V. I. Lenin

THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA

The Process of the Formation of a
Home Market for Large-Scale Industry

[Part 2 -- Chapter II]



  Written in 1896-99.
 
  First printed in book
  form at the end of
  March 1899

    Published according to the text
    of the second edition
 
 
 



From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961

Vol. 3, pp. 21-603.

Translated by Joe Fineberg and by George Hanna
Edited by Victor Jerome


Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo,
[email protected] (November 1997)


C O N T E N T S

[Part 2]
 

Chapter II.  T h e  D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  o f  t h e  P e a s-
             a n t r y .  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .


70

I.

Zemstvo Statistics for Novorossia .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

70


 

  Economic groups of the peasantry 70-71. -- Commercial agriculture and the purchase and sale of labour-power 72. -- The top group; the concentration of land 72-73, and of animals and implements 73, the higher productivity of labour 74-75. -- Mr. V. V.'s argument of the decline in horse-ownership 75. -- The hiring of farm workers and Mr. V. V.'s argument on this phenomenon 76-77. -- The bottom group of the peasantry; the leasing of land 77-78. -- The middle group, its instabil-
ity 79-80. -- Messrs V. V. and Karyshev on peasant rentings 80-84. -- The attitude of the Narodniks to Mr. Postnikov's researches 84-85.


II.

Zemstvo Statistics for Samara Gubernia    .   .   .   .   .   .

85



  Data concerning the farms of the different peasant groups in Novouzensk Uyezd 85-87. -- The land held and the land in use by the different groups 87-88. -- Mr. Karyshev on land renting and grain prices 88-90. -- Wage-labour; the creation of a home market by the differentiation of the peasantry 90-92. -- The rural proletariat in Samara Gubernia 92-93.


III.

Zemstvo Statistics for Saratov Gubernia    .   .   .   .   .   .

93



  Data concerning the farms of the different groups 93-94. -- The hiring of farm workers 94-95. -- "Industries" in Zemstvo statistics
95-96. -- Rentings 96-97. -- The arguments on land renting advanc-
ed by Messrs. Karyshev, N.-on, and Maress 97-101. -- A comparison of Kamyshin and other uyezds 101-102. -- The significance of the classif-
ication of peasant households 102-105.


IV.

Zemstvo Statistics for Perm Gubernia .  .   .   .   .   .   .   .

106



  Data concerning the farms of the different groups 106-107. -- The hiring of farm workers and day labourers and its significance 108-110. -- The manuring of the soil 110. -- Improved implements 110-111. -- Commercial and industrial establishments 111-112.


V.

Zemstvo Statistics for Orel Gubernia .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

112



  Data concerning the farms of the different groups 112-113. -- Incompleteness of the picture of differentiation from the data for Orel Gubernia 113-115.


VI.

Zemstvo Statistics for Voronezh Gubernia  .   .   .   .   .   .

115



  Methods of classification in Voronezh abstracts 115-116. -- Data for Zadonsk Uyezd 116-117. -- Industries 117-118.


VII.

Zemstvo Statistics for Nizhni-Novgorod Gubernia .   .   .   .

119



  Data concerning groups of farms for three uyezds 119-122.


 VIII.

Review of Zemstvo Statistics for Other Gubernias   .   .   .

122



  Novgorod Gubernia, Demyansk Uyezd 122-123. -- Chernigov Gubernia, Kozeletsk Uyezd 123. -- Yenisei Gubernia 124. -- Poltava Gubernia, three uyezds 125. -- Kaluga Gubernia 126. -- Tver Gubernia 126-127.


IX.
 

Summary of the Above Zemstvo Statistics on the Differen-
tiation of the Peasantry  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .


127



  Methods of marking the summary 127-129. -- Combined table and chart 130-133 and 140-141. -- Examination of the various columns of the chart 134-139. -- Comparison between different localities as to the degree of differentiation 140-141.


X.
 

Summary of Zemstvo Statistics and Army-Horse Census Returns .  .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .


141



  Zemstvo Statistics for 112 uyezds of 21 gubernias 141-143. -- Army-horse census returns for 49 gubernias of European Russia 143-
144. -- Significance of these data 144-145.


XI.
 

A Comparison of the Army-Horse Censuses of 1888-1891
and 1896-1900 .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .


146



  Data for 48 gubernias of European Russia 146-147. -- Statistical exercises of Messrs. Vikhlyayev and Chernenkov 147-148.


XII.

Zemstvo Statistics on Peasant Budgets  .   .   .   .   .   .   .

148



  Character of the data and methods of treating them 148-150. -- (A). General results of the budgets 150-157. -- Magnitude of expenditures and incomes 150. -- Components of expenditures 151. -- Components of incomes 152-153 -- Cash portions of the budgets 154-155. -- The significance of the taxes 155-156. -- (B). A characterisation of peasant farming 157-162. -- General data about the farms 157-158. -- Property and implements 159. -- Farm expenditure 160-161. -- Income from agriculture 161. -- An apparent exception 161-162. -- (C). A characterisation of the standard of living 162-172. -- Expendi-
ture on food in kind 162-163. -- Expenditure on food in cash 163-
164. -- Remaining expenditures on personal consumption 165. -- Cash expenditure on personal and productive consumption 165-166. -- Mr. N.-on on about the top "stratum" of the peasantry 166-167. -- A com-
parison between the standard of living or rural workers and peasants
167-169. -- Methods of Mr. Shcherbina 170-172.


XIII.

Conclusions from Chapter II .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

172



  The significance of commodity economy 172. -- 1) Capitalist contra-
dictions within the village community 172-173. -- 2) "Depeasantis-
ing" 173-174. -- 3) Characterisation of this process in Capital 173-
176. -- 4) The peasant bourgeoisie 176-177. -- 5) The rural prole-
tariat. The European type of allotment-holding rural worker 177-180 -- 6) The middle peasantry 181. -- 7) The formation of a home mark-
et for capitalism 181. -- 8) Increasing differentiation; significance of migration 182-183. -- 9) Merchant's and usurer's capital. The pre-
sentation of the problem in theory. The connection between these forms of capital and industrial capital 183-186. -- 10) Labour-service and its influence on the differentiation of the peasantry 186-187.
 



Dnieper Uyezd, Taurida Gunernia[*]


Groups
of
house-
holders
 

% of total

Allotment
land

Purchased
land

Rented
land

Land
leased out

Total land
used by
group

   Area
 under crops


House-
holders

Persons
of both
sexes

Dess.

%

Dess.

%

Dess.

%

Dess.

%

Dess.

%

Dess.

 %

Poor . . .
 
Middle . .
 
Well-to-do

39.9
 
41.7
 
18.4

32.6
 
42.2
 
25.2

56,445
 
102,794
 
61,844

25.5
 
46.5
 
28  

2,003
 
5,376
 
26,531

 6
 
16
 
78

7,839
 
48,398
 
81,646

 6
 
35
 
59

21,551
 
 8,311
 
 3,039

65.5
 
25.3
 
 9.2

 44,736
 
148,257
 
166,982

12.4
 
41.2
 
46.4

 38,439
 
137,344
 
150,614

 11
 
 43
 
 46


Total for
  uyezd

100

100

221,083

100 

33,910

100

137,883

100

32,901

100

395,975

100

326,397

100


    * Data taken from the Zemstrvo Statistical Returns. They cover the whole uyezd, including settlements not
embraced by volosts.[
45] The figures in the column "Total land used by group" ahve been calculated by myself,
by adding together the allotment, rented and purchased land, and substracting the leased land.

page 82

statistical returns. -- 3) The peasants with small allotments rent more land than those with big ones.

    To enable the reader clearly to judge the appropriateness of such arguments, let alone their soundness, we quote the corresponding figures for Dnieper Uyezd.[*]

% of
renting
households

Arable per
renting
household
(dess.)

Price per
dessiatines
(rubles)

Cultivating up to  5 dess.  .   .   .   .
     "      5 to 10  "    .   .   .   .
     "     10 to 25  "    .   .   .   .
     "     25 to 50  "    .   .   .   .
     "     over 50  "    .   .   .   .

25
42
69
88
91

 2.4
 3.9
 8.5
20.0
48.6

15.25
12.00
 4.75
 3.75
 3.55


For uyezd   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

  56.2

12.4

 4.23

    The question arises, of what importance can "average" figures be here? Does the fact that those who rent land are "many" -- 56% -- really do away with the concentration of the rented land in the hands of the rich? Is it not ridiculous to take the "average" area of rented land [12 dess. per renting household. Very often it is not even per renting household, but per existing household that is taken. That is what Mr. Karyshev, for example, does in his work "Peasant Rentings of Non-Allotment Land" (Dorpat, 1892; Vol. II of Results of Zemstvo Statistical Investigations )] by putting together peasants of whom one takes 2 dessiatines at a fabulous price (15 rubles), evidently out of dire need, on ruinous terms, while another takes 48 dessiatines, over and above his own adequate amount of land, "buying" the land wholesale at the incomparably lower price of 3.55 rubles per dessiatine? No less hollow is the third argument: Mr. V. V. himself took care to refute it by admitting that figures relating "to entire village communities" (in classifying the peasants according to allotment) "do not present a true picture of what is taking place in the community itself" (p. 342, op. cit.).**


    * The data for the Melitopol and Berdyansk uyezds are analogous.
    ** Mr. Postnikov cites an interesting example of a similar mistake [cont. onto p. 83. -- DJR] made by Zemstvo statisticians. Noting the fact of commercial farming by the well-to-do peasants and their demand for land, he points out that "the Zemstvo statisticians, evidently regarding such manifestations in peasant life as something illegitimate, try to belittle their importance" and to prove that the renting of land is determined not by the competition of rich peasants but by the peasants' need for land. To prove this, Mr. Werner, the compiler of Taurida Gubernia Handbook (1889), classifled the peasants of the entire Taurida Gubernia according to size of allotment, taking the group of peasants with 1 or 2 people working and 2 or 3 draught animals. It turned out that, within the bounds of this group, as the size of the allotment increases the number of renting households and the amount of rented land decrease. Obviously, such a method of calculation proves nothing at all, since only peasants with an equal number of draught animals are taken, and it is the extreme groups that are omitted. It is quite natural that where the number of draught animals is equal the amount of cultivated land must also be equal, and consequently, the smaller the allotment, the larger the amount of rented land. The question is how the rented land is distributed among households with unequal numbers of draught animals, implements, etc.

page 83

    It would be a great mistake to imagine that the concentration of rented land in the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie is limited to individual renting and does not apply to renting by the village community. Nothing of the kind. The rented land is always distributed "according to where the money lies," and the relation between the groups of the peasantry does not change in the least where land is rented by the community. Hence, the argument of Mr. Karyshev, for example, that the relation between community renting and individual renting expresses a "conflict between two principles (!?),the communal and the individual" (p.159, loc. cit.), that community renting "is characterised by the labour principle and the principle of even distribution of rented land among the community members" (ibid., 230) -- this argument belongs entirely to the sphere of Narodnik prejudices. Not withstanding the task he set himself of summing up the "results of Zemstvo statistical investigation," Mr. Karyshev carefully avoided all the abundant Zemstvo statistical material about the concentration of rented land in the hands of small groups of well-to-do peasants. Let us quote an example. In the three indicated uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, state lands rented by peasant communities are distributed among the groups as follows:

page 84

No. of
renting
households

No. of
dess.

As % of
total

Dess. per
renting
household

Cultivating up to  5 dess.  .   .   .   .
     "      5 to 10  "    .   .   .   .
     "     10 to 25  "    .   .   .   .
     "     25 to 50  "    .   .   .   .
     "     over 50  "    .   .   .   .

   83
  444
1,732
1,245
  632

  511
1,427
8,711
13,375 
20,283 

1 \
3 /
20 
30 \
46 /

 4
 
 
76

 6.1
 3.2
 5.0
10.7
32.1


Total   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

4,136

44,307 

100 


10.7

    A little illustration of the "labour principle" and of the "principle of even distribution"!

    Such are the Zemstvo statistical data on peasant farming in South Russia. No room is left by these data for doubting the complete differentiation of the peasantry, the complete domination in the countryside of the peasant bourgeoisie.[*] Highly interesting, therefore, is the attitude of Messrs. V. V. and N.-on towards these data, the more so that formerly both these writers admitted the need of raising the problem of the differentiation of the peasantry (Mr. V. V. in the above mentioned article of 1884, and Mr. N.-on in Slovo [The Word ] in 1880, when he remarked on the interesting phenomenon in the village community itself that the "unenterprising" muzhiks neglect their land, while the "enterprising" ones take the best land for themselves; cf. Sketches, p. 71). It should be noted that Mr. Postnikov's work is of a dual character: on the one hand the author skilfully gathered and carefully processed extremely valuable Zemstvo statistics and managed, in doing so, to escape the "tendency to regard the peasant community as something integral and homogeneous, as it is still held to be by our urban intelligentsia" (p. 351, op. cit.). On the other hand, the author, not being guided by theory, failed totally to appraise the data he had processed, and regarded them from the extremely narrow point of view of "measures," proceeding to concoct projects


    * It is usually said that the data for Novorossia do not permit the drawing of general conclusions, because of the specific features of that locality. We do not deny that the differentiation of the agricultural peasantry is more marked here than in the rest of Russia; but it will be seen from what follows that the specific nature of Novorossia is by no means so great as is sometimes imagined.

page 85

about "agricultural-handicraft-factory communities" and about the necessity of "restricting," "enjoining," "observing," etc., etc. Well then, our Narodniks did their best to ignore the first, the positive part of Mr. Postnikov's work and concentrated their attention on the second part. Both Mr. V. V. and Mr. N.-on began with highly serious air to "refute" Mr. Postnikov's absolutely unserious "projects" (Mr. V. V. in Russkaya Mysl [Russian Thought ], 1894, No. 2; Mr. N.-on in his Sketches, p. 233, footnote), accusing him of the evil intention of introducing capitalism into Russia, and carefully avoiding the data which revealed the prevalence of capitalist relations in the countryside of South Russia today.[*]


II. ZEMSTVO STATISTICS FOR SAMARA GUBERNIA

    From the country's southern outer area let us pass to the eastern region, to Samara Gubernia. Let us take Novouzensk Uyezd, the last one investigated; in the statistical report for this uyezd we find the most detailed classification of the peasants according to economic status.** Here are the general data on the groups of the peasantry (the data that follow cover 28,276 allotment-holding households, numbering 164,146 persons of both sexes, i.e., only the Russian population of the uyezd, without Germans or farmsteaders -- householders who farm both on community land and on separate non-community farmsteads. The inclusion


    * "It is interesting," wrote Mr. N.-on, that Mr. Postnikov "has projects for 60-dessiatine peasant farms." But "since agriculture has fallen into the hands of capitalists," productivity of labour may grow still more "tomorrow," "and it will be necessary (!) to convert the 60-dessiatine into 200- or 300-dessiatine farms." You see how simple it is: because the petty bourgeoisie of today in our countryside will be threatened tomorrow by the big bourgeoisie, therefore Mr. N.-on refuses to recognise either today's petty or tomorrow's big bourgeoisie!
    ** Statistical Returns for Samara Gubernia, Vol. VII, Nolvousensk Uyezd, Samara, 1890. An analogous classification is also given for Nikolayevsk Uyezd (Vol. VI, Samara, 1889), but the data are much less detailed. The Combined Returns for Samara Gubernia (Vol. VIII, Pt. 1, Samara, 1892) contains only a classification according to size of allotment, the unsatisfactory nature of which we shall deal with laler on.

page 86

of the Germans and the farmsteaders would considerably heighten the picture of differentiation).


Groups of householders

% of total
housholds

Average
area under
crops per
household
(dess.)

% of
total area
under crops

Poor

 / With no draught animals  .   .   .
 \   "   1 draught animal   .   .   .

20.7 \
16.4 /

37.1%

 2.1
 5.0

 2.8 \
 5.2 /

 8.0%

Middle

 /   "   2 to 3 draught animals .   .
 \   "   4         "      "     .   .

26.6 \
11.6 /

38.2%

10.2
15.9

17.1 \
11.5 /

28.6%

Rich

 /   "   5 to 15   "      "     .   .
<    "  10 to 20   "      "     .   .
 \   "  20 draught animals and more

 17.1 \
  5.8  >
 1.8 /

24.7%

24.7
53.0
149.5 

26.9 \
 19.3  >
17.2 /

63.4%


Total .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

100    

15.9

100    

    The concentration of agricultural production turns out to be very considerable: the "community" capitalists (1/14 of the total households, namely, households with 10 and more draught animals) possess 36.5% of the area under crops -- as much as do 75.3 %, the poor and middle peasantry put together! Here, too, as always, the "average" figure (15.9 dess. under crops per household) is absolutely fictitious and creates the illusion of universal prosperity. Let us examine other data on the economy of the various groups.

Groups of
householders

% of
peasants
cultivating
entire
allotment
with own
implements

% of
peasants
owning
improved
implements

Total
animals
(in terms
of cattle)
per
household

% of total
animals

  With no draught animals  .   .   .
    "   1 draught animal .  .   .   .

 2.1
35.4

  0.03
 0.1

 0.5
 1.9

 1.5 \
 4.9 /

 6.4%

   "   2 to 3 draught animals .   .
    "   4         "      "     .   .

60.5
74.7

 4.5
19.0

 4.0
 6.6

16.8 \
11.8 /

28.6%

   "   5 to 15   "      "     .   .
    "  10 to 20   "      "     .   .
    "  20 draught animals and more

82.4
90.3
84.1

40.3
41.6
62.1

10.9
22.7
55.5

29.2 \
 20.4  >
15.4 /

65.0%


       Total .   .   .   .   .   .   .

52.0

13.9

 6.4

100    

page 87

    Thus, in the bottom group there are very few independent peasant farmers; the poor peasants have no improved implements at all, while the middle peasantry have them in insignificant numbers. The concentration of animals is still greater than the concentration of area under crops; the well to-do peasants evidently combine capitalist livestock raising with their large-scale capitalist cropping. At the opposite pole we have "peasants" who ought to be classed as allotment-holding farm labourers and day labourers, for their main source of livelihood is the sale of their labour-power (as we shall see in a moment), and the landowners sometimes give one or two animals to their labourers to tie them down to their farms and to reduce wages.

    It goes without saying that the peasant groups differ not only as to the size of their farms, but also in their methods of farming: firstly, in the top group a very large proportion of the peasant farmers (40 to 60%) are supplied with improved implements (mainly iron ploughs, and also horse and steam threshers, winnowing machines, reapers, etc.). In the hands of 24.7% of the households, the top group, are concentrated 82.9% of the total improved implements; 38.2% of the households, the middle group, possess 17% of the improved implements; 37.1%, the poor, possess 0.1% (7 implements out of 5,724).* Secondly, the peasants with few horses are compelled by necessity to carry on "a different system of farming, a system of economic activity" entirely different from that of the peasants with many horses, as the compiler of Returns for Novouzensk Uyezd says (pp. 44-46). The well-to-do peasants "let their land rest . . . plough in the autumn


    * It is interesting to note that from these very data Mr. V. V. (Progressive Trendg in Peasant Farming, St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 225) concluded that there was a movement by the "peasant masses" to replace obsolete implements by improved ones (p. 254). The method by which this absolutely false conclusion was reached is very simple: Mr. V. V. took the total figures from the Zemstvo returns, without troubling to look at the tables showing how the implements were distributed! The progress of the capitalist farmers (community members), who employ machines to cheapen the cost of producing commodity grain, is transformed by a stroke of the pen into the progress of the "peasant masses." And Mr. V.V. did not hesitate to write "Although the machines are acquired by the well-to-do peasants; they are used by all (sic !!) the peasants" (221). Comment is superflous.

page 88

. . . plough it again in the spring and sow after harrowing . . . roll the ploughed land when the soil has aired . . . plough twice for rye," whereas the badly-off peasants "do not let their land rest but sow Russian wheat year after year . . . for wheat they plough in the spring once . . . for rye they provide neither fallow nor ploughed land, but merely break the surface before sowing . . . for wheat they plough in the late spring, and as a result the corn often does not come up . . . for rye they plough once, or merely break the surface and not at the proper time . . . they plough the same plot of land unwisely year after year, without allowing it to rest." "And so on and so forth without end," the compiler concludes this list. "The facts enumerated concerning the radical difference between the farming systems of the better- and the badly-off peasants result in grain of poor quality and bad harvests for the latter and comparatively better harvests for the former" (ibid.).

    But how could such a big bourgeoisie arise under the agricultural community system? The answer is supplied by the figures for land possessed and in use according to groups. The peasants in the section taken by us (76 households) have a total of 57,128 dess. of purchased land and 304,514 dess. of rented land, of which 177,789 dess. are non-allotment land rented by 5,602 households; 47,494 dess. of the allotment land rented from other village communities are held by 3,129 households, and 79,231 dess. of the allotment land rented in their own village communities are held by 7,092 households. The distribution of this enormous area of land, constituting more than 2/3 of the peasants' total area under crops, is as follows (see Table on p. 89).

    We see here an enormous concentration of purchased and rented land. More than 9/10 of the total purchased land is in the hands of 1.8% of the households, the very richest. Of all the rented land, 69.7% is concentrated in the hands of peasant capitalists, and 86.6% is in the hands of the top group of the peasantry. A comparison of the figures on the renting and the leasing-out of allotment land clearly reveals the passage of the land into the hands of the peasant bourgeoisie. Here, too, the conversion of the land into a commodity leads to the cheapening of the wholesale purchase price of land (and, consequently, to profiteering in land). If we determine the price of one dessiatine of rented non-allotment land

page 89


Renting of allotment land



Renting of non-
allotment land

In other
communities

In own
community

Groups of householders

% of
hhlds
with
pur-
chased
land

Dess.
per
hhld

% of
total
pur-
chased
land

% of
hhlds
rent-
ing

Dess.
per
hhld

% of
hhlds

Dess.
per
hhld

% of
hhlds

Dess.
per
hhld

% of
total
rented
land

% of
non-
farming
hhlds
leasing
out land

With no draught animals  .   .   .
  "   1 draught animal .  .   .   .
  "   2 to 3 draught animals .   .
  "   4         "      "     .   .
  "   5 to 15   "      "     .   .
  "  10 to 20   "      "     .   .
  "  20 and more      "     .   .

 0.02
--
 0.02
 0.07
0.1
1.4
8.2

  100
 --
   93
   29
  101
  151
1,254

 0.2
--
 0.5
 0.1
 0.9
 6.0
92.3

 2.4
10.5
19.8
27.9
30.4
45.8
65.8

  1.7
  2.5
  3.8
  6.6
 14.0
 54.0
304.2

 1.4
 4.3
 9.4
15.8
19.7
29.6
36.1

 5.9
 6.2
 5.6
 6.9
11.6
29.4
67.4

 5
12
21
34
44
58
58

 3
 4
 5
 6
 9
21
74

 0.6
 1.6
 5.8
 5.4
16.9
24.3
45.4

47.0
13.0
 2.0
 0.8
 0.4
 0.2
 0.1


    Total  .   .   .   .   .   .   .

0.3

751

100

19.8

31.7

11.0

15.1

25

11

100

12


% of land


% of land

Total land
in use


Groups
of
house-
holders

% of
fam-
ilies

%
of pop-
ulation,
both
sexes

Allot-
ment
land
per
hhld
(dess.)

allot-
ment

pur-
chased

% of
land
renting
hhlds

rent-
ed

leased
out

as
%

per
hhld

Ani-
mals (in
terms of
cattle)
per hhld

% of
total
ani-
mals

Horseless
With 1
 horse
With 2 or
 3 horses
With 4
 and more

22.9
 
33.5
 
36.4
 
 7.2

15.6
 
29.4
 
42.6
 
12.4

5.5
 
6.7
 
9.6
 
15.2 

14.5
 
28.1
 
43.8
 
13.6

 3.1
 
 7.2
 
40.5
 
49.2

11.2
 
46.9
 
77.4
 
90.2

 1.5
 
14.1
 
50.4
 
34.0

85.8
 
10.0
 
 3.0
 
 1.2

 4.0
 
25.8
 
49.3
 
20.9

1.7
 
7.5
 
13.3
 
28.4

0.5
 
2.3
 
4.6
 
9.3

 3.8
 
23.7
 
51.7
 
20.8


  Total  

100

100

8.6

100

100

52.8

100

100

100

9.8

3.2

100


% of land

% of land


Total land
in use


Groups
of
house-
holders

% of
hhlds

Per
hhld,
per-
sons
both
sexes

% of pop-
ulation,
both
sexes

Allot-
ment
land
per
hhld
(dess.)

allot-
ment

pur-
chased

rent-
ed

leased
out

per
hhld
(dess.)

%

per
hhld
(dess.)

%

Total
animals
per hhld

Horseless
With 1
 horse
With 2 or
 3 horses
With 4
 and more

24.5
 
40.5
 
31.8
 
 3.2

4.5
 
6.1
 
8.7
 
13.6 

16.3
 
36.3
 
40.9
 
 6.5

5.2
 
7.7
 
11.6
 
17.1

14.7
 
36.1
 
42.6
 
 6.6

2.0
 
14.3
 
35.9
 
47.8

 1.5
 
19.5
 
54.0
 
25.0

36.9
 
41.9
 
19.8
 
 1.4

 4.7
 
8.2
 
14.4
 
33.2

11.2
 
32.8
 
45.4
 
10.6

1.4
 
3.4
 
5.8
 
11.1 

 8.9
 
35.1
 
47.0
 
 9.0

0.6
 
2.5
 
5.2
 
11.3 


  Total  

100

6.8

100

8.6

100

100

100

100

10.1

100

4.0

100

3.2


Improved
implements

% of farms


% of farms

% of money
income from

Groups
of
house-
holders

per
100
farms

% of
total
 

hiring
farm
labour-
ers

provid-
ing farm
labour-
ers

Commercial
& industrial
establish-
ments per
100 farms

engag-
ing in
indust-
ries

selling
grain

buying
grain

indus-
tries
 
 

sale of
agri-
cultural
produce

Horseless
With 1
 horse
With 2 or
 3 horses
With 4
 and more

--
 
 0.06
 
1.6
 
23.0 

--
 
 2.1
 
43.7
 
54.2

0.2
 
1.1
 
7.7
 
28.1 

29.9
 
15.8
 
11.0
 
 5.3

1.7
 
2.5
 
6.4
 
30.0 

94.4
 
89.6
 
86.7
 
71.4

 7.3
 
31.2
 
52.5
 
60.0

70.5
 
55.1
 
28.7
 
 8.1

87.1
 
70.2
 
60.0
 
46.1

10.5
 
23.5
 
35.2
 
51.5


  Total  

1.2

100

3.8

17.4

4.5

90.5

33.2

48.9

66.0

29.0


Allotment
land

Pur-
chased
land

% of
total land

Total land
in use by
group

Total
animals

Groups of
householders

% of
hhlds

Per-
sons
of both
sexes
per
hhld

% of
pop-
ulation
of both
sexes

Dess.
per
hhld
 

% of
total

% of
total

Rent-
ed

Leased
out

Dess.
per
hhld

% of
total

No.
per
hhld

% of
total

Horseless
With 1 horse
  "  2 horses
  "  3   "
  "  4 and more

30.4
37.5
22.5
 7.3
 2.3

4.1
5.3
6.9
8.4
10.2 

22.2
35.2
27.4
10.9
 4.3

 5.1
 8.1
10.5
13.2
16.4

18.6
36.6
28.5
11.6
 4.7

 5.7
18.8
29.3
22.7
23.5

 3.3
25.1
38.5
21.2
11.9

81.7
12.4
 3.8
 1.2
 0.9

 4.4
 9.4
13.8
21.0
34.6

13.1
34.1
30.2
14.8
 7.8

0.6
2.4
4.3
6.2
9.0

 7.2
33.7
34.9
16.5
 7.7


  Total  

100

5.6

100

 8.3

100

100

100

100

10.3

100

2.7

100

Foldout chart roughly 11 x 11 inches.

G
r
o
u
p
s

No.
of
pea-
sants

Per-
sons
of
both
sexes
per
fam-
ily

Workers
per family

Hhlds
em-
ploy-
ing
farm
la-
bour-
ers

Number of
peasants

Allot-
ment
land
per
hhld
(dess.)

Area under
crops per
hhld (dess.)

T
o
t
a
l

Dess.
under
crops
per
capita,
both
sexes

% of
rent-
ed to
own
land

own

hire

total

leas-
ing
out
land

rent-
ing
land

on
own
land

on
rent-
ed
land

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

12
18
17
 9
 5
 5

 4.08
 4.94
 8.23
13.00
14.20
16.00

1   
1   
2.17
2.66
3.2 
3.2 

--
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.2 
1.2 

1   
1.17
2.29
2.88
3.4 
4.4 

--
 3
 2
 2
 1
 2

5
3
--
--
--
--

--
 5
 9
 6
 5
 3

 5.9
 7.4
12.7
18.5
22.9
23  

 1.48
 2.84
 5.62
 8.73
11.18
10.50

--
 0.58
 1.31
 2.65
 6.92
10.58

 1.48
 3.42
 6.93
11.38
18.10
21.08

0.36
0.69
0.84
0.87
1.27
1.32

--
 20.5
 23.4
 30.4
 61.9
100.7

Total

66

 8.27

1.86

0.21

2.07

10

8

30

12.4

 5.32

 2.18

7.5

0.91

 41.0


    * It goes without saying that still greater harm will be done to the peasant poor by Stolypin's (November 1906? breaking up of the village community. This is the Ruggian "enrichissez-vous " ("enrich yourselves". --Ed.). Black Hundreds -- rich peasants! Loot all you can, so long as you bolster up tottering absolutism! (Note to 2nd edition.)



From Marx
to Mao

Lenin
Collection

DCR
Table of
Contents

On to
Chapters
III and IV

Notes for
"Part 2"
Below




From Marx
to Mao

Lenin
Collection

Reading
Guide

DCR
Table of
Contents

On to
Chapters
III and IV