When we utter the words “abolition of serfdom,” many immediately envision a grand act of justice that bestowed long-awaited freedom upon millions. Indeed, February 19, 1861, marked a turning point in Russian history, forever altering the destinies of peasants, who constituted the vast majority of the empire’s population. However, as is often the case with large-scale historical events, profound complexities lay hidden behind apparent simplicity, and a whole host of new challenges and burdens followed the promised freedom. For the Russian peasant, this moment marked the beginning of a long and arduous journey that equally combined elements of liberation and a new, at times no less heavy, burden.
1861: Doors to Freedom or a New Cage? The Abolition of Serfdom and Its Non-Obvious Consequences
The Great Reform of 1861, proclaimed by Emperor Alexander II, was undoubtedly an act of colossal historical significance. It abolished the personal dependence of peasants on landowners, granting them civil rights: peasants could now own property, enter into contracts, engage in trade, marry without their lord’s permission, sue, and even change their place of residence. These changes were revolutionary for a society that had lived for centuries under serfdom. Peasants, who were essentially “baptized property” until yesterday, were transformed into legally free citizens.
However, this “freedom” was not absolute and came with a set of conditions that many peasants found unfair and even deceptive. The main paradox of the reform was that, while granting personal freedom, it did not resolve the most crucial issue – the land question. Peasants gained the right to redeem their allotments, but until the redemption operations were completed, they remained in a state of “temporarily obligated.” This meant they continued to bear their former obligations (labor service or quitrent) to the landowner, sometimes even at an increased rate, until a redemption agreement was finalized. This period could last for years, and in some cases, decades, breeding discontent and disappointment.
Historians note that for many peasants, reality turned out to be far from their idea of “freedom.” They expected that along with personal freedom, all the land they had cultivated for centuries would be transferred to them, and without any payment. Landowners, on the other hand, sought to retain as much land as possible in their ownership and receive maximum compensation for what was alienated to the peasants. As a result, peasants often received smaller allotments than they had used before the reform. These “cut-offs” – lands that were taken from peasant allotments in favor of landowners – became one of the most painful problems of the post-reform village and a source of constant conflict. Imagine a peasant who had worked the land all his life, considering it his own, and now, having become “free,” had to either pay exorbitant sums for it or settle for a reduced plot barely capable of feeding his family. For many, this was tantamount to being moved from one cage to another, albeit a more spacious one, but still confined.
Furthermore, the reform did not immediately change traditional ways of life. Patriarchal life, dependence on the commune, and a low literacy rate – all persisted and influenced the peasants’ adaptation to the new conditions. Freedom did not come in the form of instant well-being, but as an opportunity for long, sometimes exhausting, efforts to arrange their lives in new, extremely challenging economic realities.
How Peasants Received Land and What They Paid for It: Redemption Payments and the Land Question
The key aspect determining the economic situation of peasants after 1861 was the so-called “redemption.” The government understood that simply taking land from landowners would be unfair and provoke their resistance. Therefore, a mechanism was developed to satisfy the interests of both parties, but in reality, it placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peasantry.
The essence of the redemption operation was as follows: the peasant received ownership of his land allotment but had to pay the landowner a certain sum for it. However, since most peasants lacked such funds, the state acted as an intermediary. It immediately paid the landowner 80% of the redemption sum (in some cases, up to 100% for small landowners), and the peasant, in turn, had to make annual payments to the state for 49 years, known as “redemption payments.” These payments included not only the principal debt but also interest on the “credit” provided by the state. According to historians’ calculations, the total amount the peasant ultimately paid significantly exceeded the market value of the land at that time.
The size of the redemption payment was determined based on the pre-reform quitrent that the peasant paid to the landowner. That is, if a peasant paid, say, 10 rubles in quitrent annually before the reform, the redemption sum was calculated such that these 10 rubles constituted a certain percentage (e.g., 6%) of it. Thus, the logic of calculating payments was linked not to the land’s value but to the landowner’s rental income. This led to peasants in the black earth provinces, where the land was more fertile and quitrent was higher, paying much more for their allotment than peasants in the non-black earth regions, where quitrent was lower, even if the land quality was comparable or even worse.
The land issue was further exacerbated by the fact that peasants did not receive allotments in full ownership in the modern sense. The land was often allocated not to individual families but to the peasant commune (mir), which then distributed it among its members. This created additional difficulties, limiting individual initiative and the ability to sell or mortgage the land. Moreover, as mentioned, during the “cut-off” process, landowners often took away the best lands from the peasants, which had been part of peasant allotments before the reform but exceeded the norms established for the area. These “cut-offs” could be strategically important: for example, forests needed for firewood or watering places. To access them, peasants had to rent them from the landowner, which again increased their expenses and dependence.
With population growth and the fragmentation of allotments among heirs, by the early 20th century, the average size of a peasant allotment became critically small. Yields remained low due to archaic farming methods and a lack of funds for land improvement. All this led to a constant “land hunger,” impoverishment of the peasantry, and growing social tension in the villages. Redemption payments were only abolished in 1907 as part of the Stolypin agrarian reform, but by then, they had been draining the peasant economy for almost half a century.
The Village Assembly and Communal Order: How Peasants Governed Their Lives Without Landowners
After the abolition of serfdom, when direct landowner management disappeared, the primary form of self-governance in the peasant environment became the rural commune, or “mir.” The commune was not just neighbors living in the same village but a complex social and economic organism that regulated almost all aspects of peasant life. If previously peasants were under the supervision of the landowner and his managers, now their lives were governed by the collective decisions of the commune.
The heart of the commune was the village assembly – a gathering of all the heads of households in the village. This was the highest body of peasant self-governance, which made decisions on a wide range of issues, from land and tax distribution to resolving everyday disputes and matters of resettlement. Decisions were typically made by a majority vote, and sometimes “unanimously,” which implied reaching a consensus after long discussions and persuasion. The village assembly elected its officials: the village elder, who was the executive body of the commune and the liaison with state authorities (district and volost); tax collectors, who were responsible for timely tax payments; and ten-men, who carried out various assignments for the elder.
One of the main functions of the commune was land redistribution. In a situation where land was not private property of the peasant but an allotment granted to the commune, periodic “redistributions” took place – the reallocation of arable land among peasant households depending on changes in family composition (birth of new workers, departure of adult sons, etc.). This system was designed to ensure each family equal access to the means of production and prevent excessive wealth stratification. However, it had its drawbacks: it did not incentivize peasants to improve the land, as they knew their allotment might be transferred to someone else in a few years, and hindered the adoption of progressive agronomic methods, as all land in the communal field was cultivated according to uniform rules (three-field crop rotation was the norm).
Another crucial function of the commune was collective responsibility. This meant that all members of the commune were collectively responsible for paying taxes and redemption payments. If a peasant could not pay their share, the other members of the commune were obliged to cover it. On the one hand, this served as a form of social insurance and support in difficult times; on the other hand, it stifled initiative and imposed an additional burden on more successful peasants, who were forced to pay for their less fortunate neighbors. Collective responsibility was only abolished in 1903.
The commune also acted as a judicial and regulatory body. The village assembly resolved minor disputes, quarrels, and property conflicts between peasants, established rules of conduct, and monitored morality. It could sentence individuals to public works, fines, or even corporal punishment. Thus, the commune served not only as an economic but also as a social controller, maintaining order and traditional values in the village.
The role of the commune in the post-reform period is a subject of debate among historians. On the one hand, it ensured social stability, protected peasants from complete ruin, distributed risks, and preserved collectivist traditions. On the other hand, it hindered the development of individual farming, prevented wealth stratification (which in a market economy could have led to the emergence of efficient farmers), perpetuated archaic farming methods, and often became an instrument of state control, which saw it as a convenient mechanism for collecting taxes and maintaining order.
From Need to Hope: Paths to Survival and the Search for a Better Life (Seasonal Labor, Resettlement, Education)
Despite the hardships of redemption payments, land hunger, and the persistence of archaic communal practices, the Russian peasant was not a passive observer of his fate. Faced with growing need and limited opportunities on their land, many sought ways to improve their situation and secure their family’s future. These searches led to the emergence of new forms of economic activity and social mobility that gradually changed the face of the Russian village and influenced the entire country’s economy.
One of the most common ways to survive and earn a living became seasonal labor (otkhozyi promysel). Freedom of movement, albeit with restrictions, allowed peasants to leave their villages for a certain period to earn money in cities, industrial enterprises, mines, or construction sites. Thousands of peasants from the non-black earth provinces, where the land was infertile and allotments could not feed their families, left annually for work. They became unskilled laborers, loaders, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, tailors, and drivers. Some mastered more complex crafts. These “otkhodniki” went to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Odesa, Donbas, Baku – wherever industry was developing and labor was needed. They sent their earnings home, supporting their families and paying taxes and dues. Seasonal labor became a vital source of income for many peasant families, as well as a factor in the growth of the urban population and labor force for the country’s industrialization. It also contributed to the spread of new ideas and knowledge in the villages, as “otkhodniki” brought with them a piece of urban culture and new social relations.
Another path to a better life was resettlement. The government, recognizing the problem of agrarian overpopulation in the central provinces, encouraged peasants to resettle in the sparsely populated outskirts of the empire: Siberia, the Far East, and Central Asia. Resettlers were offered benefits: free travel, loans for establishing a farm, and tax exemptions for several years. This was a path full of hardship and danger. The journey was long and arduous, new lands often required immense effort to cultivate, the climate was harsh, and infrastructure was lacking. Many could not endure and returned, but those who stayed and succeeded could acquire large, fertile allotments that they so lacked in their homeland. Mass resettlement movement became particularly active in the early 20th century, becoming one of the key measures of the Stolypin reform, but it began long before that, immediately after the abolition of serfdom, when peasants felt the opportunity to move in search of a better life.
Finally, education gained increasing importance. Despite all the difficulties, post-reform Russia saw a slow but steady growth in the number of primary schools, many of which were opened on the initiative of zemstvos – local self-government bodies. Zemstvo schools provided peasant children with basic knowledge: reading, writing, arithmetic, and the basics of the Law of God. Getting an education was a difficult task for a peasant family, as every child was a labor force, and their absence from the fields or household was felt. However, the understanding that literacy opened new opportunities (e.g., to become a volost clerk, a village teacher, or simply to manage affairs better and read newspapers) prompted many peasants to send their children to school. The son of a literate peasant could go to the city, acquire a profession, and become a worker or even a minor clerk, which was a huge step up the social ladder. Education became one of the most important factors contributing to the modernization of peasant consciousness and the emergence of a new, more active, and conscious segment of the peasantry.
In addition to these main paths, peasants also sought additional sources of income in their villages: they developed handicraft industries (making bast shoes, wooden utensils, carts, weaving baskets), engaged in hauling, raised livestock for sale, and leased their allotments to wealthier neighbors. All these efforts, sometimes desperate, testify to the colossal endurance and ingenuity of the Russian peasant, his desire to escape poverty and build a better life for himself and his descendants.
Consequences for Decades: How the 1861 Reform Laid the Foundation for a New Russia
The abolition of serfdom, despite its half-heartedness and complexity of implementation, became the cornerstone in the foundation of a new Russia, irreversibly changing its economic, social, and political development for decades to come. Historians agree that without this reform, further modernization of the country would have been impossible.
Economic consequences were twofold. On the one hand, the reform spurred the development of capitalist relations in agriculture. The emergence of a layer of prosperous peasants – “kulaks” – became possible, who actively used hired labor, leased land, and introduced more efficient farming methods. On the other hand, most peasant farms remained small, unproductive, and burdened by redemption payments and taxes. Land hunger, exacerbated by population growth, and low yields became chronic problems. This led to periodic famines and agrarian crises, which clearly demonstrated the unresolved land issue. Peasants, who constituted the main consumer base, had low purchasing power, which hindered the development of the domestic market and industry.
In social terms, the reform led to the formation of new social strata. Alongside the aforementioned kulaks, a numerous class of farm laborers emerged – peasants who, lacking sufficient allotments or means of subsistence, were forced to sell their labor to landowners or more prosperous fellow villagers. Growing landlessness and poverty pushed peasants to the cities, swelling the ranks of the emerging proletariat. This was a significant contribution to urbanization and industrialization, but also a source of acute social contradictions that would later erupt into revolutionary events. The commune, although it retained its functions, gradually began to lose its monolithic nature under the pressure of economic realities and individualization. Stratification within the commune itself intensified.
The political consequences of the reform were no less significant. On the one hand, it resolved the most acute and archaic conflict – serfdom, thus preventing a potentially destructive peasant war. On the other hand, it generated new contradictions. The unresolved land issue, the persistence of redemption payments, and the continued social inequality of peasants (they were still considered a separate, lower estate) became a constant source of discontent in the villages. Peasant uprisings, though not on the scale of the Pugachev rebellion, regularly flared up across the country, especially during periods of crop failure. This discontent, multiplied by the demands of the intelligentsia and workers, ultimately became one of the driving forces of the 1905 revolution, and then the October Revolution of 1917, when the peasantry finally received all the land they had longed for, but under entirely different socio-political conditions.
Thus, the 1861 reform, while an act of liberation, simultaneously laid the groundwork for a series of problems and conflicts that shaped Russia’s development for decades to come. It was a step towards modernization, but a half-hearted one, leaving behind deep social scars and unresolved issues that ultimately led to the collapse of the empire. The life of the Russian peasant after the abolition of serfdom is a story not only of gaining personal freedom but also of a long, often tragic, struggle for economic survival and social justice, a struggle that continued until the mid-20th century.