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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

460<br />

V. I. LENIN<br />

the data <strong>of</strong> the Military Statistical Abstract for purposes<br />

<strong>of</strong> comparison with present-day data, Messrs. N. —on,*<br />

Karyshev** and Kablukov*** revealed their <strong>to</strong>tal<br />

unfamiliarity with the principal sources <strong>of</strong> our fac<strong>to</strong>ry<br />

statistics and their utterly uncritical attitude <strong>to</strong>wards<br />

these statistics.<br />

During the debate in the Free Economic Society on the<br />

paper read by M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, who pointed <strong>to</strong> the<br />

completely erroneous character <strong>of</strong> the figures in the Military<br />

Statistical Abstract, several speakers declared that<br />

even if there was an error in the number <strong>of</strong> workers, it was<br />

only a slight one—10 <strong>to</strong> 15%. That was said, for example,<br />

by Mr. V. V. (see verbatim report <strong>of</strong> debate, St. Petersburg,<br />

1898, p. 1). He was “joined” by Mr. V. Pokrovsky, who also<br />

confined himself <strong>to</strong> a bald statement (p. 3). Without<br />

even attempting a critical examination <strong>of</strong> the various sources<br />

<strong>of</strong> our fac<strong>to</strong>ry statistics, these people and their supporters<br />

contented themselves with generalities about the unsatisfac<strong>to</strong>ry<br />

nature <strong>of</strong> fac<strong>to</strong>ry statistics, and about the data having<br />

recently become more exact (??) and so forth. The main issue,<br />

the crude error <strong>of</strong> Messrs. N. —on and Karyshev, was thus<br />

simply glossed over, as P. B. Struve quite rightly observed<br />

(p. 11). We therefore think it worth while <strong>to</strong> calculate those<br />

exaggerations in the data <strong>of</strong> the Military Statistical<br />

Abstract which could and should have been noticed by anybody<br />

handling the sources attentively. For 71 trades we have<br />

the parallel statistics for 1866 both <strong>of</strong> the Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />

Finance (Ministry <strong>of</strong> Finance Yearbook, I) and <strong>of</strong> unknown<br />

origin (Military Statistical Abstract). For these trades,<br />

leaving out the metallurgical, the Military Statistical<br />

Abstract exaggerated the number <strong>of</strong> workers employed in<br />

fac<strong>to</strong>ries and works in European Russia by 50,000. Further,<br />

for those trades for which the Yearbook gave only gross<br />

figures for the Empire, refusing <strong>to</strong> analyse them in detail<br />

performed by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky (see his book The Fac<strong>to</strong>ry, etc.,<br />

p. 336 and foll.). Cf. Studies, pp. 271 and 275. (See present edition,<br />

<strong>Vol</strong>. 4, “On the Question <strong>of</strong> Our Fac<strong>to</strong>ry Statistics.”—Ed.)<br />

* Sketches, p. 125 and Russkoye Bogatstvo, 1894, No. 6.<br />

** Yuridichesky Vestnik, 1889, No. 9, and Material on the Russian<br />

National Economy, Moscow, 1898.<br />

*** Lectures on Agricultural Economics, Moscow, 1897, p. 13.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!