Section 3 - “Communal-Labour Continuity”
The Narodniks sought to claim that capitalism was not well established in Russia, and that the small handicraft production, based within the community, represented an alternative path of development. But, the data again showed otherwise. Lenin collates the data on the period from which handicraft establishments were created. It shows both that by far the greatest number were established after the Reform, i.e. after the growth of commodity production begins to take off, and the same process of concentration and centralisation of capital that Marx describes in Capital. The details are set out in the following table.
In other words, about 90% of establishments were set up after the Reform, and not only that, but the number of new firms increases in each decade following the Reform.
“This fact is clear evidence of the intensity with which the development of commodity production, the separation of agriculture from industry, and the growth of commerce and industry in general are proceeding among the peasantry. We say “separation of agriculture from industry,” for this separation begins earlier than the separation of the agriculturists from the industrialists: every enterprise which produces for the market gives rise to exchange between agriculturists and industrialists. Hence, the appearance of such an enterprise implies that the agriculturists cease to produce articles in their homes and purchase them in the market, and to make such purchases the peasant has to sell agricultural produce. The growing number of commercial and industrial establishments thus implies a growing social division of labour, the general basis of commodity economy and of capitalism.” (p 381-2)
The Narodnik response to this growth of industry was that, rather than being a sign of capitalist development, it was an indication of the vibrant nature of small scale production. But, of course, what this fails to account for is the fact of increasing concentration and centralisation. This process is itself one of combined and uneven development, as Marx describes in Capital. In other words, there is always a large influx of new small producers, some of them are small capitalist producers, some small independent producers. But, at the same time, as this plethora of small capitals increases, at the other end, some of these capitals are growing larger, both organically and by taking over the capital of other small small capitalists. In addition, independent producers and small capitalists, in one sphere of production, or one part of the country, who find themselves squeezed by larger capitals, move into other spheres or other parts of the country, to escape that competition.
“The growth of small production among the peasantry signifies the appearance of new industries, the conversion of new branches of raw material processing into independent spheres of industry, progress in the social division of labour, the initial process of capitalist development, while the swallowing-up of small by large establishments implies a further step forward by capitalism, leading to the triumph of its higher forms. The spread of small establishments among the peasantry extends commodity economy and prepares the ground for capitalism (by creating petty masters and wage-labourers), while the swallowing-up of small establishments by manufactories and factories implies that big capitalism is utilising ground that has been prepared. The simultaneous existence of these two, seemingly contradictory, processes in one country actually has nothing contradictory in it: it is quite natural that in a more developed part of the country, or in a more developed sphere of industry, capitalism should progress by drawing small handicraftsmen into the mechanised factory, while in more remote regions, or in backward branches of industry, the process of capitalist development is only in its initial stage and manifests itself in the appearance of new branches and new industries.” (p 382)
No comments:
Post a Comment