Russia -- History -- Revolution, 1905-1907; Russia -- Politics and government -- 1894-1917; Russia -- Social conditions -- 1801-1917
To understand the cause of the present state of agriculture in Russia,
owing to the disastrous nature of which the agricultural question is the
acutest of the problems which have to be settled by the Duma, it is
necessary to go back to the time of the emancipation of the serfs.
It is from this epoch that the ruin of Russian agriculture primarily
dates; it was then that the first crash occurred, and it was due to the
following causes. The landlords, who had been accustomed to obtain
manual labour for nothing, proved incapable of adapting themselves at
once to the new conditions, and they did one of two things. They either
spent the money they received from the Government in return for the land
which they had given up in fruitless efforts to make agricultural
improvements—fruitless because, being devoid of practical knowledge,
they did what was not necessary and left undone what was imperative; or
they simply spent the money anyhow until they had none left. Hence
agricultural depression. Half the landlords in Russia disappeared, and
their vacant places were occupied firstly in a small degree by peasants,
and secondly in a greater degree by merchants, who were determined to
extract the uttermost farthing from their possessions. In this manner
there came into existence a new and mixed class of landed proprietors,
who can be divided into two principal sections: (1) Those who let all
their land to the peasants; (2) those who endeavoured as far as possible
to carry on agriculture rationally, and arrived, in spite of the
obstacles inherent in the circumstances, at comparatively good results.
As everybody is probably now aware, the question of expropriation of
private property is being brought forward as a solution of the land
question. And the question of expropriation as it is now being discussed
applies to the second as well as the first class of proprietors
mentioned above. With regard to the first class there is no possible
argument against the expropriation of all their land. With regard to the
second class, their land, considered from the point of view of the
State, represents a considerable asset. If this land were immediately to
be handed over in entirety to the peasants, the value that it represents
to the State would cease to exist, because the peasants have not at this
moment the means of keeping the output of the land up to its present
level. And it would be impossible at this moment for the State to
provide them with the necessary means. It is just because the peasants
are without the necessary means—because, in a word, they are too
poor—that they are asking for more land.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account