29.11.2014 Views

Leon Trotsky: 1905

Leon Trotsky: 1905

Leon Trotsky: 1905

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Leon</strong> <strong>Trotsky</strong>: <strong>1905</strong>: CHAPTER 2-- Russian Capitalism<br />

regimentation. Factories based on freely hired labor were, of course, radically hostile to the social<br />

relations of the Russia of Nicholas I. For that reason, the serf-owning nobility's point of view was wholly<br />

that of the "free traders." As far as his sympathies were concerned, Nicholas himself entirely shared this<br />

viewpoint. Yet the needs of the state, including fiscal needs, forced him to adopt a policy of prohibitive<br />

taxes and financial subsidies to the factory owners. After the lifting of the embargo on the importation of<br />

machines from England, the Russian textile industry developed entirely on the basis of ready-made<br />

English models. During the 1840s and 1850s the German, Knopp, transferred 122 spinning factories,<br />

down to the last nail, from England to Russia. In the textile area there even used to be a proverb:<br />

"Where there's trouble, there's a cop, where there's a factory there's Knopp." Since the textile industry<br />

was working for a market, it put Russia in fifth place (on a world scale) as regards the number of<br />

spindles, despite the chronic shortage of skilled hands and even before the abolition of serfdom.<br />

But the other branches of industry, especially ironmaking, developed hardly at all after the death of Peter.<br />

The main reason for this stagnation was slave labor, which rendered the application of new technology<br />

quite impossible. Cheap cotton is manufactured for the use of peasant serfs themselves; but iron<br />

presupposes a developed industry, towns, railways, railway engines. None of this was compatible with<br />

serfdom. At the same time serfdom was also holding back the development of agriculture, which, as time<br />

went on, was working more and more for the foreign market. Hence the abolition of serfdom became a<br />

pressing demand of economic development. But who could put it into effect? The nobility refused even<br />

to consider it. The capitalist class was as yet too negligible to achieve a reform of such vast scope by any<br />

pressure it could exert. The frequent peasant riots, which in any case bore no comparison with the<br />

peasant war in Germany or with the Jacquerie in France, remained mere scattered outbursts and, finding<br />

no leadership in the cities, were in themselves too weak to destroy the power of the landowners. The state<br />

had to pronounce the decisive word. Tsarism had to suffer a cruel military defeat in the Crimean<br />

campaign before it could, in its own interests, clear the way for capitalist development by means of the<br />

semi-liberation reform of 1861.<br />

This point marked the beginning of a new period of economic development within the country, a period<br />

characterized by the rapid formation of a pool of "free" labor, a feverish development of the railway<br />

network, the creation of seaports, the incessant inflow of European capital, the Europeanization of<br />

industrial techniques, cheaper and more easily available credit, an increase in the number of limited stock<br />

companies, the introduction of gold currency, ferocious protectionism and an avalanche-like growth of<br />

the national debt. The reign of Alexander III (1881 -- 1894), when the ideology of the "uniqueness" of<br />

Russia dominated the whole of public consciousness, starting in the revolutionary conspirator's hideout<br />

(the narodnik movement) and ending with the private chancellery of His Majesty himself (official<br />

"narodnost," or Russianness), was, at the same time, an era of ruthless revolution in production relations.<br />

By setting up major industries and by proletarianizing the muzhik, European capital was automatically<br />

undermining the deepest foundations of Asian-Muscovite "uniqueness."<br />

The railways acted as a powerful lever for the country's industrialization. The initiative for building them<br />

was, of course, the state's. The first railway (between Moscow and Petersburg) was opened in 1851. After<br />

the Crimean catastrophe, the state yielded first place in railway construction to private entrepreneurs.<br />

Yet, like a tireless guardian angel, it always stood at the back of these entrepreneurs: it assisted the<br />

formation of stock and bond capital, it undertook to guarantee profits on capital, it showered the<br />

shareholders' path with all kinds of privileges and encouragements. During the first decade after the<br />

peasant reform, 7 thousand versts of railways were built Russia, 12 thousand during the second decade, 6<br />

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/<strong>1905</strong>/ch02.htm (2 of 8) [06/06/2002 13:41:32]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!