216

p Here Mr. Tikhomirov is repeating the words of Mr. V. V., to whom the credit is due for having noticed the numerical 217 stagnation of our working class. For Mr. V. V., the entire significance of capitalism is reduced to "the union of the workers”; it is understandable why he exerts himself so much to prove that the number of our workers "is remaining at the same figure”. Once this proposition is proved, capitalism’s inability to contribute to the success of Russian culture in any sense at all is also proved. People who know that the role of capitalism is not confined to "the union of the workers" also know that the fact quoted by Mr. V. V. would not prove anything at all, even if it were correct. And those who are familiar with today’s Russian statistics know, besides, that the fact itself is incorrect. How, indeed, does Mr. V. V. prove it? From a single article in Vestnik Yevropy ^^171^^ he "drew the following table on the history of Russian non-taxable factories and works".^^172^^

p Year
Number of workers
7, 839
95,202
455,827
459,637
393,371
Number of factories
200 2,423 6,930 9,444 16,451
Production in rubles
2,122,0001 26,750,000 t 97,865,OOOJ 151,985,000 342,910,000
Production per worker in rubles
1761 1804 1842 1854 1866
approx. 300
approx. 330 approx. 870

p From these figures Mr. V. V. concludes that from 1842, i.e., the time when England allowed the free export of machines, and mainly from 1854, the development of Russian production began to follow the “law” which he had developed, i.e., that "side by side with the increase of its" (capital s) "turnover, there was a decrease in the number of workers—production expanded not in width, but in depth".  [217•*  Is that true? Not quite.

p In order to find the “law” of the development of Russian production, one must take into account all Russian production as a whole, and not its separate sections. Why, then, does Mr. V. V. base his conclusions only on figures for "non-taxable factories and works"? We do not know, and probably neither does Mr. Tikhomirov, who indiscriminately repeats what other people say. And yet, so long as this question remains unanswered the “law” found by Mr. V. V. will only have one leg to stand on. Not a few examples are to be found in the history of West European capitalism of "expansion of production not in width, but in depth”. In France, according to Moreau de Jonnes, the total value of woolen industry products increased by 74 per cent from 1811 to 1850, the number of looms used nearly doubled, and the number of workers employed "dropped by 218 15,000".  [218•*  Does this mean that from 1811 the number of French workers "remained at the same figure" or even decreased? Not at all: the decrease in one branch of production was compensated by an increase in others; in the forty years preceding 1850, capitalism doubtlessly drew into its wake an enormous mass of workers, although, of course, it did not provide them with a guaranteed wage, as bourgeois economists try to assure readers. Mr. V. V. should have proved that no similar phenomenon took j>lace in Russia, above all as, precisely from the forties, there was rapid development in certain taxable industries in our country.

p Did he do so? He could not do so, because the statistic figures he quoted are of no use for any serious conclusions; for instance, the figures relating to 1842 are simply incommensurable with those for the second half of the sixties; they were collected by various institutions using various methods and are therefore not equally reliable. Up to 1866 statistic computations were based mainly on Ministry of Finance information supplied by the manufacturers themselves and mostly inaccurate. Up to 1861, taxable works were not taken into account at all. And finally it was in 1866, thanks to the efforts of the Central Statistical Committee, that more accurate figures were obtained. Mr. V. V. would have shown more caution by not basing any laws on the shaky foundations of such “statistics”. But leaving that aside, the figures quoted by him do not agree with those of the Central Statistical Committee, i.e., the only data which are at all reliable. According to the information of this Committee, the number of workers employed in the "manufacturing industry" in European Russia (not including the Kingdom of Poland and Finland) was 829,573.  They were divided as follows among the various groups of production:

p Workers
Processing of fibrous materials.......
“ wood .............
livestock products.....
“ mineral products .....
“ metals.............
“ chemical production . . .
“ tobacco ...........
“ food products .......
“ others.............

p 294,866 14,639 38,757 49,332
128,058 13,628 26,116
262,026 3,052  [218•** 

219

p “What song do these figures sing? " we ask, using Mr. V. V.’s words. First of all that even in the non-taxable industries the number of workers in 1866 was much higher than the figure which was to testify in favour of his “law”.

p But these figures are not accurate either, they are lower than the reality. In an addendum to the chapter on the manufacturing industry, the editors of Voyenno-Statistichesky Sbornik admit that "in the index to the exhibition (of 1870) and in Timiryazev’s atlas" they "came across many factories and works which were not mentioned in previous sources”. Pages 913 and 914 of Sbornik are printed in very small, close-set type and are completely filled by a list of such factories. This new list only mentions enterprises with a production of not less than 25,000 rubles and the greater part of it deals with factories with a production of over 100,000 rubles. But Mr. Timiryazev’s atlas was not complete either. Mr. Skalkovsky, basing himself on declarations of "many manufacturers”, said that the figures in that atlas "are all the same far from the truth”, even after the corrections made to them by Messrs. Alafuzov and Alexandrov.  [219•* 

This is quite understandable. It was precisely after 1842, i.e., after England allowed free export of machines, that many of the "non-taxable branches of our industry developed rapidly both ’in width’ and ’in depth”’. It was only after that time, for example, that our cotton-spinning mills began to develop. This development was "partly promoted by the fact that in 1841... we had an increase of customs dues on imported yarn”. And although these dues were abolished in 1850 the success of Russian cotton spinning was nevertheless assured, our own yarn began to oust the foreign article more and more. The following figures show what a great change took place in our cotton manufactures in a matter of some forty years:

In 1824-25 we imported In 1844 In 1867
74,268 poods of raw cotton
2,400,000 590,000 600,000
3,394,000 186,804
yarn
raw cotton
yarn
raw cotton
yarn

p That this “change” was caused by the expansion of our capitalist industry after 1842 "in width" also, by the way, is seen from the fact that many new weaving, cotton and other mills in our country date from quite recent times. "The development of cotton spinning affected the further processing of cotton yarn. The peasants’ weaving looms began gradually to 220 be moved out of the cramped houses into roomy weaving halls^^173^^ containing ten or more looms at which not only the master but also hired people worked.... Finally, the bleaching, dyeing and printing industries were renovated. Out of home production and crafts establishments in these sectors grew real factories , some of which became comparable with those abroad in a short time."  [220•*  In "one of the less industrial uyezds of Moscow Gubernia”, namely Klin, Mr. Erisman says, "the majority of the small weaving mills now existing were founded in the late sixties and early seventies. The Balin and Makarov cottonspinning mill (employing 432 workers of both sexes) was founded in 1840; the power-loom cotton factory of Kaulen, Kapustin and Krasnogorov (776 workers of both sexes) in 1849; the Flandensilk-weaving and carpet factory (275 workers) in 1856; the power-loom cotton factory of Kashayev (from 500 to 700 workers) in 1864. Match production began in 1863 with the equipment of the first Zakharov works (90 workers in his.two factories and 60 in the Stram factory). Approximately at the same time the working of calf-leather, begun earlier, was considerably extended by the establishment of several new works in Steshino. As for the development of factory industry in the uyezd during the seventies, an idea of this can be obtained from the following figures, which show the number of factories and works among those that we examined which are known to have been built after 1871.

p Weaving factories....... 16
Bleaching and dyeing establishments ............ 3
Dyeing establishments .... 3
Leather factories........ 3
Mirror factories ........ 6
Sandalwood mills........ 1
Fringe factories......... 1
Mechanical works........ 1
Treacle works.......... 1
Starch works .......... 1
Match works .......... 1
Chemical works ........ 1
Shoernaking works ...... 1

p “Actually, the number of factory establishments founded after 1871 and in particular the number of small weaving mills set up in the seventies is much larger than shown here since, firstly, we did not visit all the small establishments and, therefore, cannot say anything about the time of their foundation, and secondly, even in the establishments we examined we did not always get exact data about the time of their establishment.

p “Moreover, it must be note that even now (1880) new factories are being set up in Klin Uyezd. Thus, the Kashayev 221 association is expanding production by equipping a cotton- spinning mill; F. O. Zakharov has built another match works in Klin; in the village of Shchekino, Troitskoye Volost, a ne,w boltingmill has been founded, belonging to the peasant Nikifor Pavlov; the steam sawmill at Zavidovo Station. Nikolayevskaya Railway, has expanded production, and finally, the Frishmak works producing wheel grease has been built near Solnechnogorsk Station."  [221•* 

p “What song" do these facts, taken from the economic life of one of the least industrial uyezds of Moscow Gubernia, “sing”? Certainly not that the number of factory workers is "remaining at the same figure”. Rather that our exceptionalist writers use too exceptionalist methods to prove Russian exceptionalism. That in general; but to Mr. Tikhomirov they sing in chorus that his programme is based on too superficial a knowledge of the contemporary condition of our industry. Mr. Tikhomirov is quite mistaken if he seriously thinks that in our country "the number of factory and plant workers does not exceed 800,000”. According to official information the figure for factories and plants in European Russia (not including the Kingdom of Poland) "does not”, indeed, “exceed” the figure given by Mr. Tikhomirov: in 1879 it was 711,097, which, however, does not include the number of workers at distilleries. But Mr. Tikhomirov forgets that this “figure” applies only to the manufacturing industry. He takes no account of mining and metallurgical workers. And in those industries in the same year 1879 the number of workers was 282,959, and in the following year, 1880, the number increased by nearly ten thousand. The total is, therefore, 1,003,143. But can this figure be considered as even approximately correct? Do not forget that these are official figures collected by our administration and sarcastically called " ministerial figures" by our administration itself. We already know that the publishers of Voyenno-Statistichesky Sbornik pointed out that the figures thus obtained were "in the majority incomplete and lower than the reality”. At the First All-Russia Congress of Manufacturers, Works Owners and Persons Interested in National Industry, at the sitting of the Third Session on May 29, 1870, it was also noted that "the existing method of collecting statistic information on industry exclusively through routine returns made by the police at zemstvos is extremely unsatisfactory " and that the statistic data thus collected are considerably lower than the reality. In the opinion of N. S. Ilyin, "it is a commonly 222 known truth that we have no statistics , either of industry or of trade".  [222•*  This incompleteness and this inaccuracy are still indisputable facts today. In the study by Mr. Erisman that we quoted above we read (p. 6) that according to information collected by him "the number of workers was twice as large as shown in the reports of the district police officer". This depends, he said, "mainly on the fact that works and factory owners, when asked officially about the number of workers at the establishments they own, nearly always give figures considerably lower than the real ones". Are there any grounds for thinking that if we had a more accurate method of investigation of statistics we would not come across the same thing in other uyezds and gubernias in Russia? And if not, will we not be obliged to almost “double” the general total of factory and plant workers? From the debates which took place at the Congress of Manufacturers already referred to it will be seen that this assumption is hardly exaggerated. According to Mr. A. B. von Buschen, some manufacturers "openly admitted to him that they reduce the real figures by half”. Mr. T. S. Morozov, representing one of the biggest firms in Russia, stated that "when the police collect information, a big manufacturer, for instance, orders his clerk to write the same as the previous year, and similar reports are returned year in, year out over ten years, whereas both the quantity of material processed and the number of workers have changed. The official writes down what he is told, he knows nothing about the matter”. Mr. M. P. Syromyatnikov says that "there are many instances of production figures being cut by half , and not by small, but by very substantial businessmen; figures are sometimes divided by ten. This is a reliable fact”. We ask our readers not to forget that all these revelations are made by manufacturers themselves, for whom such falsifications are all the same a "delicate question”. What are we then to think of writers who not only base their social and political theories on data whose inaccuracy is obvious a priori , but continue to maintain that "the number of factory workers remains at the same figure" even after the manufacturers have explained the perfectly simple reason for this phenomenon? At the very best we must admit that such writers do not know the subject they are discussing!

p But why do manufacturers resort to such cunning? "Many of them,” Mr. von Buschen replies, "give false reports purposely, for fear of levies of some kind.... Some have openly stated that certain zemstvos tax factories in proportion to the number of 223 machines, workers , etc., and consequently it is with absolute deliberation that they give smaller figures.” When the collector of statistic information arrives, "the factory owner says: ’Ah! they’re from the zemstvo, they probably want to levy some tax according to the number of workers’, and he gives orders to report only half as many workers as he has".  [223•* 

p Hence we see clearly how our revolutionaries’ confidence of the bourgeoisie’s economic powerlessness is advantageous to the bourgeoisie themselves. Fearing income tax and all other attacks on their capital, our "private businessmen" try by all means in their power to hide the real scale of their production. With amazing naivete our revolutionaries take their "oh’s" and "ah’s" at face value and do not doubt for a minute the accuracy of the figures they give; they build upon them whole theories about the "balance of forces on Russian soil" and spread among our youth erroneous ideas on the forms of exploitation of the Russian people. By so doing, our revolutionaries play into the hands of the "knights of primitive accumulation" and capitalist production.

p However, it would be unfair to accuse Vestnik Narodnoi Voli of disseminating such erroneous ideas. Vestnik’s main fault is that it constantly contradicts itself and that, as the Gospel says, its right hand does not know what its left is doing. Mr. Tikhomirov assures his readers that Russian "industry is developing sluggishly”. But in the article, "The Condition of the Ore Miners and Factory Workers in the Urals”, written "according to personal observation " and published in the same issue No. 2 of Vestnik Narodnoi Voli , we read exactly the opposite. The author of the article is “sure” that if his readers saw "the various locomotives, sowing or winnowing machines and many other kinds of big machines made here in Russia by our workers”, many of those readers of Vestnik Narodnoi Voli would not be able to help exclaiming: "What the devil!   [223•**  Russia is making giant steps forward. Why, only yesterday, so to speak, they could not have made anything of that kind even of barely tolerable, not to speak of good, quality....Only some fifty years ago there were hardly ten factories in the whole of Russia! And now? Now there are nearly 200 iron works in the Urals alone, and how many in Petersburg, Moscow, and so on and so forth. There’s something for you! Just give us freedom.... In ten or fifteen years the number of works in our country would double and production itself, technology would improve”, etc. The 224 author of the article thinks that this rather long “exclamation” expresses “correctly” the real state of affairs. According to what he says—and what he says, we know, is founded on "personal observation"—"we have had enormous success recently in this" (i.e., the industrial) "respect: the number of works is continually increasing, technology is imporving" (there is "sluggish development" for you! ). "Our last exhibition^^174^^ showed that some of our metal works are almost on a level with the best in Europe."  [224•*  Is there anyone who can clear up this confusion? Whom are we to believe: Mr. Tikhomirov, or a man who has "personally observed" the development of our industry? To top it, we will note that when the latter author "has the occasion to read articles" not based on personal observation but written by "some learned or non-learned writer on the condition of our workers, they arouse no reaction" in him but "bitter laughter”. I imagine that he had a fit of Mephistophelean laughter when he read Mr. Tikhomirov’s report on the “sluggish” development of our industry!

p But let us leave the economic contradictions of Vestnik Narodnoi Volt and return to Mr. Tikhomirov: at present the part interests us more than the whole.

We have shown our author that the figures he reports do not correspond even to the "official truth”. Moreover, we have quoted figures on the basis of which we can be sure that the "official truth" in turn does not correspond to the reality. Now we shall tell him that he simply does not know how to deal with the inaccurate statistical figures that he has at his disposal, because he operates with magnitudes that are in no way commensurable. According to him "out of 100 million inhabitants in our country there are 800,000 workers united by capital"—a most unfavourable proportion for our industry. But the figure 100 million (to be more exact 101,342,242) represents the population of the whole empire, i.e., not only European Russia (76,589,965), but also the Kingdom of Poland (7,319,980), Finland (2,060,782), the Caucasus and the Kars and Batumi regions (6,254,966), Siberia (3,965,192) and Central Asia (5,151,354). But the number of workers indicated by Mr. Tikhomirov is only for European Russia and exclusively for "manufacturing industries”. What can we say about such methods of comparative statistic study?