Now, I am well aware that in practice the injustice and inconveniences of the system, being always tempered and corrected by ingenious compromises suggested by long experience, are not nearly so great as the mere theorist might naturally suppose; but they are, I believe, quite great enough to prevent the permanent maintenance of the institution, and already there are ominous indications of the coming change, as I shall explain more fully when I come to deal with the consequences of serf-emancipation.  On the other hand there is no danger of a sudden, general abolition of the old system.  Though the law now permits the transition from Communal to personal hereditary tenure, even the progressive enterprising peasants are slow to avail themselves of the permission; and the reason I once heard given for this conservative tendency is worth recording.  A well-to-do peasant who had been in the habit of manuring his land better than his neighbours, and who was, consequently, a loser by the existing system, said to me:  “Of course I want to keep the allotment I have got.  But if the land is never again to be divided my grandchildren may be beggars.  We must not sin against those who are to come after us.”  This unexpected reply gave me food for reflection.  Surely those muzhiks who are so often accused of being brutally indifferent to moral obligations must have peculiar deep-rooted moral conceptions of their own which exercise a great influence on their daily life.  A man who hesitates to sin against his grandchildren still unborn, though his conceptions of the meum and the tuum in the present may be occasionally a little confused, must possess somewhere deep down in his nature a secret fund of moral feeling of a very respectable kind.  Even among the educated classes in Russia the way of looking at these matters is very different from ours.  We should naturally feel inclined to applaud, encourage, and assist the peasants who show energy and initiative, and who try to rise above their fellows.  To the Russian this seems at once inexpedient and immoral.  The success of the few, he explains, is always obtained at the expense of the many, and generally by means which the severe moralist cannot approve of.  The rich peasants, for example, have gained their fortune and influence by demoralising and exploiting their weaker brethren, by committing all manner of illegalities, and by bribing the local authorities.  Hence they are styled Miroyedy (Commune-devourers) or Kulaki (fists), or something equally uncomplimentary.  Once this view is adopted, it follows logically that the Communal institutions, in so far as they form a barrier to the activity of such persons, ought to be carefully preserved.  This idea underlies nearly all the arguments in favour of the Commune, and explains why they are so popular.  Russians of all classes have, in fact, a leaning towards socialistic notions, and very little sympathy with our belief in individual initiative and unrestricted competition.