Alternate emancipation of Russian serfs

OTL the "emancipation" of Russia's serfs was accompanied by the following limitations:
1. Being saddeled with reparation payments, both for their own persons and for the land they recieved from their lords- reperation payments which they were never able to pay fully, and which essentially placed them in permanent debt.
2. Remaining essentially bound to the Mir, which could and did prevent its members from leaving it and migrating to the cities or putting up stakes (absent specific government authorization) in unclaimed land elsewhere in Russia.
3. Having "their" newly acquired land under the authority of the Mir which could and did periodically redistribute it, thereby discouraging improvement and long-term soil conservation.

The results were:
a. A captive labor force for the great estates (which retained half to two thirds of the land- usually the best parts). This created a disincentive to the adaptation of mechanization, improving labor conditions, or even investing time and resources to directly manage the estates - leasing out land to the former serfs was easier.
b. A unfulfilled hopes of future redistribution, resulting in continual low grade violence against the ngreat estates, loss of legitimacy for the regime, and the need to expend resources on rural supression.
c. Delayed settlement of untilled lands on the Steppe frontier.
d. Delayed urbanisation and industrialization.
e. A financial burden on the state which actually had to pay the reperation payments to the nobles.
f. Prolongation of the "high lifestyle" of the noble class without refocusing their attention on actually managing their estates
g. disincentives for agricultural modernization in both the estates and the Mir lands.



This has been discussed before,
here:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/russia-1861-no-emancipation-of-serfs.57940/
and here:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...rfs-emancipated-with-private-property.295888/

However, I believe certain emancipation options have not been covered in the previous discussions. Specifically, the seemingly most obvious emancipation model is that which was applied in Prussia between 1811-1816.

The serfs got title to the land they actually worked, but were forced to buy back a third - half of these lands back from their previous oweners to compensate them for the loss of labor. Which most couldn;t do of course. Still they got a somewhat higher proportion of their lands than the Russian serfs did. And that was that. No additional reparation payments, no limitations on movement and occupation. The result, was not the creation of small peasent farms but rather a gradual consolidation of the great estates, and their transformation into a centrally (well) managed commercial farms.

A large rural proletariast was formed, which gradually migrated to the cities (creating in the process an agricultural labor shortage which was filled with migratory Polish workers). While that birthed it's own set of social-political problems (from the perspective of the ancien regimen), it's hard to say that Russia's delay in urbanization in any way cushioned the blow of urban prole unrest.

As an alternative to the Prussian model, Could Alexander II sign off an an emancipation decree which did NOT grant the serfs any title to the land but freed them of any obligations toward Mir and former owners?

The serfs would be transformed into rural proletariast, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers of their former owners, who would, however, be forced to offer them reasonable conditions or see them wander off to resettle on the frontier (possibly subsidised by the state) or the cities. Presumably old patterns in the villages would not immediately change, but with the ex-serfs no longer serving as a captive labor source, and labor costs hence being higher, nobles would be forced to either sell/lease off more of their land or consolidate/manage/mechanize the remainder more rapidly than OTL. You would see more settlement of frontier lands and more and more rapid urbanisation.

Would either option be acceptable to the noble class (acceptable in the sense of Alexander II not fearing a coup by noble officers or assasination)? How would the peasents likely tespond to either type of decree?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm nudging this again.

This article http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/124853/1/The_Emancipaton_of_Sefs_in_Europe_.pdf

claims that the emancipation of the serfs in Estonia, Courland and Livonia,(in 1816-1819, in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic wars) Basically matched the second model I proposed- Serfs were granted (gradual) freedom, but no land.

The article claims that this proved a negative model to further emancipation efforts
"But this was widely recognized to have been a disaster. The peasantry were freed there, but without land, creating an impoverished rural proletariat in which class hatreds mingled with ethnic ones in a particularly poisonous mix. The reform in the Baltic states provided a model of how not to emancipate the serfs. What was singularly lacking was a model of how to do this."

However, it does not cite any sources either to the actual success/failure of the baltic emancipation or the way it was percieved in St.Petersburg. Does anyone have any sources to confirm or refute the above assertion?

The article also claims that the term "reform from above" used by Alexander III derived from the Prussian Model:
"Alexander’s model, insofar as he had one, was the Prussian one, as his reference to reform from above indicated. But beyond that, he had no clear idea."

And that he went so far as to consult with Prussian experts on the question:
"Alexander’s intention was to follow the Prussian model by introducing reform from above. On his summer vacation in 1857, he discussed emancipation with Prussian experts. The problem for Alexander was that the Prussian model was useful only in a very general sense"

Basically, the article claims that the problem was stonewalling by both the bueracracy and the nobility, hostility of most members of the Imperial family to the idea and that only the personal determination of Alexander II (not a man known for great personal determination) and his appointment of an extra-beucratic comittee headed by Genral Iakov Rostovtsev, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Rostovtsev (Who sympathized with, but betrayed the Decemberists in 1825) resulted in operative conclusion.

One possible POD is to keep Iakov alive longer (he died a year before emancipation) to help keep the reccomendations from being watered down. Another is to have a different pro-reform general chair the commission, one who has sufficient prestige and personal loyalty in the millitary to keep noble opposition in check and to push through a true Prussian modeled emancipation (more land to the peasants, less compensation to the nobles, and no bloody Mir to keep the peasants chained to the land)- which seems to be what Alexander II orignially had in mind.

I think I have such a man in mind.
 
Top