(a) Woods and Forests

IN speaking of socialization we have hitherto only had in view the means of transport, the mines, and industry in the narrower sense of the term. We have left agriculture entirely out of account. And yet in many States it still comprises the largest section of the population, and even in the most industrial States it forms the largest of all branches of production. Thus 9,732,000 persons were engaged in agriculture in the German Empire in 1907, while only 1,905,000 persons were engaged in the next largest industry, the building industry, and 1,086,000 persons were engaged in the engineering trades, and 936,000 in the mines. In England and Wales, on the other hand, only 1,260,000 persons were engaged in agriculture in 1911, as against 2,214,000 engaged in commerce.

But agriculture in general, if not native agriculture, forms the basis of existence for the entire population, the purveyor of its means of subsistence and many of its raw materials. If agriculture fails, we starve. This has been recently shown by the Russian Empire in the most appalling fashion.

Under these circumstances, it goes without saying that if the workers are to take their fate in their own hands, that is, if they are to exercise control over their sources of life, they cannot afford to ignore agriculture, but must seek to incorporate it into their system of production for use.

The socialist parties of various countries have had agrarian programmes for a longtime past. But their chief contents have been a list of demands, which Social Democracy is obliged to put forward in the interest of the country population. They have mostly been electoral programmes. Now that we are on the threshold of political power it is necessary to proceed further. It is not enough to ask: what have we to offer the peasants as they are? We must add to this the question: what can we do to render agriculture directly serviceable to society?

Here we encounter difficulties which are not presented by the other branches of production. The need to socialize agriculture, to transfer the production of foodstuffs from the domain of profit to the domain of communal service, is an urgent one. But where peasant economy is preponderant, this need arises from the necessities of the majority, not of the country, but of the town population. Even when many wage-earners are engaged in agriculture, the desire for individual small holdings is stronger than the pressure towards the socialization of their branch of industry.

Moreover, it does not merely depend upon the need that exists. Without need, without determination, nothing can, of course, be created. But it is a great mistake to imagine that the will alone is decisive, and that one needs only to will something strongly in order to carry it out.

Determination is effective only when it is reasonable, that is, when it is bound up with a clear perception of the material conditions for the enforcement of what is determined upon.

Now we have seen that in the other branches of production the conditions for the realization of Socialism are as well developed as the need for it is urgent. In agriculture, on the contrary, the march of economic development produces neither the one nor the other in adequate measure. We are constrained to admit that in this sphere large-scale undertakings have not yet supplanted small holdings.

This is a menacing reef for Socialism.

These remarks do not apply to one branch of production which is reckoned as a part of agriculture, but which has its own laws, deviating from those of agriculture as they deviate from those of industry. This branch of production is afforestation.

Here the need for socialization as well as the conditions for its realization already exist to a large extent.

The maintenance of forests at certain points is of extreme importance for the climate and the humidity of the soil, alike for agriculture and for river navigation.

Moreover, private property in land is by no means favourable to the maintenance of forests.

Capital everywhere seeks to be turned over as quickly as possible, for the more rapid the rate of turnover, the greater the mass of profit yielded by an equal sum of capital within a specified period. Now afforestation is a very protracted process, often lasting a hundred years, and in the case of oak-trees it may extend over two hundred years. Where is the man who will invest his capital in order to pocket a profit after such a long period?

When a private person acquires a forest, he denudes it of trees. Instead of planting new trees, he will try to make a different use of the land, which would yield a more rapid, perhaps an annual, income, if the constitution and position of the soil favour this course.

The tendency of the capitalist system, therefore, is to destroy the forests, at least where forestry is under a profit-making regime. This is not everywhere the case, as forests have always been a favourite object of luxury for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country.

In addition to the wood they yield, forests afford shelter for wild animals, and next to war, hunting has ever been the favourite pastime of the feudal lords and their successors. In feudal times, the ruling classes attached great importance to the upkeep of the forests and the breeding of wild animals.

From the peasants’ standpoint, forests teeming with animals were harmful, as the animals devastated the crops. The peasants resented the employment of good agricultural land for forestry, and the thrifty citizen also resented the waste implied in the existence of forests and wild animals in countries which were adapted to a higher state of cultivation.

This is one of the reasons why the defeat of feudalism by capitalism and democracy was disastrous to the forests. Yet this was not the case everywhere nor for long, as the growth of the capitalist system was accompanied by an increase of the mass of surplus value which goes into the pockets of the capitalists, and enables the rich to enjoy luxuries. The richest of the rich were therefore able to permit themselves the costly luxury of acquiring forests as hunting-grounds. They even went so far as to purchase cultivated lands in many countries, in order to break them up and transform them into forests. This was frequently the case in the Alpine districts. At an earlier period, the arrogant landlords in the Scottish Highlands had transformed the holdings of industrious peasants into deer forests.

Under certain circumstances, such an increase in the area of land under afforestation may be as socially harmful as its diminution at other points.

In capitalist States, forestry is usually subject to State regulations, which are often very strict, and the need for the State regulation of forestry has become apparent almost everywhere. No less than the need are the conditions for the State control of forestry exceptionally well developed.

Forestry by its nature requires large-scale operations, and often extremely intensive culture. In 1907 the area of the German Empire under afforestation amounted to 13,876,000 hectares, while the number of persons engaged in forestry and hunting only amounted to 126,000. Thus one person was employed for each hundred hectares of forest.

Large-scale operations are the rule. In 1907 the land under afforestation was divided into the following classes

Hectares

Per Cent

Over 1,000 hectares

100 to 1,000 hectares

Under 100 hectares

Thus three-fourths of the undertakings were large-scale undertakings.

State afforestation has continued to show good results, in spite of the handicap of bureaucratic control. If this service were invested with a greater degree of independence, and if the workers and the consumers were granted a greater influence over its management, even better results would follow.

In 1895 the State forests in the German Empire comprised 4,741,000 hectares, or 34.5 per cent. of the entire area under afforestation. By 1907 they had increased to 4,958,000 hectares, or 35 per cent., while the other forests decreased by 47,000 hectares.

In addition to the State forests, there are the municipal forests, which comprised 2,287,000 hectares, or 16.5 per cent. of the area under afforestation, in 1907. State and municipal forests combined amounted to 51.5 per cent., or more than one-half of the forests.

Consequently the forests in private hands are already in the minority. The machinery for their nationalization is already in existence, and it would involve but little trouble to transfer them from private hands. This could be effected rapidly anti easily, as it is only a question of power. If the operation were skilfully managed, it would find support among the masses not merely of the town, but also of the country population, in which the old traditions of common property in woods, watercourses, and meadows still survive. However tightly a peasant clings to his holding, he would have no objection to offer to the nationalization of the forests of the great lords.

The victorious Labour Movement will have to undertake the socialization of forests as one of its first tasks.