pected from the transformation of the peasant from a leaseholder into a freeholder. This process can be accelerated by the giving of instruction! in agriculture. It is true that the small extent of the holdings is an obstacle to a rational system of agriculture which is to yield a substantial surplus. And this surplus is all-important.
It is recognised even by many supporters of small holdings in agriculture that large-scale production yields a larger net profit than small undertakings, but of the latter it is asserted that the gross yield is greater. But even if this is. the case, it would not dispose us more favourably to small holdings. The mass of mankind who live in society outside of agriculture depend upon its net profits. We speak of society and not of the State, because an individual State can find a way out by importing the means of subsistence. Without a large surplus, from agriculture, there; can be no large population of those engaged in intellectual and industrial pursuits, no high level of civilisation and therefore no technical progress in agriculture itself. The transformation of a rational system of large-scale agricultural production into small holdings signifies a decrease in the surplus yielded by agriculture. It means an increase in the amount of labour-power required for agriculture, and a decrease in the nonagricultural population, and thus a set-back to civilisation. Militarists, who look to the peasants for numerous recruits, might well be enthusiastic for small holdings. Modern Socialists, who have at heart not the strength of the armies, but the level of civilisation must support large-scale agriculture.
With the exception of the undertakings of the State and municipalities, few opportunities existed for largescale agriculture.in Georgia after the agrarian reforms. Large estates worked by private! capital are scarcely likely to arise.
Perhaps, the transition stage to rational methods of agriculture may give rise to the development of the
54
