Category Archives: Uncategorized

Serfdom In Russia and American Slavery

Posted on by
Serfdom in Russia was such an important phenomenon because, like P. Kolchin mentions in his book, peasants “were the essence of” Russia “and 90 percent of its population.” Were the serfs really slaves, like P. Kolchin implies? He states that even some respectable Russian writers and historians referred to the serfs as slaves. I believe that this meant that the life conditions of serfs in Russia were very hard, and in this respect compared to the slaves in the United States. However, they were not truly slaves. The word “slave” in the Russian language is often used indirectly, in the figurative sense, and the word “slave” can describe somebody in a difficult situation without meaning that the person is actually a slave. The serfs in Russia were not the property of the landowner and had their own property. However, they were dependent on the landowner and had to pay him rent for the use of land. In my opinion, this is the main difference between the Russian serfs and American slaves. Even though, the situation in which the Russian serfs had to live was very miserable, it was very different from the American slaves. Therefore, it is not right to call the Russian serfs slaves.
P. Kolchin’s analysis, especially his comparison of slavery in America with serfdom in Russia is very interesting. The point he makes about the exploitation by the Russian nobility of the serfs who were also ethnically Russian, really stirred my feelings – he presents it in a very clear and graphic way that the Russian nobility were exploiting the people who were just like themselves and never had any qualms of conscience about it. Of course it doesn’t mean that slavery in America can be justified, because the slaves were black and came from a totally different background than the people who owned them. It just gives you a slightly different historic perspective and makes you understand more how unjust the whole situation was.
The introduction to P. Kolchin’s book also highlights the causes the role of serfdom in Russia and slavery in America in a very unique way. They both arose from the scarcity of agricultural labor and had similar social and economic significance for the development of the two countries. At the same time they were very different and, therefore, elicit a “fruitful” comparison. It is a great incentive to read the whole book.

Serfdom and American Slavery

Posted on by

There are interesting parallels between Russian serfdom and the form of slavery found in the Americas. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Russian serfdom changed dramatically. The beginning of the 16th century brought economic prosperity to Russia, but from the 1560’s into the early 1600’s Russia was struck by many brutal periods of chaos that combined to cause large reforms in serfdom. These reforms drastically restricted the movement of the serfs and turned serfs from peasants into property.

In the second half of the 16th century, Russia was affected by regime changes, instability, revolts, foreign interventions, crop failure and famine, and a government that didn’t have the strength or organization to provide for or protect the peasantry. The combination of these factors led to a steep decline in living conditions and prosperity for the peasants. Many of the peasants became slaves or criminals, but the majority packed up and left their homes to try and find better living conditions. The mass migrations of agricultural workers caused a great strain on the nation as a whole, as it could barely support the needs of the population.

Serfdom in Russia had become necessary due to the lack of labor and the Russian government instituted laws that rapidly took away the remaining freedom of the serfs. Slavery in the American colonies was used because of a lack of sufficient population for the necessary agricultural work. Both American slavery and Russian serfdom were used to compensate for an insufficient population of agricultural workers, but they also were similarly maintained by the respective governments for a time. The American government allowed slaves to be owned by specific people or households that typically required them to be stationary and work on farms and orchards, and the Russian government created laws that prevented serfs from leaving the land that they worked.

Russian serfdom and American slavery had some key similarities. Primarily, the usage of slaves/serfs to perform agricultural work, rather than work in secondary or tertiary industries. The main difference between them comes from the necessity of their existence. Slavery in the Americas was important because of economic reasons, but serfdom in Russia was necessary at the time in order to keep the nation functioning and stable.

Russian Serfdom and American Slavery

Posted on by

As an American Studies major, I found Peter Kolchin’s The Origin and Consolidation of Unfree Labor to be absolutely fascinating. Kolchin’s purpose in the introduction we read is to delineate the similarities and differences between the causes and realities of Russian serfdom and American slavery. Kolchin begins by detailing the origins of Russian serfdom. Serfs originally had freedom to move around the country; however, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century this right was restricted and eventually abolished because serf migration caused too much disruption and therefore decreased the amount of agricultural labor being performed. In America at the end of the seventeenth/beginning of the eighteenth century, Africans brought through the slave trade replaced English indentured servants as the main source of labor. Because slaves worked for life and reproduced, they were more economically beneficial than indentured servants, who only worked for several years, whose children were not automatically enslaved, and who therefore always had to be replaced.

Kolchin then provides a discussion of why slavery occurred, arguing that, at least in Russia and America, a surplus of land and a small amount of laborers led land owners to force people into working for them. Kolchin finally cites the two main differences between American slavery and Russian serfdom: first, American slaves were “aliens,” of a different nationality, race, and religion to their masters, while Russian serfs were almost always the same nationality and had similar customs; and second, American slaves did all of their work for their masters, paying them nothing and receiving some sustenance in return, whereas Russian serfs paid their Lords rent, worked part-time for their them and part-time cultivating their own land.

I thought that Kolchin’s point on Russian serfs not being racially different from their Lords to be very interesting. He explains that, while many Americans imagined a United States without blacks, Russia depended upon its outsiders, defining them not as outsiders, but as “the people.” Still, as serfdom continued over centuries, the class lines hardened between noble and serf, so that “nobleman and peasant seemed as different from each other as white and black, European and African” (Kolchin 45). This implies that the distinction between the serf and the noble came to be considered as innate, and not merely a consequence of who owned the land. To me, this section brings up the question of race. “Race” was socially constructed to justify the maltreatment of certain individuals who looked different–based on skin color, eye shape, etc.–from others. I wonder if Russian serfs were ever thought to be a different “race” from the nobles (similar to how Africans were a different “race” from Europeans) as a justification for the enslavement. Or, was race simply not as much of an “issue” in Russia as it was in America?

 

Stalin Speech 1946

Posted on by

3 Points

1) Stalin concludes that capitalism caused the atrocity that was WWII. Capitalism inevitably leads to crisis and conflict because of inequality. When nations compete rather than cooperate, uneven development occurs. Nations who feel they were cheated or are simply falling behind will try to redistribute spheres of influence by force. Perhaps a periodic redistribution of resources between national economies could have avoided this catastrophic war. One of the major flaws of the Marxist idea of a worldwide proletariat revolution was that everyone must be on board, which is what Stalin proposed here. However, he framed it as though capitalism would not have failed if they had been on board with socialism rather than the inverse.

2) The Soviet social system, state system, and Red Army were victorious. Not only does the USSR’s victory in WWII prove the viability of its ways, it asserts their superiority over non-Soviet systems. The war put the whole world to the test and the USSR passed where capitalist countries failed or came close to failing. The strengths and weaknesses of all participating nations were exposed “without make-up.” This was a good seed to plant in the minds of the Soviet people because it was the foundation for the need to expand the Soviet ways later on.

3) The USSR’s victory in WWII was due to the first three Five Year Plans. Nationalization of industry enabled rapid industrialization. The USSR went from an agricultural state to a heavily industrialized state in about thirteen years. Collectivization of agriculture increased output of much needed resources such as food and textiles. The collective method of large scale farming was achieved much faster than the capitalist method could have been. Since the USSR increased output where needed so efficiently, the troops were not only well supplied on the front lines, but they even had a surplus.

2 Questions

1) Though Stalin spoke convincingly, was he flawed in saying that the Soviet system was better than all others? (The US and Great Britain also won the war.)

2) Stalin focused entirely on the USSR as a nation when discussing performances before, during, and after WWII. How were individuals in the USSR affected through these turbulent years?

1 Interesting Observation

1) Stalin repeated how collectivism and nationalization enabled rapid expansion of resources for the war, both industrial and agricultural. This trend of rapid industrialization fits Alexander Gerschenkron’s (a Russian-born American Jewish economic historian) hypothesis: the later a nation industrializes, the more government intervention there will be in the economy. He believed that nations developing later than others could not stand the test of time required by gradual, hands off industrialization. Therefore, nations like the USSR had to expedite the process of catching up to more developed nations using heavy government intervention.

The Overcoat

Posted on by

The reading for today was a story entitled Gogol or “The Overcoat”. The story centers around on poor man who lives in Saint Petersburg. He works as a copier and seems to be contented with his job and life. He works very hard for very little but evidently that is very common because he received a bonus of sixty rubles and was extremely happy about it. The story begins with him needing a new overcoat to keep out the cold during the Russian winters. Because of this he goes to a tailor and has a coat made despite the fact that it cost him twice his life savings. After he receives the coat he goes to a part and on his way back he is robed of his coat. After finds that he will get no help from the police and the high administrator he sprits into depression and dies. After his death he does manage to get revenge in the form of the high administrator’s coat.

The most interesting part of this story is the fact that this man is living on such a small margin. He appears to be living on a day to day amount of money with nothing set aside for the future. It makes me wonder what they do when they are no longer able to works. If they have no savings or family then are there any social services that existed to keep them alive. Also did someone clean the streets

The Overcoat

Posted on by

I think that Gogol is using this story to critique the flaws of the bureaucratic society that was created with the Table of Ranks.  Akaky is so involved in his government work that he has no time to experience life and in unable to do so because of the financial hindrances of his job.  That Gogol makes a point of discussing how Akaky was born for the job he has and remaining stagnant despite others movement seems to critique the harshness of legalized social status and emphasize the trap that is civil service.  Instead of striving to improve his situation, Akaky accepts his low place within the hierarchy and remains blow his peers.  One effect of the ranking system is that it seems to breed resentment between the different ranks, as the Important Person cannot bear to speak to someone lower than him and uses his power to criticize his employees.  The condition of civil service described in Gogol’s piece is akin to how one might imagine the conditions of serfdom, a “bureaucratic serf.”  The state is made strong at the disadvantage of the individuals that serve it.  The overcoat functions as a status symbol that endows Akaky with the respect of his peers and the confidence to step outside his closed world.

The Overcoat also seems to be a critique of materialism.  Akaky quite literally subverts his quality of life for the possession of a new good.  When he dies, Akaky is described in terms of his possessions, and the form that appears to him at death is a ghostly overcoat.  Even in death, Akaky is defined by an endless search for material possessions.  It could be possible that this anti-materialist sentiment was brewing in Russia at the time of print because of the rising imperialism and the promotion of nationality as folk identity in the face of modernization.

The Overcoat

Posted on by

Akaky Akakievich is the epitome of the antihero. A boring, insignificant little man whose main pleasure in life is to copy documents, in fact his whole life consists of copying documents. His life however, is changed the day he realizes he has to buy a new coat. Lacking the money, he undertakes what could be called austerity measures and starves himself to be able to buy his new coat. Here we witness a first change in the character. Before, he was simply living in his own little world, the world of a diligent clerk who enjoyed the unexciting life he possessed. My assumption is that he received his rank early in his life, and had no possibilities of raising himself higher, thus explaining his stoic personality. Having to buy a new overcoat changed his life, for the first time he had a goal. His personality changes and he even finds this challenge to make him a driven person: In other words, he gets out of his routine and is exhilarated by the new one. Upon getting the new coat, Akaky is now filled with pride, although his former personality does try to steer him back to his old ways. To Akaky, this new overcoat symbolizes a new life, the only true achievement he ever and probably will ever make in his life. This new hope is however destroyed when his coat gets stolen, and nobody seems to really care to help him. Here Gogol uses this opportunity to demonstrate how ranks change a person, especially through the rather comical “Important man.” The story ends with Akaky dying of what appears to be pneumonia and possibly despair from realizing he will never get his dear overcoat back, and haunting the streets of Saint Petersburg trying to steal overcoat from the population.

My opinion, which I am aware could very well be wrong, of the overcoat is that Gogol was giving a critique of the rank system in place in Russia. He does so through Akaky and the very important man. Akaky is a man who is not supposed to achieve anything in his life because he has a low rank and will never really be able to pull himself any higher. The new overcoat does change him but also shows the manner in which he changes once he starts caring about something. In the case of the important man, the idea seems to be the same; he was a caring nice gentleman who received a promotion and now cannot help but crush people underneath him. I believe that the moral of the story is that the ranking system creates two types of people, whose personalities are dictated by their rank: stoic people who live without any passion to avoid any disappointment (Akaky) or people whose role in society is more important and who therefore cannot help but disregard the lesser ranks (the important man.)

The Overcoat

Posted on by

The language and imagery with which Nikolai Gogol writes allows the reader to further identify with the plight of Akaky Akakievich Bashmachin and his need to buy a new coat. This story really discusses how class affected how people interacted with one another and how people had to behave in order to live according to the social norms of the time. Akaky believed that by having a proper coat, he would be more successful in his job, however his need to conform to this social norm that results in his death. However, Gogol introduces the true cause of Akaky’s death, the drastic differences between the social classes and those trapped in the middle. Akaky was not in the lowest class nor was he in the upper class; this put him in a bit of a limbo, especially when one reads of the interactions between him and the Important Person. The greatest difference between the two characters is their standing in the social hierarchy and what one finds to be more important. To Akaky the coat represented the hours he worked and the things he and his family had to forgo in order to afford that coat, while to the Important Person it’s simply a coat. The ghost of Akaky’s new goal is to take the coats from others to compensate for his own stolen one. The final scene in which the Important Person gets his own coat stolen almost seems to symbolize the rise of the lower class over the higher ranked officials.

I was interesting to me to read this story and made me question why and how this story was published as it insults the social hierarchy and the importance of certain people. How did the general public view this story? Was it popular among a specific group of people?

Gogol- The Overcoat

Posted on by

As an author, Gogol has often been considered one of the most famous writers in Russia, and seen as a champion of the everyday man. In his short story “The Overcoat”, Gogol focuses on that particular type of character in depicting the story of Akaky Akakievich, a penniless government clerk and copyist in the city of St. Petersburg. Akaky is blatantly overworked and overlooked by everyone in his life.

In the story, the reader learns how Akaky is a timid, alienated individual whose sole perceived purpose is copying. Akaky has no close friends and is so isolated that he is essentially unable to communicate. He only wants to copy. He is the subject of mockery and scorn from his coworkers, which he accepts without protesting against it. Specifically, it is his threadbare coat that instigates much of the derision he endures. When Akaky finally decides that his coat needs to be repaired, and takes it to his tailor, he is unexpectedly thrust into a new lifestyle.

The tailor declares Akaky’s coat irreparable, and essentially forces Akaky to buy a new overcoat which costs much more than Akaky can afford to spend. Thus, Akaky adopts a new strict budget to help cover these costs. However, once the coat has been finished, Akaky’s life changes.

Akaky’s peers start to notice him and acknowledge his presence, and even go out of their way to compliment him on his new coat. They even invite him to a party later that night. This is the first time anyone has ever treated Akaky with any level of respect or even kindness, and as a result, he ventures out into the social world. However, Akaky is only able to enjoy this new life for a single day. His hopes are quickly dashed when his coat is stolen from him that very night. When he attempts to enlist the help of a superior within the bureaucracy, Akaky is treated with disdain because of his obvious lack of status. He subsequently plunges into illness and dies within a few days.  After his death, Akaky’s coat returns, and takes his revenge on the bureaucrat who scorned him and refused to help him, by stealing his coat. As a result, the bureaucrat strives to be more helpful and kind to others, for fear of Akaky’s ghost returning to him.

Though a majority of the story has a more humorous tone and language, there is a greater critique and subsequent message Gogol is trying to convey. Perhaps this story serves as a critique of the bureaucratic system within Russia. Akaky’s inability to be recognized, appreciated, or even get help when he needs it all serve to demonstrate the inefficiencies of the bureaucratic system in place, which is too rigid and defined by essentially one’s rank and little else. Essentially, the overcoat gives Akaky humanity. Akaky’s new overcoat symbolizes his newfound ability to become an individual, instead of simply part of the bureaucratic mass. The coat gave him courage to venture out beyond his everyday life, and even drove him to reach out to a higher bureaucrat for help when he needed it. This examples demonstrate Akaky’s new ability to essentially “challenge” the system, and do things not expected of him or his class. Perhaps the robbery of the bureaucrat’s coat at the end can be perceived as the prophetic fate awaiting the impenitent Russian ruling class who drive this rigid system. Gogol perhaps was trying to say that so long as the lower classes are ignored and the ruling class remains in its current state, the poor will eventually rise up.

The Decembrist Revolt

Posted on by

Protests in early Russia seem to follow a similar trend of poor organization and consequently utter failure.The revolt against Nicholas I in December of 1825 follows this same doctrine despite it being organized by army officers and soldiers. The Monarchy handled the rebellion quite quickly and it quickly lost support. Despite this, I believe that the message behind the revolt did carry some weight.

Although the autocracy continued to rule for some time to come, Nicholas undoubtedly was forced to realize the issues within the empire. Mikhail Speransky, a close advisor of Alexander and after for Nicholas, started to devise a new code of Russian laws. The uprising exemplified a shift of ideas towards a more progressive state. A big reason that this is such a unique rebellion is the fact that there were many nobles involved. It was a breach between the government and a reformist noble class. Solely because of the social class involved, I believe the ideas had great influence. After the revolt, a committee was set up to modernize socio-economic systems in Russia. This eventually led to reforms in serfdom and efforts to improve the life of the peasant class.

The power struggle exemplified by the Decembrist Revolution brought the need for change in Russia’s government. The need for reform from the conservative ruler Nicholas became apparent and I believe he took note of this.