The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter II. The Differentiation of the Peasantry

We have seen that in capitalist production the basis for the formation of
a home market is the process of the disintegration of the small
cultivators into agricultural entrepreneurs and workers. Almost every work
on the economic position of the Russian peasantry in the post-Reform
period refers to the so-called “differentiation” of the
peasantry. It must consequently be our task to study the principal
features of this phenomenon and to determine its significance. In the
following exposition we employ the statistical data of Zemstvo
house-to-house censuses. [17]

I. Zemstvo Statistics For
Novorossia [18]

Mr. V. Postnikov, in his book Peasant Farming in South Russia
(Moscow, 1891), [19] has collected and processed the Zemstvo statistics for the Taurida and
partly the Kherson and the Ekaterinoslav gubernias. This book should be
given first place in the literature on the differentiation of the
peasantry, and we consider it necessary to arrange according to the
system we have adopted the data gathered by Mr. Postnikov, supplementing
them occasionally with data from Zemstvo publications. The Zemstvo
statisticians of Taurida have grouped the peasant households according
to area under crops—a very sound method, one that renders it
possible to form a precise judgement of the economy of each
group due to the predominance in that locality of grain cultivation with
extensive farming. Here are the general data for the economic groups of the Taurida peasantry. [1]

The unevenness in the distribution of the area under crops is very
considerable: 2/5 of the total households (comprising about 3/10 of the
population, for the size of these families s below the average) possess
about 1/8 of the total area under crops; they belong to the poor group,
cultivating little land, who cannot cover their needs with their income
from farming. Further, there are the middle peasants, also constituting
about 2/5 of the total households, who cover their average expenditure by
income from the land (Mr. Postnikov considers that a family requires from
16 to 18 dessiatines [Dessiatine = 2.70 acres. — Ed ] under crops to cover its
average expenditure). Lastly, there are the well-to-do peasants
(about 1/5 of the households and 3/10 of the population), who
concentrate in their hands over half the area cultivated, the
crop area per household clearly indicating the “commercial” character of the farming done by this
group. In order exactly to estimate the extent of this commercial agriculture in the various groups, Mr. Postnikov employs the following method. From the total crop area of
the farm, he separates the following: the food area (which provides
sustenance for the family and the farm labourers), the fodder area (which
provides fodder for the cattle) and the farm-service area (seed-plot, land
occupied by buildings, etc.), and thus arrives at the size of the
market or commercial area, the produce of which goes for sale. It
is shown that in the group with 5 to 10 dess. under crops, only 11.8% of
the cultivated area yields produce for the market, whereas this percentage
grows with the increase in the area under crops (by groups) as follows:
36.5%—52%—61%. Consequently, the well-to-do peasants (the top
two groups) engage in what is commercial cultivation, and secure a gross
money income ranging from 574 to 1,500 rubles per annum. This commercial
cultivation then becomes capitalist farming, for the areas cultivated by
the well-to-do peasants exceed the family labour norm (i.e., the amount of
land that a family can cultivate by its own labour), and compel them to
resort to the hiring of workers : in the three northern uyezds of
Taurida Gubernia, the author estimates, the well-to-do peasants hire over
14,000 rural workers. The poor peasants, on the contrary, “provide
workers” (over 5,000), that is, resort to the sale of their
labour-power, since the income from cultivating the land amounts, in the 5
to 10 dess. group, for example, to only about 30 rubles in cash per household. [3]

We
observe here, consequently, the very process of the creation of a home
market that is dealt with by the theory of capitalist production—the
“home market” grows as a result of the conversion into a
commodity of the product of commercial, entrepreneur farming, on the one
hand, and of the conversion into a commodity of the labour-power sold by
the badly-off peasants, on the other.

In order to acquaint ourselves more closely with this phenomenon, let us
examine the position of each separate group of the peasantry. Let us start
with the top group. Here are the data for the amount of land it owns and
uses:

We see, accordingly, that the well-to-do peasants, not withstanding the
fact that they are best provided with allotment land, [20] concentrate in their
hands the bulk of the purchased and the rented land and turn into small
land owners and capitalist farmers. [4]

On the renting of 17 to 44 dess. of land there is an annual expenditure, at local prices, of about 70 to 160
rubles. Obviously we are dealing here with a commercial transaction: the
land becomes a commodity, “a money-making machine.”

Let us take the data for livestock and implements [Carting: carts, covered and open wagons, etc. Ploughing: iron ploughs, scarifiers (cultivators), etc.] :

Thus the well-to-do peasantry are far better supplied with implements than
the poor and even the middle peasantry. It is sufficient to glance at this
table to see how totally fictitious are the “average” figures
which people are so fond of bringing into play when they talk of the
“peasantry”. The commercial cultivation of the peasant bourgeoisie is accompanied here by commercial livestock farming, namely,
the breeding of coarse-wool sheep. Regarding implements, we shall quote in
addition figures for improved implements, which we have taken from Zemstvo
statistical returns. [6]

Out of the total reaping and mowing machines (3,061), 2,841, or 92.8%, belong to the peasant bourgeoisie (1/5 of the
total households).

It is quite natural that the well-to-do peasantry also employ a
farming technique much above the average (larger size of farm,
more plentiful supply of implements, available financial resources, etc.);
that is to say, the well-to-do peasants “do their sowing faster,
make better use of favourable weather, sow the seed in more humid
soil,” and reap their harvest in proper time; they thresh their
grain as it is carted in from the field, etc. It is also natural that the
expenditure on the production of agricultural produce diminishes (per unit
of product) as the size of the farm increases. Mr. Postnikov proves this
proposition in particular detail, using the following system of
calculation: he determines the number of people working (including hired
labourers), the number of draught animals, implements, etc., per 100
dessiatines of crop area in the various groups of the peasantry. It is
proved that these numbers diminish as the size of the farm increases. For
example, those cultivating under 5 dessiatines have per 100 dessiatines of
allotment land 28 people working, 28 draught animals, 4.7 ploughs and
scarifiers, and 10 carts, whereas those cultivating over 50 dessiatines
have 7 people working, 14 draught animals, 3.8 ploughs and scarifiers, and
4.3 carts. (We omit more detailed data for all groups, referring those
interested in the details to Mr. Postnikov’s book.) The
author’s general conclusion is: “With the increase in the size of the farm and in the
area cultivated by the peasant, the expenditure on the maintenance of
labour-power, human and animal, that prime item of expenditure in
agriculture, progressively decreases, and, among the groups that cultivate
large areas, drops to nearly one half per dessiatine under crops of the
expenditure among the groups with small cultivated areas”
( op . cit ., p. 117). To this law of the greater productivity and, hence, of the greater stability of the big peasant farms
Mr. Postnikov quite rightly attaches great importance, proving it with very
detailed data not only for Novorossia alone, but also for the central
gubernias of

Russia. [7]

The further the penetration of commodity production into crop cultivation, and, consequently, the keener the
competition among the agriculturists, the struggle for land and for
economic independence, the more vigorously must this law be manifested, a
law which leads to the ousting of the middle and poor peasants by the
peasant bourgeoisie. It must, however, be noted that technical progress in
agriculture expresses itself in different ways, depending on the system of
agriculture, on the system of field cultivation. Whereas in the case of
grain growing and extensive cultivation this progress may find expression
in a mere expansion of the crop area and reduction of the number of workers, animals, etc., per unit of crop
area, in the case of livestock or industrial crop farming, with the
adoption of intensive agriculture, this same progress may find expression,
for example, in the cultivation of root crops, which require more workers
per unit of crop area, or in the acquisition of dairy cattle, the
cultivation of fodder grasses, etc., etc.

The description of the top group of the peasantry must be supplemented by
indicating the considerable employment of wage-labour. Here are the data
for the three uyezds of Taurida Gubernia:

Mr. V. V., in the above-mentioned article, argued about this question as
follows: he took the farms employing workers as a percentage of the total
number of peasant farms and arrived at the conclusion that “the
number of peasants resorting to hired labour for the cultivation of the
land, as compared to the aggregate mass of the people, is quite
insignificant: 2 to 3, a maximum of 5 peasant farmers out of 100 are all
that represent peasant capitalism . . . it” (peasant farming in
Russia employing labourers) “is not a system firmly rooted in
contemporary economic life, but something fortuitous, such as occurred 100
and 200 years ago” ( Vestnik Yevropy , 1884, No. 7,
p. 332). What sense is there in comparing the number of farms employing
workers with the total number of “peasant” farms, when the
latter figure also includes the plots of farm labourers? Why, by this
method one could also get rid of capitalism in Russian industry: one would
only need to take the families engaging in industries who employ
wage-workers (i.e., the families of manufacturers, large and small) as a percentage of the total number of
families engaging in industries in Russia; the result would be a quite
insignificant” percentage of the “mass of the people.”
It is far more correct to compare the number of farms employing labourers
with the number of actually independent farms, i.e., of those living on
agriculture alone and not resorting to the sale of their labour
power. Furthermore, Mr. V. V. lost sight of a trifle, namely, that the
peasant farms employing labourers are among the biggest: the percentage of
farms employing labourers, “insignificant” when taken “in general and on the average,” turns out to be very imposing
(34-64%) among the well-to-do peasantry, who account for more than half of
the total production and produce large quantities of grain for sale. One
can therefore judge how absurd is the opinion that farming based on the
employment of labourers is “fortuitous,” something that
occurred 100 to 200 years ago! Thirdly, only by disregarding the real
specific features of cultivation can one take as the criterion of
“peasant capitalism” only farm labourers, i.e., regular
workers, and ignore the day labourers. It is commonly known that the
hiring of day labourers plays a particularly important role in agriculture. [8]

Let us take the bottom group. It consists of peasants who cultivate no
land or who cultivate little; they “do not differ much in economic
status . . . both groups serve as farm labourers for their fellow
villagers, or engage in outside, mainly agricultural employments”
(p. 134, op . cit .), i.e., belong to the rural proletariat. Let us note, for example, that in Dnieper Uyezd the bottom
group constitutes 40% of the households, and those having no ploughing
implements 39% of the total households. In addition to selling their
labour-power, the rural proletariat obtain an income from leasing their
allotment land:

In the three uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, the land leased (in 1884-86)
amounted to 25% of the total peasant arable; this does not include land
leased, not to peasants, but to middle-class intellectuals. In all, nearly
1/3 of the population in these three uyezds lease land; the allotments of
the rural proletariat are rented mainly by the peasant bourgeoisie. Here
are data in this regard:

“Allotment land is now an object of extensive speculation among the
South-Russian peasants. Land is used as security for loans on promissory
notes. . . . Land is leased, or sold, for one or two years and for longer
periods—8, 9 or 11 years” (p. 139, op . cit .). Thus, the peasant bourgeoisie is also a
representative of merchant’s and usurer’s capital. [9]

Here we have a striking refutation of the Narodnik prejudice that the “kulak” and the “usurer” have nothing in
common with the “enterprising muzhik.” On the contrary, the
threads both of merchant’s capital (the loaning of money on the
security of land, the buying-up of various products, etc.) and of
industrial capital (commercial agriculture with the aid of wage-workers,
etc,.) merge in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. It depends on
surrounding circumstances, on the greater or lesser degree to which the
Asiatic way of life is eliminated and culture is widespread in our
countryside as to which of these forms of capital will develop at the
expense of the other.

Let us examine, finally, the position of the middle group (cultivating
from 10 to 25 dess. per household, with an average of 16.4 dess.). Its
position is a transitional one: its money income from agriculture (191
rubles) is somewhat lower than the sum annually spent by the average
Tauridian (200 to 250 rubles). Here draught animals work out at 3.2 head
per household, whereas for a full team 4 are required. Hence the position
of the middle peasant’s farm is an unstable one, and to till his
land he has to resort to “yoking.” [10]
[21]

The cultivation of the land on a “yoking” basis is, it goes
without saying, less productive (time lost in moving from place to place,
shortage of horses, etc.), so that in one village, for example,
Mr. Postnikov was informed that “yokers often scarify no more than
one dessiatine per day, which is half the normal rate.” [11]

If to this we add that in the middle group about 116 of the households have no ploughing
implements, that this group provides more workers than it hires (according
to Mr. Postnikov’s calculations), its unstable character and its
transitional position between the peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat will be clear. We shall
quote somewhat more detailed data about the ousting of the middle group.

Thus, the distribution of allotment land is the most “equalised,” although here, too, the ousting of the bottom
group by the top ones is marked. But the situation radically changes when
we pass from this compulsorily-held land to the free , i.e., to the purchased and the rented land. The concentration of this land
is enormous, and as a result, the distribution of the total land in use by
the peasants is quite unlike the distribution of the allotment land: the
middle group is pushed into second place (46% of allotment land—41%
of land in use), the well-to-do group very considerably enlarges its
holdings (28% of allotment land—46% of land in use), while the poor
group is being pushed out of the ranks of the cultivators (25% of
allotment land—12% of land in use).

The table reveals an interesting phenomenon, one that we shall meet again,
namely, the decline in the role of allotment land in peasant farming. In
the bottom group this is due to the leasing out of land; in the top group
to the fact that in the total farming area purchased and rented land is
overwhelmingly predominant. The remnants of the pre-Reform system (the
tying of the peasants to the land, and equalised, tax-assessed land
tenure) are being utterly destroyed by the penetration of capitalism into
agriculture.

As for land renting in particular, the figures given enable us to clear up
a very common mistake in the arguments of the Narodnik economists on this
subject. Take the arguments of Mr. V. V. In the article quoted above he
bluntly raised the issue of the relation of the renting of land to the
break-up of the peasantry. “Does the renting of land help to
differentiate the peasant farms into big and small and to destroy the
average, typical group?” ( Vestnik Yevropy , loc . cit ., pp. 339-340.) Mr. V. V. answered this
question in the negative. Here are his arguments: 1) “The large
percentage of persons who resort to the renting of land.” Examples:
38 to 68%; 40 to 70%; 30 to 66%; 50 to 60% respectively in different
uyezds of different gubernias.—2) The small size of the rented plots
per household: 3 to 5 dess., according to Tambov statistical returns.—3) The peasants with small allotments rent more
land than those with big ones.

To enable the reader clearly to judge the appropriateness of such
arguments, let alone their soundness, we quote the corresponding figures
for Dnieper

Uyezd. [13]

The question arises, of what importance can “average” figures
be here? Does the fact that those who rent land are “many”—56%—really do away with the concentration
of the rented land in the hands of the rich? Is it not ridiculous to take
the “average” area of rented land [12 dess. per renting
household. Very often it is not even per renting household, but per
existing household that is taken. That is what Mr. Karyshev, for example,
does in his work “Peasant Rentings of Non-Allotment Land”
(Dorpat, 1892; Vol. II of Results of Zemstvo Statistical Investigations )] by putting together peasants of whom one takes 2 dessiatines at a fabulous price (15 rubles), evidently out of dire
need, on ruinous terms, while another takes 48 dessiatines , over
and above his own adequate amount of land, “buying” the land
wholesale at the incomparably lower price of 3.55 rubles per
dessiatine? No less hollow is the third argument: Mr. V. V. himself took
care to refute it by admitting that figures relating “to entire
village communities” (in classifying the peasants according to
allotment) “do not present a true picture of what is taking place in
the community itself” (p. 342, op .

cit .). [14]

It would be a great mistake to imagine that the concentration of rented
land in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie is limited to individual
renting and does not apply to renting by the village community. Nothing of
the kind. The rented land is always distributed “according to where
the money lies,” and the relation between the groups of the
peasantry does not change in the least where land is rented by the
community. Hence, the argument of Mr. Karyshev, for example, that the
relation between community renting and individual renting expresses a
“conflict between two principles (!?),the communal and the
individual” (p.159, loc . cit .), that community renting “is characterised by the labour principle and the principle
of even distribution of rented land among the community members”
( ibid ., 230)—this argument belongs entirely to the sphere
of Narodnik prejudices. Not withstanding the task he set himself of
summing up the “results of Zemstvo statistical investigation,”
Mr. Karyshev carefully avoided all the abundant Zemstvo statistical
material about the concentration of rented land in the hands of small
groups of well-to-do peasants. Let us quote an example. In the three
indicated uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, state lands rented by peasant
communities are distributed among the groups as follows:

A little illustration of the “labour principle” and of the
“principle of even distribution”!

Such are the Zemstvo statistical data on peasant farming in South
Russia. No room is left by these data for doubting the complete
differentiation of the peasantry, the complete domination in the
countryside of the peasant bourgeoisie. [15]

Highly interesting, therefore, is the attitude of Messrs. V. V. and N.–on towards these data, the more so that formerly
both these writers admitted the need of raising the problem of the
differentiation of the peasantry (Mr. V. V. in the above mentioned article
of 1884, and Mr. N.–on in Slovo [ The Word ] in 1880, when
he remarked on the interesting phenomenon in the village community itself
that the “unenterprising” muzhiks neglect their land, while
the “enterprising” ones take the best land for themselves;
cf. Sketches , p. 71). It should be noted that
Mr. Postnikov’s work is of a dual character: on the one hand the
author skillfully gathered and carefully processed extremely valuable
Zemstvo statistics and managed, in doing so, to escape the “tendency
to regard the peasant community as something integral and homogeneous, as
it is still held to be by our urban intelligentsia” (p. 351,
op . cit .). On the other hand, the author, not being guided by theory, failed totally to appraise the data he had processed,
and regarded them from the extremely narrow point of view of
“measures,” proceeding to concoct projects about “agricultural-handicraft-factory communities” and about
the necessity of “restricting,” “enjoining,” “observing,” etc., etc. Well then, our Narodniks did their
best to ignore the first, the positive part of Mr. Postnikov’s work
and concentrated their attention on the second part. Both Mr. V. V. and
Mr. N.–on began with highly serious air to “refute”
Mr. Postnikov’s absolutely unserious “projects” (Mr. V. V. in Russkaya Mysl [ Russian Thought ], 1894,
No. 2; Mr. N.–on in his Sketches , p. 233, footnote), accusing
him of the evil intention of introducing capitalism into Russia, and
carefully avoiding the data which revealed the prevalence of capitalist
relations in the countryside of South Russia today. [16]

---
Notes:
[1]
The following data relate mostly to the three northern mainland uyezds of
Taurida Gubernia, namely the Berdyansk, Melitopol and Dnieper, or to the
latter one alone.— Lenin

[2]
Dessiatine=2.70 acres.– Ed .

[3]
Mr. Postnikov rightly observes that in reality the differences between the
groups as to size of money income from the land are much more
considerable, for the computations assume 1) equal yield, and 2) equal
price for grain sold, actually, however, the well-to-do peasants secure
better yields and sell their grain to greater advantage.— Lenin

[4]
We would point out that the relatively considerable amount of purchased
land held by those who cultivate no land is due to the fact that this
group includes shopkeepers, owners of industrial establishments, and so
forth. The mixing of such “peasants” with real cultivators is
a common defect of Zemstvo statistics. We shall refer again to this defect
later on.— Lenin

[5]
Carting: carts, covered and open waggons, etc. Ploughing: iron ploughs,
scarifiers (cultivators), etc.— Lenin

[6]
Statistical Returns for Melitopol Uyezd , Simferopol, 1885
( Statistical Returns for Taurida Gubernia , Vol. I), [22] — Statistical Returns for Dnieper Uyezd , Vol. II, Simferopol, 1886.— Lenin

[7]
“Zemstvo statistics prove incontrovertibly that the larger the scale
of the peasant farm, the smaller the number of implements, workers, and
draught animals employed on a given tillage area” ( op . cit ., p. 162).

It is interesting to note how this law is reflected in Mr. V, V.’s
arguments. In the above-quoted article ( Vestnik Yevropy , 1884,
No. 7) he makes the following comparison: In the central black-earth belt
there are 5-7-8 dess. of arable per peasant horse, whereas
“according to the rules of three-field crop rotation” there
should be 7-10 dess. (Batalin’s
Calendar ). “Consequently, the decline in horse-ownership by
part of the population of this area of Russia must to a certain extent be
regarded as the restoration of the normal proportion between the number of
draught animals and the area to be cultivated” (p. 346 in the
article mentioned). Thus the ruin of the peasantry leads to progress in
agriculture. Had Mr V. V. paid attention not only to the agronomic
but also to the social-economic aspect of this process he could have seen
that this is the progress of capitalist agriculture, for “the
restoration of the normal proportion” between draught animals and
arable is achieved either by landlords who acquire their own implements,
or by big peasant crop growers, i.e., by the peasant bourgeoisie.— Lenin

[8]
England is the classic land of agricultural capitalism. And in that
country 40.8% of the farmers employ no hired labour; 68.1% employ not more
than 2 workers; 82% employ not more than 4 workers (Yanson,
Comparative Statistics , Vol. II pp. 22-23; quoted from Kablukov,
The Workers in Agriculture , p. i6). But he would be a fine
economist, indeed, who forgot the mass of agricultural proletarians, both
migratory and also resident (i.e., such as get “employments”
in their own villages), who hire themselves out by the day.— Lenin

[9]
And itself resorts to the “very numerous” village banks and
loan-and-savings societies, which render “substantial assistance” to “prosperous peasants.” “The
economically weak peasants cannot find guarantors and do not get
loans” (p. 368, op cit.).— Lenin

[10]
In Melitopol Uyezd, out of 13,789 households in this group only 4,218 till
their land with their own animals animals; 9,201 “yoke.” In
Dnieper Uyezd, out of 8,234 households, 4,029 till the land with their own
animals, and 3,835 “yoke.” See zemstvo statistical returns for
Melitopol Uyezd (p. B. 195) and for Dnieper Uyezd (p. B. 123).— Lenin

[11]
In the above-mentioned article Mr. V. V. argues a great deal about yoking
being the “principle of co-operation,” etc. It is really so
simple to hush up the fact that the peasantry are breaking up into sharply
distinct groups, that yoking is the co-operation of tottering farms which
are being ousted by the peasant bourgeoisie, and then to talk in general
about the “principle of co-operation”—probably co-operation between the rural proletariat and the rural bourgeoisie!— Lenin

[12]
Data taken from the Zemstvo Statistical Returns. They cover the whole
uyezd, including settlements not embraced by volosts. [23] The figures in the
column “Total land used by group” have been calculated by
myself, by adding together the allotment, rented and purchased land, and
subtracting the leased land.— Lenin

[13]
The data for the Melitopol and
Berdyansk uyezds are analogous.— Lenin

[14]
Mr. Postnikov cites an interesting example of a similar mistake made by
Zemstvo statisticians. Noting the fact of commercial farming by the
well-to-do peasants and their demand for land, he points out that
“the Zemstvo statisticians, evidently regarding such manifestations
in peasant life as something illegitimate, try to belittle their
importance” and to prove that the renting of land is determined not
by the competition of rich peasants but by the peasants’ need for
land. To prove this, Mr. Werner, the compiler of Taurida Gubernia Handbook (1889), classified the peasants of the entire Taurida
Gubernia according to size of allotment, taking the group of peasants with
1 or 2 people working and 2 or 3 draught animals. It turned out that,
within the bounds of this group, as the size of the allotment increases
the number of renting households and the amount of rented land
decrease. Obviously, such a method of calculation proves nothing at all,
since only peasants with an equal number of draught animals are taken, and
it is the extreme groups that are omitted. It is quite natural that where
the number of draught animals is equal the amount of cultivated land must
also be equal, and consequently, the smaller the allotment, the larger the
amount of rented land. The question is how the rented land is distributed
among households with unequal numbers of draught animals, implements,
etc.— Lenin

[15]
It is usually said that the data for Novorossia do not permit the drawing
of general conclusions, because of the specific features of that
locality. We do not deny that the differentiation of the agricultural
peasantry is more marked here than in the rest of Russia; but it will be
seen from what follows that the specific nature of Novorossia is by no
means so great as is sometimes imagined.— Lenin

[16]
“It is interesting,” wrote Mr. N.–on, that Mr. Postnikov
“has projects for 60-dessiatine peasant farms.” But “since agriculture has fallen into the hands of capitalists,”
productivity of labour may grow still more “tomorrow,” “and it will be necessary (!) to convert the 60-dessiatine into 200-
or 300-dessiatine farms.” You see how simple it is: because
the petty bourgeoisie of today in our countryside will be threatened
tomorrow by the big bourgeoisie, therefore Mr. N.–on refuses to
recognise either today’s petty or tomorrow’s big bourgeoisie!— Lenin

[17]
Zemstvo house-to-house censuses were investigations of peasant
farms undertaken by statistical agencies of the Zemstvos or rural
government bodies. These censuses, which were conducted mainly for
taxation purposes, became very common in the 1880s. The household censuses
provided a wealth of factual material which was published in statistical
abstracts covering the different gubernias and their uyezds or
subdivisions. The Zemstvo statisticians, however, many of whom were
Narodniks, were very often biased in the way they processed the
statistical data and classified them incorrectly, thereby robbing them of
much of their value. “Here is the weakest spot in our Zemstvo
statistics, splendid as they are for the care and detail with which they
are compiled,” wrote Lenin. (See present edition, Vol. 20.)
Phenomena of the economic type were hidden under piles of figures in the
Zemstvo returns and reviews, while the essential differences between, and
features of, various peasant groups that took shape as capitalism
developed were lost in the columns of average figures.

Lenin made a comprehensive analysis of Zemstvo statistical data, and carefully studied
and processed them. He made calculations of his own, drew up tables and
statistical summaries, gave a Marxist analysis of the peasant-farm data
secured, and grouped them scientifically. Lenin used the wealth of Zemstvo
statistical material to expose the artificiality of Narodnik schemes and
to draw a true picture of Russia’s economic development. He made
extensive use of Zemstvo statistical material in his writings and
especially in The Development of Capitalism in Russia .

[18]
Novorossia —the name given to the Southern steppe area of
European Russia.— Lenin

[19]
V. Y. Postnikov’s Peasant Farming in South Russia is
examined in detail by Lenin in one of his first works, New Economic Trends in Peasant Life . (See present edition, Vol. 1.)

[20]
Allotment land —land left for the use of the peasants after
the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861. Held by the peasant community,
it was periodically redistributed among the peasants.— Lenin

[22]
The full title of this source is Statistical Returns for Taurida Gubernia. Statistical Tables Concerning Economic Conditions in the Villages of Melitopol Uyezd. Appendix to Vol. I , Simferopol, 1885.

[21]
Yoking ( supryaga )—cultivation of the land with draught animals belonging to different peasants yoked together in a team.

[23]
Volost –the lowest administrative territorial unit of the uyezd
in pre-revolutionary Russia.