It is not just that a quantitative differentiation occurs, but that what is produced are contradictory class interests. Postnikov refers to “strife” and “a struggle of economic interests”, but Lenin points out that he “does not fully appreciate their importance; nor does he see that the terms themselves are inadequate.” (p 44)
Lenin cites a series of data provided by Postnikov in relation to the ownership and use of draught animals by the different size of farms. Because draught animals were the main instrument of production, Lenin says, this measure is an indication of the wealth or poverty of each group.
“In the three uyezds of Taurida Gubernia, out of a total of 263,589 draught animals, the bottom group possess (p. 117) 43,625, or 17% in all, which is 2 1/3 times less than the average. The data on the percentage of households possessing no draught animals were given above (80%, 48% and 12% for the three subdivisions of the bottom group). On the basis of these data, Postnikov arrived at the conclusion that “the percentage of householders who possess no animals of their own is considerable only in the groups with no land under crops or with crop areas of up to 10 dessiatines per household” (p. 135).” (p 47-8)
The poorest group cultivated 12% of the total area, whilst constituting 40% of the households.
“If we remember that it is the medium-sized area cultivated by the Taurida peasant which the author regards as normal (i.e., covering all the family’s needs) we can easily see how this group, with a sown area 3 1/3 times less than the average, is deprived of its just share.” (p 48)
With inadequate land, and inadequate animals or implements, the poorer peasants were increasingly led to give up their farms and become wage labourers.
“Postnikov estimates that such lessors (whose farms are undoubtedly already utterly ruined) comprise about one-third of the population, that is, again a considerable majority of the poor group. Let us note in passing that this practice of “selling” allotments (to borrow the customary expression of the peasants) has been reflected in Zemstvo statistics everywhere, and on a very large scale. The periodicals which have drawn attention to this fact have already managed to invent a remedy for it—the inalienability of allotments. Postnikov quite rightly questions the effectiveness of such measures, which reveal in their authors a purely bureaucratic faith in the power of the decrees of the authorities.” (p 48)
Postnikov, quite rightly, describes why such administrative methods of preventing the spread of capitalism via this accumulation of scattered means of production, not only could not work, but would have other reactionary consequences.
“The direct prohibition of the leasing of land will force the peasant to do it surreptitiously, without control, and most likely on terms that are worse for the lessor than at present, since he is forced to lease his land. Furthermore, allotments will increasingly be leased through the village courts in payment of taxation arrears, and such leasing is the least advantageous for the poor peasant” (p. 140).” (p 49)
There was little difference between those households that cultivated none of their own land, and those that cultivated only a little. Both were reduced to wage-labour for survival, and the latter were inexorably being led into the camp of the former.
“Every severe harvest failure, or chance calamity such as fire, loss of horses, etc., drives some of the householders out of this group into the category of non-farming peasants and farm labourers. A householder who, from one cause or another, loses his draught animals, takes the first step along the road to ruin. Cultivating the land with hired animals is too casual and unsystematic, and usually leads to a reduction of cropping. Such a muzhik is refused credit by the village loan-and-savings societies and by his fellow villagers”.” (p 49-50)
Postnikov collected data on the minimum income required by a peasant family. It was estimated at 150-188 Roubles. In the bottom group, R117.5 was earned from its own cultivation with R120 from sale of its labour-power.
“Consequently, we again find that by independent farming the peasants of this group can only cover less than half of their minimum expenditure.” (p 54)
The conclusion is that whether the peasants in this group cultivated none or just some of their land, they are characterised as being wage labourers.
No comments:
Post a Comment