V. I.

Lenin

As soon as the Left-Narodnik gentry pass from empty and
general phrases about the “labouring peasantry”—phrases that have been
worked to death and reveal ignorance of both The Communist Manifesto and of Capital —to precise figures , we
immediately see how the Left Narodniks white wash the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeois character of the entire “labouring peasantry”
theory is disguised behind catch-phrases and exclamations, but it is
exposed by facts and by a study of Marx’s theory.

Thus, in Stoikaya Mysl No. 14, a certain
Mr. Batrak, [1] who writes in an extremely highbrow style, discusses
“socialism and the peasantry”.

“ The number of labour economies is growing ,” Mr. Batrak
declares, and goes on to quote French and German statistics. Statistics are
not the sort of thing that can be dismissed with catch-phrases or
exclamations, and deception is very quickly exposed.

In France, the total area of “small farms”, i. e., those of five to ten hectares (a hectare is slightly less than a dessiatine) has
increased.

Very good, Mr. Batrak! But have you not heard that the more intensive
farming is, the more often one meets with the employment of
wage-labour on “ small ” (in area) farms? Does not this
hushing up of the facts about the employment of wage-labour mean
whitewashing the bourgeoisie, Mr. Batrak?

Let us take the German figures. Out of 652,798 farms of five to ten
hectares, 487,704 employ hired labourers . What do you say to that?
Most small farmers exploit wage-workers! And in France? In France,
vinegrowing, which entails the employment of wage-labour on small holdings, is far
more widespread than in Germany.

The “labour economy” theory is one that deceives the workers by
hushing up the facts about the employment of wage-labour.

Mr. Batrak takes Germany. The “small and medium” farms go as
“labour” economies (the tongue is so flexible it can call anybody a
“labouring” farmer!). And so, from the fact that the number of “small”
and “medium” farms is growing, Mr. Batrak infers that the number of
“labour” economies is growing.

But consider the figures quoted by this new champion of the
bourgeoisie.

He starts with farms of up to two hectares. They constituted
58.3 per cent in 1882, 58.22 per cent in 1895 and 58.89 per cent in
1907. An increase, is it not?

But our “Left Narodnik” has hushed up the fact that this is an increase in the number of wage-workers !

The figures he distorts state definitely that of the 3,378, 509 farmers
who own farms of up to two hectares (1907), only 474,915, i. e., a
little over 116 (one-tenth), are independent farmers whose chief occupation
is agriculture. Most of them are wage-labourers (1,822,792).

Of the 3,378,509 farms, 2,920,119, i. e., the vast majority, are
subsidiary undertakings where farming does not provide the main earnings.

One may ask: Is not passing off farm-hands and day-labourers ,
wage-workers, as “labouring farmers” a white-washing of the bourgeoisie
and capitalism?

Does not the silly catch-phrase of “labouring farmers” serve here to
conceal the gulf between the proletariat (the wage-workers) and
the bourgeoisie? Does not this catch-phrase serve as a means of putting
over bourgeois theories?

To proceed. Farms from two to five hectares. These constituted 18.60
per cent in 1882, 18.29 per cent in 1895, and 17.57 per cent in 1907. This
is what Mr. Batrak writes.

What is his deduction? On that point he is silent .

The deduction is: a decrease , not growth. It is precisely in
this group of farms, and only in this group, that employers of labour (people who buy the labour of private individuals)

and those who hire themselves out do not quite preponderate. The
number of farmers who hire labour is 411,311 (counting the number of hired
labourers) while the number of those who hire themselves out is 104,251
(the latter is not the total number; here the statistics are
incomplete). Together, we get a total of 515,000, and the total number of
these peasant farms is 1,006,277, so that even here more than half either
hire themselves out or employ labourers!

The nice little catch-phrase of “labour economy” serves to deceive
the workers by withholding the facts about the buying and selling of labour-power .

Mr. Batrak then takes farms of five to twenty hectares, and shows that
their number is increasing.

But what about the employment of wage-labour? Not a word, not a sound
about that. The theoreticians of “labour economy” have been commissioned
by the bourgeoisie to conceal the figures about the employment of
wage-labour.

We shall take these figures: 652,798 farms (1907) of five to ten
hectares employ 487,704 wage-labourers, i. e., more than half exploit
wage-labour.

A total of 412,741 farms of ten to twenty hectares employ 711,867
wage-labourers, i. e., all, or nearly all, exploit wage-labour .

What should we call a man who poses as a “socialist” and yet
classifies exploiters of wage-labour as “labouring farmers”?

As the Marxists have more than once explained, the Left Narodniks are
petty bourgeois, who whitewash the bourgeoisie and obscure the fact that it
exploits wage-labour.

We shall return to the bourgeois theories of the Left Narodniks, and
particularly to Mr. Batrak’s theories, on a future occasion. At present we
shall briefly sum up.

The “labour economy” theory is a bourgeois deception of the workers,
based, among other things, on the concealment of the figures
concerning the buying and selling of labour-power.

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the “small and medium”
peasants to whom the Left Narodniks are fond of referring without
discrimination, either sell or buy labour-power, either hire themselves out
or hire labour. That is the crux of the matter , which the
bourgeois “labour economy” theory obscures.

The proletarian says to the small peasant:
you are a semi-proletarian, so follow the lead of the workers; it
is your only salvation.

The bourgeois says to the small peasant: you are a small proprietor, a
“labouring farmer”. Labour economy “grows” under capitalism as
well. You should be with the proprietors, not with the proletariat.

The small proprietor has two souls: one is a proletarian and the other
a “proprietory” soul.

The Left Narodniks are, in effect , repeating the theories of
the bourgeoisie and corrupting the small peasants with “proprietory” illusions. That is why the Marxists relentlessly combat
this bourgeois corruption of the small peasants (and backward workers) by
the Left Narodniks.