CHAPTER X._The Economics of the Russian Village

THE MODERN AGRICULTURAL CLASSES.

The existence of the employer presupposes his correlative, the

employee. Thus we are brought close to the fact that there have arisen

opposite social classes within the village community.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the lines between the classes

in the Russian village are as yet far from being as sharply drawn as

in countries with developed capitalism. It would seem that laborers

permanently employed outside of their farms must unquestionably be

classed among the proletarians. And yet we find the majority of them

maintaining the standard of farmers.[108] This is due to the existence

of the compound family, the average household numbering two adult male

workers, which enables one of them to carry on farming, while the

other is employed outside.[109] Only the minority of the households in

question that have only one adult worker, and accordingly we find that

independent farming has been given up only by the minority of those

householders who are permanently employed as farm laborers.[110] These

are the genuine rural proletarians with whom the earnings from wage

labor constitute the main source of income. Still they are landholders,

and inasmuch as they have no live stock of their own, their plots are

tilled chiefly by means of wage labor:

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

| | Korotoyak. | Nizhnedevitsk. |

| Farm laborers whose plots are +--------+-------+--------+-------+

| | House- | Per | House- | Per |

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

| Tilled by hired laborers | 371 | 64 | 237 | 66 |

| Leased | 205 | 36 | 124 | 34 |

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

| In all | 576 | 100 | 361 | 100 |

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

Thus we have the very peculiar economic type of a wage-laborer who

is at the same time employer of wage labor. It is obvious that the

characteristics of a modern European proletarian could not properly be

extended to the Russian agricultural laborer.

Class distinctions are very easily perceived, of course, when the

classes have already ripened to a certain degree. In the embryonic

stage, the true tendency of the development going on is disguised by

the many transitional forms combining the characteristic features of

opposite classes. The peasantist of “the seventies,” whose opinions

were influenced by European socialism, had no idea of class antagonism

within the ranks of the peasantry themselves, regarding it as confined

entirely to the “exploiter”--_kulak_ or _miroyed_[111]--and his victim,

the peasant imbued with the communistic spirit.[112]

The statisticians necessarily started in their investigations with

preconceived ideas respecting the uniformity of the peasantry[113]

as a class, except in so far as legal discriminations had to be

taken into account. The study of the facts brought them subsequently

to a recognition of the true position, and in some of the later

_Reports_ attempts were made to arrange the data according to class

distinctions. The main difficulty in the question is as to what

proof should be selected for classification. The characteristics of

employer and employee would cover only a minor part of the peasantry

of to-day,[114] not to speak of a certain vagueness of the terms, as

explained above. Mr. Shtcherbina, Superintendent of the Statistical

Department of Voronezh, has classified the peasants according to: 1,

the size of their farms, 2, the quantity of stock raised, 3, the number

of adult male workers to a household, and 4, to the occupation by which

they supplement the insufficient income derived from their plots. The

households are accordingly scheduled into 320 minute sections, so as to

afford the opportunity of subsequently combining them into wider social

classes.

We shall divide the peasantry into three main classes:

I. Those whose income from farming is sufficient to meet all the

expenses of the household (taxes included), so as to obviate any need

of wage earnings.

Households that pay their expenses by the income from commercial or

industrial enterprises and draw a net profit from agriculture, are also

included in that class.

II. Farmers who are at the same time wage laborers, either in

agriculture, or in industry.

III. Proletarians, _i. e._ those who stopped working on their plots and

earn their living exclusively by means of wage labor.

Let us examine these classes in detail.

_Ad I._ Combine all merely agricultural groups in which the income

from farming exceeds the expenses of housekeeping, taxes and rent,

and in which, furthermore, all the householders cultivate their plots

with their own stock and implements. The results are presented in the

following tables:

_1. Balance Sheet._

_Households, 1501, D. of Korotoyak._ _Receipts._ _Expenses._

_Rubles._ _Rubles._

Gross income from farming 185171

Expenses of housekeeping 77004

Rent 33000

Taxes 59094

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

Total 185171 169098

Net profit 16073

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

185171 185171

Net profit to 1 household upon an average 10.70

_2. Land to 1 farm._

_Households,

Per cent._

From 5 to 15 dessiatines 5

From 15 to 25 dessiatines 72

Above 25 dessiatines 23

---

Total 100

_3. Live stock to 1 farm._

_Households,

Per cent._

1 horse 1

2 horses[115] 42

3 horses[115] 38

4 or more 19

---

Total 100

The requirements for a “strong” household, as evidenced by the

above tables, are as follows: 1, a farm exceeding in size fifteen

dessiatines, _i. e._ one of above the average size; 2, at least two

working horses.

Guided by these principles, we obtain the following table comprising

all the householders of the class in question, in the district of

Korotoyak:

_In the class._ _In the district

at large._

Total households 1999 20282

_Membership of an average household:_

Males and females 10.1 7.3

Adult male work 2.1 1.7

Half-workers 0.6 0.4

_Landholding:_

Communal land (dessiatines)--

_a._ To 1 adult male worker 11.5 8.3

_b._ To 1 household 24.4 14.2

Rented land, to 1 household (dessiatines) 5.1 4.2

Horses, to 1 household 2.7 1.8

Gross income from farming minus expenses,

taxes, rent and wages paid:

to 1 household, rubles +2.09 -26.97

Households classified with regard to--

_Labor forces:_ _Per cent._ _Per cent._

Having 1 adult male worker 29 47

Having 2 adult male workers 41 } 30 }

Having 3 adult male workers 30 } 71 19 } 49

--- ---

Total 100 96

_Landholding:_

Owning from 15 to 25 dessiatines 72 25

Owning above 25 dessiatines 28 9

--- ---

Total 100 34

Tenants of rented land 54 42

_Live stock:_

Keeping 2 horses 45 33

Keeping 3 horses 38 16

Keeping 4 or more horses 17 7

--- ---

Total 100 56

The class in question occupies the top of the village. It owes its

economic independence to the fact that the majority of the households

represent a co-operation of at least two adult male workers, assisted

by half-workers, as well as to the favorable circumstance that the

size of the farm exceeds by about one-half, relatively to the number

of workers, the average in the district. The number of working horses

is accordingly increased in the same ratio, three horses constituting

about the average to a farm, while about one half of the households at

large fall short of even the average two to a farm.

Another branch of the same class is formed by those householders

with whom trade and commerce are as important a source of revenue as

agriculture, as shown by the balance below:

DISTRICT OF KOROTOYAK.

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

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

| produce | 1366 | 211237 | | |

|Taxes | | | 48626 | |

|Rent | | | 79550 | |

|Wages paid | | | 16113 | |

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

| All to farming | | 211237 | 144289 | +66948 |

| and commerce | 1384 | 230527 | | |

|Expenses of housekeeping | | | 171705 | |

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

| All to trade and commerce| | 230527 | 171705 | +58822 |

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

| Total | 1366 | 441864 | 315994 |+125770 |

|Net profit to 1 household | | | | 9207 |

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

The net profit drawn from trade and commerce enables these householders

to enlarge their farming, with the exception of a very small minority

who have devoted themselves entirely to trade, and do not turn to

farming.[116] The economic level of this section is shown in the

following table:

_Average size _Land rented (by _Tenants (in

_Class I., D. of Korotoyak._ of a farm, 1 household) every 100

dessiatines._ dessiatines_ households)._

Farmers merely 24.4 5.1 54

Traders 21.9 11.4 73

---- ---- --

In the district at large 14.2 4.2 42

Concentration of the communal land proves to be the general basis of

the economic welfare of the class under consideration.[117] Under the

rule of the _mir_ a large farm means a strong patriarchal family; the

preservation of the latter is equally characteristic of the trader as

of the mere farmers of the class, and appears to be even somewhat more

pronounced among the former than among the latter.[118]

On the other hand, farming with the help of hired labor has enormously

advanced among this section of the village community; it may be said

that the employing farmer is a member of this progressive class _par

excellence_.[119] The growth of this form of agricultural coöperation

is going on within the class under consideration keeping pace with the

dissolution of the patriarchal family.[120]

_Ad III._ The rural proletariat is generally marked by the absence of

live stock to till the land with.[121] The class in question is formed

of those peasants whom it did not pay to work on their farms, in view

of the scarcity of the same.

Nearly one-half of the class are landless or own less than five

dessiatines, the percentage of such households being three times

greater than among the peasantry at large. Only a very small minority

are in the possession of plots exceeding the average, the percentage

being three times less than among the peasants at large. On the whole,

a holding of a proletarian is half the average in the district.[122]

This is the immediate result of the complete dissolution of the

patriarchal family among the village proletariat, the bulk of the

latter consisting of families with only one adult male worker.[123]

Having failed as farmers, one-half have become farm laborers, the rest

are employed in industry, or have no steady employment at all.[124]

With all of them, wages are the chief means of livelihood.[125] The

income from their farms is of secondary importance. The gross receipts

from sale of produce are absorbed by the taxes.[126] Still the produce

of the farm is partly consumed in kind and may serve to supply the

owner with some of the necessaries of life.[127] In fact, it proves

profitable for the village proletarian to cultivate his plot with the

help of hired labor; accordingly, the majority of the proletarians of

the Russian villages are not only employees, but also employers at the

same time.[128] As yet there is but a small fraction of the village

that has evolved into the condition of proletarians proper, whose only

economic interest is that of wage labor.[129]

_Ad II._ The mean between both extremes, _i. e._ between the

independent farmers and the proletarian laborers, is occupied by a

transitional class who are farmers and wage laborers at once.

The soil being tilled by its owner’s labor, the farmer is supposed to

raise live stock. We remember that two horses to a farm is the minimum

required to constitute a strong household, the normal approaching three

horses upon an average. The proletarians, as a rule, have no horses.

The transitional class under consideration is characterized by the

ownership of from one to two horses.[130]

Within this class a further distinction is to be made as between (A),

those with whom outside earnings are to cover only a small deficit

in their farming, and (B), those with whom wage labor has become as

important a source of income as farming:

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

| | |Income from wage labor. |

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

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

|Section _A_ | 92 | 8 | 6.39 |

|Section _B_ | 50 | 50 | 50.47 |

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

Small as the deficit of agriculture is in Section _A_, still it is

the first step down of the lately independent farmer. The comparison

between this section and the farmer pure and simple of Class I brings

out the unmistakable reason: the deficit begins with the dissolution

of the patriarchal family.[131] The absolute and relative size of the

farm owned by a divided family with only one male worker cannot compare

with that of a patriarchal household[132]. The single worker keeps only

very seldom above the average; in the long run he is liable to turn to

some wage-paying occupation, that is to say, to pass into the section

adjoining the proletarians.

This wing of the transitional class seems to show even a somewhat

greater strength of farming than the upper section just described.[133]

It must be, however, placed at a lower degree of the scale, inasmuch

as, in the first place, the relative income per adult male worker is

below that of Section _A_,[134] and, in the second place, its higher

absolute level of agriculture is not of long duration. In reality, it

is due to the fact that the compound family still prevails in Section

_B_, while it is about to disappear in Section _A_.[135] The existence

of the compound family enables some of its workers to carry on farming,

while others are employed outside.[136] With the division of the

family, which, as we know, is only a question of time, a number of

householders will be compelled to stop farming. Such are in the first

place those employed yearly or during the summer as farm laborers. At

present they number as follows:

_Households._ _Households._

With 1 adult male worker 649 With 2 or more adult male workers 1242

“Horseless” 568 With 1 horse or more 1323

Stopped tilling their plots 576 Tilling their plots 1315

The “single” householders permanently employed as farm laborers have

in most cases stopped working on their plots. The separation of the

remaining 1242 compound householders would swell the proletarian class

by nearly as many families, which would constitute an increase of the

proletariat by forty-five per cent.

After having examined in detail the several classes of the village, let

us sum up their characteristic features in one schedule, to show the

tendency of the evolution going on:

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

| | | Average membership per |

| |House-| household. |

|Classes. |holds,+---------+--------+--------+--------+

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

| Trading farmers | 6 | 10.5 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 3.0 |

| Farmers merely | 10 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.7 |

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

| All to the class | 16 | 10.2 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 2.8 |

| A. Farmers merely | 20 | 6 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 1.6 |

| B. Farmers--laborers| 50 | 7.9 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 2.3 |

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

| All to the class | 70 | 7.4 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 2.1 |

| Employing labor | 9 | | | | |

| Proletarians proper | 5 | | | | |

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

| All to the class | 14 | 3.8 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 1.1 |

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

We find a clue to the coming development of the village in the fact

that the main classes within the peasantry correspond to the age of the

householders.

It is but the minority of old-fashioned compound families that have

stood their ground as virtual farmers; the middle economic group of the

village, is formed by “the middlers” _i. e._ the householders of middle

age, who count in their families half-workers or one adult worker

besides themselves. The proletarians are recruited from among the

youngest generations, who consist of husband and wife with their little

children.

Here we have the economic basis of the “struggle of generations” in the

village, a topic which was very much discussed in Russian literature.

The elders, the “middlers” and the young, represent the farmer of the

old stamp and strong make, the modern peasant,--half farmer, half

laborer at once,--and the proletarian, with their variance of views,

which mirrors their diverse and antagonistic economic interests.[137]