CHAPTER IX._The Economics of the Russian Village

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PATRIARCHAL FAMILY.

The Russian village community, as has been stated above, was a

compound integer of which the unit was the communistic household.

The individualistic tendency of the economic evolution after the

emancipation did not fail to affect this cell of archaic communism. The

dissolution of the compound family became the evil of the day within

the village, and the most warmly discussed topic both in literature

and in administrative circles. The peasantist regarded the decline of

the “pillars”[94] of Archaic communism with the deepest regret. “_O

tempora, o mores!_” clamored the bureaucrat, indignant at the spirit

of “disobedience to the elder” which was permeating the village. Of

greater importance, perhaps, was the perfectly justified apprehension

as to whether the dissolution of the peasant family might not have

an injurious effect upon the taxpaying power of the household. It

might be questioned by individualists whether the peasant, as a human

being, was necessarily to be guided in his domestic life solely by

regard for the public purse, but from the standpoint of Russian public

law, such objections do not hold water. To use an analogy, the stock

farmer, when mating his animals, does not take in consideration the

possible condition of their mutual affection, his object being solely

the maintenance and improvement of the breed. Is not the wise ruler

the shepherd of his human flock? Thus about 1885[95] a law was passed

forbidding the “self-willed” division of the compound family without

due authorization by the village assembly, whose resolutions are

subject to the control of the officers of the State.

This new dictate of paternalism has certainly caused much annoyance

in the village, and it must unquestionably have failed in achieving

the desired end. The matter has been excellently elucidated by Mr.

Gleb Oospensky, one of Russia’s foremost writers, as well as by Mrs.

Epheemenko and Prof. Engelhardt.

So long as the occupations of all the members of the family were

identical, the tie of co-operation bound them closely together. The

income of the family, due to their collective labor, constituted

accordingly their collective property. The authority of the “major” of

the household was respected on the ground of his greater experience,

which comes with age, as well as of his administrative ability.[96]

When altered circumstances forced the family to look for its income to

a variety of sources, the basis of the ancient household received a

fatal shock. The carpenter who worked all through the summer in some

far distant town was no longer an active member of the agricultural

co-operative circle. On the other hand, his income being greater than

that of his elder brother who was still employed as a farm laborer in

the neighborhood, the spirit of individualism revolted against the old

communistic rule. The age-long despotism of the elder over the younger

members of the family became unendurable. The women, who had to suffer

most, were the champions in this “fight for individuality.”[97] The

head of the family could oppose no moral authority to this spirit of

“disregard of age,” inasmuch as, with all his agricultural experience,

he had nothing to say in industry. Thus the growing economic

differentiation within the family made its dissolution into separate

couples unavoidable.

This presentation of the case, made as the result of individual

observation, was fully proved by the figures subsequently collected by

the statisticians.

This is the comparative membership _per_ household before, and a

quarter of a century after, the emancipation, and the distribution of

the peasantry according to the membership of the several families:

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

| | Gubernia of Ryazañ. |

|I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+

| upon an average.| Ranenburg. | Dankoff. |

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

| |1858|1882|Decrease.|1858|1882|Decrease.|

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

|Total membership | 9.7| 6.4| 3.3 | 9.7| 6.4| 3.3 |

|Male workers[98] | 2.2| 1.5| .. | 2.2| 1.5| .. |

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

| | Gubernia of Voronezh. |

|I. To one family +-------------------+-------------------+

| upon an average.| Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. |

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

| |1858|1887|Decrease.|1858|1887|Decrease.|

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

|Total membership |10.3| 7.3| 3.0 |11.4| 7.8| 3.6 |

|Male workers[98] | 2.1| 1.7| .. | 2.6| 1.8| .. |

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

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

| | Gubernia of Voronezh. |

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

| the families to-day | Nizhnedevitzk.| Nizhnedevitzk.|

| (1887). +----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+

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

| | | | | |

|Without adult workers.| 5 | 4 | 3.0 | 3.9 |

|Having 1 adult worker.| 46} | 44} | 5.4 | 5.7 |

| ” 2 ” workers.| 30} 76 | 32} 76 | 7.8 | 8.1 |

| workers.| 19 | 20 | 12.2 | 12.3 |

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

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

| | Gubernia of Ryazañ.|

|II (continued). Classification of the +----------+---------+

| families to-day (1882). |Ranenburg,|Dankoff, |

| |per cent. |per cent.|

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

|Without adult workers | 7 | 7 |

|Having 1 adult worker | 42} | 43} |

| ” from 1-2 adult workers inclusive| 32} 74 | 31} 74 |

| ” ” 2-3 ” ” ” | 13} | 13} |

| ” above 3 ” ” ” | 6} 19 | 6} 19 |

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

In 1858 the average family had from two to three adult male workers

above the age of 18, while in 1882 it had only from one to two male

workers. This shows that before the emancipation the compound family,

consisting either of the father and his married sons, or of married

brothers, was the rule. To-day the typical family is represented either

by a young couple with little children, or by the father and his boys

below 18, who are counted only as “half-workers,” or finally by the

father and one of his adult sons. In all, the family has decreased

by from three to four persons. It points out plainly that separation

of the younger couple from the old stock is already an accomplished

fact.[99] That this individualistic tendency develops as outside jobs

gain in importance in the household economy is shown by the following

figures:

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

| | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk. |

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

| |taking to |1878-1887.|taking to |1878-1887.|

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

|With 1 adult male worker | 52 | 44 | 67 | 44 |

|With 2 adult male workers| 39 | 31 | 47 | 40 |

|With 3 or more adult | 36 | 24 | 34 | 28 |

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

The rate of separated families increases with the percentage of wage

laborers. It is by wage laborers that most of the households of the

modern type (with one adult male) have been started, while within the

patriarchal household about two-thirds of its labor forces are applied

to farming.

The dissolution of the old household was of the greatest economic

consequence, parcellation of the soil being its necessary result:

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

|Per- |Average | |Families separated

|cent- |membership | Households. |from +--------------

|age |of 1 family+-----+----+----+-----+1877 | Landholding

|total | |Adult |out | 1 | 2 | 3 |1887.+------+-------

Classes and|of | |male | | | | or | | |To 1

+------+ |family+-----+----+----+-----+-----+hold |worker

|Per | upon an| |Per | upon an

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

| | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 14 | 4.0| 1.0 | 12 | 80 | 7 | 1 | 46 | 4.1 | 4.2

| | | | | | | | | |

5 to 15 | | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 50 | 5.3| 1.5 | 3 | 55 | 34 | 8 | 38 | 10.5 | 7.1

| | | | | | | | | |

15 to 25 | | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 25 | 9.1| 2.1 | 1 | 27 | 40 | 32 | 31 | 19.7 | 9.3

| | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 9 |13.5| 3.1 | .. | 9 | 25 | 66 | 24 | 35.6 | 11.6

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

Total | 98 | 7.4| 1.7 | 5 | 46 | 30 | 19 | 36 | 14.2 | 7.9

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

| | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 17 | 4.6| 1.1 | 9 | 74 | 13 | 4 | 50 | 3.7 | 3.3

| | | | | | | | | |

5 to 15 | | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 51 | 6.7| 1.6 | 3 | 50 | 37 | 10 | 41 | 10.3 | 6.5

| | | | | | | | | |

15 to 25 | | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 23 | 9.9| 2.2 | 1 | 24 | 38 | 37 | 33 | 19.4 | 8.5

| | | | | | | | | |

dessiatines| 8 |15.0| 3.4 | .. | 7 | 21 | 72 | 24 | 36.6 | 9.2

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

Total | 99 | 7.8| 1.8 | 4 | 44 | 32 | 20 | 39 | 13.5 | 7.2

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

We notice that the greater the percentage of separations during the

period from 1877 to 1887, the smaller the average plot per family and

per worker, and _vice versâ_. About one-half of the households whose

plots are the smallest, are those who have separated in the course of

the last ten years and have as a rule only one worker. On the other

hand, the largest plots, absolutely and relatively, are held by the

compound families of the old stamp, of whom only about one-quarter

have undergone division during the last decade.[100]

Furthermore we find a certain percentage of the village community

absolutely without any land: Thus we have--

Per cent.

In Ranenburg 4

In Dankoff 4

In Korotoyak 1.7

In Nizhnedevitsk 0.5

This new class of the peasantry owes its existence solely to the

division of the family:

_Landless households._ _Korotoyak._ _Nizhnedevitsk._

Without male worker 260 69

With 1 male worker 58 42

With 2 male workers 12 6

With 3 or more male workers 5 2

---- ----

Total 335 119

Above the age of 60--

Males 31 8

Females 68 14

---- ----

Difference, females 37 6

In the age from 18 to 60--

Males 113 68

Females 382 149

---- --

Difference, females 269 81

Males between 18 and 60--

With physical defects 6 7

It might be supposed that landlessness was connected mainly with old

age, widowhood, orphanry, and bodily defects (blindness, lameness,

_etc._). Yet such, what we may call, biological phenomena will carry

with them consequences that vary according to the social institutions

of the time. The patriarchal family was not destroyed by the death

of one of its male members. His widow and orphans belonged, in some

analogy with the Roman family, not to the husband, but to the household

as a whole. It was no unusual thing for a widowed daughter-in-law to

be given in marriage to an outsider with the purpose of introducing a

new male worker into the coöperative body in the place of the deceased

member. Similarly the other members remained until death in their

family. It was only after the dissolution of the patriarchal household

that the feeble and helpless began to figure as a distinct group in

village life.

On the other hand the division of the original household and of its lot

in the communal land necessarily resulted in a decrease of the live

stock belonging to each family, and consequently in a decrease of its

agricultural efficiency.

This is shown by the following tables:

I. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE WORKERS.

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

| | Classes of Households (per cent.). |

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

| | With regard to the number |With regard to the |

|D. of Korotoyak.| of horses. |size of the farms. |

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

| |Horse-| 1 |2 or 3 | 4 |Less |From 5|Above|

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

|Without workers | 60 | 29 | 11 | .. | 61 | 33 | 6 |

|With 1 worker | 20 | 46 | 33 | 1 | 25 | 59 | 16 |

|With 2 workers | 6 | 28 | 61 | 5 | 3 | 56 | 41 |

| workers | 1 | 10 | 62 | 27 | 1 | 22 | 77 |

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

| Total | 13 | 32 | 48 | 7 | 15 | 50 | 35 |

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

II. HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HORSES RAISED.

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

| | Classes of Households (per cent.). |

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

| | With regard to the number |With regard to the |

|D. of Korotoyak.| of workers. |size of the farms. |

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

| |None. | One. | Two. |Three. |than 5|to 15 | 15 |

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

|Horseless | 17 | 68 | 13 | 2 | 49 | 43 | 8 |

|With 1 horse | 3 | 63 | 28 | 6 | 20 | 65 | 15 |

|With 2 horses |} 1 | 31 | 41 | 27 {| 6 | 55 | 39 |

|With 3 horses |} | | | {| 2 | 32 | 66 |

| horses | | 7 | 22 | 71 | 1 | 18 | 81 |

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

| Total | 5 | 46 | 30 | 19 | 15 | 50 | 35 |

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

The highest class in regard to the ownership of live stock is composed

chiefly of the households of the old type that number at least three

male workers, and whose shares in the communal land exceed the average.

The households of the new type consisting of two adult male workers are

provided in the majority of cases with two working horses; but there is

a very notable minority which is gradually falling into the lower group

with only one working horse to a household.

Finally even that level appears to be too high for the households

in which there is only one male worker. Only the minority of such

households are in the position to keep up at least two working horses;

the great majority have either one horse or none, and _vice versâ_: the

groups with one horse or without horses are made up mainly of those

households with only one adult male worker, their plots only very

seldom exceeding the average, or even falling short of the average.

Now, without a horse there can be no farming; and a household with only

one horse is liable to go down in the long run.[101] Still these two

groups cover at least one-half of the peasantry of to-day.[102] Thus

the dissolution of the old peasant family sapped the productive forces

of the peasantry at large and prompted the liquidation of independent

farming with a considerable minority of the householders. A distinct

group of the village is formed to-day by those peasants who for want

of live stock with which to till their plots, are compelled either

to hire their neighbors to do the work, or to lease their plots and

consequently to stop their farming altogether. The bulk of this class

is made up of those families in which there is only one adult male

worker.[103] Lack of land, lack of live stock and lack of labor power,

make it by no means an easy task for a “singleton” to carry on farming,

and a good many must needs fail.

It becomes plain that small peasant agriculture, based on the labor of

the farmer alone, could stand only as long as its basis, the compound

coöperative family, held together. The previous economic evolution has

demonstrated that the co-operation of three adult workers is required

upon an average to constitute a stable peasant household. As the

progress of individualism will not stop in presence of the survivals

of the patriarchal compound family, so the lacking labor force will

have to be supplied by hire. The dissolution of the patriarchal family

brings forth, of necessity, the employing farmer.

The characteristic feature of this class is that the employer is still

the tiller of the soil. The laborer is hired only to help the farmer in

his work, the average number of laborers employed varying between one

and two to one household, so as to constitute the required coöperation

of three working men.[104]

For the present this class appears but in small numbers in the Russian

village,[105] and this obviously accounts for the little attention paid

to the employing farmer in Russian literature, even in the statistical

investigations. Still the need of hired labor increases on the larger

farms[106] with the division of the compound family, as can be seen

from the following table:

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

| Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitzk.

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

|Households|Households|Households|Households

Extent of the farm. |with 3, |with 2, |with 3, |with 2,

|or more, |or less, |or more, |or less,

|workers. |workers. |workers. |workers.

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

Above 25 dessiatines:-- | | | |

_a._ Employing farmers | 54 | 46 | 53 | 47

(total = 100) | | | |

_b._ Non-employing farmers | 66 | 34 | 74 | 26

(total = 100) | | | |

| | | |

From 15 to 25 dessiatines:--| | | |

_a._ Employing farmers | 21 | 79 | 31 | 69

(total = 100) | | | |

_b._ Non-employing farmers | 31 | 69 | 36 | 64

(total = 100) | | | |

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

As the dissolution of the patriarchal family is going on at a

progressive rate,[107] it follows that the class of employing

farmers is on the rise. The farmer’s own family, supplemented by the

assistance of one or two permanent wage-laborers, is the coming type of

agricultural coöperation, which is destined to take the place of the

natural family coöperation.