Beginning in 1861, Russia underwent a momentous social reform that would forever change the socioeconomic landscape of the country: the total emancipation of the Russian peasantry. Initiated by Tsar Alexander II, and likely spurred by the embarrassing defeat Russia suffered in the Crimean War, the Russian government officially abolished human bondage and, between 1861 and 1866, began granting these newly emancipated peasants (roughly) half the land they used to be required to work. As a result of this tremendous reform, the condition of the Russian peasantry underwent great social, political, and economic changes; these changes are recorded by three primary groups within the Russian state: the government, journalists, and the peasantry itself. …show more content…
Gleb Uspensky, a revolutionary non-Marxist socialist, criticized the lack of unity within the newly formed peasant communities that resulted from the emancipation; he reasoned that further progression was necessary to truly create a healthy environment for Russia’s peasantry (Doc. 3). Anton Chekov, a Russian playwright, echoed Uspensky, portraying the peasantry as a discordant and quarrelsome community in his short story, “Peasants” (Doc. 7). However, despite this negative perception of the peasantry, many journalists instead took aim at the government and nobility, citing their arbitrary laws and inability to pass effective reform. Peter Kropotkin, a fiery Russian anarchist, defiantly claimed that this newfound, supposedly beneficial “order” that had sprung from the emancipation of the peasants was just a mask for the government to commit further injustices to its largest and poorest class (Doc. 4). As Kropotkin was a self-proclaimed anarchist, his true intentions can be brought into question, however, as he likely would have taken aim at the government regardless of the peasantry’s conditions. Within all this critical and impassioned rhetoric, the most reliable depiction of the peasantry may lie in Katernia Breshkovskaia’s intimate, first-hand accounts with the peasantry; found in her memoirs, she …show more content…
The government, fully aware of the peasantry’s numerous issues and grossly corrupt land distribution system, failed to pass any compelling reforms after the initial emancipation. The vast work contributed by journalists within this timeframe paint a rather hectic and turbulent view of the government and the peasantry, while offering no substantive or realistic reforms to, effectively, fix the problem. Finally, the Russian peasants themselves prove to be the most effective in achieving their own reform; angered by years of impotence and ineffectiveness within the Russian government, the Russian peasantry develops a fiery and aggressive position that will boil over into the 20th century. Furthermore, the perception of the Russian peasantry was unique to each Russian citizen, shaped by personal experiences and immediate needs; therefore, it seems more than appropriate that the peasantry itself proved to yield the greatest success in securing its own
One of the first and most vital sources utilized was Not By Bread Alone by Barbara Engel. This article comes from Barbara Alpern Engel who is a historian who has wrote several books on Russian women and specifically Russian women during the early 1900s. The book appears in the larger journal The Journal of Modern History. The purpose of this article is to expound on the subsistence riots in WWI era Russia and the ones that lead to the Russian Revolution. A value of this source is her specialization, it seems, in Russian history from 1700 onwards. She has wrote several other books on Russian history and thus she has a greater knowledge than most on the subject. A limitation of this article maybe since she
Moss, W., 2014. A History of Russia Volume 2: Since 1855. 1st ed. London, England: Anthem Press London, pp.112-113.
This meant that Alexander II would need to somehow release the serfs from their owner’s land. Another reason for emancipation was made clear in a quote from Alexander II in March 1856: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to await the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below”. This shows that emancipation was going to be used as a tool to solve two problems facing Alexander II. However, in order for emancipation to succeed another reform had to occur which was land reforms. However, Alexander II did not want the political system of Russia to change whilst the economic transformation was occurring.
Russia, industrialized as a result of many peasant revolts. The revolts led to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, they received land but the political chains were still in place. Many reforms were still needed. The military became based on merit, education was increased, transportation became more efficient with the introduction or railroads, and law codes were improved with local councils put in place called zemstvoes. These reforms and the great size and natural resources of Russia allowed it to build factories. Yet, the change experienced by the West had not, yet, occurred.
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
The need to abolish serfdom was a persistent and, according to Mosse writing in 1958, biggest problem in Russian society since the reign of Peter the Great. All the problems of Russian Empire stemmed from serfdom and would automatically be solved with its removal .
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
Through these decrees we see how Russian social class is very stratified and there are more high official roles but more people in poverty. Russia still had to serfs until 1861. Also the state of the Russian economy was probably very limited to do the fact that there was no manufacturing company to provide for the empire. The Russian economy was very isolated and they go to areas where they can trade. With Russia’s subsistence economy, they were not able to specialize in other areas.
Semën Ivanovich Kanatchikov wrote about his first hand experiences as a socialist revolutionary in A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semën Kanatchikov. This book was an autobiography that included how SDs and SRs collaborated in order to carry out the 1905 Russian Revolution with a revolutionary attitude and revolutionary actions. Based on Kanatchikov’s writings, the revolution of the SDs and SRs, which were “Marxist neighbors”, materialized as “The Demonstration” before the brief discussion of “The Traitor”. Unfortunately, the final theme in the book was the poorly mentioned 1905 Revolution, or Liberal Spring, that was critically organized by the“Marxist neighbors”. “Marxist Neighbors”
After their “peasant economy [had] come to a full collapse and ruin, from which it will not recover in several years”, the peasants started getting furious (Document 5). They became frustrated as their living situation continued to decline rather than improve. Anton Chekhov, a physician, and short story writer, depicted in his short story “Peasants” the life of peasants. He wrote that “they lived in discord, quarreling constantly [...] Who keeps a tavern and makes people drunkards? A peasant.” (Document 7). Peasants were seen by many as the root of the problem and trouble makers. They were blamed for many of the problems in the society. After Nicholas II became Tsar and Russia started to industrialize, the peasants were believed to create more tension. Police Report 4894 to the Ministry of the Interior, claimed that “there has recently emerged a series of peasant disorders in the form of systematic damage to the noble’s fields and meadows” (Document 9). The Nobles were significantly favored over the peasants as the new image of them being the cause of the problems engraved the minds of the public. This was the case until Tsar Nicholas II created the Duma in
In the years leading up to World War I, social unrest among the Russian people was spreading rapidly. There was a huge social gulf between the peasants who were former serfs and the landowners. The peasants regarded anyone who did not work as a parasite. They had always regarded as all land belonging to them. They regarded any land retained by the landowners at the time serfs were freed as stolen and only force could prevent them from taking it back. By the time Russia entered the war, one peasant rebellion had already been suppressed and several socialist revolutionary movements were developing.
...e situation, to portray many different ways in which serf liberation affected the peasant class. Many contemporary writers criticized emancipation adducing it did not bring any change in peasant’s lives. For example, Nikolai Nekrasov’s ‘Who Lives Well In Russia?’ may be considered a critic of the emancipation. This book is about seven peasants who met after the emancipation and ask each other if they are living well. The answers are negative and the villages were they come from have names that reflect their feelings: “Patched”, “Holey”, “Barefoot”, “Shivering”, “Burned”, “Hungry” and “Harvestless”.
...iks and the Petty Bourgeoisie." Lenin Collected Works. Vol. 12. Moscow: Foreign Languages House, 1962. 179-83. Marxist Internet Archive. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
The Conditions for Workers and Peasants Under the Bolsheviks and Under the Tsar's Rule Conditions for workers and peasants were deplorable under the rule of the Tsars, but not to the extent they were under the Bolsheviks. Despite the Bolsheviks claiming their policies were entirely in favour of the proletariat, peasants were forced to face horrific famine and a vast decline in living standards under rule by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. When Alexander II came to power in 1855 he realised that in order to modernise Russia and improve the weakening economy he needed to make dramatic reforms. In 1861 Alexander issued his Emancipation Manifesto, proposing 17 legislative acts that would free the serfs in Russia. Even though this new-found freedom in some ways seemed to place a greater burden on the peasants due to heavy redemption payments on their land and little improvement regarding agricultural methods in Russia, the act made the now-freed serfs feel that progress was being made towards a fairer social system in Russia and gave them some hope for more affirmative reforms in the future.