Evaluate the results of Stolypin's agrarian reform. Assessment of the Stolypin agrarian reform in historiography
agrarian reform landownership stolypin
The results of the reform are characterized by a rapid growth in agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and the trade balance of Russia has become more and more active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into the dominant feature of Russia's economic development. Gross income total Agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total gross income. The income of the entire national economy, due to the increase in the value created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.
The differentiation of types of agricultural production by regions has led to an increase in the marketability of agriculture. Three-quarters of all raw materials processed by industry came from agriculture. The turnover of agricultural products increased by 46% during the reform period.
Even more, by 61% compared with 1901-1905, the export of agricultural products increased in the prewar years. Russia was the largest producer and exporter of bread and flax, a number of livestock products. So, in 1910, the export of Russian wheat amounted to 36.4% of the total world export.
The foregoing does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be presented as a "peasant's paradise." The problems of hunger and agrarian overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. According to I.D. Kondratiev in the United States, on average, a farm accounted for a fixed capital of 3,900 rubles, while 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 about 52 rubles per year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.
The growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture was relatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread from one tithe, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth took place not on the basis of the intensification of production, but by increasing 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 - to the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive technologically progressive sector of the economy.
RESULTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE STOLYPIN AGRARIAN REFORM
The community withstood the collision with private land ownership, and after February Revolution 1917 went on a decisive offensive. Now the struggle for land again found a way out in the burning of estates and the murders of landowners, which took place with even greater bitterness than in 1905. “Then they didn’t finish the job, stopped halfway? the peasants argued. “Well, now let’s not stop and exterminate all the landowners to the root.”
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 interstriped fortification. They owned 14.1 million dess. earth. 469,000 householders who lived in unrestricted communities received certificates worth 2.8 million dess. 1.3 million households moved to farm and cut ownership (12.7 million dess.). In addition, 280,000 farms and cut-off farms were formed on banking lands - this is a special account. But the other figures cited above cannot be added up mechanically, since some householders, having strengthened their allotments, then went out to farms and cuts, while others went to them immediately, without fortifying them in strips. According to rough estimates, about 3 million householders left the community, which is somewhat less than a third of their total number in those provinces where the reform was carried out. However, as noted, some of the evacuees had in fact abandoned agriculture long ago. 22% of the land was withdrawn from communal circulation. About half of them went on sale. Some part returned to the communal cauldron.
During the 11 years of the Stolypin land reform, 26% of the peasants left the community. 85% of the 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 proprietors. So what can be done 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 countryside improved markedly. Of course, there were other factors at work besides the reform. First, as was already happening, since 1907 redemption payments were canceled, which the peasants paid within 40 seconds. extra years. Secondly, the global agricultural crisis ended and grain prices began to rise. From this, presumably, something fell to ordinary peasants. Thirdly, during the years of the revolution, landownership was reduced, and in connection with this, enslaving forms of exploitation also decreased. Finally, fourthly, for the entire period there was only one lean year (1911), but on the other hand, two years in a row (1912-1913) were excellent harvests. As for the agrarian reform, such a large-scale undertaking, which required such a significant reshaping of the land, could not have a positive effect in the very first years of its implementation. Nevertheless, the activities that accompanied her were a good, useful thing.
This concerns the provision of greater personal freedom to the peasants, the arrangement of farms and cuts on bank lands, resettlement to Siberia, and certain types of land management.
POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF AGRARIAN REFORM
The positive results of the agrarian reform include:
Up to a quarter of households separated from the community, the stratification of the village increased, the rural elite gave up to half of the market bread,
3 million households moved from European Russia,
4 million acres of communal lands were involved in the market turnover,
The cost of agricultural implements has increased from 59 to 83 rubles. for one yard
Consumption of superphosphate fertilizers increased from 8 to 20 million poods,
For 1890-1913 income per capita 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 the community members,
Returned back to Central Russia 0.5 million migrants,
The peasant household accounted for 2-4 tithes, at a rate of 7-8 tithes,
The main agricultural tool is a plow (8 million pieces), 58% of farms did not have plows,
Mineral fertilizers were applied on 2% of sown areas,
In 1911-1912. the country was struck by a famine that engulfed 30 million people.
stolypin reform agrarian production
Assessment of the results of the reforms by P.A. Stolypin is hampered by the fact that the reforms were never fully implemented. P.A. himself Stolypin assumed that all the reforms he conceived would be implemented in a comprehensive manner (and not only in terms of agrarian reform) and would give the maximum effect in the long term.
The peasant community could not be destroyed. For 1907-1914 only 26% of the peasants left the community and took ownership of the land. Of these, only about 11% created farms and cuts, and many sold their land and left for the city. By 1915, only 10.3% of peasant farms had become truly individual farms.
Thus, the peasants did not actively leave the community, they were mostly kulaks or poor peasants, but not middle peasants. This happened because: a) the majority of the peasants were not able to manage on their own, at their own peril and risk, and the community took care of each member of the community; b) the destruction of the community was the destruction of the patriarchal way of life of the peasants; c) not in all regions of the country natural conditions allowed, having destroyed the community, to give all peasants equal plots of land.
The resettlement policy was the most successful measure of the reform. For 1906-1914 3.4 million people moved to Siberia, two-thirds of them were landless and landless peasants. This had a positive impact on the development of the region, as as a result of the increase in the population of Siberia, the development of new lands and the development of productive forces took place.
However, about 17% of the settlers returned back (did not receive proper state support, faced difficulties in the new place and sabotage of the local population), and this hindered the solution of the problem of lack of land for the peasants and increased social tension in the places of their former settlement.
The reform contributed to the rapid growth of agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and the trade balance of Russia became more and more active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into the 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 the value created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.
The differentiation of types of agricultural production by regions has led to an increase in the marketability of agriculture. Three-quarters of all raw materials processed by industry came from agriculture. The turnover of agricultural products increased by 46% during the reform period. Even more, by 61% compared with 1901-1905, the export of agricultural products increased in the prewar years. Russia was the largest producer and exporter of bread and flax, a number of livestock products. So, in 1910, the export of Russian wheat amounted to 36.4% of the total world export.
However, the problems of hunger and agrarian overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. The growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture was relatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread from one tithe, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth was not based on the 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 - to the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive technologically progressive sector of the economy.
Advantages of the reform
In $1911$ Stolypin P.A. was killed during the $11$th assassination attempt. His agrarian reform remained unfinished, although activities continued, but less actively.
In general, by $1916 $2 million peasant householders became the owners of striped plots. This equaled more than $14 million acres of land. Almost $1.5 million more peasants became owners of farms (i.e., "cuts") worth $12.7 million acres of land. Least of all, about $500,000 of peasant householders left communities in which redistribution had not been carried out for a long time, which, according to the rules, meant securing existing allotments in property. Such odds of ownership were $2.8 million acres of land.
As you know, the Peasants' Bank had the right to buy out the lands of the communities for their subsequent sale to the peasant owners. As a result, about $280$ thousand farms were formed on such lands.
Communal land ownership decreased by $22$%. Due to the length of the process of transferring land into ownership, not all of this land received new owners, something returned back to the community.
Life in the countryside improved during this period from the First Revolution to the First World War. Stolypin's agrarian reform finally abolished the redemption payments that the peasantry had been dragging on for more than $40$ for years. Agricultural production began to grow at a rapid pace, and it was possible to get out of the crisis. Also, the fruitful years of $1912$ and $1913$ and a decrease in the frequency of crop failures (only in $1911$) were a favorable circumstance. The end of the world economic crisis, as well as the deterioration of the position of the landowners, also played a certain role.
Remark 1
The Stolypin agrarian reform created the peasant so-called. "middle class" who had the ability to buy or sell land. At the same time, the number of the poor did not decrease, and the government, introducing the reform, did not pay attention to them, relying on the prosperous and middle peasantry.
Cons of the reform
However, in general, the Stolypin reform, which was aimed at destroying the peasant community and building a new society with private peasant landowners, did not cope with its task. The fact is that the community was not destroyed, and a layer of private traders was formed insignificant from the total population.
There are many reasons for the defeat of the reform, but if we recall that Stolypin himself gave $20$ years for this reform, it becomes clear that she did not have enough time.
The resettlement policy did not get the proper result. It was supposed to populate the separated regions beyond the Urals - Siberia, Far East, but those who remained in new places settled not in deaf lands, but in already developed ones. Many came back destitute, because. farms were sold. Difficulties were added by the position of the local population and administration - the settlers were met reluctantly, if not hostilely, not intending to help in development.
Appeal to the services of the Peasants' Bank also quickly declined due to high rates. Many simply went bankrupt paying bank loans.
Thus, the effectiveness of the reform of Stolypin P.A., judging by the above data, was small.
Reasons for the failure of the reform
Remark 2
Note that Stolypin P.A. worked with enthusiasm, but met with many obstacles from the government and the higher circles in general. Stolypin's inflexibility even led to a crisis in the government in $1911$. But the bureaucratic machine turned out to be stronger than one man. The tragedy was that his ideas were not accepted by the people, which, ultimately, was the cause of his death and the incompleteness of his work.
Perhaps the basis for the failure of the reform was the preservation of landlord ownership of land. The peasants, who from time immemorial believed that the landowners occupy the land illegally, did not forget about this, which probably affected the events of $1917 and the further position of this social stratum.
Giving an assessment of the Stolypin reforms, historians first of all note gap economic transformations and reforms aimed at the liberalization of social and political life. So, Ya.A. Avrekh notes: "The organic defect of Stolypin's course was that he wanted to carry out reforms outside of democracy and in spite of it" 1 . One of the prominent cadet publicists A.S. Izgoev noted that Stolypin's agrarian reform, aimed at the Europeanization of Russian agriculture, could not be successful "without a reform of the legal system." This was also emphasized by P.B. Struve, arguing that Stolypin's agrarian policy "stands in glaring contradiction with his other policies": he changes the economic foundation, but leaves the political superstructure intact.
As regards the opinion agrarian reform, then politicians are Stolypin's contemporaries, and scientists give her very contradictory assessments. Appreciated reform gave A.S. Izgoev: “The land reform of November 9 is in essence a social revolution. This reform is the result that life summed up the Russian revolution and its most acute social form of the peasant movement ... The creation of a small personal owner was the main state need, and whatever party found itself in power, it would be the logic of things ... brought to this historical task” 1 . Pyotr Struve's assessment of Stolypin's agrarian reform is original: “No matter how one regards Stolypin's agrarian policy - one can accept it as the greatest evil, one can bless it as a beneficent surgical operation - with this policy he made a huge shift in Russian life. And the shift is truly revolutionary both in essence and formally. For there can be no doubt that with the agrarian reform, which liquidated the community, economic development Russia can only be put on a par with the liberation of the peasants and the railways» .
At the same time, there were critics of Stolypin's agrarian course among prominent Russian scientists and economists. One of them was Alexander Ivanovich Chuprov. Recognizing that cut farms have many advantages, he nevertheless defended the idea of preserving the community. He regarded attempts to create bran farms everywhere as utopian. Chuprov feared that with the destruction of the community, the only way to preserve the "economic independence of the masses" would perish. In addition, small, individual private farms, deprived of capital and knowledge, will not be able to run a profitable economy, and will go bankrupt at a difficult moment. As the successor to the community, he saw farms organized on the principles of an artel.
A.P. Korelin and K.F. Shatsillo (1995) believe that Stolypin's agrarian reform was “scientifically and economically scientific and progressive. Its implementation - timely, reasonable, without administrative pressure - could, apparently, remove the problem of revolution" 1 . This path did not take place due to the unwillingness of the autocracy to carry out reforms in a timely manner, due to the opposition of the conservative bureaucracy and the nobility, and also due to the unwillingness of society to accept the transformations. An expert on the agrarian issue in Russia, V.P. Danilov believes that the result of the Stolypin agrarian reform, if fully implemented, would be "the final defeat of the peasantry in the struggle for land and for the free development of their economy, the complete establishment in Russia of the landowner type of capitalism and the pauperization of the rural population."
Apparently, Stolypin underestimated the labor issue. He carried out his transformations during the decline of the labor movement, but this did not mean that the workers were resigned to their position. As soon as volleys were fired at a peaceful demonstration of workers in the distant Lena mines, a powerful upsurge of the working-class movement began throughout Russia. Having proclaimed a combination of pacification and reforms, Stolypin resorted mainly to repression against the workers. The program of factory legislation developed by the Kokovtsov commission in 1905 was buried under the pressure of factory owners and factory owners, who showed narrow-class egoism and did not want to take into account the interests of the state.
- State activity P.A. Stolypin... S. 58.
One of the topics in history in the 11th grade is the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin. We briefly talk about Stolypin's agrarian reform in this article.
Reasons for reform
The agrarian reform was dictated by the need to eliminate dissatisfaction with the government of a large number of people. By 1906, such actions had acquired a large-scale character and a revolutionary upsurge.
The agrarian reform pursued several goals at once:
- To turn the communal peasants into peasant proprietors;
- Accelerate the bourgeois development of agriculture;
- Save the land to the landowners;
- Give land to the peasants;
- Remove social tension;
- Create a support of power at the expense of the peasants.
Rice. 1. Portrait of P.A. Stolypin.
The essence of the reform
Stolypin set aside at least 20 years for the reform, so he did not expect instant results, but urged to wait for the consequences of the reform much later.
Rice. 2. Stolypin carriage.
An important measure in addressing these two lines of reform was the law of June 14, 1910, which made leaving the community compulsory. This law was adopted due to the fact that at the first stage of the reform, the peasants were reluctant to leave the community.
Stolypin's agrarian reform had the following advantages:
- Private peasants are less susceptible to the revolutionary spirit than communal peasants.
- A person who has a personal land allotment is interested in the final result, therefore he will try to increase his harvest and profit.
- Distract the peasants from the desire to divide the land of the landowners.
Rice. 3. Relocation of peasants to Siberia in the 20th century.
Consider the main activities, as well as their pros and cons using the table.
TOP 5 articleswho read along with this
Creation of new forms of land ownership |
Resettlement of peasants |
||
Creation of private peasant farms |
Only 25% of the peasants left the community |
More than 3 million peasants moved beyond the Urals |
The problem of land scarcity is not solved |
Growth in agricultural productivity |
Increased stratification among the peasants |
30 million acres of land have been developed |
Over 0.5 million people returned |
Agronomic assistance to the village |
In addition to the conflict between peasants and landlords, a conflict appeared between community members and private owners. |
Development of corporate forms of management |
|
Bread export growth |
To give additional impetus to the development of the agricultural sector and accelerate the implementation of the reform, the Peasant Bank provided loans for the purchase of land, and on May 3, 1908, Stolypin signed a decree on the mandatory primary education, which was supposed to raise the level of literacy of the peasants.
The results of Stolypin's agrarian reform
For 7 years of agrarian reform, which was stopped by Russia's participation in the First World War (against participation in which the reformer opposed), Russia has achieved the following successes:
- In some regions, where the peasants left the community, the sown area increased by 150%, throughout the country - by 10% as a whole.
- Export of grain has grown, amounting to 25% of the world.
- The purchase of agricultural equipment increased by 3.5 times.
- The volume of fertilizers used increased by 2.5 times.
- Industrial growth came out on top in the world and amounted to 8.8%.
The agrarian reform was one of the stages of the mass reformation of Russia. It was not possible to solve the set task by 1914, since the communal traditions were very strong. However, since 1907, artels began to be created everywhere as a possible replacement for the peasant community in the future.
What have we learned?
The agrarian reform could solve the accumulated problems, since even in a short period it already produced positive results. For Russia, Stolypin's activities would have been successful if not for the war...
Topic quiz
Report Evaluation
Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 680.