However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
Analysing the effects of the emancipation of Serfs in Russia, it can be said that emancipation was a success due to it creating a basis for the overall reformation of Russia and its allowing of Russia to progress into the same era as the west. One argument for the success of emancipation is economically. The freeing of serfs allowed for an incentive for serfs to produce more in order to raise capital leading to increased growth within Russia through the development of new farming methods. Alternatively, some say the emancipation did not grant economic success as peasants still worked for land owners as hired labour, restricting their freedom, especially through their 49 compulsory payments which they struggled to pay. A political argument in favour of the success of emancipation could be presented as the freeing of Serfs reduced peasant unrest and revolutions.
For this, rural councils known as the Zemstvas were set up in 1864 which offered the serfs a representative government; but they were mostly dominated by the nobility and professionals and many of them resented their loss of power over the serfs. To tend to these demands, local government reforms were put in place which were largely made up of nobility and made to give former serf owners a sense of local authority to make up for their loss of control over the serfs. Further judicial reforms were also put in place to help peasants arrange property rights and contracts, even more so now as they were able to own their own land. The emancipation of the serfs and reduction of labour services contributed to the growth of a money-based economy which had been a long term goal for the Tsar. The second reason to why further reforms were introduced was to modernise Russia’s overall economy and industry in order to catch up with the already modernised Western countries.
It can be seen that, even after Poltava, Russian industry was still instrumental in Peter’s absolutism, as the stable economy prevented the revolt of important members of society such as merchants, who could now trade effectively with other countries. However, there were some reforms that were unconnected with foreigners, and others which were Western in origin but not designed to strengthen his rule. The abolition of the position of Patriarch was a move prompted not by any Western influence but by Peter’s desire to remove opposition, and hence maintain his absolutism. The actual date (1700) was determined by the convenient death of Patriarch Adrian, and Peter chose not to appoint a successor as the war was going badly and he was unpopular, and the Patriarch would have been a focus for disillusioned Russians. The assemblies which were held from December 1718 in St Petersburg and included the compulsory presence of women, were a complete break with the Muscovite tradition but owed more to Peter’s desire to show the extent of his Westernisation, rather than any advance in royal
The success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War was due to Lenin, Trotsky and their combined political, social and military capabilities as they were experts. They introduced various political and military policies that enabled them to raise support in Russia and create a dominant and successful military force. Both leaders showed immense dedication to the socialist cause and in doing so provided ruthless and brilliant leadership that ensured Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War. Peasant support for the Bolsheviks was a result of the Whites political and social faults. Firstly, the Whites treated the peasant class harshly, they did not see the advantage of gaining the support of the larger lower class as about 82% and they did not take full advantage of that.
An excerpt from the emancipation manifesto states that landed proprietors, while they shall retain all the rights of ownership over all the lands now belonging to them, shall transfer to the peasants, in return for a rent fixed by law. The nobility and landowners still had ownership of their land, but by law, had to by law distribute it to their ex-serfs, at a fixed, non-negotiable price. The problem was that the prices set for the land were way beyond the reach of the poor and now unemployed serfs. As a solution, the government would loan money to the serfs, who in return would pay back the money in small increments over an extremely long period of time. Despite their freedom, the serfs had it better off in bondage of nobility, than the bondage of government, and then, poverty.
He also believed in peasants being freed from serfdom. This view was adopted by the peasantry and was a key cause in their uprising. Sebastian Lotzer and Christoph Schappeler were two preachers that strongly believed that peasants should not stand for mistreatment by their lords. They stated that lords should not force any more work on the peasants than they are being compensated for. This was major cause because the peasants demanded to be paid fairly.
The people would push outward, clearing the land to make room for crops and livestock. Poma would think that the testimonies of deforestation were correct, accurate, and necessary. One testimony states that, “They use the forest because they do not have sufficient lands for sustenance,” (Joan de Paz in Boyer & Spurling, 15). Poma’s later efforts for honest, responsible government coincide with the powerful Uyumbicho cabildo. Thus, Guaman Poma would agree with the decision made by the group.
Like mentioned above, the literati were a group of scholars who truly believed man was good-natured and if left to their own wills would prove to be trustworthy and generous on their own. The literati represented the voices of merchants and farmers whose interests had been infringed on by the state’s monopolies (You, 2010). As such, the literati debated on why the market was not equitable and why the government should not be involved in such affairs. On the other hand, you had the Legalists who believed the people were evil and so put into place harsh laws to control them. They also wanted to keep the policies to fund the armies and keep the treasuries full, even if it meant the people would go into poverty.
His “Great Turn” can be seen as a realistic and attractive policy, suited to the rank and file of the party, that he did not adopt earlier in the 20’s since it was not a fitting policy at the time. The problems in ideology could be seen to link to the problems with agriculture as it was the Kulak class that Stalin held responsible for hoarding the grain and demanding higher prices for it, thus if the ideology changed to rid Soviet society of such elements, then haste could be seen to be of importance. However this was not the only problem with Russian agriculture. Farming methods were