• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and Communist rule?

Extracts from this document...


6/12/2002 Unit 5c: The making of Modern Russia, 1856-1964 PART A To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently failed and that peasants resisted it under both Tsarist and Communist rule? Source A deals with the emancipation edict of 1861. It agrees that the policy failed stating 'serfs resented receiving too little land for their needs'. This provides evidence of how the introduction of redemption payments undermined the fundamental aims of the policy. It also mentions how the peasants were 'bound in various ways to their village communes'. This is referring to how the Mir was in charge of paying the redemption payments for the whole village, leaving peasants trapped in their villages until the payments were received. Source A also agrees that the peasants resisted the policy by mentioning 'the flogging of recalcitrant peasants'. This provides evidence of rebellion by the peasants, mainly due to the fact they were in a poorer position after emancipation than they were before the policy was introduced. This source does show that agricultural policies did fail, and caused peasant rebellion, due to the hope the emancipation edict gave peasants of being free. Source 2 shows a mixed view on Stolypin's agricultural reforms, and differs to source 1 as all of the evidence comes from the period in question, allowing us to assess opinions from the time. The first quote is from Stolypin himself, stating that the government 'has placed its wager... ...read more.


This was the case because peasants were forced to pay redemption payments to the Mir, a group who was in charge of paying the redemption payments for the whole village. This system meant that peasants could not leave their villages, and actually lost rights to the use of some land. Emancipation actually worsened the economic position of the peasant, mainly due to the fact the policy was aimed at preventing revolution, not increasing the economic status of the peasants. Although emancipation was a failure in terms of the economic success of the peasants, it did give the peasants hope that removing the tsarist regime could help increase their economic position. Stolypin tried to implement his land reforms after the 1905 revolution in order to try to save the tsarist regime. These plans involved allowing peasants to own their own land, removing the system in which peasants only farmed strips of land and allowing peasants to trade land freely. These proposals would have helped secure more economic certainty for the peasants, but the peasants failed to see this. The peasants enjoyed collective security at the time and seemed unwilling to take an extreme chance and try to set up a farm on their own. Because of this, Stolypin's reforms failed, although if given more time he may have been able to implement them successfully. The same problems created after emancipation were still present in 1914. Overall the two main agricultural policies implemented to try to improve the economic success of the peasants at the time were simply aimed at trying to keep the Tsarist regime in power, and this is why both the emancipation edict and Stolypin's reforms failed. ...read more.


The destruction of this class simply left collectivised farms to improve the peasants' economic position, which it was clear was not going to happen. The result of collectivisation was the total destruction of the economic freedoms the peasants had gained. They now had no land, no freedom to trade, and in many cases no even enough grain to feed themselves due to the badly run collectivised farms and the destruction of the kulak class. Overall, agriculture was completely neglected throughout the Tsarist and Communist regimes. Agricultural policies were simply used as to either keep the current government in power or to help achieve ideals the regime had e.g. industrialise Russia. In many ways, both regimes were the same, as they were both dictatorial and all policies passed on agriculture had other aims behind them. However, during the Tsarist regime, at least peasants had their own land that they could live on. During the communist regime, many peasants were forced into poverty by the policies of war communism and collectivisation. At the end of 1950 peasants did not have their own land, and were working for little reward, as the productivity was worse than in 1917. Therefore I believe that although the peasants economic stayed much on the same level as before emancipation, they received more benefits economically by the Tsarist regime than the Communist regime, simply because the Tsarist regime needed the peasants on their side to avoid revolution and remain in power. Collectivisation under the communist regime destroyed all economic gains the peasants had achieved before then in both regimes. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Why Does the Chinese Government At the Start of the 21st Century Refuse To ...

    where women had no property rights. This is now changed by the Marriage reform law of 1950 and is a basis for some of the communist's early support. The Chinese people have had no need for political freedom over the last 4,000 years and many see no need for it now as living standards are rising for many people.

  2. The Economic "Miracle".

    Eisenhower reduced federal spending and encouraged private enterprise. Discouraged programs of national health insurance. By end of his term had $1 billion in surplus. B. The Survival of Welfare System Eisenhower resisted efforts by right wingers to dismantle manypolicies of the new deal. He extended social securityto 10 million more people and unemployment compensation to 4 million more.

  1. How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914?

    For the liberals of this world, "1905 marked a turning point." Whilst one tends to agree with the liberals in saying that "the economic... record of tsarism was not unimpressive", neither was it impressive.

  2. Evaluation of key sources to address the question of increased tension

    This was a speech to the press on the 7th of April 1954. An extract, which concerns the Domino Theory, is shown in source B1. Source B1 is a primary source and discusses the spread of communism in South-East Asia.

  1. Why does the Chinese government at the start of the 21st c. refuse to ...

    The two major religions in China of Buddhism and Taoism both tell of the need to conform to the social norm by harmonising with the natural order. This can be seen on a family level where in China's past, life revolved around the order of leader, man, son, etc.

  2. Vietnam and the AWM Sources Questions

    who were fighting in this war saw it was wrong they would see it as wrong too. As a British journalist writes the source he could be unbiased in his writings, this would make it useful. Although this is the view of hundreds of veterans in the Vietnam War there

  1. Why does the Chinese government at the start of the twenty first century refuse ...

    military force against China, compelled to sign unequal treaties, transformation of Chinas ports to treaty ports and the division of China into spheres of influence). Unsurprisingly western foreigners became unpopular and the Manchu's have been for allowing China to be 'over-run by Europeans', likewise they were made just as unpopular and faced much opposition such as in the Boxer Rebellion.

  2. To what extent can Britain's policy towards Germanybefore Munichbe defended?

    Versailles that had redrawn the map of Europe in the wake of the First World War. To the victorious powers of the First World War (Britain and France) it was a peace settlement, but to the Germans it was a diktat, the dictated, imposed settlement forced upon them by deceit and against their will.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work