Emancipation of the Serfs

Created by: Fern
Created on: 08-04-14 16:14


	Emancipation of the Serfs
	Causes Agricultural production in Russia was very low compared to other countries - production per hectare was less than 50% of that of Britain. This was mainly because of serfdom. The serfs were not inspired to work particularly hard on producing more food due to the fact that any profit was often taken by the landowner - they would receive the same earnings and amount of food regardless of the success of their production, and as such they rarely bothered to increase production as a result of this. Technology and more efficient farming methods were not utilized. Most peasants were also ***** farmers - this also made it harder to utilize new methods and technologies as a very small area was all that was available. This further decreased efficiency. It is worth noting that 90% of Russians worked in agriculture - as such, deficits in agricultural production were disastrous as this was Russia's main industry and source of income. They were struggling economically as a result of this problem with production - being unable to compete in their prices with the mechanized and efficient farming methods of the Western nations. Landowners were largely in severe problems and required financial aid from the state. These problems were financial - they could not make a profit selling at the same levels as Western nations due to their inferior production systems. As such, change was needed to resolve the fact they were often in debt. The nature of serfdom itself was deeply antiquated and seen as a "brake" on the improvement of the Russian economy. In the 1850's there were 25 million serfs - a third of the total population, Serfs could not leave their estate, but could be moved around by their master at will. They usually had to work 3 days a week on their master's land instead of their own. They had no access to the legal system and could be punished by their master at will. The restrictions on travel were especially troublesome as they prevented migration to the cities and as such their was a shortage of labour for industrial development. State serfs (13 million) had better conditions, and their was great variation across Russia - but it remained a problem nonetheless. Excess labour could not be utilized effectively. In 1860 about 1 million serfs avoided these penalties by paying a quitrent- a payment that allowed them to leave the landowner's services. However, they were the minority - as very few serfs could have afforded this. Alexander II hoped that by emancipating the serfs - a) agricultural production would increase due to motivation existing for the farmers, and b) migration to the cities would allow the more profitable use of labour in industry. The peasants were showing increasing unrest - 50 strikes a year in the early 1950's, 70 a year in the late 1950's.	Effects After 5 years of talks, this serious reform was introduced in "The Edict of February 1861". This declared that serfdom was officially abolished - former serfs would no longer have to seek their master's approval regarding marriage and other life decisions. This was designed to achieve migration to the cities and an increase in agricultural production. A 2-year transitional period would occur in which peasants would continue to perform labour service or would else have to pay quitrents to avoid this. During this time, settlements would be reached regarding the amount of land the serf was entitled to receive. They would then be informed of the price they had to pay for their emancipation (a figure based on the extent of their former obligations and not on the amount of land they were going to receive. These "redemption payments" would be made over a period of 49 years, The state, basically paid the landowners to by the serfs - then the serfs had to pay redemption payments to gain freedom from the government. (The government paid for emancipation then eventually got back the cost off the peasants, so in summary they paid for their own emancipation). However - as this shows the "emancipation" had many negative effects for serfs. They were angry at the extra two years, and even more angry to have to pay for land that had been occupied and farmed by their family for generations. As such, it can be said the emancipation did not benefit serfs for a long time. Also, only privately owned serfs were covered - state serfs were released in 1886 with 45 years redemption payments to give. In addition to this, the amount of land received was often smaller than they had - especially in fertile areas, and they had to pay the same or more for it often. As such, it can even be seen as a negative change. This size also reduced their capability to use new farming methods and as such meant the emancipation did not really achieve its purpose of increasing agricultural production. Landlords could reduce the size of plots if they were going to be left with under 50% of their original estate - making this even more prevalent. Other negative outcomes were that the villagers were still under the constraints of the village commune - "the Mir". This meant their travel was still limited, and they had to give up their rights within the Mir and land in order to migrate to the cities. As such, the migration to the cities that had been expected did not occur. The Mir also promoted traditional farming methods, limiting agricultural production. It's role was similar to that of a landowner to the extent the serfs benefited little from the change. A further limit to agricultural production was that the redemption payments were charged to the commune and not individual serf - so if you made more profit, you paid a larger proportion....as such the increased motivation never really appeared among serfs. Also ***** farming was still maintained, limiting agricultural production. Farmers could buy extra land but could rarely afford it due to the high nature of these redemption payments. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DID NOT INCREASE - BY 1900, RUSSIAN PRODUCTIVITY WAS 25% OF BRITAIN'S. In addition to this, the state had been reluctant to abolish serfdom due to opposition from the landowners who regarded serfs as their property and source of income. The government could not afford to annoy the nobility because it depended on them for local administration - as such, serfdom was gradually abolished and did not benefit the serfs much at all in consideration of this. The government were also afraid due to the fact that law and order in Russia was very poor. Feudal ties played a key part in maintaining order and their above actions were motivated by fears of the consequences of their removal.
	Overall summary The emancipation of the serfs was, generally, of a very ineffective nature. The serfs themselves benefited very little - they still had to pay redemption payments, which could be higher than the taxes of the landowner. They also often received less land for this money, which along with the influence of the Mir and ***** farming meant that agricultural production actually fell. The Mir also controlled movement, and as such the proposed industrial migration also failed to occur. The fear the government had of upsetting the landowners and of a breakdown in law and order meant serfdom was abolished very gradually and in a way that still meant the landowners were the favored party, with serfs crippled by redemption payments in order to avoid the emancipation causing financial loss to landowners and nobles.

Causes

Agricultural production in Russia was very low compared to other countries - production per hectare was less than 50% of that of Britain. This was mainly because of serfdom.
The serfs were not inspired to work particularly hard on producing more food due to the fact that any profit was often taken by the landowner - they would receive the same earnings and amount of food regardless of the success of their production, and as such they rarely bothered to increase production as a result of this. Technology and more efficient farming methods were not utilized.
Most peasants were also ***** farmers - this also made it harder to utilize new methods and technologies as a very small area was all that was available. This further decreased efficiency.
It is worth noting that 90% of Russians worked in agriculture - as such, deficits in agricultural production were disastrous as this was Russia's main industry and source of income. They were struggling economically as a result of this problem with production - being unable to compete in their prices with the mechanized and efficient farming methods of the Western nations.
Landowners were largely in severe problems and required financial aid from the state. These problems were financial - they could not make a profit selling at the same levels as Western nations due to their inferior production systems. As such, change was needed to resolve the fact they were often in debt.
The nature of serfdom itself was deeply antiquated and seen as a "brake" on the improvement of the Russian economy. In the 1850's there were 25 million serfs - a third of the total population,
Serfs could not leave their estate, but could be moved around by their master at will. They usually had to work 3 days a week on their master's land instead of their own. They had no access to the legal system and could be punished by their master at will. The restrictions on travel were especially troublesome as they prevented migration to the cities and as such their was a shortage of labour for industrial development. State serfs (13 million) had better conditions, and their was great variation across Russia - but it remained a problem nonetheless. Excess labour could not be utilized effectively.
In 1860 about 1 million serfs avoided these penalties by paying a quitrent- a payment that allowed them to leave the landowner's services. However, they were the minority - as very few serfs could have afforded this.
Alexander II hoped that by emancipating the serfs - a) agricultural production would increase due to motivation existing for the farmers, and b) migration to the cities would allow the more profitable use of labour in industry.
The peasants were showing increasing unrest - 50 strikes a year in the early 1950's, 70 a year in the late 1950's.

Effects

After 5 years of talks, this serious reform was introduced in "The Edict of February 1861". This declared that serfdom was officially abolished - former serfs would no longer have to seek their master's approval regarding marriage and other life decisions. This was designed to achieve migration to the cities and an increase in agricultural production.
A 2-year transitional period would occur in which peasants would continue to perform labour service or would else have to pay quitrents to avoid this. During this time, settlements would be reached regarding the amount of land the serf was entitled to receive.
They would then be informed of the price they had to pay for their emancipation (a figure based on the extent of their former obligations and not on the amount of land they were going to receive. These "redemption payments" would be made over a period of 49 years,
The state, basically paid the landowners to by the serfs - then the serfs had to pay redemption payments to gain freedom from the government. (The government paid for emancipation then eventually got back the cost off the peasants, so in summary they paid for their own emancipation).
However - as this shows the "emancipation" had many negative effects for serfs. They were angry at the extra two years, and even more angry to have to pay for land that had been occupied and farmed by their family for generations. As such, it can be said the emancipation did not benefit serfs for a long time.
Also, only privately owned serfs were covered - state serfs were released in 1886 with 45 years redemption payments to give.
In addition to this, the amount of land received was often smaller than they had - especially in fertile areas, and they had to pay the same or more for it often. As such, it can even be seen as a negative change. This size also reduced their capability to use new farming methods and as such meant the emancipation did not really achieve its purpose of increasing agricultural production. Landlords could reduce the size of plots if they were going to be left with under 50% of their original estate - making this even more prevalent.
Other negative outcomes were that the villagers were still under the constraints of the village commune - "the Mir". This meant their travel was still limited, and they had to give up their rights within the Mir and land in order to migrate to the cities. As such, the migration to the cities that had been expected did not occur. The Mir also promoted traditional farming methods, limiting agricultural production. It's role was similar to that of a landowner to the extent the serfs benefited little from the change.
A further limit to agricultural production was that the redemption payments were charged to the commune and not individual serf - so if you made more profit, you paid a larger proportion....as such the increased motivation never really appeared among serfs.
Also ***** farming was still maintained, limiting agricultural production. Farmers could buy extra land but could rarely afford it due to the high nature of these redemption payments.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DID NOT INCREASE - BY 1900, RUSSIAN PRODUCTIVITY WAS 25% OF BRITAIN'S.
In addition to this, the state had been reluctant to abolish serfdom due to opposition from the landowners who regarded serfs as their property and source of income. The government could not afford to annoy the nobility because it depended on them for local administration - as such, serfdom was gradually abolished and did not benefit the serfs much at all in consideration of this.
The government were also afraid due to the fact that law and order in Russia was very poor. Feudal ties played a key part in maintaining order and their above actions were motivated by fears of the consequences of their removal.

Overall summary

The emancipation of the serfs was, generally, of a very ineffective nature. The serfs themselves benefited very little - they still had to pay redemption payments, which could be higher than the taxes of the landowner. They also often received less land for this money, which along with the influence of the Mir and ***** farming meant that agricultural production actually fell. The Mir also controlled movement, and as such the proposed industrial migration also failed to occur. The fear the government had of upsetting the landowners and of a breakdown in law and order meant serfdom was abolished very gradually and in a way that still meant the landowners were the favored party, with serfs crippled by redemption payments in order to avoid the emancipation causing financial loss to landowners and nobles.

Get Revising

Emancipation of the Serfs - Alex II