The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter IV. The Growth of Commercial Agriculture

Having examined the internal economic structure of peasant and landlord
economy, we must now take up the question of the changes in agricultural
production and ask: do these changes express a growth of capitalism and of
the home market?

I. General Data on Agricultural Production in Post-Reform Russia
and on The Types of Commercial Agriculture

Let us glance first of all at the general statistics on grain production
in European Russia. The considerable harvest fluctuations render the data
for individual periods or for individual years quite useless. [1]

It is necessary to take different periods and the data for a whole number of years. We have
at our disposal the following data: for the period of the 60s, the data
for 1864-1866 ( Military Statistical Abstract , IV, St. Petersburg,
1871, data of gubernatorial reports). For the 70s, the returns of the
Department of Agriculture for the entire decade ( Historico-Statistical Survey of Russian Industry , Vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1883). And
lastly, for the 1880s, we have data for the five years of 1883-1887
( Statistics of the Russian Empire , IV); this five-year period can
represent the whole of the eighties, since the average harvest for the ten
years, 1880-1889, is even somewhat higher than for the five years
1883-1887 (see Agriculture and Forestry in Russia , published for the Chicago Exhibition,
pp. 132 and 142). Further, in order to judge of the trend of evolution in
the 90s we take the data for the decade 1885-1894 ( Productive Forces , I, 4). Lastly, the data for 1905 ( Yearbook of Russia , 1906) are quite adequate for a judgement of the present
time. The 1905 harvest was only a little lower than the average for the
five years 1900-1904.

Let us compare all these data. [2]

We see from this that until the 1890s the post-Reform era is characterised
by an undoubted increase in the production both of cereals and
potatoes. The productivity of agricultural labour rises: firstly, the size
of the net yield grows faster than that of the sown area (with occasional
exceptions); secondly, we must bear in mind that the proportion of the
population engaged in agricultural production steadily diminished during
this period owing to the diversion of the population from agriculture to
commerce and industry, and also owing to the migration of peasants beyond
the bounds of European

Russia. [3]

What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that it is commercial agriculture that is
growing: there is an increase in the amount of grain gathered (after
subtracting seed) per head of the population, while among this population
there is an ever-growing division of social labour; there is an increase
in the commercial and industrial population; the agricultural population
splits up into rural entrepreneurs and a rural proletariat; there is an
extension of specialisation in agriculture itself, so that the amount of
grain produced for sale grows far more rapidly than the total amount of
grain produced in the country. The capitalist character of the process is
strikingly illustrated by the increased share of potatoes in the total
agricultural production. [4]

The increase in the area under potatoes signifies, on the one hand, an improvement in agricultural technique (the
introduction of root-crops) and increased technical processing of
agricultural produce (distilling and the manufacture of potato starch). On
the other hand, it is, from the viewpoint of the rural entrepreneur class,
the production of relative surplus-value (cheapening of the cost of
maintaining labour-power, deterioration of the people’s
nourishment). The data for the decade 1885-1894 show further that the
crisis of 1891-1892, which tremendously intensified the expropriation of
the peasantry, led to a considerable reduction in the output of cereals
and to a reduction in the yield of all crops; but the process of the
displacement of cereals by potatoes continued with such force that the
per-capita output of potatoes increased, not withstanding the reduced
yield. Finally, the last five years (1900-1904) also show an increase in
agricultural production, an increase in the productivity of agricultural
labour

and a worsening of the conditions of the working-class (increase in the
part played by potatoes).

As we have noted above, the growth of commercial agriculture manifests
itself in the specialisation of agriculture. Mass-scale and gross data on
the production of all crops can give (and then not always) only the most
general indications of this process, since the specific features of the
different areas thereby disappear. Yet it is precisely the segregation of
the different agricultural areas that is one of the most characteristic
features of post-Reform agriculture in Russia. Thus, the
Historico-Statistical Survey of Russian Industry (Vol. I,
St. Petersburg, 1883), quoted by us, enumerates the following agricultural
areas: the flax area, “the region where stock farming predominates,” and where, in particular, “dairy farming is
considerably developed”; the region where grain crops predominate,
particularly the three-field area and the area with the improved fallow or
multi-field grass system (part of the steppe belt, which “is
characterised by the production of the most valuable, so-called elite
grains, mainly intended for the foreign market”); the beet area, and
the area in which potatoes are cultivated for distilling
purposes. “The economic areas indicated have arisen in European
Russia comparatively recently, and with every passing year continue
increasingly to develop and become more segregated” ( loc .
cit .,

p. 15). [5]

Our task should now be, consequently, to study this process of the specialisation of agriculture, and we should ascertain
whether a growth of commercial agriculture is to be observed in its
various forms, whether capitalist agriculture comes into existence in the
process, and whether agricultural capitalism bears the features we
indicated above in analysing the general data on peasant and landlord
farming. It goes without saying that for our purposes it will be
sufficient if we confine ourselves to describing the principal areas of
commercial agriculture.

But before examining the data for the separate areas, let us note the
following: the Narodnik economists, as we have seen, do all they can to
evade the fact that the characteristic feature of the post-Reform period
is the growth of commercial agriculture. Naturally, in doing so they also
ignore the circumstance that the drop in grain prices is bound to
stimulate the specialisation of agriculture and the drawing of
agricultural produce into the sphere of exchange. Here is an instance. The
authors of the well-known book The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices all proceed from the postulate that the price of grain is of
no importance to natural economy, and they repeat this “truism” endlessly. One of them, Mr. Kablukov, has observed,
however, that under the general conditions of commodity production this postulate is substantially wrong. “It is
possible, of course,” he writes, “that the grain placed on the
market has cost less to produce than that grown on the consumer’s
farm, in which case it would appear to be in the interest also of the
consuming farm to change from cultivating cereals to other crops”
(or to other occupations, we would add), “and, consequently, for it
too the market price of grain assumes importance as soon as it fails to
coincide with its cost of production” (I, 98, note, author’s italics). “But we cannot take that into
account,” he says peremptorily. Why is that? Because, it seems: 1) a
change-over to other crops is possible “only where certain
conditions exist.” By means of this empty truism (everything on
earth is possible only under certain conditions!) Mr. Kablukov calmly
evades the fact that the post-Reform period in Russia has created, and
continues to create, the very conditions that call for the specialisation
of agriculture and the diversion of the population from
agriculture. . . . 2) Because “in our climate it is impossible to
find a crop equal to cereals in food value”. The argument is highly
original, expressing a mere evasion of the issue. What has the food value
of other crops to do with the matter, if we are dealing with the sale of
these other crops and the purchase of cheap grain? . . . 3) Because
“grain farms of the consuming type always have a rational basis for
their existence.” In other words, because Mr. Kablukov “and
colleagues” regard natural economy as “rational.” The argument, as you see, is irrefutable. . . .

---
Notes:
[1]
If only for this reason, Mr. N.–on is absolutely wrong in drawing the
boldest conclusions from the returns for 8 years of one decade
(1871-1878)!— Lenin

[2]
For the period 1883-1887 we have taken the population of 1885; the
increase is taken at 1.2%. The difference between the data of the
gubernatorial reports and those of the Department of Agriculture is, as we
know, inconsiderable. The figures for 1905 have been arrived at by
converting poods into chetverts (about six bushels each.— Ed .)— Lenin

[3]
Mr. N.–on is quite wrong when he asserts that “there are no grounds
whatever for assuming a decline in their number” (the number of
persons engaged in agricultural production), “quite the
contrary” ( Sketches , 33, note). See Chapter VIII, § II.— Lenin

[4]
The net per-capita potato crop increased between 1864-1866 and 1870-1879
in all areas of European Russia without exception. Between 1870-1879 and
1883-1887 the increase took place in 7 areas out of 11 (the Baltic,
Western, Industrial, North-Western, Northern, Southern, Steppe, Lower- and
Transvolga areas).

Cf. Agricultural Statistical Information Based on Material Obtained from Farmers , Vol. VII, St. Petersburg, 1897 (published by Ministry
of

Agriculture). [7]
In 1871, in the 50 gubernias of European Russia, the area under potatoes
was 790,000 dess. in 1881—1,375,000 dess. and in
1895—2,154,000 dess, i.e., an increase during the 15 years of 55%
. Taking the potato crop in 1841 as 100, we get the following figures
for the later years: 1861—120; 1871—162; 1881—297; 1895—530.— Lenin

[5]
Cf. also Agriculture and Forestry in Russia , pp. 84-88; here a
tobacco area is added. The maps drawn by Messrs. D. Semyonov and
A. Fortunatov show the areas according to the particular crops
predominating in them; for example the rye, oat and flax area, Pskov and
Yaroslavl gubernias; the rye, oat and potato area, Grodno and Moscow
gubernias, and so on.— Lenin

[6]
In the first edition (1899) of The Development of Capitalism in Russia the table was given as follows:

[7]
Lenin’s notes on this publication and his preliminary calculations
are published in Lenin Miscellany XXXIII , pp. 165-175.