CHAPTER XI.

INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP AND AGRARIAN COMMUNISM.

Thus far we have seen the changes which the parcelling of soil wrought in the constitution of the village population. We are now brought face to face with the question of how small peasant landholding is influenced by this parcelling.

In countries with individual property in land, the question is settled. In Russia the case is complicated by the system of communal ownership in land.

Yet the right of alienation, the main essential for the question at issue, is inherent in quarterly possession on an equal footing with private property. Thus we can avail ourselves of the opportunity for comparative study.

Quite naturally, the distribution of land shows more irregularity under quarterly possession than under agrarian communism.

+--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | | Quarterly | Agrarian | | |possession.|communism. | | +-----------+-----------+ | Former state peasants. |Dankoff and| Zadonsk, | | | Ranenburg.|Gubernia of| | | | Voronezh. | | | Per cent. | Per cent. | +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+ | Households: | | | |Landless | 4 | 1 | |Owning less than 5 dessiatines | 37 | 27 | |Owning more than 5 dessiatines | 59 | 72 | | +-----------+-----------+ | Total | 100 | 100 | | +-----------+-----------+ | Average holding: dessiatines| 10.9 | 10.4 | +--------------------------------+-----------+-----------+

The maximum extent of one quarterly holding exceeded ten times the average. Under the rule of agrarian communism, where land is periodically distributed _pro rata_, according to the membership of the families, such extremes are quite impossible, so far as ownership is concerned.

Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under agrarian communism and under quarterly possession:

_Dankoff and Ranenburg: _Landless. _Emigrated. _Total. Former state peasants._ Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._

With quarterly possession 3 14 17 With agrarian communism 1 9 10

It must be taken into account that the plots of the emigrants remain, under agrarian communism, the property of the community, which is not the case under any other form of possession that is at all analogous to private property. Thus the rural community appears to be a fairly efficient safety-valve against the expropriation of the poorest among the peasantry. In reality, however, the influence of communal ownership is merely formal. Communal land escapes from the hands of its titular owners under the form of lease.

The communal land held under lease is now nearly equal in amount to that leased by the peasants directly from the landlords.

_Tenure from the landlords._ _Communal land in lease._ _Dessiatines._ _Dessiatines._ _Per cent._

Ranenburg 18044 17060 10 Dankoff 13792 9846 7 Zadonsk 12160 11886 9 Korotoyak 11815 21695 8 Nizhnedevitzk 13851 18950 7

Furthermore, the figures show that only about one-fourth of the lessors are regular farmers, cultivating their lots with their own horses and implements, while about one-half have abandoned farming altogether:

_Ranenburg. _Dankoff. _Zadonsk. Per cent._ Per cent._ Per cent._ Leased: a part of the plot, the rest cultivated a) by the owner 7 7 7 b) with the aid of hired labor 6 6 5 -- -- -- The total plot 12 11 8 In all 25 24 20

Now, it is only in a few cases that the lease of a part of the plot is a proof of its extra size. As a rule, the plot is leased in part by those who are unable to raise the quantity of live stock required for the cultivation of their farms. The plots leased in full are the smallest, which it would not pay to cultivate.[138]

It will be remembered[139] that the terms of the agreement include the payment of the taxes with from one to three rubles yearly per plot for the enjoyment of the owner. It is evident that lease on such terms means practically expropriation of the owner.

Thus, under the rule of the _mir_, about one-fourth of the householders, nominally counted among “peasant proprietors,” are on the way toward expropriation, or have already become expropriated. As to the lessees of the peasant plots, they must be at the top of the tenant class,[140] by reason of the terms of lease. The landlord gives the tenant credit for his rent, at least in part, till after harvest, and, in case of need, part of the rent is permitted to be paid in labor. The peasant lets his plot, either in full for the payment of taxes, or in part, by reason of lack of money. In either case it must be advanced in the fall. It is by no means unusual for the lease to be contracted for a term of from six to twelve years,[141] the rent for the whole being payable in advance. This is very often the case with the plots of emigrants, leaving home for purposes of colonization, and with those who are permanently employed outside. It goes without saying that rent is advanced only at a considerable reduction of the rates.[142] This difference gave rise to speculation in peasant land. A hundred shares are leased by a wealthy peasant or merchant, to be re-rented in the spring in small plots to the poorer among the lessees.[143] The fact that alienability of the peasant land had become a rule in the community, was first stated by Mr. Trirogoff as far back as 1879.[144] The observer, however, was not aware of the economic significance of the phenomenon when he advanced the opinion that alienability of land exhibits the great capacity of adaptation intrinsic in the community.

In reality the contrary is the case. The fact that communal land is disposed of by private agreement, means the displacement of agrarian communism by economic individualism. This was most strikingly demonstrated when the question of the general redivision of the communal land came up before the free _mir_ in the beginning of the eighties.