B
REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE’S BOOK,
SMALL HOLDINGS AND GRAIN PRICES
Dr. Emil Stumpfe (Der kleine Grundbesitz und die Getreidepreise. Leipzig 1897, Band III, Heft 2 der Staats- und
Sozialwissenschaftliche Beiträge von Miaskowski*) gives
a rather interesting summary of quite extensive budgetary
data on small farms (181 under-10-ha farms) in various parts of Germany, but only on their sale and purchase
of farm products.
Stumpfe argues with David (Neue Zeit No. 36, 1894/5), who took the data of the Hessen Inquiry and reckoned the
sales and purchases. (Kühn simply reckoned the sales per
hectare). Stumpfe deducts 33-40% as the cost of fabrication
from the purchase price, on the plea that you cannot take
the price of the purchased product but only the price of
the raw material which has gone into the making of the product!! This approach (an absurd one) spoils the whole
work terribly. (Although this recalculation is done only
when it gives a different result!)
However, I shall go over the cases of this recalculation, which the author always
indicates: No. 19 (Baden, 2-3 ha), the minus becomes a plus, No. 31 (Baden
-3 ha), same thing, No. 50, the minus remains, No. 11, Württemberg 2-3 ha
* Miaskowski’s Contribution to State and Social Science.
N.B.:
reckoning the sum of all types of pluses and minuses
PNNMNNQ


No.
40 still plus
No. 143 still plus
No.
41 same
No. 151
”
No.

”
No. 152
”
No.

”
Nos. 154-161
”
No.

”
No. 169
”
No.

”
No. 170
”
No.

”
No. 171
”
No.

”
No. 172
”
No.

”
No. 173
”
No.

”
No. 174
”
No. 100
”
No. 175
”
No.

”
Nos. 179-181
”
This means that only in three cases has Stumpfe’s absurd
approach distorted the state of affairs, by turning an overall
minus (excess of purchases over sales) into a plus.
In the vast majority of cases, the result is still an overall
minus. (Stumpfe calculates three types of plus and minus,
separately for cereals (I), livestock products (III) and the
rest (II)).
That is why I find that I can take Stumpfe’s table with
its conclusions on the pluses and minuses (sales and purchases, as a sum total), making note of three corrections.
Stumpfe makes a separate comparison of sales and purchases in I, II and III:
I cereals and pulses giving tables for (1) I
II all other cropping products (2) I & II
III livestock products (3) I & II & III
Stumpfe then gives separate results for the states, separating southern
Germany (Baden 60*), Hessen
44, Württemberg 12 & Bavaria) from northern Germany (Saxony 6 & 28, Silesia 24, Hannover 7). I take
only the results for southern and northern Germany.
(On 52 of these Stumpfe collected himself!!: 24 in Silesia
& 28 in the Kingdom of Saxony.)
*) The number of under-10-ha farms. Stumpfe takes only the under- 10- ha farms, putting the over-10- ha farms
in a special annexe.

V. I. LENIN

Southern and
Number
Mouths
Farms northern of farms over under
Germany
14 years
Southern


Northern


Under 2 ha
Σ


Southern


Northern


12-2 ha
Σ


Southern


Northern


2-3 ha
Σ


Southern


Northern


3-4
Σ


Southern


Northern (25)
(74)
(49)
4-6
Σ


Southern


Northern


6-8
Σ


Southern


Northern


8-10 ha
Σ


In general, Stumpfe’s book is a grossly biased defence of taxes.
In his opening pages, Stumpfe analyses the question of the effect corn prices have on those of other farm products,
insisting (correctly) on the tremendous and all-decisive
importance of corn prices.
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ


On how many
Adults& farms sales
Total
Per ha children greater (&) or farmland adults children
(2 children= purchases greater (—)
1 adult
&
—


24.54
2.28

3.30

—
13.06
1.45
0.9
1.9


8.73
2.2
1.1
2.7

—
13.06
1.45
0.9
1.9


16*)

52.83
1.25
0.89
1.69

_
24.42
0.94
0.77
1.32
25*)


37.20
1.07
0.45
1.29


42.93
0.74
0.55
1.01


—
131.69
0.78
0.41
0.98

—
120.75
0.61
0.40
0.81

—


156.99
0.65
0.20
0.75

—
14.50
0.48
0.27
0.61


—
168.88
0.52
0.23
0.63

—
60.75
0.41
0.28
0.55

—
*) Stumpfe has 19 and 2, and Σ of 28 and 2.

V. I. LENIN

The area under cereals in Germany in 1878—52.59% of total farmland
1883—53.46%
1893—54.37%
The extension of the area under other cereals (and of livestock farming correspondingly) is rapidly leading to their respective
overproduction, which tends again to even out prices (cf. Marx on Smith. But Stumpfe
does not quote Marx and does not apply the theory of rent to the question)
“Thus, there is good ground for the thesis
Stumpfe’s that there can be no prolonged disproportions
italics in the rent yielded by the several crops per area unit, and that a levelling off must follow
sooner or later” (p. 15).
Stumpfe also analyses the prices of livestock products,
arguing along the same lines.
Stumpfe polemises with Reichschancellor Hohenlohe, who said on March 29, 1895, that only the over-12- ha
farms wanted higher prices, that is, only 4 million out of the 19 million agricultural population, reckoning
3.5 persons per farm. Stumpfe makes roughly the following
estimation of the agricultural population (1882 data)
(p. 40)
millions of agricultural population
Parcel farms under
2 ha
0.6
8 3.5=2.1 million
Small
”
2 to
5 ha
0.99 8 4.5=4.4
”
Medium ”
5 to
20 ha
0.96 8 7 =6.7
”
Big-peasant
20 to
100 ha
0.29 813 =3.7
”
Big
”
over
100 ha
0.025890 =2.2
”
19.1 million


Stumpfe believes that there is no more than 0.6 million agricultural population
on the 3 millions of under-2-ha farms.
“The owners of under-1-ha parcel farms ...
are mostly craftsmen, small industrialists, factory workers, etc., consequently, anything but peasants or independent farm
owners” (p. 39).
3.5 persons per farm with less than
2 ha, for “after all, grown up children mostly go into employment right away”
(p. 40).
Here are the statistics of family size, according to Stumpfe’s
data:
The number per farm was (p. 82)
Groups
Number
Adults
Children
Total of farms ha:
0- 12

2.5

4.5
12- 2

3.16
2.6
5.78
2- 3


2.2
5.2
3- 4

3.27
1.86
5.1
4- 6

3.6
2.1
5.7
6- 8

4.3
1.4
5.7
8- 10

4.34
2.2
6.5
10-20


20 and over

8.75
2.1
10.85
And Stumpfe concluded: the “average” for the 5 to 20 ha
group will be precisely about 7, for the 20 to 100 ha, about
13, if it is about 11 for the 20 to 30 ha group.
(A funny character! he’s forgotten all about hired labour!!)
(Stumpfe’s distribution of agricultural population is of some interest for the picture of hired labour.)
He says that all peasants—including the labourers !
on the big farms!!—all want higher corn prices.
Stumpfe himself suspects that the data he has collected
(for Silesia, etc., see above*) will appear unlikely (p. 50),
* See p. 241.—Ed.
Sic!
Stumpfe says something quite different on another occasion!
!

V. I. LENIN

and so he defends himself in advance: why is it that, according to his data, the conditions in northern Germany are
much better, when southern Germany is regarded as being
more civilised?
And Stumpfe attacks southern Germany “...incredible fragmentation of holdings” (p. 48)—10-12-20
parcels per hectare!—hence “the intensified supply of farms with labour everywhere” (p. 49)—in
general the population in the south is much more static (p. 49)—see, he says, the Bavarian Inquiry
of 1 8 9 5, the new one!—a prevalence of threefield farming (Bavaria; inquiry)—“great backwardness of the whole economy” (p. 51), very
frequently the system of compulsory crop rotation still in evidence, furthermore “fragmentation and
stripping of farmlands prevent or hamper any kind of melioration” (p. 52), frequently make
almost impossible the introduction and use of these new remarkably improved agricultural implements (p. 52), for example, out of 24 Bavarian
communities only 4 use the seed drill. “The advantages of farming with the use of the seed drill are
so well-known and incontestable” (p. 52) etc., and other machines are rare too, old ploughs are
“often of the most primitive form” (p. 52), rollers are unknown, etc.... This backwardness in machine
and technical equipment....
The very same Stumpfe who, on another occasion, deprecates the importance of machinery—
when he defends the small farms!
—not a single centrifuge (p. 53) in the places described
by the South-German inquiries. “This technical backwardness is crowned” with reports from Christazhofen and Ingerkingen of threshing by horses (on horseback)—“such is the
antediluvian method of husking grain”—Stumpfe exclaims.
...Fertilising methods leave very much to be desired (53), etc.
—meanwhile, quotations from The Condition of the
Peasants, in favour of small farms in the north (pp. 54-55).
I must say these quotations look very much like Bulgakov’s! Makeacomparison!
ha-ha!!
ha-ha!
 !
ha-ha! ] ^
P
M
Q


In Silesia, peasants have seed drills, manure spreaders,
etc., etc. (p. 55), the crop rotation system prevails, rollers
(pp. 56-57).
“One need only list these very important (sic!) implements to discover the extremely
different state of farming in southern and northern Germany” (p. 57). Then “there is
the usual under-estimation” (p. 58)—in the north, the “good example” (p. 59) set by the
landowners (sic!), the “teachers” of the peasants (!), a model, “pioneers in farming”
(p. 59)! As for the South, it more or less completely lacks big farms (p. 60).
Written not earlier than April 1902- not later than April 1903
First published in 1938
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXXII
!!
Oh, Herr
Stumpfe!!

REMARKS ON G. FISCHER’S WORK,
THESOCIALIMPORTANCE
OFMACHINERYINAGRICULTURE 93
Gustav Fischer. Die sociale Bedeutung der Maschinen in der
Landwirtschaft. Leipzig 1902. (Schmollers Forschungen, XX. Band, 5. Heft.)
The introduction quotes the writings of Social-Democrats on small farming. Among them Sering, The
Agrarian Question and Socialism (con Kautsky), Schmoller’s Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft.* Band 23, 4. Heft.
Sering has already said that agriculture is unlike industry, especially in the matter of machinery.
Chapter I. “The Cost of Machine Labour and the Limits of Its Profitability”.
“It was on the big farms that conditions first existed for
the use of agricultural machinery” (p. 4)—initially even
the manufacturers were concerned only with machinery for the big farms. Now they supply machines for the small
ones as well.
The author wants to discover the limits for these new machines according to the new data.
Here is the result of
Kautsky on p. 94 of his Agrarian his calculations
Question says, that, according to (pp. 24-25)
Kraft, the limits of full use are α) 1, 0 0 0 ha; and b) 7 0 ha
(p. 5)
* Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and National Economy.—Ed.
PNMNQ


Cost of machine
Limit of labour manual*)
This
Type of machine economic under labour is full
AA
usefulness full use*)
use see marks marks below* ha per ha per ha ha (α) Steam plough (20 h.p.)


51.20

Steam plough (12 h.p.)

33.8
42.7

Broadcast sower
—
0.88
0.44 > 360 ha
Seed drill (3.766 m)
21.6
2.56
6.04


(β) Seed drill (1.88 m)
13.6
3.48
6.04

8.8
Manure spreader
—
1.12
0.55 > 280
Cultivator (3.766 m)

2.13


3.7
Cultivator (2.0 m)
1.2
2.06


1.1
One-row cultivator
0.27
4.2

22.5
0.23
Hay mower
13.4
3.5


3.4 (or 6.7)
Reaper with self-throwing
9.5
6.9


7.1 (β) Reaper-binder
—
11.25


24.3
Reaper with manual rake
8.1
7.0


5.1
Tedder
2.9
6.3
12.5

0.95 (or 1.5)
Horse-drawn rake with
13.8

1.6

8.0(4)
 seat (or 6.9)
ditto without seat
9.45
1.2
1.6
67.5 3.9(1.9)
(or 4.73)
The author calculates his limits of usefulness as follows:
he takes performance per day (5 ha per steam plough), determines the price of manual (resp. with the use of a team)
labour in that time, and calculates the minimum number of days of machine work required for the price to be the
same. This minimum (in terms of ha) is his limit.
(Hence, that is the minimum limit where the machine is still not cheaper than manual labour.)
The author frequently quotes Bensing (countering his statements, for instance, with that of Rimpau, to the effect that a horse-drawn plough works
as well as the steam plough, provided it ploughs to the same depth: p. 8).
Potato planters are still not feasible (the potatoes vary in size, and weigh 8 centners to 4 ha, while
* See p. 250.—Ed.
!

V. I. LENIN

seed-grain comes to less than 1 centner). But one recent invention is a hole potato-planter which
makes regular holes, helps to furrow and hoe, although the potato is inserted by hand (p. 11).
N.B.
Saves labour, and the income increase is reckoned at 5% (p. 12).
There has been no success so far in making reasonably good potato and beet lifters.
Chapter II. “The Possibilities of Using Machinery on Small
Farms”.
(p. 27)
Cereals
Sugar-beet
Meadow)
hay
Reduction of costs perhectare
17.52 marks:
52 cent-
30.78
8.30 ners (crop)
As compared with manual labour percentner
0.36 marks
0.05 (:80)0.10 per centner (640 cent- (centners)
ners)
Consequently, the cost reduction is not large. This, he
says, is against Bensing, for he fails to debit to the machine
costs the cost of the teams (p. 28)—“not quite right”.
Considering that the cost of the teams does not apply to some machines set into motion by draught animals (for
the cattle is there anyway, and is not fully used), we find
the limits of economic usefulness still further reduced
(p. 28) (see, AA in table*)
“It goes without saying that farmers whose holding hardly, if at all, allows them to use machinery
because of its size, are at a disadvantage, as compared with those who attain the highest possible use
of machinery or are close to it, in view of the fact that the per-hectare cost of using machinery does
* See p. 249.—Ed.


not fall in proportion to the time of use, but at first
drops sharply and then slower and slower” (p. 29).
For instance, a mower costs
5.94 Mk per ha for
8 days
”
”
5.24
”
per ha for 20 days “...70 pfennigs per hectare is, of course, not much”
(p. 30).
Moreover, the “really” lower % of machine depreciation should be allowed the small farmer: he takes more care.
See, he says, Auhagen,* Stumpfe,** Herkner (!) (The
Labour Problem, Berlin, 1897, p. 226).
The small farmer can make co-operative use of machinery:
hire of machinery (thresher very often, p. 31) (it is also
most convenient with regard to the steam plough, p. 32)
(although the small one cannot use the steam plough even
on hire: p. 33, his fields are not long enough).
The hiring out of machinery ... is very common (p. 33). “The big landowner lets ...
his small neighbours ... use his seed drill on hire”....
The c o - operatives are developed to a greater extent than the statistics show. In 1890, Bavaria had 282
machine (thresher) co-operatives. But very many farms pool machines privately.
Chapter III. “The Importance of Machinery for the Labour
Problem”.
Machines are frequently introduced, even when they are more expensive (seeders, etc.) because of the labour
shortage. Can the machines help when there is a shortage
of labour?
Most say: yes (p. 37). Von der Holtz is sceptical (they tend
to increase winter unemployment, etc.).
Here is the author’s calculation of the labour saving through machinery: (p. 39)
* See p. 130.—Ed.
** See p. 238.—Ed.
ha-ha!
N.B.
cf.
Klawki!!
N.B.

V. I. LENIN

for equal saving in this performance labour requires by manual
through labour machinery
Broadcast sower


—

—

—
Seed drill 3.77 m


—

—

—
Seed drill 1.88 m


—

—

—
Manure spreader


2.2
—
1.2
—1
Cultivator 3.7 m


—
—

—3

Cultivator c. 2.00 m
3.75


—

—1

Hay mower
3.2

—

—

—
Reaper with self-throwing
3.8


—

—1
Reaper-binder
3.8


Reaper with manual rake
3.4

—

—

—
Beet lifter
1.7


—

—2

Tedder


—
—

—1

Horse-drawn rake with seat


—
—
4.8
—1
4.8 ditto without seat
4.5

—
—
3.6
—1
3.6 “With the exception of the seed drill, which is used
in the spring and autumn seasons, and the manure spread-
er, which requires a roughly similar application of labour, all the machines, therefore, show a saving of labour,
as compared with manual operations” (p. 38).
especially the cultivator (very important)
and the reaper—which is why it is used with the binder, even if it is more expensive (there are few hands
during the harvesting!). The same goes for the steam plough.
ha worked per day men youngsters or women man-days youngsters- or
women-days man-days youngsters- or women-days


“All the above-mentioned machines have the advantage of making the farmer more independent of the demand
for labour. He can oppose the excessive wage demands at whose mercy he would otherwise have been placed
without being able to offer any resistance, and, what is much more important, he can perform operations
for which he would otherwise not have found any labour at all” (p. 40).
The manure spreader works better, more evenly, than the unskilled labourer.
The seed drill helpstosave seed stock.
“The milk separator is also one of those machines which
yield a qualitative performance coefficient unattainable
under manual labour” (p. 41). In 1900, Germany had 2,841
dairy co-operatives.
The 1895 statistics show furthermore that it was the peasant farms that led in the absolute number of participants in them, whereas the large farms, at any rate, are
still very far ahead in proportion to their total.
“Participation in dairy co-operatives or amalgamated dairies”
(p. 41)
farms percentage of each group under 2 ha
10,300
0.3
2 to 5 ha
31,819
3.1
5 to 20 ha
53,597
5.4
20 to 100 ha
43,561
15.4
100 ha and over
8,805
35.1 “However, the relatively insignificant participation of the small farms in dairy co-operatives
is partly due to the fact that they are mostly situat- ed on the immediate outskirts of towns and sell
more of their milk than large farms to urban buyers, without processing it” (p. 41).
The thresher leads to a substitution of free labourers for indentured day labourers who do the threshing (p. 42) (cf. Max Weber). Payment in kind is
supplanted by payment incash—“as a result of which even the smaller holder becomes more depend-
!È

V. I. LENIN

N.B. ent on ready cash than ever before.... Such are the socially unfavourable consequences of the
introduction of the thresher” (p. 42).
Agricultural machines demand more intelligent workers (as compared to the industrial??)...
Chapter IV. “Electricity in Agriculture”.
The author finds the expectations of Kautsky and Pringsheim exaggerated, gives two examples of actual use of
electricity (on royal estates in 1895-96), contests one calculation, obtaining a higher cost of production instead of the
lower one (inferred by the author of a report on the royal
estates) and says that “electrification of farming is not yet
able to yield any considerable reduction of costs, although
it does provide all sorts of conveniences and comforts for
the performance of operations” (p. 51).
Is it cheaper for the big farms? Not much, for the motors
in agriculture are all too small.
The substitution of electric motors for field machines (Pringsheim) is a realm of speculation.
Finale:
“The production of electric power will remain cheapest at the big central stations, with which the small farmer
can just as easily obtain a connection as the big one. The
advantages secured by the latter from a somewhat better use
of motors and any possible small rebate that he may be given will be insignificant. That is why any shift of social
relations to the detriment of small farming should not be
expected” (p. 54).
Chapter V. “Machinery in North-American Agriculture”
The limit of the economic usefulness of machines is (must
be) even lower, because wages are higher.
There is the most rapid growth of medium farms (George K. Holmes on the progress of American agriculture
in Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture,
1899).
320 acres= 128 ha is taken to be a medium farm, because the whole of farming is extensive: p. 58.
] ^


There is nowhere any swallowing up of the small by the big (p. 62), machines cannot give the big farms the edge
they do in industry (p. 63).
The farms will be increasingly smaller with the growth of intensiveness.
The small farms have the same machines as the big ones.
Example:
300-320 acres
1 plough
1 disc
1 seed with seat harrow drill and 6,500 acres
22 ”
32 ”
10 ” etc. (Fischer sees no advantages from diversified machinery!)
“Thus, large-scale farming there does not obtain any advantages from the use of machinery” (p. 59)?
The small holder is more careful, more painstaking, he saves the $100 which the big farmer pays to his
labourers as a bonus for the best cultivated lots, etc.
(p. 59).
The large wheat farms, with very extensive farming, are to be found only in North Dakota.
Greater use? (156 acres per binder in one case, and
65 acres, on a small farm), but that is “only little” (p. 61).
Final conclusions (pp. 64-66)
...the machines are used mostly because of the labour shortage; more and more are being introduced on the small
farms
% increase from 1882 to 1895 (p. 65)
Steam
Seed
Reapers
Steam
Other ploughs drills threshers threshers under ha


2-

ha


5-

ha


20- 100 ha


over 100 ha


 ?
 !!
?!

V. I. LENIN

“This comparison shows that the percentage increase in the number of farms using machinery
among the small farms ... is considerably greater than among the big ones....”
...These figures best of all prove (!?) that machinery in agriculture is not at all a domain of the big
farms (p. 66), for there is a rapid growth in the understanding of its importance and the possibility of its use even on the parcel farms.
Written in 1902
First printed in the
Fourth Russian edition
Printed from the original