The revolution raised Semenov’s standing among the villagers of Andreevskoe. It also reduced the power of Grigorii Maliutin, the patriarchal elder of the village commune and arch-enemy of Semenov’s reforms. The old power structure upon which Maliutin had depended — the volost elder, the local police and the gentry land captain — was dismantled almost overnight. Within the village the voice of the younger and more progressive farmers was also becoming more dominant, while that of the older peasants, like Maliutin, who saw nothing good in the revolution, was increasingly ignored. The social changes of the past few years lay at the root of this democratization of the village commune. More and more households were being headed by the younger peasants, as a result of household partitions. During the war years, in the absence of their menfolk, many peasant households were headed by women: in many regions up to one-third, and in Andreevskoe itself over a quarter. These younger peasants looked towards Semenov as a champion of reform. He always spoke out at the village assembly against the Church and the patriarchal order. As the most literate peasant in the village, he was also called upon to write its resolutions when the village scribe, a lackey of Maliutin’s, refused to ‘work for the revolution’. But what really raised Semenov’s standing was the success of his long campaign to get six of the poorest villagers released from the army because there was no one else to feed their families. During the autumn of 1916 he had been sentenced to six weeks in jail after Maliutin had denounced him to the authorities for ‘encouraging desertion’. But the villagers had refused to let him go and had held him in Andreevskoe, a hostage and hero of the peasant revolution, until the downfall of the old regime. Two weeks later the six peasants all returned home. Maliutin was discredited, and Semenov emerged as the leader of the village.12
During that spring Semenov broke up his private enclosed farm and returned to the peasant land commune. Most of Stolypin’s peasant pioneers chose to do likewise in 1917. If up to one-third of the peasant households in Russia farmed private holdings on the eve of the revolution, then four years later less than 2 per cent continued to do so. Only the small minority of fully enclosed khutora had to be brought back by force. The semi-enclosed otruba tended to be much weaker economically and, like Semenov’s, generally smaller than the neighbouring communal allotments. The prospect of sharing in the spoils of the commune’s ‘war on the manors’, which started again during the spring, was enough to encourage most of them to return voluntarily.13
This return of the separators reflected a general peasant striving for solidarity within the village commune. ‘Today, in free Russia, everyone should be equal and united,’ declared the peasants of Dubovo-Pobedimov in Bugul’ma. ‘The members of the communes should accept all the separators into their family on an equal basis and should cease all oppressive measures against them, since these only play into the hands of the enemies of the people.’ The village commune was greatly strengthened as a result of the revolution. It revived from its pre-revolutionary state of torpor and decay to become the main organizing force of the peasant revolution on the land. All the main political organs of the revolution in the countryside — the village committees, the peasant unions and the Soviets — were really no more than the peasant commune in a more revolutionary form. The village commune stood for the ideals of land and freedom which had always inspired the peasants to revolt. It defined a circle of ‘insiders’ and defended their interests against ‘outsiders’ — landowners, townsmen, merchants, state officials, even peasants from the neighbouring communes — at a time of great insecurity.
Since the days of serfdom, the land commune had served as a link between its peasant household members (usually within a single village) and a particular landlord’s estate. In 1917 it thus provided these villagers with a historical and a moral right to that estate on the often-stated peasant principle: ‘Ours was the lord, ours is the land.’ During the seizure of the gentry’s estates the members of the commune displayed a remarkable degree of solidarity and organization. It was common for the village assembly to pass a resolution compelling all the members of the commune to take part in the march on the manor, or in other forms of peasant resistance, such as rent strikes and boycotts, on the threat of expulsion from the commune. It was a matter of safety in numbers. Contrary to the old Soviet myth, there were very few conflicts within the village between the richer and poorer peasants. But there were a great many conflicts between neighbouring communes, sometimes ending in little village wars, over the control of the estates.14
