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.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA<br />

517<br />

cates a shrinkage <strong>of</strong> the home market. If the number <strong>of</strong> fac<strong>to</strong>ry<br />

workers is growing faster than the population (and this is<br />

precisely the case according <strong>to</strong> Mr. N. —on’s own data; an<br />

increase between 1880 and 1890 <strong>of</strong> 25%), this shows that the<br />

population is being diverted from agriculture and that the<br />

home market is growing even for articles <strong>of</strong> personal<br />

consumption. (We say nothing <strong>of</strong> the market for means <strong>of</strong><br />

production.) Secondly, a “decline in the growth,” expressed<br />

in percentages always has <strong>to</strong> take place in a capitalist<br />

country at a certain stage <strong>of</strong> development, for small<br />

magnitudes always grow faster, in percentages, than big<br />

ones. The only deduction one can draw from the fact that<br />

the initial steps in the development <strong>of</strong> capitalism are<br />

particularly rapid is that the young country is striving <strong>to</strong><br />

overtake the older ones. It is wrong, however, <strong>to</strong> take the<br />

percentage increase in the initial period as a standard for<br />

subsequent periods. Thirdly, the fact itself <strong>of</strong> a “decline<br />

in the growth” is not proved at all by comparing the periods<br />

taken by Mr. N. —on. The development <strong>of</strong> capitalist industry<br />

cannot proceed except in cycles; therefore, <strong>to</strong> compare<br />

different periods, one must take data for a whole number <strong>of</strong><br />

years,* so that the particularly prosperous, boom years and<br />

the slump years may stand out distinctly. Mr. N. —on did<br />

not do this and slipped in<strong>to</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ound error, for he overlooked<br />

the fact that the year 1880 was a high boom year.<br />

Moreover, Mr. N. —on did not even hesitate <strong>to</strong> “concoct”<br />

the opposite assertion. “We must also note,” he argues,<br />

“that the intervening year (between 1865 and 1890) <strong>of</strong> 1880<br />

was a year <strong>of</strong> crop failure, so that the number <strong>of</strong> workers<br />

registered in that year was below the normal”!! (ibid.,<br />

pp. 103-104). Mr. N. —on had only <strong>to</strong> glance at the text<br />

<strong>of</strong> the very publication from which he plucked the figures<br />

for 1880 (Direc<strong>to</strong>ry, 3rd edition), <strong>to</strong> read there that 1880<br />

was marked by a “spurt” in industry, particularly in leather<br />

and machine building (p. IV), and that this was due <strong>to</strong> the<br />

enhanced demand for goods after the war and <strong>to</strong> increased<br />

government orders. It is sufficient <strong>to</strong> look through the<br />

* As Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, for example, did in his Fac<strong>to</strong>ry,<br />

p. 307 and chart. The chart clearly shows that 1879, and especially<br />

1880 and 1881, were years <strong>of</strong> particular boom.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!