The Daily Worker Newspaper, April 5, 1924, Page 7

et The Growth of Tenancy In Agriculture By OSCAR PREEDIN P to the present agricultural crisis tenancy in the United States was considerd as a merely temporary condition of indiviguals on their way to ownership of farms which they toilea. Growth of tenancy was represented as growth of agriculture on account of new farmers who did not possess suffi- cient means for immediate purchase of land and therefore were com- pelled to “work up’ thru tenancy. This explanation of tenancy was generally accepted. It found recog- nition by leading members of the old socialist party and was one of the corner stones of socialist party “farmers’ program.” A. M. Simons, chairman for many years of the so- cialist party special “Commission of Farmers’ Question,” wrote’ in ‘ac- cord with all bourgeois economists: Decline of Owners Relative. “The increase in tenants is ac- counted for by the new persons who are golng into agriculture, and there is no possible way in which the statistics can be interpreted to show that there is any general movement in the direction of a transformation of farm owners into tenants.” (“The American Farmer,” edition of 1908, page 114.) This theory recognized the high prices of land as one of the main obstacles which did not permit people with small savings to be- come owners of farms as easy as that was possible some decades ago. But the prices of land appeared for adherents of this theory only as some hill on the way of tourists—new farmers. They declared the way to ownership as~ passabie, especially with the help of mortgages. “The mortgage is an advanced step from tenancy... . The bridge between tenancy and ownership ia the farm mortgage,” says Ivan Wright in his book, “Farm Mort- gage Financing.” Such was the representation of the question of tenancy by the pleasing sweet “theory of expan- sion.” The summaries in statistics of agriculture of United States since 1880, when the first census of ten- ure was here taken, up: to 1910 con- tinued to record increasing numbers of owner farms among still more increased numbers of tenants. De- cline of owners up to 1910 was only relative, This was used by the “theory of expansion” to represent itself as founded on facts. It seemed possible that tenants were “working up” to the positions of owners, that to the increase of owners contributed pre- vious tenants and that increase in tenants was possible to account for “by the new persons who are going into agriculture.” *_ Census 1910-1920. The last census decade 1910-1920 was very favorable for agriculture in United States. Thru all this de- cade prices of farm products were on. high level. Therefore, according to the current explanation of ten- ancy, increased number of owners, should be produced on account of tenants. But exactly the contrary was found by the agricultural census of 1920. The following changes in number of farms by tenure were recorded: : \s1 32 3 i393 ean How the appearance of 100,000 new tenants can explain a tempo- Tary condition on their way to own- ership if at this same time 24,000 owners disappeared? “Theory of Pauperization.” These facts proved very convinc, ingly that “theory of expansion in explanation of tenancy was only a romantic invention. Some other “scientific treatment” of the ques- tion was requested. Therefore for the explanation of growth of ten- ancy in the atmosphere of present agricultural calamity very wide cic. culation is given to assumptions that tenants are produced in pauperiza- tion of owner farmers. This “theory of pauperization” contains all the metaphysical cle- ments of “expansion ‘theony.” It eonsiders tenancy as just this same condition of actual farmers some- where below the standard of farm- ers owners. . . . The “theory of pauperization” is in reality only re- GERMAN SOCIALISTS holders how much rent their tenants must pay the next year, Enormous Profits For Landholders. ; Agriculture of United States is |a nest where enormous profits “are hatched for the class of capitalists and landholders. The growth of ;tenancy is here an expression of ' progress in separation of land own- ;ership from actual farmers for the | sake to separate and to appropriate | part of produced values on the land ‘for title holders. 2 The theory of pauperization wants 'us to believe that tenancy is here | limited only to weak and poor farm- jers, that it establishes itself in that, ‘part of agriculture which is sinking |}down in an economic mire. | Is this true? Are the collections ‘of land rent limited only by the masses of pauperized farmers? Is it true that tenancy grows only in economically destroyed farms? If tenancy is an expression of eco- nomic weakness, poverty and de- Tenants SAVING FATHERLAND | Why? To explain this to A. M. Simons and to other bourgéois econ. omists and historians is as hard a job as an Irishman in the city of New York had with statistical mis- conceptions of his devoted wife who expected her third child and was greatly excited just because “the statistics prove that in the city of New York every third child is a Jew.’’) The average acreage of all land per farm was changed during 1910- 1920 in the folowing way: Acres per farm Increase or decrease in 1910, 1920. acres per farm Owners 151.6 162.2 + 10.6 Managers 924.7 790.8 —133.9 Tenants 96.2 107.9 + 11.7 Of these were improved in aver- age per farm: Owners 78.5 80.0 + 156 Managers 211.9 193.0 — 18.9 66.4 te 5.2 1M AN EXPERT HARNESS MAKER DonT WoRRY! ~ “WORKERS 32s versed “theory of expansion”: In- stead of representing tenancy as a condition of group of people who come from undefined places with un- sufficient means and are on a tem- porary stage to the positions of owners the theory of pauperization represents tenancy as a station of “degraded” owners who are touring in contrary direction. Theory of ex. pansion was built on pleasing con- ceptions of agricultural prosperity but theory of pauperization is con- structed exclusively on conceptions of depression. ‘They are two songs of one petty creed: the first loo! like a wedding march for demon- strative procession to husbandry of a new farmer, the second has to serve for funeral purposes. As every funeral song so the theory of pauperization expresses some h about the “life after Tt finds prog he one xan Bags s nur prices, not prices 0: ’ the prices of farm products. The ridiculous and demands for EN GP Rg Bo ‘was calturel products can’ infoces, tnod- struction, then its fate is sealed and final victory und survival of owner farms is assured. If to find the true position of ten- ancy and if to give full account of the spreading of tenant relations in the agriculture of United States we have to consider carefully that sta- , tistical material which is supplied by the census of 1920. This census allows us to follow the development of farms by their / tenure only in respect to the num- ber of farms, acreage of all land, acreage of improved land and farm property. Gain By All Tenure Groups. Considering the acreage of farms —total farm land and improved farm land—we can see that in- creases of land were gained by all tenure groups of farms. They were in thousands of acres: All land in Increase 1910-1920. Amount in 1,000 acres In all farms 17,085 In owner farms 38,220 In manager farms 898 In tenant farms 38.467 The shares of farm tenure groups in expansion of ture were here ual, From the increase of all land in farms tenants had very little more than owners, but from the increase of improved land in tenant farms came about four- Only farms operated by managers were poorer in land in 1920 than they were in 1910. Farms operated by owners and tenants increased in size. They both were richer in land in 1920 than they were in 1910 and with this ex- pressed concentration of agriculture. To this tenant farms contributed more than owner farms. In these averages tenant farms still appear smaller than farms operated by owners. This difference is decreas- ed: in total acreage it was 55.4 acres in 1910, but 54.3 in 1920; in improved land, 12.1 acres in 1910, but only 8.4 acres in 1920. This shows that in land holdings owner farms still keep advanced position but in cultivation of land they are nearly on this same level as tenant farms. farms, Improved land in farms, ; Increase 1910-1920. Percent of Amount in Percent of of 1910 1,000 acres of 1910 8.8 24,621 5.1 6.4 4,257 1.4 0.7 897 1.3 17.0 19,467 12.6 Tenant Farms Increasing in Size. Tenant farms appear small in averages of U. S. mainly on account of cropper and share tenant parcels in the South, In New England, Middle Atlantic: and East North Central divisions tenant farms even in averages of the divisions are la: than owner farms. The sizes of farms were here: in 1920: Owners. New England 104.9 Middle Atlantic Tenants. 107.9 88.7 109.2 E. N, Central 99.8 126.0 (Continued on Page 8.)