8. See the excellent article of M. Anatole Leroy Beaulieu in the Revue des Deux Mondes of November 15, 1876.
9. See Mackenzie Wallace, Russia , 1, c. 6; and also, for description of the mir , c. 8 and 9.
10. The report of the commission appointed May 26, 1875, with the Minister of the Domains, Waluzew, as president,contains much information gathered from different provinces, which proves that the family division is being effected on allsides, to the general disadvantage. For the disastrous consequences of the partition, see the work of Von Reussler alreadyquoted.
11. Staatswörterbuch von Bluntschli . Leibeigneschaft in Russland , p. 396-411. Von Bistram, Die rechtliche Natur derStadt- und Lundgemeinde , St. Petersburg, 1866.
12. See Russkie Vestnik , Lib. 22, p. 289.
13. Russkie Parod i Gosoudarstvo , p. 69-71, etc. M. Von Reussler mentions the chief sources of the history of the agrariansystem and the rural slaves in Russia, in his work already quoted, Geschichle des bäuerlichen Gemeindebesitzes , p. 16.
14. According to von Reussler, the name of the village, derewva , from derevo , land newly reclaimed, indicates the onwardmarch of colonization.
15. See Russkaja Resacda , 1860, v. II, p. 119, and N. Flerowski, Polajenic rabotschasvo klassa vi Rossi , Petersburg, 1869,p. 75.
Chapter 3
Economic Results of the Russian Mir The advantages and inconveniences of collective communal property have been for twenty years the subject of deepdiscussions between the partisans and adversaries of the system. M. Von Reussler, in his book already often quoted, hascollected, from Russian sources, all the arguments adduced on either side, as well as the discussions which took place on thesubject at the Agricultural Congress at St Petersburg in 1865. The great agricultural enquiry in 1873, the results of whichhave been collected by the Government in five volumes, also contains much material for the study of this question. (1)The Panslavists believe that the community of the mir will ensure the future greatness of Russia. Western nations, they say,have possessed similar institutions; but, under the influence of feudalism and the civil law, they have allowed them to perish.
They will he punished for it by social struggles, and by the implacable contest between the rich and the poor.
It is contrary to justice, they add, that the soil, which is the common patrimony of all mankind, should be appropriated by afew families. Labour may be a lawful title of ownership in the product created by it; but not in the soil, which it does notcreate. In Russia, the commune recognizes in every individual able to labour the right to claim a share in the soil, whichallows him to live on the fruits of his energy.
Pauperism, the bane of Western societies, is unknown in the mir; it cannot come into existence there, for every one has themeans of subsistence, and each family takes care of its old and infirm members. In the West, a numerous offspring is an evilthat is avoided by methods which certain economists advocate, but which morality condemns. In Russia, the birth of a childis always matter of rejoicing; for it brings the family new strength for the future, and entitles them to claim additional landfor cultivation. The population can increase. There are vast territories in Europe to be colonised; and, when these arestocked, the immense plateaus of Asia will open for the indefinite expansion of the great Slavonic race. So long as the racepreserves the venerable institution of the mir, it will escape class struggles and social war, the most terrible of all contests,for it caused the fall and subjection of ancient societies, and at the present day is threatening modern societies with the samedangers. The Russian nation will remain united and therefore strong: it will continue to increase on the basis of the"primordial institution," which alone can guarantee order, because it alone allows of the organisation of justice amongmankind.
Such is the language of the advocates of the mir ; -- it assumes various shades. First, there are the conservatives, such as theBaron von Haxthausen, who would protect the patriarchal system and the ancient institutions. Then come the numerousgroup of Slavophiles, such as Aksakof, Byeliyayef, Koschelyef, Samarine, and Prince Tscherkasski, followed by manypersons in high society , and distinguished women who take very exalted views of the great destiny reserved for the Slavonicrace. Finally, there are the socialist-democrats of the school of Herzen and Bakunin, such as Tschernischewski and Panaeff,who maintain that the agrarian organisation of the mir contains the solution of the social problem, sought in vain bySaint-Simon, Owen and Proudhon.
The institutions of the Russian commune are so completely at variance with all our economic principles and with thesentiments of individual property developed in us by habit, that we can with difficulty form a conception of their existence.
The mir seems to us a kind of social monstrosity, -- a legacy of barbarian ages, to which modern progress will not stay to dojustice. Yet a glance round us is sufficient to shew how the principle of collectivity is invading us on different sides, andthreatening the independence of isolated individualism.
On the one hand joint-stock companies, a collective power from which responsibility is entirely banished, not onlymonopolise all the large industries, but crush, under their irresistible competition, even the artisans and small traders on aground where they seemed unassailable, -- the making of garments, of boots, furniture, and retail business. Joint-stockcompanies are formed for every purpose, and multiply continually. Every one soon will be a shareholder or in receipt of asalary; there will be no room for the small independent tradesman, or the independent workman belonging to no society.
