The Handicraft Census In Perm Gubernia, Article II, Section V - Part 2 of 4

Lenin summarises the difference between large and small enterprises.

“a) by an incomparably higher productivity of labour;

b) by better payment of wage-workers, and

c) by a far higher net income.” (p 412)

The large establishments employed wage labour on a much larger scale than the small enterprises, even though the industries covered looked only at “handicraft production”, which, thereby, missed out a number of even larger capitalist enterprises in each of these industries.

“The census data consequently reveal the prevalence of purely capitalist laws and relations in the celebrated “handicraft” industry; they reveal the absolute superiority of the capitalist workshops, based on the co-operation of wage-workers, over the one-man workshops and small workshops in general—a superiority both in productivity of labour and in remuneration for labour, even of wage-workers.” (p 412)

In a number of cases, the wages of workers were higher than the incomes of small masters, and their family workers. If the non-wage components for wage workers were included, such as the provision of board and lodging, then that would even more have been the case.

“We accordingly formulate this concept as follows: because of lower labour productivity in small establishments and the defenceless position of their owners in the market (especially in the case of agriculturists), it is possible that the earnings of an independent handicraftsman may be lower than those of a wage worker—and the facts show that this very often is the case.” (p 413)

This is simply a specific application of the conclusion arrived at by Marx in Capital I, and Capital III. Marx concluded that, because capitalism more rapidly develops labour productivity, via the introduction of machines and other technology, those firms that first introduce such technology are able to pay higher wages, whilst still producing higher profits and undercutting their competitors. Similarly, countries that had higher productivity, because they had experienced greater capitalist development were able to provide workers with a higher standard of living, whilst also having a much higher rate of surplus value, and rate of profit, compared to less capitalistically developed economies.

Lenin provides a further table giving data on enterprises divided by size, on the basis of their output. 

In most cases, the total income for each band is calculated by taking the mid point (i.e. 150 roubles in the 100-200 rouble band) and multiplying by the number of firms in that band. In the lowest bands, up to 10 and up to 20 roubles, the maximum for the band was used. This method, Lenin says, produces total figures that differ from those of The Sketch by only 0.36%. Other assumptions and approximations were required to determine the income per family worker, as against the income per family. The assumptions made that the smaller the family income the smaller the family, and the fewer employing wage workers and vice versa. These assumptions followed the arguments of the Narodniks.

“In other words, whatever other assumption was made, it would only help to reinforce our conclusions.” (p 415)

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3