For the study of Lenin's characterization of capitalism's development in the countryside and the decomposition of the peasantry, great significance attaches to the two recently discovered letters from V. I. Lenin to P. Maslov published below. In these letters Lenin formulates the most important propositions that later received their finished expression in "The Development of Capitalism in Russia."

In his letters, V. I. Lenin evaluates V. Postnikov's book "The South Russian Peasant Economy," to which he refers repeatedly in "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" and which he had examined in detail earlier in his work "New Economic Movements in Peasant Life" (V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. I).

The author of the articles on peasant reform mentioned in the first letter is N. E. Fedoseyev, one of the first Marxists in Russia and organizer of Marxist circles in Kazan. These articles were in Lenin's possession in manuscript form.

Lenin's article on Postnikov is the article "New Economic Movements in Peasant Life."

The person mentioned in the second letter under the pseudonym V. V. is V. P. Vorontsov, one of the pillars of liberal Populism.

Following the letters are Lenin's marginal notes on Postnikov's book.

## TWO LETTERS CONCERNING V. E. POSTNIKOV'S BOOK "THE SOUTH RUSSIAN PEASANT ECONOMY"

[Second half of December 1893]

I received your letter three days ago*) and yesterday already wrote about sending you the articles on peasant reform. Let me know whether you have the article on Postnikov. If you do, send it as quickly as possible to N. E. with a request to forward it to me immediately after reading it: I need it.

I very much regret that you did not find me in Samara**): are you not thinking of traveling to the capitals for the holidays? — then we could see each other.

I await from you as detailed a review and critique as possible of the article on Postnikov: you have seen, I hope, that the propositions set forth in it serve for me as the foundation for conclusions far more important and far more far-reaching than those drawn in the article itself. The decomposition of our petty producers (peasants and handicraftsmen) appears to me to be the basic and principal fact that clarifies our urban and large-scale capitalism, destroys the myth about a special structure of peasant economy (it is the same bourgeois structure with only the difference that it is still much more entangled in feudal fetters) and compels one to see in the so-called "workers" not a small handful of specially situated persons but only the upper strata of that enormous mass of peasantry which is already now living more by the sale of its labor power than by its own economy. Precisely for this reason do I value Postnikov's book so highly — because it provides material for the most precise analysis of this situation, because it factually demonstrates the absurdity of the current notions about our "communal" village and shows that in essence our arrangements differ in no way from those of Western Europe.

I submitted this article to *Russkaya Mysl*, but it refused to publish it. I have been thinking about whether it would not be fitting to publish it as a pamphlet, having supplemented and altered it somewhat?

It would be very interesting to become acquainted with your views on this matter; I think this is entirely feasible through correspondence.

My comments on the works on the reform proceeded from the basic proposition that this reform was a product of the development of commodity economy and that all its meaning and significance consisted in the fact that those fetters were destroyed which restrained and restricted the development of this system. We shall discuss this in more detail later: perhaps it will be possible to send you directly the comments I sent to the author; this would be the simplest and most convenient.

Reply as quickly as possible, even immediately, otherwise the letter risks not finding me here.

May 30, 1894.

I received your letter three days ago. I had indeed almost completely forgotten both our correspondence and the referral, but of course I am very glad to resume the correspondence concerning the questions it raises and others.

I am surprised at one thing — why did you have to "look" for me? When returning from St. Petersburg to Tiflis, did N. M. A. not see you? and did he not pass on to you (which I asked him to do) that I have a permanent address — for the winter at any rate — namely: at the Council of Sworn Advocates, to the assistant sworn advocate N. N.

## TWO LETTERS CONCERNING V. E. POSTNIKOV'S BOOK

Regarding your comments, I shall say the following. First, as far as the excessive caution of the conclusions is concerned, one must take into account that this deficiency [I absolutely agree that this is indeed a deficiency] is explained by my intention to publish the article in a liberal journal. I even had the naivete to send it to *Russkaya Mysl*, where I received, of course, a refusal: this became completely clear to me when I read in No. 2 of *Russkaya Mysl* an article on Postnikov by "our well-known" liberal philistine, Mr. V. V. One would indeed have to possess such artistry to completely mutilate magnificent material and daub over all the facts with verbosity!

In reality, I draw larger conclusions from these data. Namely—the data prove, in my view, the bourgeois character of economic relations in the peasantry. They reveal openly the antagonistic classes within this "communal" peasantry and moreover such classes as are alone characteristic of capitalist organization of social economy. This is the most important conclusion, entirely applicable to all the rest of Russian peasantry. Another conclusion is that already now an enormous mass (probably not less than, but more than one-half) of peasant grain comes to market—and the upper group of the contemporary village, the peasant bourgeoisie, is the principal producer of this grain*).

Furthermore, I attach great importance to the law proved by Postnikov with respect to all of Russia—that the productivity of labor is 2-2½ times higher in the upper strata of peasantry. This has enormous importance from the theoretical point of view, together with the isolation of the commodity sphere of economy (a point so dangerous for Russian originalists that I fully understand Mrs. V. V., carefully avoiding this question).

I pass to your second comment—about the norm of natural economy. I confess I did not fully understand you here.

*) Gurvich therefore wrongly says that Russia's future will be a country of peasant bourgeoisie. This is already the present.

A very good book: Gurvich. The economics of the russian village. 1892. New York. [Gurvich, Economics of the Russian Village. 1892. New York. In the Russian edition the book came out in 1896: I. L. Gurvich. The Economic Situation of the Russian Village, translated from the English by L. A. Sanin. Eds.]

The question of "norm," in my opinion, can be given significance only in the following sense: it is important to know how large a peasant's agricultural economy (average) must be in order to cover all his needs (both productive and personal) and free him from the necessity of seeking earnings elsewhere.

It is important to know this because all the smaller economies directly belong to those selling labor power, and the size of the economy can indicate with sufficient precision how great is the importance of this source of income. The larger economies directly belong to the petty bourgeoisie in their purest form.

As for the "naturalness" of the economy, I look at it thus: the greatest naturalness will always be in the middle strata of peasantry, but even there one can never do without a considerable share of commodity economy (probably about 40% of the entire budget must be in monetary form). The economies of the lowest and highest strata will always be more commodity-oriented, since the first sells labor power; the second—grain surplus.

According to this plan the analysis of strata in the article on Postnikov is constructed.

You speak of "the norm of natural economy" and "the norm of commodity economy" separately. If I understood you correctly, then the second norm is my middle norm [17-18 desiatinas of sowing according to Postnikov], in which it is of course important to separate and calculate precisely the natural and monetary parts. An independent "norm of natural economy" I do not understand: our contemporary peasant economy cannot be purely natural under any circumstances.

Incidentally—here one must wait for your more detailed explanations.

Regarding the critique of N. K. Mikhailovsky—I think likewise that no editorial board will publish it—not so much because of censorship conditions (there are rumors about the expulsion of Russian Marxism by the censors after the fuss raised by *Russkoe Bogatstvo*) as because of disagreement with you and cowardice before the impudent and arrogant "big shot"*. I have had some experience in this regard. [[And indeed I do not think it would be possible or worthwhile to answer him in our press.]] I would read your reply with pleasure.

I shall certainly remain here until June 12, and perhaps longer. When I leave, I shall inform you of my new address. For now you can write (after the 12th) through M. G. G.*: it will be easier to forward from there.

* M. G. G.—Maria Germanovna Gopfengauz, a friend of N. E. Fedoseyev. Eds.