CRITICAL REMARKS ON K. KLAWKI’S ARTICLE, “THE COMPETITIVE CAPACITY
OF SMALL-SCALE
PRODUCTION IN AGRICULTURE”72
Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbücher. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Landwirtschaft. Herausgegeben von Dr. H.
Thiel.* Berlin, 1899. XXVIII (28). Band (1899). (Six issues
a year.) (1081 pp.& tables.)
Dr. juris Karl Klawki. “Ueber Konkurrenzfähigkeit des landwirtschaftlichen Kleinbetriebes” (S. 363-484).
Most extensive calculations for 12 farms in the Braunsberg district of East Prussia. (From paging through) make
note of: p. 453 (and 452).
αα (p. 452). “Big farms use an average of 4 of their gross income in their own economy, medium farms, about
3, and small, roughly 2. Nevertheless, the share remaining on the small farms for marketing is greater than those
on big and medium farms. The reason is above all that small peasants tend to limit their household expenses to
the utmost. We cannot decide outright whether or not this partially results in some underconsumption, because the available material does not
enable us to draw the correct conclusions on the overall
household budget of the farmer and his family.”
* Agricultural Yearbooks. Scientific agricultural magazine. Published
by Dr. Thiel.—Ed.


Nutrition for one member of the family in marks (only from own farm?)*
Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms χχ
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
(p. 453) — — 185 240—222—252—159 136—142—163—97 (My calculation)
average = 227
=218
=135
According to Klawki (373)
Small farm
1- 10 ha
Medium
”
10-100 ha
Big
”
> 100 ha
ββ ... (453). Part of the small peasants also diligently
work as day labourers, and on such days receive from their
employers board, in addition to their pay.... Whether there
is any under-consumption among the small farms or not, we
cannot say, but we think it is probable in the case of a small
farm falling into Group IV. But the fact is that the small
peasants live very frugally and sell much of what they, so to
speak, save out of their mouths. (Sic!)
P. 479: If we find in the final analysis that it is the medium
farm that can produce a certain quantity of products at
the lowest cost, we must take into account that the small
farm may assess all its labour-power at a correspondingly
lower figure than that used on the large and medium farms,
because it is its own. In time of agricultural crisis, and
even at other times, it is the small farms that are most stable;
they are able to sell a relatively larger quantity of products
than the other categories of farms by severely curtailing domestic expenses, which, it is true, must lead to a certain amount
of under-consumption.** (!)
* For an analysis of the table, see pp. 153-54 .—Ed.
** See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 177.—Ed.
PNMNQ

V. I. LENIN

Small
Medium
Big
 Crop yield farms farms farms
p. 441 averages
Wheat:
6-7 cent-
7-8
8-9 (per Morgen)
ners given by Klawki
Rye:

8-9

himself “The case is similar with all other crops” (441).
“Only in flax, which is an extensive-farming crop, is there evidence of a growing tendency in favour of the small
farms.”*
Namely, medium
I 5
Stein of flax (per Morgen?)
 farms
IV 6
”
”
Small farms
I 6.5
”
”
(4.50 Mk of income)
III 8
”
”
(4.50 Mk
”
)
IV 8
”
”
(4.50 Mk
”
)
2 Stein of flax = 182 pounds (406).
Disregarding the flax crop, which is on the whole of small
importance at the present time, we have the highest yields
on the big farms, and the lowest, on the small (441).
Causes:
1) Drainage is almost entirely absent on the
small farms. Or the pipes are laid by the farmers themselves, and laid badly.
2) Ploughing is not deep enough—horses are
On the big weak. (Yoking of cows is doubtful. Doing farms the
heavy work, the cows will yield little milk.)
soil is
3) Mostly insufficiellt feed for cattle—horned
fertilised cattle with marl
4) Their manure production is inferior—their
straw is shorter, most of it goes into feed, and less remains for litter (Unterstreuen).**
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 171.—Ed.
**
-
Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 171, and Vol. 13, pp. 193 94.—Ed.


(442). Those are above all the four causes for which small
farms now lag in terms of income behind the big farms.
Klawki then goes on to say that, in agriculture, machines
are not all that important (common arguments. Not a single
fact)....
The list of machinery refutes Klawki:
Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Steam thresher


Horse-driven thresher. . .


Grain-sorter . .


Winnowing machines . .


—


Seed drill . . .


—


Manure spreader


Horse-drawnrake


Ring rollers . .


Total=


The big farmer willingly lends the small farmer his roller, his horse-drawn rake and grain-sorter, if the latter
promises to supply a man to do the mowing for him in the
busy season ... (443). (Characteristic “exchange of good
turns”!)*
Agriculture suffers from unfavourable marketing conditions. The peasants mostly sell “locally” and merchants in
small towns force down prices very considerably (373).
The large estates are better off in this respect, for they
can send considerable quantities of their products to the
provincial capitals right away. This usually gives them 20 to
30 pfennigs more per centner than selling in small towns.**
* Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 173.—Ed.
** Ibid., p. 173.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

But Klawki took the same prices for all (373).
The big landowners alone have exact book-keeping (374).
Only as an exception among the peasants.
There are no technical agricultural enterprises. “Peat extraction is primarily of great importance to the small
farms, because they have the necessary time and manpower
for it” (439).
Flax growing has remained only among the small farmers:
it requires a great expenditure of human energy. It is available in the families of the small holders, but the big farmers find hire hard and costly (440).
Improved crop rotation: . . . . Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms
I-IV
I, II and IV
II
Old three-field system: . . . . Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms
—
III
I, III and IV
Livestock farming. The big farmers I process their milk
into butter: “their own very profitable use of milk”. The
big farms II-IV send their milk to the towns and obtain
a higher income than the middle farmers, who process their milk into butter at home and sell it to traders.
The middle farmers concentrate on the sale of well-fattened
cattle.
The small farmers sell their cattle younger—they cannot
feed them as long as the middle farmers because they are
short of feed (444).
The butter produced on the medium farms (Klawki always calls them big peasant farms) is superior to that
produced on the small farms (separators, daily churning),
so that the latter are paid 5-10 pfennigs less per pound by
the traders.*
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 173.—Ed.
(441)
P
N
M
N
Q


Per Morgen (in marks)
Big
Medium
Small farms farms farms (Average of 4 farms)
(per Morgen of tilled farmland (444))*
Receipts from cropping . . . . . . .
16.5
18.2
22.7
Receipts from live-
c. 445 1)
 stock farming . .
15.8
27.3
41.5
Total . . . .
32.3
45.5
64.2
p. 447
Sale of crop products


Sale of animal products . . . . . . .


(p. 448-49)
Total . . . .


Including sale of milk and butter


(p. 450) 2)
Consumption of crop products on home farm . . . . . . .


Consumption of animal products on home farm . . . .


Total . . . .
8 (4)
16 (3)

(about 2 of all receipts)
1) In general, the drop in prices leads to a displacement
of crop farming by livestock farming.
The reason why small farms are superior in crop farming:
the big farms spend more on the production of feed and the
feeding of stock (Klawki excludes the feeding of stock from
receipts (p. 441) from agriculture: this, he says, applies to
livestock farming).
The small farms keep many more animals per Morgen, although their cattle are, of course, not as valuable (446),
and their horses are worse (447). The stock on the medium
farms is not worse than that on the big farms.
2) Medium farms use relatively much on the farm; for the
big farms—marketing is profitable; on the small farms, butter and whole milk are used in very small quantities...
not used at all on the small farms of Group IV (450).
* Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 170.—Ed.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
PMQ
PMQ

V. I. LENIN

Per Morgen (in marks)
Big
Medium
Small farms farms farms (Average of 4 farms)
Capital in structures


(p. 455)
Dead stock . . . . .


(my calculation)
Capital in drainage


(”)
Livestock . . . . . .


(p. 459)
Artificial fertilisers
0.81
0.38
0.43 (p. 460)
Concentrated feed *)


(p. 461)
Management and supervision . . . .
1.7


(p. 461)
Level of
Without (α)
21.51
16.94
5.33 (pp. 478-)
outlays cost (aggre- of labourgate)
power with cost (β)
23.31
27.03
51.67 of labourpower
Quantity of produce (α)


(p. 479)
 valued at 100 marks marks is produced on expending . . . . . (β)


In giving these 2 tables, Klawki says:
Both these tables most clearly show the great importance
of the farmer’s and his family’s own labour-power. If we find in the final analysis that it is the medium farm
that can produce a certain quantity of products at the lowest cost, we must take into account that the small farm
may assess all its labour at a correspondingly lower figure
than that used on the large and medium farms, because it is its own. In time of agricultural crisis, and even at
other times, it is the small farms that are most stable; they are
able to sell a relatively larger quantity of products than the
other categories of farms by severely curtailing domestic
expenses, which, it is true, must lead to a certain amount
of under-consumption. This, as we have seen, is already
taking place on the small farms of Group IV. Unfortunately, many small farms are reduced to this by the high
rates of interest on loans. But in this way, although with
*) Our peasant farms spend nothing on Kraftfuttermittel.
They are very slow to adopt progressive methods and are
particularly chary of spending cash (461).*
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 172.—Ed.
per Morgen of landwirtschaftlich benutzte
Fläche73 in marks about
!
!


great effort, they are able to stay on their feet and live
from hand to mouth. Probably, it is the great diminution
in consumption that chiefly explains the increase in the
number of small-peasant farms in our locality, as indicated
in the Reich statistics (cf. table on p. 372). (480).*
In the Königsberg Administrative Area (p. 372)
Number of
Farmland under farms cultivation, ha


Under 2 ha
55,916
78,753
26,638
33,890
2-5 ”
11,775
14,013
37,998
44,596
5-20 ”
16,014
18,933**
174,054
196,498
20-100 ”
13,892
13,833
555,878
555,342
100 and over
1,955
2,069
613,038
654,447
The advantage of the big farmer—that he sells in carloads,
etc., which is much more profitable, and he is better able
to assess the value of his grain (451). The same goes for
cattle.
The big farmer sells his corn in centners, and his cattle
by weight.
The peasant sells his grain by measure (Scheffel), and cattle by appearance, which makes him lose a great deal.***
The small peasants do all the repairs of buildings (etc.)
themselves.
Medium farms III and IV and small farms lay their own drainage pipes. (Drainage is necessary in the locality, and
there is an ever greater demand for pipes).
P. 460: most of them (farms) began using fertilisers by
way of experiment.
* Ibid., pp. 177-78.—Ed.
** Ibid., p. 178.—Ed.
*** Ibid., p. 173.—Ed.
And Klawki hastens to declare that this is an undesirable phenomenon.
But there is progress even among the small farms:
everything is for the best.
!!
!

V. I. LENIN

Labour costs.
Per 1 0 0 Morgen
Medi-
Big um farms farms
Big farms
Medium farms
Hired labour in
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
 days . . . . .


1,061 970 771 613

895 622 488
1,061 970 771 746 1) 977 2) 895 622 488 3)
Manual labour in days . . . . .


(including the labour of the peasants)
4)
(p. 463)
Value of produce per 100 working days (marks)


(p. 463)
5)
Total cost of manual labour per
 100 Morgen . .
1,065
1,064 (p. 465)
Cost of 1 working day. . . . . .
1.30
1.53 (p. 466)
Average annual earnings of labourer . . . .


Income per 100 marks of labour costs . . . . .


Ratio (p. 467) of kind to cash
Big farms 7 : 6 payments (p. 467):
Medium farms 4 : 6
Disability and old-age insurance . . . . .
0.29 mark per {None at all on small farms (p. 469)
0.13 Morgen
Hired labour in days per 100
 Morgen. . . .


Working days per
 100 Morgen
Permanent labourers . . . . . .


Instleute, etc. (p. 472)
Day labourers . .


“free workers” !!
!


There can be no calculation for the small farms. But it is obvious that they have some surplus-labour (464).
1) The owner’s two sons substitute for 2
full labour-power units.
2) 2 unmarried sisters of the owner substitute for 2 hired labouring women.
3) 2 sons of the owner substitute for the old
owner himself.
4) A part of the work is said to relate to housekeeping:
maids. This partially reduces the difference.
5) Working much harder: the “example” set by the owner
stimulates the labourers “to greater diligence and thoroughness”.
Upper row— without correction for substitution.
Lower row— with corrections.
PNNMNNQ

V. I. LENIN

Schar-
Stock
Hired wer-
Day labourers labour ker74
Big farms
I.
513.71 ha
55,954
19,270


—
25 53,996.57 — 15,745.30 13,745.30 1) 35.24
About 50 Morgen goes to the hired labourers
 ”
”
II.
362.50 ha 35,394
20,133


—


—
43,459.96 — 12,094.73
10.094.73 1)
31.28
 ”
”
III.
430.20 ha
18,027.50 11,545


—

—
—
23,156.46 — 6,295.53
7,483.10 2) 33.36
 ”
”
IV.
125.00 ha
15,427
5,291


—

—
—
17,187.90 — 8,436.35
6,536.30 3) 58.08
1,431.41
124,802.50 56,239
Services: cor-
Balance
Net
÷4
÷4
÷4
vée, small profit profit
=357.85
=31,201 =14,059 jobs and casual work
Medium farms
I.
74.25 ha
13,933
5,303


—
—

—
—
12,586.74
— 7,147.86
5,431.86 4) 80.41
[Big peasant estate]
II.
57 ha
10,600
4,990


—
— 2-3
—
—
9,708.71
—5,226.88
3,726.88 5) 67.76
Old husband& wife&2
III.
55.5 ha
9,170
3,458
—

—
—

—
—
7,433.28
&4,649.12
3,149.12 6)
69.20 adult sons& daughter
Husband&wife
IV.
15.875 ha
2,923
1,545


—
—
3,181.32
&2,419.63
1,219.63 7)
67.76
&parents
202.625÷4 36,626
15,296
Brother working as farm-hand, =50.6
9,156
3,824 receives 100 marks
Small farms
I. 8)
7.125 ha
1,192

1,292.66
&1,184.80
184.80 9) 25.92 (Husband&wife
 &parents)
Live
Dead
Married
Unmarried
Year round
Harvesting
Summer
Potatoes
Harvest&
Beetroot
Receipts
Outlays
Profit
Net profit
Per ha


Husband&wife
&adult son&adult
II. 10)
7.00 ha
1,403
1,109
1,673.94
&1,535.59
535.59 11) 76.52 daughter (2 sons&daughter)
III. 12)
5.00 ha
1,059
576.50
1,135.08
&1,059.09
159.09 13) 31.80 (Husband&wife
IV.
2.875 ha


1,093.75
& 992.62
192.62 14) 67.00
 &1 adult son
 &2 adult daughters)
22.000÷4
4,570
3,148
=5.5
1,142

1) Klawki deducts 2,000 Mk as remuneration for the farmer’s labour.
2) Addition because of lower management costs (due to a combination of farming with forestry).
3) A deduction of 1,900 Mk (1,200 and 700 respectively) for the labour of the farmer and his three
adult sons, who attended agricultural schools (397) and have in earnest [—resolutely, seriously]
dedicated themselves to farming.
4) Deductions: 1,500 for the labour of the farmer and his wife&216 (2 sisters of the wife).
5) —1,500 (husband, wife&17-year-old daughter) ...
6) —1,500 (wife, daughter&2 sons) ... 5,916÷4=1,479
7) —1,200 (husband and wife) ....
8) The farmer does 0 days of day labour. Engaged (like middle farmer IV) in peat extraction.
9) —1,000 (“assessment of labour-power” of husband&wife&parents).
10) The farmer used to be a carter, and so does all the repairs and jobs himself (430).
11) —1,000 (idem) [for 2 men&2 women]
12) The value of the farm produce going into the personal consumption of the farmer is relatively
low on this farm and on small farm IV. But it should he borne in mind that on both these farms
their owners and their respective household members diligently work as day labourers, and receive
board, in addition to their pay (435)*.
13) —900 (2 sons and 1 daughter—orphans ?)
14) —800
!! Sic !
 For 5 persons !!
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 177.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

1,000
Hence deductions for farmer’s keep:
1,000
Grossbetrieb: 2,000-1,900 Mk

Mittelbetrieb: 1,716-1,200
*

Kleinbetrieb: 1,000-800
3,700 ÷4
=925?
Labourer’s income=850
There is no insurance of labourers on the small farms, and on the medium farms: No. I—36.78; II—32.31; III—24.60,
and No. IV, insurance of employees—7.54
Big farm I. There is an inspector. The owner comes over
from his main estate once a month (374)—(sic! 2,000 Mk for this) for a few days.** There is an experienced stewardess
and a housekeeper. Outlays on salaries & office expenses =
1,350 & 150 marks & maintenance of inspector, etc.=
1,350. (Over and above the wages of the hired labourers
and the day labourers!). Insurance of labourers = 644.04.
Big farm II. Inspector and experienced woman pig-keeper.
Owner—only direction and general supervision. (Salary— 1,100, general management—100). Insurance of labourers =
59.76.
Big farm III—owned by a bishop—run by manager with a fixed annual salary. (Salary = 1,800. Office expenses =
150). Insurance of labourers = 338.25 marks.
Big farm IV ... would consider it more correct to call it a big-peasant estate. Insurance of labourers = 108.10.***
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 175.—Ed.
** Ibid.—Ed.
*** Ibid.—Ed.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q


Crop in centners per Morgen (p. 441)
Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Wheat
8.4

9.8
9.3

8.4
7.6
6.8
5.1
7.2
6.8
—
Rye
10.83
10.5
10.6
7.6
8.4
10.1
8.6
7.9

8.0
7.3
8.4
Barley
11.05
9.2
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.5
8.4
4.8
4.9
7.0
7.7
—
Oats
9.08
7.3
8.6
9.0
8.3
9.3
9.0
7.3
5.0
8.7
8.3
10.0
Peas
9.49
—
7.2
7.4
—
6.7
9.0
7.5
—
7.6
—
10.8
Potatoes


Fodder beet


Flax
—
—
—
—

—
—


—


Stein
Stein
Stein
Stein

V. I. LENIN

Big
Medium
Small
Big
Medium
Small farm farm farm farm farm farm
8.7
7.3
6.4
=
Wheat
=
34.7
29.8
19.1
9.9
8.7
7.7
=
Rye
=
39.5
35.0
29.7
9.4
7.1
6.5
=
Barley
=
37.7
28.6
19.6
8.5
8.7
8.0
=
Oats
=
34.0
33.9
32.0
8.0
7.7
9.2
=
Peas
=
24.1
23.2
18.4


=
Potatoes
=


=
Fodder beet
=


—
5.5
7.5*
=
Flax
=
—

22.5
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 170-71.—Ed.


Subsistence for one member of the family*) (Quantity of
food products consumed on the farm itself)
(p. 453)
Big farms
Medium farms
Small farms χχ
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Number of persons
— 5 2) — 6 3)


Marks per person
— 269 — 185
240 222 2) 252 159 2) 136 142 163 97 (My calculation)
Average


--------
1) Inspector, housekeeper, stewardess and 2 maids engaged
in housekeeping.
2) 2 children under 10 years =“one adult”
3) 1,108.28 ÷ 6 = 185. Husband & wife & 3 sons & ?
Big farm IV even has to buy butter for itself. Furthermore, we must take into account that the larger the farm,
the greater is, as a rule, the quantity of additional food
products purchased (453).*
The medium farm consumes very much, surpassing the “average rational nutrition standard”.
It is interesting how Klawki makes an (absurd) attempt to smooth out this difference:
Let us assume, however, that the small farms are able to secure a higher cash income only by some under-consumption. To smooth out this fact, let us take the cost of consumption per person as 170 marks a year (?? why not 218-227?),
an amount which should be regarded as being exaggerated
rather than minimised, if we take into account the fact
that the estimate includes food products coming only from the home farm itself. If on the strength of the figures
*) The food of the menials and, for example, flax, have
been deducted from natural consumption. The other amounts
are divided per head.
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 176.—Ed.
P
N
M
N
Q
P
N
M
N
Q
P
N
N
M
N
N
Q

V. I. LENIN

in the given table we assume that the small farm has an
average size of 20-25 Morgen, and that the number of family
members engaged in farming is 4, consumption would come
to an average of 135 marks per person. Comparing with this figure the hypothetical consumption of 170 marks per
person, we get & 35 marks, and with 4 persons, 140 marks.
Dividing that by 20-25 Morgen, the figure comes to 6-7 marks
per Morgen. This means that for this purpose the market
would have to be deprived of produce worth that much.
Thus, the small farm would be receiving only 29-30 marks
of net income per Morgen, and would then be equalised with
the medium farm; but it would still have an edge over the
big farm.*
Let us take not 170 but 218 marks—135=83; 4&5&
3&5=17; 17÷4=44; 83 9 4.25=351.15; 351÷20=17.5 marks; 351÷25=14.4; 14.4&17.5=31.9; 31.9÷2=15.9.
Consequently, 142-172 marks per Morgen average 15.9
{36—14.5=21.5; 36—17.5=18.5} 36—15.9=20.1
Big farm
Medium farm
Small farm
Receipts from sales


0.1
P. 464: The small farms have the greatest capacity for
resistance.
The small farmer can assess the ... labour-power used ...
at a correspondingly lower price, because that is his own
labour, whereas the big peasant and the landowner depend
on the general conditions of wages and must more or less
reckon with the demands of the labourers. The small farmer
is also more capable than the big one, and above all than
the landowner, to reduce the portion going into the management of his enterprise, the entrepreneur’s profit, because at
critical moments he is able to restrict himself severely
(sic!) in his housekeeping.
This is the small farm’s advantage in a crisis.
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 176-77.—Ed.


...In peasant households, the labourers are certainly better fed than by the landowners (467).*
The labourers cost more but produce more. (The exception
is the big farm IV—rather, the big-peasant farm.)
Wages for
Scharwerker
Income of Instmann family (big farm
I) =799—120=679 Mk
”
of Deputant family75 (big farm
I) =704— 60=644
”
of Instmann family, big farm
II =929—120=809
”
of Deputant family, big farm
II =658— 60=598
”
of Instmann family, big farm III =779— 89=690
”
”
”
”
”
IV =861— 75=786
Medium farm II (Instmann family)
=737— 30=707
Medium farm I
”
”
=same.
If the Scharwerker are the
Instmann’s children, his family income
= 800-900 marks (p. 475)
If the Scharwerker are the
Deputant’s children, his family income
= 600-700 marks (number of family members not given anywhere!)
Thus, it is not for the sake of higher wages that the Instmann is more willing to work for the peasant owner. The
reason: the author says, it gives him more spare time, so
he can do day labour (!?) (p. 476).
When lucky, such Instleute purchase a few Morgen of land out of their savings (from wages). For the most part
they find themselves worse off financially; they are aware
of this but are tempted by the greater freedom (476). Many—
not the worst, by far—go to the towns.
The most important task of modern agrarian policy for the solution of the agricultural labourer problem in
the East is to encourage the most efficient labourers to settle down by affording them the opportunity of !!
acquiring a piece of land as their own property, if not in the first, then at least in the second generation
(476).**
On p. 477, Klawki declares that the peasant finds it easier to obtain labourers. But the labourer problem is being
aggravated even for the peasant. The peasants complain of the
difficulty of obtaining labourers, especially labouring women.
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 174.—Ed.
** Ibid., p. 178.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

Final compar
Marks per Morgen
Large farms
I
II
III
IV
1) Total receipts
35.05
33.68
25.80
38.18
2) Total outlays
26.24
25.86
17.46
23.66
Net profit per Morgen
8.81
7.82
8.34
14.52
”
”
”
ha
35.26
31.28
33.36
58.08
Average per Morgen
9.87
Average:
1) 33.18-44.18-64.24
Strangely enough, this calcu figures!
2) 23.30-27.03-51.66
9.88 17.15 12.58
Con Klawki’s calculations:
1) he takes the same prices (p. 3).* But the big farms get
2) he makes a correct reduction in the assessment of the
to the medium farm and the small one (pp. û and 8)*
3) he fails to take account of labour on the medium and
(laying pipes themselves), etc.
4) Consumption of own farm products tends to decrease
milk))* (9-10).* (Included also: hired labour of the labourers!! Klawki’s reasoning about this pp. 1 and 2,
5) The labourers work more intensively on the medium
on the big ones.
6) The big farms have greater outlays on disability and
(artificial fertilisers, concentrated feed, drainage).
7) No account is taken at all of labour in supervision on
* References to the pages of the MS. relate to the following pages of
p. 5—p. 145; pp. 7-8—pp. 148-50; p. 5—pp. 145-46; p. 2—p. 140; p. 5—p. 146;
p. 7—pp. 148-50; p. 11—p. 155; p. 1—pp. 138-39; p. 2—pp. 139-40; p. 5—pp.
P
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
Q


ison: (p. 483)
Medium farms
Small farms
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
46.61
44.14
40.83
50.09
45.34
59.78
56.75
95.10
26.50
27.20
23.53
30.88
38.86
40.65
48.80
78.35
20.11
16.94
17.30
19.21
6.48
19.13
7.95
16.75
80.44
67.76
69.20
76.84
25.92
76.52
31.80
67.00 cf. Bulgakov
18.39
I 58
12.58 Mk lation (which is mine) differs somewhat from Klawki’s
more (pp. 3-4, p. 5)* value of a family’s labour-power from the big farm down
small farms for repairs (p. 5)*, drainage (pp. 2 and 5)*
from the big to the small farms (pp. 1, 2, 4 bottom (no
small farms: p. 3 top, p. 7, p. 1 1 for allotting land to
pp. 5, 10).* farms (p. 6 note 5 )* (and receive more: p. 11)* than
old-age insurance and on improvements in agriculture the medium farms.
this volume: p. 3 of the MS.—p. 142 of this volume; pp 3-4—pp. 142-43;
p. 1—p. 139; p. 2—p. 139; p. 4—p. 143; pp. 9-10—pp. 153-54; p. 3—p. 141;
144-45; p. 10—p. 154; p. 6—p. 147; p. 11—p. 155.—Ed.
P
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
Q
P
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
Q

V. I. LENIN

Klawki’s data are highly inadequate: very many gaps.
For instance, there are no data at all on feed. The total
crop is not classified by requirements: sowing, feed, consumption, sales.
It is hardly possible to fill in these gaps.
Thus, big farm I. Total of
513.71 ha (consequently
2,054.84
Morgen)
Farmland under cultivation =
—1,540
Morgen (p. 375 and p. 382)
514.84
Morgen
Ploughland and artificial meadow Morgen
Morgen
Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . — 12 forest
= 449.84
Winter rye . . . . . . . . . —312 unsuitable for farming =
2.88
Spring rye. . . . . . . . . . — 14
Barley . . . . . . . . . . . — 22 ponds
=
20.88
Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . —180 roads
=
15.04
Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . — 42
38.80
Vetch
. . . . . . . . . . . — 33
Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . — 42
488.64 &
Beetroot . . . . . . . . . . — 22 vegetable garden
25.96
Lupine . . . . . . . . . . . — 33
Clover and timothy . . . . . . —540
514.60
1,252
Deputants’ land76 about (probably
53.84)
1,302
1,305.84
Meadow. . . . . . . . . . .

123.48
1,425
1,429.32
—2,054.84
Best pastureland (?)
. . . . =
110.92
110.92
1,540.24
1,535.92
1,540.24
514.60
Vegetable garden . . . . . . .
25.79 ha
Morgen
Roads and yards . . . . .
3.76
Ponds . . . . . . . . .
5.22
Ploughland . . . . . . . 326.46
= 1,305.84
Meadow. . . . . . . . .
30.87
=
123.48
Best pastureland . . . . .
27.73
=
110.92
Forest . . . . . . . . . 112.46
Vegetable garden . . . . .
6.49
Waste land and loam . . .
0.72
513.71
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q


Since K. Klawki gives the marketed products and those consumed on the farm in cash terms only, it would
be necessary to 1) determine the gross crop by multiplying each number of Morgen for the types of cereals
by the average crop; 2) subtract the sowing; 3) multiply
the difference by average prices (and these prices are not given for all the products); 4) subtract the marketed
products, etc. Furthermore, since the quantity of livestock
has not been reduced to a single unit, it is quite impossible anyway to determine in figures how well the cattle
is fed.
Consequently, such calculations are useless.
Cf. Brase’s article,* especially pp. 292 and 297-98.
Written in June-September 1901
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
* See pp. 160-68—Ed.