Note 148 — Chapter XII · THE REDIVISION OF THE COMMUNAL LAND.
Reading edition
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.)
Householders.Number.Per cent.Votes.
Total allotted140100Total.
In good standing (tilling their total plots)5237Against the subdivision.
Destitute8863In favor of the subdivision.
9366⅔Vote required.
93 - 88 = 5Votes deficient.
(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:
Former serfs.Communities.Householders allotted.Lessors.
Number.Per cent.
Bailiwick Ostrokamenskaya153727921
Throughout the districts (former serfs)25
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.
Communities.Householders allotted.Lessors.
Number.Per cent.
Subdivision out of order1537016745
(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:
Householders.Number.Per cent.
Total allotted187100
Vote required for redivision12566⅔
Indifferent to redivision (horseless, leasing their lots)4423
Opposition sufficient to stay the same1810
Having 2 horses or more3620
(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:
Householders.Personally.By hire.In all.
Tilling their lots—
Total9211
In part (the rest leased)246
11617
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:
Per cent.
Horseless54
Outside workers56
(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.