The Revolution in Agriculture.
1.--Transatlantic Competition and Desertion of the Country.
The economic revolution in industry and trade has also largely
affected agricultural conditions. The commercial and industrial
crises affect the rural population likewise. Hundreds of thousands
of members of the families of farmers are temporarily or permanently
employed in industrial establishments of various kinds. This manner
of employment constantly expands, firstly, because the great number
of small farmers do not have enough work on their own farms to keep
themselves and the members of their families usefully employed, and,
secondly, because the large farmers find it profitable to have an
important portion of the products of their soil transformed into
industrial commodities right on their own farms. In this manner they
save the heavy expense of shipping the raw material, for instance,
potatoes and grain for the manufacture of alcohol, beets for sugar,
cereals for flour or for brewing beer, etc. They, furthermore, are
enabled to establish a mutual relation between agricultural and
industrial production and can employ the labor power on hand to better
advantage. The wages are lower and the workers are more willing too
than those in cities and industrial centers. Expenses of buildings
and rents as well as taxes are considerably lower too, for the large
land owners in the rural districts are both the makers and executors
of the law; they furnish many representatives from their midst and
control the administration and police force. That is why the number
of factories in the country increases each year. Agriculture and
industry are becoming more and more closely linked, and the large
agricultural establishments mainly profit from this fact.
The capitalistic development that the large estates have undergone,
in Germany as elsewhere, has created conditions similar to those in
England and the United States. We no longer meet with those ideal
conditions in the country that still existed a few decades ago. Modern
civilization has gradually taken possession of the country, too, in
the remotest places even. Militarism especially has unintentionally
exercised a revolutionary influence. The great increase in the standing
army has made itself especially severely felt in the open country.
A great portion of the troops for the standing army is drawn from
the rural population. But when the peasant’s son, or day laborer or
farm-hand, returns to the country, after an absence of two or three
years, from the city and the barracks, where the atmosphere has not
been an exactly moral one, he has become acquainted with many new
ideas and requirements of civilization that he seeks to satisfy
at home as he did away from home. To make this possible his first
demand is for higher wages. The old modesty and contentedness have
been shattered in the city. In many cases he prefers to stay away
from the country altogether, and all endeavours, supported by the
military authorities, to lead him back, remain unsuccessful. Improved
means of traffic and communication also tend to raise the standard
of requirements in the country. By his associations with the city
the farmer becomes acquainted with the world in an entirely new and
tempting way; he is influenced by ideas and learns of requirements of
civilization that have been entirely foreign to him until then. That
causes him to become dissatisfied with his position. The increased
demands made upon the population by state, county, community, etc.,
affect the peasant as well as the rural worker and make them more
rebellious still. To this other most important factors must be added.
European agriculture, and especially German agriculture, has entered
upon a new phase of its development since the close of the seventies
of the last century. While, until then, the nations depended upon
the farm products of their own agriculture, or, as England, upon that
of the neighboring countries--France and Germany--the situation now
began to change. As a result of the tremendously improved means of
transportation--navigation and the construction of railways in North
America--provisions began to be shipped from there to Europe and
lowered the prices of grain, so that cultivation of the chief kinds of
grain in Middle and Western Europe became far less profitable, unless
the entire conditions of production could be changed. Moreover, the
realm of international grain production greatly expanded. Besides
Russia and Roumania, who made every endeavour to increase their
export of grain, products from Argentine Republic, Australia, India
and Canada appeared upon the market. In the course of development
another unfavorable factor was added. Influenced by the causes above
enumerated, the small farmers and rural workers began to desert the
country. They either emigrated beyond the seas or scores of them
moved from the country to the cities and industrial centers, so that
labor power in the country became scarce. The antiquated, patriarchal
conditions, especially in Eastern Europe, the ill-treatment and
almost servile status of the farm-hands and servants still heightened
this desertion of the country. To what extent this shifting of the
population has affected the rural districts from 1840 until the
census of 1905, may be seen from the fact that during this period the
Prussian provinces--East-Prussia, West Prussia, Pomerania, Posen,
Silesia, Saxony and Hannover--lost 4,049,200 persons, and Bavaria,
Wurtemberg, Baden and Alsace-Lorraine had a loss of 2,026,500, while
Berlin increased by migration by about 1,000,000 persons, Hamburg
by 402,000, the Kingdom of Saxony by 326,200, the Rhine provinces
by 343,000, and Westphalia by 246,100.[208]
[208] Quarterly Gazette for Statistics of the German Empire.
2.--Peasants and Great Landowners.
As a result of all these changes, agriculture began to suffer from
a want of capital. Accordingly the former line of development,
whereby the great landowner bought up the small and medium-sized
farmers and made them part of his property, gave way to the opposite
tendency. But this pressure also brought about, that the clumsy
character of agricultural enterprises was gradually modified, because
people recognized that it would no longer do to follow the beaten
path, but that it had become necessary to adopt new methods. The
national government, as well as the state governments, endeavored
to relieve agriculture from its exigency by appropriate trade and
tariff policies and by direct expenditures for various improvements.
Recently the medium and great landowners are quite successful again
wherever the farms are conducted in keeping with modern technical
development, as may be gathered from the fact that the prices of
farms have greatly increased.
If agriculture is to prosper in capitalistic society, it is necessary
that it should be conducted by capitalistic methods. Here, as in
industry, it is important that human labor should be replaced or
aided by machinery and technical improvements. That this is being
done may be seen from the following: During the period from 1882 to
1895 the number of steam-ploughs employed in agriculture in Germany
has increased from 836 to 1696, and the number of steam-threshing
machines has increased from 75,690 to 259,364. Compared to what might
be done in the way of agricultural machinery, these figures are still
exceedingly low and prove the undeveloped state of agriculture; they
also prove that lack of means and the small size of the individual
farms have so far made the application of machinery impossible. The
machine, in order to be truly advantageous, requires application
on a large area of land devoted to cultivation of the same kind of
crop. The great number of small and medium-sized farms, the scattered
fields and the great variety of crops have prevented a successful
application of machinery. The tables on page 351 show how the farming
area is distributed in the German Empire.[209]
Among the 5,736,082 farms counted in 1907 there were no less than
4,384,786 of less than 5 hectares = 76.8 per cent., that can furnish
but a poor existence to their owners, unless the soil is particularly
good, or unless devoted to horticulture. A great many of them could
not even be used in this way, since there are 2,731,055 farms among
them of one hectare, and less, in area.
==============+=================================+=====================
| Number of Farms | Increase or Decrease
+---------------------------------+---------------------
Farms | | From 1882 From 1895
| 1882 1895 1907 | to 1895 to 1907
--------------+---------------------------------+---------------------
Less than | |
2 hectares | 3,061,831 3,236,367 3,378,509 | +174,536 +142,142
2 to 5 ha. | 981,407 1,016,318 1,006,277 | + 34,911 − 10,041
5 “ 20 “ | 926,605 998,804 1,065,539 | + 72,199 + 66,735
20 “ 100 “ | 281,510 281,767 262,191 | + 257 − 19,576
Over 100 “ | 24,991 25,061 23,566 | + 70 − 1,495
----+---------------------------------+---------------------
| 5,276,344 5,558,317 5,736,082 | +281,973 +177,765
--------------+---------------------------------+---------------------
==============+====================================+=====================
| Farming area in hectares | Increase or Decrease
+------------------------------------+---------------------
Farms | | From 1882 From 1895
| 1882 1895 1907 | to 1895 to 1907
--------------+------------------------------------+---------------------
Less than | |
2 hectares | 1,825,938 1,808,444 1,731,317 | − 17,494 − 77,127
2 to 5 ha. | 3,190,203 3,285,984 3,304,872 | + 95,781 + 18,888
5 “ 20 “ | 9,158,398 9,721,875 10,421,565 | +568,477 +699,690
20 “ 100 “ | 9,908,170 9,869,837 9,322,106 | − 38,333 −547,731
Over 100 “ | 7,786,263 7,831,801 7,055,013 | + 45,538 −776,788
----+------------------------------------+---------------------
| 31,868,972 32,517,941 31,834,873 | +648,969 −683,068
--------------+------------------------------------+---------------------
But even among the farms of more than 5 hectares there are many that
yield only a poor product, notwithstanding hard and long labor, owing
to poor soil, unfavorable climate, bad location, lack of proper means
of transportation, etc. It may be said without exaggeration that
fully nine-tenths of the farmers lack the means and the knowledge
to cultivate their soil as it might be cultivated. Neither do the
small peasants receive a fair price for their products, since they
depend upon the intermediate trader. The dealer who traverses the
country on definite days or in definite seasons and usually trades
off his merchandise to other dealers again, must obtain his profit.
But to gather in the many small quantities means much more trouble
to him than to procure a large quantity from a great landowner. The
peasants owning small and medium-sized farms therefore receive less
for their products than the great landowners, and if their products
are of inferior quality, which is frequently the case owing to their
primitive methods, they must accept almost any price. Sometimes they
cannot even wait for the time when their product will bring the
highest price. They owe money on rent, interest and taxes, they must
repay loans, or must settle bills with tradespeople and mechanics,
therefore they are obliged to sell no matter how unfavorable the time
may be. In order to improve their property, or to satisfy joint-heirs
or children they have mortgaged their farms. As they have few lenders
to choose from, the conditions are not very favorable. A high rate
of interest and definite dates of payment weigh heavily on them. A
poor harvest or a faulty speculation in regard to the kind of product
that they expected to sell at a good price often drive them to the
verge of ruin. Sometimes the products are bought and the capital is
loaned by one and the same person, and in that event the peasant is
entirely in the hands of his creditor. In this manner the peasants
of entire villages and districts are sometimes in the hands of a
few creditors. This is the case with the peasants who raise hops,
wine, tobacco, and vegetables in Southern Germany, and on the Rhine,
and with small farmers in Central Germany. The creditor fleeces the
peasants mercilessly. He allows them to remain on their farms as
apparent owners, but as a matter of fact they no longer own them.
Frequently the capitalistic exploiter finds this method far more
profitable than to cultivate the land himself, or to sell it. In
this manner thousands of peasants are recorded as owners of farms
who are virtually not the owners. As a matter of fact, many great
landowners, too, who managed badly or were unfortunate or took the
property under unfavorable conditions, fell victims to capitalistic
extortioners. The capitalist becomes master of the soil, and, in
order to increase his profits, he divides up the farm into lots,
because in this way he can obtain a far higher price than if he sold
it undivided. With a number of small proprietors he furthermore has
the best prospect to continue his usurious trade. As is well known,
in the city, too, those houses yield the highest rents that contain
the largest number of small apartments. A small number of farmers
take the opportunity and buy portions of the divided estate. The
capitalistic benefactor is willing to turn over larger portions to
them also upon a small payment. The remainder of the price he takes
as mortgage at a high rate of interest, and there the difficulty
begins. If the small farmer is fortunate and succeeds in making his
farm pay he escapes; otherwise his lot will be as described above. If
the small farmer loses some of his cattle, that is a great misfortune
for him; if he has a daughter who marries, the purchase of her
outfit increases his debts and he loses a cheap labor power; if a
son marries, the latter demands his share of the farm, or a payment
in money. Frequently he cannot afford even necessary improvements.
If his stock does not provide sufficient manure--as is often the
case--his soil becomes poorer in quality, because he cannot afford
to buy manure. Sometimes he is too poor to buy good seed even; the
use of machinery is denied him, and a change of crop adapted to the
chemical nature of his soil is frequently unfeasible. Neither can
he apply advantageous methods offered by science and experience in
the improvement of his stock. Lack of proper fodder, lack of proper
stalls, lack of other necessary appliances, prevents it. So there
are many causes that make existence difficult to the small farmer.
It is quite different with the large estates, where a comparatively
small number of farms cover a large area. We see from the statistics
that 23,566 farms, having an area of 7,055,013 hectares of cultivated
soil, cover 2,019,824 hectares more than the 4,384,786 farms having an
area of less than five hectares. But the numbers of the farms and the
numbers of the owners do not coincide. In 1895 there were no less than
912,959 leased farms of all sizes, 1,694,251 farms that were partly
owned and partly leased, and 983,917 farms that were cultivated in
different ways, as farms loaned to officials, as part of communal
property, etc. On the other hand, single individuals own a number
of agricultural estates. The greatest German landowner is the King
of Prussia, who owns 83 estates, with an area of 98,746 hectares;
other great German landowners are:
Prince of Pless owning 75 estates of 70,170 hectares
Prince Hohenzollern-Sigmar “ 24 “ “ 59,968 “
Duke of Ujest “ 52 “ “ 39,742 “
Prince Hohenlohe-Oehringen “ -- ------ 39,365 “
Prince of Ratibor “ 51 “ “ 33,096 “
In 1895 the entailed estates in Prussia comprised an area of
2,121,636 hectares, or 6.09 per cent. of the entire area of the land.
The 1045 entailed estates were owned by 939 proprietors, and their
common property was by 206,600 hectares larger than the entire Kingdom
of Wurtemberg, which covers an area of about 1,915,000 hectares. The
large landowners are naturally interested in maintaining the present
conditions. Not so the small proprietors, who would draw great
advantages from a rational transformation of the conditions. It is
an innate characteristic of large ownership of land that it seeks to
enlarge its possessions more and more, and to take possession of all
the farms within reach. It is so in Silesia, Lausitz, the Dukedom
of Hessia and in other districts from which purchases of peasants’
estates on a large scale are frequently reported.
In Austria the large estates predominate far more than in Germany,
or particularly in Prusia. Here, besides the nobility and the
bourgeoisie, the Catholic Church has succeeded in taking possession
of a lion’s share of the soil. The expropriation of peasants is in
full swing in Austria also. In Styria, Tyrol, Salzburg, Upper and
Lower Austria, etc., all means are applied to drive the peasants
from their native soil and to turn their farms into gentlemen’s
estates. The same scenes that were at one time enacted in Scotland
and Ireland may now be observed in the most picturesque parts of
Austria. Individuals, as well as societies, purchase enormous tracts
of land, or rent what they cannot purchase, and transform them into
hunting grounds. Trespassing on the valleys, hills and hamlets is
prohibited by the new masters, and the stubborn proprietors of some
estates, who refuse to comply with the demands of the gentlemen,
are annoyed so long in various ways that they yield and sell
their property. Soil that has been cultivated for ages, where for
thousands of years many generations made a living, are transformed
into a wilderness where deer may roam about, and the mountains
that have been taken possession of by the capitalistic nobility or
bourgeoisie are the hunting grounds of the chamois. Poverty spreads
over entire communities because they are denied the right of driving
their cattle on the Alpine pastures. And who are these persons
who are robbing the peasant of his property and his independence?
Besides Rothschild and Baron Meyer-Melnhof, the Counts of Coburg
and Meiningen, Prince Hohenlohe, the Duke of Liechtenstein, the
Count of Braganza, the Duchess Rosenberg, the Duke of Pless, the
Counts Schoenfeld, Festetics, Schafgotsch, Trauttmannsdorff, the
Baron Gustaedt Hunting Club, the Count Karoly Hunting Club, the
Noblemen’s Hunting Club of Bluehnbach, etc. Everywhere the great
landowners are extending their property. In 1875 there were only 9
persons in Lower Austria who owned more than 5000 yokes each, with
an area of 89,490 hectares; in 1895 there were 24 persons who owned
an area of 213,574 hectares. Throughout Austria the great landowners
control an area of 8,700,000 hectares, while 21,300,000 hectares
belong to the small landowners. The proprietors of entailed estates,
297 families, own 1,200,000 hectares. Millions of small landowners
cultivate 71 per cent. of the entire area, while a few thousand
great landowners control more than 29 per cent. of the entire area
of Austria. There are few land-revenue districts in which there are
no great landed proprietors. In most of the districts there are
two or several landowners who exert a determining political and
social influence. Almost half of the great landowners hold property
in several districts of the country, a number of them in several
crown-lands of the empire. In Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, and
Silesia there is no district without them. Only industry succeeded in
dislodging them to some extent; for instance, in Northern Bohemia
and at the boundary of Bohemia and Moravia. In all other parts of the
country the large estates are increasing: In Upper Austria, where,
of all crown-lands, we still find a class of peasants that is fairly
well off; in Goerz and Gradiaska, in Styria, Salzburg, in Galicia
and Bukovina. They are increasing less rapidly in those countries
that already are the domains of the great landowners--Bohemia,
Moravia, Silesia and Lower Austria. In Lower Austria, of the entire
ground comprising 1,982,300 hectares, 393 great landowners owned
540,655 hectares, and the Church owned 79,181 hectares; 13 estates
comprise 425,079 hectares = 9 per cent. of the entire area; among
these, Duke Hoyos-Sprinzenstein owns 33,124 hectares. The area
of Moravia covers 2,181,220 hectares. Of these the Church owned
81,857 hectares, and 116 estates of more than 1000 hectares each
comprised a larger area than the 500,000 estates up to 10 hectares,
that form 92.1 per cent. of all estates. The area of Austrian Silesia
covers 514,677 hectares. Of these the Church owned 50,845 hectares,
and 79 proprietors together owned 204,118 hectares. Bohemia, with an
area of 5,194,500 hectares, has about 1,237,085 great landowners.
The distribution of property is characterized by an unusual number
of estates of smallest dimensions, and by extensive large estates.
Almost 43 per cent. of all the estates are smaller than ½ hectare,
and more than four-fifths do not exceed 5 hectares. These 703,577
estates (81 per cent.) only cover 12.5 per cent. of the area of
Bohemia. On the other hand, 776 persons own 35.6 per cent. of the
entire area, while they only form 0.1 per cent. of all estates. The
unequal distribution of property is more striking still when we
analyze the larger class, those over 200 hectares. We then obtain
the following result:
380 persons own each 200 to 500 hectares together 116,143 hectares
141 “ “ “ 500 “ 1000 “ “ 101,748 “
104 “ “ “ 1000 “ 2000 “ “ 150,567 “
151 “ “ “ over 2000 “ “ 1,436,084 “
Of the last-named group, 31 persons own 5,000 to 10,000 hectares
each; 21 persons own 10,000 to 20,000 hectares each, and the
Princes Mor. Lobkowitz, Ferdinand Kinsky, Karl Schwarzenberg,
Alfred Windischgraetz, the Dukes Ernst Waldstein, Johann Harrach,
Karl Buquoy own 20,000 to 30,000 hectares each. Clam-Gallas and
Lar. Czernin own over 30,000 each. The Prince of Lichtenstein owns
36,189 hectares; Prince Max Egon Fuerstenberg, 39,162 hectares;
Prince Colloredo Mannsfeld, 57,691 hectares, and the Prince of
Schwarzenberg, 177,310 hectares = 3.4 per cent. of the entire area
of Bohemia. The Church owns 150,395 hectares = 3 per cent. of the
area of Bohemia.[210] These figures were compiled in 1896; since
then matters have grown still worse. According to the agricultural
census of 1902 there were 18,437 estates (0.7 per cent. of the entire
number) that covered 9,929,920 hectares, or one-third of the entire
area. In the district of Schwaz seven Alps and in the district of Zell
sixteen Alps that had hitherto served as pastures to the cattle, were
shut off by the new landlords and transformed into hunting grounds.
Pasturing of cattle is prohibited along the entire Karwendel range.
The leading nobility of Austria and Germany, besides rich bourgeois
parvenus, purchased areas up to 70,000 yokes, and more, in the Alpine
regions and had them fenced in as game preserves. Entire villages,
hundreds of farms disappear, the inhabitants are driven from their
native soil, and the place of human beings and of animals intended
for human food, is taken by deer and stags and chamois. Not a few
of these men who have devastated entire provinces in this manner,
afterwards speak on the needy condition of the peasants in the
parliaments, and abuse their power to employ the aid of the state in
the form of taxes on grain, wood, live stock, meat, whiskey, etc.,
at the expense of the propertyless classes.
In the most advanced industrial states it is not the love of luxury
of the privileged classes that dislodges the small estates, as is the
case in Austria. Here the increasing demands of a rapidly growing
population make it necessary to organize farming along capitalistic
lines, in order to produce the required amount of food. This may be
observed in a country so highly developed industrially as Belgium.
According to the “Annual Statistics,” quoted by Emile Vandervelde
in an article, “Landed Property in Belgium During the Period from
1834 to 1899,” it says: “Only farms of less than 5 hectares, and
especially those of less than 2 hectares, have diminished in number.
But the farms of more than 10 hectares have increased to 3,789. The
concentration of landed property that is in keeping with modern
industry and cattle breeding on a large scale, may here be clearly
observed. Since 1880 a development has set in that takes the opposite
course of the one that took place from 1866 to 1880. While, in 1880,
there still were 910,396 farms, only 829,625 remained in 1895; that
means a decrease by 80,771 farms = 9 per cent., in fifteen years.
As a matter of fact, this decrease has affected only farms of less
than 5 hectares. On the other hand, farms of from 5 to 10 hectares
increased by 675; those of from 10 to 20 hectares by 2,168; from 20
to 30 hectares by 414; from 30 to 40 hectares by 164, from 40 to
50 hectares by 187, and those of over 50 hectares by 181.”
[209] Karl Kautsky--The Agrarian question and temporary results of
the agricultural census of June 12, 1901. Quarterly Gazette for
Statistics of the German Empire, 1909.
[210] The Propertied and Propertyless Classes in Austria.--T. W.
Teifen. Vienna, 1906.
3.--The Contrast Between City and Country.
The condition of the soil and its cultivation is of the greatest
importance to the advancement of our civilization. The existence of
the population primarily depends upon the soil and its products. The
soil cannot be increased at will; the manner of its cultivation is
therefore the more important. The population of Germany, which grows
by about 870,000 persons annually, requires a considerable import
of bread and meat, if the prices of the most necessary articles of
food are still to be within reach of the masses. But here we are
confronted by sharp-contrasting interests between the agricultural
and industrial population. That part of the population that is
not engaged in agricultural pursuits, is interested in obtaining
articles of food at low prices, since their wellfare, both as human
beings and as individuals engaged in industry and commerce, depends
upon it. Every increase in the cost of articles of food leads to
a deterioration in the standard of living of a large portion of
the population, unless the wages of the population depending
upon agricultural products should be raised also. But an increase
in wages usually implies an increase in the prices of industrial
products, and that may result in a decline of sales. But if wages
remain stationary, notwithstanding the increased cost of articles of
food, the purchase of other commodities must be limited, and again
industry and commerce suffer.
Matters have a different aspect for those engaged in agriculture.
Just as persons engaged in industry, they seek to obtain the greatest
possible advantage from their occupation, and it does not matter to
them from which particular product they obtain it. If the import of
foreign grain prevents their obtaining the desired profit from the
cultivation of grain, they devote their soil to the cultivation of
other products that are more profitable. They cultivate beets for
the manufacture of sugar, and potatoes and grain for the manufacture
of whiskey, instead of wheat and rye for bread. They devote the most
fertile fields to the cultivation of tobacco, instead of to the
cultivation of vegetables and fruit. Others use thousands of hectares
of land for pastures for horses, because horses bring high prices
for military purposes. Moreover, great stretches of forest land,
which could be employed for agricultural purposes, are reserved as
hunting-grounds for sportsmen of rank. This is sometimes the case in
regions where a few thousand hectares of forests might be cut down
and transformed into fields, without any harmful results ensuing,
due to a decrease in humidity by the cutting down of the forest. In
this manner thousands of square miles of fertile soil might still be
won for agricultural purposes in Germany. But this transformation
is contrary to the material interests of a part of the bureaucracy,
the forest- and game-keepers, as well as to the interests of the
great landowners, who do not wish to give up their hunting-grounds
and to deny themselves the pleasures of the chase. It is a matter
of course that such clearing of forests could take place only where
it would be truly advantageous. On the other hand, large areas of
mountain and waste land might be planted with forests.
Recently the great influence of forests on the formation of moisture
has been denied, as it appears, unjustly so. To what marked degree
the forest influences the moisture of the land, and thereby the
fertility of the soil, is shown by some striking facts given in
the book by Parvus and Dr. Lehmann, “Starving Russia.” The authors
assert, on the ground of their own observations, that the boundless
and desultory devastation of forests in the most fertile provinces
of Russia, was the chief cause of the failure of crops from which
these at one time fertile regions suffered severely during the last
few decades. Among many other facts, they pointed out that during
the course of time five little rivers and six lakes disappeared in
the government district of Stawropol; in the government district of
Busuluk four rivers and four lakes disappeared; in the government
district of Samara six small rivers, and in the government district of
Buguruslan two small rivers disappeared. In the government districts
of Nikolajewsk and Novousensk four rivers are barely maintained by
the construction of dams. Many villages that formerly had running
water in their vicinity are robbed of this advantage, and in many
places the depth of wells is 45 to 60 yards. As a result of this
dearth of water the soil is hard and cracked. With the cutting down
of the forests the springs dried up and rain became scarce.
Capitalistic cultivation of the soil leads to capitalistic conditions.
For a number of years a portion of our farmers derived enormous
profits from the cultivation of beets and the manufacture of sugar
connected with it. The system of taxation favored the exportation
of sugar, and in such a manner that the revenue of the taxes on
sugar-beets and on the consumption of sugar was to a considerable
extent employed as bounties for exportation. The reimbursement
granted to the sugar manufacturers per hundred-weight of sugar was
considerably higher than the tax paid by them on the beets, and
placed them in a position to sell their sugar at low prices to
foreign countries, at the expense of the domestic taxpayers, and to
develop the cultivation of sugar-beets more and more. The advantage
gained by the sugar manufacturers under this system of taxation
amounted to over 31 million marks annually. Hundreds of thousands of
hectares of land that had formerly been devoted to the cultivation
of grain, etc., were now employed to raise beets; countless factories
were erected, and the inevitable result was the panic. The high
profit obtained from the cultivation of beets also caused a rise
in the price of property. This led to a wholesale purchase of the
small farms, whose owners were tempted to sell by the high prices
they could obtain for their property. The soil was made to serve
industrial speculation, and the raising of grain and potatoes was
relegated to soil of inferior quality, which heightened the demand
for the importation of products of food. Finally the evils that
had arisen from the allowance on export of sugar and had gradually
assumed an international character, compelled the governments and
the parliaments to abolish this system and thereby to revert to
somewhat more natural conditions.
Under present-day conditions the small farmers cannot attain the
social status to which they are entitled as citizens of a civilized
state, no matter how hard they may work and how much they may deny
themselves. Whatever the state and society may do to uphold these
classes that form a considerable basis of the existing form of
state and society, their endeavours remain patch-work. The agrarian
taxes harm this portion of the agricultural population more than
they benefit them. Most of these farmers do not produce as much
as they need for the maintenance of their own families. They must
purchase part of their supplies, the means for which they obtain
by industrial or other additional labor. A great many of our small
farmers are more interested in a favorable status of industry and
commerce than in agriculture, because their own children make their
living by industry or commerce, since the farm offers no employment
and no income to them. One failure of crops increases the number of
farmers who are obliged to purchase agricultural products. So how
can agrarian taxes and prohibition of importation benefit those who
have little to sell and must occasionally buy much? At least 80 per
cent. of all agricultural establishments are in this position.
How the farmer cultivates his soil is his own affair in the era of
private property. He cultivates whatever seems most profitable to
him, regardless of the interests and requirements of society; so
“laissez faire!” In industry the same principle is applied. Obscene
pictures and indecent books are manufactured, and factories are
established for the adulteration of food. These and many other
activities are harmful to society; they undermine its morals and
heighten corruption. But they are profitable, more so than decent
pictures, scientific books and unadulterated food. The manufacturer,
eager for profits, must only succeed in escaping the notice of the
police, and he may ply his trade in the knowledge that society will
envy and respect him for the money he has made.
The mammon character of our age is most forcibly expressed by the
stock exchange and its dealings. Products of the soil and industrial
products, means of transportation, meteorological and political
conditions, want and abundance, disasters and suffering of the masses,
public debts, inventions and discoveries, health or disease and death
of influential persons, war and rumors of war often invented for
this purpose, all these and many other things are made the object
of speculation and are used to exploit and cheat one another. The
kings of capital exert the most decisive influence on the weal and
woe of society, and, favored by their powerful means and connections,
they accumulate boundless wealth. Governments and officials become
mere puppets in their hands, who must perform while the kings of
the stock exchange pull the wires. The powers of the state do not
control the stock market, the stock market controls the powers of
the state.
All these facts, which are becoming more evident every day because
the evils are daily increasing, call for speedy and thoroughgoing
reforms. But society stands helpless before these evils and keeps
going about in a circle like a horse in a treadmill, a picture of
impotence and stupidity. They who would like to act, are still too
weak; they who ought to act, still lack understanding; they who
might act, do not wish to. They rely upon their power and think,
as Madame Pompadour expressed it: “Après nous le déluge!” (May the
deluge come after we are gone!) But what if the deluge should overtake
them?
The Socialization of Society.