What do Serbs think of the anarchist Bakunin's views on 19th century Serbia? Does it resonate still today?

[-]

Vojvoda__@reddit

This is a very interesting perspective from a foreigner. His impression is not necessarily incorrect, but it isn’t entirely accurate either. Bakunin lacks a bit more internal context and an "insider's" understanding of the Principality of Serbia.

It is an exaggeration to claim that the young, newly established Serbian state oppressed and enslaved its citizens. Yes, it is indisputable that district and regional heads, up until the mid-century, were often cruel, violent men who knew how to squeeze more money out of a peasant's pocket or demand forced labor on their own estates. However, that was simply the spirit of the times. How else could a local chieftain, who likely participated in both Uprisings and now served as a district official, be expected to behave when his only model of "nobility" was the Ottoman one?

On the other hand, this young state was developing rapidly, possessing its own laws, both those "imported" from abroad and those entirely indigenous, born out of Serbia's internal relations. In Serbia, the peasant became the owner of the land he tilled, and that right was inviolable. Peasants had National (People's) Assemblies through which they communicated with the authorities and voiced their demands. By the second half of the century, almost all men had gained the right to vote because the property census was so low. If the situation had truly been that dire, so many Serbs from the Ottoman Empire wouldn’t have migrated to the Principality of Serbia, and the country wouldn’t have experienced such a demographic boom, would it? In 1804, Serbia had about 200,000 inhabitants, by 1859, it had surpassed one million.

[-]

Rider_167@reddit (OP)

demand forced labor on their own estates.

That was still happening despite the peasants being released from serfdom?

[-]

-Against-All-Gods-@reddit

It happened elsewhere too after the abolition of serfdom. In Croatia and Vojvodina, for example, the big landowners weren't expropriated after serfdom was abolished in 1848, and the newly freed peasants were obligated to pay their former masters compensation for their loss of workforce. Since nearly none could pay, the options were either to continue working the landowner's land as if nothing happened, or to move to cities or America and send money home.

This post-serfdom was only abolished with the agrarian reform in the kingdom of Yugoslavia.

[-]

Vojvoda__@reddit

Feudal obligations and serfdom ceased in Serbia between 1833 and 1835, through gradual steps implemented by Prince Miloš. Forced unpaid labor, known as kuluk, was utilized by many at the tim, starting with the Prince himself, down to regional and district leaders, church dignitaries and clergy, and even village headmen (kmetovi). Kuluk was legally abolished in 1837, except for state needs such as the construction and repair of roads and bridges. Even after 1837, there were officials who still demanded forced labor from the people, but these were more sporadic and isolated cases. It is known, for example, that Toma Vučić Perišić, one of the most significant figures in Serbia during the first half of the 19th century, provided his own food and drink to the peasants performing kuluk, whereas it was customary for peasants to bring their own provisions when going to work.

[-]