Socio-economic relations in 19th Century Russia

[red eck]

I've recently read Robert Brenner's work 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe', otherwise known as the 'Brenner Debate'

And it made we wonder as to what kind of peasants were the Russian Peasants in the 19th Century. The significance of this is to do whenever Russia could be described as having either Feudalist or Capitalist socio-economic relations.

In brief, Robert Brenner puts forth his theory on the rise of the capitalist class from the 16th century rural England. The new socio-economic relations that formed between the tenant farmer and the landlord enabled what we recognise today as the Capitalist mode of production. The new tenant farmer primarily produced agricultural goods for market as opposed to immediate consumption as before. The tenant farmer employed farm labourers, the very earliest proletariat.

Now, my question is this: As 90% or so of the population in 19th century Russia were peasants, were they more specifically tenant farmers who employed labourers (like Trotsky's father) and would therefore be capitalist or were they peasants in the Feudalist sense (produced for direct consumption)?

[ComradeOm]

Now, my question is this: As 90% or so of the population in 19th century Russia were peasants, were they more specifically tenant farmers who employed labourers (like Trotsky's father) and would therefore be capitalist or were they peasants in the Feudalist sense (produced for direct consumption)?The vast majority of the Russian peasantry pre-1914 lived on communes (the mir) that were very different to the established European models. In these villages land was divided into roughly equal strips and each was farmed by a family (small private lots were used to grow vegetables and the like). In many villages these strips were redistributed on a regular basis. The Stolypin Reforms (1906-'14) attempted to end this inefficient setup by encouraging the establishment of permanent small scale farmers on the European model by partitioning land from communes for private use. By 1914 however these new farmers comprised no more than 10% of the peasant population (at the max) and their lands were almost entirely reabsorbed into the communes during the Revolution. Very few farmers - with the exception of the larger landowners, whose own economic fortunes were on the wane - would have employed labourers

So the vast majority of peasant farmers would have relied on subsistence farming and consumed what they produced. That said any surplus crops (of which grain was by far the dominant) were sold on the market, typically for manufactured goods from the city. The authors of The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union (http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Transformation-Soviet-Union-1913-1945/dp/052145770X), an excellent resource that devotes an entire chapter to agriculture, estimate that as much as 40% of the peasant's produce might be sold in this fashion. Nonetheless its hard to categorise Russian agriculture pre-'14 as anything but feudal

[red eck]

Thanks for that ComradeOM

It's interesting what you said, but for clarity may I ask if that 10% of the rural population were tenant farmers alone or if that 10% included tenant farmers and their employees? Cheers

So it would seem Russia was very much in the very early stages of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. Which raises the question as to what sort of revolution was the Russian revolution. How did the Russian example differ from the English and French revolutions? Was there a revolution in Germany? I have no knowledge of history so I would be grateful if anyone here can fill me in on the spread of capitalism from England through Europe and the rest of the world.

[ComradeOm]

It's interesting what you said, but for clarity may I ask if that 10% of the rural population were tenant farmers alone or if that 10% included tenant farmers and their employees? CheersThat would include only those farmers rich enough (either through the Stolypin Reforms or from before) to own land and employ labour. I think. I'll check my reference work during the week and try to draw up a more accurate summary of peasant occupations pre-Revolution


So it would seem Russia was very much in the very early stages of the transition from Feudalism to CapitalismYes but be careful here. One of the characteristics of Russian capitalism was its uneven development. For the vast majority of the population life on the communes had not changed significantly for centuries. Yet from the mid 19th C there also emerged massive concentrations of urban industry that were clustered around a few key cities. So you really had two economic models existing side by side and this was seen in the Revolution which really came in two parts - the peasant seizures of landowner estates during the summer of 1917 and the proletarian revolution of October 1917


How did the Russian example differ from the English and French revolutions? Was there a revolution in Germany? I have no knowledge of history so I would be grateful if anyone here can fill me in on the spread of capitalism from England through Europe and the rest of the world.Each revolution is different. We can draw broad comparisons but its dangerous to try and force them into a single archetype. For example, of the nations you mentioned only France had the textbook bourgeois revolution, ie the king being executed and a revolutionary regime of the bourgeoisie installed in his place. In England the decisive confrontation with the nobility had come a century earlier while in Germany (which was hugely influenced by the French, and particular Napoleon's, reforms) the revolution only came in 1918

So it can be risky to talk of capitalism 'spreading' through the world. The technology that enabled industrialisation, and thus the rise of the bourgeoisie, certainly did spread from England but how that affected the political shape of the state varied from country to country