|
First published in 1908;
Chapters X -XI in the miscellany: Vl. Ilyin,
The Agrarian Question, Part I,
St. Petersburg,
and Chapter XII
in the collection Current Life,
St. Petersburg
|
Published according
to the text in the miscellany
and the collection
|
From V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1972
Vol. 13, pp. 169-216.
Translated from the Russian by Bernard Isaacs
Edited by Clemens Dutt
Prepared ©
for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (August
1997)
XTHE "WORK" OF THE GERMAN BULCAKOV, E. DAVlD
Ed. David's book, Socialism and Agriculture, is an
exceptionally clumsy and cumbrous summary of all the erroneous methods and
arguments which we have seen in the works of Bulgakov, Hertz, and Chernov.
We could, therefore, completely ignore David; but since his "work" is
undoubtedly at the present time the principal work of revisionism on the
agrarian question, we think it necessary once again to show how the
revisionist fraternity write learned treatises.
To the question of machinery in agriculture David devotes the whole
of Chapter IV of his book (pp. 115-93 of the Russian translation), apart
from numerous references to the same subject in other chapters. The
politico-economic essence of the matter is completely submerged in hundreds
of technicalities which the author examines in minute detail.
Machinery does not play the same role in agriculture as in industry; in
agriculture there is no central motor; most of the machines are only
temporarily employed; some machines make no saving in production costs, and
so on and so forth. David regards such conclusions (see pp. 190-93, the
question of machinery summed up) as a refutation of Marxist theory! But this
merely obscures the question instead of clarifying it. That agriculture is
backward compared with manufacturing industry is not open to the slightest
doubt. This backwardness requires no proof. By examining, point by point,
the various ways in which that backwardness is displayed, by piling example
upon example and case upon case, David merely pushes into the background the
actual subject of the research, namely: is the use
page 172
of machines of a capitalist character? Is the increased use of machines
due to the growth of capitalist agriculture?
David utterly fails to understand how the question
should be presented by a Marxist. David's standpoint is essentially that of
the petty bourgeois, who consoles himself with the relatively slow progress
of capitalism and is afraid to look at social evolution as a whole. Thus, on
the question of agricultural machinery, David quotes
Bensing, quotes him innumerable times[88] (pp.
125, 135, 180, 182, 184, 186, 189, 506, and others of the Russian
translation). David can positively be said to exasperate the reader by
passing from detail to detail without sifting his material, without
coherence, without a reasoned presentation of the question, without aim.
Consequently, David provides no summing up of Bensing's conclusions.
What I said in 1901 in opposition to Mr. Bulgakov fully applies to David.[*] First,
a summary of Bensing's conclusions shows the indisputable advantage which
farms using machines have over those that do not use them. None of the
"corrections" to Bensing in minor details, with which David has stuffed his
book, can alter this conclusion. David passes over this general
conclusion in silence in exactly the same way as Mr. Bulgakov did! Secondly,
while quoting Bensing without end, without reason, without coherence, David,
like Mr. Bulgakov, failed to note Bensing's bourgeois views
concerning machinery in both industry and agriculture. In short, David does
not even understand the socio-economic aspect of the question. He is unable
to generalise and connect the factual data showing the superiority of
large-scale over small-scale production. As a result, nothing remains but
the reactionary lamentations of the petty bourgeois who places his hopes in
technical backwardness, in the slow development of capitalism. In the matter
of theory, the Right-wing Cadet and "Christian" renegade Mr. Bulgakov is
quite on a level with the opportunist Social-Democrat David.
David fails, hopelessly fails to understand the socio-economic aspect
of other questions as well. Take his fundamental thesis, his pet idea, the
"kingpin" of the whole
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 133-34. --Ed.
[Transcriber's Note: Throughout this
document, all references to page numbers in Vol. 5 by the Editor are
to those in Lenin's 1901 text, The
Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx". -- DJR]
page 173
work: the viability of small-scale production in agriculture and
its superiority to large-scale production. Ask David: What is small-scale
production?
On page 29, footnote, you will find a neat answer: "Wherever we refer
to small-scale production we mean the economic category which functions
without regular outside assistance and without an auxiliary occupation."
Though clumsily expressed and poorly translated by Mr. Grossman, this is
more or less clear. After that we have a right to expect David to outline
the conditions of small-scale (in area ) farming from the
standpoint of the employment of hired labour, or the sale of the latter
by the farmer.
Nothing of the kind.
Nothing brings out David's bourgeois nature so strongly as his
complete disregard of the question of the employment of hired labour by
"small" farmers and of the conversion of the latter into wage-labourers.
Complete disregard -- that is literally true. Statistical data on this are
to be found in German statistics; Kautsky quotes them briefiy in his Agrarian
Question (I have quoted them in detail[*]).
David knows those statistics, but he does not analyse them. He gives a mass
of references to separate monographs, but completely ignores the data
they contain on this question. In short, this is a case of a petty bourgeois
completely passing over in silence the question of the "farm-hands"
employed by the thrifty muzhik.
Here are examples:
On page 109 we read: "On the whole, in market gardening as in
agriculture, small-scale production flourishes."
You look for proof. All you are given is the following:
"According to the industrial statistics** for 1895, out of 32,540
orchards and vegetable gardens 13,247 = 40 per cent were of an area less
than 20 ares; 8,257 = 25 per cent ranged from 20 to 50 ares; 5,707 = 14 per
cent from 50 ares to one hectare; 3,397 = 10 per cent ranged in area from 1
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 194-95. --Ed.
** Evidently, this is the way Mr. Grossman, the editor of the
translation, translated the word Betriebsstatistik. That's the
trouble with Russian translations! It should have been translated:
"statistics of agricultural enterprises".
page
174
to 2 hectares, and only 1,932 = 6 per cent occupied an area of 2 hectares
and over."
That is all. And this is supposed to prove that small-scale
production is flourishing in market gardening. This is supposed to be a
scientific work by a man well versed in agronomics. If it is, then we do not
know what charlatanry in science is.
Only 6 per cent have an area of 2 hectares and over,
says David. In the very same statistics from which he takes those figures
there are figures showing the amount of land which these 6 per cent
occupy. David ignores those figures. He ignores them because they
demolish his theory. "But more than half of this area (51.39 per cent)," I
wrote concerning those very figures,[*] "is
concentrated in the hands of 1,932 proprietors, or 5.94 per cent of all the
market gardeners." Of these 1,932 market gardeners 1,441 have vegetable
gardens ranging from two to five hectares, making an average of 2.76
hectares per farm and total land amounting to an average of 109.6
hectares per farm; 491 farmers have vegetable gardens of five hectares or
more, making an average of 16.54 hectares per farm, and total land amounting
to an average of 134.7 hectares per farm (ibid.).
Thus, only 6 per cent of the market gardeners concentrate in
their hands 51.39 per cent of the totaI market garden land. They are big
capitalists for whom vegetable gardens are supplementary to
capitalist agriculture (farms of 100 to 135 hectares). Consequently, market
gardening is enormously concentrated capitalistically. But David has the . .
. temerity to assert that "small-scale production is flourishing", i.e.,
production not using hired labour. As to what size farms in market gardening
require hired labourers he gives no information.
That is how the scholarly David handles statistics. An
example of the way in which he handles monographs is provided by Hecht,[89] the
same notorious Hecht quoted by Bulgakov, Hertz, and Chernov.** In his "work"
David paraphrases Hecht for the space of two pages (pp. 394-95). But how
does he paraphrase him? Not a word about hired
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 215. --Ed.
** See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 162-67. --Ed.
page 175
labour. Not a word about the fact that Hecht embellishes the "settled
state " of the factory worker who has a plot of land, lumping together
workers and well-to-do peasants. Not a word about the fact that while a
small number of well to-do peasants are "flourishing", the conditions of the
bulk of the peasants are such that they even have to sell their milk and use
cheaper margarine as a substitute.
David not only says nothing about this; he even declares that "Hecht
quotes extremely interesting data on the high living standards of these
peasants" (p. 395). A grosser example of bourgeois apologetics is difficult
to imagine.
Incidentally, about Hecht's statement that the
peasants sell their milk in order to buy cheaper margarine. One would think
that this is a generally known fact among economists. As far back as 1847, Marx
in The Poverty of Philosophy referred to the deterioration of the
people's diet under capitalism.[90] In
Russia, ever since the time of Engelllardt[91] (the
1870s), this fact has been noted very many times by all who have made a more
or less conscientious study of the progress of capitalism in dairy farming.
The "scholarly" David failed to notice this. He even sneers when socialists
point to it.
On pages 427-28 of David's book we read scoffing remarks about
Kautsky, who says that the amalgamated dairies, which promote the sale of
milk by the peasants, cause a deterioration in the latter's diet. To enable
the reader to judge the German Narodnik David at his true worth we shall
quote his own words:
". . . AII other people are in the habit, when
receiving a larger income, of using some part of it for the benefit of their
stomachs. It is only human nature that a man should want to eat something
better, if only he has a little money to enable him to do so. It is,
therefore very strange that the peasant who, as is generally admitted, is
getting more money than before for his milk and pigs, thanks to the
co-operative, should behave differently from other mortals," and so on and
so forth.
This buffoonery of a reactionary petty bourgeois is not worth
answering, of course. It is sufficieut to exhibit him to the reading public;
it is sufficient to drag him into the light of day from under the heap of
disconnected agronomic quotations scattered through five hundred and fifty
pages.
page 176
It is sufficient to note that even the bourgeois apologist Hecht, quoted
by David, admits as a fact the deterioration in diet as a
consequence of the substitution of cheap margarine for marketed milk. This
applies to South Germany, the region where small-peasant farming
predominates. Concerning another region, East Prussia, we have the very
similar statement of Klawki[*] that
the small peasants "consume very little butter and whole milk".
David's bourgeois apologetics can be traced in absolutely all the
questions he deals with. Thus, he extols the dairy co-operatives of Germany
and Denmark in over a score of pages (413-35 and others). He also quotes
statistics . . . but only on the numerical growth of the co-operatives! He does
not quote the German statistics showing the concentration of
"co-operative" dairy farming in the hands of big capitalist farms.[**] The
Davids have a blind eye for such data in the statistics they handle!
"The Danish peasants organised in co-operatives," says David, "have
even excelled the privately owned farms of the big landed proprietors." Then
follows an example: a quotation from the 46th Report of a test laboratory to
the effect that the butter produced by the co-operatives is of better
quality than that manufactured by the landlord. And David continues:
"Such results have been achieved by peasants who at
one time on their small farms, produced only inferior grades of butter for
which they obtained only half the price paid for that of the big
proprietors. Moreover, by and large, we are dealing here with
mlddle and small peasants [David's italics]. In 1898, there were in
Denmark 179,740 cow-sheds of which only 7,544 or 4 per cent contained 30 or
more cows each; 49,371 or 27.82 per cent, each contained from 10 to 29 cows,
122,589 or 68.97 per cent contained less than 10 cows each. More than half
of these cow-sheds, namely, 70,218, comprising 39.85 per cent of the total,
contained only from 1 to 3 cows each, i.e., they belonged to quite small
farms. That the great majority of these small farms belong to co-operative
organisations is shown by the fact that in 1900 the milk of approximat.ely
900,000 cows out of Denmark's 1,110,000 milch cows was delivered to dairy
co-operatives" (p. 424).
Thus argues the scholarly David. He avoids quoting precise data on
the distribution of the cows among the farms
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 176-77. --Ed.
** Ibid., p. 216. --Ed.
page 177
in the various groups; that is distasteful to him, But
even the fragmentary figures he does quote show that he completely distorts
the reality. By comparing the total number of cows with the distribution of
cow-sheds according to the number of cattle in them we get the following
picture, which, though an approximate one,[*] undoubtedly,
on the whole, corresponds to the reality:
|
Denmark
|
Number of
farms
(thousands)
|
Number of
cows in them
(thousands)
|
Number of
cows per
farm
|
Farms with 1 to 3 cows
" " 4 to 9 "
" " 10 to 29 "
" " 30 or more "
|
70
52
49
8
|
100
250
550
200
|
1.43
4.81
11.22
25.00
|
|
Total |
179
|
1,100
|
6.14
|
From these figures it is seen, first, that the concentration of dairy
farming in Denmark is very high. 750,000 cows out of 1,100,000, i.
e., over two-thirds of the total, belong to the big farms --
57,000 out of 179,000, i.e., less than a third of the total number of
farmers. Since each of these farms has ten or more cows, they certainly do
not dispense with hired labour. Thus, David "failed to notice" that the size
of the farms which keep livestock is by no means small here; Danish farms
must not be judged by area of land. David "failed to notice" that here, as
everywhere and always in capitalist agriculture, a vast number of
* These figures are approximate, first, because the
number of cows is given for 1900, while the number of farms is given for
1898; secondly, because we had to determine the number of cows in each group
approximately, since David does not give exact figures. We have put the big
farms share lower than it actually is: 7,544 farms have 30 or more cows
each. Thus, even if we take the minimum, i.e., 30 cows per farm, we get
7,544 x 30 = 226,320 cows. We have taken a smaller figure, otherwise
the size of the small farms would approach too closely to the minimum and
not to the maximum limits of the groups.page
178
small farms account for an insignificant share of the total production.
The small farmers number 70,000, i.e., nearly 40 per cent; but they own
one-eleventh of the total number of cows.
Secondly, the figures quoted show that both in Denmark and in Germany
the benefits of co-operation are enjoyed mainly by the capitalists.
If out of 1,100,000 cows the milk of 900,000 is delivered to the dairy
co-operatives, it follows that 200,000 cows remain outside the
"beneficial" scope of co-operative marketing. These are mainly the cows of
the smallest farmers, for we have seen from the figures for Germany that of
the farms up to two hectares, only 0.3 per cent of the total belong to dairy
co-operatives, but of the farms of 100 hectares and over, 35.1 per cent
belong to such co-operatives. Consequently, all this leads us to assume that
the small farmers (70,000 owning 100,000 cows) least enjoy the benefits of
co-operative marketing.
The example of Denmark completely refutes David, since it proves that
not the small, and not the medium, but the big farms predominate in the
production of dairy produce.
To put some life into these lifeless figures and tables and show the
class character of bourgeois agriculture (which the obtuse petty bourgeois
David totally ignores) we shall quote an outstanding fact from the history
of the working-class movement in Denmark. In 1902, the Danish shipowners
reduced the wages of the stokers, who answered by going on strike. The union
to which all the dock workers belonged supported the stokers and also ceased
work. But . . . they were unable to make the strike a general one, to extend
it to all the ports of Denmark. "Port Esbjerg [on the west coast of Denmark,
important for trade with England], which plays such a great part in the
export of Danish agricultural produce, could not be drawn into the strike
because the Danish agricultural co-operatives declared that they would
immediately send the required number of their members to work on loading the
ships, that the Danish peasants would not allow a stoppage in the export of
their produce."* Thus, the Danish co-operatives took the side of the ship-
* Emil
Helms, Die socialdemokratische und gewerkschaftliche Bewegung in Dänenmark,
Leipzig, 1907, S. 138.page 179
owners against the workers and made the strike a failure. It is quite
understandable, of course, that capitalist farmers, owning ten and more cows
each, should support their fellow-capitalists against the workers. What is
not understandable is that writers like David, who gloss over the class
struggle, call themselves socialists.
On the question of combining farming with technical
crop industries (sugar refining, distilling, etc.) David makes the very
same mistake as Mr. Bulgakov. Like the Russian professor, the German
"learned" opportunist simply copied the tables given in the German
enquiry, without stopping to think what these tables refer to! Kautsky
asserts that sugar production is an example of agricultural large-scale industry.
To refute this David, like Bulgakov, quotes figures showing that there are
more small farms connected with technical-crop industries than big ones
(pages 406, 407, and 410 of David's book). The learned statistician forgot
that, in general, there are more small farms than big ones. Instead of
showing what percentage of the farms in each group is combined with
technical industries he copied a table giving the percentage of such farms
in each group in relation to the total number of farms. I have already dealt
in detail with this mistake made by Mr. Bulgakov.[*] It
only remains for me to point out that the equally scientifically
conscientious Ed. David equally failed to take the trouble to glance at the
figures showing what share of the land under sugar beet is in the
hands of capitalists.
What a comical degree of soul affinity exists between the German
opportunist and the Russian liberal professor can be seen from the fact that
not only do they both handle statistics with the same carelessness and lack
of skill, but both quote Marx with the same carelessness. Like Bulgakov
David recognises the "law of diminishing returns". True, he tries to expound
it with special limitations, to surround it with special conditions, but
that does not improve matters in the least. For example, on page 476, David
says that "this law does not at all concern the change of productivity in
the transition from one scientific-technical stage
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 209-10. --Ed.
page 180
of agriculture to another. It concerns exclusively the
change of productivity at one and the same scientific-technical stage." This
is exactly the limitation of the notorious law that I mentioned when
opposing Mr. Bulgakov,[*] and
I at once added that this makes the "law" "so relative that it cannot be
called a law, or even a cardinal specific fealure of agriculture ".
Nevertheless, David continues to elevate this Iaw to a specific
feature of agriculture. The result is a hopeless muddle, for if
"scientific-technical" conditions remain unchanged, additional investments
of capital are extremely restricted in industry too.
"The backwardness of agriculture," says David in the concluding
chapter, "is due, in the first place, to the conservatism of organic
nature, which finds expression in the law of diminishing returns" (501).
This conclusion throws overboard the very thesis that has just been put
forward, namely, that the "law" does not apply to transitions to a higher
technical stage! "The conservatism of organic nature" is simply a verbal
subterfuge of reactionary philistinism which is incapable of understanding
the social conditions that hinder particularly the development of
agriculture. David shows that he does not understand that among those social conditions
are, first, the survivals of feudalism in agriculture, the inequality of
rights of agricultural labourers, and so on and so forth; and secondly, ground
rent, which inflates prices and embodies high rents in the price
of land.
"We think," writes David, "that German agriculture today could not
produce the total quantity of grain required . . . at the level of
productivity which, thanks to overseas production, is considered normal from
the standpoint of world economy. The law of diminishing returns does not
permit an unlimited increase in the quantity of products on a limited area
of land without a diminution in productivity" (519) -- the last sentence is
in italics in David's book.
Take a look, if you please, at this economist! He declares that the
"law" of diminishing returns deals exclusively with
* See present edidion, Vol. 5, pp. 108-09. --Ed.
page 181
the change of productivity at one and the same scientific technical stage
(476). Yet he draws the conclusion: "the law does not permit an 'unlimited'
increase in the quantity of products!" (519). Why, then, does it follow that
German agriculture could not be raised to the next "scientific
technical stage" if this were not prevented by the private ownership of the
land, by inflated rent, by the lack of rights, the downtrodden state, and
degradation of the agricultural labourer, by the barbarous medieval
privileges of the Junkers?
The bourgeois apologist naturally tries to ignore the social and
historical causes of the backwardness of agriculture and throws the blame on
the "conservatism of organic nature" and on the "law of diminishing
returns". That notorious law contains nothing but apologetics and
obtuseness.
To cover up his shameful retreat to the old
prejudices of bourgeois political economy David, exactly like Bulgakov,
presents us with a falsified quotation from Marx. David quotes the same
page of Volume III of Capital (III. B., II. Teil, S. 277) which
Mr. Bulgakov quotes! (See page 481 of David's book and our previous
criticism of Mr. Bulgakov.[*])
What I have said about the scientific conscientiousness of Mr.
Bulgakov applies wholly to David as well. Mr. Bulgakov garbled a
passage from Marx. David confined himself to quoting the first words of the
same passage: "Concerning decreasing productiveness of the soil with
successive investments of capital, see Liebig" (Das
Kapital, III. B., II. Teil, S. 277)[92] Like
Bulgakov, David distorted Marx, making it appear to the reader that this is
the only reference by Marx. Actually, we repeat, anyone who
has read Volume III of Capital (and the second part of Volume II of Theorien
über den Mehrwert [93])
knows that the opposite is the case. Marx points out dozens of times that
he regards cases of diminished productivity of additional investments
of capital as being quite as legitimate and quite as possible as cases of increased productivity
of additional investments of capital.
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 116-19. --Ed.
page 182
In a footnote on page 481 David promises in the future to examine the
connection between this law and rent, and also "to examine critically Marx's
attempt to develop and extend the theory of rent, while rejecting the basis
given by Malthus and Ricardo".
We venture to predict that David's critical examination will be a
repetition of bourgeois prejudices à la Mr. Bulgakov, or . . . à
la Comrade Maslov.
Let us now examine another radically erroneous thesis of David's. To
refute his apologetics or his distortion of statistics is a very thankless
task. On the question we are now about to deal with we have some new data
which enable us to contrast a factual picture of reality with.the
theories of present-day philistinism.
XILIVESTOCK IN SMALL AND LARGE FARMS
The "critics" or Bernsteinians in the agrarian question, when
defending small-scale production, very often refer to the following
circumstance. Small farmers keep far more cattle on a given unit of land
than big farmers. Consequently, they say, the small farmers manure their
land better. Their farms are on a technically higher level, for manure plays
a decisive role in modern agriculture, and the manure obtained from cattle
kept on the farm is far superior to any artificial fertilisers.
Ed. David in his book Socialism and Agriculture attaches
decisive significance to this argument (pp. 326, 526, and 527 of the Russian
translation). He writes in italics: "manure is the soul of agriculture" (p.
308), and makes this truism the main basis of his defence of small-scale
farming. He quotes German statistics showing that the small farms keep far
more cattle per unit of land than the big ones. David is convinced that
these figures definitely decide in his favour the question of the advantages
of large-scale or small-scale production in agriculture.
Let us examine this theory and the manurial soul of agriculture more
closely.
page 183
The main argument advanced by David and his numerous adherents among
the bourgeois economists is a statistical one. They compare the number of
cattle (per unit of land) on different-sized farms, it being tacitly assumed
that identical quantities are compared, i.e., that an equal number of cattle
of a particular kind represents an equal agricultural value, so to speak, on
both big and small farms. It is assumed that an equal number of cattle
provides an equal quantity of manure, that the cattle on big and small farms
have more or less the same qualities, and so forth.
Obviously, the cogency of the argument in question depends entirely
upon whether this usually tacit assumption is correct. Is this postulate
correct? If we pass from the bare and rough, indiscriminate statistics to an
analysis of the socio-economic conditions of small-scale and large-scale
agricultural production as a whole we shall find at once that that postulate
takes for granted the very thing that has still to be proved. Marxism
affirms that the conditions under which cattle are kept (and also, as we
have seen, the tending of the land and the conditions of the agricultural
worker) are worse in small-scale than in large-scale farming.
Bourgeois political economy asserts the opposite, and the Bernsteinians
repeat this assertion, namely, that thanks to the diligence of the
small farmer, cattle are kept under far better conditions on a small farm
than on a big one. To find data which would throw light on this question
requires quite different statistics from those with which David operates. It
requires a statistical study not of the number of cattle on different-sized
farms, but of their quality. Such a study exists in German economic
literature, and perhaps more than one. It is highly characteristic that
David, who filled his book with a mass of irrelevant quotations from all
kinds of works on agronomics, completely ignored the attempts to be found in
the literature to reveal the internal conditions of small-scale and
large-scale farming by means of detailed research. We shall acquaint the
reader with one of those researches undeservedly ignored by David.
Drechsler, a well-known German writer on agricultural questions,
published the results of a monographic "agricul-
page 184
tural statistical investigation", which, he rightly said,
"for the accuracy of its results is surely without equal". In the Province
of Hanover, 25 settlements were investigated (22 villages and three landlord
estates), and data showing not only the amount of land and number of
cattle, but also the quality of the cattle were collected separately
for each farm. To determine the quality of the cattle a particularly
accurate method was adopted: the live weight [*] of
each animal was ascertained in kilogrammes "on the basis of the most careful
possible appraisal of the individual animals -- an appraisal made by
experts". Data were obtained giving the live weight of each type of animal
of different-sized farms. The investigation was carried out twice: the first
in 1875, the second in 1884. The figures were published by Drechsler[**] in
rough form for each of three estates and for three groups of villages, the
peasant farms in the villages being divided into seven groups according to
the amount of land (over 50 hectares; 25 to 53; 12.5 to 25; 7.5 to 12.5; 2.5
to 7.5; 1.25 to 2.5, and up to 1.25 hectares). Considering that Drechsler's
figures relate to eIeven different types of animals, the reader will realise
how complicated all these tables are. To obtain summarised figures which
will enable us to draw general and basic conclusions, we shall divide all the
farms into five main groups: (a) big estates; (b) peasant farms
having over 25 hectares of lands; (c) 7.5 to 25 hectares; (d) 2.5 to 7.5
hectares; and (e) less than 2.5 hectares.
The number of farms in these groups and the amount of land in them in
1875 and in 1884 were as follows:
* David is well aware of this method, employed by
agronomists, of ascertaining the live weight of animals. On page 367 he
tells us in detail the live weight of different breeds of beef and
dairy cattle draught animals, etc. He copies these data from the
agronomists. It never occurs to him that what matters to an economist in
general, and to a socialist in particular, is not the difference in the
breeds of cattle, but the difference in the conditions under which they
are kept in small and large farms, in "peasant" and in capitalist
farming.
** For 1875 in Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, Band
XXIV, S. 112 ("Bäuerliche Zustände", B. III), and for 1884 in Thiel's
landwirtschaftliche Jahrbücher, Band XV (1886).
page 185
| |
1875 |
1884 |
|
Number
of
farms
|
Amount
of land
|
Land
per
farm
|
Number
of
farms
|
Amount
of land
|
Land
per
farm
|
|
(Hectares)
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
3
51
274
442
1,449
|
689
1,949
3,540
1,895
1,279
|
229
38
13
4.3
0.88
|
3
58
248
407
1,109
|
766
2,449
3,135
1,774
1,027
|
255
42
12
4.3
0.9
|
|
Total |
2,219
|
9,352
|
4.2
|
1,825
|
9,151
|
5.0
|
To explain these figures we shall deal first of all with the economic
types of the different-sized farms. Drechsler considers that all the farms
of 7.5 hectares and over employ hired labour. Thus, we get (in 1875) 325
peasant farms employing workers. All the farmers having up to 2.5 hectares
have to hire themselves out. Of the farmers having 2.5 to 7.5 hectares
(average = 4.3 ha) half, according to Drechsler's calculations, do not
employ labour, while the other half have to provide hired labourers. Thus,
of the total peasant farms, 325 are capitalist farms, 221 are small
"Trudovik" farms (as our Narodniks would call them) which do not employ
labour nor provide hired labourers, and 1,670 are semi-proletarian, which
provide hired labourers.
Unfortunately, Drechsler's grouping differs from that of the general
German statistics, which regard as middle peasants those having from 5 to 20
hectares. Nevertheless, it remains an undoubted fact that the majority of
these middle peasants do not dispense with hired workers. The "middle
peasants" in Germany are small capitalists. The peasants who do not hire
labour and do not hire themselves out constitute an insignificant minority:
221 out of 2,216, i.e., one-tenth.
Thus, the groups of farms which we have selected according to their
cconomic type are characterised as follows: (a) big capitalist; (b) middle
capitalist ("Grossbauer "); (c) small capitalist; (d) small peasant;
and (e) semi-proletarian.
page 186
The total number of farms and the total amount of land they occupied
diminished between 1875 and 1884. This decrease mainly applied to the small
farms: the number of farms occupying up to 2.5 hectares dropped from 1,449
to 1,109, i.e., by 340, or nearly one-fourth. On the other hand, the number
of the biggest farms (over 25 hectares) increased from 54 to 61, and the
amount of land they occupied increased from 2,638 to 3,215 hectares, i.e.,
by 577 hectares. Consequently, the general improvement in farming and the
raising of agricultural standards in the given area, about which Drechsler
goes into raptures, signify the concentration of agriculture in the hands of
a diminishing number of owners: "Progress" has pushed out of
agriculture nearly 400 farmers out of 2,219 (by 1884 there remained 1,825),
and raised the average amount of land per farm among the remainder from 4.2
to 5 hectares. In one locality capitalism concentrates the given branch of
agriculture and pushes a number of small farmers into the ranks of the
proletariat. In another locality the growth of commercial farming creates a
number of new small farms (for example dairy farming in suburban villages
and in entire countries which export their produce, such as Denmark). In
still other localities the splitting up of the medium farms increases the
number of small farms. Indiscriminate statistics conceal all these
processes, for the study of which detailed investigations must be made.
The progress of agriculture in the locality described found
particular expression in the improvement of livestockrearing, although the
total head of livestock diminished. In 1875, there were 7,208 head of
livestock (in terms of cattle); in 1884 there were 6,993. Going by the gross
statistics, this decrease in the total number of livestock would be a sign
of decline in livestock breeding. Actually, there was an improvement in the
quality of the stock, so that, if we take not the number of animals, but
their total "live weight", we shall get 2,556,872 kilogrammes in 1875 and
2,696,107 kilogrammes in 1884.
Capitalist progress in livestock rearing shows itself not only,
sometimes even not so much, in an increase in numbers as in an improvement
in quality, in the replacement of inferior by better cattle, increase in
fodder, etc.
page 187
Average Number of Livestock per farm
| |
1875 |
1884 |
|
Cattle
|
Other
live-
stock
|
Total
|
Cattle
|
Other
live-
stock
|
Total
|
|
(In terms of cattle)
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
150
13.2
5.4
2.2
0.3
|
69
11.0
3.8
1.4
0.6
|
174
24.2
9.2
3.6
0.9
|
110
13.7
4.9
2.2
0.4
|
41
10.5
4.2
1.8
0.7
|
151
24.2
9.1
4.0
1.1
|
|
Total |
1.7
|
1.5
|
3.2
|
2.0
|
1.8
|
3.8
|
On the biggest farms the number of cattle diminished. In the smallest
the number grew, and the smaller the farm the more rapid was the increase.
This seems to show progress in small-scale and regression in large-scale
production, that is, confirmation of David's theory, does it not?
But we have only to take the figures of the average weight of the
cattle for this illusion to be dispelled.
| |
Average weight per animal
(kilogrammes)
|
|
1875 |
1884 |
|
Cattle
|
Other
live-
stock*
|
Total
|
Cattle
|
Other
live-
stock
|
Total
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
562
439
409
379
350
|
499
300
281
270
243
|
537
376
356
337
280
|
617
486
432
404
373
|
624
349
322
287
261
|
619
427
382
352
301
|
|
Average |
412
|
256
|
354
|
446
|
316
|
385
|
* The various other types of livestock are expressed in
terms of cattle according to the usual standards. For one year, and for one
of the eleven types of animals, the number given is approximate: the figures
refer only to weight, not to the number of cattle.
page 188
The first conclusion to be drawn from these figures is that the
bigger the farm the better the quality of the cattle. The difference in this
respect between the capitalist farms and the small-peasant, or
semi-proletarian, farms is enormous. For example, in 1884, this difference
between the biggest and smallest farms was over one hundred per cent :
the average weight of the average animal on the big capitalist farms was 619
kilogrammes; on the semi-proletarian farms it was 301 kilogrammes, i.e.,
less than half! One can judge from this how superficial are the arguments of
David and those who think like him when they assume that the quality of the
cattle is the same on large and small farms.
We have already mentioned above that cattle are
generally kept worse in small farms. Now we have factual confirmation of
this. The figures for live weight give us a very accurate idea of all the
conditions under which the cattle are kept: feeding, housing, work, care --
all this is summarised, so to speak, in the results which found statistical
expression in Drechsler's monograph. It turns out that for all the
"diligence" displayed by the small farmer in care for his cattle --
a diligence extolled by our Mr. V. V.[94] and
by the German David -- he is unable even approximately to match the
advantages of large-scale production, which yields products of a quality
twice as good. Capitalism condemns the small peasant to eternal drudgery, to
a wasteful expenditure of labour, for with insufficient means, insufficient
fodder, poor quality cattle, poor housing, and so forth, the most careful
tending is a sheer waste of labour. In its appraisal bourgeois political
economy puts in the forefront not this ruin and oppression of the peasant by
capitalism, but the "diligence" of the toiler (toiling for the benefit of
capital under the worst conditions of exploitation).
The second conclusion to be drawn from the figures quoted above is
that the quality of cattle improved during the ten years both on the average
and in all the categories of farms. But as a result of this general
improvement, the difference in the conditions of livestock rearing in the
large and small farms became not less, but more glaring. The general
improvement widened rather than narrowed the gulf between the large and
small farms, for in this process
page 189
of improvement large-scale farming outstrips small-scale farming. Here is
a comparison of the average weight of the average animal by groups in 1875
and in 1884.
| |
Averge weight of
average animal
in kilogrammes
|
Increase
|
Per cent
increase
|
|
1875
|
1884
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
537
376
356
337
280
|
619
427
382
352
301
|
+82
+51
+26
+15
+21
|
+15.2
+13.6
+7.3
+4.4
+7.5
|
|
Average
|
354
|
385
|
+31
|
+8.7
|
The improvement is greatest on the big capitalist farms, then come
the medium-sized capitalist farms; it is entirely negligible on the small
peasant farms and very inconsiderable in the rest. Like the great majority
of agronomists who write on problems of agricultural economics, Drechsler
noted only the technical aspect of the matter. In the fifth conclusion he
draws from the comparison between 1875 and 1884 he says: "A very
considerable improvement in the keeping of livestock* has taken place: a
reduction in the number of cattle and an improvement in quality; the average
live weight per animal increased considerably in each of the three groups of
villages.** That shows that the marked improvement in cattle rearing,
feeding, and tending of cattle was more or less general (ziemlich
allgemein )."
*
Drechsler speaks here of all cattle except draught animals (called Nutzvieh ).
Further we quote figures on draught animals separately. The general
conclusion remains the same whatever type or type groups of animals we take.
** Drechsler divides the 22 villages into three groups according to
geographical location and other farming conditions. We have taken only the
summarised data in order not to overburden this article with figures. The
couclusions remain the same whatever groups of villages we take.
page 190
The words "more or less general", which we have underlined, show
precisely that the author ignored the socio-economic aspect of the question;
"more" applies to the big farms, "less" to the small ones. Drechsler
overlooked this, because he paid attention only to the figures concerning
the groups of villages and not groups of farms of diflerent types.
Let us now pass to the figures on draught animals, which throw light
on farming conditions in the narrow sense of the term "agriculture". In
regard to the number of draught animals the farms under review are
characterised by the following figures:
| |
Averge number of draught
animals per farm
|
|
1875
|
1884
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
27
4.7
2.1
1.3
0.07
|
44
5.5
2.4
1.5
0.16
|
|
Average
|
0.7
|
1.0
|
Thus, the overwhelming majority of the semi-proletarian farms (up to
2.5 hectares; in 1884, they numbered 1,109 out of 1,825) had no draught
animals at all. They cannot even be regarded as agricultural farms in the
real sense of the term. In any case, as regards the use of draught animals,
there can be no comparison between the big farms and those farms of which 93
or 84 per cent employ no draught animals at all. If, however, we compare the
big capitalist farms with the small peasant farms in this respect, we shall
find that the former (group a) have 132 draught animals to 766 hectares of
land, and the latter (group d) 632 to 1,774 hectares (1884), i.e., the
former has one draught animal to approximately six hectares, and the
latter one to approximately three hectares. Obviously, the small
farms spend twice as
page 191
much on the keeping of draught animals. Small-scale production implies
dispersion of the technical means of farming and a squandering of labour as
a result of this dispersion.
This dispersion is partly due to the fact that the small farmers are
obliged to use draught anirnals of an inferior quality, that is, to
use cows as draught animals. The percentage of cows in relation to the total
number of draught animals was as follows:
|
1875
|
1884
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
--
--
6.3%
60.7%
67.7%
|
--
2.5%
11.4%
64.9%
77.9%
|
|
Average
|
27.0%
|
33.4%
|
From this it is clearly evident that the use of cows in field work is
increasing, and that cows are the principal draught animals on the
semi-proletarian and small-peasant farms. David is inclined to regard this
as progress in exactly the same way as Drechsler, who takes entirely the
bourgeois standpoint. In his conclusions Drechsler writes: "A large number
of the small farms have gone over to the use of cows as draught animals,
which is more expedient for them." It is "more expedient" for the
small farmers because it is cheaper. And it is cheaper because
inferior draught animals are substituted for better ones. The progress of
the small peasants which rouses the admiration of the Drechslers and Davids
is quite on a par with the progress of the vanishing hand weavers, who are
going over to worse and worse materials, waste products of the mills.
The average weight of draught cows in 1884 was 381 kilogrammes,* that
of draught horses being 482 kilogrammes,
* The
average weight of cows not employed for field work was 421 kilogrammes.
page 192
and oxen 553 kilogrammes. The latter type of draught animal, the
strongest, accounted in 1884 for more than half of the total draught animals
of the big capitalist farmers, for about a fourth of those of the medium and
small capitalists, for less than a fifth of those of the small peasants, and
for less than a tenth of those of the semi-proletarian farmers.
Consequently, the bigger the farm the higher the quality of the draught
animals. The average weight of an average draught animal was as follows:
|
1875
|
1884
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
554
542
488
404
377
|
598
537
482
409
378
|
|
Average
|
464
|
460
|
Consequently, on the whole, the draught animals have deteriorated.
Actually, in the large capitalist farms we see a considerable improvement;
in all the others there was either no change, or a deterioration. As regards
the quality of draught animals, the difference between large-scale and
small-scale production also increased between 1875 and 1884. The use
of cows as draught animals by the small farmers has become general practice
in Germany.* Our figures show with documentary accuracy that this practice
dehotes a deterioration of the conditions of agricultural production, the
increasing poverty of the peasantry.
To complete our survey of the data in Drechsler's monograph, we shall
quote an estimate of the number ahd weight of all animals per unit of land
area, i.e., the estimate which
*
Concerning this see above, Chapter VIII, "General Statistics of German
Agriculture". (See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 194-205. --Ed.)
page 193
David made on the basis of the general statistics of German agriculture:
|
Per hectare of land there were
|
|
Total number of
livestock (in
terms of cattle)
|
Weight of total
livestock
in kilogrammes
|
|
1875
|
1884
|
1875
|
1884
|
(a) Estates
(b) Farms of 25 ha and over
(c) " " 7.5 to 25 ha
(d) " " 5.5 to 7.5 ha
(e) " " up to 2.5 ha
|
0.77
0.63
0.71
0.85
1.02
|
0.59
0.57
0.72
0.94
1.18
|
408
238
254
288
286
|
367
244
277
328
355
|
|
Average
|
0.77
|
0.76
|
273
|
294
|
The figures of the number of livestock per hectare of land are the
figures to which David confines himself. In our example, as in German
agriculture as a whole, these figures show a reduction in the number
of livestock per unit of land area in the big farms. In 1884, for example,
the semi-proletarian farms had exactly twice as many cattle per hectare as
the big capitalist farms (1.18 as against 0.59). But we are already aware
that this estimate seeks to compare the incomparable. The actual
relationship between the farms is shown by the figures for weight of
livestock: in this respect, too, large-scale production is in a better
position than small-scale, for it has the maximum of livestock in
weight per unit of land area, and consequently, also the maximum of
manure. Thus, David's conclusion that, on the whole, the small farms are
better supplied with manure is the very opposite of the truth. Moreover, it
must be borne in mind, first, that our figures do not cover artificial
fertilisers, which only well-to-do farmers can afford to buy and secondly,
that comparing the amount of livestock by weight puts cattle and smaller
animals on the same level, for example, 45,625 kilogrammes -- the weight of
68 head of cattle in the big farms and 45,097 kilogrammes -- the weight of
1,786 goats in the small farms (1884). Actually,
page 194
the advantage the big farms enjoy as regards supplies of manure is
greater than that shown in our figures.[*]
Summary: by means of the phrase "manure is the soul of agriculture",
David evaded socio-economic relations in livestock farming in particular and
presented the matter in an utterly false light.
Large-scale production in capitalist agriculture has a tremendous
advantage over small-scale production as regards the quality of livestock in
general, and of draught animals in particular, as regards the conditions
under which the livestock is kept, its improvement, and its utilisation for
providing manure.
THE "IDEAL COUNTRY"
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE OPPONENTS
OF MARXISM ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION[**]
Agrarian relations and the agrarian system in Denmark are especially
interesting for the economist. We have already seen that Ed. David, the
principal representative of revisionism in contemporary literature on the
agrarian question, strongly stresses the example of the Danish agricultural
unions and Danish (supposedly) "small peasant" farming. Heinrich Pudor,
whose work Ed. David uses, calls Denmark "the ideal country of agricultural
co-operation".**** In Russia, too, the exponents of liberal and Na-
* Let us recall the statement made by Klawki, quoted
above (Chapter VI) (see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 171. --Ed.). "The
small farmers have inferior manure, their straw is shorter, it is largely
used as fodder (which also means that the feed is inferior), and less straw
is used for bedding."
** This article is a chapter (XII) of the author's book The Agrarian
Qucstion and the "Critics of Marx" included in his recently published
book The Agrarian Question, Part I (St. Petersburg, 1908). Only
accidental delay in delivering this chapter prevented it from being included
in the above-mentioned book. Hence, all the references given in the portion
now published are to that book.
*** Vl. llyin, The Agrarian Question, Part 1, article "The
Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'", Chapters X and XI. (See pp.
171-194 of this volume. --Ed.)
**** Dr. Heinrich Pudor, Das landwirtschaftliche Genossenschaftwesen
im Auslande, I. B. S. V, Leipzig, 1904. Pudor is a violent opponent of
Marxism.page 195
rodnik views no less frequently resort to Denmark as their "trump card"
against Marxism in support of the theory of the vitality of small-scale
production in agriculture -- take, for example, the speech of the liberal
Hertzenstein in the First Duma and that of the Narodnik Karavayev in the
Second Duma.
Compared with other European countries, "small-peasant" farming is
indeed most widespread in Denmark; and agriculture, which has managed to
adapt itself to the new requirements and conditions of the market, is most
prosperous there. If "prosperity" is possible for small-scale farming in
countries with commodity production, then, of course, of all European
countries, Denmark is most favourably situated in that respect. A close
study of the agrarian system in Denmark is, therefore, doubly interesting.
We shall see from the example of a whole country what methods are employed
by the revisionists in the agrarian question, and what the main features of
the capitalist agrarian system really are in the "ideal" capitalist country.
Denmark's agricultural statistics are compiled on the model of those
of other European countries. In some respects, however, they give more
detailed information and more elaborate figures, which enable one to study
aspects of the question that usually remain in the shade. Let us start with
the general data on the distribution of farms by groups according to area.
We shall calculate the "hartkorn", the customary measure of land in Denmark,
in terms of hectares, counting 10 hectares to one hartkorn, as indicated in
the Danish agricultural statistics.*
Danish agricultural statistics give information on the distribution
of farms for the years 1873, 1885, and 1895. All the farms are divided into
11 groups, as follows: owning no land; up to 0.3 hectares (to be more
precise: up to 1/32 of a hartkorn); 0.3 to 2.5 ha;
2.5 to 10 ha; 10 to 20 ha; 20 to 40 ha; 40 to 80 ha; 80 to 120 ha; 120 to
200 ha; 200 to 300 ha; 300 ha and over. To avoid the attention of the reader
* "Danmarks
Statistik. Statistik Aarbog ", 8-de aargang, 1903, p. 31
footnote. All the following statistics apply to Denmark proper, without
Bornholm.page 196
being excessively dispersed, we shall combine these groups into six
larger groups.
The main conclusion to be drawn first of all from these data -- one
which bourgeois political economists and the revisionists who follow in
their footsteps usually lose sight of -- is that the bulk of the land in
Dellmark is owned by farmers engaged in capitalist agriculture. There can be
no doubt that not only farmers owning 120 hectares and over run their farms
with the aid of hired labour, but also those owning 40 hectares or more.
These two higher groups accounted for only 11 per cent of the total number
of farms in 1895, but they owned 62 per cent, or more than three fifths of
the total land. The basis of Danish agriculture is large-scale and medium capitalist agriculture.
All the talk about a "peasant country" and "small-scale farming" is sheer
bourgeois apologetics, a distortion of the facts by various titled and
untitled ideologists of capital.
It should be mentioned in this connection that in Denmark, as in
other European countries where the capitalist system of agriculture is fully
established, the share of the higher capitalist groups in the whole national
economy changes only slightly in the course of time. In 1873, 13.2 per cent
of the capitalist farms occupied 63.9 per cent of all the land; in 1885,
11.5 per cent of the farms occupied 62.3 per cent of the land. This
stability of large-scale farming must always be borne in mind when comparing
the data for different years; for it is often possible to notice in the
literature that the main features of the given socio-economic system
are glossed over by means of such comparisons concerning changes in
details.
As in other European countries, the mass of small farms in Denmark
account for an insignificant part of the total agricultural production. In
1895, the number of farms with areas of up to 10 hectares accounted for 72.2
per cent of the total number of farms, but they occupied only 11.2 per cent
of the land. In the main, this ratio was the same in 1885 and in 1873. Often
the small farms belong to semi proletarians -- as we have seen, the German
statistics bore this out fully in regard to farms of up to two hectares, and
partly also in regard to farms of up to five hectares. Later
|
1873
|
1885
|
1895
|
|
No. of
farms
|
Per
cent
|
Hectares
|
Per
cent
|
No. of
farms
|
Per
cent
|
Hectares
|
Per
cent
|
No. of
farms
|
Per
cent
|
Hectares
|
Per
cent
|
Owning no land
Up to 2.5 ha
2.5 to 10 "
10 to 40 "
40 to 120 "
120 ha and over
|
31,253
65,490
65,672
41,671
29,288
1,856
|
13.3
27.9
27.9
17.7
12.5
0.7
|
--
54,340
333,760
928,310
1,809,590
522,410
|
--
1.5
9.1
25.5
49.6
14.3
|
35,329
82,487
67,773
43,740
27,938
1,953
|
13.6
31.8
26.2
16.9
10.8
0.7
|
--
62,260
345,060
966,850
1,722,820
551,530
|
--
1.7
9.5
26.5
47.1
15.2
|
32,946
92,656
66,491
44,557
27,301
2,031
|
12.4
34.8
25.0
16.8
10.3
0.7
|
--
63,490
341,020
981,070
1,691,950
568,220
|
--
1.8
9.4
26.8
46.4
15.6
|
|
Total
|
235,230
|
100.0
|
3,648,410
|
100.0
|
259,220
|
100.0
|
3,648,520
|
100.0
|
265,982
|
100.0
|
3,645,750
|
100.0
|
page 198
on, when quoting figures of livestock owned by the farms in the various
groups, we shall see that there can be no question of any really independent
and more or less stable agriculture as far as the bulk of these notorious
representatives of "small-scale farming" are concerned. 47.2 per cent, i.e.,
nearly half of the farms are proletarian or semi-proletarian (those owning
no land and those owning up to 2.5 hectares); 25 per cent, i.e., a further
quarter of the farms (2.5 to 10 hectares), belong to needy small peasants --
such is the basis of the "prosperity" of agricultural capitalism in Denmark.
Of course, land area statistics can give us only a general idea in total
figures of a country with highly developed commercial livestock farming. As
the reader will see, however, the figures of livestock, which we examine in
detail below, only strengthen the conclusions that have been drawn.
Now let us see what changes took place in Denmark between 1873 and
1895 in the distribution of land as between big and small farms. What
strikes us immediately here is the typically capitalist increase at the
extremes, and the diminution in the proportion of medium farms. Taking the
number of agricultural farms (not counting farms with out land), the
proportion of the smallest farms, those up to 2.5 hectares, increased 27.9
per cent in 1873, 31.8 per cent in 1885, and 34.8 per cent in 1895. The
proportion diminished in all the medium groups, and only in
the highest group, 120 hectares and over, did it remain unchanged (0.7 per
cent). The percentage of the total land occupied by the largest farms, 120
hectares and over, increased, being 14.3 per cent, 15.2 per cent, and
15.6 per cent in the respective years; there was also an increase,
but not to the same extent, among the medium peasant farms (those from 10 to
40 hectares: 25.5 per cent, 26.5 per cent, and 26.8 per cent for the
respective years), while the total number of farms in this group diminished.
There is an irregular increase in the farms of 2.5 to 10 hectares
(9.1 per cent, 9.5 per cent, and 9.4 per cent for the respective years) and
a steady increase in the smallest farms (1.5 per cent, 1.7 per cent,
and 1.8 per cent). As a result, we have a very clearly marked tendency
towards growth of the biggest and smallest farms. To obtain a clearer idea
of this phenomenon we
page 199
must take the average area of farms according to groups for the
respective years. Here are the figures:
|
Groups of farms
|
Average area of farms
(hectares)
|
|
1873
|
1885
|
1895
|
Up to 2.5 ha
2.5 to 10 "
10 to 40 "
40 to 120 "
120 ha and over
|
0.83
5.08
22.28
61.00
281.40
|
0.75
5.09
22.08
61.66
282.30
|
0.68
5.13
22.01
61.97
279.80
|
|
Average
|
15.50
|
14.07
|
13.70
|
From these statistics we see that in the majority of groups the area
of farms is extremely stable. The fluctuations are insignificant, being one
to two per cent (for example: 279.8 to 282.3 hectares, or 22.01 to 22.28
hectares, etc.). The only exception is seen in the smallest farms,
which are undoubtedly splitting up : a decrease in the average area
of those farms (up to 2.5 hectares) by ten per cent between 1873 and 1885
(from 0.83 hectares to 0.75 hectares) and also between 1885 and 1895. The
general increase in the total number of farms in Denmark is proceeding with
almost no change in the total area of land (between 1885 and 1895 there was
even a slight decrease in the total area of land). The increase in the main
aflects the smallest farms. Thus, between 1873 and 1895 the total number of
farms increased by 30,752, while the number of farms up to 2.5 hectares
increased by 27,166. Clearly, this decrease in the average area of a1l farms
in Denmark (15.5 hectares in 1873, 14.1 in 1885, and 13.7 in 1895) really
signifies nothing more than the splitting-up of the smallest farms.
The phenomenon we have noted becomes still more strik ing when we
take the smaller divisions of groups. In the preface to the Danish
agricu]tural statistics for 1895 (Danmarks Statistik, etc. Danmarks
Jordbrug, 4-de Raekke,
page 200
Nr. 9, litra C)[*] the
compilers show the following changes in the number of farms according to
groups:
|
Groups of farms
|
Per cent increase or decrease
|
|
1885 to 1895[¥]
|
1873 to 1885[¥]
|
300 ha and over
200 to 300 ha
120 to 200 "
80 to 120 "
40 to 80 "
20 to 40 "
10 to 20 "
2.5 to 10 "
0.3 to 2.5 "
0 to 0.3 "
|
+4.2
0
+5.2
-1.5
-2.4
+1.0
+2.8
-1.9
+2.1
+25.1
|
+5.0
+6.1
+5.1
-2.1
-5.0
+3.6
+6.5
+3.2
+17.8
+37.9
|
Thus, the increase takes place in dwarf farms, which are either farms
devoted to the cultivation of special crops or wage workers' "farms".
This conclusion is worth noting, because apologist professorial
"science" is inclined to deduce from the decrease in the average area of all
farms that small-scale production is beating large-scale production in
agriculture. Actually we see progress in the largest-scale agriculture,
stability in the sizes of farms in all groups except the very smallest, and
the splitting-up of the farms in this last group. This splitting-up must
be ascribed to the decline and impoverishment of small-scale farming:
another possible explanation, namely, the transition from agriculture in the
narrow sense of the word to livestock farming, cannot be applied to all the
smallest farms, for this transition is taking place in all groups, as
we shall see in a moment. For the purpose of judging the scale on which
farming is conducted in a country like Denmark, statistics on livestock
farming are far more important than statistics on farm areas, because
farming on different scales can be conducted on the same area of land when
livestock and dairy farming are developing at a particularly fast rate.
* Danish Statistics, etc. Danish
Agriculture, 4th series, No. 9, Letter C. --Ed.
[¥] [Transcriber's
Note: The years designating the column headings appear to be
reversed. -- DJR]
page 201
It is well known that it is just this phenomenon that is observed in
Denmark. The "prosperity" of Danish agriculture is due mainly to the rapid
successes of commercial livestock rearing and the export of dairy produce,
meat, eggs, etc., to Britain. Here we meet with the solemn statement by
Pudor that Denmark "owes the colossal development of her dairy farming to
the decentralisation of her cattle breeding and livestock farming " (loc. cit.,
p. 48, Pudor's italics). It is not surprising that a man like Pudor, an
out-and-out huckster in his whole system of views, who totally fails to
understand the contradictions of capitalism, should take the liberty of
distorting facts in this way. It is highly characteristic, however, that the
petty bourgeois David, who, by some misunderstanding, passes as a socialist,
uncritically trails along in his wake!
As a matter of fact, Denmark serves as a striking example of the concentration of
livestock farming in a capitalist country. That Pudor arrived at the
opposite conclusion is due on]y to his crass ignorance and to the fact that
he distorted the scraps of statistics which he quotes in his
pamphlet. Pudor quotes, and David slavishly repeats after him, figures
showing the distribution of the total number of livestock farms in Denmark
according to the number of animals per farm. According to Pudor, 39.85 per
cent of the total number of farms having livestock have only from one
to three animals each; 29.12 per cent have from four to nine animals each,
etc. Hence, Pudor concludes, most of the farms are "small";
"decentralisation", etc.
In the first place Pudor quotes the wrong figures. This has to
be noted, because Pudor boastfully declares that in his book one may find
all the "latest" figures; and the revisionists "refute Marxism" by referring
to ignorant bourgeois scribblers. Secondly, and this is most important, the method of
agrument employed by the Pudors and Davids is too often repeated by our
Cadets and Narodniks for us to refrain from dealing with it. Following such a
method of argument we should inevitably come to the conclusion that industry in
the most advanced capitalist countries is becoming "decentralised"; for everywhere
and always the percentage of very small and small establishments is
highest, and the percentage of large establishments is in
page 202
significant. The Pudors and the Davids forget a "trifle": the
concentration of by far the greater part of total production in large
enterprises which constitute only a small percentage of the total number of
enterprises.
The actual distribution of the total cattle in
Denmark according to the last census, taken on July 15, 1898, is shown in
the following table.[*]
|
Farms having
|
Number
of farms
|
Per
cent
|
Total
cattle
|
Per
cent
|
|
1 head of cattle
2 " " "
3 " " "
4 to 5 " " "
6 to 9 " " "
10 to 14 " " "
15 to 29 " " "
30 to 49 " " "
50 to 99 " " "
100 to 199 " " "
200 head of cattle and over
|
18,376
27,394
22,522
27,561
26,022
20,375
30,460
5,650
1,498
588
195
|
10.2
15.2
12.5
15.5
14.4
11.3
16.9
3.1
0.8
0.3
0.1
|
18,376
54,788
67,566
121,721
188,533
242,690
615,507
202,683
99,131
81,417
52,385
|
1.0
3.1
3.9
7.0
10.8
13.9
35.3
11.6
5.7
4.7
3.0
|
|
Total
|
180,641
|
100.0
|
1,744,797
|
100.0
|
We see from this what role in the total livestock farming in Denmark
is played by the numerous small farms and the few big farms, and what the
famous "decentralisation" of production in the "ideal country" really
amounts to. Small farms having one to three head of cattle number 68,292, or
37.9 per cent of the total; they have 140,730 head, i.e., only 8 per cent of
the total. An almost equal number, 133,802, or 7.7 per cent, is owned by 783
big farmers comprising 0.4 per cent of the total number of farmers. Those in
the first group have on an average a little over two head of cattle each,
i.e., an obviously inadequate number with which to carry on commercial
livestock farming; dairy and meat
* Danmarks Statistik. Statistlk Tabelvaerk.
Femte Raekke, litra C, Nr. 2. Kreaturholdet d. 15 juli 1898. København,
1901.page 203
products can only be sold by cutting down household con sumption (let us
recall well-known facts: butter is sold and cheaper margarine is purchased
for home use, etc.). Those in the second group have on an average 171 head
of cattle each. They are the biggest capita]ist farmers, "manu facturers" of
milk and meat; "leaders" of technical progress and of all sorts of
agricultural associatiolls, about which petty-bourgeois admirers of "social
peace" wax so enthusiastic.
If we add together the small and medium farmers we shall get a total
of 121,875 farmers, or two-thirds of the total (67.5 per cent), who own up
to nine head of cattle each. They own 450,984 head of cattle, or one-fourth
of the total (25.8 per cent). An almost equal number, i.e., 435,616 (25 per
cent) is owned by farmers having 30 and more head of cattle each. Those
farmers number 7,931, or 4.3 per cent of the total. "Decentralisation"
indeed!
By combining the small divisions of Danish statistics given above
into three large groups we get the following:
|
Farms having
|
Number
of farms
|
Per
cent
|
Number
of cattle
|
Per
cent
|
Aver-
age per
farm
|
1 to 3 head of cattle
4 to 9 " " "
10 head and over
|
68,292
53,583
58,766
|
37.9
29.6
32.5
|
140,730
310,254
1,293,813
|
8.0
17.8
74.2
|
2.1
5.8
22.0
|
|
Total
|
180,641
|
100.0
|
1,744,797
|
100.0
|
9.7
|
Thus, three-fourths of the total livestock farming in Denmark
is concentrated in the hands of 58,766 farmers, that is, less than one-third of
the total number of farmers. This one-third enjoys the lion's share of all
the "prosperity" of capitalism in Danish agriculture. It should be borne in
mind that this high percentage of well-to-do peasants and rich capitalists
(32.5 per cent, or nearly one-third) is obtained by an artificial method of
calculation which eliminates all farmers who own no livestock.
Actually, the per-
page 204
centage is much lower. According to the census of 1895,
as we have seen, the total number of farmers in Denmark is 265,982; and the
livestock census of July 15, 1898, puts the total number of farmers at
278,673. In relation to this actual total number of farmers, the 58,766
well-to-do and rich farmers represent only 21.1 per cent, i.e., only
one-fifth. The number of "farmers" who own no land is 12.4 per cent of
the total number of farmers in Denmark (1895: 32,946 out of 265,982), while
the farmers who own no livestock[*] represent
35.1 per cent of the total number of farmers in Denmark, i.e., more
than one-third (1898: 98,032 out of 278,673). One call judge from this
the "socialism" of gentlemen of the David type who fail to ses that the
capitalist prosperity of Danish agriculture is based on the mass
| [Transcriber's Note: The
following table and accompanying "Note" span two facing pages in the
text. They have been modified to accommodate this medium. -- DJR] |
Agriculture and Livestock Farming in Denmark
According to the Census of July 15, 1898
|
Groups of farms
|
Number
of farms
|
Per
cent
|
Hectares
|
Per
cent
|
Horses
|
Per
cent
|
Cows
|
Per
cent
|
Owning no land
Amount of land
unknown
Up to 2.5 ha
2.5 to 10 "
10 to 40 "
40 to 120 "
120 ha and over
|
13,435
45,896
80,582
63,420
45,519
27,620
2,201
|
4.8
16.5
28.9
22.8
16.3
9.9
0.8
|
--
?
55,272
323,430
984,983
1,692,285
588,318
|
--
?
1.5
8.9
27.0
46.4
16.2
|
1,970
28,9.9
24,540
54,900
133,793
168,410
36,807
|
0.5
6.4
5.5
12.2
29.8
37.5
8.1
|
3,707
28,072
66,171
175,182
303,244
361,669
129,220
|
0.3
2.6
6.2
16.4
28.5
33.9
12.1
|
|
Total
|
278,673
|
100.0
|
3,644,288
|
100.0
|
449,329
|
100.0
|
1,067,265
|
100.0
|
|
Groups of farms
|
Total
cattle
|
Per
cent
|
Sheep
|
Per
cent
|
Pigs
|
Per
cent
|
Poultry
|
Per
cent
|
Owning no land
Amount of land
unknown
Up to 2.5 ha
2.5 to 10 "
10 to 40 "
40 to 120 "
120 ha and over
|
4,633
42,150
88,720
247,618
515,832
639,563
206,281
|
0.3
2.4
5.1
14.2
29.6
36.6
11.8
|
8,943
42,987
99,705
187,460
383,950
310,686
40,682
|
0.8
4.0
9.3
17.5
35.7
28.9
3.8
|
8,865
42.699
94,656
191,291
308,863
409,294
112,825
|
0.8
3.7
8.1
16.4
26.4
35.0
9.6
|
220,147
780,585
1,649,452
1,871,242
1,957,726
1,998,595
289,155
|
2.5
8.9
18.8
21.4
22.3
22.8
3.3
|
|
Total
|
1,744,797
|
100.0
|
1,074,413
|
100.0
|
1,168,493
|
100.0
|
8,766,902
|
100.0
|
Note : The figures for 1898 differ from those
for 1895 in regard to the distribution of farms according to the amount of
land. This may be due both to changes in time and to somewhat different
methods of collecting information. But the general relation between the
groups remains the same. The census of 1895 takes into account [cont.
onto p. 205. -- DJR] 45,860 hectares of undistributed land
in addilion t0 3,645,750 hectares of distributed land. The group of farms
with "amount of land unknown" (1898) consists largely of the lower groups,
which is proved by the number of livestock.
* To be more precise, farmers who own no cattle, for
unfortunately the Danish statistics do not give the number of farmers who
own no [cont. onto p. 205. -- DJR] animals
whatever. From these statistics we only learn the number of owners of
each type of animal. But undoubtedly, cattle form the principal basis of
livestock farming in Denmark.page
205
proletarianisation of the rural population, on the fact that the
mass of the "farmers" are deprived of the means of production.
We shall now pass to the figures characterising agriculture and
livestock farming in Denmark as a whole. The census of July 15, 1898 gives
detailed information on the number of livestock of the various groups of
farmers owning certain amounts of land. The number of these groups in the
Danish statistics is particularly large (14 groups: with no land; with up
to 1/32 of a hartkorn; 1/32 to 1/16; 1/16 to 1/8; 1/8 to 1/4; 1/4 to 1/2; 1/2 to
1; 1 to 2; 2 to 4; 4 to 8; 8 to 12; 12 to 20; 20 to 30; 30 and over); but we
have reduced them to 6 large groups, as we did with the preceding figures.
page 206
From these figures we see first of all how great is the concentration
of livestock farming as a whole in Denmark. Big capitalist farmers
owning over 40 hectares of land constitute only one-tenth of the
total number of farmers (10.7 per cent); but they concentrate in their
hands more than three-fifths of all the land (62.6 per cent) and nearly
half of all the livestock: 45.6 per cent of all the horses, 48.4 per
cent of all the cattle, 32.7 per cent of all the sheep, and 44.6 per cent of
all the pigs.
If to these capitalist farmers we add the well-to-do peasants, i.e.,
those owning from 10 to 40 hectares, we shall get a little over a quarter of
the total number of farmers (27.0 per cent) who concentrate in their hands
nine-tenths of all the land, three-fourths of all the horses, four-fifths of
all the cattle, seven-tenths of all the pigs, and nearly half of all the
poultry. The great bulk of the "farmers", nearly three-fourths (73 per
cent), own less than 10 hectares of land each and, on the whole, represent
the proletarianised and semi-proletarianised mass, which plays an
insignificant part in the sum total of the country's agricultural and
livestock economy.
As far as the distribution of the various types of animals is
concerned, sheep and pig breeding deserve special attention. The first is a
declining branch of livestock farming, unprofitable for the majority of
European countries at the present time owing to market conditions and
overseas competition. The state of the international market calls for other
forms of livestock farming to take the place of sheep farming. On the other
hand, pig breeding is a particularly profitable and rapidly developing
branch of livestock farming for meat in Europe. Statistics show that sheep
farming is also declining in Denmark, whereas pig breeding is increasing
very rapid]y. From 1861 to 1898, the number of sheep in Denmark dropped from
1,700,000 to 1,100,000. The number of cattle increased from 1,100,000 to
1,700,000. The number of pigs increased from 300,000 to 1,200,000, i.e.,
almost a fourfold increase.
Comparing the distribution of sheep and pigs among the small and big
farms we thus clearly see in the former the maximum of routine, the least
adaptability to the require-
page 207
ments of the market, and slowness in readjusting the
farm to the new conditions. The big capitalist farms (40 to 120 hectares,
120 hectares and over) cut down unprofitable sheep farming most (28.9 per
cent and 3.8 per cent of sheep, as against 33-37 per cent and 8-12 per cent
of other types of livestock). The small farms were less adaptable: they
still keep a larger number of sheep; for example, farms up to 2.5 hectares
have 9.3 per cent of the total number of sheep, as against 6-5 per cent of
the other types of livestock. They possess 8.1 per cent of the pigs -- a smaller proportion
than of sheep. The capitalists have 35 and 9.6 per cent, i.e., a larger share
than of sheep. Capitalist agriculture is much better able to adapt itself to
the requirements of the international market. In regard to the peasant, we
still have to say, in the words of Marx: the peasant
turns merchant and industrialist without the conditions enabling him to
become a real merchant and industrialist.[95] The
market demands of every farmer, as an absolute necessity,
submission to the new conditions and speedy adjustment to them. But this
speedy adjustment is impossible without capital. Thus, under
capitalism small-scale farming is condemned to the utmost of routine and
backwardness and the least adaptability to the market.
To envisage more concretely the real economic features of this needy
mass and of the small wealthy minority, we shall quote figures of the
average amount of land and livestock on the farms of the various groups. It
is natural for bourgeois political economy (and for the revisionist gentry)
to gloss over capitalist contradictions; socialist political economy must
ascertain the difference in types of farms and standard of living
between the prosperous capitalist farmers and the needy small farmers. See
table, page 208.
These figures clearly show that all three lower groups, comprising
half the total number of farms, belong to poor peasants. "Farmers"
owning no horses and no cows predominate. Only in the group with land up to
2.5 hectares is there one whole head of cattle, one sheep, and one
pig per farm. Obviously, there can be no question of this half of the
total number of farms making any profit out of dairy and meat livestock
farming. For this half, the prosperity of Danish agriculture means
dependence upou the big
page 208
Average per Farm
|
Groups of farms
|
Hectares
|
Horses
|
Cows
|
Total
cattle
|
Sheep
|
Pigs
|
Poultry
|
Owning no land
Amount of land unknown
Up to 2.5 ha
2.5 to 10 "
10 to 40 "
40 to 120 "
120 ha and over
|
--
?
0.6
5.1
21.6
61.3
267.3
|
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.9
2.9
6.1
16.7
|
0.3
0.6
0.8
2.7
6.6
13.8
58.7
|
0.3
0.9
1.1
3.9
11.3
23.1
93.7
|
0.7
0.9
1.2
2.9
8.4
11.2
18.5
|
0.7
0.9
1.2
3.0
6.8
14.9
51.2
|
16.4
17.0
20.4
29.5
43.0
72.4
131.3
|
|
Average
|
13.1
|
1.6
|
3.8
|
6.3
|
3.9
|
4.2
|
31.5
|
farmers, the necessity of seeking "auxiliary employment", i.e., of
selling their labour power in one way or another, perpetual poverty and
semi-ruined farms.
Of course, this conclusion holds good only for the whole mass of
those poorest farms. We have already shown with the aid of German, French,
and Russian agricultural statistics that even among the farms having a small
amount of land there are big livestock owners, tobacco growers, and so
forth. The differentiation is deeper than can be imagined from the returns
of Danish statistics. But this differentiation, by singling out in each
group an insignificant minority of farms growing special crops, only emphasises the
poverty and want of the majority of the farmers in the poorest
groups.
Further, it is also evident from the figures quoted that even the
group of small peasants owning from 2.5 hectares to 10 hectares cannot be
regarded as being at all secure and economically well established. Let us
recall the fact that in this group there are 63,000 farms, or 22.8 per cent
of the total, and that the average is 0.9 horses per farm. The horseless
farmers probably use their cows for draught, thus worsening the conditions
of both agricultural farming (shallower ploughing) and livestock farming
(weakening the cattle). The average number of cows in this group is
page 209
2.7 per farm. Even if the household consumption of milk and meat products
is reduced -- and such a reduction is itself a direct sign of bitter need --
this number of cows could provide only a very small quantity of products for
sale. The share such farms with an average of 2.7 cows and 3 pigs per
household enjoy in the "prosperity" of the "national" sale of milk and meat
to Britain can only be very insignificant. With farms of this size,
commercial agriculture and livestock farming mean, partly, selling what is
necessary for the family, poorer diet, increased poverty, and partly,
selling in very small quantities, i.e., under the most disadvantageous
conditions, and the impossibility of having money put by to meet inevitable
extra expenses. And the natural economy of the small peasant under the
conditions prevailing in modern capitalist countries is doomed to
stagnation, to a slow painful death; it certainly cannot prosper. The whole
"trick" of bourgeois and revisionist political economy lies in not making a
separate study of the conditions of this particular type of small farm,
which is below the "average" (the "average" Danish farmer has 1.6 horses and
3.8 cows), and which represents the overwhelming majority of the
total number of farms. Not only is this type of farm not specially studied;
it is glossed over by references exclusively to "average" figures, to the
general increase in "production" and "sales", and by saying nothing about
the fact that only the well-to-do farms, which represent the small
minority, can sell profitably.
It is only among the farmers having from 10 to 40 hectares that we
see a sufficient number of livestock to create the possibility of
"prosperity". But these farms represent only 16 per cent of the total. And
it is questionable whether they manage entirely without hired labour, since
they have on an average 21.6 hectares of land per farm. In view of the high
degree of intensive farming in Denmark, farms of such dimensions probably
cannot be carried on without the assistance of farm-hands or day-labourers.
UnfortuIlately, both Danish statisticians and the majority of those who
write about Danish agriculture adhere entirell to the bourgeois point of
view and do not explore the question of hired labour, the size of farms
requiring its employment, and so forth. From the Danish census of
occupations of 1901
page 210
we learn only that in the group of "day-labourers", etc., there are
60,000 men and 56,000 women, i.e., 116,000 out of a total of 972,000 of the
rural population distributed according to occupation. As to whether these
tens of thousands of wage-workers (and in addition to them small peasants do
"by work" for hire) are employed exclusively by the 30,000 big capitalist
farmers (27,620 owning from 40 to 120 hectares and 2,201 owning over 120
hectares each), or whether some of them are also employed by the well-to-do
peasants owIling from 10 to 40 hectares, we have no information.
Of the two highest groups, the upper Thirty Thousand of Danish
agriculture, there is little to say: the capitalist character of their
agriculture and livestock farming is graphically illustrated by the figures
quoted at the beginning.
Fina]ly, the last data of general interest touched upon and partly
analysed in Danish agricultural statistics are those relating to the
question whether the development of livestock farming, that main foundation
of the "prosperity" of the "ideal country", is accompanied by a process of
decentralisation or concentration. The statistics for 1898, alreadly quoted
by us, provide extremely interesting data compared with those for 1893; and
for one type of livestock, the most important, it is true, namely, total
cattle, we can also make a comparison between the figures for 1876 and 1898.
Between 1893 and 1898 the branch of livestock farming which made most
progress in Denmark was pig breeding. In this period the number of pigs
increased from 829,000 to 1,168,000, or by 40 per cent, while the number of
horses increased only from 410,000 to 449,000, of cattle from 1,696,000 to
1,744,000, and the number of sheep even diminished. Who reaped the main
benefits of this tremendous progress of the Danish farmers, united in
innumerable co-operative societies? The compilers of the 1898 statistics
answer this by comparing the returns for 1893 and 1898. All the pig-owners
are divided into four groups: big owners having 50 and more pigs; medium-big
owners with from 15 to 49; medium-small owners with from 4 to 14; and small
owners with from 1 to 3 pigs. The compilers give the following figures for
these four groups:
page 211
|
Groups of farms |
1893
|
1898
|
Per cent increase
or decrease
|
Per cent distribution
of total pigs
|
|
Number of
|
Number of
|
|
Farms
|
Pigs
|
Farms
|
Pigs
|
Farms
|
Pigs
|
1893
|
1898
|
|
50 head
and over
15 to 49
4 to 14
1 to 3
|
844
20,602
38,357
108,820
|
79,230
350,277
211,868
187,756
|
1,487
30,852
50,668
108,544
|
135,999
554,979
282,642
194,873
|
76.2
48.2
32.1
0.3
|
71.7
58.4
33.4
3.8
|
9.6
42.3
25.5
22.6
|
11.6
47.5
24.2
16.7
|
|
Total
|
168,623
|
829,131
|
191,551
|
1,168,493
|
13.6
|
40.9
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
These figures clearly show that a rapid concentration of
livestock farming is taking place. The larger the farm, the more it gained
from the "progress" of livestock farming. The big farms increased their
number of livestock by 71.7 per cent; the medium-big farms increased theirs
by 58.4 per cent; the medium-small farms by 33.4 per cent; and the small
farms only by 3.8 per cent. The increase in wealth occurred mainly among the
small "upper" minority. The total increase of pigs during the five years was
339,000; of these 261,000, or, more than three-fourths, were
accounted for by the big and medium-big farms, numbering 32,000 (out of a
total of 266,000-277,000 farms!). Small-scale production in livestock
farming of this type is being ousted by large-scale production:
during the five years there was an increase in the share of the big
farms (from 9.6 per cent to 11.6 per cent) and that of the medium-big farms
(from 42.3 per cent to 47.5 per cent); whereas that of the medium-small
farms diminished (from 25.5 per cent to 24.2 per cent), and that of
the small farms diminished still more (from 22.6 per cent to 16.7 per cent).
If instead of the bare figures of area we could get statistics
of agricultural farming expressing the scale of production as precisely as
the figures of the number of livestock
page 212
express[*] the
scale of livestock farming, there is no doubt that here as well we would see
the process of concentration which the bourgeois professors and opportunists
deny.
Still more interesting are the corresponding figures of total cattle.
We can supplement the comparison of the figures of 1893 and 1898 made by the
compilers of the 1898 statistics with the returns of the census of July 17,
1876. (Danmarks Statistik. Statistik Tabelvaerk, 4-de Raekke, litra
C, Nr. 1. Kreaturholdet d. 17 juli, 1876, København, 1878.) Here are the
figures for the three years.
These figures, covering a longer period of time and a more important
type of livestock, illustrate the process of capitalist concentration as
graphically as those previously quoted. The growth of livestock farming in
Denmark indicates the progress almost exclusively of large-scale
capitalist farming. The total livestock increase between 1876 and 1898 was
424,000 head. Of these, 76,000 belonged to farms having 50 head and more,
and 303,000 to farms having from 15 to 49 head each, i.e., these upper
38,000 farms gained 379,000 head, or nearly nine-tenths of the total
increase. No more striking picture of capitalist concentration could be
imagined.
The total number of cattle-owning farms increased between 1876 and
1898 by 12,645 (180,641-167,996), or by 7.5 per cent. The total population
of Denmark increased between 1880 and 1901 (i.e., during a slightly shorter
period of time) from 1,969,039 to 2,449,540,** i.e., by 24.4 per cent.
Clearly, the relative number of "haves", i.e., owners of livestock, diminished.
The smaller part of the population belongs to the class of
property-owners. The number of smallest owners (one to three head of
livestock) steadily diminisned. The number of medium-small owners (with 4 to
14 head) increased very slowly (+12.5 per cent between 1876 and 1893, +2.5
per cent between 1893 and
* We showed above, according to Drechsler's figures,
that the livestock in the big farms are bigger. Here too, therefore, the
overall statistics minimize the degree of concentration.
** In 1880, the urban population constituted 28 per cent, and in 1901,
38 per cent.page 312
|
Groups of farms
|
1876
|
1893
|
1898
|
Per cent increase
or decrease
|
Per cent
distribution of
total cattle
|
|
Number of
|
Number of
|
Number of
|
1876 to
1893
|
1893 to
1898
|
|
Number of
|
Number of
|
1876
|
1893
|
1898
|
|
Farms
|
Cattle
|
Farms
|
Cattle
|
Farms
|
Cattle
|
Farms
|
Cattle
|
Farms
|
Cattle
|
|
50 head
and over
15 to 49
4 to 14
1 to 3
|
1,634
24,096
64,110
78,156
|
156,728
514,678
504,193
144,930
|
2,209
35,200
72,173
70,218
|
221,667
793,474
539,301
141,748
|
2,281
36,110
73,958
68,292
|
232,933
818,190
552.944
140.730
|
35.2
46.1
12.5
10.2
|
41.4
54.1
6.9
2.2
|
3.3
2.6
2.5
2.7
|
5.1
3.1
2.5
0.7
|
11.8
39.0
38.2
11.0
|
13.0
46.8
31.8
8.4
|
13.4
46.8
31.7
8.1
|
|
Total
|
167,996
|
1,320,529
|
179,800
|
1,396,190
|
180,641
|
1,744,797
|
7.0
|
28.4
|
0.5
|
2.9
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
page 214
1898) and lagged behind the increase of the population. A real and rapid
increase is observed only in large-scale capitalist livestock farming.
Between 1876 and 1893 the medium-big farms increased more rapidly than the
big farms; but between 1893 and 1898, the biggest farms increased more
rapidly.
Taking the figures for 1876 and 1898 for the group of biggest farms,
i.e., owners of 200 or more head of cattle, we find that in 1876 they
numbered 79 (0.05 per cent of the total number of livestock owners) with
18,970 head of cattle (1.4 per cent of the total); while in 1898, there were
twice as many, viz., 195 (0.1 per cent of the total) with 52,385 head
of cattle (3.0 per cent of the total). The number of the biggest farmers
more than doubled and their output nearly trebled.
The ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production
proceeded steadily between 1876 and 1898. The share of the small farms in
the total number of cattle continually diminished: from 11.0 per cent in
1876 to 8.4 per cent in 1893, and to 8.1 per cent in 1898. The share of the
medium farms also continually diminished, although somewhat more slowly
(38.2 -- 31.8 -- 31.7 per cent). The share of the medium-big farms increased
from 39.0 per cent in 1876 to 46.8 per cent in 1893, but remained at the
same level between 1893 and 1898. Only the share of the biggest farms
steadily increased, pushing aside all the other categories (11.8 -- 13.0 --
13.4 per cent).
The more favourable the conditions for livestock farming, the more
rapid is the development and progress of commercial livestock farming, and
the more intense is the process of capitalist concentration. For example, in
the Copenhagen district, which had a population of 234,000 in 1880 and
378,000 in 1901, dairy and meat products were, of course, the most
marketable items. The farmers in that district were richer in cattle than
all the other farmers in Denmark, both in 1876 and in 1898, having on an
average 8.5 and 11.6 head of cattle each, compared with an average of 7.9
and 9.7 for the whole country. And in this district, in which the conditions
are most favourable for the development of livestock farming, we see the
process of concentration is most intense.
page 215
The following are the figures for this district for 1876 and 1898,
according to the groups which we adopted above:
|
1876
|
1898
|
|
Number
of farms
|
Number
of cattle
|
Number
of farms
|
Number
of cattle
|
|
50 head and over
15 to 49
4 to 14
1 to 3
|
44
1,045
2,011
2,514
|
4,488
22,119
16,896
4,468
|
86
1,545
1,900
1,890
|
9,059
35,579
14,559
3,767
|
|
Total
|
5,614
|
47,971
|
5,421
|
62,964
|
During the 22 years even the absolute number of owners diminished!
Livestock wealth was concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of
farmers. Both the small and the middle farmers after 22 years proved to be fewer and
to have fewer livestock. The medium-big farmers increased their
possessions by fifty per cent (from 22,000 to 35,000). The big farmers more
than doubled their possessions. Of the biggest farmers, owning 200 and
more head of cattle, there were in 1876 two who owned 437 head; in
1898, however, there were 10 who owned 2,896 head of cattle.
The concern which the Pudors, Davids, and other voluntary or
involuntary servants of capital show for improved marketing conditions, the
development of farmers' associations, and technical progress in livestock
farming and agriculture can have only one purpose: to bring about through
out the country and in all branches of agriculture conditions like those in
the Copenhagen district, i.e., particularly rapid concentration of
production in the hands of the capitalists and the expropriation,
proletarianisation of the population, a reduction of the proportion of
property owners to the total population, an increase in the proportion of
those whom capitalism is forcing out of the country into the towns, etc.
page 216
To sum up: the "ideal country" from the standpoint of the opponents
of Marxism on the agrarian question very clearly reveals (despite the
socio-economic statistics being still at a low level and lacking analysis)
the capitalist agrarian system, the sharply expressed capitalist
contradictions in agriculture and livestock farming, the growing
concentration of agricultural production, the ousting of small-scale
production by large-scale production, and the proletarianisation and
impoverishment of the overwhelming majority of the rural population.
NOTES
[87] The
Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx" was written between 1901 and
1907. The first four chapters were published in Zarya, Nos. 2-3, for
December 1901, under the title "The 'Critics' on the Agarian Question (First
Essay)"; the contribution bore the signature of N. Lenin. The chapters were
published legally in Odessa
page 522
in 1905 by the Burevestnik Publishers as a
separate pamphlet entitled The Agrarian Question and the "Critics of
Marx". This title was retained by the author for subsequent publications
of the essay in whole or in part.
Chapters V-IX were first published in February 1906 in the legal
magazine Obrazovaniye (Education ), No. 2, where they were
given subtitles; Chapters I-IV, published in Zarya and in the 1905
edition, had none.
The nine chapters with two additional ones (X and XI) were first
published together in 1908 in St. Petersburg in The Agrarian Question,
Part I, by Vl. Ilyin (V. I. Lenin), Chapters I-IV having subtitles, some
editorial changes were made in the text and some notes added.
Chapter XII (the last) was first published in 1908 in the collection Current
Life.
The first nine chapters are given in Vol. 5, pp. 103-222 of the present
edition [Transcriber's Note: See The
Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx" (1901). -- DJR].
Volume 13 contains Chapters X, XI, XII, written in 1907. [p.169]
[88] Lenin
is referring to the book by Franz Bensing Der Einfluss der
landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen auf Volks- und Privatwirtschaft, Breslau,
1897. [p.172]
[89] Lenin
is referring to M. Hecht's book Drei Dörfer der badischen Hard,
Leipzig, 1895. [p.174]
[90] See
Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow, pp. 68-70. [p.175]
[91] Lenin
is referring to the letter of the well-known Narodnik publicist A. N.
Engelhardt "From the Countryside" published in the journal Otechestvenniye
Zapiski (Fatherland Notes ). [p.175]
[92] See
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 727. Lenin's
references are to Vol. III of the German edition of 1894 and he gives all
quotations in his own translation. [p.181]
[93] See
Karl Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwert, 2. Teil, Berlin, Dietz Verlag,
1959. [p.181]
[94] V.
V.-- pseudonym of V. Vorontsov, the ideologist of the liberal Narodism
of the eighties and nineties of the last century. [p.188]
[95] See
K, Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, p. 791. [p.207]