Siberian peasantry during the First world war and revolution: details of a social and political portrait

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the social and political processes that took place in a Siberian village during the years of World War I and the revolution of 1917. It is noted that migration from the central regions of the country had a great influence on formation of the rural population of the region at the turn of the 19th20th centuries, and the social structure of a Siberian village was more complex than in the center, in addition to traditional ones, there were such large social groups as old-timers and settlers, who differed not only in their property status, but also in their mentality. The absence of landownership and access to the Russian and world markets after the construction of the Siberian railway ensured the intensive development of agriculture. This was facilitated by the broad development of rural cooperatives. The World War I had a dual effect on Siberian peasantry. On the one hand, mass mobilization, having deprived villages of a million workers caused an acute labor shortage in the countryside, on the other hand, the rise in prices for agricultural products contributed to enrichment of villages and accelerated its social differentiation. The attitude of the peasantry to the key events of the Russian revolution is analyzed. The process of transformations in a Siberian village from March 1917 to May 1918 has been reconstructed. The struggle of political parties for the peasant masses is shown. The activities of rural self-government bodies (committee, zemstvo, council) and peasant unions are studied. It is concluded that the Siberian peasantry, after the overthrow of the autocracy, was drawn into political processes regardless of their desire, and more often in spite of it. In the mess of changing authorities, taking a wait-and-see position, it did not participate in the struggle of the opposing sides and, regardless of whoever was in power, evaded paying taxes and other obligatory contributions. Siberian villages remained aloof from social upheavals longer than the city. It not only relied on its own material resources, but in the conditions of the weakening of power verticals, it tried to find internal regulators of social relations, which included such archaic forms as rural gatherings and lynching. Material interest remained a priority for the peasants, against which moral norms could be subject to significant adjustments. Relations with the authorities and the outside world as a whole were built on these principles. The peasantry consistently defended the economic independence that they received after the overthrow of the autocracy from any external encroachment.