. Among the Russian "former Marxists," this attempt was made, perhaps for the first time, by Mr. Struve in his *Critical Notes*, but he, as always, did not go beyond timid, half-spoken and ambiguous remarks, not thought out to the end and not reduced to a single system of views. Mr. Bulgakov is bolder and more consistent: the "law of diminishing fertility" he, without batting an eyelid, converts into "one of the most important laws of the history of civilisation" (sic! p. 18). "The whole history of the nineteenth century... with its problems of wealth and poverty would be incomprehensible without this law." "For me it is absolutely indisputable that the social question in its present formulation is essentially connected with this law" (this is what our strict scholar declares already on the 18th page of his "investigation")!... "It is indisputable," he declares at the end of his work, "that, given the existence of over-population, a certain part of poverty must be put down to absolute poverty, poverty of production, and not of distribution" (II, 221). "The problem of population, in the particular formulation which the conditions of agricultural production create, constitutes, in my eyes, the chief difficulty that lies in the way – at least at the present time – of any more or less extensive implementation of the principles of collectivism or co-operation in the agricultural enterprise" (II, 265). "The past leaves to the future as a heritage the bread question, a more terrible and more difficult question than the social question – a question of production, and not of distribution" (II, 455), etc., etc., etc. There is no need for us to speak of the scientific significance of this "theory," inseparably connected with the universal law of diminishing soil fertility, after we have analysed this law. And that the critical flirtation with Malthusianism has led, in its unavoidable logical development, to the most vulgar bourgeois apologetics – this is borne witness to in the conclusions of Mr. Bulgakov we have cited, with a frankness leaving nothing to be desired.

In the next essay we shall analyse the data of some new sources indicated by our critics (who have been dinning it into our ears that the orthodox fight shy of detailing), and show that Mr. Bulgakov generally converts the little word "over-population" into a stereotype, the application of which relieves him of all analysis, and especially of analysis of the class contradictions within the "peasantry". For the present, confining ourselves to the general theoretical side of the agrarian question, we must still touch on the theory of rent. "As for Marx," writes Mr. Bulgakov, "in Volume III of *Capital*, – in the form in which we now have it, – he adds nothing deserving attention to Ricardo's theory of differential rent" (87). Let us bear in mind this "nothing deserving attention" and compare it with the critic's following earlier statement: "Despite his obviously negative attitude towards this law (the law of diminishing soil fertility), Marx adopts in its basic principles the theory of rent of Ricardo, which is built on this law" (13). It follows, then, according to Mr. Bulgakov, that Marx did not notice the connection between Ricardo's theory of rent and the law of diminishing fertility and therefore did not make both ends meet! We can only say one thing regarding such a presentation: no one so distorts Marx as the former Marxists, no one displays such incredible sham... sham... shamelessness in foisting on the writer criticised a thousand and one mortal sins.

Mr. Bulgakov's assertion is a crying distortion of the truth. In reality, Marx not only noticed this connection of Ricardo's theory of rent with his erroneous doctrine of diminishing soil fertility, but also with the greatest definiteness exposed Ricardo's error. Anyone who has read Volume III of *Capital* with but a drop of "attention" could not fail to notice the circumstance, most highly "deserving of attention", that it was precisely Marx who freed the theory of differential rent from all connection with the notorious "law of diminishing soil fertility." Marx showed that for the formation of differential rent, the fact of different productivity of different applications of capital to the land is necessary and sufficient. In this connection it is completely inessential whether the transition is from better land to worse, or vice versa, whether the productivity of additional investments of capital in the land decreases or increases. In reality, all possible combinations of these different cases take place, and no single general rule can be applied to these combinations. For example, Marx first describes differential rent of the first kind, arising from the different productivity of applications of capital on different plots of land, and illustrates his exposition with tables (apropos of which Mr. Bulgakov issues a stern reprimand for "Marx's excessive addiction to clothing his – often very simple – thoughts in a complicated mathematical attire". This complicated mathematical attire is limited to the four operations of arithmetic, while the very simple thoughts have proved, as we see, to be completely uncomprehended by the learned professor). Having analysed these tables, Marx concludes: "Thus collapses that first false premise of differential rent, which still prevails with West, Malthus, Ricardo, namely, that differential rent necessarily presupposes a transition to worse and worse land, or else a constantly decreasing productivity of agriculture. Differential rent, as we have seen, can occur with a transition to better and better land; differential rent can occur if better land, instead of the formerly worse, occupies the lowest rung; it can be associated with a growing progress of agriculture. Its condition is exclusively the inequality of soil types." (Marx does not speak here of the different productivity of successive investments of capital in the land, for this gives rise to differential rent of the second kind, and in this chapter the discussion is of differential rent of the first kind.) "Insofar as the development of productivity is concerned, differential rent presupposes that the raising of the absolute fertility of the whole agricultural area does not abolish this inequality, but either intensifies it, leaves it unchanged, or merely reduces it" (*Das Kapital*, III, 2, S. 199){52}. Mr. Bulgakov did not notice this radical distinction between Marx's theory of differential rent and Ricardo's theory of rent. Instead, he preferred to search out in the third volume of *Capital* "a passage that rather allows one to think that Marx's attitude to the law of diminishing soil fertility was far from negative" (p. 13, footnote). We apologise to the reader for having to devote a great deal of space to a passage that is completely inessential (as regards the question which concerns us and Mr. Bulgakov). But what is to be done if the heroes of modern criticism (who still have the audacity to accuse the orthodox of chicanery[34]) distort the perfectly clear meaning of a doctrine hostile to them by means of quotations torn out of context and by mistranslations? Mr. Bulgakov quotes the passage he discovered as follows: "From the standpoint of the capitalist mode of production there always occurs a relative rise in the price of (agricultural) products, *because*" (we ask the reader to pay special attention to the words we underline) "a certain outlay is made to obtain the product, something must be paid for which formerly nothing was paid." And Marx says further that elements of nature, which enter into production as its agents without costing anything, are a gratuitous natural productive force of labour, while if an additional product must be produced without the assistance of this natural force, new capital must be expended, which leads to a rise in the cost of production.

Regarding this method of "quoting", we must make three remarks. Firstly, the word "*because*", which gives the tirade the absolute sense of establishing some kind of "law", has been inserted by Mr. Bulgakov on his own. In the original (*Das Kapital*, III, 2, S. 277–278) there stands not "because", but "if"{53}. If something must be paid for that formerly nothing was paid for, then a relative rise in the price of products always occurs; is this proposition not like the recognition of the "law" of diminishing fertility? Secondly, the word "agricultural" has been inserted, together with the brackets, by Mr. Bulgakov. In the original it is completely absent. Mr. Bulgakov probably decided, with the levity characteristic of the Messrs. Critics, that Marx could be speaking here only of agricultural products, and hastened to give the reader a "clarification" of a thoroughly distorted nature. In reality, Marx is speaking here of *all* products in general; the passage quoted by Mr. Bulgakov is preceded by Marx's words: "the following must be noted in general". Gratuitous forces of nature can also enter into industrial production – such is the example Marx gives in the same section on rent of a waterfall that replaces steam power for one of the factories – and if an additional quantity of product must be produced without the help of these gratuitous forces, then a relative rise in the price of products will always occur. Thirdly, we must examine the context in which this passage stands. Marx, in this chapter, speaks of differential rent from the worst cultivated land and examines, as always, two cases fully equal in rights for him, two cases fully equally possible: the first case – rising productivity of successive applications of capital (S. 274–276) and the second case – falling productivity of them (S. 276–278){54}. Regarding this latter of the possible cases, Marx says: "Concerning the decreasing productivity of the soil under successive applications of capital, see Liebig... But the following must be noted in general" (italics ours). There follows the passage "translated" by Mr. Bulgakov, which reads that if what was previously unpaid is paid for, then a relative rise in the price of products always occurs.

We leave it to the reader himself to judge the scientific conscientiousness of the critic who transformed Marx's remark about one of the possible cases into Marx's recognition of this case as some kind of general "law".

And here is Mr. Bulgakov's concluding opinion on the passage he discovered: "This passage is, of course, unclear"... Well, naturally! After Bulgakov's substitution of one word for another, this passage is even completely senseless... "but cannot be understood otherwise than as an indirect or even direct recognition" (listen!) "of the law of diminishing soil fertility. I do not know of any other place where Marx expressed himself directly on the latter" (I, 14). As a former Marxist, Mr. Bulgakov "does not know" that Marx directly declared the assumption of West, Malthus, Ricardo, that differential rent presupposes a transition to worse lands or falling soil fertility, to be completely incorrect[35]. He "does not know" that, throughout the whole of his voluminous analysis of rent, Marx shows dozens of times that he regards falling and rising productivity of additional outlays of capital as completely equally possible cases!

II. The Theory of Rent

Mr. Bulgakov has generally not understood Marx's theory of rent. He is convinced that he is demolishing this theory with the following two objections: 1) According to Marx, agricultural capital enters into the equalisation of the rate of profit, so that rent is created by the surplus profit exceeding the average rate of profit. This is incorrect, in Mr. Bulg