Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

302V. I. LENINwhich are sheltered by this monopoly. In order that “thecomposition of capital shall not affect the rate of profit”(there should be added: the composition of an individualcapital, or of the capital of an individual branch of industry;here too Maslov expounds Marx in a muddled way),in order that the average rate of profit may be formed, theprofits of all the separate enterprises and of all the separatespheres of industry must be levelled. The levelling takesplace through free competition, through the free investmentof capital in all branches of production without distinction.Can that freedom exist where there is non-capitalist monopoly?No, it cannot. The monopoly created by the privateownership of land hinders the free investment of capital,hinders free competition, hinders the levelling of the disproportionatelyhigh agricultural profit (arising from thelow composition of agricultural capital). Maslov’s objectionreveals an utter lack of understanding, which is particularlyobvious when, two pages further on, we comeacross a reference to ... brickmaking (p. 111); here, too, thetechnical level is low, the organic composition of capitalis below the average, as in the case of agriculture, and yetthere is no rent!There cannot be any rent in brickmaking, esteemed “theoretician”,because absolute rent arises not from the lowcomposition of agricultural capital, but from the monopolycreated by the private ownership of land, which preventscompetition from levelling the profits of “low composition”capital. To repudiate absolute rent means repudiating theeconomic significance of the private ownership of land.Maslov’s second argument against Marx is this:“Rent from the ‘last’ investment of capital, Rodbertus’s rentand Marx’s absolute rent, will disappear because the tenant can alwaysmake the ‘last’ investment the ‘last but one’ if it producesanything besides the ordinary profit” (p. 112).Pyotr Maslov muddles things, “impudently” muddlesthem.In the first place, to put Rodbertus on a par with Marxon the question of rent is to display crass ignorance. Rodbertus’stheory is based on the assumption that the erroneouscalculations of the Pomeranian landlord (“not to