Land Reforms in Poland Till Solidarity Movement

8/9/2019 Land Reforms in Poland Till Solidarity Movement

1/33

1

Land Reforms in Polandtill Solidarity Movement

A.Venkateswarlu

Swarajya Bharati Publications


2/33

2

Land Reforms in Poland till Solidarity Movement

By Dr. A. Venkateswarlu

First Published in December 2000

Copies:1000

Price: Rs.30/-

Published by

Swarajya Bharati Publications,

11-2-218/6, Wyra Road,

KHAMMAM-50701

A.P., INDIA

Printed at:

Spandana Printers,

Wyra Road,

KHAMMAM


3/33

3

To

My Teacher and Supervisor

Prof. G.K.Chadha,

Dean, School of Social Sciences,

Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi.


4/33

4

Preface

I joined integrated M.Phil. / Ph.D programme at the Centre for the Study of RegionalDevelopment, School of Social Sciences, JNU, New Delhi, during 1982-83. As a part of course

work, in semester-II, I was asked to write a term paper on land reforms of any country from

Eastern Europe. I chose Poland, because by that time Solidarity Movement was going on under

the leadership of Lech Walesa, in Poland. Thus, I had to work on Land Reforms in Poland Till

Solidarity Movement.

To write on the topic, I had to make efforts in gathering maximum information on Land

Reforms in Poland, while studying to grapple with the Agrarian Question from the Marxian

standpoint. In April 1983, I submitted term paper on the topic, in a simple way. But recently, I

have once again gone through the data collected then and suitably synthesized to publish it in the

form of monograph.Despite the collapse of socialism in the Eastern Europe and the USSR, it is not necessary to

lose interest in the study of what happened in those countries. In fact, Poland was the epicentre of

the eruption of anti-communist volcano in the form of Solidarity Movement by the early 1980s.

Only thereafter such anti-communist movements started in the other East European countries.

Having studied as to what happened to land reforms in such epicentre, I could develop

some understanding: In Poland, the agrarian question was not resolved in a proper way.

Collectivisation of agriculture, in the form of Kibbutz was successful in Israel, which is a

capitalist country, as Marx opined in Theories of Surplus Value. Thus, progressive land reforms

through collectivisation could be made successful in socialist countries, if there is genuine will

for the leadership in those countries.

Because of not lacking such genuine interest in Poland, the collectivised agriculture could

not be achieved. As a result, there arose problem of food in Poland. In all crises, erupted in

Poland periodically, food problem played a prominent role. The workers had to stand in queues

to get pork supplies, as it was rationed during the days of Solidarity Movement. As income

elasticity of demand for food was rising, quantitatively and qualitatively better food could not be

provided. Thus, the failure to increase food supplies as per the rising demand was caused due to

inappropriate and insufficient land reforms.

This monograph runs into four parts. The first part deals with the theoretical framework of

land reforms in socialist countries; the second describes historical background of Poland; the

third examines the land reforms in the first phase (1918-39); and finally the fourth part analyses

the land reforms in the second phase (1944-80).

Only I am the responsible for the views expressed in it.

I thank Swarajya Bharati Publication, Khammam for publishing this monograph.

A. Venkateswarlu


5/33

5

LAND REFORMS IN POLAND TILL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT

This Monograph is divided into four parts. In the first part, the theoretical

framework of land reforms in socialist countries; in the second part, historical

background of Poland: in the third part, the land reforms in the first phase 1918-39; and

in the last, the land reforms in the second phase 1944-80, till solidarity movement, are

presented.

1. The Theoretical Framework of Land Reforms in Socialist Countries

In all pre-capitalist societies, the land has been only the major means of production.

In those societies, the dominant classes for example, the slave lords in the slave society

and the landlords in the feudal society, have owned the land. For this, the legal, political

and social institutions were made to bind.

In the middle ages, the feudalism was the dominant mode of production prevalent

in the West. In the East, feudalism in varying degrees had persisted. In feudalism,

landlords owned large estates and the peasantry had to work gratis in the estates for

having been provided with pieces of land for their livelihood. Thus, the peasantry in the

form of serfs or tenants were exploited. The exploited surplus was being spent by the

estate owners conspicuously. The surplus was generated because of the labour of serfs ortenants on the estates for which nothing was paid by the estate owners. This is the

extraction of surplus in the form of labour rent. The capacity of the labourer to produce

more than what is necessary for his maintenance is the origin of surplus. Marx1 says:

An agricultural labour productivity exceeding the individual requirements of the labourer

is the basis of all societies and is above all the basis of the capitalist production, which

disengages a constantly increasing portion of society from the production of basic food

stuffs and transforms them into free heads, as Steuwart has it, making them available

in other spheres.

As is evident, the rent is the surplus appropriated by the land owners. As per Marx,

the landed property envisages two types of rents, viz., the absolute ground rentand thedifferential rent.

The basis of capitalism is the surplus appropriation in the form of profit, a new

category of capitalist production. As the industrial development proceeded, it became

necessary to receive average rate of profit on capital invested by the capitalists. In

agriculture, if capital is invested, the value of the produce sold at market price (being

equal to value) was greater than the average price (cost price + average rate of profit).

But the excess profit (rent) was to be transferred to the land owner. The excess profit,


6/33

6

in the form of Absolute ground rent and Differential rent, is explained by Marx as

follows:1. Absolute Ground Rent: It is the monopoly price paid to the land owner. Marx

conceptualised that the value and average price are not equal in respect of agricultural

products. But the value (market price) of the product is above the average price and the

produce is sold at value. The difference between value and average price is the absolute

ground rent.

2. Djfferential Rent: Differential Rent, in addition to absolute ground rent or

without it, arises due to the differences in fertility of the land soil. Here Marx introduces

the concept of individual value (or individual price) which would be lower than the

average price. This is possible because of the higher productivity on fertile land. The

difference between the average price and individual price per unit produce gives the

Differential Rent.

In capitalist production, the wages of working class depend on the price of

agricultural goods. Because of absolute ground rent, the agricultural goods may have

higher prices. Then the capitalist has to raise wages for maintaining the subsistence of

workers. In such a case, the capitalist has to lessen his profit. From this point of view, the

capitalist wants to make the landed property a state property, so that state should draw

rent. Marx2 says:

The Landowner, such an important functionary in production in the ancient world and the

middle Ages, is a useless superfetation in the industrial world. The radical bourgeois(with an eye moreover to the suppression of all other taxes) therefore goes forward

theoretically to a refutation of the private ownership of the land, which, in the form of

state property he would like to turn into common property of the bourgeois class, of

capital. But in practice he lacks the courage, since an attack on one form of property a

form of the private ownership of a condition of labour might cast considerable doubts on

the other form. Besides, the bourgeois has himself become an owner of land.

While the bourgeois attacks landed property from this stand point, the actual

sufferers, the peasantry and the rural proletariat under feudalism, want to break those

bonds, thereby aspiring to get land for self-cultivation without any owner above them,

other than the state. Further, contradiction arises in the institutions of feudalism against

the technology of capitalist production, because the labour productivity in agriculture isrelatively low compared to the productivity in industry. The feudal ownership itself does

not provide technology, nor the serfs and tenants would be in a position to bring technical

change. Further the urban proletariat also, fighting for the rise of wage against the

bourgeoisie, had its own interest in releasing the forces of production in agriculture to

get food at cheap prices. Thus, almost all classes are against the feudal system.

The first phase is to relieve from the absolute rent, which is possible through

bourgeois democratic revolution under bourgeoisies leadership. A democratic state

would emerge, wherein all feudal bonds would be broken and absolute ground rent would


7/33

7

vanish, as Marx says, With abolition of landed property and retention of capitalist

production, this excess profit (differential rent) arising from the difference in fertilitywould remain.3 In the second phase, through socialist revolution under the leadership of

the working class, Marx says If landed property became peoples property, then the

whole basis of capitalist production would go.4

In bourgeois democratic phase, the bourgeoisie ought to have demanded

nationalisation of land. Then the question arises as to what is the nationalisation of land.

Lenin5 answers:

Nationalisation means transferring to the state the right of ownership of the land, the right

to draw rent, but not the land itself. Nationalisation does not by any means imply that all

the peasants will be forced to transfer their land to any one at all. The socialist revolution

implies the transfer to the whole of society, not only of property in the land, but of theland itself as an object of economic activity.

But historically bourgeoisie fighting for the nationalisation of land became rare

event because the bourgeois himself has become an owner of the land. But it brought

land reforms whenever it assumed state power to fulfil the needs of the bourgeoisie. Thus

landed property is being moulded in a setting where small-scale and large-scale farming

is going on within the capitalist system. In large-scale production, the lands are given to

tenants. So that rent can be charged. Marx6 says:

In small-scale agriculture, the price of land a form and result of private ownership,

appears as a barrier to production itself. In large-scale agriculture, and large-scale estates

operating on a capitalist basis, ownership likewise acts as a barrier, because it limits thetenant farmer in his productive investment of capital, which in the final analysis benefit

not him, but the landlord.

Further, Marx says:7

Small landed property presupposes that the overwhelming majority of the population is

rural, and that not social but isolated labour predominates and that, therefore, under such

conditions wealth and development of reproduction both of its material and spiritual

prerequisites are out of question, and thereby also the prerequisites for rational

cultivation. On the other hand, large landed property reduces the agricultural population

to a constantly falling minimum, and confronts it with a constantly growing industrial

population crowded together in large cities. It thereby creates conditions which cause an

irreparable break in the coherence of social interchange prescribed by the natural laws of

life.

Thus though the landed property is made to adjust with capitalism instead of

fighting for the nationalisation of land by the bourgeoisie, the small-scale and large-scale

farming would ultimately have to lead to collective property of the society (peoples

property) so as to abolish dichotomy between industry and agricultural sector.

Further, the bourgeoisie after seeing first socialist revolution of Paris Commune, in

1871, became an inconsistent fighter of feudalism, wherever it was. Lenin8 correctly


8/33

8

assessed that such a struggle by the bourgeoisie:

is inconceivable when the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie isvery acute. Such a measure is more likely to be introduced in a Young bourgeois

society, in one which has not yet developed its contradictions to the full, and was not yet

created a proletariat strong enough to direct toward the socialist revolution.

As such, in the Twentieth Century, feudalism is to be fought by the working class

allying with the peasantry with little or no role of the bourgeoisie. On the eve of the

October revolution, 1917, in USSR, the bourgeoisie became a counter revolutionary

force.

In USSR, the land was nationalised in 1917 and the Kolkhozes were therefore

established on the state lands, the peasant receiving the use of the land from the state but

not the right either to lease or sell it.9

Thus, the land was given to the tiller in USSR.But there were inequalities in the holdings and family size, giving rise to small peasants

and big peasants (Kulaks).

In 1894, Engels, while dealing with Peasant Question in France and Germany

gave some guidelines about the attitude of the working class towards (1) small peasants;

(2) middle and big peasants and (3) big landed estates with undisguised capitalist

production.

1. Small Peasants

Engles10 says in connection with the agrarian programme of France:

When we are in possession of state power we shall not even think of forciblyexpropriating the small peasants. . our task relative to small peasants, in the first

place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to

cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance

for this purpose.

2. Middle and Big Peasants

These peasants depend on wage labour and hence the workers party would fight for

them. Yet the party may pursue the big and middle peasants to form cooperative

enterprises. If they fail, the workers would decide what to do.

3. Big Land Estate

To expropriate them is easy and to form cooperatives with the actual workers on

those lands is the solution.

From the above, it is clear that after the workers party comes into power, it has to

persuade the small and middle peasants to form collectives, with voluntarism and

gradualism. Lenin fully accepted and endorsed Engels views. But after Lenins death

Stalin took up for forcible collectivisation of agriculture in 1929.


9/33

9

As regards the agrarian reforms in Eastern Europe and China, the land was not

nationalised as per the concept of Peoples Democracy or New Democracy. ThisNew Democracy concept is in unison with Engels statement in 1894 in his article referred

earlier that the struggle for socialism by the working class need not be postponed till all

small peasants are depeasantised. Thus, Engels11 says:

It will serve us nought to wait with this (socialist) transformation until capitalist

production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small

handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale

production.

As per this concept all the sections of the people, who are anti-imperialist, anti-

feudal and anti-fascist, would join the front with working class; the land could not be

nationalised. But very radical land reforms were carried out. As regards China, Mao

12

says:

The republic will take certain necessary steps to confiscate the land of the landlords and

distribute it to those peasants having little or no land, carry out Dr. Sun Yet-sens slogan

of land to the tiller, abolish feudal relations in the rural areas and turn the land over to

the private ownership of the peasants.

As regards Eastern Europe, Sanakoyev13 says:

The peoples democracies did not nationalise the land. Only the property of traitors who

had collaborated with the Nazis was confiscated. A considerable part of the land was

turned over to the peasants who had little or no land at all.

In all the East European countries, except Poland and Yugoslavia, the socialisation

of agriculture was successful, with certain limitations, till the collapse of socialism in

East Europe. In China communisation was achieved.

In socialist countries, in early stages, there are problems of economic development.

In this connection, Ganguli 14says:

There emerged a dichotomy between the industrial sector and agricultural sector, both in

terms of relations of production and forms of production. Socialised industry against

private agriculture-higher level of technique in industry against lower level in agriculture

resulting in a lower relative productivity of labour in agriculture than in industry.

This could be solved by collectivisation in agriculture. Laird argues that the

communists have high opinion about hugeness and industrial form and so theycollectivise land.15 But the collectivisation of land is to make land peoples property and

thereby to achieve social production of agriculture to meet the needs of the society. Even

in Chinese communes and East European collectives the product is divided according to

the share of land of the person and his work. Recently, there has been change in these

arrangements.

In Poland, the collectivised agriculture was negligible as seen from Table-1 which

shows the position of collectivisation in socialist countries in 1969.


10/33

10

2. Historical Background of Poland Agriculture

By the end of 18th Century, the Polish economy was predominantly feudal as wasmade clear by Kulas study of Polish Economy, 1500-1800. In that model of feudal

economy of Poland, the five salient elements (out of ten) are as follows.16

(1) The overwhelming predominance of agriculture in the countrys economy; (2) The

fact that land is not a commodity, primarily because only the nobility can own it but also

because the rate of interest on loans is higher than the yield from landed property; (3) The

division of all the forces of agricultural production solely between the village and the

lords demesne; (4) The existence of actual institutional barriers which limit social and

geographical mobility above all for the peasants (serfdom); (5) The obligation upon all

peasants to pay most of their rent in the form of labour power (corvee).

By 1795 AD, the Polish state had ceased to exist for more than one and a quarter

century, till it was reborn in 1918. During this period, Poland was partitioned into three

parts. The Southern part was under Austrian rule, the Eastern part under Russian rule and

the Western part under Prussian rule. After the first World War was completed, the

Poland state was formed. In the three regions three different sets of legal, social,

economic and agricultural problems were experienced by the Polish people.17 The need

for land reform was apparent in each part as seen from the following conditions.18

(i) Extreme Conditions in Southern Province under Austrian Rule

Land was already divided into small peasant holdings almost half of which, early in

the century, were found to be of less than 5 acres.

(ii) Conditions in the Region formerly under Russian Rule

Over a third of land was in large estates and about a half was divided into peasant

farms. No improvement of agricultural practice.

(iii) Conditions in the Region formerly under Prussian Rule

The agricultural practice was on a higher plane. There were relatively large number

of farms of 12.5 to 50.0 acres.

The farms in the South and East were not only small but also were also excessively

fragmented. Added to this, Polish agriculture suffered greater damage than any European

country in World War-I due to which (i) it lost more than a million and a half farmbuildings; (ii) it lost one third of its livestock; (iii) it could not put 20 percent of its arable

land under production for several years following war; and (iv) large parts of the country

were drained of manpower by conscription and forced evacuation.19

In such a tough situation Poland was reborn, when unemployment,

underemployment and low purchasing power with the peasantry were demanding an

immediate solution. An immediate solution was not more than land reforms. As such,

the new Government took up land reforms.


11/33

11

3. Land Reforms in the First Phase, 1918-39

The Polish state was reborn as a capitalist state with a democratic political system,in November 1918. Polands period of parliamentary democracy was short lived and in

1926, Pilsudski made a successful armed coup detat and Poland became a totalitarian

state.20

The agrarian structure by 1918 was briefly accounted for by the Indian Society of

Agricultural Economics:21

(i) 31 percent of the population had no land.

(ii) 2.1 million farms out of 3.3 million farms were below 5 hectares (minimum

viable size) in 1921.

(iii) A little more than 0.5 percent of the holdings owned 43 percent of the land incultivation and 25 percent of the arable land.

(iv) There was extreme sub-division of holdings and the small plots were formed

scattered; and out of 47 percent of such farms, 11 percent of them were

divided into 6 to 10 parcels and 6 percent of them into more than 10 parcels.

(v) A large number of peasants were bound in servitude to bigger proprietors.

A province wise distribution of area in size-classes in 1921 is presented in Table-2

which is reproduced from Pronins article. As per the Table, in below 50.0acre size,

there was 62.5 percent land; and in above 50.0 acre size 37.5 percent of land was

concentrated. Further, in above l2.5 acre size, 79.0 percent land was concentrated. In

such an inequality of land distribution, any Government, however reactionary, cannotkeep quiet as the otherwise would decide the fate of the exploited classes, through a

violent revolution. The Polish Government also realised the importance of land reforms,

as Pronin22 says:

The unequal distribution of farm land in independent Poland had been recognised as

social and economic evil, which demanded correction. On the one hand, there were the

great estates and on the other, the small farms of the peasants but there was no substantial

core of the medium sized farms.

Further, if the Polands new Government did not take up reforms, the people would

not have kept quiet, as by that time they had observed the experience of the neighbouring

country, USSR, wherein the land was nationalised after the great October Revolution,1917. In view of this, the land reforms were imminent to be launched by the

Government, however, the degree of implementation be. Pronin23 frankly admits:

During the Bolshevik advance into Poland in 1920, the Soviets held out the promise of

land for the peasantry as one of their most persuasive proposals. The Polish Government

has therefore constrained to make a definite offer of the same kind to the Polish peasants

not only as special measure but also as a political maneuver.


12/33

12

However, land reforms programme, as passed in the Bill of July 15, 1919, was

started with an aim of more rational and equitable distribution of land. The importantaspects of the Bill are:24

1. It set a limit of 150 acres for an individual holding. In some parts the limit was

relaxed upto 1000 acres.

2. In excess of the limit, the land would be sold by the state i.e., the compulsory

sale by the Government.

3. However, it offered a certain grace period to dispose of land. After that period,

the excess land would be taken by the Government to sell to the peasants, tenants and

agricultural labourers. The Government would pay, in such a case, only half the market

price to the owners.4. The new farmers purchasing land could not enlarge acreage over 38, 62 or 112,

depending on the region (locality).

5. The bill affected the Government, private, Church and public institutions.

But with the amendments to the Bill accepted by Diet (Sejm) in 1920, 1925 and

1927, the implementation of land reforms took a moderate turn. The amendments

together could be briefed as:25

(i) Maximum area for a single estate was extended to 450 acres (except

Eastern region where the limit was extended to 1750 acres);

(ii) Reforms declared exempting the estates devoted to highly specialised

and productive enterprise of national importance, such as, cattle-breeding and

reforestation etc;

(iii) 500,000 acres annually were to be distributed for 10 years;

(iv) Maximum limit relaxed in central Poland was 50 acres and 87 acres in other

parts for the new purchasers; and

(v) Some 5.5 to 6.2 million acres were under large estates having more than 450

acres and this land was 8-9 percent of the total (68.25 million acres). Pronin26 also says:

It thus becomes evident that reform which was fairly radical at first took a more moderateturn in proportion as the original desperate political maneuvers during the Polish-

Bolshevik War (1919-1920) gave precedence in times of peace to alter socio-economic

consideration.

During 1920-26, the land of 1,500,000 acres were parcelled out, slowly and without

coercion. After 1925, the Government also provided credit facilities to the peasants to

purchase parcelled out land from the landlords. During depression (1929-30), the land

transfer slowed down. Again from 1933 to 1939, there was gradual recovery and by

1938, 6.6 million acres or slightly more than legal quota, which was 6.2 million acres


13/33

13

legally to be parcelled out, had been parcelled out. This became possible as the exempted

estates also sold land to the peasant farmers.27

3.1 Abolition of Servitudes

The second important aspect of land reforms was to abolish servitudes. Laws were

made in 1920 and 1927, applicable to Central and Eastern provinces separately in view of

the different legal and economic conditions of the two areas. In Eastern provinces

(formerly under Russian Rule), the problem arose because even after abolition of serfdom

in 1861, the peasant farmers retained their old pasture and forest land casements.

Between 1919 and 1930, nearly 168,000 properties were freed of serf-land use

restrictions and nearly 1.25 million acres of land use rights, and by 1938, nearly 280,500

properties were freed, giving 2,488,250 acres in return. This process led to create middle

size farms in those areas.

3.2 Consolidation of Scattered Parcels

The third aspect of the land reform was the consolidation of land holdings. By

1918, 28 million acres (11.33 million hectares) of peasant lands consisted of scattered

parcels. This consisted of one third of total arable land of Poland. The same in terms of

farms; 1.1 million farms out of 3.3 million (one third of farms) were below 2 hectares28 in

1921. This problem was entirely in the former Russian and Austrian partitions. The

consolidation in German partition was successful by 1921. Though Austro-Hungarian

empire took steps in 1853 and 1899, the consolidation was not completed.

A uniform consolidation law for whole Poland was worked out in 1925 and

amended in 1927. Accordingly official encouragement to farmers to avail themselves of

the law, was given in the form of exemption of consolidated properties from the state

land tax. Whenever buildings also were to be shifted, the farmers, who did so were given

advances from agrarian reform funds. By 1930, 5 million acres (2.02 million hectares)

and by 1938, 13,557,500acres (5.49 million hectares) could be consolidated. That is,

half the parcelled land was consolidated.

3.4 Drainage and Irrigation

The fourth aspect of land reforms was providing drainage and irrigation to low-

lying fields and swamps. Poland received 4 million acres (1.62 million hectares) ofswamp and marsh land which was unproductive in the provinces of Poleria and Northern

Volhynia (from Russian parts). These marshes were largest in Europe. The

transformation of those marshes into productive land was the problem. Pronin29 says:

The Technical problem involved was tremendous for not only drainage but proper

irrigation after drainage had to be provided. It was necessary to stabilize, strengthen or

deepen (regulate) the stream channels as a preliminary to the large scale drainage projects

undertaken by the ministry of land reform.


14/33

14

Between 1928 and 1938, marsh and swamp land of 1,360,000 acres (550,373

hectares) was converted into productive farm land. 3.4 Evaluation

As Poland became independent, the political leadership recognised the importance

of land reforms as an important solution to break feudal system and to facilitate capitalist

economy. Poland was an agrarian society, with pressure of population on the land. Only

land reform could increase the production to meet the food needs of population, by

extending the land for cultivation on the one hand and by raising the productivity on the

other. If this nominal land reform also had not been taken up by the Government, the

people would have chosen the path of great October Revolution. As such, the political

leadership had chosen to ease the people by land reforms, though the big proprietors, who

were the losers in the land reforms, put forward all sorts of arguments - national, cultural,

military and economic- against the move of the land reform. The political leadership

might have cared less the big proprietors class, fearing civil war within the newly reborn

Polish state. Thus, the land reforms were meant to facilitate capitalist development, just

as in other bourgeois states in Europe.

However, the ruling class did not take up a radical programme to expropriate the

estates without compensation. as for the compensation for the expropriated land, the first

law provided for compensation of half the value of land, but the amended Act sanctioned

full compensation of which half was to be in cash and half in Government bonds.30

Further certain grace period was offered to parcel out their land and to sell to smallpeasants at full market price, so that estate owners might choose to sell at market price to

the individual purchasers. First Act said that the Estate owners had to parcel out land for

selling to the repurchasers. By 1925 amendment, only the parcellation was made

compulsory but not selling. Only in respect of those estates where even parcellation was

not done, there the Government would resort to compulsory purchase. By amendment,

the limit of estate size was raised 3 times. All these were in favour of the estate owners.

Further, the Government was liberal in selling the expropriated lands to the small

peasants and others, by credit basis, The buyer of the allotment was to pay 5 percent of

the value in cash and for the remainder he was given credit, spread over 41 years. Those

who needed finance for this purpose could obtain lands from the state land Bank.31

Further land acquired under the Agrarian Reforms Laws could not be divided, alienated

or mortgaged until all loans by the state or the state Agricultural Bank were repaid in full.

Even partition of estates, as per a law in 1937,was restricted. These steps were taken

to encourage personal cultivation. The land reforms in this phase were criticised:32

as inadequate in both concept and execution. It is true that it felI short of the reforms that

were being carried out at the same lime in Czechoslavakia and Romania. It was not

altogether the fault of the regime that investment in agriculture was not larger and it is


15/33

15

doubtful whether the further division of estates would have contributed greatly to solve

the problem of rural over-population.

Wibent More pointed out that in a population dependent on agriculture of about

19,347,000 in about 1930 no less than 9,922,000 could be regarded as redundant.33 The

Indian Society of Agricultural Economics assessed, There is no doubt that though the

measures were not revolutionary in character, the comprehensive nature of the land

reforms rehabilitated Polish agriculture and placed it on stable foundations.34

The effect of land reforms in this phase could be taken as: (i) There was small

increase in the total area under cultivation in the inter-war period. (ii) Principal food

crops production was more than commensurate with the population growth. (iii) An

improvement in the yield was there, but it was very slow because of the low investment

and low technical improvements. (iv) The yield in Western part rose by 50 percent, inEastern and Southern Poland it was not so much.

4. Land Refoms in The Second Phase, 1944-80

Though the Government in power, in the interwar period, 1919-1939, brought out

land reforms, by redistributing 2.7 million hectares (6.6 million acres) of land, those

reforms had proved to be little more than palliative. There were no substantial changes in

the agrarian structure at the end of interwar period, as could be seen from the following

facts:35

(i) More than 40 percent of all land and about 25 percent of agricultural land still

belonged to the large estates, which comprised approximately 0.5 percent of the totalnumber of holdings.

(ii) About two-thirds of the total farms comprising small farms (less than 5

hectares) occupied only 15 percent of land.

(iii) On the one hand, large owners had possessed hundreds and thousands of

hectares and on the other, there were 600,000 landless peasant families and some 750,000

having less than 2 hectares.

(iv) Inter-regional variations were prevalent.

The inter-regional variations in the three main regions may be summarised as

follows:

(a) Central Viovodships (formerly under Russian Rule)

In this region 30-35 percent of the total land and 20 percent of the agricultural land

belonged to the larger holdings of over 50 hectares. Further, agricultural holdings below

2 hectares constituted 16 percent, between 2 and 5 hectares 40 percent and above 10

hectares 32 percent of the total holdings.


16/33

16

(b) Western Poland(formerly under Prussian Rule)

In this region, the larger holdings above 50 hectares covered 50-60 percent ofagricultural land. Further, the farms over 10 hectares accounted for 40 percent and those

under 2 hectares did not exceed 12 percent of the total farms.

(c) Southern Viovodships (formerly Galicia)

In this region 30 percent of total land and 15 percent of agricultural land belonged

to households above 50 hectares in the western part of the region and the same were 50

percent and 30 percent respectively in the eastern part of the region. Further, agricultural

holdings below 2 hectares constituted 50 percent and those between 2 and 5 hectares 40

percent of the total holdings.

Further, Kostrovicki and Szczesny36 made the following observation in regard tothe variations:

The differences in the level of agrarian economy between the Western and Eastern parts

were not eliminated to any great extent. Even on the large estates, investments in fixed

assets, machines, drainage, fertilisers etc., were higher in the West than in the East where

because of the backward system, large portions of land laid fallow every year.

Within two decades of its rebirth Poland was compelled to involve in second World

War. During the War, Polish agriculture suffered a lot. 470,000 peasant farms were

destroyed, 45 percent horses, 60 percent cattle, 72 percent pigs and 63 percent sheep

were smashed. Further 20 percent of the houses and farm buildings and 30 percent of the

population, mainly men at the age of professional activity perished during the war.37

During the war, Polish communists formed (in 1942) the Polish Workers Party.

Supported by the progressive political forces, the Polish workers party came to power in

1944, with establishment of the Peoples democracy to be transformed to socialism. As

the very concept ofpeoples democracy is to carry on the unfinished agrarian revolution

first, the land reforms would play an important role, in rallying the poor peasants,

agricultural labourers and rural poor behind the Working Class Party. This would lead to

abolition of feudal and semi-feudal relations in agriculture for (1) meeting the

quantitative and qualitative food needs of the population and (2) constructing thereby the

socialist economy by pouring agricultural surplus into industry. The Government under

the Polish Workers Partys leadership proclaimed its land reform on September 6, 1944.Its essence is briefed as:38

This decree was one of the first and basic legal acts of the new Government. The

essential purpose was to abolish the system of feudal ownership and to transfer the land

to direct use by peasants or to state ownership. Thus the land reform simultaneously

encompassed economic and socio-political aims. The farms subject to land reform were

all of those above 50 hectares of agricultural land situated in the central and Eastern

viovodships and those above 100 hectares in overall area in the Western and Northern

regions.


17/33

17

In this manner, the new Communist Government was committed to implement land

reforms strictly and the beneficiaries, i.e., the small peasants, agricultural labourers,landless rural families and small tenants rose to the occasion and assisted the government

to implement land reforms. Further, FAO study39 notes:

The charge for the land was symbolic and equal to the value of average yearly rye yield

over one hectare. This was five to seven times lower than the price for the land sold

before the war under the land reform being carried out by the government of that time.

In implementation of the land reforms, the distribution of land was made in two

levels. At one level, the land to the landless agricultural labourers or rural families and at

the other level, the land was distributed to the small peasants who owned less than 5

hectares. It was also considered that in newly formed farms or those enlarged by

reforms, area should not exceed 5 hectares of average quality of agricultural land.Further, where it was found suitable, land was reserved for the State Farms. The land

reform decree also banned division, sale or lease of farms set up in consequence of land

reforms. Most important achievement of the government is that the expropriation of the

land of the large and influential landowning class was made without compensation.40

In the years 1945-49, total land obtained was 9.8 million hectares. Of this, 3.7

million hectares land was reserved for State Farms and 6.1 million hectares land was

distributed. The distribution of 6.1 million hectares was made as follows:

(i) Approximately 0.5 million hectares of land was used to increase the size of

the existing 254,000 farms.

(ii) 1.9 million hectares were used to create 350,000 new farms in the old

provinces.

(iii) 3.7 million hectares were used to create 467,000 new farms in Western and

Northern provinces.

From the distribution, it is clear that 1.07 million farm families were benefited by

the land reform. The area of small farms was enlarged on average by 1.9 hectares. Thus,

in 1950, new holdings exceeded 25 percent of the total, while a further 8 percent

comprised the farms which had been increased in size as a result of the land reform.

4.1 Regional Varialions in Land Reforms

The effects of land reform had regional variations.41 In the South, large estates

were few, the number of agricultural workers low, and maximum subdivision existed

already and so almost all the land was distributed to increase the size of the existing

holdings. Yet, small and very small holdings prevailed. In the Central and the Eastern

parts, most of the land was given to the former labourers and small farmers, so that the

percentage of small and medium size farms (2-10 hectares) increased greatly. However,

there was not available sufficient land to make all peasant holdings of sufficient size. In

the West, the land was either given to agricultural labourers or used to create state farms,


18/33

18

as there were numerous large estates and few small holdings. As regards the structure of

new holdings, in the Western and Northern regions they constituted 100 percent, in theSoutheast 50-90percent; in greater Poland they varied from 30 to 60 percent and in the

Southern and Eastern parts they varied from 10 to 30 percent.

4.2 Immediate Problems

As soon as the land distribution was made, the problems faced by the new small

peasants were (i) proper farm buildings and (ii) credit facilities. In the Western and

Northern regions, there was another problem of resettlement. This arose because these

territories were returned to Poland from Germany and its Eastern territories were

surrendered to USSR after Second World War, when the borders of Poland were

resettled. It was imminent to populate the evacuated Western and Northern territories.

Nearly 5 million people were populated on migration. Of this 2 million people were

from the surrendered Eastern parts by repatriation. Most of all the farms in the Western

and Northern regions were new. Further, Kostrovicki and Szczesny42 observed:

As most were smaller in size than the prewar holdings, two or more families of new

settlers had often to share the former German farm buildings, which were usually too

spacious for the needs and means of the new owners.

As per the authors of Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engles, the working class

would capture power in the first instance in the developed capitalist countries where the

industrial proletariat would be substantial in number. But in the era of imperialism,

Lenin could forecast that working class would be in a position to capture power even in

underdeveloped countries, by breaking weak-links with imperialism. Accordingly,

peoples democracy concept is meant for the underdeveloped countries. In

underdeveloped countries, the industrial development is marginal and hence the

agricultural development is also impossible without industrial development either of

German Junker capitalism in agriculture or peasant farming capitalism just as in USA.

As such, the working class after assuming power in countries like Poland, had to

develop agriculture while developing industry. In such a case industry is dependent on

agriculture for accumulation of capital because in such economies primitive accumulation

of capital for industrial development is unthinkable as no colonial exploitation or war-

indemnification strategy could be followed.

43

In this regard, Ganguli

44

says:The core of the problem here is how to accumulate funds both in terms of volume and

composition for investment. In any country with a large agricultural and small industrial

sector, the investible surplus to build industrial capacities has initially to come mainly

from agriculture.

In Poland the industry was socialised, but agriculture has been under private farms.

This dichotomy could be resolved only by socialisation of agriculture through

collectivised agriculture. How the impetus given by the state was nullified by the changed

leadership is dealt elsewhere.


19/33

19

4.3 Forms of Agriculture

In Poland since 1948, there have been four forms of agriculture: the private(individual) farms, the state farms, the collectivised (cooperative) agriculture and

agricultural circles. They are dealt separately. The distribution of agricultural land

among different uses in 1974 is as follows:

Distribution of Land in Different Uses-1974

S.

No.Type of Use

Area in

'000 ha

Perce-

ntage

1 Individual farms 15450 80.2

2 State Farms 3203 16.6

3 Co-operative farms 288 1.5

4 Farms of Agricultural Circles 155 0.8

5 Others 161 0.9

Total 19257 100

Source: FAO (1975), pp.100, 102, 103 and 104.

4.3.1 Private Farms

After radical reforms, if the agriculture is left to free competition, the inequalities

would further develop, in private farms. Structural changes have to be introduced in

agriculture. This could be possible only through socialist industrialisation, which would

absorb some population (agricultural labourers) as workers, so that productivity per

labourer would be increased in agriculture. For industrialisation capital should beprovided by agriculture.

In regard to labour supply to industry it was easy because there was surplus labour

dependent on agriculture in Poland. Even in prewar period, there was surplus population

in agriculture representing unemployment and disguised unemployment. It was

estimated that the industrial production achieved in the period during 1946-50. about 70

percent of the production growth was achieved by the increase of employment, i.e., by

transfer from agricultural sector and only 30 percent by higher labour productivity. In 30

years from 1945 to 1975, due to planned development of industry 5.1 million persons

migrated from rural areas to urban areas, while 1,216,000 persons in the period 1950-60

only.

It is interesting to note that in Poland as there were small private farms of less than

5 hectares the earning from the farm was insufficient to maintain the family because the

farms provided insufficient employment for the peasant family. This led to make (i) the

male members of the family to work outside the farm, while the women work on the own

farms of the family or (ii) to get part-time employment outside the farm. Thus, there are

few countries in Europe where every third adult member of the farming families as in

Poland has two working places and two sources of income.45 Accordingly, 1.6 million


20/33

20

persons in 1950 and 2.8 million persons in 1970 had continued to reside in rural districts

but earned their living outside agriculture. This saved immediate urbanisation process inproviding housing and social utilities. Instead, cheaper and easily realisable transportation

facilities were provided.

As regards the accumulation of capital, agriculture was treated as source. Hence

the levy in the form of compulsory deliveries was collected at lower than market prices.

Compulsory deliveries, in the early years, were provided at different percentages of total

output. For example, 20 percent of the cereals, 10 percent of the potato, 25 percent of the

livestock and 10 percent of the milk production. Further, FAO study46 notes:

Price paid for the articles covered by compulsory deliveries were within a range,

averaging about 50percent of the prices paid for the same products in contract buying or

in the free market. Although these prices covered the material costs of production, theydid not fully compensate for the farmers labour. This part of farmers labour therefore

became his contribution to the accumulation of social capital.

This compulsory deliveries system, with several modifications from time to time,

operated in Poland upto 1971, when (on January 1,1972) they were completely abolished.

In the early years upto 1957, the surplus acquiring through the compulsory deliveries was

invested in industry. Later, the surplus was reinvested, in agriculture also.

Table-3 shows the pattern of percentages of private farms in size-classes for the

years 1921, 1939, 1950, 1960, 1971 and 1974. From this table, it can be seen that the

percentages regarding the size-class below 2 hectares remained almost the same. In 1921

and 1939, there were no farms in size-class of 5-7 hectares; from 1950 onwards, this size-class also got some distribution, due to land reforms.

Table-4 shows the percentage distribution of farms for number of farms and area of

the farms, for the years 1971 and 1974. In 1971, there were 64.7 percent of farms below

5 hectares possessing 27.7 percent of land. In both years, 11 percent of the farms above

10 hectares occupied about 34 percent of the land.

Table-5 shows the structure of private farms, excluding below 0.5hectare size, as

in 1974. There were 3,208,000 private farms in 1974 (excluding below 0.5 hectare size).

Out of more than 3 million private farms in Poland, only one million farms could

depend purely on land whereas in the case of remaining 2 million farms, there waspractice of double employment. It was stated that those dual-occupation farms

constitute a barrier to the technical modernisation of agriculture. Economic policy

therefore favours towards either reducing the farm-size and leaving just small home plot,

or towards expanding the farm-size until it is adequate for a purely agricultural farm.47

This problem led the government after 1971 to give many concessions to the private

farms to expand land holding size, in the name of effective functioning. Instead of this, a

genuine collectivisation would have solved this problem.


21/33

21

4.3.2 Collective Farms

After land reform, there were many dwarf farms, which were so small that theycould not be operated efficiently. On small individual farms, mechanisation is impossible

and there could be no investible surplus.

Only some land in state farms was being operated by the state under socialised

agriculture. The socialisation of private farms of small size would be encouraged through

cooperativisation only. In the initial stage, the cooperativisation would be possible only

on voluntary and gradual basis in such an economy as the reactionary classes, yet having

say, would incite the small peasants with an allegation that their land, in cooperatives,

would be expropriated.

In 1948, new form of agricultural holding collective farm was started. As perBenes and Pounds,48 though the leadership,

disclaimed all intention of forcing the peasants into collective, the tolerant attitude

disappeared after the political changes of 1947-48. The new Polish leadership was

convinced on both ideological and economic grounds that the system of private farms had

to be replaced by one of collectives.

As the Polish Workers Party under the leadership of Boleslaw Bierut was

committed to socialised agriculture, it made all efforts to extend and improve agricultural

cooperatives. By 1955, their number rapidly increased to 10,510 covering about 10

percent of the total peasant farms and 9.2 percent of agricultural land. The agricultural

cooperatives performed in two types viz., higher type and lower type. In the lower type,

the individual peasants participated in the cooperative for common crop production

retaining buildings, farms, animals, tools and equipment as personal. In the higher type,

there was common ownership of means of production - land, animals, tools and buildings

vested in the cooperative retaining only small garden plot for private use.

The cooperative being the transitional form of socilaisatlon of landed property; the

Kulaks and the Church (Roman Catholic Church) both were opposing collectivisation.

Further, the Polish United Workers Party (PUWP) formed in 1948, as the unification of

Polish Workers Party and Polish Socialist Party. The members from the socialist (non-

communist) peasants with populist background joined PUWP and they had little care for

the Marxism and Leninism. Wielslaw Gormulka, a prominent leader of PUWP being aleader of compromise with all the reactionary elements including church, was not in

favour of collectivisation. He was removed from the party in 1951, for his right

nationalist deviation, as he himself confessed in 1948, my statement at the June Plenary

meeting of the Central Committee has created the danger of a rightist and nationalist

deviation.49 In the early stages, he propagated, Polish Road to Socialism as if there

would be a separate road. Further he and his supporters used to favour the Kulak

elements and they did not recognise that class struggle was necessary in the country side


22/33

22

for that sake. In his self-criticism of 1948, Gormulka50 said:

The new stage in Polands historical development required first of all an answer to thequestion, how to combat exploitation by capitalists, how to lead the countryside on to the

road of socialism. I supported in fact an automatic, elemental, unplanned development

of conditions in the countryside and of peoples democracy as a whole in Poland. Such an

attitude was basically false and concealed many dangers both for the party and for a further

general shaping of social relations in Poland.

After Bieruts death in 1956, Gormulka was restored to power because of

Krushchevs interference. Then Gormulka51 spoke:

It is necessary in short to replace all the bad parts of our model of socialism with

regard to collective farms the basically sound ones should be assisted by repayable

investment credits and all the forms of state grants should he abolished.... Why should

not, for instance, the Catholic Progressive movement compete with us in the search forand realisation of cooperative farming? It is a poor idea to maintain that only

communists can build socialism.

All this shows his compromising with the Church and his distinction of tenets of

building socialism and his intention for de-collectivisation. His 1948 self-criticism was

farce. As regards Church, it already signed an agreement in April, 1950, whereby the

clergy:52

agreed to preach respect for the state authority and to disengage themselves from

underground activity in return for the promise by the state to refrain from collectivisation

of land, to permit the church to set up the only Catholic University in the Eastern Europe

at Lublin and to give religious instruction in school.

In defiance of this agreement, Bierut started collectivisation; whereas Gormulka,

not caring the reactionary character of the church and clergy, reflected in the agreement,

could see progressive movement in them. It is nothing but Gormulkas compromise with

the Church under disguise.

Whatever benefits to the cooperatives were given in Bieruts leadership were

abolished by Gormulka. Further he could suggest to decollectivise all collectives with

poor performance. Thus, Gormulka laid foundation for de-collectivisation. Immediately

after stopping state grants, the collectives, 10,510 in 1955 decreased to 1,534 in 1956

and later there had been no improvement. The number of cooperatives in 1960, 1970,

1973, and 1974 were 1668, 1071, 1064 and l06l respectively. Agricultural area under

them being 9.2 percent in 1955 decreased to 1.5 percent in 1974.

Though the minimum number of families to form a cooperative was reduced from

10 to 5 (even to 4) in 1973, no improvement could be seen in the formation of

cooperatives.


23/33

23

4.3.3 State Farms

While implementing land reforms, 3.7 million hectares of land was reserved for thestate farms. In 1974, state farms had 3.203million hectares. Efforts were being made to

increase state farms. State farms were increased by taking over land vacated by

individual farmers, when it is situated in the vicinity of existing ones. New farms were

set up when at least 200 hectares of vacated land was available in one complex.

The role of state farms in Polish agriculture is concentrated in the three fields of

activity: (1) The provision of agricultural production means for agriculture as a whole,

(2) Participation in the changing agrarian system, and (3) Agricultural commodity

production. The state farms covered 16.6 percent of total agricultural land in 1974. Out

of 3.203 million hectares in 1974, 2.973 million hectares were used by farms under the

Ministry of Agriculture and 0.23 million hectares were operated as experimental farms

for agricultural schools and universities and other institutions. In 1974, there were 630

agricultural state enterprises. They would he controlled by Viovodship Boards. Average

area of the state enterprise was 2673hectares ranging between 300 and 7000 hectares.

Each enterprise had production units which varied from 1 to 10. Average number of

production units per enterprise was 4.2.

The ultimate structure of changing socialised agriculture converges in the form of

state farm sector. As such in socialist country, state farms play an important role.

4.3.4 Agricultural Circles

An agricultural circle is a peasant self-governing organisation representing simple

form of cooperation and thus provides foundation for the development of social

ownership of means of production. After de-collectivisation, this type of cooperation was

encouraged through Agricultural Development Fund. By 1957, there were 11,600

agricultural circles with 391,000 membership and increased to 35,400 with membership

of 2,700,000 in 1972. In 1960 and 1975 the agricultural circles were 23,100 and 35,600

respectively.

4.4 Regional Agrarian Structure in 1973 and 1974

Regional differentiation of Agrarian structure as in 1973 is shown in Table-6.

From the regional point of view, the following four regions were singled out by theInstitute of Agricultural Economics, Poland. Regions and Viovodships53 are as follows:

Region-1 (South East Region) : (1) Katowice, (2) Cracow, (3)Kieke,

(4) Lublin, (5) Rzeszow.

Region-2 (Central East Region) : (6) Lodz, (7) Warsaw, (8) Bialystook.

Region-3 (Central West Region) : (9) Gdansk, (10) Bydgoszez.

(11) Poznan, (12) Wroclaw, (13) Opde.


24/33

24

Region-4 (North West Region) : (14) Olsztyn, (15) Koszalin,

(16) Szczaecin, (17) Zielona Gora.As seen from the Table-6, the share of socialised farms (state and cooperative)

assumed 6.2. 6.0, 27.4 and 47.7 percent of the total lands in the 4 regions respectively.

The average size of the private farms above 0.5 hectares and 2 hectares gradually

increased from the region-1 to region- 4, as observed by FAO study.54

It is characteristic that changes in agrarian structure proceed more slowly in regions 1 to

2 with a dispersed agrarian structure than in regions in 3 and 4, where large farms prevail.

In these latter regions there occurs a faster out-flow of people from agriculture and of

farms from production.

4.5 Evaluation of Land Reforms

While evaluating agrarian reforms in Poland, one can easily recognise that they

have been implemented radically from the sense of bourgeois democratic revolution. As

the industry was socialised already, the steps ought to have been taken to make landed

property also socialised in so long a period. But no such possibility could turn into

reality because of the crisis in which Poland had involved since 1980.

One can easily notice from the post World War-II conditions in Poland, the

uprisings of workers of 1956, 1970,1976 and 1980 revolved around the problem of food.

This can be attributed to the wrong policies taken up by the Government after 1955.

Though Poland has state farms, they could not cope with the demand for the agricultural

produce, the state farms being confined to 16.6 percent of the total area. In 1956, theworkers went on strike for increasing wages to meet the increased prices of food grains

and food stuffs. This was the result of decollectivisation process started by Gormulka.

Had collectivisation been continued even after 1956, with all the encouragement offered

by Bierut prior to 1956, it would have paved the way for mechanised and collectivised

efficient agricultural production. De-collectivisation process led to small peasant

farming, due to which mechanisation and other technological inputs could not be applied

on small farms below 5 hectares, which comprised 65 percent of the total farms and 27

percent of the total area. Further, the farms above 5hectares comprised 35 percent of the

farms and 73 percent of the area, could not help solve the problem of food, as they were

left for free-market.The Polish households spend nearly 45 percent of their budgets on the food.

Further, the elasticity of demand income for food was found to be high always. This

happened because, the diversion of their income to non-food items, was unthinkable, as

the other consumer products were over priced and in short supply. This happened so,

because the consumer goods production was quite inadequate. The Government under

Gormulka, in 1970, raised basic food prices between 10 percent and 60 percent and

decreased the prices of manufactured goods only by 10 to 15 percent. As soon as this


25/33

25

wasdone, workers uprising resulted in removal of Gormulkas administration. Edward

Gieriek came to power. He abolished compulsory deliveries on peasant farms andRestored approximately 7,000 sequestered church buildings and annulled the heavy

taxation imposed by Gormulka in Sixties.55 Gieriek depended much upon Western

technology to develop industry, by borrowing from Western countries. To repay the

loans in the form of products, the export-oriented production was developed. This also

brought another step to rise prices of food stuffs in 1976. As soon as workers uprising

came Gieriek retreated hastily. The only option left was for increasing agricultural

production.

To increase production in agricultural goods, Gieriek offered many concessions to

the Kulak type land owners and rich peasants. Even they were permitted to increase farm

size. Here the concern was that nearly 80 percent of the total agricultural productioncame from the private farms as a whole and the majority of the surplus could be provided

by the rich farmers and kulaks. As such, the government encouraged capitalist farming:56

Therefore in 1975, the Government embarked on a vigorous programs to attract efficient

private farmers with comparatively large holdings. They were offered the option of

purchasing or renting additional land either from the Soil Bank or from smaller, neglected

private farms. Bank loans were made available to private farmers for these purchases and

for soil improvements. The credit extended to private farming increased from 21.4

billion Zloty in 1970 to 64.9 billion Zloty by 1975.

On the one hand industrial policies depended on foreign loan, entangling in debt

trap of about $24 billion in 1977 and $27 billion in 1980, and on the other hand, no

genuine steps to collectivise agriculture were taken, thereby Kulakising agriculture. Even

after 36 years rule under peoples democracy, Poland could not solve the problem of

food. It resorted to import food grains which amounted to 2.1 million tonnes in 1966-70

and 7.8 million tonnes in 1976-79. In such conditions of food-crisis, the rich Kulak class

in the rural areas, became strong and accomplished its need of strengthening private

property on land. This class hoarded and resorted to black marketing the food stuffs. It

became one of the factors that led to the crisis of 1980. Within workers state, an

alternative workers organisation could take birth viz., Solidarity and in 1980 the

Solidarity attracted the attention of the world. To curb the activities of Solidarity the

Poland Government clamped emergency for some months.

In all crises, erupted in Poland periodically, food problem played a prominent role.

Inefficiency in agriculture has come out of the dwarf holdings, comprising 65 percent of

the total. The other 35 percent holdings covering an area of 73 percent left for free

market. Government could have collectivised the dwarf holdings, by voluntary and

gradual methods, ifthere had been will with the leadership; and later, the big and Kulak

farms also could have been brought into the fold of socialised agriculture, by setting an

example. Instead of this, the Government opted for the development of capitalist


26/33

26

agriculture, as it is rightly pointed out by Piekalkievicz:57

Despite official pronouncements to the contrary, Gieriks leadership resigned itself toprivate agriculture in Poland. It attempts to reform rather than to abolish it through

collectivisation. The reforms are designed to change landholding and production patterns

from dwarf and subsistence ones to medium sized commercial cropping. The present

Polish Communist leadership puts its agricultural bet not on the drunken and the poor

but on the sober and prosperous - the Kulaks.

APPENDIX TABLES

Table -1

Land Occupation in Eastern Europe in 1969 - By Farm Type

S.No. CountryOwner

Operated

State

Farms

Collective

Farms

1 Albania 20.0 7.5 2.5

2 Bulgaria 0.1 6.8 93.1

3 Czechoslavakia 11.1 21.1 67.8

4 East Germany 7.4 7.6 85.0

5 Hungary 3.7 32.6 -

6 Poland 86.0 12.9 1.1

7 Romania 4.8 44.0 51.2

8 Yugoslavia 87.6 6.4 6.0

9 USSR 0.0 31.0 69.0

Source: Hugh D.Clout (1970), p.30.


27/33

Table-2

Size Distribution of Farms in the Provinces of Poland, 1921

Extent of Farms

Percentage of the Total Area of Each Province

West Sector South Sector Central and Eastern Sector

Sizeoffarms

(acres)

Percentageof

TotalAreaof

Poland P

oznan

Pomorze

SlaskCieszynski

Krakow

Lwow

Stanislawow

Tarnopol

Kielce

Lublin

Lodz

Warszawa

Bialystock

Volhynia

Polesia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2500 6.7 9.3 4.6 8.5 1.4 4.7 8.0 8.8 3.8 5.2 4.5 3.3 5.2 7.9 2

Source: Dimitri T. Pronin (1949)


28/33

28

Table-3

Structure of Private Farms in 1921, 1939, 1950, 1960, 1971, 1974 and 1978

(in %)

Size Class 1921 1939 1950 1960 1971 1974 1974* 1978*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 hec. 12.8 16.6 12.0 10.7 11.0 11.2 13.2 13.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*The farms below 0.5 hectares are not taken into account

Sources:

1. Columns- 2, 6 and 7: Jaroslaw A.Piekalkievicz (l979), p.100

2. Columns- 3, 4 and 5 : Government of Poland (1980) and Hand Book of Poland (1974)

3. Column-8: FAO, UNO (1975), p. 100

4. Column-9: Government of Poland (1980)

Table-4

Distribution of Farms and Area in 1971 and 1974

(in %)

1971 1974Size-Class

(Hectares)No.of

FarmsArea

No.of

FarmsArea

< 0.5 13.9 0.6 15.1 0.6

0.5 - 2.0 23.7 6.3 24.1 6.5

2.0 - 5.0 27.1 20.6 26.3 20.6

5.0 - 7.0 12.2 16.3 11.7 16.1

7.0 - 10.0 12.1 22.6 11.6 22.0

> 10.0 11.0 33.6 11.2 34.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Jaroslaw A Piekalkievicz (1979), p.100


29/33

29

Table-5

Structure of Private Farms in 1974

No. of Farms Area of Agri. LandSize-Class

(Hectares) ('000) Percent ('000 ha) Percent

< 0.5 13.9 0.6 15.1 0.6

0.5 - 2.0 23.7 6.3 24.1 6.5

2.0 - 5.0 27.1 20.6 26.3 20.6

5.0 - 7.0 12.2 16.3 11.7 16.1

7.0 - 10.0 12.1 22.6 11.6 22.0

> 10.0 11.1 33.6 11.2 34.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: FAO, UNO (1975), p.100.

Table -6

Regional Differentiation of Agrarian Structrure in 1973

R e g i o n sItem

1 2 3 4 Total

In percentage

Share of Socialised Farms in Total Land 6.2 6.0 27.4 47.7 19.5

Average area of an individual farm Hectares per Farm

Over 0.5 hectare 3.4 5.7 5.7 7.3 4.8

Over 2.0 hectare 4.6 6.8 7.8 9.8 6.3

Source: FAO, UNO (1975), p.99

Notes

1. K. Marx (1971), p.786

2. K. Marx (1975, p.44

3. K. Marx (1975), p.103

4. K. Marx (1975), p.04

5. V. I. Lenin (1965), p.183

6. K Marx (1971), p.182

7. Op. cit., p.813

8. V.I. Lenin (1946)


30/33

30

9. D. Ferenc (1980)

10. F. Engels (1975), p.634 & 63511. Op. cit., p.636

12. Mao-Tse-Tung (1977), p.353

13. S.H. Sanakoyev (1972), p.73

14. S. Ganguli (1972)

15. R.D.Laird (1978)

16. Witold Kula (1976), p,26

17. Dimltri T.Pronin (1949)

18. Vaclar L Benes and Norman G.J.Pounds (1970), p.117

19. Dimitri T.Pronin 1949)

20. Government of Poland (1946)21. Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (1946), p. 64

22. Dimitri T.Promin (1949)

23. Op. cit.

24. Op. cit.

25. Op. cit.

26. Op. cit.

27. Op. cit.

28. There were 34 percent small holdings below 0.5 hectare and there were no holdings between 0.5 and 2.0

hectares as presented elsewhere. The position is as per Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (1946).

29. Dimitri T. Promin (1949)

30. Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (1946), p.65

31. Op .cit.

32. Op. cit.

33. Op. cit.

34. Op. cit.

35. J. Kostrovicki and R. Szczesny (1972), p.12

36. Op. cit., p.12

37. FAO, UNO (1975), p.151

38. Op. cit.,p.709

39. Op. cit., p.70

40. Government of Poland (1980), p.15141. J. Kostrowick and R. szczesny (1972), p.13

42. Op cit., p.15

43. J.Stalin (1955)

44. S.Ganguli (1975)

45. FAO, UN (1975), p.74

46. Op. cit., p. 75

47. Op. cit., p.102

48. Vacla L.Benes and Noririan G.J.Pounds (1970), p.133-134


31/33

31

49. Proletarian Path (1982), p.66

50. Op. cit., p.6651 Op. cit., p.68

52. Op. cit., p.69

53. Until 1975, Poland was divided into 17 viovodships and subsequently into 49 viovodships as

administrative units, see, J. Kostrovicki and R. Szczesny (1972).

54. FAO, UNO (1982)

55. Amrita Chhachin (1982)

56. Jaroslaw A Piekalkievicz (1979), p.102

57. Op cit, p.104

References

Benes, Vaclar L. and Norman G.J. Pounds (1970): Poland, Ernest Benn Ltd, London.

Chhachin, Amrita, et al (1982): Movement towards Workers Democracy, Economic and Political

Weekly, July 10-17.

Clout, Hugh D. (1970): Agriculture: Studies in Contemporary Europe, Macmillan, London. .

Engels, F. (1975): The Peasant Question in France and Germany , in K.Marx and F.Engels, Selected

Works, Progress Publishers, Mascow.

FAO, UNO (1975): Long Term Changes in Polish Agriculture, in James P.0 Hagan (ed), Growth

and Adjustment in National Agricultures, Mc.Millan Press Ltd, London.

Ferenc, Donath (1980):Reform and Revolution: Transformation of Hungary Agriculture:1945-1970 ,

Budapest, Hungary.

Francisco, Ronald A., Betty A.Laird and Roy D.Laird (eds) (1979): The Political Economy of

Collectivised Agriculture -A Comparative Study of Communist and Non-Communist Systems,

Pergamon Press, New York.

Ganguli S. (1972): Peasant Farms and Socialist Transformation of Agriculture in Poland, 1945-75,

Economic and Political Weekly , Annual Number, March.

Government of Poland (1980): Facts About Poland, Warsaw.

Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (1946):Agrarian Reforms in Western Countries, Bombay.

Kostrovicki, J. and R. Szczesny (1972): Polish Agriculture- Characteristics, Types and Regions,

Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

Kula, Witold (1976): An Economic Theory of Feudal System, New Left Books.

Laird, Roy D. (1978): The Pluses and Minuses of State Agriculture in the USSR, in A. Ronald

Francisco et al. (1979).

Lenin, V.I.(1946): Capilalism and Agriculture, New York.

____ (1965): Revision of Agrarian Programme of Workers Party. in his Collected Works Vol. X,

Progress Publishers, Moscow.

Mao-Tse-Tung (1977): On New Democracy, in his Selected Works, Vol.II, Peking.

(1982):A Critique of Soviet EOonomics, Progress Publications, New Delhi.


32/33

32

Marx, K. (1971): Capital, Vol. III, Progress Publishers, Mascow.

(1975): Theories of Surplus Value, Vol.II, Progress Publishers, Mascow.

Piekalkievicz, Jaroslaw A. (1979): Kulakisation of Polish Agriculture, in A. Ronald Francisco et al.

(eds) (1979).

Proletarian Path (1982): Commentry, Proletarian Path, January-April.

Pronin, Dimitri T. (1949): Land Reforms in Poland 1920-1945, Land Economics,Vol. XXV, No.2,

May.

Sanakoyev, S.H. (1972): The World Socialist System, Progress Publishers, Mascow.

Stalin, J.V. (1955): Collected Works, Vol.VII, Progress Publishers, Mascow.


33/33

About the Author

Dr. A. Venkateswarlu, B.Sc., M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, has good academicrecord. He received his double graduation and Masters degree from OsmaniaUniversity. He joined as Research Scholar, at the Centre for the Study ofRegional Development (CSRD), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi andgot M.Phil and Ph.D degrees in 1984 and 1992 respectively.

For his Ph.D, he workerd under the supervision of Prof. G.K. Chadha,presently the Dean of School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi.

He worked jointly with Prof. G.K. Chadha in the Project of UnitedNations Centre for Regional Development, (UNCRD), Nagoya, Japan, entitled

Community Asset Formation through Peoples Efforts: Case of Pindiprolu,Andhra Pradesh, during 1993-94.

He is the author of the bookDeveloping agricultural Technolog: AStudy of Andhra Pradesh Agriculture from Rawat Publications, Jaipur.

He has been teaching Economics in Government Degree Colleges,affiliated to Kakatiya University, A.P., since 1987; presently working at S.R& B.N.N.R Government college, Khammam, A.P, India.

Documents

Land Reforms in Poland Till Solidarity Movement