What did the Stolypin agrarian reform lead to? Stolypin reforms

1.Introduction 3

2.1. Reasons for Stolypin's reforms 5

2.2 Career P.A. Stolypin. 6

2.3 Stolypinskaya agrarian reform 8

2.4. Destruction of the community and development of private property. 9

2.5.Peasant Bank 12

2.6.Corporate movement 13

2.7.Resettlement of peasants 14

2.8.Agricultural activities 16

2.9.Political and other reforms of Stolypin. 17

2.10. Results of reforms. 18

2.11. Reasons for the failure of agrarian reform. 21

3. Conclusion 22

References. 24

1.Introduction

Today, when our country has freed itself from the ideological canons of socialism, when it goes the hard way reforms, alas, often using trial and error, it is extremely important and interesting to turn to the historical past of our country. After all, the past, as a subject of history, is a wise teacher that helps us avoid mistakes in the present and correctly determine our path to the future.

Since the modern stage of searching for the right solutions in the field of establishing market relations has a clear correspondence to a certain era of overcoming the economic crisis in Russia, it will be useful to delve into the times of Tsarist Russia. Large quantities are now being printed. interesting books, ancient archives are being opened that the methodological analysis of historical parallels becomes not only an interesting activity, but a vivid embodiment of Plutarch’s famous thesis: “History teaches!” The topic of Stolypin's reforms is most relevant today, since today's Russia needs a reformer like Stolypin.

The question of whether Stolypin’s reforms could have created a farming form of farming in Russia and become an alternative to the revolution has been debated in historical literature lately. Various opinions are expressed:

Soviet journalists considered him a real reformer, whose reforms were implemented.

Struve gave the following characterization of Stolypin’s activities: “No matter how one views Stolypin’s agrarian policy - one can accept it as the greatest evil, one can bless it as a beneficial surgical operation - with this policy he made a huge shift in Russian life. And - the shift is truly revolutionary and essentially, and formally. For there can be no doubt that with the agrarian reform, which abolished the community, in significance economic development Russia can only be put on a par with the liberation of the peasants and the implementation of railways" .

The historian Avrekh, a researcher of the activities of P.A. Stolypin, noted that Stolypin “is precisely and above all an extreme right-wing reactionary, the conductor of a policy that has gone down in history under the name of the Stolypin reaction.”

The point of view of another researcher-historian Zyryanov is this: Stolypin was “undoubtedly a major statesman, although hardly particularly outstanding. “The clerk” of the tsar and the landowners, despite all his by no means exceptional qualities, he still saw further and deeper than his masters.”

Miliukov believed that “Stolypin acted in a double guise - a liberal and an extreme nationalist,” and included him “in the circle of people who imagined themselves to be the saviors of Russia from its great upheavals.”

The French historian Vert N. expressed the following point of view: “P. Stolypin is a fighter for the preservation of the monarchy through its modernization, a conservative in his views, a former leader of the nobility in Kovno, where, observing the life of the Polish-Lithuanian peasantry, he became a staunch supporter of private property.”

Let's say, by the way, that this dispute between historians, politicians in relation to reforms and the personality of P.A. Stolypin, is still relevant today.

The general conclusion can be drawn as follows: only the closest connection between economics and politics makes it possible to achieve positive results of reform, which P.A. understood. Stolypin, trying to implement his reforms.

Based on the above, we will determine the purpose and objectives of the abstract. The goal is to provide a historical analysis of the reforms and study various sources and compare different points of view on the essence of P.A.’s reforms. Stolypin.

Achieving this goal is achieved by solving the following tasks:

reveal economic and political significance reforms for the development of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century;

determine the results and failures of P.A.’s reform activities. Stolypin, its significance for modern stage development of Russia.

2.1. Reasons for Stolypin's reforms

Appeal to the historical experience of the Stolypin reforms is associated with the following circumstances:

Firstly, by the end of the 19th century it became clear that the positive transformative potential of the reforms of 1861 had been exhausted. A new cycle of reforms was needed.

Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was still a moderately developed country. In the country's economy, a large share belonged to early capitalist and semi-feudal forms of economy - from manufacturing to patriarchal-natural.

Thirdly, Russia’s too slow political development was determined mainly by its agrarian question.

Fourthly, the country's social class structure was very heterogeneous. Along with the formation of the classes of bourgeois society (bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat), class divisions continued to exist in it - a legacy of the feudal era:

the bourgeoisie tried to take a leading role in the country's economy in the 20th century; before that it had not played any independent role in the society of the country, since it was completely dependent on the autocracy, as a result of which it remained an apolitical and conservative force;

the nobility, which concentrated more than 60% of all lands, was the main support of the autocracy, although socially it was losing its homogeneity, moving closer to the bourgeoisie;

the peasantry, which made up ¾ of the country's population, was also affected social stratification society (20% - kulaks, 30% - middle peasants, 50% - poor people). Contradictions arose between its polar layers;

the wage-labor class numbered 16.8 million people. It was heterogeneous; most of the workers consisted of peasants who had recently arrived in the city, but had not yet lost touch with the land. The core of this class was the factory proletariat, which numbered more than 3 million people.

Fifthly, the political system in Russia remained a monarchy. Although in the 70s of the 19th century a step was taken towards transforming the state system into a bourgeois monarchy, tsarism retained all the attributes of absolutism.

Sixth, with the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the revolutionary situation in the country began to grow (1905-1907).

From all this we can conclude that Russia needed both political and economic reforms that could strengthen and improve the Russian economy. The conductors of these reforms at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th were such different political figures as S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin. Both of them were not revolutionaries and sought to preserve the existing system in Russia and protect it from revolutionary upheavals “from below.”

However, Stolypin, in contrast to Witte, believed that changes were necessary, but to the extent and where they were necessary for economic reform. As long as there is no economically free owner, there is no basis for other forms of freedom (for example, political or personal).

1. Career P.A. Stolypin.

The career path followed by Stolypin in the provinces was ordinary, differing from the careers of other officials who became governors. Coming from an old noble family, Stolypin, having graduated from the Vilna Gymnasium, entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University. After graduation, he served in the Ministry of State Property, but a year later he was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs as the leader of the nobles in the Kovno province. Stolypin was happy with this appointment. Communicating a lot with peasants, he understood their conversations: about land, about farming. His daughter wrote “My father loved farming...”.

Ten years later, Stolypin was appointed governor of Kovno, and in 1902 - governor of Grodno.

In 1902, Stolypin participated in a meeting on the development of the agricultural industry, where he spoke in favor of the destruction of communal striping and resettlement in farmsteads. This position was expressed later in 1906 and, in combination with other innovations, was adopted as the “Stolypin reform”.

In March 1903 P.A. Stolypin is appointed governor of the larger Saratov province. Here the first revolution found him, to suppress which he used the entire arsenal of means - from direct appeal to the people to reprisals with the help of the Cossacks.

In April 1906, Stolypin was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, although he did not expect such an appointment. The fight against the revolution falls on his shoulders. And on August 24, 1906, the government program was published. In it, Stolypin announced the directions of his policy in preparing the most important laws:

on freedom of religion;

about the inviolability of the individual and about civil equality, in the sense of eliminating restrictions and constraints on certain groups of the population;

on improving peasant land tenure;

on improving the living conditions of workers and, in particular, on their state insurance;

on local government reform;

on the transformation of local courts;

on the reform of higher and secondary schools;

on zemstvo self-government in the Baltic, as well as the North and South-Western regions;

about police reform...

To do this, Stolypin took advantage of Article 87 of the Basic Laws, which gave the government the right to resolve issues during breaks in the work of the Duma and in case of exceptional circumstances.

2.3 Stolypin agrarian reform

The reform had several goals:

1. socio-political: To create in the countryside a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners (farmers), splitting them off from the bulk of the peasantry and opposing them to it. Strong farms were supposed to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

2. socio-economic: Destroy the community, that is, create private farms in the form of farms and farms, and send the excess labor to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry;

3. economic: Provide lift agriculture and further industrialization of the country in order to bridge the gap with advanced powers.

The first step in this direction was taken in 1861. Then the agrarian issue was resolved at the expense of the peasants, who paid the landowners both for land and freedom. The agrarian legislation of 1906-1910 was the second step, while the government, in order to strengthen its power and the power of the landowners, again tried to solve the agrarian question at the expense of the peasantry.

The new agricultural policy was carried out on the basis of a decree on November 9, 1906. The discussion of the decree of November 9, 1906 began in the Duma on October 23, 1908, i.e. two years after he entered life. In total, it was discussed for more than six months.

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

Agrarian reform consisted of a number of sequential and interrelated measures. The main direction of the reforms was as follows:

Destruction of community and development of private property;

Creation of a peasant bank;

Cooperative Movement;

Resettlement of peasants;

Agricultural activities.

Stolypin's agrarian reform became a natural effort to eliminate the problems identified by the revolution of 1905 - 1907. There were several attempts to solve the agrarian question before 1906. But they all boiled down to either the confiscation of land from the landowners and allocating it to the peasants, or to the use of nationalized lands for these purposes.

P. A. Stolypin, not without reason, decided that the only support for the monarchy was the landowners and wealthy peasants. The confiscation of the landowners' lands meant undermining the authority of the emperor and, as a consequence, the possibility of another revolution.

To maintain royal power In August 1906, Pyotr Stolypin announced a government program that proposed a number of reforms regarding equality, police regulations, local government, and education. But of all the proposals, only Stolypin’s agrarian reform was implemented. Its goal was to destroy the communal system and provide the peasants with land. The peasant was to become the owner of the land that previously belonged to the community. There were two ways to determine the allotment:

• If the communal lands had not been redistributed over the past twenty-four years, then each peasant at any time could demand his allotment as personal property.
• If there was such a redistribution, then the plot that was last cultivated went into land ownership.

In addition, peasants had the opportunity to buy land on credit at low prices. mortgage rates. For these purposes, a peasant credit bank was created. The sale of land plots made it possible to concentrate significant areas in the hands of the most interested and able-bodied peasants.

On the other hand, those who did not have sufficient funds to purchase land, the Stolypin agrarian reform proposed to resettle to free territories where there were uncultivated state lands - on Far East, to Siberia, to Central Asia, to the Caucasus. The settlers were provided with a number of benefits, including a five-year tax exemption, low cost of train tickets, forgiveness of arrears, and a loan in the amount of 100 - 400 rubles without charging interest.

The Stolypin agrarian reform, at its core, put peasants in conditions market economy, where their wealth depended on how they were able to manage their property. It was assumed that they would work more efficiently on their plots, causing the flourishing of agriculture. Many of them sold their lands and went to the city to earn money, which led to an influx of labor. Others emigrated abroad in search of better conditions life.

The Stolypin agrarian reform and its results did not live up to the hopes of Prime Minister P. A. Stolypin and Russian government. In total, during its implementation, less than one third of the peasant households left the community. The reason for this was that the reform did not take into account the patriarchal way of life of peasants, their fear of independent activity, and their inability to manage without community support. Over the past years, everyone has become accustomed to the fact that the community takes responsibility for each of its members.

But, nevertheless, the Stolypin agrarian reform also had positive results:

• The beginning of private land ownership was laid.
• The productivity of peasant land has increased.
• The demand for the agricultural industry has increased.
• Grew up

As the first Russian revolution clearly showed, the main problem Russian society There remained the agrarian question, which became aggravated at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the future, the dissatisfied peasantry, who made up the majority of the country's population, could go further than the defeat of the 2 thousand burned in 1905-1907. landowners' estates.

In addition, without the development of agriculture, Russia could not develop as a great power, which P.A. understood perfectly well. Stolypin.

1. Goals of the reform

1.1. Socio-political goals.

1.1.1. The main goal was attracting broad sections of the peasantry to the side of the regime and preventing a new agrarian war. To achieve this, it was intended to help transform the majority of Russian villagers into strong, imbued with the idea of ​​property, rich peasantry, which, according to Stolypin, serves everywhere as the best bastion of order and tranquility.

Previously, there was a widespread view that the Stolypin reform was aimed at attracting the existing narrow layer of kulaks.

1.1.3. Carrying out agrarian reform, the government sought do not affect the interests of landowners. In post-reform times and at the beginning of the 20th century, the government was unable to protect noble land ownership from reduction, but the large and small landed nobility continued to form the most reliable support of the autocracy. To push him away would be suicide for the regime.

In addition, noble class organizations, including the Council of the United Nobility, had great influence on Nicholas II and his entourage. A member of the government, much less a prime minister, who raised the issue of alienation of landowners' lands could not hold his place, much less organize the implementation of such a reform. The reformers also took into account the fact that landowners' farms produced a significant portion of marketable grain, which was also the case.

1.1.2. Another goal was destruction of the rural community. Remembering the participation of the community in the struggle of 1905-1907, the reformers understood that the main thing in the peasant movement was the question of land and did not immediately seek to destroy the administrative organization of the community.

1.2. Socio-economic goals were closely related to socio-political ones. It was planned to liquidate the land community, its economic land distribution mechanism, on the one hand, which formed the basis of the social unity of the community, and on the other hand, hindered the development of agricultural technology.

Ultimate economic purpose reforms were supposed to be a general rise in the country's agriculture, the transformation of the agricultural sector into the economic base of the new Great Russia.

2. Preparation of reform.

2.1. Preparation of reform projects before the revolution. actually started Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry under the leadership of S.Yu. Witte in 1902-1903. In 1905-1907 the conclusions formulated by the meeting, primarily the idea of ​​​​the need to destroy the land community and transform peasants into land owners, were reflected in a number of projects of government officials ( N.N. Kutler, V.I. Gurko).

2.2. Since the beginning of the revolution and the active participation of peasants in the destruction of landowners' estates, Nicholas II, frightened by agrarian uprisings, changed his attitude towards the landed peasant community. The Peasant Bank was allowed to issue loans against peasant plots (November 1905), which actually meant the possibility of alienation of communal lands. P.A. Stolypin in 1906, having become prime minister, supported a policy that did not affect the interests of landowners Gurko project, which formed the basis Decree of November 9, 1906, which marked the beginning of agrarian reform.

3. Main directions of reform

3.1. Change of ownership on peasant land, their transformation into full owners of their plots was supposed to be carried out by the law of 1910, first of all, by strengthening the plots into private property. In addition, according to law of 1911 . it was allowed to carry out land development (reducing land into farms and cuttings) without fortification, after which the peasants also became landowners. At the same time, a peasant could only sell an allotment to a peasant, which limited the right to land ownership.

3.2. Organization of farms and farms (land management). Without land management, technical improvement and economic development of agriculture were impossible in the conditions of peasant striped(2/3 peasants central regions had plots divided into 6 or more strips in various places community field) and distant lands(40% of the peasants of the Center had to walk 5 or more miles from their estates to their plots every day). In economic terms, according to Gurko’s plan, fortification without land management made no sense.

Therefore, the work of state land management commissions was planned to consolidate strips of peasant plots into a single plot - cut. If such a cut was located outside the village, the estate was moved there, which meant the formation farms.

3.3 . Resettlement of peasants to free lands. To solve the problem of peasant land shortages and reduction agricultural overpopulation resettlement policy intensified in the Central regions. Funds were allocated to transport those interested to new places, primarily to Siberia. Special (so-called Stolypin) passenger carriages were built for the settlers. Beyond the Urals, lands were transferred to peasants free of charge, and loans were issued to improve the economy and improve the economy.

3.4. Selling land to peasants in installments through Peasant Bank was also necessary to reduce land shortage. Secured by allotment land, loans were issued for the purchase of state-owned land transferred to the Bank's fund and land that was sold by landowners.

3.5. Development of agricultural cooperation, Both fishing and credit industry were given impetus by the publication in 1908 of a model charter. Credit partnerships received some benefits.

5. Progress of reform

5.1. Legal basis, stages and timing of the reform. The legislative basis for the reform was Decree of November 9, 1906 ., after the adoption of which the reform began to be implemented. The main provisions of the Decree were enshrined in Law of 1910., approved by the Duma and the State Council. Serious clarifications were introduced into the course of the reform law 1911., reflecting a change in the emphasis of government policy and marking the beginning of the second stage of the reform.

In 1915-1916, due to the war, the reform actually stopped. In June 1917, the reform was officially terminated by the Provisional Government.

The reform was carried out through the efforts Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, headed A.V. Krivoshein and the Stolypin Ministry of Internal Affairs.

5.2. Transformation of peasants into landowners at the first stage (1907-1910) in accordance with the Decree of November 9, it went in several ways.

5 .2.1. U fastening interstrip areas into the property. Over the years, 2 million plots have been strengthened. When pressure from local authorities ceased, the strengthening process was sharply reduced. In addition, the majority of peasants who only wanted to sell their plot without returning to independent farming had already done so. After 1911, only those who wanted to sell their plot applied. Total in 1907-1915. 2.5 million people became fortifications. - 26% of the peasants of European Russia (without the Western provinces and Trans-Urals), but almost 40% of them sold their plots, most of them moving beyond the Urals, moving to the city or joining the stratum of the rural proletariat.

5 .2.2. Land management in the second stage (1911-1916) according to the laws of 1910 and 1911 made it possible to obtain ownership of the plot automatically - after creation cuts And farmsteads, without filing an application for strengthening the property.

5 .2.3. In old-fashioned communities(in communities where there were no redistributions since 1861), according to the law of 1910, peasants were automatically recognized as the owners of the plots. Such communities accounted for 30% of their total number. At the same time, only 600 thousand of the 3.5 million members of the non-distribution communities requested documents certifying their property.

5 .2.4. Homestead possessions. Peasants Western provinces and some areas of the South, where communities did not exist, also automatically became owners. To do this, they did not need to submit special applications. Beyond the Urals the reform was not formally carried out, but even there the peasants did not know communal property.

5.3. Land management. Organization of farms and farms. In 1907-1910 only 1/10 of the peasants who strengthened their plots formed farms and farms.

After 1910, the government realized that a strong peasantry could not arise in multi-lane areas. This required not a formal strengthening of ownership, but an economic transformation of the plots. Local authorities, who sometimes resorted to coercion among community members, were no longer recommended to artificially encourage the strengthening process. The main direction of the reform was land management, which now in itself turned land into the private property of peasants.

Now the process has accelerated. In total, by 1916, 1.6 million individual farms (farms and cuts) were formed on approximately 1/3 of peasant allotments (community and household plots) and land purchased by peasants from the bank.

This was the beginning. It is important that in reality the potential scope of the movement turned out to be wider: another 20% of peasants in European Russia submitted applications for land management, but land management work was suspended by the war (May 1915) and interrupted by the revolution.

5.4. Relocation beyond the Urals. Having received a loan from the government, 3.3 million people moved to the new lands in Stolypin's carriages, 2/3 of whom were landless or land-poor peasants. 0.5 million returned, many joined the population of Siberian cities or became agricultural workers. Only a small part of the peasants became rural owners in the new place. This direction of reform, oriented towards the resettlement of the poor, turned out to be the least effective, although it played an important role in the development of Siberia.

5.4. Buying land peasants with with the help of the Peasant Bank has acquired significant proportions. The bank sold 15 million state-owned and landowners' land, 90% of which was bought by peasants in installments. Special benefits were provided to the owners of farms and cuts, who, unlike others, received a loan in the amount of 100% of the value of the acquired land at 5% per annum.

5.5. developed at a rapid pace cooperative movement. In 1905-1915 the number of rural credit partnerships increased from 1680 to 15.5 thousand. The number of production and consumer cooperatives in the village increased from 3 thousand in 1908 to 10 thousand in 1915. Many economists of different political orientations came to the conclusion that cooperation represents the most promising direction for the development of the Russian village, meeting the needs of modernization of the peasant economy.

At the same time, in the absence of state credit to agriculture, the level of development of cooperation remained insufficient for the Russian village.

6. Main economic results of the reform

6.1. The peasant sector of the Russian agricultural economy was experiencing serious progress. Harvest years and rising world grain prices played a big role in this. But bran and farmstead farms especially progressed, where to a greater extent new technologies were used. The yield in them exceeded similar indicators of community fields by 30-50%.

6.2. Significantly marketability has increased peasant farming, also largely due to farmsteads and cuts. New farming systems and crops were introduced. From a third to a half of individual owners participated in credit partnerships, which provided them with funds for modernization. Over 1.6 million peasants attended agricultural courses.

6.2. In general the revolution in agricultural economics and agricultural technology did not occur, but when assessing economic results, it is important to take into account that the reform, designed to last decades, over the course of several years only managed to clarify its direction and gain momentum. Without large loans, land reclamation and other measures, the reform could not produce great results, and such measures could not be carried out without the state allocating significant funds.

7. Basic social and political

results of the reform

In socio-political terms, the reform was a relative success.

7.1. Social results. The fate of the community.

7.1.1. Destruction of the land community. The community as a self-government body of the Russian village was not affected by the reform, but the socio-economic organism of the community began to collapse. The number of land communities decreased from 135 thousand to 110 thousand. The process occurred especially quickly in the most developed northwestern, southern and southeastern regions, where the community was historically weaker.

Some historians believed that the reform failed, since only 26% of the peasants allegedly left the community and the process of exit began to fade from 1910. But only peasants who consolidated their striped plots of property were taken into account.

After 1910, there were fewer and fewer statements about strengthening the ownership of plots and, accordingly, leaving the land community. But land management processes developed more and more quickly from that time on. Landowners who settled also became owners.

More than a third of its members left the community, but the process was not yet completed. Evidence of the growth of this trend is the significant number of submitted applications for land management, most of which land managers did not manage to complete by May 1915.

As a result, in the center of the country, along with members of old-fashioned communities, at least 2/3 of the former communal peasantry were involved in the destruction of the land community. Taking into account the West and South of Russia, the Baltic states, and Siberia, where land communities did not exist, the majority of the country's peasantry by 1917 were actually outside the land community.

It is also important to take into account that the reform, designed for at least two decades, had just begun, and only in 1910-1911 was the right direction for its development found.

7.1.2. The question of community viability. At the same time, in the central non-chernozem regions, the disintegration of the community was almost not observed. It was here that cases of arson of farmsteads were more numerous, and peasants who wanted to leave the community often did not receive the consent of the village assembly. In the non-chernozem center, communal traditions were the strongest, and agriculture was the most backward in socio-economic terms. The low standard of living determined the desire of the peasants, who did little farming here, to preserve the old equalizing mechanism and social protection body.

Besperedelnye communities, mainly located in Ukraine, for a number of other reasons also largely retained their integrity.

At the same time, the reform had beneficial influence to surviving communities. It revealed some viability of the community organization. Freed from potential proletarians who sold their plots, the communities also gradually turned to the use of progressive farming methods. More than 2.5 million land development applications were submitted by communities. Rural societies increasingly used multiple fields and grass sowing, which, however, did not become the dominant form of agricultural technology here.

7.2. Socio-political results of the reform.

7.2.1. Partial success. Stopping peasant uprisings. At the first stage in 1907-1909. with the strengthening of property plots, often under pressure from zemstvo bosses, the number of peasant uprisings (mainly against the arbitrariness of the authorities) began to grow, reaching almost 1 thousand in 1910. But after the emphasis of government policy shifted to land management, the abandonment of coercion and some economic successes Peasant unrest almost ceased, decreasing to 128 in 1913.

7.2.2. Prevention of a general peasant uprising and general redistribution. The main political goal was still not achieved. As 1917 showed, the peasantry retained the ability to oppose the landowners (and the regime that protected them) as a whole, under the influence not so much of economic necessity as of the historical memory of centuries of serfdom and hatred of bars.

In 1917, it became obvious that the agrarian reform was 50 years late, but the main reason for its relative failure was the socio-political half-heartedness of the reforms, which manifested itself in the preservation of the landed estates intact

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin and his reforms are one of the most controversial topics in the history of Russia. The prime minister became a symbol of the empire’s “lost chance” to move past the tragic and destructive revolution into a bright capitalist tomorrow.

The last reform in the history of the empire continued until its fall, while the reformer himself tragically died on September 5 (18), 1911. The murder of Stolypin is a reason to say: if he had remained alive, history would have gone completely differently. His reforms, and above all the agrarian one, would take Russia on the path of modernization without revolution. Or wouldn't they have taken me out?

It should be taken into account that the reform, which now bears the name of Stolypin, was developed before he came to power and did not end with his death. Pyotr Arkadyevich's role was to start a process that continued under other leaders. What this reform could give, it did.

Who to divide: the community or the landowners?

The key idea of ​​the transformation is to destroy the peasant community and divide its lands. Criticism of the community is associated primarily with the redistribution of land, which violates the sacred right of private property, without which an effective economy is hardly possible for a liberal. The community is considered an economic brake, due to which the Russian village could not follow the path of progress.

But a third of the former landowner peasants switched to household land ownership, and redistribution there was stopped. Why haven’t they taken the lead in labor productivity? In 46 provinces, with the exception of Cossack lands, in 1905, 8.7 million households with 91.2 million dessiatines owned land under communal law. Household ownership covered 2.7 million households with 20.5 million acres.

Household land ownership was not more economically progressive than communal redistribution; interstriping was also developed there; “land relations here are even more complicated than in a communal village. The transition from the traditional three-field system to more advanced crop rotations was even more difficult for a household village than for a communal one.” In addition, the community determined the timing of sowing and harvesting, which was necessary in conditions of limited land availability.

“Even the striping that arose during redistribution and greatly interfered with peasant farming, pursued the same goal of protecting it from ruin and preserving its available labor force. Having plots in different places, the peasant could count on an average annual harvest. In a dry year, stripes in lowlands and hollows came to the rescue, in a rainy year - on hills,” writes the famous community researcher P.N. Zyryanov.

When the peasants did not want to carry out redistributions, they were free not to do them. The community was not at all some kind of “serfdom”; it acted democratically. The redistributions did not occur because of a good life. Thus, as land pressure intensified in the Black Earth Region, land redistributions returned, which almost ceased there in the 1860-1870s.

Speaking about the role of the community in economic development, it should be remembered that it contributed to the spread of three-field farming, and it “had to come into conflict with the desire of some owners, captured by the rush of the market, to “squeeze” the greatest profit from the land. The annual sowing of all arable land, even very fertile ones, led to its depletion.” The community also contributed to the implementation organic fertilizers, not only taking into account the manure of the soil during redistribution, but also demanding that the community members “fertilize the land with soil.” Some communities, with the help of zemstvo agronomists, switched to multi-field and grass sowing.

Stolypin's reforms were launched during the revolution. Historians point to non-economic motives for the reforms: “By this time, the situation in the village had become threatening, and in the liquidation of the community the government and landowner circles hoped to find a panacea for all ills... The primary, dual task of the reform was the destruction of the peasant community, which gave peasant uprisings a certain organization, and the creation a strong conservative support of power from wealthy peasant owners." The community also seemed to be a lightning rod from landownership, which the democrats pointed to as the real reason backwardness of the agricultural sector.

It was possible to overcome agrarian hunger only by solving two problems: bringing the excess population from the village to the city and employing it there, and at the same time increasing labor productivity so that the workers remaining in the countryside could provide food for the entire population of the country. The second task required not only social changes, but also technical and cultural modernization. By definition, it could not be accomplished quickly, and even with optimal social transformations in the countryside, the subsequent jump in labor productivity required time. In the second half of the 19th century. Russia still had this time, and at the beginning of the twentieth century. no longer - the revolutionary crisis was approaching faster.

In conditions of an acute shortage of land, solving the agrarian problem required a head start in time, and this could be provided by the division of landowners' lands. But neither he nor the resettlement policy, for which in reality there were very few opportunities in Russia, could guarantee a long-term solution to the problem.

Populist author N.P. Oganovsky, assessing the results of the division of landowners' lands after the revolution of 1917, argued that already before it, peasants controlled half of the former landowners' lands in the form of deeds and leases. As a result of the division of land, the allotment per eater increased from 1.87 to 2.26 dessiatines - by 0.39 dessiatines, and excluding rented dessiatines - 0.2. This means an expansion of peasant plots by 21% (11% excluding rented land) while simultaneously removing the pressure on rental payments. This is a noticeable improvement. The peasants' standard of living clearly benefited from the abolition of rent payments and the expansion of allotments, albeit modestly. This did not solve the problems of low labor productivity and land shortage, but it provided a “breathing space” that could be used to solve the problems of intensifying production. Stolypin did not have the opportunity to get such a respite, since he stood guard over the landowners' property.

The famous St. Petersburg historian B.N. Mironov, who has a positive attitude towards Stolypin’s reforms, considers the refusal of the rapid distribution of landowners’ lands to be a mistake of the Provisional Government (and it is difficult to disagree with this). But even more so, this refusal must be recognized as a shortcoming of Stolypin’s agrarian policy. In his case it was not a mistake - he simply could not encroach on the privileges of the aristocracy.

The scale of change

On November 9, 1906, a decree was adopted, which (formally in connection with the termination of the redemption operation) allowed peasants to separate their farm from the community along with the land. Stolypin’s decree, confirmed by the law of 1910, encouraged leaving the community: “Every householder who owns an allotment of land under communal law can at any time demand the consolidation of his ownership of the part due to him from the said land.”

If the peasant continued to live in the village, his plot was called a cut. If the community agreed, the peasant's plots, scattered in different places, were exchanged so that the cut became a single plot. A peasant could move from the village to a farm, to a remote place. The land for the farm was cut off from the community’s lands, which made it difficult for livestock grazing and other economic activity peasant world. Thus, the interests of farmers (usually wealthy ones) came into conflict with the interests of the rest of the peasantry.

Peasants of non-redistribution communities, where land redistribution was not carried out after 1861 (podvorniki), automatically received the right to register the land as private property.

In villages where peasants had previously stopped redistributing land, almost nothing new happened, and in villages where the community was strong and economically justified, conflicts arose between community members and peasants who separated from the community, on whose side the authorities were. This struggle distracted the peasants from actions against the landowners.

Gradually (after Stolypin's death) the reform entered a calmer direction. If before the reform 2.8 million households already lived outside the redistribution community, then in 1914 this number increased to 5.5 million (44% of peasants). In total, 1.9 million householders (22.1% of community members) with an area of ​​almost 14 million acres (14% of community land) left the community. Another 469 thousand members of allotment-free communities received deeds for their allotments. 2.7 million applications for exit were submitted, but 256 thousand peasants withdrew their applications. Thus, 27.2% of those who declared a desire to strengthen the land did not have time or were unable to do this by May 1, 1915. That is, even in the future, the figures could only increase by a third. The peak of filing applications (650 thousand) and leaving the community (579 thousand) occurred in 1909.

87.4% of the owners of the allotment-free communities did not leave the community either. And this is not surprising. In itself, leaving the commune, even one without distribution, created additional difficulties for the peasants without obvious immediate gain. As A.P. writes Korelin, “the fact is that in itself the consolidation of land into personal property in economic terms did not give the “allottees” any advantages, often putting the community in a dead end situation... The production of individual allotments brought complete disorder to the land relations of societies and did not provide any benefits for those leaving the community, with the exception, perhaps, of those who wanted to sell the fortified land.” The owners now interfered with each other's work because of the stripes, everything arose big problems with grazing livestock, and had to spend more on fodder.

Advantages should have arisen when allocating farmsteads and cuttings, but this process of land management in conditions of land shortage was very complex and much more modest in scale. The peak of applications for land development occurred in 1912-1914, a total of 6.174 million applications were submitted and 2.376 million farms were developed. On the allotment lands, 300 thousand farms and 1.3 million cuts were created, which occupied 11% of the allotment lands, and together with the courtyards that strengthened the land - 28%.

The land management process could continue further. By 1916, preparations for land management affairs were completed for 3.8 million households with an area of ​​34.3 million dessiatinas. But the possibilities of improving the situation of the peasants even with the help of such land surveying in conditions of land tightness remained insignificant.

“It can be assumed that, having freed itself from the entrepreneurial and proletarian layers, the community has even stabilized somewhat.” It survived as an “institution of social protection” and managed to “ensure, to a certain extent, economic and agricultural progress,” concluded famous researchers of Stolypin’s reforms A.P. Korelin and K.F. Shatsillo. Moreover, “the German professor Auhagen, who visited in 1911-1913. a number of Russian provinces, in order to clarify the progress of the reform, being its adherents, nevertheless noted that the community is not the enemy of progress, that it is not at all opposed to the use of improved tools and machines, better seeds, the introduction of rational methods of cultivating fields, etc. Moreover, in communities it is not individual, especially developed and enterprising peasants who begin to improve their economy, but the entire community.”

“On the eve of the First World War, when reapers began to come into peasant use, many societies were faced with the question: either machines or the old small strip, which allowed only a sickle. The government, as we know, offered the peasants to eliminate the striped stripes by going to the farmsteads and cutting them off. However, even before Stolypin’s agrarian reform, the peasantry put forward its plan to mitigate striping while maintaining communal land ownership. The transition to “broad bands”, which began in the first years of the twentieth century, continued later,” writes P.N. Zyryanov.

The administration opposed this work, since it contradicted the principles of the Stolypin reform, solving the problem of striping differently and often more effectively - after all, the “fortified” plots interfered with consolidation, and the authorities prohibited it, even when the owners of the plots themselves did not object. “In the above cases, we see the Stolypin agrarian reform from a hitherto little-known side,” sums up P.N. Zyryanov. - It was believed that this reform, despite its narrowness and undoubtedly violent nature, still brought with it agrotechnical progress. It turns out that only the progress that was prescribed in laws, circulars and instructions was implanted. It was planted from above, not really taking into account the circumstances (for example, the fact that not all peasants with little land were ready to go out to harvest, because this increased their dependence on the vagaries of the weather). And the progress that came from below, from the peasantry itself, was most often stopped without hesitation if it somehow affected the reform.”

It is no coincidence that at the All-Russian Agricultural Congress of 1913, which brought together agronomists, the majority sharply criticized the reform, for example, as follows: “The land management law was put forward in the name of agronomic progress, and at every step the efforts aimed at achieving it are paralyzed.” The zemstvos, for the most part, soon also refused to support the reform. They preferred to support cooperatives based not on private property, but on collective responsibility - as communities.

To reduce the severity of the “land hunger,” Stolypin pursued a policy of developing Asian lands. Resettlement occurred before - in 1885-1905. 1.5 million people moved beyond the Urals. In 1906-1914. - 3.5 million. 1 million returned, “apparently replenishing the pauperized strata of the city and countryside.” At the same time, some of those who remained in Siberia were unable to organize their economy, but simply began to live here. Relocation to Central Asia was associated with great difficulties due to the climate and the resistance of the local population.

“The migration flow was directed almost exclusively to a relatively narrow strip of agricultural Siberia. Here the free supply of land was soon exhausted. It remained either to squeeze new settlers into already occupied places and replace one overpopulated area with another, or to stop looking at resettlement as a means of alleviating land shortages in the interior regions of Russia.”

Consequences

The results of Stolypin's agrarian reform turned out to be contradictory. The increase in yields of main agricultural crops during the years of reforms decreased, and the situation in cattle breeding was even worse. This is not surprising, given the division of communal lands. “In economic terms, the separation of farmers and otrubniks was often associated with a violation of the usual crop rotations and the entire agricultural cycle of work, which had an extremely negative impact on the economy of the community members.” At the same time, thanks to the support of officials, those who stood out could get the best lands. The peasants protested against the “enslavement of land into ownership,” to which the authorities could respond with arrests.

Protests were also caused by the actions of townspeople provoked by the reform, who had lost contact with the village and were now returning to allocate and sell the plot. Even before, the community could not stop a peasant who decided to go to the city. But she also preserved the land for those who decided to stay in the village and cultivate it further. And in this regard, the Stolypin reform introduced a very unpleasant innovation for the peasants. Now the former peasant could sell this land. The former peasants, who had already lost contact with the land, returned for a while to “strengthen” (one root with serfdom), to cut off part of the land from the peasants. Moreover, the opportunity to sell one’s part of the former peasant land and thus receive “lifting income” led to the fact that the Stolypin reform increased the influx of population into the cities - which were clearly not ready for that. The money raised from the sale of the allotment quickly ran out, and in the cities a marginal, disillusioned mass of former peasants who had not found a place in their new life grew.

The flip side of Stolypin's agrarian policy and its effectiveness was the famine of 1911-1912. Peasants in Russian Empire We have starved periodically before. The Stolypin reform did not change the situation.

The stratification of the peasantry increased. But Stolypin was mistaken in his hopes that the wealthy strata would become allies of the landowners and the autocracy. Even supporter of Stolypin’s reforms L.N. Litoshenko admitted: “From the point of view of the social world, the destruction of the community and the dispossession of a significant part of its members could not balance and calm the peasant environment. The political bet on the “strong man” was dangerous game» .

In 1909, economic growth began in Russia. In terms of production growth rates, Russia has taken first place in the world. Iron smelting in 1909-1913. increased in the world by 32%, and in Russia - by 64%. Capital in Russia increased by 2 billion rubles. But is it the Stolypin reform? The state placed large military orders at factories - after Russo-Japanese War Russia prepared more carefully for new international conflicts. The pre-war arms race contributed to the accelerated growth of heavy industry. The accelerated growth rates were determined by the fact that Russia was going through a phase of industrial modernization and had cheap labor force what happened reverse side peasant poverty. Pre-war growth lasted no longer than a normal economic expansion cycle, and there is no evidence that such a “Stolypin cycle” could last much longer than usual without ending in another recession.

In general, the result of Stolypin’s reforms, no matter how you look at them, is very modest. It was not possible to destroy the community. The impact on agricultural productivity has been controversial. Anyway, The reform did not provide a systemic way out of the agrarian crisis and at the same time somewhat increased social tension in the cities.

A reform of this magnitude and direction could not seriously change the trajectory that led the empire to revolution. But this revolution itself could have taken place in very different ways. However, this is not a matter of Stolypin’s reform, but of a world war.

In Russia, the beginning of the 20th century is characterized by a major collapse of the empire and the creation of a state - Soviet Union. Most of the laws and ideas did not become reality; the rest were not destined to last long. One of the reformers at that moment was Pyotr Stolypin.

Pyotr Arkadyevich came from a noble family. He served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and was awarded by the emperor himself for the successful suppression of a peasant uprising. After dissolution State Duma and government, the young speaker took the post of prime minister. The first step was to request a list of unimplemented bills, according to which new rules for governing the country began to be created. As a result Several economic solutions have emerged, which were called Stolypin's.

Laws of Peter Stolypin

Let us dwell on the history of the origin of the plan for the development of the country's economy - the Stolypin agrarian reform.

Background of land relations

Agriculture at that time brought about 60% of the net product and was the main sector of the state's economy. But lands were divided unfairly between classes:

1. Landowners owned most of the crop fields.
2. The state had mainly forest areas.
3. The peasant class received land that was almost unsuitable for cultivation and further sowing.

The peasants began to unite, and as a result, new territorial units emerged - rural societies having administrative rights and responsibilities to their members. In the emerging villages there were elders, elders and even a local court, which considered minor offenses and claims of people against each other. All the supreme posts of such communities consisted exclusively of peasants.

Representatives of the upper strata of society living in these villages could become members of the community, but without the right to use land owned by the village administration, and were required to obey the rules of the peasant administrations. Consequently, rural officials made the work of the central authorities of the country easier.

Most of the land plots belonged to the communities, which could redistribute plots among peasants in any form, which led to the emergence of new rural farms. The size of the plot and taxes changed depending on the number of workers. Often land was taken from old people and widows who were unable to fully care for it, and given to young families. If the peasants changed permanent place residence - moved to the city - they did not have the right to sell their plots. When peasants were dismissed from a rural community, the plots automatically became its property, so the land was rented out.

In order to somehow equalize the problem of the “usefulness” of the plots, the board came up with a new way of cultivating the land. For this purpose, all fields belonging to the society were cut into peculiar strips. Each farm received several such strips, located in different parts fields. This process of cultivating the land began to noticeably slow down the prosperity of agriculture.

Homestead land ownership

IN western regions conditions for the working class were simpler: the peasant community was allocated a plot of land with the possibility of passing it on by inheritance. This land was also allowed to be sold, but only to other persons in the working class of society. Village councils owned only streets and roads. Peasant associations had the perfect right to buy land through private transactions, being full owners. Often, acquired plots were divided among community members in proportion to the funds invested, and each took care of their share. It was profitable - the larger the field area, the lower the price.

Peasant unrest

By 1904, meetings on the agrarian issue did not bring any results, despite the fact that rural communities once again advocated the nationalization of lands belonging to landowners. A year later, the All-Russian Peasant Union was created, which supported the same proposals. But this also did not speed up the solution to the country’s agrarian problems.

The summer of 1905 was marked by a terrible event at that time - the beginning of the revolution. Peasants who did not have forests on communal lands arbitrarily cut down the landowners' reserves, plowed their fields and plundered their estates. Sometimes there were cases of violence against representatives law enforcement agencies and arson of buildings.

Stolypin at that time held the post of governor in the Saratov province. But soon he was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers. Then Pyotr Arkadyevich, without waiting for the Duma meeting, signed the main provision allowing the government to make urgent decisions without the approval of the Duma itself. Immediately after this, the ministry put the agrarian system bill on the agenda. Stolypin and his reform were able to peacefully suppress the revolution and give people hope for the best.

Pyotr Arkadyevich believed that this law is the most important goal for the development of the state. This would give a significant increase in the economic and production table. The project was adopted in 1907. It became easier for peasants to leave the community; they retained the right to their own land plot. The work of the Peasant Bank, which mediated between the working class and the landowners, also resumed. The issue of resettlement of peasants was raised, who were provided with many benefits and huge land plots, which as a result of Stolypin’s agrarian reform brought enormous economic growth and the settlement of unpopulated districts like Siberia.

Thus, Stolypin’s agrarian reform achieved its intended goal. But, despite the growth of the economy and the improvement of ideological and political relations, the adopted bills were in danger of failure due to mistakes made by Stolypin. When trying to fix social Security the working class of the state needed to carry out harsh repressions against organizations that contributed to the start of the revolution. And the rules were also not followed labor code in enterprises, such as accident insurance and compliance with work shift length standards - people worked overtime 3–5 hours a day.

September 5, 1911 great reformer and politician Pyotr Stolypin was killed. Some time after his death, the new board revised all the bills he created.