Russia Flashcards
The Economic Argument for the emancipation of the serfs?
It was needed for the Russian Empire’s industrial development.
Tied serfs could not move to cities to work in factories, where - the emancipationists argued - free labour would be more efficient than forced labour
Furthermore, serfdom kept standards of living low, redcing internal demand for good, without which there was little incentive to industrialise.
On the contrary, the serf-owining noble were falling ever ore heavily into debt, as old fashioned agricultural prices failed to produce a grain surplus for export
This was particularly true since the empire’s population had doubled in the first half of the 19th century and internal consumption had increased accordingly
The Millitary argument for the emancipation of the serfs?
Alfred Rieber srfdom had to be abolished in prep for reforming the Rus army along W lines
The Crimean WAR –> rUSSIA’S FORCES WERE IN DESPERATE NEED FOR REOORGANISATION
Empire could no longer afford a large peacetime army (it was half of the acc Rus spending)
Milytun argued conscirts should spend less time on active service
He favoured a short period in the armed forces, for military training, followed by a longer time in ‘reserves’
Criticisms to the argument from Millitary for the emancipation of the serfs?
However, this proposed system was thought to be unworkable while serfdom continued
It was claimed that demobillised soldiers could not be sent back to their communes as trained soldiers after a years because of the danger tjat they would lead peasant uprisings
Therefore, Serfdom had to be dismantled, for the ake of internal and external security
There, was a second argument
It was customary to free sers after their millitary service, assuming they survived it.
If this were to be continued, with relatively short periods of service, serfdom would end in two to three generations. It would therefore, be baest to tackle the isseu straight away
Moral and Intellectual arguments for the emancipation of the serfs?
They believed that bondage was morally wrong and that serfdom was incompatible with the humanitarian standards expected of a civilised country
Westerners, in particular, wanted to bring about that changes that had enabled the West to achieve social and industrial progress
They argued that serfdom degraded not only the serfs, by slavery, but also the ‘slave-owners’ in the nobillity
They claimed that serfdom wekaned the moral character of the upper classes, making them lazy and unable or umwilling ot contribute to the well being of the state
Herzen and Turgenev –> Turgenev wrote a Sportsman Sketches promoting a collection of short stories showing that serds wer enormal
Nihilists believed that the need to make a dramatic change to the structure of Russian society outweighed all other considerations
Troyat, H. Doubleday Page 140?
“Time is short
If the serfs are not free in six months, we are in for a holocaust
Everything is ripe for it
Only one criminal hand is needed to fan the flames of rebellion and we shall all be consumed in the blaze”
Was the Result of the Emancipation Edict good?
SEE: Yeah, Kinda
There were some ‘winners’
Some peasants did very well out of the land allocations
They formed a small sub class of relatively wealthy peasants, the kulaks
Some peasants sold their land allocation and so forfeited their mir rights did well
Russian industry expanded in the wake of emancipation, and cities, communications and banks also grew
Argument that the Tsar was a liberator as evidenced form the Emancipation of the Serfs?
Alexander II’s main claim to the title of ‘Liberator’ is the emancipation of the serfs in 1861.
He was aware that Russia was in desperate need of strengthening, and his recognition of the need for reforms was crucial in an autocracy where the tsar had near-absolute power.
Amongst the many freedoms granted to serfs during Tsar Alexander’s reign, they were granted freedom from their owners, the right to own land, and freedom of movement – rights that had thus far only been talked about and agitated, but not actively granted.
That a ruler with absolute power was inclined towards reforms of a system that had thus far helped him subjugate many of his subjects was revolutionary and unheard of, which is what Tsar Alexander II hoped the peasants would see and be grateful for.
However, it also resulted in unbearable and crippling tax burdens and debts – with the peasants having to pay an average of 134% of the free market price of land, loss of security with the removal of landlord security, famine due to subpar plots of land, and therefore continued discontent. Overall, the Tsar’s emancipation reforms didn’t truly give serfs any sort of true liberation.
Which historians praise Alexander’s Emancipation of the Serfs?
Terence Emmons “the greatest single pice of state directed engineering in modern European History before the 20th century”
Criticisms of the argument that Alexander II was the Tsar Liberator due to Emancipation?
However, while granting the serfs freedom in theory, the emancipation of the serfs did not truly fulfil its obligations.
The drafting of the Emancipation statute of 1861 was limited entirely to nobles with no input from the people it would truly affect – the serfs. Despite Alexander claiming that it was of utmost importance to “abolish serfdom from above [rather] than to wait for the time when it begins to abolish itself from below”, it is easy to argue that the changes he brought about were self-interested and with the goal of preserving his absolute rule, rather than with a genuine interest in the wellbeing of the serfs.
Emancipation Failed + Historians
How did the Emancipation fail?
There were plenty of losers too - these were people who gained little from emancipation
Peasants who received poor or over priced land allocations, and were faced with high redemption payments, struggled to survive
Peasants lost 20% of their former land
Crankshaw
“it is arguable that with the tide of feeling against serfdom as a national disgrace slowly rising, Alexander would have been wiser to rely on the growth of humantiarianism and the pressure of economic development”
How did Zemstvas demonstrate Alexander II was good?
d a new system of local governments. To this end, a system of elected rural local councils, called zemstva were implemented under the chairmanship of liberal reformer, N.A. Milyutin.
The zemstva were given limited powers to approve local community projects, such as roads, prisons, public health, education etc.
This gave serfs a certain level of autonomy from the Tsar as decisions that affected them directly were now being made by regulatory bodies closer to home – the zemstva’s local knowledge “enabled them to do a good job where a St. Petersburg official would have failed.” (Westwood).
This also resulted in there being more concern regarding local issues, and liberal doctors and teachers who were appointed became focal points and leaders of serf mobilisation for reforms that would come later in the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the zemstva were effectively figureheads who hardly did much for local communities – with nearly all problems stemming from the fact that they were dominated by the nobility.
Provincial governors had the ability to reverse any decisions of the zemstva if considered to be ‘contrary to the law or the welfare of the state’, leading to apathy within the zemstva’s and hardly any incentive for change.
This reform didn’t even lead to a more democratic, fair national assembly as many liberals had hoped for three reasons – first, that reactionary landowners feared a loss of their social privileges; second, that officials felt it a threat to their power and prestige; and third – and most insightful into the psyche of higher classes of the time – progressives didn’t believe that ex serfs/landowners were educated enough to take part in an assembly of people and were willing to stay with an autocratic system until they believed differently.
Overall, the establishments of zemstva lead to a feeling of independence and autonomy within the peasant classes, but in the long run, it became clear that they were redundant as they were still very much controlled by state ideology. What made them beneficial to the peasants – their proximity and therefore familiarity with local issues – became the very thing that led to zemstva being used as instruments of censorship and repression later on, in the Tsar’s reactionary phase.
Education and Reforms?
Education and discourse were made far more accessible for serfs, and with popular education being extended and censorship law repealed, the peoples’ horizons were expanding. Alexander II’s educational reforms increased the number of primary and secondary schools throughout the country, declaring them accessible to all classes, and even women.
Universities were given independence in 1863, and the number of university students grew from 3600 to 10000. The relaxation of censorship laws caused a spread of political discourse and therefore awareness, while education being more accessible made ex serfs far more empowered. However, the increase in knowledge and awareness only increased the discontent of the peasants with the existing power structure. This led them to revolt, which in turn caused the Tsar to become a reactionary during the middle years of his reign and tighten censorship again.
Furthermore, the government still had the right to ban student organisations and veto university appointments – two powers that were exploited during the Tsar’s reactionary phase. It is clear therefore that with the level of education rising, so did the discontent amongst the working classes, leading to a crackdown on the very thing that made them aware of the failings of the system. The Tsar’s actions certainly set the foundation for mental liberation and elevation but were eventually a burden too.
Overall, Tsar Alexander does not deserve the title of ‘Tsar Liberator’, because, despite his actions which were seen as progressive’ and ‘reformative’, Tsar Alexander’s interests in liberating the serfs were purely self-interested, and therefore ineffective, and even harmful, in the long run. He only agitated for change before the 1860s because he recognised that peasants were getting increasingly disillusioned with the current system of serfdom such that it posed a threat to his absolute power – there were 712 peasant uprisings in the span of just 26 years.
Why shouldn’t the fact that the Tsar brought about these reforms, even if for the wrong reasons justify his title of Tsar Liberator?
Why shouldn’t the fact that the Tsar brought about these reforms, even if for the wrong reasons justify his title of Tsar Liberator? Firstly, it is because of this malintent and half-heartedness, that the reforms, though introduced and implemented were far less effective than hoped – and in some cases even harmful to serfs.
Secondly, even though the Tsar instigated the reforms, many of them were formed and drafted and thought about in detail only by other members of the nobility, such as Miyutin and his military reforms. Therefore, credit for these reforms certainly shouldn’t go to Alexander.
