The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA

Chapter II. The Differentiation of the Peasantry

III. Zemstvo Statistics For Saratov Gubernia

We now pass to the central black-earth belt, to Saratov Gubernia. We take
Kamyshin Uyezd, the only one for which a fairly complete classification of
the peasants according to draught animals held is available. [1]

Here are the data for the whole uyezd (40,157 households, 263,135 persons
of both sexes. Area under crops, 435,945 dessiatines, i.e., 10.8
dessiatines per “average” household):

Thus, here again we see the concentration of land under crops in the hands
of the big crop growers: the well-to-do peasantry, constituting only a
fifth of the households (and about a third of the population), [2] hold more than half
the total area under crops (53.3%), the size of this area clearly
indicating the commercial character of the farming: an aver age of 27.6
dess. per household. The well-to-do peasantry have also a considerable
number of animals per household: 14.6 head (in terms of cattle, i.e.,
counting 10 head of small domestic animals for one of cattle), and of the
total number of peasants’ cattle in the uyezd, nearly 3/5 (56%) is
concentrated in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. At the opposite pole
in the countryside, we find the opposite state of affairs; the complete
dispossession of the bottom group, the rural proletariat, who in our
example comprise a little less than 1/2 of the households (nearly 1/3 of
the population), but who have only 1/8 of the total area under crops, and
even less (11.8%) of the total number of animals. These are mainly
allotment-holding farm labourers, day labourers and industrial workers.

Side by side with the concentration of crop areas and with the enhancement
of the commercial character of agriculture there takes place its
transformation into capitalist agriculture. We see the already familiar
phenomenon: the sale of labour-power in the bottom groups and its purchase in the top ones.

Here an important explanation is needed. P. N. Skvortsov has quite rightly
noted in one of his articles that Zemstvo statistics attach far too
“wide” a meaning to the term “industry” (or “employments”). In fact, all sorts of occupations
engaged in by the peasants outside their allotments are assigned to the
category of “industries”; factory owners and workers, owners
of flour mills and of melon fields, day labourers, regular farm labourers;
buyers-up, traders and unskilled labourers; lumber-dealers and lumbermen;
building contractors and building workers; members of the liberal
professions, clerks, beggars, etc., all these are “industrialists”! This barbarous misuse of words is a survival
of the traditional—and we have the right even to say:
official—view that the “allotment” is the “real,” “natural” occupation of the muzhik, while
all other occupations are assigned indiscriminately to “outside” industries. Under serfdom this use of the word had its raison d’ etre , but now it is a glaring
anachronism. Such terminology is retained partly because it harmonises
wonderfully with the fiction about an “average” peasantry and
rules right out the possibility of studying the differentiation
of the peasantry (particularly in those places where peasant
“outside” occupations are numerous and varied. Let us remind
the reader that Kamyshin Uyezd is a noted centre of the sarpinka industry [11] ).

The

processing [3] of household returns on peasant farming will be unsatisfactory so long as
peasant “industries” are not classified according to their
economic types, so long as among the “industrialists” employers are not separated from wage-workers . This is
the minimum number of economic types without discriminating between which
economic statistics cannot be regarded as satisfactory. A more detailed
classification is, of course, desirable; for example; proprietors
employing wage-workers—proprietors not employing wage-workers—traders, buyers-up, shopkeepers, etc., artisans,
meaning industrialists who work for customers, etc.

Coming back to our table, let us observe that after all we had some right
to consider “industries” as being the sale of labour-power,
for it is usually wage-workers who predominate among peasant
“industrialists.” If it were possible to single the wage-workers out of the latter, we would, of course, obtain an
incomparably smaller percentage of “industrialists” in the top
groups.

As to the data regarding wage-workers, we must note here the absolutely
mistaken character of Mr. Kharizomenov’s opinion that the
“short-term hire[of workers] for reaping, mowing and day labouring,
which is too widespread a phenomenon, cannot serve as a characteristic
criterion of the strength or weakness of a farm” (p. 46 of
“Introduction” to the Combined Returns ). Theoretical considerations, the example of Western Europe, and the facts of Russia
(dealt with below) compel us, on the contrary, to regard the hiring of day
labourers as a very characteristic feature of the rural bourgeoisie.

Lastly, as regards rented land, the data show, here too, the same
concentration of it in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. Let us note
that the combined tables of the Saratov statisticians do not show the
number of peasants who rent land and lease it out, but only the total land
rented and leased out [4] ; we have, therefore, to determine the amount of land rented and leased per
existing , and not per renting household.

Thus we see, here too, that the wealthier the peasants the more
they rent land, despite the fact that they are better provided
with allotment land. Here too we see that the well-to-do are ousting the
middle peasantry, and that the role of allotment land in peasant farming
tends to diminish at both poles of the countryside.

Let us examine in greater detail these data on land renting. With them are
connected the very interesting and important investigations and arguments
of Mr. Karyshev (quoted Results ) and Mr. N.–on’s “corrections” to them.

Mr. Karyshev devotes a special chapter (III) to “the dependence of
land renting on the prosperity of the lessees.” The general
conclusion he arrives at is that, “ other things being equal , the struggle for rentable land tends to go in favour of the
better-off” (p. 156). “The relatively more prosperous households . . . push the less prosperous ones into the background”
(p. 154). We see, consequently, that the conclusion drawn from a general
review of Zemstvo statistical data is the same as that to which we are led
by the data we are studying. Moreover, a study of the dependence of the
amount of rented land on the size of the allotment led Mr. Karyshev to the
conclusion that classification according to allotment “obscures the
meaning of the phenomenon that interests us” (p. 139): “land
renting . . . is more resorted to by a) the categories that are
worse provided with land, but by b) the groups within them that are better provided. Evidently, we have here two
diametrically opposed influences, the confusion of which prevents the understanding of either” ( ibid .). This
conclusion follows naturally if we consistently adhere to the viewpoint
that distinguishes the peasant groups according to economic strength ; we have seen everywhere in our data that the well-to-do
peasants grab rentable land, despite the fact that they are better
provided with allotment land. It is clear that the degree of prosperity of
the household is the determining factor in the renting of land,
and that this factor merely undergoes a change but does not cease to be
determining, with the change in the conditions of land allotment and
renting. But, although Mr. Karyshev investigated the influence of
“prosperity,” he did not adhere consistently to the viewpoint
mentioned, and therefore characterised the phenomenon inaccurately , speaking of the direct connection between the
degree to which the lessee is supplied with land and the renting of
land. This is one point. Another point is that the one-sidedness of
Mr. Karyshev’s investigation prevented him from appraising the full
significance of the way rentable land is grabbed by the rich peasants. In
his study of “non-allotment renting”, he limits himself to
summarising the Zemstvo statistics on land renting, without taking account
of the lessees’ own farms. Naturally, with such a method of study, a
more formal one, the problem of the relation between land renting and the
“prosperity,” of the commercial character of land renting
could not be solved. Mr. Karyshev, for example, was in possession of the
same data on Kamyshin Uyezd as we are, but he limited himself to
reproducing absolute figures only of land renting (see Appendix No. 8,
p. XXXVI) and to calculating the average amount of rented land per
allotment holding household (text, p. 143). The concentration of land
renting in the hands of the well-to-do peasants, its industrial character,
its connection with land leasing by the bottom group of the peasantry,
were all overlooked. Thus, Mr. Karyshev could not but see that the Zemstvo
statistics refute the Narodnik notion of land renting and show that the
poor are ousted by the well-to-do peasants; but he gave an inaccurate
description of this phenomenon, did not study it from all sides and came
into conflict with the data, repeating the old song about the
“labour principle,” etc. But even the mere statement of the
fact of economic discord and conflict among the peasantry seemed heresy to
the Narodniks, and they proceeded to “correct” Mr. Karyshev in their own way. Here is how
Mr. N.–on does it, “using,” as he says (p. 153, note), Mr. N. Kablukov’s arguments against Mr. Karyshev. In § IX of his
Sketches , Mr. N.–on discusses land renting and the various forms
it assumes. “When a peasant,” he says, “has sufficient land to enable him to obtain his livelihood by tilling his own, he does
not rent any land” (152). Thus, Mr. N.–on flatly denies the
existence of entrepreneur activity in peasant land renting and the
grabbing of rentable land by rich peasants engaged in commercial crop
growing. His proof? Absolutely none: the theory of “people’s
production” is not proved, but laid down as law. In answer to
Mr. Karyshev, Mr. N.–on quotes a table from the Zemstvo abstract for
Khvalynsk Uyezd showing that “the number of draught animals being
equal, the smaller the allotment the more must this deficiency be
compensated by renting” (153), [5] and again, “if the peasants are placed in
absolutely identical conditions as regards the possession of animals, and
if they have sufficient workers in their households, then the smaller the
allotment they have, the more the land they rent” (154). The reader
will see that such “conclusions” are merely a quibble at
Mr. Karyshev’s inaccurate formulation, that Mr. N.–on’s empty
trifles simply obscure the issue of the connection between land renting
and prosperity. Is it not self-evident that where an equal number of
draught animals is possessed, the less land a household has, the more it
rents? That goes without saying, for it is the very prosperity whose
differences are under discussion that is taken as equal. Mr. N.–on’s assertion that peasants with sufficient land do
not rent land is not in any way proved by this, and his tables merely show
that he does not understand the figures he quotes: by comparing the
peasants as to amount of allotment land held, he brings out the more
strikingly the role of “prosperity” and the grabbing of
rentable land in connection with the leasing of land by the poor (leasing
it to these same well-to-do peasants, of course.) [6]

Let the reader recall the data we have quoted on the distribution of rented land in Kamyshin Uyezd; imagine that we have
singled out the peasants with “an equal number of draught
animals” and, dividing them into categories according to allotment
and into subdivisions according to the number of persons working, we
declare that the less land a peasant has, the more he rents, etc. Does
such a method result in the disappearance of the group of well-to-do
peasants? Yet Mr. N.–on, with his empty phrases, has succeeded in
bringing about its disappearance and has been enabled to repeat the old
prejudices of Narodism.

Mr. N.–on’s absolutely useless method of computing the land rented
by peasants per household according to groups with 0, 1, 2, etc., persons
working is repeated by Mr. L. Maress in the book The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices , etc. (I, 34). Here is a little example of
the “averages” boldly employed by Mr. Maress (as by the other
contributors to this book, written from a biased Narodnik point of
view). In Melitopol Uyezd, he argues, the amount of rented land per
renting household is 1.6 dess. in households having no working males, 4.4
dess. in households having one working male, 8.3 in households having two,
and 14.0 in households having three (p. 34). And the conclusion is that
there is an “approximately equal per-capita distribution of rented
land”!! Mr. Maress did not think it necessary to examine the
actual distribution of rented land according to groups of
households of different economic strength, although he was in a position
to learn this both from Mr. V. Postnikov’s book and from the Zemstvo
abstracts. The “average” figure of 4.4 dess. of rented land
per renting household in the group of households having one working male
was obtained by adding together such figures as 4 dess . in the group of households cultivating 5 to 10 dess. and with 2
to 3 draught animals, and 38 dess . in the group of households
cultivating over 50 dess. of land and with 4 and more draught
animals. (See Returns for Melitopol Uyezd, p. D.10-11.) It is not
surprising that by adding together the rich and the poor and
dividing the total by the number of items added, one can obtain
“equal distribution” wherever desired!

Actually, however, in Melitopol Uyezd 21% of the households, the rich ones
(those with 25 dess. and more under crops), comprising 29.5% of the
peasant population, account—despite the fact that they are best
provided with allotment and purchased land—for 66.3% of the total rented arable
(Returns for Melitopol Uyezd, p. B. 190-194). On the other hand, 40% of
the households, the poor ones (those with up to 10 dess. under crops),
comprising 30.1 % of the peasant population, account—despite the
fact that they are worst provided with allotment and purchased
land—for 5.6% of the total rented arable. As can be seen, this
closely resembles “equal per-capita distribution”!

Mr. Maress bases all his calculations of peasant land-renting on the
“assumption” that “the renting households are mainly in
the two groups worst provided” (provided with allotment land ); that “among the renting population there is equal per
capita ( sic !) distribution of rented land”; and that “the renting of land enables the peasants to pass from the groups
worst provided to those best provided” (34-35). We have already
shown that all these “assumptions” of Mr. Maress directly contradict the facts . Actually, the very contrary is the case, as
Mr. Maress could not but have noted, had he—in dealing with
inequalities in economic life (p. 35)—taken the data for the
classification of households according to economic indices (instead of
according to allotment tenure ), and not limited himself to the
unfounded “assumption” of Narodnik prejudices.

Let us now compare Kamyshin Uyezd with other uyezds in Saratov
Gubernia. The ratios between the peasant groups are everywhere the same,
as is shown by the following data for the four uyezds (Volsk, Kuznetsk,
Balashov and Serdobsk) in which, as we have said, the middle and the
well-to-do peasants are combined:

Hence, we see everywhere the ousting of the poor by the prosperous
peasants. But in Kamyshin Uyezd the well-to-do peasantry are more numerous
and richer than in the other uyezds. Thus, in five uyezds of the gubernia
(including the Kamyshin Uyezd) the households are distributed according to
draught animals held as follows: with no draught animals—25.3%; with
1 animal—25.5%; with 2—20%; with 3—10.8%; and with 4 and
more—18.4%, whereas in Kamyshin Uyezd, as we have seen, the
well-to-do group is larger, and the badly-off group somewhat
smaller. Further, if we combine the middle and well-to-do peasantry, i.e.,
if we take the households with 2 draught animals and more, we get the
following data for the respective uyezds:

This means that in Kamyshin Uyezd the prosperous peasants are richer. This
uyezd is one of those with the greatest abundance of land: 7.1 dess. of
allotment land per registered person, [12] male, as against 5.4 dess. for the
gubernia. Hence, the land-abundance of the “peasantry” merely
means the greater numbers and greater wealth of the peasant bourgeoisie.

In concluding this review of the data for Saratov Gubernia, we consider it
necessary to deal with the classification of the peasant households. As
the reader has probably observed, we reject a limine [7] any classification
according to allotment and exclusively employ classification according to
economic strength (draught animals, area under crops). The reasons for
adopting this system must be given. Classification according to allotment is far more widespread in our Zemstvo statistics, and in its
defence the two following, at first sight very convincing, arguments are
usually

advanced. [8]

It is said, firstly, that to study the life of the agricultural peasants
it is natural and necessary to classify them according to land. This
argument ignores a fundamental feature of Russian life, namely, the unfree
character of allotment-land tenure, in that by force of law it bears an
equalitarian character, and that the purchase and sale of allotment land
is hindered in the extreme. The whole process of the differentiation of
the agricultural peasantry is one of real life evading these legal
bounds. In classifying the peasants according to allotment, we lump
together the poor peasant who leases out land and the rich peasant who
rents or buys land; the poor peasant who abandons the land and the rich
peasant who “gathers” land; the poor peasant who runs his most
wretched farm with an insignificant number of animals and the rich peasant
who owns many animals, fertilises his soil, introduces improvements.,
etc., etc. In other words, we lump together the rural proletarian and the
members of the rural bourgeoisie. The “averages” thus obtained
obscure the differentiation , and are therefore purely fictitious. [9]

The combined tables of the Saratov statisticians described above enable us to demonstrate clearly the
uselessness of classification according to allotment. Take, for example,
the category of non-allotment peasants in Kamyshin Uyezd (see Combined Returns , p. 450 and foll., the Returns for Kamyshin Uyezd, Vol. XI,
p. 174 and foll.). The compiler of the Combined Returns , in
describing this category, says that the area under crops is “very
negligible” (“Introduction”, p. 45), i.e., he assigns it
to the category of the poor. Let us take the tables. The
“average” area under crops in this category is 2.9 dess. per
household. But see how this “average” was reached: by adding
together the big crop growers (18 dess. per household in the group with 5
and more draught animals; the households in this group constitute about
1/8 of the whole category, but they possess about half of this
category’s area under crops) and the poor, the horseless peasants,
with 0.2 dess. per household! Take the households employing farm
labourers. There are very few of them in this category—77 in all, or
2.5%. But of these 77 there are 60 in the top group, in which the area
cultivated is 18 dess. per household; and in this group the households
employing farm labourers constitute 24.5%. Clearly, we obscure the
differentiation of the peasantry, depict the propertyless peasants in a
better light than they actually are (by adding the rich to them and
striking averages), while, on the contrary, we depict the well-to-do
peasants as being of lesser strength, because the category of peasants
with large allotments includes, in addition to the majority, the well-off,
also the badly-off (it is a known fact that even the large-allotment
village communities always include indigent peasants). We are now clear,
too, as to the incorrectness of the second argument in defence of
classification according to allotment. It is argued that by such
classification the indices of economic strength (number of animals, area
under crops, etc.) always show a regular increase according to the
increase in the size of the allotment. That is an undoubted fact, for the
allotment is one of the major factors of well-being. Where, consequently,
the peasants are large-allotment holders there are always more members of
the peasant bourgeoisie and, as a result, the “average”
allotment figures for the whole category are raised. All this, however,
gives no grounds whatever for inferring that a method combining the rural bourgeoisie with the rural
proletariat is correct.

We conclude: in systematising peasant household statistics one should not
limit oneself to classification according to allotment. Economic
statistics must necessarily take the scale and type of farm as
the basis of classification. The indices for distinguishing these types
should be taken in conformity with local conditions and forms of
agriculture, while in dealing with extensive grain farming, one can limit
oneself to classifying according to area under crops (or to the number of
draught animals); under other conditions one must take account of the area
under industrial crops, the technical processing of agricultural produce,
the cultivation of root crops or of fodder grasses, dairy farming,
vegetable growing, etc. When the peasantry combine agricultural and
industrial occupations on a large scale, a combination of the two systems
of classification is necessary, i.e., of classification according to the
scale and type of agriculture, and of classification according to the
scale and type of “industries.” The methods of summarising
peasant household returns are not such a narrowly specific and second-rate
problem as one might imagine at first sight. On the contrary, it will be
no exaggeration to say that at the present time it is the basic problem of
Zemstvo statistics. The completeness of household returns and the
technique of collecting them [10] have reached a high degree of perfection, but
owing to unsatisfactory summarising, a vast amount of most valuable
information is simply lost, and the investigator has at his disposal
merely “average” figures (for village communities, volosts,
categories of peasants, size of allotment, etc.). But these
“averages,” as we have seen already, and shall see later, are
often absolutely fictitious.

---
Notes:
[1]
For the other four uyezds of this gubernia the classification according to
draught animals held merges the middle and well-to-do peasantry. See
Combined Statistical Returns for Saratov Gubernia , Part 1,
Saratov, 1888. B. Combined Tables for Saratov Gubernia according to
categories of peasants—The Saratov statisticians compiled their
combined tables as follows: all the householders are divided into six
categories according to size of allotment, each category is
divided into six groups according to the number of draught
animals, and each group is divided into four subdivisions
according to the number of working males in the family. Summarised data
are given only for the categories , so that we have to calculate
those for the groups ourselves. We shall deal with the significance of this table later on.— Lenin

[2]
Let us note that when classifying households according to economic
strength, or to size of farm, we always get larger families among
the well-to-do strata of the peasantry. This phenomenon points to the
connection between the peasant bourgeoisie and large families, which
receive a larger number of allotments; partly it shows the opposite: it
indicates the lesser desire of the well-to-do peasantry to divide up the
land. One should not, however, exaggerate the significance of large
families among the well-to-do peasants, who, as our figures show, resort
in the greatest measure to the employment of hired labour. The
“family co-operation” of which our Narodniks are so fond of
talking is thus the basis of capitalist co-operation.— Lenin

[3]
We say “processing” because the data on peasant industries collected in the house-to-house
censuses are very comprehensive and detailed.— Lenin

[4]
The total amount of arable leased out in the uyezd is 61,639 dess., i.e., about 1/6 , of the aggregate
allotment arable (377,305 dess.).— Lenin

[5]
An exactly similar table is given by the statisticians for Kamyshin
Uyezd. Statistical Returns for Saratov Gubernia , Vol. XI Kamyshin
Uyezd, p. 249 and foll. We can just as well, therefore make use of the
data for the uyezd we have taken.— Lenin

[6]
That the data quoted by Mr. N.–on refute his conclusions has already been
pointed to by Mr. P. Struve in his Critical Remarks .— Lenin

[7]
At once.— Ed .

[8]
See, for example, the introductions to the Combined Returns for
Saratov Gubernia, to the Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia,
and to Evaluation Returns for four uyezds of Voronezh Gubernia,
and other Zemstvo statistical publications.— Lenin

[9]
We take this rare opportunity of expressing our agreement with Mr. V. V.,
who in his magazine articles of 1885 and subsequent years welcomed
“the new type of Zemstvo statistical publications,” namely,
the combined tables, which make it possible to classify household data not
only according to allotment, but also according to economic
strength. “The statistical data,” wrote Mr. V. V. at that
time, “must be adapted to the groups themselves and not to such a conglomeration of the most diverse economic groups of peasants as the village or the village community ” (V. V., “A New Type of
Local Statistical Publication,” pp. 189 and 190 in Severny Vestnik [ Northern Herald ], 1885, No. 3. Quoted in the
“Introduction” to the Combined Returns for Saratov
Gubernia, p. 36). To our extreme regret in none of his later works has
Mr. V. V. made any effort to glance at the data on the various groups of
the peasantry, and, as we have seen, he has even ignored the factual part
of the book by Mr. V. Postnikov, who was probably the first to attempt the
arrangement of the data according to the various groups of the peasantry
and not according to “conglomerations of the most diverse
groups”. Why is this?— Lenin

[10]
About the technique of Zemstvo censuses see, in addition to the
above-mentioned publications., the article by Mr. Fortunatov in Vol. I of
Results of Zemstvo Statistical Investigation . Specimens of
household registration cards are reproduced in the “Introduction” to the Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia and to the Combined Returns for Saratov Gubernia ,
in the Statistical Returns for Orel Gubernia (Vol. II, Yelets Uyezd ) and in Material for the Statistical Survey of Perm Gubernia , Krasnoufimsk Uyezd , Vol. IV. The Perm registration
card is particularly comprehensive.— Lenin

[11]
Sarpinka —a thin striped or check cotton cloth; originally
made in Sarepta.

[12]
The registered males were those members of the male population of
feudal Russia subject to the poll-tax (the peasantry and urban middle
class were chiefly affected) and to this end were recorded in special
censuses (so-called “registrations”). Such “registrations” took place in Russia from 1718 onwards; the
tenth and last ”registration was made in 1857-1859.” In a
number of districts redistribution of the land within the village
communities took place on the basis of those recorded in the
“registration” lists.