The compilers of The Sketch claimed that the products of handicraft industry were made from materials mostly procured locally. Lenin examines the data to see if this claim was true. It showed that nearly 70% of those employed in processing livestock products were concentrated in just three uyezds, but that these uyezds accounted for only 25% of the livestock population, and 29% of the cultivated area. In fact, The Sketch itself had to admit this point, saying,
“the high degree of development of the industries engaged in processing livestock produce is chiefly dependent on raw materials brought from outside—for instance, in the Kungur and Ekaterinburg uyezds on the raw hides dressed by the local leather factories and handicraft tanneries, from which the material for the boot industry, the principal handicraft in these uyezds, is obtained” (p 368)
Lenin comments,
“Hence, handicraft industry in these parts is based not only on the large turnover of the local capitalist leather merchants, but also on semi-manufactures obtained from factory owners, i.e., handicraft industry is a sequel or adjunct to developed commodity circulation and to capitalist leather establishments.” (p 368)
The same pattern could be seen for other products. For example, the chief industry in Shadrinsk Uyezd was the making of felt boots, for which wool was brought in from outside. The majority of those engaged in processing plant produce, 61%, were concentrated in four uyezds that contained just 20% of the forest area, and yet, in the two uyezds containing 52% of the forest area, only 2.6% of handicraft workers were engaged in processing its products.
“Hence, we observe the very interesting fact that a deep-rooted commodity circulation precedes the development of the handicraft industries (and is a condition for their development). This fact is very important, for it shows, firstly, that commodity economy is long established, handicraft industry being only one of its elements; it shows also how absurd it is to depict our handicraft industry as a sort of tabula rasa still “able” to take a different path.” (p 368)
The compilers of The Sketch claimed that the handicraft industry reflected the influence of the means of communication in the pre-Reform times. In fact, Lenin says, the town of Kungur, previously referred to, was the road junction in the CIS-Urals area, and through it runs the Siberian railway connecting it with Ekaterinburg, and with branches to Shadrinsk. Another commercial highway connected Kungur to Osa, and the Birsk highway connected it to Krasnoufimsk. The Sketch noted that the handicraft industry became concentrated in five uyezds around these highway junctions – Kungur, Krasnoufimsk and Osa, in Cis-Urals, and Ekaterinburg and Shadrinsk in Trans-Urals.
“Let us remind the reader that it is these five uyezds that constitute the group that is first in its development of handicraft industry, and that 70% of the total number of handicraftsmen are concentrated in them. Secondly, this fact shows us that the “organisation of exchange” in handicraft industry, about which the handicraft friends of the muzhik chatter so frivolously, has already been created and by none other than the Russian merchant class itself.” (p 369)
Only in relation to metal working is the claim that the materials processed were locally sourced valid. In that case, 70% of those involved were concentrated in the four uyezds that also produced 70% of pig iron and malleable metal. Students of economic geography will understand the reason for this, given the mass of the raw material, and transport costs, but, also, Lenin notes,
“But here the raw material is itself a product of the large-scale metallurgical industry, which, as we shall see, has its “own views” on the “handicraftsman.”” (p 369)
No comments:
Post a Comment