V. I.

Lenin

New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture

PART ONE—Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America

9. Continued. Statistics on the Value of Farms

American statistics, unlike European statistics, determine, for
each farm and each group of farms, the value of the various
elements making up the farming enterprise—the land, buildings, implements, livestock and the enterprise as a
whole. These data are probably not quite as accurate as the data
relating to acreage, but generally speaking they are equally
reliable, and in addition give some idea of the general state of
capitalism in agriculture.

In order to supplement the above analysis I shall now take the
data relating to the total value of farms with all their
agricultural property, and also the data on the value of
implements and machinery. I single out implements and machinery
from among the various elements of the enterprise because they
are a direct indication of the agricultural operations being
conducted, and of how they are being conducted i.e., whether
more or less intensively, and whether they employ technical
improvements to a greater or lesser extent. Here are the figures
for the U.S.A.:

| Size groups (acres) | Percentage distribution of value |
| --- | --- |
| All property on farms | Increase or decrease | Implements and machinery | Increase or decrease |
| 1900 | 1910 | | 1900 | 1910 | |
| Under 20 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 174 174 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 and over | 3.8 7.9 16.7 28.0 30.5 5.9 7.3 | 3.7 7.3 14.6 27.1 33.3 7.1 6.9 | -0.1 -0.6 -2.1 -0.9 +2.8 +1.2 -0.4 | 3.8 9.1 19.3 29.3 27.1 5.1 6.2 | 3.7 8.5 17.7 28.9 30.2 6.3 4.7 | -0.1 -0.6 -1.6 -0.4 +3.1 +1.2 -1.5 |
| |
| Totals | 100.0 | 100.0 | — | 100.0 | 100.0 | — |

The absolute figures show that from 1900 to 1910 the value of
all farm property more than doubled; it increased from $20,440
million to $40,991 million, i.e., 100.5%. The rise in the prices
of farm products and rents put millions and thousands of
millions of dollars into the pockets of the landowners at the
expense of the working class. What were the comparative gains of
the small and the big farms? The above figures supply the
answer. They show that the latifundia declined (their total
acreage fell from 23.6% to 19.0%, or 4.6%), and that the
small and medium-size farms are being displaced by the large , capitalist farms (175 to 999 acres). Adding up the
figures for the small and medium farms we find that their share
in the total property decreased from 56.4 to
52.7%. Adding up the figures for the large farms and the
latifundia we find that their share increased from
43.7% to 47.3%. There were absolutely identical changes in the
distribution of the total value of implements and machinery
between the small and large farms.

We also observe the phenomenon noted above in the figures
relating to the latifundia. Their decline is limited to two
sections: the South and the West. It is a decline, on the one
hand, of the slave-holding latifundia, and on the other, of the
primitive-squatter and the primitive-extensive latifundia. We
find a growth of latifundia in the populated industrial
North: this applies to the number of farms of this type, their
total acreage, their improved acreage, their share in the total
value of all farm property (2.5% in 1900; 2.8% in 1910), and
their share in the total value of all implements and machinery.

There is moreover a growth of the role of the latifundia not
only throughout the North in general but also in both the intensive divisions of the North in particular, where there
is absolutely no colonization, namely New England and the Middle
Atlantic states. These divisions must be analyzed in greater
detail because, for one thing, they have misled Mr. Himmer and
many others by the particularly small average size of their
farms and a reduction of that size, and, for another, these most
intensive divisions are most typical of the older, long settled,
civilized countries of Europe .

Between 1900 and 1910, the number of farms, the total acreage
and the improved acreage decreased in both these divisions. In
New England, there was an increase only in the number of the
smallest farms, those under 20 acres, by 22.4% (the improved land on them increased by 15.5%), and in the number of
latifundia—by 16.3%, and their improved acreage by
26.8%. In the Middle Atlantic states there was an increase in
the smallest farms (+7.7% in the number, and +2.5% in the improved acreage) and also in the number of the 175-to-499-acre farms (+1.0%) and the improved land on the 500-to-999-acre
farms (+3.8%). In both divisions, there was an increase
in the share of the smallest farms and the share of the
latifundia in the total value of all farm property and also of
implements and machinery. Here are some figures which give a
clearer and fuller picture of each of these divisions:

| | Percentage increase from 1900 to 1910 |
| --- | --- |
| New England | Middle Atlantic |
| Size groups (acres) | Value of all farm
property | Value of implements and machinery | Value of all farm property | Value of implements and machinery |
| Under 20 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 174 174 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 and over Totals | 60.9 31.4 27.5 30.3 33.0 53.7 102.7

35.6 | 48.9 30.3 31.2 38.5 44.6 53.7 60.5

39.0 | 45.8 28.3 23.8 24.9 29.4 31.5 74.4

28.1 | 42.9 37.0 39.9 43.8 54.7 50.8 65.2

44.1 |

This makes it clear that in both divisions it was the latifundia that gained most ground, showed the greatest
economic gains, and made the greatest technical advance. Here
the largest capitalist enterprises are displacing the others, the smaller farms. A minimum increase in the value of
all property and also of implements and machinery is evident in
the medium-size group and in the small group, but not in the
smallest. Hence, it is the medium and small farms that mostly
lag behind.

As for the smallest farms (under 20 acres), their advance in
both divisions is above the average , and second only to
the latifundia. We already know the reason: 31 to 33% of the
crop value in both these intensive divisions comes from the
highly capitalist crops (vegetables, and also fruits, flowers,
etc.) which yield extremely great values on very small acreage’s. In these divisions, cereal crops account for only 8
to 30% of the crop value; and hay and forage, 31 to 42%; there
is a growth of dairy farming which is characterized by smaller -than-average acreages, but a
greater -than-average value of produce and capital outlays on
hired labour.

In the most intensive divisions, there is a decrease in the
average improved acreage in farms because the average is
obtained by combining the acreage of the latifundia and that of
the smallest farms, the number of which is increasing more
rapidly than that of the medium-size farms. The smallest farms
are increasing in number faster than the latifundia. But there
is a dual growth of capitalism: it increases-the size of farms
worked by old technical methods; and creates new enterprises
raising special commercial crops on very small and tiny
acreages, with an extremely great volume of production and
employment of hired labour.

The net result is the greatest gains by the latifundia and the
giant farms, the obliteration of the medium and small farms, and
the growth of the smallest highly capitalist enterprises.

We shall presently see how the net result of such contradictory—seemingly contradictory—phenomena of
capitalism in agriculture can be expressed in statistical
terms.

---
Notes: