Land Reforms in Poland

till Solidarity Movement

A. Venkateswarlu

Swarajya Bharati Publications

1
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

2
 To
My Teacher and Supervisor
Prof. G.K.Chadha,
Dean, School of Social Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.

3
 Preface
I joined integrated M.Phil. / Ph.D programme at the Centre for the Study of Regional
Development, 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

4
 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 or
tenants 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 rent and the
differential 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,

5
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 is
relatively 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 bourgeoisie’s leadership. A democratic state
would emerge, wherein all feudal bonds would be broken and absolute ground rent would

6
vanish, as Marx says, “With abolition of landed property and retention of capitalist
production, this excess profit (differential rent) arising from the difference in fertility
would remain.”3 In the second phase, through socialist revolution under the leadership of
the working class, Marx says “If landed property became people’s 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 the
land 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 the
tenant farmer in his productive investment of capital, which in the final analysis benefit
not him, but the landlord.
7
Further, Marx says:
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 (people’s
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

7
assessed that such a struggle by the bourgeoisie:
is inconceivable when the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is
very 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 forcibly
expropriating 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 Lenin’s death
Stalin took up for forcible collectivisation of agriculture in 1929.

8
 As regards the agrarian reforms in Eastern Europe and China, the land was not
nationalised as per the concept of ‘People’s Democracy” or “New Democracy.” This
New 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, Mao12
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-sen’s 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 people’s 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 14 says:
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 they
collectivise land.15 But the collectivisation of land is to make land people’s 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.

9
2. Historical Background of Poland Agriculture
By the end of 18th Century, the Polish economy was predominantly feudal as was
made clear by Kula’s 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 country’s 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
lord’s 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 farm
buildings; (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.

10
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. Poland’s period of parliamentary democracy was short lived and in
1926, Pilsudski made a successful armed coup d’etat 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 in
cultivation 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 Pronin’s article. As per the Table, in below 50.0 acre 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, cannot
keep 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 Poland’s 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.

11
 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 important
aspects 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 moderate
turn 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

12
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, 13,557,500 acres (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) of
swamp 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.

13
 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 small
peasants 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

14
 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, in
Eastern 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 total
number 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.

15
(b) Western Poland (formerly under Prussian Rule)
In this region, the larger holdings above 50 hectares covered 50-60 percent of
agricultural 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 to
the 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 People’s democracy to be transformed to socialism. As
the very concept of people’s 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 Party’s 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.

16
 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,

17
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 the
Southeast 50-90 percent; 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,
people’s 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, Ganguli44 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.

18
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. Area in Perce-
Type of Use
No. '000 ha 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 be
provided 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

19
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 in
providing 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 50 percent 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, they
did not fully compensate for the farmer’s labour. This part of farmer’s 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 0.5 hectare 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 was
practice 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.

20
4.3.2 Collective Farms
After land reform, there were many dwarf farms, which were so small that they
could 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 per
Benes 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 a
leader 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

21
for that sake. In his self-criticism of 1948, Gormulka50 said:
The new stage in Poland’s historical development required first of all an answer to the
question, 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 people’s 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 Bierut’s death in 1956, Gormulka was restored to power because of

Krushchev’s 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 for
and 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 Gormulka’s compromise with
the Church under disguise.
Whatever benefits to the cooperatives were given in Bierut’s 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.

22
4.3.3 State Farms
While implementing land reforms, 3.7 million hectares of land was reserved for the
state farms. In 1974, state farms had 3.203 million 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 2673 hectares 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 the
Institute 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.

23
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, the
workers 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 5 hectares 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

24
was done, workers uprising resulted in removal of Gormulka’s administration. Edward
Gieriek came to power. He abolished compulsory deliveries on peasant farms and
“Restored 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 production
came 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 people’s 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, if there 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

25
agriculture, as it is rightly pointed out by Piekalkievicz:57
Despite official pronouncements to the contrary, Gierik’s leadership resigned itself to
private 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

Owner State Collective

S.No. Country Operated Farms 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.

26
 Table-2
Size Distribution of Farms in the Provinces of Poland, 1921
Extent of Farms

Percentage of Total Area of

Percentage of the Total Area of Each Province
Size of farms (acres)

West Sector South Sector Central and Eastern Sector

Poland

Slask Cieszynski

Nowogrodck
Stanislawow

Bialystock
Warszawa

Volhynia
Tarnopol
Pomorze

Krakow
Poznan

Polesia
Lublin
Kielce
Lwow

Wilno
Lodz
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

<5 5.0 2.3 2.3 8.5 13.8 16.1 21.1 13.2 5.2 2.6 3.3 1.9 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.5
5-12.5 15.9 3.8 4.1 17.1 35.4 32.7 25.7 23.7 24.2 15.7 14.7 7.6 10.5 18.6 12.4 16.4 11.6
12.5-50 41.6 28.9 28.2 35.3 35.6 23.2 19.9 24.0 49.8 54.1 53.5 46.2 55.3 53.3 42.8 44.5 43.6
50-250 12.1 22.0 31.6 16.6 4.7 4.7 7.6 5.6 3.3 7.0 7.4 15.5 15.7 8.5 14.2 13.0 20.8
250-2500 18.7 33.7 29.2 14.0 9.1 18.6 17.7 24.7 13.7 15.4 16.6 25.3 11.8 9.6 8.8 17.0 14.6
>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 20.2 7.3 8.1
Source: Dimitri T. Pronin (1949)

27
 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

<2 hec. 34.0 30.1 25.9 32.8 37.6 39.2 28.4 30.0
2 - 5 hec. 30.7 29.1 31.3 30.4 27.1 26.2 31.0 30.5
5 - 7 hec. 22.5 24.2 15.1 13.2 12.2 11.7 13.8 13.1
7 - 10 hec. - - 15.7 12.9 12.1 11.6 13.6 12.8
> 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 1974
Size-Class
No.of No.of
(Hectares) Area Area
Farms Farms

< 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

28
 Table-5
Structure of Private Farms in 1974
Size-Class No. of Farms Area of Agri. Land
(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 s
Item
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)

29
9. D. Ferenc (1980)
10. F. Engels (1975), p.634 & 635
11. 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.151
41. 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

30
49. Proletarian Path (1982), p.66
50. Op. cit., p.66
51 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.

31
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.

32
 About the Author
Dr. A. Venkateswarlu, B.Sc., M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D, has good academic
record. He received his double graduation and Master’s degree from Osmania
University. He joined as Research Scholar, at the Centre for the Study of
Regional Development (CSRD), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and
got 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 Nehru
University, New Delhi.
He worked jointly with Prof. G.K. Chadha in the Project of United
Nations Centre for Regional Development, (UNCRD), Nagoya, Japan, entitled
“Community Asset Formation through People’s Efforts: Case of Pindiprolu,
Andhra Pradesh”, during 1993-94.
He is the author of the book Developing agricultural Technolog: A
Study 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.

33