19 世紀末20 世紀初，俄國農業面臨嚴重的瓶頸：生產量不如預期的大幅成長。在該國特有的生產環境下，不斷的將土地引進生產流程以增加生產，是農民解決問題的傳統方案。當人口不斷增加，邊疆荒地開墾達到極限時，土地荒遂成為農業危機的癥結。俄國官方希望以西歐的土地私有財產制取代俄國傳統的土地共有制，用以增加農民生產的誘因。但是農民並不認為傳統的「所有權與使用權分離」的土地共有制是導致問題的重要因素。政府所提的方案對地主有利，卻不利於農民，因為後者得花大筆的金錢方能購買足夠的土地。1861 年大解放後，農民的土地所有權歸於公社所有，亦即公社農民所共有。當政府認為公社阻礙農業進步時，在「維生經濟」盛行下的農，卻認為公社乃是安全與公平正義的保障，尤其是按照農民勞動力與家庭消費者定期重新分配土地的土地再分配制。在農民的生活經驗、文化與習俗傳統中，公社未必是阻礙進步的障礙。農民認為阻礙農業進步的主要因素，乃是因為不事耕種生產的地主擁有過多的土地。他們相信若將這些土地分配給農民，必能增加農業的生產量。於是，農民要求將全國貴族、政府與教會所有的土地予以進行大規模的「黑色分配」。帝俄晚期，在整個大環境開放下，俄國農民也開始接觸到市場經濟、私有土地制，乃至菁英常用的語言。土地買賣實際已開始流行於鄉村，但是農民仍嫌此部分土地不足，他們要求更多的土地。一方面，農民不願將土地私有制援引到自己所有的土地上，因而避談這部分的土地所有權問題，另一方面農民更利用菁英的新式語言為傳統的土地集體共有制辯護以捍衛自身的權利。

An agrarian crisis emerged in the Late Imperial Russia. Whereas peasants
and government maintained different viewpoints concerning the causes and
resolutions of the crisis, both agreed that land-hungriness was the main reason for the agricultural defects. Imperial officials attempted to introduce individual ownership of land, which was quite successful in Western Europe, in order to substitute for the traditional peasant idea of the usufruct of land as well as commune ownership, i.e. common ownership. Under this principle, the ownership nominally belonged to landowners, while the usufruct of land belonged to peasants permanently.
Russian government endeavors encountered strong opposition from the
peasantry. Russian peasants believed that the main contributor to the agrarian crisis was that too many landowners held too much land while not cultivating it.Consequently, they demanded a national-wide partition of land, including land belonging to the nobles, government, and church. Furthermore, Russian peasants desired periodic partition of land, on the basis of one cultivator’s capability and number of dependents in one’s family. Peasants’ ideas about land ownership and land use were embedded in the context of their living experiences, cultural values,and traditional customs, especially their commune lives.During the period of Late Imperial Russia, many modern activities and institutions had penetrated into the rural world. Peasants were already experienced
in market economy and land trade. They had bought a lot of lands from
ex-landowners. Many peasants had owned private lands. Nevertheless, they did not want to apply the principle of individual ownership to their own lands, and asked to preserve the common ownership of the land. They neglected the fact that they gained ownership of private land from their petitions to the government.Many peasants used the elite language, which they newly learned from the political and intellectual elites, to defend their demands as they deemed the new land ownership model unsuitable to their interests.