(pp. 70-188)
Written in 1896-99.
Published according to the text
Vol. 3, pp. 21-607.
Translated by Joe Fineberg and by George Hanna
V. I. Lenin
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA
The Process of the Formation of a
Home Market for Large-Scale Industry
[Part 2 -- Chapter II]
First printed in book form
at the end of March 1899
of the second edition, 1908
From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961
Edited by Victor Jerome
Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo,
djr@marx2mao.org
(Corrected and Updated December 2001)
C O N T E N T S
|
[Part 2]
| |||
|
Chapter II. T h e D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e P e a s- |
| ||
|
I. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Novorossia . . . .
. . . . . |
70 | |
|
|
|
Economic groups of the peasantry 70-71. -- Commercial agri- |
|
|
II. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Samara Gubernia . . . . .
. . |
85 | |
|
|
|
Data concerning the farms of the different peasant groups in Nov- |
|
|
III. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Saratov Gubernia. . . . .
. . |
93 | |
|
|
|
Data concerning the farms of the different groups 93-94. -- The |
|
|
IV. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Perm Gubernia . . . . .
. . . |
106 | |
|
|
|
Data concerning the farms of the different groups 106-107. -- |
|
|
V. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Orel Gubernia . . . . .
. . . |
112 | |
|
|
|
Data concerning the farms of the different groups 112-113. -- |
|
|
VI. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Voronezh Gubernia . . . .
. . |
115 | |
|
|
|
Methods of classification in Voronezh abstracts 115-116. -- Data |
|
|
VII. |
Zemstvo Statistics for Nizhni-Novgorod Gubernia . . . |
119 | |
|
|
|
Data concerning groups of farms for three uyezds 119-122. |
|
|
VIII. |
Review of Zemstvo Statistics for Other Gubernias . . . |
122 | |
|
|
|
Novgorod Gubernia, Demyansk Uyezd 122-123. -- Chernigov |
|
|
IX. |
Summary of the Above Zemstvo Statistics on the Dif- |
| |
|
|
|
Methods of marking the summary 127-129. -- Combined table |
|
|
X. |
Summary of Zemstvo Statistics and Army-Horse Census |
| |
|
|
|
Zemstvo Statistics for 112 uyezds of 21 gubernias 141-143. -- |
|
|
XI. |
A Comparison of the Army-Horse Censuses of 1888- |
| |
|
|
|
Data for 48 gubernias of European Russia 146-147. -- Statisti- |
|
|
XII. |
Zemstvo Statistics on Peasant Budgets . . .
. . . . |
148 | |
|
|
|
Character of the data and methods of treating them 148-150. -- |
|
|
XIII. |
Conclusions from Chapter II . . . . . .
. . . . . . |
172 | |
|
|
|
The significance of commodity economy 172. -- 1) Capitalist |
|
page 70
THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE PEASANTRY
We have seen that in capitalist production the basis for the formation of a home market is the process of the disintegration of the small cultivators into agricultural entrepreneurs and workers. Almost every work on the economic position of the Russian peasantry in the post-Reform period refers to the so-called "differentiation" of the peasantry. It must consequently be our task to study the principal features of this phenomenon and to determine its significance. In the following exposition we employ the statistical data of Zemstvo house-to-house censuses.[40]
Mr. V. Postnikov, in his book Peasant Farming in South Russia (Moscow, 1891),[42] has collected and processed the Zemstvo statistics for the Taurida and partly the Kheson and the Ekaterinoslav gubernias. This book should be given first place in the literature on the differentiation of the peasantry, and we consider it necessary to arrange according to the system we have adopted the data gathered by Mr. Postnikov, supplementing them occasionally with data from Zemstvo publications. The Zemstvo statisticians of Taurida have grouped the peasant households according to area under crops -- a very sound method, one that renders it possible to form a precise judgement of the economy of each group due to the predominance in that locality of grain cultivation with extensive farming. Here
are the general data for the economic groups of the Taurida peasantry.[*]
Dnieper Uyezd | Three uyezds Groups of % of per- % of Average Total % of
I.
Cultivating no
IV. Cultivating 10
V.
Cultivating 25
Total . . . . 100 6.2 1.4 100 17.1 1,439,267 100
Mr. Postnikov employs the following method. From the total crop area of the farm, he separates the following: the food area (which provides sustenance for the family and the farm labourers), the fodder area (which provides fodder for the cattle) and the farm-service area (seed-plot, land occupied by buildings, etc.), and thus arrives at the size of the market or commercial area, the produce of which goes for sale. It is shown that in the group with 5 to 10 dess. under crops, only 11.8% of the cultivated area yields produce for the market, whereas this percentage grows with the increase in the area under crops (by groups) as follows: 36.5% -- 52% -- 61%. Consequently, the well-to-do peasants (the top two groups) engage in what is commercial cultivation, and secure a gross money income ranging from 574 to 1,500 rubles per annum. This commercial cultivation then becomes capitalist farming, for the areas cultivated by the well-to-do peasants exceed the family labour norm (i.e., the amount of land that a family can cultivate by its own labour), and compel them to resort to the hiring of workers : in the three northern uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, the author estimates, the well-to-do peasants hire over 14,000 rural workers. The poor peasants, on the contrary, "provide workers" (over 5,000), that is, resort to the sale of their labour-power, since the income from cultivating the land amounts, in the 5 to 10 dess. group, for example, to only about 30 rubles in cash per household.* We observe here, consequently, the very process of the creation of a home market that is dealt with by the theory of capitalist production -- the "home market" grows as a result of the conversion into a commodity of the product of commercial, entrepreneur farming, on the one hand, and of the conversion into a commodity of the labour-power sold by the badly-off peasants, on the other.
In order to acquaint ourselves more closely with this phenomenon, let us examine the position of each separate group of the peasantry. Let us start with the top group. Here are the data for the amount of land it owns and uses:
Dnieper Uyezd, Taurida Gubernia
Area cultivated per household Groups of households Allotment Purchased Rented Total
I.
Cultivating no land
6.4
0.9
0.1
7.4 Average 11.2 1.7 7.0 19.9
Let us take the data for livestock and implements:
Three uyezds, Taurida Gubernia
In Dnieper Uyezd Animals per household
% house-
There are per Groups of households Draught Other Total
I.
Cultivating no land
0.3
0.8
1.1
80.5
--
-- Average 3.1 4.5 7.6 15.0
Thus the well-to-do peasantry are far better supplied with implements than the poor and even the middle peasantry. It is sufficient to glance at this table to see how totally fictitious are the "average" figures which people are so fond of bringing into play when they talk of the "peasantry". The commercial cultivation of the peasant bourgeoisie is accompanied here by commercial livestock farming, namely, the breeding of coarse-wool sheep. Regarding implements, we shall quote in addition figures for improved implements, which we have taken from Zemstvo statistical returns.[*] Out of the total reaping and mowing machines (3,061), 2,841, or 92.8%, belong to the peasant bourgeoisie (1/5 of the total households).
It is quite natural that the well-to-do peasantry also employ a farming technique much above the average (larger size of farm, more plentiful supply of implements, available financial resources, etc.); that is to say, the well-to-do peasants "do their sowing faster, make better use of favourable weather, sow the seed in more humid soil," and reap their harvest in proper time; they thresh their grain as it is carted in from the field, etc. It is also natural that the expenditure on the production of agricultural produce diminishes (per unit of product) as the size of the farm increases. Mr. Postnikov proves this proposition in particular detail, using the following system of calculation: he determines the number of people working (including hired labourers), the number of draught animals, implements, etc., per 100 dessiatines of crop area in the various groups of the peasantry. It is proved that these numbers diminish as the size of the farm increases. For example, those cultivating under 5 dessiatines have per 100 dessiatines of allotment land 28 people working, 28 draught animals, 4.7 ploughs and scarifiers, and 10 carts, whereas those cultivating over 50 dessiatines have 7 people working, 14 draught animals, 3.8 ploughs and scarifiers, and 4.3 carts. (We omit more detailed data for all groups, referring those interested in the details to Mr. Postnikov's book.) The author's general
conclusion is: "With the increase in the size of the farm and in the area cultivated by the peasant, the expenditure on the maintenance of labour-power, human and animal, that prime item of expenditure in agriculture, progressively decreases, and, among the groups that cultivate large areas, drops to nearly one half per dessiatine under crops of the expenditure among the groups with small cultivated areas" (op. cit., p. 117). To this law of the greater productivity and, hence, of the greater stability of the big peasant farms Mr.Postnikov quite rightly attaches great importance, proving it with very detailed data not only for Novorossia alone, but also for the central gubernias of Russia.* The further the penetration of commodity production into crop cultivation, and, consequently, the keener the competition among the agriculturists, the struggle for land and for economic independence, the more vigorously must this law be manifested, a law which leads to the ousting of the middle and poor peasants by the peasant bourgeoisie. It must, however, be noted that technical progress in agriculture expresses itself in different ways, depending on the system of agriculture, on the system of field cultivation. Whereas in the case of grain growing and extensive cultivation this progress may find expression in a mere expansion of the crop area
It is interesting to note how this law is reflected in Mr. V, V.'s arguments. In the above-quoted article (Vestnik Yevropy, 1884, No. 7) he makes the following comparison: In the central black-earth belt there are 5-7-8 dess. of arable per peasant horse, whereas "according to the rules of three-field crop rotation" there should be 7-10 dess. (Batalin's Calendar ). "Consequently, the decline in horse-ownership by part of the population of this area of Russia must to a certain extent be regarded as the restoration of the normal proportion between the number of draught animals and the area to be cultivated" (p. 346 in the article mentioned). Thus the ruin of the peasantry leads to progress in agriculture. Had Mr V. V. paid attention not only to the agronomic but also to the social-economic aspect of this process he could have seen that this is the progress of capitalist agriculture, for "the restoration of the normal proportion" between draught animals and arable is achieved either by landlords who acquire their own implements, or by big peasant crop growers, i.e., by the peasant bourgeoisie.
and reduction of the number of workers, animals, etc., per unit of crop area, in the case of livestock or industrial crop farming, with the adoption of intensive agriculture, this same progress may find expression, for example, in the cultivation of root crops, which require more workers per unit of crop area, or in the acquisition of dairy cattle, the cultivation of fodder grasses, etc., etc.
The description of the top group of the peasantry must be supplemented by indicating the considerable employment of wage-labour. Here are the data for the three uyezds of Taurida Gubernia:
Groups of households
Percentage
Proportion
I.
Cultivating no land . . . . . .
3.8
--
Total. . . . .
. . . . . . 12.9 100
of manufacturers, large and small) as a percentage of the total number of families engaging in industries in Russia; the result would be a "quite insignificant" percentage of the "mass of the people." It is far more correct to compare the number of farms employing labourers with the number of actually independent farms, i.e., of those living on agriculture alone and not resorting to the sale of their labour power. Furthermore, Mr. V. V. lost sight of a trifle, namely, that the peasant farms employing labourers are among the biggest: the percentage of farms employing labourers, "insignificant" when taken "in general and on the average," turns out to be very imposing (34-64%) among the well-to-do peasantry, who account for more than half of the total production and produce large quantities of grain for sale. One can therefore judge how absurd is the opinion that farming based on the employment of labourers is "fortuitous," something that occurred 100 to 200 years ago! Thirdly, only by disregarding the real specific features of cultivation can one take as the criterion of "peasant capitalism" only farm labourers, i.e., regular workers, and ignore the day labourers. It is commonly known that the hiring of day labourers plays a particularly important role in agriculture.[*]
Let us take the bottom group. It consists of peasants who cultivate no land or who cultivate little; they "do not differ much in economic status . . . both groups serve as farm labourers for their fellow villagers, or engage in outside, mainly agricultural employments" (p. 134, op. cit.), i.e., belong to the rural proletariat. Let us note, for example, that in Dnieper Uyezd the bottom group constitutes 40% of the households, and those having no ploughing implements 39% of the total households. In addition to selling their labour-power, the rural proletariat obtain an income from leasing their allotment land:
Dnieper Uyezd
Groups of households
of householders
of leased
I.
Cultivating no land . . . . . .
80
97.1
For uyezd . . .
. . . . . . 25.7 14.9
In three uyezds allotment land (dessiatines) as %
by peasants cultivating up to 10 dess. per household
16,594
6
Total . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 256,716 100
that the "kulak" and the "usurer" have nothing in common with the "enterprising muzhik." On the contrary, the threads both of merchant's capital (the loaning of money on the security of land, the buying-up of various products, etc.) and of industrial capital (commercial agriculture with the aid of wage-workers, etc,.) merge in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. It depends on surrounding circumstances, on the greater or lesser degree to which the Asiatic way of life is eliminated and culture is widespread in our countryside as to which of these forms of capital will develop at the expense of the other.
Let us examine, finally, the position of the middle group (cultivating from 10 to 25 dess. per household, with an average of 16.4 dess.). Its position is a transitional one: its money income from agriculture (191 rubles) is somewhat lower than the sum annually spent by the average Tauridian (200 to 250 rubles). Here draught animals work out at 3.2 head per household, whereas for a full team 4 are required. Hence the position of the middle peasant's farm is an unstable one, and to till his land he has to resort to "yoking."*[45]
The cultivation of the land on a "yoking" basis is, it goes without saying, less productive (time lost in moving from place to place, shortage of horses, etc.), so that in one village, for example, Mr. Postnikov was informed that "yokers often scarify no more than one dessiatine per day, which is half the normal rate."** If to this we add that in the middle group about 1/5 of the households have no ploughing implements, that this group provides more workers than it hires (according to Mr. Postnikov's calculations), its unstable character and its transitional position between
the peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat will be clear. We shall quote somewhat more detailed data about the ousting of the middle group (see Table on p. 81).
Thus, the distribution of allotment land is the most "equalised," although here, too, the ousting of the bottom group by the top ones is marked. But the situation radically changes when we pass from this compulsorily-held land to the free, i.e., to the purchased and the rented land. The concentration of this land is enormous, and as a result, the distribution of the total land in use by the peasants is quite unlike the distribution of the allotment land: the middle group is pushed into second place (46% of allotment land -- 41% of land in use), the well-to-do group very considerably enlarges its holdings (28% of allotment land -- 46% of land in use), while the poor group is being pushed out of the ranks of the cultivators (25% of allotment land -- 12% of land in use).
The table reveals an interesting phenomenon, one that we shall meet again, namely, the decline in the role of allotment land in peasant farming. In the bottom group this is due to the leasing out of land; in the top group to the fact that in the total farming area purchased and rented land is overwhelmingly predominant. The remnants of the pre-Reform system (the tying of the peasants to the land, and equalised, tax-assessed land tenure) are being utterly destroyed by the penetration of capitalism into agriculture.
As for land renting in particular, the figures given enable us to clear up a very common mistake in the arguments of the Narodnik economists on this subject. Take the arguments of Mr. V. V. In the article quoted above he bluntly raised the issue of the relation of the renting of land to the break-up of the peasantry. "Does the renting of land help to differentiate the peasant farms into big and small and to destroy the average, typical group?" (Vestnik Yevropy, loc. cit., pp. 339-340.) Mr. V. V. answered this question in the negative. Here are his arguments: 1) "The large percentage of persons who resort to the renting of land." Examples: 38 to 68%; 40 to 70%; 30 to 66%; 50 to 60% respectively in different uyezds of different gubernias. -- 2) The small size of the rented plots per household: 3 to 5 dess., according to Tambov
Dnieper Uyezd, Taurida Gunernia[*] % of total Allotment Purchased Rented Land Total land used Area under Groups
Poor . . .
39.9
32.6
56,445
25.5
2,003
6
7,839
6
21,551
65.5
44,736
12.4
38,439
11 Total for 100 100 221,083 100 33,910 100 137,883 100 32,901 100 395,975 100 326,397 100
statistical returns. -- 3) The peasants with small allotments rent more land than those with big ones.
To enable the reader clearly to judge the appropriateness of such arguments, let alone their soundness, we quote the corresponding figures for Dnieper Uyezd.[*]
% of
Arable per
Cultivating up to 5 dess. . .
. . .
25
2.4
15.25 For uyezd . .
. . . . . . 56.2 12.4 4.23
It would be a great mistake to imagine that the concentration of rented land in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie is limited to individual renting and does not apply to renting by the village community. Nothing of the kind. The rented land is always distributed "according to where the money lies," and the relation between the groups of the peasantry does not change in the least where land is rented by the community. Hence, the argument of Mr. Karyshev, for example, that the relation between community renting and individual renting expresses a "conflict between two principles (!?),the communal and the individual" (p.159, loc. cit.), that community renting "is characterised by the labour principle and the principle of even distribution of rented land among the community members" (ibid., 230) -- this argument belongs entirely to the sphere of Narodnik prejudices. Not withstanding the task he set himself of summing up the "results of Zemstvo statistical investigation," Mr. Karyshev carefully avoided all the abundant Zemstvo statistical material about the concentration of rented land in the hands of small groups of well-to-do peasants. Let us quote an example. In the three indicated uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, state lands rented by peasant communities are distributed among the groups as follows:
No. of
No. of
As % of
Dess. per
Cultivating up to 5 dess. .
. . .
83
511
1 \
4
6.1 Total . .
. . . . . . 4,136 44,307 100 10.7
Such are the Zemstvo statistical data on peasant farming in South Russia. No room is left by these data for doubting the complete differentiation of the peasantry, the complete domination in the countryside of the peasant bourgeoisie.[*] Highly interesting, therefore, is the attitude of Messrs. V. V. and N.-on towards these data, the more so that formerly both these writers admitted the need of raising the problem of the differentiation of the peasantry (Mr. V. V. in the above mentioned article of 1884, and Mr. N.-on in Slovo [The Word ] in 1880, when he remarked on the interesting phenomenon in the village community itself that the "unenterprising" muzhiks neglect their land, while the "enterprising" ones take the best land for themselves; cf. Sketches, p. 71). It should be noted that Mr. Postnikov's work is of a dual character: on the one hand the author skilfully gathered and carefully processed extremely valuable Zemstvo statistics and managed, in doing so, to escape the "tendency to regard the peasant community as something integral and homogeneous, as it is still held to be by our urban intelligentsia" (p. 351, op. cit.). On the other hand, the author, not being guided by theory, failed totally to appraise the data he had processed, and regarded them from the extremely narrow point of view of "measures," proceeding to concoct projects
about "agricultural-handicraft-factory communities" and about the necessity of "restricting," "enjoining," "observing," etc., etc. Well then, our Narodniks did their best to ignore the first, the positive part of Mr. Postnikov's work and concentrated their attention on the second part. Both Mr. V. V. and Mr. N.-on began with highly serious air to "refute" Mr. Postnikov's absolutely unserious "projects" (Mr. V. V. in Russkaya Mysl [Russian Thought ], 1894, No. 2; Mr. N.-on in his Sketches, p. 233, footnote), accusing him of the evil intention of introducing capitalism into Russia, and carefully avoiding the data which revealed the prevalence of capitalist relations in the countryside of South Russia today.[*]
From the country's southern outer area let us pass to the eastern region, to Samara Gubernia. Let us take Novouzensk Uyezd, the last one investigated; in the statistical report for this uyezd we find the most detailed classification of the peasants according to economic status.** Here are the general data on the groups of the peasantry (the data that follow cover 28,276 allotment-holding households, numbering 164,146 persons of both sexes, i.e., only the Russian population of the uyezd, without Germans or farmsteaders -- householders who farm both on community land and on separate non-community farmsteads. The inclusion
of the Germans and the farmsteaders would considerably heighten the picture of differentiation).
Groups of householders Average area
Poor
/ With no draught animals . . .
20.7 \
37.1%
2.1
2.8 \
8.0%
Middle
/ " 2 to 3 draught animals . .
26.6 \
38.2%
10.2
17.1 \
28.6%
Rich
/ " 5 to 15 " " . .
17.1 \
24.7%
24.7
26.9 \
63.4%
Total . . . .
. . . . . . 100
15.9 100
Groups of % of Total
With no draught animals . . .
2.1
0.03
0.5
1.5 \
6.4%
" 2 to 3 draught animals . .
60.5
4.5
4.0
16.8 \
28.6%
" 5 to 15 " " . .
82.4
40.3
10.9
29.2 \
65.0% Total . . . . . . . 52.0 13.9 6.4 100
Thus, in the bottom group there are very few independent peasant farmers; the poor peasants have no improved implements at all, while the middle peasantry have them in insignificant numbers. The concentration of animals is still greater than the concentration of area under crops; the well-to-do peasants evidently combine capitalist livestock raising with their large-scale capitalist cropping. At the opposite pole we have "peasants" who ought to be classed as allotment-holding farm labourers and day labourers, for their main source of livelihood is the sale of their labour-power (as we shall see in a moment), and the landowners sometimes give one or two animals to their labourers to tie them down to their farms and to reduce wages.
It goes without saying that the peasant groups differ not only as to the size of their farms, but also in their methods of farming: firstly, in the top group a very large proportion of the peasant farmers (40 to 60%) are supplied with improved implements (mainly iron ploughs, and also horse and steam threshers, winnowing machines, reapers, etc.). In the hands of 24.7% of the households, the top group, are concentrated 82.9% of the total improved implements; 38.2% of the households, the middle group, possess 17% of the improved implements; 37.1%, the poor, possess 0.1% (7 implements out of 5,724).* Secondly, the peasants with few horses are compelled by necessity to carry on "a different system of farming, a system of economic activity" entirely different from that of the peasants with many horses, as the compiler of Returns for Novouzensk Uyezd says (pp. 44-46). The well-to-do peasants "let their land rest . . . plough in the autumn
. . . plough it again in the spring and sow after harrowing . . . roll the ploughed land when the soil has aired . . . plough twice for rye," whereas the badly-off peasants "do not let their land rest but sow Russian wheat year after year . . . for wheat they plough in the spring once . . . for rye they provide neither fallow nor ploughed land, but merely break the surface before sowing . . . for wheat they plough in the late spring, and as a result the corn often does not come up . . . for rye they plough once, or merely break the surface and not at the proper time . . . they plough the same plot of land unwisely year after year, without allowing it to rest." "And so on and so forth without end," the compiler concludes this list. "The facts enumerated concerning the radical difference between the farming systems of the better- and the badly-off peasants result in grain of poor quality and bad harvests for the latter and comparatively better harvests for the former" (ibid.).
But how could such a big bourgeoisie arise under the agricultural community system? The answer is supplied by the figures for land possessed and in use according to groups. The peasants in the section taken by us (76 households) have a total of 57,128 dess. of purchased land and 304,514 dess. of rented land, of which 177,789 dess. are non-allotment land rented by 5,602 households; 47,494 dess. of the allotment land rented from other village communities are held by 3,129 households, and 79,231 dess. of the allotment land rented in their own village communities are held by 7,092 households. The distribution of this enormous area of land, constituting more than 2/3 of the peasants' total area under crops, is as follows (see Table on p. 89).
We see here an enormous concentration of purchased and rented land. More than 9/10 of the total purchased land is in the hands of 1.8% of the households, the very richest. Of all the rented land, 69.7% is concentrated in the hands of peasant capitalists, and 86.6% is in the hands of the top group of the peasantry. A comparison of the figures on the renting and the leasing-out of allotment land clearly reveals the passage of the land into the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. Here, too, the conversion of the land into a commodity leads to the cheapening of the wholesale purchase price of land (and, consequently, to profiteering in land). If we determine the price of one dessiatine of rented non-allotment land
Renting of allotment land Renting Groups of householders % of % of
With no draught animals . .
0.02
100
0.2
2.4
1.7
1.4
5.9
5
3
0.6
47.0 Total .
. . . . . . 0.3 751 100 19.8 31.7 11.0 15.1 25 11 100 12
we get the following figures, counting from the bottom group to the top: 3.94; 3.20; 2.90; 2.75; 2.57; 2.08; 1.78 rubles. To show what mistakes the Narodniks fall into by thus ignoring the concentration of rented ]and, let us quote by way of example the arguments of Mr. Karyshev in the well-known symposium The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices on Certain Aspects of the Russian National Economy (St. Petersburg,1897). When grain prices fall, with an improvement of the harvest, and renting prices rise, the entrepreneur renters, concludes Mr. Karyshev, have to reduce demand and hence the renting prices had been raised by the representatives of consumers' economy (I, 288). The conclusion is absolutely arbitrary: it is quite possible that the peasant bourgeoisie raise renting prices in spite of a drop in grain prices, for an improvement in the harvest may compensate for the drop in prices. It is quite possible that the well-to-do peasants raise renting prices even when there is no such compensation, reducing the cost of production of grain by introducing machinery. We know that the employment of machines in agriculture is growing and that these machines are concentrated in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. Instead of studying the differentiation of the peasantry, Mr. Karyshev introduces arbitrary and incorrect premises about an average peasantry. That is why all the conclusions and deductions similarly arrived at by him in the publication quoted are of no value whatever.
Having ascertained that diverse elements exist among the peasantry, we can now easily get clarity on the question of the home market. If the well-to-do peasants control about 2/3 of the total agricultural production, it is obvious that they must account for an incomparably larger share of the grain on sale. They produce grain for sale, whereas the badly-off peasants have to buy additional grain and sell their labour-power. Here are the data:*
Groups of householders % of house- % of working
With no draught animals . . . . . .
0.7
71.4 Total . . . . . . . . . 9.0 25.0
to the complete adaptation of the notorious "communal ties" to the farms of big crop growers that employ labourers.
The relationship between the peasant groups proves to be absolutely analogous in Nikolayevsk Uyezd (cited statistical returns, p. 826 and foll.; we leave out those living away from home and the landless). For example, 7.4%, the rich households (having 10 and more draught animals), comprising 13.7% of the population, concentrate in their hands 27.6% of the total livestock and 42.6% of the rented land, whereas 29%, the poor households (horseless and one-horse), comprising 19.7% of the population, have only 7.2% of the livestock and 3% of the rented land. Unfortunately, the tables for Nikolayevsk Uyezd, we repeat, are too scanty. To finish with Samara Gubernia, let us quote the following highly instructive description of the position of the peasantry from the Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia.
". . . The natural increase in the population, augmented by the Immigration of land-poor peasants from the western gubernias, in connection with the appearance in the sphere of agricultural production of money-grubbing speculators in land, has with every passing year complicated the forms of the renting of land, raised its worth and converted the land into a commodity which has so quickly and immensely enriched some and ruined many others. To illustrate the latter point, let us indicate the area cultivated by some of the southern merchant- and peasant-owned farms, where the tillage of 3,000 to 6,000 dessiatines is no rarity, while some practise the cultivation of 8-10-15 thousand dessiatines of land, renting several tens of thousands of state-owned land.
"The existence and the growth of the agricultural (rural) proletariat in Samara Gubernia are to a considerable extent the product of recent times, with their increasing production of grain for sale, rise in renting prices, ploughing up of virgin and pasture land, clearing of forests, and so forth. The landless households throughout the gubernia number 21,624 in all, whereas the non-farming ones number 33,772 (of those households that have allotments), while the horseless and one-horse households together number 110,604 families, with a total of 600,000 persons of both sexes, counting five and a fraction persons per family. We take the liberty of counting these, too, as proletarians, although legally they
have a share of communal land; actually, these are day labourers, ploughmen, shepherds, reapers and similar workers on big farms who cultivate 1/2 to 1 dessiatine of their own allotments so as to feed their families who remain at home" (pp. 57-58).
Thus, the investigators regard as proletarians not only the horseless peasants, but also those who have one horse. We note this important conclusion, which fully coincides with that of Mr. Postnikov (and with the data in the classified tables) and points to the real social-economic significance of the bottom group of the peasantry.
We now pass to the central black-earth belt, to Saratov Gubernia. We take Kamyshin Uyezd, the only one for which a fairly complete classification of the peasants according to draught animals held is available.[*]
Here are the data for the whole uyezd (40,157 households, 263,135 persons of both sexes. Area under crops, 435,945 dessiatines, i.e., 10.8 dessiatines per "average" household):
Groups of Aver- % of Animals
With no draught
" 2 draught
" 5 and more
Total . . . 100 100 10.8 100 22.7 5.2 100
Thus, here again we see the concentration of land under crops in the hands of the big crop growers: the well-to-do peasantry, constituting only a fifth of the households (and about a third of the population),[*] hold more than half the total area under crops (53.3%), the size of this area clearly indicating the commercial character of the farming: an aver age of 27.6 dess. per household. The well-to-do peasantry have also a considerable number of animals per household: 14.6 head (in terms of cattle, i.e., counting 10 head of small domestic animals for one of cattle), and of the total number of peasants' cattle in the uyezd, nearly 3/5 (56%) is concentrated in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. At the opposite pole in the countryside, we find the opposite state of affairs; the complete dispossession of the bottom group, the rural proletariat, who in our example comprise a little less than 1/2 of the households (nearly 1/3 of the population), but who have only 1/8 of the total area under crops, and even less (11.8%) of the total number of animals. These are mainly allotment-holding farm labourers, day labourers and industrial workers.
Side by side with the concentration of crop areas and with the enhancement of the commercial character of agriculture there takes place its transformation into capitalist agriculture. We see the already familiar phenomenon: the sale of
labour-power in the bottom groups and its purchase in the top ones.
Groups of householders % of peasants % of farms
With no draught animals . . . . .
1.1
90.9 Total . . . . . . . . 8.0 67.2
household returns on peasant farming will be unsatisfactory so long as peasant "industries" are not classified according to their economic types, so long as among the "industrialists" employers are not separated from wage-workers. This is the minimum number of economic types without discriminating between which economic statistics cannot be regarded as satisfactory. A more detailed classification is, of course, desirable; for example; proprietors employing wage-workers -- proprietors not employing wage-workers -- traders, buyers-up, shopkeepers, etc., artisans, meaning industrialists who work for customers, etc.
Coming back to our table, let us observe that after all we had some right to consider "industries" as being the sale of labour-power, for it is usually wage-workers who predominate among peasant "industrialists." If it were possible to single the wage-workers out of the latter, we would, of course, obtain an incomparably smaller percentage of "industrialists" in the top groups.
As to the data regarding wage-workers, we must note here the absolutely mistaken character of Mr. Kharizomenov's opinion that the "short-term hire [of workers] for reaping, mowing and day labouring, which is too widespread a phenomenon, cannot serve as a characteristic criterion of the strength or weakness of a farm" (p. 46 of "Introduction" to the Combined Returns ). Theoretical considerations, the example of Western Europe, and the facts of Russia (dealt with below) compel us, on the contrary, to regard the hiring of day labourers as a very characteristic feature of the rural bourgeoisie.
Lastly, as regards rented land, the data show, here too, the same concentration of it in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. Let us note that the combined tables of the Saratov statisticians do not show the number of peasants who rent land and lease it out, but only the total land rented and leased out*; we have, therefore, to determine the amount of land rented and leased per existing, and not per renting household.
Dessiantines per Percent of total land Total land in Groups of Allot- Rented Leased Allot- Rented Leased %
With no draught
" 2 draught
" 5 and more
Total . . . 9.3 5.4 1.5 100 100 100 100
Let us examine in greater detail these data on land renting. With them are connected the very interesting and important investigations and arguments of Mr. Karyshev (quoted Results ) and Mr. N.-on's "corrections" to them.
Mr. Karyshev devotes a special chapter (III) to "the dependence of land renting on the prosperity of the lessees." The general conclusion he arrives at is that, "other things being equal, the struggle for rentable land tends to go in favour of the better-off" (p. 156). "The relatively more prosperous households . . . push the less prosperous ones into the background" (p. 154). We see, consequently, that the conclusion drawn from a general review of Zemstvo statistical data is the same as that to which we are led by the data we are studying. Moreover, a study of the dependence of the amount of rented land on the size of the allotment led Mr. Karyshev to the conclusion that classification according to allotment "obscures the meaning of the phenomenon that interests us" (p. 139): "land renting . . . is more resorted to by a) the categories that are worse provided with land, but by b) the groups within them that are better provided. Evidently, we have here two diametrically opposed influences, the confusion of which
prevents the understanding of either" (ibid.). This conclusion follows naturally if we consistently adhere to the viewpoint that distinguishes the peasant groups according to economic strength ; we have seen everywhere in our data that the well-to-do peasants grab rentable land, despite the fact that they are better provided with allotment land. It is clear that the degree of prosperity of the household is the determining factor in the renting of land, and that this factor merely undergoes a change but does not cease to be determining, with the change in the conditions of land allotment and renting. But, although Mr. Karyshev investigated the influence of "prosperity," he did not adhere consistently to the viewpoint mentioned, and therefore characterised the phenomenon inaccurately, speaking of the direct connection between the degree to which the lessee is supplied with land and the renting of land. This is one point. Another point is that the one-sidedness of Mr. Karyshev's investigation prevented him from appraising the full significance of the way rentable land is grabbed by the rich peasants. In his study of "non-allotment renting", he limits himself to summarising the Zemstvo statistics on land renting, without taking account of the lessees' own farms. Naturally, with such a method of study, a more formal one, the problem of the relation between land renting and the "prosperity," of the commercial character of land renting could not be solved. Mr. Karyshev, for example, was in possession of the same data on Kamyshin Uyezd as we are, but he limited himself to reproducing absolute figures only of land renting (see Appendix No. 8, p. XXXVI) and to calculating the average amount of rented land per allotment holding household (text, p. 143). The concentration of land renting in the hands of the well-to-do peasants, its industrial character, its connection with land leasing by the bottom group of the peasantry, were all overlooked. Thus, Mr. Karyshev could not but see that the Zemstvo statistics refute the Narodnik notion of land renting and show that the poor are ousted by the well-to-do peasants; but he gave an inaccurate description of this phenomenon, did not study it from all sides and came into conflict with the data, repeating the old song about the "labour principle," etc. But even the mere statement of the fact of economic discord and conflict among the peasantry seemed heresy to the Narodniks, and they pro-
ceeded to "correct" Mr. Karyshev in their own way. Here is how Mr. N.-on does it, "using," as he says (p. 153, note), Mr. N. Kablukov's arguments against Mr. Karyshev. In § IX of his Sketches, Mr. N.-on discusses land renting and the various forms it assumes. "When a peasant," he says, "has sufficient land to enable him to obtain his livelihood by tilling his own, he does not rent any land" (152). Thus, Mr. N.-on flatly denies the existence of entrepreneur activity in peasant land renting and the grabbing of rentable land by rich peasants engaged in commercial crop growing. His proof? Absolutely none: the theory of "people's production" is not proved, but laid down as law. In answer to Mr. Karyshev, Mr. N.-on quotes a table from the Zemstvo abstract for Khvalynsk Uyezd showing that "the number of draught animals being equal, the smaller the allotment the more must this deficiency be compensated by renting" (153),[*] and again, "if the peasants are placed in absolutely identical conditions as regards the possession of animals, and if they have sufficient workers in their households, then the smaller the allotment they have, the more the land they rent" (154). The reader will see that such "conclusions" are merely a quibble at Mr. Karyshev's inaccurate formulation, that Mr. N.-on's empty trifles simply obscure the issue of the connection between land renting and prosperity. Is it not self-evident that where an equal number of draught animals is possessed, the less land a household has, the more it rents? That goes without saying, for it is the very prosperity whose differences are under discussion that is taken as equal. Mr. N.-on's assertion that peasants with sufficient land do not rent land is not in any way proved by this, and his tables merely show that he does not understand the figures he quotes: by comparing the peasants as to amount of allotment land held, he brings out the more strikingly the role of "prosperity" and the grabbing of rentable land in connection with the leasing of land by the poor (leasing it to these same well-to-do peasants, of course.)** Let the reader recall the data we have quoted on
the distribution of rented land in Kamyshin Uyezd; imagine that we have singled out the peasants with "an equal number of draught animals" and, dividing them into categories according to allotment and into subdivisions according to the number of persons working, we declare that the less land a peasant has, the more he rents, etc. Does such a method result in the disappearance of the group of well-to-do peasants? Yet Mr. N.-on, with his empty phrases, has succeeded in bringing about its disappearance and has been enabled to repeat the old prejudices of Narodism.
Mr. N.-on's absolutely useless method of computing the land rented by peasants per household according to groups with 0, 1, 2, etc., persons working is repeated by Mr. L. Maress in the book The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices, etc. (I, 34). Here is a little example of the "averages" boldly employed by Mr. Maress (as by the other contributors to this book, written from a biassed Narodnik point of view). In Melitopol Uyezd, he argues, the amount of rented land per renting household is 1.6 dess. in households having no working males, 4.4 dess. in households having one working male, 8.3 in households having two, and 14.0 in households having three (p. 34). And the conclusion is that there is an "approximately equal per-capita distribution of rented land"!! Mr. Maress did not think it necessary to examine the actual distribution of rented land according to groups of households of different economic strength, although he was in a position to learn this both from Mr. V. Postnikov's book and from the Zemstvo abstracts. The "average" figure of 4.4 dess. of rented land per renting household in the group of households having one working male was obtained by adding together such figures as 4 dess. in the group of households cultivating 5 to 10 dess. and with 2 to 3 draught animals, and 38 dess. in the group of households cultivating over 50 dess. of land and with 4 and more draught animals. (See Returns for Melitopol Uyezd, p. D.10-11.) It is not surprising that by adding together the rich and the poor and dividing the total by the number of items added, one can obtain "equal distribution" wherever desired!
Actually, however, in Melitopol Uyezd 21% of the households, the rich ones (those with 25 dess. and more under crops), comprising 29.5% of the peasant population, account -- despite the fact that they are best provided with
allotment and purchased land -- for 66.3% of the total rented arable (Returns for Melitopol Uyezd, p. B. 190-194). On the other hand, 40% of the households, the poor ones (those with up to 10 dess. under crops), comprising 30.1 % of the peasant population, account -- despite the fact that they are worst provided with allotment and purchased land -- for 5.6% of the total rented arable. As can be seen, this closely resembles "equal per-capita distribution"!
Mr. Maress bases all his calculations of peasant land-renting on the "assumption" that "the renting households are mainly in the two groups worst provided" (provided with allotment land ); that "among the renting population there is equal per capita (sic!) distribution of rented land"; and that "the renting of land enables the peasants to pass from the groups worst provided to those best provided" (34-35). We have already shown that all these "assumptions" of Mr. Maress directly contradict the facts. Actually, the very contrary is the case, as Mr. Maress could not but have noted, had he -- in dealing with inequalities in economic life (p. 35) -- taken the data for the classification of households according to economic indices (instead of according to alloment tenure ), and not limited himself to the unfounded "assumption" of Narodnik prejudices.
Let us now compare Kamyshin Uyezd with other uyezds in Saratov Gubernia. The ratios between the peasant groups are everywhere the same, as is shown by the following data for the four uyezds (Volsk, Kuznetsk, Balashov and Serdobsk) in which, as we have said, the middle and the well-to-do peasants are combined;
Four uyezds in Saratov Gubernia as % % of total Groups of householders Allot- Total Area
With no draught animals
24.4
15.7
3.7
14.7
2.1
8.1
4.4 Total . . . . . 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Hence, we see everywhere the ousting of the poor by the prosperous peasants. But in Kamyshin Uyezd the well-to-do peasantry are more numerous and richer than in the other uyezds. Thus, in five uyezds of the gubernia (including the Kamyshin Uyezd) the households are distributed according to draught animals held as follows: with no draught animals -- 25.3%; with 1 animal -- 25.5%; with 2 -- 20%; with 3 -- 10.8%; and with 4 and more -- 18.4%, whereas in Kamyshin Uyezd, as we have seen, the well-to-do group is larger, and the badly-off group somewhat smaller. Further, if we combine the middle and well-to-do peasantry, i.e., if we take the households with 2 draught animals and more, we get the following data for the respective uyezds:
Per household with 2 and more
draught animals Kamyshin Volsk Kuznetsk Balashov Serdobsk
Draught animals . . . .
3.8
2.6
2.6
3.9
2.6
In concluding this review of the data for Saratov Gubernia, we consider it necessary to deal with the classification of the peasant households. As the reader has probably observed, we reject a limine* any classification according to allotment and exclusively employ classification according to economic strength (draught animals, area under crops). The reasons for adopting this system must be given. Classification according
I. ZEMSTVO STATISTICS FOR NOVOROSSIA[41]
page 71
Per household
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peasants
total
house-
holds
sons
of both
sexes
work-
ing
males
total
house-
holds
area under
crops per
household.
Dess.[**]
area
under
crops.
Dess.
Same as
% of total
total
house-
holds
II.
III.
land . . . .
Cultivating up
to 5 dess. . .
Cultivating 5 to
10 dess. . . .
9
11
20
4.6
4.9
5.4
1.0
1.1
1.2
7.5
11.7
21
--
3.5
8.0
--
34,070
140,426
--
2.4
9.7
\
>
/
12.1
40.2
to 25 dess. . .
41.8
6.3
1.4
39.2
16.4
540,093
37.6
37.6
39.2
VI.
to 50 dess. . .
Cultivating over
50 dess. . . .
15.1
3.1
8.2
10.1
1.9
2.3
16.9
3.7
34.5
75.0
494,095
230,583
34.3
16.0
\
/
50.3
20.6
The unevenness in the distribution of the area under crops is very considerable: 2/5 of the total households (comprising about 3/10 of the population, for the size of these families s below the average) possess about 1/8 of the total area under crops; they belong to the poor group, cultivating little land, who cannot cover their needs with their income from farming. Further, there are the middle peasants, also constituting about 2/5 of the total households, who cover their average expenditure by income from the land (Mr. Postnikov considers that a family requires from 16 to 18 dessiatines under crops to cover its average expenditure). Lastly, there are the well-to-do peasants (about 1/5 of the households and 3/10 of the population), who concentrate in their hands over half the area cultivated, the crop area per household clearly indicating the "commercial" character of the farming done by this group. In order exactly to estimate the extent of this commercial agriculture in the various groups,
* The following data relate mostly to the three northern mainland uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, namely the Berdyansk, Melitopol and Dnieper, or to the latter one alone.
** Dessiatine = 2.70 acres. --Ed.
page 72
* Mr. Postnikov rightly observes that in reality the differences between the groups as to size of money income from the land are much more considerable, for the computations assume 1) equal yield, and 2) equal price for grain sold, actually, however, the well-to-do peasants secure better yields and sell their grain to greater advantage.
page 73
(dessiatines)
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
" up to 5 dess.
" 5 to 10 "
" 10 to 25 "
" 25 to 50 "
" over 50 "
5.5
8.7
12.5
16.6
17.4
0.04
0.05
0.6
2.3
30.0
0.6
10.3
18.9
36.3
91.4
6.1
10.3
18.9
36.3
91.4
We see, accordingly, that the well-to-do peasants, not withstanding the fact that they are best provided with allotment land,[43] concentrate in their hands the bulk of the purchased and the rented land and turn into small land owners and capitalist farmers.[*] On the renting of 17 to 44 dess. of land there is an annual expenditure, at local prices, of about 70 to 160 rubles. Obviously we are dealing here with a commercial transaction: the land becomes a commodity, "a money-making machine."
holds
with no
draught
animals
household
Cart- Plough-
ing ing
implements[**]
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
" up to 5 dess.
" 5 to 10 "
" 10 to 25 "
" 25 to 50 "
" over 50 "
1.0
1.9
3.2
5.8
10.5
1.4
2.3
4.1
8.1
19.5
2.4
4.2
7.3
13.9
30.0
48.3
12.5
1.4
0.1
0.03
--
0.8
1.0
1.7
2.7
--
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.4
* We would point out that the relatively considerable amount of purchased land held by those who cultivate no land is due to the fact that this group includes shopkeepers, owners of industrial establishments, and so forth. The mixing of such "peasants" with real cultivators is a common defect of Zemstvo statistics. We shall refer again to this defect later on.
** Carting: carts, covered and open waggons, etc. Ploughing: iron ploughs, scarifiers (cultivators), etc
page 74
* Statistical Returns tor Melitopol Uyezd, Simferopol, 1885 (Statistical Returns for Taurida Gubernia, Vol. I),[44] -- Statistical Returns for Dnieper Uyezd, Vol. II, Simferopol, 1886.
page 75
* "Zemstvo statistics prove incontrovertibly that the larger the scale of the peasant farm, the smaller the number of implements, workers, and draught animals employed on a given tillage area" (op. cit., p. 162).
page 76
of farms
employing
workers
of crop area
belonging
to each group
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
" up to 5 dess. .
. . .
" 5 to 10 " .
. . .
" 10 to 25 " .
. . .
" 25 to 50 " .
. . .
" over 50 " .
. . .
2.5
2.6
8.7
34.7
64.1
2
10
38
34 \
16 /
50
Mr. V. V., in the above-mentioned article, argued about this question as follows: he took the farms employing workers as a percentage of the total number of peasant farms and arrived at the conclusion that "the number of peasants resorting to hired labour for the cultivation of the land, as compared to the aggregate mass of the people, is quite insignificant: 2 to 3, a maximum of 5 peasant farmers out of 100 are all that represent peasant capitalism . . . it" (peasant farming in Russia employing labourers) "is not a system firmly rooted in contemporary economic life, but something fortuitous, such as occurred 100 and 200 years ago" (Vestnik Yevropy, 1884, No. 7, p. 332). What sense is there in comparing the number of farms employing workers with the total number of "peasant" farms, when the latter figure also includes the plots of farm labourers? Why, by this method one could also get rid of capitalism in Russian industry: one would only need to take the families engaging in industries who employ wage-workers (i.e., the families
page 77
* England is the classic land of agricultural capitalism. And in that country 40.8% of the farmers employ no hired labour; 68.1% employ not more than 2 workers; 82% employ not more than 4 workers (Yanson, Comparative Statistics, Vol. II pp. 22-23; quoted from Kablukov, The Workers in Agriculture, p. 16). But he would be a fine economist, indeed, who forgot the mass of agricultural proletarians, both migratory and also resident (i.e., such as get "employments" in their own villages), who hire themselves out by the day.
page 78
Percentages
leasing their
allotment land
allotment
land
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
" up to 5 dess. .
. . .
" 5 to 10 " .
. . .
" 10 to 25 " .
. . .
" 25 to 50 " .
. . .
" over 50 " .
. . .
30
23
16
7
7
38.4
17.2
8.1
2.9
13.8
In the three uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, the land leased (in 1884-86) amounted to 25% of the total peasant arable; this does not include land leased, not to peasants, but to middle-class intellectuals. In all, nearly 1/3 of the population in these three uyezds lease land; the allotments of the rural proletariat are rented mainly by the peasant bourgeoisie. Here are data in this regard:
of Taurida
Gubernia
rented from
neighbors
" " " " " 10 to 25 dess. "
" " " " " 25 and more "
89,526
150,596
35
59
Allotment land is now an object of extensive speculation among the South-Russian peasants. Land is used as security for loans on promissory notes. . . . Land is leased, or sold, for one or two years and for longer periods -- 8, 9 or 11 years" (p. 139, op. cit.). Thus, the peasant bourgeoisie is also a representative of merchant's and usurer's capital.* Here we have a striking refutation of the Narodnik prejudice
* And itself resorts to the "very numerous" village banks and loan-and-savings societies, which render "substantial assistance" to "prosperous peasants." "The economically weak peasants cannot find guarantors and do not get loans" (p. 368, op cit.).
page 79
* In Melitopol Uyezd, out of 13,789 households in this group only 4,218 till their land with their own animals; 9,201 "yoke." In Dnieper Uyezd, out of 8,234 households, 4,029 till the land with their own animals, and 3,835 "yoke." See zemstvo statistical returns for Melitopol Uyezd (p. B. 195) and for Dnieper Uyezd (p. B. 123).
** In the above-mentioned article Mr. V. V. argues a great deal about yoking being the "principle of co-operation," etc. It is really so simple to hush up the fact that the peasantry are breaking up into sharply distinct groups, that yoking is the co-operation of tottering farms which are being ousted by the peasant bourgeoisie, and then to talk in general about the "principle of co-operation" -- probably co-operation between the rural proletariat and the rural bourgeoisie!
page 80
page 81
land
land
land
leased out
by group
crops
of
house-
holders
House-
hold-
ers
Persons
of both
sexes
Dess.
%
Dess.
%
Dess.
%
Dess.
%
Dess.
%
Dess.
%
Middle . .
Well-to-do
41.7
18.4
42.2
25.2
102,794
61,844
46.5
28
5,376
26,531
16
78
48,398
81,646
35
59
8,311
3,039
25.3
9.2
148,257
166,982
41.2
46.4
137,344
150,614
43
46
uyezd
* Data taken from the Zemstvo Statistical Returns. They cover the whole uyezd, including settlements
not embraced by volosts.[45] The figures in the column "Total land used by group" have been calculated by
myself, by adding together the allotment, rented and purchased land, and substracting the leased land.
page 82
renting
house-
holds
renting
household
(dess.)
Price per
dessiatines
(rubles)
" 5 to 10 " .
. . . .
" 10 to 25 " .
. . . .
" 25 to 50 " .
. . . .
" over 50 " .
. . . .
42
69
88
91
3.9
8.5
20.0
48.6
12.00
4.75
3.75
3.55
The question arises, of what importance can "average" figures be here? Does the fact that those who rent land are "many" -- 56% -- really do away with the concentration of the rented land in the hands of the rich? Is it not ridiculous to take the "average" area of rented land [12 dess. per renting household. Very often it is not even per renting household, but per existing household that is taken. That is what Mr. Karyshev, for example, does in his work "Peasant Rentings of Non-Allotment Land" (Dorpat, 1892; Vol. II of Results of Zemstvo Statistical Investigations )] by putting together peasants of whom one takes 2 dessiatines at a fabulous price (15 rubles), evidently out of dire need, on ruinous terms, while another takes 48 dessiatines, over and above his own adequate amount of land, "buying" the land wholesale at the incomparably lower price of 3.55 rubles per dessiatine? No less hollow is the third argument: Mr. V. V. himself took care to refute it by admitting that figures relating "to entire village communities" (in classifying the peasants according to allotment) "do not present a true picture of what is taking place in the community itself" (p. 342, op. cit.).**
* The data for the Melitopol and Berdyansk uyezds are analogous.
** Mr. Postnikov cites an interesting example of a similar mistake [cont. onto p. 83. -- DJR] made by Zemstvo statisticians. Noting the fact of commercial farming by the well-to-do peasants and their demand for land, he points out that "the Zemstvo statisticians, evidently regarding such manifestations in peasant life as something illegitimate, try to belittle their importance" and to prove that the renting of land is determined not by the competition of rich peasants but by the peasants' need for land. To prove this, Mr. Werner, the compiler of Taurida Gubernia Handbook (1889), classified the peasants of the entire Taurida Gubernia according to size of allotment, taking the group of peasants with 1 or 2 people working and 2 or 3 draught animals. It turned out that, within the bounds of this group, as the size of the allotment increases the number of renting households and the amount of rented land decrease. Obviously, such a method of calculation proves nothing at all, since only peasants with an equal number of draught animals are taken, and it is the extreme groups that are omitted. It is quite natural that where the number of draught animals is equal the amount of cultivated land must also be equal, and consequently, the smaller the allotment, the larger the amount of rented land. The question is how the rented land is distributed among households with unequal numbers of draught animals, implements, etc.
page 83
page 84
renting
households
dess.
total
renting
household
" 5 to 10 " .
. . .
" 10 to 25 " .
. . .
" 25 to 50 " .
. . .
" over 50 " .
. . .
444
1,732
1,245
632
1,427
8,711
13,375
20,283
3 /
20
30 \
46 /
76
3.2
5.0
10.7
32.1
A little illustration of the "labour principle" and of the "principle of even distribution"!
* It is usually said that the data for Novorossia do not permit the drawing of general conclusions, because of the specific features of that locality. We do not deny that the differentiation of the agricultural peasantry is more marked here than in the rest of Russia; but it will be seen from what follows that the specific nature of Novorossia is by no means so great as is sometimes imagined.
page 85
II. ZEMSTVO STATISTICS FOR SAMARA GUBERNIA
* "It is interesting," wrote Mr. N.-on, that Mr. Postnikov "has projects for 60-dessiatine peasant farms." But "since agriculture has fallen into the hands of capitalists," productivity of labour may grow still more "tomorrow," "and it will be necessary (!) to convert the 60-dessiatine into 200- or 300-dessiatine farms." You see how simple it is: because the petty bourgeoisie of today in our countryside will be threatened tomorrow by the big bourgeoisie, therefore Mr. N.-on refuses to recognise either today's petty or tomorrow's big bourgeoisie!
** Statistical Returns for Samara Gubernia, Vol. VII, Novouzensk Uyezd, Samara, 1890. An analogous classification is also given for Nikolayevsk Uyezd (Vol. VI, Samara, 1889), but the data are much less detailed. The Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia (Vol. VIII, Pt. 1, Samara, 1892) contains only a classification according to size of allotment, the unsatisfactory nature of which we shall deal with later on.
page 86
% of total
housholds
under crops
per household
(dessitines)
% of
total area
under crops
\ " 1 draught animal . . .
16.4 /
5.0
5.2 /
\ " 4 " " . .
11.6 /
15.9
11.5 /
< " 10 to 20 " " . .
\ " 20 draught animals and more
5.8 >
1.8 /
53.0
149.5
19.3 >
17.2 /
The concentration of agricultural production turns out to be very considerable: the "community" capitalists (1/14 of the total households, namely, households with 10 and more draught animals) possess 36.5% of the area under crops -- as much as do 75.3 %, the poor and middle peasantry put together! Here, too, as always, the "average" figure (15.9 dess. under crops per household) is absolutely fictitious and creates the illusion of universal prosperity. Let us examine other data on the economy of the various groups.
householders
peasants
cultivating
entire
allotment
with own
implements
% of
peasants
owning
improved
implements
animals
(in terms
of cattle)
per
household
% of total
animals
" 1 draught animal . . . .
35.4
0.1
1.9
4.9 /
" 4 " " . .
74.7
19.0
6.6
11.8 /
" 10 to 20 " " . .
" 20 draught animals and more
90.3
84.1
41.6
62.1
22.7
55.5
20.4 >
15.4 /
page 87
* It is interesting to note that from these very data Mr. V. V. (Progressive Trends in Peasant Farming, St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 225) concluded that there was a movement by the "peasant masses" to replace obsolete implements by improved ones (p. 254). The method by which this absolutely false conclusion was reached is very simple: Mr. V. V. took the total figures from the Zemstvo returns, without troubling to look at the tables showing how the implements were distributed! The progress of the capitalist farmers (community members), who employ machines to cheapen the cost of producing commodity grain, is transformed by a stroke of the pen into the progress of the "peasant masses." And Mr. V.V. did not hesitate to write "Although the machines are acquired by the well-to-do peasants; they are used by all (sic!!) the peasants" (221). Comment is superfluous.
page 88
page 89
of non-
allotment
land
In other
commun-
ities
In own
commun-
ity
hhlds
with
pur-
chased
land
Dess.
per
hhld
% of
total
pur-
chased
land
% of
hhlds
rent-
ing
Dess.
per
hhld
% of
hhlds
Dess.
per
hhld
% of
hhlds
Dess.
per
hhld
% of
total
rented
land
non-
farming
hhlds
leasing
out land
" 1 draught animal. . .
" 2 to 3 draught animals .
" 4 " " .
" 5 to 15 " " .
" 10 to 20 " " .
" 20 and more " .
--
0.02
0.07
0.1
1.4
8.2
--
93
29
101
151
1,254
--
0.5
0.1
0.9
6.0
92.3
10.5
19.8
27.9
30.4
45.8
65.8
2.5
3.8
6.6
14.0
54.0
304.2
4.3
9.4
15.8
19.7
29.6
36.1
6.2
5.6
6.9
11.6
29.4
67.4
12
21
34
44
58
58
4
5
6
9
21
74
1.6
5.8
5.4
16.9
24.3
45.4
13.0
2.0
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.1
page 90
* We identify with the sale of labour-power what the statisticians call "agricultural industries" (local and away from the village). That by these "industries is meant employment as regular and day labourers is clear from the table of industries (Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia, Vol. VIII): of 14,063 males engaged in "agricultural industries," 13,297 are farm labourers and day labourers (including shepherds and ploughmen).
page 91
holders
employing
hired
labourers
males
engaged in
agricultural
industries
" 1 draught animal . . . . . .
" 2 to 3 draught animals . . . .
" 4 " " . . . .
" 5 to 15 " " . . . .
" 10 to 20 " " . . . .
" 20 and more draught animals . .
0.6
1.3
4.8
20.3
62.0
90.1
48.7
20.4
8.5
5.0
3.9
2.0
We suggest that the reader compare the arguments of our Narodniks with these data regarding the process of the formation of the home market. . . . "If the muzhik is prosperous, the factory flourishes, and vice versa" (V. V., Progressive Trends, p. 9). Mr. V. V. is evidently not in the least interested in the social form of the wealth which the "factory" needs and which is created only by the conversion of the product and the means of production, on the one hand, and of labour-power, on the other, into a commodity. Mr. N.-on, when speaking of the sale of grain, consoles himself with the thought that this grain is produced by the "muzhik farmer" (Sketches, p. 24), that by transporting this grain "the railways live at the expense of the muzhik" (p. 16). Really, are not these "community-member" capitalists "muzhiks"? "Some day we shall have occasion to point out," wrote Mr. N.-on in 1880, and reprinted it in 1893, "that in the localities where communal land tenure prevails, agriculture based on capitalist principles is almost completely absent (sic!!) and that it is possible only where communal ties have either been entirely broken or are breaking down" (p. 59). Mr. N.-on has never had this "occasion," nor could he have had, for the facts point precisely to the development of capitalist agriculture among "community members"* and
* Novouzensk Uyezd, which we have taken as an illustration, reveals a particular "tenacity of the village community" (to use the terminology of Messrs. V. V. & Co.): from the table in the Combined Returns (p.26) we find that in this uyezd 60% of the communities have redivided the land, whereas in the other uyezds only 11 to 23% have done so (for the gubernia 13.8% of the communities).
page 92
page 93
III. ZEMSTVO STATISTICS FOR SARATOV GUBERNIA
householders
% of
households
% of
popu-
lation,
both
sexes
age
area
under
crops
(dess.)
% of
total
area
under
crops
hhlds
with no
land
under
crops
(in terms
of large
cattle)
per
household
% of total
animals
animals .
" 1 draught
animal .
26.4
20.3
\
>
/
46.7
17.6
15.9
1.1
5.0
2.6
9.5
\
>
/
12.3
72.3
13.1
0.6
2.3
2.9
8.9
\
>
/
11.8
animals .
" 3 draught
animals .
" 4 draught
animals .
14.6
9.3
8.3
\
>
/
32.2
13.8
10.3
10.4
8.8
12.1
15.8
11.8
10.5
12.1
\
>
/
34.4
4.9
1.5
0.6
4.1
5.7
7.4
11.1
9.8
11.2
\
>
/
32.1
draught ani-
mals . .
21.1
21.1
32.0
27.6
53.3
53.3
0.2
14.6
56.1
56.1
* For the other four uyezds of this gubernia the classification according to draught animals held merges the middle and well-to-do peasantry. See Combined Statistical Returns for Saratov Gubernia, Part 1, Saratov, 1888. B. Combined Tables for Saratov Gubernia [cont. onto p. 94. -- DJR] according to categories of peasants. -- The Saratov statisticians compiled their combined tables as follows: all the householders are divided into six categories according to size of allotment, each category is divided into six groups according to the number of draught animals, and each group is divided into four subdivisions according to the number of working males in the family. Summarised data are given only for the categories, so that we have to calculate those for the groups ourselves. We shall deal with the significance of this table later on.
page 94
* Let us note that when classifying households according to economic strength, or to size of farm, we always get larger families among the well-to-do strata of the peasantry. This phenomenon points to the connection between the peasant bourgeoisie and large families, which receive a larger number of allotments; partly it shows the opposite: it indicates the lesser desire of the well-to-do peasantry to divide up the land. One should not, however, exaggerate the significance of large families among the well-to-do peasants, who, as our figures show, resort in the greatest measure to the employment of hired labour. The "family co-operation" of which our Narodniks are so fond of talking is thus the basis of capitalist co-operation.
page 95
employing male
wage-workers
engaging in
industries
" 1 " animal . . . . .
" 2 " animals . . . . .
" 3 " " . . . . .
" 4 " " . . . . .
" 5 and more " . . . . .
0.9
2.9
7.1
10.0
26.3
70.8
61.5
55.0
58.6
46.7
Here an important explanation is needed. P. N. Skvortsov has quite rightly noted in one of his articles that Zemstvo statistics attach far too "wide" a meaning to the term "industry" (or "employments"). In fact, all sorts of occupations engaged in by the peasants outside their allotments are assigned to the category of "industries"; factory owners and workers, owners of flour mills and of melon fields, day labourers, regular farm labourers; buyers-up, traders and unskilled labourers; lumber-dealers and lumbermen; building contractors and building workers; members of the liberal professions, clerks, beggars, etc., all these are "industrialists"! This barbarous misuse of words is a survival of the traditional -- and we have the right even to say: official -- view that the "allotment" is the "real," "natural" occupation of the muzhik, while all other occupations are assigned indiscriminately to "outside" industries. Under serfdom this use of the word had its raison d'être, but now it is a glaring anachronism. Such terminology is retained partly because it harmonises wonderfully with the fiction about an "average" peasantry and rules right out the possibility of studying the differentiation of the peasantry (particularly in those places where peasant "outside" occupations are numerous and varied. Let us remind the reader that Kamyshin Uyezd is a noted centre of the sarpinka industry[47]). The processing* of
* We say "processing " because the data on peasant industries collected in the house-to-house censuses are very comprehensive and detailed.
page 96
* The total amount of arable leased out in the uyezd is 61,639 dess., i.e., about 1/6, of the aggregate allotment arable (377,305 dess.).
page 97
allotment household
use (allotment
+ rented
- leased)
householders
ment
arable
land
land
ment
animals .
" 1 draught
animal .
5.4
6.5
0.3
1.6
3.0
1.3
16
14
1.7
6
52.8
17.8
5.5
10.3
animals .
" 3 draught
animals .
" 4 draught
animals .
8.5
10.1
12.5
3.5
5.6
7.4
0.9
0.8
0.7
13
10
11
\
>
/
34
9.5
9.5
11.1
\
>
/
30.1
8.4
4.8
4.1
\
>
/
17.3
12.3
10.4
11.9
\
>
/
34.6
draught ani-
mals . .
16.1
16.6
0.9
36
62.2
12.3
49.6
Thus we see, here too, that the wealthier the peasants the more they rent land, despite the fact that they are better provided with allotment land. Here too we see that the well-to-do are ousting the middle peasantry, and that the role of allotment land in peasant farming tends to diminish at both poles of the countryside.
page 98
page 99
* An exactly similar table is given by the statisticians for Kamyshin Uyezd. Statistical Returns for Saratov Gubernia, Vol. XI Kamyshin Uyezd, p. 249 and foll. We can just as well, therefore make use of the data for the uyezd we have taken.
** That the data quoted by Mr. N.-on refute his conclusions has already been pointed to by Mr. P. Struve in his Critical Remarks.
page 100
page 101
House-
holds
Population,
both sexes
Total
animals
ment
land
Rented
land
land
in use
under
crops
" 1 " animal
" 2 and more animals
29.6
46.0
25.3
59.0
18.5
77.8
23.4
61.9
13.9
84.0
19.8
72.1
19.2
76.4
page 102
Total . . . . . . .
Allotment land (dess.) . .
Rented . . . . . . .
Area under crops . . . .
9.5
12.4
9.5
17
5.3
7.9
6.5
11.7
5.7
8
4
9
7.1
9
7
13
5.1
8
5.7
11
This means that in Kamyshin Uyezd the prosperous peasants are richer. This uyezd is one of those with the greatest abundance of land: 7.1 dess. of allotment land per registered person,[48] male, as against 5.4 dess. for the gubernia. Hence, the land-abundance of the "peasantry" merely means the greater numbers and greater wealth of the peasant bourgeoisie.