CHAPTER III._The Economics of the Russian Village

THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF THE PEASANTRY.

The old laws governing the State peasants, before the reform of 1866,

fixed the normal size of the plots at eight dessiatines (about 21

acres) to each male “of the revision” (_i. e._, included in the last

preceding census) for the “regions where land is scarce.”

By the reforms of 1861 and 1866, not a single class of peasants was

granted the extent of land that the state of agriculture in the

district under consideration called for,[24] and the average tract

owned by the more comfortably situated State peasant is only a little

more than one-half of this normal plot as it was empirically fixed;

of course, the normal extent of a farm is subject to change through

increase of population and progress of agricultural methods. Let us see

how large is the extent of land actually required by, but not in the

possession of, the peasantry of the districts under review.

The table on the top of the next page gives the total number of

communities, in which all the householders were able to carry on

farming with their own stock and implements.

The favorable condition of these few communities was due to the fact

that the land rented and acquired as private property by the prevailing

majority equalled in extent the communal tract. The communities in

question occupied, as a whole, over one-half more land than the

average.

+-------------------+-------+--------+-----------+----------------------+

| |Commu- |Revision+-----+-----+------+--------+------+

+-------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+

| _a._ allotted | 28 | 465 | 158 | 100 | 1180| 2.5 | 7.5 |

| _b._ rented | | | ? | | 314| | |

|Tenure from | | | 107 | 68 | 666| | 6.2 |

|Private property | | | 14 | 9 | 147| | 10.5 |

| | | +-----+-----+ | | |

| | | | 121 | 77 | | | |

| +-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+

|In all | 28 | 465 | 158 | 100 | 2307| 5.0 | 14.6 |

| (allotted land) | 653 | 90031 |36126| |294443| 3.3 | 8.1 |

+-------------------+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+------+

Still land tenure is unequally distributed among the peasantry, thanks

to legal discrimination. The main distinctions date from the reforms

of 1861 and 1866. Here is the proportion of land to population in the

several classes of the peasantry of our region:

+-----------------------+----------------+----------------+

| | In every 100. |To each peasant.|

|Districts and Classes. +---------+------+----------------+

| |Peasants.| Dessiatines. |

+-----------------------+---------+------+----------------+

| Former serfs | 59.9 | 45.4 | 1.0 |

| Former state peasants| 39.9 | 54.4 | 1.7 |

| | | | |

| Former serfs | 64.1 | 50.0 | 1.1 |

| Former state peasants| 35.4 | 49.4 | 1.9 |

+-----------------------+---------+------+----------------+

That the disproportion is not the result of subsequent alterations in

population or property can be seen from the comparison between the

average lot fixed by law for the former serf in 1861, and that given to

the former state peasant in 1866:

_To each male of the Xth census:_ _Ranenburg. _Dankoff.

Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._

Former serfs 2.4 2.7

Former state peasants 4.3 4.6

This inequality is due to the influence of landlord interests upon the

reform of 1861, considerable tracts of land having been cut off from

the former peasant possessions and granted in absolute property to the

masters.[25] It goes without saying that the free peasant must have

sunk below the level of the serf. By the side of the former serfs even

the state peasants appear as an “upper class.” And yet the average

quantity of land held by the state peasants falls short of the extent

proved by experience to be necessary for farming in the districts under

consideration.

Want of land urged the peasant to convert everything into arable land,

and that to such an extent that no improvements worth mentioning were

left for the use of the cattle.

The total hay yield of the meadows belonging to the peasants who live

under agrarian communism[26], is 458,000 poods[27], and this has to be

distributed among 83,079 head of large cattle[28]. This makes on an

average 5½ _poods_, _i. e._ 200 pounds to every head for the Russian

winter, lasting at least half a year. In other words, there is about

_one pound of hay a day_ for every head of cattle.

Nor is the condition any better in the summer, since the pastures,

where there are any, are very scanty; and this is due to conversion

of pasture into arable land, as already mentioned, as well as into

homesteads for the increased population. This reduces to a paltry

figure the number of cattle raised by the peasants.[29] Two working

horses to a farm can hardly be considered as representing, even for

Russian agriculture, a particularly high standard. The actual extent

to which stock-breeding is carried on by the peasants falls below even

this minimum, save among the 415 quarterly proprietors in the Ranenburg

district, who are a kind of peasant “four hundred” in their own way,

owing to the extent of allotted land that they own.

The depressed condition of stock-breeding reacts in its turn upon

agriculture. Apart from this there is another universal cause that

diverts the cattle manure from its natural use. I refer to the lack of

woods.

With respect to possession of forests, so necessary in a climate like

Russia, most of the state peasants were originally in a privileged

condition, compared with the former serfs, to whom, as a rule,

no woodland at all was allotted.[30] However, time has effaced

all distinction between the privileged communities and those less

fortunate. Of the former forests there remain at present only shrubs,

and young bushes, of no practical value. State peasant and former

serf are equally dominated by the want of fuel, a want which must be

satisfied with the only burning material at hand, _viz_: with dung. In

many a community this precludes the fertilizing of the soil altogether;

in a great many others it is but the land next to the homestead that

is manured, and the poorest among the peasants have no manure at all

worth carrying to their fields. It is needless to speak of the extent

to which this contributes to the rapid exhaustion of the soil.[31]

Apart from these general conditions, we cannot pass by without notice

certain special circumstances that continually depress the level of the

peasants’ agriculture in a number of villages inhabited by former serfs.

The reform of 1861 was not carried out without serious troubles which

in certain cases called for the intervention of armed force. As an

example we may quote the village Speshnevo, bailiwick (_volost_)

Hrushchefskaya, Dankoff district. We find the following in the

_Statistical Reports_:

“In 1861 the peasants refused to accept the present tract, which was

allotted to them in the place of one they had formerly held. The latter

was far superior as regards both situation and quality. They stopped

ploughing for seven years and finally agreed to accept the tract only

after a detachment of soldiers had arrived at the village.”

“The village is now surrounded by property that is owned by strangers.

The plots owned by the peasants begin at a distance of 1400 feet,

and extend about 3½ miles. The peasants are very frequently fined

for damage done by the cattle to the fields of the landlords of the

neighborhood.”[32]

Behind this dry, matter-of-fact statement, is hidden the story of a

system of trickery practiced, at the time of the emancipation, by the

masters and the subservient officials. The land was, in some cases,

purposely divided in such a way as to create for the peasants the

necessity of an easement or servitude (_servitus itineris, actus, aquæ

etc._), in the master’s estate. The tract given in possession to the

peasants is situated, at least in part, far away from their villages,

sometimes without even a road for driving, and stretched in a long and

narrow strip. Not to speak of the waste of time in going to and fro,

it would not pay to manure the distant tracts. Thus in addition to

the immediate injury to the peasants aimed at by this system, a large

portion of land is lost to all rational culture.[33]

In short, the effects of the scarcity of land are summed up in the

lack of animal power, which is no unimportant drawback to agricultural

progress, and in the predatory character of the peasant farming.

This can be easily figured from the yields of rye and oats, the

principal crops raised by the peasantry[34]:

+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

| | Yield Per Acre. |

| Countries. +---------------------+---------------------+

| | Rye. | Oats. |

+---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

| 10 years (1877-1886) | =8.9= | =100= | =10.7= | =100= |

| 10 years (1880-1889) | 11.9 | 134 | 26.6 | 249 |

|Ontario, Canada (1889-1890)| 15.5 | 174 | 30.7 | 287 |

|Great Britain (1889-1890) | | | 40.3 | 377 |

|France (1888-1889) | 16.1 | 181 | 26.1 | 244 |

|Germany (1890) | 14.7 | 165 | 30.1 | 287 |

|Austria (1889) | 14.5 | 163 | 17.6 | 164 |

|Hungary (1889) | 13.8 | 155 | 17.4 | 163 |

+---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

Unless the small productivity of agriculture is made up for by the

size of the farm, the balance must needs close with a deficit.

This is exactly what has been stated in figures by the statistical

investigation of the _gubernia_ of Voronezh, where balances of all

moneys received and expended were made out by the statisticians for

each one of the registered families. The results are shown in the

following table:[36]

-------------+------+---------+---------------------------+-----------

| |Receipts | Expenses (rubles). |

| |from +---------+-------+---------+-----------

-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+---------+-----------

Zadonsk |15,528| 390,178| 784,061|239,072|1,023,133| 632,955

Korotoyak |20,232|1,280,206|1,017,727|304,789|1,322,516| 42,310

Nizhnedevitzk|20,051|1,326,110|1,069,013|327,200|1,396,213| 70,103

-------------+------+---------+---------+-------+---------+-----------

If we examine the items of expenses, we find rye and flour among those

necessaries which the farmer has to procure in the market during a

portion of the year. The deficit of a peasant farm is consequently one

of daily bread.[38]

To give some idea of the standard of life of the Russian peasant, we

append a summary review of three peasant budgets of the _gubernia_ of

Tamboff.[39]

1. Gabriel, the son of Michea, surnamed Trupoff, who owns four horses

and holds 15 dessiatines (40 acres) of land, is, in faith, one of the

chosen ones among the Tamboff peasantry. Verily it is worth while

going through the budget of these peasant “four hundred.” The total

expenditure of a family of four adult persons and three children does

not exceed 510 rubles a year, say (in round figures) $10 a week.[40]

All the dresses of two rustic Lady Astors amount to the exorbitant

figure of sixteen rubles a year, while the gentlemen are satisfied

with one hat once in five years, and one girdle of the value of eighty

cents once in a decade. To make both ends meet they have to content

themselves with, upon an average, about one and a half pounds meat a

day, for seven persons, and to do without tea, rejoicing over one glass

of brandy a day, for the whole family. All the sundries expended make

up the sum of ten dollars a year, or less than one cent a day to every

grown up man or woman. This frugality enables them to add to their

wealth 7.79 rubles in a year, when the harvest is 10:1 to the seed.

Now this is about twice as much as the Ryazañ average, and exceeds

by one-half the Ryazañ maximum. Should we reduce the yield from 10:1

to the average 6.5:1 for rye and to 6.8:1 for oats, as given in the

_Reports_ for the district of Borisoglebsk, it would cause a deduction

from the income, as follows:

3.5:10 from 40 Russian quarters rye @ 2.00 rubles 56.00

3.2:10 ” 60 ” ” oat @ 2.00 ” 38.40

-----

Total 94.40

This would give a deficit of 86.61 rubles a year. To cover this deficit

Gabriel Trupoff used to engage in various occupations besides his

farming.

2. The second family is likewise one of the best off, since they can

even allow themselves the luxury of consuming one pound of tea, and

five pounds of sugar yearly. Their farm yields them however a total

income of only 358.80 rubles and the balance, 660.45, must be provided

from other sources.

3. Finally, the third family of “peasant-proprietors” draws a

yearly income of 27.80 rubles from farm and house, while the entire

expenditure amounts to 241.80 a year, or 20.15 a month for 8 persons.

Although it causes a yearly deficit of 65.20, which must be covered

through loans, and probably through the sale from time to time of their

chattels, yet they are tax-payers, and contribute 8.00 yearly toward

the expenses of the state.

In short, it is manifest that even the most favored classes of the

Russian peasantry are hardly able to make a living, however moderate,

by farming on their plots. Hence the economic dependence of the Russian

peasant, evidenced in various ways.

There is yet another very important feature of modern peasant economy

which is brought to light by the budgets. A by no means insignificant

part of the entire peasant consumption is to be provided for in the

market outside of farming,[41] and consequently a corresponding portion

of the peasant’s labor must be spent in production for the market. Thus

the archaic peasant husbandry based upon natural economy has been to

a very considerable extent superseded by money economy.[42] In other

words, Russian farming has developed from the production of use-values

or utilities to a production of commodities.