“In the village Plemyannikovo, Dankoff, arrears in the tallage gave rise to repeated auction sales of the peasants’ chattels. In 1865 the community resolved to let out 150 dessiatines, and has since been unable to stop leasing.” (Loc. cit., p. 249, No. 6, Cf., also p. 210, No. 7.)
Exceptional as these cases are, they show nevertheless that the ownership of land by the village community does not preclude the possibility of capitalistic farming upon communal fields.
[144] In a series of articles which appeared first in the Otetchestvenniya Zapiski (monthly) subsequently published in book form under the heading “Community and Tax.”
[145] The poll-tax did not exceed 1.60 rubles, and constituted but a very small portion of the entire amount of taxes levied. It was replaced by indirect taxes upon articles of peasant consumption. Besides, though the capitation tax proper was repealed, the system of taxation per capita remained in force in the shape of the other direct taxes levied upon the peasant.
[146] Such was indeed the case in the village of Voskresenskoye, bailiwick Kochurofskaya, Dankoff, in which the plots of the emigrants were distributed in the subdivision among all the members of the community, notwithstanding the fact that the term of lease had not yet expired. (Loc. cit., part II., p. 236.)
[147] It is very questionable whether there is any action at law at all for the lessee in similar cases. The plot is held by the lessor under a precarious title, and the lessee may be supposed to have been cognizant of the risk.
[148] It is peculiar to find quite obsolete sentimentalism with regard to the Russian mir, among even Russian writers of reputation with the English public. We read in a recent issue of an English magazine: “Voting and ballot are unknown to Russian peasants, and every question is decided unanimously by means of mutual concessions and compromises, as in united families.”
Lost paradise!
A few concrete cases are produced here by way of elucidation:
1. Village Pokrovskove, bailiwick Yeropkinskaya, Dankoff: “About ⅓ of the householders are in good standing, the rest are destitute. The former deal in communal lots. The debate over subdivision is very warm; about 5 of the votes necessary to constitute the two-thirds majority are lacking.” (Loc. cit., Part I., p. 202, No. 15.)