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

452
V. I. LENIN
taken over quite uncritically and quite senselessly by the
Narodnik economists, who made a tremendous step backward
by comparison, for example, with a writer like Korsak, and
availed themselves of the prevailing confusion of terms to
evolve the most curious theories. “Handicraft industry” was
regarded as something economically homogeneous, something
sufficient unto itself, and was “counterposed” (sic!)
to “capitalism,” which without further ado was taken to
mean “factory” industry. Let us take Mr. N. —on, for
instance. On p. 79 of his Sketches we find the heading “Capitalisation
(?) of Industries,”* and then, without any reservation
or explanation, “Data on Factories.”. . . The simplicity
is positively touching: “capitalism”= “factory industry,”
and factory industry= what is classified under this heading
in official publications. And on the basis of such a profound
“analysis” the masses of capitalistically employed workers
included among the “handicraftsmen” are wiped off capitalism’s
account. On the basis of this sort of “analysis” the question
of the different forms of industry in Russia is completely
evaded. On the basis of this sort of “analysis” one of the most
absurd and pernicious prejudices is built up concerning the
distinction between our “handicraft” industry and our “factory”
industry, the divorcement of the latter from the
former, the “artificial character” of “factory” industry, etc.
It is a prejudice because no one has ever so much as
attempted to examine the data, which in all branches of
man” is an industrialist belonging to the lower estates, a person who
may be patronised and in relation to whom schemes may be concocted
without compunction; the form of industry is left out of account.
The merchant, however and the member of the nobility (even though
they be small industrialists) are rarely classified as “handicraftsmen.”
By “handicraft” industries are usually meant all sorts of peasant, and
only peasant, industries.
* This term “capitalisation,” of which Messrs. V. V. and N. —on
are so fond, is permissible in a newspaper article, for the sake
of brevity, but it is totally out of place in an economic investigation
of which the whole purpose is to analyse the various forms and stages
of capitalism, their significance, their connection, and their consecutive
development. “Capitalisation” may be taken to mean anything
in the world: the hiring of a single “labourer,” buying-up, and a steamdriven
factory. How can one make head or tail of it, with all these
things jumbled together!