I. The Small Peasant and the French Programme

The rural population to which we can address ourselves consists of very different elements, which in turn differ greatly from region to region.

In western Germany, as in France and Belgium, small-scale cultivation by smallholding peasants predominates, the majority of them owners and the minority tenants of their plots.

In the north-west—Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein—big and middle peasants predominate, who cannot manage without farm servants, men and maids, and even day labourers. The same is true of part of Bavaria.

In Prussia east of the Elbe and in Mecklenburg we have the region of big landed property and large-scale cultivation, with farm servants, cottagers and day labourers, and in between small and middle peasants in a relatively small and steadily decreasing proportion.

In central Germany all these forms of farming and ownership are found mixed in different proportions according to the locality, without any one of them decidedly predominating over a large area.

Besides this there are districts of varying extent where the arable land, owned or rented, is not enough to feed the family, but serves only as the basis for carrying on a domestic industry, and secures for this industry the otherwise incomprehensibly low wages that give its products a steady sale in the face of all foreign competition.

Which of these subdivisions of the rural population can be won for the Social-Democratic Party? We examine this question, of course, only in its broad outlines; we pick out only the sharply defined forms; we have no space to take account of the intermediate stages and mixed rural populations.

Let us begin with the small peasant. He is not only, in general, the most important of all peasants for Western Europe; he also provides us with the critical case for the whole question. Once we are clear about our attitude to the small peasant, we have all the points of reference for determining our attitude to the other elements of the rural population.

By small peasant we mean here the owner or tenant—especially the former—of a small piece of land no bigger, as a rule, than he can till with his own family, and no smaller than will feed the family. This small peasant, like the small handicraftsman, is therefore a worker who differs from the modern proletarian in still being in possession of his means of labour; hence a survival of a past mode of production. He differs in three ways from his forefather, the serf, the bondman or, quite exceptionally, the free peasant liable to rent and labour services. First, in that the French Revolution freed him from the feudal dues and services he owed to the lord of the manor, and in the majority of cases, at least on the left bank of the Rhine, made his farm over to him as his free property.—Secondly, in that he has lost the protection of the self-governing mark community, and his share in it, and with that his share in the uses of the former common mark. The common mark has been conjured away, partly by the former feudal lord, partly by enlightened, Roman-law-minded bureaucratic legislation, and the modern small peasant has thereby been deprived of the possibility of feeding his draught cattle without bought fodder. Economically, however, the loss of the uses of the mark far more than outweighs the abolition of the feudal dues; the number of peasants who cannot keep draught cattle of their own is constantly growing.—Thirdly, the peasant of today differs by the loss of half his former productive activity. Formerly he and his family produced, from raw material of their own growing, the greater part of the industrial products they needed; whatever else was necessary was supplied by village neighbours who carried on a handicraft alongside farming and were mostly paid in articles of exchange or in return services. The family, and still more the village, was self-sufficient and produced almost everything it needed. It was almost a pure natural economy; money was hardly needed at all. Capitalist production has put an end to this by means of the money economy and large-scale industry. But if the uses of the mark were the one basic condition of his existence, the industrial side-occupation was the other. And so the peasant sinks lower and lower. Taxes, crop failures, divisions of inheritance and lawsuits drive one peasant after another into the arms of the usurer; indebtedness becomes more and more general and, for each individual, deeper and deeper—in short, our small peasant, like every survival of a past mode of production, is irretrievably doomed. He is a future proletarian.

As such he ought to lend a ready ear to socialist propaganda. But for the time being his deep-rooted sense of property still prevents him from doing so. The harder the struggle for his endangered scrap of land becomes, the more desperately and violently he clings to it, and the more he sees in the Social-Democrat who speaks of transferring landed property to the community just as dangerous an enemy as in the usurer and the lawyer. How is Social-Democracy to overcome this prejudice? What can it offer the perishing small peasant without being untrue to itself?

Here we find a practical point of reference in the agrarian programme of the French socialists of the Marxist tendency, which is all the more noteworthy because it comes from the classic land of small peasant farming.

At the Marseilles congress of 1892 the party’s first agrarian programme was adopted. For the propertyless rural workers (that is, day labourers and farm servants) it demands: a minimum wage fixed by trade unions and municipal councils; rural industrial tribunals, half of them made up of workers; a ban on the sale of communal land, and the leasing of state domains to the communes, which are to let all this land, owned or leased, to associations of propertyless families of farm labourers for joint cultivation, with the employment of wage-labourers forbidden and under the supervision of the commune; old-age and invalidity pensions, paid for by a special tax on big landed property.

For the small peasants, among whom tenants are here given special consideration, it demands: the purchase of agricultural machinery by the commune, to be hired out to the peasants at cost price; the formation of peasants’ co-operatives for the purchase of manure, drain-pipes, seed, etc., and for the sale of produce; the abolition of the tax on the transfer of landed property where the value does not exceed 5,000 francs; arbitration commissions on the Irish model to reduce excessive rents and to compensate outgoing tenants and share-croppers (métayers) for the increase in the value of the land they have brought about; the repeal of article 2102 of the Civil Code, which gives the landowner a lien on the harvest, and the abolition of the creditors’ right to distrain on the growing crop; the fixing of an inventory, exempt from distraint, of farm implements, crops, seed, manure, draught cattle, in short of everything indispensable to the peasant for carrying on his business; a revision of the general land register, long since out of date, and until then a local revision in each commune; and lastly, free continuation courses in agriculture and agricultural experiment stations.

It will be seen that the demands in the interest of the peasants—those in favour of the workers do not concern us here for the present—do not go very far. Some of them have already been carried out elsewhere. The tenants’ arbitration courts expressly refer to the Irish model. Peasants’ co-operatives already exist in the Rhine provinces. The revision of the land register is a standing pious wish of all liberals, and even of bureaucrats, throughout Western Europe. The other points too could be carried out without doing any essential damage to the existing capitalist order. This simply by way of characterising the programme; there is no reproach in it—on the contrary.

With this programme the party did such good business among the peasants of the most varied regions of France that—appetite comes with eating—it felt impelled to adapt it still further to the peasants’ taste. It was aware, to be sure, that it was venturing on to dangerous ground here. How could one help the peasant—the peasant not as a future proletarian but as a present, propertied peasant—without violating the basic principles of the general socialist programme? To meet this objection, the new practical proposals were introduced by a theoretical preamble which tries to prove that it is in keeping with the principle of socialism to protect small peasant property against ruin by the capitalist mode of production, although one fully realises oneself that this ruin is inevitable. Let us now take a closer look at this preamble, and at the demands themselves, which were adopted at the Nantes congress in September of this year.

The preamble begins:

“Whereas according to the wording of the general programme of the party the producers can be free only in so far as they are in possession of the means of production;

“whereas in the sphere of industry these means of production have already been centralised by capitalism to such a degree that they can be restored to the producers only in collective or social form, but this is by no means the case—at least in France today—in the sphere of agriculture, where on the contrary the means of production, namely the land, is still in very many places held as individual property in the hands of the individual producers;

“whereas, although this state of affairs, characterised by small peasant ownership, is irretrievably doomed (est fatalement appelé à disparaître), socialism has nevertheless not to hasten this doom, since its task does not consist in separating property from labour but, on the contrary, in uniting in the same hands these two factors of all production, factors whose separation results in the servitude and misery of the workers reduced to proletarians;

“whereas, if on the one hand it is the duty of socialism to put the agricultural proletarians back in possession—in collective or social form—of the great domains, after expropriating their present idle owners, it is on the other hand its no less imperative duty to maintain the peasants who till the soil themselves in possession of their plots against the fisc, usury and the encroachments of the newly risen big landlords;

“whereas it is proper to extend this protection to the producers who, under the name of tenants or share-croppers (métayers), cultivate the land of others, and who, if they exploit day labourers, are to some extent compelled to do so by the exploitation practised on themselves—

“the Workers’ Party—which, unlike the anarchists, does not count on the increase and spread of misery for the transformation of the social order, but expects the emancipation of labour and of society in general only from the organisation and joint efforts of the workers of both country and town, from their taking possession of the government and of legislation—has adopted the following agrarian programme, in order thereby to bring together all the elements of rural production, all the activities which under various legal titles make use of the national soil, in the same struggle against the common enemy: the feudalism of landed property.”

Let us now look a little more closely at these “whereases”.

In the first place, the statement of the French programme that the freedom of the producers presupposes the possession of the means of production must be completed by the statements that immediately follow it: that the possession of the means of production is possible only in two forms: either as individual possession, a form which has never and nowhere existed generally for the producers and is being made more impossible every day by industrial progress; or as common possession, a form whose material and intellectual preconditions have already been established by the development of capitalist society itself; and that therefore the collective taking possession of the means of production is to be fought for with all the means at the proletariat’s disposal.

Here, then, common possession of the means of production is put forward as the sole main goal to be striven for. Not only in industry, where the ground is already prepared, but generally, and therefore in agriculture as well. According to the programme, individual possession has never and nowhere held good generally for all producers; for that very reason, and because industrial progress is removing it anyway, socialism has no interest in maintaining it, but rather in removing it; for where and in so far as it exists it makes common possession impossible. If we appeal to the programme at all, then let it be to the whole programme, which very considerably modifies the sentence quoted at Nantes, by placing the general historical truth expressed in it within the conditions under which alone it can still remain a truth today in Western Europe and North America.

The possession of the means of production by the individual producers no longer gives these producers any real freedom nowadays. Handicraft in the towns is already ruined; in great cities like London it has even disappeared altogether, replaced by large-scale industry, the sweating system and wretched botchers who live by bankruptcy. The small peasant who farms on his own account is neither in secure possession of his little piece of land nor free. He, like his house, his farmyard and his few fields, belongs to the usurer; his existence is more insecure than that of the proletarian, who at least now and then has a quiet day, which never happens to the tormented debt-slave. Strike out article 2102 of the Civil Code, secure for the peasant by law an inventory of farm implements, cattle, etc., exempt from distraint: you still cannot secure him against a predicament in which he must sell his cattle “voluntarily”, in which he must sign himself over body and soul to the usurer and be glad to buy a respite. Your attempt to protect the small peasant in his property does not protect his freedom, but only the particular form of his servitude; it prolongs a situation in which he can neither live nor die. Appealing to the first paragraph of your programme is therefore quite out of place here.

The preamble says that in France today the means of production, namely the land, is still in very many places held as individual property in the hands of the individual producers; but that the task of socialism is not to separate property from labour but, on the contrary, to unite these two factors of all production in the same hands.—As already indicated, the latter, put in such general terms, is by no means the task of socialism; its task is, rather, only to transfer the means of production to the producers as common property. As soon as we lose sight of this, the above sentence leads us straight astray, namely to the notion that socialism is called upon to turn the present sham ownership of the small peasant in his fields into real ownership, that is, to make the small tenant an owner and the indebted owner an owner free of debt. Socialism is interested, to be sure, in seeing this false appearance of peasant ownership disappear; but not in this way.

At all events we have now got so far that the preamble can declare it, quite simply, to be the duty of socialism, and indeed its imperative duty, “to maintain the peasants who till the soil themselves in possession of their plots against the fisc, usury and the encroachments of the newly risen big landlords”. The preamble thus lays on socialism the imperative duty of carrying out something it has declared impossible in the preceding paragraph. It charges it with “maintaining” the peasants’ small holdings, although it says itself that this property is “irretrievably doomed”. What are the fisc, usury and the newly risen big landlords but the instruments through which capitalist production accomplishes this inevitable ruin? By what means “socialism” is to protect the peasant against this trinity we shall see further on.

But it is not only the small peasant who is to be protected in his property. It is likewise “proper to extend this protection to the producers who, under the name of tenants or share-croppers (métayers), cultivate the land of others, and who, if they exploit day labourers, are to some extent compelled to do so by the exploitation practised on themselves”. Here we are already entering very peculiar territory. Socialism is directed quite specifically against the exploitation of wage-labour. And here it is declared to be the imperative duty of socialism to protect the French tenants when they—“exploit day labourers”—that is what it literally says! And that because they are to some extent compelled to do so “by the exploitation practised on themselves”!

How easy and pleasant it is to keep sliding down once one is on the slope! Suppose the big and middle peasants of Germany now come and ask the French socialists to intercede with the German Party Executive, so that the German Social-Democratic Party may protect them in exploiting their farm servants, men and maids, appealing to “the exploitation practised on themselves” by usurers, tax-collectors, grain speculators and cattle dealers—what will they answer? And who will guarantee them that our agrarian big landowners will not also send them Count Kanitz (who has, after all, also tabled a motion like theirs for the nationalisation of grain imports) to ask likewise for socialist protection of their exploitation of the farm labourers, appealing to “the exploitation practised on themselves” by the stock exchange, money-lenders and grain usurers?

Let us say at once that our French friends do not mean it nearly as badly as it appears. The paragraph above is in fact meant to cover only one quite special case, namely this: in the north of France, as in our sugar-beet districts, land is leased to the peasants with the obligation to grow beet, on extremely onerous conditions; they must sell the beet to a particular factory at the price it fixes, must buy particular seed, use a fixed quantity of prescribed manure, and on top of that are shamefully cheated at delivery. We know all this in Germany too. But if one wanted to take this sort of peasant under one’s protection, one should have said so directly and expressly. As the sentence stands, in its unlimited generality, it is a direct violation not only of the French programme but of the fundamental principle of socialism as such, and its authors will have no cause to complain if this careless drafting is exploited, against their intention, from the most varied quarters.

The closing words of the preamble are open to the same misinterpretation; according to them the socialist workers’ party has the task of “bringing together all the elements of rural production, all the activities which under various legal titles make use of the national soil, in the same struggle against the common enemy: the feudalism of landed property”. I flatly deny that the socialist workers’ party of any country has the task of taking into its fold, in addition to the rural proletarians and the small peasants, the middle and big peasants as well, or even the tenants of large estates, the capitalist cattle-breeders and the other capitalist exploiters of the national soil. To all of them the feudalism of landed property may appear as a common enemy. We may go along with them on certain questions, and be able to fight at their side for definite aims for a time. But in our party we can use individuals from every class of society, while we can make no use whatever of capitalist, middle-bourgeois or middle-peasant interest groups. Here too it is not meant as badly as it looks; the authors evidently never thought of all this; but unfortunately the urge to generalise has run away with them, and they must not be surprised if they are taken at their word.

After the preamble come the newly adopted additions to the programme itself. They betray the same hastiness of drafting as the preamble.

The article under which the communes are to acquire agricultural machinery and hire it out to the peasants at cost price is altered so that the communes, first, receive state subsidies for this purpose and, secondly, are to place the machines at the small peasants’ disposal free of charge. This further concession will certainly not do much to help the small peasants, whose fields and methods of farming allow only a little use of machinery.

Further: “Replacement of all existing indirect and direct taxes by a single progressive tax on all incomes of more than 3,000 francs.”—A similar demand has been found for years in almost every Social-Democratic programme. But that it should be put forward specifically in the interest of the small peasants is new, and shows only how little its bearing has been calculated. Take England. There the state budget amounts to 90 million pounds sterling. Of this, 13½ to 14 million is raised by the income tax, and the remaining 76 million partly—the smaller part—by taxing transactions (post, telegraphs, stamps), but for by far the greatest part by imposts on mass consumption, by continually repeated nibbling, in small, imperceptible amounts that add up to many millions, at the incomes of all the inhabitants, but chiefly of the poorer ones. And in present-day society it is hardly possible to cover the expenditure of the state in any other way. Suppose the whole 90 million were laid in England, as a progressive direct tax, on incomes of £120 = 3,000 francs and upwards. The average annual accumulation, the annual increase of the whole national wealth, amounted in 1865–1875, according to Giffen, to 240 million pounds sterling. Let us say it is now 300 million a year; a tax burden of 90 million would eat up almost a third of the whole accumulation. In other words, no government can undertake such a thing except a socialist one; when the socialists are at the helm they will have to carry out things beside which that tax reform will figure only as a momentary, quite insignificant instalment, and by which quite other prospects will be opened to the small peasants.

It seems to be realised, too, that the peasants would have to wait rather a long time for this tax reform, and so “in the meantime” (en attendant) they are promised: “Abolition of the land tax for all peasants who till their land themselves, and reduction of this tax for all mortgaged plots.” The latter half of this demand can only refer to peasant holdings bigger than the family itself can farm; it is therefore once again a favour to those peasants who “exploit day labourers”.

Further: “Freedom of hunting and fishing, with no restrictions other than those required for preserving game and fish and the growing crops.”—This sounds very popular, but the second half cancels the first. How many hares, partridges, pike and carp are there even now, in the whole village land, for each peasant family? Enough, say, to give each peasant one day’s shooting and one day’s fishing a year?

“Lowering of the legal and conventional rate of interest”—that is, renewed usury laws, a renewed attempt to carry through a police measure that has failed always and everywhere for two thousand years. When the small peasant finds himself in a position where going to the usurer is the lesser evil for him, the usurer always finds the means of sucking him dry without falling foul of the usury law. This measure might at most serve to soothe the small peasant; it brings him no advantage; on the contrary, it makes credit harder for him precisely when he needs it most.

“Free medical treatment and supply of medicines at cost price”—this at any rate is no special measure for the protection of the peasants; the German programme goes further and demands free medicines as well.

“Compensation for the families of reservists called up, during their period of service”—already exists, though in a highly inadequate form, in Germany and Austria, and is likewise no special peasant demand.

“Reduction of transport tariffs for manure, agricultural machinery and produce”—has in essence been carried out in Germany, and that chiefly in the interest of the—big landowners.

“Immediate preparatory work on a plan of public works for the improvement of the soil and the raising of agricultural production”—leaves everything in the wide field of vagueness and fine promises, and likewise serves the interest above all of big landed property.

In short, after all the tremendous theoretical run-up of the preamble, the practical proposals of the new agrarian programme give us even less enlightenment as to how the French Workers’ Party means to manage to maintain the small peasants in possession of small holdings which, on its own showing, are irretrievably doomed.