Finally, Lenin looks at the situation in respect to the top group of peasants that constituted 20% of the total.
“... in Dnieper Uyezd, the well-to-do group have 41.3 dessiatines under crops per household, whereas the average for the uyezd is 17.8 dessiatines, or less than half as much. Generally speaking, this aspect of the matter—the greater prosperity of the big cultivators—has been sufficiently brought out by Postnikov, but he pays practically no attention to another and far more important question: what part is played by this group’s farming in the total agricultural production of the region, and what price is paid by the other groups for the thriving condition of the top group.” (p 61)
Given that this top group constitute only 20% of the population, it might be thought its impact on the general economy was limited, but the opposite was true.
“In the three Taurida uyezds, out of a total of 1,439,267 dessiatines under crops 724,678 dessiatines, or more than half, are in the hands of the well to-do peasants. These figures, of course, are a far from accurate expression of the predominance of the top group, inasmuch as the well-to-do peasants’ harvests are much larger than those of the poor and the middle peasants, who, as shown in Postnikov’s description quoted above, do not run their farms on proper lines.” (p 62)
In other words, even this fact that 20% of peasants farmed more than half the land does not reflect their real economic power, because, in terms of output, they accounted for far more than 50%.
“Thus, the principal grain producers are the top group of peasants, and hence (a fact of the utmost importance, and one particularly often ignored) all the various descriptions of agriculture and talk about agricultural improvements and so on, relate primarily and mostly (sometimes even exclusively) to the prosperous minority.” (p 62)
Lenin quotes Postnikov's account in relation to implements, for example. The poor peasants still used primitive, heavy wooden ploughs, whereas the richer peasants used newer iron ploughs, and the richer peasants also used a range of other new implements alongside the iron plough.
“If we combine the data for Melitopol and Dnieper uyezds we shall find that of the total number (46,522) of ploughs and cultivators the top group owns 19,987, or 42.9%; wagons, 23,747 out of 59,478, or 39.9%; and, finally, reapers and mowers, 2,841 out of 3,061, or 92.8%.” (p 63)
Lenin then cites Postnikov's finding on how this different distribution of animals and implements etc. effects the different methods of farming, which, thereby, provides productivity benefits for the wealthier peasants. But, the other significant difference is that for the wealthier peasants, the farming was undertaken for commercial purposes.
“The data given above showing the size of the commercial area fully bear out the author’s description, inasmuch as the greater part of the cultivated area yields produce for the market—52% Or the total area on farms with from 25 to 50 dessiatines under crops, and 61% on farms with over 50 dessiatines under crops. Further evidence of this is the amount of the cash income: even the minimum in the case of the well-to-do group—574 rubles per household—is more than double the essential cash expenditure (200 to 250 rubles), thus forming a surplus which is accumulated and serves for the farm’s expansion and improvement.” (p 65)
No comments:
Post a Comment