RUSSIAN FARMING

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20504, 21 May 1938, Page 26 (Supplement)

RUSSIAN FARMING

WIDE VARIATION SIR E. J. RUSSELL’S REVIEW “ With so wide a variation in natural conditions it is impossible to speak of any particular system of Russian agriculture,’’ says Sir E. J. Russell, D.Sc., F.R.S., director of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, in the February issue of the British Journal of Agriculture. “One general feature, however, runs through most of them, and this is the preponderance of grain production and the low production of animal products as compared with the agriculture of Western Europe,” continues Doctor Russell. “ Out of the 133,000,000 hectares cultivated in 1935, no fewer than 103 million were in grain, this being 75 per cent of the arable land, as compared with 44 per cent in England and Wales. On the other hand fodder crops, which figure so largely in England, occupied less than 9 per cent of the land. Technical Crops. “In speaking of their agriculture the Russians always lay the greatest

I stress on the development of their technical crops (sunflowers, cotton, • sugar-beet, tea); this is one of the consequences of their policy of increasing the industrial production of the country. Russia now produces the whole of the sugar, flax and cotton that it consumes. “ The distinctive feature of Russian agriculture is that it is definitely planned by the central authority; it is not left to the farmers’ judgment of what is likely to be most profitable. The central authority decides that certain quantities of the agricultural products arc required and allocates to each of the constituent J Republics its share in the production. Each Government then allocates to the regional head of the Agricultural Department through the regional commissioners the share of each region in the work; and each regional head allocates shares to the district heads of departments. “ These call together the chairman of the collective farms in the district and between them the various quotas are assigned, so that each farm knows what it is expected to produce. The chairman must see the plan through and the district agricultural organisation of the party sees that he does it. Every farm is told therefore what crops it must grow and how much it must produce. After the plan is settled there can be no more discussion and the plan must be fulfilled; there is no appeal of any kind. Marxist Principles. “ When the Bolsheviks took charge of the Government of Russia they resolved to apply Marxist principles to agriculture with the same completeness as they had applied them to industry. The problems, however, proved much more difficult. The factory workers easily apprehended the underlying idea of State ownership of the factory, and each one knew perfectly well that the factory never could belong to him. The peasant, however, had an old ingrained belief that the land was his. “ There are good grounds for the belief that the peasants joined the Revolution not out of any desire for Communism, but to eliminate the landlord and so secure the possession of the land. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, took the view that the Revolution would have failed if the peasants were left as owners of the j land. So began a trial of strength in which both sides suffered greatly. 1 The townspeople went hungry for | some years because the peasants produced only small quantities of food, especially of meat and dairy proI duce, so that these things became very | “ The peasants, on the other hand, and especially the small farmers, were •liquidated’ by the thousand. In the end the Bolsheviks won their point that individual ownership of land and means of production must cease, and i that henceforth the ownership must be ■ by the community and not by the in- j I dividual. The peasants, nevertheless, won their point that each must have some land secured to him and such livestock as he could maintain; further, that the ownership of the farm, if it is to be by the community, shall be by the particular community

1. that is farming it and not by the ( State as a whole. Two Types of Farm. | “ There are two types of farms, State and collective. The State farms are managed by State officials and the employees receive a definite wage —-they are paid on a piecework basis. This method accords well with the underlying principles of Communism and was widely adopted in the early days of the Revolution; but it does not accord well with the ideas of the peasants, and so the area under State farms has steadily decreased, and at the present time if a collective farm wishes to expand it can claim possession of a State farm for this purpose. “ The collective farm works on a completely different basis and represents something, which as far as I know, is entirely new in the history of agricultural organisation. The whole of the peasants of the village are brought together into the organisation and they bring all their land, all their agricultural implements and all their animals into it. No compensation is paid for anything and no objection is permitted. The organisation thus starts free of debt and of all capital obligations. The workers elect a committee of management which meets at regular intervals to decide on the arrangement of the work. The committee organises the workers into brigades, to each of which is allotted certain duties. “ Specially good workers receive a special title; they are called ‘ Stakhanovites’ and the declared aim of these workers is to do more than the allotted task. No wages are paid, but the residue of the produce, after the various outgoings are met, is divided among the workers according to the work they have done. The work is assessed directly and not on the basis of hours. The committee decides that a certain quantity of work, such as a certain area of land ploughed or a certain number of cows tended, can be called a day’s labour. Each worker’s record is kept and at the end of the year the number of ‘labour days’ he has accomplished is added up. “ The general position is clear; the worker has his share of the produce and can either eat it or sell it direct to consumers in the open market or to a co-operative society. Government’s Demands. “ The Government demand for grain, potatoes and milk amounts to about 4 or 5 per cent of the average yields fixed by law. There is no means of knowing how far these yields are in fact attained; at each farm I visited the chairman assured me that they were actually reached or exceeded. Some workers have only about 150 labour days a year, others as many as 800; it is typical of modern Russia that all work is piecework, and in consequence the earnings are very unequal. The wage system is therefore payment in kind, and from the consumers’ and Government point of view has the advantage that prices do not come into play and the peasant bears the risk of variable yield. “ The number of workers seems very high to an Englishman; 700 of them were employed on one farm where the equivalent here would be ■ about 190. I give these figures for purpose of illustration only; com pari- j son would be unfair because the British agricultural worker is very efficient and the level of production per acre and per animal is much higher than in Russia. “ Some parts of the country show marked improvement since my earlier visit, particularly Armenia. In 1930 there were only very few motor-cars in that country, but the number is now considerable and there are even more motor-lorries. The main roads have been improved, and where new houses are being built in the villages they represent a considerable advance in comfort and healthiness on the old ones. “ The peasants seem more contented with the system of collectivisation than in 1930 or 1934, and in consequence the system now has a chance of showing what it can do.”