Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 3 - From Marx to Mao

102
V. I. LENIN
Hence, we see everywhere the ousting of the poor by the
prosperous peasants. But in Kamyshin Uyezd the well-to-do
peasantry are more numerous and richer than in the other
uyezds. Thus, in five uyezds of the gubernia (including the
Kamyshin Uyezd) the households are distributed according
to draught animals held as follows: with no draught animals
—25.3%; with 1 animal—25.5%; with 2—20%; with 3—
10.8%; and with 4 and more—18.4%, whereas in Kamyshin
Uyezd, as we have seen, the well-to-do group is larger, and
the badly-off group somewhat smaller. Further, if we combine
the middle and well-to-do peasantry, i.e., if we take
the households with 2 draught animals and more, we get the
following data for the respective uyezds:
Per household with 2 and more draught animals
Draught animals . . . . . 3.8 2.6 2.6 3.9 2.6
Total ” . . . . . 9.5 5.3 5.7 7.1 5.1
Allotment land (dess.) . . . 12.4 7.9 8 9 8
Rented ” ” . . . 9.5 6.5 4 7 5.7
Area under crops ” . . . 17 11.7 9 13 11
This means that in Kamyshin Uyezd the prosperous peasants
are richer. This uyezd is one of those with the greatest abundance
of land: 7.1 dess. of allotment land per registered person,
48 male, as against 5.4 dess. for the gubernia. Hence, the
land-abundance of the “peasantry” merely means the greater
numbers and greater wealth of the peasant bourgeoisie.
In concluding this review of the data for Saratov Gubernia,
we consider it necessary to deal with the classification of the
peasant households. As the reader has probably observed, we
reject a limine* any classification according to allotment and
exclusively employ classification according to economic
strength (draught animals, area under crops). The reasons for
adopting this system must be given. Classification according
* At once.—Ed.
Kamyshin
Volsk
Kuznetsk
Balashov
Serdobsk