Let us compare further the number of the dispossessed under agrarian communism and under quarterly possession:

Dankoff and Ranenburg:
Former state peasants.		Landless.
Per cent.		Emigrated.
Per cent.		Total.
Per cent.
With quarterly possession31417
With agrarian communism1910

It must be taken into account that the plots of the emigrants remain, under agrarian communism, the property of the community, which is not the case under any other form of possession that is at all analogous to private property. Thus the rural community appears to be a fairly efficient safety-valve against the expropriation of the poorest among the peasantry. In reality, however, the influence of communal ownership is merely formal. Communal land escapes from the hands of its titular owners under the form of lease.

The communal land held under lease is now nearly equal in amount to that leased by the peasants directly from the landlords.

Tenure from the landlords.Communal land in lease.
Dessiatines.Dessiatines.Per cent.
Ranenburg180441706010
Dankoff1379298467
Zadonsk12160118869
Korotoyak11815216958
Nizhnedevitzk13851189507

Furthermore, the figures show that only about one-fourth of the lessors are regular farmers, cultivating their lots with their own horses and implements, while about one-half have abandoned farming altogether:

Ranenburg.
Per cent.		Dankoff.
Per cent.		Zadonsk.
Per cent.
Leased: a part of the plot, the rest cultivated
a) by the owner777
b) with the aid of hired labor665
The total plot12118
In all252420

Now, it is only in a few cases that the lease of a part of the plot is a proof of its extra size. As a rule, the plot is leased in part by those who are unable to raise the quantity of live stock required for the cultivation of their farms. The plots leased in full are the smallest, which it would not pay to cultivate.[138]