[Der Freiheitsucher]

As Nicholas said to his son Alexander as he agonized in his death bed; “I am handing you Russia in a critic state.” The shameful loss of the war had brought afloat Russia’s problems on every level. The country was in serious need for reform. Alexander’s abolition of serfdom was probably his most important decree, but to what extent were his reforms a success?


The abolition of serfdom indeed terminated the slavery forms that existed in Russia at the time, but the consequences it produced were more harmful than helpful, most historians agree. To be specific; the serfs that worked in agricultural areas received a piece of land, but the domestic serfs did not. The latter were not entitled to it, which led to the migration of such serfs to the big cities, leading to poverty, crime and high unemployment rates. The other serfs, the agricultural ones, ended up paying for land which they had worked in their whole lives and sought to be theirs, with a reduced quality. The government however, gave the serfs the money to pay for this land, which had to be paid within 4 decades. These “redemption” payments lasted for a generation and sometimes two of them. More over, when the landlords were obligated to sell their land, they would choose the most unwanted one, and sell it for a high price. Even though the serfs were not forced to work as such, many of them remained in their positions because of the boarding and basic subsistence privileges.


Alexander was a despot and a strong advocator of autocratic governments, thus his government was a clear example of such. Alexander controlled the whole country and met each of his cabinet members privately and separately. To quote Machiavelli; “Divide and rule.” As it aforementioned Alexander had full control of his government and did not want to give this up. And he never did. The day Alexander was going to sign the creation of a national Duma, he was assassinated by the group “People’s Will”. Even if the creation of the Duma would’ve shaped the world’s history as well as Russia’s, it never actually happened. The Duma was never created and Alexander died like he had come to power: With absolute power of the country.


On the other hand, one could argue that he successfully reformed Russia. As we had mentioned before, he liberated the serfs and got to be known as the Tsar Liberator for this. The serfs may have had certain obstacles to overcome once they were free, but the truth is that after the emancipation edict, the serfs could choose how to marry, they would own their land and keep their children if they wanted.


Overall Alexander II was not very successful in reforming the country. There is one key factor to mention, he did reform, but these changes may have backfired and created a counter-productive effect. Basically, the question can be tackled in two ways. If by “successful” was to be described as something good, then Alexander was not very successful in reforming Russia, now, if “successful” were to mean that he applied the reforms, then we would have to say he was. Alexander wanted more democracy, a goal he failed to achieve due to his premature assassination, on his way to sign the creation of a national Duma! Had he succeeded on this, history would have been other.


Was Alexander II really a "Tsar Liberator"? To what extent did the emancipation edict work?

[CrazyPete]

What is the time period of Alexander II? I am not a scholar of Russian Tsars, though I do know a smattering about them (stupid survey courses, may overload in Russian history next school term). He is the one that came in the 1850's right? Or was he the one prior to that, who could think of no better system other than serfdom but so feverently wanted to abolish it, and was stuck in inaction?

-Pete

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Alexander II comes after Nicholas I and before Alexander the III. He abolished serfdom and he was assasinated by The People's Will.

The period you're talking about was his dad, Nicholas.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Alexander II came to power in 1855 and left in 1881, when various bits of him could not get up from the streets of St Petersburg and put themselves back together - so the 1850s guy is pretty accurate.

Quick recap:
...
Catherine II (Catherine the Great) (1762-1796)
Paul (1796-1801)
Alexander I (1801-1825)
Nicholas I (1825-1855)
Alexander II (1855-1881) - abolished serf system
Alexander III (1881-1894)
Nicholas II (1894-1917)

I don't know enough tsarist history. Alexander II did start of with some liberal tendencies, although quickly after 1861 became more and more conservative.

I personally think of the Emancipation Act as an act with close parallels to England's Magna Carta. In truth it was a political necessity for some version of emancipation to come about. While it is often presented as the sign of an enlightened tsar now, it seems more accurate to say that it was the smallest concession that tsar could reasonably hope to give at the time.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

Maxim, Alexander II did change his political leanings from liberal to tory, yet he was going back to liberal before his death. Keep in mind the emancipation edict came three years before the actual abolition of slavery. The emancipation edict was one of the tools he used to keep his autocracy. That is finally what he wanted, an autocratic government. Opposition groups such as Land and Liberty, Black Partition and People's Will developed during his mandate, he was not making a concession, he was trying to supress opposition and keep his full power of the country.

[GandalfTheGrey]

don't know enough tsarist history. Alexander II did start of with some liberal tendencies, although quickly after 1861 became more and more conservative.

Leaders tend to lose their liberal ways when the people they liberated start throwing bombs at them. Alexander II survived several assasination attempts before he was finally killed by an assasin.

[Groovesmith]

I must first of all begin with the alleged prime reason with the so called emancipation decree of the 3rd of march year 1861. Alexander had taken power after his fathers defeat in the Crimean War and quiet cunningly decided that the fault in the war and the need for improvemenet lay in russias own backwardness-- ie in Serfdom. I may point out, as trotsky has asserted, that russia had begun to establish serfdom by the time that many european countires had abolished it.
The decree itself was bureaucratic to the ground and it was, what i enjoy calling a a 'half-hearted' attempt to please every single sector of the country. If indeed it was liberating and reforming Alexander the II would have not been killed by Grinevtsky on that day the 1st of march. One cannot sign off countires by Decree! that is ludacrous. To expect that the complete foudnation of country, everything that the country is builkt on, can be turned over in one day is completely hopeless. I can only think of how lenin attempted to do the same thing as his rule came to his hand--he himself had to realize that his decree was to radical and had to come back with the NEP.

For any further Interest, i made a study based on books on the subject. Thus section is concerenced with the Tsar if anyone pleases to read. All feedback would be much helpfull.! (forgive me from my inproper citations, i am yet not done)
"
Emancipation and Reaction
The Tsar once commented to a public in Moscow that it was “better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait until the time when it begins to destroy itself from below. ” The whole concept of a leap forward was appreciated by many segments of Russian society, especially that new class which had arisen with great intellectual power—the intelligentsia. Some believed that serfdom would improve the efficiency and productivity of the country: the serfs would be free, ergo they would strive to work thus improving their status quo. However, many of the rich landowners disfavored the idea as it was their land which would be given to peasants. Alexander II had to compromise in one way or the other, failure to do so would result in the very destruction ‘from below’ of the Russian system. The peasants were given land under a slightly oppressive condition—they would have a period of 49 years to pay back the land which was given to them: this way the Tsar could attempt to please both sides of the picture. As Victor Serge so blatantly puts it “yesterdays serfs discovered that, in becoming free, they were now hopelessly in dept.” Therefore it can be seen that the emancipation decree only gave the peasants a new set of owners: under serfdom they were slaves to the landowners and with emancipation, they were slaves to a new and growing element in Russian society—capital. The attempt to free only created a new leash which created many problems as the peasants didn’t really feel like improving a land that really wasn’t theirs. To add to the issue, the landowners usually gave the worst lands away to the peasants which resulted in poor crop results. The land allotments were usually very small and as the years went on, they became more and more subdivide thus the land allotment became smaller for every peasant. The Liberal Rostovsteff was responsible for most of the ideas inside the decree and acknowledged that there should be a repayment but that it should be very light if not there would “be no improvement in their living conditions. ” Therefore, a situation arose in which the now ‘free’ peasants didn’t really care much about their land and had a lot of time on his hand—as Belasco and Hammond put it, “he [the peasant] had plenty of time to brood over his misfortune and listen to agitators who proposed solutions to his problems. ”
Even with these rather severe repercussions, the decree appeared to be a genuine attempt to give rights to the peasants. They now had judicial rights, they could marry whom they please, and they had a slight sense of freedom. The emancipation of serfdom also created various changes within the structure of the army; it was after all the failure of the army which created such drastic changes in Russia. In this great land, the Army served a dual purpose: in the terms of Clausewitz, it was used as a tool to compel Russia’s adversaries to fulfill their will but it was also used to compel Russia’s people to fulfill the will of the Tsar. The period of conscription had been of twenty five years, mainly because it was a rather efficient and cheap way to control much of the ‘revolutionary’ masses. This period could greatly control people, but always at the expense of efficiency within the army—thus it was reduced to six years. The punishment and treatment of the actual soldiers also was bound to change as it was a ‘social’ revolution that the Tsar was attempting to create. The improvement of conditions for the people had to come in all sections; however, going back in the same way that the Emancipation Decree created many illusions which could not be fulfilled, many of the other reforms also wanted to change more than what possibly could be changed. These events would eventually continue to shatter the illusions of many people, thus as the ‘dream-like’ goals failed to be achieved then the revolutionary character of the people began to arise. Tsarist polices were to provide the means to their own end—ironically, the attempt to improve the conditions of the masses would eventually create the intellectual class which would lead the masses against the tsar.
Emancipation caused a lot of change within the structure of the government. One of the first of these changes was the creation of the ‘Mir’ or the village commune. This was an attempt to increase productivity and to ensure that payments would be met. The ‘Mir’ also came to create the theory that the village was much like a factory, and that the peasant was as reactionary as the proletariat—this however will be touched upon later. In general the decree was a failure since peasants in reality were ‘slaves to their land by the money they owed. They were obliged to take the land, and by taking the land, they were obliged to pay it. The emancipation decree had been a great hope not only for the peasants but also for the radical intelligentsia. These small plots of land further added to Russians poor economic situation as grain production wasn’t as efficient as before. Therefore the emancipation decree must be seen as the start of the end of Tsardom.
Previously Russian revolutions had taken place high up in the ruling classes or were led by small armed groups—the best examples are that of the Cossack Pugachev and of the Decembrists in 1774 and 1825 respectively. Alexander II created a situation which would create an overwhelmingly mass of revolutionary people. The peasants saw in there freedom a greater slavery than before, thus many of them fled to the cities were the booming birth of a very crude capitalism was to provided that hope for a better life. In fact, from 1865 to 1890 there was an overall increase of 65% percent in the number of factory workers. Most importantly, that early form of capitalism created immense productivity and generation of capital; but, this was to come at the expense of the newly growing proletariat class. The revolutionary ‘consciousness’ of which Marx so often talks about would be created as an involuntary produce whose originator had been the emancipator of serfdom
A very interesting and vital point, which will help the reader comprehend the certain ‘un-revolutionary’ nature of the peasantry, is that based on the life of the peasant in relation to the Tsar. It would be rather incorrect to assume that the Russian peasantry hated the Tsar. Even when all these reforms had done nothing the Russian peasant quite peculiarly always believed the Tsar had tried and was trying to improve their position. The Russian peasant would believe that the Tsar was caught in a ‘battle’ against the rich landowners and businessmen and that only because of those people, he could not aid the peasants. That ‘divine right’ of kings could be felt hardest in the eyes of the Russian peasant. There would be an over-abundance of cases in which the peasants would actually send letters to the Tsar asking him for small favors: these are excellent examples of the ‘love’ they had towards the godly figure—godly indeed, as this status was a creation of the Russia’s intense religious fervor at the given time. The creation of such a passion towards the Tsar, an old fashion ‘cult of personality’ one could say, had been created by the very strict orthodox religion to which many peasants devotedly adhered to. The following phrase seemed to be engraved in the peasants mind “God commands us to love and obey from the inmost recesses of our heart every authority, and particularly the tsar. ” Therefore, many of the revolutionary ideas such as Bakunin’s violent overthrow of the monarchy wouldn’t sink in to the peasant’s minds—at least not yet. Nonetheless, the emancipation decree would create a split in the society, the movement of the radical intelligentsia towards the left would first arise with the popular ‘populist’ movement—which although it had no effect on the masses, it was to be the milestone towards creating a revolutionary and politically aware peasant.
“Go to the People!”
Reform was quite shortly lived in Russia. As previously stated the idea which liberation attempted to create was not clear from its conception; more importantly, it failed to achieve its goals and only succeeded in creating a greater popular discontent. A Russian historian puts it quite simply, reform changed various aspects of Russian life but it “left unaltered the power of the Tsar. ” Thus, what needed to be changed remained in the form of the status quo. In the early 1860’s the Poles began feeling quite nationalistic due to that nationalistic aurora which seemed to dominate European races at the given time, to this one must add the continuous support given by Polish Nationalist living in abroad, especially the one’s in England. The reform lead many Poles to believe that they would also be granted rights like; hence their sense of rebellion when these reforms failed to come about. In between 1860-63 the Polish demonstrated frequently and the Russian Monarchy was complied to act with force. The acts of one General Muraviev, who was sent to ‘oppress’, would end up executing hundreds of people and deporting thousands to the Siberian region. The deportation of revolutionary characters to Siberia must have been seen as a very useful tactic, it was far beyond useful. Siberia would become a revolutionary infested ground, the concentration of all the revolutionary minds created a clearer rebellious consciousness. Siberia was to be like the collection of boiling water in very tight pot—just waiting to burst out. Thus it can be appreciated that again the Tsar was signing his own death sentence.
"

If anyone would care to further read, please let me know

Hope this helps

Cheers
Martin O

[Maxim Litvinov]

Martin - seeing as your post was so detailed, I feel the need to respond because you put so much work in.

I don't know enough pre-revolutionary history, but think your summary is pretty much on the money.

A few points -
i) The Emancipation Act was surely necessary for industrial development in Russia as well? I agree that this meant a larger urban working class - and hence a larger Marxist 'proletariat'. But, in considering all options, the Emancipation edict was fairly necessary.
ii) As the revolutionary movements were by-and-large led by the bourgeois intelligentsia, emancipating the peasantry did not spark a huge boon in their numbers. Furthermore, it was only the lack of appropriate industrial reform which made the urban workers so sympathetic to parties like the Bolsheviks in the first place.
iii) A socialist revolution was by no means an 'inevitable' consequence of the emancipation act. More important factors included - lack of industrial reform, problems in World War I and the general slowness of the tsar's willingness to give up control to the people, or at least the bourgeoisie. From this point of view, it could be as convincingly argued that revolution came about precisely because the tsars weren't progressive enough.

[Groovesmith]

Dear Maxim,

I understand if my words wered a bit harsh and strikingly deterministic;nonetheless, i do belive that the emacipations proclamation was the first step in creating a revolutionary situation possible in russia. Herzen stated, as well as bukakin and necgahve, that the russian peasant had a very revolutionary notion to him-- that him alone could sparkl the revolution. And as marxist theory proclaims and as history has revolieved it was not the peasant but the proletariat who made the revolution.

What i must stress to point out is that i do belive it gave the russians its first taste of freedom! This freedom (half hearted as it was), as i recall was then completely countered by Alexander the III with the grand inquisitor Poedebonestev. This is the viscious cycle that I see in russian history. An attempt to reform is not done to its maxim because in the end,m that was not the Tsars desire.

I mean im must be falling a victim to the old maxim, everything is impossible until it happens, then it became inevetiable. Figes stated in his 'Peoples Tragedy' the the possiblity of reform could exist and the revolution would have been saved. But reform did not come to anything

Moreover ever since the Emacipation Decree we notice the first underground organisations the first injection of politcal theory to the masses. With the emacipation, as you cleary stated came the industralisation. And I AGREE without industralisation no revolution could have ever come about.

My Point is the following, Reform lead to nothing, lead to oppresion which led to the formulation of the so called independt inteligentsia as Nicolas commented ' what a horrible word i wish they could erase it from the russian dictionary' (or some along those lines. Nonetheless, the countereforms... which to me seem a diretc product of the reform leads to the creatioin of a revolutionary mind. The counter Reforms affected *directly* the lives of such people like Isoeff Djusgahvill Lev bronstein and Vladmimr Ulanov. Was it not Vladmimirs Brother who was hanged by the counter reformist Alex the III. And as the popular tale goes Lenin then stated "we shall not go that way" Thus the organsation element came into the revbolutioanry heart.

Much can be discussed an argued and i agree thast by stating that the decree made such events 'inevtiable' is quiet premature and incorrect. Nonetheless, I see the direct impact and there seems to be ana amazing corealoation bewteen the lack of reform and the production of anti-governemtal groups which only further increased with the counter reforms of the Alex III.

I agree with you latter statemement on the Tsars Being Progressive but many things in history havbe been made only to be corruypted by Humans.... Versailles might hgave worked but nobody cared to uphold Hitler to the treaty. The Emaciatpion as i said STATED Everything... but Did nothing.

And i agree that the peasant was not the leader of the revolution, I dont agree with Bakunin, i fall my self more under Marxist theory and even MArx called of bakunin 'an ass' jeje

Best Of luck and thank you for the positive feedback

Martin Otero

[Maxim Litvinov]

This isn't me just be pedantic. I honestly took a while to decipher a couple of the names below - which made your answer hard to read. Another point - there is no need to call Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky by their pre-revolutionary names unless you want to make some point (like, they were somehow 'phoney' because they adopted pseudonyms). A bit like Samuel Clemens - it makes little sense to call him by this name.

bukakin = Bakunin
necgahve = Nechaev (?)
Poedebonestev = Pobedonostsev
Isoeff Djusgahvill = Iosif Djugashvili = Stalin
Lev bronstein = Trotsky
Vladmimr Ulanov = Vladimir Ulyanov = Lenin

I agree that the peasantry wasn't very revolutionary. The 'To the People' campaigns weren't very successful, and no doubt Figes has a lot to say on this score too. This meant that the revolutionary bourgeoisie (which had certainly existed prior to the emancipation act) were more liable to foment a proletarian revolution.

So, if the emancipation edict was undertaken merely to undermine any revolutionary ideas in the peasantry, then it was very much mistaken. It might do a little to stop any new Pugachevs from emerging, but it wasn't really a necessary political move.

But I don't accept this is why the emancipation decree went through. It was necessary to modernise society (you quote figures of mass urbanisation). It was necessary to appease the landowners and improve agricultural incentives. If it hadn't gone through, then Russia's WWI performance might have been even worse. If it hadn't gone through, then the tsars probably would have also had a bourgeois revolution on their hands. If it hadn't gone through then you would still have had a similar percentage of Moscow and Petersburg opposing the tsar. You would have still probably have had the February Revolution - which ultimately meant the downfall of the Romanovs.

So - if your thesis is: the emancipation act paved the way for the downfall of the tsar, then I'd agree that it helped on some points (like increasing Russia's urbanisation), but would disagree on many others (it wasn't a direct cause/effect, it was necessary, there would probably have been revolution anyway, unrest was caused by a general lack of progressive policy, it didn't particular incite new revolutionary figures)

[Groovesmith]

Dear Maxim,

Forgive me for the names, I honestly didnt mean to make such large mistakes. I was on a bit of a hurry and as to the pre-revolutionary names, i find the best way of remebering things is to employ them. I suggest nothing else, but it was their names at the give time.

But I don't accept this is why the emancipation decree went through. It was necessary to modernise society (you quote figures of mass urbanisation). It was necessary to appease the landowners and improve agricultural incentives. If it hadn't gone through, then Russia's WWI performance might have been even worse.

I must agree with you. The Decree was form to change russia.... Russia was defeated and Alexander saw in that defeat Serfdom... Thus as you say Modernination and other things like that would come along with. If i ever pointed otherwise forgive myself.

As to the emancipation I dont mean it to be a direct cause; i shall revise my text and thank you for the feedback. jejeje I am only 17 and have a long time to learn!
But what I meant to look at is was in away kind off like Bismarks Alliance System. It was not the alliance system that caused the war; rather the decomposition of such system (other causes do exists this is merely an exmaple)
I merely think that if the Decree would have been really emancipating -- it reeally didnt change much and if anything only ruined more of the peasnt conditons. If such reform would have taken place yes maybe things might have been different, maybe alexander wouldnt have been murdered and maybe other things would have changed. Sorry for speculating because things happened.

But i simply view it as the beguining I mean when i started writing my essay ( what i posted is merely a small section) i wanted to start off somewhere. Pugachev seemed to long ago, even the decemebrists revolution seemed long ago. From the start of the Emancipation Decree, i saw manything which contributed to a 'revolutionary spirit' A desire for change. I remeber that I began with a parahphrase quote from Taylor 'Revolutions are like road accidents. They have a general cause and particular causes at the same time'

I must inform you that I am still around 1881 in my essay and hence i put a bit of empasis on my essay on the section of 1861. here are some of my conclusions which may help to infrom my position,.

To summarize a few of the ideas, the break in Populist’s group was bound to come as there were some of them who still believed that the peasant was the key to the socialist revolution. The ‘People’s Will’ firmly thought that Russia has a special revolutionary peasant and that if they could eliminate the social and political restraints—IE destroy present political status quo—then socialism could become a possibility (notice the influence of Bakunin). ‘The Black Partition,’ notably led by Plekhanov, would embark on a more sophisticated ‘Russo-Marxist’ approach to the revolution; the Emancipation Decree ‘represented’ a development of capitalism at the expense of the peasantry. ” In the views of the Marxists, what Russia needed was that all too famous, ‘third estate.’ Those large new cities which would provide the demand for an increasingly large supply of fresh peasants, which would give up their already horrid life’s for sometimes even harsher conditions: those of the factories. The difference however is outstanding; for the peasant oppressions is a thing of air, it is a violence which cannot be pin-pointed—even less when the peasant himself ‘loves’ the Tsar! Now, with reference to the factory worker, he lives reaction, he lives with the oppressor and thus continually finds ways to free himself from those oppressions. Ergo, the development of worker unions—a mass collective organized group of workers whom somewhat ‘instinctively’ begin to fight and listen. As the oppression grows from the authorities, the work hours become longer, and the habitat becomes more in-humane—thus the conscious is produced which desires revolution, which needs change.
The main point that must be understood is that the Tsar’s meek reforms would in the end be the push which would begin the socialist tradition in Russia. The ever growing third estate would produce the proletariat which would was so eager to hear the revolutionary ideas presented to them—unlike the alleged ‘revolutionary peasant.’ The working class, that product of the third estate, “by virtue of its role in society and production ” would become the most significant figure in any upcoming revolution (for the Black Partition group). As Plekhanov himself said, that they would use capitalism to achieve the ‘highest stage of socialism. ’ This not only would show the beginning of a more Marxist view on the Russian Revolution, but it also lay the foundation for the Social Democrat Party which would become of extreme importance in the years to come. First of all it’s rather peculiar and very odd as well ironic that these terrorist acts could be seen as beneficial to the revolution. People have argued that small Terrorist acts are actually a hindrance to any movement, but in Russia it has a unique character which underlies to a simple equation: Reform equals terrorism which then would produce greater reaction which would only result in achieving a greater revolutionary spirit. The period after 1881 would be known as the era of the great reforms and would serve as a mold for many of the most influential figures in the revolutions of 1905 and 1917; but first, to touch bit on the cause of such extreme reform—the assassination of Alexander.

And I shall stress now, that I do not mean that the Decree IS the only cause or anything of that. To think of causes in 1's is absurd. I merely started as a pinpoint and i included that because the Post was directly related to the Tsar Liberator.

Forgive any annoyance with mispelled names and pre-revolutionary names.

Yours Sincerely,
Martin Otero

[Maxim Litvinov]

Hi Martin.

Don't mind my annoyance on names - I was just venting my spleen. And you don't have to reply as though it's a letter either Please just take it for granted that I'm writing sincerely also, so I won't end this post with 'Yours Sincerely'.

I guess many of my comments are dependant upon what type of essay you are writing. Whatever type of essay it is, my first conclusion is that you have a good general knowledge of the times. I don't profess to know more about them than you, and certainly hadn't come across people like Bakunin and Plekhanov when I was 17.

If this is an essay for school, then I would hassle you about the exact question - because I find it difficult to work out what question you are trying to answer. If it is an essay for the 'desk drawer' or the internet - for either working through your own position, or explaining it to others - then I would have different concerns.

Let me speculate for a moment that you are answering a school essay whose question is "To what extent did the emancipation act pave the way for revolution in Russia?"

Here would be some of my points:
i) Socialist thought was flourishing in Europe anyway in the latter half of the 19th century. There were revolutionary groups before and after 1861. The 1861 decree did nothing directly to promote revolutionary ideals.
ii) The act might have been a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a large-scale proletarian uprising. Because it was the decree which led to rapid urbanisation and industrialisation and the creation of a broader Marxist proletariat.
iii) The most important 'requirements' for a socialist revolution were aggrieved workers and radical bourgeois/intelligentsia movements. These factors were more directly influenced by - poor labour conditions, a *lack* of political reform and military losses in WWI. From this point of view, the emancipation act failed because it was not accompanied by other progressive reforms.
iv) While the emancipation act served, over time, to increase the proletariat, it also lowered the prospects for a bourgeois revolution.
v) Before the October Revolution, the tsar abdicated in February anyway - not due mainly to proletarian anger (indirectly linked to the emancipation edict), but due to pressure from more conservative democratic elements - Kadets, SRs etc.
vi) Figures like Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin were not particularly motivated by the emancipation act one way or another. Lenin's brother died because he opposed Tsarist autocracy. Stalin grew up in Georgia and wasn't particularly concerned with the peasantry. Trotsky was not really affected by the reforms.
vii) Finally, the time separating 1861 and 1917 is so great, that aside from the indirect urbanisation effects of the original decree, it is very difficult to trace any real pedigree back from 1917 to 1861, much less with any degree of 'certainty'.

A few more points in addressing your quote:
1] A focus on the working classes (and not the peasantry) was a natural focus for Marxists and socialists. The peasantry were seen as an important part of any revolution by some groups (merely because of their preponderance in Russia), but their lack of political awareness saw peasant movements die out quite quickly. This was not a product of the emancipation act, but something quite unconnected.
2] Oppression didn't particularly 'grow' on the workers from 1861 onwards. Factory conditions improved to a very minor extent. And (severely limited) labour laws were passed. The difference was that by 1910 the working classes had much more effective trades union and soviets with which to bargain.
3] There were very often people with quite conflicting political beliefs and agendas working for the same thing. Many of the anti-tsarist forces were also anti-Bolshevik. And the bulk of the Bolshevik vanguard was essentially bourgeois. Seeing as this vanguard ultimately 'took power' - and not the proletariat as such, perhaps it is useful to see how the lack of progressive policies by the tsars over decades helped to ferment a revolutionary spirit in the bourgeoisie as well?

[Groovesmith]

read the next quote

[Groovesmith]

Maxim,

Thank you very much for your comments, and as oddly as it may seem its just an essay for my pleasure. Unfortunately my school does not offer any courses on the russian revolution so I thought i woould take it to myself to learn the events.

You mentioned that the reform had no direct effect upon Trotsky Lenin and Stalin. I think you shpould consider soom these points:

From Lenin A New Biography by Dmitri Volkogonov

" The 1860's had been a period of 'great reforms', when the serfs had been emancipated, a measure of local self-government introduced in the provinces, the judiciary allowed to become a free professional corporation, universites and schools expanded and given greater autonomy: in a word russia had been launched on a path or reform in the general direction, if not liberal democracy, then at least of social modernization. The climate of reform, combined with the government's fear of going too far, too fast, also gave rise to a revolutionary movement, whose members -- mainly students -- felt that nothing would change fundamentally for the better unless the whole politcal struture was demolished, or at least the tsar removed

My bold

I do think that if reform had succeed in satisfying the wishes of the radical inteligentisa then somethings might have been different. Again sorry with the mights and ifs but with them i find validty in events. Then with the period of counter reforms, the Okhrana became especially harsh agaisnt students; the deportation of people to Siberia only did more to increase the revolutionary mind. This again had its result in the events which followed up the emancipatiuon. Lenin was expelled from University by such Counter Reforms and in the estaste which he was confinded too he began his further reading of Marx and of Chernevesky (SP)

As for Stalin,
This is from Hitler and Stalin Parallel Lives By Alan Bullock

While Stalin was attending Gori Church school, the tsarists government's policy of Russifcation meant that Georgian ceased to be the language of instruction and was abrubtly replaced by russian...agaisnt which Stalin was one of the leading rebels....It also lead him to take a passionate interest in Georgian Literature....One of these [stories], based on a true historical episode in 1840, made a lasting impression on Stalin. Its title, The Patricide, no doubt caught his eye. It tells the story of Koba, a Caucasian Robin Hood who defies the cossasks, defends the rights of peasants....From then on, until he began to use the pseudoynm of Stalin twenty years later, the young Djugashvili[Stalin] insisted on being known as Koba."

As for the revolutionary tradition I agree it was not a produce of the Decree.... Lenin stated himself that they were the fourth ( i think) generation of revolutionaries.

But my main point is that these new drastic policies of Russification and what not came as a consequence... of that fear of going too far; for it seemed that too far resulted in the death of the autocrat. The counter reforms made many things which undoudbtly affected the three of the leaders.

Did not the oppresion of the Poles lead them to create secret socialisr groups which aimed at the destruction of Russia?

The same might be said about the Jews and the many Pogroms executed by the russian governement.

You see Alexander the III efetively countered the reforms as one major one was to "abolish univeristy autonomy and all student organisations." Reform under Tsar Alexander II was half hearted and then Alexander III came to take those week reforms and counter them! I see a correalation bewteen such actions and the revolutionizsation of the mind.

Now i agree the situation with Trotsky is a little different but again it may be similar to that of Prince Kroptkotin the later anarchist (spelling sorry) But as Volkogonov points out in his "The eternal Revolutionary"

For the JEwish intelligentisia the Russian Empire was a world of Pogroms, discrimination, the Pale of Settelement"

Althought I cannot pinpoint direct influence; i do belive such events must of had some importance.

I dont mean to suggest that ever since 1861 russian conditions went down the drain. I merely want to suggest this
A half hearted reform = disapointement in people = revolutionary cycles = to murder of Tsar = Counter Reforms = more disapointed to the already added disapointement etc etc etc

If reforms were really carried out to the full extent of everything I think a lot could have been different. Again I do not mean to suggest that the emancipation decree caused the Russian Revolution I merely thought it the most clear event from which to start my paper.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Hi groovesmith -

I think it's nice that you're writing for your own pleasure. At the same time, I'd urge you to either create a specific topic for yourself, or decide on a general thesis and argue it. That is, if you want to create something that will convince both you and others.

I'm sorry if I didn't sound clear on Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin's motivations. My statement was that the emancipation act had little to do with their motivations. Their motivations *did* have a lot to do with tsarist policy in general, however. Lenin came from a fairly liberal, progressive background and generally believed the pace of tsarist reform was so slow that revolution was necessary. Stalin - like most Georgian revolutionaries - was influenced by the crackdown in Georgian rights, and the Russification of Georgia. This is tsarist policy, yes, but nothing much to do with agrarian reform.

I agree there was a climate of reform. But this simply meant that many of the intelligentsia recognised that reform was needed. The tsars generally sought to 'depressurise' the situation by decreeing limited reforms. Such limited reforms did ease revolutionary tensions. What *would* have led to a greater desire for reform earlier, is a policy of non-reformism by the tsars. Acts like emancipation were vital as a 'pressure release valve', and didn't actually make people like Lenin any more likely to be radical.

I agree that exile to Siberia and confinement helped to breed radicalism in those already radicalised, but in the short-term it also did prevent political activism in the major cities.

Chernyshevsky is pronounced and spelt the same way. Off topic, a 'Nikolai Chernyshevsky' joined the board yesterday.

I agree that tsarist policy, and its harshness, did a lot to motivate radical reformist groups. I also believe that the emancipation act did little to motivate radical reformist groups, and if anything eased extreme reformist tendencies - being somewhat of a compromise.