REVIEW

A. Bogdanov. A short course in economics.

Moscow. 1897. Ed. book. warehouse A. Murinova. Page 290. C. 2 p.

Mr. Bogdanov's book represents a remarkable phenomenon in our economic literature; this is not only a “not superfluous” guide among others (as the author “hopes” in the preface), but positively the best of them. We therefore intend in this note to draw the attention of readers to the outstanding merits of this work and to note some insignificant points in which, in our opinion, improvements could be made in future editions; one should think that with the keen interest of the reading public in economic questions, the next editions of this useful book will not be long in coming.

The main advantage of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" is the complete consistency of the direction from the first to the last page of the book, which deals with very many and very broad questions. From the very beginning, the author gives a clear and precise definition of political economy as “the science that studies the social relations of production and distribution in their development” (3), and nowhere deviates from this view, which is often very poorly understood by learned professors of political economy who stray from “ social relations of production” on production in general and filling their thick courses with a heap of meaningless and not at all related to social science platitudes and examples. The author is alien to that scholasticism, which often prompts the compilers of textbooks to excel

36 V. I. LENIN

in the "definitions" and in the analysis of the individual features of each definition, and the clarity of presentation not only does not lose from him from this, but directly benefits, and the reader, for example, will receive a clear idea of ​​​​such a category as capital, both in its social and in its historical meaning. The view of political economy as a science of historically developing patterns of social production is the basis for the presentation of this science in Mr. Bogdanov's "course". Outlining at the beginning a brief " general concepts” about science (pp. 1-19), and at the end with a brief “history of economic views” (pp. 235-290), the author outlines the content of science in the section “V. The process of economic development”, does not expound it dogmatically (as is customary in most textbooks), but in the form of a description of successive periods of economic development, namely: the period of primitive tribal communism, the period of slavery, the period of feudalism and workshops, and, finally, capitalism. This is how political economy should be stated. It will perhaps be objected that in this way the author inevitably has to split up the same theoretical section (for example, on money) between different periods and fall into repetition. But this purely formal shortcoming is fully redeemed by the main merits of the historical presentation. And is it a disadvantage? The repetitions are very insignificant, useful for the beginner, because he more firmly assimilates especially important positions. Assigning, for example, the various functions of money to different periods of economic development clearly shows the student that the theoretical analysis of these functions is based not on abstract speculation, but on an accurate study of what really happened in the historical development of mankind. The idea of ​​individual, historically determined, ways of social economy is obtained more integral. But the whole task of a guide to political economy is to give the student of this science the basic concepts of the various systems of social economy and of the fundamental features of each system; all

REVIEW OF THE BOOK OF A. BOGDANOV 37

the task is that the person who has assimilated the initial manual should have in his hands a reliable guiding thread for the further study of this subject, so that he will get an interest in such a study, realizing that the most important questions of modern social life are most directly connected with the questions of economic science. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this is precisely what manuals of political economy lack. Their shortcoming lies not so much in the fact that they usually confine themselves to one system of social economy (precisely capitalism), but in the fact that they are unable to concentrate the reader's attention on the fundamental features of this system; unable to clearly identify historical meaning, to show the process (and conditions) of its occurrence, on the one hand, the trends of its further development, on the other; do not know how to represent the individual aspects and individual phenomena of modern economic life, as components of a certain system of social economy, as manifestations of the fundamental features of this system; they do not know how to give the reader a reliable guide, because they usually do not adhere to one direction with all consistency; Finally, they fail to interest the student, because they understand the significance of economic questions in an extremely narrow and incoherent way, placing “factors” economic, political, moral, etc. “in a poetic disorder”. a broad, coherent and meaningful view of a special way of social economy, as the foundation of a special way of the entire social life of a person.

The outstanding merit of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" lies precisely in the fact that the author consistently adheres to historical materialism. Describing a certain period of economic development, he usually gives an outline of the political order, family relations, the main currents of social thought in connection with the fundamental features of a given economic system. Having found out how a given economic system

38 V. I. LENIN

gave rise to a certain division of society into classes, the author shows how these classes manifested themselves in the political, family, intellectual life of a given historical period, how the interests of these classes were reflected in certain economic schools, how, for example, the interests of the upward development of capitalism were expressed by the school of free competition, and the interests of the same class in a later period, the school of vulgar economists (284), the school of apology. The author quite rightly points out the connection with the position of certain classes of the historical school (284) and the school of katheder-reformers ("realist" or "historical-ethical"), which must be recognized as the "school of compromise" (287) with its meaningless and false idea of ​​" non-class "origin and significance of legal and political institutions (288), etc. In connection with the development of capitalism, the author puts the teachings of Sismondi and Proudhon, fundamentally attributing them to petty-bourgeois economists, showing the roots of their ideas in the interests of a special class of capitalist society occupies a "middle, transitional place" (279) - recognizing in no uncertain terms the reactionary significance of such ideas (280-281). Thanks to the consistency of his views and the ability to consider certain aspects of economic life in connection with the main features of this economic system, the author correctly assessed the importance of such phenomena as the participation of workers in the profits of an enterprise (one of the "forms of wages" that "can too rarely be beneficial to entrepreneur" (pp. 132-133)), or productive associations which, "organizing themselves in the midst of capitalist relations", "essentially only increase the petty bourgeoisie" (187).

We know that it is precisely these features of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" that will arouse quite a few complaints. It goes without saying that the representatives and supporters of the "etico-sociological" school in Russia will remain dissatisfied. Those who believe that “the question of the economic understanding of history is a question of pure

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 39

academic, and many others ... But apart from this, so to speak, party dissatisfaction, they will probably indicate that the broad formulation of questions caused an extraordinary conciseness of the presentation of the “short course”, which tells on 290 pages and about all periods economic development, starting from the tribal community and savages and ending with capitalist cartels and trusts, and about the political and family life of the ancient world and the Middle Ages, and about the history of economic views. Mr. A. Bogdanov's exposition is indeed extremely concise, as he himself points out in the preface, directly calling his book a "summary". There is no doubt that some of the author's concise remarks, relating most often to facts of a historical nature, and sometimes to more detailed questions of theoretical economy, will be incomprehensible to a novice reader who wants to get acquainted with political economy. It seems to us, however, that the author cannot be blamed for this. Let us even say, without fear of accusations of paradoxicality, that we are inclined to regard the presence of such remarks as a merit rather than a defect of the book being analyzed. In fact, if the author had taken it into his head to state in detail, explain and substantiate each such remark, his work would have grown to immense limits, completely inconsistent with the tasks of a brief guide. And it is unthinkable to present in any course, even the thickest, all the data of modern science on all periods of economic development and on the history of economic views from Aristotle to Wagner. If he were to throw out all such remarks, then his book would positively lose out on the narrowing of the limits and significance of political economy. In its present form, these concise remarks will, we think, be of great benefit to both teachers and students on this abstract. There is nothing to say about the first. The latter will see from the totality of these remarks that

* So thinks the journal columnist of "Russian Thought"11 (1897, November, bibl. otd., p. 517). There are comedians!

40 V. I. LENIN

political economy cannot be studied so-so, mir nichts dir nichts, without any prior knowledge, without familiarization with very many and very important questions of history, statistics, etc. Students will see that with questions of social economy in its development and its influence on social life it is impossible get acquainted with one or even several of those textbooks and courses that are often remarkable for their surprising “ease of presentation”, but also for their amazing lack of content, transfusion from empty to empty; that the most burning questions of history and contemporary reality are inextricably linked with economic questions, and that the roots of these latter questions lie in public relations production. This is precisely the main task of any guide: to give the basic concepts of the subject being presented and to indicate in which direction it should be studied in more detail and why such a study is important.

Let us now turn to the second part of our remarks, to pointing out those passages in Mr. Bogdanov's book which, in our opinion, require correction or addition. We hope that the venerable author will not complain about the pettiness and even captiousness of these remarks: in the abstract, individual phrases and even individual words have incomparably more importance than in a detailed and detailed presentation.

Mr. Bogdanov generally adheres to the terminology of the economic school he follows. But, speaking of the form of value, he replaces this term with the expression "formula of exchange" (p. 39 ff.). This expression seems unfortunate to us; the term "form of value" is really inconvenient in a brief guide, and instead of it it would probably be better to say: form of exchange or stage of development of exchange, otherwise such expressions as "dominance of the 2nd exchange formula" (43) (?) . Speaking of capital, the author vainly omitted to point out the general formula for capital, which

* As Kautsky aptly noted in the preface to his famous book Marx's Oekonomische Lehren (The Economic Doctrine of K. Marx. Ed.).

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 41

would help the student to assimilate the homogeneity of commercial and industrial capital. - Describing capitalism, the author omitted the question of the growth of the commercial and industrial population at the expense of the agricultural population and the concentration of the population in major cities; this gap is all the more palpable because, speaking of the Middle Ages, the author dwelled in detail on the relationship between the village and the city (63-66), and said only a few words about the modern city about the subordination of the village to them (174). - Speaking about the history of industry, the author quite decisively places the "domestic system of capitalist production" "in the middle of the path from handicraft to manufacture" (p. 156, thesis 6). On this issue, such a simplification of the matter seems to us not entirely convenient. The author of Capital describes capitalist work at home in the section on the machine industry, relating it directly to the transformative effect of this latter on the old forms of labor. Indeed, such forms of work at home, which dominate, for example, both in Europe and in Russia in the confectionery industry, cannot be placed “in the middle of the path from craft to manufactory”. They stand further than manufacture in the historical development of capitalism, and we should say a few words about this, we think. - A noticeable gap in the chapter on the machine period of capitalism is the absence of a paragraph on the reserve army and capitalist overpopulation, on its generation by machine industry, on its significance in the cyclical movement of industry, on its main forms. Those very cursory mentions of the author about these phenomena, which are made on pages 205 and 270, are certainly insufficient. - The author's assertion that "over the past half century" "profit has been growing much faster than rent" (179) is too bold. Not only Ricardo (against whom Mr. Bogdanov makes this remark), but also Marx states the general tendency of rent

* Page 93, 95, 147, 156. It seems to us that the author successfully replaced the expression “domestic system of large-scale production” introduced into our literature by Korsak with this term.

* The strict division of capitalism into manufacturing and machine periods is a very great merit of Mr. Bogdanov's "course".

42 V. I. LENIN

to a particularly rapid growth under all and all conditions (even an increase in rent is possible with a decrease in the price of grain). That drop in grain prices (and rent under certain conditions), which has recently been caused by the competition of the virgin fields of America, Australia, etc., has come sharply only since the 70s, and Engels' note in the section on rent ("Das Kapital" , III, 2, 259-260), devoted to the present agricultural crisis, is formulated much more carefully. Engels here states the "law" of the growth of rent in civilized countries, which explains the "amazing vitality of the class of large landowners", and further points out only that this vitality is "gradually exhausted" (allmählich sich erschöpft). - The paragraphs devoted to agriculture are also distinguished by excessive brevity. In the paragraph on (capitalist) rent it is indicated only in the most cursory manner that its condition is capitalist agriculture. (“In the period of capitalism, the land continues to be private property and acts as capital”, 127, and nothing more!) A few words should be said about this in more detail, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, about the birth of the rural bourgeoisie, about the position of agricultural workers and about the differences this position from the position of factory workers (lower standard of needs and life; remnants of attachment to the land or various Gesindeordnungen, etc.). It is also a pity that the author did not touch upon the question of the genesis of capitalist rent. After the remarks he made about the colonies13 and dependent peasants, and further on the tenancy of our peasants, it would be necessary to characterize briefly the general course of the development of rent from labor rent (Arbeitsrente) to rent in kind (Produktenrente), then to cash rent (Geldrente), and from it already to capitalist rent (cf. Das Kapital, III, 2, Cap. 47). - Talking about crowding out the capi-

* - "Capital", vol. III, part 2, pp. 259-260.12 Ed. - legal provisions that established the relationship between landowners and serfs. Ed.

** - "Capital", vol. III, part 2, chapter 47. and Ed.

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 43

the talism of subsidiary trades and the loss of stability of peasant farming as a result of this, the author expresses it this way: “peasant farming is becoming poorer in general, the total amount of values ​​it produces decreases” (148). This is very inaccurate. The process of the ruination of the peasantry by capitalism consists in its being ousted by the rural bourgeoisie, formed from the same peasantry. Mr. Bogdanov could hardly, for example, describe the decline of the peasant economy in Germany without touching on Vollbauer "oB. In the passage cited, the author speaks of peasants in general, but after that he gives an example from Russian life - well, but to talk about the Russian peasant "in general" is more than risky. The author on the same page says: "A peasant either engages in agriculture alone, or goes to manufacture," that is, - let's add on our own - either turns into a rural bourgeois, or into a proletarian (with This two-sided process should be mentioned. Finally, as a general shortcoming of the book, we must note the absence of examples from Russian life. about the growth of the urban population, about crises and syndicates, about the difference between manufactory and factory, etc.), such examples from our economic literature would be very important, otherwise mastering the subject is very difficult rude for the beginner by the lack of examples familiar to him. It seems to us that filling in the gaps indicated would enlarge the book very little and would not impede its wide distribution, which in all respects is highly desirable.

Lenin V.I. complete collection Works Volume 4 NOTE TO THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF MARKETS (Regarding the controversy between Messrs. Tugan-Baranovsky and Bulgakov)

A NOTE ON THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF MARKETS

(ON REGARD TO THE POLEMIC OF TUGAN-BARANOVSKY AND BULGAKOV)15

The question of markets in capitalist society, as is well known, has occupied an extremely important place in the teachings of Narodnik economists since V. V. and N. -on at their head. It is quite natural, therefore, that economists who have a negative attitude towards the theories of the Narodniks have found it necessary to pay attention to this question and to elucidate, first of all, the basic, abstract-theoretical points of the "theory of markets". An attempt at this clarification was made in 1894 by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky in his book Industrial Crises in Modern England, ch. Part I of the second: "The Theory of Markets", and then last year Mr. Bulgakov devoted his book to the same question: "On Markets in Capitalist Production" (Moscow, 1897). Both authors agreed among themselves in the basic views; for both, the center of gravity lies in the presentation of the remarkable analysis of "the circulation and reproduction of the entire social capital", an analysis given by Marx in the third section of the second volume of "Capital". Both authors agreed that the theories of Messrs. V. V. and N. -on about the market (especially the internal one) in capitalist society are undoubtedly erroneous and are based either on ignoring or on a misunderstanding of Marx's analysis. Both authors acknowledged that developing capitalist production itself creates a market for itself, mainly at the expense of the means of production, and not of consumer goods; - that the realization of the product in general and of surplus-value in particular is completely

A NOTE ON THE QUESTION OF THE THEORY OF MARKETS 45

explainable without the involvement of the external market; - that the need for a foreign market for a capitalist country does not follow at all from the conditions of realization (as Messrs. V.V. and N.-on believed), but from historical conditions, etc. It would seem that with such complete agreement between Messrs. Bulgakov and Tugan-Baranovsky have nothing to argue about, and they can jointly direct their efforts towards a more detailed and further critique of populist economics. But in fact, a controversy ensued between the named writers (Bulgakov, titled cit., pp. 246-257 and passim; Tugan-Baranovsky in "The World of God" in 1898, No. 6: "Capitalism and the Market", about the book by S. Bulgakov). In our opinion, both Mr. Bulgakov and Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky have gone somewhat far in their polemics, giving their remarks too personal character. Let's try to figure out whether there is a real disagreement between them, and if so, which of them is more right.

First of all, Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky accuses Mr. Bulgakov of being "little original" and too fond of jurare in verba magistri (M. B., 123). “The solution I have given of the question of the role of the foreign market for a capitalist country, which Mr. Bulgakov fully accepts, is by no means taken from Marx,” declares Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky. It seems to us that this statement is incorrect, because Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky borrowed the solution of the question from Marx; Mr. Bulgakov undoubtedly took it from the same place, so that the dispute can be conducted not about "originality", but about understanding this or that proposition of Marx, about the need to expound Marx in one way or another. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says that Marx "in Volume II does not touch upon the question of the foreign market at all" (1. p.). This is not true. In the same section (III) of the second volume, in which the analysis of the realization of the product is presented, Marx quite definitely clarifies the attitude towards this question of foreign trade, and consequently, of the foreign market. Here is what he says about it:

* - other. Ed.

* - swear by the teacher's words. Ed. - loco citato - in a quoted place. Ed.

46 V. I. LENIN

“Capitalist production does not exist at all without foreign trade. But if one assumes normal annual reproduction in given sizes, then this already assumes that foreign trade only replaces native products (Artikel - commodities) with products of a different use or natural form, without affecting either those relations of value in which two categories are exchanged: production and consumer goods, nor the relations between constant capital, variable capital and surplus-value into which the value of the product of each of these categories is divided. The introduction of foreign trade into the analysis of the annually reproduced value of the product can, therefore, only confuse matters, without providing a new moment either for the problem itself or for its solution. Consequently, it does not need to be taken into account at all ... ”(“ Das Kapital ”, Π1, 469 *. The italics are ours)17. “Resolution of the issue” by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky: - “... in every country that imports goods from abroad, capital can be in abundance; a foreign market is absolutely necessary for such a country” (“Industrial crises”, p. 429. Quoted in “M.B.”, 1. p. 121) is a simple paraphrase of Marx’s proposition. Marx says that when analyzing sales, foreign trade cannot be taken into account, because it only replaces some goods with others. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says, examining the same question of realization (Chapter I of Part Two of "Industrial Crises"), that a country that imports goods must also export goods, i.e., have a foreign market. The question is, can it be said after this that Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky's "solution of the problem" is "by no means taken from Marx"? Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says further that "Volumes II and III of Capital are only a far from finished draft" and that "for this reason we do not find in Volume III the conclusions from the remarkable analysis presented in Volume II" (op. st., 123). And this statement is inaccurate. In addition to individual analyzes of social reproduction

* - "Capital", vol. II, ed. 1st, p. 469. Ed.

A NOTE ON THE THEORY OF MARKETS 47

("Das Kapital", III, 1, 28918: an explanation in what sense and to what extent the realization of constant capital is "independent" of individual consumption, "we find in Volume III" a special chapter (49th. "On the Analysis of the Process of Production") , devoted to the conclusions from the remarkable analysis presented in Volume II, a chapter in which the results of this analysis are applied to the solution of the very important question of the types of social income in capitalist society.Finally, the statement of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, that "Marx, in Volume III of Capital, speaks on this question in a completely different way," that in Volume III we "even encounter assertions decisively refuted by this analysis" (op. cit., 123). 122 of his article are two such arguments of Marx, allegedly contradicting the main doctrine. Let us examine them more closely. In Volume III, Marx says: "The conditions for direct exploitation and the conditions for the realization of it (this exploitation) are not identical twenny. Not only do they not coincide in time and place, but they are essentially different. The former are limited only by the productive force of society, the latter are limited by the proportionality of the various branches of production and the consumer power of society ... The more the productive force (society) develops, the more it becomes in conflict with the narrow foundation on which the relations of consumption are based ”(III, 1, 226. Russian translation, pp. 189-19. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky interprets these words as follows: “The mere proportionality of the distribution of national production does not yet guarantee the possibility of selling products. Products may not find a market for themselves, although the distribution of production will be proportional - this, apparently, is the meaning of the quoted words of Marx. No, that is not the meaning of these words. There is no reason to see in these words any correction to the theory of realization presented in Volume II. Marx only here states the contradiction of capitalism, which was pointed out elsewhere in Capital, namely, the contradiction between

48 V. I. LENIN

the desire to limitlessly expand production and the need for limited consumption (due to the proletarian state of the masses). Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, of course, will not argue against the fact that this contradiction is inherent in capitalism; and since Marx points to him in the same passage, we have no right to look for any further meaning in his words. The "consumer power of society" and the "proportionality of the various branches of production" are by no means some separate, independent, unrelated conditions. On the contrary, a certain state of consumption is one of the elements of proportionality. Indeed, an analysis of realization has shown that the formation of an internal market for capitalism is not so much at the expense of consumer goods, but rather at the expense of means of production. Hence it follows that the first subdivision of social production (the production of means of production) can and must develop faster than the second (the production of consumer goods). But it certainly does not follow from this that the production of means of production could develop completely independently of the production of consumer goods and without any connection with it. Marx says about this: “We have seen (Book II, Section III) that there is a constant circulation between constant capital and constant capital, which, on the one hand, is independent of personal consumption in the sense that it never enters into this latter , but which is nevertheless limited in the final analysis (definitiv) to personal consumption, since the production of constant capital never takes place for its own sake, but only because more of this constant capital is consumed in those branches of production whose products enter into personal consumption. (III, 1, 289. Russian translation, 242). So, ultimately, productive consumption (consumption of means of production) is always connected with personal consumption, always dependent on it. Meanwhile, capitalism is characterized, on the one hand, by the desire for an unlimited expansion of productive

A NOTE ON THE THEORY OF MARKETS 49

consumption, to an unlimited expansion of accumulation and production, and on the other hand, the proletarianization of the masses, which sets rather narrow boundaries for the expansion of personal consumption. It is clear that we see here a contradiction in capitalist production, and in the quoted passage Marx only states this contradiction. The analysis of implementation in Volume II does not in the least refute this contradiction (contrary to the opinion of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky), showing, on the contrary, the connection between productive and personal consumption. It goes without saying that it would be a gross mistake to deduce from this contradiction of capitalism (or from its other contradictions) the impossibility of capitalism or its non-progressiveness in comparison with previous economic regimes (as our Narodniks like to do). The development of capitalism cannot take place otherwise than in a whole series of contradictions, and pointing out these contradictions only reveals to us the historically transitory character of capitalism, explains the conditions and reasons for its striving to pass into a higher form.

Putting all of the above together, we arrive at the following conclusion: the solution of the question of the role of the foreign market presented by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky was taken precisely from Marx; there is no contradiction between volumes II and III of Capital on the question of realization (and on the theory of markets).

* Another passage quoted by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky (III, 1, 231, cf. S. 232 to the end of the paragraph)21 has exactly the same meaning, as well as the following passage about crises: “The last cause of all real crises remains always poverty and limited consumption of the masses, which opposes the desire of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way as if the limit of their development was only the absolute consumption capacity of society ”(“ Das Kapital ”, III, 2, 21. Russian translation, p. 395)22 . The same meaning of Marx's following remark: “A contradiction in capitalist society: the workers, as buyers of goods, are important for the market. But capitalist society seeks to limit them to a minimum price as sellers of their commodity - labor power" ("Das Kapital", Π, 303)23. We have already spoken of Mr. N.-on's misinterpretation of this passage in the Novye Slovo 24, 1897, May. (See Works, 5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 160-161. Ed.) There is no contradiction between all these passages and the analysis of implementation in Section III, Volume II.

50 V. I. LENIN

economists to Marx about markets. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky accuses Mr. Bulgakov of tearing Marx's views away from the scientific soil on which they grew up, of portraying the matter as if "Marx's views have no connection whatsoever with the views of his predecessors." This last reproach is completely unfounded, for Mr. Bulgakov not only did not express such an absurd opinion, but, on the contrary, cited the views of representatives of various schools before Marx. In our opinion, both Mr. Bulgakov and Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, in presenting the history of the question, paid so little attention to Adam-Smith in vain, on whom it would be necessary to dwell in the greatest detail in a special exposition of the "theory of markets"; "necessarily" - because it is Hell. Smith was the founder of that erroneous doctrine of the breakdown of the social product into variable capital and surplus-value (wages, profits and rent, in the terminology of Ad. Smith), which stubbornly held out until Marx and made it impossible not only to resolve, but even to correctly raise the question of realization . Mr. Bulgakov quite rightly says that, “given the incorrectness of the initial points of view and the incorrect formulation of the problem itself, these disputes” (about the theory of markets that arose in the economic literature) “could lead only to empty and scholastic verbiage” (with 21 titles of op., approx.). Meanwhile Hell. The author devoted only one page to Smith, omitting a detailed and brilliant analysis of the theory of Hell. Smith, given by Marx in the 19th chapter of the second volume of "Capital" (§ II, S. 353-383)25, and instead dwelling on the teachings of minor and dependent theorists, D.-S. Mill and von Kirchmann. As for Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, he completely bypassed A. Smith and therefore, in expounding the views of subsequent economists, he omitted their main mistake (a repetition of Smith's above mistake). That the exposition under these conditions could not be satisfactory is self-evident. We restrict ourselves to two examples. Having outlined your scheme No. 1, explaining a simple

A NOTE ON THE THEORY OF MARKETS 51

reproduction, Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says: “But the case of simple reproduction assumed by us does not raise any doubts; the capitalists, according to our assumption, consume all their profits—it is clear that the supply of commodities will not exceed the demand” (Industrial Crises, p. 409). This is not true. This is not at all a “understandable thing” for the former economists, because they were not able to explain even the simple reproduction of social capital, and indeed it cannot be explained without understanding that the social product breaks up according to value into constant capital + variable capital + surplus value, and according to material form into two major divisions: means of production and consumer goods. Therefore, A. Smith and this case aroused "doubts", in which, as Marx showed, he got confused. If, however, later economists repeated Smith's mistake without sharing Smith's doubts, this only shows that they have taken a theoretical step back on this issue. It is just as wrong when Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says: “The teaching of Say-Ricardo is theoretically absolutely correct; if its opponents had taken the trouble to calculate in figures how goods are distributed in the capitalist economy, they would easily understand that the denial of this doctrine contains a logical contradiction” (1. p. 427). No, the teaching of Say - Ricardo is theoretically completely wrong: Ricardo repeated Smith's mistake (see his "Works", trans. Sieber, St. Petersburg. 1882, p. 221), and Say also completed it, arguing that the difference between gross and The net product of society is quite subjective. And no matter how much Say - Ricardo and their opponents "counted on numbers" - they would never have counted for anything, because the point here is not at all in numbers, as Bulgakov quite rightly noted about another place in Mr. Tugan's book -Baranovsky (Bulgakov, 1. p. 21, approx.).

We have now come to another subject of the dispute between Messrs. Bulgakov and Tugan-Baranovsky, namely, to the question of digital schemes and their meaning.

52 V. I. LENIN

Mr. Bulgakov argues that Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky's schemes, "thanks to the deviation from the model" (i.e., from Marx's scheme), "to a large extent lose their convincing force and do not explain the process of social reproduction" (1. p. , 248), while Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says that “Mr. Bulgakov does not clearly understand the very purpose of such schemes” (The World of God, No. 6, 1898, p. 125). In our opinion, in this case the truth is entirely on the side of Mr. Bulgakov. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky "does not clearly understand the meaning of schemes", who believes that schemes "prove the conclusion" (ibid.). Schemes by themselves cannot prove anything; they can only illustrate the process if its individual elements have been elucidated theoretically. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky drew up his own schemes, different from Marx's schemes (and incomparably less clear than Marx's schemes), moreover, omitting the theoretical elucidation of those elements of the process that should be illustrated by schemes. The basic tenet of Marx's theory, which showed that the social product does not break up into only variable capital + surplus-value (as A. Smith, Ricardo, Proudhon, Rodbertus, and others thought), but into constant capital + these parts, is Mr. Tougan- Baranovsky did not explain at all, although he accepted it in his schemes. The reader of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky's book is not in a position to understand this basic tenet of the new theory. The need to distinguish between two divisions of social production (I: means of production and II: consumer goods) Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky did not motivate at all, while, according to the correct remark of Mr. Bulgakov, “in this one division there is more theoretical meaning than in all previous debates about the theory of markets” (1. p., p. 27). That is why Mr. Bulgakov's exposition of Marx's theory is much clearer and more correct than that of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky.

In conclusion, dwelling in somewhat more detail on Mr. Bulgakov's book, we must note the following.

* - ibidem - ibid. Ed.

A NOTE ON THE THEORY OF MARKETS 53

About a third of his book is devoted to

Year of issue: 2007

Genre: Economy

Publisher:

Format: FB2

Quality: Scanned pages

Number of pages: 424

Description: In this book, the outstanding Russian economist, philosopher and politician A. A. Bogdanov (1873-1928) considers the successive phases of the economic development of society and characterizes each era according to the following plan: 1) the state of technology, or the relationship of man to nature; 2) forms of social relations in production and 3) in distribution; 4) the psychology of society, the development of its ideology; 5) the forces of development of each era, which determine the change of economic systems and successive transitions from primitive communism and the patriarchal-clan organization of society to the slave-owning system, feudalism, the petty-bourgeois system, the era of commercial capital, industrial capitalism and, finally, socialism.
The Marxist foundations of teaching, along with the conciseness and general accessibility of the exposition, brought the book wide popularity in Russia, and until recently it could be considered the most common textbook in the study of economic science, not only among workers, but also among wide circles of young students.

The first edition of this book came out at the end of 1897, the ninth in 1906. During those years it was revised more than once, and the last text was already very different from the first presentation that was created in the classes of workers' circles in the Tula forests, and then was mercilessly mutilated by censorship . For all the time the reaction of the new edition was not required; with the revolution came an increased demand for this book, and it quickly disappeared from the market. But preparing a new edition was very difficult: too much time had passed, too much had happened in life and science; a lot of reworking was needed. Suffice it to point out that this was the period in which the new phase of capitalism—the domination of finance capital—was fully defined, the period in which it flourished and unfolded its unprecedented form of crisis— world war. These 12-13 years, in terms of the richness of economic experience, are probably not inferior to the entire previous century ...
Comrade Sh. M. Dvolaitsky agreed to take on the greatest part of the entire task of revising the course, and we carried it out jointly. The biggest additions pertain to the last part of the course on money circulation, on the tax system, on finance capital, on the basic conditions for the collapse of capitalism, etc.; they are almost entirely written by Comrade. Dvolaitsky. He also introduced a number of new factual illustrations in all parts of the course. Significant regroupings were needed in the arrangement of material on previous periods of economic development, in accordance with the latest views on these issues. The history of economic views scattered in the course has been eliminated; this is done in the interests of integrity, since this story belongs, in fact, to another science - about ideologies, and it is better to tell it in a separate book. The introduction is greatly reduced - about the basic concepts, in view of its extreme dryness; the necessary material is placed in other departments, in connection with the historical development of the corresponding elements of the economy. At the end of the book Comrade. Dvolaitsky added a brief index of literature.
At present, in addition to this course, there are those built according to the same type: Starting course”, set out in questions and answers, by A. Bogdanov, and a large, two-volume course by A. Bogdanov and I. Stepanov (the second volume of which, in four issues, should be released almost simultaneously with this book). The "Short Course" will be the middle link between them, as a systematic textbook, concisely covering the main facts and fundamentals of the theory.
The chapters on ideology in this course, as in the other two, do not at all represent any application to the main subject. Ideology is a tool for organizing economic life and, consequently, an important condition for economic development. It is only within this framework, in this connection, that it is touched upon here. As an independent subject, it is considered in a special textbook "The Science of Social Consciousness", which is written according to the same type.
In the midst of the tumultuous events of the revolutionary epoch, more than ever, a solid and holistic economic knowledge is needed. Without it, planning is impossible either in social struggle or in social construction.

In this book, the outstanding domestic economist, philosopher and politician A. A. Bogdanov (1873–1928) considers the successive phases of the economic development of society and characterizes each era according to the following plan: 1) the state of technology, or the relationship of man to nature; 2) forms of social relations in production and 3) in distribution; 4) the psychology of society, the development of its ideology; 5) the forces of development of each era, which determine the change of economic systems and successive transitions from primitive communism and the patriarchal-clan organization of society to the slave-owning system, feudalism, the petty-bourgeois system, the era of commercial capital, industrial capitalism and, finally, socialism.

The Marxist foundations of teaching, along with the conciseness and general accessibility of the exposition, brought the book wide popularity in Russia, and until recently it could be considered the most common textbook in the study of economic science, not only among workers, but also among wide circles of young students.

Short Course in Economics

Foreword

The first edition of this book came out at the end of 1897, the ninth - in 1906. During those years it was revised more than once, and the last text was already very different from the first presentation that was created in the classes of workers' circles in the Tula forests, and then was mercilessly mutilated by censorship . For all the time the reaction of the new edition was not required; with the revolution came an increased demand for this book, and it quickly disappeared from the market. But preparing a new edition was very difficult: too much time had passed, too much had happened in life and science; a lot of reworking was needed. Suffice it to point out that this was the period in which a new phase of capitalism, the domination of finance capital, was fully defined, a period in which it reached its peak and unfolded its unprecedented form of crisis, the world war. These 12-13 years, in terms of the richness of economic experience, are probably not inferior to the entire previous century ...

Comrade Sh. M. Dvolaitsky agreed to take on the greatest part of the entire task of revising the course, and we carried it out jointly. The biggest additions pertain to the last part of the course on money circulation, on the tax system, on finance capital, on the basic conditions for the collapse of capitalism, etc.; they are almost entirely written by Comrade. Dvolaitsky. He also introduced a number of new factual illustrations in all parts of the course. Significant regroupings were needed in the arrangement of material on previous periods of economic development, in accordance with the latest views on these issues. The history of economic views scattered in the course has been eliminated; this is done in the interests of integrity, since this story belongs, in fact, to another science - about ideologies, and it is better to present it in a separate book. The introduction is greatly reduced - about the basic concepts, in view of its extreme dryness; the necessary material is placed in other departments, in connection with the historical development of the corresponding elements of the economy. At the end of the book Comrade. Dvolaitsky added a brief index of literature.

At present, in addition to this course, there are those built according to the same type: "The Beginning Course", set out in questions and answers, by A. Bogdanov, and a large, two-volume course by A. Bogdanov and I. Stepanov (the second volume of which, in four issues , should be released almost simultaneously with this book). The "Short Course" will be the middle link between them, as a systematic textbook, concisely covering the main facts and fundamentals of the theory.

The chapters on ideology in this course, as in the other two, do not at all represent any application to the main subject. Ideology is a tool for organizing economic life and, therefore, an important condition for economic development. It is only within this framework, in this connection, that it is touched upon here. As an independent subject, it is considered in a special textbook "The Science of Social Consciousness", which is written according to the same type.

In the midst of the tumultuous events of the revolutionary epoch, more than ever, a solid and holistic economic knowledge is needed. Without it, planning is impossible either in social struggle or in social construction.

Introduction

I. Definition of economics

Every science is

systematized knowledge of the phenomena of a certain area of ​​human experience

Cognition of phenomena comes down to mastering their interconnection, establishing their correlations and thereby being able to use them in the interests of man. Such aspirations spring from economic activity people, in the process of the labor struggle of mankind - the struggle that it invariably wages with nature for its existence and development. In his work experience, a person comes across, for example, that rubbing dry pieces of wood against each other with sufficient strength and duration gives fire, that fire has a remarkable ability to produce such changes in food that facilitate the work of the teeth and stomach, and together with that makes it possible to be content with a smaller amount of food. The practical needs of mankind, therefore, push him to establish a connection between these phenomena - to their knowledge; having clarified their connection, humanity is already beginning to use it as a tool in its labor struggle. But this kind of knowledge of phenomena, of course, is not yet a science; it presupposes

systematized

knowledge of the totality of the phenomena of a certain branch of labor experience. In this sense, the knowledge of the connection between friction, fire, etc., can only be considered as the germ of a science, precisely that science, which at the present time unites physical and chemical processes.

A special subject of our economic. science, or political economy

Is an

area of ​​social and labor relations between people

In the process of production, people, by virtue of natural necessity, come into certain relations with one another. The history of mankind does not know such a period when people, quite separately, individually, would earn their livelihood. Already in the most immemorial times, hunting for a wild animal, carrying heavy loads, etc., required simple cooperation (cooperation); the complication of economic activity entailed a division of labor between people, in which in a common economy one performs one work necessary for all, the other performs another, etc. Both simple cooperation and the division of labor put people in a certain connection with each other and represent the primary , elementary relations of production. The area of ​​such relations is not limited, of course, to simple cooperation and division of labor; it is much more complex and broader.

Passing from the lower stages of human development to the higher, we are confronted with the following facts: the serf part of the product of his labor is given to the landowner, the worker works for the capitalist; the craftsman does not produce for personal consumption, but in a significant proportion for the peasant, who, for his part, transfers part of his product directly or through merchants to the craftsman. All these are social and labor ties that form a whole system

The complexity and breadth of production relations are especially pronounced in a developed exchange economy. Thus, for example, under the domination of capitalism, permanent social relations are established between people who have never seen each other and often have no idea of ​​the strong threads that bind them together. A Berlin stockbroker may have shares in some South American factory. By virtue of the mere fact of owning these shares, he receives an annual profit from this enterprise, that is, part of the product created by the labor of the South American worker, or, which is practically equivalent to this, part of the value of his product. Thus, invisible social relations are established between the Berlin stockbroker and the South American worker, which economic science must investigate.

“In the social administration of their lives, people enter into certain relations, independent of their will, relations of production; these relations always correspond to the given stage of development of their material productive forces.

II. Methods of economic science

Economics, like other sciences, uses two main methods of research: these are - 1)

induction

generalizing

Going from particular to general, and 2)

deduction

applying generalizations

Drawing conclusions from the general to the particular.

The method of induction is expressed, first of all, in generalizing descriptions. Having a number of phenomena, we look for what they have in common, and in this way we get

first generalizations

Looking further for features of similarity already between them, we come to generalizations of the second order, etc. If we take a number, for example, of blacksmith farms, then we can find common features in them and, having singled out this common feature, form a concept of a blacksmith’s farm at all. We can do the same with the farms of bookbinders, bakers, tailors, etc. Comparing the first generalizations thus obtained and highlighting what is similar between them, we can get a concept of the household of an artisan in general. We then have a second-order generalization. Distinguishing common features from this and from another generalization, namely, relating to the economy of the peasants, we can arrive at a broader generalization - "the economy of a small producer." If we note the common features of such a series of similar phenomena, then we thereby give a generalized description.

The processes of life are so complex and varied that a simple description is easily entangled in them: in phenomena very close to each other, the same signs are either present or absent, sometimes more pronounced, sometimes weaker; all this often makes generalization extremely difficult and complicates description. Under these conditions, one has to resort to another method, to

statistical induction

The statistical method finds out

how often

there are certain signs in this group of phenomena, and

to what extent are they expressed

With the help of generalizing descriptions, we single out “owners” and “non-owners” from society on the basis of possession of property. The method of counting, statistics, can bring clarity and precision to our investigation, i.e., show how often the sign we have indicated is repeated in a society of people and to what extent. Using the statistical method, we can come to the conclusion that out of 100 million people, let's say 80 million. are similar in that they have property, and 20 mil. - in the fact that they do not have one, - and also how many among the owners there are millionaires, rich, poor people, etc. But the role of our method is not limited to this. The same calculations could, for example, establish that in the same society 10 years ago there were 85 proprietors per 100 members, and even 10 years earlier - 90. Thus, the development trend is also established, i.e. the direction in which the observed facts change. But where this trend came from, and how far it might go, remains unknown: our calculations could not show

The point is that the statistical method, while giving a more perfect description of the facts, does not, however, give them

III. Presentation system

The social relations of production and distribution change gradually, consistently, little by little. There are no fast transitions; there are no sharp boundaries between the previous and the next. Nevertheless, in studying the economic life of a society, it is for the most part possible to divide it into several periods, which differ significantly in the structure of social relations, although not sharply separated from one another.

Of greatest interest to us - and at the same time the most studied by science - is the course of development of those societies that have become part of the "civilized" humanity of our times. In the main features, the path of development of these societies turns out to be similar everywhere. Up to the present time, two main phases have been outlined, which proceeded in different cases unequally in particular, but in essence almost identically, and one phase, which belongs to the future.

Primary subsistence farming

Its distinguishing features are: the weakness of social man in the struggle with nature, the narrowness of individual public organizations, the simplicity of social relations, the absence or negligible development of exchange, the extreme slowness of the ongoing changes in social forms.

Exchange economy

The dimensions of social production and the heterogeneity of its elements are increasing. Society appears to be complex, whole, consisting of individual farms, which only to a relatively small or negligible extent satisfy their needs with their own products, but for the most part - with the products of other farms, precisely through exchange. Development goes through the struggle of interests and social contradictions; its speed increases.

Socially organized economy - not yet reached stage of development

The dimensions and complexity of production continue to grow continuously, but the heterogeneity of its elements is transferred to the tools and methods of labor, while the members of society themselves develop towards homogeneity. Production and distribution are systematically organized by society itself into a single, integral system, alien to fragmentation, contradictions, and anarchy. The development process is accelerating more and more.

Natural economy

I. Primitive tribal communism

Data on the basis of which one has to study life primitive people can't be called rich. There was no literature left from the time of primitive man, since it could not have existed then. The only monuments of this period are bones, tools, etc., found in the ground, as well as traces of prehistoric social relations preserved in customs, cult, legends, word roots, etc.

There is still an important source that can be used in the study of the life of primitive mankind, this is the life, attitudes, customs of modern savages, especially those of them who are at the lowest stages of development. But, resorting to this source, it is necessary to be very careful in the conclusions. Now there are no more savages who would never have to have relations with more developed peoples; and it is easy to fall into a serious mistake, taking for the remnant of primitive customs what is actually borrowed in comparatively recent times. Other kinds of errors are also possible. Another tribe, which has already developed culture to a certain extent, again loses most of its acquisitions as a result of an unsuccessfully developed historical life. Taking such a feral tribe for a primitive wild one, one can draw many wrong conclusions.

In any case, even the stock of data on the life of primitive people that is currently available is sufficient to clarify the main features of social relations in the "prehistoric" era.

1. The primitive relationship of man to nature

In the struggle with nature, primitive man is extremely poorly armed, worse than many animals. Natural tools - arms, legs, teeth - are much weaker than, for example, large predatory animals. The artificial tools, those that now give man a decisive advantage over the rest of living and dead nature, were then bad, crude, and there were too few of them at the disposal of man, so that they could not greatly facilitate his struggle for existence.

In this hard struggle, primitive man is far from being the king of nature. Quite the contrary: the first period of the life of mankind is a period of oppression, slavery of man. Only the oppressor and master is not another person, but nature.

The first tools were, of course, a stone and a stick. These tools, taken directly from nature, can apparently be found even among the higher apes. But even now there are no savages left anywhere who would not know other tools.

The brain of primitive man is weak, undeveloped. He does not have time for mental work in the midst of a constant, exhausting struggle, in which the danger of death does not stop for a minute.

And yet man develops. A dull, oppressed slave of nature, earning a livelihood, fighting for his existence, in the process of labor he gets acquainted with the objects and forces of nature, from generation to generation passes on and accumulates experience, improves tools. With terrible slowness, for many thousands of years, inventions and discoveries are being made one after another. All such things are invented that seem extremely simple to a person of our time. But they were very expensive for primitive man. By combining stone and stick, processing them, adapting them to different purposes, many others came from these primitive tools - stone axes, hammers, knives, spears, etc.

2. The structure of the primitive tribal group

Modern science, neither in the present nor in the past, knows such people who would not live in society. In the primitive era, there were already connections between people, although much less extensive than now. It was just as impossible for a person of those times to do without the help of other people in the struggle for existence, as it is for the present. Face to face with a hostile nature, an individual would be doomed to a quick, inevitable death.

However, the strength of social unions was extremely insignificant. The main reason for this was the very weak development of technology; and it, in turn, gave rise to another reason - the extreme narrowness of social ties, the insignificance of the size of individual societies.

The lower the technique, the less perfect the methods of struggle for existence, the more expanse of land, the “area of ​​exploitation”, is required for each person to obtain means of subsistence. Primitive hunting is such an unproductive occupation that on one square mile of land, under the average natural conditions of the temperate zone, no more than 20 people can be fed. Any significant group of people would have to spread out over such a vast area that maintaining social communication would become extremely difficult; and if we take into account the primitive technique of communication between people - the absence of any roads, the absence of tamed animals on which to ride, the enormous dangers associated with the most insignificant journey - it becomes obvious that the dimensions of the social union then reached at most a few dozen people.

In those days, uniting for a joint struggle for life was possible only for people whom nature itself had already bound by a unity of origin, kinship. People who were strangers to each other by blood did not enter into free unions for productive activities: a primitive man cannot invent such a complicated thing as a contract; and most importantly, the terrible severity of the struggle for existence taught him to be hostile to any person with whom he was not connected by kinship and life together. Therefore, the social organization of the primitive period had the form

The basic production relation of the genus group is simple cooperation. Social labor activity is so limited and uncomplicated that everyone knows how to do everything that others can do, and everyone performs, each individually, approximately similar work. This is the weakest form of cooperation bond. In certain cases, a connection of a closer nature appears on the scene: the collective performance of tasks that are unbearable for an individual, but feasible with the help of that mechanical force, which is created in the cohesive activity of a whole group, for example, joint protection from some strong beast, hunting for it.

3. The emergence of ideology

The primary ideological phenomenon was speech, which began to take shape in that distant period of a person's life, when he began to leave the zoological state. The emergence of speech is closely connected with the labor process: it originated from the so-called labor cries. - When a person makes some kind of effort, this is reflected in his voice and breathing apparatus, and he involuntarily lets out a certain cry corresponding to this effort. The sound "ha" that escapes from a woodcutter striking with an ax, the sound "uh" that accompanies the efforts of the Volga barge hauler pulling the rope, the cry "ah-ah" that can be heard from Tunisian bridgemen when they raise and lower a heavy "woman" - all these are "labor interjections" or labor cries.

The organisms of the individual members of the genus group were extremely similar to each other, because they were closely related and lived together in the same natural environment. It is quite natural, therefore, that the corresponding labor sounds were the same for all members of the primitive tribal commune and themselves became the designation of those labor actions to which they belonged. This is how a few primitive words arose. Changing and becoming more complex with the development and complication of their basis - labor actions, they only developed over the course of millennia into a mass of later dialects, which are reduced by philologists to a few roots of several extinct languages.

Primitive words thus denoted collective human efforts. Their significance, as an organizing form for the labor process, is not subject to any doubt here: at first they regulate labor, giving movements a friendly and correct character, and inspire workers, then they acquire the meaning of an imperative mood or a call to work.

Thinking is a later ideological phenomenon. It is like inner speech. Thinking is made up of concepts expressed in words and combined into "thoughts" or ideas. For him, therefore, words, symbols are needed that would designate those living images that are in the mind of a person. In other words, thinking arises from speech. If we admitted the opposite, that speech is a product of thinking, that separate individuals “think” words before they are uttered between people, then we would come to a completely absurd conclusion: no one would understand such speech, it would be available only the one who created it. And if this is so, then it must be recognized as undoubted that not only words, but also thinking arose from the social process of production.

Words and concepts served, as we have seen, to call for labor and to combine labor efforts, but their role was not limited to this. Words very early became a way of transmitting and preserving in the group continuously accumulating labor experience. An adult member of a primitive communist group explains to a child his economic functions. To do this, for example, he points out to him an edible plant and adds a series of words expressing a certain sequence of actions (“find”, “pick”, “bring”, “break”, “eat”). The child remembers the instructions given to him, and in the future he can use the instructions given to him.

4. Forces of development in primitive society

The size of the genus group is strictly limited by the level of labor productivity: with the given methods of production, the group must necessarily disintegrate as soon as the force of reproduction increases its numbers beyond a certain limit. Instead of one group, there are two, and each of them, occupying a separate area of ​​exploitation, can again multiply to the previous limit, in order to again break up into two, and so on. Thus, reproduction tends to infinitely increase the number of inhabitants of a given country. But the area of ​​the country is limited, and with given methods of production it can only provide a means of subsistence for a certain number of people. When the density of the country's hunting population has reached, for example, 20 persons per square mile, further reproduction is already excessive, and the growing population becomes deficient in the means of subsistence. This is the so-called

absolute overpopulation

Absolute overpopulation entails hunger, disease, increased mortality - a whole lot of suffering. The power of suffering gradually overcomes the dull immobility of custom, and the progress of technology becomes possible. Hunger forces one to overcome aversion to everything new, and the germs of new methods of struggle for life begin to develop, both those that were already known before but did not find general application, and those that are being discovered again.

One obstacle to development, the most important, is removed. Another obstacle remains - the lack of knowledge, the inability to consciously look for new ways to fight nature. Thanks to this, development proceeds unconsciously, spontaneously, with such a slowness that modern man can hardly imagine.

The improvement of technology only temporarily alleviates the suffering that results from absolute overpopulation. New methods of social labor, in turn, prove insufficient when the population increases even more; and again the force of hunger forces people to take a step towards development.

One of the first consequences of absolute overpopulation is usually a fierce mutual struggle between tribal societies, and then the migration of entire tribes to new countries. Such a resettlement is as difficult a matter for the dull mind of primitive people as any change in technology.

II. Authoritarian tribal community

1. The origin of agriculture and animal husbandry

The force of absolute overpopulation forced primitive people to improve, little by little, the tools and techniques of primitive hunting production; and, in the course of time, it forced them to leave the limits of this production and pass on to new methods of struggle for life, such methods that to a large extent eliminate the dependence of human existence on the elemental whims of external nature.

Agriculture and animal husbandry arose in different countries, apparently independently, and at first separately from one another, depending on local natural conditions.

The discovery of agriculture can most likely be imagined as the result of a whole series of "accidental" facts that must have been repeated from time to time. Unintentionally spilling the grains of wildly growing cereal plants collected in the reserve, a person a few months later found ears of corn grown in the same place. A thousand times it must have remained incomprehensible; but sooner or later the connection of the two phenomena was established in the mind of the savage, and necessity gave rise to the idea of ​​using this connection. The discovery of everything could most likely have been made by women, who, because of children, led a less wandering life than a male hunter, and were more engaged in collecting fruits and grains.

Primitive agriculture bears little resemblance to modern agriculture in the crudeness and unreliability of its methods. Plow, for example, is a rather late invention; even in relatively recent, far from primitive times, the plowing operation was carried out with the help of a tree, cleared of all branches, except for one, which was pointed at the end and which made a furrow when the tree was dragged across the field; the earliest agricultural tool was a pointed stick, with the help of which pits were made for grains. We are still confronted with this kind of cultivation of the earth at the present time in South Africa, namely in Angola, where the cultivation of one cereal plant called cassava is quite widespread. Digging up the earth with a pointed stick, the women plant cassava stalks there, which for several years give a bountiful harvest. Of course, there is no need to talk about more perfect methods of cultivating the land at the first stage of the development of agriculture. So widespread among the Slavs, arable farming, too, one must think, was originally carried out by the methods that Angolan women use to this day: it’s not for nothing that the very word “plough” in some Slavic dialects simply means a stick or pole.

As for cattle breeding, it probably originated from the domestication of animals for fun. And now many more savages, wandering hunters, standing at the lowest stage of development and having no idea about real cattle breeding, tame quite a few wild animals, from which they do not derive any material benefit, and which serve for them rather even as a burden. In the future, of course, the usefulness of some of these animals became clear, and their domestication was already applied systematically.

2. Development of production relations of the generic group

The increase in the productivity of social labor made possible a significant increase in the size of the clan group; and pastoralism, in particular, by creating more perfect means of transportation (riding deer, horses, camels), thus allowing the maintenance of social ties over larger areas than before, further contributed to the expansion of the boundaries of the clan. Thus, the size of society was often measured not by tens, but by hundreds of people, and, for example, Patriarch Abraham could count 417 people in his nomadic group capable of bearing weapons.

The vastness and complexity of production, growing many times over, gave rise to new forms of the division of labor. One of them has highest value for further development: it is the allocation of labor organizing production.

When group production was negligible in size, extremely uncomplicated, and designed only for the immediate needs of the very near future, then organizing work could still be a common cause, could be combined with performing work, since it did not exceed the measure of the average understanding of group members. But when it comes to expediently distributing hundreds of different jobs among individual workers, in order to calculate the needs of the group for whole months in advance, carefully compare the costs of social labor energy with them and carefully control these costs, then organizational activity must be separated from performing work, the combination of both in each individual personality becomes impossible - it far exceeds the average measure of the mental strength of the people of that time; organizational activity becomes the specialty of the most experienced, most knowledgeable persons. In each separate group, it is finally concentrated in the hands of one person, usually the eldest in the family - the patriarch.

At the first stages of the development of organizational work, the role of the leader who performs this work is still weakly distinguished from the activities of the other members of the genus. The organizer still continues to do the same work as they do. As a more experienced one, he is rather imitated than obeyed. But as the division of labor develops and the tribal economy becomes more complex, organizational work becomes completely isolated from performing work: the patriarch, cut off from the direct process of production, begins to obey unquestioningly. Thus, in the sphere of production, personal power and subordination are born - a special form of the division of labor, which is of great importance in the further development of society.

War, from the point of view of individual groups, should be regarded as a special branch of production, social and labor struggle against external nature, because enemy people represent an element of nature external to society, just like wolves or tigers. In the patriarchal-tribal epoch, this area of ​​production acquires great importance, because the greater density of the population than before has made clashes between people more frequent; especially between pastoral nomads, there is an almost constant struggle over pastures. Wars have greatly contributed to the strengthening and consolidation of the power of the organizer: they require a cohesive organization, strict discipline. Unconditional obedience to the leader in war is transferred little by little to peacetime. It is very likely that it was in the sphere of war and hunting that the organizing power initially arose, which then gradually spread to other branches of production, as its complexity increased. This expansion of the sphere of organizational power was especially to be facilitated by the fact that the distribution of the booty of one kind of enterprise and another depended on the organizer of the war and hunting; and this in itself gave him considerable economic power and prestige among the group.

3. Development of forms of distribution

To the extent that organizational activity in production passed from the group as a whole to an individual person - the patriarch, the transfer of the power organizing distribution into his hands was also necessarily carried out. Only the organizer was able to unmistakably, in accordance with the common interests, decide the questions: what part of the social product can be consumed immediately, what should be spent on further production and what should be kept as a reserve for the future; only he could, taking into account the role of individual members of the group in the overall production, give each exactly as much as was necessary for the successful fulfillment of this role.

The more weaned the majority of the tribal group from actual participation in organizing activities and from control over distribution, the more unconditional the right of the patriarch to dispose of the surplus product became. As the total amount of surplus labor increased, the proportion of the product that the organizer used for his personal use became more and more significant - hence, the inequality in distribution between him and the rest of the group increased. This is already a kind of germ of exploitation, but only a germ: on a person engaged in the implementation of such hard work As a manager, in essence, a much greater amount of work lay than on anyone else, and it necessarily developed comparatively broader needs. The extent of exploitation was extremely limited already by virtue of the general insignificance of production and the small variety of products: the organizer himself had to be content with the same means of consumption as others; and even if he chose for himself the best of everything produced, he still could not eat ten times more meat or bread than any other member of the group. True, he could exchange part of the total surplus product with another group for some special means of consumption; but this happened comparatively rarely, owing to the negligible development of exchange.

Further, in those cases where individual tribal groups were united in a common tribal organization for any especially extensive enterprises, the product of the common labor (the extraction of the general hunt, military robbery) was distributed by the same persons who organized the enterprises themselves, usually by the council of elders; the distribution between the groups was then made according to the degree of participation of each of them in the common labor.

4. Development of ideology

The selection of the organizer of its production among the generic group gradually changes the attitude of the individual to the group and its psychology.

If the power of nature over people has decreased, then a new power has arisen - one person over others. In essence, it was the former power of the group over its individual member, only transferred to an individual person - the patriarch.

Equality in distribution has been lost: the entire product of surplus labor is at the disposal of the organizer. But even the inequality is not yet sharp: the organizer continues, as the group used to do, to allocate to each the necessary means to maintain his life and fulfill his role in production. The organizer himself did not go far from the other members of the group in developing his needs.

The bond of mutual assistance, the cohesion of the group in the fight against the outside world is still growing in comparison with the previous period. First, the more perfect forms of cooperation and division of labor within the group bring its members more closely together than before, when each could do most of the ordinary work independently of the others, when simple "community of labor" prevailed; secondly, the unity of the clan wins partly also due to the fact that it finds a concrete, living embodiment in the personality of the patriarch.

At the same time and due to the same conditions, the germs of individualism arise in the genus group, the essence of which lies in the fact that

a person separates in his mind from the group; that appear

interests, while before there were only communal ones.

5. Forces of development and new forms of life in the patriarchal-tribal period

Since social consciousness in the era under study presented the same essentially spontaneous obstacles to any development as at the previous stage of human life, it is obvious that the same elemental force of absolute overpopulation must have been the driving force behind social development. As the means of subsistence became scarce with the growth of the population, the conservatism of custom had to recede, technology gradually improved, and social relations changed. The emergence and gradual expansion of exchange was an extremely important achievement of this development. Exchange progress, i.e. more precisely, the social division of labor, taking place on the basis of the development of technology, itself represented a powerful engine for all subsequent development.

Another less significant acquisition of the era under study is the appearance

Owing to the emergence of surplus labor, it was in many cases advantageous for the organizer of a tribal group to increase the number of members of the group: this would increase the amount of surplus product available to the organizer. Therefore, in patriarchal societies, such cases become frequent when the enemy defeated in the war was no longer killed, but attached to this group and forced to participate in its production. Such attached members of the group were its slaves.

One should not, however, imagine the slaves of the patriarchal period as people reduced to the status of a thing. They were

equal members of the community that had attached them to itself, the community of work closely connected them with the rest and gradually blotted out the memory of the previous struggle. The organizer "exploited" them hardly more than his blood relatives - they worked like others. They were not sold, and in general they were treated approximately the same way as American Indians treat adopted captives.

The emergence of exchange and the emergence of slavery - two, at first glance, very heterogeneous facts - contain one very important common feature: both of them represented a violation of the old system of cooperation based solely on blood relationship and the enormous mental similarity of individuals resulting from it. The ties of consanguinity are necessarily imbued with a spirit of extreme exclusivity, a spirit of intolerance towards everything that goes beyond them; new forms of life stood in some contradiction with this intolerance, limited it. And from this arose a number of other social facts.

The domination of purely tribal ties was the complete, unconditional domination of custom. The power of habit to established forms of life was so great, personal self-consciousness so weak, that the individual

III. feudal society

1. Development of technology

If a patriarchal tribal society developed under the influence of

occurrence

new modes of production that ensured human life, then feudal society had as its basis

further development

these ways.

The predominant importance of agriculture in production, in which cattle breeding plays a subordinate role, and a completely settled life with limited land space - these are the technical conditions of the feudal period.

When nomadic tribes of pastoralists begin to engage in agriculture, then at first it is their subordinate, auxiliary branch of production; it adapts to the conditions of pastoralism, so that the area under crops changes very often. But as population density increases, land space shrinks, and the area of ​​nomadic life narrows, as pastoralism is limited in its development by lack of pastures, agriculture becomes an increasingly important element in the struggle for life. With a completely sedentary existence, it already represents the main area of ​​​​the struggle for life, and cattle breeding, having lost its connection with the nomadic way of life, adapts to the conditions of agriculture, turns, as it were, into its branch. As for the tribes, from the very beginning, purely agricultural, then for them the matter is reduced to the gradual development of agriculture, which gradually loses its primitive, semi-wandering character, and includes cattle breeding. When there is too little free land to move indefinitely to new places as the soil is depleted by repeated crops from year to year, a more correct “shifting” system of agriculture is formed: the part of the land that is depleted is abandoned and rests while the other part is sown. at the disposal of the community; it is depleted - they return to that one, etc. Further improvement develops a “three-field” system: arable land is divided into three approximately equal parts, of which two are allocated for crops - one for winter, the other for spring grain, and the third remains “ under steam." Gaining new strength for the next year, the fallow field also serves as a pasture for livestock. Together with the three-field, the first form of artificial fertilization develops - namely, admiration.

These conquests in agricultural technology, which are undoubtedly a huge step forward, dominated throughout the entire feudal period; and the three fields in Europe outlived it for centuries.

Other branches of the extractive industry (hunting, mining) and the manufacturing industry in the feudal era were in a very undeveloped, partly embryonic state. The war was of no small importance in the life of society at that time, as a necessary way of protecting all production, and as the only means of expanding the territory of society.

2. Production and distribution relations within the feudal group

a) Agricultural group

The increase in labor productivity led to such an increase in the size of the social organization that the community was often measured not by hundreds, but by thousands of people. At the same time, the conditions of agricultural technology caused a certain fragmentation of production within its boundaries.

Already in the large patriarchal-clan group, a partial stratification into families was noticed; it was generated, as was indicated, by the impossibility for the patriarch to carry out all the organizational work alone, by the need to shift part of it to other, smaller organizers; however, these petty organizers had only an insignificant degree of independence, and the production of the entire community was characterized by significant unity. With the dominance of settled agricultural production, small economic units - families acquire greater independence in economic life. For the performance of agricultural work, the strength of a separate family group is usually quite sufficient - there is no need for general cooperation of the entire group; moreover, small-scale family production is more productive in this case, since with crude methods of farming a small group, concentrating its attention and applying its labor force on a small area, is able to make fuller use of its natural forces and properties than a large group spreading its collective activity. over a wide area.

Thus, the agricultural community on the border of the feudal period consisted of many family groups related to each other in origin, which each led a largely separate agricultural economy. In terms of their size, these groups represented something between the patriarchal clan of antiquity and the modern family; they corresponded approximately to the Slavic "big families" of several dozen people, which have survived in some places to our time.

However, there are still quite significant production links between family groups. In many cases, when the forces of an individual family turned out to be insufficient, neighboring families, and even the entire community, actively helped it. This often happened when building a dwelling, when clearing a new plot for arable land from under the forest, etc. In cattle breeding, the benefits of jointness were so significant that from spring to autumn the communal cattle almost always united in one herd, which grazed on undivided communal pastures. under the supervision of community shepherds; among the undivided pastures belonged, among other things, all fallow fields and fields from which the harvest had already been harvested, so that each section of the field served a separate production of the family group only in the course of purely agricultural work. Mowing in communal meadows was mostly done collectively, and then the hay was divided among families in proportion to their field plots.

In addition, even the use of arable land was usually regulated within certain limits by the community: family production did not remain associated with a specific piece of land; from time to time a new distribution of fields between families was made; at the same time, each farm received either a plot of the same size, only in a different place of communal arable land, or the size of the plots also changed, in accordance with the size of the families, with their labor force, etc. Similar re-layouts and redistributions took place at first, perhaps every year, then after a few years. They had the significance that they equalized the benefits and disadvantages arising from the unequal fertility of various plots of land. However, already from a fairly early time, the communities ceased to redistribute those lands that were cleared from forests and wastelands by the labor of an exclusively individual family. Consequently, the communal redistribution expresses the fact that the initial possession of the communal land was made by the joint labor of the entire community, whether it was the labor of clearing new uncultivated lands, or simply the labor of conquest.

b) Separation of feudal lords

Where the development of the feudal group from the agricultural community proceeded most gradually and most typically; there the sequence of this development is as follows:

At first, the structure of the community was distinguished by a relatively large homogeneity - the difference in the size of individual farms was not so great as to ensure the largest of them a decisive economic predominance over the rest. Matters relating to the entire community were decided by the council of elders - owners; for collective enterprises requiring a single organizer (mainly in the event of war), the council of elders elected a leader from among themselves, who performed this role only temporarily, as long as there was a need. When wars were fought - as usual - not by one community, but by a tribal union, then the petty leaders of the squads elected, in turn, a common temporary leader.

However, the seeds of economic inequality already exist. One of these germs was, even if only temporarily, the emergence of an organizer of common enterprises; another germ is that, in addition to communal ownership of land, there was also private ownership. The lands cleared by the individual family's own labor were already its property; in the same way, lands acquired by military means, once they were distributed among the participants in the war, were usually no longer redistributed.

It cannot be more understandable that the farms, which somewhat stand out from the rest by greater economic strength, were under such conditions to develop this strength faster than the rest. First, it was easier for such farms to expand the area of ​​their private holdings by clearing new unoccupied land; secondly, the persons who belonged to these larger farms generally occupied a more prominent position in the organization of military enterprises, and consequently received a larger share of military booty - movable and immovable. It makes it difficult to remember that movable booty also included

Among the Russian Slavs, they were called "servants", "kholopy" - since the agricultural community inherited from the patriarchal group, by the way, these germs of slavery in their mild form.

Thus, the inequality of economic units increased more and more, and little by little undermined the former homogeneity of the community. The influence of richer families on the course of communal life was increasingly strengthened and consolidated due to the fact that economic superiority allowed them to make all other households in some material dependence on themselves: large farms took over the organization of such enterprises that were beyond the strength of all the rest, for example, the construction of large mills, bakeries, etc. Being much more stable, large farms suffered much less from any economic shocks, from hunger strikes and other natural Disasters, so frequent with undeveloped technology, therefore, often large farms provided assistance to small ones from their reserves; and the small peasants usually paid for it with labor compensation, which allowed the rich to significantly expand their plowing and, in general, their entire production.

c) Separation of the priestly class

At the early stages of the development of an authoritarian tribal community, the patriarch was the organizer not only of peaceful labor, but also of military affairs; and if he himself did not possess the qualities of a military leader, then he chose such a leader for the time when it was required, while retaining the highest control and leadership. The development of feudalism brought the leader forward as an independent, and, moreover, hereditary military organizer. The tribal community itself broke up into family groups and moved into the neighboring community. The labor activity of the family group was carried out under the guidance of its head - the owner. What, therefore, was left of the organizing role of the patriarch?

Despite the considerable independence of family groups, quite a few economic and domestic ties still remained between them. That

control over their economy and these connections, those

unifying

the peaceful organizing functions that were previously performed by the patriarch could not, for the most part, pass either to the feudal lord, who was too specialized in his special activity, or to the head of a large family, whose sphere of leadership was too narrow. This general control, the general peace-organizing role remained with the successor of the patriarch - the priest.

The priest was the custodian of the accumulated social experience passed down from the ancestors; since this experience was transmitted in a religious form, as testaments and revelations of deified ancestors, the priest was the representative of the gods, the carrier of communication with them. And the main activity of the priest was economic and organizing, and she had great value in life.

Thus, it is extremely important for every farmer to know at what time to start preparing arable land, when to sow, etc.: the whole fate of his labor depends on correct distribution time. But the exact calculation of time in a year is possible only with the help of astronomical knowledge. This knowledge was available only to the priests, who, on the basis of observations of the sun, moon and other luminaries transmitted over a number of centuries, kept a calendar accurate enough for agriculture.

In some countries, as, for example, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Hindustan, very great accuracy was required in determining the time. In these countries, due to the melting of mountain snows or the beginning of tropical rains, periodic floods of rivers occur, which over vast areas flood everything around. These spills, leaving fertile silt, give rise to a huge productivity of the land, but at the same time, as a formidable element, they threaten the death of both people and everything created by their labor. To use one and avoid the other, the most strict calculation of time is necessary, a complete knowledge of the connection between the seasons and the water level of the rivers is necessary. This was the work of the priests, who there highly developed astronomy and kept accurate records of the floods. - And it was not enough to monitor the spills: it was necessary, if possible, to regulate them, for which channels, dams, diversion reservoirs - ponds and lakes were needed. They had to be arranged and systematically monitored; and in the future, with the help of the same structures, to expand the field of labor, irrigating the neighboring waterless areas. In this regard, the ancients worked true miracles of technology. For example, data have been preserved on the famous Merida Lake with its channels, thanks to which it was possible to cultivate the vast expanses of ancient Egypt - spaces that now represent the waterless sandy deserts of inner Libya. Such work required, of course, chief engineers with a considerable stock of mathematical knowledge. These leaders were again the priests, who were especially distinguished by their knowledge in the field of geometry.

3. Development of ideology in a feudal society

In the field of ideology, feudal society made a huge step forward.

Having grown out of a relatively small tribal community, the social organization of feudal society spread over vast expanses and united hundreds of thousands, in other cases millions of people. Technique was enriched, and production became much more difficult than in previous periods. In order to maintain production links between people, in order to express and establish the complex relationships of their actions, tools, materials of labor, the main means of organization had to develop -

Which, in the period under review, has indeed achieved a tremendous richness of expression and flexibility. Not only did the number of words increase many times over, but many types of their combinations and modifications were created, such as, for example, in our Aryan and in many other languages, declensions and conjugations.

In its general structure, the feudal system was based, like the previous one, on power and subordination, only in much more complicated forms. Society represented a long hierarchical ladder, where each lower authority was subordinate to the highest. This socio-economic system of feudalism also determined the nature of human thinking, which essentially remained authoritarian, but significantly developed and became more complex. In the field of thinking, primitive animism - the spiritualization of all inanimate objects, which, according to the ideas of the savage, act according to the dictates of their "soul" - is replaced by more subtle and flexible religious beliefs. Instead of a direct order from the organizer and the execution of this order, a person saw in life a long chain of connections: the order is transmitted, for example, from the pope to the king, from the king to his most powerful vassals, from them even lower, etc., to the last peasant . An imaginary world is built in the model and likeness of the “earthly”, and precisely the social world: it is inhabited by demigods, gods and higher gods, who, in a hierarchical feudal chain, control various elements of nature and the entire system as a whole. So, for example, in the religion of the Greeks, which originated in the period of early feudalism, Zeus was the supreme ruler of the world, followed by his most powerful vassals Poseidon and Pluto, who, in turn, were subject to thousands of the most diverse gods. In some feudal religions, the lower gods are replaced by saints who are assigned certain areas of activity: but this is only a difference in names. So, in Slavic religious beliefs, Saint Ilya, who replaced the ancient god Perun, is in charge of thunder and lightning, Nicholas the Wonderworker, the heir to Dazhbog, is in charge of soil fertility, etc.

In the relationship to the gods, the relationship to the “earthly gods” is repeated, i.e. to the feudal authorities. With the help of the priests, the gods are brought in the form of a sacrifice of quitrent, in the form of work on vows for temples - corvée.

Thoroughly authoritarian, feudal ideology saw the "finger of God" in everything, and was distinguished by extraordinary integrity. It all fit into the religious worldview, which united practical and scientific knowledge, legal and political ideas, etc. She thus played a universally organizing role in life. And at the same time, and precisely for this reason, it was an instrument of the domination of the priests, who were the bearers of the most important technical and socio-organizational knowledge of the era of feudalism.

4. Forces of development and its direction in feudal society

The spontaneous conservatism of the feudal period, similar to the conservatism of the tribal group, but still less firm and stable, had to recede under the influence of forces of an elemental nature. Such is the power of absolute overpopulation, that is, the lack of funds generated by the immobility of technology to meet the needs of society.

The primary influence of absolute overpopulation, or "land pressure," was expressed in the innumerable wars of the feudal world. As it was found out, it was mainly these wars that led to the transformation of free agricultural communities into feudal groups, created the very type of organization of feudal society. As it grew and developed, the scale of wars expanded. Thus, the unification of the feudal world of Western Europe under the rule of the papacy was followed by crusades, wars aimed at expanding its territory, to get rid of land crampedness, which was growing.

In any case, wars were the least advantageous way for the feudal world to get rid of the surplus population, since, by destroying the productive forces of feudal society, they thereby created a new surplus population, if not among the victors, then among the vanquished. Therefore, proper technical progress had to be made, although very slowly. In agriculture, until the end of the Middle Ages, it was, in general, insignificant - there human consciousness represented the greatest obstacles to development. Another thing is the manufacturing industry, where the conditions were more favorable for development. There progress was faster: technically the best methods of production were developed, which are possible with a small handicraft character; handicraft gradually separated from agriculture and specialized. Thus, the social division of labor was strengthened; increased, consequently, the exchange. The craftsman strove to be closer to the places of sale of his products and left little by little from the village to the emerging exchange centers - cities.

Briefly defining the general direction of the changes that took place in feudal life, it must be said that, acting different ways, absolute overpopulation led the feudal world to one goal - to the development of the social division of labor, which is expressed in exchange.

Even the wars of feudal society had the necessary result of an increase in relations, and consequently in production ties and exchanges between feudal groups. Campaigns of feudal squads in foreign areas destroyed their isolation, introduced people to products that were not produced in their homeland. This created the conditions for the subsequent exchange. In particular, such an expansion of ties affected the feudal lords in the direction of developing their needs: it was possible to exchange the surplus product received from their peasants for a variety of foreign products; while the feudal lord, of course, most of all sought to acquire luxury goods.

General characteristics of natural economic societies of the past

1) In the field of production technology, natural societies of the past are characterized by a significant power of external nature over people, and, conversely, by a small power of people over external nature. To the greatest extent this applies to the primitive communist society, to the least - to the feudal.

2) In the sphere of production relations, these societies are characterized, firstly, by their relative narrowness, and secondly, by the organized character of production relations. However, from time immemorial, unorganized production relations also existed in them, creating a certain connection between separate organizations. And in this sense, the extremes are: primitive society - an almost completely isolated, highly cohesive group of several dozen people, in which there are almost no unorganized (exchange) ties, and feudal society, much less cohesive, but embracing as many as hundreds of thousands, even millions of people united not only by organized, but also to some extent by exchange relations in the struggle for life.

3) In the sphere of distribution, characteristic is, firstly, the dominance of organized forms of distribution, and secondly, the absence of extremes of wealth and poverty. And in this respect, only primitive society is quite typical, while feudal society already stands on the border of new forms of life.

4) The social consciousness of the natural societies of the past is distinguished by spontaneous conservatism (dominance of custom) and the poverty of cognitive material. It would be almost correct to recognize the primitive era as having no worldview, the next two are characterized primarily by natural fetishism, which reflects the power of nature over society, but the power is already shaken and not unconditionally overwhelming.

5) According to this character public consciousness forces of development in these societies are spontaneous. Absolute overpopulation is the main engine of social development.

Exchange development

1. The concept of an exchange society

We have seen that natural economic organizations either actually existed without exchange, or, in any case, were capable of doing without it. Closed and isolated economically from the rest of the world, they produced everything necessary to satisfy their needs: food, clothing, and tools. Exchange economy presents a completely different picture. Here one cannot speak of the independent existence not only of individual production units - factories, farms, mining enterprises, etc., but also of entire regions, and even entire countries. So, for example, when Russia, as a result of the World War, found itself separated from the rest of the world, it began to feel an acute shortage of a number of products necessary to satisfy the most urgent needs. If individual regions of Russia, for example, the St. Petersburg or Moscow region, were cut off from the rest of Russia due to a complete disruption of transport or other reasons, then most of their population would be doomed to certain death. To an even greater extent this applies to individual enterprises, farms of the exchange system.

The point is that a developed barter economy differs from a natural economy by a wide

social division of labor

This means that the exchange economy consists of a huge number of enterprises, formally independent of each other, which are engaged in the production of some one product: iron-working and machine-building factories, textile and match factories, shoe and hat workshops, dairy farms and farms of peasant farmers and farmers. etc., etc. In a word, all production is divided into a whole series of branches, and these into numerous individual farms. True, already in the primitive communist community there were germs of the division of labor; considering the economy of an authoritarian-clan and feudal society, we even pointed out the separation of individual branches of the economy, cattle breeding, agriculture and handicrafts. But it was all a division of labor in

within

production group connected by a common organizing plan. For example, the tribal community, through the patriarch and other organizers subordinate to him, appropriately distributed the available labor force: it sent part of its members to graze cattle, another part to plow the land, etc., in order to satisfy the needs of the entire community as fully as possible in this way. This type of division of labor resembles

Quite different is the social division of labor in an exchange society. There is no single organizing will, no production plan. This is a system of separate, seemingly independent enterprises that are interconnected

The subsistence economy produces products intended for the consumption of the production group, while the exchange economy produces products that, as general rule, are not intended for their manufacturers, but for

2. Three forms of exchange

It goes without saying that the exchange did not immediately reach its modern form. In the course of the centuries-old existence of mankind, it has come a long way of development. For the very fact of its origin, which dates back to ancient times, most likely, to the early stages of an authoritarian tribal community, first of all, it was necessary to have an excess of products produced by this community, or, in other words, a certain degree of development of labor productivity. But this is not enough. If two communities produced the same products, in the same abundance, the exchange would have no meaning, and no one would resort to it. There can be no question of exchange even if the neighboring communities have surpluses of various products, but are in hostile relations with each other. In this case, only the robbery of one community by another could take place, as in fact it often happened.

From this it is clear that two conditions are necessary for exchange between two communities: a difference in the products they produce and friendly relations (social ties) between them. The first condition was carried out at first mainly due to the difference in the means of production that external nature gave to various communities: an agricultural community, whose land produced grain well, but poorly - flax, entered into an exchange with another community, whose soil was more convenient for flax crops, but gave poor harvests of bread; a group of nomadic pastoralists gave meat for the bread of farmers, etc. The second condition was realized in the tribal kinship of individual communities, a connection maintained by their collective enterprises. Subsequently, with great development exchange, differences in production increasingly began to be determined not only directly by data natural conditions, but also unequal already established technical skills; and friendly relations were often established in addition to tribal kinship.

In its historical development, the exchange passes through three phases, takes three different forms: simple or random, full or detailed, and developed or monetary.

1 ax = two spears.

3. Money

The history of the monetary form of exchange represents a succession of various commodities that act as money.

At first, this role was assigned everywhere to the share of a commodity that was widespread for one reason or another, whether it was amber, leather, salt, beans, cocoa, special shells, etc. And at present, various wild tribes very often observe the use of as money of those commodities which in the given locality are the most constant objects of import or export, and in two neighboring villages there are often various monetary commodities. In the countries of nomadic life, money was most often

In southern Europe, this was still centuries 10 BC: in the folk Greek poems of Homer, one can find an estimate of a copper tripod at 12 bulls, golden armor - at 100 bulls, etc. For some peoples, even the very name of money comes from the name of cattle. The Latin pecunia (pecunia) undoubtedly comes from the word pecus, which means cattle. The name of the Indian banknote "rupee" and the Russian ruble is also derived from the root, which also forms the name of the cattle.

But little by little, money-cattle was everywhere replaced by metallic money. At first, iron and copper money appeared on the stage. These metals were bought, obviously, no less willingly than cattle, because metal tools and weapons were essential items in every household. At the same time, metals have many advantages that make them technically more suitable for playing the role of money: firstly, they are more easily divided into pieces of low value than cattle, which cannot be divided into pieces without killing; secondly, the substance of metals is homogeneous, and their individual pieces have the same qualities, while other goods, including cattle, do not have this dignity: one sheep cannot be completely equal to another sheep; thirdly, metals are better preserved - even copper and iron, which gradually deteriorate under the influence of air and moisture; fourthly, metals have less volume and weight, and the same exchange value as other commodities, because they require comparatively more labor to produce.

Subsequently, iron and copper are replaced by silver and gold. In noble metals, all these technical advantages are particularly pronounced. The difficulty, at first glance, is the question of how these metals, almost useless in production, could be bought as readily as cattle, iron, etc. The matter is explained as follows. Silver and gold are used primarily for jewelry. Even at the present time, jewelry easily finds a market for itself: undeveloped people - especially poorly educated women - are often ready to deny themselves the necessities in order to put on some beautiful trinket. And uncultured and semi-cultured peoples are especially fond of jewelry and value it: European merchants bought goods of great value from savages for some string of beads, for example, huge quantities of fish, game, fruits, etc. Thus, the demand for jewelry created the opportunity transition from iron and copper money to silver and gold.

One should not, however, think that metal money arose immediately in the form of modern coins with their elegant finishes, with accurate weights and with a certain hallmark. Metal was originally a monetary commodity, and only: it differed from other commodities in that it was accepted in exchange for any thing that its owner wanted to sell.

4. Labor value and its significance in the regulation of production

In an exchange society, every producer exchanges his product - his

For other people's goods: first for money, then this money for other products that he needs; but money, as we have seen, is also a commodity, and therefore there is no need to speak of it separately. What quantity of other people's goods will the manufacturer receive for his own? In other words, how great will be the exchange value of his commodities?

Let us assume that society is completely homogeneous, that the various farms are similar to each other in terms of the magnitude of their needs and in terms of the amount of labor energy that each of them expends on production. If there are a million such farms, then the needs of each of them are one millionth of the needs of society, and the labor of each of them is one millionth of the social expenditure of labor energy. If, moreover, the entire social production fully satisfies the entire sum of social needs, then each economy, in order to fully satisfy its needs, must receive for its commodities one millionth of the total social product. If individual farms receive less than this, they will begin to weaken and collapse, they will not be able to fulfill their former social role, to deliver to society one millionth of all its labor energy in the struggle against nature. If some farms receive more than one millionth of the total product of social labor, then other farms will suffer and begin to weaken, which will get less.

The amount of labor energy that society needs to produce a certain product is called social value, or simply the value of this product.

Using this term, the previous considerations can be put as follows:

In a homogeneous society with divided labor, in order to fully maintain production life in its former form, it is necessary that each economy receive in exchange for its commodities

equal in value

quantity of these products for their consumption. In the example given, the value of the commodities of a given economy is equal to one millionth of the entire value of the social product, and the value of the commodities necessary for the economy is also equal to one millionth of the total social labor energy.

Social value is measured by the duration and intensity of the work of the people who participated in the production of the product. If it takes 30 hours of social labor to produce one product, and 300 hours of labor, twice as intensive as in the first case, to produce another product, then it is obvious that the social value of the second product, the amount of labor energy embodied in it, is 20 times more than the cost of the first.

Slavery systems

1. Origin of slave organizations

Depending on historical conditions, the development of feudalism can proceed in two different directions. Feudalism, as it happened in medieval Europe, can go into a fortress system; but under special conditions it develops in a different direction, giving rise to slave systems.

The difference between slave and serf relations does not at all lie in the degree of exploitation and personal dependence: in certain cases, slavery is much less severe than serfdom, and vice versa. The main difference between these two economic systems is to be found in the position occupied by the dependent class in the production process. A serf, like a slave, is deprived of personal freedom - but he is a petty owner, and together with his family cultivates his allotment or is engaged in a craft in his household, performing corvée for the owner or giving dues. As for the slave, he not only does not have an economy, but he does not even own his labor power.

Slaves were already in the patriarchal community. These are prisoners of war who were forcibly introduced into the composition of a tribal group alien to them by blood and then, as it were, adopted by the latter. Slavery also existed under feudalism. It embraced those elements of the dependent population who, cut off from agriculture and deprived of their own economy, lived at the suzerain's house as "yard servants". But in the economic life of those periods, slavery did not play any significant role. The slave-owning system is different: here slavery acquires a decisive role in production.

The original origin of slavery is explained by the captivity of people in war.

One of the elements of the external nature for each production organization is the organizations hostile to it, with which it is forced to fight. Such struggle very often captures a significant part of the energy of human societies. This applies especially to those societies that advanced on the path of development earlier than others and, in terms of material well-being, stood above their neighbors. Underdeveloped societies, under the influence of absolute overpopulation, fell with particular force on the lands of those who surpassed them in cultural terms. It often happened that the backward "barbarian" social groups - clans and tribes - defeated their much higher standing societies and partly destroyed, partly adopted their culture. But some societies, thanks to the early development of the division of labor, and, consequently, of exchange, managed to develop the highest military technology, which gave them a decisive advantage over the backward, often still nomadic tribes. Such advanced societies for a number of centuries managed to victoriously fight against the spontaneous onslaught of the lower tribes. These victories usually led to an increase in the productive forces of more cultured social organizations, which turned their numerous captives into slaves.

2. Inter-group production links

If the slave-owning economy at the initial stage of its development was still mainly of a subsistence nature, then in its developed form it is definitely mixed, subsistence-exchange. The needs of the slaves, reduced to a physiological minimum, were satisfied mainly by the own products of the slave-owning group, while the largest share of the master's consumption was based on exchange. Purple fabrics, vessels, especially clay vases, precious household utensils, and all kinds of luxury items were produced by individual households to satisfy the needs of slave owners. Some products were transported at the same time over vast distances. So, for example, purple clothes and carpets were exported from Greece to Italy, Sicily supplied vast areas with its beautiful chariots. Such was the prevailing character of trade, and it was chiefly the tops of the slave-owning group that were drawn into the sphere of exchange.

True, there were also such slave-owning enterprises that did not conduct agriculture at all. Such were the many ergasteries of the Greek cities, which supplied the products of industry to the market; such were the mining enterprises (for example, the Lavrian silver mines of Attica). Since these households had to buy consumer goods for slaves as well, they lived entirely in the area of ​​exchange relations, but in general agricultural enterprises predominated.

Be that as it may, the era of ancient slavery is associated with a significant development of money circulation. In those days, by the way, money first took the form of a coin: the newly emerged socio-economic organization - the state - assumed the responsibility, or rather, appropriated the right to mint ingots of a certain shape, weight and value from monetary metals, which serve

universal legal instruments of the circulation of goods

The business of exchange itself gradually emerged as an independent occupation of a special social class of merchants who, buying goods from producers, deliver and sell them to consumers and live on the difference in exchange value in the first and second cases.

In general, the size of trade was still negligible compared to the current. This can be judged with certainty from the amount of money that was required for the circulation of commodities; the extraction of gold and silver in Asia and Europe, even in the flourishing era of the classical world, was many tens of times less than at the present time; meanwhile, the technique of exchange was not highly developed, the need for money for barter transactions was almost not weakened by such highly advanced devices as in our times (circulation of banknotes, bank notes, check system, etc.).

3. Ideology

Public consciousness in the era of the slave system was not, of course, continuous, homogeneous. It was profoundly different for those opposite elements that made up the slave-owning group, and depended on their position in the production process.

The living conditions of the slave were incredibly difficult. Branded on their bodies, often clad in heavy chains, they had to work from early morning until late at night in the fields or factories of their masters. The work took place under the strict supervision of cruel overseers, who only thought of earning the grace and generosity of the slave owner by inhuman treatment of slaves. After working all day, the slaves went to the barracks for the night - a kind of dungeons, often located underground.

In general, they looked at a slave as an instrument of production, as a draft animal. In this regard, the classification of the instruments of production that took shape during the period under study is extremely characteristic. She distinguished:

1) instrumenta muta - dumb, dead tools, for example, an ax, a machine tool; 2) instrumenta semivocalia - live tools, but those that are only half, i.e. very imperfectly, they express their feelings with their voice - these are domestic animals, and 3) instrumenta vocalia - tools gifted with the ability of speech, i.e. people are slaves.

Thus, slaves were reduced to the level of working cattle, a mere accessory to household equipment.

Under such conditions, there is not much to say about the ideology of the slaves; its extreme poverty and lack of content, its narrowness and limitations are beyond any doubt. There is nothing to look for elements of development here; the mental life of the people of this class was even in the best cases (learned slaves) a faint reflection of the mental life of the masters.

4. Causes and course of the decline of slave societies

For the development of any society, a certain excess of energy is necessary, which could be spent on expanding production, on improving technology, and in general on increasing the productivity of social labor. Societies that do not have such an excess of energy, or that waste it unproductively, are doomed to a slow but certain death.

All this led to the fact that in the Eastern despotisms a process of slow degeneration began, which usually ended with the intervention of more viable external forces.

The structure and life of the slave-owning societies of the ancient world were both much more complex and diverse. In accordance with this, the course of their economic and general decline seems to be more complex.

Lenin V.I. Complete Works Volume 4

REVIEW

A. Bogdanov. A short course in economics.

Moscow. 1897. Ed. book. warehouse A. Murinova. Page 290. C. 2 p.

Mr. Bogdanov's book represents a remarkable phenomenon in our economic literature; this is not only a “not superfluous” guide among others (as the author “hopes” in the preface), but positively the best of them. We therefore intend in this note to draw the attention of readers to the outstanding merits of this work and to note some insignificant points in which, in our opinion, improvements could be made in future editions; one should think that with the keen interest of the reading public in economic questions, the next editions of this useful book will not be long in coming.

The main advantage of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" is the complete consistency of the direction from the first to the last page of the book, which deals with very many and very broad questions. From the very beginning, the author gives a clear and precise definition of political economy as “the science that studies the social relations of production and distribution in their development” (3), and nowhere deviates from this view, which is often very poorly understood by learned professors of political economy who stray from “ social relations of production” on production in general and filling their thick courses with a heap of meaningless and not at all related to social science platitudes and examples. The author is alien to that scholasticism, which often prompts the compilers of textbooks to excel

36 V. I. LENIN

in “definitions” and in the analysis of the individual features of each definition, and the clarity of presentation not only does not lose from him, but directly benefits, and the reader, for example, will get a clear idea of ​​​​such a category as capital, both in its social and in its historical significance. The view of political economy as a science of historically developing patterns of social production is the basis for the presentation of this science in Mr. Bogdanov's "course". Having outlined at the beginning brief "general concepts" about science (pp. 1-19), and at the end a brief "history of economic views" (pp. 235-290), the author sets out the content of science in the section "V. The process of economic development”, does not expound it dogmatically (as is customary in most textbooks), but in the form of a description of successive periods of economic development, namely: the period of primitive tribal communism, the period of slavery, the period of feudalism and workshops, and, finally, capitalism. This is how political economy should be stated. It will perhaps be objected that in this way the author inevitably has to split up the same theoretical section (for example, on money) between different periods and fall into repetition. But this purely formal shortcoming is fully redeemed by the main merits of the historical presentation. And is it a disadvantage? The repetitions are very insignificant, useful for the beginner, because he more firmly assimilates especially important positions. Assigning, for example, the various functions of money to different periods of economic development clearly shows the student that the theoretical analysis of these functions is based not on abstract speculation, but on an accurate study of what really happened in the historical development of mankind. The idea of ​​individual, historically defined, social economic structures is more integral. But the whole task of a guide to political economy is to give the student of this science the basic concepts of the various systems of social economy and of the fundamental features of each system; all

REVIEW OF THE BOOK OF A. BOGDANOV 37

the task is that the person who has assimilated the initial manual should have in his hands a reliable guiding thread for the further study of this subject, so that he will get an interest in such a study, realizing that the most important questions of modern social life are most directly connected with the questions of economic science. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, this is precisely what manuals of political economy lack. Their shortcoming lies not so much in the fact that they usually confine themselves to one system of social economy (precisely capitalism), but in the fact that they are unable to concentrate the reader's attention on the fundamental features of this system; they do not know how to clearly define its historical significance, to show the process (and conditions) of its occurrence, on the one hand, the tendencies of its further development, on the other; they do not know how to present individual aspects and individual phenomena of modern economic life as components of a particular system of social economy, as manifestations of the fundamental features of this system; they do not know how to give the reader a reliable guide, because they usually do not adhere to one direction with all consistency; finally, they fail to interest the student, because they understand the significance of economic questions in an extremely narrow and incoherent way, placing “factors” economic, political, moral, etc., “in poetic disorder”. materialistic understanding of history brings light into this chaos and opens up the possibility of a broad, coherent and meaningful view of a special way of social economy, as the foundation of a special way of all social life of man.

The outstanding merit of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" lies precisely in the fact that the author consistently adheres to historical materialism. Describing a certain period of economic development, he usually gives an outline of political orders, family relations, and the main currents of social thought in a “exposition”. due with the fundamental features of this economic system. Having found out how a given economic system

38 V. I. LENIN

gave rise to a certain division of society into classes, the author shows how these classes manifested themselves in the political, family, and intellectual life of a given historical period, how the interests of these classes were reflected in certain economic schools, as, for example, the interests of the upward development of capitalism were expressed by the school of free competition, and the interests of the same class in a later period - by the school of vulgar economists ( 284), the school of apology. The author quite rightly points out the connection with the position of certain classes of the historical school (284) and the school of katheder-reformers ("realist" or "historical-ethical"), which must be recognized as the "school of compromise" (287) with its meaningless and false idea of ​​" non-class "origin and significance of legal and political institutions (288), etc. The author puts the teachings of Sismondi and Proudhon in connection with the development of capitalism, fundamentally referring them to the petty-bourgeois economists, showing the roots of their ideas in the interests of a special class of capitalist society occupying "middle, transitional place" (279), - acknowledging in no uncertain terms the reactionary significance of such ideas (280-281). Thanks to the consistency of his views and the ability to consider certain aspects of economic life in connection with the main features of this economic system, the author correctly assessed the importance of such phenomena as the participation of workers in the profits of an enterprise (one of the "forms of wages" that "can too rarely be beneficial to entrepreneur" (pp. 132-133)), or productive associations which, "organizing themselves in the midst of capitalist relations", "essentially only increase the petty bourgeoisie" (187).

We know that it is precisely these features of Mr. Bogdanov's "course" that will arouse quite a few complaints. It goes without saying that representatives and supporters of the "ethico-sociological" school in Russia will remain dissatisfied. Those who believe that “the question of the economic understanding of history is a question of pure

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 39

academic, and many others ... But apart from this, so to speak, party dissatisfaction, they will probably indicate that the broad formulation of questions caused an extraordinary conciseness of the presentation of the “short course”, which tells on 290 pages and about all periods economic development, starting from the tribal community and savages and ending with capitalist cartels and trusts, and about the political and family life of the ancient world and the Middle Ages, and about the history of economic views. Mr. A. Bogdanov's exposition is indeed extremely concise, as he himself points out in the preface, directly calling his book a "summary". There is no doubt that some of the author's concise remarks, relating most often to facts of a historical nature, and sometimes to more detailed questions of theoretical economy, will be incomprehensible to a novice reader who wants to get acquainted with political economy. It seems to us, however, that the author cannot be blamed for this. Let us even say, without fear of accusations of paradoxicality, that we are inclined to regard the presence of such remarks as a merit rather than a defect of the book being analyzed. In fact, if the author had taken it into his head to state in detail, explain and substantiate each such remark, his work would have grown to immense limits, completely inconsistent with the tasks of a brief guide. And it is unthinkable to present in any course, even the thickest, all the data of modern science on all periods of economic development and on the history of economic views from Aristotle to Wagner. If he were to throw out all such remarks, then his book would positively lose out on the narrowing of the limits and significance of political economy. In its present form, however, these concise remarks will, we think, be of great benefit to both teachers and students on this abstract. There is nothing to say about the first. The latter will see from the totality of these remarks that

* So thinks the journal columnist for Russkaya Mysl 11 (November 1897, biblical section, p. 517). There are comedians!

40 V. I. LENIN

political economy cannot be studied so-so, mir nichts dir nichts, without any prior knowledge, without familiarization with very many and very important questions of history, statistics, etc. Students will see that with questions of social economy in its development and its influence on social life it is impossible get acquainted with one or even several of those textbooks and courses that are often remarkable for their surprising “ease of presentation”, but also for their amazing lack of content, transfusion from empty to empty; that the most burning questions of history and contemporary reality are inextricably linked with economic questions, and that the roots of these latter questions lie in the social relations of production. This is precisely the main task of any guide: to give the basic concepts of the subject being presented and to indicate in which direction it should be studied in more detail and why such a study is important.

Let us now turn to the second part of our remarks, to pointing out those passages in Mr. Bogdanov's book which, in our opinion, require correction or addition. We hope that the venerable author will not complain to us for the pettiness and even captiousness of these remarks: in a synopsis, individual phrases and even individual words are incomparably more important than in a detailed and detailed presentation.

Mr. Bogdanov generally adheres to the terminology of the economic school he follows. But, speaking of the form of value, he replaces this term with the expression "formula of exchange" (p. 39 et seq.). This expression seems unfortunate to us; the term "form of value" is really inconvenient in a brief guide, and instead of it it would probably be better to say: form of exchange or stage of development of exchange, otherwise such expressions as "dominance of the 2nd exchange formula" (43) (?) . Speaking of capital, the author vainly omitted to point out the general formula for capital, which

* As Kautsky aptly noted in the preface to his famous book Marx's Oekonomische Lehren (The Economic Doctrine of K. Marx. Ed.).

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 41

would help the student to assimilate the homogeneity of commercial and industrial capital. - Describing capitalism, the author omitted the question of the growth of the commercial and industrial population at the expense of the agricultural population and the concentration of the population in large cities; this gap is all the more palpable because, speaking of the Middle Ages, the author dwelled in detail on the relationship between the village and the city (63-66), and said only a few words about the modern city about the subordination of the village to them (174). - Speaking about the history of industry, the author quite decisively places the "domestic system of capitalist production" "in the middle of the path from handicraft to manufacture" (p. 156, thesis 6th). On this issue, such a simplification of the matter seems to us not entirely convenient. The author of Capital describes capitalist work at home in the section on the machine industry, relating it directly to the transformative effect of this latter on the old forms of labor. Indeed, such forms of work at home, which dominate, for example, both in Europe and in Russia in the confectionery industry, cannot be placed “in the middle of the path from craft to manufactory”. They are standing farther manufacture in the historical development of capitalism, and we should say a few words about this, we think. - A noticeable gap in the chapter on the machine period of capitalism is the absence of a paragraph on the reserve army and capitalist overpopulation, on its generation by machine industry, on its significance in the cyclical movement of industry, on its main forms. Those very cursory mentions of the author about these phenomena, which are made on pages 205 and 270, are certainly insufficient. - The author's assertion that "over the past half century" "profit has been growing much faster than rent" (179) is too bold. Not only Ricardo (against whom Mr. Bogdanov makes this remark), but also Marx states the general tendency of rent

* Page 93, 95, 147, 156. It seems to us that the author successfully replaced the expression “domestic system of large-scale production” introduced into our literature by Korsak with this term.

* The strict division of capitalism into manufacturing and machine periods is a very great merit of Mr. Bogdanov's "course".

42 V. I. LENIN

to a particularly rapid growth under all and all conditions (even an increase in rent is possible with a decrease in the price of grain). That drop in grain prices (and rent under certain conditions), which has recently been caused by the competition of the virgin fields of America, Australia, etc., has come sharply only since the 70s, and Engels' note in the section on rent ("Das Kapital" , III, 2, 259-260), devoted to the present agricultural crisis, is formulated much more carefully. Engels here states the "law" of the growth of rent in civilized countries, which explains the "amazing vitality of the class of large landowners", and further points out only that this vitality is "gradually exhausted" (allmählich sich erschöpft). - The paragraphs devoted to agriculture are also distinguished by excessive brevity. In the paragraph on (capitalist) rent it is indicated only in the most cursory manner that its condition is capitalist agriculture. (“In the period of capitalism, the land continues to be private property and acts as capital”, 127, and nothing more!) A few words should be said about this in more detail, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, about the birth of the rural bourgeoisie, about the position of agricultural workers and about the differences this position from the position of factory workers (lower standard of needs and life; remnants of attachment to the land or various Gesindeordnungen, etc.). It is also a pity that the author did not touch upon the question of the genesis of capitalist rent. After the remarks he made about the colonies and dependent peasants, and further on the tenancy of our peasants, one should briefly characterize the general course of the development of rent from labor rent (Arbeitsrente) to rent in kind (Produktenrente), then to money rent (Geldrente). and from it to capitalist rent (cf. Das Kapital, III, 2, Cap. 47). - Talking about crowding out the capi-

* - "Capital", vol. III, part 2, pp. 259-260. 12 Ed. - legal provisions that established the relationship between landowners and serfs. Ed.

** - "Capital", vol. III, part 2, chapter 47. 14 Ed.

REVIEW OF A. BOGDANOV'S BOOK 43

the talism of subsidiary trades and the loss of sustainability of the peasant economy as a result, the author expresses it this way: “peasant economy is becoming poorer in general, the total amount of values ​​it produces decreases” (148). This is very inaccurate. The process of the ruination of the peasantry by capitalism consists in its being ousted by the rural bourgeoisie, formed from the same peasantry. Mr. Bogdanov could hardly, for example, describe the decline of the peasant economy in Germany without touching on the Vollbauer "ov. the Russian peasant "in general" is more than risky. The author on the same page says: "The peasant either engages in agriculture alone, or goes to manufacture," that is, - let's add on our own - either turns into a rural bourgeois, or into a proletarian (with This two-sided process should be mentioned. Finally, as a general shortcoming of the book, we must note the absence of examples from Russian life. about the growth of the urban population, about crises and syndicates, about the difference between a manufactory and a factory, etc.) such examples from our economic literature would be very important, otherwise mastering the subject is very costly for the beginner is daunted by the lack of examples familiar to him. It seems to us that filling in the gaps indicated would enlarge the book very little and would not impede its wide distribution, which in all respects is highly desirable.

Published in April 1898 in the journal "The World of God" No. 4

Printed according to the text of the magazine

* - peasants who own full (undivided) plots of land. Ed.

Poster "Study great way party of Lenin Stalin "" A short course in the history of the CPSU (b) "textbook on the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), published in 1938 ... Wikipedia

THE USSR. Social Sciences- Philosophy As an integral part of world philosophy, the philosophical thought of the peoples of the USSR has come a long and difficult historical path. In the spiritual life of primitive and early feudal societies on the lands of the ancestors of modern ... ...

THE USSR. Natural Sciences- Mathematics Scientific research in the field of mathematics began to be carried out in Russia in the 18th century, when L. Euler, D. Bernoulli and other Western European scientists became members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. According to the plan of Peter I, academicians foreigners ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Russia. Russian Science: Economic Science- The first Russian translation of the book Hell. Smith's The Wealth of Nations was written by Politkovsky in 1802-06. Smith's ideas enjoyed considerable popularity both in educated society and in government spheres. The titled translation was made according to ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

POLITICAL ECONOMY- a science that studies the laws that govern the production, exchange, consumption and distribution of material goods in society at different stages of its development. The term "P.e." formed from three Greek words: "politeia" social structure, "oikos" ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

BOGDANOV- (pseudo: real name Malinovsky; other pseudonyms Werner, Maksimov, Private) Alexander Alexandrovich, economist, philosopher, political. activist, natural scientist. Graduated… … Philosophical Encyclopedia

Bogdanov (Malinovsky) A. A. (Malinovsky, 1873 1928; autobiography) b. August 10 (22), 1873 with a national teacher, the second of 6 children. My father soon rose to the rank of an inspectorate teacher in a city school, and thanks to this, for 6-7 years I received ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

Bogdanov A. (pseudonym)- Bogdanov, A. (pseudonym) philosopher and economist. His main works: 1) Basic elements historical view on nature (St. Petersburg, 1898); 2) Knowledge from a historical point of view (St. Petersburg, 1901); 3) From the psychology of society. Articles 1901 1904 (St. Petersburg ... Biographical Dictionary

Primitive communal system- the first socio-economic formation in the history of mankind. Fundamentals of the doctrine of P. s. as a special socio-economic formation were laid down by K. Marx and F. Engels and further developed by V. I. Lenin. According to the most… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

BOGDANOV- one . (pseudo; real surname Malinovsky; party pseudonyms: Werner, Ryadovoy, Rakhmetov, Reinert, Sysoika, Maksimov, etc.), Alexander Alexandrovich (10.VIII.1873 7.IV.1928) Russian. political figure, philosopher, economist, doctor by profession. Genus. in… … Soviet historical encyclopedia

Bogdanov, Alexander Alexandrovich- Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov Alexander Alexandrovich Malinovsky Date of birth: August 10 (22), 1873 (1873 08 22) Place of birth ... Wikipedia