The Economics of the Russian Village

by Isaac A. Hourwich

District of Korotoyak, Class II.	Income from farming, per cent.	Income from wage labor.
		Per cent.	To 1 household per year, rubles.
Section A	92	8	6.39
Section B	50	50	50.47

Small as the deficit of agriculture is in Section A, still it is the first step down of the lately independent farmer. The comparison between this section and the farmer pure and simple of Class I brings out the unmistakable reason: the deficit begins with the dissolution of the patriarchal family.[131] The absolute and relative size of the farm owned by a divided family with only one male worker cannot compare with that of a patriarchal household[132]. The single worker keeps only very seldom above the average; in the long run he is liable to turn to some wage-paying occupation, that is to say, to pass into the section adjoining the proletarians.

This wing of the transitional class seems to show even a somewhat greater strength of farming than the upper section just described.[133] It must be, however, placed at a lower degree of the scale, inasmuch as, in the first place, the relative income per adult male worker is below that of Section A,[134] and, in the second place, its higher absolute level of agriculture is not of long duration. In reality, it is due to the fact that the compound family still prevails in Section B, while it is about to disappear in Section A.[135] The existence of the compound family enables some of its workers to carry on farming, while others are employed outside.[136] With the division of the family, which, as we know, is only a question of time, a number of householders will be compelled to stop farming. Such are in the first place those employed yearly or during the summer as farm laborers. At present they number as follows:

Households.		Households.
With 1 adult male worker	649	With 2 or more adult male workers	1242
“Horseless”	568	With 1 horse or more	1323
Stopped tilling their plots	576	Tilling their plots	1315

The “single” householders permanently employed as farm laborers have in most cases stopped working on their plots. The separation of the remaining 1242 compound householders would swell the proletarian class by nearly as many families, which would constitute an increase of the proletariat by forty-five per cent.

After having examined in detail the several classes of the village, let us sum up their characteristic features in one schedule, to show the tendency of the evolution going on:

Classes.	Households, per cent.	Average membership per household.
		Males and female.	Full workers.	Half-workers.	Total workers.
I. Agriculture yielding net profit:
Trading farmers	6	10.5	2.4	0.6	3.0
Farmers merely	10	10.1	2.1	0.6	2.7
All to the class	16	10.2	2.2	0.6	2.8
II. Agriculture leaving a deficit:
A. Farmers merely	20	6	1.3	0.3	1.6
B. Farmers—laborers	50	7.9	1.9	0.4	2.3
All to the class	70	7.4	1.7	0.4	2.1
III. Proletarians:
Employing labor	9
Proletarians proper	5
All to the class	14	3.8	0.9	0.2	1.1

We find a clue to the coming development of the village in the fact that the main classes within the peasantry correspond to the age of the householders.

It is but the minority of old-fashioned compound families that have stood their ground as virtual farmers; the middle economic group of the village, is formed by “the middlers” i. e. the householders of middle age, who count in their families half-workers or one adult worker besides themselves. The proletarians are recruited from among the youngest generations, who consist of husband and wife with their little children.

Here we have the economic basis of the “struggle of generations” in the village, a topic which was very much discussed in Russian literature. The elders, the “middlers” and the young, represent the farmer of the old stamp and strong make, the modern peasant,—half farmer, half laborer at once,—and the proletarian, with their variance of views, which mirrors their diverse and antagonistic economic interests.[137]