A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism, Chapter 1 - Part 58

Lenin then attempts to summarise Marx's theory of machine production as against the ideas of Sismondi and the Narodniks. He invites readers to examine Sieber's analysis of Capital, for a fuller account.

“It boils down to two points: first, to a historical analysis, which established the place machine production occupies as one of the stages in the development of capitalism, and the relation of machine industry to the preceding stages (capitalist simple co-operation and capitalist manufacture); secondly, to an analysis of the part played by machines under capitalist economy, and in particular, to an analysis of the changes which machine industry effects in all the conditions of life of the population.” (p 186-7)

As Lenin has previously described, the Narodniks had presented capitalism as being only the large-scale industrial production, which developed in Russia. They then contrasted this to the so called “People's Production”, even though this people's production was itself capitalist. A similar thing can be seen in the account of capitalist development in Britain presented by Michael Roberts, as I described in my blog posts a while ago. The only difference between Roberts' account and that of the Narodniks is that, in Russia, the process was compressed into a few decades, whereas, in Britain, it occurred over a period of 400 years.

Lenin continues,

“On the first point, the theory established that machine industry is only one stage (namely, the highest) of capitalist production, and showed how it arose out of manufacture. On the second point, the theory established that machine industry marks gigantic progress in capitalist society not only because it increases the productive forces enormously and socialises labour throughout society, but also because it destroys the manufactory division of labour, compels the workers to go from occupations of one kind to others, completes the destruction of backward patriarchal relationships, particularly in the rural districts, and gives a most powerful impetus to the progress of society, both for the reasons stated and as a consequence of the concentration of the industrial population. This progress, like the progress capitalism makes in every other field, is accompanied by the “progress” of contradictions, i.e., by their intensification and expansion.” (p 187)

Back To Part 57

Forward To Part 59