Another interesting analysis would be a comparison of the incomes of agricultural handicraftsmen compared to those of the non-agriculturists, Lenin says. Although the data can be extracted from the various tables, there was no summary of this information provided. Lenin provides a table summarising the results.
The conclusions are not surprising, but, again, contradict the arguments of the Narodniks. The non-agricultural workers numbered only half that of the agricultural workers, and yet they accounted for nearly half the gross output. In terms of income, and so combining the net income of workers, plus wages of workers, they accounted for 51.4% of the total.
“Consequently, we find that, while they are a minority in numbers, the non-agricultural industrialists do not lag behind the agriculturists in volume of output. This fact is of great importance when we come to judge the traditional Narodnik theory that agriculture is the “main foundation” of so-called handicraft industry.” (p 391)
Lenin sets out a number of other conclusions that flow from this. The gross output of non-agriculturist workers is much higher than agriculturist workers, 192.2 as against 103.8 roubles. The difference cannot be explained by the longer working season of the former. The difference is smallest in the third group, i.e. those small producers who work for buyers up. Given that these are the least capitalistically developed, this is natural.
A similar thing applies to the net income of the non-agricultural masters, big or small. It is 113 as against 47.1 roubles. Again, the difference is biggest in the most capitalistically developed enterprises, which produced directly for the market.
“There can be no doubt that it is due to the fact that the tie with the land lowers the incomes of the industrialists; the market discounts the incomes derived by the handicraftsmen from agriculture, and the agriculturists have to content themselves with lower earnings. This is probably aggravated by the fact that the agriculturists suffer bigger losses on sales, spend more for materials and are more dependent on the merchants.” (p 393)
The importance of low earnings in agriculture was its role “preserving methods of production that are primitive and entail bondage, in retarding the use of machinery, and in lowering the workers’ standard of living.” (p 393) The Sketch again provided no details in this relation, but Lenin notes that other accounts had detailed the higher living standards of those involved in industry rather than agriculture. He notes the comments of Yegunov.
“The author points to the completely “urban” standard of living in some of the landless villages, to the endeavour of the non-agriculturist handicraftsman to dress and live “as decent people do” (European clothes, even to the starched shirt- samovar, larger consumption of tea, sugar, white bread, beef, etc.).” (Note *, p 393)
No comments:
Post a Comment