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

Create successful ePaper yourself

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

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA<br />

as we have seen, it amounts <strong>to</strong> 6 rubles in the case <strong>of</strong> the onehorse<br />

peasant and <strong>to</strong> 100 <strong>to</strong> 200 rubles in the case <strong>of</strong> the<br />

rich peasant. All this is added <strong>to</strong>gether and divided by the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> farms. Even the “average” expenditure on “repair<br />

<strong>of</strong> capitals” is determined (ibid.). The Lord alone knows what<br />

that means! If it means replenishment and repair <strong>of</strong> implements<br />

and lives<strong>to</strong>ck, here are the figures we have already<br />

cited: with the horseless peasant this expenditure equals<br />

8 (eight) kopeks per farm, and with the rich peasant<br />

75 rubles. Is it not evident that if we add such “peasant<br />

farms” <strong>to</strong>gether and divide by the number <strong>of</strong> items added,<br />

we shall get the “law <strong>of</strong> average requirements” discovered<br />

by Mr. Shcherbina in the returns for Ostrogozhsk Uyezd<br />

(<strong>Vol</strong>. II, Pt. 2, 1887) and so brilliantly applied subsequently?<br />

And from such a “law” it will not be difficult <strong>to</strong> draw the<br />

conclusion that “the peasant satisfies not his minimum requirements,<br />

but their average level” (p. 123 and many others),<br />

that peasant farming is a special “type <strong>of</strong> development”<br />

(p. 100), etc., etc. This ingenuous device <strong>of</strong> “equalising” the<br />

rural proletariat and the peasant bourgeoisie is reinforced by<br />

the already familiar classification according <strong>to</strong> allotment.<br />

Had we applied it, for example, <strong>to</strong> the budget data, we would<br />

have combined in one group such peasants, for example<br />

(in the category <strong>of</strong> those having large allotments, with<br />

15 <strong>to</strong> 25 dess. per family), as: one who leases half his allotment<br />

(<strong>of</strong> 23.5 dess.) sows 1.3 dess., lives mainly by means<br />

<strong>of</strong> “personal industries” (how surprisingly well this sounds!)<br />

and secures an income <strong>of</strong> 190 rubles for 10 persons <strong>of</strong> both<br />

sexes (budget No. 10 in Koro<strong>to</strong>yak Uyezd); and another<br />

who rents an additional 14.7 dess., sows 23.7 dess., employs<br />

farm labourers and has an income <strong>of</strong> 1,400 rubles for 10 persons<br />

<strong>of</strong> both sexes (budget No. 2 in Zadonsk Uyezd). Is it<br />

not clear that we shall get a special “type <strong>of</strong> development”<br />

if we add the farms <strong>of</strong> farm labourers and day labourers <strong>to</strong><br />

those <strong>of</strong> peasants employing workers, and divide the <strong>to</strong>tal<br />

by the number <strong>of</strong> items added? One has only <strong>to</strong> make regular<br />

and exclusive use <strong>of</strong> “average” data on peasant farming,<br />

and all “false ideas” about the differentiation <strong>of</strong> the peasantry<br />

will be eliminated once and for all. That is exactly<br />

what Mr. Shcherbina does by adopting this method en grand*<br />

* Extensively.—Ed.<br />

171

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!