Lenin then provides another table simplifying these results into a smaller number of categories.
Lenin draws the following conclusions.
“a) Over one-fourth of the families (28.4%) come under the category of poor, with an average income of about 33 rubles per family. Let us assume that this is the income of only one family worker, that all in this category are one man producers. In any case the earnings of these handicraftsmen are considerably lower than the average earnings of wage-workers employed by handicraftsmen (45.85 rubles).” (p 416)
Lenin further concludes that, if the majority of these belong to the third sub-group, of producers working for buyers-up, “this means that the “masters” pay those who work at home less than wage-workers employed in the workshop.” (p 416) Again, this is consistent with Marx and Engels' findings in relation to such domestic production. Its also what is seen today with most home workers.
“Over two-fifths of the total number of handicraftsmen (41.8%) belong to the group of families in straitened circumstances, who have an average income of 75 rubles per family. Not all of these are one-man establishments (the previous category was assumed to consist solely of one-man producers): about half the families have two family workers each, and hence the average earnings per family worker are only about 50 rubles, i.e., not more, or even less, than the earnings of a wage-worker employed by a handicraftsman (apart from wages, amounting to 45.85 rubles, part of the wage-workers also receive their board)” (p 417-8)
Again, although the wage workers suffer “poverty”, in the sense of no longer owning their means of production, the data shows that they are more affluent than their less poor counterparts, who continued to own their means of production, but whose dwarfish nature meant they could not compete with larger producers, even where those larger producers paid higher wages to their wage workers than the incomes of the self-employed producers.
“The low income level of these handicraftsmen can be judged by the fact that the average wage of an agricultural labourer employed by the year in Perm Gubernia is 50 rubles, in addition to board. Consequently, the standard of living of seven-tenths of the “independent” handicraftsmen is no higher than that of agricultural labourers!” (p 418)
The Narodniks would argue that such incomes were in addition to agriculture, but Lenin responds, it had long ago been established that only a minority of peasants were even able to derive a sufficient income from agriculture to sustain their families after redemption payments etc. were made. In other words, for the majority, agricultural activity represented a drain rather than supplement to their income.
“And please note that we are comparing the handicraftsman’s earnings with the wages of a farm labourer who receives his board from his master. Secondly, seven-tenths of the total number of handicraftsmen must also include non-agriculturists. Thirdly, even if it turns out that agriculture covers the maintenance of the agriculturist handicraftsmen of these categories, the drastic effect of the tie with the land in reducing earnings still remains beyond all doubt.” (p 418)
No comments:
Post a Comment