This system, moreover, offers a peculiar advantage. As he has not to buy the land, but receives it gratuitously, the peasantcan invest all the capital belonging to him in the undertaking. Elsewhere he must first expend the purchase-money of thefarm he intends to cultivate, or else pay the rent for it every year, which is so much reduction in the profits. Under theRussian system the cultivator has neither purchase-money nor rent to pay. He may, therefore, employ his whole capital toincrease th e fertility of the soil. In Russia, it is true, the cultivators have neither capital at their disposal, initiative spirit, northe knowledge of rural economy necessary for the introduction of intensive scientific cultivation. But if all this is wanting, itis the fault of serfage, not of the system of collective property combined with individual enjoyment. This is shewn by anexamination of the condition of the allmends , which are subject to the system of Russian community, in Switzerland and thecountry of Baden, and are nevertheless as well cultivated as the lands of private proprietors. Under the Russian system aman obtains the use of the instrument of labour, not by title of succession as heir to the fruits of his parents' toil, but by apersonal title in virtue of his natural right to the property. There is succession in the commune, instead of succession in thefamily. It is true that one effect of the system may be to weaken the motive for labour in the father of a family, because heknows that his children are always entitled to a share in the common property, and that they will therefore never be reducedto absolute want. But, in the first place, he can leave them the house, the instrumentum fundi , capital to carry on cultivation,and all the moveable property gathered together by him. The motive for economy and saving is not therefore destroyed.
Besides, right of succession in the commune and by personal title seems, on principle, more conformable to justice andnature. A man can claim the enjoyment of a share in the productive soil the moment he is capable of tilling it for himself andhas need of it to found a new family, instead of attaining to it by the accident of a death, perhaps too late, perhaps in the timewhen he is yet too young to cultivate his inheritance by his own labour.
Under the system of the civil law in force in the West, children only succeed on the death of their parents. At the momentthey lose those who should be dearest to them, they attain to their property. This tends to produce, and does actuallyproduce, unnatural sentiments. Literature and painting have often depicted in strong colours the immorality of this state ofthings, shewing the heir consoled in his grief by the thought of the money which it brings him. Often a horrible crime, atwhich humanity revolts, occurs to shew the danger of making the right of succession come to life with the death of theparents. Institutions, which attach the acquisition of property to the death of the father or mother, beget in the mindunnatural greed, which, when grown to excess in vicious natures, leads to parricide. If, on the contrary, a man is investedwith his share in the inheritance, on attaining full age or on founding a new family, impatience to obtain his property will notarise to stifle or weaken his natural affections; and he will not have to balance the profit accruing from the loss of hisrelations.
Among the Slavs, where the ancient succession in the commune and in the family is maintained, the family has remainedmuch more united than in the West. A bond of brotherly affection and patriarchal intimacy unites all its members. With usfamily feeling has lost almost all its force. Weakened by unwholesome cupidity, it constitutes but a very subordinate force inthe social order.
In the Russian system personal responsibility is respected much more than with us. At one time it was thought right toextend to descendants, even "to the tenth generation," the penalty of faults committed by their ancestors; as also to let thechildren enjoy the honours and titles earned by the father. In the present day we think it more equitable not to admit thishereditary responsibility, and to treat every one, considered alone, according to his merits or demerits. We no longer allowof hereditary offices or places in the political system. But, under the empire of the civil law, if the father has beenextravagant or unfortunate, the children have nothing; and, on the other hand, if he has accumulated wealth, they may live inopulence and idleness, contrary to nature and morality, which demand that man should only live by the fruits of his labour,and not by the fruits of another man's labour. In the Russian commune the children are less liable to suffer for the faults ofthe father, and also have less right to enjoy the fruits of his merits and his energy. They obtain a share in the collectiveinheritance, and so work out their own destiny. The prosperity they may attain to they owe to themselves, not to theirancestors. The system is therefore more in accordance with the principle of individual responsibility.
