The evolution of serfdom. From St. George's Day to classic slavery

A. I. Korzukhin. “Collecting arrears (The last cow is taken away)”, 1868

On March 3 (February 19), 1861, Emperor Alexander II signed the Manifesto “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants” and “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom,” which included 17 legislative acts. Peasants were to receive personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property.

After this, the sycophants began to call the emperor “Liberator,” but the peasants were sure that they had been deceived once again. Their indignation was so great that anti-government protests were recorded in 42 provinces, and in some places they had to be suppressed with the participation of the regular army.

What is the reason for such “ungratefulness”?

Let's not rush and get ahead of ourselves, let's start the story about serfdom, its evolution and abolition in order.

Yuryev's Day

For a long time, the peasants maintained some independence from the landowner: once a year they had the right to move from one landowner to another, which, of course, greatly eased their situation and limited the owner's arbitrariness. No one wanted to be left without peasants, and the nobles, especially those who were not rich, were often forced to even curry favor with them to some extent.

The “peasant exit” fell on December 9 (November 26) - St. George’s Day, when the harvest was completed and the final settlement was made between the parties. And therefore, among the people, this date was called Yuryev (or Yegoryev) day.

S. Ivanov. "St. George's Day"

Of course, when making payments, the landowners tried to pay less, and therefore the word “to cheat” entered the Russian language - that is, to deceive. The Sudebnik of 1497 (a set of laws approved under Ivan III) gave peasants 14 days to “exit” - they could change their owner a week before the autumn day of veneration of St. George and a week after it.

On the way to serfdom

On December 6 (November 26), 1590, by decree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, the usual “exit” was prohibited, male peasants, their wives and children were “attached to the land” and had to work for their landowner for life - this is how the saying “Here you go, grandmother, and St. George's Day."

However, in 1597, the “Decree on Prescribed Years” was issued, according to which, if a peasant nevertheless left the landowner, he had the right to file a petition for a search and return him only within 5 subsequent years. If during this time the fugitive was not found, he was assigned to a new owner. And in 1649, under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Council Code was adopted, according to which the landowner received the right to search for fugitive peasants indefinitely.

Cathedral Code of 1649

Peter I issued a decree according to which all subjects had to determine their position. Illegitimates, freedmen, children of soldiers, captured foreigners, ordinary clergymen, and finally, just vagabonds had to find a master. Those who evaded were assigned to some courtyard by police order.

As a result, by the end of the reign of Peter I, serfs accounted for more than half of the adult male population of the empire.

"The Golden Age of Catherine"

In “Notes on Russian stories XVIII century" A. S. Pushkin wrote about Catherine II:

“Over time, history will evaluate the influence of her reign on morals: it will reveal the cruel activity of her despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance, the people oppressed by governors, the treasury plundered by lovers, it will show important errors in her political economy, insignificance in legislation, disgusting buffoonery in relations with philosophers her centuries - and then the voice of the seduced Voltaire will not save her glorious memory from the curse of Russia.”

The liberalism of this empress existed only in words. Her contemporary, the well-known Jean-Paul Marat, wrote about this:

“Thanks to her vanity and instinct of imitation ... she carried out some measures that, however, had no significance for the happiness of society, but only contributed to the ruin of the state, depriving farmers of land with the help of forced taxes and snatching from those who remained the meager fruits of their labors to satisfy vanity and love for pomp... They flatter her, pretend to adore her, tremble at her every glance... Plenty! She did herself justice: without waiting for the public to create her fame, she hired corrupt pens to sing her praises.”

Some “projectors,” deceived by the empress’s external liberalism, proposed declaring free all children born after 1785, when Catherine II issued the “Charter of Grant to the Nobility.” In this document, the nobles were officially declared a “noble class”, they were exempt from paying taxes, corporal punishment and compulsory service; Now only the court of the nobility could judge them.

In response to these proposals, Catherine, without hesitation, stated:

“Slaves and servants have existed since the creation of the world, and this is not at all disgusting to God. Therefore, the mob should not be educated, otherwise they will not obey us.”

It was under Catherine II that patriarchal serfdom in Russia turned into classical slavery. Immediately after the assassination of Peter III, his decree limiting the personal dependence of peasants on landowners was canceled. This emperor managed to free the monastery peasants, giving them arable land for eternal use, for which they had to pay a monetary rent to the state treasury.

However, many of them were again enslaved under Catherine II - the empress needed peasant souls to distribute them to her supporters and favorites. For the first time in Russian history, Catherine II allowed the sale of serfs separately from the land. It was no longer the Crimean Tatars in the Cafe, but Russian landowners who were selling Russian people like cattle - in four all-Russian slave markets: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara.

K. Lebedev. Selling serfs at auction. 1910

And also - at many small local bazaars and through advertisements in newspapers. Often a wife was separated from her husband, a mother from her children.

N. Nevrev. "Bargain. Scene from serf life"

Here are some advertisements that could be read in St. Petersburg newspapers of that time:

“A stone house, No. 1,617, is for sale on Sergievskaya Street for a reasonable price. There are also two corrupt girls, half a pood worth of Swedish cobolt, also a droshky and a sleigh.”
“In Bolshaya Kolomna, on the banks of the Catherine Canal, in a stone house, at No. 285, a boy who knows how to comb his hair and a milk cow are for sale.”
“In Sergeevskaya Street, in the 4th block, opposite the church itself, in a stone house at No. 397, a 15-year-old boy, also a bekesh, covered with a blue set with special lapels, a sable hat and a reed cane with a gold knob is for sale.”

A. S. Pushkin wrote about the serfdom activities of Catherine II:

“Catherine gave away about a million state peasants (free cultivators) and enslaved free Little Russia and the Polish provinces.”

And A.K. Tolstoy also did not ignore this topic. In the parody “History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev”, of all the acts of Catherine II, only the introduction of serfdom in Little Russia is mentioned:

“Madame, it’s amazing in your presence
Order will blossom, -
They wrote her courteously
Voltaire and Deiderot, -
Only the people need
To whom you are a mother
Rather give freedom
Rather give freedom. ”
"Messieurs," objected to them.
She, - vous me comblez "(you are too kind to me) -
And immediately attached
Ukrainians to the land."

Serfdom in Little Russia was introduced in 1783. Even at the beginning of the twentieth century, in these areas they sang a folk song with the following words:

"Hey, Queen Katerina,
What have you done?
The steppe, the wide edge is cheerful,
I gave Panam away.”

The most disgusting thing was that many villages with living people were given away by Catherine II not for real merit in military or public service, but for the “valor” shown on her bed. A.S. Vasilchikov, for example, in less than two years of “service” in the empress’s bedroom became the owner of 7 thousand peasant souls (remember that only the souls of male peasants were taken into account; more women must be added). In a year and a half, P.V. Zavadovsky received 6 thousand souls in Little Russia, 2 thousand in Poland, 1 in Russian provinces. I. N. Korsakov in sixteen months - 800 thousand souls in Poland. More than 4 thousand souls were received from Catherine by her last favorite - the very insignificant and pathetic Platon Zubov.

Since it was not necessary to serve under this queen (particularly vain nobles could simply be listed in the guards regiments without appearing in them for years), a whole caste of “wild landowners” arose, who created not only harems of underage girls, but even real torture chambers, in which employed certified European specialists.

Among the latter, the Penza landowner Nikolai Struisky became especially famous. He also had fun shooting at living people in a specially equipped shooting range (serf men had to try to dodge bullets while moving in a limited confined space), and throwing unwanted ones into a cage with a tiger brought from India.

And the Zaraisk landowner and retired lieutenant general Lev Izmailov (who is considered the prototype of the landowner Troekurov from Pushkin’s story “Dubrovsky”) loved to lock his servants in a room with a wild bear. In his house, Izmailov kept 30 girls aged 10 to 12 years, who were expelled as soon as they became at least a little like adult women. Izmailov raped his own daughter, Nymphodora Fritonovna Khoroshevskaya, who was born by one of the inopportunely matured concubines, when she was 8 years old, and at the age of 13 he sent her to work at a potash factory. Fearing that his serfs might say too much during confession, Izmailov simply forbade them to go to church.

It must be said that pedophiles were quite common among the nobles of the times of Catherine II and Alexander I. State official A. Zabolotsky-Desyatovsky testifies:

“Some landowners force him to satisfy his bestial urges simply by the force of power, and, seeing no limit, he goes berserk, raping young children.”

The most advanced and sophisticated serf owners disguised their harems as theaters and choirs, for example, General Sergei Kamensky, the son of Catherine’s Field Marshal Mikhail (he was killed by desperate serfs) and the brother of Suvorov’s favorite student Nikolai.

But N. Sheremetev and N. Yusupov became most famous in this field.

The first one had a special ritual: every evening he left his handkerchief with one of the actresses, which he came for at night. However, then the story of Suleiman the Magnificent and Roksolana (as well as Peter I and Martha Skavronskaya) repeated itself: a slave with a strong character “tamed” and subjugated her master. The role of Roksolana was performed by Praskovya Gorbunova (Zhemchugova).

And Yusupov became a pioneer of Russian striptease and BDSM: after the performances, he forced the actresses to undress in front of the guests to the music, and then he and his friends beat the unfortunate girls with whips. Griboedov wrote about such “theaters”:

“That one over there, which is for tricks
At the fortress ballet was driven off on many waggons
From mothers and fathers of rejected children.”

(Chatsky's monologue).

From the further text it becomes clear that Griboyedov reproaches the aristocrats not for tearing children away from their parents, but for mismanagement and inability to conduct business, which is why they then have to sell off already trained serf actors and actresses:

“But the debtors did not agree to a deferment:
Cupids and Zephyrs all
Sold out individually.”

From the point of view of a zealous owner, of course, it is extremely reprehensible to spend a lot of money on preparing a theater troupe, making “all Moscow marvel at the beauty” of actors and especially actresses - and not earn anything from it.

It is curious that some people call the already mentioned pedophile Izmailov, who at the end of his life moved to Moscow, ran a theater there and went bankrupt, as the prototype of the “theater” of Griboyedov’s play. Others believe that Griboyedov had in mind a certain landowner Rzhevsky, who, according to A. Ya. Bulgakov, “spent 4 souls on these farces” and was eventually forced to sell off his troupe. The most talented of its actors and actresses were acquired by the management of the imperial theaters.

In Rzhevsky’s troupe, contemporaries especially singled out Kharlamova, who “had an extraordinary aplomb” (a ballet term for high jumping technique and confidence in rotation). This girl, as well as Sitnikova, Karaseva, “the two Mikhailovs” (other ballerinas of the Rzhevsky Theater) were lucky: having already become state serfs, they continued their stage career and completed their studies with the famous dancer Güllen. True, their further fate is unknown: what happened to them when, due to their age, they could no longer go on stage?

By the way, according to the notes of A.S. Pushkin, it was the serf actress Natalya Ovoshnikova who became his first woman. This happened when the future poet was 14 years old; he himself admitted that he was an ugly and homely teenager, and it is unlikely that this woman gave herself to him for love.

Look at the painting by Nikolai Kasatkin, which was painted even before the revolution - in 1910), it is called “A serf actress in disgrace, breastfeeding a master’s puppy”:

This is by no means the artist’s fantasy; you can read about one such landowner who forced serf peasant women to breastfeed puppies in Vladimir Korolenko’s story “On a Cloudy Day”:

“I built the kennel like a manor’s house. And he had his favorite ten bitches, and they would bring, for example, puppies, and now he distributes them among the serf women. Which, you see, brought a baby and has milk in her breasts - now the dog breeders are bringing her a puppy, therefore, for education...
- Not true! – Lena screamed, as if she had been stung.
“God kill me,” the coachman interjected indifferently.”

Let's go back to the time of Catherine II. This empress was very frightened by the investigation into the case of Daria Saltykova, whom the peasants called “Saltychikha” and “Ogress”.

On the one hand, a terrible picture of landowner tyranny opened up - a truth that she did not want to know.

On the other hand, this investigation aroused the anger of Russian aristocrats, whom Catherine II, who had no rights to the Russian throne, never dared to contradict. And therefore the peasants were officially forbidden to file any complaints against their masters.

As a result, this “enlightened empress” brought the country to a real civil war, in which Emelyan Pugachev “commanded” the nobles with his “personal decree”:

“catch, execute and hang, and do the same as they, not having Christianity in themselves, did to you, peasants.”

In “Notes on the Rebellion,” A. S. Pushkin wrote that this war “shaken Russia from Siberia to Moscow and from the Kuban to the Murom forests”:

“All the black people were for Pugachev. The clergy were kind to him, not only priests and monks, but also archimandrites and bishops. One nobility was openly on the side of the government...
The class of clerks and officials was still small and decisively belonged to the common people. The same can be said about officers who have gained favor from among the soldiers. Many of these latter were in Pugachev’s gangs.”

At the same time, Pugachev pretended to be Emperor Peter III, who managed to escape from those who wanted to kill him “the prodigal wife Katerina and her lovers” - that is, the uprising was monarchical (!).

Another person who greatly frightened Catherine II was A. Radishchev, whom she, as you know, called “a rebel worse than Pugachev” and accused of conspiracy, treason, and even an attempt on the sovereign’s health.

Pugachev and Radishchev - rebels who terribly frightened Catherine II

On the order to expel Radishchev to Siberia, Catherine hypocritically wrote:

“He is going to mourn the deplorable fate of the peasant condition, although it is undeniable that a good landowner does not have a better fate for our peasants in the whole universe.”

Punishment with a whip. Illustration for the book “Journey to Siberia” by Abbot Chappe d'Autroche. J. Leprince. Mid-XNUMXth century

H. Geisler. Punishment of the serf by the gods in the presence of the landlord's family and the yard. Engraving. End of the 18th century

What caused such fear and such anger of this sovereign serfdom?

For example, these lines:

"G. the assessor, coming from the lowest state, saw himself as the ruler of several hundred of his own kind. This turned his head...
He considered himself to be of the highest rank, considered the peasants to be cattle given to him (he almost thought that his power over them stems from God), and uses them for work at will...
He put them on arable land (that is, corvée), took away all their land, bought all their cattle at a price that he himself determined, forced them to work all week for himself, and so that they would not die of hunger, he fed them in the master's courtyard, and then only once a day, and to others he gave a month's rent (rents) out of mercy. If anyone seemed lazy to him, then he flogged him with rods, whips, batogs or cats, depending on the extent of laziness; for actual crimes, such as stealing not from him, but from strangers, he did not say a word...
It happened that his men robbed a traveler for food on the road, and then killed another. He did not bring them to court for this, but hid them with himself, declaring to the government that they had fled; saying that there will be no profit for him if his peasant is whipped and sent to work for his crime. If one of the peasants stole something from him, he flogged him for laziness or for a daring or witty answer, but in addition he put stocks and shackles on his feet, and a slingshot around his neck.”

The work of Radishchev and A. Pushkin, whose family also owned serfs (about one and a half thousand in four villages), was very hurt; the poet did not intend to free them and even, unlike Onegin, did not replace corvee with quitrent. But he refused to consider himself an ordinary slave owner and did not want to know the unpleasant truth. In the rather shameful “Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg,” which is not studied at school, Pushkin paints the following blissful picture of the life of serfs:

“The duties are not burdensome at all. The capitation is paid in peace; corvee is defined by law; The rent is not ruinous... The fate of the peasant is improving from day to day.”

And Nikolai Gogol advised the nobles to give the following explanations to their peasants:

“You are a landowner over them, not because you so want to command and be a landowner, but because you are already a landowner, that you were born a landowner.”

This is how the man was “unlucky”, from the point of view of Nikolai Vasilyevich: he was not born a serf, but a nobleman. And now he is forced to “bear this heavy cross” - “to be a landowner” and “to command.”

The disenfranchised deep Russian people have not forgotten their humiliations. In February 1918, Alexander Blok wrote an article “Intellectuals and Revolution”, which included the following words:

“Why do they shit in the manor estates dear to the heart?
- Because the girls were raped and flogged there: not at the master's place, as at the neighbor's.
Why are centenary parks being felled?
- Because for a hundred years, under their spreading linden and maple trees, the gentlemen showed their power: they poked a beggar in the nose - a money-maker...
I know what I am saying. You can't get around this with a horse. There is no way to hush this up.”

Reform attempts

Paul I, who came to power after the death of Catherine II, limited corvée to three days a week, forgave peasants for arrears in the per capita tax in the amount of more than 7 million rubles, prohibited the sale of peasants without land and the fragmentation of peasant families when they passed to other owners. Including this, he was soon declared crazy by the Russian aristocrats, and then killed.

Alexander I in 1803 issued the “Decree on Free Plowmen”, according to which landowners had the right to give “freedom” to their serfs for a ransom, or for an obligation to work in his fields. Over 25 years, under this decree, less than 0,5% of all serfs were able to gain freedom.

The project for the liberation of all peasants “from above” was proposed by Alexey Andreevich Arakcheev - the same one about whom Pushkin wrote:

“Opressor of all Russia, tormentor of governors.”

And Arakcheev himself said:

"We Russians need to demand the impossible from us in order to achieve the possible."

And, I must admit, Alexey Andreevich demanded much more from himself than from others. A.I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky (author of the first official history of the Patriotic War of 1812) characterized Arakcheev as follows:

"His industriousness was unparalleled, he did not know fatigue, and, giving up the pleasures of the world and its absent-mindedness, he lived exclusively for the service, which he demanded from his subordinates."

Serious experts believe that Arakcheev, who in 1812 headed the rear service of the Russian army and the training of reserve units, should deservedly be placed on a par with Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly.

In 1818, it was Arakcheev who drew up and presented to Alexander I a project for the treasury to buy out landowners’ estates “at voluntarily established prices” in order to “assist the government in abolishing the serfdom of people in Russia.” According to Arakcheev’s plan, the government was supposed to gradually buy out peasants from those landowners who were ready to part with them, and with land - two dessiatines per capita, that is, 2,18 hectares.

In principle, many landowners who had long been in deep debt could agree to these conditions, especially since most of the land remained their property, and they could rent it out to the same peasants.

But Alexander I had already dropped the mask of a liberal. Instead, he appointed Arakcheev "chief of staff over military settlements." Arakcheev was on his knees, begging him “not to create new archers.” Alexander replied:

"Military settlements will be founded by all means, even if I have to cover the road from St. Petersburg to Chudovo with corpses."

The saddest thing is that in the Baltic (that is, Baltic) provinces of Estland, Courland and Livonia, Alexander I freed the peasants by 1819. But he rudely refused a delegation of liberal-minded Russian nobles, who in the same 1819 came to him with a project for the liberation of the serfs of the indigenous Russian provinces.

Apparently, to this emperor with one ounce of Russian blood in his veins, Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians were closer and dearer than Russian peasants. However, the Baltic peasants did not receive land plots during liberation, and therefore before the revolution in St. Petersburg there was a saying in circulation:

“He, like a Latvian, has... a certain male organ and soul.”

In 1821, Nikolai Nikolaevich Novosiltsev (the author of the project “Charter of the Russian Empire,” which proposed establishing a bicameral parliament and guaranteeing civil liberties to free subjects of the empire) presented Alexander I with a project for the abolition of serfdom, in the creation of which M. S. Vorontsov and A. also participated S. Menshikov. As you probably guessed, the emperor rejected both projects.

Alexander I's successor, his younger brother Nicholas I, stopped the vicious practice of rewarding state peasants. By his decision, he forbade the landowners from sending peasants to hard labor. In 1833, it was prohibited to separate peasant families during the sale. In 1842, Nicholas I stated at a meeting of the State Council:

“There is no doubt that serfdom, in its current situation with us, is an evil, tangible and obvious to everyone, but touching it now would be an even more disastrous thing.”

Under this emperor, the issues of liberation of serfs were discussed by more than a dozen commissions, whose proposals were defeated by the resistance of the landowners.

In 1842, the “Decree on Obligated Peasants” was issued, according to which the landowner, at his own request, could free the peasants who belonged to him with the allocation of a land plot - for paying quitrent or working off corvee. As you understand, there were not many of these among Russian landowners. Russian aristocrats, of course, were offended when Parisian newspapers wrote about them as “rich Russian slave owners,” but even the most desperate liberals did not want to give up slave-serfs.

However, the mood in society began to change.

We remember that the defenders of serfdom, among others, were Pushkin and Gogol. But Turgenev even despised his own serfdom mother; it was she who became the prototype of the cruel tyrant lady of the famous story “Mumu”. Turgenev wrote:

“I couldn’t breathe the same air, stay close to what I hated...
In my eyes, this enemy had a certain image, bore a well-known name: this enemy was serfdom.”

He even drew up a note justifying the need to abolish serfdom and handed it to A. Golovnin, the secretary of Konstantin Nikolaevich (the emperor’s brother), who had a reputation as a liberal. Konstantin did not even consider it necessary to respond to the great writer socially close to him.

During his reign, Nicholas I issued about a hundred decrees that were supposed to somehow alleviate the situation of the serfs - and the sheer number of these decrees indicates their ineffectiveness.

Nevertheless, the practice of self-ransoming of peasants spread, and gradually the share of serfs decreased from 58% to 35-40%.

And more than 5,5 million dessiatines of land and about 3 million dessiatines of forest land were distributed to state peasants.

It finally became clear that serfdom was hindering the development of the country after the humiliating defeat in the Crimean War of 1853–1856.

In the next article we will talk about the abolition of serfdom and the mass indignation of the peasants, which was caused by the famous manifesto of Alexander II “On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of free rural inhabitants.”

Comments

[Vladimir80]

The author is recognizable from the first lines!
What is most touching in these opuses are the references to the liberal creative intelligentsia (such as the decadent of the bloc or the Parisian master Turgenev) - they, of course, could give an “objective” assessment of those events

[Monster_Fat]

Words like “slave-of-father” and “slave-of-eyes,” so to speak, hint at something, don’t they? Well, it’s cool to read about serfdom-slavery of the XNUMXst century, I hope the author will go further and describe modern slavery-“credit slavery”? We wait.

[bya965]

Quote: Monster_Fat

Words like “slave-father” and “slave-eye,” so to speak, hint at something

There is such a Russian word labor, I personally work

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Good morning honest company!

Quote: Vladimir80

The author is recognizable from the first lines!
What is most touching in these opuses are the references to the liberal creative intelligentsia (such as the decadent of the bloc or the Parisian master Turgenev) - they, of course, could give an “objective” assessment of those events

Curious, who do you consider to be the liberal intelligentsia?
Pushkin? Chamber cadet, historiographer of the Romanov dynasty (after the death of Karamzin). What our Everything owes to Nicholas I is a separate topic for an article. The Emperor not only personally married Alexander Sergeevich, but also persecuted critics based on his slander.
Griboedov is an outstanding diplomat.
Moreover, both were “majors” and even measured their nails on their little fingers (before Griboedov’s duel, when the latter lost a phalanx of his finger).
But the main thing is different. Not everyone, like Pushkin, could answer the question “where were you during the Decembrist uprisings” with “my heart was on Senate Square.” The story of Pugachev's rebellion is a separate topic. As far as I remember, it was published at the personal expense of Nicholas I.
There is no point in describing relations with Griboyedov’s government. The bottom line is that both “liberals” were far from being liberals. At the same time, their critical comments and works fully reveal the picture.
Ps. I would also add Gogol to this list. His is Dead Souls, a collection of Russian literature about the realities of serfdom in the early 19th century.

[know]

Pushkin? Chamber cadet, historiographer of the Romanov dynasty
Not everyone, like Pushkin, could answer the question “where were you during the Decembrist uprisings” with “my heart was on Senate Square.”

But Alexander Sergeevich came up with a ridiculous “excuse”: the hare ran across the road!
But I think it’s a pity that he didn’t make it to St. Petersburg. They would not have executed him, they would have sent him in the worst case to Siberia, but, most likely, just into exile, where he would have had a continuous “Boldino Autumn” and no court balls and no court ... on which he spent 95 % of your time. And I would have lived much longer.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir80

But Alexander Sergeevich came up with a ridiculous “excuse”: the hare ran across the road!

Did the victory of the Decembrists bring any good to Russia? France, as a result of the Great Revolution, lost almost all of its colonies and millions of men in the wars. There are some higher powers and perhaps they forced Pushkin to avoid participating in the December uprising.

[know]

The point is that Pushkin (let's be honest) lived an absurd and hectic life, in which there was almost no time left for creativity. And removal from St. Petersburg as a punishment would only benefit him as a poet and writer, and he would live much longer.

[gsev]

Quote: vet

it would only do him good

The human psyche has been selected for thousands of years. Indeed, in an easy life, most people degrade. But also the government and the elite are quickly degrading in conditions of irremovability. Moreover, the most important thing is not the poverty of workers for the success of an entrepreneur, but the possibility of selecting the best and getting rid of the worst.

[Vladimir80]

Curious, who do you consider to be the liberal intelligentsia?

That’s what I wrote - Blok and Turgenev, that’s what they could really know about the country, because... one spent half his life abroad, and the other simply did not live in those days...

[VLR]

And you, apparently, know about serfdom better than the landowner Turgenev, who grew up in Russia, and the owner of the Shakhmatovo estate, Blok?
Mayakovsky:

I remember in the first days of the revolution I walked past a thin, bent soldier’s figure warming himself by the fire laid out in front of the Winter. They called out to me. It was Blok. We reached the Children's entrance. I ask: “Do you like it?” “Okay,” said Blok, and then added: “They burned a library in my village.”

This was "in the early days of the revolution." And in February 1918, Blok wrote:

Why do they shit in the noble estates dear to the heart?
- Because they raped and flogged girls there.

[Vladimir80]

You apparently know better about serfdom

Of course, I know even worse, but don’t be like the Zilbertruds and Chkhartishvili, who love the Russian people so much that they are ready to send the last shekel from London and Tel Aviv to the Banderaites for our “liberation”

[VLR]

By the way, Turgenev, unlike Herzen, cannot be called a political emigrant. "Foreign agent" - too. He had another reason - the “femme fatale” Pauline Viardot.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir80

Blok and Turgenev, this is what they could really know about the country

So we can say that Putin and Sechin and Gerasimov know nothing about their country and army. It is unlikely that they know more about the life of a simple doctor and nurse, even those who treat their relatives, than Blok and Turgenev knew in their time.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: gsev

So we can say that Putin and Sechin and Gerasimov know nothing about their country

What do they know if Putin gave five thousand for ice cream and asked if it was enough?

[Deon59]

Telegram, Romanov was subscribed to, as soon as he began to give examples of pensions and salaries of 15000, prices jumped. They said that it was not true, everything was fine with us and in the end it was blocked.

[Cartalon]

How primitive and one-sided is this, just another piece of propaganda, what is the author trying to achieve so that we get together and overthrow Catherine the Great?

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Good morning!

Quote: Cartalon

How primitive and one-sided is this, just another piece of propaganda, what is the author trying to achieve so that we get together and overthrow Catherine the Great?

I agree!
Valery considered it right not to list the horrors of serfdom among the rulers dear to his heart.
All kings and emperors (empresses) are soiled in this “shit”. Including Peter III and Anna Ivanovna. During the latter, my ancestors were bought not even by the village, but by the volost. After which they were transported to the Stone Belt to build factories.

[know]

Vladislav, as you yourself wrote, the new owner under Anna Ioannovna bought your ancestors with the entire volost - the old people, the sick, the crippled, and infants - because it was impossible otherwise. And under Catherine 2, he would have bought only young healthy men and a certain number of young healthy women - he would have separated them forever from their parents, children, brothers, sisters. Is there a difference?

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

. And under Catherine 2, he would have bought only young healthy men and a certain number of young healthy women - he would have separated them forever from their parents, children, brothers, sisters.

No one would sell him the parish like that.
Think for yourself, all the young people are deported, but who will pay the poll tax?
Hint - landowner.

[know]

I think the owner of the factories, like Chichikov, would buy serfs - not from just one landowner, but throughout the entire province - he would recruit healthy and strong young people to bring to the Urals - without the "unnecessary" old people, the sick, and even infants, who most likely the road will not be moved.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

I think the owner of the factories, like Chichikov, would buy serfs - not from just one landowner, but throughout the entire province - he would recruit healthy and strong young people to bring to the Urals - without the "unnecessary" old people, the sick, and even infants, who most likely the road will not be moved.

Wonderful logic!
That is, under Anna, all these old sick people and infants were bought and they would have died dearly, but that’s good!
And under Catherine, number two is only those who will obviously endure a long journey, but this is bad!
Bravo!
P.S. The key word in my previous comment was “volost”!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: vet

Vladislav, as you yourself wrote, the new owner under Anna Ioannovna bought your ancestors with the entire volost - the old people, the sick, the crippled, and infants - because it was impossible otherwise. And under Catherine 2, he would have bought only young healthy men and a certain number of young healthy women - he would have separated them forever from their parents, children, brothers, sisters. Is there a difference?

Taking into account that it was N.N. Demidov. My ancestors were not happy. The Gamayun riots near Kaluga were extinguished for almost ten years.
Complaints addressed to Anna Ioannovna, Peter III, and Catherine II have been preserved. Petitions were considered only under Catherine - it is clear that they were not in favor of the peasants. But Demidov - this sobered him up a little - “I didn’t put people in a cage anymore and didn’t flog them to the stomach with a hot iron.” People considered themselves betrayed by Peter III, who, in their opinion, sent dragoons to pacify them.
Already on the Stone Belt, not one of the 5 mining and processing plants founded by the Gamayuns supported Pugachev.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Including Peter III and Anna Ivanovna.

and Peter III was soiled with what from the point of view of serfdom? In my opinion, on the contrary, I only managed to free the monasteries during the six months of my reign, but the rest simply didn’t get around to it. A manifesto “on the freedom of the peasantry” was expected, following the nobility, only the little wife overthrew it. It’s not for nothing that Pugachev was named after him - people loved Peter III

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Peter III was loved by the people hi

Serfs - yes!
Serf workers - no!
The Gamayuns believed that it was personally his fault that their complaints were shelved.

[Richard]

The Gamayuns believed

Gamayunы who is this? Mythical birds?
Or maybe it’s still hamayunе - residents of the Kaluga and Ural Gamayun regions.

Gamayun are not serf workers of the Stone Belt, but residents of the Gamayun region. By the way, Vlad, there are also Siberian gamayunes. After the terrible famine that swept the country in 1891-92, about three hundred families from the Nizhne-Serginsk volost moved to the Krasnoyarsk Territory. This is how Gamayunism penetrated into Siberia.

none of the 5 mining and processing plants founded by the Gamayuns supported Pugachev

Very interesting. If it’s not difficult, name at least one factory founded by the Gamayuns

my ancestors were bought not even by the village, but by the volost.

No one has ever bought serfs as volosts. It was unreal. The state has never infringed on its fiscal interests.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Dmitry, good night!
Factories: Verkhneserginsky, Nizhneserginsky, Atinsky, On Goat Pond, Mikhailovsky (on the Stone Belt) plus one in Siberia. With the participation of the Gamayuns, the Kasli, Verkhne-Ufaleysky and Shamakhi, Nyaze-Petrovsky and Kyshtym plants were raised. In Soviet times - VIZ.
Regarding Gamayuns, this is a self-name based on tradition. The map you provided of Gamayunshina of the 20th century does not fully reflect the realities of the 18th.
The Shaitan factories (Pervouralsk), Revda have nothing to do with the Gamayuns (my fellow countrymen will not write what the natives of the last two cities are called). Several dozen families from Kasli live in Degtyarsk.
Regarding the Siberian gamayuns. As a result of the riot, two parties of riot participants were exiled to Shaitanka. From where they were transported to Siberia.
Regarding the volost - Romadanovskaya near Kaluga). There are 28 villages in total and a village of the same name. In addition to the Gamayuns, residents of neighboring villages were enslaved: Voronino, Nudovka, Gvozdarka and Yelnya.

[Richard]

You, Vlad, wrote above:

none of the 5 mining and conversion factories founded by Gamayuns

To which I asked a reasonable question:

name at least one factory founded by Gamayuns

You answer:

Factories: Verkhneserginsky, Nizhneserginsky, Atinsky, On Goat Pond, Mikhailovsky (on the Stone Belt) plus one in Siberia.

So, what does hamayune have to do with it? Verkhneserginsky and Nizhneserginsky plants were founded by N.N. Demidov, who was not a hamayun in any way. The Atigsky (for some reason you have Atinsky) and Mikhailovsky factories were founded by the merchant Gubin, who was also far from a Gamayun, and then sold by Demidov. The Shemakha and Kasli factories were founded by the Yekaterinburg merchant Yakov Rodionovich Korobkov, who came from the Tula townspeople. Where is the hamayune?
They are not among the founders of these factories on any side.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Hello Dmitry! I look from below, by whose hands the factories were built.
Regarding the Atigsky plant, you are right in peeing yourself. Vision also fails T9.

[Richard]

Regarding Gamayuns - this is a self-name based on tradition

I fully admit that this is not only a self-name. And one of the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups that became Russified in ancient times. In the 80s, at my outpost there was an emergency guy from Gamayun - a special local dialect, short stature, light eyes, white (not blond, but white) hair. He joked about the color of his hair: “Try to find in any other place in Russia as many fair-haired people as in our Nizhneserginsky district.”

[Richard]

By the way, in the 50s, the famous Soviet archaeologist Elizaveta Mikhailovna Bers began researching archaeological monuments of the Bronze Age on Cape Gamayun. The monuments were so unique that they were identified by her as Gamayun culture. (see figure) And what’s interesting is that the patterns on Bronze Age ceramics echo the embroidery patterns of modern Gamayun villages

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Trubetskoy and Raspopov wrote a lot about the possibility of a Finno-Ugric original community in which the Gamayun culture was formed. Although something else is more likely - the Baltic component. Since the Gamayuns (forgive the tautology) come to the Kaluga Gamayun region together with Ramodanov following the results of the Time of Troubles from his estates near Smolensk. Moreover, they also lived near Kaluga and how assimilation took place is not known. Only the neighboring Sheremetyevo peasants were called Sheremetyevo, and for some reason the Romodanov peasants were called Gamayuns. All this is confirmed by tracing the names of villages in the Smolensk region, near Kaluga and streets (districts) in towns in the Urals (Voronino, Nudovka, Gvozdarka). Some of these names were transformed into surnames. For example: the villages of Sychevka, Elovka and Gilevka, in summary, became traditional surnames: Sychevs, Elovskys and Gilevs. The abundance of non-relatives with the same surnames gave rise to various delights in accents: ElOvskikh and Elovskikh, as well as “household surnames” Babai, etc.
Regarding the “white hair” - this is a story. If you name the year of enlistment, I might give the person’s last name. There are albinos among the Gamayuns, but there are only 10 of them in the entire region.
The reality is different, most Gamayuns are born with blond hair (straw), which darkens in the third year after birth.

[Richard]

Under the scorching Turkmen sun, not only the conscripts’ cropped hair faded, but also my dark brown hair. But Sergei had something special.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Dima good morning!
Most of my friends are fair-haired (dark and light), and in the summer they completely fade. I’m like that myself (though I’m already bald), but only a few boys of that age can boast of having a child’s link (straw). Then most become as bald as my knee. We have a tradition of cutting hair to zero at the age of one (although this may be a general Russian custom). Thus, a light brown shade can last up to ten years, but then most people still gain dark pigment. When I'm in the village I'll post my childhood photos and compare them.
Good day!

[Richard]

Good morning Vlad!
Today, apart from an article about “Armenia,” there is absolutely nothing to read on the site. Shpakovsky, with today’s article about the pistols of Frank Wesson and Adolf Frank, has already gone around for the second time in three years. Not comme il faut.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Richard

Good morning Vlad!
Today, apart from an article about “Armenia,” there is absolutely nothing to read on the site. Shpakovsky, with today’s article about the pistols of Frank Wesson and Adolf Frank, has already gone around for the second time in three years. Not comme il faut.

The story thread died about five years ago. The fact that Vyacheslav Olegovich writes is not bad, at least he is in touch and ready to accept criticism. It’s more difficult with other Authors. There is no point in writing about the dispute with Eluard and Valery - they felt it themselves. And the bottom line is that there are three worthy authors in the section.
On the Armament branch, the choice is richer, although only a few reach the level of Sergei Linnik.
If we take today’s material from Vyacheslav, then this is not the fourth entry about early mechanical pistols. Moreover, the theme is essentially the same, but the doors are different. So, as a platform for discussion, it’s still better than the same Mokhov with a compilation of English-language works.
Good evening!

[Dekabrist]

The story thread died about five years ago.

How can it not die if the site allows authors for whom Peter the Great in 1730 was still active in administrative activities.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Let me remind Viktor Nikolaevich that it began with the persecution of a certain Popov, who had his own opinion and had the imprudence to turn out to be more literate and more popular than representatives of the administrative resource.
Today I am even afraid to write about Him and many others who have left.
However, the skating rink of “untruth” went through everyone, with rare exceptions.

[Dekabrist]

the skating rink of “untruth” rolled through everyone

[Stanislav_Shishkin]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

their complaints were shelved

“They put it under the carpet,” or “they laid it on their complaints.” That is more correct.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

During the latter, my ancestors were bought not even by the village, but by the volost. After which they were transported to the Stone Belt to build factories.

Under Stalin, our ancestors dripped the Belomor Canal, mined uranium ore with their bare hands and built factories on their bones. Is it better or worse than serfdom? What a paradox. Under serfdom and before the revolution, despite all the shortcomings and criticism, there was population growth and very significant, while after the revolution, despite all the achievements, there were either disadvantages or stagnation. Women don't want to give birth when they don't like life. This is how everything is measured. There is no need to feed the people with future happiness, they will die out from this.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Under Stalin, our ancestors dripped the Belomor Canal, mined uranium ore with their bare hands and built factories on their bones. Is it better or worse than serfdom?

My grandfather worked for being a “hooligan” on the White Sea Canal with a shovel. Then he served for 3 years. Moreover, his stormy youth almost prevented him from going to the front. Since the best were selected for the Ural Volunteer Corps. He treated Stalin very well. Although he did not hesitate to criticize the authorities for the famine in the Volga region, the passport system and much more.
So the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

So the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth is that in theory any system is good. Problems arise because of fools trying to implement theory in practice.

[Ross xnumx]

The first two:
I didn't recognize the author...
* * *
Overthrow Catherine the Great? This is not the one they wrote about:

Catherine with her female retinue
She walked between the rows herself
And discussed it busily
All the advantages...

She died long ago, and the royal luxury in her time was as boundless as the poverty of her Russian subjects.
* * *
Pushkin wrote this too:

I see, my friends! an unoppressed people
And Slavery, fallen at the behest of the king,
And over the fatherland of Enlightened Freedom
Will the beautiful Dawn rise at last?

* * *

“Slaves and servants have existed since the creation of the world, and this is not at all disgusting to God. Therefore, the mob should not be educated, otherwise they will not obey us.”

Was it not these lines that inspired Gref to confess:

[Uncle lee]

“Here’s to you, grandma, and St. George’s Day.”

And that's it !

[depressant]

I didn't recognize the author...

I recognized it from the first paragraph.
Yuri Vasilievich, thanks for the video.
And the mug pokes its muzzle, sniffing you predatorily, which stratum to lock you in, which whip to prepare and how to crucify you - it’s not superfluous!

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: ROSS 42

She died long ago, and the royal luxury in her time was as boundless as the poverty of her Russian subjects.

One thing that is not clear is why the communists actually revived serfdom during the USSR, leaving collective farm chairmen to trust the fate of rural residents. It would seem that the issue was closed by such a bad monarchy, but the people's power brought it back.

[gsev]

Quote from Eugene Zaboy

why did the communists actually revive serfdom during the USSR?

Serfdom had its big advantage for its time: in conditions of lack of resources, serfdom provided funds for the maintenance of a powerful army. It was with the development of serfdom that the successful invasions of the Poles and Germans and the regular raids of the Crimean Tatars for Russian slaves ceased. At some point, serfdom became an anachronism and was abolished. The first time was by Alexander 2 after the defeat in the Crimean War, the second time by Khrushchev after Stalin, Beria, Ryumin and Abakumov became agents of influence for the head of the US Special Operations Department during Allen Dulles' Operation Split.

[Keer]

. Serfdom had its big advantages for its time:

.For the first time by Alexander 2 after the defeat in the Crimean War, the second time by Khrushchev

.
Please note that the first time the state collapsed 55 years after the abolition, and the second after thirty. Hence the conclusion that serfdom not only “once had a positive meaning,” but in general was a useful thing, and extremely important for the state.

[gsev]

Quote: Keer

Please note that the first time the state collapsed 55 years after the abolition, and the second after thirty.

There is another point of view. The state is stable as long as its elite changes. Indeed, immediately after the change of elites during the Time of Troubles, during the era of glorious Russian noble revolutions from the overthrow of Menshikov to the overthrow of Paul 1, after the revolution of 1917, after the so-called exposure of the cult of personality, and in reality by limiting the power of state security, the country made a leap forward. As soon as the elite gained the opportunity to transfer power by inheritance, the country fell into stagnation. A case in point is the rise in egg prices in December 2024. Siluanov and Nabiullina tried, in alliance with some of the agricultural holdings who did not want to organize deep processing of agricultural products, to raise food prices and prevent the re-election of Mishustin’s team to high positions in the ministries. Although there is a point of view that Nabiullina transferred 300 billion to the West and is accelerating inflation in Russia just for the right to take part in the casting for the role of head of the IMF.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: gsev

second time by Khrushchev

In fact, Khrushchev did nothing useful in this regard.

Over time, the rules only became more stringent, but even after the death of Stalin, with the advent of Khrushchev and then Brezhnev, according to the USSR Ministry of Public Order in 1967, 37 percent of all USSR citizens did not have a passport. And this is almost 58 million people.

In order to travel from their native village to somewhere further than the regional center, each collective farmer was required to obtain a certificate from the village council - a local government body. It was valid for no more than 30 days. If a collective farmer came to a city, stayed to live there, and was caught by the police, he was fined and expelled, and if he violated it again, he could be imprisoned for 2 years.

passport “discrimination” fell only in 1974, when the document began to be issued to absolutely everyone.

It is hardly possible to call serfdom and restrictions on the movement of the population during the Soviet era anything positive. Most likely, such measures were forced due to the lack of qualified management personnel. The resource of potential managers available to the state, the nobles in the case of the Russian Empire and the party activists in the USSR, did not have sufficient professional skills to organize the life of the population in which they would not scatter. Instead of training personnel and carrying out systematic work with management personnel, power in both cases was limited by restrictions on the movement of the population. It must be admitted that in the Russian Empire this issue was resolved much better than in the USSR.

[Arkadich]

Great things are often accomplished by great trials.
An interesting look at history.

[bya965]

And where did our Orthodox priests look? The Orthodox people were mocked, raped, robbed, forbidden to go to God's temple or confess.
Give me examples over the millennium of Christianity when priests defended the people.
Not in words, in deeds.
Only under the atheistic USSR did the authorities think about the people.
How do the priests help the people now, except for their hilling?
I think I understand, the word narod contains the name of a pagan god, and then he is repugnant to God. The word ROD in the Russian language appears in the roots of words 180-200 times, but the Christian name never occurs.
In the evening I will drink a glass to our people and Russian nature!

[Vladimir80]

I think I understand, the word “NAROD” contains the name of a pagan god, then he is repugnant to God

no, you don’t understand... you need to go hug some trees, then “true enlightenment” will come!

[Stanislav_Shishkin]

Quote: Vladimir80

you need to go and hug the trees, then “true enlightenment” will come

Do not scratch the place of strength and do not bother with hugs: always remember the risk of developing dendrophilia due to abuse.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

And where did our Orthodox priests look?

Where where. A typical example of the popovka class is given in V.S. Pushkin’s fairy tale “About the priest and his worker Balda.”

[bya965]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

V.S. Pushkin “About the priest and his worker Balda.”

The priests got in on the act here too:

THE TALE OF THE MERCHANT KUZMA THE OSTOLOP AND HIS WORKER BALDA
Once upon a time there lived a merchant Kuzma Ostolop
Nicknamed aspen forehead.
Kuzma walked through the market
View some product.
Balda to meet him
He goes without knowing where.
...

[VLR]

In Pushkin it is pop. And “Kuzma the Dunce” is an edit by Zhukovsky, since the priest didn’t let it through the censorship. And this “fairy tale” was not published during Pushkin’s lifetime.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: VlR

In Pushkin it is pop. And “Kuzma the Dunce” is an edit by Zhukovsky, since the priest didn’t let it through the censorship. And this “fairy tale” was not published during Pushkin’s lifetime.

Thank you Valery! I honestly didn't know. I thought the only censorship of Pushkin’s works was only in the title of the story about Pugachev’s rebellion!

[parusnik]

How blessed. Good emperors Peter III, Paul I, Alexander I, Nicholas I made life easier for the peasants, but Catherine was bad. Peasant uprisings also happened under the mentioned emperors, but they were not as large-scale as Pugachev’s or Bolotnikov’s uprising and uprising in Astrakhan under Peter. Such an example, Ustin Karmalyuk, a serf of the landowner Piglovsky, was shaved by his soldiers for his free character in 1813. He escaped that same year. He gathered a detachment and burned landowners' estates, taverns, merchant warehouses, killed officials until 1835 years. Now he can be called a robber and a bandit, a terrorist. But this “scoundrel,” by today’s standards, terrified those in power for about 20 years, without popular support for so many years he could not act. But the problem with all uprisings is the same, they rebelled against tyranny officials and landowners, believing that the good king does not know about the people’s misfortunes. It’s the same as now. The president is good, the officials are bad. And the president made fun of the people during the crooked line, saying that prices for eggs and chickens have increased because the welfare of the people improved. People began to live richer and therefore raised prices for cheap products.

[know]

Apparently, everyone reads only what they want to read. There is also very unflattering writing about Alexander I here.

Alexander I has already dropped the mask of a liberal

Apparently, to this emperor with one ounce of Russian blood in his veins, Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians were closer and dearer than Russian peasants.

"Military settlements will be founded by all means, even if I have to cover the road from St. Petersburg to Chudovo with corpses."

And about Nicholas 1 - the main conclusion is the ineffectiveness of his reforms:

about a hundred decrees that were supposed to somehow alleviate the situation of the serfs - and the sheer number of these decrees indicates their ineffectiveness.

It’s just that under Catherine 2, serfdom was the most savage and cruel. The peasants lived worse than before it and worse than after it.

[parusnik]

under Catherine 2, serfdom was the most savage and cruel

But what difference does it make, serfdom itself was savage and cruel. It doesn’t matter who ruled. It turns out that when Chichikov, supposedly, bought up peasants for removal to the Kherson province, supposedly this was not savagery? Only he didn’t buy them under Catherine. Now, many people consider capitalism to be right and wrong, they also judge serfdom, under some it was right, under others it was wrong. But the essence remains the same.

[know]

What's the difference

You tell this to a serf woman, from whom under Catherine 2 it was possible to take away her children and sell them, but under Nicholas 1 - no longer.
Or - to the serfs, whom Catherine 2 forced into corvée five days a week, and under Paul 1 - three days.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: vet

You tell this to a serf woman, from whom under Catherine 2 it was possible to take away her children and sell them, but under Nicholas 1 - no longer.

And who interfered under Nicholas?

Quote: vet

Or - to the serfs, whom Catherine 2 forced into corvée five days a week, and under Paul 1 - three days.

Both under Catherine and under Paul they drove the same way. Because the
a) Three days is the generally accepted norm.
b) Paul's decree was advisory in nature.
And no one expressed any opportunity or desire to monitor its implementation
By the way, I wrote about all this. I quoted the documents, but... where else!

[parusnik]

Paul's decree was advisory in nature.

Like Petrovsky, who is the third. People don’t understand that the main serf owner was the Emperor Tsar

[parusnik]

under Catherine 2 it was possible to take away children and sell them, but under Nicholas 1 this was no longer possible.

My God, what progress. But serfdom was not abolished. The shackles were loosened, figuratively speaking. But the shackles were not removed until it got too hot. Slavery became better under Nicholas. But the essence has not changed.

[depressant]

It's the same as now.

Alexey Anatolyevich, not quite, but already close. And, taking into account modern technologies and the structure of society, it’s even worse.

[parusnik]

Alexey Anatolyevich, not quite, but already close

Absolutely right.

[Doctor]

Alexey Anatolyevich, not quite, but already close. And, taking into account modern technologies and the structure of society, it’s even worse.

Rather, it is more cunning. They have learned over centuries. And so, yes, everything is the same.

[gsev]

Quote: parusnik

.And the president made fun of the people during the crooked line, saying that prices for eggs and chickens have increased because the well-being of the people has improved.

High egg prices are unlikely to last beyond January 2024. By allowing prices to temporarily rise, Putin carried out a beautiful multi-step... He will keep Erdogan afloat, whom the West is also actively overthrowing, and after the fall in egg prices, ruin the chicken farms that do not want to increase labor productivity and send too much money to the West.

[ivan2022]

It is difficult to fulfill the Law even in a society where it is the same for everyone. But where there is legislative inequality, in practice the relationship is reduced only to the law of force, that is, to lawlessness.

And lawlessness blows your mind and makes people mentally unstable. Moreover, the oppressors to a greater extent. Maybe that’s why many of our bosses are so often on edge in different ways?

[Pankrat25]

You are simplifying too much, I advise you to better understand the process, read about the results of numerous experiments on populations of laboratory rats and mice conducted in Europe in the middle of the last century. And then you will understand that everything that people have is also inherent in animals, and only individuals with arrogance, strength and a complete lack of moral principles become the richest or the bosses. This is normal behavior inherent in any animal.

[Alexander Kuksin]

I think that the last thing we need to do is refer to Radishchev and his opus, which we studied at school. Anyone who has read Radishchev’s biography knows that he was a representative of a society that did not know Russia at all. Because I lived abroad most of my life. Therefore, the work of A.S. Pushkin is more preferable, since he knew what he was writing about.
In my opinion, this issue is better covered by *Family Chronicle* S.T. Aksakova.
At the same time, serfdom cannot be called classical slavery. A classic slave is a person who owns nothing except his working hands. The Russian serf, no matter how poor he was, had shelter and a family and, at the very least, all he could afford. And in comparison with the Western European poor, who seemed to be free, but lived much worse than Russian serfs.

[VLR]

in comparison with the Western European poor, who seemed to be free, but lived much worse than Russian serfs.

Russian peasants lived so well compared to, for example, French peasants that soldiers deserted en masse in 1814 - after the victory over Bonaparte. F. Rostopchin writes to his wife:

“Judge for yourself what a decline our army has reached if an old non-commissioned officer and a simple soldier remain in France, and 60 people deserted from a horse guards regiment in one night with weapons in their hands and horses. They go to the farmers."

They fled from the Horse Guards Regiment - and this is the elite of the army!
From the “Notes” of artillery officer A.M. Baranovich:

“Colonel Zasyadko’s orderly, a rather smart man, decided to free himself from the military department and live like a Frenchman, to enjoy his freedom, convincing himself that at present he was not in Russia, under a thunderstorm, but in a free land, France... and , came to the colonel and said: “Let me go! I am no longer your servant!” - "How? You are an orderly: you must serve as the military regulations oblige you!” - “No, Mr. Colonel, now we are not in Russia, but in a free land, France, therefore, we must use it (freedom) and not coercion!”

He was killed by driving 500 people with spitzrutens through the line (this was the abolition of the death penalty).
There were so many fugitives from the “good life of Russian serfs” that Alexander I issued a manifesto on August 30, 1814, in which he promised that the state would pay for all deserters to return to Russia and exempted them from criminal prosecution. He turned to Louis VIII for help, who, without much hesitation, “sent” him to a well-known address. None of the soldiers who escaped returned to Russia.

[denplot]

It is interesting that in childhood and adolescence, reading the classical interpretation of the events described by the Author, I always secretly felt some kind of irregularity. Then of course I figured it out. But thanks to the Author, I didn’t know many of the subtleties. Valery, I read your articles with pleasure. Thanks again for your work!

[Edward Vashchenko]

Russian peasants lived so well compared to, for example, French peasants that soldiers deserted en masse in 1814 - after the victory over Bonaparte.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
As in 1812 and even before Borodino. Alas.

[parusnik]

As in 1812 and even before Borodino. Alas.

And they even burned their landowners during this period.

[Seal]

Quote: VlR

Appealed to Louis VIII for assistance

I wonder how Alexander I communicated with Louis VIII? It seems that Alexander was not noticed in any special spiritualism.

[VLR]

I wrote from my phone, I missed the X in Louis’ “serial number”, I noticed it too late, it was no longer possible to correct it

[Alexander Kuksin]

But this does not mean that they have found their paradise! Without knowledge of the language, without even a tiny capital, without knowledge of the customs of the country and people. Most likely their fate was unenviable.

[VLR]

In France at that time there was a terrible shortage of young healthy men - many locals died in endless wars; France had been at war since 1792. And therefore Russian soldiers were in great demand. And not only as workers, the owners willingly married their daughters to them. And he will quickly learn the language during everyday communication, the main thing is that he is hard-working and does not drink.

[Dekabrist]

On December 6 (November 26), 1590, by decree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, the usual “exit” was prohibited, male peasants, their wives and children were “attached to the land” and had to work for their landowner for life - this is how the saying “Here you go, grandmother, and St. George's Day"

The habitual exit was prohibited even after the census of Ivan the Terrible in 1581, when “reserved summers” were introduced, that is, years in which exit on St. George’s Day was prohibited.

However, in 1597, the “Decree on Prescribed Years” was issued, according to which, if a peasant nevertheless left the landowner, he had the right to file a petition for a search and return him only within 5 subsequent years.

Not subsequent ones, but past ones. Peasants who fled after November 24, 1592 were subject to investigation. Peasants who fled from the mob before this date were not subject to investigation.

[Vagabung]

Peasant Outing" fell on December 9 (November 26)

- it is somehow not correct, and simply not correct, to indicate the date in the new style in this case. It never fell on December 9th, since the difference of 13 days between the old and new styles is for the 20th century. When this very right of peasants to leave the landowner on St. George’s Day existed, the difference between the old and new styles was 10 days.

[paul3390]

Actually, the tightening of serfdom under the early Romanovs occurred for objective reasons. As we remember, the landowner was initially not the owner of either the estate or the peasants. All this was given to him under the conditions of compulsory military service. To which he was obliged to appear in full combat attire, purchased with the proceeds from the estate. And if he didn’t do this, the plot was confiscated. He couldn’t sell the estate, much less the peasants, just as he couldn’t charge them more than the allotted feeding.

So here it is. After the Time of Troubles and the previous famine, many landowners simply had no peasants left. Some died, some ran away in despair. And the nobles asked the government a generally reasonable question: you demand service from us, but what kind of equipment should we buy for? And so the local cavalry, already in the Time of Troubles, was a pitiful shadow of what it was under Grozny. There was no longer enough money to buy the necessary panoplia and a more or less decent horse. So, either you solve the issue, or you won’t have troops. How could it be solved - there was never any living money in the treasury in the required quantity? This means that this is the only way to firmly attach at least the remnants of the peasants to the estate. Well, what is the use of land without workers? Well, after the decree on the liberties of the nobles, everything was final and took on the wild form known to us. For the nobles finally got what they wanted - to own everything but not be responsible for anything. Painfully reminiscent of modern realities...

[Stirbjorn]

Well, the Cossacks somehow managed without serfs (“Quiet Don”). They went into the army with their own equipment

[paul3390]

Firstly, the Cossacks are light cavalry. They don’t need to buy expensive armor. Secondly, the exhaust from the plot on the Don and in the north of the Non-Black Earth Region is a little different. Thirdly, not all Cossacks could afford this. For many families, a drill horse was not very strong. Especially if the son was not alone. Therefore, many served in the Cossack infantry units and in the artillery.

If you look at the evolution of the local cavalry, degradation is clearly visible. If under Grozny the obligatory panoplia included chain mail or armor, one or another type of helmet, a bow, a saber, a spear, sometimes even pistols, a clockwork horse, that is, in general, medium cavalry, then by the Time of Troubles it turns into light cavalry , the same Cossacks. The armor is quilted at best, almost everyone has no helmet, there is nothing to say about pistols, there is only one horse, and for the most part it is a peasant one. This is precisely a consequence of the rapid impoverishment of the nobility. Hence - and much less combat stability, if under Grozny the local cavalry fought almost on equal terms with the same Poles, well - except of course for the elite hussars, then in the Time of Troubles - they no longer even risked getting involved in open battle.

[parusnik]

[B]

Well, the Cossacks somehow managed without serfs[

/b] There were enough farm laborers, out-of-towners

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And it was not only the Cossacks who managed without serfs and landowners. On the Don and in the Volga region there were settlements under the Cossacks and as separate settlements, without landowners.

[Dekabrist]

Peter I issued a decree according to which all subjects had to determine their position. Illegitimates, freedmen, children of soldiers, captured foreigners, ordinary clergymen, and finally, just vagabonds had to find a master. Those who evaded were assigned to some courtyard by police order.

The decree of 1719 did not apply to “all subjects”, but to such a category as free walking people - a social stratum that was not bound by any strong social and state relations, did not pay any taxes and enjoyed complete freedom of movement and choice of occupations. The king who introduced the poll tax, the existence of such a category of the population,

who are staggering around without service; There is no hope for state benefit from them, they only increase theft

Naturally I couldn’t allow it. Those who evaded were sent to the galleys.

[depressant]

Valery...
In recent years, no more relevant article has been published. As I read it, my fists clenched and tears welled up. So what's ahead?

[paul3390]

It is known that digital corporate neo-feudalism. While you work for some Count of Miratorgsky or the Duke of Gazprom, you have an account for government services, bank loans, preferential mortgages and other goodies. If you dare to leave, everything will immediately reset to zero. With all the consequences. So the corporation can do whatever it wants with you. The feudal lords themselves will not bear any obligations to the state, because it itself will turn from national into purely corporate. Unlike previous formations, it is not tied to the land, but to the type of activity..

Actually, we have been observing something similar for a long time in Japan. Apparently the rest of the bourgeoisie liked it.

[Doctor]

It is known that digital corporate neo-feudalism. While you work for some Count of Miratorgsky or the Duke of Gazprom, you have an account for government services, bank loans, preferential mortgages and other goodies. If you dare to leave, everything will immediately reset to zero. With all the consequences. So the corporation can do whatever it wants with you. The feudal lords themselves will not bear any obligations to the state, because it itself will turn from national into purely corporate. Unlike previous formations, it is not tied to the land, but to the type of activity..

Actually, we have been observing something similar for a long time in Japan. Apparently the rest of the bourgeoisie liked it.

But why? Freedom hasn’t been taken away yet, you can always: “To the village, to your aunt, to the wilderness, to Saratov.”

[Chief Officer Lom]

In a digital concentration camp, you will be erased with a few keystrokes, and you will also not be able to live in Saratov, just as a runaway slave in the USA could not live (not because they were looking for him, but because he was like 100 dollars lying on the ground). Only in the taiga, to live in a dugout, but if there are a lot of them, then the corporations will hunt them from helicopters, regularly combing them with drones with thermal imagers...

[Doctor]

In a digital concentration camp, you will be erased with a few keystrokes, and you will also not be able to live in Saratov, just as a runaway slave in the USA could not live (not because they were looking for him, but because he was like 100 dollars lying on the ground). Only in the taiga, to live in a dugout, but if there are a lot of them, then the corporations will hunt them from helicopters, regularly combing them with drones with thermal imagers...

About the black man to the point. And, moreover, without any numbers. Do you think in the USSR how long would they have lasted on the All-Union wanted list?

[Yuras_Belarus]

One should not assume that serfdom is only the share of the Russian people. On the European continent, serfdom existed among all peoples. Only in different parts of the continent historical and natural inequality appeared, which influenced the fate of this phenomenon. In the west and north of Europe, geography intervened in history. Many countries in this part of Europe had access to maritime trade, and after significant conquests in Asia and the Americas, their economies moved from exploiting and robbing their peasants to robbing conquered and colonized lands and peoples. And several great plague epidemics in Western Europe sharply reduced the population, and the survivors could have sent away all sorts of “masters” and not worked for their masters as serfs. As a result, Western countries moved from attaching peasants to the land to renting land and exploiting African slaves. But in Eastern Europe, the climate and soil left the feudal lords no other way except to constantly strengthen the serfdom of the peasants: this was the only way to conduct extensive and risky farming on poorly fertile land. Here, far from the sea and its trade routes, it was almost impossible to replace the robbery of peasants with pumping out resources and food from the conquered lands. That is why serfdom in Rus' lasted for so long.

[pav15]

Apparently the roots of the stratification of society lie in ancient times, when Indo-European tribes had a caste structure. We see its echoes in India, conquered by the Aryan tribes. In the Russian Pravda, the Saxon Pravda, 4 castes are mentioned: noble, free-smerds, freedmen and serfs. And over the past millennium, we have observed the dynamics and nature of changes in social strata. Serfdom was one of the segments.

[Dekabrist]

For the first time in Russian history, Catherine II allowed the sale of serfs separately from the land.

The author, as usual, sacrifices the historical side of the issue to the colorfulness of the narrative.
Serfs began to be sold separately from the land in the middle of the 1675th century, and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich legalized this procedure with his decree of XNUMX, which allowed landowners to register peasants with them according to transaction records and deeds of sale in the Local Prikaz.
It would be interesting to see Vashchenko’s article on the same topic and compare.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Dekabrist

It would be interesting to see Vashchenko’s article on the same topic and compare.

By the way, I hoped that the article was his. But alas...

[Edward Vashchenko]

Serfs began to be sold separately from the land in the middle of the XNUMXth century.

It is true that, contrary to the Council Code of 1649, personal sales began at the end of the XNUMXth century.
It's not about the personalities of the kings, one is good, the other is bad, but in a trend: and “serfdom” was an integral part of feudalism, until it developed and had not exhausted itself economically, the exploitation of peasants increased.
If it were not for the external influence from liberal ideas, before the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in England, there would have been no reason not to strengthen feudalism and serfdom.
Russian feudalism had not exhausted itself even in the 50s of the XNUMXth century, if not for Sevastopol.

[Dekabrist]

Hello, Eduard. When I saw the title, I thought that only you could take on such a serious topic among local authors. But, as a colleague wrote above, alas!

[Edward Vashchenko]

Hello, Eduard.

Good afternoon Victor

[Dekabrist]

I haven't seen your articles for a long time. Or is the website no longer in your creative plans?

[Edward Vashchenko]

Of course not. The articles are ready, but they need to be improved a little - but there is no time or energy. Lots of things to do, end of the year.

[Dekabrist]

Yes, time is such a resource; it is either little or much.

[parusnik]

It's not about the personalities of the kings, one is good, the other is bad,

So that’s the point. It’s the same as discussing under whom capitalism is better, under Yeltsin or Putin.

[S.Z.]

In this sense, it is interesting to look at US slavery as an illustration of your idea.

In the industrial North, where capitalism acquired all its features quite early, slavery was practically not used and was even prohibited, and the semi-feudal, agricultural economy of the South used slaves until the Civil War. There, slavery was abolished for military-political reasons in order to weaken the enemy.

[Senior seaman]

Too many emotions.
Unfortunately, I am tired of discussing with the author. Well, he wants to believe in the goodness of Pavel, and let him.
I have another question

There are two corrupt girls right there, half a Swedish cobolt

As I understand it, we are talking about cobalt...
Why is he in the house?

[denplot]

A rare and expensive metal at all times. At that time, it was used to color glass and ceramics blue. Plus, arsenic could be isolated from it. Well, somehow they had 8 kg lying around in their house.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: denplot

At that time, it was used to color glass and ceramics blue.

This is me, just in the know.
But how many glassblowing factories were there at that time, so that half a pound of dye was lying around in the house?

[Fat]

Any bright blue dye is “cobalt blue,” regardless of application or chemical composition. "Blue".
Blue was a blue mineral paint that was used to make white linen blue. Our grandmothers used this powder to turn their clothes blue after washing, which successfully removed the yellowness. The blue powder was placed in cotton cloth or several layers of gauze and then tied. The resulting bundle was dipped into water and the water turned blue.
Therefore, corrupt girls and blues go well together in bed

[Fat]

Quote: denplot

A rare and expensive metal at all times. At that time, it was used to color glass and ceramics blue. Plus, arsenic could be isolated from it. Well, somehow they had 8 kg lying around in their house.

It is possible to “isolate” arsenic from cobalt only through transmutation Another thing is that a significant part of cobalt ores contains arsenic. The metal is quite rare, the price of cobalt is comparable to the cost of antimony, two and a half times more expensive than tin

[denplot]

Of course from ore. I didn't formulate it that way. And it seems it was isolated in the 18th century

[Yuras_Belarus]

Cobalt was used for dyeing fabrics, making stained glass, and painting porcelain and earthenware. Cobalt produces a special shade of blue paint - "Swedish cobalt". Apparently the ad is talking specifically about paint for use in some kind of factory or factory. Serf owners made money not only from agriculture.

[Senior seaman]

Answered above
But, in principle, it is possible.

[Dekabrist]

Why is he in the house?

For tanning leather.

[depressant]

Thoughts are crowded - you can’t find the letters.
She said “Ah...” - such and such an article. She said “B...” - and here’s another article. The entire alphabet is already occupied, even the letter “Y” is in the format “Yx-x!”
And the letter “I” is a priori criminal.

[dump22]

Peter I issued a decree according to which all subjects had to determine their position. Illegitimates, freedmen, children of soldiers, captured foreigners, ordinary clergymen, and finally, just vagabonds had to find a master.

And it’s clear why.
He constantly needed money, and all serfs paid a poll tax (80 kopecks per capita per year) according to his decree of 1729.

By the way, the author completely bypassed the issue of slaves and their difference from serfs.
But these were two very different states from each other. Slaves (servants, robes) existed in Rus' since ancient times and they were actually slaves and they could be freely bought and sold without land.
The owner had every right to execute his own slave if guilty. For murder without guilt, church repentance was imposed (“if anyone kills a servant, he will accept penance as a robber”).
A stranger who killed a slave paid his master the full price of the slave.

[Dekabrist]

by his decree in 1729

He died in 1725.

[dump22]

Thanks for pointing out the typo.

https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/ЭСБЕ/Подушная_подать_в_России

In November and December 1717, Peter I ordered to calculate how many “working persons” could support a foot and horse soldier, a convoy, etc., and on November 26, 1718, a general census was ordered (see Censuses). In anticipation of its results, the population was determined, in round numbers, at 5 million, the maintenance of troops - at 4 million rubles, and the tax - at 80 kopecks. from the heart.

[Lavrenty_Palych]

They brought him home and he was alive!

[pav15]

As we all love to throw mud at standing tsars and emperors, under whom the Russian State was filled with power... Both from the Reds and from the liberal intelligentsia.

[odisey3000]

What the hell does it matter who, when and how they bullied and mocked the unfortunate Russian people, the result for the ruling class at that time was natural and terrible, it was cut out at the root. It’s probably worth reading history for our elite and the so-called, although it’s unclear why, elite. Moreover, history is very instructive.

[Pavel57]

Quote: pav15

As we all love to throw mud at standing tsars and emperors, under whom the Russian State was filled with power... Both from the Reds and from the liberal intelligentsia.

People are the resource of the state. You can waste a resource, but not endlessly.

[Eugene Zaboy]

The disenfranchised deep Russian people have not forgotten their humiliations. In February 1918, Alexander Blok wrote an article “Intellectuals and Revolution”, which included the following words:

“Why do they shit in the manor estates dear to the heart?
- Because the girls were raped and flogged there: not at the master's place, as at the neighbor's.
Why are centenary parks being felled?
- Because for a hundred years, under their spreading linden and maple trees, the gentlemen showed their power: they poked a beggar in the nose - a money-maker...
I know what I am saying. You can't get around this with a horse. There is no way to hush this up.”

Of course, serfdom was not the best solution. There were a huge number of human rights violations that We consider to be the norm today. Why is it that only women, in those cruel times, gave birth to 5-10 children and raised them as healthy, normal people, but today they are often unable to give birth to and feed one child, much less raise them.

If we are guided by the rate of population growth then and today, then it turns out that Blok and Turgenev are being cunning, oh, how cunning they are. Or they had no idea about the poor living conditions. In our time, they would be for a year, and then listen to what they say.

[agond]

Anna Ioannovna separated herself from the others, did not drink herself and did not recommend others, and allowed them to celebrate only the day of her coronation. somehow she learned that two captains and one colonel, while in a peasant’s house, got so drunk that they began to cut down the owner’s cattle with sabers, the owner’s son stood up for the dog and they killed him too, the queen’s verdict was to hang the captains, cut the colonel on the wheel, the colonel wrote a petition to replace the wheeling with hanging, but the queen was adamant, I wonder what other rulers would have done, at that time and in our time?

[Lavrenty_Palych]

in our time they would be promoted!

[Lavrenty_Palych]

and don’t tell me, we don’t see any bread!

[ivan2022]

Quote from Eugene Zaboy

If we are guided by the rate of population growth then and today, then it turns out that Blok and Turgenev are being cunning, oh, how cunning they are. Or they had no idea about the poor living conditions. In our time, they would be for a year, and then listen to what they say.

If we are guided by historical facts, then, for example, in 1860 in the Yaroslavl province, 10 thousand boys aged 0 to five years died in a year. And, for example, about 200 men in the age group from 20 to 25 years.

If only we could take today’s idiots who dream of serfdom, back in 1860!

PS For how many years they have been saying that the average life expectancy of 35 years is a consequence of gigantic infant mortality. But no one counted the number of poor people of all ages.
Yes...... s... There is a people whose troubles are due to modern medicine, although for all other peoples they are exclusively due to fools and thieves.

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote: ivan2022

If we are guided by historical facts, then, for example, in 1860 in the Yaroslavl province, 10 thousand boys aged 0 to five years died in a year. And about 300 men from 20 to 25 years old.

If only we could take today’s idiots who dream of serfdom, back in 1860!

Go to any old cemetery and you will find a large number of children's graves, in any country in the world. Children died not from serfdom, but from the lack of antibiotics, vaccinations and other modern methods of treatment.
It is unlikely that any of the commentators dreams of returning serfdom, but the fact that the author is fixated on writers from the times of Soviet propaganda and does not notice this himself is obvious. In the Russian Empire there was a very wide layer of healthy society, otherwise Saltychikha would not have been in a cage for abusing the serfs. For some reason, the author does not refer to authors and sources that were burned and banned by the Bolsheviks, but uses exclusively elements of propaganda from the Soviet period, and this is not entirely true.

Quote: agond

Anna Ioannovna separated herself from the others, did not drink herself and did not recommend others, and allowed them to celebrate only the day of her coronation. somehow she learned that two captains and one colonel, while in a peasant’s house, got so drunk that they began to cut down the owner’s cattle with sabers, the owner’s son stood up for the dog and they killed him too, the queen’s verdict was to hang the captains, cut the colonel on the wheel, the colonel wrote a petition to replace the wheeling with hanging, but the queen was adamant, I wonder what other rulers would have done, at that time and in our time?

[know]

Reading some comments, you remember Nekrasov:

Serf people
real dogs sometimes
the heavier the punishment -
so gentlemen gentlemen

[Lavrenty_Palych]

Here's your grandmother and bread day, everyone immediately became masters, and some of the thieves were even more masters, but the luckiest ones were mostly the shady Jews, where you don't spit at him and you'll end up!

[Fangaro]

Noticeable time has passed since publication. But I just read it now. And I also looked through the comments now.

Dependence of the majority on the minority. Can this be called serfdom? But isn’t the majority nowadays dependent on the laws passed by the minority? It’s exaggerated, but German citizens do not depend on the laws adopted by German politicians and managers who are supported by a minority?

And a little about the content of the publication... Pushkin did not even free his serfs from corvee... Could the nobles who criticized the state system change it by abandoning the source of their wealth?
But the fact that some of the oppressors wrote that it is also possible to oppress in different ways has already given them the right to remain in the memory of historians.
Thanks to the author!
In some places I really don’t like your version of the presentation. “Attempts” on the images of Pushkin, Turgenev, Blok, formed in childhood and youth, are a good way to force the reader to look at himself from the outside.

[ivan2022]

This is right. It would be good for everyone to look at themselves... Pushkin actually paid with his life for freethinking, no matter what they say about him and his wife... And Turgenev and Blok owed nothing to anyone.

It’s just that the idea that they must defend their rights themselves does not occur to our working people.... If they need rights at all, and not the bestial yoke...
What did Pushkin say? :
"Yoke with rattles and whip"

[squid]

I hope you don’t stop there, and in the 3rd part there will be a story about the actual restoration of serfdom by the communists - how until 1974(!) more than a third of the country’s adult population lived without passports and could not leave their “native” collective farm without permission from the state. That is, the peasants were personally unfree and attached to the land, as under the hated kings.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: squid

and in the 3rd part there will be a story about the actual restoration of serfdom by the communists - how until 1974(!) more than a third of the country’s adult population lived without passports and could not leave their “native” collective farm without permission from the state.

Yes, yes... My uncles (and I have five of them) left their native collective farm in the 60s, in all directions.

[Gunther]

According to the so-called “Slavery in Russia” has a good review from the historian Evgeny Yuryevich Spitsyn.

[Pavel57]

Somewhere nearby the theme of the Decembrists arises.