The wages of non-agricultural workers were also higher, though the difference was not so great as between the masters. For the non-agriculturist, the average wage was 57.8 roubles, as against 43 roubles for agricultural workers. Later, Lenin would also show that the wages and conditions of the workers in the more capitalistically developed enterprises were higher than for those in the less capitalistically developed. Despite that, the rate of exploitation in the more capitalistically developed enterprises was higher, again confirming the analysis provided by Marx in Capital.
“The difference between the size of the masters’ incomes and workers’ wages is incomparably larger in the case of the non-agriculturists than in that of the agriculturists: taking all three sub-groups, the income of a non-agriculturist master is almost double a worker’s wages (113 rubles and 57.8 rubles respectively), whereas among the agriculturists the income of the master is only slightly higher—4.1 rubles more (47.1 and 43.0)! If these figures are astonishing, even more so are those relating to the agriculturist artisans (I, 2), where the income of the master is less than a worker’s wages! But the reason for this will become quite clear later, when we cite data showing the tremendous difference between the size of incomes in large and small establishments. By increasing productivity of labour, the large establishments make it possible to pay wages exceeding the income of the poor, individual handicraftsmen working alone, whose “independence,” in view of their subjection to the market, is quite fictitious.” (p 394)
Again, these differences are most pronounced amongst the non-agricultural producers.
“The negligible difference between the income of the small master and the wages of the worker clearly shows that the income of the small agriculturist handicraftsman who employs no wage-workers is not higher, and often even lower than the wages of a hired worker. As a matter of fact, the net income of the master (47.1 rubles per family worker) is the average for all establishments, large and small, for both the owners of factories and of one-man workshops. Naturally, in the case of the big masters, the difference between their net income and the wages of their workers is not 4 rubles, but anything from ten to one hundred times as much, which means that the income of the small one-man workshop is considerably below 47 rubles; in other words, this income is not higher, but often even lower than the wages of a worker.” (p 395)
The handicraft census data fully confirmed that conclusion, Lenin says. Again, it demonstrated that, contrary to the Narodnik arguments, the tie to the land greatly reduced earnings.
Lenin then turns to an analysis of the data in relation to the different working seasons for industry and agriculture to show that this cannot explain the difference in incomes, and output. The census dealt with this by looking at the intensity of production at different times during the year, measured by the number of family members and wage workers employed. The data, however, was poorly analysed, Lenin says. Moreover, there were numerous errors in the data, presented in the table. All of that made it risky to use this data as the basis for any analysis.
“All that remains is to treat these data regardless of others, and to compare the maximum and the minimum numbers of workers engaged in each month. This is what is done in the Sketch, but the separate months are compared. We consider it more correct to compare winter and summer; for that will enable us to determine how far agriculture diverts workers from industry. We took the average number of workers engaged in winter (October to March) as the standard, and, applying this standard to the number of workers engaged in summer, we arrived at the number of summer working months. By adding up the number of winter and summer months we got the number of working months in the year. Let us illustrate this by an example. In the first sub-group of Group I there were 18,060 workers engaged in the six winter months, which gives us an average of (18,060 : 6 =) 3,010 workers in one month. In the summer, 12,345 workers were employed; in other words, the summer working season is equal to (12,345:3,010) 4.1 months. Hence, the working period in the first sub-group of Group I amounts to 10.1 months in the year.” (p 397)
As an example, Lenin says, in the first sub-group of Group I, there were 18,060 workers employed over the six Winter months, giving 3,060 workers in a month. Using that average monthly number of workers, Lenin then takes the figure of 12,345 workers employed over the Summer to derive a Summer working season of 4.1 months. That gives a total working season of 10.1 months.
“This method of analysing the data seemed to us both the most correct and the most convenient. It is the most correct, because it is based on a comparison of winter and summer months, and hence, on an exact determination of the extent to which agriculture diverts workers from industry. That the winter months have been correctly taken is confirmed by the fact that in the October-March period the number of workers in both groups is higher than the average for the year. There is the greatest increase in the number of workers from September to October, and the greatest decrease from March to April. Incidentally, the choice of other months would have had little effect on the conclusions. We consider the method chosen to be the most suitable because it gives an exact figure for the working period which allows us to compare the groups and sub-groups in this respect.” (p 398)
No comments:
Post a Comment