The all-male village assembly, or sel’skii skhod, was connected with the commune rather than the village—institutions which, as will be pointed out below, were not identical. Composed of household elders, it met periodically to decide on matters of common concern and then dispersed: it had no other responsibilities and no standing organization. The absence in the village of institutional forms bears emphasis because it explains the extreme paucity of political experience in the life of Russian peasants. The Russian village could display great cohesion when threatened from the outside. But within its own confines, it never developed organs of self-government able to provide the peasants with political practice—that is, teach them to translate the habits of personal relations acquired within the walls of the household into more formal social relations.
The critical factor in the underdevelopment in Russia of a durable and functional village structure, the reason for the village’s fluidity, was, as in the case of the dvor, the absence of traditions of primogeniture. Compared with an English or Japanese village, the Russian village resembled a nomadic encampment: the peasant’s log cabin (izba), constructed in a few days and frequently destroyed by fire, was not much more durable than a tent.
The third peasant institution, the commune (obshchina), usually overlapped with the village but was not identical with it. Whereas the village was a physical entity—cottages in close proximity—the commune was a legal institution, a collective arrangement for the distribution among its members of land and taxes. Residence in a given village did not automatically confer membership: peasants without land allotments as well as non-peasants (e.g., the priest or schoolteacher) did not belong and could not take part in communal decisions. Furthermore, although the great majority of Russian communes were of the “single” type, which embraced one village, this was not universal practice. In the north, where villages were small, several of them sometimes combined to form one commune; in the central regions and even more often in the south, large villages would divide into two or more communes.
The commune was an association of peasants holding communal land allotments. This land, divided into strips, it periodically redistributed among members. Redistributions (peredely), which took place at regular intervals—ten, twelve, fifteen years or so, according to local custom—were carried out to allow for changes in the size of households brought about by deaths, births, and departures. They were a main function of the commune and its distinguishing characteristic. The commune divided its land into strips in order to assure each member of allotments of equal quality and distance from the village. By 1900, approximately one-third of the communes, mostly in the western and southern borderlands, had ceased the practice of repartitioning even though formally they were still treated as “repartitional communes.” In the Great Russian provinces, the practice of repartition was virtually universal.
Through the village assembly, the commune resolved issues of concern to its members, including the calendar of field work, the distribution of taxes and other fiscal obligations (for which its members were held collectively responsible), and disputes among households. It could expel troublesome members and have them exiled to Siberia; it had the power to authorize passports, without which peasants could not leave the village, and even to compel an entire community to change its religious allegiance from the official church to one of the sects. The assembly reached its decisions by acclamation: it did not tolerate dissent from the will of the majority, viewing it as antisocial behavior.*
The commune was largely confined to central Russia. On the periphery of the Empire—in what had been the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Ukraine, and the Cossack regions—most of the peasants tilled individually, by households, under a system known as podvornoe zemlevladenie. Here, each household held, either in ownership or under lease, a parcel of land which it cultivated as it pleased. By contrast, in northern and central Russia, the peasants held the bulk of their land in strips and cultivated it under communal discipline. They did not own the land, the title to which was held by the commune. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 77.2 percent of the rural households in the fifty provinces of European Russia tilled the land communally; in the thirty or so Great Russian provinces, communal ownership was virtually universal (97–100 percent).8 Membership in a commune and access to a communal allotment did not preclude peasants from buying land for private use from landlords or other owners. In the more prosperous regions it was not uncommon for peasants to till both communal allotments and their private land. In 1910, the peasants of European Russia held communally 151 million hectares and 14 million hectares in outright ownership.†
The origins of the Russian commune are obscure and a subject of controversy. Some see in it the spontaneous expression of an alleged Russian sense of social justice, while others view it as the product of state pressures to ensure collective responsibility for the fulfillment of obligations to the Crown and landlord. Recent studies indicate that the repartitional commune first appeared toward the end of the fifteenth century, became common in the sixteenth, and prevalent in the seventeenth. It served a variety of functions, as useful to officials and landlords as to peasants. The former it guaranteed, through the institution of collective responsibility, the payment of taxes and delivery of recruits; the latter it enabled to present a united front in dealings with external authority.9 The principle of periodic redistribution of land ensured (at any rate, in theory) that every peasant had enough to provide for his family and, at the same time, to meet his obligations to the landlord and state. Such considerations moved the Imperial Government at the time of Emancipation to retain the commune and extend it to some areas where it had been unknown. It was expected that once the villages had redeemed their land by repaying the state the moneys it had advanced the landlords on their behalf, the communes would dissolve and the peasants assume title to their allotments. However, during the conservative reign of Alexander III legislation was passed which made it virtually impossible for peasants to withdraw. This policy was inspired by the belief that the commune was a stabilizing force which strengthened the authority of the bol’shak, curbed peasant anarchism, and inhibited the formation of a volatile landless proletariat.
17. Peasants in winter clothing.
By 1900, many Russians had grown disenchanted with the commune. Government officials and liberals noted that while the commune did not prevent the emergence of a landless proletariat it did keep down the enterprising peasant. Social-Democrats saw it as doomed to disintegrate under the pressure of intensifying “class differentiation” among poor, middle, and rich peasants. A conference on rural problems convened in 1902, in the wake of recent peasant disturbances, concluded that the commune was the main cause of the backwardness of Russian peasant farming.*
But the peasantry itself held fast to communal forms of agriculture because it promised access to a fair and adequate share of arable land and helped maintain the cohesion of the household. If land allotments had shrunk considerably by 1900, the peasant could console himself with the hope that sooner or later all privately held land in the country would be confiscated and transferred to the communes for repartitioning.
The three rural institutions—the household, the village, and the commune—provided the environment which shaped the muzhik’s social habits. They were well adapted to the harsh geographic and climatic conditions in which Russian agriculture had to be carried out. But nearly everything the peasant learned in his familiar environment proved to be useless and sometimes positively harmful when applied elsewhere. Living in a small community, the Russian peasant was unequipped for the transition to a complex society, composed of individuals rather than households and regulated by impersonal relations, into which he would be thrust by the upheavals of the twentieth century.
There exists a widespread impression that before 1917 Russia was a “feudal” country in which the Imperial Court, the Church, and a small minority of wealthy nobles owned the bulk of the land, while the peasants either
cultivated minuscule plots or worked as tenant farmers. This condition is believed to have been a prime cause of the Revolution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the image derives from conditions in pre-1789 France, where, indeed, the vast majority of peasants tilled the land of others. It was in such Western countries as England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (all of which happened to avoid revolution) that ownership of agricultural land was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, sometimes to an extreme degree. (In England in 1873, for example, four-fifths of the acreage was the property of fewer than 7,000 persons; in 1895, only 14 percent of Britain’s cultivated land, exclusive of Ireland, was tilled by its owners, the rest being leased.) Russia, by contrast, was a classic land of small peasant cultivators. Latifundia here existed primarily in the borderlands, in regions taken from Poland and Sweden. At the time of their Emancipation, the ex-serfs received approximately one-half of the land which they had previously tilled. In the decades that followed, with the help of the Land Bank, which offered them credit on easy terms, they bought additional properties, mainly from landlords. By 1905, peasant cultivators owned, either communally or privately, 61.8 percent of the land in private possession in Russia.10 As we shall see, after the Revolution of 1905 the exodus of non-peasant landowners from the countryside accelerated, and in 1916, on the eve of the Revolution, peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine-tenths of the arable land.
Notwithstanding their intent, by 1900 Russia’s communes could no longer assure their members of equitable allotments: over time, larger, stronger households had managed to accumulate more of them as well as to acquire most of the land bought by peasants for private use. In 1893, 7.3 percent of the communal households had no land.11 These landless peasants, called batraki, were one of the four identifiable categories of peasants. The others consisted of peasants whose allotments were entirely communal (the great majority), those who had land both inside and outside the commune, and those (very few in number) who cultivated their own.* Peasants in the two last-named categories were sometimes labeled “kulaks” (“fists”). This term, beloved of radical intellectuals, had no precise economic meaning for the peasants themselves, being applied sometimes to the rich, those who employed hired labor, traded, and lent money, sometimes to the hardworking, thrifty, and sober.12
The physical distribution of land in the villages was exceedingly complicated, due partly to communal practices, partly to the legacy of serfdom. The pre-1861 Russian estate was not a plantation. The custom was for the landlord to divide his arable acreage in two parts, one of which the serf household cultivated for him, the other for itself. The halves were, as a rule, commingled. Under serfdom, the typical Russian village, especially in the northern and western provinces, consisted of a mosaic of long, narrow strips: the strips which the serfs cultivated for the landlord and those which they cultivated for themselves lay side by side. This arrangement, known as cherespolositsa, continued after Emancipation. Frequently, the land which the landlord retained as a result of the Emancipation settlement and now exploited with the help of hired labor remained wedged among the communal holdings. The land which the landlords subsequently sold to peasants, therefore, continued to be held and tilled alongside communal allotments, to the intense annoyance of communal peasants, who hated these private lots, which they called “baby-Ions” (vavilony) and wanted for communal distribution.13
Serfdom bequeathed yet another painful legacy. While allotting the emancipated serf generous quantities of arable land (about five hectares per adult male), the Emancipation Edict left pasture and woodland in the landlord’s possession. Under serfdom, the peasant had enjoyed the rights of grazing cattle and gathering firewood and lumber. These rights he lost once property lines had been drawn. Some landlords began to charge for the use of pasture; others collected tolls for letting peasants’ cattle cross their properties. At the turn of the century, one of the loudest peasant complaints concerned the shortage of grazing land. The peasant had to have access to adequate pasture—ideally, at a ratio of one hectare of pasture to two of arable, but at a very minimum one to five, below which he could not feed his cattle and draft horses.14 Much unhappiness was also caused by the lack of access to forest. In 1905 the most prevalent form of rural violence took the form of cutting lumber.
Russia was widely believed to suffer from an acute shortage of agricultural land. At first sight it may appear surprising that a country as large as Russia should have experienced land shortages (or rural overpopulation, which is the same). And, indeed, Russia had a long way to go to match the population densities of Western Europe. With 130 million inhabitants and 22 million square kilometers of territory, the Empire in 1900 had an overall population density of 6 persons per square kilometer. Even such a young country as the United States had at that time a higher population density (8 per square kilometer). And yet, while the United States suffered endemic labor shortages, which it met by opening its doors to millions of European immigrants, Russia suffocated from rural overcrowding.
The explanation of this seeming paradox lies in the fact that in agricultural countries population densities acquire meaning only by relating the number of inhabitants to that share of the territory which is suitable for farming. Viewed in these terms, Russia was hardly a country of boundless expanses. Of the 15 million square kilometers of European Russia and Siberia, only 2 million could be cultivated and another 1 million used for pasture. In other words, in the homeland of the Great Russians, only one square kilometer out of five was suitable for agriculture. Once allowance is made for this fact, the figures for Russian population densities change dramatically. In Siberia, the average density in 1900 was 0.5 per square kilometer, a negligible figure. In the fifty provinces of European Russia, it rose to 23.7 per square kilometer, which exceeded slightly the figure estimated by economic geographers to be optimal for the region.* But even this figure misleads because it includes the sparsely populated provinces of northern Russia. The regions which really mattered, because they held the great mass of Russian peasants, were the central provinces, and here the population density ranged from 50 to 80. This figure matches that of contemporary France and exceeds that of Ireland and Scotland. In other words, had St. Petersburg given up Siberia and the northern provinces, its population densities would have equaled those of Western Europe.
Densities of this magnitude might have proven tolerable were it not for pre-revolutionary Russia’s extraordinary population growth. With an annual excess of births over deaths on the order of 15 per 1,000, Russia had the highest rate of natural increase in Europe.† The implications of such a rapid population growth for agriculture can be demonstrated statistically. In the Empire of 1900, three-quarters of the population was employed on the land. With an increase of 15 per 1,000 each year and a population of 130 million, 1,950,000 new inhabitants were added annually, 1,500,000 of them in the countryside. Allowing for the very high infant mortality rate, we are left with a million or so additional mouths which the countryside had to feed each year. Given that an average Great Russian household had five members and tilled ten hectares, these figures mean that Russia required annually an additional 2 million hectares of arable land.‡
In Western Europe, the pressures generated by a somewhat smaller but still rapid population growth from the middle of the eighteenth century onward was solved in part by overseas migration and in part by industrialization. During the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, the agrarian countries of Europe (e.g., Italy, Ireland, Austria-Hungary) sent much of their excess rural population to the Americas. The net outflow of overseas migrants from Western Europe between 1870 and 1914 is estimated at 25 million, which took care of approximately one-half of the continent’s excess rural population. Much of the remainder found employment in industry. Industrialization permits unprecedented levels of population density. For instance, Germany, which in the first half of the nineteenth century had been a major source of overseas migration, in the second half of the
century, in consequence of industrial development, not only ceased to send people abroad but had to import labor. Some industrial countries attained staggering population densities: England and the Low Countries accommodated 250–270 inhabitants a square kilometer, or several times that of the most crowded areas of central Russia, without suffering from overpopulation. There can be little doubt that the ability of the Western countries, through emigration and industrialization, to relieve population pressures played a major role in enabling them to avoid social revolution.
18. Strip farming as practiced in Central Russia, c. 1900. The strips in black are cultivated by one household.
Russia had neither safety valve. Her citizens did not migrate abroad: they preferred to colonize their own country. The only significant groups to leave Russia were non-Russians from the Western provinces: of the 3,026,000 subjects of the Tsar who emigrated between 1897 and 1916, more than 70 percent were Jews and Poles.15 But as Jews did not engage in agriculture and Poles engaged in it in their own homeland, their departure did nothing to ease pressures on the Russian village. Why Russians did not emigrate is far from clear, but several explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps the most important cause was the practice of cultivating by joint families and in communes. Russian peasants were not accustomed to pulling up stakes and leaving for the unknown, except in groups. Although peasants were always on the lookout for fresh land, they never moved by families, as was common in the American West, but only with enough fellow peasants to set up a new commune, usually by villages or parts of villages.16 Second, living in a largely self-sufficient economy, they lacked money to pay the shipping fare. Third, they were convinced that before long there would occur a general repartition of non-peasant land in Russia and did not want to be excluded from it. Finally, living in a self-contained universe of Orthodox Slavs, on land hallowed as Holy Rus, little exposed to foreign cultures, Russian peasants found life among infidels hard to conceive.
The Russian Revolution Page 17
