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

600
V. I. LENIN
and we have had occasion to note the corresponding observations
of Russian investigators.
Turning now to Narodnik economics, with whose representatives
we have constantly had to polemise, we may sum
up the causes of our differences with them as follows. First,
we cannot but regard as absolutely wrong the Narodniks’
very conception of the process of capitalist development
in Russia, and their notion of the system of economic relationships
that preceded capitalism in Russia; and what is
particularly important, from our point of view, is their
ignoring of the capitalist contradictions in the structure of
peasant economy (both agricultural and industrial). Furthermore,
whether the development of capitalism in Russia
is slow or rapid, depends entirely on what we compare this
development with. If we compare the pre-capitalist epoch in
Russia with the capitalist (and that is the comparison which
is needed for arriving at a correct solution of the problem),
the development of social economy under capitalism must
be considered as extremely rapid. If, however, we compare
the present rapidity of development with that which could
be achieved with the general level of technique and culture
as it is today, the present rate of development of capitalism
in Russia really must be considered as slow. And it cannot but
be slow, for in no single capitalist country has there been such
an abundant survival of ancient institutions that are incompatible
with capitalism, retard its development, and immeasurably
worsen the condition of the producers, who “suffer
not only from the development of capitalist production, but
also from the incompleteness of that development. 168 Finally,
perhaps the profoundest cause of disagreement with the
Narodniks is the difference in our fundamental views on
social and economic processes. When studying the latter,
the Narodnik usually draws conclusions that point to some
moral; he does not regard the diverse groups of persons taking
part in production as creators of various forms of life; he
does not set out to present the sum-total of social and economic
relationships as the result of the mutual relations between
these groups, which have different interests and different
historical roles. . . . If the writer of these lines has succeeded
in providing some material for clarifying these problems,
he may regard his labours as not having been fruitless.