L. Nauka Publishing House. 1970. 324 pp. The print run is 1,150. Price 1 rub. 53 kopecks.

G. S. Isaev has already spoken on the problems of the genesis of capitalism .1 His monograph is a further in-depth study of the history of the textile industry in the second half of the XVIII - first half of the XIX century2 . The questions raised by G. S. Isaev were largely the subject of research by P. G. Ryndzunsky, but of a later historical period3 .

In a special review, we have already noted that the problems of the genesis of capitalism in Russia require a new monographic development, both of individual issues and materials from different branches of industry .4 G. S. Isaev's book is related to this kind of research, joining similar works of the last 5 years . It is written on a serious source base, thoroughly studied, used and critically meaningful. The author pays special attention to a variety of unofficial statistical data and economic surveys, which, in his opinion, are not sufficiently used in research; in combination with official sources, they provide valuable information about industries that are not taken into account by official statistics (peasant crafts, scattered manufactories, which have fallen out of the field of view of official reports of small-scale industry enterprises, etc.). The author can only be reproached with the fact that he did not attract enough periodicals (magazines, newspapers) of that time.

G. S. Isaev set himself the task of analyzing small-scale production as the broad socio - economic basis of manufacture at the end of the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, of revealing the role of commercial capital in its development, and of considering manufacture not as a form of production, but as a special stage in the development of capitalism in industry, which marked the beginning of the creation of new productive forces (p. 37-38). This is the first time that a monographic study has been undertaken in Soviet literature. The content of G. S. Isaev's book is subordinated to the task set; the conclusions drawn at the end of the work indicate that the author has achieved his goal.

Unfortunately, the book does not provide a clear justification for the original date of the " study. But the subject of interest to the author is defined quite precisely. While large-scale industry in the first half and middle of the eighteenth century, when forced-labor manufacturing prevailed, has been studied relatively fully, there is still little research on the history of manufacturing in the second half of the eighteenth and especially in the first half of the nineteenth century. The textile industry was chosen by the author because it was the most developed industry; production in it was relatively simple, accessible to the general population, and brought large incomes to entrepreneurs. The emerging bourgeoisie was most willing to invest its savings in the textile industry. All forms of the transition period from feudalism to capitalism were present here (small-scale production, domestic work, capitalist, possessional and patrimonial manufactories, etc.). The author believes that the study of the genesis of capitalism in the textile industry of the last century of the feudal system will help to better understand the process of replacing feudal open-market production in Russia-

1 See G. S. Isaev. Social division of labor as one of the conditions for the genesis of capitalism in Russian industry. "Scientific Notes" of the Shakhty Pedagogical Institute, vol. 3, issue 4, 1962, pp. 19-49.

2 See I. V. Meshalin. Textile industry of the peasants of the Moscow province in the XVIII and first half of the XIX century. Moscow-L. 1950; K. A. Pajitnov. Essays on the history of the textile industry in pre-revolutionary Russia. Woollen industry, Moscow, 1955. Essays on the history of the textile industry in pre-revolutionary Russia. Khlopchatobumazhnaya, linno-penkovaya i shilkovaya promyshlennost ' [Cotton, flax-hemp and silk industry], Moscow, 1958.

3 P. G. Ryndzyun. Peasant industry in post-reform Russia (60-80 - ies of the XIX century). Moscow, 1966.

4 P. Y. Bukshpan. Industry and trade of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Voprosy Istorii, 1967, No. 4, pp. 142-143.

5 B. L. Tsypin. Some features of the industrial revolution in Russia. Sverdlovsk. 1968; " Questions of the history of the Urals (Problems of economic and social history)". Collection 8. "Scientific Notes" of the Ural State University. N 72. The series is historical. Issue 9; "Questions of Soviet historiography of the Urals". Collection of articles. "Scientific Notes" of the Ural State University. N 61. The series is historical. Issue 10, 1967.

page 172
soba production is capitalist. Of all the problems of the genesis of capitalism, he gives preference to the main one-the development of productive forces, paying much attention to the history of technology and labor. Naturally, this is done taking into account the complexity of industrial relations in the industry of that time.

G. S. Isaev also touches on the problem of industrial revolution, but does not argue, however, his understanding of the essence of this phenomenon. He confines himself to the observation that social changes are not related to the industrial revolution, but are the direct result of it. The author recognizes the 1930s as the time of the beginning of the industrial revolution in Russia. However, falling into a certain contradiction, he writes: "The decisive stage in the formation of the bourgeoisie, as well as the proletariat, falls on the epoch of the industrial revolution." 6 G. S. Isaev emphasizes that the industrial revolution is a certain historical period, and therefore he does not look for its signs in some branches, not finding in others, or it does not" split " it, as some historians do, into separate enterprises. In the periodization of the genesis of capitalism in Russia, G. S. Isaev strongly supports the allocation (and, accordingly, independent study) of the second, manufacturing stage (the beginning of the XVIII-30s of the XIX century).

First, the author examines peasant crafts, which are an important condition for the genesis of capitalism. "Without the existence of millions of small-scale commodity production, which is constantly involved in capitalist relations, neither the disintegration of natural feudal economy and the formation of a capitalist system, nor the emergence and expansion of the All-Russian market, nor the development of crafts into capitalist enterprises, nor the successful development of capitalist cooperation, manufactories and factories are unthinkable" (p.89). This conclusion follows from the analysis of the material presented in the book, which, unfortunately, according to the author, gives a very rough idea of the first stage of the development of capitalism in industry.

The author's observations on the state of various branches of textile production at the manufacturing stage of capitalism are interesting. Moreover, they objectively support the point of view (which the author does not verbally sympathize with) on the indissoluble connection between the technical and social aspects of the industrial revolution. Pointing out the large share of dispersed manufactory in the cotton weaving industry, he notes that the latter in the first half of the nineteenth century, during the beginning of the industrial revolution, had considerable opportunities for the mass and final proletarianization of workers at home (p.165). And further developing this idea, G. S. Isaev comes to the conclusion that in the cotton manufactory (both centralized and dispersed) there was not so much a formal as a real subordination of labor to capital (p.172).

The author's calculations (although very approximate, since he also tries to take into account scattered production) of the specific weight of manufactories in various branches of the textile industry, as well as in the entire manufacturing industry, deserve attention. The leading role of the cotton manufactory in the further strengthening of capitalist relations in the manufacturing industry is confirmed by many convincing facts. If we take into account the relatively intensive mechanization of textile (mainly cotton) manufactories and the introduction of machine labor, their share in the manufacturing industry in the middle of the XIX century will be about 90% (p. 174). It was the mechanized paper-spinning, weaving, and calico-printing industries that marked the beginning of the industrial revolution in Russia (p.202). It should be noted that, while studying not manufacture as such, but the manufacturing stage of development, the author often "covers" the state of affairs in the entire branch of industry with the concept of "manufacture", as if forgetting about the existence and activities of small independent enterprises that have not yet fallen under the power of manufacture.

Separately, according to the branches of production, the monograph considers technology as an element of the productive forces of the manufacturing period and the beginning of the industrial revolution. We should also note some vagueness in the definitions. Justifying the sequence of consideration of the main research issues, G. S. Isaev believes that the study of productive forces is most convenient to start with the characteristics of technology,

6 In the literature there is also, in our opinion, a very broad interpretation of the content and essence of the industrial revolution in Russia (see B. L. Tsypin. Op. ed., pp. 60-61, 166, etc.).

page 173
for the latter is their most active element (p. 180). Turning further to labor and industrial relations in the same period, the author emphasizes that labor is the main element of production. "It determines the development of technology, sets it in motion in the production process, and plays a crucial role in creating the material and spiritual benefits of society" (p. 233). The question arises: which element of production is more active?

The book also examines session manufactories and their role in the victory of the capitalist mode of production. The author pays more attention not to what drags the posession manufactory back, connects it with the outgoing feudalism; he is primarily interested in the prospects for its development. In this respect, the monograph contains many interesting observations. It seems reasonable to conclude that in possessional manufactories, in contrast to patrimonial ones, the transformation of workmen into capitalist productive forces proceeded faster and more intensively, and the constant intense competition on the part of capitalist manufactories played a significant role in this (p .241).7
This also concerns the fate of the patrimonial manufactory in connection with the question of labor power. And here there is a progressive separation from the land of direct producers. For the sake of truth, we note a small factual inaccuracy: the manufactory of the landowner Milyutin in the Kaluga province in the late 20s - early 30s is called in the book the last patrimonial enterprise of the silk industry (p.272). Meanwhile, it is known that back in the early 40s there was a patrimonial "factory" of the landowner Okulov in the Moscow province (Bronnitsky uyezd) .8
G. S. Isaev believes that in patrimonial and possessional manufactories, production relations were determined simultaneously by elements of decaying feudalism and developing capitalism. He dwells on the question of the transformation of patrimonial and possessional manufactories into capitalist enterprises. In this regard, the author polemics with a number of Soviet historians who claim that forms of production based on forced labor belong to feudal production, and on hired labor - to capitalist production. G. S. Isaev is close to the point of view of E. I. Zaozerskaya about the transitional forms of production in Russian manufactories of the 20s-60s of the XVIII century 9 .

Covering the process of transformation of transitional forms of industry into capitalist ones separately for patrimonial, possessional and dispersed enterprises, G. S. Isaev provides extensive material that convinces of the correctness of his main conclusions. The only thing that is alarming is the terminological vagueness, which may be due to the author's underestimation of the well-known position that capitalism in its pure form cannot exist, especially in a country like Russia. Scattered production, for example, in the silk-weaving industry existed alongside the factory, in subordination to it, until the Great October Socialist Revolution. And that was capitalism. Meanwhile, the monograph deals with the development of scattered capitalist enterprises into combined and centralized manufactories and factories, which are understood as "typical capitalist enterprises" (pp. 271, 300). Is the latter term correct, and what determines its content? In our opinion, a far-fetched concept is being introduced into circulation. Moreover, at the end of the work, the author emphasizes that in Russia, capitalist production has prepared the socio-economic conditions for an incomplete and insufficiently radical replacement of the feudal system by the capitalist one ("typical" or not?). And this happened as a result of the reform of 1861 and the revolutionary situation that did not develop into a bourgeois revolution.

7 Our study of materials on the development of the Abamelek-Lazarev (Fryanov) and Yusupov (Kupavna) posession manufactories, which belong to the backward and weak silk industry of the Moscow province, confirms the conclusions of G. S. Isaev.

8 See N. V. Ustyugov. About the unrest of serf workers at the silk factory of the landowner Okulov, in Bronnitsky district, Moscow province, in December 1841. "History of the Proletariat of the USSR". Collection 4. Moscow, 1933, pp. 207-213.

9 E. I. Zaozerskaya. Labor force and class struggle in textile manufactories in the 20-60s of the XVIII century. Moscow, 1960, pp. 19-20.

page 174

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: