Chapter XIII · 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:

District of Voronezh. Land, Dessiatines. Horses. To 1 horse on an average, Dessiatines.

On large estates under cultivation (land in small tenure excluded)86360170850.5

In the district at large434372524658.3

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]

Classes of farms. Rye. Oats.

Ratio to the seed. Per cent. Ratio to the seed. Per cent.

On peasant farms5.31004.6100

On large estates (over 50 dessiatines)7.31385.8126

Still, even that slight increase of productivity is sufficient to make large farming prevail over small peasant tenure:

Arable land yearly under cultivation. Payment in money, Dessiatines. Payment in share of crops, Dessiatines. In all.

Dessiatines. Per cent.

In small peasant tenure2422610832530940

Cultivated by the large farmer3718310283821160

Total[159], dessiatines61409211163520

Per cent.973..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:

I. System of management. Number of estates. Total extent. Average Dessiatines.

Dessiatines. Per cent.

Estates without arable land1451174

Estates exclusively in small tenure641560512244

Estates with large farming19010961583577

Management not stated1116161

Total279131953100473

II. Ploughland yearly under culture.Dessiatines.Per cent.

Total on the estates with large farming52627100

Cultivated by the owners3718371

In small peasant tenure1544429

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 with large agriculture. Number of estates. Dessiatines. Wheat to total winter crops (per cent.).

Total extent. Average extent. Winter crops.

Total. Rye. Wheat.

Wheat not grown963445335944444444....

Wheat grown9475162800127448171457336

Total19010961557717188126154573..

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]

Classes of owners. Percentage in the area. Average holding (Dessiatines).

1867. 1881. 1867. 1881.

Property of the nobility9266.6284.9283.6

Property of the capitalistic class3.322.3124.4372.1

Small property4.711.13.74.9

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:

Status of owners. Percentage of the area.

Estates under 50 dessiatines. Estates over 50 dessiatines.

Ryazañ. 1881. Voronezh. 1884. Ryazañ. 1881. Voronezh. 1884.

Nobility13.932.074.580.1

Peasants77.744.22.43.6

Merchants & “hon. citizens.”[168]1.28.220.414.5

Burghers, clergy, etc.7.215.62.61.8

Total100100100100

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:

Systems of management. Property of the nobility. Property of the capitalist class.

Number of estates. Total extent. Average (dessiatines). Number of estates. Total extent. Average (dessiatines).

Dessiatines. Per cent. Dessiatines. Per cent.

Estates exclusively in small tenure511394213.42731316646.3128

Estates without tillage land57940.7..9432316.3..

Estates with large agriculture1239022385.4734671939173.4289

Management not stated65560.5..510604.0..

Total1851055151005769426438100281

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 tenure273

Average holding of a capitalist with farming on a large scale289

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 nobility13.4

Property of the capitalists6.3

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 large agriculture. Number of estates. Average (dessiatines). Area under cultivation.

Dessiatines. Once in how many years manured?

Total. Per cent. Yearly manured.

Property of the nobility:100

Farming with manure1048162849592255511.1

Farming without manure1928024158

Property of the capitalist class:100

Farming with manure453635314858256.4

Farming without manure2213895815

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:

Estates with large agriculture.Number.Average (Dessiatines).

Property of the nobility:

Wheat grown72898

No wheat grown51501

Property of the capitalist class:

Wheat grown22478

No wheat grown45197

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]:

Wheat planted. Dessiatines. Average yields.

Yields stated. Yields not stated. Per cent. Regardless of class of property. With regard to class of property.

Chetverts[171] from 1 dessiatine. Bushels per acre. Comparative percentage rates.

Manured. Not manured. Regardless of manure.

By noblemen36091665.45.311.797

By capitalists768308.48.117.8148

43771964

U.S. 1880-89[172]12.0100

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:

Estates with large farming. Number of estates. Total extent. Average Dessiatines. To 1 horse, Dessiatines.

Dessiatines. Per cent.

Property of the nobility:100

With working horses88788148789662

Without working horses351140913326..

Property of the capitalists:100

With working horses54175979132644

Without working horses1317949138..

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:

Estates with large agriculture. Number of estates. Average size, (Dessiatines). Permanently employed (males). To 1 laborer (Dessiatines).

Property of the nobility:

Proletarian labor employed112783195645

”” not employed11233....

Property of the capitalist class:

Proletarian labor employed5035139848

”” not employed17108....

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.