The article by L. V. Milov, published in the journal Voprosy Istorii, resumes the discussion on two problems of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in the era of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalism in Russia. At the same time, the author pays (and, in our opinion, justifiably) the greatest attention to the first problem 1 . Its study as a separate independent topic began relatively recently, and many issues still need to be widely discussed. The content of this process in Russia, its essence and results do not cause noticeable discrepancies among Soviet researchers. All of them are basically of the opinion that, firstly, the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations roughly coincided in time, secondly, there was no special historical period of initial accumulation preceding the period of the genesis of capitalist relations, and thirdly, this process remained incomplete until 1861. However, L. V. Milov writes that some historians are characterized by "interpreting the process of initial accumulation as a series of phenomena that took place before capitalism" and that, according to their ideas, there is a special historical period of initial accumulation that preceded the period of the genesis of capitalist relations. In his opinion, these positions are supported by historians who see the phenomena of initial accumulation in Russia in the XVI, XVII and XVIII centuries .2 However, L. V. Milov's judgments about the views of his opponents on this issue are rather one of the costs of polemics. If we do not take individual facts (for example, an assessment of the activities of the Stroganovs, Demidovs, Menshikov, etc.), as L. V. Milov does, but consider, in essence, the positions of historians who found the phenomena of initial accumulation in Russia in the XVI, XVII, or XVIII centuries, then it is not difficult to see that in the same centuries they see and phenomena peculiar to the genesis of capitalism, that is, they proceed from the presence of both processes and their simultaneous development .3
1 L. V. Milov. On some questions of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalism in Russia. Voprosy Istorii, 1969, N7.

2 Ibid., pp. 92-94, 96.

3 See, for example: N. M. Druzhinin. The genesis of capitalism in Russia. "The Tenth International Congress of Historians in Rome", Moscow, 1956; B. B. Kafengauz. On the question of initial savings in Russia. "Questions of economics, planning and statistics". Collection of articles, Moscow, 1957; F. Ya. Polyansky. Initial accumulation of capital in Russia, Moscow, 1958; D. P. Makovsky," Development of commodity-money relations " (in Russian).-

page 100
In our opinion, only one question needs to be clarified regarding the relationship between the process of initial accumulation and the process of the genesis of capitalism, namely, the question of criteria that would allow us to separate the results that have become an organic part of the process of initial accumulation from other consequences of the disintegration of the feudal system. 4 Without this, it is impossible to distinguish the cases of ruin and impoverishment of direct producers that took place before the initial accumulation process began, from similar cases at the first stage of its development.

L. V. Milov believes that initial accumulation means only such expropriation "in the course of which or as a result of which labor-capital relations are created" 5 . In general terms, the answer seems to be correct, but it does not contain the specified criterion. Meanwhile, K. Marx and V. I. Lenin have a more precise answer. "The initial formation of capital," wrote Karl Marx, " occurs simply because value, which exists in the form of monetary wealth, is endowed by the course of the historical process of decomposition of the previous mode of production with the ability, on the one hand, to buy objective conditions of labor, and on the other - to exchange for money the living labor itself from the workers who have become free."6 The purchase of both "objective working conditions" and" living labor itself " is carried out in one place on the market. K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin wrote about this many times .7 Through the market, the productive aspects of the process of expropriation of direct producers are revealed: here monetary wealth is endowed with the ability to turn into capital, and here producers, freed from the means of production by the "course of the historical process of decomposition of the former mode of production", turn into sellers of labor power. The market is the link that connects both processes-initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations. For the constituent elements of the first process, this link is the final point of their development, and for the constituent elements of the second process, it is the starting point: having identified their productive sides in the market, the elements released by the decomposition of the old method of production also become elements of the new method of production.

The absence of a labor market is an indisputable indicator that the destruction and impoverishment of producers in feudal society should be assessed as phenomena that are not related to the process of initial accumulation. On the contrary, the emergence of the labor market shows that we are not facing pauperization, but initial accumulation. The correct use of this criterion allows you to avoid improperly, early dating of the occurrence of the process. Using it, it is possible to determine that the organic part of the process of initial accumulation is only those results of expropriation of the immediate population.-

in the Russian state's agriculture in the XVI century. Smolensk, 1963; I. A. Bulygin, E. I. Indova, A. A. Preobrazhensky, Yu. A. Tikhonov, and S. M. Troitsky. The initial stage of the genesis of capitalism in Russia. Voprosy Istorii, 1966, No. 10.

4 The relationship between the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations is most thoroughly considered by L. V. Milov. His main conclusions - that initial accumulation necessarily leads to the formation of capitalist relations and that without such a result there is no process of initial accumulation - are well reasoned and do not raise objections (L. V. Milov. Edict. Soch., pp. 94-96, 107-108).

5 Ibid., pp. 94, 95.

6 K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 46, part 1, p. 498.

7 See, for example: K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch. Vol. 20, p. 212; vol. 23, pp. 177-178. 180, 726.

page 101
These factors lead to the meeting in the market of two very different types of commodity producers-owners of money and sellers of labor .8 Or, to put it another way, part of it is the results of this expropriation that lead to the formation and growth of the labor market and, through it, to the emergence of capitalist relations.

The main differences among Soviet historians on this issue begin when trying to characterize the process of initial accumulation in pre-reform Russia. They are explained, in our opinion, by the fact that some historians underestimate the influence on the forms in which the essence of the process was revealed (in other words, on the manifestations of this process), the peculiarities of the internal structure of the old method of production in each given country, which determined its strength, and a number of other circumstances that influenced the development of this Marx wrote that "one and the same economic basis-one and the same in terms of basic conditions-due to infinitely diverse empirical circumstances, natural conditions, race relations, historical influences acting from outside, etc. - can reveal in its manifestation infinite variations and gradations that can only be understood with the help of analysis of these empirically given circumstances " 9 . These circumstances do not change the essence of the process of initial accumulation and its results, since this process occurs and develops in each country with the same type of economic basis. But they leave their mark on the manifestations of this process and its results - on the pace and scale of expropriation of producers, the forms of their separation from the means of production and connection with the labor market, on the relationship between violent and" nonviolent " methods of expropriation, the pace of formation of the labor market, the pace of development of capitalist relations, the duration of subordination of merchant and usurious capital industrial.

Taking into account the impact of empirically given circumstances is just as important as using the labor market as a criterion. Such accounting allows us to recognize the development of the process of initial accumulation at a time when it was manifested in the least "pure" forms, and to avoid unduly late dating of the occurrence of this process.

In the literature, including works on initial accumulation, it has already been noted that the feudal system of Russia, in comparison with the feudalism of Western European countries, was particularly strong. Here we can note two circumstances that led to the appearance of this strength. First, serfdom in Russia, which in the XIV - first half of the XVI century was only one of the forms (by no means defining) of feudal relations, turned into a defining form at the end of the XVI - beginning of the XVII century and remained so until the middle of the XIX century. Secondly, in Russia there was an opportunity, which was widely used, to extend feudal-serf relations in breadth. The presence of sparsely populated and poorly developed areas in the south and east of the country, and often not populated or developed at all, stimulated their colonization, which lasted for several centuries. Colonization absorbed a significant part of the results of the disintegration of the old system in the central regions of the country. The lands on the outskirts of European Russia, colonized by peasants, were distributed in the XVII-XVIII centuries to feudal serfs and included in the palace patrimonial economy, which was one of the ways of rasrostran-

8 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, p. 726.

9 K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 25, part II, p. 354.

page 102
the expansion of feudal-feudal relations to new territories and led to the strengthening of the economic and political dominance of the feudal-feudal class. 10 "Serfdom and the feudal estate in Russia were not fragile and not accidentally created, "V. I. Lenin noted," but much more "strong", solid, powerful, and all-powerful "than anywhere else in the civilized world." 11
The establishment and spread of serfdom, which lasted until the middle of the 19th century, did not and could not stop the progressive development of the country. But serfdom is associated with the deterioration of conditions for the development of one of the main progressive processes in which the progressive movement of productive forces found expression - the separation of industry from agriculture. In particular, the chaining of the mass of producers to their place of residence, estate and feudal owner was the reason for the slow growth of cities in Russia. Serfdom in no way improved the conditions for the development of peasant farms. On the contrary, from the moment of its approval, the deterioration of these conditions becomes the main trend in the development of feudal-serf relations. The legal situation of the peasantry was also constantly deteriorating.

In fact, all Soviet historians recognize the inhibitory influence of the above-mentioned circumstances on the disintegration of the feudal system and the development of capitalist relations. They also agree that under the conditions of feudal-feudal Russia, especially at the very beginning, there could have been neither intensive expropriation of direct producers nor rapid growth of capitalism. However, the degree of development of elements of the new in the XVI - XVIII centuries and the nature of the evolution of the old system are evaluated by Soviet historians very differently. The differences are reflected in the dating of the beginning of the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations. Some historians attribute this beginning to the XVI century, others-to the second quarter or middle of the XVII century, and still others - to the 60s or 70s of the XVIII century.

The statements of the proponents of the first and third dates are largely connected, firstly, with an overestimation of the degree of development of the elements of the new and decomposition of the old before the XVII century.and, secondly, with an underestimation of the significance of the same phenomena in the XVII - first half of the XVIII century. Both, although to varying degrees, are inherent in the proponents of both seemingly so polar points of view. For example, the overestimation of the degree of development of the sprouts of capitalist relations is characteristic not only for D. P. Makovsky, a supporter of the first point of view, but also for the authors of the collective report "Russia's Transition from feudalism to capitalism" - supporters of the third point of view. They view the establishment of serfdom almost equally, "assuming that it has swallowed up the germs of the new, that is, the proponents of both the first and third points of view underestimate the development of the elements of the new and the decomposition of the old after the establishment of serfdom." 12
L. V. Milov rightly, in our opinion, sees one of the reasons for the overestimation of the phenomena of the new in the XVI-XVII centuries in the identification of the old-

10 People often write about the spread of simply feudal relations in the XVII - XVIII centuries. This is incorrect, if only because the Mari, Mordovian, Tatar, Chuvash and other peoples of European Russia developed feudal relations long before the XVII century. Therefore, we should talk about the spread of either feudal-serfdom, or just serfdom relations.

11 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 23, p. 16.

12 See D. P. Makovsky. Edict. op.; N. I. Pavlenko. Controversial issues of the genesis of capitalism in Russia. Voprosy Istorii, 1966, No. 11; Transition of Russia from Feudalism to Capitalism. Collective report prepared by I. F. Gindin, L. V. Danilova, I. D. Kovalchenko, L. V. Milov, A. P. Novoseltsev, N. I. Pavlenko (ed.), M. K. Rozhkova, P. G. Ryndzunsky. "Transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia". Materials of the All-Union Discussion, Moscow, 1969.

page 103
the forms of organization of large-scale production, which are also characteristic of feudalism, with capitalist forms of production, and all cases of hiring - with capitalist hiring. In our opinion, many criticisms of L. V. Milov are also valid when he evaluates the cases of these identifications (assessment of the hiring of day laborers, many facts of the use of hired labor in monastic and state farms, palace industrial institutions - Khamovny settlements and villages, the Armory, the Tsaritsyn Workshop Chambers, the Cannon Yard, etc.). V. Milov emphasizes that K. Marx and V. I. Lenin, when considering the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations, used the terms "wage labor" in a "strictly economic sense", meaning only "labor that creates capital, produces capital", and clearly separated this labor from other forms of free labor, including including and related to hiring 13 .

The second reason for the re-evaluation of the germs of the new and the decomposition of the old before the XVII century is due to the lack of knowledge of many phenomena of the XV - XVI centuries. This leads to the identification with hiring of those cases that are called "hiring" (and the parties involved in these relations are merchants and "hirelings", "Cossacks", etc.) only in the sources of that time. L. V. Milov did not avoid identifying these cases with capitalist hiring, but, perhaps, they are most characteristic of N. I. Pavlenko .14
We will mention only a few of these unexplored phenomena and offer their assessment in relation to the problem under consideration. It is known, for example, that Hanseatic merchants who arrived at the mouth of the Volkhov River in the XIV-XV centuries could only transport their goods further with the help of Russian people: pilots and boatmen (who were the owners of boats), who had a monopoly right to transport these goods to Novgorod and back, coachmen and porters who had the same right, but only when transporting goods from the pier to the German and Gothic courtyards. The corporation of porters in Novgorod also existed later, in the first half of the XVI century 15 . Until the very middle of the 15th century, only the inhabitants of the black villages of the Volochka Slovenski volost ("volochane") had a monopoly right to ferry ships to and from Lake Slovenski and Lake Porozbitsky (in Belozerskaya Zemlya). From 1454 to 1455, the peasants of the Kirillov and Ferapontov monasteries also received this right .16 However, the infringement of the rights of black volost people did not change the relations between guests, owners of ships, and" porters": as before, guests could not transport ships with the help of their own people, dependent or hired, since the right of "portage" remained with a narrow circle of local people (it only expanded at the expense of the peasants of two monasteries). Delivery of Pomeranian salt in Onega to kon-

13 L. V. Milov. Op. ed., pp. 97-99.

14 N. I. Pavlenko writes, for example:" No large merchant has ever (just so - M. V.) been content with purely commercial profit; he also received surplus value, if only because he exploited the transport workers " (N. I. Pavlenko. Op. ed., p. 82). Thus, it turns out that the relations between the merchant and the transport workers always have a capitalist character, as a result of which the merchant appropriates surplus value. Describing the types of production that, from the moment of their origin, presuppose the existence of workers 'cooperation, N. I. Pavlenko again writes:" If the resources of the family were not enough, then the blacksmith (salt producer) resorted to hiring workers or apprentices" (ibid., p. 93). That is, the author always has salt producers and blacksmiths who are forced to resort to hiring workers. N. I. Pavlenko sees no other alternative, and therefore, willingly or unwittingly, "ages" the process of the emergence of capitalist relations.

15 P. P. Smirnov. Posadsky people and their class struggle until the middle of the XVII century. Vol. I. M. - l. 1947, pp. 101-102.

16 "Acts of socio-economic history of North-Eastern Russia of the end of the XIV-beginning of the XVI century." Vol. II. Moscow, 1958, N 159.

page 104
central Asia of the XVI century was a monopoly of local residents, and not only local merchants, but also transport workers, since it was established that "oprich kargopoltsev-city people and posadsky people and stanovy and volost, - Belozertsy and Vologda county peasants " were not hired "to carry salt to sudekh"17 . Such local corporations, in which people were united sometimes only on the basis of having some kind of monopoly right (for example, the right to "drag" ships), were common in the XV - XVI centuries. Their existence was associated, in particular, with the division of the Sukhon-Dvinsky river route into three sections. Traces of this division were preserved by the specialization of nosniks on this route as early as the 17th century; Verkhnesukhonsky nosniks drove ships between Vologda and Totma, Nizhnesukhonsky - between Totma and Ustyug Veliky, and Dvinsky - from Ustyug Veliky to the mouth of the Dvina 18 .

Boatmen, porters, "porters" and other categories of people united in local corporations, in cases when they entered into contractual relations with merchants, were referred to in sources of the XV-XVI centuries. "hires". On this basis, the contract between them and the merchant is identified by some researchers with a capitalist employment contract. But by entering into a contract with them, merchants did not appropriate surplus value. Even when" hiring "transport workers (porters of Novgorod," Cossacks "of Kargopol), not to mention" hiring " boatmen who owned vehicles, merchants paid the cost of transporting goods, that is, the COST of labor plus the value of the surplus labor created by it. The labor market, capital, and various forms of capitalist cooperation could not have emerged without the elimination of these monopoly rights and the destruction of local corporations that existed on their basis. "Local privileges, differential duties, and all kinds of exceptional laws," wrote F. P. Blavatsky. Engels, describing the system of the feudal era, "restricted not only the trade of foreigners or residents of colonies, but quite often also the trade of entire categories of the state's own subjects; guild privileges everywhere and always stood in the way of the development of manufacture." 19
Therefore, although in the sixteenth century, especially in the second half of it, the old monopoly rights were somewhat undermined, the old forms of ownership of salt mines were destroyed, and the exploitation of wage labor increased, so far, in our opinion, there is no reason to date the beginning of the process of forming the labor market, and in this connection the processes of initial accumulation and relations in the second half of the sixteenth century, not to mention earlier. The conclusion of the authors of the above-mentioned collective report on the emergence of "hotbeds of capitalist relations" since the end of the 15th century should also be clarified .20
The underestimation of the development of the new and the decomposition of the old in the XVII-first half of the XVIII century, which leads some historians to deny the presence of the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalism in Russia at that time, is explained by two main reasons. It is connected, firstly, with a wrong understanding of such an economic category as industrial capital. Often, the types of industrial capital do not include capital invested in the transport industry, in the extractive and some manufacturing industries

17 A. A. Zimin. Ivan the Terrible's Reforms, Moscow, 1960, p. 129; M. N. Tikhomirov. Russia in the XVI century, Moscow, 1962, p. 266.

18 P. A. Kolesnikov. Organization of the Lower Tikhon nosniks in the 17th century "The Russian State in the 17th century". Collection of articles, Moscow, 1961, pp. 182-183.

19 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 20, p. 107.

20 "Transition from feudalism to capitalism in Russia", p. 35.

page 105
industries (fishing, distilling, leather production, etc.) 21 . A wrong understanding of the category of "industrial capital" entails a wrong assessment of the process of the genesis of capitalist relations in the XVII - first half of the XIX century, in particular manufacture and the concept of "manufacturing period", and, consequently, the process of initial accumulation. This underestimation is caused, secondly, by the fact that the influence of empirically given circumstances on the forms in which the development of the processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations in Russia was revealed is poorly studied. This leads to their denial for the time when the development of these processes did not manifest itself in sufficiently bright and "pure" forms. Historians who do not notice such manifestations in Russia in the XVII - first half of the XVIII century, willingly or unwittingly forget that in the first century and a half quite "pure" manifestations of these processes were not even in England.

Examples of underestimating the development of the new and the disintegration of the old in Russia in the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries can be found in the collective report "Russia's Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism". Its authors do not consider the capital invested in river transport to be a type of industrial capital. Instead of analyzing the types of capital and evaluating their correlations, they focus on the quantitative predominance of merchant capital over industrial capital within the "seventeenth-century firm" and then combine the various types of capital into one, declaring it merchant capital. Here is one of their estimates of such "firms of the XVII century", that is, merchant farms, the owners of which invested part of the capital in transport, the organization of salt extraction, distilleries and tanneries: "It is quite obvious that the activities of Kalmyk and similar merchants cannot serve as proof of the emergence of capitalism, since the functioning of merchant capital is as ancient as commodity production." 22
Of course, in the large merchant farms of the 17th and early 18th centuries, industrial capital occupies a subordinate place, but it is extremely important to state its presence and evaluate it without mixing it with merchant capital - this is a new quality. Previously, in particular in the XV - first half of the XVI century, there were no merchant farms in Russia that combined merchant, usurious and industrial types of capital. The combination of these types of capital in one economy is characteristic of merchant farms in the transition period from feudalism to capitalism. The authors of the collective report underestimate the fact that the establishment of a link between merchant and usurious capital and industrial production during this period is one of the ways in which industrial capital can arise. 23 Moreover, the very emergence of such a link can serve as one of the indicators that the decomposition of the old mode of production taking place in society leads to the emergence of a new mode of production.

The fact that the authors of the report do not analyze the facts that did not manifest themselves in a "pure" form was especially clearly revealed when they characterized the labor market of the XVII - first half of the XVIII century. First, their "labor market" is a category of a special kind, since its emergence and development are not connected with the processes of initial labor market development.-

21 "The owner of a carriage company, the manager of a railway, or the shipowner are not 'merchants'," K. Marx believed. "The beginning of the existence of industrial capital," pointed out F. Engels, - was laid down already in the Middle Ages, namely in three areas: shipping, mining and textile industry " (K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 25, part I, p. 317; part II, p. 479; see also vol. 24, pp. 64-65, etc.).

22 "Transition from feudalism to Capitalism in Russia", pp. 27-29.

23 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. Vol. 25, part I, pp. 367-369; vol. 46, part I, pp. 496.

page 106
accumulation and genesis of capitalism. These processes appear, in their opinion, in the 60s of the XVIII century, and the named "market" (which appeared unknown when and how) in the XVII-first half of the XVIII century. it already exists, but is constantly being reduced due to the evolution of the old mode of production. By the" state of the labor market", the authors of the report do not mean the presence of a layer of labor sellers and their exploitation in certain areas of production, but the presence in the city and countryside of a layer of "personally free producers" and reserves of "unfettered labor". Therefore, secondly, the process of enslaving producers (that is, reducing the layer of "personally free producers" and the reserve of "unfettered labor") as a result of the adoption of the Code of 1649, conducting investigations of fugitives in the second half of the XVII century, the first revision, and similar measures is identified by them with the reduction of the labor market and the absorption of " sprouts of capitalist relations... increased serfdom"24 . It should be noted, however, that when faced with more "pure" manifestations of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalism, the authors return to the generally accepted understanding of the category "labor market". They do not search in the last third of the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries. Instead, they are satisfied with the real sellers of labor power that existed in feudal-feudal Russia [25].

Meanwhile, the literature has accumulated facts that allow us to characterize, albeit in general terms, the process of forming the labor market in Russia. Several special papers are devoted to this issue. The first definite evidence of the beginning of the formation of the labor market dates back to the second quarter of the 17th century. Later, in the second half of the XVII - first half of the XIX century, such facts become more frequent. At this time, there are no longer any local corporations that had a monopoly on any type of commercial and industrial activity; other obstacles to the development of the domestic market have also been eliminated. Around the seventeenth century, Lenin pointed out, a "new period of Russian history" began, which was characterized, in particular, by "the concentration of small local markets into one All-Russian market."26
The expropriation of direct producers took place in the course of the disintegration of the feudal system, as well as the remnants of older formations that remained with it .27 In the process of this decomposition, both the artisan population of cities and the peasantry were separated from the means of production. But the expropriation of artisans played a secondary role, while the separation of the peasants from the means of production, that is, "the expropriation of land from the agricultural producer, the peasant, was the basis of the whole process." 28
In Russia in the second quarter of the XVII century. there was already a relatively large stratum of salaried workers. They numbered several tens of thousands of people, in the 20s of the XVIII century there were probably at least 100 thousand, in the 60s-at least 220 thousand, at the very end of the XVIII century-over 420 thousand,and in the first half of the XIX century it became much more. Since the second half of the 17th century, the number of employees employed in the manufacturing industry has grown most rapidly. In the 60s of the XVIII century, they accounted for up to 30% and at the end of the XVIII century - up to 40% of the total number of employees .29 However, the absolute values themselves do not

24 "Transition from feudalism to Capitalism in Russia", pp. 30-31.

25 See, for example, ibid., pp. 37, 46, etc.

26 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 1, pp. 153-154.

27 K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch. Vol. 20, p. 212; vol. 23, p. 180.

28 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, p. 728.

29 See N. L. Rubinstein. Some issues of forming the labor market of the XVIII century. Voprosy istorii, 1952. N 2; V. K. Yatsunsky. Main stages of ge-

page 107
They don't give us a clear enough picture yet; they should be compared with the figures of population growth in Russia. Comparing the figures of the Russian population included in the first revision and the figures of the number of employees for the 20-90s of the XVIII century, we can establish the following in relation to the male population of Russia, employees in the 20s were 1.3%, in the 60s-2.1% and in the 90s - 3%30 . This indicates a slow growth rate of the labor market and, consequently, a slow rate of development of the initial accumulation process. The pace has been increasing since the first half of the 19th century, especially since its second quarter.

These facts refute the position of the authors of the collective report on the reduction of the labor market in the XVII-first half of the XVIII century, of course, if we mean sellers of labor, and not "personally free producers". This does not mean, however, that there was no fluctuation in their numbers given the overall growth. There were also numerous cases of enslavement of employees. However, data on cases of enslavement should be compared with general indicators on the state of the labor market in order to accurately determine their significance. At one time, A. M. Pankratova formulated a conclusion about the "general trend of enslavement of wage labor" in the XVII century without such a comparison. 31 This comparison was not carried out by historians, who reproduce her conclusion as indisputable, although it cannot be recognized as proven.

The number of wage earners in the second half of the seventeenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries grew mainly at the expense of the peasants. This meant that the formation of a labor market was one of the results of the expropriation of producers in the countryside. The appearance on the market of a peasant with an allotment as a labor seller was noted, in particular, on the Sukhono-Dvina road in the second quarter of the XVII century. Later, in the XVIII - first half of the XIX century, the share of peasants grew steadily. For example, among the ship workers registered in Nizhny Novgorod in 1722 (11,119), there were 8,593 peasants (77.2%), including 3,945 landowners (about 40% of peasants). The study of data from the serf registers of the 1820s also confirms the predominance of peasants in the mass of hired laborers .32 These facts give reason to believe that the peasant became the main figure in the Russian labor market no later than the beginning of the XVIII century.

In the 17th century, another feature of this market was revealed, which remained characteristic of it until 1861. An employee appeared on the market who, unlike the Western European one, was not personally a free person. In relation to the state and the feudal feudal lord, he remained a serf. This meant that he had to pay taxes to the state and dues to the private owner (state peasants paid dues to the state), as well as perform various feudal duties. The feudal proprietor could:

the nezisa of capitalism in Russia. "History of the USSR", 1958, N 5; M. Ya. Volkov, S. M. Troitsky. On the bourgeois stratification of peasants and the formation of the hired labor market in Russia in the first half of the XVIII century. Istoriya SSSR, 1965, No. 4.

30 Data on the growth of the Russian population are taken from V. M. Kabuzan's article "Revision materials as a source on the history of the population of Russia in the XVIII-first half of the XIX century" (Istoriya SSSR, 1959, No. 5, p. 138).

31 A.M. Pankratova. Hirelings in Russia in the 17th century "to Academician B. D. Grekov on the occasion of his seventieth birthday". Collection of articles, Moscow, 1952, p. 207.

32 M. Ya. Volkov. Yaroslavl labor market of the 20s of the XVIII century. "Scientific reports of the higher school". Historical sciences. 1959, N 1, p. 80; N. B. Golikova. Salaried labor in the cities of the Volga region in the first quarter of the XVIII century. Moscow, 1965, pp. 23-25. In the works mentioned here, the issue of hiring coachmen who owned their own vehicles is inaccurately, in my opinion, resolved. The vast majority of cab drivers can hardly be considered employees, whose exploitation creates capital.

page 108
such an employee together with his allotment to another feudal lord (distribution of land and peasants to landlords by the state), transfer it by inheritance, mortgage it or sell it, and sell it without allotment. But in the market, in relation to the buyer of his labor power, he acts as a free worker who has no other commodity to sell than his labor power.

V. I. Lenin, referring to the narodnik assessment of Karl Marx's position, wrote about the free working class: "In our literature, the position of the theory that capitalism requires a free, landless worker is often too cliched," and he added that this position "is quite true as the main trend." 33 The process of disintegration of the feudal system was long, and the process of expropriation of direct producers was equally long. Its first stage is generally characterized by the incompleteness of the expropriation process. V. I. Lenin drew attention to this peculiarity when he wrote that "not only among' us '(in Russia - M. V.), but also everywhere in the West, capitalism, before large-scale machine industry, could not completely break the ties of the worker with the land"34 . The expropriation of producers at this stage found its expression, first of all, in their impoverishment due to the loss of part of the land, increased taxes, and similar reasons. They were forced to look for opportunities to reproduce the conditions of existence outside their farms, including through the sale of labor.

Such sellers of labor appeared already in the second quarter of the XVII century. To make sure of this, it is enough to carefully analyze the information about the" pawnbrokers " of the monastery Spirit, which was reported by A.M. Pankratova. Based on the fact of their "mortgage" for the monastery, she concluded that the "feudalization of hiring" was inevitable for the XVII century. But in the example given by her, there is no indication that the people who became " mortgagees "of the Dukh monastery were ever its" hires", that is, it was not the relationship of hiring with the monastery that caused their"mortgage". On the other hand, the information provided by the author about the "pawnbrokers" contains a number of indications that, after becoming serfs of the monastery, they continued to act in the labor market. Moreover, their absences are not an exception. The "pawnbrokers" left with the permission of the monastery authorities and returned to the Nizhny Novgorod monastic settlement at the end of navigation .35 As early as 1951, I. V. Stepanov found out that among the workmen of the Middle and Lower Volga regions of the second half of the XVII century, who were called "walking people" in the sources, there were already quite a few peasants who went to work with the permission of the patrimonial or secular authorities, did not break with their draft and continued to perform their duties. These were the same otkhodnik peasants (as I. V. Stepanov called them), but without passports, which did not exist in the second half of the XVII century. 36
Along with such labor sellers in the seventeenth century, there were many others who differed from the first in that they either never were serfs, or ceased to be so, having abandoned their tax and feudal owners. In the second half of the 17th and early 18th centuries, the number of the former (i.e., otkhodniks) grew steadily, while the number of the latter ("walking people") decreased due to the process of enslavement. Moreover, the former "free" seller of labor, becoming a kre-

33 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 3, p. 171.

34 Ibid., p. 537.

35 A.M. Pankratov. Op. ed., p. 205.

36 I. V. Stepanov. Gulyashchie-workmen in the Volga region in the XVII century. "Istoricheskie zapiski", vol. 36, pp. 143-146. Otkhodnichestvo is not limited to the appearance of peasants and townspeople on the labor market, but in this case only this aspect of otkhodnichestvo is considered.

page 109
the number of the former did not always disappear from the labor market, that is, the number of the former grew due to the enslavement of the latter. As some private data show, already at the beginning of the XVIII century, salaried workers were dominated by sellers of labor from otkhodniki .37 As a result of the first revision and introduction of passports in the 20s of the XVIII century, the only seller of labor was actually otkhodnik-a worker from peasants and townspeople who had a passport, and the share of fugitives in the market decreased to negligible sizes.

The connection of the peasant who appeared on the labor market with the land and the feudal serf led to the predominance of workers in this market, who could only sell their labor for a short time. The serf had to periodically return to his former place of residence and to his feudal owner, in order to complete his duties and get permission to leave again. The owner of the allotment could leave for work after the completion of agricultural work in order to return to their beginning. The absence could also be longer if there was no allotment left in the village or if the family had other workers to work it. But in general, there were few workers" who could be hired for a long time, that is, permanent workers, in feudal-feudal Russia. A short-term worker in industry, who periodically returned to the countryside, remained a characteristic figure for the labor market even in the second half of the XIX century. V. I. Lenin, using the data of E. M. Dementiev38 , showed that in the Moscow province in the late 80s-early 90s of the XIX century. from paper-weaving, cotton-weaving, silk-weaving and porcelain-faience manufactories, from 30.7 to 72.5% of workers went to field work39 .

The process of forming the labor market, as shown above, is inextricably linked not only with the expropriation of the direct producer, but also with the genesis of capitalist relations. Of course, even after the emergence of such a market, not all wage labor "assumes" capital. Such a result could not be achieved, for example, by using the labor of individual employees in small-scale production and in trade. In these spheres, not only in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but also later, in particular in the 19th century, there were usually forms of hiring that were burdened with the greatest number of bonded conditions .40 The use of hired labor in trade in the 17th and 18th centuries often led to the enslavement of the employee, since the merchant wanted to get a "strong" employee as a trusted agent .41 Therefore, it is no accident that most of the examples of "feudalization of hiring" in the XVII - XVIII centuries, that is, the enslavement of workers, on which the theory of "general evolution of hiring to feudal dependence" is based, are provided by the use of hired labor in trade .42
But in a number of branches of social production, the use of wage labor, which became more frequent in connection with the emergence of the labor market, already in the XVII century led to the emergence of various forms of capitalist cooperation. Since that time, the exploitation of hired labor has become the basis for the development of river transport in Russia and many enterprises

37 M. Ya. Volkov, S. M. Troitsky. Op. ed., pp. 92-93.

38 E. M. Dementyev. The factory, what it gives to the population, and what it takes from it. M. 1893.

39 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 3, pp. 538-539.

40 See, for example: M. Ya. Volkov. Op. ed., pp. 80-82.

41 The merchant considered his serf to be the most "strong" trusted agent, then the employee who "healed" his debt, and only after them the employee who was usually hired for a long time on bonded terms.

42 This fact has already been pointed out. See M. Ya. Volkov, S. M. Troitsky. Op. ed., p. 90.

page 110
extractive industries (salt and fish industries). A comparison of the terms of employment of ship employees allows us to note that even in the contracts of the end of the XVII - first quarter of the XVIII century, there are no bonded conditions that existed in the contracts of the first half of the XVII century .43 As the labor market grew, so did the number of industries in which capitalist enterprises appeared. Since the middle of the 17th century. they appear in the distillery, leather and rope-spinning industries, and later in a number of others, including the textile industry.

All these facts point to the existence of processes of initial accumulation and the genesis of capitalist relations in Russia since the 17th century. But the development of the process of initial accumulation in the first stage coincides in time not only with the birth of capitalist relations, but with the manufacturing period in the development of capitalism. This criterion was not used in this article above to determine the beginning of initial accumulation and assess the results of its development, because the category "manufacturing period" is understood differently by Soviet historians. Therefore, it is important to first come to a general understanding of this category and only then use it as a criterion.

Without being able to solve this problem here, we will limit ourselves to a few comments that, in our opinion, can facilitate the search for a point of view that is acceptable to all. It seems that when solving this problem, one should clearly separate the essence of the phenomenon from its manifestations, which were diverse due to the influence of different circumstances, and not take the absence of identical manifestations for the absence of the phenomenon itself. For example, seasonality in the functioning of enterprises in many industries in Russia. Its origin is due to the influence of various empirically given circumstances: the state of the labor market, the frequency of raw materials arriving, climatic conditions, and some other reasons.

Assessing the impact of these circumstances, N. I. Pavlenko qualifies enterprises of the first half of the XVIII century, which for a number of months interrupted or sharply reduced their work, as small-scale production 44 . It is impossible to agree with such an assessment, since N. I. Pavlenko admits here a confusion of the essence of the phenomenon (in this case, the form of organization of production) and its manifestations. Seasonality in the functioning of industrial enterprises in many sectors of Russia was their characteristic feature not only at the manufacturing stage, but for some industries it remains at the machine stage (factory production of sugar, vegetable oil, etc.). River navigation, due to climatic conditions, still remains seasonal, although it has long been developing on a machine basis. Stating seasonality, as well as some other features (including labor turnover), does not answer the question of the forms of organization of production. Such an answer can be obtained only by analyzing these forms themselves, that is, by studying the essence of the phenomenon.

Further, when evaluating the forms of production organization, it is important to take into account the specifics. For example, according to Karl Marx's definition, the transport industry, including shipping, passes through the same stages in its development as the manufacturing, mining, and agricultural industries, namely, the craft, manufacturing, and machine industries .45 It is impossible to distinguish the manufacture (and the manufacturing stage) here on the basis of the features defined by K. Marx and V. I. Lenin for the processing of raw materials.-

43 Ibid., pp. 93-94.

44 N. I. Pavlenko. Op. ed., pp. 95-96.

45 K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. 26, part I, p. 422.

page 111
the object of transportation (goods, passengers) is not subject to processing during spatial movement. The criterion proposed by N. I. Pavlenko also seems unsuitable to us. He writes about the use of hired "ship" workers in the XVII-XVIII centuries. " Some of these workers served small vessels, which corresponds to small commodity production, while others served large ones (for gardens), which sometimes drew more than 200 people up the Volga. Such artels represented a form of production typical of capitalist simple co-operation; here there was a primitive division of labor (one forager, two watermen, and the rest of the draught laborers). " 46 The author believes that to determine the forms of organization of production, it is enough to take one vehicle (for example, a river vessel) and the number of employees serving it. However, such a criterion cannot be used to understand the phenomena in the transport industry of the XVII-XVIII centuries. If we accept the point of view of N. I. Pavlenko, we should assume that the guest I. D. Pankratiev, who used 14-20 river vessels that served over 600 employees to export salt from the Seregovo fishery and deliver the necessary supplies there, was the owner of 14-20 transport enterprises of the simple capitalist cooperative type. In reality, it was one large transport enterprise .47
The same requirements must be observed when evaluating the forms of organization of production in the extractive industry, Here the goal is to extract a particular object that exists in nature in a ready-made form (fishing, coal mining, etc.). Moreover, often within the extractive enterprise, mining items are not processed, and some of them do not need to be processed. it (for example, salt). Taking into account this specific feature, N. V. U Slogov suggested that a salt industry should be considered an enterprise, and a large-scale industry consisting of a group of varnits should be considered a manufactory .48 N. V. Ustyugov's point of view needs to be clarified. In particular, it is necessary to clarify what is considered one trade of one owner, and what is the minimum number of mills that a manufacturing trade has. N. I. Pavlenko takes a different approach to the opinion of N. V. Ustyugov: he replaces the concept of "trade-manufacture" with the concept of "varnitsa-manufactory "and then declares that" varnitsy cannot be manufactories " 50.

Compliance with these requirements when studying the history of Russian industry allows us to note that as soon as simple capitalist cooperation appears in certain branches of the manufacturing, mining, and transportation industries, so soon manufacturing, a more developed form of cooperation, also appears in them. This, in our opinion, is what Karl Marx wrote about in the chapter on co-operation 51 . But there is also a different understanding of the meaning of simple capitalist cooperation. For example, according to N. I. Pavlenko's interpretation, in Russia cooperation in its "simple form" has existed in a number of industries for centuries, without giving rise to a more developed type of cooperation (manufactory); cooperation, in his opinion (contrary to his own words), is extremely important.-

46 N. I. Pavlenko. Op. ed., p. 96.

47 See V. G. Geymam. Salt fishing of I. D. Pankratiev's guest in Yarensky uyezd in the 17th century. "Chronicle of the activities of the Archeographic Commission". Issue 35. l. 1929, pp. 17-19, 31.

48 See N. V. Ustyugov. Salt industry of Kama Salt in the XVII century, Moscow, 1957. This point of view was supported by V. G. Gaiman, P. A. Kolesnikov, and G. S. Rabinovich, who studied the history of salt production in other regions of Russia in the 17th century.

49 For example, should the group of warnits of V. I. Grudtsyn's guest in Totma and the group of his own warnits in Ledenga, Totem District, be considered as one trade, or are they two trades,

50 N. I. Pavlenko. Op. ed., p. 90.

51 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, p. 347.

page 112
It is characterized by a strong and characteristic farm organization of production in river navigation, salt production and other industries .52
In our opinion, the beginning of the manufacturing stage in a number of branches of Russian industry can be dated to the middle and second half of the XVII century (river navigation, salt production, fisheries of the Middle and Lower Volga regions, distilling, and others). Later, in the XVIII - first half of the XIX century, capitalist manufacture became characteristic of a number of other branches of industry in Russia. But to justify this dating, as well as possible others, it will be necessary not only to consider in detail the question of understanding the categories "manufacture" and "manufacturing period", but also to study the forms of organization of production in many branches of industry in Russia of the XVII - XVIII centuries.

The study of the labor market formation process and the related aspects of the genesis of capitalism allows us to see a number of important features of initial accumulation in Russia. The main result of the study is to state the existence of this process since the XVII century. After that, it is advisable to turn to the characteristics of the evolution of the old method of production in the XVII-first half of the XIX century.

The disintegration of feudalism in Russia followed the same path as in all European countries - it led to the expropriation of direct producers. But the nature of this decomposition had a peculiar imprint, due to the influence of empirically given circumstances. To the two main ones mentioned above (serfdom and the possibility of spreading feudal relations in breadth), we can add here the third - the active participation of the feudal feudal class in the restructuring of agricultural and partly industrial production. And the Russian feudal lords were overcome with a thirst for money. But unlike the new feudal nobility of England, their slogan was not "turning arable land into pasture for sheep", which entailed the destruction of "traditional land ownership relations"53, but the seizure of populated land (that is, first of all, peasants) and the modification of the old relations, while preserving and strengthening their foundations (feudal ownership of land and peasants) in order to increase their income.

These circumstances were the reason for the peculiar evolution of feudal relations in Russia in the XVII-first half of the XIX century. Let's name only its most characteristic features. First, incomplete ownership of the individual and labor of the peasant becomes virtually complete, close to slave ownership, and the producers themselves become commodities. Already in the 17th century, the practice of selling peasants, both with and without land, was developing. Secondly, the retention of land and instruments of production by the peasant loses the significance of a prerequisite for obtaining feudal rent. Both the "shopkeeper" employed in the lordly economy and the tax-paying peasant living in the city were deprived of land and tools for its cultivation. A mandatory condition for receiving feudal rent from them was the feudal lord's ownership of the peasant's person and all his property, and the means of obtaining it was the presence of increased non-economic coercion. The same ones

52 N. I. Pavlenko. Edict op., p. 90 - 94 - 97 102. P. G. Ryndzunsky rightly points out that such assessments are, in particular, the result of incorrect quoting of Karl Marx, when the text is improperly shortened (see "Theoretical and Historiographical Problems of the Genesis of capitalism". Proceedings of the scientific session held in Moscow on May 11-13, 1966 (Moscow, 1969, p. 238). Researchers usually use the proposition that cooperation "does not form any solid, characteristic form, a special epoch in the development of capitalist production", separating it from the previous and subsequent text of Karl Marx's statement.

53 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, pp. 730, 734.

page 113
These factors became decisive in obtaining rents from all serfs, with the only difference being that their separation from the land was less complete than that of the "monthly worker" and the tax-paying peasant who settled in the city. Third, the link between feudal economy and the market is emerging and becoming more and more firmly established, which is reflected, in particular, in the most widespread use of two forms of rent - labor and money. The first of these forms prevailed where the feudal lord's own economy was connected with the market. This led to the emergence of patrimonial and other industrial enterprises based on the exploitation of serf labor, and large-scale production of agricultural products for sale, on the one hand, and an increase in labor rents, on the other. Money rent played a predominant role in those farms that were connected to the market through peasant farming. The main changes brought about by the strengthening of the connection with the market took place here in the peasant economy, and their expression was the continuous growth of money rent.

The main source of this evolution of the feudal system of Russia was the withdrawal from the peasant of the product of agricultural labor "beyond a certain measure." 54 Its results are as follows: a continuous increase in the incomes of feudal serfs and the state, on the one hand, and the growing separation of the bulk of producers from the means of production, on the other. The most" pure "result of the separation of the peasants from the land before 1861 was the appearance of a" laborer " in the corvee economy and a seller of labor who does not have his own farm in the dues economy. In the course of the very evolution of the old mode of production in the seventeenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, the latter result is revealed as the main trend of this evolution.

However, although the expropriation of peasants took place in all categories of feudal farms, including the state one, not all of its results in the conditions of feudal-feudal Russia became part of the process of initial accumulation. Such a part was only those results that led to the meeting in the market of the producer who became the seller of labor, and the owner of money. Prior to 1861, they were found in the rent-paying property and palace patrimony and in the state village, and to a very small extent - in the corvee village (for example, in the corvee with the work "brother for brother")55 . Most of the corvee peasants, on the other hand, were transformed from independent producers as they were freed from the land into serfs working in the fiefdom's industrial and agricultural enterprises. Completely or almost completely expropriated corvee peasants and serf workmen of state-owned industrial enterprises in Russia formed the basis for the "change of forms", that is, for "direct transformation... serfs in hired workers " 56 . Freed from the means of production before 1861, but not then active in the labor market, they immediately become sellers of labor after the abolition of serfdom.

Returning in connection with the evolution of the old mode of production to the question of dating the beginning of the process of initial accumulation in Russia, we note that the events that left their mark on the course of expropriation of producers date back to the end of the XVI-first half of the XVII century (the establishment of serfdom, the mass flight of peasants, etc.). - The 17th century is primarily the reaction of the peasants to the withdrawal of the product of agricultural labor from them "beyond a certain measure" and, secondly, the reaction of the peasants to the seizure of the product of agricultural labor "beyond a certain measure".-

54 See K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 19, p. 408.

55 See, for example, The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in Russia, pp. 254-256.

56 K. Marx to F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, p. 770.

page 114
in response to changes in their legal status. Such an assessment allows us to date the beginning of the expropriation of producers, the formation of the labor market and the genesis of capitalist relations approximately at the same time, and the first process (expropriation of producers) began, of course, somewhat earlier than the second and third.

L. V. Milov also raised the question of the correlation between violent and" nonviolent " methods in the Russian version of initial accumulation. But it is not clear from his judgments which methods were decisive. Apparently, the author still prefers "nonviolent" methods, since he puts expropriation, which was carried out "due to the action of economic levers", in the first place, and "countless micro-acts of violence" (what is it? - M. V.) - on the second 57 . In our opinion, in Russia before 1861, violent methods were of primary importance, although they were, as L. V. Milov rightly notes, "presented less vividly, less definitely" than in their time in England. The decisive role was played by the fiscal oppression of the state (especially for state peasants) and the increased payments and duties of the enslaved peasantry in favor of feudal serfs. These same factors led to the emergence in Russia of a broad basis for "changing forms". On the contrary, expropriation, which was carried out "by virtue of the operation of economic levers", was of secondary importance.

57 L. V. Milov. Op. ed., pp. 91-92. We meet with the same formulation of the question and approximately the same answer in his article "On raising the question of the stratification of the peasantry in seventeenth - century Russia" (Istoriya SSSR, 1963, No. 3, pp. 122-124).

page 115

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: