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

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA
about “agricultural-handicraft-factory communities” and
about the necessity of “restricting,” “enjoining,” “observing,”
etc., etc. Well then, our Narodniks did their best to ignore
the first, the positive part of Mr. Postnikov’s work and concentrated
their attention on the second part. Both Mr. V. V.
and Mr. N. —on began with highly serious air to “refute”
Mr. Postnikov’s absolutely unserious “projects” (Mr. V. V. in
Russkaya Mysl [Russian Thought], 1894, No. 2; Mr. N. —on
in his Sketches, p. 233, footnote), accusing him of the evil
intention of introducing capitalism into Russia, and carefully
avoiding the data which revealed the prevalence of capitalist
relations in the countryside of South Russia today.*
II. ZEMSTVO STATISTICS FOR SAMARA GUBERNIA
From the country’s southern outer area let us pass to the
eastern region, to Samara Gubernia. Let us take Novouzensk
Uyezd, the last one investigated; in the statistical report for
this uyezd we find the most detailed classification of the peasants
according to economic status.** Here are the general
data on the groups of the peasantry (the data that follow
cover 28,276 allotment-holding households, numbering
164,146 persons of both sexes, i.e., only the Russian
population of the uyezd, without Germans or farmsteaders—householders
who farm both on community land
and on separate non-community farmsteads. The inclusion
* “It is interesting,” wrote Mr. N. —on, that Mr. Postnikov
“has projects for 60-dessiatine peasant farms.” But “since agriculture
has fallen into the hands of capitalists,” productivity of labour may
grow still more “tomorrow,” “and it will be necessary (!) to convert
the 60-dessiatine into 200- or 300-dessiatine farms.” You see how
simple it is: because the petty bourgeoisie of today in our countryside
will be threatened tomorrow by the big bourgeoisie, therefore Mr.
N. —on refuses to recognise either today’s petty or tomorrow’s big
bourgeoisie!
** Statistical Returns for Samara Gubernia, Vol. VII, Novouzensk
Uyezd, Samara, 1890. An analogous classification is also given
for Nikolayevsk Uyezd (Vol. VI, Samara, 1889), but the data are
much less detailed. The Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia (Vol.
VIII, Pt. 1, Samara, 1892) contains only a classification according
to size of allotment, the unsatisfactory nature of which we shall deal
with later on.
85