The most important documents of the Stolypin agrarian reform. Agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin

The agrarian reform in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, which was called the Stolypin reform in honor of Prime Minister Pyotr Arkadievich Stolypin, was directly conditioned not by economic, but by political tasks. After the peasant unrest of 1902-1906. they were looking for an opportunity to appease the village, and P. Stolypin tried to find a support of power in a strong peasant. However, the reform had more economic foundations, laid down in the entire development of the countryside after the abolition of serfdom. The landlord wedge, although reduced by a quarter by 1900, nevertheless, 30 thousand landowner families owned as much land as 10 million peasant families. Up to 40% of the lands of possible agricultural use were in specific and state ownership. Therefore, the main demand of all the peasants during the unrest of the early 20th century was the division of the landed estates and royal lands.

But the government in the course of the reform decided to play on the contradictions of the peasantry itself. Among the peasants, social differentiation rapidly intensified. By the beginning of the XX century. 16.5 million peasants had land plots of 1 tithe, a fifth of the peasantry turned out to be completely landless - these were rural laborers, of whom there were 3.5 million or 20% of the adult male population of the village.

In general, the poor made up about 50% of the peasants and used only about 30% of the land, while 10% of the kulak farms used almost half of the entire land. The peasant allotment, on average, per census soul, constantly decreased and in the 1860s amounted to. - 4.8 tithes, in 1880 - 3.5 tithes, in 1900 - 2.6 tithes.

The main obstacle to the capitalist modernization of agriculture in Russia in the early 20th century. It was not a landowner's landownership, but a communal one. The landlord economy evolved faster than the peasant economy towards the market, improved the technology and organization of the economy. Let us note that the proportion 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 by 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, the communal principles of land ownership even intensified. The more frequent redistribution of land was dictated by the attempts of the poorer strata not so much to improve their economic situation as to worsen the situation of the richer fellow villagers. Yes, and the tsarist government at first even prevented the weakening of the community, so in 1893 a law was passed that forbade even those peasants who paid redemption payments for allotment lands to leave 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's, its main ideas and proposals for the directions of implementation belong to S. Witte, who back in 1896 for the first time spoke out against communal land tenure and mutual responsibility. In 1898, in connection with this, 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 uprisings of 1902, special editorial commissions were set up at the Ministry of the Interior to revise all legislation on peasants, including land ownership, community, mutual responsibility, and so on. 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 of the speeches, technical backwardness was called the main reason for the peasants' troubles, therefore it was proposed to improve the technology of the economy, to switch to multi-field crops with root crops and grasses. And since the community interfered with this modernization, most committees concluded that it was necessary to help the transition from communal land ownership to household and farmsteads, giving the peasants the right to leave the communities even without her consent. It was also pointed out that it was necessary to allow the peasants leaving the community to sell their land, to equalize the peasants with other classes in economic and civil rights, etc. But then the Witt conference was recognized as too leftist and dissolved.

However, reforms in the countryside were long overdue and even overripe, and the peasant unrest that flared up again in the middle of 1905 made it necessary to start urgent transformations of agriculture even before P. Stolypin. On August 12, 1905, new rules were introduced that expanded the activities of the Peasants' Bank. On August 27, a law on state lands was adopted with the same purpose. On November 3, 1905, redemption payments for allotment land were abolished by law. The peasants had long since paid the ransom sum, and by that time they were only paying interest on 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.

At the height of the revolutionary events in the autumn of 1905, Professor P. Migulin's project for the immediate transfer of half of the landowners' lands to the peasants was very popular. The government at that time was ready to give them 25 million dess. landowners' and specific lands. But already at the beginning of 1906, after a certain decline in the revolution, these bills were rejected and the landowners' lands became inviolable. Instead, the government focused on increasing the number of strong peasant households 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 the Interior, and in July to the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, sharply accelerated agrarian reforms. P. Stolypin himself hardly 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 the Change and Supplement of Certain Decrees on Peasant Land Ownership" or, as it was essentially called, "on the destruction of the community." It should be noted that P. Stolypin carried out the agrarian laws in a non-parliamentary way, in addition to the State Duma, in the order of Article 87 of the fundamental laws, as emergency and urgent. The Duma legalized these reforms only on June 14, 1910.

In the agrarian reform, 3 main directions can be distinguished: 1. The destruction of the community and the change in peasant land ownership. 2. The use of the peasant land bank for planting prosperous peasant farms by selling them land and helping them with loans. 3. Migration policy to the free lands of the North Caucasus, the Urals and Siberia due to the lack of land in Central Russia. These three areas are closely interrelated and complement each other. Let's consider them in more detail.

All peasant communities were divided into two groups: communities that did not redistribute land and communities that carried out such redistributions. The former were recognized as 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 according to the redistribution be assigned to him as personal property. The community was obliged in the event of striping to provide plots of land allocated in one place. The peasants who left retained the right to use joint lands (haymaking, forests, etc.). The peasants went out to the cuts, if they continued to live in the village, and to the farms, if they transferred the house to their plot.

In the case when the community did not consider the application for withdrawal within a month, then there was an imperious intervention from above. If at the time of leaving the peasant used more land than was the average per capita in the community, then he bought it from the community at the prices of 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 buying allotment land to no more than 6 shower plots, nevertheless, this gave more opportunities for concentrating land from wealthy owners.

The results of this direction of agrarian reform can be judged from the following data. Until January 1, 1916, in total, 2,755,000 households in European Russia made demands to secure land in their ownership, of which 1,008,000 with an area of ​​arable land of 14,123,000 dessiatins stood out from the community. In addition, 470,000 households with an area of ​​2,796,000 dessiatins received satisfactory certificates for fixing plots where there were no redistributions. In total, 2,478,000 householders with an area of ​​16,919,000 dessiatins left the community and secured the land as personal property, which accounted for about 24% of all peasant households in 40 provinces of European Russia.

The largest number of exits from the community falls on 1908-1909. This is explained by the fact that at that time the most interested people came out, i.e. the most prosperous or those who sought to liquidate their land and landowning economy as soon as possible. In subsequent years, therefore, the number of anchorages and exits greatly decreased. The largest number of exits and consolidations was observed in the territories that were most developed capitalistically, such as the Kyiv province and Novorossiya.

The second direction of the Stolypin reform included the activities of the Peasants' Bank for the sale of land and the support of strong owners among the peasants. The peasant land bank received the right to independently purchase privately owned lands, primarily landlords, and sell them to peasants. The bank helped the nobles profitably sell their estates, split them up, as well as providing him with state and specific lands, divided into plots, and sold them to the peasants. The bank issued loans for the arrangement and development of peasant farms, and provided assistance in resettlement.

During the ten years of the reform (1906-1915), private estates worth 4,326 thousand dessiatins were transferred to the land fund of the Peasants' Bank, and only 1,258 thousand dessiatins of specific land. State-owned lands were transferred to peasants only in case of resettlement in Siberia, but even here, despite the vast territories, the number of land plots ready for settlement was quickly exhausted. The price of land was constantly growing, largely due to the speculative activities of the Peasants' Bank, and by 1916 it had risen 1.5–2 times. For 1895-1905 the bank bought land from the landlords at an average of 71 rubles per dec., and for 1906-1915 at 161 rubles. This, despite the decline by 80%, according to all economic laws, the price of land should have fallen. Therefore, even P. Stolypin himself insisted on selling the land directly to the peasants themselves, bypassing the bank. He sold the Peasant Bank of Land from his fund to mainly independent peasant farms. So, for 1907 - 1916. 54.6% were sold to farmers, 23.4% to farmers, 17% to rural communities, and 5% of all land sales.

Selling land and peasants. For 1908-1915 1.2 million peasant households sold their allotment land with an area of ​​3.9 million dess., and more than half of those who sold the land broke away from the countryside altogether and went to the city, others sold the land to buy it in one plot and in case of resettlement. The peasant bank issued loans for the development of farms, but differentiation was also observed here - only 159 rubles per person were issued through the community, and 500 rubles per individual farmer.

For a long time, the tsarist government not only did not encourage the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts of the country, where there is a lot of free land, but even prevented this. Thus, the laws of 1881 and 1889 put all sorts of restrictions on resettlement so as not to deprive the landowners' farms of cheap tenants and workers. It was only during the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway that resettlement began to be encouraged. In the 1890s. the land management commission of General I. Zhilinsky acted. 722 resettlement plots, hundreds of wells, gates, and reservoirs were built. The total costs amounted to 2.5 billion rubles, which is about two annual budgets of that time. Only on June 6, 1904, the resettlement was declared free by law, but even so it was divided into encouraged by the government (financial and other benefits) and not encouraged.

In the course of the Stolypin reform, the number of landless and land-poor peasants was to increase even more, and in order to ease their unrest, resettlement to free lands, mainly to the east, although a little to the North Caucasus, was encouraged in every possible way. The Peasants' Bank actively helped the resettlement with loans and subsidies. State-owned lands occupied by settlers were promised to be transferred to their private ownership. Beyond the Urals, those wishing to receive land for free, were given 15 dess. per owner and 4.5 dess. for each family member. The peasant bank was supposed to buy land from the settlers in the abandoned place at the market price. Provided financial assistance for relocation. Those who moved 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. Settlers were exempted from taxes for 3 years and from conscription into the army.

For 10 years of reforms, more than 3 million people moved beyond the Urals, they mastered about 30 million dess. empty lands. The maximum number of immigrants reached 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. The land management commissions did not always cope with their work, there were not enough funds for the arrangement, some of them were generally stolen, ignorance of local natural conditions interfered, they were tormented by illnesses, etc. Thus, over 100 thousand migrants died during the ten years of the reform. The flow of those returning to their old place of residence was constantly growing. If at first those who returned accounted for only 6-8% of all those who left, then in subsequent years 20% -30%, and in the hungry year of 1911 64% returned in general. In total, out of 3 million people who left the Urals, about 0.5% of the million returned back.

Despite the initial promise, private ownership of land gained little ground in Siberia. Most of the land belonged to the treasury or government troops. Usually, peasants who settled on state lands received it not as their property, but for perpetual use. P. Stolypin even considered the issue of selling government land beyond the Urals. This only confirms his ignorance of the specific economic situation, he still knew more about police issues.

The peasants did not always have enough money even for travel, not to mention the arrangement. Stolypin's agrarian program was not limited to these three areas. He made a number of proposals to improve peasant land ownership and land use, to organize a system of state insurance for peasant farms, to establish a system of primary education for peasants and develop it up to secondary education, under him another 150 primary peasant schools were added to the existing 150, changes were planned in local self-government. A cooperative movement of all kinds among the 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. Industrial cooperation, for example, Siberian butter makers, also developed successfully. Siberian oil in Europe was considered better than Dutch oil.

P. Stolypin believed that the agrarian reform was proceeding successfully, and if he demanded 50 years for the reorganization of the countryside, then in March 1910. said that with such successful work in 6 - 7 years there will be almost no community, so the government will not carry out its violent breaking. In general, at the beginning of the XX century. agriculture flourished. The yield grew, for example, for wheat in 1906 it was 31.3 pounds. from dec., in 1909 -55.4 pounds, in 1913 58.2 pounds; for rye, respectively -34.5 pounds, 53.1 pounds, 61.3 pounds. The gross harvest of wheat in 1906 amounted to 565.9 million. pood., in 1913. -1082.3 million pud. – growth by 1.8 times; rye, respectively, 819.6 million. pud. and 1299.1 million. pud. -1.6 times. Grain exports reached 15.5 million tons in 1912 and doubled compared to 1900.

Worse was the situation with the development of animal husbandry. From 1900 to 1913, the number of horses increased from 19.7 million to 22.8 million heads, cattle from 31.7 million 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. The number of livestock decreased per capita and per tithe of crops. So, for 100 dess. crops in 56 provinces accounted for cattle in 1901-1905. 46 goals. And in 1913 -43; sheep, respectively 66 and 56 goals; the number of pigs increased from 17 heads to 18 heads. These facts show that, despite the emerging in 1900-1913. In the main, agriculture has not yet completely outlived the three-field system and continued to develop by expanding grain areas and reducing fodder 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 grew somewhat, which was manifested in the increase in the use of agricultural machinery and fertilizers. If in 1900 agricultural machinery was consumed to the amount of 27.9 million rubles and in 1908 to 61.3 million rubles, then in 1913 it was already to the amount of 109.2 million rubles. However, this increase in the number of machines used was, of course, due to the capitalization of the landlord 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 a plow, the sowing of grain and their threshing were carried out in a primitive manual way. So, in 1910, 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 completely iron harrows, 811 thous. reaping machines and a total of 27 thousand steam threshers.

Just before the World War itself, the number of iron plows equaled 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; on this basis, Russia lagged far behind the West. In 1900, 6 million poods were imported, and in 1912 already 35 million poods. The domestic production of phosphates of all kinds in 1908 amounted to 1425 thousand pounds, by 1912 it increased to 3235 thousand pounds, i.e. so far it has been mostly a foreign commodity.

Another indicator of the intensive development of agriculture is the expansion of crops. Significant progress was observed here in the 15 pre-war years. The sown areas under cotton increased the most - 111.6%, sunflowers - 61%, sugar beet - 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 crops in Russia also increased by 10.8%.

However, these few successes in agriculture cannot be attributed only to the Stolypin reform, since at that time there was a general world upsurge in agriculture, the agrarian crisis ended at the end of the 19th century. Russia was also lucky that, except for 1911, all other years brought good harvests. In general, P. Stolypin failed to pacify the village. Social differentiation and contradictions in it even escalated. The number of poor people exceeded 60%, the share of the horseless in 1913 was 31.4%. As before, all the peasants stood in solidarity for the division of the landlords' and appanage lands, and the poor peasants for the division of the kulak lands.

Communal land ownership extended to 75% of peasant lands. Due to archaic relations in the countryside, productive forces and productivity growth were slowly developing, especially in comparison with the West. The tsarist government conserved 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 peasant. But economic and socio-political contradictions from this accumulated and aggravated. What intensity they reached was shown by the peasant uprisings of 1902 and 1905-1906. The merit of P. Stolypin was that he did not try to dismiss these problems and flirt with the whole village, but took a firm course towards strengthening the alliance with only one part of the peasantry - strong owners.

But the kulaks did not become a strong support of tsarist 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 landlord and royal lands, therefore, together with the entire peasantry, they first supported the February Revolution, and then at first even the Bolsheviks (in the elimination of the landlord royal landownership). Thus, the agrarian reforms in Russia were several decades late, which affected not only the lagging behind of the productive forces, but also the overall support of all the peasants of Russia for the three revolutions of the early 20th century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of reforms

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

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

On the way to change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settling the empty territories of the country

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

Settlers

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

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

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

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

Useful video: Stolypin's reforms

Implications of reforms and evaluation of results

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

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

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

Consequences of the Stolypin reform

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

The essence of Stolypin's agrarian reform was an attempt to solve the agrarian problem without affecting the lands of the landlords. Stolypin saw the way out in the replacement of communal peasant land ownership by individual, private. This measure was laid down in the draft reform of 1861, however, was not implemented. The immediate predecessor of the Stolypin projects was S.Yu. Witte, who proposed in 1902-1903. start liquidating the community. The basis for the Stolypin reform was created by the decree of 1905 on the abolition of redemption payments, according to which the peasants (so far within the community) became the owners of their land. In October 1906, the poll tax and mutual responsibility were finally abolished, the power of zemstvo chiefs and district authorities over the peasantry was limited, the rights of peasants in zemstvo elections were increased, and freedom of movement and choice of place of residence by peasants was expanded. On November 9, 1906, a decree was adopted giving the peasants the right to freely leave the community with the transfer of his part of the land to private ownership (on June 14, 1910, this decree was approved by the Duma and became law). At the request of the selected individual, separate strips of his land could be brought together in one area - a cut. A peasant who separated from the community could move his yard from the village with all the outbuildings and residential buildings - in this case, a farm arose, in many ways reminiscent of American farms. The private ownership of the land by the peasant allowed him to farm much more efficiently. In addition, the kulaks could buy plots from their poor neighbors, which partly solved the problem of peasant land shortages in central Russia. The Stolypin reform also included the sale of part of the specific and state-owned lands to the peasants through the Peasants' Bank, whose task was to regulate land use, which provided barriers to monopolism and land speculation. Along with this, the bank was supposed to buy up landlords' estates for resale to peasants, to issue loans for the purchase of land by peasants. An important point of the reform was the organization of the resettlement business. The state provided assistance with transport, loans for the construction of houses, the purchase of cars, livestock and household property, preliminary land management of sites for immigrants (hundreds of thousands of peasants moved from the central regions to Siberia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia, where there was a huge free land fund). By this measure, the authors of the reform sought to prevent the excessive proletarianization of the peasantry.

In rural areas, road construction, cooperative activities, insurance coverage, medical and veterinary care, agronomic consultation, construction of schools and rural temples were organized. In Siberia, state-owned warehouses of agricultural machinery were set up to serve farmers at low prices.

As a result of these measures, stable and highly developed agriculture was created in Russia. Productivity for 1906 - 1913 increased by 14%. Shortly after the beginning of the reforms, surpluses of free grain began to amount to hundreds of millions of poods, and foreign exchange earnings associated with the export of grain increased sharply. Only in 1908-1910. it increased by 3.5 times. Russia provided 50% of world egg exports, 80% of world flax production. The number of horses increased by 37%, cattle - by 63.5%. Peasant land ownership was constantly growing: by 1914, almost 100% of arable land in Asian Russia and about 90% in European Russia belonged to peasants on the basis of ownership and lease. People's savings, and especially peasant savings, increased rapidly: the amount of deposits in savings banks for the years 1906-1914 increased almost tenfold. On the basis of the growth in the prosperity of the population and the strengthening of the state budget, expenditures on education and culture were constantly increasing: for example, the number of rural students in 1906-1913 increased 33 times.

Stolypin's government program also included a whole range of measures to restructure local self-government, public education and religion. Stolypin provided for the restoration of the non-estate principle and the reduction of property qualifications in elections to zemstvos, as well as the liquidation of the volost court of peasants, which was supposed to equalize their civil rights with the rest of the population. He considered it necessary to introduce universal primary education. This would meet the needs of the country's industrial development and allow the peasant to increase his educational qualification, which is necessary for representation in the zemstvo self-government bodies. Freedom of conscience and religious tolerance were called upon to carry out the reform of the church.

There are several opinions about what social goals were pursued by the Stolypin reform. Some historians believe that the prime minister sought to split the peasantry, to single out a prosperous group from it. The rural bourgeoisie would have become a new pillar of power, would have made it possible "to surround the landowners' estates with a protective rampart of kulak farms." Others dispute this version: they point out that the government was afraid of a large concentration of land in the hands of the rich elite (under the terms of the reform, it was forbidden to buy more than six peasant plots within one county). This fact is explained by the fact that Stolypin cared not only for the interests of the wealthy stratum, but for the bulk of the peasantry and sought to prevent its proletarianization. His task was to instill in every peasant a "feeling of a master, an owner."

The Stolypin reform lasted about seven years - until the outbreak of the First World War. The post-revolutionary years were marked by a noticeable rise in the standard of living of the masses: the consumption of foodstuffs and industrial goods increased, and deposits in savings institutions increased. The "Golden Age" was experienced by cooperation: the number of consumer societies increased in 1906-1912. six times (the number of rural cooperatives - 12 times). The cooperative associations included hundreds of societies and millions of members, their turnover reached millions of rubles. Siberia and Altai were rising, vigorously mastered by settlers; increased literacy in the countryside.

The success of agrarian reforms was possible only under the condition of internal political stability in the country. Stolypin, a firm supporter of Russian statehood, took steps to curb leftist terror and social demagogy. Stolypin's statement is well-known: “The opponents of statehood want to free themselves from Russia's historical past. We are offered, among other strong and strong peoples, to turn Russia into ruins ... They need great upheavals, we need a great Russia! Concerned about the successful progress of the Stolypin reform, the revolutionaries understood that stabilization in the country would deprive them of all ground, and their life, given up on the altar of revolutionary destruction, would be lived in vain. At the Socialist-Revolutionary Congress in 1908, it was noted with alarm: "Any success of the government in agrarian reform causes serious damage to the cause of the revolution." P. A. Stolypin said: “Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia!” But the radical left sought to have time to raise a new revolutionary wave. The terrorists made fourteen attempts on Stolypin. In September 1911, he was mortally wounded.

The beginning of the 20th century in Russia is a time of colossal changes: the time of the collapse of the old system (Autocracy) and the formation of a new one (Soviet Power), the time of bloody wars, the time of successful and failed reforms, the successful implementation of which, perhaps, would radically change the fate of Russia. The reforms carried out at that time by Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, as well as his personality, are controversially assessed by historians. Some consider him a cruel tyrant, whose name should be associated only with terrible concepts, such as "Stolypin's reaction", "Stolypin's carriage" or "Stolypin's tie", others evaluate his reform activities as "a failed attempt to save imperial Russia", and Stolypin himself is called "brilliant reformer"

However, if you look at the facts soberly, without ideological prejudices, then you can fairly objectively assess both the activity and personality of P.A. Stolypin.

Stolypin's contribution to the development of Russia

Stolypin

Pyotr Stolypin went down in Russian and world history as a convinced reformer. His name is associated with the land reform carried out at the beginning of the 20th century, reforms in the sphere of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the formation of the foundations of the rule of law, law enforcement agencies and justice, local government and self-government, economics, finance, infrastructure, social policy, education, science and culture , military affairs and countering terror. In short, this politician has contributed to almost all spheres of the Russian state.

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin ( April 2 (14) 1862 , Dresden , Saxony - 5 (18) September 1911 , Kyiv ) - statesman Russian Empire . From an old noble family. He graduated from St. Petersburg University and since 1884 served in the Ministry of the Interior. In 1902, the governor of Grodno, in 1903-1906 - the Saratov province. Received the Emperor's Commendation Nicholas II for the suppression of the peasant movement in the Saratov province.

In 1906, the emperor offered Stolypin the post of Minister of the Interior. Soon, along with the State Duma of the 1st convocation, the government was also dissolved. Stolypin was appointed as the new prime minister.

Over the years he has held positions county marshal of the nobility inKovno, Grodno governor , Saratov governor , Minister of the Interior , prime minister .

In his new position, which he held until his death, Stolypin passed a number of bills.

Once at the head of the government, Stolypin demanded from all departments those top-priority projects that had long been developed, but were not implemented. As a result, on August 24, 1906, Stolypin managed to draw up a more or less coherent program of moderate reforms.

He divided the proposed reforms into two parts:

1.Immediately implement (without waiting for the convocation of a new Duma)

• Solutionabout sa land and land management
• Some urgent actions in the field of civil equality
• freedom of religion
• Activities related to the Jewish question

2. It is necessary to prepare and submit for discussion to the State Duma.

• On the improvement of the life of workers and, in particular, on their state insurance;
• On the improvement of peasant land ownership;
• On the reform of local government;
• On the introduction of zemstvo self-government in the Baltic, as well as the North- and South-Western Territories;
• On the introduction of zemstvo and city self-government in the provinces of the Kingdom of Poland;
• On the transformation of local courts;
• On the reform of secondary and higher education;
• About income tax;
• About police reform

agrarian reform.

It is well known that Stolypin put changes at the forefront of his transformations.in the field of economics. The Prime Minister was convinced, and his speeches testify to this, that it is necessary to start with agrarian reform.

Stolypin Agrarian Reform started life in 1906. That year, a decree was adopted that made it easier for all peasants to leave the community. Leaving the peasant community, a former member of it could demand from it that a piece of land assigned to him be secured in personal ownership. Moreover, this land was given to the peasant not according to the principle of "strips", as before, but was tied to one place. By 1916, 2.5 million peasants left the community.

During Stolypin's agrarian reform , the activities of the Peasants' Bank, established in 1882, intensified. The bank served as an intermediary between landlords who wanted to sell their land and peasants who wanted to buy it.

Second direction Stolypin agrarian reform was the policy of resettlement of peasants. Due to the resettlement, Peter Arkadievich hoped to reduce the land hunger in the central provinces, and to populate the deserted lands of Siberia. To some extent, this policy paid off. Settlers were provided with large plots of land and many benefits, but the process itself was poorly debugged. It is worth noting that the first settlers gave a significant increase in the wheat harvest in Russia.

Stolypin's agrarian reform was a great project, the completion of which was prevented by the death of its author.

Education reform.

As part of the school reform, approved by the law of May 3, 1908, it was supposed to introduce compulsory primary free education for children from 8 to 12 years old. From 1908 to 1914, the public education budget was tripled, and 50,000 new schools were opened. Note that Stolypin set the third condition for the modernization of the country (in addition to agrarian reform and industrial development) to achieve universal literacy in the amount of a four-year elementary school compulsory for all. Still, being the leader of the nobility in Kovno, he wrote on this occasion that only literacy would help spread agricultural knowledge, without which a class of real farmers could not appear. Summing up the school reform, let us say that there really was not enough time for it: it took at least another 20 years to implement the plan for universal primary education at such a pace as in 1908-1914.

Industry reform.

The main stage in resolving the working issue of 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 aspectslabor in industrial plants. These were questions about the rules for hiring workers, accident and illness insurance, hours of work, and so on. Unfortunately, the positions of industrialists and workers (as well as those who incited the latter to disobedience and rebellion) were too far apart and the compromises found did not suit either one or the other (which was readily used by all kinds of revolutionaries).

Working question.

It must be admitted that no significant progress has been made in this area.

The Stolypin government made an attempt to solve, at least in part, the labor issue, and left a special commission, consisting of representatives of the government and entrepreneurs, to consider the draft labor legislation. The government proposal was very moderate - limiting the working day to 10.5 hours (at that time - 11.5), the abolition of mandatory overtime work, the right to create government-controlled trade union organizations, the introduction of workers' insurance, the creation of sickness funds on a joint account of workers and the owner. However, this categorically did not suit the entrepreneurs, who believed that it was impossible to make concessions to the workers, that it was necessary to observe the “freedom of the labor agreement”, complained about the low profitability of mindset. In reality, they sought to maintain high profits and defended their own class interests. Despite the exhortations of the government and the most conscientious representatives of entrepreneurship, the government was forced to yield to pressure; the draft law reached the Duma in a greatly curtailed form and with a long delay.

It can be concluded that the government work program collapsed because of the intransigence and greed of the bourgeoisie.

Judicial reform.

It is also worth mentioning briefly the transformations in the sphere of the judiciary. Their essence boiled down to the fact that, in accordance with Stolypin's plan, in the most general terms, the local court, distorted by the reactionary reforms of Emperor Alexander III, was to return to its original appearance.

The bill “On the transformation of the local court” was supposed to make the court cheaper and more accessible to the population. He envisaged the restoration in rural areas of the institution of justices of the peace, who would be elected by zemstvo assemblies (in the city - by city dumas). They would consider a limited range of civil cases and criminal cases that did not entail particularly severe punishments. Their decisions could be challenged in higher instances. In fact, the revival of the world court meant the rejection of the "fragments" of estate legal proceedings - the peasant volost and zemstvo chief, who mainly represented the local nobility. Accordingly, the practice of passing sentences according to the norms of the usual, i.e. unwritten law based on tradition and tradition. This was supposed to contribute to the rationalization of legal proceedings, saving him from endless misunderstandings, random and illogical decisions.

Zemstvo.

Being a supporter of zemstvo administration, Stolypin extended zemstvo institutions to some provinces where they did not exist before. It has not always been politically easy. For example, the implementation of the 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 met with a sharp rebuff in the State Council, which supported the gentry.

national question.

Stolypin was well aware of the importance of this issue in such a multinational country as Russia. He was a supporter of the unification, and not the disunity of the peoples of the country. He suggested creating a special ministry of nationalities, which would study the characteristics of each nation: history, traditions, culture, social life, religion, etc. - so that they would flow into our huge state with the greatest mutual benefit. Stolypin believed that all peoples should have equal rights and duties and be loyal to Russia. Also, the task of the new ministry was to be counteracting the internal and external enemies of the country, who sought to sow ethnic and religious discord.

Analysis of the causes of the collapse of the Stolypin reforms.

Despite favorable economic, ideological and politicalcircumstances, Stolypincommittedallsame series of mistakes that put his reforms underthe threat of failure. First mistakeStolypin was the lack of a well-thought-out policy towards workers, forgood luckholdingconservativepolicy needsIt wascombinetoughrepressiononrelationto the revolutionary parties with simultaneous efforts in the field ofsocial securityworkers.ATRussiasame,despite the general economic recovery, over the years, not only the standard of living of workersnot at allrisen,butandsociallegislation took its first steps. 1906 law onalmost no ten-hour workdayapplied, as well as the 1903 law on insurance of workers injuredat the enterprise.Meanwhile, the quantityworkers constantlyand noticeablygrew.The new generation turned outverysupportivetoacceptance of socialist ideas. Obviously,Stolypinnotgave awayyourselfreportinmeaninglabor question, which arose with renewed vigor in 1912.

SecondmistakeStolypinbecamethen,whathenotforesaw the consequences of intenseRussification of non-Russianspeoples. Stolypin made no secret of his nationalist convictions. Heopencarried out a nationalistGreat Russianpoliticsand,naturally rebuilt againstmyselfandroyalregimeallnationalminorities.

Stolypincommittedmistakeandinquestionon the establishment of zemstvos in the western provinces (1911), as a result of which he lost the support of the Octobrists. A businessinvolume,that the western provinces economically continueddependfromPolishgentry.To strengtheninthem positionBelarusian and Russianpopulation,made up the majority,StolypinI decidedestablishthereland form of government. Thoughtwillinglyhissupportedbutstateadviceoccupied the reverseposition - classthe sensessolidaritycogentry turned out to bestrongernational.StolypinaddressedWithrequestto Nicholas II to interrupt the work of both chambers for three days, in order togovernment timeurgentlyadopted a new law. Council meetings were suspendedandlawaccepted.Howevergivenprocedure that has shownneglectstate power to their owninstitutions, ledtosplitbetween government andmostmoderateliberals.Autocracydeliveredyourself in isolationhenceforthhissupportedrepresentativesextremelyright-wing nationalists.Stolypin lost the support of NikolaiII, to whomclearlydisgustedto have such an enterprising minister accused of extremelyright-wing opponentsinfluential at the court, in desire to "expropriate all landowners in general" through agrarian reform.

From the top today's historical experience, the main root cause of Stolypin's bankruptcy is now especially clearly visible.

The organic defect of his course was that that he wanted to carry out his reforms outside of democracy and in spite of her. First, he believed that it was necessary to provide economic conditions, and then to exercise "freedom".

After Stolypin, the activities of the government in 1912-1914. showed that all large-scale reforms would be curtailed. Nicholas II refused to cooperate with political figures; he surrounded himself with mediocre people, but who shared his views on the historical path of Russia.

According to G. Popov, there is a constant paradox, consisting in the following: on the one hand, the reform of Russia involves the creation and development of representative power, and on the other hand, in the endless debates of all branches of this power, starting with the Duma, the most necessary measures “sink” for many months. This process is natural, it is due to the very nature of representative power: it is designed to ensure a peaceful settlement of the interests of various groups of society, and therefore, this process cannot but be full of compromises and lengthy. In a country where the social situation is quite prosperous, these democratic parliamentary procedures play a generally progressive and positive role. But in an era of decisive, fundamental reforms (especially in the basics!), When delay is “tantamount to death,” these processes threaten to slow down everything in general.

Both Stolypin and the government realized that the land reform would not pass through the Duma in some acceptable timeframe, or even “sink” altogether.

The collapse of the Stolypin reform, the impossibility of merging totalitarianism and authoritarianism with independence, the collapse of the course towards the peasant farmer became a lesson for the Bolsheviks, who preferred to rely on the collective farms.

The path of Stolypin, the path of reforms, the path of preventing October 17, was rejected by those who did not want the revolution, and those who aspired to it. Stolypin understood and believed in his reforms. He was their ideologue. This is Stolypin's forte. On the other hand, Stolypin, like any other person, was prone to make mistakes. When correlating various aspects of Stolypin's reforms with modern Russian reality, one should keep in mind both the benefits that can be derived from this historical experience and those mistakes that prevented the successful implementation of Stolypin's reforms.

Stolypin Pyotr Arkadyevich, April 2 (14), 1862 - September 5 (September 18), 1911, - the largest Russian reformer, head of government in 1906-1911. According to AI Solzhenitsyn, he is the greatest figure in Russian history of the 20th century.

Stolypin's opinion on the peasant community

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin came from a noble noble family. He graduated from St. Petersburg University and began public service in the department of agriculture. In 1902 Stolypin became the youngest governor of Russia (Grodno). From February 1903 he was governor in Saratov, and after the beginning of bloody revolutionary unrest in 1905, he boldly fought against anarchy, surviving several assassination attempts.

The tsar, who did not understand the scale of Stolypin's personality and reforms, did not change the celebratory program of celebrations after the shooting on September 1, did not meet with the wounded in the hospital in his last days and did not stay for his funeral, leaving for rest in the Crimea. The court circle rejoiced that an uncomfortable figure left the stage, who interfered with everyone with his energy and talents. Official pygmies did not realize that together with Stolypin, the most reliable support of the Russian state and throne disappeared. According to the figurative expression of A. I. Solzhenitsyn (Red Wheel, chapter 65), Bogrov’s bullets became the first of Yekaterinburg(this is about execution in Yekaterinburg of the royal family).