Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve in the period from 1855 to 1964.

Both Tsarist and Communist Governments attempted to widen participation in education, with the exception of Alexander III who sought to prevent the ‘dangerous spread of ideas’ and withheld education to the peasantry, who were largely illiterate under the Tsars.  This meant they were still effectively trapped in a life of serfdom, despite Alexander II passing the Emancipation Act they had no opportunities to better themselves. Stolypin under Nicholas II did not share the same view, nor did Lenin and the Bolsheviks who realised not everyone was an academic. There was a significant reduction in illiteracy in this period as 82% of men could read and write under Lenin compared to just 51% in 1897, before Stolypin took over. The peasantry would have a far better quality of life, although still mediocre, with the ability to read. This vast improvement in literacy is one of the most neglected changes within the period.

The peasantry also suffered constantly from famine throughout the period. Often, this occurred for reasons which can be directly traced to Russian Governments, in particular under Stalin where the manmade famine of 1932 to force through collectivisation had devastating effects on the peasantry in much the same way as the famine of 1922, which was also man made. In contrast to this, the famine of 1891 showed that the Russian state did actually pay attention to the peasantry, Alexander III acknowledged there was a problem and provided emergency funding in order to address the situation. Despite the peasantry receiving help from the Government pre 1917, the detrimental effects of communist rule again wiped out any improvement in their quality of life.

Russian rulers throughout the period shared a common goal, to industrialise. When passing the Emancipation Act, Alexander II held a view shared by anti serfdom critics that a modern state with developed agriculture and industry was the way forward. A similar desire was held by Stalin in introducing collectivisation, and also by Stolypin in abolishing the Mir in the hope of creating a new, enterprising class of peasant. Boosting agriculture was key to this so one would assume that the peasantry would benefit from agricultural reforms. However, this was not the case. Despite its importance, agriculture was always second fiddle to industry in much the same way that the peasantry were a second class citizen. As reforms were introduced, their voice was repeatedly neglected in order for the Russian state to achieve its shared common goal to industrialise and compare with the West. Even following Emancipation, the peasantry did not see improvements in their quality of life. Redemption payments were often so high that they struggled to earn enough from the poor land they had been given, and much like the requisition squads and collectives would later go on to do, the Mir dominated many aspects of their lives. The peasantry were still effectively serfs who were being used for the benefit of industry, this was an important feature of war communism and similarly in the ‘dekulakisation’ of Stalin, as in both cases the peasantry had falsely been accused of hoarding. This had again demonstrated that the peasantry were often used as a scapegoat and neglected in favour of industry throughout the period. In contrast, the agrarian reforms under Stolypin brought real improvement and some argue that this was the most prosperous time for the peasantry within the period. Stolypin had succeeded in creating an enterprising class of peasants, however they would be heavily persecuted under Stalin and any improvement to their lives had been undone by the communists.

The peasantry also faced a high level of repression and persecution throughout the period.  The peasantry were consistent opponents of Russian Government throughout the period, yet were rarely successful in doing so. One reason for this is the continuing role which the army played in limiting opposition from the peasantry, with military force frequently being deployed throughout the period. Lenin used it in the Civil War against the Green armies and Stalin used a similar style of brute force during the collectivisation process, albeit on a much grander scale. Tsars had also used military force in containing the peasantry, with Stolypin’s necktie under Nicholas II and Alexander II continually employing military force prior to the Emancipation Act. The army was very important to the state, as the 1905 revolution demonstrated, and their continuing use of force against the peasantry is one reason why peasant opposition was rarely successful in improving their quality of life in the period.

High taxation and brutality was another common feature, the Mir were very brutal in their grain collections and this brutality is a continuing theme under communist Governments. The state bore down heavily on the rural population under the Tsars, paying a low procurement price for requisitioned goods which affected their income. In much the same way as the peasantry had been poorly treated under the Land Captains and the Mir, discipline was also severe. Lenin’s NEP outlined a tax in kind where a percentage of production was taken, in contrast to the requisitioning of Stalin who forced through Lenin’s collectivisation model. High taxes were commonplace under the Tsars despite the axing of redemption payments in 1905, however in contrast Lenin’s NEP ensured that such a heavy burden would not be repeated. Despite this advancement, the most heavy restrictions were seen under Stalin where the relentless use of power, paranoia and hostility led to an unprecedented scale of death and destruction. In 1929 a 30,000 strong army led a campaign against the peasantry to take grain, collectivise farming and destroy the kulaks, defined as party policy under Stalin in 1930. Even though the peasantry had been violently repressed under the Tsars, there was nothing remotely close to Stalin’s determined campaign against the peasantry. By eliminating the kulaks, Stalin had destroyed the most competent farmers and the new peasantry were not strong enough to step up. This had effectively undone the work of Lenin where peasant farms had been more equal than at any point under the crown, even when Stolypin was reforming, and the achievements of the peasantry who had achieved ambition and land, despite requisitioning and taxation from the state, was taken away by the introduction of the Kolkhoz. Despite heavy repression and persecution under the Mir, and poor treatment under the land captains, this is nothing in comparison to Stalin’s forced collectivisation. The greatest change to all of Russia had taken place with an unprecedented level of violence, fear and disruption, which meant that the lives of the peasantry did not improve in the 1855-1964 period in terms of freedom. Alexander II could never really create a free peasantry and Nicholas II did little following Stolypin’s assassination and still heavily restricted political freedom despite the introduction of the Duma. Despite Lenin’s best efforts, Stalin’s obliteration of the peasantry undone most of this work.

In conclusion, the peasantry were poorly treated by both Tsarist and Communist Governments in the 1855-1964 period which meant that their lives did not improve. Following the Emancipation Act, the peasantry had to endure among other things, high taxation, requisition, repression and restriction on movement and poor quality land. Both regimes treated the peasantry with disdain and despite some benefits such as initially seen under war communism, and also Stolypin, ultimately the lives of the peasantry did not improve in the 1855-1964 period.