agriculture: The impact of dictatorial regimes on the economy and society of the Russian Empire and the USSR Flashcards
what is agriculture
“The practice of cultivating plants and livestock”. Until the late-20th century, Russia was an agrarian society with the vast majority of the population being peasant farmers (by 1913 only 18% of Russians lived in towns, by 1960 just 49%).
agricultural probs in russia in 1855
simple
- Serfdom ensured Russia’s agriculture was backward
- Agriculture was extremely fragile
- The influence of the mir
- Despite these problems, Russia’s economy was heavily dependent on agriculture.
Serfdom ensured Russia’s agriculture was backward
agricultural probs in russia in 1855
Serfdom belonged to a medieval social model known as the “Feudalism”. Under this system the State was the personal property of the monarch, and he divided it up and gave it to his nobles in return for their loyalty. The poor peasant farmers who lived on the land became the personal property of these nobles; serfs were destined to work all their lives for no pay.
Feudalism had disappeared in the rest of Europe centuries before 1855, but it was still the central column of Russian society. Serfs had to do duties for their landlords. They** were tied to the land they worked and could not legally move. They were required to give labour to the noble for, usually, ¾ days per week. Serfs had no real legal rights.** When required they had to serve in the army through conscription, live in the village they were born in for life and ask permission if they were to marry. It was not in the interests of the landlords to educate these slaves, so the vast majority of serfs remained illiterate.
The economic impact of serfdom was that peasants had no real incentive to grow more food. As effective slaves, they did not control the land they worked, nor did they benefit from the product of the land. Peasants paid rents to their landlord masters and taxes to their Tsar in crops, but primarily they farmed to survive – i.e. they were subsistence farmers. As slaves of the aristocracy, working someone else’s land for no pay, there was no motivation for them to grow a surplus. However, without this surplus the rest of the Empire could never modernise. Industrialisation could only take place if there was enough food for the urban population to expand. This could never happen as long as the rural population simply farmed for their own needs.
Agriculture was extremely fragile
agricultural probs in russia in 1855
Part of the fragility of agriculture can be explained by the geographic features of Russia.
To successfully grow crops, lots of ‘natural’ uncontrollable things need to go right. For a crop to grow they need….
good soil [fields must be ploughed].
enough water [but not too much]
enough sunlight
the right temperature
Furthermore, crops are grown across an annual growing cycle. This needs to be smooth otherwise crops may fail.
Russia’s geography limited the scope of agriculture considerably. Well over half of the land Russia controlled to the north and east is what is called ‘permafrost’ – a layer of permanently frozen soil. Vast swathes of land were therefore entirely unsuitable for farming [or really living comfortably]. However, it was also limited by the dry and desert-like southern regions.Russia’s sweet spot for agriculture was the Black Earth region in the south-west of the country. The region, stretching from the Black Sea to the Ural Mountains to the north-west, the region has a combination of fertile soil and suitable weather conditions for farming. This region produced much of Russia’s agricultural food, but made up only around 10% of its land.
Yet, the growing season, essentially the period free from killing frost, is only 130 to 160 days long in the Black Earth region. By contrast, in the UK, this is 244 days. This means that Russia’s agricultural system is delicate and relies heavily on a brief window in the warmer months between Spring and Autumn. This delicate situation means that unusually poor weather, social change, or political issues can easily destroy the harvests Russia relies on. The consequence is that Russia frequently suffered from famine throughout this period.
influence of the mir
agricultural probs in russia in 1855
Because failure to produce food meant famine and death, agrarian societies tend to be communal, so that all may help each other survive.
Russia, as in Medieval Europe, developed communal villages (Mir – which means ‘commune’ and also ‘world’) where the land was shared out in fields of strips. Each strip was allocated to a family, with families having strips dotted around the fields in both good and poor-quality soil. This meant families shared the successes and failures of farming. Taxes were also paid as a community, not by individuals.
It also means agrarian societies tend to be socially conservative and risk-averse, as any slight change to farming techniques or land ownership can mean death. This medieval method of farming prevented the introduction of modern methods of farming developed in the west because no one had their own land to experiment with new crops. If new methods were to be tried, everyone in the ruling village council, or Mir, would have to agree. These councils were always made up of the oldest and most conservative members of the village, so they were unlikely to risk changing age-old methods of farming.
Furthermore, the mir’s land distribution tended to exhaust land rather than use it productively. The land they allocated could be taken away the following year, so they exhausted the soil and made little effort to replenish nutrients.
Finally, the communal tax burden meant ther
Despite these problems, Russia’s economy was heavily dependent on agriculture
agricultural probs in russia in 1855
To remain a powerful country Russia needed to trade with the other great states of Europe. However, without an industrial base the Tsar was forced to rely on the export of the Empire’s abundant raw materials. Chief amongst these was grain, which accounted for 40% of the revenue gained through exports. By 1855 Russia’s population was growing at an ever-faster rate and more and more of the grain harvest was needed to feed the home population. The state could not lose this valuable export and this put massive pressure on the nations food supply. Bad harvests would lead to famines that would claim thousands of lives. Agriculture needed modernisation and a significant increase in productivity.
All Russian rulers agreed on two things: Agriculture needed to be exploited to raise money for industrialisation and peasants were treated as second-class citizens.
impact of emancipation under A2
Believing that serfdom was the greatest barrier to Russia’s recovery to world power status,** Alexander took the momentous decision to end it and free all the serfs in 1861**. Alexander’s motives were many. Firstly, and most importantly, the notion of ‘reform from above to prevent revolution from below’. In this sense the motive was to maintain Tsarism. Secondly, he believed it would strengthen the regime by contributing the economic modernisation. Finally, the motive was humanitarian – a genuine desire to improve people’s lives.
Yet, Alexander did not have a free hand when Emancipating the Serfs. Alexander faced a lot of resistance from the aristocratic landlords, who felt that they were being robbed of both personal assets and traditional power. To win over this vital section of society Alexander had to promise them both financial compensation and some protection of their positions of power in the countryside. The need to meet these promises had a knock-on effect on the level of freedom gained by the peasantry.
terms of emancipation
- All serfs legally freed [e.g. they could own land, travel, marry]
- The state compensated nobles [i.e. those who previously owned Serfs] financially. Peasants were required to re-pay the state for their freedom in the form of redemption payments.** These were to be paid over a 49-year period at 6% interest. **
- Peasants received ‘cut-offs’ – small plots previously owned by the nobles. Legal landownership was only confirmed after final payment. With the average life expectancy of a peasant being 35 in the 1860s very few of the newly freed serfs could ever hope to see the day when they actually owned their own land. This was often poor-quality land.
- **The Mir was responsible for the collection of Redemption payments and the allotting of communal land. **
positive effects of emanciapation
Peasants lives were significantly improved by the newfound freedoms – right to marry, right to move, etc.
limited impact of economic impact of emancipation
The land given up by the nobles was often poor-quality land. This meant the peasants struggled to grow enough.
Peasants struggled to earn enough from the land to meet redemption payments. These financial problems meant that the greater freedoms peasants had were meaningless. By 1870 just 55% of peasants had paid these back.
As the Mir still redistribute land on a villager’s death most peasants saw no point in wasting their time trying to improve their individual plots.
The Mir also took control of most decisions made at a village level. They had the power to decide which crops were being grown and how those crops were grown. Their primary concern was ensuring subsistence farming.
A government report found in 1878 that just 50% of peasants made a profit.
impact of peasant land banks under A3
They did help peasants to acquire more land - between 1877 and 1905 peasants purchased 260,000km worth of land. In particular the kulaks benefited from this reform. There was a gradual shift in land ownership during this period away from nobles and poorer peasants and towards the Kulaks.
Yet, the 1891 Famine shows the limits of Russia’s agricultural advances. The famine was initially caused by poor weather [a long, hot, and dry summer], but the Tsarist state failed to respond effectively. Relief efforts were hindered by Vyshnegradsky who, as the Tsar’s finance minister, continued to encourage the export of grain. The famine killed approximately 500,000 people. With food shortages across the countryside, the population’s nutrition levels depleted and epidemics of typhoid and cholera killed many thousands, exacerbating the issues.
when was the peasant land bank
1883
terms of peasant land bank
Loans could be acquired if peasants (1) proved they could pay back the loans & (2) peasants showed their intention to spend it on land.
what did A3 introduce following the agricultural failures
land captains in 1889
features of land captains
- 2000 Nobles, appointed by officials
- aimed to discipline peasants they could make local legal decisions, punish peasants for crimes, and order peasants to
- they were known for publicly flogging serfs – in one case for refusing to take off their hat in the presence of the land captain.
This represented the return to the methods of the arbitrary legal system of serfdom, showing the limits of change.
when were land captains introduced
1889
agricultural probs at the start of N2’s reign
By 1906, Russia’s agricultural crisis had become significant.** Rural instability had increased between 1900-1906**. The Black Earth revolts and the disturbances before, during, and after the 1905 Revolution represent a peak of rural discontent.
On top of this it had become clear that the economic success of Emancipation had been limited.
Agricultural output per square kilometre of land was four times greater on British farms than Russian farms in 1905. Of 11 million households in European Russia, only about half could produce enough to feed themselves in 1900, and only 16% were able to produce a marketable surplus. It is possible that that percentage had dropped to as low as 10% by 1905.
A further issue had been the impact of population growth. While the population was growing, the amount of land available to farm did not grow at the same rate. For instance, **the average land holding fell from 35 acres to 28 acres between 1877 and 1905. **
what did stolypin say was the underlying issue of the problems under N2
the mir
why did stolypin blame the mir
He believed communal responsibility reduced the scope for individual responsibility and talent. This reduced productivity.
He believed the mir stifled economic progress by holding back talented peasants. Stolypin believed that peasants in the mir took advantage of their collective responsibility. A large number of peasants made little effort to genuinely improve their lot and according to Stolypin lived drunk on vodka. This put off the talented and able peasants from working hard, realising their produce would be shared across the community.
how did Stolypin refer to his reforms
a wager on the strong and sober
terms of stolypins reforms
- To reduce peasant discontent and cut debts -> **Redemption payments abolished **
- To encourage skilled peasants to purchase more land -> Unused or poorly utilised state-owned land made available in to the Peasant Land Bank. Peasants could now purchase this land and make greater use of it. This facilitated the purchase of land in regions not previously used for farming,
- To reduce the mir’s influence -> The Mir’s powers were reduced:
1. Peasants were given the right to leave the mir and withdraw their land from the village commune.
2. The mir** lost the right to redistribute land**. The hereditary principle was introduced
3. The mir **lost the responsibility to collect taxes on the behalf of the community **
stolypins hopes for his reforms
The intention was to encourage capitalism in the countryside. The rationale was that peasants with small independent strips would compete with one another, thereby having two consequences.
Firstly, production levels would rise due to the need to produce more to compete with opponents.
Secondly, peasants who owned some land would feel a greater sense of loyalty to the status quo/regime. Similar to Margaret Thatcher’s idea of the “Home Owning Democracy”, Stolypin believed that if peasants would feel a greater sense of power and responsibility to make it work, rather than blame the communal mir.
impact of stolypin’s reforms
- On** reducing the mir’s influence there was limited success. The most noteworthy achievement of the reforms is the facilitation of a shift in agricultural organisation. The mir lost some influence. 2 million took up the option of leaving the mir by 1914. However, 90% of peasants remained part of the mir**, favouring the collective security that it provided over the risk of leaving and having to be completely self-reliant. Furthermore, of the 2 million who left the mir, only around 1% of these went on to gain kulak status – most joined band of migrant labourers whom. This shift also created rural tensions as those moving away from the mir were called ‘Stolypin separators’. The peasant majority in the mir were frustrated that wealthier peasants could separate from their communal responsibilities.
- More land was opened up for farming. A further success was the opening up of new land for farming - some hundreds of thousands moved to parts of Siberia now connected to western Russia by the Trans-Siberian railroad. Parts of Siberia specialised in butter production and it became so important that Stolypin said ‘The whole of our butter export to foreign markets is entirely based on the growth of Siberian butter production. Siberian butter-making brings us more than twice as much gold as the whole Siberian gold industry”. 90% of Russian butter exports came from Siberia.
- Due to agricultural stability, agricultural production peaked. By 1913, Russia produced 80 million tons of grain and exported 12 million of them. It would take communist Russia many years to rival this level of success. In the period 1930-35, the average grain harvest stood at a mere 73 million tons.
what stopped stolypins reforms
halted by WW1 — land seizures in 1917 reversed the process
continuities amongst tsars
- Sought to e**ncourage capitalism in the countryside **by facilitating the growth of kulak – e.g. Land Bank + Stolypin
- Tried to encourage change, were met with peasant resistance – e.g. peasant resistance to Stolypin + limits of Emancipation
- Had a limited impact in achieving their goals – the mir remained strong.
changes amongst tsars
agriculture
- Alexander II set about giving more rights; whereas Alexander III reduced those rights. Compare and contrast Emancipation to the Land Captains
- Nicholas II was the only one to try to reduce the Mir’s influence, albeit unsuccessfully.
what were lenin’s agricultural policies
the decree on land
war communism
the NEP
when was lenin’s decree on land
october 1917
what was the decree on land
it legitimised peasant seizures of land which had been occurring throughout the Provisional Government. This abolished the landlords’ right of property, also confiscating large estates from monasteries, churches and the nobility. Land was to be redistributed by the peasant soviets (councils).
