We have noted above that to judge the development of large-scale industry from factory statistics it is necessary to separate the relatively useful material in these statistics from the utterly useless. Let us, with this in view, examine the main branches of our manufacturing industry.

At the head of the wool trades is cloth production, which in 1890 had an
output of over 35 million rubles and employed 45,000 workers. The
historico-statistical data on this trade indicate a considerable drop in
the number of workers, namely, from 72,638 in 1866 to 46,740 in
1890.^{[1]}
To appraise
this phenomenon we must take account of the fact that up to the 1860s
inclusive, felt cloth production was organised on specific and original
lines: it was concentrated in relatively large establishments which,
however, did not in any way come under the category of capitalist factory
industry, since they were based on the labour of serfs, or of temporarily
bound peasants. In the surveys of the “factory” industry of
the 60s we therefore meet with the division of cloth mills into 1) those
owned by landlords or nobles, and 2) those owned by merchants. The former
produced mainly army cloth, the government contracts having been
distributed equally among the mills in proportion to the number of
machines. Compulsory labour was the cause of the technical backwardness of
such establishments and of their employing a much larger number of workers
than the merchant mills based on the employment of hired
labour.^{[2]}
The
principal drop in the number of workers, engaged in felt cloth production
took place in the gubernias with landlord factories; thus, in the 13 such
gubernias (enumerated in the *Survey of Manufactory Industries *),
the number of workers dropped from 32,921 to 14,539 (1866 and 1890), while
in the 5 gubernias with merchant factories
(Moscow, Grodno, Liflandia, Chernigov and St. Petersburg) it dropped from
31,291 to 28,257. From this it is clear that we have here two opposite
trends, both of which, however, indicate the development of
capitalism—on the one hand, the decline of landlord establishments
of a manorial-possessional
character,^{[35]} and on
the other, the development of purely capitalist factories out of merchant
establishments. A considerable number of the workers employed in felt
cloth production in the 60s were not *factory* workers at all in
the strict sense of the term; they were dependent peasants working for
landlords.^{[3]}
Cloth
production is an example of that specific phenomenon of Russian
history—the employment of serf labour in industry. Since we are
dealing only with the post-Reform period, the above brief remarks will
suffice to show the way in which this phenomenon is reflected in factory
statistics.^{[4]}
We
shall now quote some figures drawn from statistics on steam-engines in
order to estimate the development of large-scale machine production in
this industry: in 1875-1878, in the wool-spinning and cloth industries of
European Russia there were 167 mechanised establishments using 209
steam-engines with a total of 4,632 h.p., and in 1890 there were 197
establishments using
341 steam-engines with a total of 6,602 h.p. The use of steam power,
therefore, did not make very rapid progress; this is to be explained
partly by the traditions of landlord factories and partly by the
displacement of felt cloth by the cheaper worsted and mixed
fabrics.^{[5]}
In the
years 1875-1878 there were seven mechanised establishments using 20
steam-engines with a total of 303 h.p., and in 1890 there were 28
mechanised establishments employing 61 steam-engines to a total of 1,375
h.p.^{[6]}

In regard to the woollen-goods industry let us also take note of felt-making, a branch that shows in particularly striking fashion the impossibility of comparing factory statistics for different times: the figures for 1866 are 77 factories with a total of 295 workers, while for 1890 they are 57 factories with 1,217 workers. The former figure includes 60 small establishments employing 137 workers with an output of under 2,000 rubles, while the latter includes an establishment with four workers. In 1866 39 small establishments were recorded in Semyonov Uyezd, Nizhni-Novgorod Gubernia, where felt-making is now highly developed but is regarded as a “handicraft” and not a “factory” industry (see Chapter VI, § II, 2).

Further, a particularly important place in the textile trades is held by
cotton processing, a branch which now employs over 200,000 workers. Here
we observe one of the biggest errors of our factory statistics, namely,
the combining of factory workers and capitalistically occupied home
workers. Large-scale machine industry developed here (as in many other
cases) by drawing home workers into the factory. It is obvious how
distorted this process will appear if work-distributing offices and work
rooms are classed as “factories,” if home workers are lumped
together with factory workers! For 1866 (according to the *Yearbook
*) up to 22,000 home workers were included among factory workers (by
no means the full number, for the *Yearbook*, evidently by pure
accident, omits in the case of Moscow Gubernia those notes about
“work from village to village” which are so abundant for
Vladimir Gubernia). For 1890 (according to the *Directory *) we
found only about 9,000 such workers. Clearly, the figures given in the
factory statistics (1866—59,000 workers in the cotton weaving mills;
1890—75,000) *underrate* the increase in the number of
*factory* workers that actually took
place.^{[7]}
Here are
data showing what different establishments were classed at different times
as cotton-weaving
“factories”:^{[8]}

Thus, the decrease in the number of “factories” shown by the “statistics” actually indicates the displacing of distributing offices and workrooms by the factory. Let us illustrate this by the example of two factories:

Hence, to assess the development of large-scale machine production in this
branch of industry it is best to take the data giving the number of
power-looms. In the 18609 there were about
11,000,^{[9]}
and in
1890 about 87,000. Large-scale machine industry was consequently
developing at enormous speed. In cotton spinning and weaving there was
recorded in 1875-1878 a total of 148 mechanised establishments, having 481
steam-engines totalling 20,504 h.p., and in 1890, 168 mechanised
establishments, having 554 steam-engines with a total of 38,750 h.p.

Precisely the same mistake is made in Russian statistics in relation to
linen production, wherein a decrease in the number of factory workers is
erroneously shown (1866—17,171; 1890—15,497). Actually, in
1866, of 16,900 looms belonging to linen-mill owners only 4,749 were kept
in their establishments, the remaining 12,151 being held by work room
owners.^{[10]}
The
number of factory workers for 1866, therefore, included about 12,000 home
workers, and for 1890 only about 3,000 (computed from *Directory
*). The number of power-looms, however, grew from 2,263 in 1866
(computed from *Military Statistical Abstract *) to 4,041 in
1890, and of spindles from 95,495 to 218,012. In flax spinning and
linen-weaving in the years 1875-1878 there were 28 mechanised
establishments, having 47 steam engines with a total of 1,604 h.p., while
in 1890 there were 48 mechanised establishments, having 83 steam-engines
with a total of 5,027
h.p.^{[11]}

Lastly, of the textile trades mention should be made of dyeing, printing
and finishing, in which trades the factory statistics combine factories
and the very smallest handicraft establishments with only 1 or 2 workers
each and an output of a few hundred
rubles.^{[12]}
Naturally, this causes no little confusion and obscures the rapid growth
of large-scale machine industry. The following figures reflect this
growth: in the wool-cleaning, dyeing, bleaching and finishing trades in
1875-1878 there were 80 mechanised establishments with 255 steam-engines
totalling 2,634 h.p.; in 1890 there were 189 mechanised establishments
with 858 steam-engines totalling 9,100 h.p.

In this section the most reliable data are those on saw milling, although
in the past small establishments were also included
here.^{[13]}
The
enormous development of this trade in the post-Reform period (1866—4
million rubles 1890—19 million rubles), accompanied by a
considerable increase in the number of workers (4,000 and 15,000) and in
the number of steam-powered establishments (26 and 430), is particularly
interesting, in that it affords striking evidence of the growth of the
lumber industry. Saw-milling is but one of the operations of the lumber
industry, which is a necessary concomitant of the first steps of
large-scale machine industry.

As to the rest of the trades in this section, namely,
furnishing and carpentry, bast-matting, and pitch and tar—the
factory statistics relating to them are distinguished for their
particularly chaotic condition. The small establishments so numerous in
these trades were formerly included among the “factories” in
numbers fixed arbitrarily, and the same is sometimes done even
today.^{[14]}

and Ceramic Industries

The statistics on the chemical industry proper are distinguished for their
relative reliability. The following returns show its growth: in 1857
chemical products were consumed in Russia to a total of 14 million rubles
(3.4 million rubles home produced and 10.6 million rubles imported); in
1880, to a total of 36 1/4 million rubles (7 1/2 million rubles home
produced and 28 3/4 imported); and in 1890, to a total of 42.7 million
rubles (16.1 million rubles home produced and 26.6
imported).^{[15]}
These data are particularly interesting because the chemical industries
are extremely important as producers of auxiliary materials for
large-scale machine industry, i.e., articles of *productive* (and
not personal) consumption. As to potash and saltpetre production, let us
remark that the number of factories given is unreliable, again due to the
inclusion of small
establishments.^{[16]}

The tallow trade has undoubtedly declined in the post-Reform period. Thus,
the value of output of the tallow candle and tallow-boiling trade was
estimated in 1866-1868 at 13.6 million rubles, and in 1890 at 5 million
rubles.^{[17]}
This
decline is to be explained by the growing use of mineral oils for
lighting, which are displacing the old-time tallow candle.

For leather production (1866: 2,308 establishments with 11,463 workers and
an output totalling 14.6 million rubles; 1890: 1,621 establishments with
15,564 workers and an output totalling 26.7 million rubles) statistics
constantly lump together factories and small establishments. The
relatively high cost of raw materials, which explains the high total
output, and the fact that this trade requires very few workers, make it
particularly difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the
handicraft establishments and the factories. In 1890, of the total number
of factories (1,621), only 103 had an output of less than 2,000 rubles; in
1879 there were 2,008 out of a total of
3,320^{[18]};
in 1866, of 2,308
factories^{[19]}
1,042
had an output of less than 1,000 rubles (these 1,042 factories employed
2,059 workers and had an output totalling 474,000 rubles). Thus, the
number of factories increased, although the factory statistics show a
decrease. As for the small leather establishments, their number is still
very large today: for instance, *The Factory Industry and Trade of
Russia*, published by the Ministry of Finance (St. Petersburg, 1893),
gives a total of nearly 9,500 handicraft works, with 21,000 workers and an
output of 12 million rubles. These “handicraft” establishments
are much larger than those which in the 60s were included among
“factories and works.” Since small establishments
are included among the “factories and works” in unequal
numbers in the different gubernias and in different years, the statistics
on this trade should be treated with great caution. The steam-engine
statistics for 1875-1878 gave for this industry 28 mechanised
establishments with 33 steam-engines to a total of 488 h.p. and in 1890
there were 66 mechanised establishments with 82 steam-engines to a total
of 1,112 h.p. In these 66 factories 5,522 workers (more than a third of
the total) were concentrated with an output totalling 12.3 million rubles
(46% of the total), so that the concentration of production was very
considerable, and the productivity of labour in the large establishments
far above the
average.^{[20]}

The ceramic trades fall into two categories in accordance with the
character of the factory statistics: in some, there is hardly any
combining of small-scale production with large. That is why these
statistics are fairly reliable. This applies to the following industries:
glass, porcelain and chinaware, plaster and cement. Particularly remark
able is the rapid growth of the last-mentioned trade, which is evidence of
the development of the building industry: the total output in 1866 was
estimated at 530,000 rubles (*Military Statistical Abstract *), and
in 1890 at 3,826,000 rubles; the number of power-operated establishments
in 1875-1878 was 8, and in 1890 it was 39. On the other hand, in the
pottery and brick trades the inclusion of small establishments is observed
on a tremendous scale, and for that reason the factory statistics are very
unsatisfactory, being particularly exaggerated for the 60s and 70s. Thus,
in the pottery trade in 1879 there were listed 552 establishments, with
1,900 workers and an output totalling 538,000 rubles, and in 1890, 158
establishments with 1,978 workers and an output totalling 919,000
rubles. If we subtract the small establishments (those with an output of
less than 2,000 rubles) we get: 1879—70 establishments, with
840 workers and an output of 505,000 rubles; 1890—143
establishments, with 1,859 workers and an output of 857,000 rubles. That
is to say, instead of the decrease in the number of
“factories” and stagnation in the number of workers shown in
the statistics, there was actually a considerable increase in both the one
and the other. In brick-making the official data for 1879 showed 2,627
establishments, with 28,800 workers and an output totalling 6,963,000
rubles; for 1890—1,292 establishments, with 24,334 workers and an
output of 7,249,000 rubles; and without the small establishments (those
with an output of less than 2,000 rubles) we get for 1879—518
establishments, with 19,057 workers and an output of 5,625,000 rubles; and
for 1890—1,096 establishments, with 23,222 workers and an output of
7,240,000
rubles.^{[21]}

In the factory statistics for the metallurgical industries the sources of
confusion are, firstly, the inclusion of small establishments (exclusively
in the 60s and
70s),^{[22]}
and,
secondly and mainly, the fact that metallurgical plants are
“subject, not to the jurisdiction” of the Department of
Commerce and Manufacture, but to that of the Department of Mines. The
returns of the Ministry of Finance usually omit ironworks “on
principle”; but there have never been uniform and invariable rules
for the separation of ironworks from the other works (and it would hardly
be possible to devise them). That is why the factory statistics published
by the Ministry of Finance always include ironworks to some extent,
although the actual degree to which they are included varies for different
gubernias and for different
years.^{[23]}
General
data on the increased use of steam-engines in metallurgy since the Reform
will be given below, when we deal with the mining and metallurgical
industry.

These industries merit special attention for the question that concerns us, since the confusion in factory statistics attains here its maximum. And yet, these industries occupy a prominent place in our factory industry as a whole.

Thus, according to the *Directory* for 1890 these industries
account for 7,095 factories, with 45,000 workers and an output totalling
174 million rubles out of a total for European Russia of 21,124 factories,
with 875,764 workers and an output of 1,501 million rubles. The fact is
that the principal trades of this group—flour-milling, groat milling
and oil-pressing—consist of the processing of agricultural
produce. There are hundreds and thousands of small establishments in
Russia engaged in this processing in every gubernia, and since there are
no generally established rules for selecting the “factories and
works” from among them, the statistics pick out such small
establishments quite fortuitously. That is why the numbers of
“factories and works” for different years and for different
gubernias fluctuate enormously. Here, for example, are the figures for the
flour-milling trade for various years, as taken from various sources:
1865— 857 mills (*Returns and Material of the Ministry of Finance
*); 1866— 2,176 (*Yearbook *); 1866—18,426
(*Military Statistical Abstract *); 1885—3,940
(*Collection *); 17,765 (*Returns for Russia *); 1889, 1890
and 1891—5,073,
5,605 and
5,201^{[24]}
(*Collection *); 1894-95—2,308 (*List *). Among the
5,041 mills listed in 1892 (*Collection *), 803 were steam-, 2,907
water-, 1,323 wind- and 8 horse-operated! Some gubernias counted only
steam-mills, others included watermills (in numbers ranging from 1 to
425), still others (the minority) included also windmills (from 1 to 530)
and horse-operated mills. One can imagine the value of such statistics,
and of conclusions based on a credulous use of the data they
provide!^{[25]}
Obviously, to judge
the growth of large-scale machine industry we must first
establish a definite criterion for the term “factory.” Let us
take as such a criterion the employment of steam-engines:
steam-mills are a characteristic concomitant of the epoch of
large-scale machine
industry.^{[26]}

We get the following picture of the development of factory production in
this branch of
industry.^{[27]}

The statistics for the oil-pressing trade are unsatisfactory for the same reason. For instance, in 1879 2,450 works were listed with 7,207 workers and an output totalling 6,486,000 rubles, and in 1890 there were 383 works, with 4,746 workers and an output totalling 12,232,000 rubles. But this decrease in the number of factories and of workers is only apparent. If the data for 1879 and 1890 are made comparable, i.e., if we exclude establishments with an output of less than 2,000 rubles (not included in the lists) we get for 1879: 272 works, with 2,941 workers and an output totalling 5,771,000 rubles, and for 1890—379 works, with 4,741 workers and an output totalling 12,232,000 rubles. That large-scale machine industry has developed in this trade no less rapidly than in flour-milling is evident, for example, from the statistics for steam-engines; in 1875-1878 there were 27 steam-powered works, with 28 steam engines of 521 h.p., while in 1890 there were 113 mechanised works, with 116 steam-engines totalling 1,886 h.p.

The other trades of this group are relatively small. Let us note that in
the mustard and fish-products trades, for instance, the statistics of the
60s included hundreds of small establishments such as have nothing
whatever in common with factories and are now not classed as such. The
extent to which our factory statistics for various years need correction
is evident from the following: with the exception of flour-milling, the
*Directory* for 1879 gave in this section a total of 3,555
establishments with 15,313 workers, and for 1890—1,842
establishments with 19,159 workers. For 7
trades,^{[28]}
small
establishments (with an output of less than 2,000 rubles) were included as
follows: in 1879—2,487 with 5,176 workers and an output totalling
916,000 rubles and in 1890, seven establishments, employing ten workers
and with an output totalling two thousand rubles! To make the data
comparable, one should, consequently, subtract in one case five thousand
workers, and in the other, ten persons!

In some of the excise-paying trades we observe a decrease in the number of
factory workers between the 1860s and the present day, but the decrease is
not nearly as considerable as is asserted by Mr.
N.–on,^{[29]}
who
blindly
believes every figure in print. The fact is that for the majority of
excise-paying trades the only source of information is the *Military
Statistical Abstract*, which, as we know, tremendously exaggerates the
totals in the factory statistics. Unfortunately, however, we have little
material with which to verify the data in the *Abstract *. In
distilling, the *Military Statistical Abstract* counted in 1866 a
total of 3,836 distilleries with 52,660 workers (in 1890—1,620, with
26,102 workers), but the number of distilleries does not coincide with the
data of the Ministry of Finance, which in 1865-66 calculated 2,947
operating distilleries and in
1866-67—3,386.^{[30]}
Judging by this, the number of workers is
exaggerated by some 5,000 to 9,000. In vodka distilling, the *Military
Statistical Abstract* computes 4,841 distilleries, with 8,326 workers
(1890: 242 distilleries with 5,266 workers); of these Bessarabia Gubernia
has 3,207 distilleries with 6,873 workers. The absurdity of these figures
is glaring. In fact, we learn from material published by the Ministry of
Finance^{[31]}
that
the actual number of vodka distilleries in Bessarabia Gubernia was 10 or
12, and in the whole of European Russia 1,157. The number of workers was
consequently exaggerated by a minimum of 6 thousand. The cause of this
exaggeration is, evidently, that the Bessarabian
“statisticians” included vineyard owners among the owners of
distilleries (see below on tobacco making). In beer- and mead-brewing, the
*Military Statistical Abstract* counts 2,374 breweries, with 6,825
workers (1890—918 breweries, with 8,364 workers), whereas *The
Ministry of Finance Yearbook* estimates a total of 2,087 breweries in
European Russia for 1866. The number of workers is exaggerated here
too.^{[32]}
In the
beet-sugar and sugar-refining trades, the *Military Statistical
Abstract* exaggerates the number of workers by 11 thousand, counting
92,126 persons,
as against 80,919 according to the data of *The Ministry of Finance
Yearbook* (1890—77,875 workers). In tobacco-making, the
*Military Statistical Abstract* gives 5,327 factories, with 26,116
workers (1890— 281 factories, with 26,720 workers); of these, 4,993
factories with 20,038 workers are in Bessarabia Gubernia. Actually, the
number of tobacco factories in Russia in 1866 was 343, and in Bessarabia
Gubernia
13.^{[33]}
The number
of workers has been exaggerated by *about 20 thousand*, and even
the compilers of the *Military Statistical Abstract* themselves
indicated that “the factories shown in Bessarabia Gubernia . . . are
nothing but tobacco plantations” (p. 414). Mr. N.–on evidently
thought it superfluous to glance at the text of the statistical
publication he uses; that is why he failed to notice the error, and
discoursed with a highly serious air about a “slight increase in the
number of workers in the . . . tobacco factories” (article cited,
p. 104)!! Mr. N.–on simply takes the total number of workers in the
excise paying trades from the *Military Statistical Abstract* and
the *Directory* for 1890 (186,053 and 144,332) and calculates the
percentage of decrease. . . . “In a period of 25 years there has
been a considerable drop in the number of workers employed. It has
diminished by 22.4%. . . . “Here” (i.e., in the excise-paying
trades) “we see no signs of an increase, the plain fact being that
the number of workers has simply declined by a quarter of its previous
magnitude” (*ibid*.). Indeed, what could be
“simpler”! Take the first figure you lay your hands on, and
calculate a percentage! As for the trifling circumstance that the figure
given in the *Military Statistical Abstract* exaggerates the number
of workers by *some forty thousand*, that can be ignored.

The criticism of our factory statistics given in the last two sections leads us to the following main conclusions:

1. *The number of factories in Russia has been rapidly growing in the
post-Reform period*.

The opposite conclusion, which follows from our factory statistics, is
erroneous. The point is that the figures we are given of factories include
small artisan, handicraft and agricultural establishments, and *the
further back we go from the present day*, *the larger the number of
small establishments included in the number of factories*.

2. *The number of factory workers and the volume of output of factories
and works are likewise exaggerated for the past period in our
statistics*. This is due, firstly, to the fact that former]y a
greater number of small establishments were included. Hence, the data
for the industries that merge with handicrafts are particularly
unreliable.^{[34]}
Secondly, it is due to the fact that in the past more
capitalistically employed home workers were classified as
factory workers than today.

3. It is customary in this country to think that if figures are taken from the official factory statistics they must be considered comparable with other figures taken from the same source, and must be regarded as more or less reliable, until the contrary is proved. What has been said above, however, leads to the opposite conclusion, namely, that all comparisons of our factory statistics for different times and for different gubernias must be regarded as unreliable until the reverse is proved.

^{[1]}
In all cases, unless otherwise stated, we take the data of the
*Yearbook* for 1866 and those of the *Directories* for 1879
and 1890.—The *Historico-Statistical Survey* (Vol. II) gives
annual information on cloth production from 1855 to 1879; the following
are the five-year averages of workers employed from 1855-1859 to
1875-1879: 107,433-96,131- 92,117; 87,960 and 81,458.—*Lenin*

^{[2]}
See *A Survey of Various Branches of Manufactory Industry in
Russia*, Vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1862, particularly pp. 165 and
167. Cf. also *Military Statistical Abstract*, D. 357 and foll. At
the present time we rarely meet in the lists of cloth manufacturers the
celebrated noble families that constituted the overwhelming majority in
the 1860s.—*Lenin*

^{[3]}
The following examples are taken from Zemstvo statistical
material. Concerning N. P. Gladkov’s cloth factory in Volsk Uyezd
Saratov Gubernia (in 1866 it had 306 workers), we read in the Zemstvo
statistical abstract for this uyezd (p. 275) that peasants were forced to
work in the factory belonging to the lord. “They worked in the
factory until they married, and then became tax-paying members of the
peasant community.” In the village of Rvassy, Ranenburg Uyezd,
Ryazan Gubernia, there was in 1866 a cloth factory employing 180
workers. The peasants performed their CorvĂ©e by working in the mill, which
was closed down in 1870 (*Statistical Returns for Ryazan Gubernia*,
Vol. II, Pt. I, Moscow, 1882, p. 330).—*Lenin*

^{[4]}
See Nisselovich, *A History of the Factory Legislation of the Russian
Empire*, Pts. I and II, St. Petersburg, 1883-1884.—A. Semyonov,
*A Study of Historical Data on Russian Foreign Trade and Industry*,
St. Petersburg, 1858-1859, 3 parts.—V. I. Semevsky, *The Peasants
in the Reign of Catherine II*, St. Petersburg,
1881.—*Statistical Returns for Moscow Gubernia*. Sanitary
Statistical Sec, Vol IV, Pt. I (general summary), Moscow, 1890, article by
A. V. Pogozhev, “The Manorial-Possessional Factories of Moscow
Gubernia.”—M. Tugan-Baranovsky, *The Russian Factory*,
St. Petersburg, 1898, Vol. I.—*Lenin*

^{[5]}
Cf. *Successes of Russian Industry According to Surveys of Expert
Commissions*, St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 60.—*Lenin*

^{[6]}
The data on steam-engines in this and the following instances are taken
from *Material for the Statistics of Steam-Engines in the Russian
Empire* published by the Central Statistical Committee,
St. Petersburg, 1882; for 1890 they are taken from *Collection of Data
on Factory Industry *; data on mechanised establishments are from the
*Directory*.—*Lenin*

^{[7]}
Cf. Tugan-Baranovsky, *loc*. *cit*., p. 420.—The total
number of village hand weavers working for capitalists was estimated by
Semyonov at approximately 385,857 in 1859 (*loc*. *cit*.,
III, 273) to these he added another 200,000 village workers engaged
“in other factory trades” (*ibid*., p. 302). At the
present time, as we have seen above, the number of capitalistically
employed home workers is much larger.—*Lenin*

^{[8]}
Establishments with an output of under 2,000 rubles are classed as
workrooms. The data of the special investigation of factories and works in
Moscow and Vladimir gubernias made in 1868 by the Central Statistical
Committee contain the repeated statement that the output figures of the
small weaving establishments merely indicate pay for work
done. Establishments that distribute work to home workers are classed as
offices. For 1866 the figure given for these establishments is far from
complete, owing to obvious omissions in the case of Moscow Gubernia.—*Lenin*

^{[9]}
*Military Statistical Abstract*, 380.— *Survey of
Manufactory Industry*, Vol, II, St. Petersburg, 1863,
p. 451. —In 1898 the number of power-looms used in cotton weaving
(for the whole Empire, evidently) was reckoned at 100,630. *Successes
of Russian Industry*, p. 33.—*Lenin*

^{[10]}
*Military Statistical Abstract*, pp. 367-368: Commissariat returns.—*Lenin*

^{[11]}
In silk-weaving in 1879 there were 495 power-looms and 5,996 hand-looms
(*Historico-Statistical Survey*), and in 1890 there were 2,899 of
the former and over 7,500 of the latter.—*Lenin*

^{[12]}
For example, in 1879 the number of factories computed in these trades was
729; of this number, 466 had 977 workers and an output of 170,000
rubles. Even today one can find many such
“factories”—for instance, in the description of the
handicraft industries of Vyatka and Perm gubernias.—*Lenin*

^{[13]}
Cf. *Military Statistical Abstract*, p. 389. *Survey of
Manufactory Industry*, I, 309.—*Lenin*

^{[14]}
Thus in 1879, of 91 bast-matting factories 39 had an output of less than
1,000 rubles each (Cf. *Studies*, p. 155). [See present edition
Vol. 2, * The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm
Gubernia*. –*Ed*.] In the pitch-and-tar trade for f890 there
were computed 140 factories, all with an output exceeding 2,000 rubles;
for 1879, 1,033 were computed, of which 911 had an output of less than
2,000 rubles; for 1866 the number listed was 669 (for the Empire), while
the *Military Statistical Abstract* even gave the figure of 3,164!!
(Cf. *Studies*, pp. 156 and 271.) [See present edition, Vol. 2,
*The Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm Gubernia*, and Vol. 4,
“On the Question of Our Factory Statistics.” –*Ed*.]—*Lenin*

^{[15]}
*Military Statistical Abstract*, *Historico-Statistical
Survey* and *Productive Forces*, IX, 16.—The number of
workers in 1866—5,645; in 1890—25,471; in 1875-1878—38
mechanised establishments, with 34 steam-engines to a total of 332 h.p.;
and in 1890—141 mechanised establishments, with 208 steam-engines to
a total of 3,319 h.p.—*Lenin*

^{[16]}
Cf. *Directory* for 1879 and 1890 about potash production. The
production of saltpetre is now concentrated in one factory in
St. Petersburg, whereas in the 60s and 70s saltpetre was obtained from
burti (dungheaps).—*Lenin*

^{[17]}
Here, too, the number of factories in the 60s and 709 included a host of
small establishments.—*Lenin*

^{[18]}
In 1875, Prof. Kittary, in his *Map of Leather Production in
Russia*, gave an aggregate of 12,939 establishments, with output
totalling 47 1/2 million rubles, whereas the factory statistics gave 2,764
establishments, with output totalling 26 1/2 million rubles
(Historico-Statistical Survey). In the fur trade, another in this section,
a similar lumping is observed of small establishments together with
factories: Cf. *Directory* for 1879 and for 1890.—*Lenin*

^{[19]}
*The Military Statistical Abstract* gave an aggregate of even
3,890!!—*Lenin*

^{[20]}
If we distribute the factories shown in the Directory as for 1890
according to date of establishment we get the following: of 1,506
factories the number established at dates unknown was 91, before 1850
—331; in the 1850s—147; in the 60s—239; in the
70s—320; in the 80s —351; in 1890—21. In every
succeeding decade more factories were established than in the preceding
one.—*Lenin*

^{[21]}
The small establishments in these industries are now classed with the
handicrafts. Cf., for instance, the table of small industries (Appendix I)
or *Studies*, pp. 158-159. (See present edition, Vol. 2, * The
Handicraft Census of 1894-95 in Perm
Gubernia*. –*Ed*.). *The Ministry of Finance Yearbook*
(Vol. I) refused to give totals for these industries because the figures
were obviously exaggerated. Progress in statistics since then is expressed
in an increased boldness and disregard of the quality of material used.—*Lenin*

^{[22]}
Thus, in the 60s, dozens of smithies were classed for some gubernias as
“ironworks.”– See *Returns and Material of the Ministry of
Finance*, 1866, No. 4, p. 406; 1867, No. 6
p. 384.—*Statistical Chronicle*, Series II,
Vol. 6.—Cf. also the example quoted above (§ II) where the
*Yearbook* for 1866 includes the small handicraftsmen of the
Pavlovo district among the “factory owners.”—*Lenin*

^{[23]}
See examples in *Studies*, p. 269 and p. 284 (see present edition,
Vol. 4, “On the Question of Our Factory Statistics.”
–*Ed*.), where Mr. Karyshev’s error in ignoring this
circumstance is examined. The *Directory* for 1879, for instance,
includes the Kulebaki and Vyksa ironworks, or departments of them (pp. 356
and 374), which are omitted in the *Directory* for 1890.—*Lenin*

^{[24]}
And in addition 32,957 “small windmills,” not counted among
the “factories and works.”—*Lenin*

^{[25]}
See examples of such conclusions drawn by Mr. Karyshev in the above-quoted
article in the *Studies*. (See present edition, Vol. 4,
*op*. *cit*. –*Ed*.)—*Lenin*

^{[26]}
Large watermills are also in the nature of factories, of course, but we
have no data to enable us to single them out from among the small ones. In
the *Directory* for 1890 we saw listed 250 watermills each
employing 10 and more workers. They employed 6,378 workers.—*Lenin*

^{[27]}
*Military Statistical Abstract*, *Directories* and
*Collection*. According to the *List* for 1894-95, there are
1,192 steam-mills in European Russia. The statistics for steam-engines
gave the number of steam-mills in European Russia in 1875-1878 as 294.—*Lenin*

^{[28]}
Oil-pressing, starch, treacle, malt, confectionery, preserves and vinegar.—*Lenin*

^{[29]}
*Russkoye Bogatstvo*, 1894, No. 6, pp. 104-105.—*Lenin*

^{[30]}
*The Ministry of Finance Yearbook*, I, pp. 76 and 82. The total
number of distilleries (including those not in operation) was 4,737 and
4,646 respectively.—*Lenin*

^{[31]}
*Yearbook*, I, p. 104.—*Lenin*

^{[32]}
E.g., in Simbirsk Gubernia, the *Military Statistical Abstract*
computes 218 distilleries (!) with 299 workers and an output totalling
21,600 rubles. (According to the *Yearbook* there were 7
distilleries in the gubernia.) Very likely, these were small domestic or
peasant establishments.—*Lenin*

^{[33]}
*The Ministry of Finance Yearbook*, p. 61. Cf. *Survey of
Manufactory Industry* (Vol. II St. Petersburg, 1863), which gives
detailed information for 1861: 534 factories, with 6,937 workers; and in
Bessarabia Gubernia, 31 factories, with 73 workers. The number of tobacco
factories fluctuates greatly from year to year.—*Lenin*

^{[34]}
If we take the gross figures for all trades and for long periods, the
exaggeration resulting from the cause mentioned will not be great, for the
small establishments account for a small percentage of the total number of
workers and the total output. It goes without saying that one presumes a
comparison of figures taken from similar sources (there can be no question
of comparing the returns of the Ministry of Finance with those of
gubernatorial reports, or of the *Military Statistical Abstract *).—*Lenin*

^{[35]}
The “*landlord establishment of a manorial-possessional character
*” was a feudal manorial manufactory belonging to a landlord and
employing his serf-peasants. By a decree of Peter I issued in 1721,
merchant factory owners were permitted to purchase peasants for work in
their factories. The feudal workers attached to such enterprises were
called “possessional peasants.” [p. 470]

| |

| | | | | |