CRITICAL REMARKS ON F. MAURICE’S BOOK,
A G R I C U L T U R E A N D T H E S O C I A L
QUESTION.
AGRICULTURAL AND AGRARIAN FRANCE 81
F. Maurice
[Only paged through. The author has the wildest ideas of the most primitive anarchism. There are some interesting
factual remarks.]
Pp. Note
48. Farmers complain.... Which farmers?
small: 5 million—12 million ha (N.B.)
 big
0.869
—37
”
”
85. (French) soldier’s ration—1 kg of bread
300 grammes of meat

”
vegetables

”
salt

”
coffee

”
sugar
117. 14,074,801 lots; 59.3% farms—consequently—
8,346,000 holders (?)
119. 1 8 8 : 84.7% farms—25.1% of the area
“Extreme”
15.3% (868,000)—74.9% (37.1 mil- concentra-(!!)
lion ha)
tion
122. Distribution of rural population according to 1886
statistics.
122-123. Almost 720,000 absentee owners (Absenteeism).
131-132. Small cropping can feed many more people.


160.
From 1831 to 1886, the countryside gave up
6 millionpersons to the towns.
165.
Rural population in 1 8 5 1 and 1 8 8 6
< number of holders
=
”
” half-croppers
N.B.
&
”
” labourers
167.
Permanent labourers in 1862 and 1882 (—). [The figures are the same as Bulgakov’s (6)]
174.
The growth of big towns from 1831 to 1886.
194-195. The author favours social peace, “stability of
our institutions”, and is against “excessive indus- trialisation of agriculture”
And he calls himself a socialist! Konfusionsrath!*
195-197. Agriculture is now extensive (on big farms), yields
little produce, etc.
It should be small and intensive.
197.
Maurice’s slogan: smallproperty, small- scaleproduction.
197.
The new (future) phase of agriculture is the “period of vegetable gardening” (author’s italics) or “small
cropping” (!)—the only possible outcome (!).
The tendency in modern society is towards a coalescence of labour and property.
198.
How is this to be achieved?
“Very easy” (!)— there is need for a reform—account must be taken
of the current ideas prevailing among the masses— with individualproperty (!!) and the
family (!!)
200.
“Gradual” supplanting of big farms.
203.
The right of every citizen to use the national territory must be proclaimed
meaning, the nationalisation of land.
* Bungler.—Ed.


204.
Initially state lands are to be leased to small farms
205.
—large land holdings to be taxed.
etc.
234.
(234-266) (!!)—draft law (!!) Casting of lots for land, etc.

—Descriptions of separate departments.
{The best thing in the book.}
Nord. Beetroot production (287. staple crop.)
Intensified fertilisation.
Prevalence
1-10 ha:
32,000 farms—248,000 ha of (??)
10-50
:
10,000
”
206,000 small
50 and > :

”
53,000 cropping
Farms:
232 ha. Sugar refinery, etc. Model farm. Per ha: 30 hectolitres of wheat “are not appreciably superior
to those of the region” (p. 291) ??? (cf. Nord  4)
50,000 kg of beetroot (cf. Nord 4 5,000)
140 ha. 20 milch cows. 30 hl, 50,000 beetroot.
7 ha. 6 milch cows. 25 hl, 40,000 beetroot (sic!)
“With all the costs covered, and the family partly supplied with sustenance, theprofit , rather ,
thewages , inthiscase , comes to between
15 and 1,800 francs a year” (291).
Great development of industry and mines.
294.
A n entire population i s semi - agricultural and semi - indus -
trial, withaplotofland. Impos - sible to survive on less than ú ha.
295.
—pays for the cultivation of his land (!)
[Sometimes with his labour!]
—fattens livestock for traders for a remuneration.
296.
Cultivation of beetroot with the aid of machinery.
Child labour.
—workingforgarmentmerchants in Lille (N.B.) N.B.
(14-hour working day—per family (!)— 1-14 francs).
297.
The condition of the rural labourer is rather hard....
Meat on Sundays.... Poverty....
N.B.
N.B.


298-299. Growth in the number of small holders doing hired
labour.
Maurice’s “moral”:
“there is danger” in industrialising agriculture (beetroot),
“it is a mistake” (308) to regard agriculture as an industry, etc., etc. There is need to develop
small-scale production!! etc.
309.
Aisne. Big cropping prevails—in contrast to
Nord.
Worse soil, lagging agriculture.
315.
farms ha
< 1 ha
29,000
14,000
1- 10
22,000
94,000
10- 50
7,000
169,000
50- 100

100-300
1,016
404,000
300 and >

320.
Growing production of beetroot. (Idem 316)
322.
The labourers are highly dissatisfied (“not much better than serfdom”!)
... meagre pay and food....
340.
Nor is the condition of the labourer better in
Picardie or in Beauce farms ha
342. Vegetable gardening in the
< 1 ha
11,000
5,000 suburbs of Paris ... of
1- 10
2,600
28,000 ha ... 1,800 ha are
10- 50

23,000 vegetable gardens divided
50-300

into 10,000 enterprises....
300-500

From 1,000 sq. m. to 1 ha (344). ...
28,000
Vegetable gardeners mostly lease land at
2,000 fr....
345.
— — Gross receipts from 1 ha = 20,000 fr.
(working capital
25,000 fr.)
net income
= 10,000 fr.


345.
Labourers per ha husband and wife (entrepreneurs) —2
Wages and keep = labourers, men —3
6,000 fr.

girls
—2

day labouring woman
—1 (for sum- mer)
Normandy
. . . .
358.
The very small holders go in for wage labour.
361.
—For a minority Normandy is a “rich country”, but for the mass of peasants, it is “harsh and
inhospitable” ....
375.
Vegetable gardeners near Cherbourg (sale of cabbage, etc., to Britain). Land costs 15,000-20,000 fr.
(1 ha).
376.
Farms from 1 to 10 ha....
(N.B.) Each ha needs -3 men labourers (300-
500 fr.) and Maurice is jubilant: “small cropping”!
Written in June-September 1901
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
!

REMARKS ON
A. CHàAPOWO-CHàAPOWSKI’S BOOK,
AGRICULTURE IN BELGIUM
IN THE 19TH CENTURY 82
From Ch/apowo-Ch/apowski.
Gainfully employed population in Belgian agriculture
Members of
Gesinde* and
Total families taking day labourers (both sexes)
part in farming
1846)
906,575
177,026
1,083,601
1880)
982,124
217,195
1,199,319
1895)
1,015,799
187,106
1,204,810
&1,905 Hofbeamte**
Ibidem 69-71—“modern” large-scale production
71-72. Parcel holders as labourers of big farmers.
99-1 0 0. Idem (N.B.)
102. Competition between small and big farms.
137. Growth of parcel holders=labourers.
139. Plight of rural labourers.
Idem 1 4 5 -1 4 6 .
144. More
intensive work done b y smallfarmers. (N.B.).
* Farm-hands.—Ed.
** Farm employees.—Ed.


148. Elevation of labourers to small holders.
148. Relations between small and big farmers.
(Support.)
Written in June-September 1901
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXI

REMARKS ON THE MATERIAL
OF THE BADEN INQUIRY 83
Erhebungen ü berdie Lageder Land - wirtschaftim Grossherzogthum Baden.*
1883. Karlsruhe.
(Three big volumes, rather 4, because to the 3rd is append-
ed Ergebnisse der Erhebungen.**
A number of monographs on separate communities, followed by results. Very many budgets.)
Volume 1. Note (after paging)
Sandhausen community (Heidelberg district) Vol. I, VIII *), p. 30 [Vol. I, VIII ⋆ (community)].
Budgets. Big peasant. 9.80 ha. 1 farm-hand &1 maid &
379 days of hired labour.
Smallpeasant. 2.96 ha (1.62 ha hisown &
1.36 leased)
raises tobacco and hops.
10 man - days (hired day labour).
[with tobacco and hops 14 working days of labour should
be reckoned per are. Consequently, total = 370 days.
husband
—300
Total receipts = 2,032.32 wife
— 60
370.1
Outlays
1,749.91 day labourer
— 10
282.41
*) The description of each community is a special issue
with its own pagination. That is why references must include volume and community: Vol. II, XI—XIth commu-
nity in Volume II.
* A Study of the State of Agriculture in the Grand Duchy of Baden.—Ed.
** Results of the Study.—Ed.


ibidem
Day labourer=small leasehold farm.
2.30 ha
12.6 ares of own land working days of
217.2
”
of leased land hired labour.
a total of 229.8 ares
1w working days per are.
Gross receipts —1,543.50
16— day labourer outlays —1,472.58 Σ=410 work-
300— husband
&70.30 ing days
94— wife
Ergebnisse, pp. 56-57. The per-head consumption of meat
on big-peasant and middle-peasant farms.
Everywhere (8 examples) it is much higher on the big farms.
Volume II. II, XI community, p. 48. 18 ares of tobacco require 80 working days.
[The whole Baden Inquiry is a study of 37 typical com- munities. In the Ergebnisse, there are the most detailed,
incredibly detailed, budgets (70), the main results of which
are given in the table I have borrowed.
Of interest in the Ergebnisse is Anlage VI: “Uebersicht-
liche Darstellung der Ergebnisse der in den Erhebungs- gemeinden angestellten Ertragsberechnungen” (S. 149-65).*
This is atabulated summing up of the budget (and economic) data on the separately described households.
(37 & 33 = 70 budgets.)
31 big peasants (or farmers)
See extract of data on
21 middle peasants these 70 budgets in
18 small peasants (including one notebook 84 wine-grower).

In the Ergebnisse [I have only paged through the Ergeb-
nisse, but not the material (Vols. 1-3) itself, for the essence
is given in the budget table, and there is no time to make
a special study of them] one is struck by the indiscriminate
nature of the conclusions: the big, middle and small peas-
ants are not discriminated systematically anywhere in the
results either; it is always “in general”, e.g., even on the
* Appendix VI: “Brief Review of the Results or the Assessment of
Incomes in the Investigated Communities”.—Ed.


question of consumption. A comparison is made of the communities, and not of the big, medium and small enter-
prises. (E.g., pp. 55-56.)
This table (on 1873 data) appears on p.  1 of the Ergeb-
nisse.
Number of agric.
%
Area
%
enterprises ha
I
“mixed” en- terprises (of “day labourers and artisans”)
0- 10 Morgen
160, 581
72. 0
227, 213
28. 5
(0- 3. 6 ha)
II
small-peasant enterprises
10- 20 Morgen
38, 900
17. 5
193, 923
24. 3
(3. 6- 7. 2 ha)
III
middle-peas- ant enter- prises . . . .
20- 5 0 Morgen
18, 346
8. 3
193, 936
24. 3
(7. 20-18 ha)
IV
big-peasant enterprises
50- 100 Morgen
3, 721
1. 6
90, 152
11. 3
(18- 36 ha)
V
large (among them big- peasant) en- terprises . . .
100- 500 Morgen
1, 177
0. 5
65, 671
8. 4
(36- 180 ha)
VI . . . . . . .
500 and

0. 01
5, 542
0. 6
over (180 ha and over)
Community land, etc. . . . . . .
—
—
—
21, 000
2. 6
222, 746

797, 597*

Collateral employment—handicraft industries (Görwihl, Wittenschwand, Neukirch) (p. 43)
lumbering day labour factory work, stone quarries, etc., etc.
There is also seasonal outside earth moving and lumbering
(p. 45 from Neusatz).
In Neukirch, 40 ha is considered to be a minimum area for subsistence. P. 44.
It is interesting to note concerning data α and β** (see
tables in notebook):
α
β
* There is an error of addition in this column (should be 797,497).—Ed.
** α—average annual profit per ha (marks); β—permissible limit of taxa-
α
β
tion of estate, together with debt, as % of its taxable capital value.—Ed.


With the big and middle peasants, whose holdings come to 7-10 ha in the corn areas and 4-5 ha in the commercial
crop and wine-making areas ... (and to 20-30 ha when there are forests) ... the results of calculations (α β ) are
α
β
not bad (p. 66).... Here, there is no danger in having a 40-
70 per cent, average 55 per cent, debt.
By contrast, the conditions for the small peasant popula-
tion are taking on a less favourable shape, i.e., ... for those
with 4-7 ha under cropping, -4 ha under commercial crops
and wine-making ... up to 30 ha under forests.
For these small peasants, the average limit of permissible
indebtedness lies ... in all respects much lower than should
be established for the middle and big peasants.
...For the estates of these sizes, with an average family
and in the pure corn areas, the limit of indebtedness...
must not exceed 30 per cent of the assessed value of the
holding if the regular payment of interest and of instalments
is to be fully secured... (p. 66).
The above-given statistics, consequently, confirm the widespread opinion that those owners of peas-
ant holdings, who are on the borderline [in the middle] between the day labourers and the middle
peasants [in the rural districts the farmers of this category are usually called the “middle estate”—
Mittelstand], are frequently in a worse position than those in the groups above and below in size
of holdings; for, although they are able to cope with moderate indebtedness, if it is kept at a certain
and not very high level, they find it difficult to meet their obligations, being unable to obtain
regular collateral employment (as day labourers, etc.), by which means to increase their income.*
They can meet their obligations only when their children have grown up and are placed, so that
family expenses are less of a burden on these small farms. By contrast, day labourers (or handicraftsmen)
with small holdings, insofar as they have some regular collateral employment, are frequently in
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 187-88.—Ed.


a much better position materially than those belong- ing to the “middle estate”, for, as computations
in numerous cases have shown, collateral employ-
N.B.
ment at times yields such a high net (i.e., money)
income as to enable them to repay even large debts*; this explains the frequently observed
fact that where such conditions obtain, small holders, like day labourers and others, gradually
manage to take small-peasant holdings out of debt.
These computations also show that it is the rural owners, who belong to the lowest sections of the
independent peasant population, that have most reasons to make cautious use of their credit, which
is why they have to make an especially careful review of their financial possibilities when buying
any real estate (pp. 66-67).
Data for communities also prevail on the question of indebtedness.
Cf. especially p. 97: “The final conclusion [on the question
of indebtedness]: relatively less favourable position of the
small-peasant population.”
The study of indebtedness by groups of holdings has shown:
Almost everywhere ... it has turned out that it is the lowest groups of holders (day labourers with a land allot-
ment) that have the highest percentage of indebtedness, and
that, on the contrary, this proportion markedly declines
for the peasant population proper, and in general tends to
drop with the growth of the estates in size, sometimes very
rapidly indeed, frequently disappearing almost entirely in
the higher groups (big-peasant holdings) (p. 89).
In the final count, the studies of debt levels in the commu-
nities concerned give the following picture on the strength
of these data:
Almost everywhere, there is a very considerable debt burden on the holdings of day labourers. Nevertheless, this
part of the debt is the least dangerous (p. 97)—for this
section of the rural population relies mainly on earnings
not from the land, and experience shows that, given regular
earnings (“to any extent”), day labourers manage to cope
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 188.—Ed.
[


with their debts (which mostly arise from the purchase of
land).
The debt on holdings among middle and big peasants in the overwhelming majority of the communities studied,
even in those which are considered heavily in debt, remains
within the limits marked out by the size of estates, and
such debt is very small in a rather large number of communi-
ties, to be found in all economic areas....
On the other hand, in a considerable number of the communities studied, the indebtedness of the small-
peasant population is relatively larger and not entirely
safe, considering the permissible limit of indebtedness,
and in view of the fact that this higher indebtedness should ultimately be due largely to definite external
conditions... (p. 97) (land, climate, land hunger, etc.),
the same thing may be assumed for the country’s other communities.
This indebtedness is the result mainly of credit for land
(purchase of land and transfer of estates).
...in purchasing land, particular business-like caution must be exercised—something to which
most study reports point—primarily by the small-
N.B.
peasant population and by the day labourers, ranking next to it (p. 98).
The small peasant sells relatively little for cash, but he
stands particularly in need of money, and
...because of his lack of capital, he is especially hard hit
by every murrain, hailstorm, etc.*
Written in June-September 1901
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 188.—Ed.