Positive and negative aspects of the Stolypin agrarian reform. Results of the Stolypin agrarian reform

Prime Minister Stolypin was a brutal politician who uncompromisingly fought the revolutionary movement. He thought out a fairly coherent program for the development of Russia. The agrarian question occupied a central place. But in addition to agrarian reform, he developed:

1. social legislation

2. project for the creation of an interstate parliament

3. draft legislation in the field of relations between employers and employees

4. the gradual transformation of Russia into a rule of law state.

Stolypin's views were progressive for that time and he saw how his program would lead to an advanced Russia. He believed that it was unacceptable to destroy landownership. It must be placed in conditions of economic competition, and then the majority of small landowners themselves will go bankrupt. In the political field, he considered it not parliament that was more important for Russia, but local self-government, which teaches citizen-owners that the people cannot immediately be given all rights and freedoms without first creating a broad middle class, otherwise the lumpen, having received freedom, will lead to anarchy and a bloody dictatorship. Stolypin was a Russian nationalist, but he did not allow insults to other nations. It assumed that the future people of Russia would present a national cult. autonomy. But they did not understand Stolypin. It affected the interests of almost all social strata. There was no support from the king. 1911 killed in a terrorist attack. The reforms are not completed, but the basics of agrarian reform have nevertheless been put into practice,

The reform was carried out using several methods:

1. The decree of November 9, 1906 allowed the peasant to leave the community, and the law of June 14, 1910 made exit mandatory

2. the peasant could demand the consolidation of allotment plots into a single plot and even move to a separate farm

3. a fund was created from part of the state and imperial lands

4. for the purchase of these and landowners’ lands, the Peasant Bank gave cash loans

5. encouraging the resettlement of peasants beyond the Urals. The settlers were given loans to settle in a new place, but there was not enough money.

The purpose of the reform was to preserve landownership and accelerate the bourgeois evolution of agriculture, overcome communal limitations and educate the peasant as an owner, creating in the countryside the support of the government in the person of the rural bourgeoisie.

The reform contributed to the rise of the country's economy. The purchasing power of the population and foreign exchange earnings associated with the export of grain increased.

However, social goals were not achieved. Only 20-35% of the peasants left the community, because... the majority retained collectivist psychology and traditions. Only 10% of householders started farming. Kulaks left the community more often than the poor. The poor went to the cities or became farm laborers.

20% peasants. who received loans from the Peasant Bank went bankrupt. 16% of migrants were unable to settle in their new place; returned to the central regions. The reform accelerated social stratification - the formation of the rural bourgeoisie and proletariat. The government did not find a strong social support in the village, because did not satisfy the peasants' needs for land. Unfortunately, much did not happen due to the First World War.

Nevertheless, the reform had positive consequences:

1. peasant farming required industrial goods => production of industrial goods.

2. revival of the financial sector, strengthening of the ruble, growing share of Russian capital in the economy

3. growth in agricultural production of marketable bread, bread exports => currency growth

4. the problem of relocation of the center has decreased

5. increasing the influx of workers in industry

in 1909-1913 there is an industrial boom. The pace of industrialization and railway construction accelerated, production increased 1.5 times, and the industrial growth rate over 5 years was 10%.

Stolypin's reforms (1906-1911)

• On the introduction of freedom of religion
• On the establishment of civil equality
• On the reform of higher and secondary schools
• On reforming local government
• On the introduction of universal primary education
• On income tax and police reform
• On improving the material support of public teachers
• On carrying out agrarian reform

Stolypin agrarian reform 1906-1910 (1914,1917)

Goals of the Stolypin Reform:

1. Strengthening social support in the person of strong peasant owners

2) Create conditions for successful economic development

3) Eliminate the causes that gave rise to the revolution. Distract from the idea of ​​abolishing landed estates

Stolypin reform measures

1. The main event is the destruction of the peasant community (the way of life of the peasants, the land is the property of the community, striped land) - the transfer of land into private ownership in the form of cuts - a plot of land allocated to the peasant upon leaving the community with the preservation of his yard in the village, and a farm - a plot of land allocated to a peasant upon leaving the community and moving from the village to his own plot. By 1917, 24% of the peasants left the community. 10% left to become strong owners (but very few of them became)

2) Acquisition of land by peasants through a peasant bank

3) Organization of resettlement of land-poor peasants to empty lands (Siberia, Caucasus, cf. Asia, Far East)

Results of Stolypin's Reforms

1. The tsar's support was not built on the wealthy peasants.
2. Failed to prevent a new upsurge of revolutionary activity
3. Second social The war in the villages further complicated the discontent of the villages. reform
4. It was possible to create impulsive economic development.
5. High rates of economic growth.
6. The development of the early developed regions was not carried out politically and socially.

Pros of reform

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

Overall, by 1916, $2 million of peasant householders became owners of strip plots. This was equal to more than $14 million dessiatines of land. Almost another $1.5 million peasants became owners of farmsteads (i.e., “cuts”) on $12.7 million dessiatines of land. Least of all, about $500$ thousand peasant households left communities in which redistribution had not been carried out for a long time, which, according to the rules, meant the consolidation of existing plots of property. Such property odds were for $2.8 million dessiatines of land.

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

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

Life in the village became better during this period from the First Revolution to the First World War. Stolypin's agrarian reform finally abolished the redemption payments that the peasantry had been burdened with for more than $40 years. Agricultural production began to grow at a rapid pace, and it was possible to overcome the crisis. Also favorable were the harvest years of $1912 and $1913 and a decrease in the frequency of crop failures (only in $1911). The end of the global economic crisis, as well as the worsening situation of landowners, also played a certain role.

Note 1

The Stolypin agrarian reform created the so-called peasant peasantry. "middle class" who had the opportunity to buy or sell land. At the same time, the number of poor people did not decrease, and the government, when introducing the reform, can be said to have paid no attention to them, relying on the wealthy and middle peasantry.

Disadvantages of reform

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

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

The resettlement policy did not achieve the desired results. It was intended to populate isolated areas beyond the Urals - Siberia, the Far East, but those who remained in new places settled not in remote lands, but in already developed ones. Many returned destitute, because... farms were sold. Difficulties were added by the position of the local population and administration - the settlers were greeted reluctantly, if not hostilely, with no intention of helping in their development.

The use of the services of the Peasant Bank also quickly declined due to high rates. Many simply went bankrupt, repaying loans to the bank.

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

Reasons for the failure of the reform

Note 2

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

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

In Russia, the beginning of the 20th century is characterized by the major collapse of the empire and the creation of a state - the 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 the dissolution of the State Duma and the government, the young speaker took over as 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 peasants changed their permanent place of 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 stripes. Each farm received several such strips located in different parts of the field. This process of cultivating the land began to noticeably slow down the prosperity of agriculture.

Homestead land ownership

In the western regions of the country, conditions were simpler for the working class: 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 law enforcement officials 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 plot of land. 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 establish social security for the working class, the state had to carry out severe repressions against organizations that contributed to the start of the revolution. And also, the rules of the labor code at enterprises were not followed, such as accident insurance and compliance with work shift length standards - people worked overtime 3-5 hours a day.

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

Plan

Introduction

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

2. Implementation of the reform

3. Results of the reform

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

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

The bourgeoisie still managed to acquire a significant part of the land. The bourgeoisification of some of the landowners was primarily based on the capitalist restructuring of the estates themselves, which became suppliers of grain to the market and agricultural raw materials for industrial enterprises. Individual landowners invested their capital in industrial, transport and trading enterprises and were shareholders.

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

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

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

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

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

) review the progress of implementation of the reform;

) analyze the results of the reform.

1. Basic provisions of agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin

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

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

At the beginning of the 20th century. “Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry” identified two alternatives associated with the names of S.Yu. Witte and V.K. Plehve. Witte outlined the main provisions of the village development program in his “Note on Peasant Affairs.” In his opinion, the “agricultural issue”, which affected both bankrupt landowners and eternally half-starved landless peasants, could well be resolved on the basis of personal initiative and capitalist entrepreneurship of the entrepreneurs themselves - “rural owners”. Opposing communal land ownership, he believed that everyone should be “equal” owners: both the peasant - his piece of land, and the landowner - his huge latifundia. It was proposed to intensify the lending activities of the Peasant Bank and facilitate the resettlement of everyone to undeveloped lands.

According to Plehve, the peasant community must be preserved; the bankrupt landowners' farms had to be supported by state means and methods.

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

At the beginning of the 20th century. in Russia the class division of the population continued to be preserved. All residents of the Russian Empire (in 1897 - 125.6 million people, and in 1913 - 165.7 million, of which 50% were under 21 years of age), according to duties in favor of the state and rights enshrined in legislation , were distributed among the following classes: peasants (77.1% of the total population), townspeople (10.6%), foreigners - residents of Central Asia, Eastern Siberia, the Caucasus and Northern Caucasus, Astrakhan and Arkhangelsk provinces (6.6%), military Cossacks (2.3%), hereditary and personal nobles, officials not from the nobility (1.5%), foreigners (0.5%), Christian clergy (0.5%), hereditary and personal citizens (0.3 %), merchants (0.2%), persons of other classes (0.4%). Estates reflected the level of development of the country. At the same time, the development of capitalist relations formed new social groups - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Thus, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Russia continued to remain predominantly an agricultural country. After the reform of 1861, the stratification of the peasantry began, a few wealthy families emerged, and completely ruined ones appeared. The middle peasants and the poor made up the bulk of the peasant population.

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

In the revolution of 1905-1907. the issue of creating the conditions necessary for the victory of the “peasant” type of capitalism in bourgeois agrarian development was being resolved. But the revolution was defeated, and such conditions were not created. Naturally, Russia required both political and economic reforms.

After the dissolution of the Second State Duma, Russia received a certain vague status - “constitutional, parliamentary autocracy,” which marked the beginning of the so-called June Third political system. The main architect of this system was P.A. Stolypin, appointed in July 1906 Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Defining his policy, Stolypin said: “Where they break into trains with bombs, rob civilians under the flag of social revolution, there the government is obliged to maintain order, not paying attention to cries for reaction.” In his activities he focused on three problems:

) suppression of revolutionary unrest and crime;

) control over elections to the III State Duma;

) solution to the agrarian question.

To strengthen basic law and order and the possibility of carrying out reforms, Stolypin decided to put an end to revolutionary anarchy. The military courts he established mercilessly restored order. As a result, within 5 months the chaos and increase in crime were put to an end.

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

The essence of the Russian community is a system of collective coercion. The communal peasant had his own allotment of communal land, but did not have the right or opportunity to increase it. The land as a property did not belong to him. Equalization of land redistributions were carried out approximately once every 10 years. Additional land was “issued” only to born boys - the “male soul”. During this redistribution, the plots could have been changed. Mutual responsibility reigned in the community. Its system did not encourage the movement and resettlement of peasants. Moreover, whether to cut down a new hut, whether to go to the city to earn money, etc. was decided by a community gathering; it was necessary to persuade the “peace”, to supply vodka. The fate of business-minded, enterprising communal peasants was decided by the communal “cicerones”. In other words, serfdom never seemed to end. It was, as it were, continued by the communal system.

By the beginning of the 20th century. the peasant community was barely making ends meet. The peasants did not think about commercial products, much less exporting grain.

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

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

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

agrarian reform Russia Stolypin

2. Implementation of the reform

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

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

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

A direct addition to the decree of November 9, 1906 and the Law of June 14, 1910 was the Regulation on Land Management, which became law on May 29, 1911. According to the Law of 1910, developed by the Law of May 29, 1911, peasants received farms and plots in full own.

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

EssenceStolypin's agricultural policy:

1. Peasants were allowed to receive passports freely, without bureaucratic delays. Freedom of movement and choice of profession were ensured.

Free exit from the community was allowed, the land became the property of the peasants. Peasants were encouraged to settle on farms, allocated for cuttings, and concentrated their already private land ownership in one place, outside the community-village, but on the farm.

The peasant bank was charged with the responsibility of buying up landowners' lands at a nominal price, and selling them to peasants who left the community at 20% cheaper. To purchase land, peasants were given a loan for 10, 15, 20 years.

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

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

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

ConsStolypin reform:

1) belatedness. It followed back in the 19th century. create a class of small owners;

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

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

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

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

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

3. Results of the reform

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

However, since 1910, the number of people leaving the community began to decline steadily. The authorities could not understand the reasons for this phenomenon for a long time. And having understood, they did not want to acknowledge them. The fact is that the majority of peasants, including wealthy ones, were reluctant to leave the community. Most of the people who came out were widows, lonely old people, drunken and completely bankrupt householders, many of them were threatened with complete or partial loss of their allotment during the next redistribution. The city residents also became stronger, remembering that in their native village they had an abandoned plot that could now be sold. Those who moved to Siberia also left the community. But the number of people migrating began to decline since 1910.

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

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

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

The result of the Stolypin reform was that by January 1, 1916, 3 million householders left the community. During its course, the situation in the village improved noticeably. From 1906 to 1915 yields increased by 15%, and in some areas by 20-25%.

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

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

Exports of agricultural products increased even more, by 61% compared to 1901-1905, in the pre-war years. Russia was the largest producer and exporter of bread and flax, and a number of livestock products. Thus, in 1910, Russian wheat exports amounted to 36.4% of total world exports.

The above does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be represented peasant's paradise . The problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not resolved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness.

The rate of growth in labor productivity in agriculture has been comparatively slow. But during the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian reforms to transform agriculture into a capital-intensive, technologically advanced sector of the economy.

The assessment of Stolypin's agrarian reform in historical literature is contradictory. Considering the odiousness of the figure of P.A. Stolypin, many authors have a purely negative attitude towards her. However, there is another opinion: this reform was designed to strengthen the capitalist development of the Russian village, and consequently of the entire society, which would seriously serve the economic and political progress of Russia.

Conclusion

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

Stolypin's concept proposed a path for the development of a mixed, multi-structure economy, where state forms of economy had to compete with collective and private ones. The components of his programs are the transition to farmsteads, the use of cooperation, the development of land reclamation, the introduction of three-level agricultural education, the organization of cheap credit for peasants, and the formation of an agricultural party that would actually represent the interests of small landowners.

Stolypin puts forward a liberal doctrine of managing the rural community, eliminating cross-lanes, developing private property in the countryside and achieving economic growth on this basis. With the progress of the market-oriented peasant economy, in the course of the development of land purchase and sale relations, there should be a natural reduction in the landowner's land fund.

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

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

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

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

Another weak point of the agrarian reform was its insufficient funding. Huge state funds were consumed by the arms race, and too little money was allocated to support farms and farms. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a sufficiently massive and stable layer of peasant farmers. So we can talk about the general failure of Stolypin’s agrarian reform. But a blanket negative attitude towards her would be unfair. Some of the events that accompanied the reform were useful. This concerns granting peasants greater personal freedom (in family matters, movement and choice of occupations, in a complete break with the village).

The results of the reform are characterized by rapid growth in agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and Russia's trade balance has become increasingly active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into a dominant feature of Russia’s economic development.

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

List of used literature

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

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

3.Agrarian system in Russia: past, present, future / Ed. V.E. Esipova. St. Petersburg, 1999.

4.Anfimov A.M. Peasant farming in European Russia. 1881-1904. M., 1980.

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

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

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

8.Zaitseva L. Land relations in Russia at the beginning of the century and Stolypin’s agrarian reform // Economist. 1994. No. 2.

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

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

11.Lanshchikov A.P., Salutsky A.S. The peasant question yesterday and today. M., 1990.

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

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

14.Timoshina T.M. Economic history of Russia: Textbook. 4th edition / Ed. M.N. Chepurina. M., 2000.

The more a person is able to respond to the historical and universal, the broader 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 determined by the realities that took 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 previous principles. The economic component of the empire's development was in decline. This was especially true in the agricultural complex, where there was a clear decline. As a result, political events, as well as economic events, prompted Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin to begin implementing reforms.

Background and reasons

One of the main reasons that prompted the Russian Empire to begin a massive change in government was based on the fact that a large number of ordinary people expressed their dissatisfaction with the authorities. If until this time the expression of discontent was limited to one-time peaceful actions, then by 1906 these actions became much larger in scale, as well as bloody. As a result, it became obvious that Russia was struggling not only with obvious economic problems, but also with obvious revolutionary upsurge.

It is obvious that any Victory of the state over the revolution is based not on physical strength, but on spiritual strength. A strong-willed state itself must take the lead in reforms.

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin

One of the significant events that prompted the Russian government to begin early reforms happened on August 12, 1906. On this day, a terrorist attack occurred on Aptekarsky Island in St. Petersburg. In this place of the capital lived Stolypin, who by this time served as chairman of the government. As a result of the explosion, 27 people were killed and 32 people were injured. Among the wounded were Stolypin's daughter and son. The Prime Minister himself miraculously escaped injury. As a result, the country adopted a law on military courts, where all cases related to terrorist attacks were considered in an expedited manner, within 48 hours.

The explosion once again indicated to Stolypin that the people wanted fundamental changes within the country. These changes had to be given to people as soon as possible. That is why Stolypin’s agrarian reform was accelerated, a project that began to advance with giant steps.

The essence of the reform

• The first block called on the country's citizens to calm down, and also informed about the state of emergency in many parts of the country. Due to terrorist attacks in a number of regions of Russia, they were forced to introduce a state of emergency and courts-martial.
• The second block announced the convening 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 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 Chairman of the Government spoke about the need to adopt laws on religion, equality among citizens, reforming the local government system, the rights and life of workers, the need to introduce compulsory primary education, introduce an income tax, increase teachers' salaries, and so on. In a word, everything that Soviet power was subsequently realized was one of the stages of the Stolypin reform.

Of course, it is extremely difficult to start changes of this scale 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. This has always been the case in all countries, and this was also the case in those days in the Russian Empire. Therefore, in order to relieve 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 landowners' lands needed to be redistributed. Often, landowners kept the best lands for themselves, allocating unfertile plots to the peasants.

First stage of reform

Stolypin's agrarian reform began with an attempt to destroy the community. Until this point, peasants in villages lived in communities. These were special territorial entities where people lived as a single community, performing common collective tasks. If we try to give a simpler definition, then communities are very similar to collective farms, which were later implemented by the Soviet government. The problem with the communities was that the peasants lived in a close-knit group. They worked for a common goal for the landowners. Peasants, as a rule, did not have their own large plots, 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. Moreover, if land was allocated in different areas, then the peasant could demand that the lands be combined into a single allotment. Upon leaving the community, the peasant received land in the form of a farm or a farm.

Stolypin's agrarian reform map.

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

Khutor This is a plot of land that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with the relocation 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 landowner's 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:

• Peasants living in communities were massively influenced by revolutionaries. Peasants who live on separate farms are much less accessible to revolutionaries.
• A person who has received 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.
• To divert attention from the desire of ordinary people to divide the landowners' 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. Small and medium-sized landowners were supposed to appear in the country in large numbers, who would not depend directly on the state, but would independently strive to develop their sector. This approach was expressed in the words of Stolypin himself, who often confirmed that the country, in its development, places emphasis on “strong” and “strong” landowners.

At the initial stage of development of the reform, few enjoyed the right to leave the community. In fact, only wealthy peasants and the poor left the community. Prosperous peasants came out because they had everything for independent work, and they could now work not for the community, but for themselves. The poor people came out in order to receive compensation money, thereby improving 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 farms.

Official statistics show that only 10% of all newly formed agricultural enterprises could claim the title of successful farming. Only these 10% of farms used modern technology, fertilizer, modern methods of working on the land, and so on. Ultimately, only these 10% of farms operated profitably from an economic point of view. All other farms that were formed during Stolypin’s agrarian reform turned out to be unprofitable. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people leaving the community were poor people who were not interested in the development of the agricultural 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 has been extremely little developed. As a result, the vast majority of land in these regions was undeveloped. Therefore, Stolypin’s agrarian reform set one of its tasks to resettle peasants from the western provinces to the eastern. In particular, it was said that peasants should move beyond the Urals. First of all, these changes were supposed to affect those peasants who did not own their own land.

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

• The peasant's farm was exempt from any taxes for 5 years.
• The peasant received the land as his own property. Land was provided at the rate of 15 hectares per farm, as well as 45 hectares for each family member.
• Each settler received a cash loan on a preferential basis. The amount of this loan depended on the region of resettlement, and in some regions reached up to 400 rubles. This is a lot of money for the Russian Empire. In any region, 200 rubles were given free of charge, and the rest in the form of a loan.
• All men who formed a farming enterprise were exempt 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 people moving to Siberia. Between 1906 and 1914, more than 3 million people moved to Siberia. However, the problem was that the government was not ready for such a massive relocation and did not have time to prepare normal living conditions for people in a particular region. As a result, people arrived at their new place of residence without any amenities or devices for a comfortable stay. As a result, about 17% of people returned to their previous place of residence from Siberia alone.

Despite this, Stolypin’s agrarian reform in terms of relocation of people produced positive results. Here, positive results should be considered not from the point of view of the number of people who moved and returned. The main indicator of the effectiveness of this reform is the development of new lands. If we talk about Siberia, the resettlement of people led to the development of 30 million acres of land in this region, which was previously empty. An even more important advantage was that the new farms were completely separated from the communities. A man came with his family on his own and raised his own farm. He had no public interests, no neighboring interests. He knew that there was a specific plot of land that belonged to him, and which should feed him. That is why the efficiency indicators of agrarian reform in the eastern regions of Russia are slightly higher than in the western regions. And this is despite the fact that the western regions and western provinces are traditionally better funded and traditionally more fertile with cultivated land. It was in the east that it was possible to achieve the creation of strong farms.

Main results of the reform

Stolypin's agrarian reform was of great importance for the Russian Empire. This is the first time the country has begun to implement changes of this magnitude within the country. Positive changes were obvious, 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 internal and external peace and you will not recognize Russia.

Stolypin Pyotr Arkadevich

This was indeed the case, 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 reduced to the following provisions:

• The area under cultivation throughout the country was increased by 10%.
• In some regions, where peasants left the community en masse, the sown area was increased to 150%.
• Grain exports were increased, accounting for 25% of all world grain exports. In good years, this figure increased to 35 - 40%.
• The purchase of agricultural equipment over the years of reforms has increased by 3.5 times.
• The volume of fertilizers used has increased 2.5 times.
• The growth of industry in the country took colossal steps of +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 has not been able to fully implement farming. This was due to the fact that the peasants had very strong traditions of collective farming. And the peasants found a way out for themselves in creating cooperatives. In addition, artels were created everywhere. The first artel was created in 1907.

Artel This is the unification 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 incomes and with common responsibility for the final result.

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