144 THE CLASS STRUGGLE fr loitation the agrarian nobility, there being iirch i: Siapria or in Cehtral Asiatic Russia, or at least only in spots.
In view of what has just been said, it is necessary, in a discussion of the Russian Agrarian Question, to consrder principally, although not exclusively, the agrarian conditions in the aboveindicated fifty governments. In order to an idea of these agricultural conditions, et us first turn to thietquantitative distribution of landed property between the peasantry and the great landholders of these fifty governments, and consider the mutual economic dependence of these two groups of proprietors.
The chief development of peasant ownership until the most recent times was on the apportioned lands of the peasants, which were allotted to them from the feudal estates, state land: and appanage lands by the agricultural reform of 1861. These lanlds1 the peasants acquired by purchase, on payments to the feu 2t holders, to the state, or to the Department of Appanages.
the present time the peasants of these 50 governments, not including the Cossacks, hold 124, 000, 000 dessyatms of apportioned land.
How many dessyatins are there to one peasant holding? This is a variable quantity and depends on numerous local conditions which were taken into consideration by the malmrs of the agrarian reform laws. The state peasants got more than any others, the appanage peasants got holdings of medium srze, the feudal peasants least of all. Thus, one group of peasant communities, with a total number of 3, 000, 003 farms, received an average. of only dessyatin: per farm. another group of peasant farms, with more than 5, 000, 000 units, has an average of 71 dessyatins per farm; and only the remaining 4, 000, 000 farms have not lessthan 10 dessyatins per farm. ppm lands: the roperty of the Imperial House; from these cameAthe incgoemes of the (grand Dukes, Dukes, and other members of th rolific Imperial Family. e. Deny tins: a Russian land measure equal to 702 English acres.
THE LAND QUESTION :45 The data given above show that with the low stage of advancement of peasant agriculture in Russia the great majority of the peasant holdings in SO governments had, not land enough to support the occnpants. The insufficiency will be more evident if we consider the area of land per single inhabitant of plasam population. This area per individual, after the Reform of 1861, has been going down steadily, since the peasant population has been rising, while the area of the apportioned land has remained constant. Owing to this fact, while the area of apportioned land per peasant inhabitant, immediately after the Reform of 1861, was dessyatins; in 1905, still more than 11 dessyatins; it had gone down in 1915 to about 1 dessyatins per individual; for the peasant population of European Russia had more than doubled since l861.
In view of these statistical data, there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Russian peasantry do not have enough land to raise enough to feed their families and pay their taxes. Under more intensive cultivation, these parcels would of course yield more satisfactory results. For instance, the small peasantry of France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Austria Hungary, and Italy, have, on the average, less land, than in Russia, but owing to the very much moreadvanced methods of agriculture, they obtain a much higher yield from their holdings, than do the Russian peasants. For decades the latter lived in half starvation on pieces of land that would have enabled the peasants of economically more advanced countries to lend a comfortable existence. Viewed in the light of this fact, there is nothing im probable or exceptional in the statistics of Maress, which show that 10 of the entire peasant population of Russia could not feed themselves on the product of their lands, 210 could feed themselves, but not their cattle, and only 10 could feed both themselves and their cattle from their own apportioned lands.
This unquestionable land poverty forced the Russian peasants to add by purchase additional land to their allotted portions, buying the same from the feudal holders, the state, or the Department of Appanages. For these purchases, the peasants received financial assistance from the State Agricultural Bank, founded by