Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/576

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS.

Economics in Russia. — The economic writers who have the greatest influence on their readers, and are in the foreground of journalism and economic science, may be divided into three schools, representing three different economic theories: (i) the school of the followers of Marx ; (2) the national school, the so-called Narodnichestero ; (31 the individualist school. The continual discussions and polemics for the last eight or nine years have had for their pivot the economic teaching of Marx, as embodied in his three volumes Das Kapital. The Russian Marxists have done much in explaining and popularizing the theory of Marx concerning surplus value and the economical basis of history, and have done more than either of the other two for the organization of labor and for the so-called " class war." Besides the workmen, the Marxian theory is taken up eagerly even by some of the " capitalist classes," who justify their eagerness " to detach the workers from the means of production " by the historic necessity of industrial development in Russia, and claim to be the real creators of progress through the greater increase of capitalistic industry. According to M. Peter Struve, Russia is moving on the lines which were traced out by Marx ; that is, that the great industry, on capitalistic basis, is supplanting the small industry, and that the divorce of the immediate producers from the means of production is growing apace ; and this growth ot capitalism is a happy omen for Russian progress and the only way of her salvation. But, as the chief industry in Russia is agriculture, and the only means of production which is still owned bv the laboring population is the land, it follows that, according to Struve, there is no other way for Russian salvation than in the expropriation of the peasants from their land. This question, whether the economic policy of Russia shall be directed toward the annihilation of the small peasant proprietorship in order to encourage the growth of capitalism, or whether she shall, on the contrary, seek to maintain and develop peasant proprietorship, especially in its communal form, is the problem which forms the crucial point which separates both schools of socialism in Russia. M. Struve and his followers think that Russia has become already a capital- istic state on the model of the nations of western Europe.

This the economists of the Russian nationalist school, the so-called Narodniki, do not admit. According to them there is no necessity for Russia to follow in the steps of European capitalistic society, and to wait for the golden age when the capitalistic integument will burst asunder, as there is in Russia already the elementary form of collectivism in the village commune. In accepting Marx' theory of surplus value, and in making labor the chief, and even the only, basis for the distribution of wealth, the Narodniki, however, reject his theory of the economical, materialistic basis of society. According to them, man is everything and matter nothing. They believe that society can shape its destinies, arrange the modes of production and distribution of wealth according to its wishes, tjuite independently of the technical and commercial evolution. M. Mikhalovsky has introduced into economics his sociological stand- point, which makes man the chief factor of progress. According to him the living individuality, with all its thoughts and feelings, becomes an independent historical factor. This individuality, and not some mystic power, gives aims to history, and directs toward them the events through all the hindrances which arise from the uncon- scious natural forces and historic conditions.

M. Mikhalovsky does not deny that historic conditions play the greater part in economic evolution, but he does net admit their insuperability. The individual is quite independent, and the greater his intellectuality, the more powerful does he become in shaping the destinies of his own life and the life of his country. Russia, therefore, which is yet almost an economic tabula rasa, can easily start m any direction she likes.

Of the same opinion is M. Uzhakov, a very well-known publicist. M. Danielson says: "We have a historic heritage in the commune which, under the pressure of capitalism and the accompanying forms ol production, cannot secure to its meml)ers

560