The first peasant needed tools, which were not provided him by nature in the form in which he used them. Cereals are to-day to a notable extent a manufactured product, even if we consider them simply as produce, and not as commodities in the marketable sense. It is true that the narodnik may object that the working of capitalism has been to turn the soil into a mere instrument for the production of land-rent, thus annulling the old conception of the soil as the nourisher; but even from this outlook it is necessary to strive for the technical perfectionment of agriculture, seeing that increase of population enforces this endeavour.
Besides, the narodniki have forgotten the question of stock-raising. Is stock-raising likewise perfectly natural? What is its relationship to the bringing of the soil under cultivation? Which was the earlier development, which is "more primitive"?
Again, and similarly, we must enquire why home work, and above all the so-called home industry, should be considered more primitive and-more natural than technically perfected factory industry.
The history of agriculture is part of the general history of industry, and it is utterly fallacious to separate the two spheres of labour one from another, to oppose them one to another as Ormuzd to Ahriman.
But in addition to the economic problem, the socio-political problem, the problem of the apportionment of the soil presses for solution. It is really hard to see how the mir, the artel, and home work (whether as home industry for the capitalist market or as home industry for the supply of family needs), could solve the social question in the socialist sense, We have merely to turn the pages of Russian history to note on almost every page how unjustly the soil has been apportioned. We have to ask, Why did "holy" Russia, despite its mir and artel and kustar', fall into capitalist temptation at all, why did the Russian Ivan abandon his steppe to seek the modern Jerusalem?
Confirmation of the objections I have adduced is furnished by the agrarian program formulated by the narodniki after the revolution of 1905. The analysis of this program is beyond our present scope, but I may be permitted a brief reference to it in so far as it furnishes an additional argument against the fundamental positions of the narodniki.
