II - The “Handicraftsman” and Wage-Labour
In this section, Lenin looks in more detail at wage labour in handicraft industry. I am providing his first table in that regard, but will confine myself to his main conclusions from it, as the specifics can be observed from the table itself.
The first main conclusion has already been mentioned that wage labour is more developed in the non-agricultural than agricultural handicraft producers. As capitalist production begins in the towns, in industry, and only later spreads to rural areas, this is to be expected. However, the second main conclusion that Lenin derives is that the differences between the sub-groups, in each of these main groups, are greater than the differences between the two main groups themselves. In other words, what is determinant is the economic structure of the industrial/handicraft production itself, not whether the producers also have land and engage in agricultural production alongside industrial production.
The Narodniks saw the less developed stage of capitalist production in agricultural areas as an advantage. Lenin comments,
“We shall not, at this point, enter into a controversy on the general subject of whether the under-development and backwardness of the given social and economic relations may be regarded as an advantage; we shall merely say that the figures we quote below will show that this is an advantage that gives the agriculturists low earnings.” (p 370)
The Narodniks also argued that the larger number of family workers employed by the most prosperous handicraft producers indicated that, rather than showing kulak/capitalist tendencies, the employment of wage labour was simply a supplement to family labour production. In fact, what the data shows is that firstly “the small agriculturist commodity producer is more akin to the small non-agriculturist commodity producer than to the agriculturist artisan. The proportion of wage-workers in the first sub-group is 29.4% in Group I and 31.2% in Group II, whereas in the second sub-group of Group I it is only 14.1%. Similarly, the agriculturist who works for a buyer-up is more akin to the non-agriculturist who does the same (23.2% and 27.4% wage-workers respectively) than to the agriculturist artisan. This shows us that the general prevalence of capitalist commodity relations in the country tends to reduce to one level the agriculturist and the non-agriculturist engaged in industry.” (p 371)
The data also shows that it is amongst the artisans that production is most scattered, leaving the individual artisans isolated, and unable to take advantage of cooperative labour. In looking at the data, the Narodniks had picked on the fact that it was amongst the most prosperous producers, in both groups, i.e. those in sub-group 1, that employed the most family labour. However, they did not discuss the fact that it was also in that sub-group that the largest number and proportion of wage labour was also employed. That these producers employed the largest number of family workers was perfectly understandable. Capitalist production depends upon the greater efficiency that arises from large-scale production, which enables, first, cooperative labour, and a division of labour, and, then, the use of more and better instruments of labour. The obvious first source of cooperative labour for such producers is that of their own family members. It is those producers with larger families who have an initial advantage in producing on a larger scale, thereby gaining a competitive advantage and so accumulating capital, which enables the employment of additional wage labour.
“If the prosperity of handicraftsmen with large families did not indicate kulak tendencies, we should find among them the lowest proportion of wage-workers, the lowest proportion of establishments employing them, the lowest proportion of establishments with a large number of workers (more than five), and the smallest average number of workers per establishment. Actually, however, the most prosperous handicraftsmen (first sub-group) hold first, and not last place in all these respects, and this despite the fact that they have the largest families and the largest number of family workers, and constitute the largest proportion of handicraftsmen with three or more family workers! Clearly, the facts point to the very opposite of what the Narodniks would have them mean: the handicraftsman does, in fact, strive for profit, and by kulak methods; he takes advantage of his greater prosperity (one of the conditions for which is the possession of a large family) to employ wage-labour on a larger scale. Having a larger number of family workers than the other handicraftsmen he uses this to oust the others by hiring the largest number of workers. “Family co-operation, “about which Mr. V. V. and the other Narodniks speak so unctuously (cf. Handicraft Industries, I, p.14), is a guarantee of the development of capitalist co-operation.” (p 372-3)
No comments:
Post a Comment