(c) The Socialization of Large Estates

The socialistic regime would encounter its greatest difficulties when it commenced to attempt to socialize agricultural undertakings. In this sphere capitalist development has so far performed so little work of a preliminary nature that there are Socialists who doubt whether agriculture can be socialized at all, and would like to confine Socialism to industry.

Yet even they would have to admit that the continuation of the existing property relations on the countryside would be incompatible with socialistic production. Their method of putting a stop to the exploitation of wage-labour in agriculture is to break up all the big estates, and to reduce the whole of agriculture to small holdings.

If the social revolution in the towns were to be accompanied by such an economic reaction upon the countryside, the consequences would be catastrophic, as the system of small holdings would not permit the production of considerable surpluses, if of any at all.

What is here stated receives confirmation from a report which Dr. E. Rabbethge submitted to the Socialization Commission, of which he was a member, in March 1922.

In this report it was estimated that the yield of small and medium agricultural holdings just suffices to feed the peasants and the population of the small towns of Germany. The population of the large’ towns (20 millions) and the cultivators of the large agricultural estates (3 millions) depend for their food upon the produce of these estates. The large estates feed on an average five persons per e hectare, while the small and medium holdings only feed two. The difference is even greater when we consider the intensively cultivated large estates, which produce per hectare food for about nine persons.

If all the large estates were broken up, the same area would only feed about 9 millions of people, instead of 23 millions. The remaining 13 to 14 millions would be obliged to starve, and the cost of living would increase so far as the others were concerned.

These 13 to 14 millions, who would be compelled to starve or to emigrate, are precisely those who embody modern civilization in Germany. To split up agriculture into small holdings would signify a relapse into barbarism.

The recent ruin of the large estates in Russia by the depredations of the peasant rebellions, and then the ruin of the more prosperous peasants through the exactions of the committees of village poverty, have brought about the dire privations of the present hour, which were considerably accentuated, although not solely caused, by the drought and bad harvests. To these factors must be added the devastating requisition forays of the Red Army, in order to complete the picture of poverty.

Forcible requisitions on the part of soldiers or hungry workers would, in our case, lead to immediate disaster, if the system of small holdings did not yield a sufficient surplus, and, in spite of democracy, the outcome might be civil war. Under democratic institutions, capital is deprived of the means of making civil war, unless it can command the assistance of the peasants. The only menace to a socialist regime would come from that quarter. Moreover, as corn would be requisitioned of the peasants, the effect would be to discourage them to produce foodstuffs, and the situation of the workers would be worsened through such a policy of coercion. Nothing could be more disastrous than this method of solving the agrarian question.

We must not overlook an important consideration. It should be the aim of socialist economy to lighten the labour of the individual as much as possible. This is possibly more important to many workers than an increase in their material enjoyments.

Now small holdings can only be maintained through the greatest exertion of those who work them. The abundance of tasks which small holders have to perform leaves scarcely an opportunity for rest or holiday. One of the reasons for the sharp antagonisms which to-day exist between the peasants and the industrial workers is that, whilst the worker enjoys a reduction in his hours of toil, the servitude of the peasant does not diminish. In consequence, many of the old peasants cherish a grim hatred towards the idlers in the town, whilst many young persons seek to escape from the aridity of country life and its over-work by flocking into the towns. The flight from the countryside was one of the most striking social phenomena in the decade prior to the war. It will set in again as soon as we have overcome the consequences of the war and reverted in some measure to normal economic conditions.

This phenomenon constitutes a most serious threat to agricultural industry, and consequently to the sustenance of the entire population. The danger would become much greater in a socialist society, if socialization and its advantages to the workers were confined to those engaged in industry, whilst those engaged in agriculture were left in the old groove.

The existence of the socialist society would be seriously jeopardized by this position.

For various reasons, the breaking up of the large estates would be a shattering catastrophe for a socialist society. The socialization and the utmost expansion of the large estates would form an urgent necessity.

Now the socialist champions of peasant economy may answer: it is not sufficient to want a certain method of production in order to bring it into operation. The conditions for such a mode of production must first of all exist, and peasant economy is not being undermined by the economic development.

It is to be observed first of all that the direction of economic development does not favour peasant economy. The relationship between large estates and small holdings in agriculture has undergone little change for some time. Moreover, it is not merely a question of economic, but also of technical, development, and this demonstrates more and more the superiority of large estates. If large estates did not prove to be a more productive type of undertaking, then of course any attempt to maintain them within the framework of Socialism would be hopeless as well as superfluous. It is the technical inferiority of small holdings which renders peasant economy incompatible with the existence of a socialist society.

If we should be unable to proceed at once to socialize the whole of agriculture, the socialization of the large agricultural estates would still be one of the most important tasks of a socialist regime.

But even this limited problem does not admit of an immediate solution.

The development of agriculture is so different from that of other branches of production that not only do large undertakings make slow progress in this sphere, but in addition they remain inferior to industrial concerns in their structure. For example, joint-stock enterprise has made practically no headway in agriculture. A few giant farms in North America and in Argentina have been converted into joint-stock companies, but these companies were founded more for the purpose of land speculation than for that of agricultural production, which they carry on as extensively as possible. Syndication, again, has only been adopted to a slight extent in agriculture. This fact is to be ascribed to the peculiar character of the industry, and not to its managers. The same gentlemen who will not permit the independence of their own agricultural undertakings to be impaired, are ready enough for syndication in spheres which touch both agriculture and industry, such as the production of alcohol and sugar.

Thus the preceding economic development has created less favourable conditions even within the large agricultural concerns than in many branches of industry and mining. If, for example, the socialization of the entire mining industry and not of isolated pits seems to be the most rational form for this transaction, socialization upon such a scale would be out of the question for agriculture. A start will have to be made with the socialization of isolated estates, which offer particularly favourable conditions, in order that the process may be gradually extended on the basis of the experience thus acquired.

In this connection the backwardness of the land-worker will form a great obstacle. The town offers the worker so many stimulations and opportunities for education that he is able to some extent to make up for the defects of the education he received at school. In the country these stimulations and opportunities are lacking, and he easily forgets the little that he learned at the very inadequate village school. Thus his reading and his companions, as well as his union activities, are easier to supervise, and this is one of the reasons why the organization of landworkers has hitherto proved so difficult.

Of course, this need not always be the case. It is to be expected that the land-workers’ movement which arose in many States either during the war or after the revolution will develop great vitality. In any case, the land-workers will remain far behind the great majority of their comrades in industry in the matter of political knowledge and general education, and this fact will not facilitate the introduction of self-government into agriculture. An energetic trade union organization of landworkers, in conjunction with properly functioning works committees and a big improvement in village schools- these are the preliminary conditions without which no beneficial democratization of any large agricultural undertakings which may be acquired and socialized by the State or by urban municipalities can be expected.

In any case, it would seem that a well-educated class of land-workers is at least capable of conducting agriculture upon co-operative lines, whether productive co-operation, the guild, or the jointly-controlled undertaking proves to be the most suitable form. The latter form seems to be the most appropriate, as it nips in the bud all antagonisms between producers and consumers.

On the other hand, some very encouraging experiments have been made in agricultural co-operation. It is true that the Russian agricultural communism of the Bolshevists in all its forms ended in failure.

“Everything seemed to favour the experiment. And yet by the beginning of 1919 nearly 83 per cent. of the communes (founded in the summer of 1918), and towards the middle of 1919 the remainder, collapsed. (Lecture by Professor Bulowetzky contained in Appendix to Tugan Baranowsky’s Die kommunistischem Gemeinwesen der Neuzeit)

But this failure does not prove that the nature of agriculture is opposed to co-operative enterprise; it proves rather that the Bolshevists apply themselves with incredible clumsiness to everything that is not connected with the organization of force, with the Red Army, and with the omnipotence of the police.

Various agricultural co-operative undertakings have sprung up in Italy during the last generation. In 1906 there were 108 co-operative societies devoted to agriculture, of which 88 were in full swing, and 20 in course of formation. Of the 88, there were 18 real productive undertakings, which cultivated a total area of 1,873 hectares, each forming a large estate of an average size of 200 hectares.

In addition, there were 70 co-operative societies which had combined to lease land which they apportioned among single families for cultivation.

In the year 1912 a German investigator reported that the results of co-operative leasing were generally regarded as absolutely favourable, and so far no failures had been registered.

The number of such agricultural co-operative societies increased from 108 to 400 between 1906 and 1922. The area they cultivated nearly quadrupled.

Noteworthy, too, is the series of religious communistic colonies which flourished in the United States during the last century and successfully practised co-operative agriculture.

Under the influence of Robert Owen, a certain Mr. Vandaleur embarked upon a co-operative experiment at Ralahine in Ireland, which achieved impressive results. Unfortunately, Mr. Vandaleur was a gambler, and when he became bankrupt, his creditors destroyed the co-operative society.

A similar fate befell the first co-operative leasing society in Italy, which thrived for a time and then collapsed with the failure of the landowner. We quote the following account from Preyer:

“In the year 1886, the deputy Dr. Morl, a rich landowner in Stagno, Lombardy, leased a property comprising 100 hectares to a number of peasants, who formed themselves into a co-operative society. The lease was at first for a period of two years, and was then to be renewed upon the same conditions. The proprietor, however, was unwilling to renew the lease at the expiration of the first period. He was influenced by the reproaches of neighbours, who feared that the socialistic experiment would create discontent among the peasants and land-workers of the countryside. It is very regrettable that the lease was not renewed, as the experiment proved a success in every way. In the first year the society paid a small dividend to its members in excess of their usual wages, and in the second year this dividend amounted to 100 lire for each member. Besides his fixed rent, the proprietor received a bonus which was as large as that of all the co-operators put together. The economic advantages were not less obvious. Whereas previously the peasants had cultivated the land in a negligent fashion, now that their own interests were at stake, they shirked no effort to increase the produce as much as possible. The members of the co-operative society were the workers employed on the land by its former tenants.”

All this vividly recalls Ralahine. But Ralahine left no trace. On the other hand, the Italian experiment of 1886 soon found imitators who were not dependent on the whim of a rich philanthropist. These co-operative leasing undertakings were founded by the local trades councils.

To these modern examples must be added numerous instances from former times. Large agricultural estates, cultivated by large households, were formerly a very successful and widely spread type of agricultural enterprise.

All these co-operative undertakings were based on primitive conditions. It is typical that Ralahine was situated in County Clare, one of the most backward parts of Ireland, and its workers were drawn from the lowest class of the Irish people. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the communistic colonies which successfully practised co-operative agriculture consisted of deeply religious peasant sectaries, who were free from the influence of modern thought, whereas those colonies which originated from modern socialist thought, and were founded by cultivated persons on the basis of Owenite, Fourierist, or Cabetist doctrines, came to a speedy end.

It would therefore seem that co-operative agriculture presupposes a condition of barbarism, and is impossible among modern educated men.

What is the cause of the failure of the modern communistic colonies? It was due to a large extent to the fact that these colonies were situated in remote deserts, where the colonists hoped they would be secure from the disturbing influences of capitalism. This removal from the stimulating influences of civilization is in the long run detrimental to every cultivated man. Moreover, the colonies of modern Socialists were founded, not by peasants, but by townsmen, who were unaccustomed to field labour and were bound to weary of it within a short time. As soon as the first excitement of novelty died away, and the enthusiasm evoked by the great goal of the enterprise had been damped by the daily round of monotony, the colonists began to yearn for the districts they had left. This alone would explain why the colonies of this type fell to pieces after a few years. It does not, however, explain why quarrelling and bickering so frequently disturbed their life.

This may be traced to a phenomenon which has received very little attention, to the close connection of the household with agricultural operations.

While handicraft is by its nature a production of commodities which the produces does not need himself and which he parts with to others in exchange for products which he needs, agriculture has for a long period been almost entirely production for consumption by the producers especially as regards the smaller undertakings.

Business and domestic life are, therefore, closely and organically bound together in agriculture, while these two spheres are entirely separated in industry.

The evolution of the household does not follow the same lines as the development of business. While the latter tends to become ever larger, the former tends to grow ever smaller. In former times the individual could only survive as a member of a great community but the more the monetary system developed, the more independent the individual became of the great communities into which he was born. Henceforth the family tended to be reduced to one married pair with their young children.

This tendency which is general in capitalist society, leads to a greater independence of the individual. It becomes so strong as to outweigh the economic drawbacks which attach to small establishments as compared with large establishments, even in domestic matters.

It is true that attempts are made to confer the advantages of a large establishment upon the household, at least in the towns, but this is not done through the amalgamation of several households. It is effected by depriving the small household of its economic functions one after another, and replacing them by general institutions, which lighten and simplify household labours.

In industry the progress of the large-scale undertaking has not been impeded by the diminution in the size of the household.

In agriculture, where family life and business are closely connected, this diminishing process operates in quite a different manner. It has destroyed the large families, and replaced them by numerous small households. But it has been accompanied by a strong impulse towards the partition of the large estates into small holdings, and considerable obstacles have been offered to the penetration of the large undertaking, whose technical superiority is not so obvious here as in most of the branches of industry.

Where the large undertaking has gained a footing, it has been accompanied by a large household, consisting of numerous unmarried male and female servants, even the workers employed on the large farms who have founded their own families are largely dependent for maintenance and accommodation upon the farmer.

A similar kind of dependence also existed in the communistic colonies. For modern men, however, it is quite intolerable. If we allow it to continue, it would undermine all our attempts at agricultural co-operation.

Consequently, the more a Labour regime would endeavour to impart a modern education to land-workers, the more it would be obliged to provide them with dwellings worthy of human beings, which would make their households completely independent of their business. Only when the small household is organically separated from the large farm will the latter be compatible with the existence of an independent and intelligent class of workers.

This is clearly shown by the Italian example. In contrast to most other countries, large co-operative undertakings in agriculture have flourished in Italy, in spite of the fact that the conditions for them were not very favourable. For these enterprises serve a very limited producer’s interest rather than a consumer’s interest. They were not established in order to produce cheap foodstuffs, but to relieve unemployment among the landworkers. Consequently, the employment of machines is rejected in cases where it would render labour-power superfluous. But a large enterprise without machines is scarcely superior to a small holding.

If, despite these facts, the principle of co-operation has been successful in Italian agriculture, this is due not least to the circumstance that, in contradistinction to the agriculture of other States, the household is to a large extent separated from the business in Italy. The cultivators of the soil are not scattered, but are concentrated in small country towns. This facilitates both socialist propaganda and trade union and co-operative organization among the land-workers.

Consequently, we find in Italy, not merely co-operative agriculture, but also a land-workers’ movement of exceptional strength and tenacity.

The construction of a sufficient number of healthy and pleasant dwellings out of public resources for the landworkers, dwellings which should be detached from the farms and concentrated in large settlements, accompanied by greater freedom of movement for the land-workers, a strong trade union movement among them, good country schools – these are essential conditions for the socialization of large agricultural undertakings.