prevented a mass migration of peasants from rural Russia into towns and cities, preventing the creation of a landless proletariat. The terms of Emancipation also prevented the consolidation of allotments, preventing a transition into independent farming and estate owning. 123 The potential for the peasant class to become neo-landed gentry was a worry shared by upper classes from Stolypin’s Reforms to Lenin, and also a persistent image in contemporary literature. Most notably in Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, the overarching theme of which depicts the futility of aristocracy as a declining estate is sold to a former serf. Peasants were however, permitted to undertake ‘seasonal work’ in mining, agriculture or construction, with the money earned being sent back to the village, they were given representation in the local zemstvo (local government) and younger seasonal workers had a higher literacy rate than their village-tied counterparts. 124 The issue with this newfound peasant mobility lay in that the peasant class was evolving into something entirely unknown. On one hand, modernisation and industrialisation were transforming the peasants’ lives into this seasonal, landless force, perhaps the foundation for the proletariat, but on the other hand, ties to the village remained strong. As such, various factions sought to take control, utilise or simply pacify the peasantry. One such example is the Stolypin Reforms from 1905 to 1911. A law passed on 9 November 1906 allowed the head of a peasant family to consolidate communal farming strips into private property; this was an attempt to create a new landed peasantry who, by owning property, might feel they had a bigger stake in the Russian system. 125 A landed peasantry was seen as a key step 123 Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 17. 124 idem. p. 18. 125 Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991, (London: Penguin Publishing, 2014), p. 57.
54
Made with FlippingBook HTML5