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

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA
the true “science of the national economy”—Rodbertus’s
italics) “should have shown how out of the total national
product one part always goes to replace the capital consumed
in production or worn out, while the other, as national income,
goes to satisfy the direct requirements of society and of
its members” (ibid., S. 27). But although true science should
have shown this, Rodbertus’s “science” did nothing of the
kind. The reader will see that he merely repeated Adam
Smith word for word, evidently not even seeing that this is
only the beginning of the problem. Which workers
“replace” the national capital? How is their product realised?
Not a word did he say about this. Summing up his theory
(diese neue Theorie, die ich der bisherigen gegenüberstelle,*
S. 32) in the shape of separate theses, Rodbertus first speaks
of the distribution of the national product as follows: “Rent”
(by this, as we know, Rodbertus meant what is usually
termed surplus-value) “and wages are, consequently, the parts
into which the product resolves itself, in so far as it is
income” (S. 33). This extremely important reservation should
have suggested a very vital question to him: he had only
just said that by income he meant articles which serve “to
satisfy direct requirements”; hence, there are products that
do not serve for personal consumption. How are they realised?
But Rodbertus sees no unclarity here and soon forgets
this reservation, speaking outright of the “division of the
product into three parts” (wages, profit and rent) (S. 49-50
and others). Thus Rodbertus virtually repeated Adam
Smith’s theory together with his fundamental mistake and
explained nothing at all regarding the question of income.
The promise of a new, full and better theory of the distribution
of the national product** proved to be just empty talk.
As a matter of fact, Rodbertus did not advance the theory
* —this new theory, which I set against those that have existed
hitherto.—Ed.
** Ibid., S. 32: “. . . bin ich genötigt der vorstehenden Skizze
einer besseren Methode auch noch eine voilständige, solcher besseren
Methode entsprechende Theorie, wenigstens der Verteilung des Nation-
alprodukts, hinzuzufügen.” (Ibid., p. 32: “. . . I am obliged to add to
the present outline of a better method, a full theory, corresponding
to this better method, of at least the distribution of the national product.”—Ed.)
61