CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF F. HERTZ’S BOOK,
THE AGRARIAN QUESTIONS IN
RELATION TO SOCIALISM*
Hertz
VI. Typical approach (lack of historical view, tendency
to ramble and delve into detail)
Russian translation 17.
1. K. Kautsky has “no doubt” impeccably cleared up
two questions: on rural labourers on large-scale agriculture
Alias—the “peasant question”.
2. According to Hertz, K. Kautsky has two impor-
tant points:
1) in agriculture the interests of wage labourers
N.B.
are superior to the interests of the owners.
2) the peasant is an antagonist of the labourer.
3. In Austria.
82 million active in agriculture.
44 million rural labourers.
Hertz believes that 0.8 million rural labourers are de facto co-heirs.
4. “Wortspiel”** by Kautsky: the peasant-entre-
preneur (cf. Chernov).
5. The peasant’s alternate transformation (in K.
Kautsky) into a labourer and an entrepreneur.
* Hertz, F., Die agrarischen Fragen im Verhältnis zum Sozialismus.
Wien 1899.—Ed.
** Word juggling.—Ed.
!


6. Note 15. Hertz also regards holders with 1-2
!
{labourers as Kleinbetrieb or peasant farm.
6. There is no class antagonism between the labour-
ers and the small peasants.
7. Demands must be “immediately attainable”—
communal ownership of land (K. Kautsky) does not meet the requirement.
9. Not every peasant with subsidiary employment
is already a proletarian [verystupid].
“Help” is not exploitation.
10. “Definition” of capitalism [forgot all about commod-
ity production and wage labour!!]
10. Real definition of capitalism: production under
the domination of capital (!! that’s all!!).
“Genetic” definition
10. Note 25. “The economic usefulness of the capitalist
is still being debated.” (Sic!)
11. “Extremely false”—“die” Agrarfrage (!)
11. Britain: now “a model for everyone”, now “we are
not Britain” (con—Bernstein).
12. “Normal” capitalism. (?!)
The most important thing: the fact that capitalist exploitation is not connected with progress to-
wards capitalist large-scale production.
12. Agriculture in Russia. Nikolai—on.
12-13. Large landed estates have not made for progress in Russian agriculture?
13. New peasantry (according to P.S.64)
14. Also—gilt Nicolai—on (??)* “Nowhere does the
new mode of production supplant the old.”
14. In Russia, capital does not go on to a juridical
possession of the means of production, being satisfied with §§ share of the products.
Sic!
Socialism will possibly take a similar stand in respect of capitalism?
15. Latifundia in Austria are not as common as
K. Kautsky believes (although there are model
farms) (and nothing more).
15. Baudrillart’s excellent works.
* Consequently, Nikolai—on remains in force (??).—Ed.
((


16. The Middle Ages bequeathed a great many pecu-
liarities. K. Kautsky is totally unhistorical in his summing-up conclusions [Where? What? When?]
17. Austrian Alps: in 1867 (idem 1 8 8 7 ) the same
economy as in the Middle Ages.
18. Colossal growth of debt.
20. Hertz agrees with Engels that the peasant must be
rescued from “the vegetative life” of the patriar- chal natural economy, but is the money economy
the best way? (Sic!)
20-21. Peasants ruined in the Alps, the rich buying up peasant lands (for hunting). That is not a case
of large-scale production displacing the small.
21. The transforming effect of capitalism in the Alps
is a complete fiasco!
21. Hence K. Kautsky is wrong on the educative role
(!!)
of capitalism: parcel leaseholds are designed to supplant large-scale production altogether.
21. Accordingly, the “main task of socialism” is to
sustain the co-operatives!!!
22. Concentration of mortgages. Mortgages are not
always
1) large farms owe > than small ones.
24. Small depositors in mortgage banks. Cf. figures.
Enormous % of holders and small % of capital.
26. Savings banks in Austria. 1’d*
28. Russian saving banks, 65.5% workers, etc.
28. This tendency is not one of centralisation but of
decentralisation (!).
29. Small artisans and workers are expropriating the
landowners. Bernstein is quite right about agri- culture: a growing number of holders (!!!).
31. Engels’s mistake about America (displacement
of small farmers by big ones).
33-34. In the Eastern United States of America, land prices have dropped, but the progress of agricul-
tural production continues, and K. Kautsky is quite wrong. [Cf. Bulgakov II, 435-436].
* Not deciphered.—Ed.
!
!


36. & America: absence of parcels allows the > use
of machines.
36. The Americans take pride in the fact that they
do not have such alow - standingpeas- antryas Europedoes.
39. The modern Grossbetriebe should also be com-
pared with the modern Kleinbetriebe
Chernov .
40. There is a terrible waste of labour-power under
the parcel economy in Europe: neither the large nor the small farms have any “absolute” supe-
riority.
43. The fatalism of European peasants. An American
would take a limitation of credit worthiness as an affront.
44. “dire misery” of the European peasant.
45. Characteristic headline: “Socialist Attacks
on Small-Scale Production.”
47-48. Countries according to crop yields: Britain, Bel-
gium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, France.
4 countries with small-scale cropping surpass France!
in % of farms!!
49. In large-scale production, the wheat crop is
only 0.49 hectolitre higher. [Yes, at a rough estimate!]
50. Growth in crop yields in France in the 19th cen-
tury.
51. Decline in crop yields in Britain.
52. The growth in the number of agricultural ma-
chines in France is evidence (51) that the Kleinbetrieb
does not shun science.
52. Growth in the number of holders (???)
53. Rural handicraft industry—none in France (we
see nothing)?? [Souchon] (Maurice, p. 294).
53. Distortion. Parcel farms decline in area (on the
question of the growth of wage labour!!)
54. Hypocritical over “normal” development.
55. Kautsky’s assertion (about wage labour among


small peasants) “total zerfällt”*—data 1862 1882
1892 (Bulgakov) on the decline in the number of day labourers with land.
55. An exclamation mark over the fact that Gross-
betrieb is already > 40 hectares!
56. K. Kautsky’s quotation about the French peas-
antry has been taken from a reactionary, roman- tically-minded lady. Foville has refuted....
56-58. Baudrillart ....
59. The consumption of meat in the countryside is
much < than in the towns (although it is growing faster!)
59. K. Kautsky’s assumption (on the consumption of
meat).
59. Pauperisierung der französischen Bauern kei-
neswegsstattfindet (!!)**
60. The state of France is the “goal” of all other
countries (!)
60. Is there an absolut überlegener Betrieb?***
61. K. Kautsky should have said: Grossbetrieb may
be superior to Kleinbetrieb.
— K. Kautsky does not give any figures for crop yields on Grossbetrieb and Kleinbetrieb.
61. “Feuilleton method” ... (of Kautsky’s).
62. Examines the arguments for Grossbetrieb
Buildings
Machines (co-operatives)
Credit (something he does not examine).
62-63. David in Sozialistische Monatshefte.
63. Steam plough: not possible everywhere
— excellent results on heavy soils
— but not—on light soils.
64. Describes in detail where the steam plough cannot
be used.
65. It is absurd to say, he adds, that the steam plough
is better under any conditions (? who? where?).
65. Threshing in winter: labour (!) cheap (N.B.).
65. Once again (bis) absolut (!!) (swindler!)
* Does not hold water.—Ed.
** There is no pauperisation of the peasants in France at all.—Ed.
*** A farm with absolute superiority.—Ed.


65-69. Incomes.
66. —East-Elbe—and South (I!) Germany: and so on
(comic)
67. Higher yields following the introduction of the
steam plough.
68. —and in South Germany (Baden) even higher!!!
68-69. M. Hecht*)—first-rate.
70-71. Auhagen. (Cf. K. Kautsky.)
72. Marx. Contrasts cash income with agriculture (!!!)
K. Kautsky does not even touch upon the question.
72-73. Nachklang naturrechtlichen etc.* (communal land-
ownership).
73-74. Chewing on an inexpressible commonplace
 ** with praise for Wagner (!)—
74. Accordingly,
rough method—simply compares gross incomes.
74. Kleinbetrieb uses relatively > labour than Gross-
betrieb.
76. The bulk of the peasantry still using the most
primitive implements.
76. Abolition of the antithesis between townand
country (Hauptwunsch alter
Utopisten*** and Communist Manifesto), but “we do not be-
lieve ”....
76-77. The Condition of the Peasants (Kutzleb??) [see separate sheet. Cf. Bulgakov II 282] in
part the same references!!
79. “First-rate”—Moritz Hecht....
80. Stumpfe on peasant livestock farming.
81. Small holders widely (?) use agricultural ma-
chines (?)
82. Grossbetrieb in Europe not > than 3 of the area.
[“Cannot treble production”]
*) Remember to note à propos M. Hecht intensified (and age-old) use of urban waste, sewage, etc., as fertiliser.
* Echo of natural right, etc.—Ed.
** A formula used by Hertz to denote productivity, where w—value
of gross product, k—costs of production, and t—time of production.—Ed.
*** The main dream of the old utopians.—Ed.


83. The Grossbetrieb has had the worst of the crisis.
84-85. Engels is wrong in expecting overseas competition
to intensify.
87. Kautsky’s “trick” (data on artificial wine).
87-88. Kautsky’s groundless hopes for the industrialisa-
tion of agriculture: the displacement is insignifi- cant. The merger of agriculture with industries
often goes through the co-operatives.
88. “IF” Grossbetrieb has “really” combined
large-scale industry and large-scale agricultural production. (“If”!?!)
88. 1) No concentration.
2) Growing number of independent holders.
3)
”
”
of all holders.
4) Superiority of large-scale over small-scale pro-
duction is relative.
89. 5) Two trends in development:
towards a growth of medium production.
towards parcel farms.
6) Parcelleaseholds—the ultimate goal
of capitalist agriculture.
7) Capitalism fails to create any economic or
psychological premises for socialist large-scale production.
8) “The main task of socialism” is to organise
!!
small-scale production through co-operatives.
89. The small peasant as well as the small tenant is
not a capitalist, but a worker.
89-90. Labour rent of the small peasant drops to subsist-
ence minimum—(!!N.B.)
90. The price of land—the main cause.
91. The small holder buys land and pays his debts
through subsidiary employment ((work for a wage...!))...
92.
The contemporary peasant question is a transmut-
N.B.
ed form of the unemployment problem. (Hertz fails to make both ends meet).
92. For Kautsky the agrarian question is everywhere
the same.
93. What will a socialist state do with its employees in
agriculture? (Very clever!)
KK


95. In agriculture, the lever of economic self-interest
(Selbstinteresse) is indispensable. [Russian trans- lation p. 7.]
! ! !
socialist!
103. Terrible nonsense on the content of the modern
right of ownership, etc.
104. —division on the basis of property [pure scholas-
ticism!]
105. —and all of this just to say that it’s no use
waiting for a social revolution. We are in it.
Property will not be transformed “all at once”.
111. The peasants are “entering socialism”: the co-
operatives....
112. Every year, about 1, 5 0 0 agricultural co-opera-
tives arise.
—1, 0 5 0, 0 0 0 farmers have united in a purchas- ing society (“con” K. Kautsky!!).
Kautsky is absolutely wrong....
In Austria (Hohenbruck) dairy farm co-operatives have less than 1 cow per farmer. [Cf. Germany!!]
11. The co-operatives mostly benefit the small and
Sic!
the smallest holders.
113. Kautsky’s objection “Absolutunhaltbar ”.—Ko-
misch* (?) on sale of milk. The peasants receive cash.
113. How
“weak” the exploitation of the rural labourers by the co-operatives is! Hundreds
of peasants have 2 or 3 labourers (!?). Associations graded:
118. ...Disqualifizierung minderwertiger Produkte.**
...regulations by dairy co-operatives on the main- tenance of cattle, etc.
119. The co-operatives have started to build elevators
with strict sorting of grain.
10. Wine-makers’ co-operatiues: fully Grossbetrieb....
121. The poor are saved from ruin: their vineyards are
!!
bought from them and leased back on
* Absolutely groundless.—Absurd.—Ed.
** Rejection of low-grade products.—Ed.


instalments ! They open their own wine-cel- lars....
...what more does Kautsky want?...
122. Engels also speaks about co-operatives.
123. The failures of socialist co-operatives. N.B.
123. Centralised farming is !! “absolutely im-
possible”.
124. That is for the small ones, whereas the big ones
! ! ! !
are socialised! It pays to use the steam plough, etc.
129. The reactionaries also favour co-operatives.
PLANS OF OBJECTIONS TO F. HERTZ’S BOOK α “Definition of capitalism” (p. 10)!
β
Mortgages (pp. 24, 26, 28)
(Decentralisation)
γ
Engels’s mistake about America (p. 31)
δ
Proprietary interests in agriculture (pp. 2, 3).
Thepeasantentrepreneur.
(“Wortspiel”) (p. 4) (p. 5) and p. 8 9 .
Kleinbetrieb—and farms with
1-  hired labourers (p. 6, Note 15)
There is no class antagonism between the Klein- betrieb and the hired labourers (p. 6).
On subsidiary employment (p. 9)
ε
The big farm has no absolute superiority (p. 40) (p. 60)
(60-65)
Threshers: labour cheap in winter: p. 6 5
Crop yields in France p. 49.
The Kleinbetrieb does not shun machines p. 5 (indis- criminate figures on France). Cf. 81 (widely??)
On the sale of milk: p. 113.
ζ
M. Hecht 68 and 79 et al. (“first-rate”)
Crop yields in East-Elbe and South Germany (66)
Auhagen: 70-71.
ϑ
Higher crop yields following the introduction of the steam plough (67)
1  4: advantages of the steam plough!


There are model farms among the latifundia in Aus- tria: p. 1 5 (con Bulgakov)
America: absence of parcels allows greater use of
Con!
machines; no peasantry of such low standing (p. 36)
and 4 3, 4 4.
ι
Con. Kleinbetrieb uses relatively more labour (74).
Most peasants have primitive implements.
The peasant’s labour rent: pp. 8 9 -9 0 (!!)
Small farmer resorts to collateral employment: 9 1 cf. 9 .
Growth in the number of holders in France 52 (??)
In France there is no rural industry 53 (??)
κ
Distortion on parcel farms (reduction in number) 53.
Refutation of Kautsky’s assertion on wage labour among small peasants 55.
λ
Hertz on N.—on etc. (p. 12).
(Cf. Chernov)
Is the money economy the best way? (p. 20)
Parcelleaseholds: the goal of capitalism:
p. 1.
Industrialisation of production: Kautsky’s groundless hopes (87-88)
σ
Demands must be immediately attainable—con social ownership of land (p. 7)
p. 10: the economic usefulness of capitalism is still
being debated.
p. 14. Perhaps socialism takes the same attitude
towards capitalism as Russian capitalism does to the patriarchal economy.
Only a greater share!
Nachklang naturrechtlichen views: pp. 72-73.
Abolition of the antithesis between town and country:
In agriculture, the lever of self-interest is indispen-
sable: 95.
What socialism will do with the employees: 93.
On social revolution: 105.
123: Centralised farming is absolutely impos- sible (!!)


τ
“The main task of socialism” is to sustain the co-opera-
tives (p. 21) and p. 8 9.
124: Co-operatives forthesmallones, !!
andsocialisationforthebigones.
Wine-growers’ co-operatives 120
Co-operatives: “entering” socialism (111).
Number of members in co-operatives (112)
Dairy co-operatives (112)
To τ
Engels on co-operatives distortion 1  .

α
“theory” β mortgages γ
Engels on America δ on the peasantry and versus the proletariat
ε
large- and small-scale production ζ
Hecht, Auhagen, etc.
ϑ
admission of superiority of the large ι admission of overwork in Kleinbetrieb
κ
Hertz on French data λ
Hertz and Narodism
=
σ
—attitude to socialism τ
—co-operatives