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

136
V. I. LENIN
The next column refers to allotment land. In its distribution
we see the greatest degree of equality, as should be
the case by virtue of the legal status of allotment land.
But even here the process of the poor being ousted by the
well-to-do peasants is beginning: everywhere we find that the
top groups hold a somewhat larger share of the allotment
land than the share they represent in the population, while
the bottom groups hold a somewhat smaller one. The “village
community” tends to serve the interests of the peasant bourgeoisie.
Compared, however, with the actual land tenure the
inequality in the distribution of allotment land is still
quite insignificant. The distribution of allotment land does
not (as is clearly evident from the chart) give any idea of
the actual distribution of land and farm property.*
Then comes the column for purchased land. In all cases
this land is concentrated in the hands of the well-to-do: onefifth
of the households have about 6 or 7 tenths of all peasantowned
purchased land, whereas the poor peasants, constituting
half the households, account for a maximum of 15%!
One can judge, therefore, the significance of the “Narodnik”
fuss about enabling the “peasantry” to buy as much land as
possible and as cheaply as possible.
The next column is that for rented land. Here too we
see everywhere the concentration of the land in the hands
of the well-to-do (one-fifth of the households account for
5 to 8 tenths of the total rented land) who, moreover, rent
land at cheaper rates, as we have seen above. This grabbing
of rentable land by the peasant bourgeoisie clearly demonstrates
that “peasant renting” carries an industrial character
(the purchase of land for the purpose of selling the product.)**
In saying this, however, we do not at all deny
* A single glance at the chart is sufficient to see how useless is
classification according to allotment for a study of the differentiation
of the peasantry.
** Very curious in Mr. Karyshev’s book on the subject of rentings
is the Conclusion (Chapter VI). After all his assertions about the
absence of an industrial character in peasant renting, assertions devoid
of foundation and contradicting Zemstvo statistics, Mr. Karyshev
advances a “theory of rent” (borrowed from W. Roscher, etc.), in
other words, serves up with a scientific sauce the desiderata of West-
European capitalist farmers: “long leases” (“what is needed is . . .
‘efficient’ use of the land by . . . the peasant,” p. 371) and moderate