[141] Peasant land held in lease for long terms:

[142]

Rental Prices per 1 Dessiatine.

[143]

We find, however, some cases wherein communal land was used for the purposes of farming on a large scale. The community was bound to combine the plots annually into one tract for the use of the lessee, who was often a merchant and a stranger to the community (Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, Vol. II., Part I., p. 272, No. 6; p. 283, No. 5; p. 301, No. 5.)

In a few cases chronic arrears in taxes compelled the community itself to lease tracts of communal lands, usually pasture, to be converted into arable land. “The village ‘Dubki,’ Dankoff, was destroyed by fire in 1861, and the peasants delayed paying the tallage, which was levied through the sale of the rest of their chattels. Public sales continued at intervals until 1872, when they were stopped by the community through the lease of 50 dessiatines of meadow and pasture to be converted into arable.” (Loc. cit., Part II., p. 199, No. 4.)

“In the village Plemyannikovo, Dankoff, arrears in the tallage gave rise to repeated auction sales of the peasants’ chattels. In 1865 the community resolved to let out 150 dessiatines, and has since been unable to stop leasing.” (Loc. cit., p. 249, No. 6, Cf., also p. 210, No. 7.)

Exceptional as these cases are, they show nevertheless that the ownership of land by the village community does not preclude the possibility of capitalistic farming upon communal fields.

[144] In a series of articles which appeared first in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski (monthly) subsequently published in book form under the heading “Community and Tax.”

[145] The poll-tax did not exceed 1.60 rubles, and constituted but a very small portion of the entire amount of taxes levied. It was replaced by indirect taxes upon articles of peasant consumption. Besides, though the capitation tax proper was repealed, the system of taxation per capita remained in force in the shape of the other direct taxes levied upon the peasant.

[146] Such was indeed the case in the village of Voskresenskoye, bailiwick Kochurofskaya, Dankoff, in which the plots of the emigrants were distributed in the subdivision among all the members of the community, notwithstanding the fact that the term of lease had not yet expired. (Loc. cit., part II., p. 236.)

[147] It is very questionable whether there is any action at law at all for the lessee in similar cases. The plot is held by the lessor under a precarious title, and the lessee may be supposed to have been cognizant of the risk.

[148] It is peculiar to find quite obsolete sentimentalism with regard to the Russian mir, among even Russian writers of reputation with the English public. We read in a recent issue of an English magazine: “Voting and ballot are unknown to Russian peasants, and every question is decided unanimously by means of mutual concessions and compromises, as in united families.”

Lost paradise!

A few concrete cases are produced here by way of elucidation:

1. Village Pokrovskove, bailiwick Yeropkinskaya, Dankoff: “About ⅓ of the householders are in good standing, the rest are destitute. The former deal in communal lots. The debate over subdivision is very warm; about 5 of the votes necessary to constitute the two-thirds majority are lacking.” (Loc. cit., Part I., p. 202, No. 15.)

(Cf. ib., p. 16.)

2. Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, district of Dankoff: “The question of subdivision is brought up for discussion in only three communities. In none of the others does it attract serious attention. In all probability this is to be accounted for by the unsatisfactory quality of the soil, as well as by the great number of families who have at length fallen into destitution and lease their lots.” (Loc. cit., part II., p. 211.)

Let us now compare the figures:

It is evident that if the reason given by the statistician is true for the bailiwick in question, it holds good a fortiori for the region at large, where the average percentage of lessors is even greater.

The correctness of this explanation is strikingly proved by the figures for the adjacent bailiwick Znamenskaya, Dankoff.

(Loc. cit., pp. 248, 110-129.)

As the shares of about one-half of the village are held by the other half, the latter has no practical interest in the redivision. Were it not so, however, a unanimous vote of the farming half could not possibly effect the redivision.

3. Village Troitzkoye, the same bailiwick, Ranenburg, “There is some talk about subdivision, yet it is very hard to have it passed here. A good many are so impoverished that they show no interest in the question of increasing the amount of their land, for, in any event, it would have to be let out; while the redivision would bring prejudice to the lessees, and there are many of them.” (Loc. cit., part I., p. 310.)

Let us show it in figures:

(Loc. cit., pp. 130, 131.)

4. Village Kunakovo, b. Zmievskaya, Dankoff, “The peasants live in great poverty. Redivision is talked about; it is much checkmated by the fact that many among the householders are permanently living outside.” (Loc. cit., p. 254.)

Out of the 28 householders holding a share in the communal land, 11 lease their lots in toto; 9 among them have no houses in the village; 23 adult males are working outside.

After deduction of the 11 lessors above mentioned, who obviously do not live in the village, the remaining 17 are insufficient for a majority even in case of unanimity. Yet they are divided as follows:

Nine workers among these are moreover employed outside. (Ib., pp. 128-132.)

If there is no antagonism to the redivision, then indifference on the part of some is but natural.

5. Village Sergievskoye, Ranenburg, “Most of the ‘horseless’ half of the village are working exclusively outside. A good many are in arrears for taxes. Their lots are taken from them by the community and given to the wealthiest householders. This tends greatly to still further enrich the few at the expense of the many. In 1863 about one sixth of the bailiwick (300 ‘revision males’) emigrated to the gubernia of Stavropol, Caucasus, leaving their lots to the community. The land was distributed among the best-situated householders. All of the emigrants, save 15 families, have now come back, but the mir refuses to return their lots. This is the case with the emigrants in all the communities of the district. It is very difficult to settle the matter of the redivision, for the people are always away at work, and the redivision is opposed by the most influential householders, who keep in their hands the lots of the former emigrants and delinquent tax-payers.” (Loc. cit., part I., p. 305,)

These are the figures connected with the above statement:

(Ibid., pp. 116-120.)

Apart from the opposition of the lessees, it is hardly ever possible to get even a simple majority to vote upon the redivision.

[149] Bailiwicks Naryshkinskaya, Karpovskaya, Nikolskaya, Vednovskaya, and Zimarovskaya, district of Ranenburg; b. Spasskaya, Loshkovskaya, and Yagodnovskaya, district of Dankoff, and some scattered communities all over the region.

[150] Cf. loc. cit., Part I, p. 288, No. 4; p. 310, No. 2.

[151] So far as I am aware from the newspapers, the land was afterward redistributed in the communities of a number of gubernias of Middle Russia.

[152] These views were expounded by Mr. V. V. in a series of articles which appeared in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski, in 1880 and 1881, and were published in 1882, in book form, under the title: The Destinies of Capitalism in Russia.

[153] This question was put by Mr. Michaïloffsky, a very renowned Russian publicist, in his article: “Karl Marx on trial before Mr. J. Zhukoffsky,” which appeared in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski, 1877. An answer to this criticism, in letter form, was found in the posthumous papers of Karl Marx, and was published in Russian, first by the revolutionary press, and subsequently in the Juridichesky Vestnik (Juridical Herald, monthly), Moscow, 1888.

[154] Mr. V. V. himself, in the preface to his book, placed his confidence in Russian autocracy, which appeared to him particularly adapted to the carrying out of social reforms in favor of the masses. The Russian bicephalous eagle soars in his majesty high above the classes, whereas constitutional government is avowedly a class rule promoting the interests of the bourgeoisie. This was a correct translation from the Prussian into the Muscovite of Rodbertus’ motto: “Christlich, monarchisch, sozial!” Whether this declaration of allegiance was not inspired to the peasantist author rather by the reading of the Statute of Censorship, is open to question. It is sure, however, that the adherents of the doctrine within the ranks of the “party of the Narodnaya Volya” (“The Will of the People”) did not share in this enthusiasm for the blessing of autocracy bestowed by history upon the chosen Russian nation.

[155] With regard to the condition of agriculture on a large scale, reference will be made in this chapter to the Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, vol. I., district of Voronezh. The tables contain detailed data, (62 columns) on each of the 279 estates of the district, which exceed in size 50 dessiatines (135 acres).

[156]

This classification bears upon 89.5 per cent. of the total area of ploughland; the deficient 10.5 per cent. concern the land which is held in large tenure, but yearly re-rented in small plots to the peasants.

[157] This is the comparative development of stock breeding on large estates and on peasant farms, in the district of Voronezh:

We know that the fields of the peasants are very insufficiently manured. The opportunities for large estates do not appear more favorable. The extent to which land is fertilized on the estates is shown by the following figures:

The fertilizing of 1 dessiatine requires 6 heads of big cattle (op. cit., p. 92.) Thus we have:

In a word, nearly one half of the manure used on large estates is procured by the small farmers who are compelled to neglect their own fields. Quite a number of statements to this effect are produced in the Appendices to the Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ.

[158] Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Voronezh, vol. I., p. 234.

[159] The total of this table exceeds the total of plough land in large estates by 1119 dessiatines, which amounts to 2 per cent. of the whole area, and could by no means influence the inferences drawn from the table. The difference concerns small tenure, on which the statements are slightly at variance with those of the large landholders.

Peasant tenure in the district is represented by the following figures:

(Cf. op. cit., p. 251, column 18; p. 273, col. 65. Upon tenure for share in crops, p. 251, col. 14, and cols. 55-56 on pp. 276-335.)

[160]

This topic was very fully discussed by Prof. Engelhardt in his Letters from the Village.

[161]

[162] As for peasant agriculture; Cf. loc. cit., p. 101.

[163]

[164]

[165] Wherever ploughs are in use, we find from two to three horses to one plough upon an average; it shows that the horses are raised with the avowed purpose of driving the plough. Such is the case with most of the horses found on large estates. Ploughs without horses are kept only in exceptional cases. Furthermore, we notice that those estates on which ploughs are used are the largest. The smaller estates are tilled with the primeval peasant sohá, ploughs being only too seldom used by the peasantry. The figures are found in the following tables:

[166] Statistical Reports for the Gubernia of Ryazañ, vol. I., pp. 17-18. By “property of the capitalistic class,” is understood all estates belonging to merchants, whatever may be the size of the holding, as well as every estate above 50 dessiatines, whatever may be the legal status of its owner (merchant, burgher or peasant). All holdings below this size, except those owned by the noblemen and merchants, are included in the class of small property. The idea of this classification is to divide historical landed property of the nobility from landholding for mercantile purposes, as well as from that in which the owner may be supposed to be himself the tiller of his land.

[167] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

[168] “Honorable citizenship” is awarded, under certain provisions, to merchants in old standing. Others than merchants cut no figure in this class.

[169] The socialistic aversion of the Russian peasantists to the “exploiters” was somewhat tainted with the patrician prejudices against the merchant. The Russian magazines were crammed with touching descriptions of how the poetry of a shadowy oak alley in the old garden of the noble slave-owner was ruthlessly sacrificed in favor of prosaic timber by the boorish parvenu (tchoomáziy). It was universally believed that the merchant who engaged in land tenure was something of a dynamiter, whose element was destruction for the mere devilish voluptuousness of destruction. To devastate the forests while re-renting the land to the peasant at an exorbitant interest—this appeared to be the only aim of the merchant. Statistical investigations did away with these naive conceptions. Here are some of the facts brought to light by the Ryazañ census:

1. Bailiwick Naryshkinskaya, d. Ranenburg. “The lack of land to rent is keenly felt. The condition of the communities under discussion has grown much worse as compared with former years. The main reason thereof is the considerable decrease in the area leased by landlords and the rise of rental prices, which is closely connected with the passage of the estates of the nobility into the hands of merchants through either sale or lease.” (L. c., vol. II., part I., p. 282. No. 3-4, 6-9.)

2. Village Prosech’ye, same district. “Since their former master sold his estate to the merchant, neither land nor easements are to be got anywhere. The new owner cultivates everything for himself.” (L. c., p. 305, No. 13.)

3. Village Cheglokovo, b. Vednovskaya. “The condition of the peasants grew much worse after their former master sold his estate, about 1870, to a merchant, who has almost entirely stopped leasing land. The master, on the contrary, used to lease much of his land, and the peasants assert that they then made a pretty good living.” (Ib., p. 325, No. 5. Cf., also, Nos. 6, 7.)

4. B. Troitskaya. “Tenure is a rare exception, since the landlords either carry on their own farming or have leased their estates to big farmers, who cultivate everything for themselves.” (Ib., p. 309.)

5. B. Hrushchovskaya, Dankoff. “All the landlords in the neighborhood either carry on their own farming, or have leased their estates to merchants, who cultivate solely for themselves. The peasants can positively get no land for rent, except a small tract of meadow.” (L. c., part II., p. 208. Cf., also bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya, p. 211, and b. Odoevskaya, p. 230.)

[170] More particulars as to the availability of these averages for purposes of comparison are produced in the Appendix, Table VII.

[171] 1 chetvert = 5.9 Winchester bushels.

[172] Cf. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1890, p. 335.

[173] Cf. Le commerce de grains dans l’Amérique du Nord, par Paul Lafargue.

[174] The inference is drawn from the figures below:

With the nobility the average estate tilled exclusively with the peasant sohá is more than twice as large as the corresponding average with the capitalist class.

On the other hand, the capitalist provides his farm with ploughs when the same is only half as large as that on which the noble could afford to have improved implements.

[175] The following is a synopsis of the results of the above comparison between capitalist ownership of land and property of the nobility:

Backward management by capitalists is found only within the average limits from 108 to 197 dessiatines (292-532 acres), while the same methods are still practiced by noblemen so long as the estate averages from 233 to 501 dessiatines (629-1353 acres). Progress begins on capitalistic farms as soon as they reach the average of from 289 to 520 dessiatines (780-1404 acres), while on those owned by the nobility, improvement is observed only within the average limits of from 734 to 1044 dessiatines (1892-2819 acres). This plainly points to the lack of money as the only reason which prevents the petty nobleman from practicing the same methods as those applied by the capitalist as soon as he takes possession of the same estate.

[176]

[177] A sweeping criticism of the policy of the Russian government with regard to agriculture is to be found in Prof. Issaiew’s article, La Famine en Russie, in the Revue d’Economie Politique, 1892, No. 7. The apologists of the “historical friendship” pattern, should carefully read Chapter III.: Qu’est ce qui a été fait pour relever l’agriculture en Russie? One can there get the knowledge of some very conclusive facts which it is, of course, impossible to come across during a rapid trip through a vast country like Russia. The paper referred to should gain in authority by the fact that it was read before a meeting held at Emperor Alexander’s Lyceum of St. Petersburg, (to which only the sons of the highest dignitaries of the State or the offspring of the most aristocratic families are admitted,) and—last, not least—by the fact that it was published in France, which is now plus Tzariste que le Tzar.

[178]

[179] “On small crédit foncier.” Otechstvenniya Zapiski (monthly), 1883.

[180] “The operations of the Peasant’s Crédit Foncier,” p. 105—Russkaya Mysl (monthly), February, 1892.

[181] Ibid., pp. 107, 108.

[182] In some of the gubernias failures were even more extensive:

These are moreover the very gubernias in which the Bank operated most extensively. (Ibid., p. 100.)

[183] Loans granted by the Bank:

(Ibid., p. 103.)