Struve cites data about the decline in the serf population, prior to the Reform, and comments by some economists that attributed it to a fall in living standards. Struve concludes that the population had reached the maximum that was compatible with the techno-economic conditions, but Lenin asks,
“What has the Malthusian “law” of the correlation of population increase and means of subsistence to do with the matter, when the feudal social order directed these means of subsistence into the possession of a handful of big landowners, and passed over the mass of the population, the growth of which is under investigation?” (p 459)
Struve sees in it non-capitalist overpopulation, but Lenin points out that it can just as easily be seen as feudalism pressing down harder on the peasants, extracting a greater surplus product, leaving a smaller necessary product/means of subsistence for the peasants. The landlords are led into this position, because increased commodity production pressed down on them harder.
“The author’s examples tell against him: they tell of the impossibility of constructing an abstract law of population, according to the formula about correlation of growth and the means of subsistence, while ignoring historically specific systems of social relations and the stages of their development.” (p 459-60)
Struve argues that the growth of population, following the Reform, can be explained by the same factors. He provides a table based upon allotment size, thereby, falling into the same errors as the Narodniks. The greater the size the allotment, the greater the rise in population, Struve argues.
““And it cannot be otherwise under natural, ’self-consumer’ ... economy that serves primarily to satisfy the direct needs of the producer himself” (199).” (p 460)
But the argument is completely false. The allotments were not provided for the purpose of meeting the needs of the serfs, but meeting the needs of the landlords and the state.
“... they are taken away from their owners, if these “needs” are not satisfied on time; payments are levied on the allotment in excess of the peasants’ paying capacity. Further, they are not the peasants’ only resources.” (p 460)
The peasant who makes a deficit in farming activity has other options as previously seen. They can rent out their land, and obtain income from wage labour. As Lenin has previously demonstrated, peasant households that did so could have a greater income, not only than other poor peasant households, but also above the average middle peasant household. So, this level of net income could be more than enough to sustain “energetic reproduction.”
“Undoubtedly, such a favourable turn of events may be the lot of only a minority of the peasants, but, where no special examination is made of production relations existing within the peasantry, there is nothing to show that this growth proceeds evenly, that it is not called forth mainly by the prosperity of the minority.” (p 460)
And, Struve himself admits that, after the Reform, commodity production penetrated a wide spectrum of society, so that income from such activity could not only supplement, but replace, both direct production and dependence on agricultural production. Moreover, this fetish with agricultural production is Physiocratic, forgetting that a large and increasing proportion of the labourer's means of subsistence comes from manufacture, and, more recently, from service industry.
“The author’s data are obviously quite inadequate for establishing a general law of reproduction.” (p 461)
Struve argues that, after the Reform, it was to the landlord's advantage to lease land to the peasants, which meant that the means of subsistence increased, as this additional land meant additional food area. But, again, this is wrong. The landlords had a reason to ensure that serfs were able to reproduce, because it was from their labour that they obtained Labour Rent. But, once capital enters agriculture, the landlord has no such limitation. If the peasant can no longer subsist, another richer peasant takes over the land, and will employ the former tenant as wage labourer. If a capitalist takes over the land, their surplus profit now forms the basis of the landlord's rent, which they may now increase.
No comments:
Post a Comment