CHAPTER IV._The Economics of the Russian Village

TAXATION OF THE PEASANT.

When the balance of a peasant farm is closed, year in, year out, with a

deficit, it is only of secondary importance whether there be added to

it a score of rubles or not, in taxes. In either case the farmer has

to look for employment outside of his homestead that he may be able

to keep body and soul together. Nor is it of great moment that the

taxes must be paid in money, since at any rate not a small part of the

produce must be carried to the market to be converted into money for

the purchase of implements, clothing, and even of food for the peasant

and his cattle.[43] But the economic influence of taxation is marked

by its compulsory character, as well as by its unequal pressure upon

different classes of the people.

It may be regarded as an established rule that the burden of taxation

is, in Russia, in inverse ratio to the means of the taxpayer.[44]

The former serf is taxed more, absolutely (every male and every

worker), and relatively (every acre of land), than is the former State

peasant. The difference is literally the tribute paid to the landlord

class for the emancipation of their serfs.

Indeed, the greater part of the contributions of the former serf is

composed either of his redemption tax, or of the payment due to his

master (_taille_):

AMOUNT OF TAXES (IN RUBLES) TO ONE “REVISION” MALE.

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

| | Dankoff. |

| Classes of +--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+

| | | | Tax. | | Cent. |

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

| obligors | 12.6 | 8.2 | | | 65 |

| 2. Proprietors | 11.1 | | 6.6 | | 59 |

| peasants | 7.9 | | | 2.9 | 36 |

| peasants | 10.0 | | | 3.8 | 38 |

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

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

| | Ranenburg. |

| Classes of +--------+---------+------------+-------+-------+

| | | | Tax. | | Cent. |

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

| obligors | 11.9 | 7.5 | | | 60 |

| 2. Proprietors | 10.8 | | 6.3 | | 58 |

| peasants | 7.0 | | | 2.4 | 34 |

| peasants | 10.4 | | | 4.4 | 42 |

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

That there is one part of the payments to the landlord which is in

reality nothing but a redemption tax for the person of the serf,[45]

appears clear from the comparison between the amount of rent paid by

the former State peasant to the treasury, and that of the taille paid

by the “temporary obligor” to his master, since in neither is any

portion set apart for redemption of the land. And the amount of taille

paid is made the basis for the amortization.

On the other hand, the least amount in taxes is paid by those among

the former serfs who have already redeemed their lots (“absolute

proprietors”) or who received the so-called donated lots, _i. e._, the

least is levied from those who are free from the obligation to their

former masters.

Here, however, we are again face to face with the characteristic

feature of the Russian financial system: the “absolute proprietor,” who

owns from six to ten times as much land as the donee, and who breeds

more than twice as much stock as the latter, is taxed from four to

eight times less upon every acre. It would be absurd to suspect even

a Russian financial administration of the intention to overtax the

neediest while relieving the burdens of the better-off. Yet this is the

necessary result of a financial system which belongs to a different

historical epoch, and has survived the overthrow of its economic

foundations through a social revolution.

Let us take as a unit every male of the revision, (_i. e._, the

official unit of taxation); let us then compare with one another

the assessments levied upon both exceptional classes of absolute

proprietors and donees, on the one hand, and let us again compare with

each other the assessments levied upon the remaining classes of the

peasantry. We shall see that every male is taxed on the whole at an

approximately uniform rate. This is the usual system of taxation in

every primitive state, where land is in abundance and human labor is

the main source of wealth. The labor powers of men being approximately

equal, assessment _per capita_ insures a rude equity in taxation.

But after the reforms of 1861 and 1866, which added new and sharp

distinctions to those already in existence among the peasantry,

taxation _per capita_ became a power that accentuated the social

inequalities, and hastened, through its extortion, the ruin of the

feeble.

Indebtedness of landed property is the inclined plane usually

leading toward expropriation of the small farmer, as well as of the

aristocratic landlord. In Russia the three minor subdivisions of the

peasantry, viz. the “absolute proprietors,” the “donees” and the

“quarterly possessors,” are the only ones who enjoy the title of

property in their land, and consequently they alone are in a position

to mortgage to private persons. The bulk of the peasantry[46] have no

right of alienating their plots. Chronic indebtedness upon the latter

takes, therefore, as its only possible form that of arrears in taxes,

which is precisely the sore place of the Russian administration.

The amount of “arrears” due by the peasants to the treasury is

represented by no inconsiderable figure, as may be seen from the

following table:

_Amount of taxes _Arrears._

apportioned

(rubles)_ _Rubles._ _Per cent._

_Ranenburg_--Former serfs 347,672 176,288 50

Former State peasants 212,571 70,303 33.1

------- ------ ----

Total 560,243 246,591 44

_Dankoff_--Former serfs 292,648 12,352 4.2

Former State peasants 135,019 4,936 3.7

------- ------ ----

Total 427,667 17,288 4

It is needless to dilate upon the consequences to the budget of a

deficiency of about one-half of the direct taxes paid by the most

numerous class of the population. Yet the average figures for the

entire region do not convey any true idea of the real disturbance

caused to the concrete communities which are unable to stand the

burden of their payments. The number of those communities, as well as

the rate of indebtedness, is very considerable, and the burden is,

moreover, very unequally distributed among the communities indebted,

the consequence being that some are entirely crushed.[47]

In the district of Ranenburg, this den of “sturdy nonpayers,” we find

only 9.6 per cent. of the former serfs and 2.1 per cent. of the former

State peasants who give no annoyance to the “constituted authorities.”

The rest, that is to say, 293 communities out of 340, are in arrears

for not less than 6.70 rubles. The burden is aggravated by its unequal

distribution. We find one third of the former State peasants owing

above one-half of the arrears of their class, while above three-eighths

of the former serfs are responsible for 70 per cent. of the entire

debt of their class. These, the most heavily indebted groups, are

made up of those communities which are in arrears for more than the

tax levied for the use of the land, the rent paid to the treasury by

the former state peasant, the _taille_ or the redemption tax imposed

upon the former serf. In other words, one-third of the former State

peasants, and three-eighths of the former serfs, are unable to bear

the fee levied for the use of their land.[48] Finally, this fact

attracted the attention of the central government, and in 1882, the

_zemstvos_ were required by the Minister of the Interior to report

upon “the communities in which husbandry had fallen into ultimate

destitution,”[49] and a relief in the amount of the redemption tax was

desirable. The committee elected by the _zemstvo_ of the district of

Ryazañ applied, as we learn, to the Reports of the Statistical Bureau.

The same could hardly be done for the districts under consideration,

since the Reports were subsequently proscribed by the _zemstvo_ of

the _gubernia_ of Ryazañ.[50] If the Reports were taken into account,

all the above three-eighths of the former serfs would perhaps have

to be classed among those whose husbandry “has fallen into ultimate

destitution,” since above one-fourth owed to the treasury 20.10 rubles,

and one-ninth above 34 ruble to an average household. This one-ninth

was in chronic arrears of from one to two annual instalments.

Whatever may be the absolute amount of the arrears, the point is that

they bear upon the peasant’s live stock, which is the only valuable

part of his movable property, and is consequently the first to be taken

hold of by the auctioneer. Arrears in taxes are, therefore, a constant

threat to the very existence of the peasant’s farming.[51]

Moreover they bind the peasant to the spot, and thus restrict the

market for his labor.

This, however, is only an evil of the transitional epoch. A change of

great moment has taken place in so short a period as the ten years

which separate the census of the _zemstvo_ from the investigations of

the above mentioned Commissions of the central government.

Overtaxation has been swallowed up in the increase in value of

the land. The rent of the peasant’s plot in both districts of the

_gubernia_ of Ryazañ exceeds the taxes by from one to three rubles

(_i. e._ the taxes absorb, in an average, from 78 to 91 per cent. of

the rent.)[52] Though rise of rent is by no means a blessing for the

Russian peasant, partly tenant, partly agricultural laborer as he is,

yet the benefit he gains as taxpayer is the possibility of disposing

of his labor by leasing his plot to any one willing to pay the taxes

thereon.

Thus the old question of chronic arrears is to-day easy to be settled

through public sale of the peasant’s stock. Flogging as a measure

of financial policy can be dispensed with, so far at least as the

insolvent debtor is concerned; for the taxes are secured by the land,

over and above the body of the taxpayer.

Thus economic evolution has loosened the legal bonds which formerly

chained the Russian peasant to the soil.