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

256
V. I. LENIN
But before examining the data for the separate areas,
let us note the following: the Narodnik economists, as we
have seen, do all they can to evade the fact that the characteristic
feature of the post-Reform period is the growth of
commercial agriculture. Naturally, in doing so they also
ignore the circumstance that the drop in grain prices is
bound to stimulate the specialisation of agriculture and the
drawing of agricultural produce into the sphere of exchange.
Here is an instance. The authors of the well-known book
The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices all proceed from
the postulate that the price of grain is of no importance to
natural economy, and they repeat this “truism” endlessly.
One of them, Mr. Kablukov, has observed, however, that
under the general conditions of commodity production this
postulate is substantially wrong. “It is possible, of course,”
he writes, “that the grain placed on the market has cost less
to produce than that grown on the consumer’s farm, in
which case it would appear to be in the interest also of the
consuming farm to change from cultivating cereals to other
crops” (or to other occupations, we would add), “and,
consequently, for it too the market price of grain assumes
importance as soon as it fails to coincide with its cost of
production” (I, 98, note, author’s italics). “But we cannot
take that into account,” he says peremptorily. Why is that?
Because, it seems: 1) a change-over to other crops is possible
“only where certain conditions exist.” By means of this
empty truism (everything on earth is possible only under certain
conditions!) Mr. Kablukov calmly evades the fact that
the post-Reform period in Russia has created, and continues
to create, the very conditions that call for
the specialisation of agriculture and the diversion of
the population from agriculture. . . . 2) Because “in our
climate it is impossible to find a crop equal to cereals in food
value”. The argument is highly original, expressing a mere
evasion of the issue. What has the food value of other crops
to do with the matter, if we are dealing with the sale of
these other crops and the purchase of cheap grain? . . .
3) Because “grain farms of the consuming type always have a
rational basis for their existence.” In other words, because
Mr. Kablukov “and colleagues” regard natural economy as
“rational.” The argument, as you see, is irrefutable. . . .