Psychology of feelings 

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

The more a person is able to respond to the historical and universal, the wider his nature, the richer his life and the more capable such a person is of progress and development.

F. M. Dostoevsky

Stolypin's agrarian reform, which began in 1906, was conditioned by the realities that were taking place in the Russian Empire. The country was faced with massive popular unrest, during which it became absolutely obvious that the people did not want to live as before. Moreover, the state itself could not govern the country, based on the old principles. The economic component of the development of the empire was in decline. This was especially true in the agrarian complex, where there was a clear decline. As a result, political events, as well as economic events, prompted Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin to start implementing reforms.

Background and reasons

One of the main reasons that prompted the Russian Empire to start a massive change in the state structure was based on the fact that a large number of ordinary people expressed their dissatisfaction with the authorities. If until that time the expression of dissatisfaction was reduced to one-time peaceful actions, then by 1906 these actions became much larger and bloody. As a result, it became clear that Russia was struggling not only with obvious economic problems, but also with an obvious revolutionary upsurge.

Obviously, any victory of the state over the revolution is based not on physical strength, but on spiritual strength. A strong-willed state itself should stand at the head of the reforms.

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin

One of the landmark events that prompted the Russian government to start reforms as soon as possible happened on August 12, 1906. On this day in St. Petersburg on Aptekarsky Island there was a terrorist attack. In this place of the capital lived Stolypin, who by this time served as chairman of the government. As a result of the thundering explosion, 27 people were killed and 32 people were injured. Among the wounded were Stolypin's daughter and son. The Prime Minister himself miraculously did not suffer. As a result, the country adopted a law on courts-martial, where all cases relating to terrorist attacks were considered in an expedited manner, within 48 hours.

The explosion once again showed Stolypin that the people wanted fundamental changes within the country. These changes had to be given to people in the shortest possible time. That is why Stolypin's agrarian reform was accelerated, a project that began to advance with giant strides.

The essence of the reform

  • The first block called on the citizens of the country to calm down, and also informed about the state of emergency in many parts of the country. Because of the terrorist attacks in a number of regions of Russia, a state of emergency and courts-martial were forced to be introduced.
  • The second block announced the convocation of the State Duma, during which it was planned to create and implement a set of agrarian reforms within the country.

Stolypin clearly understood that the implementation of agrarian reforms alone would not make it possible to calm the population and would not allow the Russian Empire to make a qualitative leap in its development. Therefore, along with changes in agriculture, the Prime Minister spoke about the need to adopt laws on religion, equality among citizens, reforming the local self-government system, on the rights and life of workers, the need to introduce compulsory primary education, introduce income tax, increase teachers' salaries and so on. In a word, everything that was subsequently implemented by Soviet power was one of the stages of the Stolypin reform.

Of course, it is extremely difficult to start changes of this magnitude in the country. That is why Stolypin decided to start with agrarian reform. This was due to a number of factors:

  • The main driving force of evolution is the peasant. So it was always and in all countries, so it was in those days in the Russian Empire. Therefore, in order to remove the revolutionary tension, it was necessary to appeal to the bulk of the dissatisfied, offering them qualitative changes in the country.
  • The peasants actively expressed their position that the landed estates should be redistributed. Often the landowners kept the best lands for themselves, allocating unfertile plots to the peasants.

The first stage of the reform

Stolypin's agrarian reform began with an attempt to destroy the community. Until that moment, the peasants in the villages lived in communities. These were special territorial formations where people lived as a single team, performing common collective tasks. If you try to give a simpler definition, then the communities are very similar to the collective farms, which were later implemented by the Soviet government. The problem of the communities was that the peasants lived in a close-knit group. They worked for a single purpose for the landlords. The peasants, as a rule, did not have their own large allotments, and they were not particularly worried about the final result of their work.

On November 9, 1906, the Government of the Russian Empire issued a decree that allowed peasants to freely leave the community. Leaving the community was free. At the same time, the peasant retained all his property, as well as the lands that were allocated to him. At the same time, if the lands were allocated in different areas, then the peasant could demand that the lands be combined into a single allotment. Leaving the community, the peasant received land in the form of a cut or farm.

Stolypin's agrarian reform map.

Cut this is a plot of land that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with the peasant retaining his yard in the village.

Farm this is a land plot that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with the resettlement of this peasant from the village to his own plot.

On the one hand, this approach made it possible to implement reforms within the country aimed at changing the peasant economy. However, on the other hand, the landlord economy remained untouched.

The essence of Stolypin's agrarian reform, as conceived by the creator himself, boiled down to the following advantages that the country received:

  • The peasants who lived in the community were massively influenced by the revolutionaries. Peasants who live on separate farms are much less accessible to revolutionaries.
  • A person who has received the land at his disposal, and who depends on this land, is directly interested in the final result. As a result, a person will think not about revolution, but about how to increase his harvest and his profit.
  • Divert attention from the desire of ordinary people to divide the landlords' land. Stolypin advocated the inviolability of private property, therefore, with the help of his reforms, he tried not only to preserve the landowners' lands, but also to provide the peasants with what they really needed.

To some extent, Stolypin's agrarian reform was similar to the creation of advanced farms. A huge number of small and medium landowners should have appeared in the country, who would not depend directly on the state, but independently sought to develop their sector. This approach found expression in the words of Stolypin himself, who often confirmed that the country in its development focuses on "strong" and "strong" landowners.

At the initial stage of the development of the reform, few people enjoyed the right to leave the community. In fact, only wealthy peasants and the poor left the community. Wealthy peasants left because they had everything for independent work, and they could now work not for the community, but for themselves. The poor, on the other hand, went out in order to receive compensation money, thereby raising their financial situation. The poor, as a rule, having lived for some time away from the community and having lost their money, returned back to the community. That is why, at the initial stage of development, very few people left the community for advanced agricultural holdings.

Official statistics show that only 10% of all the resulting agricultural holdings could claim the title of a successful farm. Only these 10% of farms used modern equipment, fertilizer, modern methods of working on the land, and so on. In the end, only these 10% of farms worked economically profitable. All other farms that were formed in the course of Stolypin's agrarian reform turned out to be unprofitable. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of people leaving the community were poor, who were not interested in the development of the agrarian complex. These figures characterize the first months of the work of Stolypin's plans.

Resettlement policy as an important stage of reform

One of the significant problems of the Russian Empire at that time was the so-called land famine. This concept means that the eastern part of Russia was extremely little developed. As a result, the vast majority of land in these regions was undeveloped. Therefore, Stolypin's agrarian reform set one of the tasks of resettling peasants from the western provinces to the eastern ones. In particular, it was said that the peasants should move beyond the Urals. First of all, these changes were to affect those peasants who did not own their own land.


The so-called landless were to move beyond the Urals, where they were to establish their own farms. This process was absolutely voluntary and the government did not force any of the peasants to move to the eastern regions of the forced. Moreover, the resettlement policy was based on providing the peasants who decide to move beyond the Urals with maximum benefits and good living conditions. As a result, a person who agreed to such a resettlement received the following concessions from the government:

  • Peasant farming was exempted from any taxes for 5 years.
  • The peasant received land as his property. Land was provided at the rate of: 15 hectares for a farm, as well as 45 hectares for each family member.
  • Each migrant received a cash loan on a preferential basis. The value of this court depended on the region of resettlement, and in some regions reached up to 400 rubles. This is a huge amount of money for the Russian Empire. In any region, 200 rubles were given out free of charge, and the rest of the money was in the form of a loan.
  • All men of the resulting farm were exempted from military service.

The significant advantages that the state guaranteed to the peasants led to the fact that in the first years of the implementation of the agrarian reform, a large number of people moved from the western provinces to the eastern ones. However, despite such interest of the population in this program, the number of immigrants decreased every year. Moreover, every year the percentage of people who returned back to the southern and western provinces increased. The most striking example is the indicators of the resettlement of people in Siberia. In the period from 1906 to 1914, more than 3 million people moved to Siberia. However, the problem was that the government was not ready for such a mass resettlement and did not have time to prepare normal conditions for people to live in a particular region. As a result, people came to a new place of residence without any amenities and no devices for a comfortable stay. As a result, about 17% of people returned to their former place of residence only from Siberia.


Despite this, Stolypin's agrarian reform in terms of resettling people gave positive results. Here, positive results should not be seen in terms of the number of people who have moved and returned. The main indicator of the effectiveness of this reform is the development of new lands. If we talk about the same Siberia, the resettlement of people led to the fact that 30 million acres of land, which had previously been empty, was developed in this region. An even more important advantage was that the new farms were completely cut off from the communities. A person independently came with his family and independently raised his farm. He had no public interests, no neighboring interests. He knew that there was a specific piece of land that belonged to him and that should feed him. That is why the performance indicators of the agrarian reform in the eastern regions of Russia are somewhat higher than in the western regions. And this is despite the fact that the western regions and western provinces are traditionally more funded and traditionally more fertile with cultivated land. It was in the east that it was possible to achieve the creation of strong farms.

The main results of the reform

Stolypin's agrarian reform was of great importance for the Russian Empire. This is the first time a country has begun to implement such a scale of change within the country. Positive shifts were evident, but in order for the historical process to give positive dynamics, it needs time. It is no coincidence that Stolypin himself said:

Give the country 20 years of inner and outer peace and you will not recognize Russia.

Stolypin Pyotr Arkadievich

It really was so, but, unfortunately, Russia did not have 20 years of silence.


If we talk about the results of the agrarian reform, then its main results, which were achieved by the state over 7 years, can be summarized as follows:

  • The sown areas throughout the country were increased by 10%.
  • In some regions, where peasants left the community en masse, the area under crops was increased up to 150%.
  • Grain exports have been increased, accounting for 25% of all world grain exports. In harvest years, this figure increased to 35 - 40%.
  • The purchase of agricultural equipment has increased 3.5 times over the years of reforms.
  • The volume of fertilizers used increased by 2.5 times.
  • The growth of industry in the country was taking colossal steps + 8.8% per year, the Russian Empire in this regard came out on top in the world.

These are far from complete indicators of the reform in the Russian Empire in terms of agriculture, but even these figures show that the reform had a clear positive trend and a clear positive result for the country. At the same time, it was not possible to achieve the full implementation of the tasks that Stolypin set for the country. The country failed to fully implement farms. This was due to the fact that the traditions of collective farming among the peasants were very strong. And the peasants found a way out for themselves in the creation of cooperatives. In addition, artels were created everywhere. The first artel was created in 1907.

Artel this is an association of a group of persons who characterize one profession, for the joint work of these persons with the achievement of common results, with the achievement of common income and with a common responsibility for the final result.

As a result, we can say that Stolypin's agrarian reform was one of the stages in the mass reform of Russia. This reform was supposed to radically change the country, transferring it to the ranks of one of the leading world powers, not only in the military sense, but also in the economic sense. The main task of these reforms was to destroy the peasant communities by creating powerful farms. The government wanted to see strong owners of the land, in which not only landowners, but also private farms would be expressed.

“The main thing that is necessary when we write a law for the whole country is to keep in mind the reasonable and strong, and not the drinkers and the weak. This saying belongs to one of the most prominent economic and political figures of the early 20th century - Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. In no way should the importance of his reforms in the historical development of Russia and, in particular, the emergence of Russian farming be reduced. But everything is known in comparison, so you should not turn a blind eye to the negative consequences of Stolypin's reforms. First of all, it is worth considering the very personality of the reformer.

Stolypin came from a noble noble family, his character organically combines both monarchical views and pronounced patriotism. His civic position can be summed up in the following formula: "Calm down and reform." Many historical figures spoke of Stolypin as a strong-willed, good-natured person, master of his word. “The motherland demands a service so sacrificially pure that the slightest thought of personal gain darkens the soul,” said Stolypin.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the need to accelerate capitalist development began to manifest itself especially clearly. After the 1960s, bourgeois relations developed to the necessary level for things to come to an open confrontation between the feudal and capitalist systems. Stolypin spoke with a presentation of the government's concept of solving the agrarian question. This presentation and the decree that followed it were interpreted as a choice between a peasant-owner and an idle peasant in favor of the first. The main directions of the reform were: allowing peasants to leave the community, encouraging the formation of farms and cuts, and pursuing a resettlement policy.

I am of the opinion that in terms of its economic content it was a liberal bourgeois reform that promoted the development of capitalism in the countryside. Relying on the emerging layer of small proprietors, the authorities tried to push the development of the entire economy of the country as a whole. Apparently, the minister took as a basis the argument that the peasants, separating from the community, are turning into consumers of domestic agricultural products, thereby stimulating the development of Russia as an industrial and modernized country. In essence, Pyotr Arkadyevich tried to combine the American path of development of the capitalist economy with the preservation of the autocracy's bureaucracy apparatus. Assessing Stolypin's principle objectively, I partially agree with the widespread opinion that it was one of the most brilliant ideas of that government, in terms of the development of capitalism specifically. The agrarian reform was also designed to divert attention from the ideas of seizing and dividing landowners' lands, to prevent the revolutionaries from solving their main task - organizing the people to fight against their exploiters.

What are the results of the agrarian course? Unfortunately for the then government, only a little more than 10% of peasant farms could be called farms. The small successes of the newly-minted farmers often became the cause of hatred, and the creation of peasants - community members who tried in every possible way to interfere with the development of more successful neighbors. There are cases when more prosperous peasants left the community and at the same time received the best land plots from the former communal lands. As a result, there was a direct struggle between community members and farmers. The resettlement policy clearly demonstrated the results and methods of the reform itself. In my opinion, the implementation of the resettlement policy, in the event of a successful implementation of this plan, carried with it a significant significance in the development of not so much farming as in the development of new still poorly developed lands. But the resettlement department, in my opinion, was poorly prepared for the transportation and settlement of a huge mass of peasants. Settlers tried to settle in already inhabited places, rather than engage in the development of deserted zones. For 7 years, 3.5 million people were resettled, and 1 million returned back to the European part of the country, but without money and hope.

There were also positive results. The volume of grain production increased, the export of products abroad, the number of purchased agricultural machinery, the volume of the gross domestic product increased. But the Russian peasant never became an "American farmer." I believe that the Stolypin agrarian reform has a very low, I would say, efficiency. Most of the peasants continued to live in the community. Stolypin made a huge mistake by forcibly destroying communal traditions. With his agrarian reform, he brought the Russian countryside to a boil, and this predetermined the development of events in 1917, that is, in all subsequent national history. But the peasants tried to find their own, more rational, path to capitalism, creating cooperatives and artels, taking as a basis one of the main principles of communism, as collective activity. It is in the collective, I think (especially if the collective means the entire Russian peasantry) that it is possible to create a great industrial power. Despite the fact that there are no subjunctive moods in history, I still allow myself to express my opinion on the development of capitalism in the Russian empire. I do not think that capitalism in our country would lead to the general welfare of the people. After all, tsarist Russia remained a country with a bureaucratic administrative apparatus, in which bureaucratic arbitrariness and corruption reigned. If there were no revolutionary upheavals, a narrow layer of large owners would have formed in the country, who were the main support of the emperor, in whose hands were most of the natural wealth and most of the money capital.

In our time, the personality of P.A. Stolypin is gaining popularity in society, especially in the highest circles of Russian power. In her opinion, the reformer managed to form the foundations of social policy, reorganize state mechanisms, and ensure an impressive growth in industry. And in my opinion, the authorities found in Stolypin a certain point of support from history in order to look more patriotic. However, personally in my mind, P.A. Stolypin still remains an important figure in Russian history, but not a person who can change the course of history itself, unlike many other reformers.

On the threshold of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was an economically backward, agrarian-oriented state. The chain of transformations of the last quarter of the 19th century, caused by the need to modernize industrial production, did not bring significant results. Stolypin's reforms were ready for implementation. Let us briefly consider the essence of the transformations proposed by the Chairman of the Government of Russia P.A. Stolypin.

The increased dissatisfaction of the population with the authorities became the impetus for the necessary reform of the system that had existed for decades. Initially, peaceful actions began to develop into frank large-scale demonstrations with an abundance of victims.

The revolutionary spirit reached its greatest upsurge in 1905. The authorities were forced not only to continue looking for ways out of the difficult economic situation, but also to fight the growth of revolutionary sentiment.

A prerequisite for the rapid deployment of reforms in the agrarian sector was the terrorist attack that took place in St. Petersburg on Aptekarsky Island on August 12, 1906. About 50 people became victims, and the children of Prime Minister P.A. Stolypin, he himself was miraculously not injured. Urgent reforms were needed, the people demanded fundamental changes.

The draft amendments, formed by the Prime Minister, pursued the following goals:

  1. Resolving the problem of insufficient crop areas for rural residents.
  2. Excommunication of peasants from the community.
  3. Preservation of landownership.
  4. The development of agriculture and its transition to bourgeois rails.
  5. Formation of a class of peasant owners.
  6. Removal of social tension.
  7. Strengthening the position of the government through popular support.

Stolypin understood that the implementation of agrarian reform was a necessary and inevitable step to transform the existing order. It is no coincidence that the emphasis was placed on pacifying the peasantry through expanding opportunities for their realization as farmers, a qualitative improvement in the living conditions of the majority of the dissatisfied.

  1. In view of the danger of terrorist acts for the population, the government introduced a state of emergency in a number of provinces, and also established courts-martial, whose activities were aimed at speeding up the consideration of crimes and the swift imposition of punishments on the guilty.
  2. The start of the work of the State Duma on planning and implementing reforms in the field of agriculture.

Stolypin did not plan to dwell solely on economic and agrarian changes. His plans included the introduction of equality among the citizens of the country, an increase in the salaries of teachers, the organization of compulsory primary education, the establishment of freedom of religion, and the reform of local government. Stolypin and his reforms radically changed the internal situation in Russia, broke the traditions and views that had been established for centuries.

Timeline of reforms

Stolypin decided to start his complex of transformations, consisting of economic reforms, with the elimination of the communal way of life. The activities of the peasants living in the villages were organized by the community and were under its control. For the poor, this was a serious support, for the middle peasants and kulaks it was a limiter to the possibility of developing a personal economy.

The collective spirit of the community, focused on the joint fulfillment of the required indicators in agriculture, hampered the increase in yield growth. The peasants were not interested in productive work, they did not have fertile allotments and effective means for cultivating the land.

On the way to change

The beginning of the Stolypin agrarian reform, revolutionary in its way, was the date of November 9, 1906, when the community was abolished, the peasant could freely leave it, while retaining property, allotment and means of production. He could combine disparate plots of land, form a farm (an allotment to which the peasant moved, leaving the village and leaving the community) or cut (a piece of land allocated by the community to the peasant while maintaining his place of residence in the village) and start work in his own interests.

The consequence of the first changes was the formation of a real opportunity for independent labor activity of the peasants and the untouchedness of the landed estates.

A prototype of peasant farms focused on their own benefit was created. The anti-revolutionary orientation of the issued decree of 1906 was also visible:

  • peasants who have separated from the community are less susceptible to the influence of revolutionary sentiments;
  • rural residents orient their interest not to the revolution, but to the formation of their own good;
  • it became possible to preserve landownership in the form of private property.

However, few people used the right of free exit from the community. Statistics show the minimum percentage of peasants who wished to separate from collective farming within the community. For the most part, these were kulaks and middle peasants who had the finances and opportunities to increase their income and improve their living conditions, as well as the poor who wished to receive subsidies from the state for leaving the community.

Note! The poorest peasants who left the community returned after some time because of the inability to organize work on their own.

Settling the empty territories of the country

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Empire, stretching for many thousands of kilometers, was still insufficiently developed territorially. The growing population in Central Russia no longer had enough land suitable for plowing. The Stolypin government was forced to turn its gaze to the east.

Settlers

The policy of resettlement beyond the Urals was aimed primarily at landless peasants. It is important to note that this was a non-violent action, on the contrary, the state tried in every possible way to stimulate the resettlement of everyone with various benefits:

  • exemption of peasants from paying taxes for 5 years;
  • granting ownership of large areas (up to 15 hectares for each family member);
  • the release of the male population from among the settlers from military service;
  • providing cash loans for the initial development in the new territory.

Initially, the idea of ​​resettlement aroused enthusiasm among the landless peasants who left the communities. Without hesitation, they set off on the road beyond the Urals. It is worth noting that the state was not ready for such an upsurge in the migratory spirit and could not prepare favorable conditions for living in new lands. Statistics state that about 17% of the 3 million settlers who left in the period from 1906 to 1914 returned.

Interesting! The rather promising idea of ​​Stolypin's agrarian reform was not fully implemented, the flow of peasants wishing to move was constantly declining.

Useful video: Stolypin's reforms

Implications of reforms and evaluation of results

Change plans implemented during the period of P.A. Stolypin, were essential for the destruction of the existing ways and orders in society and the state.

The results of Stolypin's reforms will help evaluate the table, which indicates the strengths and weaknesses of the changes made .

The results of Stolypin's reforms were also expressed in the form of an increase in acreage, an increase in the number of purchased agricultural equipment. The use of fertilizers and new ways of cultivating the land began to stimulate an increase in productivity. There was a grand leap in the industrial sector (up to + 8.8% per year), he brought the Russian Empire to first place in the world in terms of economic growth per year.

Consequences of the Stolypin reform

Despite the fact that Stolypin failed to create a wide network of farms on the basis of the peasants who left the community, his economic reforms should be appreciated. The large role of traditionalism in society and agricultural methods did not allow achieving high efficiency of the transformations.

Important! Stolypin's reforms gave impetus to the creation of peasant cooperatives and artels, focused on making a profit through joint labor and the pooling of capital.

Stolypin's reforms basically implied dramatic changes in the Russian economy. The government was aimed at strengthening agriculture, abandoning the community, preserving landownership, providing opportunities for realizing the potential of strong peasant owners.

Progressive essence of P.A. Stolypin did not find wide support among his contemporaries. The populists advocated the preservation of communal landownership and opposed the popularization of capitalist ideas in domestic politics, the right-wing forces denied the possibility of preserving the landed estates.

Useful video: the whole essence of the Stolypin reform in a few minutes

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the participation of the Russian Empire in military campaigns, the emergence of free-thinking parties and the strengthening of revolutionary sentiments did not allow developing opportunities to increase the country's potential, its entry into a leading position in the world in all economic indicators. Most of Stolypin's progressive ideas were not implemented.

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 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 landlords 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.

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 adoption of the decree on November 9 by the Duma, 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 serviced the money turnover 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, 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 dispossession of the bulk of the peasants. The reality shows the opposite - an increase in the proportion of "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.