The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-05-30
ByO. PREEDIN


worth $1,000 and less) had 1876 per
cent Of acreage but only "A per cent
of total value" of rented farms; the
last group Owners of holdings worth
$4,000 and over) had 1871 per cent
of acreage but TIA per ceft Of total
value" of rented farms.
is this explainable by differences in
soil, situation of farms or other
natural" causes? Here or there these
causes may contribute something to
the above differences, but the extent
Of Capitalization Of holdings, the
monopoly Of land over whole districts
lis the main and may be the only cause
| in this increase Of value" Of large
holdings over that Of small hold
ings.
BY the following census of 1910
and 1920 Investigation Of ownership
of tenant farms was not continued or
| if it was continued the results were
not published, as that is often done
by every United States government
bureau with information which can
disclose too much business secrets"
Of ruling exploiters. The enumera-
tors Of the census Of 1910 and of 1920
were instructed to collect all material
needed for investigation of ownership
OF rented farms in THIS same manner
as that was done by the enumerators
of the census of 1900 Therefore, with
holding of this information for GER
tain reasons is rather susceptible
than entire neglect of this too inter
esting question:
THIS proves that to the extent of
l their power the big landholders
contributed to the increase of land
values" The creation and growth
Of land rent means here introduction
of new divisions of produced surplus
values.
LOW long existed here free access
| to land so long was there was pos
sible such division of created values
in agriculture, was described by K.
Marx as follows:
Under such circumstances (where
Ownership of land can not resist appli-
cation Of capital in agriculture) it is
lands in heavy populated districts,
where the situation gives them mo-
nopoly,-that surplus-value produced
by farmers over acreage profits is not
realized in the price of their products
but that they (the farmers) must d.
vide it with their brethren capital
lists" ("Theorien liber den Mehr-
vert" II Vol. / part, Page 2OO.)
lEXISTANCE of 'surplus-value over
- average profits" was and still is
in some semi-cOlonial countries the
economic basis for large profitable OPP
erations of parasitic speculative cap
ital' and of 'monopolies of the trans
lportation system" which are marked
! by the instructions on the agrarian
question of the Fourth Congress of
G. /. as particular features in "the
Auglo-Saxon countries" The limits in
which this kind of exploitation does
not disturb capitaIistic development
of agriculture and serves only for d.
vision of surplus-values among breth-
rem capitalists, are given by the guam
titles of "surplus-value over average
profits" produced in agriculture.
lDUT these "surplus-values are avail
ID able for such kind of exploita-
ton only so long as they are not sep
arated and exempted by land hold
ers from the division among all the
brethren capitalists" in the form of
landrent. Absolute land rent is moth
ing else but only this same surplus
value over average profits" When
and ownership is in fact established
and can give sufficient resistance to
the application of capital then land
holders are able to take this surplus
value as land rent.
In such case the "surplus-value over
average profits" obligatory must be
realized in the farm prices" Of ag-
ricultural products.
(Conffnuad next Saturday,