_STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW._
EDITED BY
THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE.
Volume II.] [Number 1.
THE ECONOMICS
OF THE
RUSSIAN VILLAGE.
BY
ISAAC A. HOURWICH, PH.D.,
_Seligman Fellow in Political Science, Columbia College._
NEW YORK.
1892.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION. THE RISE OF “PEASANTISM.” 7
CHAPTER I. GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDHOLDING IN
RUSSIA 19
The Russian village community of historical times--Survivals of
communal co-operation--The communistic peasant household--Origins
of private property in land--Patrimony and fee--Slavery resulting
from the obligation of loan--Tenure in fee an institute of public
law--Limitation of the peasant’s right of migration--The fee
becomes hereditary--Statute of Peter the Great on inheritance in
the estates held by the nobility; abolition of the distinction
between patrimony and fee--The poll tax--Slaves and serfs put
upon a common footing--Emancipation of the nobility from their
duty toward the state--The serfs agitated by a feeling in favor
of emancipation--“Land and Liberty”--The question discussed in
the Legislative Assembly convoked by Catherine II.--Insurrection
under the head of Emilian Pougatchoff--Further developments of
the abolitionist problem--Peasant riots about the time of the
Crimean War--Economic necessity of abolition of serfdom--Evolution
of private property achieved by the emancipation--Expropriation
of the peasantry--Legends of land nationalization popular
with the peasantry--The Statute of 1861 in its characteristic
features--Russian taxation--Limitation of the personal liberty of
the taxpayer--The village community upheld by over-taxation of the
land--Counteracting influence of the rise of rent.
CHAPTER II. COMMUNITY OF LAND 37
The region selected for review with regard to geographical
position and population--Forms of ownership in land--Agrarian
communism--Community of land with shares fixed in
perpetuity--History of the latter form of ownership--Evolution of
the same into agrarian communism--Opinions of Russian students on
the origin of agrarian communism.
CHAPTER III. THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY 47
Normal size of a farm required by the present state
of agriculture--Actual size of peasant farms--Legal
discrimination--Want of fodder--Depressed condition of stock
breeding--Want of fuel--Manure used as fuel--The land not
fertilized--Exhaustion of the soil--Improper situation of the
lots--Yields of cereals--Balance of peasant agriculture--Review
of real peasant budgets--Development of money economy in peasant
farming.
CHAPTER IV. TAXATION OF THE PEASANT 59
The taxes in inverse ratio to the income--The redemption tax
paid by the former serf--Assessment _per capita_--Arrears in
taxes--Bearing upon the peasant’s live stock--The fiscal system
lived down by economic development.
CHAPTER V. COMMUNAL TENURE AND SMALL HOLDINGS 67
Economic relations arising from the lack of
land--Tenure at will--Community as party to the
agreement--Easements--Pasture--Tendency toward individualism
produced by inequality of wealth and money economy--Arable
land and grass land--Individualism prevailing--Communal
agreements--Influence of divergent interests within the
community--Rental partnerships, a step toward individualism.
CHAPTER VI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRICULTURAL
LABORER 75
Relations between landlord and tenant--Division of crops--Labor
in payment for rent--Tendency towards money agreements--Rise of
rent--Rate of rent to wages--Differentiation of tenant and farm
laborer.
CHAPTER VII. THE WAGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS 80
Farmer as wage-worker--Farm work prevailing--Indebtedness
of the farmer--Wages in rural districts cut down by the
farmer-workingman--Low wages a drawback to the development of
industry--Pauperism.
CHAPTER VIII. THE RURAL SURPLUS POPULATION 85
Increasing movement away from the rural districts--Wages higher
abroad--The bonds to the village severed--Growth of the proletariat.
CHAPTER IX. THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY 90
The position of the peasantists and of the government in the
question--Opinions of students of peasant life on the dissolution
of the patriarchal family--The typical family of to-day--Influence
of outside jobs--Parcellation of the soil--Landless--Ruin of
the farmer occasioned by the decay of family co-operation--The
employing farmer.
CHAPTER X. THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL CLASSES 104
The vagueness of class distinctions at a primitive stage of
economic development--The peasantist conception of class antagonism
in the village--Results of statistical investigation--Farmers
deriving a net profit from agriculture--Farmer and business
man--Concentration of the land and a strong patriarchal
household--The employing farmer developing side by side with the
dissolution of the compound family--The rural proletariat--Lack
of land--The dissolution of the patriarchal family complete--The
Russian proletarian as wage-laborer and employer at the same
time--The transitional class--Deficit in the balance of farming
resulting from the division of the co-operative family--The
farmer as wage laborer--Imminent transition into the proletarian
class--“The struggle of generations” in the village a reflected
form of class antagonism.
CHAPTER XI. INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM 123
Their effects upon the distribution of landed property--Lease of
communal land a step toward expropriation of the poor--Speculation
in peasant lots--Mobilisation of communal land.
CHAPTER XII. THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND 130
The censuses for the assessment of the poll tax--Redivisions
of land--General redivisions--Partial redivisions brought into
disuse by the rise of rent--Lease of communal land a check to its
redivision by the _mir_--Vote required for redivision--Privilege
for the wealthy minority--Concentration of communal land in private
hands--Influence of redemption--Antagonism of economic interests
within the village--Dissolution of the community going on.
_Note_: The “inalienability” scheme.
CHAPTER XIII. AGRICULTURE ON A LARGE SCALE 138
The peasantist view of the matter--_The destinies of
capitalism in Russia_, by V. V.--Large agriculture and peasant
farming--Backwardness of large agriculture--The latter still
prevailing over small peasant tenure--Agriculture progressing
with the increase of the estate--The beginnings of capitalistic
agriculture--Decrease in the dominions of the nobility--Growth of
capitalistic property in land--Displacement of the small tenant
by the capitalist farmer--Progressive tendencies of capitalistic
management--Substitution of the small farmer by the proletarian
laborer--Economic dependence of the nobility upon the small
farmer--Imminent ruin of the landed nobility.
CHAPTER XIV. CONCLUSION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMINE 157
The bearing of the above discussion upon Middle Russia at
large--The economic policy of the Government--Crédit Foncier for
the peasants, and its failure--The famine a result of agricultural
backwardness--Failure of the peasantry and of the landed
nobility--The rise of capitalistic agriculture.
APPENDICES. STATISTICAL TABLES.
I. Distribution of land among the several sections of the peasant
population 166
I., _a._ Acreage of a peasant farm 167
II. Taxation of the peasantry 168
III. Arrears in taxes 169
IV. Distribution of rented land: _A._--With regard to ownership in
land; _B._--With regard to stock-breeding 170
V. Budgets of typical peasant households 171
VI. Wages of the peasant in industrial employment: _A._--Local;
_B._--Outside 180
VII. Average yields of wheat 182
INTRODUCTION.
THE RISE OF “PEASANTISM.”
The awful famine which has lately been raging over an area as large
as the territory of the _Dreibund_, and inhabited by a population as
numerous as that of the “allied Republic,” has called the attention
of the whole civilized world to the condition of the starving Russian
peasant. A movement has been set on foot in this country to relieve
the hard need of the sufferers. This has induced me to think that it
would perhaps not be without some interest for the American student
of economics to cast a glance at the rural conditions which have
finally resulted in that tremendous calamity. I felt bound to improve
the opportunity of having been educated in Russia, by introducing
the American reader to some one portion of the vast Russian economic
literature which, because of the language, remains as yet completely
unknown to the scientific world at large.
Russians by education, though not by ethnical descent, who, in spite
of having identified themselves with the cause of the Russian people,
are now denied the honorable title of “Russian,” may find consolation
in the fact that the first investigator of Russian history (Schlözer),
the first grammarian who scientifically elaborated the laws of Russian
grammar, our Brown (Vostokoff = von Osteneck), the best, if not the
first Russian lexicographer, our Webster (Dahl), and finally the man
who, it may be said, discovered for the Russian public the Russian
village community, the _mir_ (Freiherr August von Haxthausen), were all
of foreign birth.
The last named discovery was destined to play a prominent part in
the subsequent political history of Russia. Agrarian communism,
spread throughout a vast country during an age of extreme economic
individualism, when the last traces of such a form of possession were
deeply buried in the past of European nations, gave rise for years to
an erroneous theory both in Russia and in Western Europe, _viz_: that
this was a specifically Russian or Slavic institution. In Russia it
contributed greatly towards drawing the line between the two parties of
the Russian educated class in “the epoch of the forties,” between the
“occidentalists” (_zapadniki_) and the “slavophiles.”
The latter regarded the village community as being, with autocracy and
orthodoxy, an emanation of the Russian “national spirit.” These three
institutions were predestined in their belief to prevent Holy Russ from
entering upon the impious ways of the “rotten West,” with its class
antagonism, extremes of luxury and poverty, intestinal discords and
civil wars.
Precisely for the same reasons, considering the village community
as an integral part of the prevailing system of paternalism, the
“occidentalists,” opposed to autocracy and orthodoxy, strove for the
abolition of the _mir_ as well as of bond serfdom.
The archaic communism of the _mir_ appeared to them to stand in acute
contradiction to Western liberalism or individualism. The “epoch of
emancipation,” however, that came to realize the aspirations of the
occidentalists, brought about a fundamental change of public opinion in
regard to the village community.
The intellectual development in Russia was ever going on under the
steady influence of Western ideas. The “epoch of the forties” coincided
with the era during which socialistic and communistic ideas were in
full blast throughout France. Thanks to the many Russian tourists
and students who became imbued with these ideas during their sojourn
in Paris, socialism, towards the end of “the forties,” attained no
inconsiderable popularity among the educated class in Russia. Not to
speak of Herzen or Bakunin--who were at that time closely affiliated
with Proudhon, Karl Marx and other prominent representatives of the
social movements of the day--Belinsky, who was the foremost Russian
critic and publicist, equally renowned among all parties (except,
of course, the bureaucratic party), became in his latter years a
socialist. “Secret circles,” or, as they would be called in this
country, debating clubs, swarmed in every large centre of intellectual
culture. Among the young men connected with this movement, there was
one who was later on to play a part of extraordinary importance in
Russian history; this was _Nicholas Gavrielovitch Tchernyshefsky_.
The influence of Tchernyshefsky upon the development of Russia
was far wider, and far more many-sided, than might be supposed.
Philosophy, ethics, æsthetics, criticism, political economy, politics,
fiction:--these were the various fields of his activity; and everywhere
his ideas determined the course of further development. It would
require the elaborate study of a scholar to truly represent the
historical value of Tchernyshefsky, who can justly be called the father
of Russian Nihilism.
Nihilism was entirely misunderstood in Western countries. It will,
perhaps, appear somewhat surprising to an English reader to learn that
Jeremy Bentham’s doctrine of utilitarianism offered the philosophical
foundation of Nihilism. The latter was in reality nothing but an
attempt to construct socialism upon the basis of individual utility.
The village community, seen in the light of Nihilism, must evidently
have presented quite a different aspect from that which it presented to
both the slavophiles and the occidentalists of the preceding epoch. The
first article of Tchernyshefsky upon the village community was written
in 1857, on the eve of the emancipation of the peasants, and was in the
form of a criticism on the papers that had appeared in the slavophile
magazine _Russkaya Beseda_. Tchernyshefsky, though apparently an
“occidentalist,” sided with the slavophiles, and in a series of
brilliant articles laid down the basis of the so-called “peasantism”
(_narodnitchestvo_) which since then, and until quite recently, has
constituted the common ground of all liberal and radical aspirations in
Russia, however greatly they may have differed upon other questions.
“Must Russian development of historical necessity follow in the tracks
of Western Europe? Cannot Russia benefit by the lessons taught by the
history of Western nations, and find out some new way of her own to
avoid that evil of pauperism which necessarily accompanies private
enterprise in production?”
These were the questions raised by Tchernyshefsky. Taking as a basis
Hegel’s famous triad, he showed that Western Europe went from State
regulation to individualism and _laissez-faire_, and now was entering
upon a new path which tended toward coöperation and social regulation
of economic phenomena. Why then should Russia pass through the
intermediate phase, since she already possessed a national institution
which permeated the whole economic life of the people, and embodied
the principles of coöperation? The individualistic French farmer must
inevitably succumb in the war of competition with the large landholder,
for the latter is in a position to utilize all new agricultural
improvements, while the former lacks all means of combination with his
neighbors. On the other hand, supposing that the time has come for the
introduction of improved machinery into Russian agriculture, would
it require any revolution in the social relations prevailing in the
Russian village? Not in the least; the land belongs to the community,
and not to the individual; the forms of distribution of land are
very various, and admit, not infrequently, even of collective mowing
and subsequent distribution of the hay. If new machinery were to be
introduced, the Russian community would combine at once the advantages
of a large concern, and those of having each individual worker
directly interested in his work. This latter, it is claimed, is the
characteristic feature of small farm holding. Having thus proved the
superiority of Russian communism in land, judged from the standpoint of
individual utility, Tchernyshefsky goes on to the other very important
question:
“Is it possible for Russia to leap over one phase of her historical
development? _Natura non agit per saltus._”
To answer this question he quoted the history of technical progress.
There was a time when our forefathers produced fire by rubbing together
pieces of dry wood. Man next found out how to strike the fire from
flint, but centuries elapsed before matches were invented. Now suppose
an African nation were to come into contact with European culture,
would such a nation have to pass through all the inconveniences of the
period of transition suffered by Europeans, or would it not rather
adopt matches immediately? Applying the same principle to social
institutions, Tchernyshefsky advocated nationalization of land, and
communal landholding, as a basis for the emancipation of the peasants,
which was then under the consideration of the government. In a paper
entitled _Is the Redemption of Land Difficult?_ he showed in figures
the practicability of buying out the land by the government, and in a
series of other articles he maintained that such a reform would prevent
the formation of a proletariat in Russia.
The period that preceded the reform of 1861, was a time of universal
enthusiasm for the liberal government on the part of the educated
class. So much the greater was the disappointment when the reform was
at last proclaimed. It has not been stated whether Tchernyshefsky
himself was in any way connected with the “underground” agitation
against the government, of which he was accused at so early a date as
1862. Tried in 1864, and exiled to Siberia, he was allowed to return
to European Russia only in 1883, when the revolutionary party seemed
to have been finally suppressed by the government. And yet for this
whole period none but Tchernyshefsky was the spiritual leader of the
social movement that sprang up from the disappointment caused by the
manner in which the emancipation of the peasants had been carried out.
It will be seen further that, owing to the origin and development of
private ownership in land, nationalization of land became intimately
connected, in the minds of the Russian peasants, with emancipation.
Hence a series of riots in 1861-62, at the time when the reform was
being put in force. The peasants claimed that they were duped by the
“masters” and the officials, who were concealing from the people “the
true will of the Czar.” The belief that the Czar desired to nationalize
the land for the use of the tiller of the soil was so universal among
the peasants that, in 1878, minister Makoff found himself under the
necessity of issuing a special circular for the purpose of dispelling
the gossip current upon the subject. The priests were ordered to read
and explain this circular in all the churches; and on the 16th day of
May, 1883, while receiving the elders of the peasants, who presented
their congratulations on the solemn occasion of the Czar’s coronation,
the latter told the delegates to disabuse the peasants’ minds of the
false rumors of gratuitous distribution of land, that were being spread
abroad by the enemies of the throne. Yet the influence of the said
enemies of the throne was infinitesimal as compared with the extent
to which these rumors became popular. On the contrary, instead of its
being a case of the radicals influencing the people, it was precisely
the radicals themselves who were influenced by this popular belief. The
latter seemed to them a proof of the moral support their aspirations
were to gain from the people; and if “the will of the people” is not to
be fulfilled _through_ the government, why, this will must be complied
with _against_ the government. Thus revolutionary peasantism came into
being. After years of propaganda it broke out in 1873-1874 in a huge
movement that was called “the pilgrimage amongst the folk.” Hundreds of
boys and girls, chiefly college students, settled in villages as common
laborers to make propaganda among the peasants for what they believed
to be socialistic ideas. They hoped to be able, sooner or later, to
foment a popular uprising that would result in the establishment of a
new social order.
Certainly this juvenile movement must, under any circumstances, have
inevitably proved a failure. Defeat was, however, accelerated by the
merciless persecution of the Government. The events which followed
are only too well known for it to be necessary for me to dwell on
them. The final defeat of revolutionary peasantism after 1881, brought
into the foreground a peaceable peasantist movement that excited
little attention, but which will certainly be of great consequence
for the coming development of Russia. Having suffered shipwreck in
their revolutionary course, the peasantists came to the conclusion
that scientific investigation of the economics of the village was the
most essential preliminary for any rational political action. And
scores of former revolutionists zealously took part in the statistical
investigation started by the _zemstvos_ (provincial assemblies).
It is true that the revolutionary peasantists cannot be credited with
the initiative of this important work. The founder of the so-called
“Moscow method” of statistical investigation, the late _Vasili
Ivanovitch Orloff_, was a peaceable peasantist in 1875, when a young
man of twenty-seven he took into his hands the Statistical Bureau of
the Moscow _zemstvo_. Yet the many who helped him in his work, and
who afterwards became somewhat prominent in spreading his system over
new provinces, such men as Messrs. Greegoryeff, Werner, Shtcherbina,
Annensky, etc., had previously spent several years in prison and in
exile for “political offences.”
It is by no means exaggerated to say that in the hundreds of
volumes of the censuses, ordered by the majority of the thirty-two
_zemstvos_, Russia possesses a masterpiece of statistics which for its
completeness, and for the mathematical exactness of its figures, has
hardly been rivalled in any country. The following quotations will
give some idea of the methods practiced by the Russian statisticians:
“We used to begin by making a minute extract from the _Book of assessed
taxes_. Another highly interesting document found in the “bailiff’s
board” (_volostnoye pravlenie_) was the _Book of transactions and
contracts_. It had been kept for many years, and contained the terms
of agreements made between peasants and landlords of the neighborhood
for agricultural work, as well as the terms of those agreements
made between peasants and contractors, where the work had been done
outside the limits of the village. There were also to be found there
rental agreements, made both by peasants and those outside the ranks
of the peasants; loan agreements made by individuals, as well as by
communities, with joint suretyship of all their members, etc. The
third document was the _Book for registering passports_, from which
we could learn approximately the number of peasants yearly leaving
their villages for a time.… After these quotations had been made in
the bailiff’s board, we made a tour through the villages under the
jurisdiction of the board, and it was here that the local inquiries
began, and the most valuable material was collected. In every community
of every village[1] we called a regular meeting of the community’s
members, and, in meeting assembled we took a census. We passed with
every householder through a series of questions, tending to elucidate
the economic capacity of his family, and capable of being put in
figures. The method itself of collecting these data in full meeting
insured the greatest possible correctness of the figures obtained;
one householder often aided the other in remembering some fact, or
corrected his misstatements. It frequently happened that some sheep or
calf, which was intended for sale or was already sold, called forth a
discussion as to whether it should not also be included in the list.
The questions were asked with a view to ascertain from every household
the following points: the area of land allotted at the emancipation,
purchased as private property, or farmed; the way in which the soil
was tilled, whether it was cultivated by the householder himself, or
by some of his neighbors, whom, in such cases, he had usually hired,
because he himself owned no horse, or finally, whether he had entered
the ranks of the “husbandless” (_i. e._, destitute of husbandry),[2]
who lease their lots or desert them altogether. We also ascertained
what were the labor forces of the family, male and female; the entire
number of heads of which it consisted; the business, apart from
agriculture, of every adult member of the family, and whether the
member sought work at a distance from home; the quantity of cattle; the
size of the buildings; the shops belonging to every family. In a word,
through the census a picture is drawn of the economic condition of all
the households of the community. The number of those who can read, or
who are learning to read, is also given in the census. Certainly the
material collected appears to be of such a character as to furnish
fundamental facts for the formation of a judgment as to the economic
condition of the population.”[3]
The technical side of statistics, says Mr. Shtcherbina, the methods
applied in the local investigations, are elaborated with the minutest
detail.… The questions are several times crossed by each other, so as
to mutually complete and verify the statements.[4]
The area covered by the investigations for the year 1890, is
represented by the following figures:[5]
Provinces (Gubernias) 25
Districts 148
Communes 50,429
Peasant households 3,309,020
Total males and females 19,693,191
This is about one-fifth of the total population of European Russia.
As the unit for all information is identical with the economic
cell--the peasant household--these investigations present us with
the true scientific anatomy of Russian economic life. Nevertheless
there may be cases in which plain truth is not exceedingly welcome.
This holds true even of the most advanced reform parties. Why then
should the Russian nobility be among the exceptions, if there are
any? If the rent is exorbitant and the earnings of the farmer are
scanty, it does not require a genius to draw the conclusion that
there must be some connection of cause and sequence between the two
facts. Still, this is precisely what the landlords would like to keep
hidden from public notice. Hence strong opposition by the party of
the nobility to the statistical investigations. The statisticians
were generally charged with representing only such facts as favored
their leanings toward land nationalization and expropriation of the
landlords. The first outbreak of this opposition took place in 1882 in
Ryazañ against Mr. Greegoryeff, Superintendent of the Ryazañ Bureau
of Statistics, and his assistants. The assembly passed a resolution
that the two volumes of the census which dealt with the districts
of Dankoff and Ranenburg should be suppressed. These volumes were
confined exclusively to raw material, and contained only tables and
statements, without any generalizations. The excitement was so great
that some of the members moved to buy out all copies which had already
been put in circulation, though it should cost 100 roubles ($50) a
copy, and to solemnly burn them as a public example. It is true that
this extreme motion was not carried, but Mr. Greegoryeff was sent for
four years into administrative exile at Kineshma, a small town of the
province of Kostroma, and put under police surveillance as a political
suspect. Thus Russian statistics have already had their martyr. Mr.
Greegoryeff’s book, _The Emigration of the Peasants from the Province
of Ryazañ_, founded on the same proscribed data, was subsequently
honored with a prize by the University of Moscow.
Similar occurrences took place in Kazañ and Kursk. In the latter
province the assembly proscribed the general review of the province,
although the review consisted merely of the totals of the respective
items for the several districts, and the volumes containing these items
were in due time published by the assembly.
However, it must be admitted that Mr. Werner’s fate was not a specially
hard one, since he was not even exiled, while his book, which caused
his discharge from the Bureau, was awarded the same honor by the
University of Moscow, as Mr. Greegoryeff’s investigation had received.
Finally the government saw fit to interfere, and a law was passed in
1888 forbidding any investigations into the relations between landlord
and peasant, and putting the programmes of statistical investigations
under the control of the administrative authorities. The work, however,
had been done; a work that may be truly called the social work of the
eighties.
Was it virtually a fallacious census, imbued with party spirit?
The present famine has offered the most striking proof of the
authenticity of the much-assailed figures.
It will require years of study to sum up the results of the statistical
investigations, and I have been necessarily forced to limit the scope
of my essay to some one locality. I have selected the two districts
of the province of Ryazañ,[6] the statistical data relating to which
were attacked as unreliable by the nobility in 1882. This is the
very locality in which Count Leo Tolstoi has carried on his work of
philanthropy in feeding the hungry. It has seemed to me that it might
be of some interest to know what information there was actually at
command, as far back as 1882, respecting the districts now stricken
with famine.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL SKETCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDHOLDING IN RUSSIA.
It seems now to be a fairly well established fact in science that
at the dawn of the evolution of mankind the individual had not yet
differentiated from the social aggregate. Archaic communism in the
production of food and other necessaries, as well as in possession
and consumption, is now, I imagine, universally recognized as the
primitive form of social life. It is only during the higher stages of
development that private ownership by individuals comes into existence;
and private property in land was the latest to appear on the historical
scene. The dissolution of the land community in Western Europe is a
fact of comparatively very recent date. In Russia, where the process
of evolution has been less rapid, we see this primeval institution
preserved until to-day.
In Russia we do not find within historical times that tribal communism
which Lewis H. Morgan met with among the American Indians. The Russian
village community of historical times consists of a number of large
families, often, yet not necessarily, of common ancestry, who possess
the soil in common, but cultivate it by households. The ancient
communal coöperation re-appears sporadically, upon various special
occasions, in the form of the _pómoch_ (help). Some householder invites
his neighbors to help him in a certain work: to mow his meadow lot,
to reap his field, to cut down wood for a new house he has undertaken
to build, _etc._ This is considered as a reception tendered by the
family to its neighbors, and different kinds of refreshments are
prepared for the occasion. These constitute the only remuneration
for the work done collectively by the guests. Of course, there is
nothing compulsory in the custom, and no one is bound to answer the
call in case he does not like to do so. On the other hand, the party
benefited is under an obligation to appear at the call of all those
who participated in the _pómoch_. This custom, which is now limited
for the most part to extraordinary occasions and is more and more
falling into disuse, apparently played a far more conspicuous part in
former days, when rural settlements were scattered clearings in the
midst of virgin forests, and pioneer work was constantly needed. Still
even then it was but a social revival, hinting at a preceding epoch of
closer communistic co-operation, yet at the same time pointing out the
existing severance between the households of which the community was
formed. In other words, the _pómoch_, being undoubtedly a revival of
primeval communism, is at the same time a sign of the dissolution of
communism into individual households.
However, it is essential to notice that the Russian household is
not identical with the Roman family or its derivatives. The Roman
_paterfamilias_ is the absolute master of all living under his _patria
potestas_; he is the unlimited owner of all property belonging to the
household, even where such property is the product of the personal
industry of particular members of the family. The modern family, on the
other hand, is merely a union of individuals having their individual
rights recognized by law, though sometimes not without certain
limitations in favor of the head of the family. The Russian peasant
family alone is a perfect communistic commonwealth. All the moveables
belonging to the household, as well as its whole income, constitute the
collective property of the family, but not of its head. The same holds
good even of those parts of the Empire in which the village community
disappeared long before the emancipation of the peasants. In Little
Russia and White Russia, as elsewhere, the statute of 1861 recognized
the rural institutions upheld by peasant common law. Thus the land was
there allotted to the families, and it was subsequently reaffirmed
by the Senate, in one of its interpretations, that the land does not
belong to the head of the family, but does belong to the family as a
whole.
Moreover, an old Russian family greatly resembled a community even in
the number of its members. Mr. Krasnoperoff, in a paper which appeared
some ten years ago in the _Otechestvenniya Zapiski_, described a
family he met with in the province of Mohileff. The family numbered
ninety-nine members, and was composed of a grandmother, with her
children and married grandchildren, all of whom were living together
and working for their own common benefit. Such households are, indeed,
isolated exceptions at the present day, but they were universal in the
past.
Thus ownership of land by the community without, and complete communism
within the family, were the fundamental elements in the structure of
the village at the dawn of Russian history.
The rise and growth of private property in land soon came in to
restrict the domain of the village community.
In the early days of mankind coöperation is essential to success in the
struggle for life which man is carrying on daily against his natural
surroundings. Landholding, whether collective or individual, must be
large enough to admit of coöperation. Therefore private ownership in
land first appears in history in the form of large holdings. Now, so
long as population is thin, and vacant land lies practically free to
anybody, it would be useless to occupy large estates if there were no
means of compelling the husbandman to labor in the landlord’s fields
instead of for his own benefit. Indeed, private property in land in the
early periods of history goes hand in hand with the personal dependence
of the tiller of the soil.
In the Muscovite State we find two forms of individual landed property:
patrimony (_vottchina_) or freehold, and fee (_pomest’ye_) or benefice.
While fee was an institution of public law, patrimony owed its origin
to private law and to a more ancient epoch. Patrimonies were to be
found in the Republic of Novgorod, and in some other States of the
Russian Federation, before their conquest by the Great Princes of
Muscovy, afterwards Czars of all the Russias. The rise of this form of
property is intimately bound up with the growth of slavery in ancient
Russia. Slavery, like patrimony, was also an institution of private
law, arising from the transaction of loan. The payment of the debt
was secured, as in the civil law (_jus civile_), by the person of
the debtor. Unquestionably this was the only possible security in an
historical epoch when landed property had no value, save when human
labor was applied to it. As in Rome, war was the constant cause that
put the peasant under the necessity of contracting loans. As in Rome,
there could hardly be found two years of uninterrupted peace in the
course of the first centuries of Russia’s history. Destruction, by
force of arms and rapine, usually compelled the plundered peasant to
alienate his liberty to the “better man” (_vir bonus_, καλὸς κἀγαθός)
who furnished him with cattle, seed, and implements. The peasant sold
himself either for a term of years, or for life, and in the course of
time the state of serfdom became hereditary. The labor of these slaves
(_zakup_, _kabalniy holóp_) was used by the creditors to cultivate
their estates, or to reclaim new acres from the forest. Amidst the
wilderness of primitive forests, such parcels of cultivated land had
already a certain value which attracted settlers. Here we have the
origin of patrimonies in Russia during the “period of federation and
witenagemote.”
Left, however, as it was, to private intercourse and initiative, the
spread of individual landed property, like the number of slaves,
remained comparatively limited. It was only as political institutions
that individual landholding and personal dependence of the peasant were
to become the foundations of social life in Russia.
The fee was the virtual germ of Russian private property in land.
Not only in Russia, but also in many other countries, private property
in land owed its origin to relations of public law. Public land (_ager
publicus_) was primarily held by officers on the ground of, and for the
purposes of their office as a benefice. In proportion as the offices
became hereditary, and the relations growing out of administration of
public affairs developed into personal dependence of the common people
upon the office holders, the tenure of land by reason of office became
hereditary, and subsequently developed into an institution of private
law. The next step was in the direction of freeing the landholder
from the duty of public service connected with the tenure of his
land. Thus his possession became independent. On the other hand, the
free ownership of land by the people was replaced, in the course of
evolution, by dependent possession. And finally, with the abolition of
the personal dependence of the peasant, his right to land expired.
Such was, taking a bird’s eye view, the evolution of private property
in most European countries. In Russia the course was essentially the
same.
Old republican and semi-republican Russia of “the period of federation
and witenagemote” knew no firm government. The prince was elected and
deposed by the people, and it was very difficult for him to hold his
position for more than any single year amidst the dissensions of the
hostile factions of turbulent citizens. Usually princes tramped their
whole life long from one principality to another, attendants tramping
with them. War was their chief business and war was also their chief
source of income. Moreover, through a confiscation of the judicial
functions by the prince, a part of the wergild paid by the convicted
wrongdoer to the right party, found its way into the treasury of the
prince to be distributed among his followers. No bond wedded the prince
and his followers to the land until the nomadic elected prince was
replaced by the Muscovite Great Prince and Lord of All the Russias.
Struggle with the Tartar conquerors--a struggle that lasted for two
centuries--furthered the growth of centralization and of monarchical
authority, and the former free attendant of the prince became the
servitor of his sovereign. The State in Russia has always been a
self-sufficing entity, which claimed the services of everybody, without
owing in return anything to anybody. And this still remains to-day
the fundamental principle wherein Russian public law differs from
constitutional law. If, perchance, the state engaged in suppressing
crime, it was not for the sake of justice or defense to the people, but
rather for fiscal considerations, or for the sake of the safety of the
state, threatened by gangs of brigands and highway robbers. It was the
duty of the “servitor” (_sloozhiliy chelovek_) to prosecute bandits, to
defend the frontiers from invasion by nomadic tribes, and to appear in
case of war among his sovereign’s troops with a number of armed men.
To furnish the “gentleman” with the necessary means for the support of
his detachment, and in general for the discharge of his office, he was
granted a certain tract of land “in fee.” The peasant who settled upon
this lot was bound to pay a certain tax (in kind) to the “gentleman”
to whom the power of taxation was delegated by the State. However, it
was no easy task to enforce the exact payment of the taxes, since the
peasant could run away at any time he chose as soon as he found the
payments becoming burdensome.
Indeed, even in modern Russia, wherever land is in abundance,
agriculture is to a great extent a nomadic pursuit. A field is
cultivated uninterruptedly for from two to three years, and the peasant
then leaves it and turns to another fresh lot. It is only after a
period of not less than twenty years that the peasant will perhaps
return to the first lot. It may be, however, that he will change his
place for an entirely new one.
In olden times the facilities for migration were the same as they now
are in Siberia. This state of things gave rise to competition among
the gentry, who vied with one another in cutting down the rate of
payments exacted from the peasants. The gentry constantly complained
of being unable to fulfil their duties toward the State so long as
this self-willedness on the part of the peasants continued. In order
to secure exact fulfilment by each of his duties toward the state,
freedom of migration was first limited, and then gradually abolished.
The free peasant became bound to the soil, _glebæ adscriptus_. Yet
this dependence was based entirely upon public law. The peasant was
made subject to the gentleman, not for the gentleman’s sake, but
for the benefit of the state. The only restriction of civil rights
imposed upon the peasant by his dependence was the prohibition of
emigration; and even in that no distinction existed between the peasant
and the gentleman, since the latter was also forbidden to quit his
fee. Throughout the Muscovite period the peasant was considered as a
citizen, and was protected by the state against abuses of power on the
part of the gentleman. The latter was not even the owner of the land;
it belonged to the state, or to the Czar, as the personification of the
state. Land was allotted to the gentleman for service, and for lifetime
only, and could escheat by the state for cause. Inasmuch, however, as
the gentleman’s son also entered the service of the Czar, it became
little by little a custom to transfer to the son his father’s fee. Thus
the fee became hereditary.
Peter the Great effaced all the distinctions that were characteristic
of the preceding epoch. By compelling every landholder to enter the
service of the state, and by establishing a uniform law of inheritance
for all real estate belonging to the nobility, he merged in one
patrimonies and fees. On the other hand, by imposing the poll tax
upon peasants, and by making the landholder responsible for the exact
payment of this tax, he put slaves and serfs upon a common footing,
and made the latter personally dependent upon the landlord. His
successors restricted the civil rights of the peasants and took away
from them the right to sue their masters. At the same time the latter
were granted the right to exile their peasants to Siberia, and to sell
them, even where such sale entailed the separation of the wife from her
husband, of the child from its parents. On the other hand, after the
time of Peter the Great, the duty of service was gradually relaxed, and
at last definitively abolished by Peter III in 1762.
It was by this ukase that private property in land and serfdom were
finally recognized in Russia as institutions of private law.[7] But
immediately after the “Charter to the Nobility” was granted by Peter
III, the question of emancipation began to agitate the peasants. Three
generations were too short a period in which to implant in the minds
of the peasantry the new principles brought into social relations by
the St. Petersburg Emperors. The conservative mind of the peasant was
wedded to the old customs of the Muscovite common law. He knew no
Emperor; for him there was still a Czar, who owned all the lands of
his country for the good of his people. The gentleman was bound to
serve the Czar; the peasant was bound to provide the gentleman with
the necessary means; hence bond serfdom and fee. And was the idea
really so obsolete? Were not the gentlemen daily granted large estates
for services they had rendered to the Czar? Now, since the Czar in his
grace has freed the gentleman from service, there is no longer any
ground upon which the gentleman can be justified in detaining the land
in his possession, nor is there any reason for keeping the peasant
in dependence upon the gentleman. Consequently “Land and Liberty!”
(_Zemlya ee Volya!_) It is now plain enough why the nobility conspired
to assassinate the Emperor Peter III Theodorovitch. After the “dear
father” had narrowly escaped his fate, the lords declared him dead;
but fortunately he succeeded at last, after eleven years of exile,
in recruiting an army of loyal subjects to help him in taking lawful
possession of his throne, usurped by his perfidious wife. The war over,
the people will be graciously vouchsafed “Land and Liberty.”
This legend found its way readily into the minds of the peasants,
who for a whole year, under the leadership of the rebellious Cossack
Emilian Pugacheff, alias “Emperor Peter Theodorovitch,” held half
Russia in their power. It would be, of course, a rash conclusion to
seek to establish any immediate connection between the bloody uprising
of 1773-1774 and the discussion of the question of emancipation in
the “Commission for the Enactment of a New Code,” called by Catherine
II. in 1767. Yet it is worth noticing that such a question did
arise, and that the emancipation of the peasants was pleaded for by
the representative of the Don Cossacks, who were shortly to lead
the insurrection. And, indeed, many of those who represented the
Cossacks in the commission were later on active in the civil war.
The suppression of the latter led to the expansion of serfdom, since
the “pension system” of that epoch consisted, of necessity, only in
grants of “peasant souls.” Thus in the reign of Catherine II. about
one million “state serfs” were given into the private possession of
landlords, for military, or civil (or “personal”) merit.
The reigns of her successors were marked by an uninterrupted series of
peasant uprisings, agrarian crimes, and half-measures on the part of
the government to loosen the bonds of serfdom. At the same time, after
the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, abolitionist ideas began to win
their way among the land-owning, upper classes. The insurrection of
December 14th (26th), 1825, had among its chief purposes the abolition
of serfdom. The disastrous termination of that insurrection did not
stop the propaganda of the abolitionist ideas which reached even to
the palace, through the famous Russian poet Zhukoffsky, instructor of
Alexander II.
The political necessity of emancipation, as guaranteeing the safety
of the state, was brought still farther home to the minds of the
ruling classes by the general excitement among the peasantry which
followed the Crimean war, and broke out in numberless riots of a most
alarming character throughout the country. “We must free the peasants
from above, before they begin to free themselves from below,”--these
were the historical words addressed by Alexander II to the Assembly
of the Nobility in Moscow, August 31st (September 12th), 1858. Yet
such political farsightedness could hardly have developed, had not
the economic conditions been ripe for the change. Indeed, after the
Crimean war it became obvious to the government that Russia, with
her old-fashioned methods of transportation, could play no prominent
part in the “European concert.” Now it was perfectly evident that an
extensive system of railways could not possibly be supported out of
the resources of agriculture alone, in a country in which nine-tenths
of the people were serfs, either of the state or of the landlords, and
had to bear out of their scanty income the expenses of a large military
state, and of an aristocracy. Industry and commerce were necessary
for the maintenance of the state. The emancipation of the peasants
was the scheme to attract domestic and foreign capital to industrial
pursuits in Russia. By placing money in the hands of the landlords it
was sought to promote the progress of agriculture, and the growth of
industries intimately connected therewith. By setting at liberty twenty
million serfs, who were the subjects of the landlords, wage-workers
were created for industrial enterprises.
The economic significance of the reform of February 19th, (March
3d,) 1861, lies in the fact that, on the one hand, it completed the
evolution of private property in land, and that, on the other hand, it
effected at a single blow the expropriation of the peasantry on a large
scale.
Before the emancipation anything like distinction between the land of
the lord and that of the peasant existed on those estates on which the
duties of the serf toward his master were discharged in compulsory
labor. Yet even there the distinction was not clearly marked, for the
peasants enjoyed the right of pasture in common with the lord, and were
furnished a modicum of wood from the lord’s forest. The distinction,
moreover, was not a rigid one, since the lord could, at his option,
transform the _corvée_ into tallage (_taille_)--compulsory labor into
compulsory payments. The latter form prevailed on many estates. In such
cases the lord enjoyed merely the legal ownership, _Ober-Eigenthum_
(_dominium ex jure Quiritium_) while to the peasant belonged the real
possession, _Nutzeigenthum_ (_possessio ex jure gentium_). Now the
severance of a tract of land from the fields held by the community
transformed communal possession into private property of the gentleman.
The owner who tilled the soil was transformed into a tenant or into a
wage-laborer.
There was a party among the nobility at the time of the emancipation
who would have liked to see a still more decided reform in the same
direction. In compliance with the wishes of the members of this
party it was accordingly proposed to transfer all the land into the
private property of the noble, while leaving to the peasant merely his
homestead (i. e. house, yard and garden). But, after consideration,
this radical plan was abandoned, for fear lest it might prove
seriously dangerous to the public peace.
Unquestionably, the principles in accordance with which the reform was
carried out stood in striking contradiction to the aspirations of the
peasants, who held fast to the idea expressed by the old saying: “We
are yours, but the land is ours!” Hence general disappointment of the
peasantry with the reform, which failed to grant the people “land”
as well as “liberty.” Now, since the land is the Czar’s and has been
unlawfully seized by the masters, can there be any doubt that the
gentlemen and the officials have conspired together against the will
of the Czar? We here arrive at the source of those wide-spread legends
of land nationalization that were so popular with the peasants for a
quarter of a century after the emancipation.
To obviate all incitement to acute outbreaks of popular discontent, the
government, as far as possible, avoided drastic measures.
In order to meet the wishes of those who leaned toward the Irish system
of landholding, the government satisfied itself with offering to every
community the choice either of agreeing to pay the redemption tax for
the normal lots, or of taking in lieu thereof the so called “donated
lots” extending to one-fourth of the normal lots, and free from the
redemption tax. At the same time these lots became at once the absolute
property of the donees.
Similarly, the government did not proceed to an immediate assault upon
agrarian communism, though considering the same as an obstacle to
agricultural progress. Wherever communism was in existence, the land
was allotted to the community as a whole. But a road was opened to the
spontaneous and gradual dissolution of the community. The “homesteads,”
_i. e._ the house, the yard and garden, were declared the property of
the family. Further, the community was empowered to divide the field
into private property, upon a vote of two-thirds of the householders.
Finally every individual householder was granted the right of enclosing
his lot, after having complied with certain formalities, and paid the
whole amount of amortization. It was hoped that as soon as the way had
been opened to private property, the latter would not fail to take the
place of communism. These expectations were, however, fulfilled but in
a comparatively meagre measure. The reason lay in the fact that the
government could not make up its mind to break entirely with the old
regime.
In order to smooth the opposition of the nobility to the emancipation
of their serfs, the redemption of land was not made compulsory. The
State undertook the part of middleman between the gentleman and the
peasant, under certain normal conditions. But the agreement was to be
made voluntarily between the parties. The gentleman alone was given the
privilege of rendering the redemption compulsory at his own option, by
making an abatement of one-fifth of the normal rate of installments. In
case no such action was taken by him, and no mutual understanding could
be reached, the peasant remained in a transitional state of dependence
upon his former master. His obligation was to be discharged either in
pecuniary payments or in forced labor. This state of moderated serfdom
lasted throughout the reign of Alexander II., surnamed “the Liberator,”
and was abolished in 1883 by a law ordering the compulsory settlement
of the relations between the so-called “_temporary obligors_” and their
masters.[8]
In so far as this state of dependence remained in existence, the
destructive influence of the “Statute of Redemption” upon the rural
community was suspended.[9]
Whatever may have been the effect of permitting the dependence of the
peasant to be continued, the support offered to the community by the
old fiscal system, which has remained up to this very day, was still
more influential.
It would be idle to criticise the Russian financial system from the
standpoint of justice in taxation. The law of self-preservation is
the first law of all being. To cover her nine hundred million budget,
official Russia has got simply to take money wherever it can be found.
Now where can it be found in Russia? The State can tax either the
producer or the consumer, or both. Where is the producer to be sought
for purposes of taxation? Is it in industry, which is being fostered by
means of bounties and prohibitive tariffs? Is it the noble landlord,
for whom State mortgage banks are established, and State lotteries
issued, whose _solo_ notes are discounted by the State Bank, etc? Then
there remains none but the peasant to pay the taxes. Should on the
other hand the consumer be taxed, then again it is the 80 per cent.
peasants who must pay the major part of the indirect taxes.[10] In a
word, whether the burden weigh upon producer or consumer, it must needs
be the Russian peasant to whom will fall the lion’s share--in paying
the taxes. And truly the peasantry, like the “burghers,” are designated
as a “taxable order,” but the burghers are too few to cut any figure as
compared with the peasant.
What follows?
A great sensation was produced in 1877 by a book on Russian taxation
by Prof J. E. Janson, of the University of St. Petersburg.[11] On
the strength of the _Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the
Condition of Agriculture in Russia_, 1872, and of the _Proceedings of
the Commission on Taxation_, he brought to light the startling fact
that the amount of taxes paid by the peasant toward 1872 considerably
exceeded the net income of his land.[12] This means that it did not
pay for the peasant to own land, since he had to cover a part of the
taxes from his wages, while, by deserting his plot, he would enjoy the
whole amount of his wages with the exception of a small poll tax.
And indeed many a peasant would be glad to run away from his farm, if
he was only permitted to do so. But the fulfilment of the peasant’s
obligation toward the State was secured by the curtailment of his
personal liberty. In case of arrears he would get no passport, and
no one is allowed in Russia to go farther from home than 30 _versts_
(about 20 miles) without a passport, under penalty of being imprisoned
and forwarded home by _étape_. Should, however, the peasant renounce
his right of locomotion, then public sale of his homestead and personal
effects, and corporal punishment[13] inevitably follow arrears in
the payment of taxes. Moreover all the members of the community are
responsible, jointly and severally, for the exact payment of the taxes
assessed upon the community as a whole. Therefore wherever, and so long
as, the taxes exceed the rent brought in by the land[14] the ancestral
tenet of communal supremacy is emphatically observed, and the most
scrupulous justice and equality are maintained in the distribution of
the land.
The lots are strictly proportioned to the number of males in each
family, or to that of the workers (from the ages of 15-18 to 55-60),
or even to the number of “eaters”; democratic principles being so
far lived up to as to efface all distinction between male and female
“mouths.” The terms of distribution vary according to the kinds
of land. Meadows are subdivided every summer. Arable is usually
distributed at intervals of greater length. Yet, in the meantime, for
some reason or other, land may become vacant, or fall to the disposal
of the community. It often happens that some householder requests
to be relieved of a part of his land on the ground of the decrease
in the number of workers in his family, _e. g._, because his son
has been enlisted in the army. At the same time there may be other
families who are “strong,” _i. e._, well-off and numerous enough to
pay the taxes for an additional tract of land. In such cases a partial
subdivision between the households is made by the community. After a
time, with the increase in the number of these partial subdivisions,
the complexity and inequality of distribution necessitate a fresh
general subdivision. The land is once more minutely redivided among the
villagers. The optimistic enthusiast of the community would fancy that
at last it stood firmly rooted in the soil, in spite of all unfavorable
environments.
And yet, notwithstanding the strictest minuteness in the distribution
of land, wherein the sovereignty of the _mir_ over private interests
is manifested, the equilibrium of the rural community must be defined
as utterly unstable, since it rests upon such a shaky basis as
over-taxation of the land. The economic development of Russia, however,
tends to eliminate the disproportion between tax and income.
By taking one-half of the land out of the occupancy of the community,
the government put the peasant under the necessity of seeking land or
employment outside of his own farmstead. To secure to the landlords
an abundant supply of farm hands, the emigration of the former serfs
to districts where there was plenty of vacant land was so throttled
with red tape that it was practically equivalent to prohibition.[15]
Moreover, in 1866 the emancipation of the State peasants brought about
the repeal of the old law, which encouraged emigration, under certain
conditions, through the support of the State. As opposed to this the
“Statute of the peasants freed from bond serfdom,” which was now to be
applied to the former State peasant, brought with it a new restriction
of his personal rights.
The peasants now found themselves tied to the place in which they had
been born. The increased demand for land could not but react upon
the peasants’ plots, by raising the rent that they brought, and so
neutralizing the effects of over-taxation. The fiscal influence which
tends to counteract the dissolution of the village community is thus
passing away.