By 1861, Russia had been and would remain a backwards country. Russia possessed a large population and adequate land, both of which had combined to eliminate the urgent need for industrialization that had affected Western Europe. With its primarily agrarian economy and autocratic government, Russia struggled to catch up with the rest of the modernizing countries in Europe. In this historical context, Tsar Alexander II’s 1861 emancipation of all Russian serfs was a shocking first in a series of liberal reforms. However, the freeing of the serfs did not end the overarching state of rural poverty in Russia. Therefore, despite superficial and temporary benefits, the emancipation of Russia’s serfs in 1861 did not significantly improve the lives
…show more content…
One such problem regarded the distribution of land. Peasants, although free, had been left no land to cultivate, and no other positive benefits. Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist, wrote an 1885 journal article describing the peasants’ lives after emancipation. He established that they were hungry, easily diseased, and unable to sustain life after being removed from the lands where they had worked for so long (Doc 3). As an anarchist, Kropotkin likely disliked Russian government and therefore disapproved of many of its actions. As such, Kropotkin’s denouncement of the beneficiality of the emancipation of the serfs appears reasonable. Many years later, the land problem was still not solved. Lords maintained their grasps over the majority of Russian land, leaving peasants only one legitimate mean of sustenance: selling their labor. In 1906, Sakhno, a representative for the peasants, appeared before the Duma (a Russian legislative assembly) to give a speech. He stated that the peasants could not help but demand land due to their great need for it. It was proposed that Russia should distribute its “. . . state, private and church lands . . .” among the peasants in order to help make up for all of the suffering the peasants had gone through over time (Doc 6). Having been sent by the peasants, Sakhno is an important source due to his firsthand knowledge of the peasants’ conditions. As dissent …show more content…
According to a graph from the Russian Ministry of the Interior, peasant rebellions were very widespread in 1861 and from 1901 to 1907. A general trend is shown where the number of Russian provinces which experienced peasant rebellions decreased until 1890, after which a surge of peasant rebellions took place (Doc 1). This inverted bell curve shape indicates that the emancipation of the serfs quelled unrest for some time (approximately 30 years) until lacks in benefits for the peasants led to increasing rates of peasant rebellion at the start of the 20th century. Gleb Uspensky, a famous socialist writer of the time, agreed with these statistics. He suspected that the emancipation of the serfs had not benefited the serfs, but instead loosened their morals by stripping them of the main aspect which kept them united: mutual suffering. As such, relatability between the serfs had been lost and nothing positive had taken its place (Doc 2). Another contributor to peasant unhappiness was the unfair policy that was applied after the emancipation of the serfs. Landlords were compensated financially for the loss of their serfs, while peasants had to struggle to buy what little land they could (from the landlords, of course). These developments further exacerbated peasant feelings of social
One such problem regarded the distribution of land. Peasants, although free, had been left no land to cultivate, and no other positive benefits. Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist, wrote an 1885 journal article describing the peasants’ lives after emancipation. He established that they were hungry, easily diseased, and unable to sustain life after being removed from the lands where they had worked for so long (Doc 3). As an anarchist, Kropotkin likely disliked Russian government and therefore disapproved of many of its actions. As such, Kropotkin’s denouncement of the beneficiality of the emancipation of the serfs appears reasonable. Many years later, the land problem was still not solved. Lords maintained their grasps over the majority of Russian land, leaving peasants only one legitimate mean of sustenance: selling their labor. In 1906, Sakhno, a representative for the peasants, appeared before the Duma (a Russian legislative assembly) to give a speech. He stated that the peasants could not help but demand land due to their great need for it. It was proposed that Russia should distribute its “. . . state, private and church lands . . .” among the peasants in order to help make up for all of the suffering the peasants had gone through over time (Doc 6). Having been sent by the peasants, Sakhno is an important source due to his firsthand knowledge of the peasants’ conditions. As dissent …show more content…
According to a graph from the Russian Ministry of the Interior, peasant rebellions were very widespread in 1861 and from 1901 to 1907. A general trend is shown where the number of Russian provinces which experienced peasant rebellions decreased until 1890, after which a surge of peasant rebellions took place (Doc 1). This inverted bell curve shape indicates that the emancipation of the serfs quelled unrest for some time (approximately 30 years) until lacks in benefits for the peasants led to increasing rates of peasant rebellion at the start of the 20th century. Gleb Uspensky, a famous socialist writer of the time, agreed with these statistics. He suspected that the emancipation of the serfs had not benefited the serfs, but instead loosened their morals by stripping them of the main aspect which kept them united: mutual suffering. As such, relatability between the serfs had been lost and nothing positive had taken its place (Doc 2). Another contributor to peasant unhappiness was the unfair policy that was applied after the emancipation of the serfs. Landlords were compensated financially for the loss of their serfs, while peasants had to struggle to buy what little land they could (from the landlords, of course). These developments further exacerbated peasant feelings of social