22.12.2012 Views

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA<br />

Groups <strong>of</strong> householders<br />

Number <strong>of</strong><br />

improved<br />

implements<br />

per 100 farms<br />

111<br />

Total % <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>tal<br />

improved improved<br />

implementsimplements<br />

Cultivating no land . . . . . 0.1 2 0.1<br />

” up <strong>to</strong> 5 dess. . . . 0.2 10 0.6<br />

” 5 <strong>to</strong> 10 ” . . . 1.8 60 3.7<br />

” 10 <strong>to</strong> 20 ” . . . 9.2 299 18.4<br />

” 20 <strong>to</strong> 50 ” . . . 50.4 948 58.3<br />

” over 50 ” . . . 180.2 309 18.9<br />

Total . . . . . . . . 10.8 1,628 100<br />

One more illustration <strong>of</strong> Mr. V. V.’s “Narodnik” thesis<br />

that improved implements are used by “all” peasants!<br />

The data on “industries” enable us this time <strong>to</strong> single out<br />

two main types <strong>of</strong> “industries,” indicating 1) the transformation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the peasantry in<strong>to</strong> a rural bourgeoisie (ownership <strong>of</strong><br />

commercial and industrial establishment), and 2) the transformation<br />

<strong>of</strong> the peasantry in<strong>to</strong> a rural proletariat (sale <strong>of</strong><br />

labour-power, the so-called “agricultural industries”). The<br />

following table shows the distribution by groups <strong>of</strong> these<br />

diametrically opposite types <strong>of</strong> “industrialists”*:<br />

Commercial<br />

Distribution<br />

<strong>of</strong> commercial<br />

& industrial and industrial<br />

Groups <strong>of</strong> householders establish- establish-<br />

mentsper 100 ments<br />

peasants by groups as<br />

% <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>tal<br />

77.2<br />

% <strong>of</strong> farms<br />

engaging in<br />

agricultural<br />

industries<br />

Cultivating no land . . . . . 0.5 1.7 52.3<br />

” up <strong>to</strong> 5 dess. . . . 1.4 14.3 26.4<br />

” 5 <strong>to</strong> 10 ” . . . 2.4 22.1 5.0<br />

” 10 <strong>to</strong> 20 ” . . . 4.5 34.3 1.4<br />

” 20 <strong>to</strong> 50 ” . . . 7.2 23.1 61.9 0.3<br />

” over 50 ” . . . 18.0 4.5 —<br />

Total . . . . . . . . 2.9 100 16.2<br />

A comparison <strong>of</strong> these data with those showing the distribution<br />

<strong>of</strong> the area under crops and the hiring <strong>of</strong> workers<br />

once again shows that the differentiation <strong>of</strong> the peasantry<br />

creates a home market for capitalism.<br />

* “Agricultural industries” are also singled out only for the last<br />

three districts. The commercial and industrial establishments <strong>to</strong>tal<br />

692, namely 132 watermills, 16 oilmills, 97 pitch and tar works,<br />

283 “smithies, etc.” and 164 “shops, taverns, etc.”

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!