Ivan Pososhkov

Pososhkov Ivan Tikhonovich (1652–1726) - Russian thinker and economist. He came from a family of hereditary silversmiths in the palace village of Pokrovskoye. He learned to read on his own, and at one time was close to the schismatics. He became a merchant, and towards the end of his life acquired an estate. The author of numerous projects, of which the most famous treatise intended for Peter the Great is “The Book of Poverty and Wealth” (1724) - an extensive project of reforms aimed at improving the economic and political structure of Russia. Here, for the first time, an interpretation is given of the so-called “immaterial wealth” - the righteous laws of love, spirituality, literacy, etc. One of the first Russian researchers of peasant farming; invited Tsar Peter to take farmers under his protection. In August 1725 he was arrested and ended his life in prison under the Secret Investigation Office of the Chancellery. This writer, if you can call that a peasant who lived in his village and devoted his leisure time to composing various works, is one of the examples of a Russian self-taught person who, with the power of his Mind and talent, makes his way despite all life circumstances, despite the fact that he has not received any education. Professor Pogodin, who published Pososhkov’s work, 1 made the following saying of Pososhkov himself as an epigraph, as characterizing this nugget: “Many Germans are smarter than us in science, and ours, by the grace of God, are no worse than them in wit, and they scold us in vain.” It must really be said that Pososhkov’s works are interesting not only as our first economic works, but are not inferior to the most outstanding works of European mercantilism. Peasant Ivan Pososhkov was born around 1670 and lived in the village of Pokrovskoye, Novgorod province. In 1700 he submitted a project for financial reform, and in 1701 he wrote a note to boyar Golovin about military conduct. In 1710, Pososhkov wrote the essay “Fatherly Testamentary Instruction” to his son, who, among other young people, was sent abroad by Peter the Great. This testament is at the same time a moral teaching, which contains a wide variety of both religious and practical instructions regarding his life. His next essay, already on issues of an ecclesiastical nature, was submitted to Stefan Yavorsky, 2 Ryazan bishop, later metropolitan. Finally, in the 1920s, around 1724, he wrote an essay that remains outstanding to this day, under the title: “The Book of Poverty and Wealth, this is an explanation of what causes poverty and why rich (abundant) wealth multiplies.” This work was written by him to submit to Emperor Peter, but a few months after the completion of the work, Peter died, and the fragmentary data that we have regarding Pososhkov does not make it possible to trace the further fate of the work, which, under Peter’s successors, led Pososhkov to the Peter and Paul Fortress, where the year 1725 finds him. In 1726 he died and was buried in St. Petersburg. The exact reasons for his imprisonment in the Peter and Paul Fortress are unknown, but one can think that this essay was the reason. The work itself was lost and unknown until the 19th century, and only in the 19th century did Prof. Pogodin was lucky enough to open it and make it public property. The work is of great interest not only for the development of economic thought, but also for Russian history, because the observational mind, wit and talent of this simple peasant touch on various aspects of the life of his time. This book, “On Scarcity and Wealth,” is in fact a treatise devoted not only to issues of economic life, but also touches on a number of issues of legal proceedings, police and church law, general cultural life - in a word, the book presents a bright and living picture of the life of the Russian people in the era of Peter the Great. In the introduction to his work, Pososhkov expresses his general concepts of what wealth is: “before, it’s not that royal wealth, even if there are a lot of treasuries lying in the royal treasury, below that royal wealth, even if the Synclite of the Tsar’s Majesty walks in gold-woven clothes, but that same royal wealth, if all the people, in their localities, were rich in their own domestic wealth, and not in external clothes or gimp decoration; for it is not we who get rich in the decoration of our clothes, but those states who get rich from which they bring those decorations to us, and they wear out our possessions with those decorations.” You hear a Russian peasant here repeating the reasoning of William Stafford. 3 “More than material wealth, we should all be concerned about immaterial wealth, that is, about true truth, about truth - Father God, and truth increases great wealth and glory, and delivers from death; about untruth, the father is the devil, and untruth not only makes one rich again, but also the ancient wealth becomes thinner, and leads to poverty, and brings death.” Having expressed this general judgment about wealth, he further sets out the main guiding idea of ​​his work. It must be said that, indeed, one cannot help but be surprised at the courage and dedication of this peasant, who writes a treatise and transfers it into the hands of Peter the Great, a treatise, although imbued with a sincere feeling of devotion to him, but, of course, containing such a sharp and merciless criticism of what was happening that, obviously, the thought of his own safety was far from the author. The fourth chapter of Pososhkov’s work contains a treatise on merchants, or trade. Here the actual mercantilistic nature of Pososhkov’s views is revealed, or at least those features of it that bring Pososhkov’s views closer to the views developing in Western European economic literature, and which are usually characterized as mercantilistic. First of all, this mercantilist worldview gives trade an absolutely exceptional importance. Pososhkov especially emphasizes and defends, even in polemical form, the importance of merchants and trade. It must not be forgotten that this defense dates back to a time when trading was not considered particularly honorable. “And the merchants,” he begins this chapter, “there is no need to reduce them to insignificance, since without merchants no kingdom, not only a great one, but also a small one, cannot stand... There is no rank in the world that would not require a merchant.” After this general defense of the merchants, he turns to an analysis of the shortcomings in the organization of contemporary trade that he observes, and first of all points out that the merchants are not a closed class, and that access to trade is open to anyone. As a result, excessive competition makes it difficult for those who are called to do so to organize trade correctly. Concern for trade was an essential part of mercantilistic policy. Further, Pososhkov vehemently dwells on the fact that there are too many deceptions in trade and that the quality of goods is not at all guaranteed: “and this ancient custom of the merchant people is wrong, and they also commit lies to each other, because they deceive each other. Goods, whether foreigners or Russians, appear to be good on the outside, but are placed or made poorly on the inside, and some goods, even the worst ones, but painted over as good, are sold for good, and they charge an unjust price, and by deceiving unskilled people they are taken away by the greats; And they weigh in scales, and they measure in measures, but they cheat in prices, and they do not supply untruth and sin, and from such an unjust order great dirty tricks are done to ignorant people. And those who deceive, take care of their untruth, and they themselves all disappear and come to greater misery; and so they all die out. And yet, among the merchants, the most Christian truth was that they would sell good goods for good, and average ones for average ones, and bad ones for bad ones, and they took the right price for the goods, the direct real one, why which goods are given a price.” ...As is known, in Western Europe, for example, in England, strict laws were established on the quality of goods: their measure, width and length, their dignity - all this was provided for by workshop regulations, and then by government regulations. The lack of one in our country forces our mercantilist to express his desire for it. In order for this task to be accomplished, he develops a very peculiar and curious plan of trade, in which a special official plays the main role. “And for the sake of the unmovable truth among the merchants, it is necessary to arrange sotskys and fiftieths and tens in all the ranks, and in which shop the sotsky sits, then above the shop doors there is nailed a board, surrounded, covered with whitewash, so that it would be noble to everyone, and on such a board write also: sotsky; also above the fiftieth and tenth shop, so that the buyers, having bought such goods, would know where to show that goods, whether they weighed or measured them directly, and whether the goods were good or bad, and whether they took the real price. And if he took a price that was not in excess of the actual price, then for every excess kopeck, fine him a hryvnia or two and flog him with batogs or whips, so that he does not do this in the future, and if he does the same thing another time, then add a fine to the fine, and inflict the punishment with a special one.” Thus, these are the same mercantilistic ideas of supervision over trade, which, according to the historical situation, are refracted in a unique way by our thinker. Then the next question on which he dwells is that, thanks to the organization of foreign trade and the unlimited competition, strong prices are not established for foreign goods. And in order to eliminate this evil, he proposes a unique organization of trade, something like the trade syndicates that currently exist, something like rationing in order to maintain a certain level of value. “And with the will of their commander and with the consent of the merchants, having set the price for their goods, they would release Russian goods overseas and other borders, both rich and poor, with the will of their commander with the general consent of the company, so that no one would be offended. And when a foreigner bargains for a Russian product, whether it is a large number or a small one, then all Russian people, both rich and poor, share their goods according to the number of their goods, so that there is no offense to either the rich or the poor.” Further, he foresees the case that foreigners, in response to such a strike of Russian merchants, will also respond to this syndicate with a syndicate and will not take the goods. He proposes to respond to this by increasing prices: “and if double chains for our goods are not stolen and given to us, then their goods will be in front of us; With the blessing of God we can live without their goods. In general, I remember: although they are cunning in the merchant class and in other civil matters, and if they find out our merchants’ firm position on raising the price, they will not allow it to double the price: they will bargain all the time, seeing our firm constancy, in every possible way their former stubbornness and all their pride will be reluctantly put aside: need drives them to a filthy puddle. For us, although they will not bring their goods to us at all, I think we can live without their goods; and they cannot live without our goods for 10 years. And for this reason, it is appropriate for us to dominate over them, and for them to be slaves to us, and to maintain order in everything before us, and not pride. This is a strange thing, that when they come to us with their trinkets, they set a low price for our material goods, but they set a double price for theirs, and higher prices for other goods / war prices.” He wants to curb foreigners not only regarding prices, but also regarding the value of money; he complains that foreigners exchange our money not at the nominal rate, but at its real value. In essence, this is the same idea, only naively expressed, that underlay English politics, the institution of royal money changers and the royal mint: the task of this institution was to exchange full-fledged foreign money for English at its nominal value. Pososhkov would dream of establishing the same procedure for foreign merchants trading in Russia, so that they could be given our depreciated money at its nominal value. Further, he recommends that the very reception of foreign goods be subject to greater strictness in terms of their quality. “And if the foreigners imposed an excess price on that choice product beyond the real price, then they would not take anything from them with the imposition of their surplus price, but would take it at the real price that was established before that taking. And if they become stubborn and don’t want to give those goods at the real price, then refuse them: let them take all their goods back, but not accept even a small amount of bad and obscene goods even at half price, so that they don’t call us fools, and they don’t mock us for our goods.” Therefore, this syndicate agreement should cover the organization of both foreign and domestic trade. At the same time, he warns our compatriots against being carried away by foreign goods, especially luxury goods, various foreign wines and various clothes. Just as in England there was a law against luxury, and a law that determined who had the right to dress up in what costume, and Pososhkov recommends the establishment of compulsory costumes for all classes and ranks, so that if at present Russia represents such a variety of forms established by law, Pososhkov's project goes much further in this direction. He dreams of dressing all of Russia in suits or uniforms established by law: “I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to arrange for every rank to have its own definition: the townspeople, all the merchants, wore their own dress; so that it is neither military nor ordered according to us. And now no one can tell by their dress who is of what rank, a townsman or a clerk, a nobleman or a slave; and it is not possible to recognize not only military people, but also courtiers.” He goes on to describe in detail what costumes each class should wear. These are, in fact, his most striking and valuable ideas on the issue of trade. The next chapter of his work is called: “On art,” that is, on crafts, on the organization of crafts, and therefore the manufacturing industry. Here Pososhkov, quite rightly, from the point of view of the historical moment of the organization of craft labor of that time, complains that we do not have strict workshop regulation of production, certified ability to engage in craft labor, to a certain extent protecting the production and competition of goods of poor quality. His main idea here is the desirability of establishing a guild system of handicraft industry in our country. “In artists,” he says, “if there is no good overseer and proper management for them, then it is impossible for them to become rich in any way, to receive good glory below themselves, but until the end of time they will live in poverty and ignominy. And if a civil decree had been made about them, and from the very beginning they would have learned to live constantly, having been given training by a master, to live until the appointed time, and not having lived not only a year, but even a week, not to leave, and not to take a letter of leave and not to leave the yard after the deadline, then all the masters would not have been in that idle order, but would have been absolutely good masters. And before there was such an order in them that, having given himself up to study for 5 years or 6 years, and having lived for a year or another, and having learned a little or a little, he will move away, and begin to do by himself, and he will lower the price and starve his master, but will not feed himself, and will waste his life - neither he is a master, nor he is a worker. And they say about foreigners that they have a civil decree about this that is so firm that if anyone, even if he doesn’t live up to the deadline for even a single day, goes away, then that person will never be a good person, and even if he lives to the deadline, and does not take a letter from his master, no one will accept him as a hireling, nor as an apprentice, no one will take him; and for this reason their craftsmen are kind and praiseworthy.” So, he believes that “according to foreign regulations, the one who invented it must possess that skill until his death, while others are not allowed to practice that skill until his death.” The rest of his comments on crafts concern issues of relatively secondary importance and not fundamental. The next, chapter 6, is devoted to the issue of robbers. This chapter, firstly, testifies to how bad things were with public safety, how widespread robbery was in our country, and, secondly, it characterizes the criminal worldview of the best people of that time, the most enlightened, among whom Pososhkov belongs. According to this worldview, only the largest and most drastic measures should be used to combat these bandits. “In all Christian and Basurman states there are no robberies like we have in Rus', and this is because there is no small incentive for them there: they don’t keep them in prisons for a long time; when someone is caught, then a decree will be issued to him; and for this reason they don’t dare there and steal a lot. But with us, having caught a thief or robber, they cannot part with him: they will put him in prison and feed him as if he were a good person, and keep him in prison for 10 or 20 years, and after such a long prison term many of them leave, and once they leave, they will steal even more than before.” Pososhkov himself here speaks out for the most stringent measures and for the use of an immediate death penalty for any robbery or murder. The next chapter is devoted to the question of the peasantry. Here he touches on a number of sick aspects and the situation of the modern peasantry: “peasant life is meager from nothing else, only from their own laziness, and then from the lack of consideration of the rulers, and from the landowners’ efforts, and from their neglect.” He cares about raising the productivity and energy of peasant labor, and for the longest time he has been concerned that, due to the conditions of Russian agriculture, due to climate conditions, for a significant part of the year, winter time, the peasants remain without work, are lazy and, as a result of this laziness, go bankrupt. He concerns not only these aspects of peasant life, but also their special situation, the attitude of the landowners towards them, and says many bitter truths addressed to the landowners, urging them to treat their peasants more wisely, subordinating the point of view of private law to the point of view of the state: “and this is not very right to see, even though the landowners impose burdens on their peasants that are inconvenient to bear; for there are such inhuman nobles that during working hours they do not give their peasants a single day to work for themselves. And because of their system, a peasant can never get rich from such a landowner, and many nobles tell the peasant, “Don’t let him grow rich, but shorn him, like a sheep, naked.” And so to speak, they devastate the kingdom: they rob them so much that they don’t even leave someone’s goats.” “The landowners,” he objects to this, “are not centuries-old owners; For this reason, they do not take great care of them, but their direct Owner is the All-Russian Autocrat, and they own temporarily.” He cites this idea more than once in other places, wanting to say that the peasants and their well-being are a matter of national importance, and not just the interest of the landowners. We must not forget that serfdom in Russia at that time was a phenomenon, if “new,” then, in any case, of relatively recent origin. As explained by Prof. Klyuchevsky in the third edition of his history, serfdom hardens after the Time of Troubles, as a result of and in connection with those social processes that developed in the Time of Troubles before Peter the Great. Serfdom was, so to speak, a phenomenon of yesterday's historical Day. These views, which contrast the private landowner's point of view on peasants and peasant property with the state point of view - in essence, fundamentally undermining and limiting the rights of landowners over peasants - cannot but be considered very delusional, to a certain extent foreshadowing the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe liberation of the peasants back in the era of Peter the Great. “In my opinion,” he repeats in another place, “the tsar, more than the landowners, should take care of the peasantry; Since then, the landowners own them temporarily, but the Tsar has them for centuries, and the peasant wealth is royal, and the peasant poverty is royal impoverishment. And for the sake of this, the Tsar, like nobles and military men, should guard both the merchants and the peasantry, so that no one would fall into poverty, but everyone would be abundant according to their own measure.” Next chapter: “About nobles, peasants and land affairs.” He addresses the nobles, urging them to treat agriculture rationally. Finally, the last chapter - “On Royal Interest” - is devoted to the issue of financial affairs. Here he makes a number of intelligent remarks regarding the distribution of taxes and the method of receiving them in Russia and, by the way, pays special attention to the purity of the monetary system. Concern about money, about the damage to money, as is known, is generally characteristic of the mercantile movement due to the special importance attached to trade and monetary relations. This was an era when counterfeiting coins was not considered reprehensible, although coinage was considered the prerogative of the crown of a given country. Addressing the Russian sovereigns, Pososhkov says: “Since in Russia we have the purest Christian faith, without any heretical admixture, so Russian money also needs to be the purest, without any admixture, and should be excellent from all foreigners and praiseworthy from all, both in craftsmanship and in the purity of silver.” This essay is signed with the following words: “And now... I ask your mercy, so that my name may be hidden from powerful persons, and especially from those who do not love the truth; without leaving any letters for them. Above all, let the will of God and your high royal will be done in me. Amen. As if anyone wants to please God, he cannot serve mammon. It makes no difference, if anyone faithfully tries to serve the Tsar, then the whole world will hate to be. The most humble and meanest worker, but the all-zealous slave-wisher of truth, Ivan Pososhkov, having written three years of labor hidden from human sight, I offer to Your Royal Majesty, Amen.” I tried to introduce you in long excerpts to the wonderful work of our domestic economist and with these excerpts I tried to make you feel both the literary merits, the liveliness of the presentation, the brightness of the images, and the freshness of thought that is manifested in this work and makes it count among the most outstanding works of mercantilistic literature not only in Russia, where it is almost the only one, but also in world mercantilistic literature in general. It reflected quite clearly the most outstanding features of the mercantile doctrine, namely: faith in the police state and regulation, the absence of any doubts about the expediency and admissibility of this regulation, concern for trade, the monetary system and, in general, concern for the development of domestic labor, a hostile and distrustful attitude towards foreign countries and trade relations with foreign countries. This refers to the publication: Works of Ivan Pososhkov. Part I-II. Ed. M.P. Weather. M., 1842–1863. Other publications: A father's will to his son/Ed. and entry Prilezhaev's article. St. Petersburg, 1893; The obvious mirror (Full edition). Vol. 1–2. Kazan, 1895–1906; Collections of letters from I. T. Pososhkov to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. St. Petersburg, 1900; A book about poverty and wealth and other writings/Ed. and entry article by B. B. Kafengauz. M., 1951. Stefan Yavorsky (1658–1722) - Russian church leader, writer. In 1700–1721 - locum tenens of the patriarchal throne. Author of the polemical work “The Stone of Faith” (against the Lutherans); in polemics with G. Talitsky, he wrote the book “Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist” (M., 1703). Stafford William (1554–1612) - English economist, representative of early mercantilism. He considered money to be the main form of wealth.