The main results of the Stolypin reform. Briefly: Stolypin's reform, its essence and results

Agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin.

Solution of the agrarian issue (two main trends: "Prussian" and "American" (farming) ways of developing agriculture).

Measures to destroy the community and develop private property.

The policy of resettlement of peasants.

Activities of the peasant bank.

cooperative movement.

agricultural activities.

Stolypin agrarian reform.

The goals of the reform were several:

socio-political:

ü Create in the countryside a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners, splitting them off from the bulk of the peasantry and opposing them to it;

ü Strong farms were to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

socio-economic:

ü Destroy the community

ü Plant private farms in the form of cuts and farms, and direct the excess labor force to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry;

economic:

ü To ensure the rise of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the lag behind the advanced powers.

The new agrarian policy was carried out on the basis of the decree of November 9, 1906. (The discussion of the decree on November 9, 1906 began in the Third Duma on October 23, 1908, that is, two years after it entered into life. In total, its discussion went on for more than six months.)

After the decree was adopted by the Duma on November 9, as amended, it was submitted for discussion by the State Council and was also adopted, after which, according to the date of its approval by the tsar, it became known as the law on June 14, 1910. In terms of its content, it was undoubtedly a liberal bourgeois law, promoting the development of capitalism in the countryside and, consequently, progressive.

The agrarian reform consisted of a series of consistently carried out and interconnected measures. The main direction of the reforms was as follows:

ü The destruction of the community and the development of private property;

ü Establishment of a peasant bank;

ü Cooperative movement;

ü Resettlement of peasants;

ü Agricultural activities.

DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

After the abolition of serfdom, the Russian government categorically advocated the preservation of the community.

The rapid politicization of the peasant masses and the unrest that began at the turn of the century lead to a rethinking of attitudes towards the community on the part of the ruling circles:

1. The decree of 1904 confirms the inviolability of the community, although at the same time it provides for relief for those who wish to leave it;

2. In August 1906, decrees were adopted to increase the land fund located in the peasant bank by transferring specific and state lands to it.

On November 3, 1906, the Decree “On the Supplement of Certain Resolutions of the Current Law Concerning Peasant Land Ownership and Land Use” was issued, the provisions of which formed the main content of the Stolypin reform. Approved by the third Duma and the State Council, in 1910 it becomes law.

The reassessment of the attitude towards the community on the part of the government occurred mainly for two reasons.:

firstly, the destruction of the community became desirable for the autocracy, since in this way the peasant masses were disunited, which had already demonstrated their revolutionary spirit and solidarity in the outbreak of the first Russian revolution;

secondly, as a result of the stratification of the community, a rather powerful stratum of peasant proprietors was formed, interested in increasing their property and loyal to others, in particular to the landowners.

According to the Decree of November 9, all peasants received the right to leave the community, which in this case allotted land to the person who came out to own possession, such lands were called cuts, farms and farms. At the same time, the decree provided for privileges for wealthy peasants in order to encourage them to leave the community. In particular, those who left the community received "in the ownership of individual householders" all the lands "consisting in his permanent use." This meant that people from the community also received surpluses in excess of the per capita norm. Moreover, if redistribution has not been made in a given community over the past 24 years, then the householder received the surplus free of charge, but if there were limits, then he paid the community for the surplus in the redemption payments of 1861. Since prices have increased several times over forty years, this was also beneficial for wealthy people.

The law of June 5, 1912 allowed the issuance of a loan secured by any allotment land acquired by peasants. The development of various forms of credit - mortgage, reclamation, agricultural, land management - contributed to the intensification of market relations in the countryside.

The practice of the reform showed that the peasantry in the central provinces had a negative attitude towards separation from the community.

The main reasons for peasant sentiments:

ü The community for the peasant is a kind of trade union, so neither the community nor the peasant wanted to lose him;

ü Russia is a zone of risky (non-permanent) agriculture, in such climatic conditions a peasant cannot survive alone;

ü The communal land did not solve the problem of lack of land.

As a result, by 1916, 2,478,000 householders, or 26% of community members, were singled out from the communities, although applications were submitted from 3,374,000 householders, or 35% of community members. Thus, the government failed to achieve its goal of isolating even the majority of householders from the community. Basically, it was precisely this that determined the collapse of the Stolypin reform.

PEASANT BANK.

In 1906-1907, part of the state and specific lands was transferred to a peasant bank for sale to peasants in order to alleviate the land shortage. In addition, the Bank carried out the purchase of land on a grand scale with their subsequent resale to peasants on preferential terms, intermediary operations to increase peasant land use. He increased credit to the peasants and significantly reduced its cost, and the bank paid a higher interest on its obligations than the peasants paid it. The difference in payment was covered by subsidies from the budget, amounting to 1457.5 billion rubles for the period from 1906 to 1917.

The bank actively influenced the forms of land ownership: for peasants who acquired land as sole property, payments were reduced. As a result, if before 1906 the bulk of land buyers were peasant collectives, then by 1913 79.7% of buyers were individual peasants.

COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT.

The Stolypin reform gave a powerful impetus to the development of various forms of peasant cooperation. Unlike the poor community member, who is in the grip of the rural world, the free, prosperous, enterprising peasant, who lives in the future, cooperation was necessary. Peasants co-operated for more profitable marketing of products, organization of its processing, and within certain limits, production, joint purchase of machinery, creation of collective agronomic, reclamation, veterinary and other services.

The growth rate of cooperation caused by the Stolypin reforms is characterized by the following figures: in 1901-1905, 641 peasant consumer societies were created in Russia, and in 1906-1911 - 4175 societies.

The loans of the peasant bank could not fully satisfy the demand of the peasant for the money supply. Therefore, credit cooperation, which has gone through two stages in its movement, has received significant distribution. At the first stage, administrative forms of regulation of small credit relations prevailed. By creating a qualified cadre of small credit inspectors and allocating significant loans through state banks for initial loans to credit partnerships and for subsequent loans, the government stimulated the cooperative movement. At the second stage, rural credit associations, accumulating their capital, developed independently. As a result, a wide network of small peasant credit institutions, loan and savings banks and credit associations was created that served the money circulation of peasant farms. By January 1, 1914, the number of such institutions exceeded 13,000.

Credit relations gave a strong impetus to the development of production, consumer and marketing cooperatives. The peasants, on a cooperative basis, created dairy and butter artels, agricultural societies, consumer shops, and even peasant artel dairy factories.

RESETTLEMENT OF PEASANTS.

The accelerated resettlement of peasants to the regions of Siberia and Central Asia, which began after the reform of 1861, was beneficial to the state, but did not meet the interests of the landowners, as it deprived them of cheap labor. Therefore, the government, expressing its will of the ruling class, practically ceased to encourage resettlement, and even opposed this process. The difficulties in obtaining permission to resettle in Siberia in the 80s of the last century can be judged from the archives of the Novosibirsk Region.

The Stolypin government also passed a series of new laws on the resettlement of peasants on the outskirts of the empire. The possibilities for a wide development of resettlement were already laid down in the law of June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom of resettlement without benefits, and the government was given the right to decide on the opening of free preferential resettlement from certain areas of the empire, "the eviction from which was recognized as particularly desirable." For the first time, the law on preferential resettlement was applied in 1905: the government "opened" resettlement from the Poltava and Kharkov provinces, where the peasant movement was especially wide.

By decree of March 10, 1906, the right to resettle peasants was granted to everyone without restrictions. The government allocated considerable funds for the costs of settling settlers in new places, for their medical care and public needs, and for laying roads. In 1906-1913, 2792.8 thousand people moved beyond the Urals. The number of peasants who failed to adapt to new conditions and were forced to return was 12% of the total number of migrants.

Year	Number of settlers and walkers of both sexes	Number of crossings lazy people without walkers	returned back	% of reversed migrants
		-	-	-
		-	-	-
				9.8
				6.4
				13.3
				36.3
				64.3
				28.5
				18.3
				11.4
		-	-	-

The results of the resettlement company were as follows:

First, during this period, a huge leap was made in the economic and social development of Siberia. Also, the population of this region increased by 153% during the years of colonization. If before resettlement to Siberia there was a reduction in sown areas, then in 1906-1913 they were expanded by 80%, while in the European part of Russia by 6.2%. In terms of the rate of development of animal husbandry, Siberia also overtook the European part of Russia.

AGRICULTURAL EVENTS.

One of the main obstacles to the economic progress of the countryside was the low culture of agriculture and the illiteracy of the vast majority of producers who were accustomed to working according to the general custom. During the years of the reform, large-scale agro-economic assistance was provided to the peasants. Agro-industrial services were specially created for the peasants, who organized training courses on cattle breeding and dairy production, the introduction of progressive forms of agricultural production. Much attention was paid to the progress of the system of out-of-school agricultural education. If in 1905 the number of students in agricultural courses was 2 thousand people, then in 1912 - 58 thousand, and in agricultural readings - 31.6 thousand and 1046 thousand people, respectively.

At present, there is an opinion that Stolypin's agrarian reforms led to the concentration of the land fund in the hands of a small rich stratum as a result of the landlessness of the bulk of the peasants. The reality shows the opposite - an increase in the proportion of the "middle strata" in peasant land use.

4. Results and significance of reforms for Russia.

Supporters and opponents of the Stolypin agrarian course.

The results of the reforms.

Objective and subjective reasons for the incompleteness of agrarian reforms in Russia.

The results of the reform are characterized by a rapid growth in agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and the trade balance of Russia has become more and more active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into the dominant feature of Russia's economic development. The gross income of all agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total GDP. The income of the entire national economy, due to the increase in the value created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.

The differentiation of types of agricultural production by regions has led to an increase in the marketability of agriculture. Three-quarters of all raw materials processed by industry came from agriculture. The turnover of agricultural products increased by 46% during the reform period.

Even more, by 61% compared with 1901-1905, the export of agricultural products increased in the prewar years. Russia was the largest producer and exporter of bread and flax, a number of livestock products. So, in 1910, the export of Russian wheat amounted to 36.4% of the total world export.

However, the problems of hunger and agrarian overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. Thus, in the USA, on average, a farm accounted for a fixed capital of 3,900 rubles, while in European Russia the fixed capital of an average peasant farm barely reached 900 rubles. The national income per capita of the agricultural population in Russia was about 52 rubles a year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.

Labor productivity growth rates in agriculture

were relatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread from one tithe, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth took place not on the basis of the intensification of production, but by increasing the intensity of manual peasant labor. But in the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian transformation - to the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive technologically progressive sector of the economy.

REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF AGRARIAN REFORM.

A number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform.

The agrarian reform was carried out for only 8 years, and with the outbreak of the war it was complicated - and, as it turned out, forever. Stolypin asked for 20 years of rest for a complete reform, but these 8 years were far from calm. However, it was not the multiplicity of the period and not the death of the author of the reform, who was killed in 1911 by the hand of an Okhrana agent in the Kiev theater, that caused the collapse of the entire enterprise. The main goals were far from being achieved. The introduction of private household ownership of land instead of communal ownership was introduced only among a quarter of community members. It was also not possible to tear off the wealthy owners territorially from the "world", tk. less than half of the kulaks settled on farm and cut-off plots. Resettlement to the outskirts also failed to be organized on such a scale that could significantly affect the elimination of land cramping in the center. All this foreshadowed the collapse of the reform even before the start of the war, although its fire continued to smolder, supported by a huge bureaucracy headed by Stolypin's energetic successor, the chief manager of land management and agriculture.

A.V. Krivoshein.

There were several reasons for the collapse of the reforms: the opposition of the peasantry, the lack of allocated funds for land management and resettlement, the poor organization of land management work, the rise of the labor movement in 1910-1914. But the main reason was the resistance of the peasantry to the new agrarian policy.

Stolypin's reforms were not realized, but could have been, firstly because of the death of the reformer; secondly, Stolypin, he had no support, since he stopped relying on Russian society. He was left alone because:

§ the peasantry became angry with Stolypin, because their land was taken away from them, and the community began to revolutionize;

§ the nobility was generally dissatisfied with his reforms;

§ the landlords were afraid of the reforms, because kulaks who separated from the community could ruin them;

§ Stolypin wanted to expand the rights of the zemstvos, to give them broad powers, hence the dissatisfaction of the bureaucracy;

§ he wanted the government to form the State Duma, and not the tsar, hence the discontent of the tsar and the aristocracy

§ The church was also against Stolypin's reforms, because he wanted to equalize all religions.

From this we conclude that Russian society was not ready to accept Stolypin's radical reforms, society could not understand the goals of these reforms, although for Russia these reforms would have been salutary.

Further development of capitalist relations (economic upsurge 1909 - 1913). Problems and significance of creating an industrial society in an agrarian country.

Plan

Introduction

The main provisions of the agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin

2. Implementation of the reform

3. Results of the reform

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century. as a result of the development of capitalist relations in Russia, the economic positions of the bourgeoisie continued to grow significantly. However, the remnants of feudal-serf relations hindered the growth of productive forces, interfered with the entrepreneurial activity of the bourgeoisie, which needed free land for the construction of factories, factories, railways, and also needed timber, minerals, and various raw materials. The backwardness of agriculture had a negative effect on the development of the domestic market.

The bourgeoisie still managed to acquire a significant part of the land. The bourgeoisization of a certain part of the landlords, first of all, relied on the capitalist restructuring of the estates themselves, which became suppliers of bread to the market and agricultural raw materials for industrial enterprises. Individual landlords invested their capital in industrial, transport and trade enterprises, were shareholders.

The bourgeoisie aspired to political dominance, but, fearing the masses of the people, preferred to wait for reforms. Being inconsistent, the Russian bourgeoisie made a deal with tsarism, desiring its preservation, and at the same time fought for participation in political power.

The autocracy, while generally defending the interests of the landowners, was also compelled to support the capitalists, contributing to the capitalist development of the country. The royal family itself acted as the largest feudal lord and capitalist. She possessed vast lands and various industrial enterprises. As in pre-reform times, it was difficult to separate state property and sovereign property.

An important event in the economic and social life of the country, primarily in the countryside, was the Stolypin agrarian reform, begun in 1906.

The purpose of this work is to study the agrarian reform of P.A. Stolypin. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks of the work:

) to characterize the main provisions of the agrarian reform of P.A. Stolypin;

) review the progress of the reform;

) analyze the results of the reform.

1. The main provisions of the agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin

Despite the monopolistic development of industry, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia continued to be an agrarian country with a primitive level of agriculture. The share of agricultural production accounted for 2/3 of the value of the country's gross output. Most of the land, and especially the fertile land, belonged to the landowners: 70 million acres for 30,000 landowner families, i.e. on average, each landowner's estate accounted for about 2,333 acres. At the same time, 50 million peasants (approximately 10.5 million households) had 75 million acres of land, i.e. about 7 acres per farm.

Most of the grain production fell on kulak farms (about 2 billion poods out of 5 billion poods of the total crop). The landowners produced 600 million poods. Thus, the share of the middle peasants and the poor accounted for half of the gross harvest with a very low marketability (14.7%), because the grain was barely enough to feed the family and cattle. The average wheat yield per tithe was 55 poods in Russia, 89 poods in Austria, 157 poods in Germany, and 168 poods in Belgium; rye - respectively 56; 92; 127; 147 pounds.

At the beginning of the XX century. "Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry" revealed two alternatives associated with the names of S.Yu. Witte and V.K. Plehve. Witte outlined the main provisions of the village development program in the Note on the Peasant Business. In his opinion, the “agricultural issue”, which affected both the ruined landlords and the eternally half-starved landless peasants, could well be resolved on the basis of the personal initiative and capitalist enterprise of the entrepreneurs themselves - the “farmers”. Speaking against communal land ownership, he believed that everyone should be "equal" owners: the peasant - his piece of land, and the landowner - his huge latifundia. It was proposed to intensify the lending activities of the Peasants' Bank, to facilitate the resettlement of all comers to undeveloped lands.

According to Plehve, the peasant community should be preserved, the ruined landlord farms had to be supported by state means and methods.

Thus, the practical implementation of Witte's ideas would lead to the weakening of the monarchy, to the expansion of personal initiative and the capitalist mode of agricultural production. The results of Plehve's idea were to be an even greater enslavement of the peasantry, the strengthening of the autocracy, and the encouragement of mismanagement of the landowners, which ultimately hampered not only agricultural production, but the entire complex of Russia's socio-economic development.

At the beginning of the XX century. in Russia, the class division of the population continued to be preserved. All residents of the Russian Empire (in 1897 - 125.6 million people, and in 1913 - 165.7 million, of which 50% were under 21 years old), according to duties in favor of the state and rights enshrined in legislation , were distributed according to the following classes: peasants (77.1% of the total population), bourgeois (10.6%), foreigners - residents of Central Asia, Eastern Siberia, the Caucasus and the North Caucasus, Astrakhan and Arkhangelsk provinces (6.6%), military Cossacks (2.3%), hereditary and personal nobles, officials not from the nobility (1.5%), foreigners (0.5%), Christian clergy (0.5%), hereditary and personal citizens (0.3 %), merchants (0.2%), persons of other classes (0.4%). Estates reflected the level of development of the country. At the same time, the development of capitalist relations formed new social groups - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Thus, at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Russia continued to be a predominantly agricultural country. After the reform of 1861, the stratification of the peasantry began, a few prosperous families emerged, and completely ruined families appeared. The middle peasants and the poor made up the bulk of the peasant population.

The global agricultural crisis that erupted in the late 1870s hit the Russian countryside: grain prices fell, arable land was curtailed on estates, and land was rented out at incredibly high prices. There were frequent crop failures and, accordingly, famine. In the agrarian sector of Russia, therefore, there were no positive changes, despair and hopelessness accumulated. Under the outward calm, visible to the government, lurked the threat of a powerful social explosion.

In the revolution of 1905-1907. the question of creating the conditions necessary for the victory of the "peasant" type of capitalism in bourgeois agrarian development was decided. But the revolution was defeated, and such conditions were not created. Naturally, Russia needed both political and economic reforms.

After the dissolution of the Second State Duma, Russia received a certain indefinite status - "constitutional, parliamentary autocracy", which laid the foundation for the so-called June 3 political system. The main architect of this system was P.A. Stolypin, appointed in July 1906 as Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Defining his policy, Stolypin declared: "Where trains are bombed, civilians are robbed under the flag of social revolution, there the government is obliged to maintain order, ignoring cries of reaction." In his work, he focused on three problems:

) suppression of revolutionary unrest and crime;

) control over elections to the III State Duma;

) solution of the agrarian question.

To strengthen the elementary legal order and the possibility of reforms, Stolypin decided to put an end to revolutionary anarchy. The courts-martial established by him ruthlessly put things in order. As a result, within 5 months, the chaos and the increase in crime were over.

In 1861, serfdom was abolished, but the land was not given to the peasants. Moreover, after the abolition of serfdom in Russia, both the landowners' lands (estates) and the peasant community were preserved intact.

The essence of the Russian community is a system of collective coercion. A communal peasant had his own allotment of communal land, but had no right or opportunity to increase it. The land as an object of property did not belong to him. Leveling redistribution of land was carried out approximately once every 10 years. Additional land was "issued" only for born boys - "male soul". In this redistribution, allotments could be changed. Mutual responsibility reigned in the community. Her system did not encourage the movement and resettlement of peasants. Moreover, whether to cut down a new hut, whether to go to the city to earn money, etc., was decided by the community meeting, it was necessary to persuade the “peace”, to put vodka. The fate of businesslike, enterprising communal peasants was decided by communal "Cicerons". In other words, serfdom did not seem to end. It was, as it were, continued by the communal system.

By the beginning of the XX century. the peasant community barely made ends meet. The peasants did not think about marketable products, and even more so about the export of bread.

Because of this, the question arose of reorganizing the communal system. The first steps in this direction were made by the famous figure Count Witte, who managed to settle along the Trans-Siberian Railway by 1900 about one million peasants. But this was not the main thing in his work.

The decisive implementation of the agrarian reform in Russia is associated with the name of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. He started it in 1906, expecting to complete it in 20-25 years.

Stolypin was clearly aware of the need for Russia's economic modernization. But, unlike Witte, he concentrated his efforts not on industry and finance, but on the agrarian problem. Why? Yes, because he understood: without a solution to the agrarian issue, Russia has no future, it is doomed to another revolution. Stolypin hoped to remove the sharp contradiction of the Russian revolution - the contradiction between landlord and peasant landownership. How? Through the evolutionary, and not revolutionary, transfer of part of the landlords' land into the hands of the former communal peasants. Preserve the curtailed landownership, and make the peasant-landowner the basis of Russia's power, turn him into an economically free political full-fledged person. In other words, create a great Russia, solve the peasant problem, rule out revolution, reconcile tsarism with Russian society.

agrarian reform russia stolypin

2. Implementation of the reform

Chairman of the Council of Ministers P.A. Stolypin, not without reason, believed that the revolution is generated by certain shortcomings of social relations in Russia, which should be eliminated. Stolypin considered the rural community, preserved by the peasant reform and hindering the development of capitalism in the countryside, to be the main one. It was precisely for its destruction that the Tsar's decree of November 9, 1906, prepared by Stolypin, was directed.

Stolypin proceeded from the need to create in the countryside a mass and stronger than the landlords social support of the autocracy - the kulaks. He took Germany as a model, where at that time the conservative peasant was the backbone of the monarchy. However, in Russia such a peasant still needed to be created. This was the main point of the agrarian reform.

The decree of November 9, 1906 established the right of any peasant to leave the community and demand for his sole property the appropriate land allotment, which was due to him when he was part of the community. Stolypin thought that by destroying the community, it would be possible to create strong kulak farms, which, as a rule, stood out from it and managed separately. Agrarian legislation pursued the goal of providing the most favorable conditions for the formation of such kulak farms.

The direct addition to the decree of November 9, 1906 and the Law of June 14, 1910 was the Regulation on land management, which became law on May 29, 1911. According to the Law of 1910, developed by the Law of May 29, 1911, the peasants received own.

These are the main legislative acts on the Stolypin agrarian reform. The Stolypin reform significantly expanded the circle of landowners.

Essenceagrarian policy of Stolypin:

1. Peasants were allowed to freely, without bureaucratic delays, receive passports. Provided freedom of movement, choice of profession.

Free exit from the community was allowed, the land became the property of the peasants. Encouraged farm resettlement of peasants, the allocation of cuts, the concentration of his already private land ownership in one place, outside the community-village, but on a farm.

The peasant bank was charged with the obligation to buy the land of the landowners at a nominal price, and to the peasants who left the community, to sell it 20% cheaper. To buy land, peasants were given a loan for 10, 15, 20 years.

Redemption payments for land, established by the reform of 1861, were abolished.

A system of material incentives was practiced: a peasant who bought land was provided with a gratuitous subsidy of 165 rubles, he received building materials free of charge, loans for the improvement of the economy were allocated for 50 years, and the state repaid the interest on it.

The peasant development of Siberia began: exile to these lands was canceled, Siberian settlers received 15 acres of land per male soul, were exempted from tax for 3 years and military service for 5 years. Before the February Revolution, more than 4 million people moved beyond the Urals (5 million returned). As a result, the sown area doubled. Siberia supplied 800 thousand tons of grain to the domestic and foreign markets.

MinusesStolypin reform:

1) belatedness. Should have been in the 19th century. create a class of small proprietors;

) power character - "one size fits all." Making up time, Stolypin began an active, forced destruction of the community. Hence the resistance of the peasants;

) reforms cannot be carried out by the hands of those who are interested in the old order (nobles, officials);

) poor financial support. Preparing for World War I, Russia in 1907-1913. spent 4.36 billion rubles on armament; during the same time to support the ruined local nobility - 987 million rubles; for reform (in the European part) - 56.6 million rubles.

Through agrarian reform, Stolypin put an end to the revolution. The people took up economic affairs, the Russian peasantry grew richer from year to year. The life of the workers also improved, almost all of the Russian revolutionaries ended up abroad, and their activity decreased.

Final P.A. Stolypin is similar to the finale of the liberator Tsar Alexander II. In September 1911 P.A. Stolypin was shot dead by D. Bagrov, the executor of the will of the tsarist secret police, behind which stood opponents of the peasants' private ownership of land.

3. Results of the reform

While the revolution was going on, the peasants almost did not leave the community. There was a rumor that those who came out would not get land cuts from the landowners. But then the strengthening of communal lands went faster, especially since the authorities were pushing for this in every possible way. In 1908, compared with 1907, the number of established householders increased 10 times and exceeded half a million. In 1909, a record figure was reached - 579.4 thousand households.

However, since 1910 the number of exits from the community began to decline steadily. The authorities could not understand the reasons for this phenomenon for a long time. And having understood, they did not want to admit them. The fact is that the bulk of the peasants, including the wealthy, reluctantly left the community. Most of all, widows, lonely old people, drunken and finally ruined householders came out, many of them were threatened with a complete or partial loss of allotment at the next redistribution. The city dwellers also strengthened, remembering that in their native village they have an abandoned allotment, which can now be sold. Those who moved to Siberia also left the community. But since 1910 the number of migrants has also declined.

In general, the implementation of the Stolypin reform failed to achieve what was planned. The partial destruction of the peasant community, which contributed to the development of bourgeois relations, did indeed occur, and this was the progressive significance of the reform. But it did not get a wide enough scope.

At the same time, the reform contributed to the process of stratification of the peasantry, which ultimately led to an intensification of the class struggle in the countryside. The landlords were dissatisfied with the growing influence of the rural bourgeoisie. Relations between the kulaks and the rest of the mass of the peasantry, which resisted the reform, escalated.

An important part of the reform was the resettlement policy. Stolypin wanted to ease the need for land in Central Russia, the Baltic States, which was an explosive force. A broad and voluntary resettlement of peasants to state lands in the eastern regions of the country was organized. Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian villages arose on the black soils of Siberia. However, the resettlement was poorly organized, which significantly reduced its results.

The result of the Stolypin reform - by January 1, 1916, 3 million householders left the community. In the course of it, the situation in the countryside improved markedly. From 1906 to 1915 productivity increased by 15%, and in some areas - by 20-25%.

The gross income (VA) of all agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total VA. The income of the entire national economy, due to the increase in the value created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%. Grain production in Russia in 1913 was 28% higher than the production of Argentina, Canada, and the United States combined.

The foregoing does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be represented peasants' paradise . The problems of hunger and agrarian overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness.

The growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture was relatively slow. But during the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian transformation to the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive technologically progressive sector of the economy.

The assessment of the Stolypin agrarian reform in the historical literature is contradictory. Considering the odiousness of the figure of P.A. Stolypin, many authors treat it purely negatively. However, there is another opinion: this reform was designed to strengthen the capitalist development of the Russian countryside, and, consequently, of the whole society, which would seriously serve the economic and political progress of Russia.

Conclusion

P.A. Stolypin, who became prime minister in 1906, understood that reforms were necessary and inevitable. The prime minister's motto was simple and logical under those conditions: first calm, then change. However, it was impossible to postpone the urgent changes, and the reforms had to be carried out in an atmosphere of unrelenting unrest.

Stolypin's concept offered a way for the development of a mixed, multi-structural economy, where state forms of economy were to compete with collective and private ones. The constituent elements of its programs are the transition to farms, the use of cooperation, the development of land reclamation, the introduction of a three-stage agricultural education, the organization of cheap credit for the peasants, the formation of an agricultural party that would really represent the interests of small land ownership.

Stolypin puts forward a liberal doctrine of managing the rural community, eliminating through strips, developing private property in the countryside and achieving economic growth on this basis. As the market-oriented peasant economy of the farm type progresses, in the course of the development of land purchase and sale relations, a natural reduction in the landlord's land fund should occur.

The future agrarian system of Russia was presented to the prime minister in the form of a system of small and medium-sized farms, united by local self-governing and not numerous in size noble estates. On this basis, the integration of the two cultures was to take place. -noble and peasant. Stolypin stakes on strong and strong peasants. However, it does not require universal uniformity, unification of forms of land tenure and land use. Where, due to local conditions, the community is economically viable, it is necessary for the peasant himself to choose the method of using the land that suits him best.

The agrarian reform consisted of a complex of successively carried out and interconnected measures (the activities of the peasant bank, the destruction of the community and the development of private property, the resettlement of peasants to Siberia, the cooperative movement, agricultural activities).

Ignoring regional differences is one of the shortcomings of Stolypin's agrarian reform. In this it differed unfavorably from the reform of 1861.

Its other weak point was the idealization of farms and cuts, as well as private ownership of land in general. Usually in the national economy there are various forms of ownership (private, public, state). It is important that their combinations and proportions are reasonable so that none of them crowd out the others.

Another weak point of the agrarian reform was its insufficient financing. Huge state funds were absorbed by the arms race, and too little money was allocated to support farms and cuts. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a sufficiently massive and stable layer of peasant farmers. So we can talk about the general failure of the Stolypin agrarian reform. But an indiscriminately negative attitude towards her would be unfair. Some of the activities that accompanied the reform were useful. This concerns giving the peasants more personal freedom (in family matters, movement and choice of occupation, in a complete break with the countryside).

But a number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform. Stolypin himself believed that it would take 15-20 years for the success of his undertakings. But even during the period 1906-1913 a lot was done.

List of used literature

1.Averh A.Ya. Tsarism on the eve of the overthrow. M., 1989.

2.Avrekh A.Ya. P.A. Stolypin and the fate of reforms in Russia. M., 1991.

3.Agrarian system in Russia: past, present, future / Ed. V.E. Esipov. SPb., 1999.

4.Anfimov A.M. Peasant economy of European Russia. 1881-1904. M., 1980.

5.Brazol B.L. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. 1984-1917. In figures and facts. M., 1991.

6.Galchenko A.A. History of land relations and land management. M., 2000.

7.Dolbilova L.P. History of agrarian relations in Russia: Educational and methodological manual. Kirov: VGSHA, 1998.

8.Zaitseva L. Land Relations in Russia at the Beginning of the Century and Stolypin's Agrarian Reform // The Economist. 1994. No. 2.

9.Izmestieva T.F. Russia in the European market system. The end of the XIX - the beginning of the XX century. M., 1991.

10.Peasantry and industrial civilization / Ed. SOUTH. Aleksandrova, S.A. Pamarin, Institute of Oriental Studies. M., 1993.

11.Lanshchikov A.P., Salutsky A.S. The Peasant Question Yesterday and Today. M., 1990.

12.Russia at the turn of the century: historical portraits. Comp. A. Karelin. M.,

13.Selyunin V. Origins. M., 1990.

14.Timoshina T.M. Economic history of Russia: Textbook. Edition 4 / Ed. M.N. Chepurin. M., 2000.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was increasingly lagging behind Western competitors in its technical, economic and social development. The so-called "catch-up" modernization, which began in the middle of the 19th century, did not help close this gap. The large-scale reforms of the 1860s and 70s did not bring the desired results either. The state simply needed new

transformations that would rebuild the economy and social development in a capitalist way.

The beginning of the reform

Such an attempt was the complex of reforms of the head of government, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. First of all, it concerned the transformations in the agrarian sector. It was expected that the results of the Stolypin reform would give a powerful impetus to the development of all significant areas in the country. Their main plan was to create a powerful layer of prosperous, independent and enterprising peasantry, which would revive commodity relations and turn Russia into an even more important exporter of agricultural products. Its inspirer saw the final results in the emergence of a class of strong business executives, similar to American farmers. For these purposes, the state

the credit bank, by government decree, launched a massive campaign to issue loans to peasants to buy land. At the same time, non-repayment of the debt was punished quite severely - by confiscation of the purchased plot. This, according to the ideas of the reformers, was supposed to spur private initiative. The second important part of the agrarian reform was the land development program in Siberia. Plots in this region were distributed free of charge to willing peasants for use. And the government in every possible way encouraged and facilitated the relocation of peasant families beyond the Urals. For these purposes, special trains were created, later known as "Stolypin cars". In addition, infrastructure was actively created in Siberia during this period.

The results of Stolypin's agrarian reform

The plans, no doubt, of a significant politician in Russian history were never brought to their logical conclusion. Their implementation was first interrupted by his death in 1911, and later finally postponed due to the continental

war. Thus, one can hardly say that the results of Stolypin's reforms were in any way sufficient. However, a number of trends during the period of their implementation nevertheless emerged, so some conclusions can be drawn.

Positive results of Stolypin's reform in the agrarian sector

The result of government actions was that from 10% to 20% of the population stood out from the peasant community. The latter started their own business. In the next few years, successful peasants began to give up to half of all the bread that appeared on the market. The plans were partially implemented, as more than 3 million households moved there during the reform. As a result, new regions were involved in commodity-market relations. The area of arable land has significantly expanded in the country.

Negative results of Stolypin's reform

The stratification of the independent village led to the fact that, along with the successful, there were also distressed peasants. Even the households that left the community still maintained close relations with it. In this regard, the reform turned out to be half-hearted. It also did not have a tangible impact on the technological development of agriculture. By 1911, the archaic plow was still the main tool of the Russian peasant.

Advantages of the reform

In $1911$ Stolypin P.A. was killed during the $11$th assassination attempt. His agrarian reform remained unfinished, although activities continued, but less actively.

In general, by $1916 $2 million peasant householders became the owners of striped plots. This equaled more than $14 million acres of land. Almost $1.5 million more peasants became owners of farms (i.e., "cuts") worth $12.7 million acres of land. Least of all, about $500,000 of peasant householders left communities in which redistribution had not been carried out for a long time, which, according to the rules, meant securing existing allotments in property. Such odds of ownership were $2.8 million acres of land.

As you know, the Peasants' Bank had the right to buy out the lands of the communities for their subsequent sale to the peasant owners. As a result, about $280$ thousand farms were formed on such lands.

Communal land ownership decreased by $22$%. Due to the length of the process of transferring land into ownership, not all of this land received new owners, something returned back to the community.

Life in the countryside improved during this period from the First Revolution to the First World War. Stolypin's agrarian reform finally abolished the redemption payments that the peasantry had been dragging on for more than $40$ for years. Agricultural production began to grow at a rapid pace, and it was possible to get out of the crisis. Also, the fruitful years of $1912$ and $1913$ and a decrease in the frequency of crop failures (only in $1911$) were a favorable circumstance. The end of the world economic crisis, as well as the deterioration of the position of the landowners, also played a certain role.

Remark 1

The Stolypin agrarian reform created the peasant so-called. "middle class" who had the ability to buy or sell land. At the same time, the number of the poor did not decrease, and the government, introducing the reform, did not pay attention to them, relying on the prosperous and middle peasantry.

Cons of the reform

However, in general, the Stolypin reform, which was aimed at destroying the peasant community and building a new society with private peasant landowners, did not cope with its task. The fact is that the community was not destroyed, and a layer of private traders was formed insignificant from the total population.

There are many reasons for the defeat of the reform, but if we recall that Stolypin himself gave $20$ years for this reform, it becomes clear that she did not have enough time.

The resettlement policy did not get the proper result. It was supposed to populate the separated regions beyond the Urals - Siberia, the Far East, but those who remained in new places did not settle in deaf lands, but already developed ones. Many came back destitute, because. farms were sold. Difficulties were added by the position of the local population and administration - the settlers were met reluctantly, if not hostilely, not intending to help in development.

Appeal to the services of the Peasants' Bank also quickly declined due to high rates. Many simply went bankrupt paying bank loans.

Thus, the effectiveness of the reform of Stolypin P.A., judging by the above data, was small.

Reasons for the failure of the reform

Remark 2

Note that Stolypin P.A. worked with enthusiasm, but met with many obstacles from the government and the higher circles in general. Stolypin's inflexibility even led to a crisis in the government in $1911$. But the bureaucratic machine turned out to be stronger than one man. The tragedy was that his ideas were not accepted by the people, which, ultimately, was the cause of his death and the incompleteness of his work.

Perhaps the basis for the failure of the reform was the preservation of landlord ownership of the land. The peasants, who from time immemorial believed that the landowners occupy the land illegally, did not forget about this, which probably affected the events of $1917 and the further position of this social stratum.

in pre-revolutionary historiography exaggeration of successes by supporters of the farming path of development (A.A. Kofod, B. Yuryevsky) and criticism by supporters of the peasant communal economy (A.V. Peshekhonov, N.P. Oganovsky). IN AND. Lenin characterized the reform as an attempt ("the last valve") to create the conditions for the final victory of the Prussian (landlord) type of capitalism. The results of the reform were rated as a failure.

in Soviet historiography 1920-50s the period of the agrarian reform was seen as the final stage of the victory of capitalism in agriculture. The main goal of the reform was called the creation of a social support in the person of the kulaks, and the destruction of the community as an auxiliary preliminary task (S.M. Dubrovsky, P.I. Lyashchenko, A.V. Shestakov).

At the end of the 50-60s. a number of discussions took place about the features of growing. imperialism, the level of development of agrarian capitalism. The problem of the level of development of agrarian capitalism and its maturity as a result of the agrarian reform was posed in the works of A. M. Anfimov. In his opinion, semi-serf relations remained in agriculture even by 1917. In the 1970-80s. a number of works on the topic were written by A.Ya. Avrehom. Stolypin continued to be regarded as a reactionary representative of the Russian nobility, and the agrarian reform, as a manifestation of the Bonopartist policy, was aimed at splitting the peasants. A special point of view was expressed by V.S. Dyakin: objectively, the reform affected landownership, and in the future, the landowners should have lost their political and economic positions. He considered the destruction of the community and the creation of a class of small landowners to be the primary task of the reform.

The book by P. N. Zyryanov is the latest achievement in Soviet historiography on this issue. He noted that in the course of the reform there was a change in goals: initially, the destruction of the community was one of the two main goals of the reform, the second goal was the creation of a layer of small owners with a sustainable economy. In the future, however, this last goal changed and “the small owner was replaced by a mass owner, whose economy was obviously not strong, needed significant financial support.” Zyryanov also concluded that “the actual course of the reform very little corresponded to Stolypin’s original plans. was not destroyed, it was only somewhat unloaded from surplus workers and freed from those of its members who had ceased to be peasants. The matter of "creating a layer of "strong masters" loyal to the government was going slowly."

In general, according to Zyryanov, the reform failed, because. firstly, it was not possible to create any kind of wide layer of small proprietors, secondly, it was not possible to significantly shake the community, it continued to exist, uniting the peasants, who still preferred to act with the whole "world", and finally, thirdly, clearly not the resettlement was a success.