Note 143 — Chapter XI · INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM.
Reading edition
Districts. Dessiatines. Per cent. Price per dessiatine, rubles. Net profit, per cent.
Korotoyak:
Rented for long terms40901005.81
Re-rented990.5247.1423
Nizhnedevitsk:
Rented for long terms10611006.17
Re-rented1381310.0963
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.