Thus the whole of the arable land, or at least the best part of it, became actually, if not legally, the private property of a few families, whilst the less energetic or less fortunate inhabitants of the stanitsa had only parcels of comparatively barren soil, or had no land whatever, and became mere agricultural labourers.
After a time this injustice was remedied.

The landless members justly complained that they had to bear the same burdens as those who possessed the land, and that therefore they ought to enjoy the same privileges.
The old spirit of equality was still strong amongst them, and they ultimately succeeded in asserting their rights.

In accordance with their demands the appropriated land was confiscated by the Commune, and the system of periodical redistributions was introduced.

By this system each adult male possesses a share of the land.
These facts tend to throw light on some of the dark questions of social development in its early stages.
So long as a village community leads a purely pastoral life, and possesses an abundance of land, there is no reason why the individuals or the families of which it is composed should divide the land into private lots, and there are very potent reasons why they should not adopt such a course.

To give the division of the land any practical significance, it would be necessary to raise fences of some kind, and these fences, requiring for their construction a certain amount of labour, would prove merely a useless encumbrance, for it is much more convenient that all the sheep and cattle should graze together.