CHAPTER VI._The Economics of the Russian Village

THE EVOLUTION OF THE FARMER INTO THE AGRICULTURAL LABORER.

In the vast majority of cases tenure at will did but take the place

of the old relations between master and serf.[67] The obligation of

the serf toward his master was discharged on some estates in labor

(_corvée_), on others by payments, either in money or in kind. It is

only natural to find the old practice inherited by modern economy:

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

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

| Rented for | +-----------+ +------------+------------+

| | | |Per | | | Per | |Per |

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

|Share in crops | 3| 47| 1 | 4| 382| 2| 429| 2|

|Money rental (merely)|34|3330| 76 | 84| 6687| 43|10017| 50|

|Labor (merely) | 1| 48| 1 | 8| 562| 4| 610| 3|

| money in addition |10| 958| 22 |132| 8065| 51| 9023| 45|

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

| Total |48|4383| 100|228|15696| 100|20079| 100|

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

The patriarchal custom of division of the product itself between

landlord and tenant (_métayage_) has now become about entirely

obsolete, and is now to be found only in combination with extra

payments in money. Forced labor on the part of the peasant for the

benefit of the landlord continued in use. Abolished by law, it has

been upheld until to-day, through the economic pressure of the need of

land. The free tenant was compelled to bind himself to do a certain

amount of work for the landlord. If he failed in this he could not get

the opportunity of renting land. Pecuniary agreements were in vogue on

those estates alone, whose owners did not care for farming.

The economic tendency of the time, however, is toward money economy

and “free contract.”[69] As in the matter of taxation, the change is

brought about by the rise of rent.

On the one hand, the amount of work done by the tenant for the landlord

has enormously increased, thereby diminishing the demand for compulsory

labor.

On the other hand, whenever the rent is to be paid in cash, at least

one part must be advanced in the spring, _i. e._ at a time when most of

the peasants are short of money. Moreover, the extraordinarily heavy

rents exacted have made the leasing of land a very hazardous business;

one bad yield is sufficient to upset all the tenant’s calculations,

and to throw him into insolvency.[70] The circle of tenants who can

pay their rents in cash has thus been reduced to the “stronger”

householders.[71] The natural consequence was increased offers of farm

labor in exchange for land, on the part of those who could not afford

to lay out ready money.

Thus in the process of the economic evolution, compulsory labor becomes

obsolete. It was only in the minority of cases that the promise of

labor was required as an essential part of the rental agreement, and

even then it was only in exceptional cases that farm work was to be

performed for the full amount of the rent. Generally only a part of the

latter was to be covered through labor; the rest could be paid, at the

option of the tenant, either in work or in money.

In this transitional form of agreement prevalent in 1882, the peasant

appears, properly speaking, as tenant and laborer at once. The next

step is toward the differentiation of both.

The purely money form of rent has already won the field over about one

half of the whole area of rented land.

That this is the form which is finally to prevail, follows from the

fact, undisputed by Russian statisticians, that peasants in good

standing avoid working on the landlords’ estates, and prefer to pay

their rent in money. The miserable remuneration for farm work is the

very obvious reason of this dislike.

These are the average amount of rent and the average price paid for

the full work of cultivating, and harvesting one dessiatine, and

carrying the crops to the barn:

Rent rubles 14.78

Labor ” 4.75

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

Rent for 1 dessiatine ＞ Wages for 3 dessiatines.

The average figures can be considered, however, merely as representing

static conditions at any given moment. The tendency of the movement is

rather indicated by the extreme limits.

When work is offered in payment of rent, wages very often sink far

below the level. At the same time rent is ever on the rise.

Let us take for purposes of comparison, some communities in which piece

wages are lowest, and some others in which rent is highest:

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

| | tines).|(rubles). +-----+-----+------+------

| | | |From.| To. | From.| To.

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

Minimum of wages| 44 | 1909 | 15.16 | 3.00| 4.00| 5.2:1| 3.9:1

Maximum of rent | 12 | 833 | 23.72 | 4.00| 5.00| 5.9:1| 4.3:1

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

As the ratio of rent to wages is moving from 3:1 towards 5:1, it

finally becomes questionable whether we should class among tenants

or among laborers a peasant who has to till five dessiatines for the

landlord in exchange for one dessiatine given to himself.

Thus land tenure is degenerating into wage labor.