The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1901-09-26
viii Socialism appropriate
the Farmers?
By VICToR L. BERGER.

development, of concentration in indus
try, and it is based solely upon large
production (grossbetrieb).
But there was no such concentration
perceptible in our agriculture during the
last thirty years.
In spite of few bonanza farms in
California and Dakota, the average val
Tie of farm in South Dakota was, in
1890, $I,846, while in South Carolina il
was $I,85I.
Virginia's average farm was valued
at $2,747.
Michigan figured in the census list OF
z8oo with an average of 2,768 per farm
Wisconsin's average farm was worth
$3,oo5; Connecticut's, $3,115.
The average price for the farms OF
Kansas was 5000; in Massachusetts,
$3,I58; in Illinois, $4,000.
The figures of the last census are not
at our disposal as yet, but enough has
been printed to. show that there is no
tendency towards concentration; in fact,
the tendency is the other way, towards
smaller and middle sized farms.
The average size of a farm in the
United States was 1873 acres in 1890; ac-
cording to the census of 1900 it will be
shown that it is few acres less at pres
ent.
Therefore to talk about collectivism
in land in this country at the present
time, or for long time to come, is the
height Of folly.
But the Transformation of the present
system into the Socialist system DOES
NOT REQUIRE COLLECTIVISM in
all the means of production at once.
1t requires it only in such industries
where Socialist production is possible
and necessary.
And collectivism is the FINAL AIM
of SOCIALISM and NOT ITS BE-
GINNING.
Collectivism is now possible and neces-
sary in very many branches, especially
in those that have reached the form of a
monopoly or a trust, and have thereby
proved that they have outgrown the COM
.petitive system.
Furthermore, collectivism is now pos
'sible and necessary in mining of every
description, and in the ownership and
management of all the means of trans
portation and in the various public utili-
ties.
But in land in our country COLLECTIVE
ism is not possible now and will not be
for long time to come.
This is a fact, and we, as Socialists,
ought not to ignore facts, because they
do not suit our fancy.
The question then is, what are we to
do? Are we to wait until the concentra-
ton has taken place in agriculture?
For reasons not necessary to explain
here, the effect of new inventions in
agricultural machinery has only tended
to strengthen the middle-sized farm, and
therefore we might have to wait too long
for concentration. The city proletariat,
even if it should unite to the very last
man, will surely never be able to take
away these farms by force as long as
there are over FIVE million individual
owners. But again I say, we do not
have 10 take them, nor the small indus
tries Of any description, in order to in
troduce Socialism.
Says Kautsky (Erfurter Programme,
page 1907:
1t is the large production (grossbe-
trieb) which makes the Socialist system
necessary. Social production requires
social ownership of the means of produc-
ton. But for exactly the same reason
that private ownership in the implements
by the individual is repugnant to social
production by the many, as now carried
on in large Observation-Disclosures, would
common or social ownership in the in
struments of labor be repugnant to pro-
duction on an individual scale (kleinbe-
trieb).
Individual production requires private
ownership of the means of production.
The appropriation of these would be the
more senseless, since it is the aim of
Socialism to place into the hands of
workers the necessary means of produc-
ton. In small industries and farms the
appropriation of the means of production
would mean that we should take it from
che present owners and forthwith give
it back to them, which would be non
sensical.
The transition into the Cooperative
commonwealth does not, therefore, re-
quire the appropriation of the small
tradesmen and farmers The transition
would not only take nothing from them,
but would give them positive advan-
tages.
Thus writes Kautsky in his excellent
treatise on the platform of the Social
Democracy of Germany.
The platforms of the Socialists of 9TH
er countries went even farther than
that. The agriculturist programme IF the
Socialist Labor party of France posi-
lively guaranteeing to the farmers their