Date: 1914-04-06
Source: ru:PSS/v25; en:CW/CW20

As soon as the so‑called “Left Populists” move from empty, general phrases about “laboring peasantry”—phrases that have grown tiresome to everyone and reveal a profound ignorance of both the Communist Manifesto and Capital—they immediately resort to precise statistical data—and at that very moment, the Left Populist tendency to subtly whitewash the bourgeoisie becomes glaringly apparent.

The bourgeois character of the entire theory of “laboring peasantry” is concealed behind rhetorical flourishes and exclamations; it is exposed through concrete facts and a thorough examination of Marx’s theoretical works.

In No. 14 of Stoykaya Mysl,{30} a certain Mr. Batrak—writing in a distinctly intellectual style—expounds on “socialism and the peasantry.”

“Laboring farms are growing,” declares Mr. Batrak, citing statistics from France and Germany. Statistics are a matter of hard evidence; one cannot simply rely on empty rhetoric or grandiose pronouncements—any attempt to deceive will be swiftly exposed.

In France, the area under cultivation by “smallholdings”—that is, farms ranging from 5 to 10 hectares (a hectare slightly less than a tenth of a desyatina)—has increased.

Very well, Mr. Batrak! But have you not heard that the more intensive the agricultural practices, the more frequently wage labor appears even in “small” (in terms of land size) farms? Does not the act of subtly glossing over the bourgeoisie amount to concealing the facts about wage labor? Or do you think otherwise, Mr. Batrak?

Let us turn to the German data. Among the 652,798 farms with 5–10 hectares, 487,704 employ hired laborers. What does this tell us? The vast majority of smallholders exploit hired labor! And what of France? In France, vineyard cultivation—which demands wage labor even on small plots—is far more widespread than in Germany.

The theory of the “laboring farm” is, in essence, a theory of deception, designed to mislead workers by systematically suppressing the truth about wage labor.

Mr. Batrak takes Germany as his example. Under the rubric of “laboring farms,” he includes both “small” and “medium” holdings—using language so vague that anyone can be labeled a “laboring farmer”! And so, Mr. Batrak attributes the growth of “laboring farms” to the expansion of “small” and “medium” farms.

But take a closer look at the data presented by this new defender of the bourgeoisie.

He begins with farms of up to 2 hectares. In 1882, such farms accounted for 58.03%; by 1895, this figure had risen to 58.22%; and by 1907, it had climbed to 58.89%. A steady increase, wouldn’t you agree?

Yet our “Left Populist” remains silent about the fact that this very growth is driven by an increase in hired labor!

The statistics he distorts speak clearly: of the 3,378,509 farms with up to 2 hectares (as of 1907), only 474,915—or just over one-tenth—are truly independent farmers whose primary occupation is agriculture. The vast majority, by contrast, are wage laborers (1,822,792).

Of the 3,378,509 farms, 2,920,119—nearly the overwhelming majority—are essentially subsidiary households, where agriculture is not the main source of income.

One must ask: Is this not a blatant attempt to whitewash the bourgeoisie and capitalism, when day laborers, casual hands, and hired workers are masqueraded as “laboring farmers”? 

Does the seemingly innocuous term “laboring farmer” not serve precisely to obscure the chasm between the proletariat (wage laborers) and the bourgeoisie?? Does this term not, in fact, function as a vehicle for advancing bourgeois theories??

Moving on. Consider farms ranging from 2 to 5 hectares. In 1882, they made up 18.6% of all farms; by 1895, this share had fallen to 18.29%, and by 1907, it had further declined to 17.57%. This is how Mr. Batrak presents the data.

But what of the conclusion? He says nothing about the conclusion.

The conclusion, however, is clear: these farms are shrinking—not growing. And it is precisely among these farms—among them alone—that there is no complete dominance of either those who hire (who purchase private labor) or those who are hired. Those who hire number 411,311 (based on the number of wage laborers); those who are hired number 104,251 (though this is still an incomplete count, as the statistics here are far from exhaustive). Together, they total 515,000—but out of 1,006,277 peasant households, even here more than half are either hiring—or being hired!!

What a convenient label: “laboring farm”—a term used to deceive workers by hiding the reality of the buying and selling of labor power.

Next, Mr. Batrak turns to farms ranging from 5 to 20 hectares, noting that their numbers are increasing.

But what of wage labor? Not a single word, not a single mention. The theorists of the “laboring farm” were dispatched by the bourgeoisie to conceal the facts about wage labor.

Let us examine these figures. Of the 652,798 farms (as of 1907) with 5–10 hectares, 487,704 employ wage laborers—meaning that more than half are, in effect, exploiters of wage labor.

Among the 412,741 farms with 10–20 hectares, 711,867 are wage laborers—meaning that virtually all, or nearly all, are exploiters of wage labor.

How can we describe a person who claims to be a “socialist” yet categorizes wage‑exploiters as “laboring farmers”?

As Marxists have repeatedly explained, the so‑called “Left Populists” are petty bourgeois who seek to sweeten the image of the bourgeoisie while obscuring the exploitation of wage labor by that very class.

We will return, in particular, to the bourgeois theories of the Left Populists—and to Mr. Batrak’s own contributions. For now, let us draw a brief conclusion.

The theory of the “laboring farm” is a bourgeois deception directed at workers, founded, among other things, on the systematic concealment of the facts surrounding the buying and selling of labor power.

Among the “small and medium” peasants whom the Left Populists so readily point to, the vast majority are, in fact, either selling or purchasing labor power, either hiring or being hired. It is precisely this reality that the bourgeois theory of the “laboring farm” seeks to obscure.

The proletarian tells the smallholder: You are, in essence, a semi‑proletarian; follow the workers—there is no other path to salvation for you.

The bourgeois tells the smallholder: You are your own master—a “laboring farmer.” The laboring farm “grows” even under capitalism. Your task is that of a farmer, not a proletarian.

Two souls reside within the smallholder: a proletarian soul and a “farmer’s” soul.

In practice, the Left Populists merely echo the teachings of the bourgeoisie, corrupting small peasants with “farmer’s” illusions. This is why Marxists wage a resolute struggle against this bourgeois corruption of small peasants (and backward workers) by the Left Populists.

“Put’ Pravdy” (The Path of Truth), No. 56, April 6, 1914

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Put’ Pravdy.”