The Development of Capitalism in Russia

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Development of Capitalism in Russia arrived in bookshops in March 1899, carrying the name "Vladimir Ilyin" on the cover. That name was a pseudonym. The real author was Vladimir Lenin, and he had written the entire work while living as a political exile in the Siberian village of Shushenskoye. He had begun the research even earlier, while still in prison following his arrest for involvement in a St. Petersburg underground organisation called the Union of Struggle for the Working Class Liberation. By the time the manuscript was finished, he was just twenty-nine years old. What drove a man that young, under those conditions, to pour through more than five hundred sources on the Russian economy? And what argument was he making that was so urgent it could not wait for freedom? Those are the questions this documentary sets out to answer.

• 2. Written From Exile

  ›

  Shushenskoye was a remote Siberian village, far from the libraries and intellectual circles of St. Petersburg. Lenin had been arrested for his work with the Union of Struggle for the Working Class Liberation, and the research for this book began inside his prison cell. Once exiled to Shushenskoye, he pressed on. Over roughly three years, he worked through more than five hundred sources: monographs, statistical reference books, articles, collections, and reviews covering the Russian economy. That was not a casual survey. It was a systematic attempt to build an empirical foundation for a political argument. The first print run of the finished book was two thousand four hundred copies, published under the pseudonym Vladimir Ilyin. A second edition followed in 1908, with minor changes.

• 3. The Populist Target

  ›

  Lenin's central target in the book was a body of political thought known as Populism. The Populists held that Russia could bypass capitalism entirely and move directly toward communism. Their argument rested on the rural commune, a form of collective land ownership traditional in the Russian countryside. They believed the commune could serve as the foundation for a socialist future without Russia needing to pass through the industrial capitalism that had already gripped Western Europe. Lenin attacked this position head-on. He argued that capitalism had not waited for Russian Populists to give it permission to arrive. Using the statistical evidence he had gathered, he contended that feudalism was already dying across Russia, that local markets were being absorbed into a national market for goods, and that cash crop farming was displacing subsistence agriculture. The rural communes, he argued, had already been wiped out by the forces the Populists were treating as a future threat.

• 4. Class Division in the Countryside

  ›

  One of the book's most detailed observations concerned what was happening inside the peasantry itself. Lenin traced a growing split between two distinct groups. On one side stood a landholding rural class that he identified as a bourgeoisie. On the other stood a mostly landless rural population, which he called a rural proletariat. This second group was being recruited from the shrinking ranks of middle peasants who could no longer hold onto their land. The picture Lenin drew was not of a stable, communal countryside that could form the basis for socialism. It was of a class structure in motion, producing winners and losers along lines that mirrored the divisions already visible in the cities.

• 5. The Worker-Peasant Alliance

  ›

  From this analysis of rural class division, Lenin drew a strategic conclusion. The rural proletariat and the urban proletariat shared a common set of interests, both being largely propertyless and both standing in opposition to those who held capital. This made a worker-peasant alliance not just possible but logical. Lenin saw this alliance as the force that could be turned against the representatives of capital in Russia. That argument gave the book its political edge. It was not simply an academic study of Russian economic statistics. It was a theoretical case for who the revolutionary class might be and who might join them. That reputation for rigorous Marxist analysis was what the book established for its author, whose real name the reading public would eventually learn.