However, overall industrial progress was still very slow especially compared to the West in production of steel, iron and coal. A specific aim of emancipation was to aid the development of free mobile wage labour and encourage the growth of large-scale mass consumer market to act as stimulus and incentive for economic; but, this did not take place for the majority. The unexpected and highly inconvenient redemption payments that had to be paid to landlords by serfs had the serfs practically tied to their landlords even though they were technically freed as they had to pay it off before they were officially liberated from their landlords. This placed a heavy financial burden on the peasantry and was effectively trapping them because the only way they could earn the money to pay these redemption payments was to work on the land of the landlords which restricted them from mobile labour. Instead of transforming the peasants’ lives economically, it seems the situations were getting worse as they were in the hands of the Mir who imposed restrictions on crop selection, rotation of land and the availability of land to the peasants, alongside a dramatic rise in the rural population which left most of the Russian peasantry impoverished. Basically, the peasantry went from being under control from the landlords to the harsh hands of the Mir who made sure no peasant could emigrate unless all payments were made. Therefore, it seems clear that economically the peasants underwent no transformation as they shifted from one restriction to another, from the landlords to the Mir. A transformation to the peasants’ lives was completely restricted by the Mir.
It could be argued that, socially, Alexander II succeeded in transforming the lives of the peasants by abolishing serfdom and making the peasants genuine Russian citizens. They were now free and allowed to marry whomever they wished and were given decent civil rights: they were no longer ‘owned souls’ but normal people able to reach a better standard of living and this is evident with the kulak class who were a class of richer peasants. Education was also improved under Alexander II who realised the need for the serfs to be educated in order to fully achieve modernisation. On average, peasants farmed 20% less land than before Emancipation and they were also given a portion of arable land. Also, Alexander II relaxed censorship allowing the now ex-serfs to be much free in their publications to permit freedom of expression. So, the improvements in social aspects seem to be far greater in showing a transformation of the lives of the peasants than do the economic as they show how the peasants are far more liberated and therefore allows for an agreement with the statement.
However, it is widely questioned whether the peasants were seen as actual Russian citizens as they were still being controlled and exploited by the landlords and now the Mir. They were held back from a true successful transformation by economic reasons through redemption payments so it is debateable whether they were really emancipated. Despite having some social freedoms, a transformation is incomplete when it comes to freedom of expression and although censorship was relaxed it was quickly tightened when Alexander II felt his autocratic power was being threatened with many publications from radicals. One main aspect of the peasants’ lives that remained the same during Alexander II’s reign was the housing conditions of the peasants. Under the Tsar, peasants lived in poorly built and overcrowded wooden huts which were basically only one single room that was often shared with animals. This hardly seems like a transformation for the peasants since the basic needs of the peasants weren’t looked upon and consequently means to disagree with the statement, not entirely however as there were minor successful changes to the lives of the peasants but overall in terms of a transformation, Alexander II did not achieve this.
The peasants in Russia were given some political freedoms under the Tsar as the Zemstva was set up as a form of local government in which 40% seats were allocated to the peasants. At a local level, the peasants were even being better represented than most western societies. However, politically it seems there were hardly any transformations to the lives of the peasants under Alexander II as they still had special courts and were yet to be given full citizens’ rights. There was a genuine lack of political freedom and since the peasants weren’t really being seen as equals and being exploited, there perhaps was no intention to create their representation anyway. It is clear to see that Alexander II was firm on keeping his autocratic powers and therefore, as a result, politically, there was hardly a transformation to the lives of the peasants.
While there was a focus on industrialising and modernising Russia, and even though there were attempts at changing the lives of the peasants in order to so, it is evident to see that the peasants' lives were quite unchanged. In terms of economically and even socially, it seemed that the peasants had exchanged one master (the landlord) for another (the Mir) and no real freedom was given since redemption payments seemed to be more of a trap than a liberation as landlords could not bear to lose power. In essence, peasants, although having rid themselves of the title ‘owned souls’, were not free and even though there were minor changes to the system of serfdom, a transformation was not achieved under Alexander II and therefore would mean to disagree with the statement.
by
bluey26 (student)
