CHAPTER XIII._The Economics of the Russian Village

AGRICULTURE ON A LARGE SCALE.

The peasantist ideas with regard to the village community found their

necessary complement in an economic theory which gathered to itself

a large following in Russia some ten years ago. The founder of this

school, a young writer who concealed his name under the initials _V.

V._, advanced the thesis that the development of capitalism in Russia

is precluded by her economic constitution, as well as by her belated

appearance on the international market. Export of grain had been the

only vacancy left by European capitalism for the enjoyment of its

younger brother in Russia. But then there you have “our Transatlantic

friends,” the Yankees, who are going to turn us out of the Western

ports. Production for the international grain market is a phantastic

dream of Russian “large agriculture.” The reality belongs to the

peasant, who produces for home consumption. Large estates are in

decay. Small peasant farming is spreading in all the dominions of the

nobility. Economic development will compel the noble to cede to the

triumphant ploughman the use of the land, while taking for himself the

modest role of an absentee.[152]

At last the word was uttered which was so eagerly longed for. The

Russian peasantists labored at the riddle how to reconcile the theory

of Karl Marx with the teachings of Tchernyshefsky. If capitalism is the

laboratory in which socialism is concocted; if furthermore, capitalism

has grown out of the expropriation of the peasant, then the consistent

Russian socialist must foster the dissolution of agrarian communism, to

which all his sympathies are pledged, and contribute to the development

of capitalism, of which he himself is a bitter enemy.[153] Mr. V.

V. found the solution of the riddle in reaching the conclusions of

Tchernyshefsky through the materialistic method of Karl Marx.

The unrelenting course of historical development tends to eliminate

landlord agriculture in Russia. As land is steadily passing into

the control of the peasantry, the time is imminent when land

nationalization can easily be carried out through the abolition of

rent. Whether the reform will be accomplished through violence, like

the emancipation of the slaves in the United States, or in a peaceful

way, like the emancipation of the peasants and the redemption of land

in Russia, entirely depends on the wisdom of the ruling classes. Sooner

or later the government will see itself in a condition similar to that

which existed before 1861, and the next reform will only achieve the

work which had been left half done by the emancipation.[154]

This attractive theory gained for a time control of the whole monthly

press. Statistical investigation, however, has subsequently brought to

light the utter baselessness of the very premises of the doctrine.

Given the development and actual condition of farm labor, the character

of agriculture on a large scale is fully determined thereby. Farming

on the estates of the nobility after the emancipation of the peasants

continued for a time as a pursuit of merely natural economy. One part

of the land was rented to the peasants in consideration of a certain

amount of work to be done on the other part. Labor was also provided

for through the grant of easements to the peasant communities. The

entire area of the estate, whether rented or farmed by the owner, was

cultivated by the peasants’ implements and live stock. This enabled the

landlord to carry on agriculture on a large scale without any outlay of

capital.

The rise of rent resulted in the increase of the work to be performed

by the tenant for the benefit of the landlord. The area cultivated by

the latter increased, diminishing the part of the estate rented to the

peasant. Small peasant agriculture was being step by step displaced by

large farming, and that continually without any additional investment

of capital.

Finally, however, the displacement of the small farmer must needs have

led to the gradual substitution of money economy for natural economy.

As the number of impoverished peasants increased in inverse ratio to

the tenant class, a time arrived when the demand for labor could no

longer be supplied by tenants alone, and had to be provided for through

wage labor. The employer became the creditor of the laborer. This

necessitated money payments for the land given in tenure.

Such are the inferences necessarily following from the above review

of peasant agriculture. The immediate study of agriculture on a large

scale must obviously lead to the same conclusions.[155]

As yet the major part of the area of private property is cultivated

by means of peasant live stock and implements, as evidenced by the

comparative quantity of live stock raised on the large farms and in the

rural districts abroad:

_To 1 horse

_Land, _Horses._ on an average,

_District of Voronezh._ Dessiatines._ Dessiatines._

On large estates

under cultivation

(land in small

tenure excluded) 86360 1708 50.5

In the district at large 434372 52465 8.3

It follows from these figures that the landlords’ stock is hardly

sufficient for the cultivation of one-sixth of the land which is

virtually farmed by the owners of large estates. Quite naturally,

from the agronomic standpoint the Russian “bonanza farms” have very

little advantage over small peasant farming. The primitive division

of the arable land into three well-nigh equal fields, of which one is

yearly left unsown, prevails on the large estates as well as on peasant

farms.[156] The tillage with the antediluvian peasant plough (_sohá_)

is very imperfect, while improved ploughs are not in common use, and

wherever they are, one plough is found for every 91.2 dessiatines (246

acres) of arable land. Superficial tillage strains the productive

forces of the upper layers of the soil, while lack of live stock

prevents the fertilizing of the land on a reasonable scale, the fields

being manured on an average once in eighteen years.[157]

Large farming thus partakes of the wasteful character of small peasant

agriculture, and proves therefore almost as little productive, a fact

shown by the comparative yields of cereals:[158]

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

| | Rye. | Oats. |

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

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

| | | | | |

|On peasant farms | 5.3 | 100 | 4.6 | 100 |

| | | | | |

| (over 50 dessiatines) | 7.3 | 138 | 5.8 | 126 |

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

Still, even that slight increase of productivity is sufficient to make

large farming prevail over small peasant tenure:

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

| under cultivation. | money, | crops, +------------+-----+

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

| | | | | |

|In small peasant tenure| 24226 | 1083 | 25309 | 40 |

| | | | | |

| farmer | 37183 | 1028 | 38211 | 60 |

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

|Total[159], dessiatines| 61409 | 2111 | 63520 | |

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

| Per cent. | 97 | 3 | .. | 100 |

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

Another reason for the prevalence of large farming over small peasant

tenure is to be found in the greater economic dependence of the farm

laborer as compared with the tenant, while the laborer, being a farmer

himself, saves his employer the investment of fixed capital.

Nevertheless a certain outlay of capital for the payment of wages was

necessitated by the development of money economy in agriculture. This

has drawn the line between the smaller and the larger estates.

While on the smaller estates peasant tenure is practiced to the extent

of excluding landlord agriculture, on the larger estates, on the

contrary, peasant tenure plays but a subordinate part:

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

| | Number +-------+-----+Average|

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

|Estates without arable land | 14 | 5117| 4 | |

| tenure | 64 | 15605| 12 | 244 |

|Estates with large farming | 190 | 109615| 83 | 577 |

|Management not stated | 11 | 1616| 1 | |

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

| Total | 279 | 131953| 100 | 473 |

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

II. _Ploughland yearly under culture._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._

Total on the estates with large farming 52627 100

Cultivated by the owners 37183 71

------ ---

In small peasant tenure 15444 29

Small peasant tenure is a very ruinous management of large estates,

inasmuch as the land allotted in tenure is, as a rule, never

manured.[160] The above figures testify therefore to a certain

progress of agriculture on the larger estates. Farming without

fertilizing the soil is found only on the smallest estates, which

do not reach even the average size of those exclusively in peasant

tenure.[161] On larger estates application of manure goes hand in hand

with the culture of more valuable crops.

On peasant farms, as well as on the smaller estates approaching the

standard of peasant agriculture, rye is found to be the only winter

crop[162]; whereas on the larger estates it has been supplanted to a

vast extent by winter wheat:

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

| Estates | Number +-------+-------+--------------------+ total |

| | | | |Total.| Rye. |Wheat.| (per |

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

| | | | | | | | |

|Wheat not grown| 96 | 34453 | 359 | 4444 | 4444 | .. | .. |

|Wheat grown | 94 | 75162 | 800 |12744 | 8171 | 4573 | 36 |

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

| Total | 190 |109615 | 577 |17188 |12615 | 4573 | .. |

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

Winter wheat is only exceptionally grown on unfertilized land; on the

other hand, only a minor part of the fertilized land is never planted

with wheat. As a rule a field is manured on an average for two seeds of

winter wheat.[163]

The need of manure necessitates the raising of live stock by the

landlord. Then it becomes a matter of good economy with the largest

farmer to apply his own live stock and implements to the tillage of his

land.[164] This leads to the improvement of farming implements, and

must consequently be considered as another proof of the progressive

tendency of large farming.[165]

Still all these improvements presuppose a corresponding investment of

capital. Thus we are face to face with the beginnings of capitalistic

agriculture in Russia.

The nobility, as a class, owed its existence to relations of

natural economy. The bonds, which were issued to the landlords by

the government in payment for the land allotted to the peasantry,

were promptly wasted for personal enjoyment, for all kind of risky

speculations, and for agricultural improvements which could not pay

from a business standpoint. Thus, as soon as the need of capital began

to be felt in agriculture, the estates of the nobility flew, through

lease, mortgage and sale, into the hands of the capitalist class.

The following shows the movement of private landed property in the

district of Ryazañ, from 1867 to 1881.[166]

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

| | Percentage | Average holding |

| | in the area. | (Dessiatines). |

| Classes of owners. +--------+--------+--------+--------+

| | 1867. | 1881. | 1867. | 1881. |

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

|Property of the nobility | 92 | 66.6 | 284.9 | 283.6 |

|Property of the capitalistic class| 3.3 | 22.3 | 124.4 | 372.1 |

|Small property | 4.7 | 11.1 | 3.7 | 4.9 |

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

Immediately after the emancipation of the peasants the domains of the

nobility covered nearly the total area of private property. Twenty

years after the reform, one-third of their property had already gone

to other classes. The land which was lost by the nobility was divided

between the capitalist and the small farmer in the ratio of two to one,

the possessions of the capitalist growing about three times as fast as

small private property.

The new classes of property holders well-nigh correspond, as to their

origin, to the legal status of “merchants” and “peasants.” Among

these classes is being divided the inheritance of the nobility. “The

merchant class take possession mainly of the large estates, neglecting

altogether, and even relinquishing, the small plots, … which gradually

pass into the hands of the peasant.”[167]

The following figures may serve as an illustration:

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

| | Percentage of the area. |

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

| | Estates under | Estates over |

| Status of owners. | 50 dessiatines. | 50 dessiatines. |

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

| | 1881. | 1884. | 1881. | 1884. |

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

|Nobility | 13.9 | 32.0 | 74.5 | 80.1 |

|Peasants | 77.7 | 44.2 | 2.4 | 3.6 |

|Merchants & “hon. citizens.”[168]| 1.2 | 8.2 | 20.4 | 14.5 |

|Burghers, clergy, etc. | 7.2 | 15.6 | 2.6 | 1.8 |

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

| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |

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

The growth of capitalistic tenure furthers the progress of capitalistic

agriculture. The small tenant is being superseded by the large business

man (or merchant, to use the Russian expression), exploiting the land

by means of wage labor. This is proved by the following figures:

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

| Property of the | Property of the

| nobility. | capitalist class.

Systems of +--------+------------+--------+--------+------------+--------

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

| of | |Per |(dessia-| of | |Per |(dessia-

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

Estates | 51 | 13942| 13.4| 273 | 13 | 1664 | 6.3| 128

| | | | | | | |

Estates | 5 | 794| 0.7| .. | 9 | 4323 | 16.3| ..

| | | | | | | |

Estates | 123 | 90223| 85.4| 734 | 67 |19391 | 73.4| 289

| | | | | | | |

Management | 6 | 556| 0.5| .. | 5 | 1060 | 4.0| ..

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

Total | 185 |105515|100 | 576 | 94 |26438 |100 | 281

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

The nobility has proved able to farm only on the largest estates. Where

the nobleman would merely distribute his estate in small lots among

peasant tenants, the capitalist landholder carries on agriculture on a

large scale:

_Dessiatines._

Average holding of a noble in small peasant tenure 273

Average holding of a capitalist with farming on a large scale 289

The average holding on which peasant tenure pays the capitalist better

than farming, is less than one-half the corresponding size of a noble’s

estate. Accordingly we find that wherever the capitalist has replaced

the noble, the exclusive practice of small peasant tenure has lost over

one-half of its area:

_Estates in small peasant tenure._ _Percentage in the area._

Property of the nobility 13.4

Property of the capitalists 6.3

Among the capitalists we notice the timber speculator, who purchases

tracts without ploughland, or, perhaps, sells the latter to the small

farmer. Yet, with all that, three-fourths of the total area acquired by

the capitalist class are farmed by the owners. Practical business men

who invest their money in large estates, would undoubtedly prefer to

quietly pocket the enormous rents paid by the peasants, if in reality

agriculture on a large scale had proved a loss, as both the nobility

and the peasantists claimed.[169]

Moreover, the management of the estates by the capitalists is far

superior to that which the noble landlord could afford.

The capitalist would manure his fields as soon as his holding reaches

scarcely one-half the average estate on which the nobleman would

care to fertilize the soil; and even then the latter lags behind the

capitalist as regards the area yearly manured:

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

| Estates with | | +---------------------+--------+

| agriculture. | Number |Average +------+-----+--------+how many|

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

| _Property of the | | | | 100 | | |

| nobility_: | | | +-----+ | |

|Farming with manure | 104 | 816 | 28495| 92 | 2555 | 11.1 |

|Farming without manure| 19 | 280 | 2415| 8 | | |

| | | | | | | |

| _Property of the | | | | 100 | | |

| capitalist class_: | | | +-----+ | |

|Farming with manure | 45 | 363 | 5314| 85 | 825 | 6.4 |

|Farming without manure| 22 | 138 | 958| 15 | | |

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

The expense of fertilizing is compensated by the greater productivity

of capitalistic agriculture.

We observe that wheat is planted by the capitalist where rye would be

the only winter crop raised by a nobleman:

_Average

_Estates with large agriculture._ _Number._ (Dessiatines)._

_Property of the nobility_:

Wheat grown 72 898

No wheat grown 51 501

_Property of the capitalist class_:

Wheat grown 22 478

No wheat grown 45 197

Of much greater consequence is, moreover, the fact that the yields of

wheat are by far higher on capitalistic farms than on the estates of

the nobility[170]:

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

| Dessiatines. | Average yields.

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

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

| | | +-----+-------+-------+ |per-

|Yields | not | Per | | Not |less of| per |age

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

By noblemen | 3609 | 166 | | | 5.4 | 5.3 | 11.7 | 97

By capitalists| 768 | 30 | | 8.4 | | 8.1 | 17.8 | 148

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

| 4377 | 196 | 4 | | | | |

U.S. | | | | | | | 12.0 | 100

1880-89[172] | | | | | | | |

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

It appears from these figures--

1. That on the estates of the nobility the average yield of wheat

amounts to what can be got from the soil without the application of

manure, while on capitalistic farms the average is nearly on a par with

that which is raised from fertilized land.

2. That the average yield of wheat per acre on a capitalistic farm

in the district of Voronezh outruns by about one-half the American

average, while the noble landlord is barely able to keep on a level

with the American producer. Taking into consideration that the farm

laborer of middle Russia, with his 50 kopeks a day (25 cents in gold)

in the summer, is well fitted to underbid the Chinese cooly, so large

an advance in productivity seems to justify the prediction of Mr. Paul

Lafargue, viz., that Russia will soon become a successful competitor of

America on the international grain market.[173]

The rise of the income from agriculture, as above shown, goes hand in

hand with the development of stock breeding. Thus where the nobleman

would have all his land tilled with peasant live stock, the capitalist

draws a benefit from cultivating a part of his estate with his own

stock, and this part is relatively greater than on the largest estates

owned by the nobility. The evidence is presented in the following table:

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

| | +-------+-----+ | To 1 |

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

|_Property of the nobility_: | | | 100 | | |

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

|With working horses | 88 | 78814 | 87 | 896 | 62 |

|Without working horses | 35 | 11409 | 13 | 326 | .. |

| | | | | | |

|_Property of the capitalists_:| | | 100 | | |

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

|With working horses | 54 | 17597 | 91 | 326 | 44 |

|Without working horses | 13 | 1794 | 9 | 138 | .. |

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

The displacement of the laborer’s live stock and implements by

the owner’s stock, while it fosters the introduction of improved

implements,[174] replaces on the other hand the small farmer by the

proletarian. In fact, proletarian labor is employed by the capitalist

on estates where the noble owner would confine himself to the services

of the small farmer:

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

| | | Average| | To 1 |

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

|Proletarian labor employed | 112 | 783 | 1956 | 45 |

| ” ” not employed| 11 | 233 | .. | .. |

|Proletarian labor employed | 50 | 351 | 398 | 48 |

| ” ” not employed| 17 | 108 | .. | .. |

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

To sum up, it is thanks solely to the obstinate persistence of backward

methods in Russian agriculture that the nobility is able to maintain

its position.

The biggest of the aristocratic landlords are the only ones who can

keep on capitalizing a part of their net income.[175]

On the whole, the existence of the nobility as an agricultural class is

closely dependent upon the continued vegetation of a class of peasants,

who are farmers and laborers at once, or who, to express it more

accurately, are neither farmers nor laborers. We have seen what is the

trend of the times with regard to this class of peasantry. The former

masters will inevitably share the fate of their former serfs.