We must dwell in greater detail on the data of the 1894-95
census on incomes from handicrafts. The attempt to collect
household data on incomes is very instructive, and it would be
quite wrong to confine ourselves to general
“averages” for the sub-groups (given above). We have
already, on more than one occasion, referred to the fictitious
nature of “averages” derived by adding together
individual handicraftsmen and owners of big establishments and
then dividing the total obtained by the number of the
components. Let us endeavour to assemble the data contained in
the *Sketch* on this subject in order to illustrate this
method clearly and prove its fictitious nature and to
demonstrate that in scientific investigations and in analysing
house-to-house census data handicraftsmen must be grouped in
categories according to number of workers (family and
wage-workers) employed in the workshop, and all the census data
arranged in accordance with these categories.

The compilers of the *Sketch* must have noted the all too obvious
fact of higher incomes in the big establishments, and tried to minimise
its significance. Instead of giving precise census data on the large
establishments (which they could have selected with no difficulty), they
again confined themselves to general discussions, arguments and inventions
against conclusions which the Narodniks find unpleasant. Let us examine
these arguments.

“If in such” (big) “establishments we meet
with a family income disproportionately larger than that of the
small establishments, we must not lose sight of the fact that a
considerable part of this income is mainly the reproduction of
the value, firstly, of a certain portion of the fixed capital
transmitted to the product, secondly, of the labour and expenses
connected with commerce and transport which play no part in
production, and, thirdly, of the value of food supplied to
wage-workers who receive their board from the masters. These
facts” (facts, indeed!) “limit the possibility of
certain illusions arising which give an exaggerated notion of
the advantages of wage-labour in handicraft industry or, what
amounts to the same thing, of the capitalist element”
(p. 15). That it is highly desirable in all investigations
“to limit” the possibility of illusions is something
which nobody, of course, doubts, but for this it is necessary to
combat “illusions” by means of *facts*, facts
taken from the household census, and not by citing one’s
own opinions, which are themselves sometimes mere
“illusions.” Is not, indeed, the authors’
argument about commercial and transport expenses an illusion?
Who does not know that these expenses per unit of product are
far smaller for the big producer than the small
producer,^{[1]}
that the
former buys his material cheaper and sells his product dearer,
knowing how (and being in a position) to choose time and place?
The handicraft census, too, mentions these generally known
facts—cf. pp. 204 and 263, for example—and one
cannot but regret that the *Sketch* contains no
*facts* about expenses on the purchase of raw materials
and the sale of the product by
big and small industrialists, by handicraftsmen and buyers up. Further, as
regards the wear and tear of fixed capital, here again the authors, while
combating illusions, are themselves the victims of an illusion. Theory
tells us that large expenditures on fixed capital diminish the part of the
value per unit of product that represents wear and tear and is transmitted
to the product. “An analysis and comparison of the prices of
commodities produced by handicrafts or manufactures, and of the prices of
the same commodities produced by machinery, shows generally that, in the
product of machinery, the value due to the instruments of labour increases
relatively, but decreases absolutely. In other words, its absolute amount
decreases, but its amount, relatively to the total value of the product,
of a pound of yarn, for instance, increases” (*Das Kapital*,
I<2,
S. 406).^{}[12]
The census also reckoned the costs of production, which include (p. 14,
point 7) “repair of tools and fixtures.” What reason is there
to believe that omissions in the registration of this point are to be met
with more frequently among the big than among the small masters? Would not
rather the contrary be the case? As to board provided for wage-workers,
there are no *facts* on this point in the *Sketch* at all:
we do not know exactly how many workers board with their masters, how
frequent are the omissions in the census on this point, how often
agriculturist masters feed their wage-workers with produce from their
farms, and how often the masters entered the workers’ board under
expenditure on production. Similarly, no *facts* on the inequality
in the length of the working period in the big and the small
establishments are given. We do not deny that the working period in the
big establishments is very likely longer than in the small ones, but,
firstly, the differences in income are out of all proportion to the
differences in the length of the working period; and, secondly, it remains
to be stated that the Perm statisticians have been unable to offer a
single weighty argument, based on precise data, against the precise
*facts* of the house-to-house census (given below), and in support
of the Narodnik “illusions.”

We have obtained the data for the large and small establishments
in the following way: we examined the tables appended to the
*Sketch*, noted the large establishments
(wherever they could be picked out, that is, wherever they were not lumped
together with the mass of establishments in a general total), and compared
them with the general totals given in the *Sketch* for all the
establishments of *the same* group and sub-group. This question is
so important that we hope the reader will not reproach us for the numerous
tables we give below: in tables the facts stand out more saliently and
compactly.

Felt-boot industry:

Thus, the “average” income per family worker, 75
rubles, was obtained by adding together incomes of 222 rubles
and 41 rubles. It appears that, after deducting the ten large
establishments^{[2]}
with 14 family workers, the remaining
establishments show a *net income* that is *below*
the wages of a wage-worker (41.2 against 45.6 rubles), while in
the large establishments wages are still higher. The
productivity of labour in the large establishments is more than
double
(168.0 and 82.4 rubles), the earnings of a wage-worker nearly double (53
rubles and 28 rubles), while the net income is five times higher (222 and
41 rubles). Obviously, no talk about differences in the working period or
any other argument can eliminate the fact that the big establishments have
the highest labour
productivity^{}[3]
and the highest income, while the small
handicraftsmen, for all their “independence” (first sub-group:
those who work independently for the market) and their tie with the land
(Group I), earn less than wage-workers.

In the carpentry trade the “net income” of the first sub-group of Group I “averages” 37.4 rubles per family worker, whereas the average earnings of a wage-worker in the same sub-group are 56.9 rubles (p. 131). It is impossible to pick out the big establishments from the tables, but it can scarcely be doubted that this “average” income per family worker was obtained by combining the highly profitable establishments employing wage-workers (who, after all, are not paid 56 rubles for nothing) with the dwarf workshops of the small “independent” handicraftsmen, who get much less than a wage-worker.

Next comes the bast-matting industry:

Thus, almost half the total output is concentrated in eleven of the ninety-nine establishments. In them, productivity of labour is more than double; the wages of the workers are also higher; and net income is more than six times the “average” and nearly ten times as high as that of the others, i.e., the smaller establishments. The latter have incomes but slightly higher than a worker’s wages (34 and 26 rubles respectively).

Rope and string
industry^{[4]}
:

Thus, here too the general “averages” show a higher income for
the family workers than for the wage-workers (90 against 65.6 rubles). But
4 of the 58 establishments account for *over half* the total
output. In these establishments (capitalist manufactories of the pure
type)^{[5]}
productivity of labour is almost three times the average (800 and 286
rubles) and over five times that of the remaining, i.e., smaller,
establishments (800 and 146 rubles). Workers’ wages are much higher
in the factories than in the small masters’ workshops (84 and 45
rubles). The net income of the manufacturers is over 1,000 rubles per
family as compared with the “average” of 90 rubles and with
the 60.5 rubles of the
small handicraftsmen. The income of the small handicraftsman is,
therefore, lower than a worker’s wages (60.5 and 65.6 rubles).

The pitch and tar industry:

Although this industry is, in general, a small one that employs very few
wage-workers (20%) we again find the same purely capitalist phenomenon of
the superiority of the large (relatively large) establishments of the
independent handicraftsmen in the agricultural group. And yet pitch and
tar production is a purely peasant, “people’s” industry!
In the large establishments labour productivity is over three times,
workers’ wages about one-and-a-half times and net income about eight
times the “average”; their net income, moreover, is ten times
as high as that of other handicraft families who earn no more than the
average wage-worker, and *less than a wage-worker in the larger
establishments*. Let us note that pitch and tar production is chiefly
a summer occupation, so that differences in the working period cannot be
very
great.^{[6]}

The baking industry:

Thus, here again, the averages for the entire sub-group are absolutely
fictitious. The large establishments (of small capitalists) account for
over half the total output, yield a net income six times the average and
14 times that of the small masters, and pay their workers *wages
exceeding the incomes of the small handicraftsmen*. We do not mention
productivity of labour; three or four of the large establishments produce
a more valuable product—treacle.

The pottery industry. Here again we have a typical small peasant industry with an insignificant number of wage-workers (13%), very small establishments (less than two workers per establishment) and a predominance of agriculturists. And here too we get the same picture:

Here, consequently, it is at once apparent from the “average”
figures that the wage-worker’s earnings are *higher* than the
family worker’s income. By treating the large establishments
separately, we get the explanation of this contradiction, which we have
already recorded in numerous instances. In the large establishments labour
productivity, wages and masters’ incomes are all incomparably
higher, while the small handicraftsmen get less than the wage-workers
*and less than half the earnings of the wage-workers in the
best-organised shops*.

Thus, here too, the “average” income of a family worker is lower than the earnings of a wage-worker. Here again it is to be explained by combining the big establishments—which are distinguished by a considerably higher labour productivity, higher payment of wage-workers, and a very high (comparatively) income—and the small establishments, the income of whose owners is about half the earnings of the wage-workers in the big establishments.

We might go on citing figures for other industries
too,^{[7]}
but we think that those given are more than enough.

Let us now summarise the conclusions that follow from the facts examined:

1) The combining of large and small establishments results in absolutely fictitious “average” figures, which give no conception of the real state of affairs, obscure cardinal differences, and present as homogeneous something that is heterogeneous, of mixed composition.

2) The data for a number of industries show that the large establishments (where a large number of workers are engaged) are distinguished from the average and small establishments:

a) by an incomparably higher productivity of labour;

b) by better payment of wage-workers, and

c) by a far higher net income.

3) All the large establishments we have selected, without exception,
employ wage-labour on an incomparably larger scale (than the average-sized
establishments in the given industry), the proportion of wage-labour being
substantially greater than that of family labour. The value of their
output is as much as 10,000 rubles, while the number of wage-workers
employed is ten and more per establishment. These large establishments,
therefore, represent capitalist workshops. The census data consequently
reveal *the prevalence of purely capitalist laws and relations* in
the celebrated “handicraft” industry; they reveal the absolute
superiority of the capitalist workshops, based on the co-operation of
wage-workers, over the one-man workshops and small workshops in
general—a superiority both in productivity of labour and in
remuneration for labour, even of wage-workers.

4) In the case of a number of the industries the earnings of the small
*independent* handicraftsmen prove to be no higher, and often even
lower, than the earnings of wage-workers in the same industry. This
difference would be even greater if to the wage-workers’ earnings
were added the value of the board received by some of them.

We have dealt with this last conclusion separately because the first three concern phenomena that are universal and inevitable under the laws of commodity production, whereas the last does not contain phenomena that are everywhere inevitable. We accordingly formulate this concept as follows: because of lower labour productivity in small establishments and the defenceless position of their owners in the market (especially in the case of agriculturists), it is possible that the earnings of an independent handicraftsman may be lower than those of a wage worker—and the facts show that this very often is the case.

The validity of our calculations is beyond question, for we have taken a
number of industries, not choosing them at random, but taking all those
where the tables allowed us to deal with the large establishments
separately; we have not taken individual establishments, but all those of
the same kind, and in every case compared with them several large
establishments in different uyezds. But it would be desirable to express
the phenomena described in a more general and more precise
form. Fortunately, the *Sketch* contains material that enables us
to satisfy this desire *in part*. This is the material on the
*division of establishments according to net income*. In the case
of certain industries, the *Sketch* indicates how many
establishments have a net income of up to 50, 100, 200 rubles, etc. It is
these data that we have combined. We find that there are data available
for 28
industries,^{[8]}
embracing 8,364 establishments, or 93.2% of the
total number (8,991). In all, in these 28 industries there are 8,377
establishments (income figures are not given for 13 establishments), with
14,135 family and 4,625 wage-workers, or 18,760 in all, which constitutes
93.9% of the total number of workers. Naturally, from these data covering
93% of the handicraftsmen we are fully entitled to draw conclusions
regarding all of them, for there are no grounds for assuming that the
remaining 7% differ from these 93%. Before presenting our summary, it is
necessary to make the following remarks:

1) In thus classifying the material, the compilers of the *Sketch*
have not always strictly adhered to uniform and identical headings for the
groups. For example, they have “up
to 100 rubles,” “less than 100 rubles,” and sometimes
even “100 rubles each.” The top and bottom limits of the
category are not always indicated, that is, sometimes the classification
begins with the category “up to 100 rubles,” sometimes with
that of “up to 50 rubles,” “up to 10 rubles,” and
so on; sometimes the classification ends with the category “1,000
rubles and over,” sometimes the categories “2,000 to 3,000
rubles” and others are introduced. None of these inaccuracies is of
any serious importance. We have unified all the categories contained in
the *Sketch* (there are fifteen of them: up to 10, up to 20, up to
50, up to 100, up to 200, up to 300, up to 400, up to 500, up to 600, up
to 700, up to 800, up to 900, up to 1,000, 1,000 and over, and 2,000 to
3,000 rubles), and we have eliminated all minor inaccuracies and
misunderstandings by assigning them to one or another of these categories.

2) The *Sketch* only indicates the *number of
establishments* in certain income categories, but does not indicate
the *income* of all the establishments in each category. Yet it
is these latter figures that we need most. We have therefore assumed
that the aggregate income of the establishments in any category is
determined with sufficient accuracy by multiplying the number of
establishments by the average income, that is, by the arithmetical mean
of the maximum and minimum of the given category (for example, 150
rubles in the case of the 100 to 200 ruble category, etc.). Only in the
case of the lowest two categories (up to 10 rubles and up to 20 rubles)
have the maximum incomes (10 rubles and 20 rubles respectively) been
taken instead of the averages. Verification has shown that this method
(one generally permissible in statistical calculations) yields results
that approximate very closely to reality. For instance, the aggregate
net income of the handicraft families in these 28 industries, according
to the *Sketch*, amounts to 951,653 rubles, while according to
our approximate figures, based on the income categories, it amounts to
955,150 rubles, an excess of 3,497 rubles = 0.36%. Consequently, the
difference or error is less than 4 kopeks in 10 rubles.

3) From our summary we learn the average income per family (in each
category), but not per family worker. To
determine the latter, another approximate calculation had to be
made. Knowing the division of families according to the number of family
workers (and separately—according to the number of wage-workers
employed), we assumed that the lower the income of a family, the smaller
its size (i.e., the smaller the number of family workers per
establishment) and the fewer the establishments employing wage-workers. On
the contrary, the higher the income per family, the larger the number of
establishments employing wage-workers and the larger the family, that is,
the number of family workers per establishment is larger. Obviously, this
assumption is the most favourable for anyone who might want to contest our
conclusions. In other words, *whatever* other assumption was made,
it would only help to reinforce our conclusions.

We now give a summary showing the division of the handicraftsmen according to the income of their establishments.

These data are too detailed and have therefore to be combined under simpler and clearer headings. Let us take five income categories of handicraftsmen: a) poor, with incomes of up to 50 rubles per family; b) in straitened circumstances, with incomes of 50 to 100 rubles per family; c) medium, with incomes of 100 to 300 rubles per family; d) well-to-do, with incomes of 300 to 500 rubles per family, and e) affluent, with incomes of over 500 rubles per family.

According to the data showing the incomes of establishments we shall add
to these categories a rough division of establishments according to the
number of family and wage workers they
employ.^{[9]}
We get the following table (see
p. 417).

These data lead to very interesting conclusions, which we shall now enumerate, taking the handicraftsmen category by category:

a) Over one-fourth of the families (28.4%) come under the category of
*poor*, with an average income of about 33 rubles per family. Let
us assume that this is the income of only one family worker, that all in
this category are one man producers. In any case the earnings of these
handicrafts men are *considerably lower* than the average earnings
of wage-workers employed by handicraftsmen (45.85 rubles). If the majority
of these one-man producers belong to the lower (3rd) sub-group, that is,
work for buyers-up, this means that the “masters” pay those
who work at home less than wage-workers employed in the workshop. Even if
we assume that the working period of this category is the shortest, their
earnings are nevertheless at the poverty level.

b) Over two-fifths of the total number of handicraftsmen (41.8%) belong to
the group of families in straitened circumstances, who have an average
income of 75 rubles per family. Not all of these are one-man
establishments (the previous category was assumed to consist solely of
one-man producers): about half the families have two family workers each,
and hence the average earnings per family worker are only about 50 rubles,
*i.e.*, *not more*, *or even less*, *than the
earnings of a wage-worker employed by a handicraftsman* (apart from
wages, amounting to 45.85 rubles, part of the wage-workers also receive
their board) *Thus*, *judged by their earnings*,
*seven-tenths of the total number of handicraftsmen are on a par
with*, *and some even at a lower level than*, *the
wage-workers employed by handicraftsmen*. Astonishing as this
conclusion is, it fully conforms to the facts quoted above on the
superiority of large establishments over small. The low income level of
these handicraftsmen can be judged by the fact that the average wage of an
agricultural labourer employed by the year in Perm Gubernia is 50 rubles,
in addition to
board.^{}[10]
Consequently, the standard of living of
seven-tenths of the “independent” handicraftsmen is no higher
than that of agricultural labourers!

The Narodniks, of course, will say that these earnings are only supplementary to agriculture. But in the first place, has it not been established long ago that only a minority of the peasants are able to derive enough from agriculture to maintain their families, after land redemption payments, rent and farm expenses are deducted? And please note that we are comparing the handicraftsman’s earnings with the wages of a farm labourer who receives his board from his master. Secondly, seven-tenths of the total number of handicraftsmen must also include non-agriculturists. Thirdly, even if it turns out that agriculture covers the maintenance of the agriculturist handicraftsmen of these categories, the drastic effect of the tie with the land in reducing earnings still remains beyond all doubt.

Another comparison: in Krasnoufimsk Uyezd, the average earnings of a
wage-worker employed by a handicraftsman are 33.2 rubles (p. 149 of the
tables), while the average earnings of a person employed at “his
own” works, that is, of an ironworker from among the former
professional^{[13]}
peasants, are estimated by the Zemstvo statisticians at
78.7 rubles (*Material for a Statistical Survey of Perm
Gubernia. Krasnoufimsk Uyezd*. *Zavodsk District*, Kazan,
1894), or over twice as much. And it is a generally known fact that the
wages of ironworkers from among the former possessional peasants are
always lower than wages of “free” workers in the
factories. One can, therefore, see that reduced consumption, a miserable
standard of living, is the price paid for the celebrated
“independence” of the Russian handicraftsman “based on
an organic tie between industry and agriculture”!

c) In the category of “medium” handicraftsmen we have included
families with incomes of 100 to 300 rubles, or an average of about 180
rubles per family. They constitute almost one-fourth of the total number
(24.1%). Absolutely, their income is very, very low: counting
two-and-a-half family workers per establishment, it amounts to about 72
rubles per family worker—a very inadequate sum, and one which no
factory worker would envy. Compared, however, with the incomes of the mass
of handicraftsmen this sum is fairly high! It appears that even this
meagre “sufficiency” is only secured at the expense of others:
the majority of the handicraftsmen in this category employ wage-workers
(roughly about 85% of the masters employ wage-labourers, and the average
for the 2,016 establishments is over one wage-worker per
establishment). Hence, in order to fight their way out of the mass of
poverty-stricken handicrafts men, this category, under the existing
commodity-capitalist relations, have to win a “sufficiency”
for themselves from others, have to engage in economic struggle, to
squeeze out the mass of the small producers still further and become petty
bourgeois. Either poverty and the lowering of their standard of living to
the *nec plus ultra*, or (*for a minority* ) the building-up
of their (absolutely very meagre) welfare at the expense of
others—such is the dilemma with which commodity production confronts
the small producer. Such is the language of facts.

d) The category of well-to-do handicraftsmen embraces only 3.8% of the families, those with an average income of about 385 rubles, or about 100 rubles per family worker (assuming that under this heading come masters with 4 or 5 family workers per establishment). Such an income, about double the earnings of a wage-worker, is already based on a considerable employment of wage-labour: all the establishments in this category employ an average of about 3 wage-workers per establishment.

e) The affluent handicraftsmen, those with an average income of 820 rubles
per family, constitute only 1.9% of the total. This category partly
includes establishments with 5 family workers, and partly establishments
with no family workers at all, that is, those based exclusively on
wage-labour. On an average, this amounts to about 350 rubles of income per
family worker. The high incomes of these “handicraftsmen”
accrue from the large number of wage-workers employed, averaging about 10
persons per
establishment.^{[11]}
These are already small manufacturers, owners of
capitalist workshops, and to include them among the
“handicraftsmen,” together with the one-man establishments,
rural artisans and even domestic producers who work for manufacturers (and
sometimes, as we shall see below, for these same affluent handicraftsmen!)
only testifies, as we have already remarked, to the utter vagueness and
haziness of the term “handicraft.”

In concluding our examination of the census data on handicraftsmen’s
incomes we must make the following remark. It might be said that the
concentration of incomes in the handicraft industries is not very high:
5.7% of the establishments account for 26.5% of the total income, and
29.8% for 64.4%. Our reply to this is that, firstly, even this degree of
concentration shows how totally unsuitable and unscientific are sweeping
arguments about “handicraftsmen,” and “average”
figures relating to them. Secondly, we should not lose sight of the fact
that these data *do not include buyers-up*, with the result that
the income division is highly inaccurate. We have seen that 2,346 families
and 5,628 workers work for buyers-up (third sub-group); consequently, here
it is the buyers-up who get the principal income. Their separation from
the mass of the producers is absolutely artificial and entirely
unwarranted. Just as it would
be wrong to describe the economic relations in large-scale factory
industry without mentioning the size of the manufacturers’ incomes,
so is it wrong to describe the economics of “handicraft”
industry without mentioning the incomes of the buyers-up—incomes
obtained from the same industry in which handicraftsmen are also engaged,
and constituting part of the value of goods produced by handicraftsmen. We
are therefore entitled, in fact we are obliged, to conclude that the
actual distribution of incomes in handicraft industry is far more uneven
than was shown above, for the categories which include the largest
industrialists of all have been omitted.

[1]
It goes without saying that only handicraftsmen *in the same
sub-group* can be compared, and that a commodity producer cannot be
compared with an artisan or a handicraftsman who works for a
buyer-up.
—*Lenin*

[2]
But these are by no means the largest establishments. From the division of
establishments according to number of wage-workers (p. 113) it may be
calculated that in three establishments there are 163 wage-workers, or an
average of 54 per establishment. Yet these are also regarded as
“handicraft establishments” and are added together with the
one-man workshops (of which there are no less than 460 in the industry) to
obtain general “average”!
—*Lenin*

[3]
“In one of the
establishments” the introduction of a wool-carding machine was
mentioned (p. 119).
—*Lenin*

[4]
There is apparently a misprint or error in the table on p. 158:
in Irbit Uyezd the net income is more than the 9,827 rubles
shown in the total. We had to change this table according to the
data in the tables appended to the *Sketch*.
—*Lenin*

[5]
Cf. *Handicraft Industries*, pp. 46-47, as well as the
description of the industry given in the *Sketch*,
p. 162, *et*. *seq*. It is most typical that
“these employers were once real handicraftsmen and that is
why they have always been fond of giving themselves that
name.”
—*Lenin*

[6]
It may be seen from the *Sketch* that in the pitch and tar industry
both the primitive method of distilling pitch *in pits* and the
more perfected *cauldron*, and even *cylindrical boiler*,
methods are employed (p. 195). The household census furnished material
showing the distribution of these different methods, but it was not
utilised, the large establishments not being treated separately.
—*Lenin*

[7]
Cf. vehicle building, p. 308 of the text and pp. 11 and
12 of the tables; chest making, p. 335; tailoring, p. 344, etc.
—*Lenin*

[8]
These data are also available for the lace-, lock- and accordion making
industries, but we omit them, as they do not record establishments
according to the number of family workers.
—*Lenin*

[9]
The 8,377 establishments in the 28 industries are divided according to the
number of family and wage-workers as follows: no family workers—95
establishments; 1 worker—4,362; 2 workers—2,632; 3
workers—870; 4 workers—275; 5 workers and over—143. The
establishments employing wage-workers number 2,228, and are divided as
follows: 1 wage-worker—1,359; 2 workers—447; 3
workers—201; 4 workers—96; 5 workers and more—125. The
wage workers total 4,625, and their aggregate wages total 212,096 rubles
(45.85 rubles per worker).
—*Lenin*

[10]
The cost of board is 45 rubles per annum, according to the
figures—average for 10 years (188l-91)—of the Department of
Agriculture. (See S. A. Korolenko, *Hired Labour*, *etc*.)
—*Lenin*

[11]
Of the 2,228 establishments employing wage-workers in these 28 industries,
46 employ 10 wage-workers or more—a total of 887, or an average of
19.2 wage-workers per establishment.
—*Lenin*

[12]
Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 390.

[13] By a decree of Peter I issued in 1721 merchant factory owners were given the right to purchase peasants for work in their factories. The feudal workers attached to such enterprises under the possessional right were called “possessional peasants.”

| |

| | | | | |