p But that is not all. In quoting his figures he means workers "united by capital”, who are "more or less dependent on the bourgeoisie”, etc. Does he know that the number of such workers is far greater than the probable number of factory and plant workers proper? Such dependence is the condition of an enormous number of handicraftsmen, who have lost almost all their independence and been very successfully “united” by capitalism. This circumstance has already been pointed out by Voyenno-Statistichesky Sbornik , which was published in 1871. More up-to-date investigations have fully confirmed this evidence. Thus we learn from Mr. V. S. Prugavin that "in Moscow Gubernia alone the number of handicraft weavers amounts to 50,000. And yet only 12 handicraftsmen attended the exhibition as exhibitors from the whole of the enormous Moscow weaving district.... The reason for this was mainly that the great bulk of handicraft weavers do not work on their own account but for more or less big masters who distribute the raw material to be .worked up by the peasants at home. Briefly, in the weaving industries the domestic system of large-scale production is dominant".  [225•*  In Vladimir Gubernia "extremely varied" weaving industries play a highly important role in the economic life of the population. In the single formerly Oparino Volost, Alexandrov Uyezd, "22 villages with 1,296 workers are employed" in wool production alone. The annual production of the handicraftsmen amounts to 155,000 rubles. Well, are not these handicraftsmen free from more or less complete dependence on the bourgeoisie? Unfortunately not. "When we direct our attention to the economy of the trade, we become aware first of all of the fact that the bulk of the handicraftsmen have no independent handicraft occupation and work for master workers or manufacturers.” Things have gone so far in this respect that in the "production 6f dyes, where the independent handicraftsman gets one and a half times as much as the dependent craftsman, the number of producers working on their own account is only 9 per cent of the total number of handicraftsmen”.   [225•** 

p The fact that handicraft wool production has already entered the "path of natural movement" of capitalism can be seen from the very “economics” of this industry and also from the inequality which it creates among the peasants. "The wool 226 industry, with its sudden transitions from complete stagnation to revival during war, made them" (the craftsmen), "at least the bigger producers among them, familiar with industrial speculation, all the attraction of stockjobbing, rapid enrichment and still more rapid failures.... The enriched manufacturers  [226•*  hastened first and foremost to build large buildings with nine to fifteen windows on every floor. Half the houses in the village of Korytsevo are buildings of this kind. When in the Oparino district you see a brick house, or in general a large one, you can be sure that a master manufacturer lives there."  [226•** 

p In Vladimir Gubernia the cotton-weaving industry has developed most. "In Pokrov Uyezd alone there are more than 7,000 weaving looms working up two and a half million rubles’ worth of wares per year. In Alexandrov Uyezd the cotton industry has spread to 120 villages, where more than 3,000 looms are operated.” But here, too, the process of the transformation of the handicraft industry into the capitalist system of large-scale production spoken of above is noticed. "It is interesting,” says Mr. V. S. Prugavin, "to observe in the trade that we are studying the gradual process of transition from the small handicraft form of production to large-scale power-loom weaving. Between these two economic forms of production there are many transitional ones: to speak of them would mean to examine the gradual process by which handicraft weaving becomes capitalist. In Pokrov Uyezd we see, for example, in cotton production, all possible forms of industrial units. The house of a handicraftsman is still the dominant form. In Pokrov Uyezd there are now 4,903 looms operated in homes, while 3,200 are used in power-loom establishments. The transitional forms are the large weaving halls—totalling 2,330 looms—which range from 6-10 looms to full sized factories of a hundred or more looms. In these large weaving halls using hand-looms the weaver’s dependence on the manufacturer is more striking, the net earnings of the craftsman smaller and the conditions of labour less favourable than in small industrial units. Another step and we are in the domain of power-loom weaving production where the craftsman weaver is already completely transformed into an operative worker. The number of large weaving halls in Pokrov Uyezd is constantly growing and of late some of them have already gone over to power-loom weaving production. The number of small independent weaver craftsmen is very limited. There are none at all in Alexandrov Uyezd, and in Pokrov Uyezd not more than 50. Although the large weaving halls do not substantially differ in 227 any way from the small ones, their larger dimensions and their constant numerical growth show beyond doubt that there is a tendency and actual gradual approaching by the purely handicraft form of cotton weaving to the form of large-scale, factory production, the capitalist type of organisation of national labour."  [227•* 

p Let us go on to other uyezds in the same Vladimir Gubernia.

p “The economic organisation of cotton weaving in Yuryev Uye/d,” we read in another work by V. S. Prugavin, "generally resembles what we observed in Alexandrov and Pokrov uyezds. As in the two uyezds considered earlier, the economic conditions of cotton production have taken here the shape of the domestic system of large-scale production ... 98.95 per cent of the cotton wares produced in Yuryev Uyezd is put out by the domestic system of large-scale production and only 1.05 per cent comes from"... independent craftsmen, you think? No, "small independent manufacturers".  [227•** 

p In general, in the whole of the north-west of Vladimir Gubernia "the spinning and weaving factories employ nearly all the free labour-power and almost the whole of the population here has become factory workers, so that small handicraft production here is nothing more than the last survival of a once vigorous handicraft industry. Of course, the ownership of the land has preserved for the peasant in this region certain features of the agriculturist, especially in places where the soil is fertile, but he is hardly less subordinate to capital than any other factory worker not possessing his own house.... Many pure craftsmen, in spite of all their apparent independence in production, are completely dependent on middlemen who in substance are manufacturer-customers not belonging to any firm".  [227•*** 

p In the Shuya cotton-weaving district as far back as in the late sixties and early seventies "with the opening of new mechanical weaving mills the rural population began rapidly to be attracted to the big factories and to be transformed into a pure factory class of workers. Thus the rural work of the weavers finally lost the last trace of independence which it enjoyed in work in the 228 ‘weaving halls’, those low, stinking sheds filled with looms and packed with workers of both sexes and all ages".  [228•* 

p It would be a mistake to think that the facts described are true only of Moscow and Vladimir gubernias. In Yaroslavl Gubernia we see exactly the same thing. Even N. F. Stuckenberg in his "Description of Yaroslavl Gubernia"  [228•**  spoke of the weavers of Velikoye village, of whom he counted 10,000, as independent producers. He wrote this essay on the basis of Ministry of the Interior figures relating to the forties. At that time and "up to 1850 linen production in the village of Velikoye was a purely peasant and handicraft one. Every peasant house was a linen factory. But in 1850 the peasant Lakalov of that village installed weaving looms, began to purchase yarn from Tula Gubernia and gave some of it to the peasants to weave. Many others followed his example and thus linen factories began to appear: The Velikoye factories gave out as much as 30,000 poods of yarn every year to the peasants not only of that village but also of Kostroma and Vladimir gubernias. Up to 100,000 pieces of linen were woven by the villagers in Velikoye alone in 1867.... As recently as a few years ago only the women in Velikoye were engaged in cloth-weaving, but now, with the introduction of improved weaving looms, weaving has become almost exclusively an occupation for men and boys from the age of ten".  [228•***  This last change means that weaving has already secured a more important role in the distribution of employment among the members of the village families. This is indeed so. Flax spinning and linen weaving are now "the main trade of the peasants in the area around Velikoye village”. The role played by the factory in peasant handicraft weaving can be seen from the fact that "with the development in this locality of flax-spinning and scutching factories and of chemical linen bleaching establishments the flax industry is developing there year by year".  [228•**** 

p In Kostroma Gubernia flax spinning and weaving have provided and are providing "earnings for peasants of both sexes, especially in the villages of Kineshma, Nerekhta, Kostroma, and Yuryevets uyezds”. But here, too, the trouble is that "with the development of flax-spinning factories the weaving of linen 229 articles out of home-spun yarn has declined drastically in the region because the peasants have seen the impossibility of competing with factory production of yarn and have begun to dress the flax more carefully and sell it instead of spinning it into home-made yarn and making their own linen".

p It must not be forgotten that home-weaving sometimes provided an occupation for the whole peasant family, for nine months, i.e., three-quarters of the year. Where will that family apply its labour now that with the "introduction of spinning looms and power-loom weaving the hand weaving and dressing of articles have decreased by more than half"? It is easy to understand where. "The peasants prefer to work in the nearest factory rather than to weave articles at home."  [229•* 

p Some branches of handicraft production in Kaluga Gubernia are apparently exceptions to the general rules we have pointed out. There peasant weaving is beating the big dealers’ factories. Thus ribbon and braid production "appeared in Maloyaroslavets Uyezd with the establishment in 1804 of the merchant Malutin’s cotton-braid factory, the production of which rose from 20,000 rubles to 140,000 in 1820.as a result of the equipment with Rochet mill looms, on which one worker can weave 50 ribbons or braids at once. But after the same type of looms began to be used in peasant weaving in the district, the production of Malutin’s factory dropped to 24,000 rubles by 1860 and finally the factory was closed altogether”. From this our exceptionalists will conclude that Russian handicraftsmen are not afraid of capitalist competition. But such a conclusion will be just as light-headed as all their other attempts to establish some kind of economic “laws”. First, if the independent handicraftsman did indeed triumph over Malutin’s factory, it had still to be proved that the victory could be a lasting one. The history of the weaving trade in the same gubernia gives strong reasons for doubting this. The first cotton-weaving factory opened on the estate of P. M. Gubin in 1830 was also unable to withstand competition from village producers, and handicraft weaving flourished until 1858. But "since that time machine-operated, power-loom factories have been introduced with steam-engines which, in turn, have begun to oust hand weaving. Thus, in Medyn Uyezd there were formerly 15,000 hand looms, but now there are only 3,000".  [229•**  Who can guarantee that as regards braid and ribbon production further technical improvement will not tip the scales in favour of the big capitalists? For industrial progress is constantly accompanied by a relative increase in 230 constant capital which is extremely harmful to small producers. And besides, it would be a big mistake to think that in the examples quoted the struggle was between independent producers, on the one hand, and capitalists, on the other. Gubin’s factory was undermined not by the independent producers but by "larger weaving establishments in the peasant houses" which immediately lowered the "piece pay in the factories". The struggle was between big and small capital, and the latter was victorious because it intensified the exploitation of the’working people. It was the same in ribbon and braid making. “Masters”, not independent handicraftsmen, have purchased Rochet looms. The weaver, braid-maker and ribbon-maker increasingly lose all trace of independence, so that they are obliged to choose between the local manufacturers and the “masters”, who "get the warp from the Moscow manufacturers, weave it in their domestic factory and pay by the arshin or give it out to other peasants and then deliver the ready-made commodity to the manufacturer”. Many of these masters have, in their way, quite a big business, and they are being transformed into real " manufacturers”. In Maloyaroslavets Uyezd two cotton-weaving " handicraft factories" employ as many as 40 workers; five cotton braid-making peasant factories in Ovchinino and Nedelnoye volosts have 145 looms and 163 workers, a cotton ribbon factory in Ovchinino Volost has seven looms and eight workers, and so on.  [230•*  In the “handicraft” brocade production of Moscow Gubernia there are "peasant brocade factories with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of rubles".  [230•** 

p “What song do these figures" and facts “sing”? They convinced Mr. Prugavin that "handicraft weaving is fatally, though slowly, being transformed into a large-scale form of production”. But can this conclusion be confined to weaving? Alas! There are not a few other branches of handicraft production in which one must be blind not to notice the same process.

p For example, shoemaking in Alexandrov Uyezd, Vladimir Gubernia. In this trade, "the extensive proportions of fixed and circulating capital and the negligible role or small workshops in production, the strict, detailed division of labour in big establishments and the negligible expenses from the general turnover for the purchase of labour-power—all this bears witness to the fact that we are dealing with a process which is passing from the stage of a craft to the level of a manufacture".  [230•*** 

p Or again the leather handicraftsmen who "are continually 231 decreasing numerically”, because of competition from big works. "The works, thanks to their better conditions, material as well as technical, are able to work better and more cheaply than the handicraftsmen. There can be no doubt that the leather handicraftsmen will find it difficult to hold out against competition from factory production, which better satisfies modern demands."

p And finally the production of starch and treacle. In Moscow Gubernia "this industry is concentrated in 43 villages in which there are 130 establishments, 117 producing starch and 13 treacle. There are not yet any big factories here as in the weaving districts, but here too handicraft production is beginning to assume a capitalist character. Hired labour plays a great part in this industry: in 29.8 per cent of the establishments it provides the only source of labour-power and in 59.7 per cent it has an equal share in production with the members of the master’s family,  [231•*  only 10 per cent of the establishments doing almost without its help. The causes of this are found in the considerable size of the fixed capital, which is beyond the capacity of most of the peasants".

p The blacksmith industry in Novgorod and Tver gubernias and all gubernias in which it has a role of any importance in the life of the peasants, and all the small metal works of Nizhny Novgorod Gubernia also show a definite loss of all independence by producers.  [231•**  The handicraftsmen have not yet felt competition from big industrial capital, but the role of exploiter is fulfilled with distinction by their peasant brothers or the merchants who provide them with raw material and buy their finished’product.

p In Nizhny Novgorod Gubernia "there are quite a number of places where whole communes live exclusively on hand-made production and differ little from factory workers as far as living conditions are concerned. This is the case in the well-known villages of Pavlovo, Vorsma, Bogorodskoye, Lyskovo and certain volosts and villages in Semyonovo and Balakhna uyezds”.   [231•***  The workers here are not “united” by capital but there is no doubt that they arc tied down to it and are, so to speak, the irregular army of capitalism. Their inclusion in the regular army 232 is only a matter of time and of expediency as the employer sees it.

The contemporary condition of the handicraftsmen is so unstable that producers are often threatened with the loss of their independence merely as the result of an improvement in the means of production. For instance the craftsman I. N. Kostylkov invented four machines to make rakes. They considerably increase the productivity of labour and are, properly speaking, very cheap. Nevertheless, Mr. Prugavin expresses quite justified fears that "they will cause a very big change in the economic organisation of rake making”, in the sense, of course, of undermining the independence of the producers. Mr. Prugavin presumes that there should be "help in this case for the mass of rake-makers to give them the possibility of acquiring machines on a collective basis”. Of course it would be very good to do so, but the question is: Will it be done? Those who are now in power, we know, have very little sympathy for a "collective basis" and we really do not know whether we shall soon have a government with sympathy for such a basis; whether, for example, we shall soon have at the helm the "Narodnaya Volya party”, which would lay the "foundation of the socialist organisation of Russia”. And as long as that party only talks about seizing power, matters can change only for the worse: the present candidates for the proletariat may become proletarians in reality tomorrow. Can this fact be ignored in a study of economic relationships in contemporary Russia? There are several million handicraftsmen in our country and many branches of handicraft production are partly changing and have partly changed into the domestic system of large-scale production. According to information collected as early as 1864 "the approximate number of workers in the villages engaged in manufacturing cotton goods from the manufacturers’ yarn" (only workers of that category!) "was about 350,000”. To say after this that the number of our industrial workers does not exceed 800,000 means to study Russia only by means of statistical exercises of clerks, district police officers and non- commissioned officers.