Theme Society- Rural Working Conditions And Housing Flashcards
working conditions under the tsars
Work on the land was driven by nature’s clock. Tasks were set by the season. But social institutions and mechanisms sought to control and dictate the working of the rural population.
rural working conditions, alexander II
Serfdom. Up until 1861 the Serfs were entirely under the control of the landowners. They were tied to the land they worked and could not legally move. They were required to give labour to the noble for, usually, 3 or 4 days per week. Serfs had no real legal rights and were often subject to harsh punishments. Emancipation of 1861 therefore ‘liberated’ peasants from some of these controls. Legally, they were now free but still required to pay redemption payments. After Emancipation, the Mir was empowered and villages gained some autonomy. The peasant council of elders dictated how the village was organised. They allocated land and tasks. To achieve surplus most peasants worked most days of the week. There was still some time to celebrate Holy Days
Rural working conditions under Alexander III
The state continued to view peasants as ‘indolent [lazy] and intoxicated’ and claimed these forces led to poor productivity. With continued poor harvests, low productivity, and famine, Alexander III intervened. Alexander introduced Land Captains to try and keep order in the countryside and maintain peasant discipline. Land Captains, 1889, involved, 2000 Nobles, being appointed by officials in regional districts. Their role was to discipline peasants for supposed wrong-doing. They could make local legal decisions and punish peasants for crimes. They were known for publicly flogging serfs. Land captain restored a sense of fear amongst the peasantry that had not existed since Emancipation.
rural working conditions under Nicholas II
Stolypin’s reforms sought to remove the influence of the Mir by giving peasants the right to withdraw and establish their own independent farms. Most peasants (90%), however, were unwilling to abide by the proposal and stayed within the mir. Those who left were viewed with great suspicion. Nicholas II was forced into a number of concessions following the Black Earth Revolts around 1903-1907. One concession included the abolition of Redemption Payments, the other included the abolition of land captains. Generally, he set about giving the peasant some further autonomies.
On the whole, across the Tsarist period, there continued to be a lack of investment. Peasant methods and tools remained largely unchanged. Peasants were too poor to have modern equipment. Most relied on old wooden ploughs, sickles and scythes. Three strip rotation (where one strip remained fallow each year) was the norm because fertilisers were not used on any large scale.
rural working conditions under lenin
Under Lenin the brutal nature of requisitioning under War Communism (1918-21) meant that peasant lost control over the produce of their work. Grain was taken by the state and redistributed in towns and cities. The NEP (1921-28) granted some respite to this temporarily.
rural working conditions under stalin, collectivisation
Collectivisation transformed the countryside by expanding Communist authority to villages. The traditional autonomy of the mir was lost, and now, how much was produced was dictated by central planning and target setting. Peasants work under the communists was far more regulated, and individuals who did not tow the party line were punished. In this way one could argue that the life of the peasant was not that different in 1964 compared to 1855. In 1855 they were required to work the land of the nobility, while in 1964 they were required to work the land of the state. In both cases peasants gained little from their hard work. Sheila Fitzpatrick claims peasants viewed collectivisation as a ‘second serfdom’.
rural working conditions under Stalin. brigades
Collective farms formed ‘brigades’ of peasant workers. These were made up of 50-200 peasants. Each was led by a brigadier. Each morning at 6am, on the sound of a re-purposed church bell, they would meet to receive instructions from their brigadier as to their day’s tasks. These instructions were top-down, and based on the whims of the Party and the Chairman of the farm (who was appointed by the party). Peasants had little autonomy
rural working conditions under khrushchev
expansion of the Collective farms in the 1950s and 60s represented a continuation in the policies of Stalin. Peasant remained under the control of party with little autonomy. Mechanisation increased as more tractors were being produced. By the 1960s, the USSR was producing 440,000 tractors per year (according to official data, probably exaggerated)
changes in housing under the tsars
For most of the period housing remained the same. It consisted of a wooden hut [izba] heated by an oven. Often overcrowded, sometimes shared with animals, these were often cold, damp, and grubby by modern standards. The regime played no role in building housing. Peasants had complete control.
The main consequence was poor public health. Due to unsanitary conditions (e.g. sharing space with animals) and enclosed spaces (doors/windows kept hermetically sealed due to cold), disease was dreadful. Life expectancy for the average peasant in 1900 was just 35 years old. 1 in 4 peasant infants died before the age of one.
changes in housing under the tsar, emancipation
Emancipation (1861) caused an increase in household partitions and splits. As peasants were now free to marry whom they liked, they could now choose to live more independently of their extended family. Over 40% of households divided between 1861-1884 and this led to the average size of the household unit declining from 9.5 to 6.8. Financially, these partitions tended to make households poorer, but it represented a consequence of greater peasant autonomy. The older, bigger, extended households tended to be more secure.
changes in housing under the tsar, alexander III land banks
Peasant Land Bank (1883) gave richer peasant more opportunity to improve their land and provided some capital for richer kulaks. The result was a gradual improvement in the quality of kulak housing. Most peasants, of course, did not benefit from this
changes in housing under the tsar, Stolypin’s reform
Stolypin’s reforms (1907-8) led to some peasants moving away from the mir, in which the izbas were situated, and led to some setting up their own khutor farms outside of the mir. As previously there was a gradual improvement in
the quality of kulak homes, but static for most peasants. The image to the right depicts the range of peasant housing from the late Tsarist period.
Most had a ‘Icon Corner’, a place of religious significance for Orthodox Christians. These were like altars in the home where observers prayed and worshiped.
changes in housing under the communists
The Kommunalka was extended to the countryside where appropriate, but the houses of ex-nobles were not always in suitable locations for the peasantry to use. The most significant shift in rural housing occurred under Collectivisation during the 1930s which introduced state intervention into peasant housing. Housing blocks were constructed on collective farms by the state. Notable changes occurred. Displaced Kulaks suffered eviction from their more modern housing, while effectively all peasants were forced into larger scale Collectives. Some positive change occurred, as shown by the falling infant mortality rates. Between 1935 and 1960 the infant mortality rate fell from over 200 to 36 per 1,000 births. Yet, if it was hoped that Collective farms would bring about the electrification of the countryside, the pace of change was slow. By 1941 just 1 in 24 farms had electricity. By 1950 this was 1 in 6. It was not until the 1960s when most had electricity. Even by the 1960s, the majority had no flowing water. Just 7% of rural roads were paved. It took until the 1970s for most to have flowing water and gas. lenin/Stalin Corners were promoted in propaganda. How many willingly put them up is unknown
changes in rural housing under communists, khrushchev
v envisioned the creation of ‘agrocities’, large rural settlements with access to services like cities. He hoped to modernise housing, services, etc. His vision of agrocities was never implemented in practice. However, efforts were made in Khrushchev’s era to improve access to healthcare. In the countryside it has typically been difficult to access doctors. By 1940, the number of doctors was 155,000. By 1958, the figure had more than doubled (362,000 doctors). In 1967, there was a higher doctor to patients ratio (1:450) than the USA. Hospital bed numbers followed a similar trend. There had been just 200,000 in 1912, but there were 1.5 million by 1958 and 2.5 million by 1969. This last leap was particularly impressive, and can be explained by the Khrushchev government’s renewed focus on improving the living standards of Soviet citizens.
