Stolypin agrarian reform, bourgeois reform of peasant allotment land ownership in Russia. It began by decree on November 9, 1906, and ended by decree of the Provisional Government on June 28 (July 11), 1917. Named after the Chairman of the Council of Ministers P. A. Stolypin, the initiator and leader of the reform. Socio-economic essence of S. a. R. defined by V.I. Lenin: “The capitalist development of Russia has already taken such a step forward over the last half century that the preservation of serfdom in agriculture has become absolutely impossible, its elimination has taken the form of a violent crisis, a national revolution” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed. , vol. 16, p. 403). The defeat of the Revolution of 1905-07 allowed tsarism and the landowners to try to carry out the objectively overdue destruction of the remnants of serfdom through reforms. They sought to eliminate the remnants of serfdom in peasant allotment land ownership while maintaining landownership, the main stronghold of bondage and labor. The scope of the revolutionary struggle of the peasantry in 1905-1907 forced tsarism to abandon attempts “... to present itself in the eyes of the masses as standing “above the classes,” protecting the interests of the broad mass of peasants, protecting them from landlessness and ruin” (ibid., vol. 23, p. 260) and take measures to establish an economic and political union of landowners and tsarism with the peasant bourgeoisie. The destruction of the community and the establishment of private peasant land ownership was the main content of the S. a.
By allowing the sale and purchase of plots, the government facilitated the drain of the poor from the countryside and the concentration of land in the hands of the kulaks. The land management carried out during the reform was aimed primarily at the creation of farms and plots on peasant allotment land. This was done in gross violation of the interests of the peasants remaining in the community, because those who went out to the farms and cut off the best lands.
In the implementation of S. a. R. The activities of the Peasant Bank were significant. The largest amounts of bank loans for the purchase of land were issued to individual householders, and among them, on preferential terms, to the owners of farms and farmsteads. The bank sold 3/4 of its own land fund to the owners of farms and farmsteads. During the years of S. a. R. The scale of peasant resettlement expanded (see Resettlement). The government began to actively promote the resettlement of the rural poor from the central provinces of Russia to the outskirts, especially to Siberia. However, the development of new lands was beyond the power of the ruined peasantry. Of the 3 million people who resettled in 1906-16, 548 thousand people returned to their former places, i.e. 18%.
Results of S. a. R. indicated its failure. Despite government pressure, by January 1, 1916, only 2,478 thousand householders with 16,919 thousand dessiatines left the communities. land, which amounted to only 26% of the number of communal households and about 15% of the area of peasant communal land ownership.
S. a. R. accelerated and facilitated the process of involving peasant allotment land in trade. On its basis, class differentiation among the peasantry grew. 1079.9 thousand householders (53% of those who left the community) sold 3776.2 thousand dessiatines of allotment land in 1908-15. (22.4% of all allotment land ownership). The overwhelming majority of peasants who sold land went bankrupt. The concentration of allotment land in the hands of the kulaks increased.
The hopes of tsarism for the massive creation of farmsteads and cuts as a support base for the “strong” peasantry did not materialize. During 1907-16, new plot land ownership amounted to 1,317 thousand farms on allotment land with 12,777 thousand dessiatines; on land purchased with the help of the Peasant Bank - 339 thousand farms with 4137 thousand dessiatines; on state-owned lands - 13 thousand farms with 224 thousand dessiatines; total - up to 1,670 thousand farms with 17,138 thousand dess. land. Organizing farming on farms and farms required significant funds and was ruinous for the bulk of the peasantry. The number of wealthy farms and cuts was insignificant. A clear indicator of the failure of S. a. R. there was a famine in 1911 that affected the main agricultural regions of Russia, from which more than 30 million people suffered. rural population.
S. a. R. did not lead to fundamental socio-economic changes and could not prevent the maturation of a new bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. During the years of S. a. R. A mass peasant movement developed in the country, the leading place in which was occupied by anti-landowner protests. Along with them, clashes between peasants and troops and police in connection with the implementation of the SA became widespread. R. - so-called "land riots" The struggle of the rural poor against the kulaks, including against the “new landowners” - farmers and log farmers, intensified.
Stolypin carried out his reforms from 1906, when he was appointed prime minister, until his death on September 5, caused by assassins' bullets.
Agrarian reform
In short, the main goal agrarian reform Stolypin was the creation of a wide layer of rich peasants. Unlike the 1861 reform, the emphasis was on the individual owner rather than the community. The previous communal form fettered the initiative of the hard-working peasants, but now, freed from the community and not looking back at the “poor and drunk,” they could dramatically increase the efficiency of their farming. The law of June 14, 1910 stated that from now on, “every householder who owns an allotment of land on a communal basis may at any time demand that the part due to him from the said land be strengthened as his personal property.” Stolypin believed that the wealthy peasantry would become the real support of the autocracy. An important part of the Stolypin agrarian reform was the activity of the credit bank. This institution sold land to peasants on credit, either state-owned or purchased from landowners. Moreover, the interest rate on loans for independent peasants was half that for communities. Through a credit bank, peasants acquired in 1905-1914. about 9 and a half million hectares of land. However, measures against defaulters were harsh: the land was taken away from them and put back on sale. Thus, the reforms not only made it possible to acquire land, but also encouraged people to actively work on it. Another important part of Stolypin's reform was the resettlement of peasants to free lands. The bill prepared by the government provided for the transfer of state lands in Siberia to private hands without redemption. However, there were also difficulties: there were not enough funds or surveyors to carry out land survey work. But despite this, resettlement to Siberia, as well as Far East, Central Asia and the North Caucasus was gaining momentum. The move was free, and specially equipped “Stolypin” cars made it possible to transport railway livestock The state tried to improve life in the resettlement areas: schools, medical centers, etc. were built.
Zemstvo
Being a supporter of zemstvo administration, Stolypin extended zemstvo institutions to some provinces where they had not existed before. It was not always politically simple. For example, the implementation of zemstvo reform in the western provinces, historically dependent on the gentry, was approved by the Duma, which supported the improvement of the situation of the Belarusian and Russian population, which constituted the majority in these territories, but was met with sharp rebuff in the State Council, which supported the gentry.
Industry reform
The main stage in resolving the labor issue during the years of Stolypin's premiership was the work of the Special Meeting in 1906 and 1907, which prepared ten bills that affected the main aspects of labor in industrial enterprises. These were questions about rules for hiring workers, insurance for accidents and illnesses, working hours, etc. Unfortunately, the positions of industrialists and workers (as well as those who incited the latter to disobedience and rebellion) were too far from each other and the compromises found did not suit either one or the other (which was readily used by all kinds of revolutionaries).
National question
Stolypin perfectly understood the importance of this issue in such a multinational country as Russia. He was a supporter of unification, not disunity, of the peoples of the country. He proposed creating a special ministry of nationalities that would study the characteristics of each nation: history, traditions, culture, social life, religion, etc. - so that they flow into our great power with the greatest mutual benefit. Stolypin believed that all peoples should have equal rights and responsibilities and be loyal to Russia. Also, the task of the new ministry was to counter the internal and external enemies of the country who sought to sow ethnic and religious discord.
Abstract on the history of Russia
P.A. Stolypin(1862-1911). In 1906-1911 Stolypin is Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Internal Affairs. Operating principles: calm and reform, - “Give the state 20 years of internal and external peace, and you will not recognize today’s Russia,” “You need great upheavals, but we need a great Russia.” I bet on the lower classes. Neither the government nor the court understood Stolypin. In 1911, he was killed at a performance in the Kyiv opera, where the sovereign was (the killer was Bagrov: the son of a lawyer, landowner; he was associated with the Social Democrats, Socialist Revolutionaries, anarcho-communists, but worked for the secret police; he was hanged).
Reform of 1861- the first stage of the transition to individualization of land ownership and land use. But the abolition of serfdom did not lead to the progress of private property. In the 80-90s, the government sought to establish communal structures in the countryside, which contradicted, in the future, free peasant property. The reforms started by P.A. Stolypin could overcome these difficulties. His concept proposed a path for the development of a mixed, multi-structure economy, where government forms farms had to compete with collective and private ones.
Components of his program- transition to farms, the use of cooperation, the development of land reclamation, the introduction of three-stage agricultural education, the organization of cheap loans for peasants, the formation of an agricultural party that would actually represent the interests of the small landowner.
Stolypin puts forward a liberal doctrine of managing rural communities, developing private property in rural areas and achieving, on this basis, economic growth. With the progress of the market-oriented peasant economy, in the course of the development of land purchase and sale relations, there should have been a natural reduction in the landowners' 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 two cultures - noble and peasant - was supposed to take place.
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 in force local conditions the community is economically viable, “it is necessary for the peasant himself to choose the method of using the land that suits him best.”
Agrarian reform consisted of a set of sequentially carried out and interconnected measures.
Peasant Bank.
The Bank carried out large-scale purchases of lands with their subsequent resale to peasants on preferential terms, and intermediary operations to increase peasant land use. He increased credit to the peasants and significantly reduced the cost of it, and the bank paid more interest on its obligations than the peasants paid it. The difference in payment was covered by subsidies from the budget.
The Bank actively influenced the forms of land ownership: for peasants who acquired land as their sole property, payments were reduced. As a result, if before 1906 the bulk of land buyers were peasant collectives, then by 1913 79.7% of buyers were individual peasants.
Destruction of the community and development of private property.
To transition to new economic relations, a whole system of economic and legal measures was developed to regulate the agricultural economy. The decree of November 9, 1906 proclaimed the predominance of the fact of sole ownership of land over the legal right of use. Peasants could now allocate land that was actually in use from the community, regardless of its will.
Measures were taken to ensure the strength and stability of working peasant farms. So, in order to avoid land speculation and concentration of ownership, it was legally limited size limit individual land ownership, the sale of land to non-peasants was allowed.
The law of June 5, 1912 allowed the issuance of a loan secured by any allotment land acquired by peasants. Development various forms credit: mortgage, reclamation, agricultural, land management - contributed to the intensification market relations in the village.
In 1907 - 1915 25% of householders declared separation from the community, but 20% actually separated - 2008.4 thousand householders. New forms of land tenure became widespread: farms and cuts. On January 1, 1916, there were already 1,221.5 thousand of them. In addition, the law of June 14, 1910 considered it unnecessary for many peasants who were only formally considered community members to leave the community. The number of such farms amounted to about one third of all communal households.
Relocation of peasants to Siberia.
By decree of March 10, 1906, the right to resettle peasants was granted to everyone without restrictions. The government allocated considerable funds for the costs of settling settlers in new places, for their medical care and public needs, and for building roads. In 1906-1913, 2792.8 thousand people moved beyond the Urals. The scale of this event also led to difficulties in its implementation. The number of peasants who were unable to adapt to new conditions and were forced to return amounted to 12% of the total number of migrants.
The results of the resettlement campaign were as follows. Firstly, during this period there was a huge leap in economic and social development Siberia. The population of this region increased by 153% during the years of colonization. If before the resettlement to Siberia there was a reduction in sown areas, then in 1906-1913 they were expanded by 80%, while in the European part of Russia by 6.2%. In terms of the pace of development of livestock farming, Siberia also overtook the European part of Russia.
Cooperative movement.
Loans from the peasant bank could not fully satisfy the peasant's demand for money goods. Therefore, credit cooperation has become widespread and has gone through two stages in its development. At the first stage, administrative forms of regulation of small credit relations prevailed. By creating a qualified cadre of small loan inspectors, and by allocating significant credit through state banks for initial loans to credit unions and for subsequent loans, the government stimulated the cooperative movement. At the second stage, rural credit partnerships, accumulating their own capital, developed independently.
As a result, a wide network of small peasant credit institutions, savings and loan banks and credit partnerships was created that served money turnover peasant farms. By January 1, 1914, the number of such institutions exceeded 13 thousand.
Credit relations gave a strong impetus to the development of production, consumer and marketing cooperatives. Peasants on a cooperative basis created artels, agricultural societies, consumer shops, etc.
Agricultural activities.
One of the main obstacles to the economic progress of the village was the low level of farming and the illiteracy of the vast majority of producers who were accustomed to working according to the general custom. During the years of reform, peasants were provided with large-scale agro-economic assistance. Agro-industrial services were specially created for peasants, who organized training courses on cattle breeding and dairy production, democratization and the introduction of progressive forms of agricultural production. Much attention was paid to the progress of the system of out-of-school agricultural education. If in 1905 the number of students at agricultural courses was 2 thousand people, then in 1912 - 58 thousand, and at agricultural readings - 31.6 thousand and 1046 thousand people, respectively.
Results of reforms.
The results of the reform were 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 became increasingly active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of crisis, but also to turn it into a dominant economic development Russia.
The gross income of all agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total GDP. The income of the entire national economy due to the increase in the value of products created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.
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 agrarian reform in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, called the Stolypin reform in honor of Prime Minister Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, was directly determined not by economic, but by political objectives. After the peasant unrest of 1902–1906. They were looking for an opportunity to pacify the village, and P. Stolypin tried to find a support for power in a strong man. However, the reform had more economic foundations, embedded in the entire development of the village after the abolition of serfdom. The landowner wedge, although it had shrunk by a quarter by 1900, nevertheless, 30 thousand landowner families owned as much land as 10 million peasant families. Up to 40% of land for possible agricultural use was in specific and state ownership. Therefore, the main demand of all peasants during the unrest at the beginning of the 20th century was the division of landowners’ and royal lands.
But during the reform, the government decided to play on the contradictions of the peasantry itself. Social differentiation quickly increased among peasants. By the beginning of the 20th century. 16.5 million peasants had land plots of 1 dessiatine, a fifth of the peasantry turned out to be completely landless - these were rural farm laborers, of whom there were 3.5 million or 20% of the adult male population of the village.
Overall, the poor made up about 50% of the peasants and used only about 30% of the land, while the 10% of kulak farms used almost half of the total land. On average, the peasant's allotment per revision per capita was constantly decreasing and in the 1860s amounted to. – 4.8 dessiatines, in 1880 – 3.5 dessiatines, in 1900 – 2.6 dessiatines.
The main obstacle to the capitalist modernization of agriculture in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. There was no landownership, but communal ownership. The landowner economy evolved faster than the peasant economy towards the market, improved technology and organization of the economy. Let us note that the share of landowner agriculture in England, for example, was much greater than in Russia. This did not prevent the fact that England's agriculture was one of the most developed in the world. Communal land ownership in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. spread to almost 100% of agricultural land used by peasants.
With the development of the market and social differentiation in the countryside, communal principles of land ownership even intensified. The increasing redistribution of land was dictated by the attempts of the poor strata not so much to improve their economic situation as to worsen the situation of their richer fellow villagers. And the tsarist government at first even prevented the weakening of the community, so in 1893 a law was passed that prohibited even those peasants who had paid redemption payments for allotment lands from leaving the community, since the community, with the help of circular scrolling, facilitated the collection of taxes when the rich paid for the poor .
Despite the fact that the agrarian reform is called Stolypin, its main ideas and proposals on directions for implementation belong to S. Witte, who back in 1896 first spoke out against communal land ownership and mutual responsibility. In 1898, in this regard, he addressed an official letter to the Tsar and in 1903 he managed to achieve the abolition of mutual responsibility, after which each family was now fully responsible for its duties.
After the peasant unrest of 1902, special editorial commissions were created under the Ministry of Internal Affairs to revise all legislation on peasants, including on land ownership, on the community, on mutual responsibility, etc. In the same year, a special meeting was created under the leadership of S. Witte to clarify the needs of agricultural production. 618 local committees of this meeting were also formed. In these organizations, the bulk were officials and landowners, and peasants - only 2%.
At the meetings and in the press, the main ideas were expressed, which later formed the basis of the agrarian reform. In most speeches main reason The disadvantages of the peasants were called technical backwardness, so it was proposed to improve farming technology and move to a multi-field system with sowing of root crops and herbs. And since this modernization was hampered by the community, most committees concluded that it was necessary to help the transition from communal land ownership to household and farm land ownership, giving the peasants the right to leave the community even without its consent. It was also pointed out that it was necessary to allow peasants leaving the community to sell their land, to equalize peasants with other classes in economic and civil rights, etc. But then the Witt conference was recognized as too left-wing and was dissolved.
However, reforms in the countryside were long overdue and even overripe, and peasant unrest that flared up again in mid-1905 forced urgent reforms of agriculture to begin even before P. Stolypin. On August 12, 1905, new rules were introduced that expanded the activities of the Peasant Bank. On August 27, a law on state-owned lands was adopted for the same purpose. On November 3, 1905, the law abolished redemption payments for allotment land. The peasants had long ago paid the ransom amount and by this time were only paying interest on the installments. On March 14, 1906, new rules on land management were adopted, and on March 10, 1906, a law on the freedom of resettlement of peasants was adopted.
At the peak of revolutionary events in the fall of 1905, Professor P. Migulin’s project on the immediate transfer of half of the landowners’ lands to the peasants was very popular. The government at this time was ready to transfer them 25 million dessiatines. landowners' and appanage lands. But already at the beginning of 1906, after some decline in the revolution, these bills were rejected and the landowners' lands became inviolable. Instead, the government emphasized increasing the number of strong peasant farms at the expense of the poorest members of the community.
The arrival of P. Stolypin in the spring of 1906 to the post of Minister of Internal Affairs, and in July to the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, sharply accelerated agrarian reforms. P. Stolypin himself almost did not put forward new ideas, and his merit is that he carried out this reform consistently and even excessively harshly, relying on his police experience and apparatus. The transition to a new course of agrarian policy was completed by the law of November 9, 1906, which was called “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Resolutions on Peasant Land Ownership” or, as it was essentially called, “on the destruction of the community.” Let us note that P. Stolypin carried out the agrarian laws in a non-parliamentary way, in addition to the State Duma, in accordance with Article 87 of the fundamental laws, as extraordinary and impatient of delay. The Duma legalized these reforms only on June 14, 1910.
In agrarian reform, 3 main directions can be distinguished: 1. Destruction of the community and changes in peasant land ownership. 2. Using the peasant land bank to establish prosperous peasant farms by selling them land and helping them with loans. 3. Resettlement policy to the free lands of the Northern Caucasus, the Urals and Siberia due to the lack of land in Central Russia. These three areas are closely interconnected and complement each other. Let's look at them in more detail.
All peasant communities were divided into two groups: communities that did not redistribute land and communities that carried out such redistribution. The first were recognized as having directly transferred to household land ownership, and all plots of land were assigned to individual householders on the basis of personal property. In communities where redistributions were carried out, the householder could at any time demand that the land due to him under the redistribution be assigned to him as personal property. The community was obliged, in the event of striping, to provide plots of land to those allocated in one place. The peasants who left retained the right to use joint land (haymaking, forest, etc.). The peasants went to the cuttings if they continued to live in the village, and to the farms if they moved the house to their own plot.
In the case when the community did not consider the application for secession within a month, there was imperious intervention from above. If at the time of exit the peasant used more land, than was the average per capita in the community, he bought it from the community at prices in 1861, which were 2 - 3 times lower than the actual prices of the beginning of the 20th century. Anyone who stood out could freely sell his land, which was especially widely used by those with little land who went to the city. Although the law limited the possibility of purchasing allotment land to no more than 6 per capita plots, nevertheless, this gave more possibilities by concentration of land among wealthy owners.
The results of this direction of agrarian reform can be judged from the following data. Until January 1, 1916, a total of European Russia 2,755 thousand households declared demands for land ownership, of which 1,008 thousand with an area of arable land of 14,123 thousand dessiatines were separated from the community. In addition, we received satisfactory certificates for securing plots where there was no redistribution of 470 thousand households with an area of 2,796 thousand dessiatines. In total, 2,478 thousand householders with an area of 16,919 thousand dessiatines left the community and secured the land as personal property, which amounted to about 24% of all peasant households in 40 provinces of European Russia.
The largest number of exits from the community occurred in 1908–1909. This is explained by the fact that at this time the most interested people came out, i.e. the most prosperous or those who sought to quickly liquidate their land and land-owning economy. In subsequent years, therefore, the number of attachments and exits decreased greatly. The greatest number of exits and consolidations was observed in the territories that were most capitalistically developed, such as the Kiev province and Novorossiya.
The 2nd direction of the Stolypin reform includes the activities of the Peasant Bank to sell land and support strong owners among the peasants. The Peasant Land Bank received the right to independently purchase privately owned lands, primarily landowners' lands, and sell them to peasants. The bank helped the nobles sell their estates at a profit, fragmented them, and also provided it with state and appanage lands, divided into plots, and sold them to the peasants. The bank issued loans for the improvement and development of peasant farms and provided resettlement assistance.
During the ten years of reform (1906–1915), private estates worth 4,326 thousand dessiatines were transferred to the land fund of the Peasant Bank, and specific lands for only 1,258 thousand dessiatines. State-owned lands were transferred to peasants only in case of resettlement to Siberia, but even here, despite the vast territories, the number of plots of land ready for settlement was quickly exhausted. The price of land was constantly growing, largely due to the speculative activities of the Peasant Bank, and by 1916 it had risen 1.5–2 times. For 1895–1905 The bank bought land from landowners for an average of 71 rubles per dessiatine, and in 1906 - 1915 for 161 rubles. This, despite a decrease of 80%, according to all economic laws, the price of land should have fallen. Therefore, even P. Stolypin himself insisted on selling land directly to the peasants themselves, bypassing the bank. The Peasant Bank sold land from its fund mainly to independent peasant farms. So, for 1907 - 1916. 54.6% were sold to bran farmers, 23.4% to farmers, 17% to rural communities, and 5% of all land sales.
Peasants also sold land. For 1908–1915 1.2 million peasant households sold their allotment land with an area of 3.9 million dessiatines, and more than half of those who sold the land broke with the village altogether and went to the city, others sold the land to purchase it in one plot and in case of resettlement. The Peasant Bank issued loans for the development of farms, but here, too, differentiation was observed - only 159 rubles were issued through the community per person, and 500 rubles per individual owner.
For a long time, the tsarist government not only did not encourage the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts of the country, where there was a lot of free land, but even prevented it. Thus, the laws of 1881 and 1889 placed all sorts of restrictions on resettlement so as not to deprive landowners of cheap tenants and workers. It was only with the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway that resettlement began to be encouraged. In the 1890s. There was a land management commission under General I. Zhilinsky. 722 resettlement sites, hundreds of wells, gates, and reservoirs were built. The total costs amounted to 2.5 billion rubles - this is about two annual budgets of that time. It was only on June 6, 1904 that resettlement was declared free by law, but even then it was divided into those encouraged by the government (financial and other benefits) and those not encouraged.
During the Stolypin reform, the number of landless and land-poor peasants was supposed to increase even more, and in order to ease their unrest, resettlement to free lands, mainly to the east, although a little to North Caucasus. The Peasant Bank actively assisted the resettlement with loans and subsidies. The government lands occupied by the settlers were promised to be transferred to their private ownership. For the Urals, who wanted to receive land for free, 15 dessiatines were transferred. per owner and 4.5 dess. for each family member. The peasant bank was supposed to buy land from the settlers in the abandoned area at the market price. It turned out material aid for moving. Those moving to the Far East were given 400 rubles per family, with 200 rubles free of charge. On average, it turned out to be 165 rubles per family. The settlers were exempt from taxes for 3 years and from conscription into the army.
Over the 10 years of reforms, more than 3 million people moved beyond the Urals, and about 30 million dessiatines were developed by them. empty lands. The number of immigrants reached its maximum in 1908–1909, as well as those who left the community. Then optimistic expectations for a successful move and the establishment of a wealthy owner in a new place weakened, especially since some settlers began to return back and talk about failures. Land development commissions did not always cope with their work; there were not enough funds for development; some of them were completely stolen; ignorance of the locals was a hindrance. natural conditions, were tormented by illness, etc. So, during the ten years of reform, more than 100 thousand displaced people died. The flow of people returning to their old place of residence was constantly growing. If at first those who returned made up only 6–8% of all those who left, then in subsequent years the figure was 20%–30%, and in the hungry year of 1911, 64% returned. In total, out of 3 million people who left the Urals, about 0.5% of the million returned back.
Despite the initial promise, private land ownership has gained little traction in Siberia. Most of the land belonged to the treasury or the state army. Typically, peasants who settled on state-owned lands received it not as property, but for indefinite use. P. Stolypin even considered the issue of selling state-owned land beyond the Urals. This only confirms his ignorance of the specific economic situation; he still understood more about police issues.
The peasants did not always have enough money even for travel, not to mention the arrangement. The Stolypin agrarian program was not limited to just these three areas. He made a number of proposals to improve peasant land ownership and land use, to organize a state insurance system for peasant farms, to establish a system of primary education for peasants and develop it up to secondary school, with him adding another 150 to the 150 existing primary peasant schools, and changes were planned in local government. A cooperative movement of all types among peasants developed rapidly; the center of this movement was the specially created People's Bank. If for 1901 - 1905 In Russia, 641 consumer societies were created, then in 1906–1911. 4715 – an increase of 7.4 times, and the number of credit partnerships for 1905 – 1913. increased by 6.7 times. Production cooperation, for example, between Siberian butter producers, also developed successfully. Siberian oil in Europe was considered better than Dutch.
P. Stolypin believed that the agrarian reform was progressing successfully, and if he demanded 50 years to reorganize the village, then in March 1910. stated that with such successful work in 6-7 years there will be almost no community, so the government will not forcefully break it up. In general, at the beginning of the 20th century. Agriculture developed successfully. Productivity increased, for example, for wheat in 1906 it was 31.3 poods. per decade, in 1909 -55.4 poods, in 1913 58.2 poods; for rye, respectively – 34.5 poods, 53.1 poods, 61.3 poods. The gross wheat harvest in 1906 amounted to 565.9 million. pud., in 1913 –1082.3 million pood. – growth 1.8 times; rye, respectively, 819.6 million. pood. and 1299.1 million. pood. -1.6 times. Grain exports reached 15.5 million tons in 1912 and doubled compared to 1900.
The situation was worse with the development of livestock farming. From 1900 to 1913, the number of horses increased from 19.7 million to 22.8 million heads, cattle from 31.7 million heads to 31.9 million; pigs from 11.7 million heads to 13.5 million, and sheep even decreased from 47.6 million heads to 41.4 million. Per capita and per tithe of crops, the number of livestock decreased. So, for 100 dess. crops in 56 provinces accounted for cattle in 1901–1905. 46 goals. And in 1913 –43; sheep, 66 and 56 heads, respectively; the number of pigs increased from 17 heads to 18 heads. These facts show that, despite the developments that emerged in 1900 - 1913. agrotechnical rise, agriculture had not yet completely outlived the three-field system and continued to develop by expanding grain areas and reducing forage areas and the number of livestock, especially per capita. And this is typical mainly for the extensive development of agriculture by expanding the areas used.
Although the technical level also increased somewhat, which was manifested in the increase in the use of agricultural machinery and fertilizers. If in 1900 agricultural machinery was consumed in the amount of 27.9 million rubles and in 1908 in the amount of 61.3 million rubles, then in 1913 it was already in the amount of 109.2 million rubles. However, this increase in the number of machines used came, of course, at the expense of the capitalizing landowner and kulak economy. The general technical level of the bulk of the peasant economy remained very low, most of the peasant fields were cultivated with plows, sowing grain and threshing it was carried out in a primitive manner. manually. Thus, in 1910, in all Russian agriculture, 3 million wooden plows, 7.9 million wooden plows, 5.7 million wooden harrows, 15.9 million harrows with iron teeth, and only 490 thousand all-iron ones were used. harrow, 811 thousand. reaping machines and a total of 27 thousand steam threshing machines.
Only just before the World War did the number of iron plows become equal to the number of plows and wooden plows. There were no tractors or other complex machines at all. The use of artificial fertilizers is another sign of the intensification of agricultural production; in this regard, Russia lagged far behind the West. In 1900, 6 million poods of them were imported, and in 1912 there were already 35 million poods. Domestic production of phosphates of all types amounted to 1,425 thousand poods in 1908, and by 1912 it increased to 3,235 thousand poods, i.e. so far it was mainly a foreign product.
Another indicator of intensive agricultural development is the expansion of crops. Here for 15 pre-war years there has been significant progress. The areas sown with cotton increased the most - 111.6%, sunflowers - 61%, sugar beets - 39.5%, tobacco - 18.5%, potatoes -15.8%, forage grasses - 79.3%. Although this expansion was mainly due to new areas, and not due to grain, as in the most developed countries. The area under grain in Russia also increased – by 10.8%.
However, these some successes in agriculture cannot be attributed only to the Stolypin reform, since at that time there was a general global rise in agriculture, the agrarian crisis ended at the end of the 19th century. Russia was also lucky in that, except for 1911, all other years brought good harvests. In general, P. Stolypin failed to pacify the village. Social differentiation and contradictions within it have even worsened. The number of poor people exceeded 60%; the share of horseless people in 1913 was 31.4%. As before, all peasants unanimously supported the division of landowners' and appanage lands, and the poor also supported the division of kulak lands.
Communal land ownership extended to 75% of peasant lands. Due to archaic relations in the countryside, productive forces and productivity growth were slow to develop, especially compared to the West. The tsarist government preserved backward relations in the countryside until the end of the 19th century, supporting the interests of the landowners and seeing its support in the peasant community and the village middle peasants. But economic and socio-political contradictions accumulated and intensified from this. The intensity they reached was shown by the peasant unrest of 1902 and 1905–1906. The merit of P. Stolypin was that he did not try to brush aside these problems and flirt with the entire village, but took a firm course towards strengthening the alliance with only one part of the peasantry - the strong owners.
But the fists did not become a strong support royal power, they retained extensive ties with the entire peasantry and were unable to consolidate into an independent political force. Like all peasants, they still coveted the landowners’ and royal lands, therefore, together with the entire peasantry, they initially supported February revolution, and then at first even the Bolsheviks (in the liquidation of the tsarist landownership). Thus, agrarian reforms in Russia were delayed by several decades, which affected not only the lag of the productive forces, but also the support in general by all Russian peasants for the three revolutions of the early 20th century.
Stolypin's reforms (briefly)
Stolypin carried out his reforms from 1906, when he was appointed prime minister, until his death on September 5, caused by assassins' bullets.
Agrarian reform
In short, the main goal of Stolypin's agrarian reform was to create a wide stratum of rich peasants. Unlike the 1861 reform, the emphasis was on the individual owner rather than the community. The previous communal form fettered the initiative of the hard-working peasants, but now, freed from the community and not looking back at the “poor and drunk,” they could dramatically increase the efficiency of their farming. The law of June 14, 1910 stated that from now on, “every householder who owns an allotment of land on a communal basis may at any time demand that the part due to him from the said land be strengthened as his personal property.” Stolypin believed that the wealthy peasantry would become the real support of the autocracy. An important part of the Stolypin agrarian reform was the activity of the credit bank. This institution sold land to peasants on credit, either state-owned or purchased from landowners. Moreover, the interest rate on loans for independent peasants was half that for communities. Through a credit bank, peasants acquired in 1905-1914. about 9 and a half million hectares of land. However, measures against defaulters were harsh: the land was taken away from them and put back on sale. Thus, the reforms not only made it possible to acquire land, but also encouraged people to actively work on it. Another important part of Stolypin's reform was the resettlement of peasants to free lands. The bill prepared by the government provided for the transfer of state lands in Siberia to private hands without redemption. However, there were also difficulties: there were not enough funds or surveyors to carry out land survey work. But despite this, resettlement to Siberia, as well as the Far East, Central Asia and the North Caucasus, gained momentum. The move was free, and specially equipped “Stolypin” carriages made it possible to transport cattle by rail. The state tried to improve life in the resettlement areas: schools, medical centers, etc. were built.
Zemstvo
Being a supporter of zemstvo administration, Stolypin extended zemstvo institutions to some provinces where they had not existed before. It was not always politically simple. For example, the implementation of zemstvo reform in the western provinces, historically dependent on the gentry, was approved by the Duma, which supported the improvement of the situation of the Belarusian and Russian population, which constituted the majority in these territories, but was met with sharp rebuff in the State Council, which supported the gentry.
Industry reform
The main stage in resolving the labor issue during the years of Stolypin's premiership was the work of the Special Meeting in 1906 and 1907, which prepared ten bills that affected the main aspects of labor in industrial enterprises. These were questions about rules for hiring workers, insurance for accidents and illnesses, working hours, etc. Unfortunately, the positions of industrialists and workers (as well as those who incited the latter to disobedience and rebellion) were too far from each other and the compromises found did not suit either one or the other (which was readily used by all kinds of revolutionaries).
National question
Stolypin perfectly understood the importance of this issue in such a multinational country as Russia. He was a supporter of unification, not disunity, of the peoples of the country. He proposed creating a special ministry of nationalities that would study the characteristics of each nation: history, traditions, culture, social life, religion, etc. - so that they flow into our great power with the greatest mutual benefit. Stolypin believed that all peoples should have equal rights and responsibilities and be loyal to Russia. Also, the task of the new ministry was to counteract the internal and external enemies of the country who sought to sow ethnic and religious discord.