A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism, Chapter 1 - Part 61

Lenin then moves on to the changes in social relations established by machine industry. Danielson does not even examine that question, Lenin says.

“He complained a great deal about capitalism and deplored the appearance of the factory (exactly as Sismondi did), but he did not even attempt to study the change in social conditions brought about by the factory. To do that it would have been necessary to compare machine industry with the preceding stages, which Mr. N.–on does not refer to. Similarly, the viewpoint of the modern theory on machines as a factor of progress in present-day capitalist society is also totally alien to him. Here, too, he did not even present the question, nor could he do so, for this question can arise only out of a historical study of the replacement of one form of capitalism by another, whereas according to Mr. N.–on “capitalism” tout court replaces ... “people’s production.”” (p 190)

Here again the account of capitalist development presented by Michael Roberts, and of the Narodniks is similar. The difference is that, at least, Danielson recognised that capitalist production begins in industry, rather than in agriculture. Indeed, Danielson denied that agricultural production, in Russia was characterised by capital. What is common to both is the identification of industrial capital solely with the stage of large-scale machine industry, thereby, eliminating the intervening periods of capitalist handicraft production and manufacture that leads up to it. Both essentially, also rule out the extensive role played by non-capitalist commodity production and exchange that also precedes capitalist production, but which creates the conditions of competition that undermines the old guild production, and establishes the differentiation amongst the small independent producers, which leads to the creation of an urban bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Danielson cannot but accept that the role of machines is to raise labour productivity, but, like Sismondi, concludes from this only that its not machines that are harmful, but their role within capitalist production.

“And that is all. Mr. N.–on does not believe anything more. He will not hear of the problems that have been raised and solved by modern theory, because he did not even attempt to examine either the historical succession of different forms of capitalist production in Russia (using, say, the example of the textile industry that he chose), or the role of machines as a factor of progress under the present capitalist system.” (p 191)

Its not just Danielson's argument in relation to the textile industry this applies to, Lenin says. It applies also to the flour-milling industry.

“Mr. N.–on pointed to the introduction of machines only as an excuse for the sentimental lamentation that this increase in the productivity of labour did not correspond to the “people’s consuming capacity.” As regards the changes in the social system which machine industry introduces in general (and has actually introduced in Russia), he did not even think of analysing them. The question of whether the introduction of these machines is a progressive step in present-day capitalist society is something quite incomprehensible to him.” (p 191)

Back To Part 60

Forward To Part 62