Peasant fishing waste and the development of serf relations in the Russian countryside in the second half of the 18th century. Otkhodnichestvo in modern Russia Consequences of otkhodnichestvo in the 19th century

Otkhodniks- seasonal workers (primarily peasants) who came to work in St. Petersburg. O. appeared in the city at the beginning. 18th century, participated in its construction. Among them, immigrants from Yaroslavl, Tver, Novgorod, St. Petersburg, and Pskov provinces predominated; they had a regional specialization that persisted until the First World War of 1914-18. So, O. from the Yaroslavl province. engaged in trade, construction, gardening, worked in taverns, O. from St. Petersburg. lips. (mostly women) were employed in the service, men went to construction work in the summer, and were engaged in carting in the winter. With the development of trade and industry, the number of O. increased (the people called them "St. Petersburg"). Means. part of O.'s earnings were sent to relatives in the village, having saved money, they returned to the family. With the aim of facilitating the conditions of existence in a foreign city, O. created fraternities. To the beginning 20th century Among O. Russians prevailed, there were also Finns from the outskirts of St. Petersburg. and Finland, Estonians, Latvians, Belarusians. In the 1920s and 30s O. worked in L. Ch. arr. at factories and factories, performing work that did not require qualifications. With the completion of collectivization, the collective farmers lost the opportunity to engage in seasonal activities, and the practice of organizational recruitment replaced the O..

Notes

Lit .: Yukhneva N. V. Ethnic composition and ethno-social structure of the population of St. Petersburg, the second half of the XIX - early. XX century: Stat. analysis. L., 1984. S. 142-163; Lurie L. Ya. "Petersburgers" in St. Petersburg // City and townspeople in Russia of the XX century: Materials of the Russian-French. Seminar... SPb., 2001. S. 86-91.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "otkhodniki" is in other dictionaries:

Otkhodniks are seasonal workers (mostly peasants) who came to work in St. Petersburg, which is why the people were called "St. Petersburg". Okhodniks sent a significant part of their earnings to their relatives in the village, and having saved money, ... ... Wikipedia

- (Zambia) The Republic of Zambia, a state in Central Africa, located inland, more than 1000 km from the coasts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It is part of the British Commonwealth. It borders... ...

In Russia in the 17th and 1st half of the 19th centuries. the general name of workers in the fields and in industry (serfs, otkhodniks, sessional and free wage workers). * * * WORKING PEOPLE WORKING PEOPLE, workers (see WORKING CLASS) in the fields and ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

The village of Kumukh Laksk. Gumuk Country Russia Russia ... Wikipedia

Village Kumukh Ghumuchi Country Russia Russia ... Wikipedia

Outdoor work is temporary, most often seasonal work of peasants outside their place of permanent residence, when it is necessary to “depart”, leave the village or village. People who went to work were called "otkhodniks". Laundry crafts were in ... ... Wikipedia

WORKING PEOPLE, in Russia 17 1st half of the 19th centuries. the general name of workers in the fields and in industry: serfs, otkhodniks, sessional (from the Latin possessio possession) peasants, free hired workers ... Modern Encyclopedia

In Russia 17 1st half. 19th centuries the general name of workers in the fields and in industry (serfs, otkhodniks, sessional and free wage workers) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Cameroon, United Republic of Cameroon (La République Unie du Cameroun). I. General Information K. is a state in Central Africa. It borders in the northwest with Nigeria, in the north and northeast with Chad, in the east with the Central African Republic, in the south with ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Kenya (Kenya), Republic of Kenya (Republic of Kenya), a state in East Africa. Part of the British Commonwealth. It borders in the north with Ethiopia and Sudan, in the west with Uganda, in the southwest with Tanzania, and in the east with Somalia. In the southeast it is washed by waters ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

What was the proportion of otkhodnik peasants in different regions of Russia? How did otkhodnichestvo affect the serf system? These and other issues related to peasant commercial seasonal work are considered in his article by S.V. Chernikov.
The article was published in the book "Images of Agrarian Russia in the IX-XVIII centuries." (M.: Indrik, 2013.)

The problem of the formation of the capitalist structure in Russia has a fairly extensive historiography. At present, the most common point of view remains that such economic relations developed in industrial production at the end of the 18th century. An important argument in favor of this position is the fact of the active expansion of the free labor market. Yes, since the 1960s. 18th century and by the end of the century, the number of hired workers in manufactories and in shipping had grown from 220,000 to 420,000 people 1 . A special place was occupied by light industry, served almost exclusively by freelance labor. Manufactured products were in high demand, which created opportunities for capital accumulation 2 .

However, no less significant, in our opinion, is the other side of this process. After all, the main contingent of hired workers in various sectors of production were otkhodnik peasants. The question of how the spread of peasant fishing waste affected the dominant type of economic relations in the Russian countryside - serfdom - remains open. It is to this problem that the present work is devoted.

First of all, we should dwell on the reasons for the active growth of peasant waste and fishing activities in general. The main one was the low level of agricultural production, which often did not meet the minimum needs of the peasant economy 3 .

In the historical literature, the generally accepted annual diet for an adult is 3 quarters (24 pounds) of grain, which is about 3200 kcal. per day. If we include in the above "norm" the needs of the peasant household for feeding livestock, then if there are 1-2 horses on farm 4, from 12.5 to 18 poods of grain will remain per peasant. In this case, the farmer's daily diet will consist of 1700-2400 kcal, that is, 50-75% of the "norm" 5 . But a long-term reduction in consumption rates (that is, permanent malnutrition) under the conditions of hard physical labor of the peasant is not possible. Consequently, if the cost of feeding livestock is calculated in excess of the indicated 24 poods, then for one person (on a two-horse farm) a net grain harvest of 35.5 poods (4.4 quarters) will be required.

Let us consider the possibilities of agricultural production in European Russia to meet the above needs. In Table. 1 presents data on net grain harvests per capita in the 1780s-1790s. in 27 provinces 6 .

Table 1. The level of agricultural production in European Russia in the 80-90s 18th century

As you can see, even the lowest "norm" (3 quarters of grain per year per person) did not fit into any province of the Central Non-Chernozem and Eastern regions. In the Severny region, the net harvest of grain per capita reached three quarters only in the Pskov province 7 . In the Chernozem region, out of 6 provinces, an insignificant deficit (0.2-0.4 quarters) was in two - Kursk and Tambov. In the Volga region, out of three provinces, a deficit was observed in one - Simbirsk (1.2 quarters). Only in the Baltic provinces (Revel and Riga) the surplus of grain amounted to 2.5-3.0 quarters. The average data for the districts indicate a surplus of grain in the Baltic States (2.8 quarters), the Central Chernozem Region (0.6 quarters) and the Volga region (0.5 quarters).

If we consider the rate of consumption per capita (including livestock feeding) 4.4 quarter. grain per year, then a positive grain balance can be observed only in the Baltic states, as well as in the Tula (0.8 quarter surplus), Penza (0.4 quarter) and Oryol (0.2 quarter) provinces. The greatest shortage of bread was noted in the Central Chernozem region (2.5 quarters), Northern (2.4 quarters), Eastern (2.7 quarters) regions, less significant - in the Central Chernozem region (0.8 quarters) and the Volga region ( 0.9 quarter).

According to data for the 1750s - early 1770s. in European Russia, the most numerous category of farmers (landlord peasants) was on average provided with bread below the norm by 3 quarters (24 pounds). In a year, the consumer accounted for 21 pounds. Taking into account property groups, in the poorest group (35.9% of households) there was a shortage of 5.6 pounds, in the middle (48.9% of households) - 4.1 pounds. Prosperous peasants (15.2% of households) had a surplus of 3.1 pounds. The differentiation according to the forms of rent was as follows: in the corvée estates, the consumer had a surplus of 2.6 poods, in quitrents - a shortage of 3.9 poods. By regions, only the peasantry of the Chernozem region and the entire wealthy elite of the serf village 8 had a positive grain balance (if we consider the “norm” of 3 quarters per eater).

Thus, it is obvious that the situation in the southern black earth and Volga provinces was saved only by periodic high yields, while the regions of the center, north and east of European Russia as a whole (with average yields - sam-2-3) were not able to provide themselves with grain even for food for the peasant and fodder for livestock.

This level of agricultural development was typical for these territories and could be significantly changed only with the help of agrotechnical innovations. However, their implementation has been extremely slow 9 . We emphasize that the share of marketable grain (i.e., in fact, consumption surpluses), according to V.K. Yatsunsky and I.D. Kovalchenko, at the beginning of the XIX century. was only 9-14%, and in the middle of the century - 17% of the gross grain harvest. During the second half of the XVIII - first half of the XIX century. labor productivity in industry has increased by about 8.6 times, while in agriculture - only by 14% 10 .

Consequently, the only means capable of ensuring the survival of the peasant in the marginal areas of European Russia (both at the end of the 18th century and in earlier and later periods) was to receive income from non-agricultural trades. However, legislative restrictions in the sphere of peasant industry and trade until the 2nd half of the 18th century prevented the development of this direction of the economy.

The rise in this area was caused by a change in government policy since the early 1960s. 18th century The principles of free enterprise in trade and industry became the basis of the new course, monopolies and privileges were gradually abolished, which was caused by the needs of the country's further development and the fiscal interests of the treasury. 18th century In many farms of this region there is a reduction in plowing, there is a massive transfer of estates to rent.A characteristic phenomenon for the 2nd half of the century is an increase in quitrent, and natural duties are converted into money 11 .

Landowners, seeking to increase the profitability of serf labor and receive the highest possible quitrent payments, were also interested in income from peasant crafts. We emphasize that the measures of strict landlord control and regulation of the activities of the peasants here were combined with the patronage and encouragement of their initiatives in the field of agricultural and industrial production, crafts and trade.

Among the main types of patronage activities of the landlords in relation to the otkhodnik peasants, the following can be singled out 12 . So, in particular, they used the transportation of peasant goods under the guise of landlords, the issuance of preferential travel receipts and certificates that expanded the rights of peasants to wholesale and retail trade. Landowners opened fairs and auctions on their own estates, registered peasant enterprises, large-scale farms and contracts in their name, issued money loans to peasants, and provided otkhodniks with living and utility rooms in cities. Influential landowners used personal connections to resolve legal disputes among their trading peasants. Attention was paid to the study of market conditions: lists of specialties that brought high profits in St. Petersburg and Moscow were compiled, a search was made for the most profitable work for their peasants, metropolitan market prices and demand for handicrafts were found out.

There is also direct coercion of the peasantry to fishing activities during the period free from field work. So, in the instructions of the book. MM. Shcherbatov contains the following requirement: “Because a peasant, living at home, cannot make a big profit for himself, and for this, not only let go, but also force them to go to work, and whenever the peasants demand passports, immediately give them to the clerk.” In the "instruction" A.T. Bolotov, the corvée system was the basis of the landlord economy. However, "in the absence of work," the peasants were to be "released ... for hire with a profit sufficient for the master." The peasant departure was clearly linked to the need for the peasants to pay the poll tax, which was a cash tax, and not a tax in kind (“This letting go of not only hard-working, but also draft workers is necessary in autumn and winter to generate poll money”). "Institution" gr. P.A. Rumyantsev for his Nizhny Novgorod patrimony (1751.1777) contains a special section on the organization of craft and fishing activities for peasants, and in the instructions of Prince. MM. Shcherbatov (according to the Yaroslavl estate, 1758) and S.K. Naryshkin (according to the Krapivensky patrimony, 1775), we find provisions on the training of peasants in craftsmanship 13.

The second side of the relationship between the landowner and the otkhodnik peasant, as already mentioned above, was the detailed regulation of the life and entrepreneurial activities of the serf 14 . Peasants could leave the village only with the permission of the patrimonial authorities, which was confirmed by the issuance of "written leave" and printed passports. Usually, retreat was allowed only in winter after the completion of agricultural work, and in large trading and fishing villages, for one or two years. The landowners determined the terms, the number of otkhodniks, the departure of the peasants was allowed only in the absence of arrears and the presence of guarantors (usually the closest relatives - father, brother, father-in-law, son-in-law, less often - fellow villagers) who were responsible for state and property duties of otkhodniks acted in this capacity. Punishments were established for the untimely return of otkhodniks to their patrimony. The hiring of passportless and runaway workers from other estates was not allowed (although there were numerous cases of violations). Sometimes the involvement of any third-party hired labor was prohibited altogether. The landowner regulated monetary relations in the village, limited lease operations with land within the community and on the side. Prohibitions were practiced on the trade in peasant property, bread and livestock without the permission of the clerk. This was due to the fear of reducing the solvency of the peasants, their ruin and increased social hostility in the community. The landlords were also afraid of competition from their own serfs, in connection with which bans were introduced for the peasants on trade in certain types of products. The Central Chernozem Region (compared to the Non-Chernozem Region) is characterized by more significant restrictions in the sphere of peasant waste, since corvée farming in the South of Russia brought significant profit.

All these measures complemented each other and varied depending on the region and the specifics of the economic situation in a particular estate. In general, there is no reason to talk about the "contradictory nature" of the landowner's attitude to peasant crafts, since both encouragement and regulation served the same goal - to maximize income from the use of serf labor.

The level of development of crafts and peasant waste in various regions of the country was inversely proportional to the degree of profitability of the agricultural sector. The dependence of the peasantry on incomes in the non-agricultural sphere was most clearly manifested in the Non-Chernozem region. So, according to M.F. Prokhorov (in the 1760s-1770s), the share of seasonal peasants in the counties of the Moscow and Volga-Oksky regions was the highest in European Russia (6-24.8% of the total male population). The leading place in the Non-Chernozem region among otkhodniks was occupied by landlord peasants - 52.7%. But in proportion to the number of this or that group of peasants, the monasteries were in the first place. The main reason for this was not “the inhibitory influence of the serf system on the retirement in the landowner’s village” (according to M.F. Prokhorov), but the secularization of church estates, accompanied by the liquidation of the corvee and the transfer of economic peasants to dues 15 . In the fertile Central Black Earth Territory, these figures were significantly lower: in the northern part - 1.8-4.4%, in the central and southern counties - 0.9%. The leading place here (taking into account the absence of corvée in the state village, as well as the social composition of the population of the region) was occupied by single-palace residents and newly baptized people - 98% of otkhodniks. In the Middle Volga region, the share of otkhodniks was 2.3-3.8%, and in the Western and Northern regions - up to 6.2% 16 .

For individual provinces, there is the following data on the intensity of the withdrawal. In the Moscow province in 1799-1803. the number of otkhodniks (according to the number of issued passports to all categories of the population) was at the level of 45-65 thousand people, or 10-15% of the inhabitants of the small settlement, in the Yaroslavl province in 1778-1797. - 55-75 thousand people or 15-23% of the male population. According to the “Description of the Kostroma governorship” (1792), there were about 40 thousand otkhodniks in the province (more than 10% of the inhabitants of the municipality). In the Kaluga province in the 60s. XVIII century, according to the Senate questionnaire published in the "Proceedings of the Free Economic Society", every third worker went to work. In some counties of the Nizhny Novgorod province in the 80-90s. 18th century otkhodniks accounted for at least 8% of the total male population. At the end of the century, up to 25 thousand people were sent to ship fishing (Morshanskaya pristan) in the Tambov province in the spring, in the Kursk province the number of otkhodniks reached 13 thousand. 17

The bulk of the otkhodnik peasants were engaged in hauling (usually in winter), ship fishing (spring-autumn), industrial enterprises (primarily textile), construction in counties and large cities. In the Central Chernozem Region, hiring for agricultural work (haymaking, grain harvesting) and livestock grazing is distributed. More often otkhodniks went to large cities, mainly to Moscow and St. Petersburg. Every year in the 1760s and 70s. up to 50 thousand people came to St. Petersburg and its environs, 25 thousand to Nizhny Novgorod, 7 thousand to Saratov, 6 thousand to Astrakhan 18

The growth of fishing activity in the 2nd half of the 18th - 1st half of the 19th centuries undoubtedly influenced the property differentiation in the serf village. However, there was no "capitalist stratification" and "depeasantization" as any kind of mass phenomenon here in the pre-reform period. The dynamics of inequality among the commercial-agricultural and commercial-agricultural peasantry can be traced more clearly. However, the property status of the agricultural peasantry in its bulk has changed insignificantly. During this period of time, the middle-income group continued to dominate among the landowning peasants as a whole.

The question of the role of commercial income in the peasant economy is extremely important. However, there is practically no direct evidence of this. Interesting calculations of the structure of the "peasant budget" were published in 1966 by I.D. Kovalchenko and L.V. Milov 20 . The generalized information on the incomes and obligations of quitrent landlord peasants, contained in this work, is presented in Table. 2 21 .

Table 2. Incomes and duties of quitrent landlord peasants, late 18th - mid-19th centuries, silver rubles

Note: * Duties include the amount of quitrent, poll tax and worldly dues.

The data presented here has a number of features. First, the income from agriculture can be considered income only conditionally. This is an estimate of the cost of average harvests at provincial market prices. At the end of the XVIII century. net yields of grain per capita in the Moscow and Tver provinces were significantly lower than the "consumption rate" of 3 quarters per person, and in Oryol and Ryazan they exceeded it by 1.6 and 0.3 quarters. respectively (see Table 1). In the middle of the XIX century. (taking into account potato harvests) the situation was approximately the same. Net fees in the Moscow province amounted to 1.39 quarters, Tver - 2.5 quarters, Oryol - 3.33 quarters, Ryazan - 3.08 quarters. 22 Consequently, “surpluses” (often very insignificant) for obtaining funds from agricultural production could only be in the Chernozem region. In the Moscow and Tver provinces, there was not enough bread even for food and household needs, and the ability to pay the poll tax and dues here completely depended on the farm income of the peasant.

Secondly, the income from fisheries indicated in the table must be considered underestimated. This follows from the fact that the scope of fishing activity was estimated by the authors based on the number of issued tickets and passports, i.e., on the basis of the number of otkhodniks. Thus, the calculations (due to the lack of necessary data) do not reflect the income from the fishing activities of peasants in the field. In particular, the spinning and weaving of flax, hemp and wool was widespread (as a women's craft in winter). Although, apparently, taking into account these factors will not significantly change the general trends in the formation of the “peasant budget”.

From the table it follows that agriculture at the end of the XVIII century. remained the main source of livelihood for the peasant. Even in the Moscow province, the share of fishing income in the budget of the peasant was at the level of 35%; in Tver and Ryazan - 11-12%. It is quite logical that the lowest figure refers to the chernozem Oryol province - 5%. Over the next half century, there is a tendency for the dependence of the serf economy on the non-agricultural sphere. In the Moscow province, income from crafts came out on top (56%), in Tver and Ryazan provinces they accounted for about a quarter of the total income of a peasant, and in Oryol province - 12%.

It is extremely important that in all four provinces the growth rates of agricultural income lagged far behind those in the field of crafts. Only the growth rates of duties are comparable with the latter. About 80% of all peasant duties were dues 24 . Of course, the reserves for increasing the profitability of agriculture were not exhausted everywhere, but at the then level of agricultural technology they were insignificant. Further intensification of the exploitation of the landlord quitrent peasants of the Non-Chernozem region in the first half of the 19th century. was possible, first of all, due to the expansion of their fishing activities.

In those regions where agriculture brought even an insignificant profit to the landowners, the corvée type of farming continued to develop (according to some estimates, corvée exploitation was twice as productive as quitrent exploitation 25). By the middle of the XIX century. corvée prevailed throughout European Russia, except for the Central Non-Chernozem Region (67.5% of the landlord peasants on dues) and the Northern Region (83.5%) 26 . Here, arable farming was primarily consumer in nature, and that is why it was widespread in almost all counties (even under adverse climatic and soil conditions). The share of marketable bread was very low. The intensification of agricultural labor required significant financial outlays. On the contrary, the income of the peasant in the non-agricultural sphere became the most accessible source for increasing the profitability of the serf economy for the landowner. It is also necessary to agree with the conclusion of I.D. Kovalchenko that the weakening of the personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner did not occur due to the development of crafts and retreat 27 . Moreover, exploitation intensified, which follows from the data on the growth of dues and duties in general (see Table 2). You can also cite the generalizing calculations of B.N. Mironov, according to which in the XVIII century. landlords' income from each quitrent peasant (taking into account inflation and rising grain prices) increased by about 69%, and for 1801-1860. - another 70-90%. If we additionally take into account state taxes, the amount of payments of a serf will increase by another 14% and 27%, respectively 28 .

Thus, in the non-agricultural sphere, the landowners found an additional way to extract profit from serf labor. And, from this point of view, the growth of the departure and fishing activities of the peasantry in this period is an indicator of the viability of serf relations in the country. In conditions of low profitability of agriculture within the historical center of the Russian state, the constant decline in soil fertility and the growth of overpopulation, the peasant's otkhodnichestvo activity actually financed the serf type of economy, making it more profitable.

The ability of the socio-economic system existing in the country to assimilate and use qualitatively new phenomena for its strengthening, while simultaneously changing their internal essence, was a feature of Russian society. The 18th century left many such examples. Thus, the growth of the manufacturing industry in the first quarter of the century, caused by military needs, did not lead to the development of capitalism, but to the conservation of serf relations and their spread to a new sphere of the economy. The transformation of the numerous "ranks" of the 17th century into the estates of the 18th century. was carried out in the interests of the state, and the head salary became the most important basis for class division. As a result, the created "estate system" was built into the social structure of the empire, but could no longer perform those progressive functions that were characteristic of its Western European counterparts 29 .

Thus, the activation of the peasant fishing waste in the second half of the XVIII century. should be seen not only as a symptom of emerging new economic relations. Undoubtedly, the growth of the labor market, the expansion of the share of civilian labor contributed to the gradual formation of a capitalist structure in industry. However, the reverse side of this process was an increase in the income of the landowners from the use of serf labor. And in its essence, the fishing activity of the peasantry became another stone that strengthened the building of Russian serfdom.

1 Rubinstein N.A. Some questions of the formation of the labor market of the XVIII century // Questions of history. 1952. No. 2. S. 74-101.
2 Yatsunsky V.K. Socio-economic history of Russia in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Fav. works. M., 1973. S. 94-95; Milov L.V. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process. M., 2001 S. 550-553.
3 See: Milov L.V. Decree. op.
4 According to M.F. Prokhorov, on average, one peasant household in Russia (1750s - early 1770s) accounted for 2.2 horses, 1.8 cows, 6.8 heads of small livestock, 4.5 birds (Prokhorov M.F. The Serf Peasantry of Russia in the 1750s and early 1770s, Author's abstract... Doctor of Historical Sciences, M., 1998, p. 31).
5 Calculation see: Milov L.V. Decree. op. pp. 388-389.
6 The data on net harvests of bread per capita contained in the table are averages for the period. Information on sowing and harvesting crops by provinces for 1780-1798. see: Rubinshtein N.L. Agriculture in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. (historical and economic essay). M., 1957. S. 444-453; Kovalchenko I.D. Dynamics of the level of agricultural production in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. // History of the USSR. 1959. No. 1. P. 63. We were forced to take into account the sowing and harvesting of grain in conjunction with industrial crops, since in the work of I.D. Kovalchenko, these data (at the end of the 18th century) are summarized. The use of information in this form has practically no effect on the accuracy of our calculations (the verification was carried out according to Appendix II in the monograph by N.L. Rubinshtein). In the case of taking into account the sowing and harvesting of industrial crops, a slight overestimation of the net harvest of grain occurs only in 5 out of 27 provinces: in Kaluga, Smolensk, Pskov, Nizhny Novgorod - by 0.1 quarter. and Orlovskaya - by 0.25 quarter. For information on the number of peasants in the provinces, see: Kabuzan V.M. Changes in the distribution of the population of Russia in the XVIII - first half of the XIX century. (according to the materials of the audits). M., 1971. S. 95-118. For 1782 and 1795, data on the number of peasants according to the IV and V revisions, respectively, were used.
7 Corvee is widespread in the Pskov province, which is explained by the proximity of the region to St. Petersburg and other Baltic ports (Rubinshtein N.L. Agriculture ... P. 101,116).
8 Prokhorov M.F. Decree. op. pp. 20, 30. To assess property differentiation, the author uses data on the number of horses in the peasant economy: horseless and one-horse - the poorest group, 2-3 horses - the average, 4 or more - the prosperous.
9 Kozlov S.A. Agrarian traditions and innovations in pre-reform Russia (central non-chernozem provinces). M., 2002. S. 389.
10 Yatsunsky V.K. Decree. op. S. 104; Kovalchenko Ya.D. Russian serf "peasantry in the first half of the 19th century. M., 1967. S. 95-96; Mironov B.N. The domestic market of Russia in the second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th century. D., 1981. S. 98-99. In the Central Chernozem and Volga regions, the marketability of agriculture in the middle of the 19th century was 21% (Kovalchenko I.D. Russian serfs ... P. 95).
11 Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire since 1649. St. Petersburg, 1830 (hereinafter: PSZ-l). T. XVIII. No. 12872, 13374, 13375; T.XX. No. 14275; Troitsky S.M. The financial policy of Russian absolutism in the 18th century. M., 1966. S. 177-178, 182-184; Prokhorov M.F., Fedulin A.A. Entrepreneurial activity of the Russian peasantry in the 18th century. M., 2002. S. 16-17.
12 Rubinstein N.A. Agriculture... S. 79-91, 156-160, 365-367; Semevsky V.I. Peasants in the reign of Catherine II. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1903. S. 49, 54; Shchepetov K.N. Serfdom in the estates of the Sheremetevs (1708-1885). M., 1947. S. 68,70-71; Milov A.V. Decree. op. pp. 174-175.
13 See: Prokhorov M.F., Fedulin A.A. Decree. op. pp. 17-19.
14 See: Rubinstein N.L. Agriculture ... S. 84, 85, 88, 136, 138, 139, 142,198.
15 Prokhorov M.F., Fedulin A.A. Decree. op. pp. 19-24, 105; Rubinshtein N.L. Agriculture ... S. 132-144; Tikhonov Yu.A. Noble Estate and Peasant Court in Russia in the 17th-18th Centuries: Coexistence and Confrontation. M.; St. Petersburg, 2005. S. 388-392.
16 PSZ-1. T. XVI. No. 12060. S. 551.
17 Prokhorov M.F. Decree. op. pp. 22-23.
18 Fedorov V.A. Landlord peasants of the Central Industrial Region of Russia in the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. M., 1974. S. 198-204; Rubinshtein N.L. Agriculture in Russia... S. 310.
19 Prokhorov M.F. Decree. op. S. 24; Prokhorov M.F., Fedulin A.A. Decree. Op. pp. 66, 67, 86-95, 97, 99, 105, 107. According to N.L. Rubinstein, in the winter months, the population of Moscow at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. increased by 150-200 thousand people. (Rubinshtein N.L. Agriculture ... S. 373). However, apparently, these data are greatly overestimated (Compare: Fedorov V.A. Decree. Op. P. 219).
20 Yatsunsky V.K. Decree. op. pp. 286-288, 296-297; Kovalchenko I. A. Russian serf peasantry ... S. 349; Prokhorov M.F. Decree. op. S. 30; Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century). T. 1. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 125. In the latest study by Yu.A. Tikhonov singled out only two categories of the peasantry - "prosperous" and "low-income". The layer of middle-income households in the proposed classification, for reasons unknown to us, is absent (Tikhonov Yu.A. Decree. Op. P. 335).
21 Kovalchenko I.D., Milov L.V. On the intensity of quitrent exploitation of the peasants of Central Russia in the late 18th - first half of the 19th century. // History of the USSR. 1966. No. 4. S. 55-80.
22 See: I.A. Kovalchenko, L.V. Miloye. Decree. op. P. 67. The poll tax increased from 80 kopecks. at the end of the XVIII century. up to 2 rub. silver in the middle of the 19th century; worldly fees for the indicated time amounted to approximately a quarter and a half of the poll tax, respectively (Ibid., p. 72).
23 Kovalchenko I. D. Dynamics ... S. 73.
24 According to N.L. Rubinshtein, the supply of yarn to manufactories throughout Russia involved the work in winter of at least 40 thousand (in the 60s of the XVIII century) and 120 thousand (in the 90s of the XVIII century) spinners (Rubinshtein N. L. Agriculture ... S. 305).
25 This situation was a consequence of the evolution of duties during the 18th century. According to B.N. Mironov, at the beginning of the 18th century, the supreme power and landlords almost equally divided the income from the peasants, but by the end of the century, landowners concentrated in their hands 88% of the income from serf labor (Mironov B.N. Anthropometric approach to the study welfare of the Russian population in the 18th century // Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2004, No. 6, p. 29). Mironov's calculation does not take into account changes in the structure of the state budget: a decrease in the share of direct taxes and an increase in indirect taxes. But the role of indirect taxation grew due to the state sale of wine, and its production was predominantly in the hands of the nobles (Troitsky S.M. Decree. Op. pp. 150-156, 215). Therefore, we agree with the thesis of B.N. Mironov, that in the XVIII century. the share of state income from the serfs gradually fell.
26 Mironov B.N. Social history ... S. 394.
27 Kovalchenko I.D. Russian serf peasantry... S. 61.
28 Ibid. S. 297.
29 Mironov B.N. Social history ... S. 394.
30 On the formation of the estate system, see: Freeze G.L. The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm and Russian Social History // The American Historical Review. Vol. 91. 1986. No. 1. P. 11-36; Wirtshafter E.K. Social structures: raznochintsy in the Russian Empire. M., 2002.

The term "otkhodniks" appeared long before this mass phenomenon became common in the expanses of the Russian Empire. Temporary, most often seasonal work provided peasants with a rare opportunity to improve their financial situation and achieve more for themselves and their families.

Otkhodniks. Definition

Compared to ordinary peasants who lived from their land, otkhodniks were called people who were engaged in handicraft work or sold their labor on the side. This separate social stratum, which arose already in the middle of the 17th century, quickly increased the number of its members, and by the first half of the 19th century, this phenomenon had become widespread. Otkhodnik peasants are people who left villages and villages and went to cities, where industry had just begun to develop and there was an opportunity to earn money in various sectors of the economy.

Who are otkhodniks?

The first otkhodniks were peasants who left for seasonal work in other places. Unknown craftsmen went to the cities with their unpretentious tools and created wonderful masterpieces of stone and wooden architecture in ancient cities.

The expansion of the borders of the Russian state required the constant strengthening of cordons and the construction of new cities and fortified points. Such work required a constant influx of labor, which could only be provided by otkhodnik peasants. This phenomenon was especially manifested during the construction of new cities in the north-west of our country, including the new capital of the empire - St. Petersburg.

Otkhodniks in the 17th-18th centuries

The legal prerequisite for the mass exodus of peasants from their places of residence was the decree of 1718, which replaced household taxation with income tax. All males were considered taxable. Requisitions in kind were replaced by financial obligations, and it was quite difficult to get any amount in his native village. There was practically no opportunity to make money at local factories and factories - the industry was just beginning to develop, and the main impetus to economic development was given by the influx of foreign capital. The equipment for Russian plants and factories was mainly imported, the seas, rivers, proven trade roads served as the main transport routes, so large enterprises arose at first only in

The work of otkhodniks was seasonal and regulated by internal documents - passports. Usually such a passport was given to a peasant for a year, but there were other certificates, the validity of which was shorter. Usually, in early spring, the otkhodnik went to the city. One had to travel many thousands of kilometers, often the otkhodnik traveled the whole way on foot. On the way, I often had to beg for alms. In the city, a otkhodnik peasant was hired as a worker in a private house, at an enterprise, or he performed one-time work for a lump sum payment.

Prerequisites for otkhodnichestvo in the 19th century

In the second half of the XIX century was carried out according to which the peasants received personal freedom. But the land on which they worked was still in the possession of the landowners. The proportion of landless peasants who could no longer feed themselves or their families increased. On the other hand, growth gave impetus to the development of industry, which was traditionally concentrated in the city. Thus, the city remained the only way to earn money.

Attempts to limit seasonal work

By the middle of the 19th century, a huge number of peasants who had chosen an urban lifestyle were called otkhodniks. In some provinces, the number of people who preferred otkhodnichestvo reached a quarter of the adult male population. The decrease in the number of peasants cultivating the land forced the government to accept restrictions. In order to obtain an internal document allowing movement around the country, the peasant had to be a member of a rural community, the right to leave the land was paid off from the landowner by paying dues. But the control measures brought only a partial result. For example, after legislative innovations in 1901, only 849 peasants out of 12,715 otkhodniks returned to the village in the Lyubimsky district of the Yaroslavl province.

The stratification of society among otkhodniks

The economic rise of the Russian state in the second half of the 19th century launched the process of property stratification of all social strata of the population. The richest otkhodniks are owners of real estate, hotels and restaurants, shops and wholesale warehouses. Such representatives of the big commercial bourgeoisie occupied about 5% of the total number of otkhodniks.

Up to 70% were representatives of the new urban philistinism employed in industry, manufacturing, construction and other sectors of the economy. Finally, about a quarter of the total number of this category of the population were employees with land plots. Such peasants combined seasonal earnings with the cultivation of their own land plots.

New life

News about possible earnings was brought to the village by otkhodniks. This event was significant in the life of every village. Returning to their native village from distant cities, otkhodnik peasants changed both their lives and the lives of their families. The way of rural life changed, the arrangement of one's own house was more modern. The influence of the city broke the habitual foundations of the village. Unlike the rest of the peasants, the otkhodnik is practically a non-drinking craftsman and craftsman, who is well versed in his craft. Otkhodniks brought amazing household items and even luxury items to their homes from big cities - kerosene lamps, samovars, furniture, fashionable clothes, and gramophones. All this was associated with local peasants with a carefree city life. For the girls from this was an enviable party. By linking her life with such a husband, the fair sex could hope for an arranged life and a high social status.

in Russia - the temporary departure of peasants from the villages in the districts of developed industry and in agriculture. work in more or less remote districts. For the first time it originated in the period of late feudalism (from about the 17th century) as one of the manifestations of the developing process of separation of industry from agriculture in a country with a small percentage of mountains. population and the dominance of serfdom. Over time, hoarding also becomes one of the characteristic manifestations of the disintegration of feudalism and absorbs a mass of peasants who resorted to "third-party earnings" as a result of the strengthening of feudalism. operation. Closely connected with the development of the market, the growth of wage labor, the expansion of the sphere of households. the activities of the peasants, O. with the development of capitalist. relations turns into a powerful factor that favors the process of decomposition of the peasants into bourgeois. the top and the poor proletarians. In the 1st floor. 18th century the total percentage of otkhodnik peasants was insignificant. In the 2nd floor. 18th century the mass of otkhodniks increases sharply. The waste was most strongly developed in the Center.-prom. r-not. Yes, in Moscow. lips. in con. 18th century issued annually approx. 50 thousand passports, in the Yaroslavl province. - 74 thousand (that is, about a third of the adult population of the provinces was in the waste). In 1828, the departure of the state. and landlord peasants, 54 lips each. Russia was equal to 575 thousand (the number of issued passports). characteristic of most capitalist O. countries becomes a characteristic feature of post-reform Russia. period when it makes a sharp leap in its development. It is based on the process of disintegration of the peasantry as a class, as well as the growth of societies. division of labor, market and development of the so-called. agr. overpopulation. 50 lips each. on average, short-term passports were issued per year: in 1861-70 - 1286 thousand, in 1881-90 - 4938 thousand; in 1901-10 - 8873 thousand tons, the annual departure from 1861 to 1910 increased sevenfold, and in 1906-10 it was equal to the average for the year approx. 9400 thousand (passports). Non-agricultural migrants accounted for more than half of the total number of otkhodnik peasants. Important host. the departure of the peasants from the center was also important. lips. in the colonizing districts of the East and South. With the development of capitalism in breadth, the growth rate of O. in the Center.-prom. r-do not gradually slow down. So, the share of Moscow. prom. waste per year averaged in 1861-70 - 32.9%, and in 1906-10 - only 22.3%. At the same time, a retreat to the Urals, the Baltic states, the South-West. districts and to Novorossia is increasing sharply. O. profoundly influenced the life of otkhodnik peasants who were included in the industrial. population of the country. Lit .: Lenin V.I., The development of capitalism in Russia, Poln. coll. soch., 5th ed., vol. 3 (vol. 3); Lensky B. , Outhouse non-agricultural. trades in Russia, "Otechestv. zap.", 1877, No. 12, otd. 2; Shakhovskoy N.V., S.-x. seasonal crafts, M., 1896; Zhbankov D.N., Lagoon crafts in the Smolensk province. in 1892-1895, Smolensk, 1896; Vorobyov K. Ya., Laying crafts cross. population of the Yaroslavl province., Yaroslavl, 1907; Vladimirsky H. H., Departure of the peasantry of the Kostroma province. for earnings, Kostroma, 1927; Rashin A. G., On the question of the formation of the working class in Russia in the 30-50s. 19th century, IZ, vol. 53, M., 1955; Pankratova A.M., Proletarization of the peasantry and its role in the formation of the industrial. proletariat of Russia (60-90s of the 19th century), IZ, vol. 54, M., 1955; Druzhinin N. M., State. peasants and the reform of P. D. Kiselev, vol. 2, M., 1958. L. V. Milov. Moscow.

Otkhodnichestvo in Russia was developed in former times. The phenomenon consisted in the fact that the peasants left their places of residence and went to work in cities and other remote areas. It's about these peasants. Let us consider in detail who were called otkhodniks.

Definition

So, otkhodniks are people who went to work in remote areas. After a certain period of time, they returned to their usual places. In winter, non-agricultural otkhodnichestvo flourished, and in summer, on the contrary, agricultural.

Otkhodniks played a significant role in the formation of cities. Starting from the XVIII century, and up to the first quarter of the XX century, they constituted an important part of the entire population of cities. The departed peasants worked in various fields:

• in trade;
• in transport;
• in plants and factories;
• served wealthy people.

Otkhodniks are, in fact, labor migrants, as we would say, in modern terms.

Prevalence

Otkhodnichestvo as a phenomenon has been known in Rus' for a long time. It became especially massive at the end of the 18th century:

• in the Moscow province, the outflow was 10-15% of the total number of men;
• in Yaroslavl - 15-23%;
• in Kostroma - 25%;
• in Nizhny Novgorod - 8-12%.

At the beginning of the 19th century, otkhodnichestvo was associated with the introduction of quitrent instead of corvée. Even under Peter I, passports were introduced for migrating peasants. In 1859, 1.3 million such documents were issued in Russia for up to three years. Moreover, short-term passports are not included in this number.

Causes

What contributed to the development of seasonal crafts in the 18th century? Historians cite the following reasons:

• The low level of agriculture, which could not meet the needs of the working population. The peasants could not survive in the marginal regions, they were starving, so they were forced to work and earn income from other crafts.
• A turn in the economic policy of the 60s of the XVIII century, as a result of which industrial and commercial entrepreneurship began to develop.
• Low yields in the 60s of the XVIII century, forcing the peasants to look for other opportunities for profitability.

Otkhodniks of the 18th century were called impoverished rural residents who went to work in other areas for a certain period of time.

Meaning

The formation of crafts in the second half of the 18th century is facilitated by otkhodniks. This phenomenon was not observed everywhere.

Such peasants left their allotments after the approval of the landowners. They got a job temporarily - for 3-5 years. Having earned the rent, the peasant returned back to his family. Having returned the rent, the worker left again.

Thus, otkhodniks contributed to the formation of a labor market as an integral part of capitalism. In those areas where there were no otkhodniks, corvée or the month prevailed. That is, the peasant works for the landowner for several months, leaves his farm. In fact, the peasant becomes a slave, ceases to conduct subsistence farming. And the landowner at the same time acquires a large amount of crops for sale.

Features of the post-reform period

After the reform of 1861, the popularity of going to work increased even more. This was due to the fact that the peasants had freedom of movement.

Otkhodnichestvo at this time was even more widespread than before. The peasants left for St. Petersburg, Moscow province and other central regions. In addition, in the northwestern regions there was an opportunity to work in logging.

At this time, otkhodnichestvo acquires specific features:

• the number of migrants is steadily increasing;
• there are specializations in the activities of the departed peasants, that is, the workers of their specific provinces are engaged in certain crafts;
• departure time increases;
• the geography of the phenomenon is expanding;
• waste includes women, children and adolescents.

After leaving for work, the peasant was not deleted from the rural community. However, the remaining population was in a hurry to exclude peasants who did not return for a long time from land allotments. Returning, such peasants struggled to obtain a land plot, they could be given an allotment of worse quality.

Areas of employment

What exactly did the otkhodnik peasants do? This is another interesting question. Here are their main areas of activity:

• transportation (most often in winter);
• fishing on ships (spring and autumn);
• work at industrial enterprises (mainly textile);
• construction;
• agricultural work (harvesting);
• grazing.

These are the main occupations of otkhodniks.

Despite the existence of labor migration, "depeasantization" did not become widespread. The property status of the peasants practically did not change. The middle class peasantry remained the dominant group.

During the revolutions of the early 20th century and the Civil War, there was a breakdown of ties in the economic sphere. The resulting food crisis encouraged the departed peasants to return and engage in agriculture. During this period, the waste practically ceased.

Peasant migration began again with the advent of the NEP. The number of otkhodniks of the 20th century is growing, but does not reach the pre-revolutionary level.

The revival of labor migration in the Soviet period is promoted by the land legislation of the USSR, which provided the peasants with extended land rights. The departed peasant retained the right to land for two years. If the worker returned later, he was given an allotment from the "reserves". In the absence of such, the peasant participated on an equal basis with other residents in the redistribution of land.

Soviet labor migration was mainly short-term. The favorite areas of otkhodniks were Central Industrial, Central Chernozem, Middle Volga and Leningrad-Karelsky.

Due to otkhodnichestvo, the level of urban unemployment has risen. The high flow of labor power exceeded the needs of the industry, which had not yet been fully restored. The government developed programs for the resettlement of peasants on unoccupied lands. But the majority of otkhodniks by this time had already lost interest in farming, so the state program was unsuccessful.

In the era of collectivization, the state considered otkhodnichestvo as a kind of protest against the formation of collective farms. The leadership of the newly created collective farms prevented the villagers from leaving, threatened with sanctions, even excluded their collective farms.

However, it was important for the state to attract new labor for the development of industry, so it sought to regulate the process of transferring labor between the countryside and the city.

In 1932, the passport system was introduced, which limited the migration of the working population from the countryside to the cities. After the war, otkhodnichestvo was replaced by organized forms of outflow of labor resources from agriculture to industry, construction, and transport.

So, we examined who the otkhodniks are in history. These are labor migrants who leave their families and native places for the sake of earning money in other regions.