INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM.
Thus far we have seen the changes which the parcelling of soil wrought
in the constitution of the village population. We are now brought
face to face with the question of how small peasant landholding is
influenced by this parcelling.
In countries with individual property in land, the question is settled.
In Russia the case is complicated by the system of communal ownership
in land.
Yet the right of alienation, the main essential for the question at
issue, is inherent in quarterly possession on an equal footing with
private property. Thus we can avail ourselves of the opportunity for
comparative study.
Quite naturally, the distribution of land shows more irregularity under
quarterly possession than under agrarian communism.
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| | Quarterly | Agrarian |
| |possession.|communism. |
| +-----------+-----------+
| Former state peasants. |Dankoff and| Zadonsk, |
| | Ranenburg.|Gubernia of|
| | | Voronezh. |
| | Per cent. | Per cent. |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
| Households: | | |
|Landless | 4 | 1 |
|Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 37 | 27 |
|Owning more than 5 dessiatines | 59 | 72 |
| +-----------+-----------+
| Total | 100 | 100 |
| +-----------+-----------+
| Average holding: dessiatines| 10.9 | 10.4 |
+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+
The maximum extent of one quarterly holding exceeded ten times
the average. Under the rule of agrarian communism, where land is
periodically distributed _pro rata_, according to the membership of the
families, such extremes are quite impossible, so far as ownership is
concerned.
Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under agrarian
communism and under quarterly possession:
_Dankoff and Ranenburg: _Landless. _Emigrated. _Total.
Former state peasants._ Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._
With quarterly possession 3 14 17
With agrarian communism 1 9 10
It must be taken into account that the plots of the emigrants remain,
under agrarian communism, the property of the community, which is not
the case under any other form of possession that is at all analogous
to private property. Thus the rural community appears to be a fairly
efficient safety-valve against the expropriation of the poorest among
the peasantry. In reality, however, the influence of communal ownership
is merely formal. Communal land escapes from the hands of its titular
owners under the form of lease.
The communal land held under lease is now nearly equal in amount to
that leased by the peasants directly from the landlords.
_Tenure from the landlords._ _Communal land in lease._
_Dessiatines._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._
Ranenburg 18044 17060 10
Dankoff 13792 9846 7
Zadonsk 12160 11886 9
Korotoyak 11815 21695 8
Nizhnedevitzk 13851 18950 7
Furthermore, the figures show that only about one-fourth of the lessors
are regular farmers, cultivating their lots with their own horses and
implements, while about one-half have abandoned farming altogether:
_Ranenburg. _Dankoff. _Zadonsk.
Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._
Leased: a part of the plot,
the rest cultivated
a) by the owner 7 7 7
b) with the aid of hired labor 6 6 5
-- -- --
The total plot 12 11 8
In all 25 24 20
Now, it is only in a few cases that the lease of a part of the plot
is a proof of its extra size. As a rule, the plot is leased in part
by those who are unable to raise the quantity of live stock required
for the cultivation of their farms. The plots leased in full are the
smallest, which it would not pay to cultivate.[138]
It will be remembered[139] that the terms of the agreement include the
payment of the taxes with from one to three rubles yearly per plot for
the enjoyment of the owner. It is evident that lease on such terms
means practically expropriation of the owner.
Thus, under the rule of the _mir_, about one-fourth of the
householders, nominally counted among “peasant proprietors,” are on
the way toward expropriation, or have already become expropriated. As
to the lessees of the peasant plots, they must be at the top of the
tenant class,[140] by reason of the terms of lease. The landlord gives
the tenant credit for his rent, at least in part, till after harvest,
and, in case of need, part of the rent is permitted to be paid in
labor. The peasant lets his plot, either in full for the payment of
taxes, or in part, by reason of lack of money. In either case it must
be advanced in the fall. It is by no means unusual for the lease to be
contracted for a term of from six to twelve years,[141] the rent for
the whole being payable in advance. This is very often the case with
the plots of emigrants, leaving home for purposes of colonization,
and with those who are permanently employed outside. It goes without
saying that rent is advanced only at a considerable reduction of
the rates.[142] This difference gave rise to speculation in peasant
land. A hundred shares are leased by a wealthy peasant or merchant,
to be re-rented in the spring in small plots to the poorer among the
lessees.[143] The fact that alienability of the peasant land had
become a rule in the community, was first stated by Mr. Trirogoff as
far back as 1879.[144] The observer, however, was not aware of the
economic significance of the phenomenon when he advanced the opinion
that alienability of land exhibits the great capacity of adaptation
intrinsic in the community.
In reality the contrary is the case. The fact that communal land is
disposed of by private agreement, means the displacement of agrarian
communism by economic individualism. This was most strikingly
demonstrated when the question of the general redivision of the
communal land came up before the free _mir_ in the beginning of the
eighties.