FROM H. AUHAGEN’S ARTICLE, “ON LARGE- AND SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION
IN AGRICULTURE”70
Hubert Auhagen, “Ueber Gross- und Kleinbetrieb in der Landwirtschaft” (Thiels Jahrb ü cher, Band
25, Jahrgang 1896. S. 1-55).
The village of Clauen (Hannover province) (Peine District)
I —4.625 ha


Excellent
II —26.50 ”


example!!
drainage
The author says that he tried to find a village with a “possibly uniform soil” (p. 1), but does not give any soil
classification for I and II.
Both farms are among the best in the area (p. 1).
Cultivation of land—see separatesheet .*
In I, cows are used in ploughing and on working days (105)
receive more feed. On hot summer days, they are overworked
(p. 9), but then the owner gives them more fodder beet.
in
I—
4 8 0 marks (3% = 14.40)
cf. table**
II— 3, 0 0 0
”
(3% = 90.00)
The same value of the product is taken. There are no facts.
On the small farms, the cattle are given better care:
“The cattle fatten under the owner’s eye” (p. 27).
* See p. 134.—Ed.
** See p. 130.—Ed.
Auhagen is definitely for small farming
Drainage
PNNMNNQ
!
!
!
!
PMQ
PMQ
PNMNQ
!
!


In I and I, the same system and character of farming.
Not so livestock farming. In II, the cattle are fattened for slaughter and are not bred, and in I,
each head of cattle has been raised on the farm (p. 28).
It is very, very common for the big peasant to buy lean cattle from the small peasant and fatten them
up—all over Germany (p. 28): small farming has advantages over big farming in the raising of cattle
(p. 29).
Maintenance of structures—the small peasant mostly repairs everything himself (p. 30).
In II dead stock is on a very high level (machines), but I is not backward (p. 31), for the small peasant
makes do (!!) just as well with simpler implements.
Depreciation in I—2%, in II—6%. II has had a cart for 10-12 years; I has farmed  years
after his father, and has not bought a cart, and does not remember hisfatherbuying
oneeither , and he had farmed for 30 years.
Small implements are used on small farms to the utmost (31).
II spends 3,872.93 marks on hired labour=
36.53 per Morgen, while the small peasant economises on all this, because he is both master
andlabourer (p. 3 3, toowordy).
That is the tremendous advantage of small farming!!!
Small farming—dearth of land.
The buyer of a small holding is usually very well aware that it would be better for him, financially speaking, to work for a daily wage and
in addition to receive an income in the form of interest on his capital. But he rejects this
higher profit for the sake of greater convenience (33)....
In the coal area of Saarbrücken “these small holders make up the best nucleus of the mine workers”
(33)—as the author was told by a factory manager at Neunkirchen, and, contrary to Social-Democratic agitation, Auhagen believes:
N.B.
 !
 !!
PNMNQ

V. I. LENIN

“The best thing the state could do in this area to solve the labour problem is to help workers to
acquire small plots of land, by granting credits” (33).
Advantage of I: “He (the small peasant) frequently has the assistance of his children about
the farm almost as soon as they learn to run” (34)!
Pp. 39-40—an example of the thriftiness of the small peasant (cited by Kautsky): a wife wore out one
pair of shoes in 17 years of married life, etc., etc.
Why I has higher crop yields
1) more thorough working of the fields—work
themselves; “The ordinary day labourer, especially on the
big farms, thinks as he works: ‘I wish the holiday would come round sooner’; whereas the
small peasant, in doing all kinds of urgent work anyway, hopes, ‘I wish I could have another
couple of hours today’” (p. 42).
2) I does his work in time: he has more labour
per hectare. The small peasant can getup earlierandgotobedlate (43)
when time is very short.
3) I is not afraid of work: beetles were collected
by hand.
4) I takes in his crop faster, the grain has no time
to drop.
5) I has better seed material: it is, picked by hand
in winter (no grain-sorter!).
6) I uses more fertilisers, because he has more cattle
(nofigures).
Sale
I= 3,400.80—735.31 per hectare
II= 14,097.41—531.98 per hectare
The net income is also higher (see table of per cent on capital*).
Auhagen himself is aware that the living standards are different (p. 49) and excludes housekeeping (seetable**)
* See p. 131.—Ed.
** See pp. 130-31.—Ed.
 !
 !
N.B.
PMQ


—but what I should like to point out, as a phenomenon common for the whole of Germany, is the
higher rent on small peasant farms as compared with the big peasant farms and landed estates (49)
that is why land fetches more under small farming.
Fragmentation of estates ... leads to ... an increase in the value of the nationalproperty (50)
Auhagen admits that the small peasants are more liable to have backward systems of farming
(51). These are impossible among big peasants:
they can hold on only by improving. But progress comes not only from the big farm, but also from
the well-to-do owner (!).
Remarks on various parts of Germany (cursorily on the advantages of different-size farms in different areas).
“Ausgebaute” (those who settle on separate farmsteads outside the village) mostly run their farms better (54-55);
there is more routine in the village.
Receipts
I
II
I.
Cash from sales:
marks marks products of field cropping . . . . . .
1,596.40
7,991.15
”
”
vegetable gardening . . . .
—

”
”
livestock farming . . . . .
1,804.40
21,171.26
Other receipts (payments for tillage and cartage) .
. .
. . . . . . . . . .


Total receipts in kind . . . . . . . .
3,028.80*
29.452.41
II.
For use in household:
products of field cropping . . . . . .


”
”
vegetable gardening . . . .


”
”
livestock farming . . . . .
346.15
233.50
558.15
461.50
III.
For feeding hired labourers:
products of field cropping . . . . . .
—

”
”
vegetable gardening . . . .
—

”
”
livestock farming . . . . .
—
377.04
—
762.04
Total receipts in kind .
. . . . . . .
558.15
1,223.54
* So in the original.—Ed.
Sic!
P
M
Q

V. I. LENIN

Outlays
I
II
A. Farming costs
marks marks
Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
63.55
321.54
Insurance . . . . . . . . . .
. .
89.95
600.13
Maintenance and depreciation of drainage (3%) . . . . . . . . .
. .
14.40
90.00
Depreciation of capital in structures (w%) . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
47.25
187.50 (α
Maintenance of structures . . .
. .
15.00
178.60 (β
Depreciation of dead stock (2%) and
 6%!!!) . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
14.42
291.66 (γ
Maintenance of dead stock
. . .
. .
15.00
285.05
Restocking of livestock . . . . .
. .
—
15,641.00*)
Hired labour . . . . . . . . .
. .
—
3,872.93
Artificial fertilisers. . . . . . .
. .
198.00
2,052.00
Concentrated feed . . . . . . .
. .
141.50
1,537.50
Cost of pairing . . . . . . . .
. .
8.00
—
Veterinary . . . . . . . . . .
. .
6.00
48.00
Restocking of seed. . . . . . .
. .
2.80
60.00
Sundries
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
6.00
35.09
Total farming costs . . . . . .
. .
621.87
25,200.91
B. Housekeeping costs
Income tax
. . . . . . . . .
. .
12.00
104.00
Church tithes. . . . . . . . .
. .
22.10
100.95
Products for farm . . . . . . .
. .
558.15
461.50
Supplementary purchase of potatoes
—

 ”
”
 ” meat . .
18.00
124.80
*) Including 14,355 for the purchase of 55 bull-calves sold for 19,420.50. Without this
!!
I has 0, whereas II has 1,286 marks α&β&γ
I has 44.42, II has 755.31
44.42
2,041.3
The total value of structures, dead and livestock
!!
implements =
9,151.60
43,259
N.B.
N.B.
N.B.
N.B.
P
M
Q
PMQ
PNNMNNQ
!
P
M
Q


I
II
marks marks
Groceries . . . . . . . . . .
. .
81.90
216.00
Clothes . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
220.00
588.00
Footwear . . . . . . . . . .
. .


Son at school*) . . . . . . .
. .
—

Doctor and pharmacy . . . . .
. .


Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . .
. .


Drinks . . . . . . . . . . .
. .


Festivities, etc. . . . . . . .
. .


Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
59.15
—
Sundries
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
35.20
—
Total housekeeping costs .
. .
1,158.50**)
2,736.25
Total outlays . . . . . .
. .
1,780.37**)
27,955.16
C
Total receipts
. . . . . . . . . .
3,586.95
30,675.95
Total outlays. . . . . . . . . . .—1,780.37
—27,955.16
In hand
. . . . . . . . . . . .
806.58**)71
2,720.79
% of selling price (33,651.6 and
 149,559). . . . . . . . . . . .
2.39%***)
Adding housekeeping costs to income (p. 49), we have: . . . . . . . .
1,965.08
5,457.04
% of selling price
. . . . . . . .
5.58%***)
3.71%
Total income from cropping . . . .
1,778 { ?p. 26 }
8,519.15 (p. 26) from livestock farming 2,150.55
6,613.80****)
Family:
I husband&wife
II husband&wife
2 daughters (16 and 9 yrs)
1 daughter (9 yrs)
5 persons. 1 son (7 yrs)
1 son—14 yrs*)
5 persons
1 nephew 17 yrs
----------------
*) Board and tuition fees.
**) Author is mistaken: 1,750.37 and 836.58, in view of the erroneous figure of 1,128.50 (cf. p. 48 and p. 13),
instead of 1,158.50.
***) Author is mistaken: !! 5.45% and !!! 8.81%, because
he takes the totals of 836.58 instead of 806.58, and 2,965.08
(sic!) instead of 1,965.08; what is more, he is very badly
out in his %% calculations!!!
****) Additional income from bull-calves sold for 19,420.5
= 5,065.50.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q

V. I. LENIN

I
II
Land 4.6250 ha
6.50 ha marks marks
Farmland ha at 5,400= 21,600 at 4,000=100,000
Meadow
0.50 at 3,800= 1,900
1.25 at 3,600=
4,500
Vegetable garden
0.125 at 8,000= 1,000
0.25 at 7,200=
1,800
4.625
24,500
26.50
106,300 (land II may be worse)
[reason for lower crop yields??]
Structures
6,300
25,000
Dead stock
721.20
4,861
Live ”
2,130.40
13,398
Total (selling price)
=33,651.60
149,559
I
II
Carriage . . . .

350 marks
Seed, drill . . .


”
Fertiliser spread- er . . . . . .


”
Harvesting machine . . . . .


”
Thresher . . . .


”
Grain cleaner . .


”
Cattle weighing machine. . . .


”
Plough . . . . .
25 (1)*
80 (2)* etc.
Labour
I
II
Family—3 family workers
4 family workers?? or 3?
(son at school)
(&help in threshing)
5—year round
Hired
—
6—from May 1 to Nov. 10
4—harvest (4-5 weeks)
3—threshing (4 weeks)
* Bracketed figures indicate number of ploughs.—Ed.
[
PNNNNMNNNNQ
P
M
Q


Consequently, working days 38360
1,440 (?1,080)
mine about=1,080
1,800
58360
1,140
68190 p.t.o.*

48 35
[about 100:400?]? about=100:450

38 28
4,604 ha ha total labour
Land
4.625
26.50

11.8
Land

5 7 3


Teams
I—3 cows
II—4 horses & 3 oxen
Livestock
I
marks
II
3 cows
1,260
1,200 (3)**
2 pigs


 oxen
270 (1)**
6,750 horses and oxen

4,950 (4) (3)** (25 bull-calves for fattening)** young stock
260 (2)**
Consequently, Mine, all in terms of cattle
I
II
I
II
Cattle . . . . . .


Horned&young stock . . . . . .


1.5
12.5
Pigs . . . . . . .


0.5
0.75
Sow&12 piglets
. .

0.5
—
5.5 total
23.25
* See pp. 136-37.—Ed.
** Figures in round brackets indicate head of cattle: see table on p. 136.—Ed.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
PNNNNNMNNNNNQ

P
M
Q
P
N
M
N
Q
P
N
M
N
Q

V. I. LENIN

Soil management
Cultivation.
Ploughing
Artificial fertilisers
Crop yield depth per ha in centners per ha
I
II
I
II
I
II
Sugar-beet
31.50
40.50
Fodder beet
25 cm
3 0 cm marks marks


similarly (32 cent.)
(42 cent.)
p. 6
Rye
6cm
1 5 cm
4 cent.
6 cent.


superphosphate
&
120 lbs
120-300
Chile saltpetre
Barley
6cm
1 5 cm
4 cent.
4 cent.


superphosphate
Potatoes
6 cm
1 0 cm
—
—


&
&
25 cm
20 cm
Beans
9 cm
 4 cm

1,440


cent. of stall manure
Clover
?
?
8 cent.
4 cent.


superphosphate
Winter wheat
5 cm
20 cm
480 cent.
8 cent.


of stall of super-
?
manure phosphate
And so, II’s cultivation and fertilisers are much better
and the crop yields much worse!! {II clearly has the worse
land} [No soil classification given]
I
II
Total outlays on artificial fertilisers= 198.0—2,052.0 marks
per 4 ha . . . 10.70— 19.36 marks
__
]]
]]
_
]
]
PNMNQ
!
!


Maintenance of cattle:
Pp. 8 and 0:
Feed for cattle
I
II
centner marks centner marks
Beans . . . . . .
44.64
290.16
250.0
1,625.00
Rye . . . . . . .
—
—
10.0
70.00
Wheat . . . . . .
0.40
3.20
15.0
120.00
Barley . . . . . .
19.81
118.86
67.0
402.00
Oats . . . . . . .
—
—
239.0
1,505.70
Sugar-beet top . . .
408.0
81.60
2,312.0
462.40
Fodder beet . . . .
192.0
96.00
—
—
Potatoes
. . . . .
10.20
20.40
—
—
Clover (dry) . . . .
65.0
195.00
210.0
630.0
Total
. . . .
805.22
4,815.10
Milk (I counted the prices) . . .
1,320
105.60

19.20 litres litres
Purchased feed . .

141.50

1,537.50 centners centners (My) total
1,052.32
6,371.80
% (mine)

:

There is no doubt that feed for cattle is better and more abundant in II
Milk production
I
II
3 cows 9,7 0 0 litres
3 cows 9,6 0 0 litres

V. I. LENIN

From September 15, II keeps 25 bull-calves, which he fattens and sells by January 1. Then from January 1 to April 1, he keeps 30 bull-calves, fattening
and selling them. Hence, the 55 bull-calves in the receipts and the outlays. It appears that Auhagen
reckons the feed for 25 bull-calves a year.
Let us compare with this the full data on the quantity of livestock
I
II
marks marks horses . . . . . . . . .
—
—

3,600 draught oxen . . . . . . .
—
—

1,350 cows . . . . . . . . . .

1,260

1,200 cattle and young stock . . .


6,750 pigs . . . . . . . . . .


sow and piglets . . . . . .


—
—
chickens . . . . . . . .

20.4


pigeons. . . . . . . . .
—
—


Total value of livestock
2,130.4
13,398
 % (mine). . . . . . . .


Quantitatively
. . . . . .


(5.5)
(23.25)
If all are put in terms of cattle, then cattle. . . . . . . . . .

—

small cattle . . . . . . .
at 2
1.5
—
12.5 small cattle . . . . . . .
at 4
0.5
—
0.75 small cattle . . . . . . .
at 8
1.5?? (1)* — — 6.5 (5.5)*
23.25
And the keep of workers?
I. 3 workers of the family (p. 3) and 2 non-working
members of the family.
Their keep = 1,158.50 for three workers
II. 3 workers (!!) of the family (p. 15 “always as supervisors, when necessary, as workers”).
1? for the son
Non-working members of the family  is at school?
* Here Lenin gives in round brackets the difference (of one unit) in
reckoning 12 piglets as cattle against his own calculation (see p. 133).—Ed.
P
N
M
N
Q
N.B.
!
!
P
N
M
N
Q


Their keep = ,736.5 for 3 workers.
Hired labourers 5 & 3 & 0.8 = 8.8 annually.
Marks
Their keep =,XW.÷8.8= 440
N.B.

1,158.50 ÷3 = 386

Hired labourers: U the year round; V from May 1 to No- vember 10, i.e., 63 months, i.e., 6 8 63 = 38 months =
36 years; 	 for 4-5 weeks, i.e., 4 8 5 = 20 weeks, and
 for 4 weeks, i.e., 3 8 4 = 12 weeks, a total of 3 weeks.
6 of year & ¢ = 6 & § = £ = 78.2%, i.e., less than 80%.
The small holder lives worse than the hired labourer of
the big one, considering paid labour in I—3 8 6 marks, II—4 4 0 marks per labourer.
Results: for the smallpeasant
1. Soil management worse: ploughing depth (p. 6)*
smaller, less fertiliser. Con : crop yields. This means
his land is better.
2. Keep of cattle worse: statistical data p. 7.**
3. Keep of labourer worse: p. 7*** (and p. 5****).
4. Maintenance of dead stock worse: p. 5.*****
5. Productivity of labour lower (cf. number of workers,
p. 6****** and 5*******).
The small peasant lives worse than the hired labourer of the big peasant and gives scantier “nourishment” to land
and farm.
The small peasant works harder: 3.********