Why Is It Better To Abolish Serfdom In Russia

Some may argue that Emancipation was an ultimately successful endeavour as it brought about both fundamental and necessary change, and whilst it is true that there were various factors that ensured the development of Russia from a backward thinking and archaic nation that relied very much on what was -in flourishing western countries – a repressive and outdated feudal system, the ill-considered and very evidently selfish way in which this much needed reform was executed meant that despite some factors, from which the development and modernisation of Russia’s class system itself were enabled, for Alexander II were exactly the opposite of what he had been attempting to achieve, in increasing his chances of retaining power by preventing revolution and furthering Russia’s position within the world. For this reason it is difficult to claim Emancipation was a success in terms of what the clearly power-conscious Tsar set out to accomplish, when many of its key aspects were redundant and others provided a catalyst for consideration of concepts of political activism or further revolution, an unwanted and unanticipated advancement,
as well as opposition from both ends of the spectrum, for which his reforms were neither extreme nor ineffectual enough to satisfy.
Emancipation, on the surface, appears a positive action, it involved the liberation of 40 million serfs, a seemingly moral and humane accomplishment which afforded them the same rights as the rest of the population, specifically those which allowed them to marry, own property and set up their own businesses. Serfs were guaranteed a minimum size of allotment and landlords were obligated to allow the serf to buy the hut in which they had been living. This would indicate serfdom to be a success as it seems to demonstrate an improvement of prospects for the peasants and indicate that they were gaining status, no longer viewed as an object over which one had ownership. It also implies that the peasants were no longer reliant on land owners and could provide sufficiently for themselves, perhaps even being able to climb up the hierarchy of society. This humane measure could be considered to bring Russia into line with the rest of Europe.
However, this was far from the case, the Dvoriane drafted the Emancipation proposals and consequently the terms highly favoured nobles, perpetuating the very hierarchal system that the concept of Emancipation gave the impression of attempting to eradicate. Firstly, peasants still had special courts and did not possess full citizenship rights, indicating that serfs were viewed in the same degrading way as ever by those about them and were still not regarded completely as people, limiting the success of Emancipation in terms of being a humane action that enforced greater level of equality and human rights. Even something that suggested an increase in standard of living, such as increased birth-rate among serfs, put pressure on the amount of arable land.
Additionally, peasants only received a third of land, with the landlords taking the best plots of land for themselves, and on average they farmed 20% less, with 75% of land being less than four dessyatinas when five was considered the minimum to feed a peasant family. This suggests that, in reality, perhaps freedom was worse than serfdom itself, instead of the advancement in land ownership and farming serfdom promised, instead many families were worse off than they had been previously. They were unable to provide for themselves, as was anticipated to be positive implication of the guaranteed of land under Emancipation, which therefore evokes the opinion that serfdom was a failure, since land ownership, a key aspect of Emancipation had more negative impacts on the lives of peasants than positive.
Moreover, the terms on which the former serfs were granted land from nobles were on similar terms as under Serfdom. The loans from the government and landowners to the peasants in order to buy land at first seemed generous but ware in fact crippling. Peasants were indebted to landlords for 49 years at a 6% interest rate, or forced to work 30-40 days a year on the nobles’ land, redemption tax was, in reality, higher than land worth and continued to stay this was for the next 20 years. This exemplifies the fact that the peasants continued to be exploited by the landlords, economically they were, in many cases, worse off than prior to serfdom and had failed to achieve the freedom that at first seemed so easy to obtain, they were just as much under the control of the higher classes as they had always been, all that Emancipation provided was an illusion of freedom as opposed to any real advancement in the lives of ordinary people. A minor positive was the development of a class of wealthy peasant called Kulaks who employ other peasants and provided work, however this was only a small number of people who benefited. The length of time that there was an obvious discrepancy between the value of the land and taxes applied demonstrates that despite the idea that change would occur to benefit surfs over time indicates that this change was not felt for a great period. These high expenses would suggest that the Tsar was not really committed to improving the lives of serfs, but would much rather maintain the traditional power structure, and his attempt to achieve both simultaneously was impossible and ultimately Emancipation to be unsuccessful.
Emancipation enabled the issue of the weakness of Russia’s army to be tackled, its weakness having been identified as a result of poor leadership, equipment and extent of corruption during the Crimean war. Emancipation allowed the change in time of mandatory service from twenty five to fifteen, hence producing soldiers with far higher morale. However, poorer peasants were still to some extend discriminated against as conscription could be further reduced by education, which they would likely be unable to afford to undertake.
Another aim of serfdom from the Tsar was to encourage economic and industrial growth within Russia. This was to some extent successful as Emancipation is seen by some historians as a vital stage in the transition towards a Capitalist economy; it encouraged the growth of railways, banking and industry. Additionally peasants could move, stimulating industrial progress. This was therefore successful as it meant that to some extent the Tsar's aims of advancing Russia into the same industrial class as Europe was instigated, however there were few instances in which this occurred, and when compared with the inconveniences felt as a result of Emancipation, the industrial growth stimulated is almost negligible.
Added to this is the fact that movement of peasants, and hence industrial growth, was still restricted by the Mir as peasants were unable to set up businesses elsewhere as Emancipation would have otherwise enabled. Furthermore, it was thought that peasants would be incentivised as landowners, who 85% of them became, however due to the increase in population, land could be redistributed when the population expanded and hence peasants farmed in the same inefficient ways as they had previously. This meant that there was not as much of an increase in agricultural production as anticipated. This was further compounded when the indebted gentry didn't feel obliged to upgrade machinery and the Mir also inhibited agricultural change and allowed primitive methods to continue. This meant that Emancipation was far more unsuccessful than it was successful in terms of economic growth of Russia, the Mir, created as a consequence of the liberation, and inhibited one of the few things Emancipation had set out to achieve.
A key reason for the abolition of serfdom was to limit the possibility of revolution, as the Alexander II stated, "It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below.” In some ways this was achieved, Emancipation was both fundamental and peaceful, a sedate movement in social equality that avoided a civil war in order to remove feudalism from society.
In the long term peace was also kept and peasant disturbances were reduced for the next 40 years. This could give the impression of Emancipation being successful as serfdom was abolished without provoking an immediate major rebellion and was relatively non-violent, and although there were 647 peasant riots in the four months following the Emancipation that would indicate lack of success, there were not necessarily for political
reasons.
Conversely, despite the peaceful nature of Emancipation itself, it created discontent amongst the many groups in society, something that greatly threatened the Tsar's power in the way that he had been attempting to avoid. Emancipation was not extreme enough to satisfy the Westernisers, but reversed traditional values adequately to anger Slavophiles. This would indicate the lack of success as Alexander’s half-hearted enforcement of the reform meant that he was unsuccessful in pleasing either side of society, generating opposition to his authority in the process.
Alexander II lost the support of many nobles as they were dissatisfied, despite the redemption tax they were afforded, as most of it went to paying off existing debts. They lost money as a result of a loss of land, owning 40% less than they had in 1861. This caused many to become disillusioned with autocracy and demand a representative parliament. This is a failure of Emancipation as the gentry could lessen the power of the Tsar, and the idea of a representative parliament could indicate a step away from traditional stardom and autocracy, something that Alexander II sought to maintain. Furthermore, this was partly executed by the Zemstva making more decisions, as well as the Mir having greater local authority, two factors that meant the Tsar’s political authority was being somewhat undermined and even the gentry’s new role in the Zemstva was seen by some as insufficient, demonstrating the potential for further power distribution and therefore loss from the Tsar.
This opposition would have been perhaps tolerable and not rendered Emancipation a failure had the peasants gained a greater level of freedom and entrepreneurial motivation to stimulate more western style industry and economy and be satisfied with their freedom, however their liberation stimulated momentum for further revolution as the initial reforms were not thought extensive enough, with some even desiring a ‘second Emancipation’. This is indicative of the lack of satisfaction many serfs felt toward the Emancipation as well as the fact that it was unsuccessful to some extent in its desired purpose of stopping serfdom ‘abolishing itself from below’. It is true, therefore, to stay that Emancipation was successful in encouraging greater reform, however in terms of what the Tsar was hoping to achieve it fell very much short and instead generated animosity toward autocracy, stimulating reform that was opposed to Tsardom rather the level industrial and economic reform that Emancipation was designed to bring about. Many of the gentry became open to liberalism and further reform, however the decline in gentry itself stimulated opposition to the Tsar. Ultimately, the assassination of Alexander II in March 1881 highlights the unpopularity of Emancipation and its lack of success in eliminating opposition to his rule and maintaining his Tsardom. If Emancipation had been successful in its terms of pleasing the Russian population and advancing society, then he would not have been so unpopular as to be killed by his opposition.
In conclusion, I believe Emancipation was not successful in the way the Tsar intended. His main aim appeared to the reduction of revolts, from his statements about abolishing serfdom from above as opposed to below. If his main aim was social democracy for humane purposes rather than the maintenance of totalitarianism coupled with the advancement of industrial and military aspects army then peasants would have been given fairer terms, rather than just the bare minimum. Conversely, it could be argued that there is no easy way to implement the reforms that seek to alter an age old system and too large a change could easily have caused further disruption, yet the lack of conviction afforded to the liberation meant it fell flat, causing a great number of people to be less satisfied than they had been prior to Emancipation with many serfs being Slavophiles and valuing the authority of the Tsar and his traditional relationship of the people. Clearly shown by the extent of compensation to landowners and the harsh terms set for the former serfs, the tsar wanted to improve the aspects of Russia that would bring them into line with the West whilst simultaneously retaining the previous power structure. Ironically, this inhibited most of Russia’s ability to move forward- an example of this being the peasants inability to contribute to the economy as they were too burdened by redemption payments to afford to buy goods - and instead directed anger towards the political structure and the Tsar himself, ultimately resulting in his demise, exemplifying the failure of Emancipation.