On the other hand, we see increasing in number, with alarming rapidity, societies in which the principle of community isapplied even more rigorously than in the Russian mir , and where all distinction of meum and tuum is strictly proscribed. Irefer to religious houses. Once grant these houses a civil personality and a right to take landed property on the same title asindividuals, and the struggle between individualism and collectivity will not remain long undecided. Within a hundred yearsreligious houses will be temporal lords of the land in every catholic country; and the whole soil will be in their hands.
Under the old system, every sovereign, -- even the most devoted to the church, such as Philip II and Maria Theresa, -- wasconstantly issuing law upon law to stop the encroachments of mortmain. Modern laws forbid religious bodies to exist as civilpersons or to hold property as such: yet we see them multiplying under our eyes in France, in Belgium, in Holland, Prussiaand England; -- in every country where violent revolutions have not expelled them, as in Spain, Italy or Portugal. Theirwealth and power increase in proportion as the most firmly established governments have recourse to exceptional measuresfor their limitation. In Belgium they will soon be strong enough to brave all opposition and to dictate their wishes to thelegislature and the sovereign. With a legislation such as that of the United States on the subject of foundations and civilpersons, religious communities would eventually usurp the whole soil.
The example of religious houses may help us to understand the existence of village communities. Undoubtedly man alwayspursues his own individual interest. He seeks happiness and shuns pain; and the more perfect the organisation ofresponsibility, the more will he be compelled to do well and to labour. But as faith discloses to him the perspective of eternalfelicity in another life, it may be, that to become worthy of this, he will work here below obediently and devotedly, as incertain monasteries.
Custom and tradition also exercised, in primitive times, an influence of which moderns can scarcely conceive. It is under theinfluence of these motives that agricultural labour is carried on in village communities. Besides, notwithstanding the periodicpartition of lands, it is always to the advantage of the cultivator to till it well, as he alone takes the harvest, be it good orbad. This practice, therefore, strange as it appears, does not prevent the usufructuaries giving the soil good manure andproper dressings. The Irish tenant at will, or even the tenant who has only a short lease of three or six years, a termunfortunately too common, has still less security for the future than the Russian peasant, from whom the mir, every nine ortwelve years, takes the field which he cultivates, only to give him others of at least equal value.
If the soil of Russia is badly cultivated by the peasants, it is because, until lately bowed beneath the yoke of serfage, theywant instruction, motive, and energy. A visit to the arable land of the allmends in Switzerland and the district of Baden issufficient to prove that the system of temporary enjoyment is not the cause of the backward state of rural economy. The allmends are also divided from time to time among the usufructuaries, and yet they are in a perfect state of cultivation,while, on the other hand, in Russia, the lands, which are the private property of the nobles, are no better cultivated than thelands of the communes.
What periodic partition does prevent, in great measure, is permanent and costly improvement, which a temporary possessorwill not execute, as another would reap the profits. It is in this respect that the village community is evidently inferior toindividual property. None but the hereditary proprietor will make the sacrifice necessary for the permanent improvement ofsterile soil, and for sinking the capital necessity for perfect, intensive cultivation. In all western Europe we have to admirethe marvels accomplished by private ownership; while, in Russia, agriculture abides by the processes of two thousand yearsago.
Yet there would be nothing to prevent the commune itself executing large permanent works, for irrigation, drainage orroads, such as are cared out by the communal administration of the towns and the Allmends in Switzerland. By the use ofcollective resources and combined labour, much more complete results are obtained than by the isolated, intermittent, andinsufficient efforts of individuals. If nothing of the kind is done in Russia it is for want of information, and not inconsequence of any incurable defect in the agrarian system.
The results of community and periodic partition are not at all alike in the two great agricultural divisions of Russia.
In the circle of the "black" soil the land gives abundant harvests without manure and almost without labour. So long as thepeasants are content with growing corn, there is no necessity to sink a large capital in the land; they need only till it andgather in the harvest. The system of partition is, therefore, no obstacle to works of improvement, which the cultivator wouldnot execute in any case. The alluvial lands of the Banat in Hungary, and those of Moldavia, although subject to privateownership, are no better cultivated than the "black" soil of Russia under the system of community.
