Friday, May 30, 2014

9 ALEXANDER CHAYANOV The Theory of Peasant Economy

authors have written one of the most brilliant pages in the history of Russian statistics.
After the appearance of these works, Russian economists started to attach a somewhat different significance to the heterogeneity of peas­ant farms disclosed by sown area and other quantitative economic classifications. They called this process "demographic differentia­tion/ ' thus stressing that the chief cause of differences in farm size is the demographic processes of family growth as its age increases, and not social factors causing peasant farms to become capitalist and prole-tarianized, as we formerly supposed.
However, we consider it absolutely necessary to note that although this "demographic differentiation" has lost its social overtone for us, it thus acquires exceptional production significance. As we have more than once tried to show in analyzing the organizational plan, the size of agricultural undertakings as production machines has a very real effect on their organization, without taking it outside the usual family labor farm.
As we have seen,2 the type of buildings, the stock of equipment, the organization of draft, the measures to use these means of production, particularly the organization of labor in farms with few or many fam­ily members, even the crops grown, their money-earning power, and sometimes the general trend of the farm—all this very flexibly reflects the labor farm's size. It was for this very reason that even before the Revolution the most perceptive agricultural officers put forward the idea of a differential agricultural program that, other than recording semiproletarianized and semicapitalist farms, would differentiate rec­ommended improvements for different scales of labor farm at differ­ent phases of development.
Such a differentiated approach is no less significant for the practice both of cooperation and of petty credit, and for almost all forms of economic work in the countryside. Unfortunately, at this production plane the differentiation problem is only beginning to be studied,3 and its deep analysis is evidently a matter for the future. However, because we are now inclined to treat differences in peasant farm sown areas as springing from demographic causes and not social ones, one should by no means conclude that there is no true social differentia­
The Family Farm      255
tion among the peasantry to distinguish one farm from another, not quantitatively but qualitatively.
Simple, everyday observation of life in the countryside shows us elements of "capitalist exploitation." We suppose that, on the one hand, proletarianization of the countryside and, on the other, a cer­tain development of capitalist production forms undoubtedly take place there. However, in our opinion, these social processes should be sought out, not by means of classifying sown areas and so on, but by direct analysis of capitalist factors in the organization of production, i.e., hired labor on farms, not brought in to help their own, but as the basis on which to obtain unearned income, and oppressive rents and usurers' credit.
Where a general economic setting is formed suitable for such eco­nomic organization, these forms inevitably appear. As we know, the semilabor, semicapitalist "farmer's" undertaking is a very widespread type of peasant farm in the majority of countries of Western Europe and America. For example, according to the study of Swiss farms car­ried out yearly under the guidance of Professor E. Laur, we have Table 7-11, based on bookkeeping entries.
TABLE 7-11
Percentage of
On-Farm Labor Percentage of
Area of Land_ All Recorded
for Use       Family         Hired Farms in Land
(Hectares)   Members      Workers Use Class
<5   .......    92^6              1A Hkl
5-10   .......    80.6            19.4 40.7
10-15   .......    69.9 *          30.1 22.5
15-30  .......    52.5            47.5 15.7
>30  .......    42.7            57.3 7.0
Average    68.3            31.7 100.0
On the basis of agricultural statistics, we might establish the pro­portion of labor and capitalist agriculture in different countries, and almost everywhere undoubtedly we would observe, together with purely labor farms, capitalist forms. In Russia, this type of farm has not become very widespread among the peasants. A special record of peasant farms using hired labor, carried out by V. G. Groman for various uezds of Penza guberniya, gave a modest 3-5 percent for these farms. According to the data of the Starobel'sk budget study, we have 9.9 percent hired labor for agricultural units, and 5.5 percent for total
Desyatinas 1882 1911 1882 1911
0-3.0...... 1.3 0.4 1.0 1.0
3.1- 6.0 ...... 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.0
6.1- 9.0 ...... 2.1 3.3 1.1 1.2
9.1-12.0...... 3.0 5.0 1.3 1.1
>12.0 ...... 7.1 6.9 1.2 1.3
Within the Russian peasantry, social differentiation is still in its initial stages, and we will not undertake to judge how far the semi-labor, semicapitalist "farmer" type unit will be able to improve its position with the present tendency of the Russian peasantry for en­closed farms. We must hope that the labor farm, strengthened by co­operative bodies, will be able to defend its positions against large-scale, capitalist type farms as it did in former times.
Moreover, as P. A. Vikhlyaev quite rightly pointed out in his last contribution to the Economic Scientific Research Institute, in analyz­ing the development of capitalist agriculture we must investigate dif­ferentiation not only in the peasant farms but in all agricultural units taken together. In reviewing the problem on this scale for pre-Revo-lutionary Russia, we clearly saw the process of capitalist differentia­tion, since the medium and small landowner units, a remnant of the serf period, rapidly disappeared. Their lands were taken over either by small peasant farms or by large-scale, typically entrepreneurial farms, often combined with industrial processing of agricultural produce.
However, although this goes beyond our theme, we should stress that while the elements of capitalist organization of production did not develop much among Russian peasants, the proletarianization of part of the peasantry in densely populated areas proceeded very rapidly before the Revolution. It was of a clearly industrial character and took the form of a completely regular stream of rural population pouring into industrial and urban centers. Moreover, as we are con­cerned with the labor farm, the themes we have touched on, despite their exceptionally intense and topical general economic interest, are
family economic activity (including crafts and trades). Table 7-12 is a very interesting one given by Kushchenko in his comparison of Su­razh uezd censuses for 1882 and 1911.
TABLE 7-12
Percentage of Farms        Number of Casual Hiring Yearly and Laborers per Farm
Short-Term Workers Hiring Workers
The Family Farm      257
quite to one side, so we should return to the main themes of our study.
It is important to us that the process of demographic differentia­tion which depends on biological family growth is, in essence, not new and is, essentially speaking, static. The dynamic processes of agricultural proletarianization and concentration of production, lead­ing to large-scale agricultural production units based on hired labor, are developing throughout the world, and in the U.S.S.R. in particu­lar, at a rate much slower than was expected at the end of nineteenth century. The area swept by agrarian revolutions has even, as it were, strengthened the position of the small farm. Nevertheless, it is clear to everyone working in the field of agriculture that literally before our eyes the world's agriculture, ours included, is being more and more drawn into the general circulation of the world economy, and the centers of capitalism are more and more subordinating it to their leadership.
In other words, while in a production sense concentration in agri­culture is scarcely reflected in the formation of new large-scale under­takings, in an economic sense capitalism as a general economic system makes great headway in agriculture.
In what forms does this take place? Where are the social threads that bind Sidor Karpov's farm, lost in the Perm' forests, to the London banks and oblige him to feel the effects of changes in the pulse rate of the London stock exchange?
The latest studies on the development of capitalism in agriculture, particularly Lenin's works on American farming, and partly Hilfer-ding on finance capital, Lyashchenko on trading capitalism in Rus­sia, and others, indicate that bringing agriculture into the general capitalist system need by no means involve the creation of very large, capitalistically organized production units based on hired labor. Re­peating the stages in the development of industrial capitalism, agri­culture comes out of a seminatural existence and becomes subject to trading capitalism that sometimes in the form of very large-scale trad­ing undertakings draws masses of scattered peasant farms into its sphere of influence and, having bound these small-scale commodity producers to the market, economically subordinates them to its influ­ence. By developing oppressive credit conditions, it converts the or­ganization of agricultural production almost into a special form of distributive office based on a "sweatshop system." In this connection, it is enough to recall the examples of capitalist exploitation which Knop, the Moscow cotton firm, applied to the Sart cotton growers,
buying up their harvest in spring, giving out advances for food, and giving them credits for seed and means of production.
These trading links that convert the natural, isolated family farm into one of a small commodity producer are always the first means of organizing scattered peasant farms and of opening the first path for the penetration of capitalist relations into the countryside. Through these connections, every small peasant undertaking becomes an or­ganic part of the world economy, itself experiences the effects of the world's general economic life, is powerfully directed in its organiza­tion by the capitalist world's economic demands, and, in its turn, to­gether with millions like it, affects the whole system of the world economy.
The system of the local rural bazaar at which the peasant sells his harvest and buys what he needs, and around which all the country­side's economic relations crystallize, has been very little studied. The bazaar is the primary cell of this general economic organism. Recent Russian statistical works have studied these trade catchment areas. With great clarity, they have separated out these primary indivisible units of the national economy compounded at the whim of economic life and the railways, independent of natural and historical areas and of administrative boundaries. Thus, in 1915 P. A. Vikhlyaev estab­lished, for provision purposes, a peculiar system of trading connec­tions as regards grain purchases for individual Moscow guberniya hamlets. G. I. Baskin carried out analogous work for Samara guber­niya settlements as regards their grain sales, and he provided the map in Figure 7-6.
Observing local life shows that the bazaar site is a concentration of all local trading, cooperative, business, and even spiritual life for its catchment area, since the personal links of the area's inhabitants are united by the bazaar, where they invariably meet one another. In their turn, the bazaars are attracted to a larger scale center of whole­sale trade, and they construct a certain national economic whole from the scattered peasant farms through the firm links of their trading machine.
In studying the structure of the trading machine for the sales mar­kets of different agricultural produce, we can note five basic steps in the course taken by the commodity:
1. The commodity, scattered among individual producers, is collected by jobbing buyers and dealers and is concentrated in their hands.
2. Commodities collected by the buyers are roughly sorted and trans­ferred to local wholesale trade centers.
The Family Farm      259
Trade Catchment Areas in Samara Guberniya before the War
3. In the wholesale centers, commodities are sorted and distributed for onward transmission.
4. Commodities collected and sorted are transferred to local consumer wholesale centers.
5. From the local wholesale centers, commodities are distributed with the help of the trade distributive network (local stallholders and other traders).
FIGURE 7-7 Market for Hay
Meat sales give us quite a different picture—for example, on the Moscow meat market before the war. Livestock for meat, fattened on landowners' or peasant farms, were brought up locally by drovers or dealers and then taken to the next market in Moscow. At the market, the livestock passed into the hands of large-scale traders, the "factors." At Moscow, these factors were almost complete masters of the market. The factors resold the livestock to slaughterers, who killed the ani­mals in the slaughterhouse and cut up the bullock into carcass, hide, and inedible offals. The offals were sent to gelatin and other factories using by-products, and the meat went to large and small butchers and to canning factories. Thus, the organization of the meat market is very complex and graphically presents quite a complicated scheme (Figure 7-8).
Hides, flax, cotton, and other similar commodities give a still more complicated picture. Moreover, it must be noted that for much pro­duce the commodity course differs for different markets. Thus, in studying the structure of the flax market we must first note the great difference between the Western flax areas that sell abroad and the Eastern ones that serve internal demand. In the West, there are many more middlemen, and market relations are more complex and con­fused. Schematically, the Western type of prewar market organization
Such is the general scheme, but according to the particular com­modity it considerably changes its form and takes on individual characteristic features. For example, if we take a product such as hay we should consider the organization of its market as very much simpli­fied. The greater part of the commodity passes directly from producer to consumer; if middlemen do exist in the supply of hay to urban mar­kets, their number is limited. A very simple scheme will show the hay market in graphic form (Figure 7-7).
The Family Farm      261
FIGURE 7-8 The Moscow Meat Market
and movement of the commodity may be represented as shown in Figure 7-9.
Flax brought to the bazaar by the peasant falls into the hands of small-scale buyers who, after roughly sorting it, sell it to local town traders or agents of foreign export offices who export it, indepen­dently or through middlemen. Arriving in Western Europe, the com­modity sometimes passes from hand to hand once again, and finally arrives at the mill.
The machine that has been described penetrates, with its hundreds of thousands of branches, to the full depths of the peasant farms and
leaving them free as regards production, entirely dominates them eco­nomically. Some Gzhatsk flax-growing farm's income, level of well-being, and power to form capital begins to depend to a great extent on the purely capitalist relations of Western Europe and, at times, on how the American banks are financing the Belfast mills.
Frequently, the trading machine, concerned about a standard quality in the commodity collected, begins to actively interfere in the organization of production, too. It lays down technical conditions, issues seed and fertilizers, determines the rotation, and turns its cli­ents into technical executors of its designs and economic plan. A char­acteristic example of this sort of thing here was the plantation sowings of sugar beet on peasant fields by contract with the sugar factories or contractors. After selling channels were acquired and its raw material base created, capitalism in the countryside began to penetrate into production itself. It split off from the peasant farm individual sectors, predominantly those in the primary processing of agricultural raw material and, in general, those connected with mechanical processes. Obvious examples of this are mobile commercial steam threshers in the south of Russia, small creameries in Siberia at the end of the nine­teenth century, and flax-processing workshops in France and in some places in our flax-growing guberniyas.
If to this we add in the most developed capitalist countries, such as those in North America, widely developed mortgage credit, the fi­nancing of farm circulating capital, and the dominating part played by capital invested in transport, elevator, irrigation, and other under­takings, then we have before us new ways in which capitalism pene­trates agriculture. These ways convert the farmers into a labor force working with other people's means of production. They convert agri­culture, despite the evident scattered and independent nature of the small commodity producers, into an economic system concentrated in a series of the largest undertakings and, through them, entering the sphere controlled by the most advanced forms of finance capitalism. It is not without cause that, according to Professor N. P. Makarov, only 35 percent of farmers' incomes coming from America's wholesale exchanges goes to the farmer; the remaining 65 percent is taken by railway, elevator, irrigation, finance, and trading capital.
Compared with this vertical capitalist concentration, the transfer of farms from 10 to 100 or 500 hectares, with the corresponding trans­fer of a considerable number of farmers from a semiproletarian to a clearly proletarian position, would be a small detail. And if this detail
The Family Farm      263
does not take place, it is evidently because capitalist exploitation gives a higher percentage from vertical than from horizontal concentration. Moreover, to a considerable extent it transfers the undertakings' risk from the owner of the capital to the farmer. This form of concentra­tion in agricultural production is characteristic of almost all young agricultural countries, which produce mass uniform produce for dis­tant, mainly export markets.
Sometimes this vertical concentration, in accord with the general economic situation, assumes, not capitalist, but cooperative or mixed forms. In this case, control of the system of trade, elevator, irrigation, credit, and processing undertakings that concentrate and guide agri­cultural production in part or in whole belongs, not to the holders of capital, but to the organized small commodity producers who have contributed their own capital to these undertakings or have been able *to create social capital.
The rise and development of cooperative elements in the vertical agricultural concentration becomes possible only in certain phases of this process, and a necessary precondition is the relative weakness of local capital. In this instance, we deliberately stress the word "rela­tive," because this relative weakness of local entrepreneur capitalists may result not only from their own absolute weakness but also from the wealth of the peasant farm (Denmark) or from the fact that be­hind the cooperatives may stand states, which finance their resources, or large-scale export or industrial capital, which requires propeT raw material. An obvious example of this process is the development of the Siberian dairying cooperatives.
At the end of the nineteenth century, after the great Siberian rail­way line had been laid, an exceptionally advantageous market situa­tion came about for the development of export dairying in western Siberia, based on abundant areas of feed. In the areas of Kurgan, Ishim, and other okrugs, small entrepreneurs appeared one after the other and soon covered the area with small creameries. Thus, they started the capitalist process of vertical concentration in west Siberian agriculture. In the course of decades, Siberian dairying, created by the small speculator, took the cream off the favorable market situa­tion, and came up against a severe crisis from the built-up excess ca­pacity and the fierce competition both in milk purchasing and in sell­ing butter. The creameries continued to operate for a number of years, not so much on their income from butter as on the profits of their stalls and the accounts of goods credited for milk. They dragged
on a pitiful existence; then, one by one, they began to close. Peasant farms that had already transformed themselves into commodity dairy­ing forms were threatened with heavy losses by this closure, and since they did not want to return to natural conditions, with the inevita­bility of history they had to face up to the question of taking over the closing factories by means of peasant artels.
The quality of the product from the cooperative factories that thus appeared was distinguished from the adulterated butter of the entre­preneurs. So, in their development, the cooperatives received finan­cial support from trading capital in the form of the Danish and Brit­ish export firms, which had Siberian offices in Kurgan and other towns, and they quickly squeezed the private entrepreneur out of dairying.
Thus, the concentration of Siberian dairying, started by small in­dustrial capital, continues, with the support of large-scale trading capital, in cooperative forms, and as it grows rapidly it soon breaks its link with export trading capital. The Siberian union of dairying artels itself appears on the London market and, relying on bank credit, frees itself from any influence of trading capital. In somewhat other forms, but in the same type of movement with different phases of connection with the capitalist groups, other forms of agricultural cooperation also developed before the war.
What has been said is quite enough to understand the essence of agricultural cooperation as a deep process of vertical concentration in agriculture. Moreover, it must be noted that in its cooperative forms this process goes much deeper than in its capitalist ones, since the peasant himself hands over to cooperative forms of concentration sectors of his farm that capitalism never succeeds in detaching from it in the course of their struggle. Such is our understanding of the vertical concentration of agricultural production in capitalist society —a concentration that penetrates both in purely capitalist and in cooperative forms.
In expounding this concept, we have approached the basic, chief, and most important question regarding the fate of our agriculture. Everyone knows the basic fact of our economy is that our republic is an agricultural country, where more than half the national income is derived from tillage and livestock farming. In accordance with this, our agriculture is a powerful general economic factor that goes far to determine the economy of the U.S.S.R.
Processing industry, mining, and transport, the main branches of
The Family Farm      265
which, in our republic, are concentrated in very large undertakings, are managed by or are under the control of state bodies. Unlike them, however, the social and economic structure of agriculture is an ele­mental complex of 18.5 million scattered small farms, developing under pressure from elemental factors and little subject to any con­trol.
If, speaking generally, we do not wish to risk the stability and flex­ible maneuverability of state capitalism, we cannot leave the chief sector of our economy in an elemental state of development. Since our agriculture is elemental in character, we shall always have to accept both our internal demand and raw material stocks, both in quantity and in quality, as something given. This also means a denial of freedom to develop planning and the processing industry. Un­doubtedly, a series of general economic policy measures as regards transport, customs, tax, and other spheres might sometimes have a great indirect effect on the creation and development of peasant farms. But this influence is insufficient for the tasks of state capitalism, and we ought to aim at direct organizational control of the elemental peasant farm.
With this initial proposition before us, we should acknowledge that a basic and very complex problem in our state capitalism is with what methods we may tie in this peasant element with the general system of state capitalism and, subordinating it to the controlling influence of state central agencies, introduce it into the general system of our state planned economy. In elaborating these methods, we should, however, take into account that the basic idea of state capitalism is a recognition of it as a transitional form to a final socialist organization of the economy.
In accordance with this, when we bind the elemental peasant na­ture by our measures and organize it into the general system of the U.S.S.R.'s planned economy we should also have in view this final aim: we ought to introduce elements into the future organization of agriculture, the further development of which would itself outgrow state capitalism and might be the basis for a future socialist economic system.
Such is the most important question in the contemporary phase of our economy's development and the most urgent problem for the U.S.S.R.'s economic policy. At the present time, there are no longer two opinions on this question, and all agricultural organizers assur­edly suppose that the main methods in the reorganization of our agri­
culture will be those of vertical concentration. We must agree with this, but for a fully conscious solution we should make clear to our­selves:
1. What internal changes should take place in the vertical concentra­tion of agriculture and, in particular, in its cooperative forms when re­placing a capitalist society regime with one of a transitional system of state capitalism and, subsequently, with a regime of socialist organization of production?
2. In today's organizational work for the peasant farm, do we need vertical concentration as an actual implement of economic policy, and in what forms?
Not much effort is required to answer the second question. Since organizational control of agricultural production processes is possible only by replacing scattered peasant farming with concentrated pro­duction forms, we should use every means to develop those processes in the life of the countryside which lead to this concentration.
The course of horizontal concentration with which we usually connect our conception of large-scale production in agriculture should in a country of small-scale peasant farming be thought of his­torically in forms of the elemental differentiation of peasant farms. This course is determined by the poorest part of the proletarian ele­ment in these farms, the decline of the middle peasants, and the con­centration of production in well-to-do categories, run on capitalist lines and using hired labor.
As is usually supposed, in its development this process should lead to the gradual creation of large and technically quite well-organized farms. At a certain moment in the formation of the socialist economy, these are supposed to be nationalized and to form a system of "grain and meat factories."
It is self-evident that in the conditions of Soviet policy in the countryside the presence of our land code and, in general, of a regime of land nationalization, this course is completely inapplicable. His­torically, further proletarianization of the peasantry can in no case play a part in Soviet policy. In the course of the Revolution, we not only could not concentrate the scattered lands into large-scale produc­tion units, but we also were historically obliged, on the contrary, to split up a considerable part of the land formerly available to the old, large-scale units.
In accordance with this, the sole form of horizontal concentration that at the present time may, and actually does, take place is the con­centration of peasant lands into large-scale production units. These
The Family Farm      267
take the form of every sort of agricultural collective, of communalized cooperatives, artels, and partnerships for joint working of the land, as far, of course, as they are created on peasant lands, and not by taking into exploitation an old estate.
This process is taking place on a considerable scale, but it is not, and cannot be, of such a massive size that we would be able to con­struct on it our whole policy of agricultural concentration. There­fore, the main form for the concentration of peasant farms can be only vertical concentration and, moreover, in its cooperative forms, since only in these forms will it be organically linked with agricultural production and be able to spread to its proper extent and depth. In other words, the course of cooperative collectivization is the sole course possible in our conditions to introduce into peasant farming the elements of the large-scale farm industrialization and the state plan. This means gradually and steadily splitting off particular sectors from individual farms, and organizing them in higher forms of large-scale social undertakings.
This conception of agricultural cooperation may be almost the only method of involving our agriculture in the system of state capi­talism, and at the present time this is our main task. Our agricultural cooperation originated long before the Revolution. Cooperation ex­isted and exists in a number of capitalist countries. However, both with us before the Revolution and in all capitalist countries, it was no more than adaptation of small commodity producers to conditions of capitalist society, no more than a weapon in the struggle for sur­vival. It was not and could not be a new social structure. The situa­tion completely changes as agricultural cooperation and its social capital—great concentration of production and the planned nature of its work—appear in socialist society or at least in our system of state capitalism and not in capitalist society.
In this case, precisely because of great vertical concentration and centralization of the cooperative system, the network through its cen­ters comes in contact with the leading bodies of the state economy. From a simple tool of petty commodity producers, created by them in their struggle for existence in capitalist society, the scheme is con­verted into one of the main components of the socialist production system. In other words, from a technical tool of a social group, or even class, it is converted into one of the bases of the new society's eco­nomic system.
This conception of the general economic significance of agricul­tural cooperation essentially predetermines the main lines of our
agricultural policy. However, if we foresee that this process will last a long while, we should adopt a program of cooperative forms of ver­tical concentration for agriculture, and should attempt through a system of cooperative combines and unions to establish a direct link between each peasant farm and the central bodies of state capitalism, thus bringing it into the general stream of the planned economy. Just as capitalism passed through successive phases of development from the primary forms of elementary trading capitalism and from the home workshop to the factory and the formation of trusts embracing the whole of industry, so state capitalism, developing in its coopera­tive forms as regards agriculture should inevitably pass through such a series in its historical development.
Usually starting with a unification of small producers in the prepa­ration of means of agricultural production, cooperation very rapidly proceeds to organize cooperative sales of agricultural produce. It forms gigantic unions that embrace hundreds of thousands of small producers. As operations of this middleman type acquire proper scope and stability, a smoothly working and strong cooperative machine is formed, and, what is particularly important, in analogy with the development of capitalism there takes place a primary accumulation of cooperative capital. Under pressure from the market, agricultural cooperation at this phase of its development moves with historical inevitability toward organizing primary processing of agricultural raw material (cooperatives in dairying, potato pulling, canning, flax scutching, and so on) in conjunction with its selling operations. It separates out the corresponding sectors from the peasant farm, in­dustrializes the countryside, and thus takes over all commanding posi­tions in its economy. In our circumstances, because of the assistance of the state and state credit, these development processes are speeded up, and may take place simultaneously and intermingle.
Having taken over sales and technical processing, agricultural co­operation thus concentrates and organizes agricultural production in new and higher forms. It obliges the small producer to change his farm's organizational plan according to cooperative selling and proc­essing policy, to improve his techniques, and to transfer to improved methods of tillage and livestock farming, insuring a fully standard product, subjecting it to careful sorting, processing, packing, and can­ning according to world market demand.
However, having achieved this success, cooperation inevitably goes further in the direction of greater involvement in the production sec­tors of the peasant farm (machine partnerships, stud farms, control and pedigree unions, joint working, irrigation, and so on). Moreover,
The Family Farm      269
part of the expenditures on these cooperative production forms are met and should be met in principle from the profits on sales, pur­chases, and credits.
With a parallel development of electrification, technical installa­tions of all kinds, systems of warehouses and public buildings, net­works of improved roads, and cooperative credit, the elements of social capital and the social economy increase quantitatively so much that the whole system changes qualitatively. It is converted from one of peasant farms that have formed cooperatives for some sectors of their economy to one of a social cooperative economy, founded on socialized capital, that leaves in the private farms of its members the technical fulfillment of certain processes almost on the basis of a technical commission.
Such is the origin of the new forms of agriculture based on the principle of vertical concentration. In its present situation, the coop­erative movement in various areas is in different phases of its gradual development. While in some guberniyas of the U.S.S.R. we see only the first beginnings of sales and purchasing cooperatives, such areas as the famous Shunga volost, the Borovichi-Valdai area, Velikie Soli, Burtsevo and Kurovo, Moscow guberniya, give us examples of coop­erative concentration penetrating into the very depths of agricultural production and sales.
These are the evolutionary forms of the peasant farm, as a sector of the economy. It has already started on this course and should con­tinue on it, come what may, unless you wish the vertical concentra­tion of agricultural production to take the capitalist variant. This would inevitably lead to most oppressive forms of capitalist exploita­tion.
In the peasant farm evolution we have described, we should finally trace those changes which, with the socialization of the individual links in the organizational plan, should be completed deep within the family farm by the mechanism of the on-farm equilibrium and with its characteristic process of capital formation.
In all probability, in the first phases of the development of coopera­tion these changes will not be particularly great. But, undoubtedly, with the quantitative increase of elements of social economy in our countryside we will encounter the development of a new economic psychology, and we expect that the evolution of the agriculture will, in many respects, be a gradual denial of those bases of the family farm which have been established in our study of the present-day peasant farm.
Advantage—On the peasant labor farm, the evaluation of comparative advantage is not based on the calcu­lation of net income, but is arrived at by the labor-consumer balance.
Balance, Labor-Consumer Balance —The calculation, not necessarily explicit or conscious, which estab­lishes the basic economic equilib­rium between drudgery of labor and demand satisfaction. The main eco­nomic aim is to organize the year's work to meet a single family de­mand, including the desire to save or invest capital if possible.
Commune, Repartitional Commune —A peasant commune that practices periodical redivision or partition of the commune lands among its members.
Consumer Rate—The area of field cul­tivation with which the peasant fam­ily will meet its minimum consump­tion needs.
Crafts and Trades—Economic activi­ties, usually of primary extractive type but including cottage crafts and other forms of, often seasonal, nonagricultural work.
Demand Satisfaction—One of the ele­ments in the labor-consumer bal­ance.
Russian —vygodnos t'. German—der Vorteil. French —les avantages.
Russian—trudo-potrebitel'skii ba-lans.
German—die Arbeits-Verbraucher balance.
French —1'appreciation de la d£-pense de travail et de la satis­faction des besoins.
Russian—peredel'nay a obshchina. German—die   Wiederverteilungs
Kommune. French —commune pratiquant la
redistribution periodique des
Russian—potrebitel'skaya norma. German—die Verbrauchernorm. French —norme   de   consumma­tion.
Russian—promysly. German—das Handwerk. French —metiers.
Russian—udovletvorenie  potreb-nostei.
German—die  Bedarfsbefriedi­gung.
♦The Russian and German terms given in this glossary are those used by Chayanov or his German translators. In a few cases the usage (and, consequently, the English and French versions given here) differs from that usually found.
French —la satisfaction des be-soins.
Desyatina—A Russian unit of area measure: 2.7 acres or 1.1 hectares.
Drudgery of Labor—One of the ele­ments in the labor-consumer bal­ance.
Russian—tyagostnost' truda. German—die  Arbeitsbeschwer­lichkeit.
French —la fatigue due au tra­vail.
Economic Expenditures—All outlays in money and kind for production, not consumption, including expend­iture on circulating capital and on capital renewal and formation.
Economic Unit—A production and consumption unit, often a farm, but it may be in cottage industry or con­sist of urban artisans, for example.
Equilibrium, Basic (Economic) Equi­librium—The result of the labor-consumer balance struck between demand satisfaction and drudgery of labor.
Russian—khozyaistvennye ras-khody.
German—wirtschaftliche Aufwen­dungen.
French —les couts de production.
Russian —khozy aistvo. German—die Wirtschaft. French —exploitation.
Russian—osnovnoe (khozy aistven-noe) ravnovesie.
German—das fundamentale wirt­schaftliche Gleichgewicht.
French —l^quilibre des depenses de travail et des besoins.
Family, Labor Family—A family that Russian—trudovaya sem'ya.
forms an economic unit and relies German—die Arbeitsfamilie,
on itself for labor without recourse French —la famille ouvriere. to wage labor. It may be engaged in agriculture on a family farm or in urban artisan activities.
Family Unit—An economic unit based on the labor of a family group, not necessarily the nuclear family. Usu­ally, the unit is a family farm, but it may be in cottage industry or consist of urban artisans, for example. In any case, there is no hired wage labor.
Russian—semeinoe khozyaistvo. German—die Familienwirtschaft. French —Vexploitation familiale.
Farm—The production and consump-
Russian —khozyaistvo.
Glossary      273
tion unit which makes its living from the land, sometimes with sup­plements from nonagricultural sources (see crafts and trades). A particular form of economic unit.
1. Family Farm—A farm normally run by a family without hired outside wage labor, sometimes in part engaging in nonagricultural crafts and trades. Since there is no wage category, analysis in terms of normal capitalist cate­gories is inapplicable. Moreover, the motivation of such a farm is not profit but the labor-con­sumer balance. Some writers use this term for capitalist family farms, which may, of course, hire wage labor. Such a farm is called a farmer unit in Chayanov's ter­minology.
2. Labor Farm—A farm normally relying on its own, not hired, la­bor, and without the category of wages. The peasant labor farm (see, also, No . 3) is a form of family farm.
3. (Peasant) Family Labor Farm— A peasant farm normally run without wage labor. The family of such a farm may not coincide with the nuclear family. It may include married children, grand­children, and also "adopted" family members (i.e., workers from other families who live in), and it may exclude members that work elsewhere. The family as a result of its year's labor receives a single labor income (see prod­uct) and weighs its efforts against the material results obtained (see labor-consumer balance).
German—die bauerliche Wirt­schaft.
French —exploitation agricole.
Russian—semeinoe     khozyaistvo (see, also, family unit).
German—die  Familienwirtschaft (see, also, family unit).
French —exploitation agricole familiale.
Russian—trudovoe khozyaistvo. German—die Arbeitswirtschaft. French —exploitation bas£e sur le
travail des membres de la fa-
Russian—(krest'yanskoe) trudovoe semeinoe khozyaistvo.
German—die bäuerliche Fami­lienwirtschaft.
French —exploitation paysanne familiale.
4. Peasant Farm—A peasant eco­nomic unit that makes a living
Russian—krest'yanskoe   khozyai­stvo.
from the land, though its activi­ties may also take place in non-agricultural sectors, mainly crafts and trades. It may be capitalist in nature, a farmer unit, or linked to the market and employing wage labor, at least in part. Often, however, this term is used to indicate the peasant family la­bor farm, in which there is no hired wage labor and which thus differs fundamentally from the capitalist farm. Confusion may arise because of (a) the Anglo-American usage of the term fam­ily farm for enterprises in capi­talist economy and (b) Chaya­nov's use of peasant farm rather than peasant family labor farm.
German—die Bauernwirtschaft. French —exploitation paysanne.
Peasant Labor Farm—A form of the peasant farm, not of the semi-proletarian or semicapitalist type but, like the family farm, not hav­ing wage labor.
Russian— krest'yanskoe trudovoe khozyaistvo.
German—die bäuerliche Arbeits­wirtschaft.
French —exploitation paysanne de main d'oeuvre familiale.
Farm Family—A family that runs a farm (or other family-based eco­nomic unit).
Russian—khozyaistvuyushchaya sem'ya.
German—die wirtschaftende Fam­ilie.
French —la famille exploitante.
Farmer Unit—A farm that in part re­lies on its own family labor, but uses some hired wage labor and aims at making profits; a half-labor, half-capitalist unit.
Russian—fermerskoe khozyaistvo. German—die Farmerwirtschaft. French — l'exonomie fermi£re.
Farming, Peasant Farming—The eco­nomic activity of the peasant farm, in the narrow sense restricted to ag­ricultural activity, but sometimes used in a broader sense to include activity in the nonagricultural sec­tor by members of the farm family (see crafts and trades).
Russian—krest'yanskoe   khozyai­stvo.
German—die Bauernwirtschaft. French —exploitation paysanne.
Glossary      275
Guberniya—A major administrative unit of the Russian Empire. Euro­pean Russia was divided into 49 such units (and one oblast).
Kulak—A Russian word—literally, "fist"—for a richer peasant or trader who may employ outside labor.
Labor Payment—On the peasant la­bor or family farm, the total amount of annual income, after deducting outlays, available to the family.
Labor Rate—The amount of arable that, with normal intensity, uses the total labor force on a family labor farm indicates the labor rate. This amount is under constraint from the most critical labor intensive period, usually harvesting.
Labor Unit—An economic unit that operates without hired wage labor. Like the family unit, it may exist in agriculture, cottage industry or in urban artisan sector.
National Economy—The economy of the state taken as a whole. In its adjectival form, this term is some­times contrasted with the private economy, the individual microeco-nomic unit.
Partition—See repartitional com­mune.
Partition, Black Partition—Elemen­tal peasant seizure and partition of the land.
Pound—The Russian pound (funt) weight 0.9 pounds avoirdupois, 0.4 kilograms.
Private Economic—Relating to an economic unit or units within the
Russian—oplata truda. German—Arbeitsverdienst. French —remuneration   du   tra­vail.
Russian—trudovaya norma. German—die Arbeitsnorm. French —norme de travail en Pe­riode de pointe.
Russian—trudovoe khozyaistvo. German—die Arbeitswirtschaft. French—exploitation bas£e uni-
quement sur le travail de la
Russian—narodnoe khozyaistvo. German—die Wirtschaft. French — £conomie nationale.
Russian—peredel. German—die Verteilung. French —redistribution.
Russian—chernyi peredel. German—Schwartze Verteilung. French —partage violent des ter-res par les paysans.
Russian —chastno-khozyaistven-nyi.
national economy as a whole; micro-economic as distinct from macroeco-nomic.
1. Gross Product—Total family an­nual income, both from farming in general and from crafts and trades.
2. Net Product—The gross product, less expenditures on the farm and all outlays on capital renewal. See, also, labor payment.
Pud—A Russian weight, 36 pounds avoirdupois, 16.4 kilograms. 1 pud per desyatina = 13.3 pounds per acre.
German—privatwirtschaftlich. French —d'£conomie priv£e.
Russian—valovaya   priozvoditel'
nost'. German—Rohertrag. French —produit brut.
Russian—chistaya proizvoditel'-nost'.
German—Reinertrag. French —produit net
Rent (Payments)—The amount paid for hired land.
Russian —arenda.
French —loyer de la terre.
Rent, Economic Rent—(a) Unearned income due to a particular location or the quality of land. General eco­nomic factors, such as price fluctua­tions, improvements in technique, and increased fertility, may help to generate economic rent, (b) The German terms Grundrente (rent from the land) and Bodenrente (rent from the soil) are used, apparently in this sense, in Chayanov's article "On the theory of noncapitalistic economic systems." He uses the terms Sklavenrente (slave rent) and Leibeigenrente (serf rent) in an analogous fashion for income that results from owning slaves or serfs. (c) The Russian term, renta, is sometimes (e.g., page 39) used to translate the English term "rent" in the sense of rent payments.
Russian—renta. German—Rente. French —rente fon<:iere.
Sazhen—A Russian measure of length: 2.3 yards, 2.1 meters.
Glossary      277
Sokha—The basic wooden tillage im­plement in the Russian countryside in the early twentieth century; it had two (or more) teeth, and, strictly speaking, was an ard, or scratchplow.
Uezd—A territorial administrative unit, a subdivision of a guberniya. Around 1900, an average European uezd had a population approaching 200,000, but there were wide varia­tions.
Vedro—A Russian liquid measure, 12.3 liters, about 22 pints.
Versta—A Russian unit of linear mea­sure, 0.66 miles or 1.07 kilometers.
Volost—A rural area administrative subdivision of an uezd; the pri­mary administrative unit for the peasants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Worker—Someone who works, but not Russian—rabotnik.
necessarily, as in current Soviet ter- German—der Arbeiter,
minology, one who receives a wage. French —ouvrier. It includes those who work on a family farm and have a share in the labor payment.
Zemstvo—Elective local rural council instituted at guberniya and uezd level after the liberation of the serfs in Russia.
Bibliography of A. V. Chayanov
(Compiled by the editors, principally B. Kerblay, with the help of the Centre de Documentation sur l'U.R.S.S. et les Pays Slaves of the £cole Pratique des Hautes £tudes, Sixieme Section, Sorbonne, Paris.)
The bibliography has been arranged in three sections:
I. Economic studies (books, articles, reports).
II. Other works (history, literature, arts).
III. Studies edited or prefaced by Chayanov.
This list has been made on the basis of Chayanov's works accessible in a number of the main European and American libraries. The bib­liography does not pretend to be complete, because Chayanov's writ­ings are widely scattered and not easy to trace. Nonetheless, the list may be useful because it is as exhaustive as we have been able to make it. We believe it includes his principal works and a wide variety of his lesser studies and articles, including some tales and a peasant Uto­pia. To indicate where these works may be found, we have used the following abbreviations:
BDIC   Paris, Bibliotheque de Documentation
International Contemporaine. BM   London, British Museum. BN   Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale. HL   Stanford, California, Hoover Library. LC   Washington, Library of Congress. LL   Moscow, Lenin Library NYPL   New York Public Library.
A few items have also turned up in the libraries of Harvard Univer­sity, the University of Helsinki, the London School of Economics, and the International Labor Organization in Geneva. We have indi­cated these at the appropriate places in the list.
I.   Economic Studies 1909
Kooperatsiya v seVshorn khozyaistve Italii (Cooperatives in Italian agricul­ture). Moskva: tip. F. Burche, 22 cm., pp. 18, tab., diag.
Sel'sko-khozyaistvennyi Kredit v Belgii (Agricultural credit in Belgium). Moskva.
Obshchestvennye meropriyatiya po skotovodstvu v Belgii (Social measures relating to livestock farming in Belgium). Moskva. In 8°, 44 pp., doklad soedinnennomy zasedaniyu komiteta skotovodstva i komiteta o sel'sk. ssudosberegatel'nykh i prom, tovarishchestvakh.
Strakhovanie skota v Belgii (Livestock insurance in Belgium). Moskva.
Yuzhnaya granitsa rasprostraneniya trekhpoVnoi sistemy polevago khozya­istva na krest'yanskikh polyakh k nachalu XX veka (The southern limit of the three-course system on peasant fields at the start of the twentieth century). St. Petersburg.
K voprosu o znachenii Vna v organizatsionnom plane krest'yanskago kho­zyaistva nechernozemnoi Rossii (On the significance of flax in the orga­nization plan of the peasant farm in non-Black Earth Russia). Moskva.
Uchastkovaya agronomiya i organizatsionnyi plan kresfyanskago kho­zyaistva (Agricultural advice in parcellated farming and the peasant farm's organizational plan). Trudy Moskovskogo oblastnogo s"ezda deyatelei agronomicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniyu, Moskva, t. 2.
Doklad S"ezda deyatelei agronomicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniyu (Report of the Congress of Agricultural Officers [Agronomists] advising the pub­lic). In Trudy Moskovskogo oblastnogo . . . , t. 2.
Nekotorye dannye o znachenii kul'tury kartofelya dlya krest'yanskago khozyaistva nechernozemnoi Rossii (Some data on the significance of potato cultivation for peasant farming in non-Black Earth Russia). Moskva.
Krest'yanskoe khozyaistvo v Shveitsarii (Peasant Farming in Switzerland). Moskva: 23 cm., ott. iz zhurn "VSKh," pp. 29.
Kooperativnoe strakhovanie skota (Cooperative insurance of Livestock). Khar'kovskoi sel'sk. kooperatsii, tip. Mechatnik, 23 cm., pp. 79, tab.
Opyt anketnago issledovaniya denezhnykh elementov krest'yanskago khozyaistva Moskovskoi gubernii (Research by questionnaire on money items in the peasant farm in Moscow guberniya). Moskva: Moskovskoe obshchestvo sel'skogo khozyaistva (MOSKh). 67 + 4 pp.
Bibliography of A. V. Chayanov      281
BN   4° S. 5978 Helsinki, University
LL  B5T9~
Len i drugie kuVtury v organizatsionnom plane krest'yanskago khozyaistva nechernozemnoi Rossii (Flax and other crops in the organizational plan of the peasant farm in non-Black Earth Russia). 2 fasc. Moskva: t. 1, Tablitsy. (Seminarii s. kh. statistiki Prof. A. V. Fortunatova pri Mosk. s. kh. inst.)
Vypusk 1. Volokolamskii uezd, Moskva. Moskovskoe obshchestvo sel'-
skogo khozyaistva (MOSKh), LXXV-198 + 1 pp. Vypusk 2. Smolenskaya guberniya, Moskva. Moskovskoe obshchestvo
sel'skogo khozyaistva (MOSKh), 1913. LIII-209 + 2 pp.
BN   4° S.5983 (1)
440 440
LL and W 4™
77 79
Ocherki po teorii trudovogo khozyaistva (Essays on labor farm theory). 2 fasc. Moskva. (MOSKh).
Vypusk 1. Sootnoshenie proizvodstva i potrebleniya (Relations of pro­duction and consumption). Moskva: tip. "Pechatnoe delo," 1912. 24 pp.
Vypusk 2. Osnovy slozheniya potrebiteVskago byudzheta, (Fundamen­tal elements of a budget of consumption). Moskva: T-vo tip. Mamon-tova, 1913. 91 pp., incl. tab., diag.
BN   4° R.7939 (1)
LC   RD 7035 C5 (fasc. 2 only)
Helsinki, University
LL   F^andF^
Organizatsiya Vnovodnykh khozyaistv Moskovskoi i Smolenskoi gubernii po dannym spetsiaVnykh ekspeditsii (The organization of flax farms in the Moscow and Smolensk guberniyas according to the data of special expeditions). Moskva: tip. I. N. Kushnereva.
LL vi
Ekonomicheskaya storona melioratsii v krest'yanskom khozyaistve (The economic aspect of amelioration on the peasant farm). Moskva: t-vo. tip. A. I. Mamontova.
LL V— ^   V949
Proizvodstvo i potreblenie sei'sko-khozyaistvennykh produktov vo Fran-tsii (Production and consumption of agricultural produce in France).
Proekt organizatsii ekonomicheskago obsledovaniya Valuiskago uezda (A draft proposal for organizing an economic survey of Valuiki uezd. Valuiki.
Kooperativnoe strakhovanie skota vo Frantsii (Cooperative insurance of livestock in France). Moskva.
Znachenie mashiny v trudovom i kapitalisticheskom khozyaistve (Signifi­cance of the machine in a labor farm and in a capitalist farm). St. Petersburg.
K voprosu o podgotovke agronomov (On the problem of training agricul­tural officers). Moskva. 23 pp.
TT     W262
Voina i krest'yanskoe khozyaistvo (War and the peasant economy). Moskva: I. N. Kushnerev i Ko. In 12°, 16 pp. (Voina i kul'tura, No. 31).
NYPL   Q.I. p.v. 48 154
LL vl
Byudzhetnye issledovaniya i ikh znachenie (Budget inquiries and their significance). St. Petersburg.
Opyt razrabotki byudzhetnykh dannykh po sto odnomu khozyaistvu Staro-beVskago uezda Khar'kovskoi gubernii (An attempt to process budget data for 101 farms in Starobel'sk uezd, Khar'kov guberniya). Moskva: t. 1 Vvedenie, istoriya byudzhetnykh issledovanii, tip. V. Vengerova. 114 pp.
BN 4°V.19965 (1) Helsinki, University
- vf
Byudzhety krest'yan StarobeVskago uezda (Peasant budgets from Staro­bel'sk uezd). Khar'kov: izd. Khar'kovskoi gubernskoi zemskoi upravy. 130-159 + 1-24 pp., errata.
BN   4° S.5982
Normy potrebleniya sel'skago naseleniya po dannym byudzhetnykh issle­dovanii, predvaritel'nyi raschet (The rural population's consumption norms according to budget inquiry data). St. Petersburg.
Kratkii kurs kooperatsii (A short course on cooperatives). Moskva: Lektsii, chit, na Staroobryadchesk. sel'sk. kursakh v Moskve, pod red. A. A. Zubrilina, 73 pp., ill.
Bibliography of A. V. Chayanov      283
LL V^-^   V310
(Cf. 1919 ed., below.)
HL   HD 3515 C 433
L'nyanoi rynok (The flax market). Moskva.
Soyuzi skotovodov vo Frantsii (Unions of livestock growers in France). Moskva.
"Dolzhen Ii zemskii agronom rabotat' v kooperativakh?" ("Should the zemstvo agricultural officer work in cooperatives?"), Kooperativnoe zhizn', No. 1.
Obshchii obzor Vnyanogo rynka i ego sostoyanie v sezone 1915-1916 god (A general survey of the flax market and its condition in the 1915-1916 season). Moskva: Izdanie Tsentral'nogo tovarishchestva l'novodov. 30 pp.
TT       AT141
ProdovoVstvennyi vopros: lektsii, chitannyya na kursakh po podgotovke rabotnikov po kuVturno-prosvetiteVnoi deyateVnosti pri Sovete studen-cheskikh deputatov v aprele 1917 (The provisions problem; lectures given to trainees for cultural and educational work at the Council of Student Deputies, April 1917). Moskva: Izd. Moskovskogo soveta studen-cheskikh deputatov. in 4°, 54 pp.
Harvard Slavic   1728.535
HL   HD9015R9C43
Chto takoe agrarnyi vopros? (What is the agrarian problem?) Moskva: "Universal'naya biblioteka." In 8°, 63 pp. (Liga agrarnykh reform, Se-riya C, No. 1.)
Helsinki, University LC   HD 715.C5
LL   U5§6
HL   HD 715 6434
Osnovnye voprosy agrarnoi reformy na 2-m Vserossiiskom syyezde Ligi agrarnykh reform (Basic problems of agrarian reform at the Second All-Russian Congress of the Agrarian Reform League) (incl. reports by A. V. Chayanov, B. D. Brutskus, A. N. Chelintsev, et al.). Moskva.
Osnovnye usloviya uspekha kooperativnogo sbyta produktov sel'sko-khozyaistva (Basic conditions for successful cooperative selling of agri­cultural produce). Moskva.
Russkoe l'novodstvo, Vnyanoi rynok i Vnyanaya kooperatsiya (Russian flax farming, the flax market, and cooperatives). Moskva: tip. t-va. "Koopera-tivnoe izdateTstvo." in 4°, 177 pp., incl. diag., tab., ill. (Tsentral'noe to-varishchestvo l'novodov).
NYPL   QCC p.v. 253 LL   Wf
Organizatsiya severnago kresVyanskogo khozyaistva (The organization of the northern peasant farm). Yaroslavl': Yaroslavskii kreditnyi soyuz ko-operativov. in 8°, 121 pp., incl. diag., tab. (Posobiya dlya kooperativno-obshchestvennoi shkoly i kursov) pod red. V. A. Kil'chevskogo, No. 3.
HL   HD 1536 R9C43 ^   V387
LC   HD 1536 R9C43
Osnovnyya idei i metody raboty obshchestvennoi agronomii (Basic ideas and work methods in agricultural advice to the public) [Cf. 1924, below, Social agronomy]. Moskva: Moskovskoe tovarishcheskoe knigoizdatel'-stvo po voprosam ekonomii i politiki. In 8°, 123 4- 1, III pp., diag.
LC   HD1411C434 LL
^   U139
^Cf. 1922 edition in 135 pp.-LL   v|||^
Kapitaly kresVyanskogo khozyaistva i ego kreditovanie pri agrarnoi re-forme (Peasant farm capital and the granting of credits under the agrarian reform). Moskva: Tipo. lit. N. Zheldukovoi. In 8°, 32 pp., incl. diag. tabl.
LC   HD 715 C435 t t    w 262
HL   HD 715 C435
Organizatsiya kooperativnago sbyta (The organization of cooperative sales). Moskva. In 8°, 80 pp. (Sovet Vserossiiskikh kooperativnykh s"ezdov).
LC   HD 3271 C43 242
^Cf. 1922 edition in 90 pp.-LL   w|y|^
Bibliography of A. V. Chayanov      285
Priroda krest'yanskago khozyaistva i zemeVnyi rezhim (The land regime and the nature of the peasant economy) (reports by A. V. Chayanov and N. P. Makarov) (Liga agrarnykh reform, Trudy III, Vseross. s"ezda Ligi agrarnykh reform, vypusk I). Moskva. In 8°, III + 10 + 45 + 11 pp.
Ocherki po teorii vodnogo khozyaistva (An outline theory of hydraulic economy [water control] in farming). Mosk. tovarishchestvo kn-vo po voprosam s.-kh. ekonomii i politiki, 22 cm., 25 pp.
Pamyatka Vnovoda-kooperatora (Booklet of the flax-cooperator). (Tsentral'­noe tovarishchestvo l'novodov. Vserossiiskii soyuz krest'yan-l'novodov). Moskva: Izd. tsentral'nogo tov-va l'novodov. In 16°, 23 pp.
Osnovnye idei i formy organizatsii krest'yanskoi kooperatsii (Basic ideas and organizational forms in peasant cooperatives). Moskva: tip. T. Dort-mana. In 8°, 343 (1) pp., incl. diag. tab. (Sovet Vserossiiskikh koopera-tivnykh s"ezdov).
LC   HD 1491 A305 242
LL  W713
HL   HD 3535 C 434
Kratkii kurs kooperatsii (A short course on cooperatives). Moskva: izd. 2-e pererabot. i dopolnennoe Sov. Vseross. kooperativnykh s"ezdov. In 8°, 78 pp. 2° edition, revised and enlarged.
HL   HD 3515 C433
Opyty izucheniya izolirovannogo gosudarstva (Attempts to study the iso­lated state). Moskva: in Trudy Vysshego seminariya sel'skokhozyai-stvennoi ekonomii i politiki, vypusk, 1, pp. 5-36.
BDIC   Q 2060
BM   8287 d4
LL V^ ^   V767
HL   HD 1992 M891 v.l
Nomograficheskie elementy ekonomicheskoi geografli (Nomographic ele­ments in economic geography). Moskva: in Trudy Vysshego semina­riya . . . , vypusk 1, pp. 65-74.
BDIC   Q 2060
BM   8287 d4
TT y2^ ^   V767
Ponyatie vygodnosti sotsialisticheskogo khozyaistva (The concept of ad­vantage in the socialist economy), pp. 5-76. In Metody bezdenezhnogo
ucheta khozyaistvennykh predpriyatii (Methods of nonmonetary ac­counting in economic undertakings). Moskva. In 8°, 98 pp., in Trudy, Vysshego seminariya . . . vypusk 2. (In collaboration with A. L. Vain-shtein.)
BM   8287 d41 BDIC
Ekonomicheskie osnovy kuVtury kartofelya (The economic basis of potato growing). Moskva. In 8°, 23 pp., in Trudy Vysshego seminariya ekonomii i politikii, vypusk 4.
BM   8287 d41
LL V^ ^   V608
HL   HD 1992 M891 v.4
Potreblenie g. Moskvy v 1919 godu (Consumption in the City of Moscow in 1919). Moskva. Trudy, Vysshego seminariya, vypusk 3.
OptimaVnye razmery zemledeVcheskikh khozyaistv (Optimal sizes of agri­cultural enterprises)', in the collection, Problemy zemleustroistva, op-timaVnye razmery zemledeVcheskogo khozyaistva, kolichestvennyi uchet effekta zemleustroistva (Problems of land use: optimal farm size; re­cording the quantitative effects of land use measures), Trudy Vysshego seminariya sersko-khozyaistvennoi ekonomii i politiki pri Petrovskoi sel'sko-khozyaistvennoi Akademii, vypusk 7, pp. 5-84, Moskva, izd-vo "Novaya Derevnya."
BN   8° R.5830 (7)
Osnovnyya idei i metody raboty obshchestvennoi agronomii (Basic ideas and work methods in agricultural advice to the public). Izd. 2-oe, do-polnennoe. Moskva: Izdat. Narkomzema. In 4°, 135 pp.
LL V^ LL   V827
DA   (Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)
Organizatsiya kooperativnogo sbyta (The organization of cooperative sales). 2-oe dop. izd. Moskva: Izd. Vserossiiskogo soyuza sel'sko-khozyai-stvennoi kooperatsii. 90 pp.
LC   HD 3271.C43 242
LL w7if
Istoriya byudzhetnykh issledovanii (A history of budget research). 2-oe dop. izd. Moskva: Izd. Tsentral'nogo statisticheskogo upravleniya. In 8°, 133 pp., inc. tab., fig. (together with G. Studenskii).
Bibliography of A. V. Chayanov      287
BN   4° V. 19840 LC   HD 6987.C43 NYPL   QIP
T T      W440
LL   W-^
"Gegenwärtiger Stand der landwirtschaftlichen Ökonomie in Russland" ("The present state of agricultural economics in Russia"), Schmollers Jahrbuch, 46 Jahrgang, pp. 731 ff.
Die Lehre von der bäuerlichen Wirtschaft. Versuch einer Theorie der Familienwirtschaft im Landbau (The theory of peasant economy. Test of a theory of family economy in agriculture). Von A. Tschajanow, unter Mitwirkung des Verfassers aus dem Russischen übersetzt von Fr. Schlömer. Mit einem Vorwort von Dr. Otto Auhagen. Berlin: P. Parey. In 8°, 132 pp., diag. tab.
Harvard Slav.   3099.23 NYPL
Paris,   Fac. Droit, 15012
LSE   London School of Economics
[This study of the theory of peasant economy was translated into Japa­nese by Professor Isobe Hidetoshi and was published in Tokyo in 1927 under the title, Shonö keizai no genri.]
"Die neueste Entwicklung der Agrarökonomie in Russland" ("The latest development of agricultural economics in Russia"), Archiv für Sozial­wissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Band 50, pp. 238 ff.
Sovremennoe sostoyanie Vnyanogo rynka i vozmozhnye perspektivy sbyta russkikh Vnov (The present state of the flax market and future possibili­ties for the sale of Russian flax). London, "Tsentrosoyuz."
LL   W,
"Zur Frage einer Theorie der nichtkapitalistischen Wirtschaftssysteme" ("On the theory of non-capitalist economic systems"), von A. Tschaya-noff, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Band 51, pp. 577-613.
Ocherki po ekonomike trudovogo seVskogo khozyaistva (Essays on the economics of labor farming). Moskva: s predisloviem L. Kritsmana. In 8°, 152 pp. (Narodnyi komissariat zemledeliya RSFSR).
BM   SN 16/24
LL wm>

No comments:

Post a Comment