REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE’S WORKS92
A
AN ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM STUMPFE’S ARTICLE, “ON THE COMPETITIVENESS OF SMALL
AND MEDIUM LAND HOLDINGS AS
COMPARED WITH LARGE LAND HOLDINGS”
Stumpfe. “Über die Konkurrenzfähigkeit des kleinen und mittleren Grundbesitzes gegenüber dem Grossgrund-
besitze.”
Thiels landwirtschaftliche
Jahrbücher, 1896, Band 5.
Stumpfe comes straight to the point by saying that if large units in agriculture were superior to the small, as they
are in industry, the law on the settlement of Eastern Prussia
would have been a mistake, and the Social-Democrats would have been right (p. 58).
According to the 1882 data, medium farms (10-
100 ha!!) = 12.4% of the farms and 47.6% of the land— hence the “great economic importance of the peasantry” !
(p. 58).
9 farms [Big and medium—kept books. Small farms— “strongest mistrust” p. 59].
Group
I. Glogau district—sandy soil, rye and potatoes.
”
II. Neumarkt and Breslau districts—good soil, beet crops, very intensive.
”
III. Liegnitz district—lower intensiveness, weaker root crops.


How
Land
Crop yield much classification
Crop area per Morgen
Livestock land
Class ha ha
Centners ha?
rye potato horses horned cattle
Big farm
1,033
V—


7.5

23& 170
{1892-93}
VI— 203 (1,903
VII— 198
Morgen)
VIII—

Medium
21.25
? almost


2&

farm the same oats: 7.5 (&6 pigs)
land
Note No. 1*
Small
11.25
V— 0.25

5.25
?
1&

farm
VI— 3 (&4 pigs)
VII— 3.50
VIII— 3
Big farm
471.5
I— 212.5
361w
10.7 beet
30& 180 (1892-93)
II— 120.5

III— 59.0 wheat
12.75 (111 sheep**)
Medium
51.5
III—25
47.5
8.9 beet
6& 29 farm
IV— 13

(14 pigs)
V— 4
VI— 0.75 wheat
11.3
Small
8.5
II— 1
7.25
?
0&

farm
III— 4 (6 pigs)
IV— 3.5
Big farm

?
?
?
29& 173 (1893-94)
324 sheep
47 pigs
Medium
40.75
III— 11.5
37.25
?
7& 29 farm
IV—22.25
19 pigs
V— 3.5
Small
8.0
III— 3.60
7.75
?
?
farm
IV— 1.75
V— 2.60
* See p. 236.—Ed.
**
-
Group III
Group II
Group I
Group I
A figure denoting the increase of sheep in 1892 93.—Ed.


Receipts (marks)
Amount
Sales grain livestock
Sundries
Farm (Total and milk economy recelpts)
38,136
27,289
62,111
5,500
133,489 distillation (“on manor
&453* account”)
1,257

—
—
2,015


—
—
1,109
64,476 milk
21,357 beet
46,144 from lease
1ûù,û14
&
livestock
19,370 potatoes
2,866
&
1,457 sheep
6,455 fruits
5,852 (=stocks in in general
4,767 hand)
5,574
4,050 beet rape and clover
11,060
&198* potatoes

1,010
1,095
—
—
ù,10ú
34,334
18,201 potatoes
1,145 from lease
68,667 other cereals receipts

&seed from
12,005 sheepyard
2,865
3,584 live- potatoes clover 153
8,544 stock
1,910 pigs 1, 0 0 7 milk poultry

&530*
632 livestock
176 beet

1,478 milk

155 =cucumbers pigs and cabbage (ctd on next page)
* Stumpfe lists these receipts (453, 198 and 530 marks) under the head
of “Insgemein” (“General Receipts”).—Ed.


[ctd]
Outlays
a) taxes
a) salaries
purchases
a) building
b) fire
and wages
a) livestock
repairs and hail of farm-
Sundries
b) feed
b) transporta-
total insur- hands
c) artificial
tion, car- ance
b) day wages
fertilisers riage, mail
c) others
a)

7,093
4,939 a)
12,506
1,617
111,398
&
&
(farm requirements)
&
b)
2,120
19,221
36,593 b)
11,175
1,162 (distillation)
&
c)
11,796
2,223

a


&

(sundries)
—
(blacksmith, b
—
saddle-maker cartwright)
a
4 2
6 3


a & b = 33 &

&
—
(blacksmith, b

—
etc.)
a)
1,374 a)
9,933 sundries: 2,355 a)
14,557 a)

b)

b)
24,725 purchase of b)
24,552 b)
1 , 1 1 1
1 ù 0, 3 ú 0
1,084 c)
4,089 grain=5,423 c)
10 ,052 c)
2,914 food for steam plough = sheepyard
6,168 = pay to farm-hands
2,530 expenses= artisans
4,962
1,595 heating
1,500 firewood and timber a a purchase of seed a)

general expenses
&

&
1,560

b)


ú, ú 0 0 b b c)

275 black- smith, etc.
a)

—
a)

blacksmith, b)

sundries: 65 b)

etc. 3 1 ú 0 3 a)
1,288 a)
5,336
2,836 a)
2,070 a)

38,298 b)
2,238 b)
13,228 firewood and coal b)
5,320 b)


sundries: 661 c)

c)

farm- hands sheepyard expenses seeds: 177
2,714 and food
11 3 artisans a)

a
2 62 a)

a)
—
4,6 33
&
1,137 artisans b)

b)
—
b)

b

old-age insur- c)

c)

food for ance=34 seed 147 farm- hands a)

—
general 68 a)


b)

b)

blacksmith, c)

etc.
!
!
!
!
!
!


Profit (less
Net
Same remuneration income per ha to owner)
marks
22,091
20,591
36.72
Big
— 1,500 farm
1,390
1,040
50.12
Medium
Group I
—
350 (!!)
farm


52.20
Small
—
300 (!!)
farm
52,364
50,864
118.40
Big
— 1,500 farm
5,566
5,116
99.32
Medium
Group II
—

farm
1,602
1,152
135.56
Small
—

farm
30,369
29,469
76.04
Big
—

farm
3,911
3,461
84.92
Medium
Group III
—

farm
1,608

89.72
Small
—

farm
PNNNNMNNNNQ
PNNNNMNNNNQ
PNNNNMNNNNQ


Notes 
 
to 
 
Tables*
No. 1. “It was impossible to establish the land assessment
there (medium farm of Group I), but the ploughland was almost of the same quality as on the landowner’s estate (big
farm I), possibly slightly more uniform” (p. 63).
About Group I, the author (who was employed on the estate for two years and has a knowledge of the countryside
(p. 66)), says:
While, on the strength of the big outlays under the head
of feed and artificial fertilisers, and also the large expen-
diture on wages, and taking account of the sandy soil, the landowner’s estate should be characterised as highly
intensive and undoubtedly quite up to the modern standard,
the very opposite has to be said of the two peasant farms.
“In almost every respect they are still being run on the old
lines, and their production should be classified as extensive,
in terms of capital and labour. No feed or fertilisers are purchased; on the contrary, considerable quantities
of straw and also rye and potatoes, especially, are sold.
In consequence, there is insufficient compensation of nutri-
tive substances.... The result is worse crops and a shortage
of livestock.
“The stubbornness with which local peasants stick to their old habits is very hard to understand, especially in
view of the good example they daily have before them, which could, after all, stimulate them to competition.
However, in the recent period, it appears, there, too, a
turn for the better is beginning” (p. 61).
Remuneration for the owner’s labour is reckoned at
7,500 for the big farm (the usual salary of a manager!!) ÷ 5
(the owner has 5 estates!!) = 1,500. For the medium farm—
350 (“the usual pay for the country” (p. 64) for managing
such a farm!). For the small farm—300 (“a unit!!! half the size of the preceding one” p. 66).
No size of family is given.
Concerning Group II, Stumpfe remarks that the farms are not quite comparable, because the landisbetter
on the big farm (the whole farm is a pearl among the Sile-
sian estates (p. 74), according to a professor from Halle!!),
* See pp. 232-36.—Ed.
Sic!
!??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


and it is muchbetter situated, only 1 mile from
Breslau (the small farms are much farther away). Still!!
small farming is particularly profitable!!!
About the medium farm of Group II: “But the espe- cially great advantage of peasant farming is that it is
entirely in the owner’s hands, and that work in one’s own interest and for one’s personal profit will nearly
always be of higher value, and more economical and profitable than work in the interest of others” (p. 69).
For the small farm, remuneration is 450 marks = (1)
for the owner—350 & (2) 100 marks to his wife’s parents,
who substitute for hired labour (pp. 72-73). [I must say
that the substitution is cheap!]
The medium farm is said to be on the modern level as well,
and is in general quite faultless, not worse than the big farm.
(No detailed data on machinery!!)
The village has an amalgamated dairy, and there is joint use of machinery, joint purchase of fertilisers, etc.
About Group III we learn only that the big farm is excel-
lently run (p. 74) [The entire description of Group III
is highly superficial (pp. 74-77).]
Stumpfe’s conclusion: the smaller the holding, the larger the rent (p. 77).
...There is not the slightest doubt that on peasant farms where the owner takes due care of the progress
of operations or takes part in them himself, the work is performed qualitatively and quantitatively very
differently from the way it is done on the landowners’ estates, with the exception, perhaps, of the quanti-
tative side in case of piecework (p. 78).
...which is why, despite the partially insignificant gross
income, the net profit of the small farms was still higher...
(p. 78).
Group I. Receipts in marks from (p. 78)
cropping livestock general total farming total per total
per total per total per
4 ha
4 ha
4 ha
4 ha
Big farm
63,652
28. 37
27,289
12.16

0. 34
91,715
40. 89
Medium ”
1,257
15. 14

9.13
—
—
2,015
24. 27
Small
”

15. 46

12.27
—
—
1,109
27. 72
!
^^!!
 !!


etc., etc., the same thing all over again.
The peasant is also able to slash his expenses in the household budget (p. 80), etc.
The same: p. 8 3 (“living within their means”)
He argues that there is a tendency on the part of sugar and
distillation enterprises to branch out from agriculture, etc.,
and that c o-operatives place the advantages also within
reach of the small farms (p. 85), etc. (cf. David—echoes this).
The machine does not play the same part in agriculture (c f. David!).
“It is at any rate beyond doubt that the steam plough does not at all reduce production costs” (p. 87)
(cf. Bensing and Fischer)
The small farmer doestherepairshim- self (!!) (p. 92) and his implements last longer
(p. 92)—“This is undoubtedly also connected with the higher earnings of artisans on the big farms (not
because the big ones pay more, but because) there are all sorts of discards of tools and wood ends, which
would be in use on a small farm for a long time yet (!!). In general, this effort to make use even of the
smallest objects, this possibility of pressing down to a minimum expenses on the farm’s small current
requirements is an important characteristic advantage of the small farm...” (p. 92).
The Social-Democrats have also issued their threats in the countryside—there will be strikes as well, and
all this is a much greater danger to the big farms (94).
The big farmer’s expenses on labour are higher, because he has to feed whole families of labourers,
whereas the small farmer for the most part takes on unmarried men, and although the labourer’s
food is considerably better on the peasant farms and is, consequently, costlier than on the land-
owners’ estates, we have here, on the other hand, the resultant much higher productivity of labour
by young, strong and well-fed labourers, and this fact is of great importance, especially since much
account has to be taken also of the incentive and educational element in the owner’s preliminary
and joint work (p. 95).
!!
 !! {
 !!
!!
N.B.


“All the organisation of the work on the big and small farms, in Silesia at least, is such that there
isdecidedlynoreasontodoubt the lower cost of labour on the peasant farms” (p. 96).
—again there is mention of the stimulating influence of the labour of the owner and his
children (p. 96). The peasants provide better food for the farm-hands.
Disability and old-age insurance is another burden on the big farm:
Group II total 490 marks big farm 0.30 marks

”
medium
”
0.16
”
per Morgen

”
small
”

”
(p. 101) The Social-Democrat gentlemen have blundered badly over agriculture....
p. 102. Sering on settlement (“putting labour at
the disposal” of the landowning gentlemen!!),— and “Landed estates are unable to compete with
the immense capital which is contained in the hands and feet of these men [the settlers]”
(Sering, quoted p. 102).
p. 106: the big farms are mostly superior in
commercial terms, but the co-operatives will help the peasant.
p. 108: the peasants usually sell their corn and
livestock less profitably [but that is said to be balanced out by other things].
“It is not the German Junker that is the enemy of the peasant; the two have, apart from inessen-
tial issues which are mostly of internal importance, the same interests and the same adversaries. This
is a conviction which has lately been strongly making its way” (p. 1 1 3).
There you have Stumpfe!
Written between June 1901 and March 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXI
N.B.
!
!
N.B.
!