Non-jubilee: serfdom was abolished 160 years ago, but the serf economy is still alive

Novye Izvestia has already referred to this date, but then it was celebrated according to the old style, and on March 3 it falls on a new one. In addition, the 2021 calendar contains two round dates associated with Emperor Alexander II. 160 years ago, on March 3 (new style), 1861, he, having signed the Manifesto "On the All-Merciful Granting of Serfs the Rights of the State of Free Rural People", abolished serfdom. And exactly 20 years later, on March 1 (according to the old style - or March 13 in a new way), the tsar-liberator fell victim to a terrorist attack by Narodnaya Volya (Narodnaya Volya is a terrorist organization banned in tsarist Russia).

In social networks, there were analysts who devoted their publications to the abolition of serfdom these days, since the consequences of this event are tangible even today. For example, Alexey Kostenkov writes:

“You can play with thimbles as much as you like and“ prove ”that this is not exactly slavery, and in general a special, strong monarchist doukhovnost to the glory of the Uvarov trio, but by the middle of the 19th century the existence of serfdom was an unthinkable game in a European country. As well as the conditions in which most of the inhabitants of the empire existed.

A lot of what happened next follows directly from how late and how half-hearted it was. But better late than never..."

Alexander Maslov, a political scientist at the channel "Nezygar" compares this event to the abolition of slavery in the United States, which took place in 1865, ie four years after the Russian reforms:

The "quiet date" - 160 years from the date of the signing of the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom in Russia - was not very noticed. Meanwhile, this event is quite remarkable in the context of the geopolitical changes of that time. And it gives explanations for many modern realities.

Even the ancient Romans knew: "Post hoc non est propter hoc": "After that, it does not mean because of that".

Even the events that are closest in time and place do not always have a causal relationship with each other.

But it also happens the other way around: seemingly having nothing in common, events occurring far from each other and / or with a significant interval, events turn out to be links, in fact, of a single chain. For example, what could be in common between the abolition of serfdom in Russia and the American Civil War, other than the practical simultaneity of events?

The Manifesto of Alexander II was signed on February 19 (March 3), 1861. And on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office as the 16th President of the United States and in his inaugural speech declared the Confederation of the States of America (CSA), created a month earlier, illegal.

But "illegal" does not mean non-existent. The hostilities between the "northerners" and "southerners" began in April and, gradually expanding, after more than four years led to the defeat and elimination of the KSA.

In modern Russian society, sympathy for the losing side, the “confederates”, and their romanticization are strong enough. But a century and a half ago, everything was different. Russia helped the North, not the South.

And the reason for this is considered obvious - of the more or less large powers of that time, only the United States maintained a friendly neutrality towards Russia during the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Therefore, they say, "debt payment is red": not only by reciprocal support of the "federals", but also by the subsequent concession of Alaska.

The problem of this, almost generally accepted and well-established in modern historical science, concept is only that it ignores a radical change in world, as they would say today, geopolitics - a break that was recorded following the results of the Paris Peace of 1856.

And he allowed the British Empire to finally "win the XIX century", emerging victorious from all the wars that it waged. Including - by someone else's hands.

The reforms of Alexander II in Russia, including the abolition of serfdom, and the Civil War in the United States were attempts by these countries to adapt to the new "imperialist" reality, changing their socio-economic structure while preserving the political structure.

But, although in the murders of both Abraham Lincoln (April 15, 1865) and Alexander II (March 1 (13), 1881) there is a fairly clear "British trace", the American attempt turned out to be on the whole more adequate and effective than the Russian one. ...Even taking into account the unique experience of the USSR.

There were irrevocable objective reasons for this - it is enough to compare in this respect the conditions of the tsarist manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants with the Homestead Act adopted in the United States on May 20, 1862. And both of these documents - with the Decree on Land, adopted by the government of Soviet Russia on October 26 (November 8) 1917.

Or compare the civil wars in America and Russia, separated by more than half a century. It is important that all the elements of opposition to British expansion and British domination in the policy of Russia and the United States, despite all the rhetoric, had as their main goal not the destruction of these expansion and domination. But adaptation to them. The results are clear.

Perhaps, only at the present time / in the near future, the formulation of this problem can acquire a fundamentally different character. But this requires at least a fundamental and systematic study of it..."

Political scientist Ilya Grashchenkov believes that the economic consequences of serfdom affect Russia to this day:

“Serfdom was abolished 160 years ago, and the“ serf economy ”remains the basis for the country's development? The development of the practice of "enslavement" is usually counted from 1497 - the introduction of restrictions on the right to transfer from one landowner to another - the so-called. "St. George's Day". At the same time, the concept of "servitude" (in fact, slaves), "rabble" and "servants" appeared, which has been mentally preserved to this day.

Interesting fact. According to the 10th revision in Russia in 1858, there were 65 provinces and regions. Of these, in 56 provinces and regions there were serfs, and in 9 provinces and regions there were no serfs, namely: in the three Ostsee provinces, the land of the Black Sea army, the Primorsky Eastern Siberia region, the Semipalatinsk region and the Siberian Kirghiz region, as well as in Derbent and Erivan provinces. In four provinces and regions (Arkhangelsk, Shemakha, Transbaikal and Yakutsk) there were practically no serfs.

In tsarist Russia, the rejection of serfdom was largely dictated by economic realities, the transition to an industrial economy, to an intensive from an extensive one, as in the United States, where slavery was abolished at the same time. But even after the revolution, the practice of "enslavement" like collective farms (with their assignment of peasants to the land and the ban on issuing passports) were present in the USSR. In modern Russia there is no such thing, but the very spirit of the attitude of the "owners" of the land to its "servitude" mentally remains.

In the modern Russian Federation, consumer demand, in principle, does not stimulate the productive economy, since it is satisfied mainly through imports. This "carousel" is spinning only as long as the rental sector of the economy generates foreign exchange earnings. What does a normal owner do when his basic economic asset falls in milk yield for reasons beyond his control? The first natural response to a worsening economic environment is cost optimization.

Now for many exporting countries, incl. and Russia, the population generates costs. In the rental economy paradigm, it is economically inexpedient to maintain an unnecessary asset. Serfs 160 years ago had value as a self-reproducing instrument, as an appendage to the land, which generates income through their labor. Extra mouths were inappropriate, and therefore they were sold for withdrawal, that is, without land, to another landowner who was experiencing a lack of manpower. At some point, they all became "superfluous" and serf "obligations" were abolished, and the peasants became the proletariat. Why do economically self-sufficient population need serfdom? A rich farmer will not pay a master's rent or work off a corvee. A wealthy farmer needs the state, which will provide him with specific services at strictly defined prices. He maintains the state, he controls it.

Therefore, even after 160 years, many admirers of tsarist Russia sadly recall how the master "held" his peasants, loved and did not give offense. Even now, many imagine the welfare state exactly as a “good master” who hears about the needs of the people, gives a piece of bread and protection from the “evil neighbor”. Well, let's hope that the digital economy will make it possible to finally put an end to this approach to life, and “extra people” will no longer be a burden for the state, but will become its support. Although, it is not yet clear how exactly this will happen".