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

328
V. I. LENIN
proposition of the progressive role of capitalism in agriculture.*
Let us see what Engels actually says. After summarising
the main propositions of Marx’s theory of differential
rent, Engels establishes the law that “the more capital
is invested in the land, and the higher the development of
agriculture and civilisation in general in a given country,
the more rents rise per acre as well as in total amount, and
the more immense becomes the tribute paid by society to
the big landowners in the form of surplus-profits” (Das
Kapital, III, 2, 258. Russ. trans., 597). 116 This law, says
Engels, explains “the wonderful vitality of the class of big
landowners,” who accumulate a mass of debts and nevertheless
“land on their feet” in all crises; for example, the abolition
of the Corn Laws in England, which caused a drop
in grain prices, far from ruining the landlords, exceedingly
enriched them.
It might thus seem that capitalism is unable to weaken
the power of the monopoly represented by landed property.
“But everything is transitory,” continues Engels. “Transoceanic
steamships and the railways of North and South
America and India” called forth new competitors. The North
American prairies and the Argentine pampas, etc., flooded
the world market with cheap grain. “And in face of this
competition—coming from virgin plains as well as from
Russian and Indian peasants ground down by taxation—
the European tenant farmer and peasant could not prevail
* See Novoye Slovo, 1896, No. 5, February, letter to editors by
Mr. N. —on, pp. 256-261. Here also is the “quotation” on the “moral
of history.” It is remarkable that neither Mr. N. —on nor any other
of the numerous Narodnik economists who have tried to use the present
agricultural crisis to refute the theory of the progressive historical
role of capitalism in agriculture, has ever once raised the question
in a straightforward manner, on the basis of a definite economic
theory; has ever once stated the grounds which induced Marx to
admit the progressiveness of the historical role of agricultural capitalism,
or has definitely indicated just which of these grounds he
repudiates, and why. In this, as in other cases, the Narodnik
economists prefer not to oppose Marx’s theory outright, but confine
themselves to casting vague hints at the “Russian disciples.” Confining
ourselves in this work to the economy of Russia, we have given above
the grounds for our opinions on this question.