Quite naturally we find individualism to be the rule as soon as we come to the tenure of arable land, which is cultivated by the householders individually:

Party to the agreement.Number of communities.Rented dessiatines.Land, per cent.
Ranenburg.
Community25219512.0
Partnerships21430.8
Individuals265[56]16009[56]87.2
Total29018347[57]100
Dankoff.
Community23224016.2
Partnerships3420.3
Individuals230[56]11561[56]83.5
Total25613843[57]100

As appears from this table, in so far as peasant farming has survived on the landlord’s estate, agrarian communism has been almost entirely superseded by individual tenancy.

Should not, however, the few cases of communal tenure be considered, on the contrary, as signs of a budding agrarian communism? Is it not a fact that peasant tenancy has sprung into existence from nothing within recent times, and that in 48 villages agrarian communism has acquired a foothold even in that tenancy which was always considered as being essentially an individualistic form of landholding?

Such was the argument of an optimistic school of peasantists, which gained much credit in Russia in a few years ago.[58] In reality, however, nothing like a growth of communism can be seen in the recent rise of communal tenancy. As a matter of fact the latter is restricted solely to communities of former serfs.[59] Consequently it is but the title of possession that has changed, and that from tenure in perpetuity into tenancy at will, for periods of from 3 to 12 years.

On the other hand, the land which had been before the emancipation occupied by the village community of the serfs, is now held by the individual tenant.

Let us compare the area of land held by the tenants in 1882 with the tracts carved out of the peasants’ possession in 1861.[60]

Carved out
in 1861.		Rented
in 1882.
Ranenburg37103274
Dankoff51794327

Really worth thinking over is the question; why could not communal tenure stand the competition of individual peasant tenancy?