“... To argue ... that dogmatic Marxism has been jolted from its positions in the sphere of agrarian questions would be like forcing an open door... ." So spoke Russkoye Bogatstvo last year through the mouth of Victor Chernov (1900, No. 8, p. 204). What a peculiar quality this “dogmatic Marxism” possesses! For many years now scientists and very learned people in Europe have been gravely declaring (and newspaper scribes and journalists have been repeating it over and over again) that Marxism has been jolted from its positions by “criticism”, and yet every new critic starts from the beginning, all over again, to bombard these allegedly destroyed positions. Mr. Chernov, for example, in the periodical Russkoye Bogatstvo, as well as in the collec tion, At the Clorious Post, in a two-hundred-and-forty-page-long “discussion” of Hertz’ work with his reader, “forces an open door”. Hertz’ work, which has been given such a lengthy exposition, is itself a review of Kautsky’s book, and has been translated into Russian. Mr. Bulgakov, in keeping with his promise to refute this very same Kautsky, has published a whole two-volume study. Now, surely, no one will ever be able to find the remnants of “dogmatic Marxism”, which lies crushed to death beneath this mountain of critical printed matter.
Let us first of all examine the general theoretical physiognomy of the Critics. Mr. Bulgakov published an article in the periodical Nachalo criticising Kautsky’s Agrarian Question in which he at once exposed his stock of “critical” methods. He charged down on Kautsky with the dash and abandon of a veritable cavalier and “scattered” him to the winds. He put into Kautsky’s mouth what he had not said, he accused him of ignoring the very circumstances and arguments which he, Kautsky, had expounded with precision, and he presented to the reader as his own the critical conclusions drawn by Kautsky. With the air of an expert, Mr. Bulgakov accused Kautsky of confounding technology with economics, and in doing so betrayed, not only incredible confusion, but also a disinclination to .read to the end the page he quotes from his opponent’s book. Needless to say, this article from the pen of the future professor is replete with outworn gibes against socialists, against the “theory of collapse”, against utopianism, against belief in miracles, etc. Now, in his doctoral thesis (Capitalism and Agriculture, St. Petersburg, 1900), Mr. Bulgakov settled all his accounts with Marxism and brought his “critical” evolution to its logical conclusion.
Mr. Bulgakov makes the “law of diminishing returns” the corner-stone of his “theory of agrarian development”. We are treated to quotations from the works of the classics who established this “law” (according to which each additional investment of labour and capital in land produces, not a corresponding, but a diminishing quantity of products). We are given a list & the English economists who recognise this law. We are assured that it “has universal significance”, that it is “an evident and absolutely undeniable truth”, “which needs only to be stated clearly”, etc., etc. The more emphatically Mr. Bulgakov expresses himself, the clearer it becomes that he is retreating to bourgeois political economy, which obscures social relationships by imaginary “eternal laws”. Indeed, what does the “evidentness” of the notorious “law of diminishing returns” amount to? If each successive investment of labour and capital in land produced, not a diminishing, but an equal quantity of products, there would be no sense in extending the area of land under cultivation; additional quantities of grain, would be produced on the same plot of land, however small, and “it would be possible to carry on the agriculture of the whole globe upon one dessiatine of land”. This is the customary (and the only) argument advanced in favour of this “universal” law. A little thought, however, will prove to anyone that this argument is an empty abstraction, which ignores the most important thing—the level of technological development, the state of the productive forces. Indeed, the very term “additional (or successive) investments of labour and capital” presupposes changes in the methods of production, reforms in technique. In order to increase the quantity of capital invested in land to any considerable degree, new machinery must be invented, and there must be new methods of land cultivation, stock breeding, transport of products, and so on and so forth. Of course, “additional investments of labour and capital” may and do take place on a relatively small scale even when the technique of production has remained at the same level. In such cases, the “law of diminishing returns” is applicable to a certain degree, i.e., in the sense that the unchanged technique of production imposes relatively very narrow limits upon the investment of additional labour and capital. Consequently, instead of a universal law, we have an extremely relative “law”—so relative, indeed, that it cannot be called a “law”, or even a cardinal specific feature of agriculture. Let us take for granted: the three-field system, cultivation of traditional grain crops, maintenance of cattle to obtain manure, lack of improved grassland and improved implements. Obviously, assuming that these conditions remain unchanged, the possibilities of investing additional labour and capital in the land are extremely limited. But even within the narrow limits in which some investment of additional labour and capital is still possible, a decrease in the productivity of each such additional investment will not always and not necessarily be observed. Let us take industry—flour-milling or ironworking, for example, in the period preceding world trade and the invention of the steam-engine. At that level of technical development, the limits to which additional labour and capital could be invested in a blacksmith’s forge, or in a wind- or water-mill, were very restricted; the inevitable thing that happened was that small smithies and flour- mills continued to multiply and increase in number until the radical changes in the methods of production created a basis for new forms of industry.
Thus, the “law of diminishing returns” does not at all apply to cases in which technology is progressing and methods of production are changing; it has only an extremely relative and restricted application to conditions in which technology remains unchanged. That is why neither Marx nor the Marxists speak of this “law”, and only representatives of bourgeois science like Brentano make so much noise about it, since they are unable to abandon the prejudices of the old political economy, with its abstract, eternal, and natural laws.
Mr. Bulgakov defends the “universal law” by arguments deserving only of ridicule.
“What was formerly a free gift of Nature must now be produced by man: the wind and the rain broke up the soil, which was full of nutritive elements, and only a little effort on the part of man was required to produce what was needed. In the course of time, a larger and larger share of the productive work fell to man. As is the case everywhere, artificial processes more and more take the place of natural processes. But while in industry this expresses man’s victory over Nature, in agriculture it indicates the increasing difficulties of an existence for which Nature is diminishing her gifts.
“In the present case it is immaterial whether the increasing difficulty of producing food is expressed in an increase in human labour or in an increase of its products, such as instruments of production, fertilisers [Mr. Bulgakov wishes to say that it is immaterial whether the increasing difficulty of producing food finds expression in an increased expenditure of human labour or in an increase in the products of human labour]; what is important is that food becomes more and more costly to man. This substitution of human labour for the forces of Nature and of artificial factors of production for natural factors is the law of diminishing returns” (16).
Evidently, Mr. Bulgakov is envious of the laurels of Messrs. Struve and Tugan-Baranovsky, who arrived at the conclusion that it is not man who works with the help of machines, but machines that work with the help of man. And like those critics, he sinks to the level of vulgar political economy by talking about the forces of Nature being superseded by human labour, and so forth. Speaking generally, it is as impossible for human labour to supersede the forces of Nature as it is to substitute pounds for yards. Both in industry and in agriculture., man can only utilise the forces of Nature when he has learned how they operate, and he can facilitate this utilisation by means of machinery, tools, etc. That primitive man obtained all he required as a free gift of Nature is a silly fable for which Mr. Bulgakov would be howled down even by first-term students. Our age was not preceded by a Golden Age; and primitive man was absolutely crushed by the burden of existence, by the difficulties of the struggle against Nature. The introduction of machinery and of improved methods of production immeasurably eased man’s struggle against Nature generally, and the production of food in particular. It has not become more difficult to produce food; it has become more difficult for the workers to obtain it because capitalist development has inflated ground-rent and the price of land, has concentrated agriculture in the hands of large and small capitalists, and, to a still larger extent, has concentrated machinery, implements, and money, without which successful production is impossible. To explain the aggravation of the workers’ condition by the argument that Nature is reducing her gifts can mean only that one has become a bourgeois apologist.
“In accepting this law,” continues Mr. Bulgakov, “we do not in the least assert that there is a continuously increasing difficulty in food production; nor do we deny progress in agriculture. To assert the first, and to deny the second, would be contrary to obvious facts. This difficulty does not grow uninterruptedly, of course; development proceeds in zigzag fashion. Discoveries in agronomics and technical improvements convert barren into fertile land and temporarily remove the tendency indicated by the law of diminishing returns” (ibid.).
Profound, is it not?
Technical progress is a “temporary” tendency, while the law of diminishing returns, i.e., diminishing productivity (and that not always) of additional investments of capital on the basis of an unchanging technique, “has universal significance”! This is equal to saying that the stopping of trains at stations represents the universal law of steam transport, while the motion of trains between stations is a temporary tendency paralysing the operation of the universal law of immobility.
Finally, extensive data clearly refute the universality of the law of diminishing returns—data on the agricultural as well as the non-agricultural population. Mr. Bulgakov himself admits that “if each country were restricted to its own natural resources, the procuring of food would call for an uninterrupted relative increase [note this!] in the quantity of labour and, consequently, in the agricultural population” (19). The diminution in the agricultural population of Western Europe, accordingly, is explained by the fact that the operation of the law of diminishing returns has been counteracted by the importation of grain.
An excellent explanation, indeed! Our pundit has forgotten a detail, namely, that a relative diminution in the agricultural population is common to all capitalist countries, both agricultural and grain-importing. The agricultural population is relatively diminishing in America and in Russia. It has been diminishing in France since the end of the eighteenth century (see figures in the same work of Mr. Bulgakov, II, p. 168). Moreover, the relative diminution of the agricultural population sometimes becomes an absolute diminution, whereas the excess of grain imports over exports was still quite insignificant in the thirties and forties, and only after 1878 do we cease to find years in which grain exports exceed grain imports. In Prussia there was a relative diminution in the agricultural population from 73.5 per cent in 1816 to 71.7 per cent in 1849, and to 67.5 per cent in 1871, whereas the importation of rye began only in the early sixties, and the importation of wheat in the early seventies (ibid., Part II, pp. 70 and 88). Finally, if we take the European grain-importing countries, e.g., France and Germany during the last decade, we shall find that there has been undoubted progress in agriculture side by side with an absolute diminution in the number of workers engaged in farming. In France this number dropped from 6,913,504 in 1882 to 6,663,135 in 1892 (Statistique agricole, Part II, pp. 248.51), and in Germany from 8,064,000 in 1882 to 8,045,000 in 1895. Thus, it may be said that the entire history of the nineteenth century, by a multitude of data on countries of the most varied character, proves irrefutably that the “universal” law of diminishing returns is absolutely paralysed by the “temporary” tendency of technological advance which enables a relatively (and sometimes absolutely) diminishing rural population to produce an increasing quantity of agricultural products for an increasing mass of population.
Incidentally, this mass of statistical data also refutes the two following main points of Mr. Bulgakov’s “theory”: first, his assertion that the theory that constant capital (implements and materials of production) grows more rapidly than variable capital (labour-power) “is absolutely inapplicable to agriculture”. With an air of importance Mr. Bulgakov declares that this theory is wrong, and in proof of his opinion refers to: (a) “Professor A. Skvortsov” (celebrated mostly for having ascribed Marx’s theory of the average rate of profit to ill-intentioned propaganda); and (b) the fact that under intensive farming the number of workers employed per unit of land increases. This is an example of the deliberate refusal to understand Marx which fashionable Critics constantly display. Think of it: the theory of the more rapid growth of constant capital as compared with variable capital is refuted by the increase of variable capital per unit of land! And Mr. Bulgakov fails to notice that the very statistics he himself offers in such abundance confirm Marx’s theory. In German agriculture as a whole the number of workers employed diminished from 8,064,000 in 1882 to 8,045,000 in 1895 (and if the number of persons engaged in agriculture as a subsidiary occupation is added, it in creased from 11,208,000 to 11,623,000, i.e., only by 3.7 per cent). In the same period, livestock increased from 23,000,000 to 25,400,000 (all livestock expressed in terms of cattle), i.e., by more than 10 per cent; the number of cases in which the five most important agricultural machines were employed increased from 458,000 to 922,000, i.e., more than doubled; the quantity of fertilisers imported increased from 636,000 tons (1883) to 1,961,000 tons (1892), and the quantity of potassium salts from 304,000 double centners to 2,400,000. Is it not clear from this that constant capital has increased in relation to variable capital? This, quite apart from the fact that these summary figures to a great extent conceal the progress of large-scale production. We shall deal with this point later.
Secondly, the progress of agriculture simultaneously with a diminution, or a negligible absolute increase, in the agricultural population completely refutes Mr. Bulgakov’s absurd attempt to revive Malthusianism. The first of the Russian “ex-Marxists” to make this attempt was probably Mr. Struve, in his Critical Remarks; but he, as always, never went beyond hesitant, half-expressed, and ambiguous remarks, which he did not carry to their logical conclusion or round off into a complete system of views. Mr. Bulgakov, however, is bolder and more consistent; he unhesitatingly converts the “law of diminishing returns” into “one of the most important laws of the history of civilisation” (sic! p. 18). “The entire history of the nineteenth century ... with its problems of riches and poverty would be unintelligible without this law.” “I have not the least doubt that the social question as it is posed today is materially linked with this law.” (Our strict scientist hastens to make this declaration on page 18 of his “Inquiry”!)... “There is no doubt,” he declares at the end of his work, “that where over-population exists, a certain part of the poverty that prevails must be put under the heading of absolute poverty, the poverty of production and not of distribution” (II, 221). “The population problem, in the special form in which it presents itself to us as a result of the conditions of agricultural production, is, in my opinion, the principal obstacle—at the present time at any rate—in the way of any extensive application of the principles of collectivism or co-operation in agricultural enterprise” (II, 265). “The past leaves to the future a heritage in the shape of a grain problem more terrible and more difficult than the social problem—the problem of production and not of distribution” (II, 455), and so on and so forth. There is no need for us to discuss the scientific significance of this “theory”, which is inseparably connected with the universal law of diminishing returns, since we have already examined this law. The fact that critical flirtation with Malthusianism in its logical development has inevitably resulted in a descent to the most vulgar bourgeois apologetics is proved by the above-quoted arguments, which Mr. Bulgakov has presented with a frankness that leaves nothing to be desired.
In a further essay we shall examine data from several new sources cited by our Critics (who constantly din into our ears that orthodox Marxists fear specification) and show that Mr. Bulgakov generally stereotypes the word “over population”, the use of which relieves him of the necessity of making any kind of analysis, particularly of analysing the class antagonisms among the “peasantry”. Here we shall confine ourselves to the general theoretical aspect of the agrarian question and touch on the theory of rent. “As for Marx,” writes Mr. Bulgakov, “we must say that in Volume III of Capital, in the form in which we have it now, he adds nothing worthy of attention to Ricardo’s theory of differential rent” (87). Let us bear this “nothing worthy of attention” in mind and compare the Critic’s verdict with the following statement made by him previously: “Notwithstanding his obvious opposition to this law [the law of diminishing returns I, Marx appropriates, in its fundamental principles, Ricardo’s theory of rent, which is based on this law” (13). Thus, according to Mr. Bulgakov, Marx failed to see the connection between Ricardo’s theory of rent and the law of diminishing returns, and therefore he never carried his argument to its logical conclusion! In regard to such a statement we can say but one thing—that no one distorts Marx to the degree that the ex-Marxists do and no one is so incredibly un... un... unabashed in ascribing to the writer he is criticising a thousand and one mortal sins.
Mr. Bulgakov’s assertion is a glaring distortion of the truth. Actually, Marx not only saw the connection between Ricardo’s theory of rent and his erroneous doctrine of diminishing returns, but quite definitely exposed Ricardo’s error. Anyone who has read Volume III of Capital with even a grain of “attention” could not but have observed the fact, very much “worthy of attention”, that it was precisely Marx who freed the theory of differential rent from all connection with the notorious “law of diminishing returns Marx demonstrated that the unequal productivity of different investments of capital in land was all that was necessary for the formation of differential rent. The question as to whether the transition is from better land to worse land or vice versa, as to whether the productivity of the additional investments of capital in land diminishes or increases, is absolutely immaterial. In actual practice, all sorts of combinations of these varying cases take place; and it is utterly impossible to subject these combinations to a single general rule. For example, Marx first of all describes the first form of differential rent, which arises from the unequal productivity of capital invested in unequal plots of land, and he explains his case by tables (concerning which Mr. Bulgakov severely rebukes Marx for his “excessive predilection for clothing what are often very simple thoughts in a complicated mathematical garb”. This complicated mathematical garb is simply the four rules of arithmetic, and the very simple ideas, as we see, were completely misunderstood by our learned professor). After analysing these tables, Marx draws the conclusion: “This takes care of the first false assumption regarding differential rent—still found among West, Malthus, and Ricardo—namely, that it necessarily presupposes a movement toward worse and worse soil, or an ever-decreasing fertility of the soil. It can be formed, as we have seen, with a movement toward better and better soil; it can be formed when a better soil takes the lowest position that was formerly occupied by the worst soil; it can be connected with a progressive improvement in agriculture. The precondition is merely the in equality of different kinds of soil ." (Marx does not speak here of the unequal productivity of successive investments of capital in land, because this gives rise to the second form of differential rent; in this chapter he speaks only of the first form of differential rent.) “So far as the increase in productivity is concerned, it [differential rent—Ed. I assumes that the increase in absolute fertility of the total area does not eliminate this inequality, but either increases it, leaves it unchanged, or merely reduces it” (Das Kapital, III, 2, S. 199). Mr. Bulgakov failed to see the radical difference between Marx’s theory of differential rent and Ricardo’s theory of rent. He preferred to rummage in Volume III of Capital for “a fragment which would rather suggest the idea that Marx was by no means opposed to the law of diminishing returns” (p. 1.3, footnote). We apologise to the reader for having to devote so much space to a passage that is quite immaterial to the question that concerns us and Mr. Bulgakov. But what can one do when the heroes of modern criticism (who have the insolence to charge orthodox Marxists with resorting to rabulous disputation) distort the absolutely clear meaning of a doctrine to which they are opposed by quoting passages out of context and in faulty translations? Mr. Bulgakov quotes the passage that he found as follows: “From the standpoint of the capitalist mode of production, a relative increase in the price of (agricultural) products always takes place, since [we ask the reader to pay particular attention to the words we have italicised I these products cannot be secured unless an expenditure is incurred, a payment made, which was not previously made.” Marx goes on to say that elements of Nature entering as agents into production, costing nothing, represent a free gift of Nature’s productive power of labour; but if for the production of an additional product it is necessary to work without the help of this natural power, a new capital outlay is required, which leads to an increase in the cost of production.
Concerning this mode of “quoting” we have three remarks to make. First, Mr. Bulgakov himself introduced the word “since”, which gives his tirade the definite sense of establishing some kind of “law”. In the original (Das Kapital, III, 2, S. 277-78) Marx does not say “since” but “when”. When something is paid for which formerly did not have to be paid for, there is a relative increase in the price of the product. Is that proposition anything like a recognition of the “law” of diminishing returns? Secondly, Mr. Bulgakov inserts in parentheses the word “agricultural”. In the original text the word does not appear at all. In all probability, with the frivolousness characteristic of the Critics, Mr. Bulgakov decided that in this passage Marx could be speaking only of agricultural products, and therefore hastened to give his readers an “explanation” that is a complete misrepresentation. In point of fact, Marx in this passage speaks of products generally; in the original, the passage quoted by Mr. Bulgakov is preseded by the words: “But, in general, the following is to be noted.” Freely bestowed natural forces may also enter into industrial production—in the same section on rent Marx gives the example of a waterfall which for a certain factory takes the place of steam power—and if it is necessary to manufacture an additional quantity of products without the aid of these freely bestowed natural forces, there will always be a relative increase in the price of the products. Thirdly, we must examine the context in which this passage occurs Marx discusses in this chapter differential rent obtained from the worst cultivated soil, and he examines as always two absolutely equivalent, two absolutely equally possible cases: the first case—increasing productivity of successive investments of capital (S. 274-76), and the second case—decreasing productivity of such investments (S. 276-78). In regard to the second of the possible cases, Marx says: “Concerning decreasing productiveness of the soil with successive investments of capital, see Liebig.... But, in general, the following is to be noted” (our italics). There follows the passage “translated” by Mr. Bulgakov, stating that when what was formerly obtained gratis has now to be paid for, there is always a relative increase in the price of the product.
We shall leave it to the reader to judge the scientific conscientiousness of the Critic who turned Marx’s remark about one of the possible cases into a recognition of this case by Marx as some sort of general “law”.
And the following is the conclusion at which Mr. Bulgakov arrives concerning the passage he has discovered:
“This passage, of course, is vague....” Of course! By substituting one word for another, Mr. Bulgakov has rendered it utterly meaningless! "... but it cannot be understood otherwise than as an indirect or even direct recognition [listen well! I of the law of diminishing returns. I am unaware that Marx has expressed himself openly on the latter in any other place” (I, 14). As an ex-Marxist, Mr. Bulgakov is “unaware” that Marx openly declared the assumptions of West, Malthus, and Ricardo—that differential rent presupposes a transition to worse land or diminishing returns—to be utterly false. He is “unaware” that in the course of his voluminous analysis of rent Marx points out scores of times that he regards diminishing and increasing productivity of additional investments of capital as equally possible cases!
 See present volume, footnote to p. 130—Tr.
 I replied immediately to Mr. Bulgakov’s article in Nachalo by an article entitled “Capitalism in Agriculture”. Following the suppression of Nachalo, my article was published in Zhizn, 1900, Nos. 1 and 2. (Author’s note to the 1908 edition.—Ed.) (See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105-59.—Ed.) —Lenin
 Statistique agricole de La France. Enquête de 1892, Paris, 1897, p. 113. (Agricultural Statistics of France. Survey of 1892.—Ed.) —Lenin
 Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Neue Folge, Bd. 112: Die Land wirtschaft im Deutschen Reich (Statistics of the German Empire, New Series, Vol. 112: Agriculture in the German Empire—Ed.), Berlin, 1898, S. 6 *. This evidence of technological advance accompanied by a diminution in the agricultural population is of course not at all pleasing 1.0 Mr. Bulgakov, for it utterly destroys his Malthusianism. Our “strict scientist”, therefore, resorts to the following trick: instead of taking agriculture in the strict sense of the term (land cultivation, livestock breeding, etc.), he (after adducing statistics on the increase in the quantity of agricultural produce obtained per hectare!) takes “agriculture in the broad sense”, in which German statistics include hothouse cultivation, market gardening, and forestry and fishing! In this way, we get an increase in the’ sum-total of per sons actually engaged in “agriculture”!! (Bulgakov, II, p. 133.) The figures quoted above apply to persons for whom agriculture is the principal occupation. The number of persons engaged in agriculture as a subsidiary occupation increased from 3,144,000 to 3,578,000. To add these to the previous figures is not entirely correct; but even if we do this, the increase is very small: from 11,208,000 to 11,623,000. —Lenin
 Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Bd. 112, S. 36 * ; Bulgakov, II, 135. —Lenin
 This false assumption of classical political economy, refuted by Marx, was adopted by the “Critic” Mr. Bulgakov, following on the heels of his teacher, Brentano, uncritically, of course. “The condition for the appearance of rent,” Mr. Bulgakov writes, “is the law of diminishing returns” (I, 90). "...English rent ... as a matter of fact distinguishes successive investments of capital of varying and, as a rule, diminishing productivity” (I, 130). —Lenin
 Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth)—a monthly magazine published in St. Petersburg from 1876 to the middle of 1918. In the early 1890s it became an organ of the liberal Narodniks and was edited by S. N. Krivenko and N. K. Mikhailovsky. It preached conciliation with the tsarist government and abandonment of all revolutionary struggle against it. The magazine was bitterly hostile to Marxism and the Russian Marxists.
 Nachalo (The Beginning)—a literary, scientific, and political monthly published by the “legal Marxists”; it appeared in St. Peters burg in the first half of 1899, with P. B. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky among its editors. Besides the “legal Marxists”, the contributors included G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Zasulich. The tsarist government suppressed the journal in June 1899.
Lenin published in Nachalo several reviews (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 65-73 and pp. 94-103) and part of the third chapter of his Development of Capitalism in Russia, entitled “The Landowners’ Transition from Corvée to Capitalist Economy” (see present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 191-219).
Lenin refers to Bulgakov’s article “A Contribution to the Question of the Capitalist Evolution of Agriculture”, published in Nos. 1-2 and 3 of the journal for January-February and March 1899.
 Zhizn (Life)—a monthly magazine published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901; in 1902 it was published abroad. Beginning with 1899 the magazine was an organ of the “legal Marxists”.
In the December 1899 issue (No. 12) Lenin published “Reply to Mr. P. Nezhdanov” and in the issues of January and February 1900 (Nos. I and 2), two articles under the heading “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article)” (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 160-65 and pp. 105-59).
 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 644.
 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 728.
 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 724-27.
 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 727-28.