OCR Specification focus:
‘Peasant life changed with Emancipation, Land Banks and periodic famines.’
From 1855 to 1964, Russian peasants experienced profound transformation, shaped by emancipation, land reforms, state interventions, and devastating famines that influenced society, politics, and the economy.
Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861
The Emancipation Edict of 1861 under Alexander II was one of the most significant social reforms in Russian history. It ended serfdom, a system where peasants were legally bound to their landlords’ estates and subject to their control.
Serfdom: A system of agricultural labour in which peasants were tied to the land and obligated to serve their landlords without freedom of movement or ownership rights.
Reasons for Emancipation
Military weakness: The defeat in the Crimean War (1853–56) exposed Russia’s backwardness, rooted in a serf-based economy.
Economic modernisation: Industrialisation required a free labour market and mobile workforce.
Social stability: Peasant unrest was increasing, and reform aimed to prevent potential revolution.
Moral and ideological pressure: Intellectuals and parts of the nobility saw serfdom as incompatible with a modern European state.
Terms of the Emancipation Edict
Personal freedom: Approximately 50 million serfs were granted personal liberty, allowed to marry, own property, and conduct business.
Land allocation: Former serfs received land but often smaller and poorer plots than those they had worked previously.
Redemption payments: Peasants were required to repay the state over 49 years for land purchased from landlords at inflated prices.
Mir (village commune): The mir redistributed land and controlled peasant movements, maintaining state tax collection and social order.
Temporary obligation: For a transitional period, peasants continued to perform dues to landlords until redemption terms were finalised.
In February 1861, Alexander II issued the Emancipation Edict abolishing serfdom across the Russian Empire.
Grigoriy Myasoyedov, Reading of the 1861 Manifesto (1873). The scene depicts villagers assembled to hear the terms of emancipation, capturing official ritual and peasant response. As a visual source it illustrates the manifesto’s public proclamation rather than its complex terms. Source
Consequences of Emancipation
Social discontent: Many peasants were dissatisfied with inadequate land and burdensome payments, leading to sporadic uprisings.
Economic change: Emancipation encouraged labour mobility and created a class of kulaks (wealthier peasants) who accumulated more land.
State control: Through the mir, the government maintained oversight of rural society, balancing freedom with control.
Industrial workforce: Some landless peasants migrated to cities, contributing to urban growth and industrialisation.
Land Banks and Agrarian Reform
In the decades following emancipation, the state attempted to stabilise the peasantry and improve agricultural productivity through land reform and financial institutions.
Peasant Land Bank (1883)
Established by Alexander III, the Peasant Land Bank provided loans to peasants to purchase land from landlords.
Peasant Land Bank: A state institution that offered low-interest loans to peasants to enable land purchase, aiming to stabilise the rural economy and reduce peasant unrest.
In 1883 the Peasants’ Land Bank was created to extend long-term loans so peasant communes and households could purchase land from nobles.
Official notice from the Peasants’ Land Bank (Minsk Branch), 1911. Documents like this announced loan terms and procedures, illustrating how the Bank operationalised peasant land purchase. Extra detail includes regional specifics and institutional formatting beyond what the syllabus requires. Source
It facilitated gradual land transfer from the nobility to peasants, though land remained expensive and many peasants still lacked sufficient acreage.
Wealthier peasants benefited most, deepening rural inequality.
Stolypin’s Land Reforms (1906–11)
Under Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, reforms aimed to create a class of independent peasant farmers and reduce revolutionary sentiment.
Abolition of communal restrictions: Peasants were encouraged to leave the mir and consolidate scattered strips into private farms (khutory and otruby).
Increased land ownership: By 1915, around 2 million peasants had consolidated holdings.
Resistance: Many peasants preferred the traditional communal system, limiting reform success.
Impact of Land Banks and Reforms
Limited success: While ownership increased slightly, most peasants remained impoverished and overburdened by debt.
Social stratification: Reforms created divisions between wealthier kulaks and poorer peasants.
Foundation for future policy: These policies laid the groundwork for later collectivisation under Soviet rule.
Famines and State Responses
Famine remained a recurring and devastating feature of peasant life throughout the period, reflecting both natural conditions and government policies.
The 1891–92 Famine
Triggered by drought and poor harvests, the famine affected over 30 million people, with around 500,000 deaths.
Government response was slow and inadequate, relying heavily on zemstva (local councils) and private charity.
The crisis revealed the limitations of autocratic governance and spurred social criticism and activism.
The famine of 1891–92 in the Volga region exposed the limits of state capacity and the fragility of peasant subsistence.
Bread distribution to peasants, Nizhny Novgorod province, 1891–92 (photograph by Maxim Dmitriev). The image shows grain being issued “in loan,” illustrating official relief mechanisms and the social impact of crop failure. The focus is on practice, not mortality figures or wider political repercussions. Source
Famine under War Communism (1921)
During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks implemented War Communism, requisitioning grain to feed urban workers and the Red Army.
Combined with drought, this policy caused a catastrophic famine, killing an estimated 5 million people.
International aid, including from the American Relief Administration, helped alleviate suffering.
The disaster prompted Lenin to abandon War Communism in favour of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921.
The 1932–33 Famine (Holodomor)
Under Stalin’s collectivisation, peasants were forced into collective farms (kolkhozy), and grain requisitioning intensified.
Ukraine and southern Russia suffered famine, with millions dying due to food shortages exacerbated by state policy.
Stalin denied the famine’s existence and restricted population movement, worsening the crisis.
This famine demonstrated the regime’s prioritisation of industrialisation and control over human cost.
Changing Peasant Life, 1855–1964
The period witnessed dramatic shifts in peasant life, but also enduring hardship and continuity.
Economic and Social Patterns
Emancipation created legal freedom but not economic independence.
Land reforms aimed to transform agriculture but were only partially successful.
Famines repeatedly devastated rural society, exposing state failings and policy brutality.
The collectivisation of the 1930s marked a complete transformation of peasant life, subordinating it to state goals.
Ideological and Political Context
Tsarist policies balanced reform and control, seeking stability without undermining autocracy.
Bolshevik policies were driven by Marxist ideology, prioritising industrialisation and class struggle over peasant welfare.
Across regimes, peasants remained central to the Russian economy and politics, yet often marginalised and exploited.
Long-Term Consequences
Continuity in hardship: Despite changing policies, peasants faced persistent poverty, vulnerability to famine, and state control.
Foundation for Soviet policy: Tsarist land reforms and the mir system influenced Soviet collectivisation strategies.
Legacy of state-peasant relations: Tensions between rural populations and the state shaped political developments, contributing to revolutionary change and shaping Soviet governance.
FAQ
The nobility lost control over the labour force and a significant source of income, as serfs were no longer legally bound to their estates. Many landowners sold parts of their land to peasants, often at inflated prices, to stabilise their finances.
Socially, some nobles adapted by investing in business or state service, but others struggled with declining status and influence. The reduction of serf obligations also shifted the traditional hierarchical order, weakening noble dominance in rural Russia over time.
Although emancipation granted legal rights, peasants often received smaller, poorer-quality plots and were burdened by redemption payments lasting nearly half a century.
The mir restricted mobility by requiring permission to leave the commune, limiting economic opportunities. High taxes and limited land led to overcrowding, low productivity, and continued poverty. As a result, emancipation fell short of delivering true independence or prosperity for the majority of peasants.
Critics argued the reforms primarily benefited wealthier peasants (kulaks), widening inequality within rural society. Many peasants resisted leaving the mir, preferring traditional communal practices over individual farming.
The reforms also faced logistical problems, such as poor infrastructure and limited access to credit, which hindered consolidation of land. Stolypin’s assassination in 1911 meant many policies were never fully implemented, and the outbreak of war in 1914 diverted attention away from agrarian change.
Tsarist governments often relied on zemstva and private charities for relief, showing limited state intervention. During the 1891–92 famine, this reliance highlighted the state’s administrative weakness and reluctance to accept responsibility.
In contrast, Soviet authorities tended to control and conceal information about famines, especially under Stalin. They prioritised industrialisation and grain exports, even during severe shortages. In some cases, such as the 1932–33 famine, state policies actively worsened conditions by restricting movement and requisitioning grain.
Post-emancipation peasants generally farmed small, privately allocated plots under the mir, maintaining local customs and some autonomy. Economic activity was centred on household production and local markets.
Collectivisation replaced this with state-run collective farms (kolkhozy), abolishing private landownership and subsistence farming. Labour, production, and distribution were centrally directed, and resistance was often met with severe repression. This marked a fundamental shift from a semi-traditional rural society to one integrated into the Soviet planned economy.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
What was the mir and what role did it play in peasant life following the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the mir as the village commune that organised rural society after emancipation.
1 mark for explaining its role in redistributing land, collecting taxes, and controlling peasant movement.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how the policies of the Russian government towards the peasantry changed between the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 and the introduction of collectivisation under Stalin.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for describing the Emancipation Edict of 1861, ending serfdom and granting personal freedom.
1 mark for noting the continued control through redemption payments and the mir.
1 mark for explaining the creation and purpose of the Peasants’ Land Bank (1883) to help peasants buy land.
1 mark for mentioning Stolypin’s reforms (1906–11) and attempts to create independent farmers.
1 mark for outlining how collectivisation under Stalin forced peasants into collective farms (kolkhozy) and ended private ownership.
1 mark for explaining that this shift represented a move from limited individual landholding to state control over agriculture.
