(1862-1911). He came from the old nobility family, received a brilliant education. PIN tables possessed solid, powerful character and brilliant oratorical capacities. His speeches in the Duma made a big impression on the deputy-com. In 1905, Stolypin was appointed to the governor in a particularly punctured Saratov province, where "became famous for" the brutal pressure of the peasant riots.

The hardness and determination of Stolypin were estimated in the top. In April 1906, Stolypin was found on the minister of internal affairs, and in July of the same year, a pre-soldier of the co-veter ministers. A convinced monarchist, a supporter of "hard power", Stolypin advocated the modernization of Russia, the development of the economy and culture. The essence of his program is expressed in the phrase " First reassure, and then reforms"I mean the need to suppress the revolution and guidance of the order as a condition for further transformatives.

Stolypin agrarian reform.The main principle of reform - replacing community land use by individual land-ownership - suggested back in 1902 S. Yu. Vitte But then the king of his rejection. The peasant movement in the years of the revolution has made it possible to look for ways to solve an agrarian question, but so as not to cause damage to the surveillance. Pro-reform preceded a number of measures: with January 1, 1907 Discovery payments of peasants were canceled. Sale of ze-stranded peasants through the peasant bank was allowed. The peasants equalized with the rest of the passports.

Goal agrarian reform:

1. Destroy the peasant community.

2. Develop capitalismon the village without prejudice to landowners.

3. Liquidation of peasants and feudal remnants.

4. Create a "strong" nine peasant - "Support order" in the village.

5. Eliminate revolutionary activity on the village, evict especially restless peasants for the Urals on free land.

6. Create a system of universal primary education in the village.

Community destruction. The essence of the reform was set out in decree on November 9, 1906. The decree established "the right to free exit from the community with the" strengthening "(consolidation) to the ownership of" pre-mover "(peasants), passing to personal ownership, sites from the" Mirsky "(community) on-business. " Ning's peasants could require instead of the once-retired bands highlighted in different fields of the provision of equal-valuable plot in one place ( Ворпр.). If Ho-Zyain has transferred his yard to him with ho-zyyuchny buildings, then arose farm.

From the community went out Mostly "extreme" on the property of the peasants - the poor and prosperous. The first were trying to give their own on-doers and either go to the city, or to move to the free lands of the Urals and Siberia. They sold over 3.4 million tents of the Earth. They bought these land not only rich, but also the peasants-middles. Stolypin did not hide what he bet " not on poor and drunk, but on strong and strong"Peasants.

Moving the peasants to the Earth of the Urals and Siberia.The practitioner assists the re-selection of peasants for free lands. For 1907-1914 3.3 million Casty Dyan moved to the Ural. They received a cash loan to the economy. But not everyone could become housewives: many entered the bars to local old-cores, over-Lumillion returned back to Roshiy. Causes: The reluctance of the local ad-ministerial is to help condescents; Countering the conversion of the indigenous peoples of Siberia.

The results of the Stolypin reform.

Stolypin PolyaIt will take 20 years to complete the rain reform. During this time, he intended to conduct a number of other transformations - in the area of \u200b\u200bthe site, the court, folk enlightenment, in the national in-millet, etc. "Give the state twenty years of peace of internal and external, and you will not recognize the current Russia", - said Stolypin.

For 1907-1914 25% of peasants came from the community, And the statement about the exit was submitted by 35%. As a result, about 400 thousand farms (1/6 published) were formed. Not all of them were "fules kimi"; Clause-accurate farms numbered about 60%. The emergence of the farm-farm-ditch layer caused a protest from the peasants-communities, which was expressed in the damage of livestock, crops, inventory, beating a farmy. Only for 1909-1910. Police registered about 11 thousand facts of arson farms.

For 7 years The actions of the reform were achieved by success in agriculture: sowing areas increased by 10%; On 1/3 uve-depleted bread exports. The peasants increased by 3.5 times the cost of the purchase of ship-bogging machines - from 38 million to 131 million rubles. Reform of the stimulated shaft development of industry and trade. The mass of Cre-Sintyan Estrami-las in the city, increasing the labor market. As a result, the demand of the city's products increased agriculture.

The end of the career P. A. Stolypin.

Authorized and independent, Stolypin restored many - and left and right. In the circle of the premiere of the intrigue closure at the courtyard to know and Rasputin. The king is increasingly painted by Stolypin. In the spring of 1911, the pre-Miere Minister had made a resignation, but the king decided to wait. For 5 years of stay of Stolypin, there were 10 attempts on the part of revolutionaries, who could not forgive the destruction of the community - "the cells of the future of Creatyan Socialism." September 1, 1911 ECER-Maxim-List D. Bogróv With the connivance of the police during the presentation in the Kiev Opera Theater in the presence of the king with his family, two you-arrows from Browning was mortally wounded Stolypin.

Reforms P. A. Stolypin: a variety of opinions.

There are two opposite points of view on the activities of P. A. Stolypin:

I. Soviet point of view :

Stolypin restricted the democracy achievements of the revolution 1905-1907, since he:

1. Repressed revolutionaries, established military field courts.

2. Stolypin was the initiator of the third coup.

3. According to the prepared Stolypin, the new electoral law of 1907, the electoral rights of the peasants and workers were limited.

4. Stolypin stood for limiting the political rights of representatives of non-Russian nationalities.

5. Stolypin agrarian reform has been conjugate with violence towards communists, with it disagree.

6. Many Stolypin bills conducted without the participation of the Duma.

II. . Liberal point of view :

Stolypin's policy was aimed at creating a legal state in Russia as part of Manifest on October 17, 1905, since:

1. Stolypin defended the principle of private ownership, the sacred in the legal state.

2. The struggle of Stolypin with revolutionaries is able to guide the order, the triumph of the law.

3. Stolypin was against the WHO Gate to the previous autocracy regime.

4. Stolypin believed that the creation of a layer of the peasants of the owners is different from the peasants respect for the law, legal culture.

5. Stolypin suggested expanding the system of local self-government, reform the judicial system, to liquid-dial the volost court.

6. Stolypin developed folk enlightenment on the village.

7. Stolypin reforms were to contribute to the equation of the rights of peasants with other estates.

In this way, The reforms of Stolypin had both positive and denials. On the one hand, they put the rural home to the capitalist path, stimulated the development of industrial. On the other hand, the reforms were not completed, failed to eliminate the contradictions between the peasants and the landowners, create a massive layer of the wealthy peasantry. At the disposal of Stolypin there was no 20 years on completing the reform. Its transformations were interrupted first Mi-Roy War and revolution 1917 . Stolypin agrarian laws were finally canceled by the Decree of the Provisional Government in June 1917.

IV State Duma (November 15, 1912- February 26, 1917).

Chairman of the IV Duma - Octobrist M. V. Rodzianko. Composition of the Duma:

Octobrists - 98; - Nationalists and moderately right - 88;

Party of the Center - 33; - right - 65;

Progressors and adjoined to them - 32 + 16;

Cadets and adjusted to them - 52 + 7; - "Trudoviki" - 10;

Social Democrats - 14 (Bolsheviks - 6; Mensheviki - 8), etc.

Stolypin agrarian reform - The generalized name of a wide range of agricultural activities conducted by the Government of Russia under the leadership of P. A. Stolypin since 1906. The main directions of the reform were the transfer of landlord to the ownership of the peasants, the gradual abolition of the rural community as a collective owner of land, wide lending to peasants, buying landlords for resale to peasants on preferential terms, land management, allowing to optimize the peasant economy due to the elimination of the soapmill.

General description of agrarian reform

The reform was a set of measures aimed at two purposes: the short-term goal of the reform was the permission of the "agricultural issue" as a source of mass discontent (first of all, the termination of agricultural unrest), a long-term goal - the sustainable prosperity and development of agriculture and the peasantry, the integration of the peasantry in the market Economy.

If the first goal was supposed to be achieved immediately (the scale of agricultural worries in the summer of 1906 was incompatible with the country's peaceful life and the normal functioning of the economy), then the second goal - prosperity - the Stolypin himself considered it to be achievable in the twenty-year-old perspective.

The reform unfolded in several directions:

• Improving the quality of the ownership of the peasant in the land, which was primarily in the replacement of collective and limited property to land of rural societies, the full private property of individual peasants-householders; The events in this direction were administratively legal.
• The eradication of outdated textual civil law restrictions that prevent the effective economic activity of the peasants.
• Improving the efficiency of peasant agriculture; Governmental events consisted primarily in encouraging the allocation of peasants to the owners of the "to one place" (cut, a farm), which required the state of the state of a huge amount of complex and expensive land management work on the deployment of alpine community grounds.
• Encouraging the purchase of private landlords (primarily landlord) with peasants, through various types of operation of the peasant landing bank, prevailing importance was preferential lending.
• Encouraging the extension of working capital of peasant farms through lending in all forms (bank lending on the security of land, loans to members of cooperatives and partnerships).
• Expanding direct subsidization of the events of the so-called "agronomic assistance" (agronomical consulting, educational activities, the maintenance of experienced and exemplary farms, trade in modern equipment and fertilizers).
• Support for cooperatives and peasant partnerships.

The reform was aimed at improving the peasant religion land use and a little affected private land tenure. The reform was carried out in 47 provinces of European Russia (all provisions, except for the three provinces of the Ostsey region); The reform was not affected by the Cossack land tenure and land tenure of Bashkir.

Reform events in a general historical context

The emergence of the idea of \u200b\u200bagrarian reform and its development was most associated with two phenomena - the activities of the first three state dums and agricultural unrest as part of the revolution of 1905-1907.

The situation in 1900-1904 for many observers seemed anxious, the voices that warned the government about the exacerbation of an agrarian issue, a severe situation in the village, the impoverishment and landlessness of the peasants, their increasing discontent were heard. The government response was sluggish enough. The chain of each other of government meetings on an agrarian question continued its non-refining activities that do not lead to certain results.

August 5, 1905 the manifesto on the establishment of the State Duma is coming out, and on October 17 - the famous manifesto "On improving state order" , proclaimed the main civil liberties and guaranteed that no law will be accepted without the approval of the Duma.

This day was the end of the uncertainty in which the government was. The first two dooms (often referred to by the "Thought of People's Hall") adhered to such a course in resolving the agricultural problem, which the Government of Stolypin believed principally unacceptable. The struggle between the Duma and the government, in which there was no compromise, was completed by the victory of the government. Most in the Duma are now controlled by the Okabristov Party (in a block with moderate nationalists), configured to cooperate.

Unlike land management laws, all government bills on local self-government reform ( "Regulations on volost management", "Regulations on the settlement", "Regulations on the provincial management") I could not go through legislative institutions.

At the same time, the Duma was fully ready for cooperation in terms of increasing budget allocations for agrarian reform (all budget bills were generally accepted by the Duma on time and in the atmosphere of constructive interaction). As a result, the Government since 1907 refuses active legislative activities in agrarian policy and proceeds to expanding government agencies, an increase in the volume of distributed loans and subsidies.

Starting from 1907, the statements of the peasants about consolidation to the ownership of the Earth are satisfied with large delays caused by the lack of personnel of land sustained commissions. Therefore, the main efforts of the government were aimed at training personnel (primarily of the Ambers). At the same time, funds sent to reform are continuously increasing, in the form of funding of the peasant march, subsidizing agronomic assistance activities, direct benefits to peasants.

Since 1910, the government course is somewhat modified - more attention begins to be given to supporting the cooperative movement.

On September 5, 1911, P. A. Stalypin was killed, the Prime Minister became the Minister of Finance V. N. Khodtsov. Kokovtsov, showing less initiative than Stolypin, followed by a scheduled course, not bringing something new to the agricultural reform. The volume of land sustaining works on land exploration, the number of land fixed in the ownership of the peasants, the number of land sold to peasants through the peasant bank, the volume of loans to the peasants consistently grew up to the beginning of the First World War.

Although the next after Kokottsov, the Prime Ministers did not express a significant interest in agrarian reform, the inertia recruited in the state apparatus was great, and even during the war, the activities of agrarian reform continued to be carried out, although already more modest pace. With the beginning of the First World War, about 40% of the land survey was called to the front, the number of landowava petitions has decreased. In 1915, it was customary to abandon the most conflicted form of land management work - the allocation of sections of individual peasants to one place in the absence of consent more than half of the rural gathering.

Russian agriculture of the central regions was distinguished by low yields (the average yield of the main breads in Russia was 8.3 c \\ hectares against 23.6 in Germany, 22.4 in the UK, 10.2 in the United States; in the non-black-earth central regions, the yield was even lower, reaching up to 3-4 c / ha in lack of town years). The yield on the peasant valid lands was 15-20% lower than in related landlords, 25-30% lower than in the Ostsey provinces. In the peasant economy, the backward three-field system of agriculture prevailed, modern agricultural instruments were rarely used. The rural population grew a rapid pace (an annual increase in 1913 1.79%), the growth rate of the population continued to increase. Almost in all regions, an excess of working arms felt on the village.

Land tenure in European Russia. Earth of European Russia was divided into the nature of the property into three parts: peasant, private, private and state-owned. At 1905, the peasants had 119 million tents of the ridiculous land (not counting 15 million tents of the Cossack lands that were not affected by the agrarian reform). The private owners had 94 million tents of the Earth, from which 50 million belonged to nobles, 25 million to the peasants, peasant partnerships and rural societies, 19 million to other private owners (merchants and breasts, foreigners, churches and monasteries, cities). The state belonged to 154 million tenthenes (including the specific and cabinet land). It should be noted that the peasant valid lands consisted only from arable land, meadows and pastures (with an obvious lack of latter), with a small number of uncomfortable lands and almost without forest. The composition of the noble lands included more forests and disobes, and state lands in a huge majority were forest. Thus, according to the Agriculture Minister A. S. Yermolov, all private owners of non-Christian origin have had an approximate 35 million decishes of the sowing ground, and the state is no more than 6 million; While the peasants owned 143 million tents of the ridiculous and private land.

Rural community and land tenure

In the postreform Russia there were various forms of land use and participation in it of rural communities.

Community ownership of land. The most common form was the community ownership of the Earth, in which all the peasant night land was owned by the community (the so-called "worldly land"), which in arbitrary deadlines redistributed land between the peasant farms, according to the size of families. With these converters, the creation of new peasant farms and the disappearance of existing things was also taken into account. Part of the Earth (primarily meadow, pasture lands and forests, inconvenience), as a rule, were not divided between the peasants and were in joint ownership of a rural society. According to custom, the peasants were assessed by the economic utility of each site in conventional units, "taxes", how much "crayl" was at the disposal of the peasant economy, as much proportional shares it had to contribute to the total amount of taxes that paid the rural community.

A rural society could at any time produce a redistribution of worldly land - to change the size of the plots in the use of peasant families in accordance with the amount of employees and the ability to pay the Casta. Since 1893, the redistribution was allowed to conduct no more often than once every 12 years. Not all peasant societies practiced regular redistributes, and some society produced them only once when released from serf dependence. According to the census of the population of 1897, the rural population was 93.6 million people, while the estate of peasants included 96.9 million people, despite the fact that from 8.3 million "foreign people" (the concept that includes the population of Central Asia and all nomadic peoples of Siberia And the Far North) the vast majority also lived in rural areas.

In addition to common conversations that affect the entire land of communities, "discounts" and "capes" were very often produced - an increase in one farm, due to the decrease in the other, which did not touch all others. As a rule, the Earth was cut off from widows, who were already capable of processing it, and came across to strong, increased families.

Community ownership of land was compatible with an authorized rental - rental of one peasants of the Nelchel land of others. The peasants resettled for permanent residence in the city could not sell their sites. Having a choice - either to quit the rural society without land and money, or continue to be listed in society and rent your site - they invariably found a more advantageous second option. As a result, millions of citizens continued to be formally considered members of rural societies; The census of 1897 has established that 7 million peasants live in cities. .

The community as a collective owner of the worldly land was very significantly limited in the right of sale of the Earth. Such transactions were supposed to undergo a long chain of statements, up to the approval by the Minister of the Interior (for transactions in the amount of over 500 rubles). Practically, the sale of the land of the community was possible only on the condition of the oncoming purchase of another site. The community could not also convey the land in pledge, even if the ransom was completed.

In 1905, in European Russia, 9.2 million peasant courtyards had 100.2 million tents of the ridiculous land in community ownership.

Outdoor land tenure. The second widespread form of land tenure in rural societies was a residential (precinct) land tenure, in which each peasant farming received the allocated sections and forever transmitted by the inheritance. This form of ownership was more common in the West Territory. The hereditary site was a limited private property - he was inherited, and could be sold (only to other persons of the peasant class), but in no case could not be transferred to the deposit. Like community ownership, the residential ownership could be combined with community property on non-aparticles (meadows, pastures, forest, inconvenience).

The rural society had the right at any time to move from community use of the Earth to the residential, but the reverse transition was impossible.

The "manor settlement" of peasants (house areas) were in a limited (with the right pass by inheritance) the property of the peasants. The common lands of villages (streets, passages) always belonged to rural society as a whole.

In 1905, 2.8 million peasant yards in European Russia had 2.8 million tits in the residential ownership in European Russia.

Netherodnaya land. Rural societies, in addition to the land obtained from the ending during the liberation of peasants, could buy land through ordinary private transactions. In relation to this land, they were full private collective owners, equal with any other economic partnerships, and were not subject to no estimated restrictions. This land could be sold or laid by rural societies without coordination with the authorities. Similarly, full personal property was the vulsal land of peasants and various kinds of cooperatives and partnerships. The most popular form of peasant private land ownership was a partnership that the peasants bought the land into the folds (major land plots were cheaper), and then divided them proportionally invested money and processed each part separately. In 1905, the peasants personally owned 13.2 million tents of private land in European Russia, rural societies - 3.7 million, peasant partnerships - 7.7 million, which in the aggregate was 26% of all private land ownership. However, some of these persons who formally belonged to the peasant class, in fact turned into major landowners - 1076 such "peasants" owned more than 1000 tents each, having a combination of 2.3 million tenthenes.

Peasant self-government and faculty institutions

All this administrative system carried out very attentive and petty control over the execution by rural societies and communities of responsibilities to the state, the eligibility of solutions to self-government, improvement and law and order in rural areas, conflicts during land tenure; At the same time, the institutions for peasant cases did not intervene in the economic life of the peasants, including in the redistribution of land.

Agrarian question

The "agricultural issue" (a sustainable definition taken in that era) consisted of essentially two independent problems:

From the problem of grinding peasant posts, the monkeying part of the peasants increasing (according to the estimates of contemporaries) poverty and decline in the village; - from the traditional non-recognition of the peasant communities the ownership of landowners to earth.

Russian population of the late XIX - early XX century has grown extremely rapid pace (about 1.4% per year). The increase in the number of urban population went substantially slower than the growth of the population as a whole; Between 1861 and 1913, the population of the Russian Empire increased 2.35 times.

Positive processes - the resettlement of peasants to Siberia to undeveloped land, the purchase of peasants landlord land - were not so intense to compensate for the rapid growth of the population. The security of the peasants of the earth gradually fell. The average size was put on a male soul in European Russia decreased from 4.6 tents in 1860 to 2.6 tents in 1900, while in southern Russia the fall was even more - from 2.9 to 1.7 decishes.

It has decreased not only the size of the station coming per capita, but also the size of the station coming to the peasant yard. In 1877, there were 8.5 million courtyards in European Russia, and in 1905 it was already 12.0 million. The state was trying to fight family sections, publishing a special law in 1893; However, all attempts to stop the division of families were unsuccessful. The grinding of peasant courtyards represented a large economic threat - minor economic units showed less efficiency than large ones.

At the same time, the unevenness of the support of the peasants grew. Even at the time of endowment of the peasants of the Earth during the reforms of Alexander II, part of the peasants chose the minimum (in the amount of ¼ from the standard), but completely free put on, which did not provide the peasant family. In the future, the inequality was aggravated: in the absence of accessible lending landlords, the land was gradually bought by more successful peasants who had already had the best put on, while the peasants had not received the opportunities to buy additional land. The conveyance system (practiced far from all peasant communities) did not always perform the equalizing functions - small and incomplete families, without adult workers' men, with the redesters just lost the excess land, which they could surrender to fellow villagers and the topics to support themselves.

The situation with an increase in the density of the rural population and a decrease in incidents was perceived by contemporaries mainly as the process of launching the village and decline of the economy. Modern studies, however, show that in general, in agriculture, the second half of the XIX century was observed not only growth and yields, but also the growth of revenues included in the busy. However, this growth, not too fast, in the eyes of contemporaries was completely hidden the increasing break between the standards of life of the city middle class and the life of the village. In the era, when the electric lighting was already included in the life of citizens, water supply, central heating, the phone and the car, the life and life of the village were presented endlessly backward. A stereotypical panic perception of a liberal intellectual of a peasant as a person who is ending the continuous need and disaster living in unbearable conditions has been established. This perception was determined by the broad support for the liberal intelligentsia (including lower earthly employees) and all political parties from the cadets and the left ideas of endowing the peasants nationalized landlord.

In general, the situation was significantly the worst in the center of European Russia (there was a sustainable expression "Claim the Center"), while in the south of Russia, in the Western Territory and in the Kingdom of Polish economy, often with small amounts of incidents, were significantly more efficient and resistant; The peasants of the North and Siberia were generally well secured by the Earth.

The state has not yet placed the land foundation to endow all the needy land. Actually arable land at the disposal of the state was not more than 3.7 million tents (taking into account the specific land ownership of the imperial name - up to 6 million tents), while focused in several provinces, where the peasants were already satisfactory. Sentainary land for 85% have already been rented by peasants, and the rental level was lower than the market.

Thus, a noticeable effect of endowment of 10.5 million peasant farms 6 million of the treated tenthene did not have to expect. The process of relocation of peasants to stateless land in Siberia, who actively stimulated by the government, could not bring a rapid effect - the economic development of virgin lands required considerable time and effort, the resettlement absorbed no more than 10% of the growth of the rural population. The attention of supporters of endowment of the peasants of an additional land is neutiticwise appealed to private ownership lands.

Protecting lands (excluding land already owned by peasants on the right of private property) suitable for the fields, in European Russia there were 38 million tents. Given all types of land (landlord, specific, monastic, part of urban), 43-45 million tenthenes were theoretically transmitted to peasants. At the same time, in terms of the male soul, another 0.8 decishes would be added to cash 2.6 decades (+30%). Such an increase, although noticeable in the peasant economy, could not solve the problems of the peasants and make them wealthy (in the understanding of the peasants, the increase was considered to be an increase of 5-7 decisions per soul). At the same time, with such reform, all effective specialized landlords (livestock, beetovodic, etc.) were killed.

The second part of the problem consisted in traditional rejection by peasants (mostly, former landlord peasants) of the entire legal structure of land ownership. In the release of landlord peasants, some of the land treated with them in the fortress state in its favor, remained behind the landlords (the so-called "segments"); The peasants persistently, decades remembered this land and considered it unfairly taken away. In addition, land buttons in the liberation of peasants were often made without adequate concern for the economic efficiency of the rural community. In many cases, rural societies did not have a forest at all and were not sufficiently provided with pastures and meadows (traditionally used collectively), which gave landowners with the opportunity to pass these land for rent on frankly overestimated prices. In addition, the distinction of landlord and ridiculous lands was often uncomfortable, even the mining owner of landowners and peasants in one field. All these unsatisfactory allowed land relations served as sources of smoldering conflicts.

In general, the structure of agrarian property was not recognized by the peasants and held only on force; As soon as the peasants felt that this power weakens, they were inclined to immediately move towards expropriation (which ultimately happened immediately after the February Revolution).

Peasant unrest

Peasant unrest, in some quantities that happened constantly, replaced in 1904. Since the spring of 1905, the unrest increased so much that what was happening was already evaluated by all observers as a revolution; In June, there were 346 incidents marked in police records, about 20% of counties were covered by unrest. Unrest, reaching a peak in the middle of the summer, decreased in the fall and almost stopped in winter. Since the spring of 1906, the excitement resumed with even greater force, in June, at the peak of the riots, 527 incidents marked in police records occurred; The unrest covered about half of the counties.

Unrest in Samoa easy form They had a kind of unauthorized knob in the landlord forests. Peasants, almost no forests as part of community lands, were traditionally inclined not to recognize any ownership of forests in general, and considered a fee for the use of privately robbery.

A more serious view of the riots was the unauthorized displacement of the landowner land. Since the crop could be matured only after a certain time, the peasants moved to such actions only with confidence in long-term impunity. In 1906, the peasants seeded the land in the conviction that the Duma is about to make a decision on nationalization and gratuitous transmission to the peasants of landlords.

An even more disturbing character was the so-called "disassembly" of estates. The peasants, gathering the crowd, hacked the constipation and cleared the stocks of grain seeds, cattle and agricultural inventory of estates, after which the economic buildings were set forth in the neware cases. Peasants, as a rule, did not plunder the domestic property of the landowners and did not destroy the landowners themselves, recognizing in this case the ownership of landowners on everything that did not apply to agriculture.

Violence and murders towards landowners and their representatives were quite rare, primarily because most landowners left the estates to the riots.

Finally, in the most extreme cases, it came to the arsons of the estates and violence towards who arrived at the place of excitement by the forces of the police guardian or troops. The rules for the use of weapons during the mass riots were allowed for the troops to open the shooting before the beginning of any violence from the crowd, the effective ways of overclocking the crowd without shooting on the defeat, neither the police nor the troops were owned; The result was numerous incidents with injuries and killed.

More peaceful but also effective tool The struggle was the strikes of the peasants who rented land in the land, or, on the contrary, who were employed on landlord earth. The peasants accepted the contracts to carry out the contracts concluded with the landowner until their conditions were changed to more profitable.

Government events between 1896 and 1906

Special Meeting about the needs of the agricultural industry

On January 23, 1902, a special meeting was formed about the needs of the agricultural industry under the chairmanship of S. Yu. Witte. Meeting began its activities with a big sweep. The first step was to collect information from the places, for which the 531 local committee was organized. Zemsky figures were widely involved in the work of the Committees, and in all cases they received the chairmen and members of the provincial and county goddes, and in some cases, the Zemsky vowels. 6 representatives of Zemskoye administration were also invited to participate in the meeting. The meeting had a complex administrative structure, divided into commission and subcommission. Simultaneously with the meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the editorial commission was organized to revise the legislation on peasants.

The meeting, which included many members and is complexly organized, drowned in a giant number of proposals and information received from places or put forward by its participants. The activities of the meeting proceeded slowly, for more than two years of his work was not developed final recommendations. In general, the meeting paid more attention to the organization of local governance, proceedings and legal status of peasants than property relations and ensuring the optimal organization of agriculture, although personally S. Yu. Witte considered the main obstacle to the development of agriculture community land tenure. However, the positive result of the meeting was already obtaining the highest bureaucratic institutions of a large number of information, judgments and proposals from local governments.

During the operation of the meeting S. Yu. Witte survived a serious career crisis associated with the fall of confidence in the emperor him. In August 1903, Witte lost a significant post of Minister of Finance, its political weight decreased. As a result of various kinds of government intrigues, on March 30, 1905, Witte's meeting was closed, and on the same day a special meeting was formed about measures to strengthen the peasant land tenure chaired by the former Minister of Internal Affairs I. L. Goremykina.

The Special Meeting of Goremichkin acted until August 30, 1906, and was also dissolved until they were developed by any final recommendations. In April 1906, at the opening of the I of the Duma, the inactiveness of the meeting as a mechanism of mutual coordination of interests is obvious - the positions of most of the Duma, including deputies from the peasants, radically differed from the entire range of views considered by the meeting.

The activities of the meetings were useful only in terms of the collection of primary materials, the idea of \u200b\u200bpermission of a complex issue through the activities of a multilateral commission and the coordination of departmental positions and interests (but not the interests of the peasants themselves, whose opinion was not requested directly) turned out to be non-visual. Agricultural reforms were possible only when the Prime Minister appears with its own solid convictions and strong political will. In general, the activities of the meetings gave no more than an abundant auxiliary material for subsequent agricultural reform.

In addition to the activities of the meetings, the development of draft laws on the peasant issue was conducted by the Zemsky Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This activity began during the Ministry of V.K. Plev, in May 1902, and broke off, without giving visible results, after the murder of Plev in July 1904. The developments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs largely prereplened the Stolypin policy, although the accentuation of ideas at that time was different - before the appearance of the officials of Stolypin, officials gave more important Civilian legal aspects (civil equality of the peasants, the division of the rural society to the all-class local community and the peasant economic partnership, ownership), and less - land sustaining measures.

In general, at this stage, the authorities showed extreme indecision and slowness in trying to resolve the agricultural issue. By expression V.I. Gurko, "... In general, in this matter not only bureaucracy, but the public showed some strange timidity. The number of persons who have conscious and, most importantly, recognized all the negative aspects of community land tenure, was more than significant, but the number of decisions to speak out for energetic measures, aimed at the destruction of the community, was completely insignificant ... The land community seemed to be somehow fetish, and moreover, so The form of land use inherent in the Russian folk spirit that it is hardly possible to dream about its abolition. " .

Forgiveness of debts on food capital loans

April 5, 1905 (with the chairman of the Committee of Ministers S. Yu. Witte, Minister of Agriculture and state property A. S. Yermolov) was issued a decree for the forgiveness of the arrears and debts of peasants on food capital loans and to an interference of fields issued during an irrepressure of 1891-92. The supply system of the grain of peasants with indirect faith was a totality of food capital and natural grain reserves, separate for each rural society. The peasants were obliged to make an annual natural or monetary fee until the amount of grain and cash reached the magnitude established by the law. If the peasants could be a free to spend these resources for free, and the state immediately replenished reserves, but the peasants had to refund debt. It is these debts returned by the peasants with great reluctance, and were (not for the first time) forgiven.

Canceling redemption payments

On November 3, 1905 (with the chairman of the Council of Ministers S. Yu. Witte N. N. Kutler), the highest manifesto was released and the accompaniment of his decree, on which the redemption payments of former landfill peasants were reduced by half, and from January 1, 1907 Canceled completely. This decision was extremely important for the government, and for peasants. The state refused to large budget revenues, and at the moment when the budget had a significant deficit covered by external loans. The peasants received a tax benefit that spread on the peasants, but not on other land owners; After that, taxation of all lands did not depend on what class their owners belonged to what class. Although the peasants no longer paid the redemption payments, the landowners who preserved the redemption obligations of the state (by the time the appearance of 4% of the rent) continued to receive them.

Canceling redemption payments turned the entire redemption operation from profitable for the budget to the unprofitable (total loss in the redemption operation amounted to 386 million rubles). 1.674,000 thousand rubles of debt payable to be paid in installments on various conditions (payments for some debts were to continue until 1955), while the current budget revenues were about 96 million rubles. per year (5.5% of the budget revenue). In general, the abolition of redemption payments was the largest financial sacrifice of the state aimed at solving the agrarian problem. All further government activities have no longer had such an expensive nature.

The abolition of the redemption payments themselves was a more constructive event than a repeatedly produced earlier cancellation of overdue payments (representing direct stimulation of payout delays). However, this event put communities that paid redemption payments with delays and deferments, in a more profitable position than communities that completed the redemption early. As a result, this event was perceived by the peasants more as a digression of the government before the Natius of the agricultural unrest of the summer of 1905, than as a useful subsidy. The failure to fulfill the legal obligations received some reward, and this was one of the reasons that this measure (the most expensive of all adopted) did not reach the main goal - agrarian unrest by the summer of 1906 resumed with even greater force (see below).

The principal consequence of the abolition of redemption payments was the potential for further reform of land tenure. Rural societies as the collective owners of the Earth and the owners of the residential sites and previously could have placed their land freely, but only provided that its redemption was completed (or she was bought in the course of private transactions after the entrance), otherwise any operations with The land demanded the consent of the state as a lender. With the abolition of redemption payments, rural societies and owners of residential sites improved the quality of their ownership.

Establishment of land management commissions

On March 4, 1906 (with the chairman of the Council of Ministers S. Yu. Witte, the mainly-controlled land management and agriculture A. P. Nikolsky), the Committee on Landustorial Affairs were established with the main administration of land management and agriculture, provincial and county land management teams. The Committee and Commissions, which united officials of various departments, representatives of the departments and representatives from the peasants, had the main goal of promoting peasants when buying land through the peasant march bank. As the consulting bodies of the Commission worked for a long time, and in 1906 their tasks and powers were significantly expanded (see below).

Agrarian bills in the first and second thought

When discussing the land bill in the III Duma P. A. Stolypin cursted the main ideas of the reform so:
"In those areas of Russia, where the personality of the peasant has already received a certain development, where the community as a compulsory union puts the barrier for his amateurs, there it is necessary to give him freedom of application of his work towards Earth, it is necessary to give him freedom to work, rich, dispose of his property; It is necessary to give him power over the earth, it is necessary to save it from the bondage of a discouraging community building. ...
Is it really forgotten ... that the tremendous experience of the custody over the huge part of our population has already suffered a huge failure? ...
... so much needed to reorganize our kingdom, reorganizing it on strong monarchical stuff, a strong personal owner, so it is an obstacle to develop a revolutionary movement ... "
"... It would be reckless to think that such results were achieved at the insistence of government officials. Government ranks have worked a lot over the business of land management, and I handle that work will not weaken. But I am with too much respect to the people's mind to assume that the Russian peasantry reorganizes its land life by order, and not by inner conviction. " .
"... According to our concepts, not the earth should own a person, and the person must own the Earth. While the work of the highest quality will not be attached to the Earth, the work is free, and not forced, our land will not be able to withstand the competition with the land of our neighbors ... "

Of the above quotes, the predominance of strategic and macroeconomic considerations is clearly visible in the ideas of strategic and macroeconomic considerations, the accentuation on the problem of the quality of property rights and economic freedoms, which was quite unusually for a government official of that time and therefore did not cause an understanding of contemporaries.

Ideas were repeated many times about the fact that Stolypin was not so much came to the idea of \u200b\u200bagrarian reform, with the participation of their closest assistants (first of all S. E. Kryzhanovsky, the author of the text of the most important bills and speeches of Stolypin, and V. I. Gurko) composed them from previous proposals expressed. In part, this is true (in a huge number of proposals submitted during the work of the meetings, you can find any ideas), but that the reform has been actually carried out in a huge political resistance, it is seen invaluable personal participation of Stolypin and the expression of its energy and will.

Strengthening the ownership of the peasants of false lands

Decree on November 9, 1906 - the fundamental act of agricultural reform

November 9, 1906 issued (under Art. 87 of the Basic Laws) Chief Legislative Act of Agrarian Reform - Decree "On the addition of some decisions of the current law relating to peasant land tenure and land use" . The decree was proclaimed a wide range of measures to destroy the collective land tenure of the rural society and the creation of a class of peasants - full owners of the Earth.

Decree proclaimed that "Each householder who owns land in community law may, at all time, demand strengthening about the personal property of the land due to him.. The property for the former valid land remained, however, related by some restrictions: the Earth could only be sold to peasants, their societies or partnerships; The right to take former landmarks in the pledge had only the peasant marching bank. An important point It was that the fortified land became the personal property of peasant householder, and not the collective property of the peasant family.

In those societies where the redistribution grounds were not over 24 years old, each householder could safely consolidate the land of the land to which he enjoyed on a permanent basis. In those societies where redistribution were free to consolidate the property, such a plot was subject to this household for the general principles on which the last redistribution was produced (for example, by the number of employees in the family); Additional land has already been repurchased from rural society.

When strengthening the property of the sections, the new owners remained the same right of use of unrequited community lands (meadows, pastures, forests, uncomfortable lands, passages).

Housewood, who wishes to consolidate land to ownership, should have declared that agriculture. The rural society was obliged to assemble a rural gathering within a month and make the necessary decision, which required 2/3 of the votes. If such a decision was not issued, the applicant could appeal to the Zemsky district boss, which further decided to strengthen his authority. Complaints on the decisions of rural gatherings and the decisions of the Zemsky bosses were filed in the county conventions.

Special attention was paid to those peasants who wanted to get their sites allocated to one place, instead of several lanes in different fields (these sites were called "Cuts", and if the owner's house stands on the plot - "Farmers"). If the peasant wanted to stand out "on the cut", rural society in the overwhelming majority of cases technically could not fulfill this by partial crossing of existing strips; Required a full redistribution of land. The law allowed a rural society in this case to abandon the complete redistribution and provide the wishes to be selected to choose from the ownership of the lesperal land, which he has already enjoyed, or exit from the community without land to obtain adequate monetary compensation. But if the community has decided to produce a redistribution, it had to cut off the sections to one place to all the householders who were asked about.

The law stimulated the out of charge by providing the owners of the bran areas of better property rights. The owners of the skipped sites were equalized in rights with old residential owners. They could not stand and pour out their strips and should have been filled with a cattle formed on them (in those periods, when this field was not sown); Thus, they had to synchronize their agricultural cycle with the whole community. At the same time, the owners of the cutting sites could upset their sections and use them at their discretion. The owners of the skipped plots could inherit the land, but could not sell it without the consent of the community; The owners of the cutting sites could make any transactions with them.

The separation of cuts (exploration) was technically and organizationally more complex task than traditional redistribution under the lesperal land tenure. It should be determined that it will be divided, and what will remain in worldly use, to find the principles of compensation for the different value of land in different places due to the size of the plots, arrange new drives and drivers for livestock, provide sections with access to water, deal with ravines and wetlands. With all this, it was necessary to produce extensive and expensive geodesic work on the ground and cameral processing of their results. As it turned out, rural societies themselves were not able to cope with this task, including on the condition of hiring professional land surveyors (in the provinces there were very few landlines, and they were not familiar with the exploration). Therefore, in this part, the agrarian reform bounced until the government provided local land management commissions by the necessary state of instructors and land management and not start providing land management services for free (see below).

Law 14 June 1910

June 14, 1910 was adopted by law "On the change and addition of some decisions on peasant land tenure" which represented the 1906 Law, re-after countless multi-stage discussions made by the Government in the III Duma in January 1908. The law except the provisions of the 1906 Law described above also contained important innovations; He came the next step in the destruction of the traditional rural community.

All communities in which there were no common redistributes from the moment of entering their land, were recognized by communities with residential land tenure. All residential owners in communities with residential land tenure (including those communities in which the residential land ownership has been practiced earlier, and those communities that were ranked with these law) received the rights of private owners, even if they did not declare such desire. For a legal consolidation of the ownership of the peasant, it was necessary to obtain a certificate verdict of the rural gathering, which the gathering had to decide on a mandatory monthly period, by a simple majority of votes. If you refuse to make a sentence, the necessary documents were issued by the Zemsky boss.

The law proclaimed private ownership of a very significant part of the ridiculous land. In the provinces of European Russia, they were not made from the moment of landowned land in 58% of communities and villages, which made up 3.716 thousand households with an area of \u200b\u200b33.7 million tenthenes.

In those communities that produced redistributes, each household remained the right to demand the strengthening of land in private ownership on the conditions close to the 1906 law. There were no significant changes and rules for peasants who want to obtain a bran area.

The law was some deviation from the previous course on the allocation of areas to one place, which is related to the fact that land sustainable commissions did not cope with the flow of statements for land management work - in 1910, about 450 thousand land management applications were filed, of which they managed to implement only 260 thousand. The government was forced to prefer the consolidation of the workers of the workers (as requiring a smaller volume of land supro-plastic and organizational work) to the execution of applications for full exploration.

Large discussions aroused the question of the personal or family should be the property. Stolypin firmly held the position that the land should be in the personal property of the peasant-householder, the lack of the need for family consensus at the disposal of the land facilitated, in his opinion, the economic turnover.

Land Management Act 1911

May 29, 1911 a law was published "On land management" . The law significantly details the provisions of the previously published laws of 1906 and 1910, replacing the de facto departmental instructions. The law was made back in the I Duma in 1906, but his adoption was extremely delayed.

The features of the law were the following provisions:

The possibility of forced exploration of not only community reluctural lands, but also worn with private lands; - a clear list of those lands that cannot be scored without the consent of the owners (land under construction, under the vineyards, etc. valuable plantings, under different field structures); - the right of any settlement to demand the separation of land (if rural society consists of several villages); - Separate householder may require highlights the land to one place only before the decision of the frontier community, and if possible, without much difficulty; One fifth householder may require the sections of the sections to one place at any time and in any case; - the full redistribution of all community lands with the allocation of them to one place is made at the request of half of the householder (with the household ownership) or two thirds of householders (with community ownership); - the ability to produce land management, not expecting the end of various judicial disputes related to this land.

The law, in general, stressed the course for the allocation of farms and cuts and for the full exploration of rural societies. The high detail of the law contributed to a decrease in the number of misunderstandings and complaints during land management.

Activities of land management commissions

The system of land management institutions was three-level and subordinate to the General Department of Agriculture and Land Management (Guziz).

The lower link of the system was county land sustaining commissionsheld, chaired by the county leader of the nobility, from the Chairman of the county goddan government, an indispensable member of the State Court of State, the county member of the district court, a member of the specific departments (where there were specific land), the Zemstvo Chief and the applied inspector (when considering issues within Their sites), three members from the county Zemsky meeting, three members from the peasants (chose a lot from among the candidates chosen by the volost meetings). Since 1911, elected volosts selected three members of the Commission at the Special Assembly, and when considering each in each individual volost, a temporary term chosen by the peasants of this parish was included.

In 1906, 186 county commissions were opened, in 1907 - another 190 commissions, by 1912 the Commission was operating in 463 counties of 47 provinces of European Russia, there were no commissions in the three Ostsee provinces, but the work was made by commander officials.

The next link was gubernskie Landustorial CommissionsChaired by the provincial leader of the nobility, consisted of the Chairman of the provincial Zemstvo administration, an indispensable member of the officials of the Gaziz, who manages the Oblast Chamber, governing the local branches of the peasant and noble banks, one of the members of the district court, one of the indispensable members of the provincial presence, six members elected The provincial Zemsky Assembly, of which three were supposed to be peasants.

He headed the system Land Management Committee, the division of the Hospitality, chaired by the Master-Government Guide, with the participation of comrades of the Master-Governing State, Nobility Land and Peasant Pasmodes, and representatives of the Ministries of the Court, Interior, Finance, Justice and State Control.

In the gozase, the germination was also organized (then renamed to the audit) part, headed by the popular ideologist of the farm land buttons A. A. Kofod.

Commissions were headed by major guidance: from the foundation of A. P. Nikolsky, in April-July 1905 - A. S. Styshinsky, from July 1906 to May 1908 - B. A. Vasilchikov, from May 1908 to October 1915 - A. V. Krivoshein.

Immediately it became apparent that the result of the work of the Commissions depends not as much on the number of officials involved, how much from the number of land surveyors and land surveyors. The available states of the regional branches of the provincial boards were insufficient (in the end, it was decided to use these units only for reader data processing), and the Hospitality decided that the county commissions should independently hire necessary personnel. The necessary specialists in the labor market was no longer it, and the goziz began to develop special educational institutions. 5 existing land schools have been strengthened and 9 new institutions were established; The temporary courses of land assistants were opened, which produced 1500 people per year by 1910.

In 1905, the commissions were at the disposal of the commissions, in 1907-650, in 1908-1300. By 1914, the Commission had already 7,000 ledge staff. After the start of the First World War a large number of The topographers were called into the army, which immediately slowed the land management work.

The promotion of reform all the time critically depended precisely from the land recruitment, from the very beginning of work and until the February revolution there was no moment when there was no queue of unfulfilled statements about land management. In general, those who wish to consolidate the land in the property expected their turn on average, after which the sites were allocated to peasants in kind, but the receipt of the ownership certificate had to be expected on average for two years. At the beginning of 1916, there was a petition from 2.34 million households, for which the work was not even started. The maximum volume of land management work was achieved in 1913 and amounted to 4.3 million tents per year (3.6% of 119 million tenthenes of false lands).

Landustacare activities consisted of the following types of work (the first three types are personal land management, the rest - collective):

• Score on the farm and cut in community lands (This refers to the complete exploration of community land). This form of land technology, as the most promotable rise in farming, the government had a special patronage. For 1907-1915, a petition was submitted from 44.5 thousand villages, consisting of 1809 thousand households (13% of the total number of households).
• Allocation to one place of sites from community lands (The situation, when some peasants want to own a compact site alone, and others - to maintain the land community). This type of work has generated, naturally, the greatest number of conflicts (and the attention of reform critics has appealed). For 1907-1915, petitions from villages, consisting of 865 thousand households (6.5% of the total households) were submitted. In April 1915, against the background of an invoking in the army of 40% of the staff of the land sustained commissions, the selection of areas to one place in the absence of the consent of the rural society was temporarily suspended.
• Deployment to one places of lands of different ownership. These works were carried out when the peasants who were distinguished from the community were not only worthless, but also their own lands, which should be combined into one section. For 1907-1915, petitions from villages consisting of 286 thousand households were submitted (2% of the total households).
• Section of lands between villages and parts of settlements. The need for these works was caused by the fact that many rural societies consisted of several villages and themselves considered themselves too large for optimal community management. For 1907-1915, petitions from villages, consisting of 1,790 thousand households (13% of the total households) were submitted.
• Land ranged. During this operation, the mining ownership remained, but the land in the most remote fields, which were inconvenient to get all the peasants, was transferred to the use of a small group. For 1907-1915, a petition from villages, consisting of 220 thousand households (1.6% of the total households) were submitted.
• Deployment of false lands with surrounding possessions. The presence in the peasant fields of the strips of owners who did not belong to the community created large organizational problems - during the alpine land use, all owners were to negotiate a single crop rotation; These works were aimed at eliminating these difficulties. For 1907-1915, the petition from villages, consisting of 633 thousand households (4.7% of the total households) were filed.
• Deployment of the generality of the use of peasants with private owners. These works were aimed at eliminating another painful problem: when redeeming land behind the peasants and landlords, various mutual rights of travel, the run of livestock, the use of forest, water bodies, etc., served as sources of continuous conflicts were left. For 1907-1915, petitions from villages, consisting of 131 thousand households (1% of the total households) were submitted.
• Outpatient land. These works were aimed at creating ordinary, compact boundaries of rural societies with adjacent lands. For 1907-1915, petitions were filed from villages that consisted of 437 thousand households (3.2% of the total number of households).

General results. By the beginning of 1916, out of 119 million ten tennes in 47 provinces of European Russia, the peasants, partnerships and rural societies were divided into the property (21.2%), another 9.1 million tenth (7.6%) was not completed. documents; Apparently, by the time of the February Revolution, land sustaining works were actually conducted by 37-38 million tents (about 31% of the valid land). 6,174 thousand households (45.7% of the total) have decided to take advantage of the State Land Management (45.7% of the total), and the execution of documents was completed only for 2.360 thousand (the rest or expected the start of work, or have already been commissioned on the reassembly land, expecting receipt of documents). 1.436 thousand households in sole ownership appeared in the country.

The possibilities provided by the reform caused the greatest interest in two groups of peasants: owners of wealthy, sustainable farms and peasants who were going to quit the economy (the latter attracted the previously absent opportunity to sell the site). Within 2-3 years after the consolidation of about 20% of new owners, they sold their land plots (which made about 10% on the area from the confined). This fact was repeatedly filed as evidence of the failure of reforms, however, from the point of view of the government, the decrease in the rural population was natural and useful processes, and the revenue from the land sold supported peasants when relocation to the city.

The peculiarity of the works was the fact that land butting and allocation of land in sole ownership was voluntary. Although in some cases, if the desire for one or more peasants stand out could not obtain the approval of the rural gathering, the decision on land management was taken by the authorities of the Zemstvo Chief, the general policy of the State Enterprise was aimed at obtaining support and approval of peasants. Milling circulations were published and brochures A. A. Pokifod, popularly explaining the advantages of the farm; At the expense of the Guziz for representatives of rural communities organized excursions to already deployed villages. Despite this, the support of the peasants was not universal: for 1914, two thirds of the strengthening sentences were published by the authorities of the Zemstvo chief contrary to the view of the gatherings. It is characteristic that despite the general patronage of sole ownership, the government has provided many types of land management work, helping to optimize the economy and for those rural societies that have decided to preserve community ownership of the Earth.

When highlighting the farm, interest-free loans for the transfer of buildings and amelioration; The standard loan size was 150 rubles, increased (demanding a special permission) - 500 rubles. By the end of 1914, the loans were provided with a total of 299 thousand households. On average, the loan covered 44% of the flow of peasants to transfer the farm to the farm.

The expenditures of the state for land management work (for the peasants of land butting was free) amounted to 2.3 million rubles in 1906, after which it was continuously increased before the beginning of the war, and in 1914 amounted to 14.1 million rubles.

For sale peasants of state and specific land

One of the first government events under the leadership of Stolypin was the transfer to the ownership of the peasants of state, specific and cabinets.

August 27, 1906 decree "On the purpose of stateless land for sale for the expansion of peasant land tenure" . All states of agricultural land (and in some cases and forest land) were subject to, as the existing lease agreements are stopped, selling peasants through the peasant bank. The issue of valuation of sold land and the organization of land management work was assigned to local land management commissions.

For sale to peasants of government lands did not cause attractive demand, as in those areas where these land had, the land hunger was not felt strong. Sales reached a maximum in 1909, when 55 thousand tentes were sold, and in just 1907-1914 232 thousand tits were sold, that is, a negligible amount. The peasants found the lease of government lands more profitable than ransom. In 1913, 3188 thousand tentes were leased (of which Societies of 945 thousand DES., Individual householders 1165 thousand detections, partnerships 1115 thousand detections.), Middle rental rates ranged from 184 kopecks. Over the tenth in 1907 to 284 kopecks. Over the tith in 1914.

On September 19, 1906, the Cabinet lands of the Altai district were given to the needs of peasants-immigrants.

The earth could not be sold to one household, separately installed for each locality (as a rule, about 3 tents per employee).

Operations of the peasant landing bank

On November 15, 1906, a decree was issued, which canceled the law on December 14, 1893 and allowed the peasants and rural societies as a whole to receive the loans of the peasant bank secured by the assistant lands. The loans could be spent on the redemption of incidents from translating members of societies, to compensate for the missing part of the value of the land purchased from the Bank (a loan for the land purchased under 90% of its cost), to compensate for different expenses during land exploration. The loan amount ranged from 40 to 90% of the value of the pledge.

These measures have allowed several intensifying the activity of the peasant bank, noticeably suspended in 1905-1906 (the peasants believed in the coming nationalization and free distribution of landlord land and did not want to buy it). After the decree of 1906, for the period 1906-1916 through lending to transactions by the Bank, the peasants acquired 5.822 thousand decisons, and the peasants have acquired 2.825 thousand tentes directly from the bank (also with lending). The Bank has always had an unprepared land foundation, which has reached a peak (4.478 thousand tenshe) in 1908, and at 1917 amounted to 2.759 thousand tents. In a record for sales of 1911, the peasants acquired from the bank or when lending to the Bank of 1.397 thousand tits.

The total volume of all types of transactions with the participation of the Bank for 1906-1916 amounted to 9,648 thousand decisions of the Earth, under which the bank issued a loan to 1.042 billion rubles.

The land was acquired by individual peasants (17%), rural societies (18%) and partnerships (65%) (partnerships were association of peasants only in order to buy land, which was further processed individually).

The policy of the bank was designed mainly to support strong and sustainable peasant farms. 70% of the Earth's bidders were peasant farms, which owned more than 9 decades of the Earth (that is, above average security). The peasants were sufficiently reliable borrowers, and by 1913, accumulated arrears were only 18 million rubles, in the period 1909-13 for the year the bank paid a recovery of 20-35 thousand decades of the Earth, that is, no more than 2% of the annual sales volume.

In terms of lending peasants, on the security of their lands, the inertia of thinking in government circles turned out to be very strong. The protection of peasant lands from seizure for debts seemed one of the foundations of the agricultural system (although completely contradicted the principles of the agrarian reform); The strong resistance of the Ministry of Finance led to the fact that in reality, lending to the guarantee of the false lands did not work. For 1906-1916, the Bank issued only 43 million rubles. Mortgage loans secured 560 thousand decishes of the Earth. The paradoxicality of the situation was that the peasant who had nothing could be credited secured by the land. The peasant who has already bought land for his own money (that is, a more reliable borrower knowingly), he could not afford a loan for the development of the economy.

Agronomical help

Since 1906, agronomic assistance from the peasants in all its species is sharply intensified. The initiator of the process was the guziz, which part of the events produced on its own, part - by subsidizing the activities of the subject. Zemstvo, when promised by the state, new and new subsidies are actively connected to the development of agronomic assistance. In 1905, the expenditures of the state for agronomic assistance amounted to 3.7 million rubles, since 1908 the rapid growth of allocations began, and in 1913 agronomic care cost the execution of 16.2 million rubles.

The effectiveness of agronomic assistance was explained primarily by the fact that the peasant economy is far behind the advanced agrotechnology, which gave him a huge reserve for development. The main growth opportunities were applied in applied instead of the outdated three-fold of developed crop rotations (then science offered crop rotations from simple 4 pollen to 11-polnea, potatoes were added to grain, seeded herbs, flax, sugar beets, using efficient agricultural machines (primarily steel plows and row seeders), the introduction of grassy, \u200b\u200ban increase in the number of operations for the processing of land, sorting seeds, the use of artificial fertilizers (even in minor quantity), the establishment of an optimal balance between arable, meadow and pasture lands and an increase in the role of animal husbandry in farms. There was a normal situation when the crop on experienced fields turned out to be 50-90% higher than that of the peasants.

One of the main factors making real assistance to peasants was the presence of agronomical personnel close to peasants. Therefore, the main focus was made to increase the number of precincts (that is, serving a group of villages smaller than the county) of agronomists. In particular, at 34 tons. The "eagle" provinces in 1904 worked with 401 agronomas, and in 1913 - already 3716, of which only 287 were occupied at the level of the provinces and counties, and all others are at the level of the plots.

The activities of land, state and earth agronomists were very diverse. The Zemstvo contained experienced fields (for this they rented the seats of peasants, the treatment was carried out under the leadership of agronomists), which turned out to be the most effective means of the conviction of peasants, more trusted personal experience than lectures and books. For example, in the developed Herskon province in 1913 there were 1491 experienced field, that is, advanced agronomical experience was able to reach almost every village. For the propaganda of new agricultural machines, which the peasants were not solved to buy, rolling stations were arranged, and for trade in agricultural machinery, fertilizers and seeds - Zemstvo warehouses. In 1912, in 11 thousand items, agronomical readings were conducted, which attended more than 1 million listeners.

The result was the rapid introduction into the peasant economy of modern agronomic technologies and the mechanization of the economy. The total cost of agricultural tools in the country increased from 27 million rubles. In 1900 to 111 million rubles in 1913. Statistics of the yield for individual years is not reliable (due to large fluctuations in the harvest between the crops and faulty years), however, the total collection of breads in European Russia in 1913 turned out to be a record - 4.26 billion pounds, while the average collection for the period 1901-1905 was 3.2 billion pounds.

Cooperative movement

At the beginning of the twentieth century He began to quickly increase the role of originated in the 1860s. Consumer and credit cooperation institutions (so-called "small loan": credit partnerships, loan-savings partnerships, small-scale land loaning). On June 7, 1904, "Regulations on the Meld Credit" was adopted, which. reflected the shift of the orientation of the government at the "strong" owners. P.A.Stolypin, while still being the Saratov governor, paid great attention to cooperative movement.

The growth of the cooperation was promoted by the beginning of the Stolypin agrarian reform, liquidated a number of property and legal restrictions of peasants, as well as the government through state. Duma (in 1907-192g) of a number of laws: "Regulations on urban and public banks", the establishment of the "Central Bank of Mutual Credit Societies" and others, part of which was initiated by the "bottom" (III Congress of representatives of mutual loan societies, 1907) and supported by the Government P.A.Stolapina (C.216-219, 225). Current capital of considerable and public institutions for a decade 1904-1914. increased from 52 million to 115.4 million RUB. The contributions from 22.3 million rubles, the amount of loans issued - from 46.7 million to 103.5 million rubles. Credit cooperatives grew by a faster pace, their number increased from 1.2 thousand to 14.4 thousand, the number of members from 447.1 thousand to 9.5 million people. Balance facilities in 1904, 49.7 million rubles, increased to 708.8 million rubles, loans and deposits - from 31 million to 468.3 million rubles. Over 90% of credit partnerships began their activities with the help of a state bank loan. The Coordination Center of the Credit Cooperation System was then the Moscow People's Bank (1912).

The number of cooperatives in Russia by 1914. In total, 32975: Of these, the credit cooperatives of 13839, then the consumer was 100,000, agricultural 8576, repair 500 and 60 others. According to the total number of cooperative organizations, Russia has yielded only Germany. In 1916 The number of cooperatives has already reached 47 thousand, in 1918. 50-53 thousand consumer societies among them accounted for more than 50%, credit cooperatives about 30%. S. Maslov believes that on January 1, 1917. There were at least 10.5 million credit cooperation members in the country, and consumer about 3 million.

Administrative reform of the rural community

October 5, 1906 was issued a decree "On the abolition of certain restrictions on rural orders and individuals of other former feedbacks" . Decree provided for a wide range of activities that weakened the power of the rural society over their members:

For admission to study and in spiritual title no longer required permission (saving sentence) of a rural society; - allowed to enter public service, finishing the course of educational institutions, while continuing to remain a member of the rural society; - it was allowed to simultaneously be a member of several rural societies; - It was allowed to dismiss from rural societies, without requiring their consent (subject to refusing to use worldly land).

A number of provisions of the decreases were aimed at expanding the legal capacity of the peasants with the purpose of equation of their rights with other estates:

Peasants, as well as all other persons of the former conscious classes, was allowed to enter public service (earlier from the peasants, educational qualifications were required in the amount of a 4-class county program); - were completely canceled by the pillow to submit and a pie handpiece in those few areas where they still existed; - the punishment of the peasants of the Zemskiy chiefs and volost courts for small misconducts not listed in the law was canceled; - the peasants were allowed to come out bills; - those peasants who had the necessary centenary property were allowed to part in the elections to the State Duma on the relevant cenchers; - the peasants independently elected vowels in the Zemsky meetings (earlier the peasants elected several candidates, the vowels were chosen from their number by the governor); - The county congresses could cancel the sentences of rural societies only because of their illegal (previously allowed to do it under the pretext of the inexpediency of solutions, that is, arbitrarily).

The provisions of this decree were considered by the government as temporary and transitiones to the moment of implementation much more widely on the plan of local management reform. However, the decree itself is stuck in the III and IV of the Things forever. The legislators of the two institutions - the Duma and the State Council - turned out to be unable to find a compromise, and preferred endless tightening in the adoption of bills to any constructive solution. Accordingly, it did not even have to think about legislative approval and any subsequent, more radical, measures. As a result, the temporary government measures of 1907 continued to operate until 1917 unchanged.

Agrarian unrest in 1907-1914

At the beginning of the agrarian reform, agrarian unrest, which reached the peak in 1905-1906, went to the decline. In the summer of 1907, the unrest were still very significant (albeit smaller than in 1906), but since the fall of 1907, the riots went to the decline, and further their intensity decreased after year, until a complete disappearance by 1913.

The causes of the cessation of agricultural excitement can be considered:

Intense punitive events; - general cessation of revolutionary unrest and stabilization of the situation throughout the country; - The beginning of real measures to strengthen the land in the property and exploration of lands (land management work on the ground is carried out between the collection of autumn harvest and the preparation of wintering seeds, that is, in the middle of autumn; the first landowers on the decimes of 1906 were held in the fall of 1907).

A sign of a gradual calm situation is the amount of land proposed by the private owners of the peasant bank. In 1907, the proposal was accurate, 7.665 thousand decishes of the Earth were offered to sell, of which the bank bought only 1.519 thousand tents. Another 1.8 million tenthenes were bought by peasants from the nobles directly with the assistance of the bank. But in the next 1908, only 2.9 million were offered to sell 4.3 million tenties. Thus, the landowners believed that agrarian unrest would be no longer resumed in full, and ceased panic attempts to sell the land. Further, the volume of sold landlord lands was reduced year after year.

The second proof is to preserve relatively stable prices for Earth, even at the time of its widest sentence for sale in 1907. Although the landowners were offered land for sale, the existing estates continued to bring them income, in connection with the land price could not fall below the maximum price corresponding to the current profitability of the landlord (according to the business customs of the time, the cost of estations was calculated on the basis of 6% of yields) . Earth prices were divided into two periods - to unrest and after (until the mid-1906, the transactions were practically not accomplished, since the buyers considered the coming nationalization of the Earth with a solved business). However, with the opening of the III of the Duma, it became clear that the nationalization would not be, and the transactions resumed at previous prices (although in some localities the land price fell by 10-20%, the average price has not changed).

The nature of agrarian riots has changed - if they have previously been a violation of the property rights of the landlords, now they have turned into protests against land buttons on such conditions that seemed to the peasants unfair (the law demanded the strengthening of land for every wishing peasant even in case of a refusal of rural society to endure the necessary sentence ). Another point of focusing the protest was the so-called "deliberation" of communities and landlords during land management work (landlords and community lands often had a complex border, right up to the workers, which, when exploring community land, I tried to simplify land route), exciting old claims to landowners. Providing peasants of real freedom of economic activity, a sudden transition from the traditional model of existence to a lifestyle with many possible behaviors - stay in the community, to go to the farm, take a loan and buy land, to sell the existing one - led to the creation of a conflict situation in the village and a variety of personal tragedy.

The fate of the reforms of Stolypin after 1911

The reforms of Stolypin, contrary to popular belief, began to bring their main fruits just after 1911 - due to the legislative acts of 1911 (see the section "Land Management Act 1911") Reform acquires a second breath shortly summarize here information from previous sections, And the data of official statistics of land management, published by the Guziz (General Department of Agriculture and Land Management RI), analyzed in the report "Land Dynamics during the Stolypin agrarian reform. Statistical analysis" .

The volume of land management works on land exploration, the amount of land fixed in the ownership of the peasants, the number of land sold to the peasants through the peasant bank, the volume of loans to the peasants stably grew up to the beginning of the First World War (and did not stop even during the PMW):

Literally in all stages of land management averages 1912-1913. Excellent - and very significantly - similar indicators 1907-1911. So, in 1907-1911. On average, 658 thousand petitions were submitted annually on changing land use conditions, and in 1912-1913. - 1166 thousand, are completed by preparation in 1907-1911. Cases 328, thousand householders on the area of \u200b\u200b3061 million tenth, in 1912-1913. - 774 thousand householders on the area of \u200b\u200b6740 million decade, approved land sustained projects in 1907-1911. For 214 thousand households on the area of \u200b\u200b1953 million. Decity, in 1912-1913. - 317, thousand householders on the area of \u200b\u200b2554 million tenthene. This applies to both group and individual land management, including the sole polls from the community. For 1907-1911. On average, 76,798 householders per year wanted to stand out for the year in Russia, and in 1912-1913 - 160 952, i.e. 2.9 times more. An even higher than the increase in the number of finally approved and adopted by the population of land management projects of sole precipants - their number increased from 55 933 to 111,865, that is, 2.4 times more in 1912-13. than in 1907-1911. .

The laws adopted in 1907-1912 ensured a rapid growth, for example, a cooperative movement even during the PMW: from 1914. On January 1, 1917, the total number of cooperatives increased from 32975 to almost 50,000 by 1917, i.e., more than 1.5 times. By 1917, 13.5-14 million people consisted in them. Together with family members, it turns out that up to 70-75 million citizens of Russia (about 40% of the population) had a relation to cooperation.

Results of reform

The results of the reform in numerical terms were as follows:

Estimates of reform

The reform, which affected the most important social and democratic interests, gave rise to extensive literature in the pre-revolutionary period. Evaluation of the reform with contemporaries could not be impartial. Reform reviews directly depended on political positions. Given the high weight of the critics of the government in the public and scientific life of that time, we can assume that the negative attitude prevailed over positive. People's, and later, the Socialist and Cadet, the point of view on the agricultural question implied an accentuation of the sufferings and exploitation of the peasantry, ideas about the positive role of community landowing and a common anti-capitalist tendency, hopes for the positive effect of alienation of landlord land, the obligatory criticism of any government undertakings. The right, who emphasized the positive role of the noble landowner, were annoyed by the policy of encouraging the purchase of landlord land. Octobrists and nationalists who supported the government in the Duma were trying to increase their own significance by tightening the consideration of all bills by making multiple small, insignificant changes. In the life of Stolypin, the struggle of political ambitions prevented many to give a positive assessment of his activities; Opinions about Stolypin noticeably softened after his tragic death.

The ratio of Soviet historical science to Stolypin reforms was completely dependent on sharp assessments, data from Lenin in the midst of the political struggle, and the conclusions of Lenin that the reform completely failed. Soviet historians who have done a great job have not been able to declare their disagreement with Leninist estimates, and were forced to customize their findings under a pre-famous template, even if it was contrary to the facts contained in their work. Paradoxically, criticized should have followed both communal landowdels and reforms that destroyed the community. Also, an opinion was expressed that although there was a positive dynamics in the development of agriculture, it was simply a continuation of the processes that took place before the start of reforms, that is, the reforms simply did not make a meaningful effect. Among the literature of the Soviet period, the bright books of A. Ya. Avreha, according to actively expressed disgust to Stolypin and the general emotionality approaching the genre of pamphlet. The mansion is the work created in the 1920s by a group of economists, whose career in Soviet Russia ended with emigration or repression - A.V. Stainov, B.D. Bruzkus, L.N.Litoshenko. This group of scientists belonged to Stolypin reforms is extremely positive, which has determined their fate.

Modern Russian historians, with a large range of opinions, generally tend to refer to the reforms of Stolypin, and especially to agricultural reform. Two extensive special studies on this topic - V.G.Tyukavkin and M.A. Davodov - published in the 2000s, unconditionally consider reform useful and successful.

The assessment of the reforms of Stolypin makes it difficult that reforms have never been fully implemented. Stolypin himself assumed that all the reforms conceived by him would be implemented comprehensively (and not only in terms of agrarian reform) and give the maximum effect in the long term (according to Stolypin, it was required "Twenty years of peace of indoor and external"). The nature of the initiated reform of change, both institutional (improving the quality of property rights) and production (transition to 7-9 year-old crop rotations), was gradual, long-term and did not give reason to expect a significant effect for 6-7 years of active reform stroke (counting the real deployment Reforms in 1908 and the suspension of her move with the beginning of the war in 1914). Many observers 1913-1914 believed that the country finally approached the beginning of the rapid agricultural growth; However, this phenomenon was not noticeable in the main indicators of agricultural statistics, and in indirect manifestations (the rapid development of lower agricultural education, as a rapid increase in demand for modern agricultural equipment and special literature, etc.).

With the rates of land management work (4.3 million tents per year), the land and reaction activities were completed by 1930-32, and considering the growth rate - perhaps, by the mid-1920s. The war and the revolution did not allow these broad plans.

, № 25853.: State. Type., 1912. - 708 p. ISBN 5-88451-103-5. -. - : A type. V.F. Kirschbauma, 1905. - 421 p. . - / (Reprint of 1906). - m.: Ed. Jurietinal press, 2008. - 622 p. , p. 601.

There are data on tax collection for 1900 as the last calm year before the start of agrarian unrest,

Stolypin Peter Arkadyevich, 2 (14) April 1862 - 5 (September 18) 1911, - the largest Russian reformer, head of government in 1906-1911. According to A. I. Solzhenitsyn - the greatest figure of Russian history of the XX century.

Opinion of Stolypin about the peasant community

Petr Arkadyevich Stolypin came from a noble noble family. He graduated from the University of St. Petersburg and began civil service in the department of agriculture. In 1902, Stolypin became the youngest governor of Russia (Grodno). Since February, he was 1903 he was the governor in Saratov and after the beginning in 1905 bloody revolutionary unrests boldly struggled with anarchy, surviving a few attempted.

The king did not change the number of personality and reforms of Stolypin, after the shootings of the festive program of celebrations, did not meet with the wounded in the hospital in the last days and did not stay on his funeral, departing for rest in the Crimea. The court circle was glad that an uncomfortable figure had gone from the scene, who prevented all his energy and talents. Cinema Pygmeni was not realized that together with Stolypin disappeared the reliable support of the Russian state and the throne. According to the figurative expression of A. I. Solzhenitsyn (Red Wheel, Chapter 65), Boguli Bogurov Steel the first of Ekaterinburg (this is about executing in Yekaterinburg royal family).

Agrarian reform P.A. Stolypin.

Agricultural issue (two main trends: "Prussian" and "American" (farmer) route of development of agriculture).

Measures to destroy the community and the development of private property.

Peasant relocation policy.

The activity of the peasant bank.

Cooperative movement.

Agricultural events.

Stolypin agrarian reform.

The reform goals were somewhat:

social and political:

ü Create a solid support in the village for autocracy from strong owners, the openings of them from the main mass of the peasantry and opposing them to her;

ü Sturdy farms were to be an obstacle to the rise of revolution in the village;

socio-economic:

ü destroy the community

ü to plant private farms in the form of cuts and farms, and excess labor to send to the city, where it will absorb the growing industry;

economic:

ü Ensure the rise of agriculture and further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the lag from the advanced powers.

The new agrarian policy was carried out on the basis of the decree on November 9, 1906. (Discussion of the decision on November 9, 1906 began in the III Duma on October 23, 1908, i.e. two years after he went into life. In total, the discussion of it was for more than six months.)

After the declaration of declaration on November 9, the Duma, with amended, entered the discussion of the State Council and was accepted, after which, by the date of his approval, the king was referred to as law on June 14, 1910. According to its content, it was definitely a liberal bourgeois law that promotes the development of capitalism in the village and, therefore, progressive.

Agricultural reform consisted of a number of consistently conducted and interrelated activities. The main direction of reform was as follows:

ü destruction of community and private property development;

ü Creation of a peasant bank;

ü Cooperative movement;

ü relocation of peasants;

ü agricultural events.

Community Destruction, Private Property Development

After the cancellation of the serfdom, the Russian government categorically responded to the preservation of the community.

Fast politicization of the peasant mass and the beginning of the excitement at the turn of the centuries lead to rethinking relations to the community from the ruling circles:

1.Ukaz of 1904 confirms the inviolability of the community, although at the same time it is envisaged to facilitate the wishing to go out of it;

2. In August 1906, decrees are made to increase the land foundation located in the peasant bank, due to the transfer of specific and government lands.

3.9 November 1906, there is a decree "On the complement of some decisions of the current law relating to peasant land tenure and land use", the provisions of which were the main content of the Stolypin reform. Approved by the Third Duma and the State Council, he becomes the law in 1910.

Revaluation of the relationship to the community from the government occurred mainly for two reasons:

first, the destruction of the community has become desirable for autocracy, since thereby the peasant mass broke out, which has already demonstrated its revolutionary and cohesion in the beginning speeches of the first Russian revolution;

secondly, as a result of the separation of the community, a rather powerful layer of peasants of owners interested in the increase in their property and loyal to another, in particular to the landowner, were formed.

By decree on November 9, all the peasants received the right to exit the community, which in this case highlighting the emerging land to his own possessionSuch lands were called cuts, farms and farms. At the same time, the decree provided for privileges for wealthy peasants in order to encourage them to exit the community. In particular, all of the community received "in the property of individual households" all the land, "consisting in its constant use." This meant that the immigrants from the community were obtained and excess over the shower rate. At the same time, if in this community over the past 24 years, redistributes were made, then the excess householder received free, if the limits were, he paid the community for surplus on redemption payments of 1861. Since over forty years, prices have grown several times, it was beneficial to wealthy people.

The Law on June 5, 1912 allowed the issuance of a loan on the guarantee of any fallen land to the peasants. The development of various forms of the loan - mortgage, reclamation, agricultural, land suproofing - contributed to the intensification of market relations in the village.

The practice of reform showed that the peasantry in the central provinces, the peasants were negatively related to the separation of the community.

The main causes of peasant sentiment:

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

ü Russia - a zone of risky (non-permanent) agriculture, in such climatic conditions the peasant can not survive;

ü Communal Earth did not solve the problems of Malozhel.

As a result, by 1916, 24,78 thousand householders or 26% of communities were allocated from the communities, although the statements were filed from 3374 thousand householders, or 35% of community workers. Thus, the government failed to achieve its goal and allocate from the community at least most of the householders. Basically, this is exactly what determined the collapse of the Stolypin reform.

Peasant bank.

In 1906-1907, part of state and specific land was transferred to the peasant jar for the sale of peasants in order to weaken the land deficit. In addition, the bank was carried out with a blank. Purchase of land with subsequent resale to their peasants on preferential terms, intermediary operations to increase peasant land use. He increased the loan to the peasants and significantly reduced him, and the bank paid a greater percentage of its obligations than the peasants paid him. The difference in the payment was covered at the expense of subsidies from the budget, for the period from 1906 to 1917, 1457.5 billion rubles.

The bank actively influenced the form of land tenure: for peasants who acquired land in sole ownership, payments were declining. As a result, if before 1906, the majority of land buyers were peasant groups, then by 1913, 79.7% of buyers were the sole peasants.

Cooperative movement.

Stolypin reform gave a powerful impetus to the development of various forms of peasant cooperation. Unlike the poor community, which is in the village of the village world, a free wealthy, enterprising peasant, living perspective, cooperation was needed. The peasants were cooperated for a more advantageous sale of products, the organization of its processing, and in certain limits and production, joint acquisition of machines, the creation of collective agronomic, reclamation, veterinary and other services.

The growth rate of cooperation caused by Stolypin reforms is characterized by the following numbers: for 1901-1905, 641 peasant consumer society was created in Russia, and for 1906-1911 - 4175 societies.

The loans of the peasant bank could not fully satisfy the demand of the peasant on the money supply. Therefore, a considerable distribution received a credit cooperation that has passed two stages in its motion. At the first stage, administrative forms of regulation of small loan relations were dominated. Creating qualified personnel of the inspectors of a small loan and allocate significant loans through state banks on initial loans by credit partnerships and for subsequent loans, the government stimulated a cooperative movement. At the second stage, rural credit comrades, accumulating their capital, developed independently. As a result, a wide network of the institutes of small peasant loan, loans and credit partnerships serviced by the population of peasant farms were created. 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 sales cooperatives. The peasants at the cooperative basis were created by dairy and oil artel, agricultural societies, consumer shops and even peasant artistic milk factories.

Moving peasants.

The accelerated relocation of peasants to 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, as it deprived them of cheap labor. Therefore, the government, expressing his will of the dominant class, has practically ceased to encourage the relocation, and even counteracts this process. The difficulties in obtaining permission to relocate in Siberia in the 1980s can be judged by the materials of the archives of the Novosibirsk region.

The Government of Stolypin also conducted a series of new laws on the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts of the Empire. The possibilities of widespread relocation were laid on June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom of relocation without benefits, and the government was given the right to make decisions about the opening of free preferential resettlement from individual settlements of the Empire, "eviction of which was recognized particularly desirable." For the first time, the law on preferential resettlement was applied in 1905: the government "opened" the resettlement from the Poltava and Kharkov province, where the peasant movement was especially wide.

By decree on March 10, 1906, the right to relocate the peasants was granted to everyone without restrictions. The government has allocated considerable funds for the cost of the device of immigrants in new places, their medical care and public needs, on the laying of roads. In 1906-1913, 2792.8 thousand people moved to the Urals. The number of peasants who did not manage to adapt to new conditions and forced to return, accounted for 12% of the total number of immigrants.

Year	The number of persisions and walkers of both sexes	The number of transition lensev without walkers	Returned back	% of revolving immigrants
		-	-	-
		-	-	-
				9.8
				6.4
				13.3
				36.3
				64.3
				28.5
				18.3
				11.4
		-	-	-

The results of the migrating company were as follows:

First, for this period a huge leap in economic and social Development Siberia. Also, the population of this region over the years of colonization increased by 153%. If there was a reduction in sowing areas before relocation to Siberia, then for 1906-1913, they were expanded by 80%, while at the European part of Russia by 6.2%. At the rate of development of animal husbandry, 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 culture of agriculture and the illiteracy of the overwhelming majority of producers who are accustomed to work under common custom. During the years of reform, the peasants turned out to be large-scale agroeconomic assistance. Specially created agro-industrial services 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 an extracurricular agricultural education system. If in 1905 the number of listeners on agricultural courses amounted to 2 thousand people, then in 1912 - 58 thousand, and on agricultural readings, respectively, 31.6 thousand and 1046 thousand people.

Currently, the view was that the agricultural reforms of Stolypin led to the concentration of the land foundation in the hands of a few rich layers as a result of the monkeying of the main mass of the peasants. Distilization shows the opposite - an increase swelling "Middle Layers" in the peasant land use.

4. Results and importance of reforms for Russia.

Supporters and opponents of the Stolypin Agricultural Course.

Reform results.

Objective and subjective causes of incompleteness of agricultural transformations in Russia.

The results of the reform are characterized by a rapid increase 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 acquired more and more active. As a result, it was possible not only to derive agriculture from the crisis, but also to turn it into the dominant of the economic development of Russia. The gross income of the entire agriculture amounted to 52.6% of the total VD. The income of the entire national economy thanks to an increase in the cost created in agriculture increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.

The differentiation of agrarian production types by districts led to an increase in agricultural marketability. Three quarters of the entire recycled industry of raw materials came from agriculture. The turnover of agricultural products increased over a period of reform by 46%.

Even more, by 61% compared with 1901-1905, increased agricultural products in pre-war years. Russia was the largest manufacturer and exporter of bread and flax, a number of animal products. So, in 1910, the export of Russian wheat amounted to 36.4% of total world exports.

However, the problems of hunger and agrarian overpopulation were not solved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural retardation. So in the US, on average, the farm accounted for fixed capital in the amount of 3900 rubles, and in European Russia the fixed capital of the middle peasant economy was barely reached 900 rubles. The national income on the soul of the agricultural population in Russia was approximately 52 rubles a year, and in the USA - 262 rubles.

The growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture

were relatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 received 55 puddles of bread from one tenth, 68 were received in the United States, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 pounds. Economic growth took place on the basis of the intensification of production, but by increasing the intensity of manual peasant labor. But in the period of the period operating, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian transformations - to turning agriculture into the capital-intensive technologically progressive sector of the economy.

The reasons for the failure of agrarian reform.

A number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform.

A agrarian reform was carried out for only 8 years, and with the beginning of the war it was complicated - and, as it turned out, forever. Stolypin asked for a complete reform of 20 years of peace, but these 8 years were far from calm. However, not the multiplicity of the period and the death of the author of the reform killed in 1911 by hand of the Security agent in the Kiev Theater, there was a cause of the collapse of the entire enterprise. The main goals were far from being fulfilled. The introduction of private household ownership of land instead of community managed to introduce only a quarter of the community. Failed and geographically tear off the "world" of wealthy owners, because For less than half of the fists, less than half of the cams were settled on the farms and cutting areas. The resettlement on the outskirts was also not able to organize in such sizes that could significantly affect the elimination of land chosen in the center. All this foreshadowed the collapse of the reform even before the start of the war, although her fire continued to target, supported by a huge official apparatus, headed by an energetic receiver of Stolypin - the main managerial land management and agriculture

A.V. Kryvoshein.

The reasons for the collapse of reform were several: opposition to the peasantry, lack of funds allocated for land management and relocation, poor organization of land management work, lifting the labor movement in 1910-1914. But the main reason was the resistance of the peasantry to carry out a new agrarian policy.

The reforms of Stolypin were not carried out, but could be implemented, firstly due to the death of the reformer; Secondly, he did not have a support, because he stopped hoping on russian Society. He stayed one since:

§ The peasantry on Stolypin stumbled, because they took the earth, and the community became revolutionized;

§ The nobility was generally displeased with its reforms;

§ landowners were frightened by reforms, because The fists distinguished from the community could ruin them;

§ Stolypin wanted to expand the rights of the nation, give them wide authority, from here discontent bureaucracy;

§ He wanted the government to form the State Duma, and not the king, hence the discontent of the king and aristocracy

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

From here we conclude that Russian society was not ready to adopt radical reforms of Stolypin, the company could not understand the goals of these reforms, although these reforms would be savory for Russia.

Further development of capitalist relations (economic ascent of 1909-1913). Problems and importance to the creation of an industrial society in an agrarian country.

Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin and his reforms are one of the most debated topics in the history of Russia. The prime minister became a symbol of the "missed chance" of the empire to pass by the tragic and destructive revolution in the bright capitalist tomorrow.

The last reform in the history of the empire continued until its fall, while the reformer itself tragically died 5 (18) September 1911. The murder of Stolypin is a reason to say: if he stayed alive, the story would go quite differently. His reforms, and above all the agrarian, would bring Russia to the path of modernization without revolution. Or would not lead?

It should be borne in mind that the reform that is now called the name of Stolypin, was developed before it came to power and with his death did not end. The role of Peter Arkadyevich was to launch the process, which continued with other managers. The fact that this reform could give - she gave.

Who to share: community or landowners?

The key idea of \u200b\u200bthe transformation is to destroy the peasant community, divide its land. The criticism of the community is primarily connected with the redistribution of land that violates the sacred right of private property, without which the effective economy is hardly possible for liberal. The community is considered an economic brake, due to which the Russian village could not follow the path of progress.

But after all, the third of the former land in the peasants moved to the resident land tenure, and there were stopped redels. What did they do not come forward in labor productivity? In 46 provinces, with the exception of Cossack lands, in 1905, 8.7 million courtyards from 91.2 million tenthe owned at the community law of land. The residential possession covered 2.7 million yards from 20.5 million tents.

The resident land tenure has not been more economically progressive than community-alone, there was also a culture of a severity, "Poskemale Relations differ here even greater confusion than in the community village. The transition from the traditional triple to the more perfect crop rotations for the residential village was even more difficult than for communal. " In addition, the community determined the timing of sowing and cleaning, which was necessary in the conditions of small-earth closer.

"Even the severity that occurred during the redistribution and strongly interfered with the peasant farm, he pursued all the same goal of the fence of him from ruin and maintain in cash in cash. Having plots in different places, the peasant could count on the annual average harvest. In the arid year, bandwidth in lowlands and loosers, in the rainy - on the swamp, "writes a well-known community researcher P.N. Zyryanov.

When the peasants did not want to spend redistribute, they were free to do them. The community was not at all that "serfdom", she acted democratically. The redistribution took place not from a good life. So, as the land grinding is enhanced in the chernozem, land polls returned, which almost ceased in the 1860-1870s.

Speaking about the role of the community in economic development, it should be remembered that she contributed to the spread of a triple, and she "had to come into confrontation with the desire of some hosts captured by the market," squeeze "the greatest earnings. Annual settling of the entire arable land, even very fertile, led to its depletion. " Also, the community contributed to the introduction of organic fertilizers, not only taking into account the soil breaker during the redistribution, but also demanding from communitymen to fertilize the name. " Some communities with the help of Zemstvo agrons moved to multipoly and herbage.

Stolypin reforms were launched in a revolution. Historians point to non-economic reform motives: "By this time, the position in the village has become threatening, and in the elimination of the community, the government and landlord circles were expected to find a panacea from all the troubles ... The priority, a two-way task of reform was the destruction of the peasant community, attached to peasant performances to certain organization, and the creation Strong conservative support of power from wealthy peasants-owners. " The community seemed to be a threshold from the landowner land tenure, which Democrats indicated both to the true cause of the abundance of the agrarian sphere.

It was possible to overcome the agricultural hunger, only deciding two tasks: to bring out of the village to the city and employ the excess population there and at the same time increase the productivity of the labor so that the workers remain in the village could provide food to the whole population of the country. The second challenge required not only social changes, but also a technical and cultural upgrade. By definition, she could not be accomplished quickly, and even if optimal social transformations on the village, it took time for the subsequent jump in labor productivity. In the second half of the XIX century. This time has more time, and at the beginning of the twentieth century. No longer - the revolutionary crisis was quickly moved.

In the conditions of an acute lack of land, a fragrance in time was required to solve an agrarian problem, and it could give it a section of landlord lands. But a long-term solution to the problem could not guarantee neither by either a migrating policy for which in reality in Russia were very small opportunities.

People's Author N.P. Ohanovsky, estimating the results of the section of the landowners after the revolution of 1917, argued that he was already up to her peasants, half of the former landlords in the form of bumpers and rented. As a result of the land section, it was put on a single consumer from 1.87 to 2.26 decishes - by 0.39 testers, and without taking into account the leased - 0.2. This means the expansion of peasant passes by 21% (11% without taking into account the land-leased land) while simultaneously withdrawing the press of rental payments. This is a noticeable improvement. The living standards of the peasants clearly won from the abolition of rental payments and expansion of incidents, albeit modest. The problems of low labor productivity and lack of land did not remove, but gave a "respite", which could be used to solve the problems of intensifying production. Stolypin had no opportunity to get such a breather, as he was on guard of landlord property.

Famous Petersburg historian B.N. Mironov, positively related to the reforms of Stolypin, considers the temporary government error. Refusal to the rapid distribution of landlord land (and it is difficult to disagree with it). But the more you need to recognize this refusal of the lack of agricultural policy of Stolypin. In his case it was not an error - he simply could not eat on the privileges of the aristocracy.

Scale of change

On November 9, 1906, a decree was adopted, which (formally in connection with the termination of the redemption operation) allowed the peasants to allocate their economy from the community along with the Earth. The decree of Stolypin, confirmed by the Law of 1910, encouraged the exit from the community: "Each householder, who owns her own land in community law, may, at all times, demand strengthening with the ownership of the land due to him."

If the peasant continued to live in the village, his site was called Bran. In the case of the consent of the community, the sections of the peasant, scattered in different places, were exchanged so that the cut was becoming a single site. The peasant could stand out from the village to the farm, in a remote place. Earth for a farm cut off from the land of the community, which made it difficult to grazing and the other economic activities peasant world. Thus, the interests of the farm (as a rule - wealthy) entered the conflict with the interests of the rest of the peasantry.

The peasants of vagred communities, where the redistributes of the Earth were not held after 1861 (sidewalls), automatically received the right to design land in private ownership.

In the villages where the peasants have already stopped the redistributes of the Earth, almost nothing new happened, and in villages, where the community was strong and economically justified, conflicts arose between the communists and the peasants distinguished from the community, on the side of which the authorities performed. This struggle distracted peasants from action against landowners.

Gradually (already after the death of Stolypin) reform entered a calmer bed. If 2.8 million courtyards have already lived outside the redistribution community, then in 1914 this number has increased to 5.5 million (44% of peasants). A total of 1.9 million householders (22.1% of communities) with an area of \u200b\u200balmost 14 million tents (14% of community land) came out of the community. Another 469 thousand members of the workshops received acts to their applements. 2.7 million applications for exit were filed, but 256 thousand peasants took their statements. Thus, 27.2% of those who declared the desire to strengthen the land, did not have time or could not do this by May 1, 1915. That is, even in the future, the indicators could increase except for a third. Peak application claims (650 thousand) and exit from the community (579 thousand) falls in 1909

From the community, 87.4% of the owners of vagatide communities did not go. And it is not surprising. By itself, exit from the community, even an unparalleled, created additional difficulties for peasants without an obvious immediate gain. As writes A.P. Korelin, "The fact is that in itself the strengthening of the Earth in personal property in the economic plan did not give" allocated "any advantages, putting the community often into a deadlock situation ... The production of sole precipants made a complete disorder in the land relationships of societies and did not give any The advantages of the commercial advantage, with the exception, maybe who wanted to sell fortified land. " The hosts now prevented each other in work due to the sevisor, there were all big problems with grazing of livestock, and had to spend more on a fodder.

Benefits should have occurred during the isolation on the farm and cutrub, but this process of land management in the conditions of Maples was very complicated and much more modest on scale. The peak of land management statements falls for 1912-1914. 6,174 million applications were filed and 2,376 million farms were filed. On the ridiculous lands created 300 thousand farms and 1.3 million bran, which occupied 11% of ridiculous land, and together with the estimated land with sovereigns - 28%.

The land management process could continue further. By 1916, the preparation of land management cases for 3.8 million household households with an area of \u200b\u200b34.3 million tenthenes was completed. But the possibility of improving the position of the peasants even with the help of such an interviewing in the conditions of land remained insignificant.

"It can be assumed that, having freed from the entrepreneurial and proletarian layers, the community somewhat even stabilized." It has been preserved as the "Institute of Social Protection" and managed to "provide in a certain extent economic and agricultural progress," the famous researchers of the reforms of Stolypin A.P. Korelin and K.F. Shacillo. Moreover, "German Professor Auhagen, visiting in 1911-1913. A number of Russian provinces in order to clarify the course of reform, being its commitment, nevertheless noted that the community is not an enemy of progress that it does not oppose the use of improved guns and machines, the best seeds, the introduction of rational methods of field processing, etc. In addition, not separate, especially developed and enterprising peasants, but the entire community, are proceeded in the communities to improve their farm.

"On the eve of the First World War, when headers began to enter the peasantic use, many societies were in front of the question: either the cars, or the former small-scale, allowing only the sickle. The government, as we know, offered the peasants to eliminate the checker by entering the farm and cut. However, before the Stolypin agrarian reform, the peasantry nominated its plan to mitigate the soapmill while maintaining community land tenure. The transition to "wide bands", which began in the early years of the twentieth century, continued and later, "P.N. writes Zyryanov.

The administration had opposed this work, as it contradicted the principles of the Stolypin reform, solving the problem of the soapmill otherwise and often more efficiently - after all, the "fortified" put on the grounds prevented consolidation, and the authorities prohibited him, even when the owners themselves did not object. "In the cases, we see the Stolypin agrarian reform with little-known side, - SMAls P.N. Zyryanov. It was believed that this reform, despite its narrow, and, undoubtedly, violent nature, nevertheless carried agrotechnical progress with him. It turns out that only the progress that was prescribed in the laws, circulars and instructions was presented. It was planted on top, not very much considered with the circumstances (for example, so that not all small-earth peasants are ready to go into a cut, because it strengthened their dependence on weather whims). And the progress that came from the bottom, from the peasantry itself, most often without hesitation was stopped if he had anyway affected the reform. "

It is not by chance that at the All-Russian Agricultural Congress of 1913, by assembled agronomists, most acutely criticized the reform, for example, as follows: "The land management law is nominated in the name of agronomic progress, and at every step, the efforts to achieve its achievement are paralyzed. Most of them soon refused to support reform. They preferred to support cooperatives, not affected by private property, but on collective responsibility - as communities.

To reduce the severity of "land hunger", Stolypin conducted a policy of mastering Asian lands. Migration occurred before - in 1885-1905. 1.5 million people moved to the Ural. In 1906-1914 - 3.5 million. 1 million returned, "replenishing, apparently, paupericated layers of the city and village." At the same time, part of the remaining in Siberia could not establish the economy, but it just became living here. Resettlement to Central Asia has been associated with great difficulties due to climate and resistance of the local population.

"The migrating flow was directed almost exclusively into a relatively narrow strip of agricultural Siberia. Here, the free stock of the land was completely exhausted. It remained or squeezed by new immigrants to the places engaged already and replaced one overcooled area to others, or stop looking at the relocation as a means of facilitating land needs in the inner areas of Russia. "

Effects

The results of the agricultural reform of Stolypin were contradictory. The increase in the fees of major crops during the reform years decreased, the situation was even worse in cattle breeding. This is not surprising, given the section of community land. "In economic terms, the farmen and bids were often associated with a violation of the usual crop rotations and the entire agricultural work cycle, which was extremely negatively affected by the community farm." At the same time, thanks to the support of officials who allocated could receive the best lands. The peasants protested against the "reassigning land in the property", to which the authorities could answer arrests.

The protests caused and provoked by the reform of the citizens who have lost contact with the village, and now returned to allocate and sell. The community also could not stop the peasant who decided to go to the city. But she kept the land for those who decided to stay on the village and handle it further. And in this regard, the Stolypin reform made a very unpleasant innovation for the peasants. Now the former peasant could sell this land. The former peasants who have already lost contact with the land returning to "strengthen" (one root with serfs), cut off the peasants part of the Earth. Moreover, the ability to sell its part of the former peasant land and thus obtaining "lifting" led to the fact that the Stolypin reform strengthened the inflow of the population in the city - obviously not ready. Money, reversed from the sale put on the ground, quickly ended, and the cities grew a marginal, disappointed mass of the former peasants who did not find a place in a new life.

The reverse side of the Stolypin agrarian policy and its effectiveness is hunger 1911-1912. Peasants in the Russian Empire periodically starved before. Stolypin reform did not rejoice the situation.

The stratification of the peasantry intensified. But Stolypin was mistaken in his hopes for the fact that the wealthy layers will become allies of landowners and autocracy. Even supporter of reforms Stolypin L.N. Litoshenko recognized: "From the point of view of the social world, the destruction of the community and the confounded of a significant part of its members could not balance and calm the peasant wednesday. The political rate on the "strong man" was a dangerous game. "

In 1909, an economic rise has begun in Russia. In terms of growth in production, Russia came out in the first place in the world. Cast iron smelting in 1909-1913. increased in the world by 32%, and in Russia - by 64%. Capital in Russia increased by 2 billion rubles. But in Stolypinsky reform? The state posted large military orders at the factories - after Russian-Japanese war Russia has prepared more carefully for new international conflicts. The pre-war arms race contributed to the accelerated increase in the heavy industry. The leading growth rates were determined by the fact that Russia passed the phase of industrial modernization, had a cheap working forceThat was the revolving side of the peasant poverty. The pre-war growth lasted no longer than the usual economic cycle of the lifting, and there was no evidence that such a "Stolypinsky cycle" could last a lot longer than usual, and would not end with another decline.

In general, the result of the reforms of Stolypin, as if to treat them, is very modest. Destroy the community failed. The impact on the productivity of agricultural production turned out to be contradictory. Anyway, the system exit from the agricultural crisis did not give the reform And at the same time several strengthened social tension in cities.

The reform of this scale and direction could not seriously change the trajectory, which led the empire to the revolution. But this revolution itself could be very different. However, there is no matter not in the Stolypin reform, but in the world war.