Having examined the general data on hired labour as the most
direct indicator of capitalism in agriculture, we can now go on to
a more detailed analysis of the specific forms assumed by
capitalism in this particular branch of the economy.

We have taken a look at one area with a shrinking average
acreage of farms, namely, the South, where the process signifies a
transition from latifundia worked by slaves to small-scale
commercial farms. There is another area where the average acreage
of farms is diminishing—a part of the North: New England and
the Middle Atlantic states. Here are the figures for these
divisions:

| Average acreage per farm (improved land) |
| --- |
| New England | Middle Atlantic States |
| 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 | 66.5 66.4 66.4 63.4 56.5 42.4 38.4 | 70.8 70.3 69.2 68.0 67.4 63.4 62.6 |

The average farm in New England is smaller than in any other
division of the U.S.A. In two Southern divisions the average is 42
to 43 acres, and in the third, the West South Central, where
homesteading is still going on, it is 61.8 acres, i.e., almost as
much as in the Middle Atlantic states. It is the reduction in the
average size of farms in New England and the Middle Atlantic
states, “the areas with an older culture and a higher level
of economic development” (Mr. Himmer, p. 60), where homesteading is no longer taking place, that has led Mr. Himmer,
as it has very many other bourgeois economists, to draw the
conclusion that “capitalist agriculture is disintegrating”, that “production is breaking up into
smaller units”, that there are “no areas where colonization is no longer continuing, or where large-scale
capitalist agriculture is not decaying and is not being replaced
by family-labour farms”.

Mr. Himmer arrived at these conclusions, which are the very
opposite of the truth, because he forgot a mere “trifle”: the intensification of agriculture! It is
incredible, but it is a fact. This matter requires a particularly
thorough analysis because quite a few bourgeois economists, almost
all in fact, contrive to forget this “trifle” when dealing with small and large-scale production in agriculture,
although “in theory” they are all “aware” of and accept the intensification of farming. This is indeed one
of the basic sources of all the misadventures of bourgeois
(including Narodnik and opportunist) economics on the question of
small “family” farms. The “trifle” they forget is this: owing to the technical peculiarities of
agriculture, the process of its intensification frequently leads
to a reduction in the improved acreage on the farm, and
at the same time expands it as an economic unit , increasing its output , and making it more and more of a
capitalist enterprise.

Let us first see whether or not there is any fundamental
difference in farming techniques, in the general character of
farming and degree of its intensification between New England and
the Middle Atlantic states, on the one hand, and between the rest
of the North and the country’s other divisions, on the other.

The differences in the crops grown are shown in the following table:

| valign="middle" colspan=3>
Percentage of total crop value (1910) |
| --- |
| Divisions | Cereals | Hay and forage | Vegetables, fruits and similar special crops |
| New England Middle Atlantic | 7.6 29.6 | 41.9 31.4 | 33.5 31.8 |
| - - - - - - - - |
| East North Central West North Central | 65.4 75.4 | 16.5 14.6 | 11.0 5.9 |

The difference in farming conditions is fundamental. In the
first two divisions agriculture is highly intensive; in the other
two it is extensive. In the latter, cereals account for the bulk
of the total crop value; in the former, they contribute not only a
minor part, but sometimes a negligible part (7.6%), while the
special “commercial” crops (vegetables, fruits, etc.) yield
a greater part of the crop value than cereals. Extensive
agriculture has given way to intensive agriculture. Grass
cultivation has become widespread. Of the 3.8 million acres under
hay and forage in New England, 3.3 million acres were under
cultivated grasses. The figures for the Middle Atlantic
states are 8.5 and 7.9 million respectively: By contrast, of the
27.4 million acres under hay and forage in the West North Central
states (an area of colonization and extensive agriculture), 14.5
million, i.e., the greater part, were unimproved grass lands, etc.

Yields are considerably higher in the “intensive” states:

| Divisions | Per-acre yield in bushels |
| --- | --- |
| Corn | Wheat |
| 1909 | 1899 | 1909 | 1899 |
| New England Middle Atlantic | 45.2 32.2 | 39.4 34.0 | 23.5 18.6 | 18.0 14.9 |
| - - - - - - - - - - |
| East North Central West North Central | 38.6 27.7 | 38.3 31.4 | 17.2 14.8 | 12.9 12.2 |

The same is true of commercial livestock and dairy farming,
which are especially highly developed in these divisions:

| Divisions | Average number of dairy cows per farm | Average production of milk per cow (gallons) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1900) | 1909 | 1899 |
| New England Middle Atlantic | 5.8 6.1 | 476 490 | 548 514 |
| - - - - - - |
| East North Central West North Central | 4.0 4.9 | 410 325 | 487 371 |
| - - - - - - |
| The South (3 divisions) | 1.9-3.1 | 232-286 | 290-395 |
| - - - - - - - - |
| The West (2 divisions) | 4.7-5.1 | 339-475 | 334-470 |
| - - - - - |
| The U.S.A. | 3.8 | 362 | 424 |

This table shows that in the “intensive” states dairy farming is on a considerably larger scale than in
all the others. The areas with the smallest farms (in terms of improved acreage) have the largest dairies. This
fact is of tremendous importance, for, as everyone knows, dairy
farming develops most rapidly in suburban localities and in very
highly industrialized countries (or areas). Statistics from
Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, which are dealt with elsewhere,
improved [1] also show a growing concentration of dairy cattle.

As we have seen, hay and forage in the “intensive” states constitute a considerably greater proportion of the total
crop value than cereals. Accordingly, livestock farming there
develops largely on the basis of purchased feed . Here are
the relevant figures for 1909:

| Division | Receipts from sale of feed | Outlays on feed | Excess of receipts or outlays |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ($000,000) | |
| New England Middle Atlantic | + 4.3 +21.6 | -34.6 -54.7 | -30.3 -33.1 |
| - - - - - - |
| East North Central West North Central | +195.6 +174.4 | -40.6 -76.2 | +155.0 + 98.2 |

The extensive states of the North sell feed. The intensive
states buy it. It is clear that if feed is purchased large-scale operations of a highly capitalistic nature
can be conducted on a small tract of land.

Let us make a comparison between the two intensive divisions
of the North, New England and the Middle Atlantic states, and the
most extensive division of the North, the West North Central:

| Division | Improved land (000,000 acres) | Value of livestock ($000,000) | Receipts from sale of feed ($000,000) | Outlays on feed ($000,000) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New England + Middle Atlantic | 36.5 | 447 | 26 | 89 |
| West North Central | 164.3 | 1,552 | 174 | 76 |

We find that there is more livestock per acre of improved land
in the intensive states (447:36 = $12 per acre) than in the
extensive states (1,552:164 = $9). More capital in the form of
livestock is invested in a unit of land area. And the total
per-acre turnover of the feed trade (purchases +sales) is also
very much greater in the intensive states (26+89 = $115 million
for 36 million acres) than in the extensive states (174+76 = $250
million for 164 million acres). In the intensive states farming is
obviously much more commercialized than in the extensive
states.

Expenditure on fertilizers and the value of implements and
machinery are the most exact statistical expression of the degree
of intensification of agriculture. Here are the figures:

| Divisions | Percentage of farms with outlays on fertilizers | Average outlays per farm | Average outlays per acre of improved land ($) | Average improved acreage per farm |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1909 | 1899 | (1909) |
| The North | New England Middle Atlantic | 60.9 57.1 | 82 68 | 1.30 0.62 | 0.53 0.37 | 38.4 62.6 |
| - - - - - - - - - - |
| East North Central West North Central | 19.6 2.1 | 37 41 | 0.09 0.01 | 0.07 0.01 | 79.2 148.0 |
| The South | South Atlantic East South Central West South Central | 69.2 33.8 6.4 | 77 37 53 | 1.23 0.29 0.06 | 0.49 0.13 0.03 | 43.6 42.2 61.8 |
| The West | Mountain Pacific | 1.3 6.4 | 67 189 | 0.01 0.10 | 0.01 0.05 | 86.8 116.1 |
| - - - - - - - - - - |
| | The U.S.A. | 28.7 | 63 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 75.2 |

This fully brings out the difference between the extensive
divisions of the North, with an insignificant proportion of farms
using purchased fertilizers (2-19%), and with negligible
expenditure on fertilizers per acre of improved land (
$0.01-$0.09)—and the intensive states, where the majority of farms (57-60%) use purchased fertilizers and
where expenditure on fertilizers is substantial. In New England,
for example, the per-acre expenditure is $1.30—the maximum figure for all divisions (once again a case of farms with the smallest acreage and the largest expenditure on
fertilizers!), which exceeds the figure for one of the divisions
of the South (South Atlantic). It should be noted that in the
South especially large quantities of artificial fertilizers are
required by cotton, on which, as we have seen, the labour of Negro
share-croppers is most widely employed.

In the Pacific states, we find a very small percentage of
farms using fertilizers (6.4%) but the maximum average per farm
expenditure ($189)—calculated, of course, only for the farms
which used fertilizers. Here we have another example of the growth
of large-scale and capitalist agriculture with a simultaneous reduction of the farm acreage. In two of the
three Pacific states—Washington and Oregon—the use of fertilizers is quite insignificant, a mere $0.01 per acre. It is
only in the third state, California, that the figure is relatively
high: $0.08 in 1899, and $0.19 in 1909. In this state, the fruit
crop plays a special role, and is expanding at an extremely rapid
rate along purely capitalist lines; in 1909, it accounted for
33.1% of the total crop value, as against 18.3% for cereals, and
27.6% for hay and forage. The typical fruit-growing farm has a
smaller-than-average acreage but the use of fertilizers
and hired labour is much greater than average. We shall
later have occasion to dwell on relationships of this type, which
are typical of capitalist countries with an intensive agriculture
and which are most stubbornly ignored by statisticians and
economists.

But let us return to the “intensive” states of the
North. Not only is expenditure on fertilizers—$1.30 per
acre—in New England the highest and the average farm acreage
the smallest (38.4 acres); expenditure on fertilizers is
increasing at an especially rapid rate. In the 10 years between
1899 and 1909, this expenditure increased from $0.53 per acre to
$1.30, i.e., two and one-half times. Consequently, here
intensification of agriculture, technical progress and improvement
of farming techniques are extremely rapid. To get a more graphic
picture of what this means let us compare New England, the most
intensive division of the North, with West North Central, the most
extensive division. In the latter division, scarcely any
artificial fertilizers are used at all (2.1% of the farms and
$0.01 per acre); its farm acreage is larger than that of any other
division of America (148 acres), and is growing at a faster
rate. This particular division is usually taken as the model of
capitalism in American agriculture—and this Mr. Himmer also
does. As I shall show in detail later on, this is incorrect. It is
due to the crudest, most primitive form of extensive agriculture
being confused with technically progressive intensive agriculture. In the West North Central division, the average farm
is four times as big as in New England (148 acres as against
38.4), while average expenditure on fertilizers per user is only
half as great: $41 as against $82.

Hence, in actual practice there are instances of a substantial
reduction in farm acreage being accompanied by a substantial increase in expenditure on artificial
fertilizers, so that “small” production—if we continue, as a matter of routine, to regard it as being small in
terms of acreage—turns out to be “large” in terms of the capital invested in the land. This is not an
exception, but the rule for any country where extensive
agriculture is giving way to intensive agriculture. And this
applies to all capitalist countries, so that when this typical, essential and fundamental characteristic of agriculture
is ignored, the result is the common error of the votaries of
small-scale agriculture who base their judgement only on farm
acreage.

---
Notes:
[1]

See The Agrarian Question and the “Critics of Marx”, Vol. 13.
— Lenin