Russia economy and society practice essay 1
Assess the view that no Russian ruler improved the lives of the peasantry between 1855-1964
The fundamental failure of agricultural reforms carried out by the period’s more liberal rulers –
namely, Alexander II and Khrushchev – combined with repressive policies such as grain exportation
and collectivisation, establish compelling grounds to advocate the view that no Russian ruler
improved the lives of the peasantry between 1855-1964.
As with all policies adopted by Russia’s rulers, collectivisation did make some improvements to
the agricultural sector; blocks of 40 farms were organised through motor-tractor stations, which
certainly added an element of much-needed efficiency to agricultural work, while peasants were
allowed to keep small plots of land. However, the independence of the peasants was destroyed as
they were now forced to work on collective farms – many slaughtered their livestock and withheld
food from the authorities, suggesting they did not engage with communist ideology and thus
contributed to the scheme’s lack of success. Further evidence of failure can be seen in the impact on
Kazakhstan, where the nomadic life was virtually destroyed and the population fell by 75% in the
years following Stalin’s policy, as many migrated to China. Above all, collectivisation resulted in a
horrific famine in the Ukraine which killed up to 10 million people, far more than had ever been
experienced within the realm before. Famine was characteristic of the period, as 350,000 people
died during Alexander III’s reign, once again due to the policies of central government. The finance
minister, Vyshegradsky, had declared that Russia must export or go hungry, and he also raised the
tax on consumer goods. As a result, food became too expensive and inevitably sources became
depleted as central government proved, as with Stalin, that the interest of the State and
industrialisation were more important than the lives of the peasantry. This was a common theme;
Lenin implemented War Communism to meet the needs of the Red Army, which was arguably even
more repressive than collectivisation given that grain was requisitioned at gun point, and the Civil
War exacerbated the shortages, leading to a famine of over 5 million people. It is clear, therefore,
that the policies of Stalin, Alexander III, and Lenin did nothing to improve the lives of the peasantry
and actually emphasised their struggles, bringing about starvation and fear in the populace.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that Alexander II, Khrushchev and even Lenin towards the end
of his rule, made some important improvements to the lives of the peasants. Lenin, unlike Stalin,
realised that his agricultural policy was not working and subsequently implemented the New
Economic Policy. This returned autonomy to the peasants and allowed them to earn money for their
own surpluses, thus increasing satisfaction among the peasants towards the new regime. Alexander
II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was also concerned with giving autonomy to the peasants; all
of Russia’s serfs, composing over 80% of the population, were freed from slavery and given property
of their own in a well-planned campaign. Previously, Russian serfs had been expected to serve in the
army for 25 years and their living conditions were abysmal on the farms, though now the military
service revolved around an army reserve which increased their freedom, especially now they had
some civil liberties, including the right to marry whomever they wanted. Khrushchev arguably made
a successful effort to address the problem of peasant land ownership that pervaded the period
between 1855-1964; he introduced the Virgin Land scheme, which meant that the expanse of land
given over to wheat production increased from 96 million acres in 1950 to 165 million acres in 1964.
It was an effective use of Russia’s vast arable land which certainly eased the plight of the peasants,
Assess the view that no Russian ruler improved the lives of the peasantry between 1855-1964
The fundamental failure of agricultural reforms carried out by the period’s more liberal rulers –
namely, Alexander II and Khrushchev – combined with repressive policies such as grain exportation
and collectivisation, establish compelling grounds to advocate the view that no Russian ruler
improved the lives of the peasantry between 1855-1964.
As with all policies adopted by Russia’s rulers, collectivisation did make some improvements to
the agricultural sector; blocks of 40 farms were organised through motor-tractor stations, which
certainly added an element of much-needed efficiency to agricultural work, while peasants were
allowed to keep small plots of land. However, the independence of the peasants was destroyed as
they were now forced to work on collective farms – many slaughtered their livestock and withheld
food from the authorities, suggesting they did not engage with communist ideology and thus
contributed to the scheme’s lack of success. Further evidence of failure can be seen in the impact on
Kazakhstan, where the nomadic life was virtually destroyed and the population fell by 75% in the
years following Stalin’s policy, as many migrated to China. Above all, collectivisation resulted in a
horrific famine in the Ukraine which killed up to 10 million people, far more than had ever been
experienced within the realm before. Famine was characteristic of the period, as 350,000 people
died during Alexander III’s reign, once again due to the policies of central government. The finance
minister, Vyshegradsky, had declared that Russia must export or go hungry, and he also raised the
tax on consumer goods. As a result, food became too expensive and inevitably sources became
depleted as central government proved, as with Stalin, that the interest of the State and
industrialisation were more important than the lives of the peasantry. This was a common theme;
Lenin implemented War Communism to meet the needs of the Red Army, which was arguably even
more repressive than collectivisation given that grain was requisitioned at gun point, and the Civil
War exacerbated the shortages, leading to a famine of over 5 million people. It is clear, therefore,
that the policies of Stalin, Alexander III, and Lenin did nothing to improve the lives of the peasantry
and actually emphasised their struggles, bringing about starvation and fear in the populace.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that Alexander II, Khrushchev and even Lenin towards the end
of his rule, made some important improvements to the lives of the peasants. Lenin, unlike Stalin,
realised that his agricultural policy was not working and subsequently implemented the New
Economic Policy. This returned autonomy to the peasants and allowed them to earn money for their
own surpluses, thus increasing satisfaction among the peasants towards the new regime. Alexander
II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was also concerned with giving autonomy to the peasants; all
of Russia’s serfs, composing over 80% of the population, were freed from slavery and given property
of their own in a well-planned campaign. Previously, Russian serfs had been expected to serve in the
army for 25 years and their living conditions were abysmal on the farms, though now the military
service revolved around an army reserve which increased their freedom, especially now they had
some civil liberties, including the right to marry whomever they wanted. Khrushchev arguably made
a successful effort to address the problem of peasant land ownership that pervaded the period
between 1855-1964; he introduced the Virgin Land scheme, which meant that the expanse of land
given over to wheat production increased from 96 million acres in 1950 to 165 million acres in 1964.
It was an effective use of Russia’s vast arable land which certainly eased the plight of the peasants,
