REMARKS ON G. ROUANET’S ARTICLE, “ON THE DANGER AND THE FUTURE
OF AGRICULTURAL SYNDICATES”
Revuesocialiste *) (Vol. 29) February 1899 (pp. 219-37)
(Revue économique. “Du danger et de l’avenir des syndicats
agricoles” par M. Gustave Rouanet.)
quotes Rocquigny, p. 42 in Les syndicats agricoles96
G. Rouanet’s article was written on Élie Coulet’s book.97
G. Rouanet slights the “syndicates” as the handiwork of the
“agrarian party”—they consist mainly of large and middle landowners; their efforts in favour of the labourers
are ridiculously insignificant; their aim: a landowners’
trust, an association for marketing farm produce; their
political programme: the interests of the big landowners,
who are leading all this movement, carrying the small farmers and labourers with them, and whose goal is to
establish complete domination of the state by the big landowners’ party.
Like all trusts, the syndicates are working assiduously
in favour of socialism.
Out of 1, 3 9 1 syndicates with 438,596 members (1897 were established:
“societies against accidents at work: one; orphan-
N.B.
ages—one; employment agencies and offices: thirteen; courts of arbitration, reconciliation chambers:
three; societies for aid to manual labour: two;
N.B.
aid in kind (gifts of things to children)—one; aid
*) Manager: M. Rodolphe Simon. (78 Passage Choiseul, Paris) 1 franc an issue. Free: contents since 1885.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b

V. I. LENIN

in supply of implements (service for the hire of tools and farming implements): two” (p. 225) and
Rouanet ridicules Deschanel.98
Rouanet repeatedly quotes Rocquigny, mentioning by the way that his democratie rurale = 300,000 large landowners!! (p. 231).
Written before February 10 (23), 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXII

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM NOSSIG’S BOOK 99
Nossig (Revision des Sozialismus. Band II. Die moderne Agrarfrage*) gives the following interesting data
on restoring soil fertility.
Grandeau (manager of the Station agronomique de l’Est)
believes that there are 25 million ha of farmland in France
taken from the land annually: given metric tons same thousands
Nitrogen
613,000

fertilisers produced
Phosphoric acid
298,000

by 49 million head
Potash
827,000

of cattle (according
—
&
to Tisserand)
That is the total cattle, but not all should be reckoned in
terms of fertiliser!
i.e., the deficit averages about 5 0 percent! (p. 101)
And the artificial fertilisers do not, by a long shot, make
up for all that is taken from the soil.
In Britain, an average of 1.9 million centners of phosphoric acid is taken from the soil, while guano and bone
fertiliser cover only one-half (p. 109).
Thus, only the private owners, and not the land, have benefited from intensive agriculture with the use of
artificial fertilisers (p. 109).
It is now being recognised that mineral and artificial fertilisers alone are not enough.
* Revision of Socialism, Vol. II, The Contemporary Agrarian Question.—Ed.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q

V. I. LENIN

In the past, they wanted to substitute them (p. 111)
by 125 kg of phosphoric acid
&60 kg of nitrogen
&60 kg of potash
It is now recognised that mineral fertilisers alone tend
to dry up the soil, and that an addition of manure is also
necessary.
Grandeau believes that out of 60,000 kg there must be at
least
 0, 0 0 0 kg of natural fertiliser.
Grandeau: Annalles de la Station agronomique de l’Est.
Déherain: Les plantes de grande culture* especially pp. 27-29 (also 188-93).
The result arrived at by Nossig (who makes use of the latest agronomical data, and cites Grandeau, Déherain,
Wollny, Hellriegel, Dünckelberg, Cohn, and many others)
 is that even intensive farming frequently comes to plundering the soil.
It increases yields temporarily, but fails to bring about
a long-term and stable increase in soil fertility.
Human fertilisers must also be returned to the land (pp. 102, 108, 112).
Written before February 10 (23), 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX
* Grandeau, Annals of the East Agronomic Station; Déherain, Major Crop
Plants.—Ed.
]
]
]
]

CRITICAL REMARKS ON E. DAVID’S BOOK,
SOCIALISMANDAGRICULTU RE 100
A
David.

Marxism has “simply” “applied” the laws of industry to agriculture.

A reference to “The Peasant Barbarians”.* “Success” (of agitation among peasants for
Marxist programme) = zero.
typical narrow- mindedness of the opportunist: he starts out with the
International resolutions, instead of a theoretical analysis.
The Communist Manifesto is ignored.
Utopian socialism as well and Sismondi, etc.

Engels’s Prefatory Note to the Peasant
War left out

In Vol. I Marx gives very little attention to agriculture.

Improvement of the peasants’ condition in the third quarter of the 19th century
clay floors, etc., have disappeared south and west.
“The peasantry” on “the upgrade” (and not the peasant bourgeoisie??)

Engels in 1894101—“das Heitere”— Rettungsvorschläge —“unheilbarer
Widerspruch” (Absturz ersparen)**
* See pp. 111-15.—Ed.
** What Lenin meant was the following statement by David: “The funny
thing (das Heitere) is that Engels, while pointing to the peasant’s absolutely
hopeless condition (absoluten Rettungslosigkeit des Bauern), puts forward
he
got it!
] ^
^
!
!

V. I. LENIN


A “heavyblow ” at the Marxist doctrine:
1895 census, the advance of the middle peasantry.

Note. Definition of the smallfarm = without permanent employment of outside
labour and without collateral employment below: dwarf farms
above: medium farms (the owner also works)
big farms (owner’s supervision)

1895 census: supplantingoflarge - scalebysmall - scaleproduc tio n (!)

Kautsky’s Agrarian Question—“desperate attempt”
52: the question of landed property— ...
in Vol. II

Hertz annihilated Kautsky. Bernstein

Small-scale production is superior in the intensive branches: the transition to intensive farming calls for small-scale production
((=without hired labour !!== cf. 49)).

Science must stand above parties— Sering, Conrad for the small farm

The peasant pr epares socialism afterhisownfashion: co-operatives (“während die marxistischen Theoretiker” etc.) (die Wege ... dem Sozialismus)*
—Producers’ co-operatives: “a compromise between the principles of association and
individualism”
—“not socialist forms as yet”
—far from it. But even less—“transition to capitalism” (K. Kautsky).

—“mighty burgeonings of the process of socialisation” (= co-operatives)
a proposal for his salvation (Rettungsvorschläge)”, a proposal “to spare the
peasant this downfall (Absturz ersparen)” ... These proposals are in “irreconcilable contradiction (unheilbarer Widerspruch)” with Engels’s views on the
future of the small peasants.—Ed.
* In full, David’s sentence runs as follows: “While the Marxist theorists
(Während die marxistischen Theoretiker) were trying to make socialism plausible and palatable for the peasant in their own manner, the peasant himself
worked energetically to pave the way for socialism after his own fashion (die
Wege ... dem Sozialismus).”—Ed.


... Chapter I. “Essential Distinction” ...

Concentration ... absolutely lacking.... (1895 census!!)

... industry—mechanical process, agriculture—organic process (= essence!)
Wrong. {ferment, etc.} (1) no continuity; (2) change of operations;
(3) territorial change. (Change in place of work); (4) pace of work determined by nature;
(5) roomy working premises; (6) production of manure—(no analogy!);
(7) there can be only a slow increase in the quantity of produce.

“nutrition (sic!), reproduction, care, protection” of vegetable and animal organisms:
small farm not inferior, but often superior empty talk on the “conservatism of nature”
(!!)

—in connection with this the “law of diminishing returns” (!)
(“misunderstood, but basically the right idea”).
Simple co-operation “Neighbourly help” to the peasant (ha-ha!).
It is (not need as such but) the example of the neighbours that impels the small peasant
to tirelesseffort .!!!

Marx, “incidentally”??? “absolutely fails tosee ” (nonsense) that capitalism causes
supervision owing to the labourer’s resistance. (And gives quotations from Marx!)

Hubert Auhagen (N.B.)—“instructive study” cultivation of fields better on the small
farm.
(
]]

V. I. LENIN


The big farm gets a worse job done and pays more for it!

Against agricultural training ... the peasant learns from childhood!!!

Of course, there is a lot of backwardness, but then most of the big farms are not
model ones either!!
(An example of dodging!)

“Critical moments.” Marx is not right:
there’s a shortage of labour there. (He got it!!)

The peasant has > manpower per area, the greatest intensity, etc.,
(“advanfeverish work tages”)

Simple co-operation does not allow largescale production to attain the same results
as the peasant community with the same labour reserve (Nonsense!!)

A “normal” family (6-4 persons) is mostly sufficient ... —ha-ha! Help” (“Ausbitten”)
97-99
Saving of means of production on the big farm. Not a single fact!

In general the big farm obtains > from the land...

Rentengutsbildung* in Prussia ... are to be welcomed in principle ... (Sic!!) ... (Sic!!)
(Sering ... is quite right ...) ... a greater quantity of
labour for the remaining estate owners...
109 and 110
Thesmallonebuildscheaper (David’s italics)—“Advantage” (Auha-
gen)
—“personal participation rules out high cost and jerry-building”
(very nice, indeed!)

Stumpfe: “the smaller the farm, the higher the rent”...

Saving of implements (on big farms) is >
* See Note 18.—Ed.
!


than made up by the “painstaking care” (“repairs done personally”!!) (lovely!)
Stumpfe; (“...no rakes for 6 years...”)
Auhagen

The commercial advantages of the big farm? The small farmer sells to consumers
(Sic!)
117-118
Conclusion: the advantages (of co-operation and savings
on
implements, etc.)
are than balanced out by the disadvantages (ha-ha!)
Simple co-operation does not give the big farms any advantage at all....
Chapter III. Division of Labour
Cropping and livestock farming resist radical (!!) specialisation.
That is why David ignores greater, not “radical” specialisation in largescale farming

On the big farms, livestock is neglected
The opposite on the peasant farm... (Denmark).
1 4 6 (145 and a welter of reasoning of every kind:)
the peasant’s “personal stake”.

There is nothing more absurd than to imagine that the peasant is stupid: diverse
labour, etc.

On the whole, it is the small farm that prospers in gardening. (Very characteristic! “figures”!!) (Precisely ! !) lovely!
[only 6% over 2 ha]

Agriculture rules out the Nacheinander being transformed into “Nebeneinander”
(wrong!)

V. I. LENIN


On the big farm there are no differentiated tools (wrong)

Marx on machinery in agriculture (Vol. I)...
“applies without hesitation”....

Does not deny the advantages of combining agricultural production
with industries, but this is not of general importance (!!!)

Thresher. (Cheaper and better. Bensing (p. 175).) More often on the big farms.
(The small ones frequently have nothing to thresh!!! Funny character.)
“Technically” there is nothing to prevent the small ones as well (!!!)

Steam plough has not yet supplanted a single small farm that’s audacious!

Deepploughing ... not only with the use of the steam plough pathetic dodge!

The steam plough is not a universal plough very novel!

K. Kautsky’s “fantastic notions” about the
steam plough (where?? charlatan).
192-193
Hand and Machine Labor*—The machine is cheaper.

Electricity is also within reach of the small (dodges!)

There has been no sort of revolution from the electric plough (his wit is on the petty
dullard level)

A reference to Fischer (that the machine is not a threat to the small holder)....
1 “On the small-peasant farm, the cow is the ideal, i.e., the cheapest and most
rationally used draught animal” (N.B.
N.B.)
* See pp. 282-86.—Ed.
]
P
M
Q
||
||
||
||


some muscular activity out in the fresh air is beneficial....
...better feeding [Manilovism!102] cheap and again:
Auhagen (without any mention of shallower ploughing!)

Seed drill “quite accessible”
[Growth of small figures!] (Swindler).

... Reaping machines ... can be introduced
250-253
Conclusions on machinery. A series of swindles. Bigfarmnotmechanical !
Advantage not great (one example from
Fischer, and nothing about the others!!)
Does not give any increase in products.
[A lie: con Bensing]
257-258
What absolutely tends to paralyse the effect of the agricultural machine in supplanting hand labour ... intensiveness tends
to create much more hand labour than that supplanted by the agricultural machines.
A funny character: he has failed to think through the ¶ !!

only (??) the transition to extensive farming brings about a redundancy of agricultural
labour.

Decline of rent in Britain=depreciation of the nation’s land.

Agricultural machines do not result in automaticoperations?
 Reaper?

The agricultural machine is not at all toblame for female and child labour (?)

The “machinomaniacs” notwithstanding, there has been no reduction in hard mechanical labour
 Reactionary, Why? Slaves are cheap
P
M
Q
||
||||

V. I. LENIN

284-285
Child labour: the small-peasant farm offers the most favourable
condition.
(Scoundrel)

physical labour will remain an opportu- such (and not pleasure)
nists idea
—“many millions will have of the to take up mechanical future!
labour as an occupation”

Labour protection and child protection—at the expense of the big farm....
 “Saving on high wages”—that’s forgotten!!! Cf. Bulgakov

Lengthening of the working day by the machine v.s.* nirgends very bold ....

the labourers’ movement in East Prussia....
“isolation” of the countryside

Condition of labourers in East Prussia.
Not the small farms, but the big ones manage to survive only by making use
of the labourer’s need....

The agricultural labourer cannot understand howthebigfarmcanbemore
paying than the small one.
Sic!

Producers ’ c o - operatives in the country? Ideal?
He has confused them with associations in the commodity
Buneconomy. Cf. 328: corn tariffs gler!
would have been demanded.

Rising to the small peasantry!! (“‘Heaven forbid!’ the orthodox Marxist will say.”)
* The words beginning with v.s. are not clear. David says: “Nowhere
(nirgends) was anything heard about the use of agricultural machines lengthening the working day”.—Ed.
PNMNQ
!


342-343 “Intensive (deep... p. 344) mechanical cultivation of the soil” (to conserve the
heat)... Small farm???

Deep ploughing ... not always, must be “reasonably applied”
352-355
The bigger the farm, the harder it is to have efficient supervision—but the small peasant—heart and mind!!

Melioration. Small farm???

The small holder likewise participates in melioration. Downright lie!

By no means is melioration confined to the big farm....
figures without % to group!!
“Whence it is sufficiently clear....”
Artificial fertilisers.
The small farmer has > practical knowledge ha-ha!
takes more care “nothing in the way...”
415-417
The smaller the farm, the more feasible is harmony (in the sense of fertiliser) Ê
and the raising of fertility

Combination of parcel agriculture and industrial work—“harmonious
life”...
change of occupations, etc.
(“Narodniks”)

Abolition of antithesis between town and country ... “only” it will take centuries
(Merci!)

Thesmallfarmerhas > livestock per ha—hence manure ....
 Simple!

...“solid holding”: extolled by David ...
“gives an interest”...
]

V. I. LENIN


—“Idealist or ass!” characteristic . . . hm!

“Illusion” about the supplanting of proprietary farming by leasehold farming.
Chapter VIII

Introduction of > diverse plants in Europe, especially in the 19th century—small
farm?
440-441
Selection and cultivation of improved varieties. — — — — Small farm?

Grain cleaning. “The modern grain cleaner, etc.”
”
”
Smallfarm?

”
”
Painstaking work on those long winter evenings!!! “The small farm
has a decided advantage.”

Crop rotation is one of the most effective ways of combating weeds.... Small farm?

... the interested eye.... — — — Fighting harmful insects and animals—care
of plants, etc.

The big farm cannot obtain the advantages which the small holder, cultivating the land
himself, has by reason of his very status in all these operations (killing of insects,
protection of plants, etc.). (David’s italics.)
It is true that today, because of the ignorance of their owners, many small farms
present a still sadder sight than the big ones. However, ignorance is in no sense
the specific, organic flaw of the small farm” (David’s italics).
The whole of David is there!

Livestock breeding.
Cf.
the weight of horned cattle.

Growth of average weight—on the small farm??
T
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
U


“It is the regions with the small- and middle-peasant farms that are at the head
of livestock breeding organisations” (!is that all!)

The small farms breed the livestock and the big ones utilise it
cf. V. V. 103

Supply animals ... with clean straw in sufficient quantities.— — — — — — — —
Small farm?
494-495
Stumpfe: peasants are the best livestock breeders.

Around 1850-80 (p. 503)
thatched roofs disappeared in the southern part of
Germany, better stables, etc., etc., were built.

Repair work...
The peasant does not pay, he does the repairs himself.... That saves the peasant many a thaler.

It is not true that “the cottage industry” is “a normal
supplement” (Marx)
“not true in any case” “The lowest (!) (which then is the “highest”
(and 518)
???) area limit for the small farm is a plot which provides
sufficient !!
work and normal sustenance to the members of the independent farming peasant family.”
 sufficient! that’s extremely rare
Care must be taken not to confuse these with the dwarf holdings—which are below
these limits ... otherwise the question will be merely confounded (!!)
It’s a home truth that people who have not enough land ... need another
occupation....
N.B.
(cf. p. 36)
well, of course!
this is interesting!
Con
Narodniks!
]]
PPNNMMNNQQ
P
M
Q

V. I. LENIN


Reduction of minimum size of area ... under the influence of intensification. Hecht 513-
516, specialnote 5 1 6 (Optimist)

The rural handicraftsmen belong to the army of industrial workers
“The independent farming peasant belongs to another economic category” (true!! But which
category, my dear David?)

Kautsky’s “totally groundless assertion” that the sugar induscharlatan!
try is a classical example of the agricultural big industry
and % ... of the total “This requires no further comment”—
precisely!
528-529 “... All the advantages that the big farm has because of better or cheaper
power and tools are more than made up by painstaking effort on the small farm”
((“Gist”))

Not “dependence” (of the peasant on the sugar refinery); but “organisation”—!

Figures on industrial enterprises: the fool has copied them without understanding them.

“The vast majority of enterprises processing farm produce are connected with small
farms” Downright distortion!
533-534
There is no industrialisation—on the contrary (!!),—with
Kautsky it’s only “St. Hegel”, “the good old dialectical process”.
Co-operation—a transforming force; producers’ co-operatives—aneweconomic
principle of co-operation.

The making of milk products is developing most vigorously — —
541-542
Denmark ... “sound” division of labour ...
(5 4 6 cf. trusts)
P
M
Q
||||
||||
||||
||||
||||


550-551
In Denmark in 1898 179,740 cow houses
30 and > cows
7,544 = 4%
10-29
”
49,371 = 27.82%
< 10
”
122,589 = 68.97% incl.1-3 head
70,218=39.85% c.
(???)
179,504
100.79 (??)
hence:
 c.
7,500 (30 and >) 8 30 =225,000
49,400 (10-29)
8 11 =536,000
52,400 (4-9)
8 5 =250,000
70,200 (1-3)

1.5= 100,000
179,500
1,111,000
Out of 1,111,000 milch cows—about 900,000 are in co-operative dairies.
i.e., 3 3% haveabout 7 5% !!!

Jibes over the sale of milk worsening nutrition—What a bore!

Note:
Bang—the peasant eats better than the worker.

The small farmer has more staying power in face of the crisis: “the small ones can
more easily stint themselves to the extreme”

Dairy co-operatives—“far from being a socialist phenomenon” are however “even
less” “purely capitalistic”.

(Trusts)—with corn, milk, etc.
David compares them with trade unions (“no objections can be pro-
N.B.
duced”)

France—highly developed co-operatives.

Danish peasant & English worker (direct marketing) ((oh, what a bore!

The two sections of the co-operative world—peasants and workers—are
!
winning ground from the capitalist entrepreneurs

British consumer societies have abandoned the idea of collectivising peasantry in agriculture
PNMNQ
)

V. I. LENIN


against “theoretical optimists”!! (personal interests, etc.!)

Credit co-operatives—death to the usurer (con Marxism ! !)
The “creative power” of the co-operative idea has led the
Marxist doctrine on the “necessary ruin” of the peasant ad absurdum.

Full implementation of consumers’ co-operatives will rid the peasant of capitalist
middlemen.
The root of David’s mistake lies in the fact that he confounds release from
middlemen and traders with release from capital.

“A pooling of the interests of the farmers and the industrial
workers” (David’s italics).

—Associations of peasants and consumers’ societies of workers—a cell of the organisation system ((à la trusts, of course))

“Law” of diminishing returns—the dis - tinction between
mechani - cal and organic production culminates in it!! of tremendous importance

Turgot (cf. “art can do no more”)

(1) only from a definite level of intensiveness does the income (per outlay) decline
(2) the law says nothing about transition from one scientific-technical stage to another.
(At one stage only).

J. S. Mill—“basically right”....

Marx disdains the great truth which lies at the root of the soil fertility law....

— — His excursus into the history of economy is false

Marx contradicts himself in Capital III, 2,277— (This David is an ass)

Rent ... from the land...!!!
] ^


Division of labour ... has no part to play ...
in agriculture that’s audacious! a specimen of his garbling!

...there is no arbitrary decupling (of labour)...

In Germany (some big farms) have doubled their crops in 100 years (France 10.2- 15.8
hectolitres)

Productivity has not doubled (“definitely not”) (more outlays, fertilisers, etc.)
Higher productivity—productivity of labour, Mr. David? probably > than double!
What has that got to do with the growth of outlays on C??* Marvellous economist!

there is no doubt at all ... the natural expenditure of
living human labour has increased that’s bold reference: costs of production!!!—
ha-ha!

Productivity has increased but on a more modest scale than in industry
1) nature is conservative

2) limited effect of labour-saving inventions.
“With the growth of intensiveness, machine labour gives way percentage-wise (!)
to manual labour” (¶ ?)

In organic production, machinism and the growing mass of products are in antagonism to each other” (!!)
“the higher the intensiveness, the less machine labour there is.”

M. Hecht—“typical” (his data) (!)
* C—constant capital.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN


Bang in Neue Zeit: greater income with smaller size (rise in the category of
independent farmers).

(Fischer:) the big farmer pays the labourers a reward for good work. “The small holder
saves on this.”

In agriculture, there is a tendency towards a reduction in hired labour and an increase
in the farmer’s own labour.

The law of diminishing returns leads to an extension of the area under crop throughout
the world (overseas competition)

Growth in the weight of livestock.

The small farmers have more cattle.

The Social-Democrats stand for the allround boosting, etc., of peasant farming.

Marxism is inapplicable (to agricul- ture).
Transformation o f big farms into small - peasant farms.

Against agricultural associations’ of rural labourers (cf.
producers’ associations!!)

Producers’ c o - operatives are a compromise between the individualist
and the associative economic principles.

The small peasant’s work “contains more ideas”...

A fusion of society’s supreme property right and the individual’s usufruct...

A fusion of the small peasants and the rural labourers....
Written in March-April 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX


B
From David:
p. 109: “The small holder builds at lower cost than the
big one.” He works himself. “This advantage” (sic!)
also applies to the maintenance of buildings.
 p. 115
(from Auhagen): the small farmer bought no cart for 22 years (the big one wears out his in 10-12
years and sells it to the blacksmith) ...
p. 152: On the whole, it is the small farm that prospers
(!) in gardening as in agriculture.”
N.B. cf. statistics
221: “On the small-peasant farm, the cow is the ideal, i.e., the cheapest and most rationally used draught
animal” (!!)
pp. 528-529-532. Sleight-of-hand à la Bulgakov, namely,
that the small farm is more often combined with beet sugar and potato production.
550-551. Denmark ((and the cover))
424:
The small farm has twice as much cattle per ha than the big one. (Cf. Drechsler104.)
Written in March-April 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
PMQ