[17]	Lenin&#8217;s work On the So-Called Market Question was written in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1893.
The main points contained in this work were first outlined by Lenin at a circle meeting of St. Petersburg Marxists (known as the circle of &#8216;the ancients&#8221;) when a discussion took place on G. B. Kra-sin&#8217;s lecture on &#8220;The Market Question.&#8221; According to participants in the circle meeting, Lenin’s paper created a tremendous impression on all present. N. K. Krupskaya ‘wrote in her reminiscences of
Lenin:
‘The question of markets was treated with ultra-concreteness by our new Marxist friend. He linked it up with the interests of the masses, and in his whole approach one sensed just that live Marxism ‘which takes phenomena in their concrete surroundings and in their development.” (N. K. I{rupskaya, Reminiscences of 1~enin, Moscow, 1959, p. 12.)
In his speech at the circle meeting, and also in the paper entitled On the So-Called Market Question, Lenin pointed to the errors of Krasin, who considered the existence of foreign markets to be a necessary condition of capitalist production and denied any connection between the two subdivisions of social production. At the same time, Lenin severely criticised the views of the liberal Narodniks on the destiny of capitalism in Russia, and also the outlook of the representatives of nascent &#8Legal Marxism.”
Lenin’s work On the So-Called Market Question went the rounds ol the Social-Democratic circles in St. Petersburg and other cities, and was a powerful weapon in the fight against Narodism and “Legal Marxism.” The principal conclusions drawn in this work were developed later by Lenin in his book The Dereloprrent of Capitalism i,.
Ru sSL a.
The manuscript of Om the So-Called Market Questior~, which for a time was considered lost, came into the possession of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC. C.P.S.U. only in 1937.
It ‘was first published in the journal Bolshe~Ak, issue No. 21, 1937, and in 1938 was issued in book form by the Institute. p. 75
~	The scheme of expanded reproduction taking account 0r technicl progress is given exactly as it is in V. I. Lenin’s manuscript; 0cc8
sional inaceuracies in figures do not affect the line of argument and
	the general conclusions.	p. 87
[19]	The column “Means of production as means of consumption” contains the total sum I (v+m). which includes the part intended for accumulation. It should be borne in mind that part of the newly-created value in Department I is embodied in instruments and materials which are not means of production for Department II, but additional means of production (exceeding replacement) for Department I. The part of the produced means of production intended for Department II, and that remaining in Department I can be seen from the magnitude of the constant capital that actually functions in both Departments in the following year.
Two errors slipped into V. I. Lenin’s manuscript, viz.: 3,172 instead of 3,172±, and 10,828± instead of 10,830, as can be seen
	2	2
 from the scheme given in the text.	p. 87
“ See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1957, p. 438.	p. 89
~	See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1959 p. 106. p. 100
~	Nik. —on or N. —on was the pseudonym of N. F. Danielson, one of the ideologists of liberal Narodism of the 1880s and 1890s. The book by Nikolai—on quoted here is called Sketches on Our Post-Re form Social Economy, St. Petersburg, 1893. p. 101

“	Ply~shkin, a character in N. V. Gogol’s Dead Souls. The name Plyushkin, a tight-fisted landlord, has come to typify extreme ava
	rice.	p. 105
	See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1957, p.	316 (footnote
	32).	p. 106