Assessments of the Stolypin reform. Assessment of the Stolypin agrarian reform in historiography

Agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin.

Solving the agrarian question (two main trends: “Prussian” and “American” (farmer) development paths Agriculture).

Measures to destroy the community and develop private property.

Peasant resettlement policy.

Activities of a peasant bank.

Cooperative movement.

Agricultural activities.

Stolypin agrarian reform.

The reform had several goals:

socio-political:

ü Create a strong support for the autocracy in the countryside from strong property owners, splitting them off from the bulk of the peasantry and opposing them to it;

ü Strong farms were supposed to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

socio-economic:

ü Destroy the community

ü Plant private farms in the form of farms and farms, and direct the excess labor to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry;

economic:

ü To ensure the rise of agriculture and further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the gap with the advanced powers.

The new agricultural policy was carried out on the basis of a decree on November 9, 1906. (The discussion of the decree of November 9, 1906 began in the Third Duma on October 23, 1908, i.e. two years after it came into effect. In total, its discussion lasted more than six months.)

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

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

ü Destruction of the community and development of private property;

ü Creation of a peasant bank;

ü Cooperative movement;

ü Resettlement of peasants;

ü Agricultural activities.

DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

After the abolition of serfdom, the Russian government categorically advocated the preservation of the community.

The rapid politicization of the peasant masses and the unrest that began at the turn of the century lead to a rethinking of attitudes towards the community on the part of the ruling circles:

1. The decree of 1904 confirms the inviolability of the community, although at the same time it provides relief for those wishing to leave it;

2. In August 1906, decrees were adopted to increase the land fund located in the peasant bank by transferring appanage and state lands to it.

On November 9, 1906, the Decree “On supplementing certain regulations” was issued. current law, relating to peasant land ownership and land use", the provisions of which formed the main content Stolypin reform. Approved by the Third Duma and the State Council, it became law in 1910.

The reassessment of the government’s attitude towards the community occurred mainly for two reasons:

firstly, the destruction of the community became desirable for the autocracy, since this would disunite the peasant masses, who had already demonstrated their revolutionary spirit and unity in the outbreak of the first Russian revolution;

secondly, as a result of the stratification of the community, a rather powerful layer of peasant-owners was formed, interested in increasing their property and loyal to others, in particular to the landowners.

According to the Decree of November 9, all peasants received the right to leave the community, which in this case allocated land to the person leaving for his own possession, such lands were called cuts, farms and hamlets. At the same time, the decree provided privileges for wealthy peasants in order to encourage them to leave the community. In particular, those who left the community received “in the ownership of individual householders” all the lands “consisting of their permanent use.” This meant that people from the community received surpluses in excess of the per capita norm. Moreover, if redistributions were not made in a given community over the last 24 years, then the householder received the surplus for free, but if there were limits, then he paid the community for the surplus according to the redemption payments of 1861. Since prices have increased several times over forty years, this was also beneficial for wealthy immigrants.

The law of June 5, 1912 allowed the issuance of a loan secured by any allotment land acquired by peasants. The development of various forms of credit - mortgage, reclamation, agricultural, land management - contributed to the intensification of market relations in the countryside.

The practice of the reform showed that the peasantry in the central provinces had a negative attitude towards separation from the community.

The main reasons for peasant sentiments:

ü The community is a kind of trade union for the peasant, so neither the community nor the peasant wanted to lose it;

ü Russia is a zone of risky (unstable) agriculture, in such climatic conditions a peasant cannot survive alone;

ü Communal land did not solve the problem of land shortage.

As a result, by 1916, 2,478 thousand householders, or 26% of the community members, were separated from the communities, although applications were submitted from 3,374 thousand householders, or 35% of the community members. Thus, the government failed to achieve its goal of separating at least the majority of householders from the community. Basically, this is what determined the collapse of the Stolypin reform.

PEASANT BANK.

In 1906-1907, part of the state and appanage lands was transferred to the peasant bank for sale to peasants in order to alleviate the land shortage. In addition, the Bank carried out on a large scale the purchase 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, amounting to 1457.5 billion rubles for the period from 1906 to 1917.

The Bank actively influenced the forms of land ownership: for peasants who acquired land as 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.

COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT.

The Stolypin reform gave a powerful impetus to the development of various forms of peasant cooperation. Unlike the poor community member, who was in the grip of the village world, the free, wealthy, enterprising peasant, living in the future, needed cooperation. Peasants cooperated for more profitable sales of products, organization of their processing, and, within certain limits, production, joint acquisition of machinery, creation of collective agronomic, land reclamation, veterinary and other services.

The growth rate of cooperation caused by Stolypin's reforms is characterized by the following figures: in 1901-1905, 641 peasant consumer societies were created in Russia, and in 1906-1911 - 4175 societies.

Loans from the peasant bank could not fully satisfy the peasant's demand for money supply. 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 capital, developed independently. As a result, a wide network of small peasant credit institutions, savings and loan banks and credit partnerships was created that serviced money circulation 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 dairy and butter artels, agricultural societies, consumer shops and even peasant artel dairies.

RESETTLEMENT OF PEASANTS.

The accelerated resettlement of peasants to the regions of Siberia and Central Asia, which began after the reform of 1861, was beneficial to the state, but did not correspond to the interests of the landowners, since it deprived them of cheap labor. Therefore, the government, expressing its will ruling class, practically ceased to encourage resettlement, and even opposed this process. The difficulties in obtaining permission to move to Siberia in the 80s of the last century can be judged from materials from the archives of the Novosibirsk region.

Stolypin's government also passed a series of new laws on the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts of the empire. The possibilities for broad development of resettlement were already laid down in the law of June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom of resettlement without benefits, and the government was given the right to make decisions on the opening of free preferential resettlement from certain areas of the empire, “eviction from which was recognized as particularly desirable.” The law on preferential resettlement was first applied in 1905: the government “opened” resettlement from the Poltava and Kharkov provinces, where the peasant movement was especially widespread.

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 number of peasants who were unable to adapt to new conditions and were forced to return amounted to 12% of total number migrants.

Year	Number of migrants and walkers of both sexes	Number of crossings Lenz without walkers	Returned back	% of circulating migrants
		-	-	-
		-	-	-
				9.8
				6.4
				13.3
				36.3
				64.3
				28.5
				18.3
				11.4
		-	-	-

The results of the resettlement campaign were as follows:

Firstly, for this period a huge leap has been made in economic and social development Siberia. Also, 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.

AGRICULTURAL EVENTS.

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, 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.

Currently, there is an opinion that Stolypin’s agrarian reforms led to the concentration of the land fund in the hands of a small rich stratum as a result of the landlessness of the bulk of the peasants. Reality shows the opposite - an increase in the share of the “middle strata” in peasant land use.

4. Results and significance of reforms for Russia.

Supporters and opponents of Stolypin's agrarian course.

Results of reforms.

Objective and subjective reasons for the incompleteness of agricultural reforms in Russia.

The results of the reform are characterized rapid growth agricultural production, increasing the capacity of the domestic market, increasing exports of agricultural products, and Russia's trade balance was becoming 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. Total income National economy due to the increase in value 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. Trade 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.

However, the problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. Thus, in the USA, the average fixed capital per farm was 3,900 rubles, while in European Russia the fixed capital of the average peasant farm barely reached 900 rubles. The national income per capita of the agricultural population in Russia was approximately 52 rubles per year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.

Labor productivity growth rates in agriculture

were comparatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread per dessiatine, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth occurred not on the basis of intensification of production, but due to an increase in the intensity of manual peasant labor. But during the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian transformation - the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive, technologically advanced sector of the economy.

REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF AGRARIAN REFORM.

Row external circumstances(Stolypin's death, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform.

The agrarian reform took only 8 years, and with the outbreak of the war it was complicated - and, as it turned out, forever. Stolypin asked for 20 years of peace for complete reform, but these 8 years were far from calm. However, it was not the multiplicity of the period or the death of the author of the reform, who was killed in 1911 by the hand of an secret police agent in a Kiev theater, that was the reason for the collapse of the entire enterprise. The main goals were far from being achieved. The introduction of private household ownership of land instead of communal ownership was only possible for a quarter of community members. It was also not possible to separate the wealthy owners from the “world” geographically, because Less than half of the kulaks settled on farmstead and cutting plots. Resettlement to the outskirts also could not be organized on a scale that could significantly influence the elimination of land pressure in the center. All this foreshadowed the collapse of the reform even before the start of the war, although its fire continued to smolder, supported by a huge bureaucratic apparatus headed by Stolypin’s energetic successor - the chief manager of land management and agriculture

A.V. Krivoshein.

There were several reasons for the collapse of the reforms: opposition from the peasantry, lack of funds allocated for land management and resettlement, poor organization of land management work, and the rise of the labor movement in 1910-1914. But main reason there was resistance from the peasantry to the new agrarian policy.

Stolypin's reforms did not materialize, but could have been implemented, firstly due to the death of the reformer; secondly, Stolypin had no support, since he stopped hoping for Russian society. He was left alone because:

§ The peasantry became embittered with Stolypin because their land was taken away from them, and the community began to revolutionize;

§ the nobility was generally dissatisfied with his reforms;

§ The landowners were afraid of the reforms, because fists that separated from the community could ruin them;

§ Stolypin wanted to expand the rights of zemstvos, give them broad powers, hence the discontent of the bureaucracy;

§ he wanted the State Duma to form the government, not the tsar, hence the discontent of the tsar and the aristocracy

§ The church was also against Stolypin’s reforms, because he wanted to equalize all religions.

From here we can conclude that Russian society was not ready to accept Stolypin’s radical reforms; society could not understand the goals of these reforms, although for Russia these reforms would have been life-saving.

Further development of capitalist relations (economic recovery 1909 - 1913). Problems and significance of creating an industrial society in an agricultural country.

Agrarian reform (in short - Stolypin's reform) is a generalized name for a whole set of measures that have been carried out in the field of agriculture since 1906. These changes were led by P. A. Stolypin. The main goal of all events was to create conditions for attracting peasants to work on their land.

In past years, the system of such transformations (the reforms of P. A. Stolypin - briefly) was criticized in every possible way, but nowadays it is customary to praise it. At the same time, no one strives to fully understand it. We should also not forget that Stolypin himself was not the author of the agrarian reform, it was only part of common system the transformations he planned.

Stolypin as Minister of Internal Affairs

The relatively young Stolypin came to power without much struggle or labor. His candidacy was nominated in 1905 by Prince A.D. Obolensky, who was his relative and chief prosecutor of the Synod. The opponent of this candidacy was S. Yu. Witte, who saw another person as Minister of Internal Affairs.

Having come to power, Stolypin failed to change the attitude of the cabinet of ministers. Many officials never became his like-minded people. For example, V.N. Kakovo, who held the post of Minister of Finance, was very skeptical about Stolypin’s ideas regarding solving the agrarian issue - he spared money for it.

In order to protect himself and his family, Stolypin, at the Tsar’s suggestion, moved to the Winter Palace, which was reliably guarded.

The most difficult decision for him was the adoption of the decree on courts-martial. He later admitted that he was forced to bear this “heavy cross” against his own will. The following describes Stolypin's reforms (briefly).

General description of the modernization program

When the peasant movement began to decline by the fall of 1906, the government announced its plans regarding the agrarian question. The so-called Stolypin program began with a decree of November 9, 1906. Stolypin's agrarian reform followed, which is briefly described in the article.

While still the governor of Saratov, the future minister wanted to organize assistance for the creation of strong individual farms for peasants on the basis of state lands. Such actions were supposed to show the peasants a new way and encourage them to abandon communal land ownership.

Another official, V.I. Gurko, developed a project whose goal was to create farms on peasant lands, and not on state ones. The difference was significant. But even this Gurko considered not the most important. Its main goal was to secure allotment land in the ownership of peasants. According to this plan, any member of the peasant community could take away their allotment, and no one had the right to reduce or change it. This would allow the government to split the community. The unfavorable situation in the empire required the implementation of Stolypin's reform (in short, the agrarian reform).

The situation in the country on the eve of the reform

In 1905-1907, as part of the revolution, peasant unrest took place in Russia. Along with problems within the country, Russia lost the war with Japan in 1905. All this was said about serious problems that needed to be resolved.

At the same time, the State Duma begins its work. She gave the go-ahead for the reforms of Witte and Stolypin (in short - agrarian).

Directions

The transformations were supposed to create strong economic holdings and destroy collective ownership of land, which was slowing down further development. It was necessary to eradicate outdated class restrictions, encourage the purchase of land from landowners, and increase the pace of running one’s own household through lending.

Stolypin's agrarian reform, which is briefly described in the article, was aimed at improving allotment land ownership and practically did not touch private property.

Main stages of modernization

By May 1906, a congress of noble societies was held, at which D. I. Pestrzhetsky made a report. He was one of the officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who developed the agricultural project. His report criticized possible land transformations. It stated that throughout the country the peasants had no problems with a shortage of land, and the nobles had no reason to alienate it. It was proposed to solve individual cases of land shortage by purchasing plots through a bank and relocating to the outskirts of the country.

The report caused mixed opinions among the nobles on this matter. The views on the reforms of Witte and Stolypin (in short - agrarian reform) were equally ambiguous. There were also those (Count D. A. Olsufiev) who proposed to compromise with the peasants. This meant selling them the land, leaving the main part for themselves. But such reasoning did not meet with support or at least sympathy from the majority of those present.

The only thing on which almost everyone at the congress was unanimous was that negative attitude to the communities. K. N. Grimm, V. L. Kushelev, A. P. Urusov and others attacked peasant communities. Regarding them, the phrase was said that “this is a swamp in which everything that could be in the open gets bogged down.” The nobles believed that for the benefit of the peasants the community must be destroyed.

Those who tried to raise the issue of alienation of landowners' lands did not receive support. Back in 1905, when the land management manager N.N. Kutler proposed to the tsar to solve the problem of peasants' lack of land in this way, the ruler refused him and sent him into retirement.

Stolypin was also not a supporter of the forced alienation of land, believing that everything was going on as usual. Some of the nobles, fearing revolution, sold land to the Peasant Bank, which divided it into small plots and sold it to those peasants who were cramped in the community. This was the main meaning of Stolypin's reform briefly.

During 1905-1907, the bank bought more than 2.5 million acres of land from landowners. However, peasants, fearing the liquidation of private land ownership, practically did not purchase land. During this time, the bank sold only 170 thousand dessiatines. The bank's activities caused discontent among the nobles. Then land sales began to increase. The reform began to bear fruit only after 1911.

The results of Stolypin's reforms

Brief statistics on the results of agrarian reform:

more than 6 million households filed a petition to secure plots of land as private property;
by the February Revolution, about 30% of the land was transferred to the ownership of peasants and partnerships;
with the help of the Peasant Bank, peasants acquired 9.6 million dessiatines;
landed estates lost their significance as a mass phenomenon; by 1916, almost all land sowing was carried out by peasants.

agrarian reform land tenure Stolypin

The results of the reform are characterized by rapid growth in agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and Russia's trade balance has become increasingly active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into a dominant feature of Russia’s economic development. The gross income of all agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total gross income. The income of the entire national economy, due to the increase in value created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.

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.

The above does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be represented as a “peasant paradise.” The problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not resolved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. According to calculations by I.D. Kondratiev in the USA, on average, a farm had a fixed capital of 3,900 rubles, and in European Russia, the fixed capital of an average peasant farm barely reached 900 rubles. The national income per capita of the agricultural population in Russia was approximately 52 rubles per year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.

The rate of growth in labor productivity in agriculture has been comparatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread per dessiatine, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth occurred not on the basis of intensification of production, but due to an increase in the intensity of manual peasant labor. But during the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian reforms - the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive, technologically progressive sector of the economy.

RESULTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE STOLYPINSK AGRARIAN REFORM

The community survived the clash with private land ownership, and after the February Revolution of 1917 it went on a decisive offensive. Now the struggle for land again found a way out in the arson of estates and the murders of landowners, which occurred with even greater ferocity than in 1905. “Then you didn’t finish the job, you stopped halfway? - the peasants reasoned. “Well, now we won’t stop and destroy all the landowners at the roots.”

The results of the Stolypin agrarian reform are expressed in the following figures. By January 1, 1916, 2 million householders left the community for the interstitial fortification. They owned 14.1 million dessiatines. land. 469 thousand householders living in non-allocation communities received certificates of identification for 2.8 million dessiatines. 1.3 million householders switched to farm and farm ownership (12.7 million dessiatines). In addition, 280 thousand farms and farms were formed on bank lands - this is a special account. But the other figures given above cannot be mechanically added up, since some householders, having strengthened their plots, then went to farmsteads and cuts, while others went to them immediately, without intersecting fortification. According to rough estimates, a total of about 3 million householders left the community, which is slightly less than a third of the total number in those provinces where the reform was carried out. However, as noted, some of the deportees actually abandoned farming long ago. 22% of land was withdrawn from communal circulation. About half of them went on sale. Some part returned to the communal pot.

Over the 11 years of the Stolypin land reform, 26% of peasants left the community. 85% of peasant lands remained with the community. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a stable and sufficiently massive layer of peasant-owners. So you can talk about the general failure of the Stolypin agrarian reform.

At the same time, it is known that after the end of the revolution and before the outbreak of the First World War, the situation in the Russian village improved noticeably. Of course, in addition to the reform, other factors were at work. Firstly, as had already happened, since 1907, redemption payments, which the peasants had been paying for more than 40 years, were cancelled. Secondly, the global agricultural crisis ended and grain prices began to rise. From this, one must assume, something also fell to ordinary peasants. Thirdly, during the years of the revolution, landownership decreased, and in connection with this, bonded forms of exploitation decreased. Finally, fourthly, during the entire period there was only one bad harvest year (1911), but there were excellent harvests for two years in a row (1912-1913). As for the agrarian reform, such a large-scale event, which required such a significant land shake-up, could not have a positive impact in the very first years of its implementation. Nevertheless, the events that accompanied it were a good, useful thing.

This concerns the provision of greater personal freedom to peasants, the establishment of farmsteads and plots on bank lands, resettlement to Siberia, and certain types of land management.

POSITIVE RESULTS OF AGRARIAN REFORM

The positive results of agrarian reform include:

Up to a quarter of the farms were separated from the community, the stratification of the village increased, the rural elite provided up to half of the market grain,

3 million households moved from European Russia,

4 million dessiatines of communal lands were involved in market circulation,

The cost of agricultural implements increased from 59 to 83 rubles. per yard,

Consumption of superphosphate fertilizers increased from 8 to 20 million poods,

For 1890-1913 per capita income of the rural population increased from 22 to 33 rubles. in year,

NEGATIVE RESULTS OF AGRARIAN REFORM

The negative results of agrarian reform include:

From 70% to 90% of the peasants who left the community somehow retained ties with the community; the bulk of the peasants were the labor farms of community members,

Returned back to Central Russia 0.5 million displaced people,

There were 2-4 dessiatines per peasant household, while the norm was 7-8 dessiatines,

The main agricultural implement is the plow (8 million pieces), 58% of farms did not have plows,

Mineral fertilizers were used on 2% of the sown area,

In 1911-1912 The country was struck by famine, affecting 30 million people.

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.

The above does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be represented as a “peasant paradise.” The problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not resolved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. According to the calculations of I. D. Kondratyev, in the USA, on average, a farm had a fixed capital of 3,900 rubles, and in European Russia, the fixed capital of an average peasant farm barely reached 900 rubles. The national income per capita of the agricultural population in Russia was approximately 52 rubles per year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.

Results and consequences of the Stolypin agrarian reform

This concerns the provision of greater personal freedom to peasants, the establishment of farmsteads and plots on bank lands, resettlement to Siberia, and certain types of land management.

Positive results of agrarian reform

The positive results of agrarian reform include:

Up to a quarter of the farms were separated from the community, the stratification of the village increased, the rural elite provided up to half of the market grain,

3 million households moved from European Russia,

4 million dessiatines of communal lands were involved in market circulation,

The cost of agricultural implements increased from 59 to 83 rubles. per yard,

Consumption of superphosphate fertilizers increased from 8 to 20 million poods,

For 1890-1913 per capita income of the rural population increased from 22 to 33 rubles. in year,

Negative results of agrarian reform

The negative results of agrarian reform include:

– from 70% to 90% of the peasants who left the community somehow retained ties with the community, the bulk of the peasants were the labor farms of community members,

0.5 million migrants returned to Central Russia,

There were 2-4 dessiatines per peasant household, while the norm was 7-8 dessiatines,

The main agricultural implement is the plow (8 million pieces), 58% of farms did not have plows,

Mineral fertilizers were used on 2% of the sown area,

In 1911-1912 The country was struck by famine, affecting 30 million people.

Reasons for the collapse of the Stolypin agrarian reform

During the revolution and civil war, communal land ownership won a decisive victory. However, a decade later, at the end of the 20s, a sharp struggle broke out again between the peasant community and the state. The result of this struggle was the destruction of the community.

But a number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform. If we look at all the reforms that were conceived by Stolypin and announced in the declaration, we will see that most of them failed to come true, and some were just begun, but the death of their creator did not allow them to be completed, because many of the introductions were based on enthusiasm Stolypin, who tried to somehow improve the political or economic structure of Russia.

Stolypin himself believed that it would take 15-20 years for his endeavors to succeed. But also for the period 1906 - 1913. a lot has been done.

The revolution showed a huge socio-economic and political gap between the people and the government. The country needed radical reforms, which were not forthcoming. We can say that during the period of the Stolypin reforms the country was not experiencing a constitutional crisis, but a revolutionary one. Standing still or half-reforms could not solve the situation; on the contrary, they only expanded the springboard for the struggle for fundamental changes. Only the destruction of the tsarist regime and landownership could change the course of events; the measures that Stolypin took during his reforms were half-hearted. The main failure of Stolypin’s reforms is that he wanted to carry out reorganization in a non-democratic way and, despite him, Struve wrote: “It is his agrarian policy that is in blatant contradiction with his other policies. It changes the economic foundation of the country, while all other policies strive to preserve the political “superstructure” as intact as possible and only slightly decorate its façade.” Of course Stolypin was outstanding figure and a politician, but with the existence of such a system as in Russia, all his projects were “split apart” due to lack of understanding or unwillingness to understand the full importance of his undertakings. It must be said that without those human qualities, such as courage, determination, assertiveness, political flair, cunning, Stolypin would hardly have been able to make any contribution to the development of the country.

What are the reasons for her defeat?

Firstly, Stolypin began his reforms very late (not in 1861, but only in 1906).

Secondly, the transition from a natural type of economy to a market economy in an administratively- command system is possible, first of all, on the basis of the active activities of the state. In this case, the financial and credit activities of the state should play a special role. An example of this is the government, which was able, with amazing speed and scope, to reorient the powerful bureaucratic apparatus of the empire to energetic work. At the same time, “local economic profitability was deliberately sacrificed for the sake of the future social effect from the creation and development of new economic forms.” This is how the Ministry of Finance, the Peasant Bank, the Ministry of Agriculture, and other state institutions acted.

Thirdly, where administrative principles of economic management and egalitarian methods of distribution dominated, there will always be strong opposition to change.

Fourthly, the cause of the defeat is massive revolutionary struggle, which swept away the tsarist monarchy from the historical arena along with its agrarian reform.

Therefore, it is necessary to have social support in the form of proactive and qualified segments of the population.

The collapse of the Stolypin reform did not mean that it had no serious significance. It was a major step along the capitalist path and contributed to a certain extent to the growth in the use of machinery, fertilizers, and an increase in the marketability of agriculture.

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

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

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the need to accelerate capitalist development began to manifest itself especially clearly. After the 60s, bourgeois relations developed to the necessary level for things to come to an open confrontation between the feudal and capitalist systems. Stolypin presented a government concept for solving the agrarian issue. This statement and the decree that followed it were interpreted as a choice between the peasant-owner and the peasant-idler in favor of the first. The main directions of the reform were: allowing peasants to leave the community, encouraging the formation of farmsteads and cuts, and pursuing a resettlement policy.

I am of the opinion that in its economic content it was a liberal bourgeois reform that contributed to the development of capitalism in the countryside. Relying on the emerging layer of small owners, the authorities tried to push the development of the entire economy of the country as a whole. Apparently, the minister took as his basis the argument that peasants, separating from the community, turn into consumers of domestic agricultural products, thereby stimulating the development of Russia as an industrial and modernized country. Essentially, Pyotr Arkadyevich tried to combine the American path of development of the capitalist economy with the preservation of the apparatus of the bureaucracy of the autocracy. Objectively assessing Stolypin's principle, I partially agree with the widespread opinion that it was one of the most brilliant ideas of that government in terms of the development of capitalism. Agrarian reform was also intended to divert attention from ideas about the seizure and division of landowners' lands, to prevent revolutionaries from solving their main task - organizing the people to fight against their exploiters.

What are the results of the agricultural course? Unfortunately for the government of that time, only a little more than 10% of peasant farms could be called farms. The small successes of newly-minted farmers often became the cause of hatred, and the emergence of communal peasants who tried in every possible way to hinder the development of their more successful neighbors. There are known cases when wealthier peasants left the community and received better land plots from the former communal lands. As a result, there was a direct struggle between community members and farmers. The resettlement policy clearly demonstrated the results and methods of the reform itself. In my opinion, the implementation of a resettlement policy, if this plan was successfully implemented, would carry with it significant significance in the development of not so much farming as in the development of new, still poorly developed lands. But the resettlement department, in my opinion, was poorly prepared for the transportation and accommodation of a huge mass of peasants. The settlers tried to settle in already inhabited places rather than develop uninhabited areas. Over 7 years, 3.5 million people were resettled, and 1 million returned back to the European part of the country, but without money or hope.

There were also positive results. The volume of grain production and exports of products abroad have increased, the number of purchased agricultural machinery, and the volume of gross product have increased. But the Russian peasant never became an “American farmer.” I believe that the Stolypin agrarian reform has a very low, I would call, efficiency. Most peasants continued to live in the community. Stolypin made a huge mistake by violently destroying community traditions. With his agrarian reform, he brought the Russian village to a boiling point, and this predetermined the development of events in 1917, that is, in all subsequent Russian history. But the peasants tried to find their own, more rational, path to capitalism, creating cooperatives and artels, taking as a basis one of the main principles of communism, as a collective activity. It is in the collective, I think (especially if the collective means the entire Russian peasantry) that it is possible to create a great industrial power. Despite the fact that in history it does not happen subjunctive moods, I still allow myself to express my opinion regarding the development of capitalism in Russian Empire. I don’t think that capitalism in our country would lead to the general welfare of the people. After all, tsarist Russia remained a country with a bureaucratic administrative apparatus, in which bureaucratic arbitrariness and corruption reigned. If there had not been revolutionary upheavals, a narrow layer of large owners would have formed in the country, who were the main support of the emperor, in whose hands were most of the natural resources and most of the monetary capital.

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