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

80
V. I. LENIN
the peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat will be
clear. We shall quote somewhat more detailed data about
the ousting of the middle group (see Table on p. 81).
Thus, the distribution of allotment land is the most
“equalised,” although here, too, the ousting of the bottom
group by the top ones is marked. But the situation radically
changes when we pass from this compulsorily-held land to
the free, i.e., to the purchased and the rented land. The
concentration of this land is enormous, and as a result,
the distribution of the total land in use by the peasants is
quite unlike the distribution of the allotment land: the
middle group is pushed into second place (46% of allotment
land—41% of land in use), the well-to-do group very considerably
enlarges its holdings (28% of allotment land—46%
of land in use), while the poor group is being pushed out of
the ranks of the cultivators (25% of allotment land—12%
of land in use).
The table reveals an interesting phenomenon, one that
we shall meet again, namely, the decline in the role of
allotment land in peasant farming. In the bottom group this
is due to the leasing out of land; in the top group to the
fact that in the total farming area purchased and rented
land is overwhelmingly predominant. The remnants of the
pre-Reform system (the tying of the peasants to the land,
and equalised, tax-assessed land tenure) are being utterly
destroyed by the penetration of capitalism into agriculture.
As for land renting in particular, the figures given enable
us to clear up a very common mistake in the arguments of
the Narodnik economists on this subject. Take the arguments
of Mr. V. V. In the article quoted above he bluntly raised
the issue of the relation of the renting of land to the
break-up of the peasantry. “Does the renting of land help to
differentiate the peasant farms into big and small and to
destroy the average, typical group?” (Vestnik Yevropy, loc.
cit., pp. 339-340.) Mr. V. V. answered this question in the
negative. Here are his arguments: 1) “The large percentage of
persons who resort to the renting of land.” Examples: 38 to
68%; 40 to 70%; 30 to 66%; 50 to 60% respectively in different
uyezds of different gubernias.—2) The small size of the
rented plots per household: 3 to 5 dess., according to Tambov