THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 A Post-Marxian Theory of Peasant Economy The School of A V Chayanov Daniel Thorner Most of those who are today seeking to understand the economic behaviour of the peasantry seem to be unaware that they are traversing much the same ground, trod from the 1960's onward, by several generations of Russian economists. The problems which are today plaguing countries like Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Nigeria, India and Indonesia, bear striking similarities to those which were the order of the day in Russia from the emancipa­ tion of the serfs in 1861 right down to the collectivisation of agriculture at the end of 1920's, to wit: How to transform traditional rural society so as to overcome the misery, squalor and illiteracy of the peas- antry; How to get the peasants to modernise their agriculture, especially their farming technique; and, How to carry out this transformation and modernisation so as to permit—indeed, to facilitate—the deve­ lopment of the entire national economy. In the decades from 1880 onward Russia's leading economists, statisticians, sociologists and agricultural ex­ perts assessed, analysed and fought over the materials furnished by successive zemstvo enquiries. Their articles and books provide the richest analytical literature on the peasant economy of any country in the period since the Indus* trial Revolution. Among Russian scholars who participated in the debate over the zemstvo statistics, Kablukov, Kosinskii, Chelintsev, Makarov and Studentskii stand out for their attempts to formulate a theory of peasant eco­ nomy. Alexander Vassileviah Chayanov, from 1919 to 1930 the leading Russian authority on the economics of agriculture, synthesised the theoretical ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, and developed them along original lines. [This article is taken from an introduction to the English translation of A V Chayanov's Organisatsiya Krestyanskogo Khozyaistva (Moscow, 1925), which may be put in English as "Peasant Farm Organisation". The translation has been edited by Basile Kerblay of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Sorbonnc, Paris; by REF Smith of the Department of Soviet Institutions at the University of Birmingham; and by myself. This translation has been made possible by the support of the American Economic Association and is sche­ duled to be published at the end of 1965 in the Association's Foreign Translation Series. The Sixth Section (Sciences Economiques at Socialcs) of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Sorbonne, is simultaneously arrang­ ing for the reprinting of the original Russian text of Chayanov's book. In drafting this brief introduction 1 have benefited greatly from a 90-page essay on the scholarly career and contributions of Chayanov prepared by my friend and colleague at the Sorbonne, Basile Kerblay. ]

M OST of those who arc today One of the first methods which launched in the 1870's a vast pro­ seeking to understand the eco­ young Russian idealists tried for deal­ gramme of economic and statistical nomic behaviour of the peasantry ing with these problems was direct investigations into peasant economic seem to be unaware that they are action. Hundreds upon hundreds of problems. It would be difficult to traversing much the same ground trod college students, doctors, nurses, exaggerate the value of these field from the 1860V onward by several university teachers — including eco­ enquiries, which continued through generations of Russian economists. nomists and statisticians — quit their four decades right down to the first The problems which are today plaguing urban life and attempted to "go to the world war. In sheer bulk, they add economists in countries like Brazil, people". Establishing themselves in up to more than 4,000 volumes. These Mexico, Turkey, Nigeria, India and villages, they tried to be of use to the constitute perhaps the most ample Indonesia bear striking similarities to peasantry, to get them into motion; single source of data we have on the those which were the order of the day revolutionaries among these idealists peasant economy of any country in in Russia from the emancipation of preached the virtues of socialism. The modern times. the serfs in 1861 right down to the police smoked them out and rounded collectivization of agriculture at the them up, sometimes tipped off by the More significant than the quantity end of the 1920's, to wit: peasants themselves, suspicious of is the quality of these data. From the outsiders from other orders of society. outset the field investigators included How to transform traditional some of the ablest spirits of the day. rural society so as to overcome Chastened Intellectuals Sympathetic to the peasantry and an- the misery, squalor, and illite­ Chastened by their experiences, xioxis to gain insight into their prob­ racy of the peasantry; many of these action-oriented intellec­ lems, they were determined to carry How to get the peasants to moder­ tuals deemed it wise, before undertak­ out their enquiries with utmost nize their agriculture, especially ing further adventures in rural philan­ thoroughness. In presenting their re­ their farming technique- thropy, to obtain a more precise know­ sults they took great pains to choose How to carry out this transfor­ ledge of village realities. Scores of suitable categories and to design sta­ mation and modernization so as them offered their services when the tistical tables so as to bring out clear­ to permit — indeed, to facili­ new provincial and district assemb­ ly the basic relations among the vari­ tate — the development of the lies the zemstvos — set up to help ous economic and social groups in the ~ entire national economy. implement the land reforms of 1861— villages. Some of their reports were so 227 ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

228 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 striking that the government in 1888 business, that is to say, an enterprise it became impossible \o establish just passed a law forbidding any further of a capitalistic sort. To him the es­ what was to be ^included in each, of inquiries into landlord-peasant rela­ sential characteristic of business firms the remaining three, and hence there tions, but nonetheless the work went or capitalistic enterprises was that was no way of determining their mag­ on. they operated with hired workers in nitudes. Take away any one of the Rice Analytical Literature order to earn profits. By contrast, four factors, Chayanov agrued, and t peasant family farms, as Chayanov de­ In the decades from 1880 onward the whole theoretical structure went fined them, employed no hired wage Russia's leading economists, statisti­ awry, like a cart which has lost one labour, none whatsoever. His family cians, sociologists and agricultural ex­ wheel. This was precisely what hap­ farms were pure, in the sense that they pened, according to Chayanov, when perts assessed, analysed, and fought depended solely upon the work of economists tried to apply the analysis over the materials furnished by the their own family members. in terms of wages, profit, rent, and successive zemstvo enquiries. Their interest to peasant family farms. articles and books provide the rich- Chayanov's definition of the family est analytical literature we have on farm may surprise us by its narrow­ Since peasant family farms had no the peasant economy of any country ness as compared with the much hired labour, they paid no wages. Ac­ in the period since the Industrial Re­ wider usage of the term in recent de­ cordingly, the economic category volution. Among the Russian scholars cades. Present-day economists familiar "wages" was devoid of content, and who participated in the debate over with model-building might assume the economic theory of wages irrele­ the zemstvo statistics, Kablukov, Ko- that for his purpose Chayanov framed vant to family activity. Carrying the sinskii, Chelintsev, Makarov and Stu- a special model or ideal type. In point argument further, Chayanov posed the denskii stand out for their attempts of fact Chayanov considered his cate­ question whether, in the absence of to formulate a theory of peasant eco­ gory a real one drawn from life. He wages, the net gain, the rent, and the nomy. Alexander Vassilevich Chaya­ contended that 90 per cent or more interest on capital could be worked nov, from 1919 to 1930 the leading of the farms in Russia in the first out for such peasant farms. His ans­ Russian authority on the economics of quarter of the twentieth century had wer was a flat "no". In the absence of agriculture, synthesised the theoretical no hired labourers, that they were wages, these calculations could not be ideas of his predecessors and contem­ family farms in the full sense of his made. Hence the bahaviour of these poraries, and developed them along definition. In so far as his contention farms could not be accounted for in original lines. Translations into Eng­ was correct, his model was far from terms of standard theories of the iour lish of two studies by Chayanov form being "ideal"; quite the contrary, it main factors of production. stood for the most typical farm in the core of the volume to be pub­ Wage Imputation Rejected what was then the largest peasant lished by the American Economic As­ country in the world. Furthermore, Chayanov saw no vali­ sociation in their Foreign Translation dity in circumventing the absence of series. Standard Economics Challenged wage data by imputing values to un­ The first and by far the larger of From this starting point Chayanov paid family labour. He insisted on tak­ these works is Chayanov's masterpiece, proceeded to challenge head-on the ing the entire family household as a Organizatsiya Krestyanskogo Khozy- validity of standard economics for the single economic unit and treating their aistva, the title of which may be ren­ task of analysing the economic beha­ annual product minus their outlays as dered in English as "Peasant Farm Or­ viour of peasant farms relying on a single return to family activity. By ganisation*'. It provides a theory of family labour only. The prevailing its very nature this return was unique peasant behaviour at the level of the concepts and doctrines of classical and indivisible. It could not meaning­ individual family farm, i e, at the and neo-classical economics, he wrote, fully be broken down into wages and "micro" level. The second, much had been developed to explain the the other factor payments of standard shorter study—Zur Frage einer Theo- behaviour of capitalistic entrepreneurs economic theory. In Chayanov's view, rie der nichtkapitalistische XVirts- and business undertakings in which the return to the peasant family was chaftssysteme1, which may be trans­ hired hands worked for wages. The undifferentiable. economic theory of the behaviour of lated as "On the Theory of Non-Capi­ Professional economists, Chayanov such firms turned on the quantitative talistic Economic Systems"—sets forth conceded, would balk at this, for they inter-relationship of wages (of labour), the proposition that at the national or would somehow prefer, as Alfred interest (on capital), rent (for land), "macro" level, peasant economy ought Weber had told him in Heidelberg and profits (of enterprise). To find out to be treated as an economic system around 1924,4 to encompass Ihese whether a given business firm was in its own right, as a non-capitalistic family units together with the more making a profit, it was necessary to system of national economy. The brief tractable business enterprises within a set down the value of gross annual remarks which follow will be con­ single system, a universal economics, output, deduct outlays for wages, cerned chiefly with Chayanov's theory the standard economics on which they materials, upkeep, or replacement of of the peasant farm, his "micro" the­ had been brought up. Such an attempt, capital and other usual expenses in­ ory, which Constantin von Dietze has Chayanov insisted, was foredoomed to cluding rent, and then compare the termed the most noteworthy creative failure. synthesis so far achieved in this field, sum left over with the interest which down to the present day.2 might be earned at prevailing rates on Non-Euclidean Economics the total fixed and circulating capital. Economists would have to face the Chayanov's Theory of These four factors, wages, interest, fact, he held, that economies made up the Peasant Farm rent and profits, operated in close of family units in which the category The sure and certain way to mis­ functional interdependence and were of wages was absent belonged to a understand the peasant family farm, reciprocally determined. The moment fundamentally different economic Chayanov held, was to view it as a one of the four factors was not there, structure and required a different eco- 229 ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 T HE E C0 NO MIC WE E K L Y

THE NAME FOR WORLD FAMOUS DIESEL ENGINES

230 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 nomic theory. Such a theoretical sys­ A capiiansnc enterprise, cnayanov ween consumer satisfaction and degree tem, he wrote, would have the same pointed out, can get objective, quan­ of drudgery is effected by the size of relationship to present day economics titative evidence as to how to pro­ the family, and the ratio of working as Lobachievski's geometry bore to ceed. By deducting from its gross pro­ members to non working members. He that of Euclid. In his day Lobachevskii duct the outlays on materials, capital traced the ''natural history" of the gave up the assumption of parallel consumption, and wages, a business family from the time of the marriage lines; we would have to drop wages. concern can ascertain its net profits. If of the young couple through the Chayanov's own theory—or, if the it wishes to increase its profits, the growth of the children to working age expression be permitted, his non- concern can put in more capital and and the marriage of this second gene­ Euclidean economics—was not res­ obtain in due course an exact quanti­ ration. In relating this natural history tricted to peasant agricultural produc­ tative statement as to the increase, if of the family to the changing size of tion. He was concerned with the total any, in net profits. For a peasant fami­ peasant farms from generation to gene­ income of the peasant family, whether ly farm, however, there are neither ration, Chayanov developed the con­ from agriculture or also from crafts wages nor net profits. The family mem­ cept of "demographic differentiation" and trades3. The economic unit for bers know roughly how many days which he asked his readers to con­ which his theory was devised was the they have worked, but Chayanov in­ trast with the Marxian concept of class peasant family taken as a whole in all sisted, there is no valid way of esti­ differentiation among the peasantry. its works, or alternatively, the total mating in money the value of their economic activity of family labour. work. All that they can see before But his analysis is far from being Thus he saw his exposition of peasant them is the net product of their work, primarily demographic. Basing himself economy as a particular form of a and there is no way of dividing days on the zemsrvo statistics, on the stu­ larger doctrine, the theory of family of labour into poods of wheat. dies of these by his predecessors and 5 economy. colleagues, and on fresh held enquiries, Subjective Evaluations The Labour-Consumer Balance Chayanov examined the effects on the The way the peasant family pro­ labour-consumer balance of a wide Chayanov's central concept for ana­ ceeds, according to Chayanov, is by range of factors. He took account-of lysing family economics is what he subjective evaluation based on the size of holdings, qualities of soil, called the labour-consumer balance long experience in agriculture of the crops grown, livestock, manure, loca­ between the satisfaction of family living generation and its predecessors. tion, market prices, land prices, inte­ needs and the drudgery (or irksome- Most peasant families, Chayanov rest rates on capital Joans, feasibility ness) of labour. Once grasped, this showed, are in a position to work of particular crafts and trades, avail­ concept furnishes the key to his en­ more hours or to work more inten­ ability of alternative work, and rela­ tire position and mode of presenta­ sively, sometimes even both. The ex­ tive density of population. Chayanov tion. It was one of the chief weapons tent to which the members of the was not so much concerned with the that he wielded in his severe critiques family actually work under given con­ individual effects of each of these fac­ both of Marxian economics in Russia ditions, he called the degree of self- tors, as with their mutual effects as and of orthodox classical and neo­ exploitation of family labour. The they changed through time. classical economics in the west. peasants would put in greater effort In developing his concept of the only if they had reason to believe it Marginal Utility Analysis labour-consumer balance, Chayanov would yield an increase in output, In weighing the influence of these began with the gross income or gross which could be devoted to greater several elements on the delicate bal­ product of a peasant family household family consumption, to enlarged invest­ ance between urgency of family needs at the end of an agricultural year, ment in the farm, or to both. The and drudgery of labour, Chayanov assumed to be at a given level (say, mechanism which Chayanov devised employed some of the concepts and 1,000 roubles). From this annual gross for explaining how the family acted techniques of marginal utility analysis. income certain expenses had to be is his labour-consumer balance. Each His terminology included, for example, deducted, so as to restore the farm family, he wrote, seeks an annual out­ demand satisfaction, and marginal ex­ to the same level of production it put adequate for its basic needs; but penditure of work force. For factors possessed at the beginning of that this involves drudgery, and the family such as willingness to put in greater agricultural year, i e, seed, fodder, re­ does not push its work beyond the efforts which were not subject to any pairs, replacement of expired live­ point where the possible increase in precise measurement, he constructed stock and worn out equipment, etc. output is outweighed by the irksome- equilibrium graphs showing inter­ Once these expenses had been deduct­ ness of the extra work. Each family action under varying assumptions. ed, the family was left with a net pro~ strikes a rough balance or equilibrium duct or net income that constituted between the degree of satisfaction of Chayanov foresaw, quite correctly, the return for its labour during that family needs and the degree of drud­ that his use of these tools of agricultural year. How was that net gery of labour. "bourgeois" economics would shock income or net product to be divided many of his contemporaries in Soviet up among family budget for consump- Family "Natural History" Russia of the mid 1920's. He counter­ tion, capital formation for raising the In itself, Chayanov hastened to add, ed that his work should be judged not farm's potential level of production, there was nothing novel or remark­ by the genealogy of his techniques but and savings (in so far as there was able about this concept. It goes back, rather by the results which he had any possibility of savings not invested after all, to Adam Smith. What is of been able to obtain through 'the appli­ in the farm)? Put dtore simply, what interest and gives value to Chayanov's cation of those techniques to the Rus­ should the family eat, what fresh capi­ book is the way he handled the con­ sian data in the light of economic pos- tal should it invest in the farm, what cept. He showed how for different lulatcs firmly anchored in peasant be­ should it put by? families the balance or equilibrium bet­ haviour. 231 ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 T HE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

232 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965

Summing up his findings, Chayanov Marx and Engels believed that the ceive of the peasant as his own wrote that "available income was di­ advantages of concentration and cen­ entrepreneur wage labourer and vided according to the equilibrium of tralisation lay with the capitalist far­ landlord all in one person. The production and consumption evalua- mers who would, in the course of time, economic peculiarity of the peasan­ tions which expressed * a desire to swallow up the small peasants. Two try, if we want to put them .. . maintain a constant level of well- outstanding followers of Marx vho into one undifferentiated category, being.6 Generally speaking an in­ adhered to this position were Kautsky, lies in the very fact that they be­ crease in family gross income led to whose monograph, Die Agrarfragc, was long neither to the class of capi­ increases in both family budget and published in Stuttgart in 1899, and talist entrepreneurs nor to that of capital formation. The precise way the Lenin, whose work entitled "The Deve­ the wage proletariat, that they gross income was divided up in each lopment of Capitalism in Russia" ap­ do not represent capitalistic pro­ family was a question of subjective peared later in the same year in Mos­ duction but simple commodity pro­ 10 judgment by the head of the family cow, The analyses by Kautsky for duction." and hence could not be expressed in Western Europe and Lenin for Tsarist Chayanov's differences with Lenin objective, quantitative terms. Russia were each sharply challenged were, if anything, even sharper than According to Chayanov, the basic in a large body of literature which it his divergences from Marx. As early characteristics of peasant family eco­ is out of the question for us to dis­ as 1899 Lenin had written that in nomic behaviour were fundamentally cuss here.* What is of interest to us Russian agriculture, the capitalist different from those of capitalistic is that Chayanov rejected both the farmers, the peasant bourgeoisie, were farms in respect of price they were terms in which M,arx analysed the already in the saddle. They were prepared to pay for buying land, inte­ peasant farm, and the assessment by in a small minority, Lenin wrote, per­ rest they were willing to pay in bor­ Lenin of the importance of family haps no more than twenty percent of rowing capital, rent they would pay farms in the Russian economy of his the farm households. Nonetheless, in for leasing in land, price at which they time. terms of the total quantity of means would sell their produce, etc. In con­ Fictional Bifurcation of production, and in terms of their ditions where capitalist farms would share of total produce grown, "the gjo bankrupt, peasant families could At the outset of his book on "Peas­ peasant bourgeoisie are predominant. work longer hours, sell at lower prices, ant; Economic Organization," Chayanov They are the masters of the country­ obtain no net surplus, and yet ma- assailed the characterization of the side",11 nage to carry on with their farming, peasant as having a two-fold nature, By what criteria did Lenin separate year after year. For these reasons Cha­ combining in himself the attributes of capitalist farmers from non capitalist yanov concluded that the competitive both a capitalist and a wage worker. peasants? In his view, the decisive power of peasant family farms versus Chayanov termed this bifurcation an step toward capitalism came when la­ large-scale capitalist farms was much unhelpful fiction, what is worse, a bourers had to be hired, when "... the greater than had been foreseen in the purely "capitalist" kind of fiction, in area cultivated by the well-to-do peas­ writings of Marx, Kautsky, Lenin and the sense that it was made up entirely ants exceed the family labour norm their successors. of capitalist categories and was con­ ceivable only within a capitalist system. (i.e., the amount of land that a family Viability of Peasant Family Farms For understandable reasons Chayanov can cultivate by its own labour), and In proclaiming the viability of pea­ compel them to resort to the hiring of did not explicity state that he was 12 sant family farming Chayanov set him­ criticizing Marx, It was all too easy, workers .. ." For Lenin the hiring self against the main streams of Marx­ however, for anyone familiar with of workers had become widespread, ist thought in Russia and Western what Marx wrote, or with what Lenin and Russia was well on its way to­ ward a capitalist agriculture with a Europe. Marx had termed the peasant wrote about Marx, to discern who was 9 peasant bourgeoisie and a rural prole­ who hires no labour a kind of twin at least one of Chayanov's targets. economic person: "As owner of the tariat. Chayanov's numerous refer- means of production he is capitalist, as Chayanov's position vis-a-vis Marx, ences to the very small part: that hired worker he is his own wage worker". it should be noted, was not altogether labourers played on Russian farms What is more, Marx added, "the sepa­ his own creation but reflected the (e g, his assertion that 90 to 95 per­ ration between the two is the normal cumulative work of the "Organizational cent had no hired labourers in the relation in this [i e, capitalist] society". and production school" of Russian period 1900-1925), constitute, there­ According to the law of the increas­ agricultural economists from time of fore, a direct if implicit refuta­ ing division of labour in society, KosinskiiVs 1905 treatise onward. A tion of Lenin, In fact, Chayanov's small-scale peasant agriculture must neat statement of the position of this whole approach his selection of the inevitably give way to large-scale capi­ group can be found in the well-known pure family farm as the typical Rus­ talist agriculture. In Marx's own words; treatise on "The Accumulation of sian unit, his insistence on the sur­ "[the] peasant who produces with Capital" by Rosa Luxemburg, the most vival power of such family farms, and his own means of production will dynamic force in German socialism in his treatment of rural differentiation in either gradually be transformed in­ the period of the First World War. terms of demographic cycles rather to a small capitalist who also ex­ Luxemburg had been born in Poland than class antagonisms -was diametri­ ploits the labour of others, or he under Tsarist rule, and was thoroughly cally opposed to that of Lenin. will suffer the loss of his means of familiar with Russian literature on the Wider Relevance of production...and be transformed in­ peasantry: Chayanov's Theory to a wage worker. This is the ten­ "It is an empty abstraction (she Chayanov's "micro" theory, insofar dency in the form of society in wrote) to apply simultaneously all as he was able to elaborate it before which the capitalist mode of pro­ the categories of capitalistic pro­ his career was cut short, is essential­ duction predominates."7 duction to the peasantry, to con­ ly a theory of one kind of individual 233 ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

TATA'S EAU DE COLOGNE Refreshes you like nothing else! Start the day fresh with Tata's Eau de Cologne—you'll stay fresh! So refre­ shing and reviving — nothingpicks up your spirits like Tata'sEaude Cologne. It's a must in every home —you'll find 101 uses for it. Available in 4 convenient sizes at all good stores.' AI-TEL,7* ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 tamily term in Russia, the family farm There were marked sectoral and re­ the family economy of his native that employs no hired labour what­ gional differences in rates of growth. Russia. He referred repeatedly to, his soever. There were other kinds of Chayanov often referred to the exist­ desire to show the significance of agri­ peasant farms in Russia, and there ence of these differentials, but pitch­ culture based on peasant family farm­ were capitalist farms as well Once ed his theory at a level of abstraction ing for the entire Russian national we step out of Russia we find peasant well above them. economy. In the Introduction to his family farms elsewhere in Europe and Non-Capitalistic Systems book, "Peasant Economic Organiza­ in Asia, Africa and the Americas. tion," he announced his intention to With regard to the broader institu­ Chayanov's theory was devised so as go into the subject thoroughly at a tional framework, Chayanov was fond to take account of Russian conditions, later date, but he does not seem to of saying that capitalism was only where the kind of peasant family have found the time to do so. Hence farm that he discussed was predomi­ one particular economic system. There we do not have from him any systema­ nant. Does his "micro" theory apply had been others known to history, tic exposition of his theory of family to peasant family farms in other coun­ and perhaps more were to come in the economy at the national level, nor any tries? future. In his 1924 article, the title case study of the economic functioning Chayanov himself conceded that his of which we have translated as "On of a predominantly peasant country theory worked better for thinly popu­ the Theory of Non-Capitalistic Econo­ taken as whole. Nonetheless, we find lated countries than for densely popu­ mic Systems", Chayanov cites six scattered through his works many lated ones. It also worked better in major kinds of economies. Three of suggestive remarks on peasant economy countries where the agrarian struc­ these are familiar; capitalism, slavery at the national level. ture had been shaken up (as in Rus­ and communism. The fourth, "family When Chayanov was arrested in sia after the emancipation of the economy", Chayanov divided into two 1930 together with a number of his serfs in 1861), rather than in countries sub-types: "natural" economy and colleagues, his research teams were with a more rigid agrarian structure. "commodity" economy. These latter dispersed. The most fertile and so­ Where the peasants could not readily names may be taken as roughly equi­ phisticated group of scholars working buy or take in more land, his theory valent to "self-subsistent" and "market- in any country on peasant economy would have to be seriously modified. oriented". In Chayanov's two addi­ tional categories—the "serf economy" was shattered. The quality of Chay­ Since Chayanov did not work out of Tsarist Russia, and the "feudal anov's writings from 1911 to 1930 these modifications, he did not ela­ economy" of mediaeval Western permits us to beiieve that had he been borate a full-blown theory of peasant Europe—the "commodity" economy able to continue with his scientific family farming for any country other of the lords was superimposed upon work he would have contributed even than Russia. Nonetheless, he indicat­ the "natural" economy of the peas­ more significantly to the understand­ ed that he thought one single univer­ ants. The chief difference between ing of peasant economic behaviour sal theory of peasant family farm at the two systems, according to his both in and out of Russia. the micro level could be devised. In schema was that in Russia the peas his view, the Russian case, which he ants worked on their own fields but Notes developed so fully, was only an illus­ had to make payments in kind to the 1 Archiv fiir Sozialwissenschaft und tration of this larger theory. lord, whereas in the West the peas­ Sozialpolitik, (Heidelberg), Band One wonders whether he may not ants had to put in certain days of 51 (1924), Heft 3, pp 577-613. have been overoptimistic about the work directly on the home farm of 2 C V Dietze, "Peasantry", in "En- possibility of an universal "micro" the lord. Both of these lord-and- cyclopedia of the Social Sciences", theory of peasant family farming. We peasant systems were essentially sym­ Vol XII (1934), p 52: and person- will recall that in calculating the biotic admixtures of the two sub­ nal communication from Professor springs of peasant decisions in Rus­ types within the basic category of von Dietze, Summer 1964. sia, Chayanov took account of the in­ "family economy." In effect, there­ teraction of a very large number of fore, Chayanov postulated, only four 3 The term "family farm" is some­ factors including family size and major systems; capitalism, slavery. times even used for capitalistic structure, land tenures, climate, ac­ communism and family economy. enterprises producing essentially cess to markets, and possibility of get­ Universal Economics Ethereal for export, so long as these are ting extra jobs in off-seasons. He was Will one universal economics, Chay­ family operated. able to construct his models the more anov asked, suffice for all of these 4 Alfred Weber was the distinguish­ easily since he assumed the existence systems? One could be erected, he ed German economist who, to­ of a single "pure" type of family farm, conceded, but at the price of contain­ gether with Joseph Schumpetec free of hired wage labour. Extending ing only vague and lofty abstractions and Emil Lederer, then edited the the theory outside of Russia would at about scarcity and optimalisation. leading German social science the very least involve preparation of That would scarcely be worth the periodical, Archiv fur Sozialwiss- alternative models for "impure" peas­ trouble. Properly speaking, each sepa- enschaft und Sozialpolitik. ant households, employing hired rate system required its own theory, labor. its own body of theoretical economics. s Of the title of Chayanov's book in Although it encompassed a very Each such theory should explain the German, Die Lehre von der bäuer- wide range of possibilities, Chayanov's functioning of the economy at the lichen Wirtschaft: Versuch einer theory of peasant farming remained aggregate level, i e, the economics of Theorie der Familienwirtschaft in essentially a static one. From the the nations or states falling within its Landbau ("The Doctrine of Peas­ 1860's through the 1920's the Russian purview. ant Economy: Test of a Theory of agricultural economy underwent a The major system with which Chay­ Family Economy in Agriculture)". rapid series of fundamental changes. anov was most familiar was, of course, Berlin, P Parey, 1923. 235 ANNUAL NUMBER FEBRUARY 1965 THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY 6 This is only one way -and an ed into English by R C K Ensor It should be noted that in the oversimplified one at that- -of in his useful collection, Modem 1870's Marx learnt Russian pri­ summarising Chayanov's position Socialism, 2nd Edition, London marily in order to read the zem- on a quite complex relationship. and New York, 1907, especially stvo reports on the peasantry. He In the various chapters of his items XV, XVI and XXII. Con­ followed these closely, and as was book he spells out the nuances that venient discussions of the contro­ his habit* took extensive notes. are involved. For an earlier dis­ versy in central and western Eu­ Tkree volumes of these notes have cussion of a balance between rope are given in the works by A been translated from German into "need" and "labour", see W Stan­ Gerschenkron, "Bread and Demo­ Russian and published, and a ley Jevons, "The Theory of Poli­ cracy in Germany" (Berkeley, Calif, fourth has been announced. See tical Economy", 4th Edition, Lon­ 1943) and in George Lichlheinu the ARXIV MARXA—ENGELSA, don. Macmillan, 1911, Ch V. Marxism (London, 1961), Ch 5, Vols XI, XII, XIII (Moscow, 7 Marx, Theorien iibcr den Mehr- "Kautsky". 1948, 1952r and 1955, respec­ tvert, in the translation of G A 9 Where Chayanov found Marx in tively). Bonner and Emile Burns, "Theo­ agreement with him, he of course '" Rosa Luxemberg, Die Akkumula- ries of Surplus Value" (London, did not hesitate to quote him by turn des Kapitals, Berlin, 1913, as Lawrence and Wishart, 1951), pp name. Thus he cites both in Ch reprinted in 192.1, p 368. I have 193-94. V and in Ch VI the celebrated followed the English translation of 8 Even before the appearance of passage in which Marx stales: 1951, "The Accumulation of Capi­ Kautsky's book, the position and "...with parcellated farming and tal" (London, Routledge, 1951), but policy of the German Socialists small scale landed property, pro­ have made it more literal. with regard to the small peasan­ duction to a very great "VI Lenin, "The Development of try had given rise to sharp dis­ extent satisfied own needs and is Capitalism in Russia", Moscow, pute within the party. Some of carried out independently of con­ Foreign Languages Publishing the original documents are con­ trol by the general (ie, the capi­ House, 1956 pp 177-178. veniently assembled and translat­ talist) rate of profit:" >~ Ibid, p 52.

*«*•'

236