And Bogdanov is a short course in economics. Short Course in Economics

Poster “Study the great path of the party of Lenin and Stalin” “ Short course history of the All-Union Communist Party (b)" textbook on the history of the All-Union communist party(Bolsheviks), published in 1938 ... Wikipedia

THE USSR. Social Sciences- Philosophy Being Integral integral part world philosophy, the philosophical thought of the peoples of the USSR has gone through a long and complex 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 are foreigners... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Russia. Russian science: Economic science- The first Russian translation of the book Hell. Smith's On the Wealth of Nations was made by Politkovsky in 1802-06. Smith's ideas enjoyed considerable popularity both in educated society and in government spheres. This translation is based on... encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

POLITICAL ECONOMY- a science that studies the laws governing 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- (pseud.: real name Malinovsky; other pseudonyms Werner, Maksimov, Private) Alexander Alexandrovich, economist, philosopher, politician. activist, scientist. Graduated... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

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

Bogdanov A. (pseudonym)- Bogdanov, A. (pseudonym) philosopher and economist. His most important works: 1) Basic elements of a historical view of nature (St. Petersburg, 1898); 2) Cognition 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 founded by K. Marx and F. Engels and further developed by V. I. Lenin. According to the most... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

BOGDANOV- 1 . (pseud.; real surname Malinovsky; party pseudonyms: Werner, Private, Rakhmetov, Reinert, Sysoika, Maksimov, etc.), Alexander Alexandrovich (10.VIII.1873 7.IV.1928) Russian. political activist, philosopher, economist, doctor by profession. Genus. V… … 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

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) examines 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) psychology of society, 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 system, feudalism, petty bourgeois system, the era of merchant capital, industrial capitalism and, finally, socialism.
The Marxist foundations of the doctrine, along with the conciseness and accessibility of the presentation, made the book widely popular in Russia, and until recently it could be considered the most widespread textbook in the study of economic science, not only among workers, but also in wide circles of students.

The first edition of this book was published 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, which was created in the classes of workers' circles in the Tula forests, and then was mercilessly mutilated by censorship . During the entire period of time, no new edition was required to react; With the revolution came increased demand for this book, and it quickly disappeared from sale. But it was very difficult to prepare a new edition: too much time has passed, too much has happened in life and science; a lot of processing became necessary. It is enough to point out that this was the period in which the new phase of capitalism was fully defined - the dominance of finance capital, the period in which it reached its peak and unfolded its unprecedented form of crisis - world war. These 12-13 years are probably not inferior in the wealth of economic experience to the entire previous century...
Comrade Sh. M. Dvolaytsky agreed to take on the largest part of the entire task of revising the course, and we completed it together. The biggest additions relate to the last part of the course about money circulation, about the tax system, about financial capital, about the basic conditions for the collapse of capitalism, etc.; they were almost entirely written by Comrade. Dvolaitsky. He also introduced a number of new factual illustrations in all parts of the course. Significant rearrangements were needed in the arrangement of material about previous periods economic development, in accordance with the latest views on these issues. The history of economic views scattered throughout the course has been eliminated; this was done in the interests of integrity, since this story actually belongs to another science - about ideologies, and it is better to present it in a separate book. The introduction is greatly shortened - about the basic concepts, due to 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. Dvolaytsky has added a short bibliography.
Currently, in addition to this course, there are those built according to the same type: “ Beginner 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 editions, should be published almost simultaneously with this book). The “Short Course” will be the middle link between them, like a systematic textbook, concisely covering the most important facts and basic 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 discussed in a special textbook “The Science of public consciousness", which is written in the same type.
Amid the turbulent events of the revolutionary era, solid and holistic economic knowledge is needed more than ever. Without it, planning is impossible in any way. social struggle, nor in public construction.

REVIEW

A. Bogdanov. Short course in economic science.

Moscow. 1897. Ed. book warehouse A. Murinova. Page 290. Ts. 2 r.

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 minor points in which, in our opinion, improvements could be made in subsequent editions; one should think that given the keen interest of the reading public in economic issues, the next editions of this useful book will not be long in coming.

36 V. I. LENIN

in “definitions” and in the analysis of individual features of each definition, and the clarity of presentation not only does not lose 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 significance. The view of political economy as the science of the historically developing structures of social production forms 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 “V. The process of economic development” is not presented dogmatically (as is customary in most textbooks), but in the form of characteristics of successive periods of economic development, namely: the period of primitive tribal communism, the period of slavery, the period of feudalism and guilds and, finally, capitalism. This is exactly how political economy should be presented. It will perhaps be objected that in this way the author inevitably has to split up the same theoretical section (for example, about money) between different periods and fall into repetition. But this purely formal shortcoming is fully compensated by the main advantages of historical presentation. And is this a disadvantage? The repetitions are very insignificant, useful for the beginner, because he more firmly assimilates especially important provisions. Attributing, 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 not based on abstract speculation, but on an accurate study of what actually happened in the historical development of mankind. The idea of individual, historically determined structures of the social economy is more complete. But the whole task of a guide to political economy is to give the student of this science basic concepts about the various systems of social economy and about the fundamental features of each system; all

REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY A. BOGDANOV 37

The task is to ensure that a person who has mastered the initial guidance has in his hands a reliable guiding thread for further study of this subject, so that he gains interest in such study, realizing that the most important issues of modern social life are most directly related to the questions of economic science. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, this is precisely what is lacking in manuals on political economy. Their disadvantage is not so much that they are usually limited to one system of social economy (namely capitalism), but rather that they do not know how to concentrate the reader’s attention on the fundamental features of this system; can't clearly define it historical meaning, show the process (and conditions) of its occurrence, on the one hand, the trends of its further development, on the other; they do not know how to imagine 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 reliable guidance, because they do not usually adhere to one direction with all consistency; Finally, they do not know how to interest the student, because they have an extremely narrow and incoherent understanding of the meaning of economic issues, placing economic, political, moral, etc. “factors” “in poetic disorder.” Only a materialistic understanding of history brings light into this chaos and opens up the possibility a broad, coherent and meaningful view of the special structure of the social economy, as the foundation of a special structure of the entire social life of man.

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 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 historical school(284) and the school of kateder-reformers (“realistic” or “historical-ethical”), which should be recognized as the “school of compromise” (287) with its meaningless and false idea of the “non-class” origin and significance of legal-political institutions (288) etc. The author also connects the teachings of Sismondi and Proudhon with the development of capitalism, thoroughly classifying them as petty-bourgeois economists, showing the roots of their ideas in the interests of a special class of capitalist society occupying a “middle, transitional place” (279), - admitting bluntly the reactionary significance of such ideas (280-281). Thanks to the consistency of his views and the ability to consider individual aspects of economic life in connection with the main features of a given economic system, the author correctly assessed the importance of such phenomena as the participation of workers in the profits of the enterprise (one of the “forms of wages”, which “too rarely can be beneficial for entrepreneur" (pp. 132-133)), or productive associations, which, "organizing among capitalist relations", "in essence only increase the petty bourgeoisie" (187).

REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY A. BOGDANOV 39

academic”, and many others... But besides this, so to speak, party discontent, they will probably point out that the broad formulation of questions caused an extreme conciseness in the presentation of the “short course”, which tells on 290 pages and about all periods economic development, ranging from tribal communities and savages to capitalist cartels and trusts, and about political and family life the ancient world and the Middle Ages, and about the history of economic views. The presentation of Mr. A. Bogdanov is really in highest degree concisely, as he himself points out in the preface, directly calling his book a “summary.” There is no doubt that some of the author's summary remarks, most often relating to facts of a historical nature, and sometimes to more detailed questions of theoretical economy, will be incomprehensible to the novice reader wishing to become 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 consider the presence of such remarks as an advantage rather than a disadvantage of the book under review. In fact, if the author had decided to present in detail, explain and substantiate each such remark, his work would have grown to immense limits, completely inconsistent with the objectives of the brief guide. And it is impossible to present in any course, even the thickest, all the data modern science about all periods of economic development and about the history of economic views from Aristotle to Wagner. If he were to throw out all such remarks, then his book would positively lose from the narrowing of the limits and meaning of political economy. In their present form, these summary notes will bring, we think, great benefit to both those teaching and learning from this summary. There is nothing to say about the first ones. The latter will see from the totality of these comments that

* This is what the magazine columnist of “Russian Thought”11 thinks (1897, November, library department, p. 517). There are such comedians!

40 V. I. LENIN

political economy cannot be studied so-so, mir nichts dir nichts, without any preliminary knowledge, without familiarization with very many and very important issues of history, statistics, etc. Students will see that with issues of social economy in its development and its influence on social life it is impossible to familiarize yourself with one or even several of those textbooks and courses that are often distinguished by their amazing “ease of presentation,” but also by their amazing lack of content, pouring from empty to empty; that the most pressing questions of history and modern 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 basic concepts on the subject being presented and indicate in which direction it should be studied in more detail and why such study is important.

Let us now turn to the second part of our comments, to indicating those places in Mr. Bogdanov’s book that, in our opinion, require correction or addition. We hope that the venerable author will not complain to us for the pettiness and even pickiness of these comments: in the notes there are certain phrases and even individual words are incomparably more important than in a thorough and detailed presentation.

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

REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY A. BOGDANOV 41

would help the student to grasp 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 noticeable because, speaking about the Middle Ages, the author dwelt in detail on the relationship between the village and the city (63-66), and about modern city said only a few words about the village being subjugated to them (174). - Speaking about the history of industry, the author very decisively places the “domestic system of capitalist production” “in the middle of the path from craft to manufacture” (p. 156, thesis 6). On this issue, such a simplification of the matter does not seem entirely convenient to us. 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 manufacture.” They stand further than the manufactory in historical development capitalism, and we should, we think, say a few words about this. - 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. The author’s very cursory mentions of these phenomena, which are made on pages 205 and 270, are certainly insufficient. - The author’s assertion that “over the last half century” “profits have 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 trend of rent

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

* The strict division of capitalism into the manufacturing and machine periods is a very great advantage of Mr. Bogdanov’s “course”.

42 V. I. LENIN

to especially rapid growth under any and all conditions (even an increase in rent is possible when the price of bread falls). That decrease in grain prices (and rent under certain conditions) which is caused in Lately competition between the virgin fields of America, Australia, etc., began sharply only in the 70s, and Engels’ note in the section on rent (“Das Kapital”, III, 2, 259-260), dedicated to the modern agricultural crisis, was formulated much more be careful. 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 then only points out that this vitality is “gradually exhausted” (allmählich sich erschöpft). - The paragraphs devoted to agriculture are also characterized by excessive brevity. In the paragraph on (capitalist) rent it is only briefly stated that its condition is capitalist agriculture. (“In the period of capitalism, land continues to remain 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 that of factory workers (lower level of needs and living; 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 columns13 and dependent peasants, further about the rent of our peasants, - it would be necessary to briefly characterize the general course of development of rent from labor rent (Arbeitsrente) to natural rent (Produktenrente), then to money rent (Geldrente), and from there to capitalist rent (cf. “Das Kapital” ", III, 2, Cap. 47). - Speaking about crowding out 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 THE BOOK BY A. BOGDANOV 43

the talism of subsidiary crafts and the loss of stability of the peasant economy as a result, the author expresses himself as follows: “the peasant economy becomes poorer in general - the total amount of values produced by it decreases” (148). This is very inaccurate. The process of ruining the peasantry by capitalism consists in ousting it by the rural bourgeoisie, formed from the same peasantry. Mr. Bogdanov could hardly, for example, describe the decline of peasant farming in Germany without touching on Vollbauer "oB. In the passage cited, the author speaks about peasants in general, but after this he gives an example from Russian life - well, talk about "in general" is more than risky for the Russian peasant. The author on the same page says: "The peasant either engages in farming alone, or goes into manufacturing," that is, - let us add from ourselves, - either turns into a rural bourgeois, or into a proletarian (with piece of land). This two-way process should be mentioned. - Finally, as a general shortcoming of the book, we must note the lack of examples from Russian life. On very many issues (at least, for example, about the organization of production in the Middle Ages, about the development of machine production and rail tracks, about the growth of urban population, about crises and syndicates, about the difference between manufacture and factory, etc.) similar examples from our economic literature would be very important, otherwise mastering the subject is greatly difficult for a beginner due to the lack of examples familiar to him. It seems to us that filling in the indicated gaps would very slightly enlarge the book and would not impede its wide distribution, which in all respects is very desirable.

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

A NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY

(REGARDING THE CONTROVERSY between Messrs. TUGAN-BARANOVSKY AND BULGAKOV)15

The question of markets in capitalist society, as is known, occupied a highly important place in the teaching of populist economists since the 1960s. V.V. and N.-on are at their head. It is therefore quite natural that economists who have a negative attitude towards the theories of the populists considered it necessary to pay attention to this issue and clarify, first of all, the main, abstract theoretical points of the “theory of markets”. An attempt to clarify this 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 dedicated his book to the same issue: “On Markets in Capitalist Production” (Moscow, 1897). Both authors agreed on their basic views; in both, the center of gravity lies in the presentation of the remarkable analysis of “the circulation and reproduction of all social capital,” the analysis given by Marx in Section III of the second volume of Capital. Both authors agreed that the theories of Messrs. V.V. and N.-on’s ideas about the market (especially the internal one) in a capitalist society are certainly erroneous and are based either on ignorance or on a misunderstanding of Marx’s analysis. Both authors recognized that developing capitalist production itself creates a market for itself mainly at the expense of the means of production, and not for consumer goods; - that the sale of the product in general and excess value in particular is quite

NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY 45

explainable without involving the external market; - that the need for a foreign market for a capitalist country does not at all arise from the conditions of implementation (as Messrs. V.V. and N.-on believed), but from historical conditions, etc. It would seem that with such complete agreement of Messrs. Bulgakov and Tugan-Baranovsky have nothing to argue about and they can jointly direct their efforts to more detailed and further criticism of populist economics. But in fact, a controversy ensued between the named writers (Bulgakov, op. cit., pp. 246-257 and passim; Tugan-Baranovsky in “The World of God” 1898, No. 6: “Capitalism and the Market”, regarding the book by S. Bulgakov). In our opinion, both Mr. Bulgakov and Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky went somewhat far in their polemics, giving their comments too personal a 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 outlined to the question of the role of the external market for a capitalist country, which was entirely accepted by Mr. Bulgakov, was by no means taken from Marx,” states Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky. It seems to us that this statement is incorrect, because the solution to the problem was taken by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky precisely from Marx; from there, undoubtedly, Mr. Bulgakov took it, so the debate can be conducted not about “originality,” but about the understanding of this or that position of Marx, about the need to present Marx 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 very section (III) of the second volume, which sets out the analysis of the implementation of the product, Marx clearly clarifies his attitude to this issue foreign trade, and consequently, the foreign market. Here's what he says about it:

* - other. Ed.

* - swear by the words of the teacher. Ed. - loco citato - in the quoted place. Ed.

46 V. I. LENIN

“Capitalist production does not exist at all without foreign trade. But if we assume normal annual reproduction in these sizes, then this already assumes that foreign trade only replaces native products (Artikel - goods) with products of another consumer or natural form, without affecting those relations of value in which two categories are exchanged among themselves: means 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 a product can, therefore, only confuse matters, without providing a new element either for the problem itself or for solving it. Consequently, it does not need to be taken into account at all...” (“Das Kapital”, Π1, 469*. Italics added)17. “Resolution of the issue” by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky: - “... in every country that imports goods from abroad, capital may be in excess; an external 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 position. 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 sales (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, is it possible to say after this that Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky’s “solution to the problem” was “in no way taken from Marx”? Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky further says that “Volumes II and III of Capital represent only a far from finished rough draft” and that “for this reason we do not find in Volume III the conclusions from the remarkable analysis presented in Volume II” (cited Art., 123). And this statement is inaccurate. In addition to individual analyzes of social reproduction

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

NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY 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. “Towards the analysis of the production process”) , 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 a very important question about the types of social income in a capitalist society.Finally, the statement of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky should be recognized as incorrect, as if “Marx, in volume III of Capital, speaks out on this issue completely differently,” as if in volume III we “even come across statements that are decisively refuted by this analysis” (cit. article, 123). Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky cites on page 122 of his article are two of Marx's arguments that supposedly contradict the basic doctrine. Let's take a closer look at them. In Volume III, Marx says: “The conditions of direct exploitation and the conditions for the implementation of it (this exploitation) are not identical. They not only do not coincide in time and place, but are also essentially different. The former are limited only by the productive power 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 (of society) develops, the more it becomes in conflict with the narrow foundation on which consumption relations rest” (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 guarantee the possibility of selling products. The products may not find a market, although the distribution of production will be proportional - this, apparently, is the meaning of Marx’s quoted words.” No, that is not the meaning of these words. There is no reason to see in these words any amendment to the theory of implementation set forth in Volume II. Marx states only here the contradiction of capitalism, which was pointed out in other places 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 it in the same passage, we have no right to look for any further meaning in his words. “The consumption power of society” and “the proportionality of various branches of production” are not at all some separate, independent, unrelated conditions. On the contrary, a certain state of consumption is one of the elements of proportionality. In fact, the analysis of implementation has shown that the formation of an internal market for capitalism occurs not so much at the expense of consumer goods, but at the expense of the means of production. It follows that the first division public products(production of means of production) can and should develop faster than the second (production of consumer goods). But from this, of course, it does not in any way follow 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 on this matter: “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, for the production of constant capital never occurs for its own sake, but occurs only because more of this constant capital is consumed in those branches of production whose products are included in personal consumption.” (III, 1, 289. Russian translation, 242). So, ultimately, productive consumption (consumption of means of production) is always associated with personal consumption, always dependent on it. Meanwhile, capitalism is characterized, on the one hand, by the desire for limitless expansion of productive

NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY 49

consumption, to the limitless 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 at all 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 unprogressiveness in comparison with previous economic regimes (as our populists like to do). The development of capitalism cannot occur otherwise than in a whole series of contradictions, and pointing out these contradictions only clarifies for us the historically transitory nature of capitalism, clarifies the conditions and reasons for its desire to move into a higher form.

Taking all of the above together, we get the following conclusion: the solution to the question of the role of the foreign market outlined by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky was taken precisely from Marx; There is no contradiction between volumes II and III of Capital on the issue of implementation (and the theory of markets).

* Another passage quoted by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky has exactly the same meaning (III, 1, 231, cf. S. 232 to the end of the paragraph)21, as well as the following passage about crises: “The final cause of all real crises remains always poverty and limited consumption of the masses, counteracting 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: workers, as buyers of goods, are important to the market. But capitalist society seeks to limit them to a minimum price, as sellers of their goods - labor power” (“Das Kapital”, Π, 303)23. We have already spoken about the incorrect interpretation of this passage by Mr. N. -on in Novy Slovo24, 1897, May. (See Works, 5th ed., volume 2, pp. 160-161. Ed.) There is no contradiction between all these places and the analysis of implementation in Section III of Volume II.

50 V. I. LENIN

economists before Marx about markets. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky accuses Mr. Bulgakov of tearing Marx’s views away from the scientific soil on which they grew, that he portrays the matter as if “Marx’s views have no connection with the views of his predecessors.” This last reproach is completely unfounded, since 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 issue, in vain paid so little attention to Adam-Smith, whom it would have been necessary to dwell on in the greatest detail during a special presentation 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 excess value (wages, profit and rent, in Ad. Smith’s terminology), which stubbornly held until Marx and did not make it possible not only to resolve, but even to correctly pose the question of implementation . 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 only lead to empty and scholastic debates of words” (with 21 titles of op., note). 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 focusing instead on the teachings of secondary and dependent theorists, D.-S. Mill and von Kirchmann. As for Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, he completely bypassed A. Smith and therefore, in presenting the views of subsequent economists, he omitted their main mistake (repetition of the above-mentioned mistake of Smith). That the presentation under these conditions could not be satisfactory is self-evident. Let's limit ourselves to two examples. Having outlined your diagram No. 1, explaining the simple

NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY 51

reproduction, Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says: “But the case of simple reproduction we assume does not raise any doubts; capitalists, according to our assumption, consume all their profits - it is clear that the supply of goods will not exceed demand” (“Industrial Crises”, p. 409). This is not true. This is not at all an “understandable thing” for previous economists, because they did not know how to explain even the simple reproduction of social capital, and it is impossible to explain it without understanding that the social product is divided in value into constant capital + variable capital + surplus value, and in material form into two large divisions: means of production and consumer goods. Therefore, this incident aroused “doubts” in A. Smith, in which, as Marx showed, he became confused. If later economists repeated Smith's mistake without sharing Smith's doubts, this only shows that they took a theoretical step backward on this issue. It is just as incorrect when Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says: “The teaching of Say - Ricardo is theoretically absolutely correct; if his opponents had taken the trouble to calculate with figures how goods are distributed in a capitalist economy, they would easily understand that the denial of this teaching contains a logical contradiction” (1. p. 427). No, the teaching of Say - Ricardo is theoretically completely incorrect: 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 pure product of society is completely subjective. And no matter how much Say - Ricardo and their opponents "calculated on numbers", they would never have calculated anything, because the point here is not at all about numbers, as Bulgakov has already quite rightly noted about another place in Mr. Tugan’s book -Baranovsky (Bulgakov, 1. p., p. 21, note).

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

52 V. I. LENIN

Mr. Bulgakov claims 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 power and do not explain the process of social reproduction” (1. p. , 248), and Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky says that “Mr. Bulgakov does not clearly understand the very purpose of such schemes” (“World of God” No. 6, 1898, p. 125). In our opinion, in this case the truth is entirely on the side of Mr. Bulgakov. “He does not clearly understand the meaning of schemes” rather Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky, who believes that schemes “prove the conclusion” (ibid.). Schemes by themselves cannot prove anything; they can only illustrate the process if it is individual elements clarified theoretically. Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky compiled his own diagrams, different from Marx’s schemes (and incomparably less clear than Marx’s schemes), moreover, omitting the theoretical clarification of those elements of the process that should be illustrated by diagrams. The main position of Marx's theory, which showed that the social product does not break up into only variable capital + excess value (as A. Smith, Ricardo, Proudhon, Rodbertus and others thought), but into constant capital + the indicated parts, is the position of Mr. Tugan- Baranovsky did not explain it at all, although he accepted it in his diagrams. The reader of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky’s book is not able to understand this basic position new theory. The need to distinguish between two divisions of social production (I: means of production and II: consumer goods) was not motivated by Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky at all, whereas, according to the correct remark of Mr. Bulgakov, “in this one division there is more theoretical meaning than in all the previous ones word debates regarding the theory of markets" (1. p. 27). That is why Mr. Bulgakov’s presentation of Marx’s theory is much clearer and more correct than that of Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky.

In conclusion, dwelling in a little more detail on Mr. Bulgakov’s book, we should note the following.

* - ibidem - ibid. Ed.

NOTE ON THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET THEORY 53

About a third of his book is devoted to

A. Bogdanov. SHORT COURSE IN ECONOMIC SCIENCE. Moscow. 1897. Ed. book warehouse A. Murinova. Page 290. Ts. 2 r.

The main advantage of Mr. Bogdanov’s “course” is the complete consistency of direction from the first to the last page of the book, which treats very many and very broad issues. From the very beginning, the author gives a clear and precise definition of political economy as “a science that studies the social relations of production and distribution in their development” (3), and nowhere does he deviate from this view, which is often very poorly understood by learned professors of political economy, who are confused with “ social relations of production" on production in general and filling their thick courses with a pile of meaningless platitudes and examples that are not at all related to social science. The author is alien to that scholasticism that often prompts the compilers of textbooks to become sophisticated in “definitions” and in the analysis of individual features of each definition, and the clarity of presentation not only does not lose from this, but directly benefits, and the reader, for example, will receive a clear idea of such categories like capital, both in its social and historical significance. The view of political economy as the science of the historically developing structures of social production forms 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 “V. The process of economic development” is not presented dogmatically (as is customary in most textbooks), but in the form of characteristics of successive periods of economic development, namely: the period of primitive tribal communism, the period of slavery, the period of feudalism and guilds and, finally, capitalism. This is exactly how political economy should be presented. It will perhaps be objected that in this way the author inevitably has to split up the same theoretical section (for example, about money) between different periods and fall into repetition. But this purely formal shortcoming is fully compensated by the main advantages of historical presentation. And is this a disadvantage? The repetitions are very insignificant, useful for the beginner, because he more firmly assimilates especially important provisions. Attributing, 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 not based on abstract speculation, but on an accurate study of what actually happened in the historical development of mankind. The idea of individual, historically determined structures of the social economy is more complete. But the whole task of a guide to political economy is to give the student of this science basic concepts about the various systems of social economy and about the fundamental features of each system; the whole task is so that a person who has mastered the initial guidance has in his hands a reliable guiding thread for further study of this subject, so that he gains interest in such study, realizing that the most important issues of modern social life are most directly related to questions of economic science . In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, this is precisely what is lacking in manuals on political economy. Their disadvantage is not so much that they are usually limited to one system of social economy (namely capitalism), but rather that they do not know how to concentrate the reader’s attention on the fundamental features of this system; they do not know how to clearly define its historical significance, show the process (and conditions) of its emergence, on the one hand, and the trends of its further development, on the other; they do not know how to imagine 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 reliable guidance, because they do not usually adhere to one direction with all consistency; Finally, they do not know how to interest the student, because they have an extremely narrow and incoherent understanding of the meaning of economic issues, placing “factors” economic, political, moral, etc. “in poetic disorder.” d. Only materialistic understanding of history brings light into this chaos and opens up the possibility of a broad, coherent and meaningful view of the special structure of the social economy, as the foundation of a special structure of the entire social life of man.

The outstanding merit of Mr. Bogdanov’s “course” lies in the fact that the author consistently adheres to historical materialism. Characterizing a certain period of economic development, he usually gives an “exposition” of an outline of political orders, family relations, and the main trends of social thought in connection with fundamental features of a given economic system. Having found out how this economic system 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, 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 - by the school of vulgar economists ( 284), 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 kateder-reformers (“realistic” or “historical-ethical”), which should 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 also puts in connection with the development of capitalism the teachings of Sismondi and Proudhon, thoroughly classifying them as petty-bourgeois economists, showing the roots of their ideas in the interests of a special class of capitalist society occupying “a middle, transitional place” (279) - bluntly recognizing the reactionary significance of such ideas (280-281). Thanks to the consistency of his views and the ability to consider individual aspects of economic life in connection with the main features of a given economic system, the author correctly assessed the importance of such phenomena as the participation of workers in the profits of the enterprise (one of the “forms of wages”, which “too rarely can be beneficial for entrepreneur" (pp. 132-133)), or productive associations, which, "organizing among capitalist relations", "in essence 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 criticisms. It goes without saying that the representatives and supporters of the “ethical-sociological” school in Russia will remain dissatisfied. Those who believe that “the question of the economic understanding of history is a purely academic question” will be dissatisfied.(so thinks the magazine columnist of “Russian Thought” (1897, November, library department, p. 517). There are such comedians !}, and many others... But besides this, so to speak, party discontent, they will probably point out that the broad formulation of questions has caused an extreme conciseness in the presentation of the “short course”, which tells on 290 pages about all periods of 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 presentation is indeed extremely condensed, as he himself points out in the preface, directly calling his book a “summary.” There is no doubt that some of the author's summary remarks, most often relating to facts of a historical nature, and sometimes to more detailed questions of theoretical economy, will be incomprehensible to the novice reader wishing to become 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 consider the presence of such remarks as an advantage rather than a disadvantage of the book under review. In fact, if the author had decided to present in detail, explain and substantiate each such remark, his work would have grown to immense limits, completely inconsistent with the objectives of the 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 from the narrowing of the limits and meaning of political economy. In their present form, these summary notes will bring, we think, great benefit to both teachers and students of this summary. There is nothing to say about the first ones. The latter will see from the totality of these remarks that political economy cannot be studied so-so, mir nichts dir nichts (As Kautsky aptly noted in the preface to his famous book “ Marx's Oekonomische Lehren "("The Economic Teachings of K. Marx"))without any prior knowledge, without familiarization with very many and very important issues of history, statistics, etc. Students will see that issues of social economy in its development and its influence on social life cannot be learned from one or even several of those textbooks and courses , which are often distinguished by an amazing “ease of presentation”, but also by an amazing lack of content, pouring from empty to empty; that the most pressing questions of history and modern 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 basic concepts on the subject being presented and indicate in which direction it should be studied in more detail and why such study is important.

Let us now turn to the second part of our comments, to indicating those places in Mr. Bogdanov’s book that, in our opinion, require correction or addition. We hope that the venerable author will not complain to us for the pettiness and even pickiness of these comments: in a summary, individual phrases and even individual words are incomparably more important than in a thorough and detailed presentation.

Mr. Bogdanov generally adheres to the terminology of the economic school that he follows. But, speaking about 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 short guide, and instead it would perhaps be better to say: a form of exchange or a stage of development of exchange, otherwise you even get such expressions as “the dominance of the 2nd formula of exchange” (43) (?) . Speaking about capital, the author in vain omitted to point out the general formula of capital, which would help the student to grasp 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 noticeable because, speaking about the Middle Ages, the author dwelt in detail on the relationship between the village and the city (63-66), and about the modern city he said only a couple of words about the subordination of the village to them (174). - Speaking about the history of industry, the author very decisively places the “domestic system of capitalist production” “in the middle of the path from craft to manufacture” (p. 156, thesis 6th). On this issue, such a simplification of the matter does not seem entirely convenient to us. 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 manufacture.” They are standing further manufacture in the historical development of capitalism, and we should, we think, say a few words about this. - A noticeable gap in the chapter on the machine period of capitalism(the strict division of capitalism into the manufacturing and machine periods is a very great advantage of Mr. Bogdanov’s “course”)is the absence of a paragraph about the reserve army and capitalist overpopulation, about its generation by machine industry, about its significance in the cyclical movement of industry, about its main forms. The author’s very cursory mentions of these phenomena, which are made on pages 205 and 270, are certainly insufficient. - The author’s assertion that “over the last half century” “profits have 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 to grow particularly rapidly under all and any conditions (rent is even possible to grow when the price of bread falls). The decline in grain prices (and rent under certain conditions), which has recently been caused by the competition of the virgin fields of America, Australia, etc., began sharply only in the 70s, and Engels’ note in the section on rent (“"Das Kapital", III , 2, 259-260), dedicated to the modern 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 then only points out that this vitality is “gradually exhausted” ( allm ä hlich sich ersch ö pft ). - The paragraphs devoted to agriculture are also characterized by excessive brevity. In the paragraph on (capitalist) rent it is only briefly stated that its condition is capitalist agriculture. (“In the period of capitalism, land continues to remain 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 emergence of the rural bourgeoisie, about the position of agricultural workers and about the differences this position from the position of factory workers (lower level 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 that he made about the colons and dependent peasants, then about the rent of our peasants, it would be necessary to briefly characterize the general course of 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, Kar. 47). - Speaking about the displacement of subsidiary industries by capitalism and the loss of stability of peasant farming as a result, the author expresses himself as follows: “peasant farming is becoming poorer in general - the total amount of values produced by it is decreasing” (148). This is very inaccurate. The process of ruining the peasantry by capitalism consists in ousting it by the rural bourgeoisie, formed from the same peasantry. Mr. Bogdanov could hardly, for example, describe the decline of peasant farming in Germany without touching on Vollbauer's (peasants owning full (undivided) plots of land). In the above passage, the author talks about peasants in general, but after this he gives an example from Russian life - well, talking about the Russian peasant “in general” is more than risky. The author on the same page says: “The peasant either engages in farming alone, or goes to manufacture,” that is, we would add on our own, either turns into a rural bourgeois, or into a proletarian (with a piece of land). This bilateral process should be mentioned. - Finally, as a general shortcoming of the book, we must note the lack of examples from Russian life. On many questions (at least, for example, about the organization of production in the Middle Ages, about the development of machine production and rail tracks, about the growth of urban population, about crises and syndicates, about the difference between manufacture and factory, etc.) similar examples from our economic literature would be very important, otherwise mastering the subject is greatly difficult for a beginner due to the lack of examples familiar to him. It seems to us that filling in the indicated gaps would very slightly enlarge the book and would not impede its wide distribution, which in all respects is very desirable.

Published in April 1898 in the magazine “World of God” No. 4

Printed according to the text of the magazine

Total:0
In contact with 0
Google+ 0
OK 0
Facebook 0