V. I.   Lenin

New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture

PART ONE—Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America

American statistics, unlike European statistics, determine, for each farm and each group of farms, the value of the various elements making up the farming enterprise—the land, buildings, implements, livestock and the enterprise as a whole. These data are probably not quite as accurate as the data relating to acreage, but generally speaking they are equally reliable, and in addition give some idea of the general state of capitalism in agriculture.

In order to supplement the above analysis I shall now take the data relating to the total value of farms with all their agricultural property, and also the data on the value of implements and machinery. I single out implements and machinery from among the various elements of the enterprise because they are a direct indication of the agricultural operations being conducted, and of how they are being conducted i.e., whether more or less intensively, and whether they employ technical improvements to a greater or lesser extent. Here are the figures for the U.S.A.:

The absolute figures show that from 1900 to 1910 the value of all farm property more than doubled; it increased from $20,440 million to $40,991 million, i.e., 100.5%. The rise in the prices of farm products and rents put millions and thousands of millions of dollars into the pockets of the landowners at the expense of the working class. What were the comparative gains of the small and the big farms? The above figures supply the answer. They show that the latifundia declined (their total acreage fell from 23.6%   to 19.0%, or 4.6%), and that the small and medium-size farms are being displaced by the large, capitalist farms (175 to 999 acres). Adding up the figures for the small and medium farms we find that their share in the total property decreased from 56.4 to 52.7%. Adding up the figures for the large farms and the latifundia we find that their share increased from 43.7% to 47.3%. There were absolutely identical changes in the distribution of the total value of implements and machinery between the small and large farms.

We also observe the phenomenon noted above in the figures relating to the latifundia. Their decline is limited to two sections: the South and the West. It is a decline, on the one hand, of the slave-holding latifundia, and on the other, of the primitive-squatter and the primitive-extensive latifundia. We find a growth of latifundia in the populated industrial North: this applies to the number of farms of this type, their total acreage, their improved acreage, their share in the total value of all farm property (2.5% in 1900; 2.8% in 1910), and their share in the total value of all implements and machinery.

There is moreover a growth of the role of the latifundia not only throughout the North in general but also in both the intensive divisions of the North in particular, where there is absolutely no colonization, namely New England and the Middle Atlantic states. These divisions must be analyzed in greater detail because, for one thing, they have misled Mr. Himmer and many others by the particularly small average size of their farms and a reduction of that size, and, for another, these most intensive divisions are most typical of the older, long settled, civilized countries of Europe.

Between 1900 and 1910, the number of farms, the total acreage and the improved acreage decreased in both these divisions. In New England, there was an increase only in the number of the smallest farms, those under 20 acres, by 22.4% (the improved land on them increased by 15.5%), and in the number of latifundia—by 16.3%, and their improved acreage by 26.8%. In the Middle Atlantic states there was an increase in the smallest farms (+7.7% in the number, and +2.5% in the improved acreage) and also in the number of the 175-to-499-acre   farms (+1.0%) and the improved land on the 500-to-999-acre farms (+3.8%). In both divisions, there was an increase in the share of the smallest farms and the share of the latifundia in the total value of all farm property and also of implements and machinery. Here are some figures which give a clearer and fuller picture of each of these divisions:

This makes it clear that in both divisions it was the latifundia that gained most ground, showed the greatest economic gains, and made the greatest technical advance. Here the largest capitalist enterprises are displacing the others, the smaller farms. A minimum increase in the value of all property and also of implements and machinery is evident in the medium-size group and in the small group, but not in the smallest. Hence, it is the medium and small farms that mostly lag behind.

As for the smallest farms (under 20 acres), their advance in both divisions is above the average, and second only to the latifundia. We already know the reason: 31 to 33% of the crop value in both these intensive divisions comes from the highly capitalist crops (vegetables, and also fruits, flowers, etc.) which yield extremely great values on very small acreage’s. In these divisions, cereal crops account for only 8 to 30% of the crop value; and hay and forage, 31 to 42%; there is a growth of dairy farming which is characterized by smaller-than-average acreages, but a greater-than-average value of produce and capital outlays on hired labour.

In the most intensive divisions, there is a decrease in the average improved acreage in farms because the average is obtained by combining the acreage of the latifundia and that of the smallest farms, the number of which is increasing more rapidly than that of the medium-size farms. The smallest farms are increasing in number faster than the latifundia. But there is a dual growth of capitalism: it increases-the size of farms worked by old technical methods; and creates new enterprises raising special commercial crops on very small and tiny acreages, with an extremely great volume of production and employment of hired labour.

The net result is the greatest gains by the latifundia and the giant farms, the obliteration of the medium and small farms, and the growth of the smallest highly capitalist enterprises.

We shall presently see how the net result of such contradictory—seemingly contradictory—phenomena of capitalism in agriculture can be expressed in statistical terms.

Notes