Lenin then presents the conclusion for both groups and their sub groups.
“These figures lead us to conclude that the difference between the working periods for agriculturists and non-agriculturists is very small: that of the non-agriculturists is only 5% longer. The smallness of this difference gives rise to doubt as to the correctness of the figures. In order to verify them, we have made some calculations and summaries of material scattered throughout the book and have arrived at the following results:” (p 398)
Lenin then looks at the specifics for the monthly employment of workers as set out in The Sketch.
“We find that in three of the industries (pitch and tar, dyeing and brick-making) the number of workers is higher in summer than in winter: in the six winter months only 1,953 workers are engaged in all three industries as against 4,918 in the six summer months. In these industries there is a great preponderance of agriculturists over non-agriculturists, the former constituting 85.9% of the total number of workers. It was obviously quite wrong to combine these, so to speak, summer industries with the others in the grand totals for groups, as that meant combining unlike things and artificially raising the number of summer workers in all industries.” (p 398-9)
There were two ways of dealing with that. One was to deduct the data for those three industries from the totals. Doing that resulted in a working period of 9.6 months for Group I, and and 10.4 for Group II, which means the difference would still be only 8.3%. the other way was to combine the monthly data for Group I and II, provided in The Sketch, separately.
“This will embrace 70% of the total number of handicraftsmen, and, what is more, the comparison between Groups I and II will be more correct. We find that in the case of these twelve industries the working period in Group I is only 8.9 months, and in Group II, 10.7 months, while for the two groups together it is 9.7 months. The working period of the non-agriculturists is now 20.2% longer than that of the agriculturists. The agriculturists do not work for 3.1 months in summer, the non-agriculturists for only 1.3 months.” (p 399)
That means a difference of 20% between Group I and II, but that means that it cannot then explain the difference in output, productivity or net incomes, between Group I and II analysed earlier.
“Consequently, the conclusion drawn above, namely, that the tie with the land reduces the handicraftsmen’s earnings, remains fully valid.” (p 399)
In The Sketch, it was argued that these differences for furriers were explained by the difference in working seasons, but the earnings of non-agriculturists in this sector were between 2 to 4 times that of the agriculturists (65 and 280 roubles per family worker, in the first sub-group, 27 and 62 roubles in the second sub-group) whereas the difference in working season was only 28.7%, i.e. 8.5 months as against 6.6.
“The fact that the tie with the land lowers earnings could not escape the attention even of the compilers of the Sketch; but they expressed it in the usual Narodnik formula on the “superiority” of the handicraft to the capitalist form: “by combining agriculture with industry, the handicraftsman . . . is able to sell his wares cheaper than those of the factory” (p. 4); in other words, he can manage on smaller earnings.” (p 400)
But, in reality, what this meant was that, because the economy was now dominated by the market, the tie to the land was discounted by it in the agriculturists earnings. It did not represent these agriculturist handicraft producers undercutting the more capitalistically developed producers. On the contrary, the latter “can take advantage of this “tie” to exert greater pressure on the agriculturist handicraftsman, who is less able to defend his interests, to choose a different master, a different customer, or a different occupation? The lowering of wages (and of industrial earnings in general) when the worker (or the small industrialist) has a plot of land is something common to all capitalist countries, and is perfectly well known to all employers who have long ago appreciated the vast “superiority” of workers tied to the land. Only in the decadent West do they bluntly call a spade a spade, but in our country the lowering of wages, the lowering of the living standard of the working population, the delay in introducing machinery, and the perpetuation of all sorts of bondage is referred to as the “superiority” of “people’s production,” which “combines agriculture with industry.”. . .” (p 400-1)
No comments:
Post a Comment