top of page

‘Living and working conditions of rural people changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917.’ How far do you agree?

Level

A Level

Year Examined

2022

Topic

Russia and its rulers 1855-1964

👑Complete Model Essay

‘Living and working conditions of rural people changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917.’ How far do you agree?

Living and working conditions of rural people changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917. How far do you agree?

The question of whether rural living and working conditions changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917 is a complex one. While both periods witnessed significant changes, the scale and intensity of transformation experienced during the Soviet period, particularly under the policies of collectivisation and the Second World War, arguably surpass the changes of the earlier period. However, it is crucial to consider the hardships endured by the peasantry in the pre-revolutionary era and the limitations of the reforms implemented after the emancipation of the serfs.

Supporting the view that rural living and working conditions changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964.

The period from 1917 to 1964 saw unprecedented changes in rural Russia. The Bolshevik Revolution ushered in a period of radical transformation, with the implementation of collectivisation as a cornerstone of the Soviet economic model.

The forced collectivisation of agriculture, begun in the late 1920s, had a devastating impact on rural communities. The brutal removal of private land ownership and the establishment of collective farms (kolkhozes) resulted in the displacement of traditional peasant lifestyles. Peasants who resisted were labelled as kulaks (wealthy peasants) and subjected to persecution, often facing execution or exile. This period saw mass starvation, with millions dying in the Holodomor, the man-made famine in Ukraine. The collectivisation process forcibly transformed the social structure of rural Russia, leaving behind a legacy of hardship and resentment.

The Second World War further exacerbated the suffering of rural communities. Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union devastated rural areas, leading to the destruction of infrastructure, farmland, and livestock. The Soviet scorched-earth policy, intended to deny resources to the invading forces, further compounded the devastation. The war years saw widespread displacement of populations, forced labor, and a decline in agricultural production, leading to further hardship for rural people.

The creation of agro-towns, designed to house workers on collective farms, represented a significant shift in rural living arrangements. These communities often lacked amenities and proper housing, highlighting the austere conditions faced by those working on the kolkhozes.

Challenging the view that rural living and working conditions changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964.

While the Soviet period undeniably brought about profound changes, it is crucial to acknowledge the harsh realities faced by the peasantry before 1917. The emancipation of the serfs in 1861, while a monumental event, did not guarantee economic security or improve living conditions for the majority of rural Russians.

The emancipation act failed to provide sufficient land for the peasants, leading to continued dependence on the mir (village commune) system. This system often resulted in inefficient land allocation and hampered individual initiative. Despite the hope for land ownership, peasants continued to struggle with poverty and indebtedness. The "wager on the strong" strategy implemented by Stolypin, aimed at creating a class of prosperous farmers, failed to benefit the majority of peasants. His policies, while aimed at improving agricultural efficiency, ultimately led to the displacement of smallholders and further concentration of land in the hands of the wealthy.

The First World War further strained the rural economy, increasing food shortages and exacerbating poverty. The war's demands on agriculture drained resources and led to widespread unrest among the peasantry. This pre-revolutionary context, marked by poverty, limited opportunities, and social instability, provides a stark picture of the hardships faced by rural Russians prior to 1917.

Conclusion

The rural living and working conditions of Russians underwent significant changes in both periods. While the period from 1917 to 1964 witnessed dramatic transformations, often at a heavy human cost, the hardships faced by the peasantry before 1917 should not be underestimated. The Soviet policies of collectivisation and the Second World War resulted in immense suffering and a radical restructuring of rural society. However, the limitations and failures of the reforms implemented in the post-emancipation era, coupled with the ongoing struggles of the peasantry before the revolution, underscore the depth of the challenges faced by rural communities in both periods. Ultimately, the comparison between the two periods requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities and hardships experienced by rural Russians throughout both epochs.

Note: History Study Pack Required

 

Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!

Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...

 

History Study Pack.

1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.

Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.

🍃 Free Essay Plan

Essay Outline: Living and Working Conditions of Rural People in Russia

Introduction
Introduce the essay topic by stating the question: “Living and working conditions of rural people changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917.”
Briefly outline the main arguments for and against the statement.
State your thesis statement: You can choose to agree or disagree with the statement, but be sure to provide a nuanced argument.

Arguments in Favour of the Statement

The Impact of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union
Explain how the Russian Revolution led to profound changes in rural life, particularly under Stalin's collectivisation policies.
Describe the negative impact of collectivisation, including loss of land, enforced labour, and the resulting famine.
Analyse the limitations of Khrushchev’s economic policies and how they failed to improve rural living conditions.

The Second World War and its Impact
Explain how the Second World War, including the German invasion and Soviet scorched earth policy, had a significant impact on rural communities.
Discuss the impact on living conditions including destruction, food shortages, and displacement.

The Changing Nature of Rural Life under the Soviet System
Explain how life on the kolkhoz (collective farms) was different from traditional rural life.
Describe the conditions in the agro-towns and the impact of centralised planning on rural communities.

Arguments Against the Statement

Pre-Revolutionary Russia: Rural Poverty and Hardship
Describe the harsh living and working conditions in rural Russia before the Revolution.
Explain how the Emancipation Act of 1861, while abolishing serfdom, failed to significantly improve the lives of peasants due to limited land allocation and the continued dominance of the mir (village commune).
Analyse the impact of Tsarist policies, like Stolypin's ‘wager on the strong’, on the rural economy.

The First World War and its Impact on Rural Life
Explain how the First World War placed significant economic pressure on the peasantry, leading to hardship and food shortages.
Discuss the impact of conscription on rural populations and the disruption to agricultural production.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) and its Temporary Improvement
Explain how the NEP implemented by Lenin after the Civil War allowed for a temporary improvement in rural living conditions.
Discuss how this policy benefitted some peasants, especially the kulaks (wealthy farmers), but note its limitations and short-lived nature.

Conclusion

Restate your thesis statement and summarise your main arguments.
Conclude by offering a balanced assessment of the changes to rural living and working conditions in both periods.
Acknowledge the complexities of the issue and avoid drawing simple conclusions.

Further Development

Consider exploring the social and cultural changes experienced in rural communities, beyond just economic factors.
Explore the role of women in rural life during both periods.
Research the specific experiences of different groups within the peasantry, such as ethnic minorities.
Analyze the impact of collective farming on agricultural productivity and food security.
Discuss the influence of political propaganda and ideology on the lives of rural people.

Extracts from Mark Schemes

In supporting the view that rural living and working conditions changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917,
Answers might consider the poor working and living conditions under Stalin’s policy of Collectivisation.
Answers might consider the limitations and failures of Khrushchev’s economic policies.
Answers might consider the heavy impact of the Russian Civil War on the rural poor which led to mass starvation.
Answers might consider the relative improvement experienced by farmers under NEP, especially Kulaks, but note that this was short-lived.
Answers might consider the starvation and violence experienced in rural communities in the early years of Collectivisation.
Answers might consider the impact of the Second World War, including the German invasion and Soviet scorched earth policy on rural communities.
Answers might consider the living conditions on the kolkhoz and in the agro-towns.

In challenging the view that rural living and working conditions changed more in the period from 1917 to 1964 than in the period from 1855 to 1917,
Answers might consider the poor rural working conditions in 1855.
Answers might consider the lack of positive impact of the Emancipation act, particularly in regards to land allocation, and the continuation of rural poverty.
Answers might consider that the peasantry was still tied to the mir after Emancipation.
Answers might consider the weakness of Stolpyin’s economic policies and how his ‘wager on the strong’ did little to benefit the majority of peasants.
Answers might consider the economic pressures on the peasantry during the First World War.

bottom of page