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

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA
433
other, demands continuous and long pursuit of the craft.
The economic structure of manufacture is characterised
by a far deeper differentiation among the industrialists
than is the case in the small industries; and we have
seen that in the small industries, differentiation in industry
is paralleled by differentiation in agriculture. With
the utter pauperisation of the mass of producers, which
is a condition and a consequence of manufacture, its working
personnel cannot be recruited from among farmers
who are at all economically sound. Among the cultural
peculiarities of manufacture are, firstly, the very lengthy
(sometimes age-old) existence of the industry, which
leaves its impress upon the population; and secondly, the
higher standard of living of the population.* We shall deal
with the latter circumstance in greater detail further on,
but first let us note that manufacture does not bring about
the complete separation of industry from agriculture. Under
hand technique the big establishments cannot eliminate the
small ones completely, especially if the small handicraftsmen
lengthen their working day and reduce the level of their
requirements: under such conditions, manufacture, as we
have seen, even develops the small industries. It is natural,
therefore, that in the majority of cases we see around
the non-agricultural centre of manufacture a whole region
of agricultural settlements, the inhabitants of which also
engage in industries. Hence, in this respect, too, we find
clearly revealed the transitional character of manufacture
between small hand production and the factory. If even in
* Mr. V. V. in his Essays on Handicraft Industry, assures us that
“in our country ... there are very few localities of handicraft industry
where agriculture has been entirely abandoned (36)—we have shown
above that, on the contrary, there are very many—and that “the
slight manifestations of division of labour that we observe in our
country must be ascribed not so much to the energy of industrial
progress as to the immobility of the size of peasant holdings...” (40).
Mr. V. V. fails to notice that these “localities of handicraft industry”
are distinguished by a special system of technique, economy and
culture, and that they characterise a specific stage in the development
of capitalism. The important thing is that the majority of “industrial
villages” received the “smallest allotments” (39)—(in 1861, after
their industrial life had proceeded for scores and in some cases hundreds
of years!)—and of course, had there not been this connivance of
the authorities there would have been no capitalism.