The statisticians diminished the importance of the larger capitalist handicraft producers by saying that they constituted only 1% of establishments, but, of course, in terms of economic significance, this 1% accounted for a much larger proportion than individual artisan production. In terms of employed workers, the 1% accounted for as much as 15% of employment by individual artisans, and, in terms of income the difference is even greater.
“We shall presently give data showing the distribution of establishments according to net income. We learn that the aggregate net income of 2,376 establishments with the lowest income (up to 50 rubles) = 77,900 rubles, while that of 80 establishments with the highest income = 83,150 rubles. The average per “establishment,” therefore, is 32 rubles and 1,039 rubles respectively.” (Note *, p 378)
In other words, the income of these 80 large establishments was, on average, more than 30 times that of the individual artisan producer.
Lenin then turns to the nature of the wage labourers. They were identified by the statisticians as being those employed by the year, piece workers, seasonal workers, and day labourers. The Narodniks made great play of the fact that those of the first kind constituted just 8% of the total, with 37% being piece workers, 30% seasonal workers and 25% day labourers. On this basis, the Narodniks argued,
““we cannot regard the relatively large number of wage-workers as unquestionable proof that these establishments are of the capitalist type” (56). . . . “It is our conviction that neither the piece-workers, nor the day labourers in general constitute the cadres of a working class similar to the West-European proletariat; only those who work regularly throughout the year can form these cadres.”” (p 379)
This is the same argument seen previously, whereby the Narodniks considered only those workers employed in large industrial factories as constituting an industrial proletariat. But, the Narodniks did not provide any detailed analysis to back up this argument, for example, by describing and analysing the actual economic and social conditions of the workers in these different categories. Lenin sorts through the data in The Sketch, and compiles it into a table to try to provide some analysis of that.
“The number of workers in each category and their earnings are given for 29 industries (out of 43). In these 29 industries there are 4,795 wage-workers, earning a total of 233,784 rubles. In all the 43 industries, there are 4,904 wage-workers with aggregate earnings amounting to 238,992 rubles. Thus, our summary embraces 98% of the wage-workers and their earnings.” (p 379-80)
According to the Narodnik account, in The Sketch, piece work was “the nearest stage on the road to economic independence”. In fact, the data shows that the earnings of the piece workers were only 76% those of the annual workers. In addition, according to the statisticians, the employer provided board for the annual workers, whereas the piece workers, who had to operate from their own dwellings, had to provide it for themselves. Taking that into account, the position of the piece worker was even worse compared to the annual worker, and so a strange way of them becoming independent.
“It consists in lowering wages. . . . The fluctuations in the working season, as we shall see, are not big enough to explain this difference. Further, it is very interesting to note that a day labourer’s earnings equal 66.7% of an annual worker’s. Hence, each day labourer is occupied on an average for about eight months in the year. Obviously, it would be far more correct to refer to this as a “temporary” diversion from industry (if the day labourers are really diverted from industry of their own accord, and not because the master does not furnish them with work), than as the “predominance of the seasonal element in wage-labour” (p 52).” (p 380-1)
No comments:
Post a Comment