The reform of peasant land ownership in Russia, which took place from 1906 to 1917. Named after its initiator P. A. Stolypin. The essence of the reform: Permission to leave the community for farms (decree of November 9, 1906), strengthening the Peasant Bank, forced land management (laws of June 14, 1910 and May 29, 1911) and strengthening the resettlement policy (moving the rural population of the central regions of Russia for permanent residence in sparsely populated outlying areas - Siberia, Far East and the Steppe region as a means of internal colonization) were aimed at eliminating the peasant land shortage, intensifying the economic activity of the peasantry on the basis of private ownership of land, and increasing the marketability of peasant farming.
To carry out his reform, Stolypin skillfully used economic and political “trump cards”. He took advantage of both the fragmentation of the revolutionary opposition and the lack of agreement among the radical intelligentsia.
1905-1911 became the years of decline of the revolutionary movement. There was a final split in the Social Democratic Party on the issue of the possibility of continuing social services. revolution in Russia. The implementation of Stolypin’s plans was also facilitated by the economic recovery in the country. At this time there was a strengthening of nationalism. The bourgeoisie sought to get rid of the presence of foreign capital.
the main objective was to expand social base of the regime at the expense of broad sections of the peasantry and preventing a new agrarian war, by turning the majority of the inhabitants native village into “a strong, rich peasantry imbued with the idea of property,” which, according to Stolypin, makes it the best bastion of order and tranquility.” In carrying out the reform, the government did not seek to affect the interests of landowners. In post-reform times and at the beginning of the 20th century. The government was unable to protect noble land ownership from reduction, but large and small landed nobility continued to constitute the most reliable support of the autocracy. To push him away would be suicide for the regime.
Another purpose was the destruction of the rural community in the struggle of 1905-1907. , the reformers understood that the main issue in the peasant movement was the question of land, and did not immediately strive to destroy the administrative organization of the community. Socio-economic goals were closely related to socio-political ones. It was planned to eliminate the land community, its economic land distribution mechanism, which, on the one hand, formed the basis of the social unity of the community, and on the other hand, held back the development of agricultural technology. The ultimate economic goal of the reforms was to be the general rise of the country's agriculture, the transformation of the agricultural sector into the economic base of the new Russia.
Organization of farms and farms. Without land management, technical improvement and economic development of agriculture was impossible in the conditions of peasant stripes (23 peasants in the central regions had plots divided into 6 or more strips in various places of the communal field) and were far away (40% of the peasants in the center had to were to walk weekly from their estates to their plots of 5 or more miles). In economic terms, according to Gurko’s plan, fortifications without land management made no sense.
Progress of reform.
The legislative basis for the reform was the decree of November 9, 1906, after the adoption of which the implementation of the reform began. The main provisions of the decree were enshrined in the law of 1910, approved by the Duma and the State Council. The law of 1911 introduced serious clarifications to the course of the reform, reflecting a change in the emphasis of government policy and marking the beginning of the second stage of the reform. In 1915 -1916 Due to the war, the reform actually stopped. In June 1917, the reform was officially terminated by the Provisional Government. The reform was carried out through the efforts of the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, headed by A.V. Krivoshein, and the Stolypin Minister of Internal Affairs.
Organization of farms and cutting ov. In 1907-1910, only 1/10 of the peasants who strengthened their plots formed farmsteads and farmsteads.
Relocation beyond the Urals. By decree of March 10, 1906, the right to resettle peasants was granted to everyone without restrictions. The government allocated considerable funds for the costs of settling settlers in new places, for their medical care and public needs, and for building roads. The results of the resettlement campaign were as follows. Firstly, during this period there was a huge leap in economic and social development Siberia. Also, the population of this region increased by 153% during the years of colonization.
Community destruction. To transition to new economic relations, a whole system of economic and legal measures was developed to regulate the agricultural economy. The decree of November 9, 1906 proclaimed the predominance of the fact of sole ownership of land over the legal right of use. Development various forms credit - mortgage, reclamation, agricultural, land management - contributed to the intensification of market relations in the countryside.
In 1907 - 1915 20% of householders left the community. New forms of land tenure became widespread: farms and cuts.
Purchase of land by peasants using a peasant bank. As a result, if before 1906 the bulk of land buyers were peasant collectives, then by 1913 79.7% of buyers were individual peasants.
Cooperative movement. Many economists have come to the conclusion that it is cooperation that represents the most promising direction for the development of the Russian village, meeting the needs of modernization of the peasant economy. Credit relations gave a strong impetus to the development of production, consumer and marketing cooperatives.
Serious progress is being observed in the Russian peasant sector. Harvest years and the rise in world grain prices played a big role in this, but bran and farmstead farms especially progressed, where new technologies were used to a greater extent. The yield in these areas exceeded similar indicators of community fields by 30-50%. Exports of agricultural products increased even more, by 61% compared to 1901-1905, in the pre-war years. Russia was largest producer and an exporter of bread and flax, and a number of livestock products. Thus, in 1910, Russian wheat exports amounted to 36.4% of total world exports.
But this does not mean that pre-war Russia should be represented as a “peasant paradise.” The problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not resolved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. The rate of growth in labor productivity in agriculture has been comparatively slow.
But a number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform. Stolypin himself believed that it would take 15-20 years for his endeavors to succeed. But during the period 1906 - 1913, a lot was done.
Social results of the fate of the community.
The community as a self-government body of the Russian village was not affected by the reform, but the socio-economic organism of the community began to collapse
Socio-political results of the reform.
* Economic recovery * Agriculture has become sustainable
* The purchasing power of the population has increased
* Foreign exchange earnings related to the export of grain increased
* Only 10% of farms started farming * Wealthy peasants left the community more often than the poor * 20% of peasants who took out loans went bankrupt * 16% of migrants returned back
* Delamination accelerated
* The government did not satisfy the peasants' needs for land. In 1917, it became obvious that agrarian reform was 50 years late.
Historical significance of the reform. The Stolypin agrarian reform is a conditional concept, because it does not constitute a whole plan and is divided into a number of separate events. Stolypin did not even allow the thought of completely eliminating landownership. The resettlement epic of 1906 -1916, which gave so much to Siberia, had little impact on the situation of the peasantry in central Russia. The number of those who left the Urals amounted to only 18% of the natural increase in the rural population over these years. With the beginning of the industrial boom, migration from the countryside to the city increased.
Despite favorable economic and political circumstances, Stolypin still made a number of mistakes that put his reform in jeopardy. Stolypin's first mistake was the lack of a well-thought-out policy towards workers. Stolypin's second mistake was that he did not foresee the consequences of the intensive Russification of non-Russian peoples. He openly pursued a nationalist Great Russian policy and set all national minorities against himself and against the tsarist regime.
In Russian society the most important issue has always been agricultural. The peasants, who became free in 1861, did not actually receive ownership of the land. They were stifled by the lack of land, the community, and the landowners, so during the revolution of 1905 - 1907, the fate of Russia was decided in the countryside.
All the reforms of Stolypin, who headed the government in 1906, were in one way or another aimed at transforming the countryside. The most important of them is land, called “Stolypin”, although its project was developed even before him.
Its goal was to strengthen the position of a “strong sole owner.” This was the first step of a reform carried out in three main directions:
Destruction of the community and the introduction of peasant private ownership of land instead of communal ownership;
Assistance to the kulaks through the Peasant Bank and through the partial sale of state and noble lands to them;
Relocation of peasants to the outskirts of the country.
The essence of the reform was that the government abandoned its previous policy of supporting the community and moved on to its violent breakup.
As you know, the community was an organizational and economic association of peasants for the use of a common forest, pasture and watering place, an alliance in relations with the authorities, a kind of social organism that gave rural residents small everyday guarantees. The community was preserved artificially until 1906, as it was a convenient means of state control over the peasants. The community was responsible for paying taxes and various payments when performing government duties. But the community hampered the development of capitalism in agriculture. At the same time, communal land use delayed the natural process of stratification of the peasantry and put an obstacle to the formation of a class of small owners. The inalienability of allotment lands made it impossible to obtain loans secured by them, and striping and periodic redistribution of land prevented the transition to more productive forms of its use, so giving peasants the right to freely leave the community was a long-overdue economic necessity. Feature of Stolypin agrarian reform there was a desire to quickly destroy the community. The main reason for this attitude of the authorities towards the community was the revolutionary events and agrarian unrest in 1905 - 1907.
Another equally important goal of the land reform was socio-political, since it was necessary to create a class of small owners as the social support of the autocracy as the main unit of the state, which is an opponent of all destructive theories.
The implementation of the reform was initiated by the royal decree of November 9, 1906, under the modest title “On supplementing some provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership,” according to which free exit from the community was allowed.
Land plots that had been in the use of peasants since the last redistribution were assigned ownership regardless of changes in the number of souls in the family. There is an opportunity to sell your plot, as well as allocate land in one place - on a farm or a plot of land. At the same time, all this implied the lifting of restrictions on the movement of peasants around the country, the transfer of part of the state and appanage lands to the Peasant Land Bank to expand operations for the purchase and sale of land, the organization of the resettlement movement to Siberia with the aim of providing landless and land-poor peasants with plots through the development of the vast eastern expanses . But peasants often did not have enough funds to start a farm in a new place. After 1909 there are fewer displaced people. Some of them, unable to withstand the harsh living conditions, returned.
The bank provided benefits to farmers. The peasant bank also contributed to the creation of a layer of wealthy kulaks in the village.
From 1907 to 1916 in European Russia, only 22% of peasant households left the community. The emergence of a layer of peasant farmers caused resistance on the part of communal peasants, which was expressed in damage to livestock, crops, equipment, beatings and arson of farmers. Only for 1909 - 1910. The police registered about 11 thousand cases of arson of farmsteads.
Such a reform, with all its simplicity, meant a revolution in the soil structure. The entire structure of life and the psychology of the communal peasantry had to be changed. For centuries, communal collectivism, corporatism, and egalitarianism have been established. Now it was necessary to move on to individualism, private property psychology.
The decree of November 9, 1906 was then transformed into permanent laws adopted on July 14, 1910 and May 19, 1911, which provided for additional measures to speed up the exit of peasants from the community. For example, in the case of land management work to eliminate striping within a community, its members could henceforth be considered the owners of the land, even if they did not ask for it.
Consequences:
Acceleration of the process of stratification of the peasantry,
Destruction of the peasant community,
Rejection of the reform by a significant part of the peasantry.
Results:
By 1916, 25–27% of peasant households were separated from the community,
Growth in agricultural production and increase in bread exports.
The Stolypin agrarian reform did not manage to produce all the results expected from it. The initiator of the reform himself believed that at least 20 years were needed to gradually resolve the land issue. “Give the state 20 years of internal and external peace, and you will not recognize today’s Russia,” said Stolypin. Neither Russia nor the reformer himself had these twenty years. However, over the 7 years of actual implementation of the reform, noticeable successes were achieved: the sown area increased by a total of 10%, in the areas of the greatest exodus of peasants from the community - by one and a half times, and grain exports increased by one third. Over the years, the amount of mineral fertilizers used has doubled and the use of agricultural machinery has expanded. By 1914, farmers overtook the community in supplying goods to the city and accounted for 10.3% of the total number of peasant farms (according to L.I. Semennikova, this was a lot for short term, but not enough on a national scale). By the beginning of 1916, farmers had personal cash deposits in the amount of 2 billion rubles.
The implementation of agrarian reform accelerated the development of capitalism in Russia. The reform stimulated not only the development of agriculture, but also industry and trade: a mass of peasants flocked to the cities, increasing the labor market, and the demand for agricultural and industrial products increased sharply. Foreign observers noted that “if things go the same way for most European nations between 1912 and 1950 as they did between 1900 and 1912, then by the middle of this century Russia will dominate Europe, both politically, economically and financially."
However, the majority of peasants were still committed to the community. For the poor, it represented social protection; for the rich, it represented an easy solution to their problems. Thus, it was not possible to radically reform the “soil”.
Under « agricultural reform» is understood as a legislatively formalized radical reorganization of the existing land system and land relations, associated with the transformation of forms of ownership of land, the transfer of land from one owner and user to another and with a corresponding change in the forms of territorial structure in the country. In other words, agrarian reform is a regulated and state-controlled process of transition to a different land system. The reform involves the development and implementation of a number of organizational, legal and economic measures designed to ensure a relatively quick and painless transition to new forms of land ownership, land tenure and land use.
Stages of formation of agricultural legislation
The formation of agrarian law can be divided into the following periods:
Reforms of Ivan IV the Terrible. The development of legal regulation in the field of agrarian relations began during the formation of the Moscow Principality. Central government belonged to the Grand Duke, it was supported by the military strength of the squad. The main form of land ownership is “votchina”. The name of the term came from the word “otchyna”, which means “father’s property”. The plot was used for farming and could be trusted and bequeathed. The estates were owned not only by the boyars, but also by monasteries and the highest clergy.
The accession to the throne of Ivan IV is associated with a number of changes - the squad acquired the status regular army, the estates began to be populated by military men, who were called up for service only in the event of a declaration of war. At this time, the housekeeping was handled by serfs and serfs.
Russian lands were rapidly populated. The princes provided benefits to peasants who moved to other areas to cultivate new lands. The goal of agrarian reform is the development of empty land plots. Thus, the foundations of the feudal system were laid, when the princes began to rapidly accumulate wealth, measured by the land plot belonging to each of them. The richest landowner was the king, who owned state land.
Gradually, estates began to be given out for use in exchange for good service; they acquired the status of fiefdoms. Since that historical period Since conflicts constantly occurred between the owners of estates, and the acquisition of land plots did not make sense without peasants cultivating the plots, it became necessary to assign workers to certain plots. This was the basis for the emergence of “serfdom”; however, initially the attachment of peasants to the land was carried out subject to “scribal surveying”. The “scribal books” reflected a description of the location of the land and the boundaries of the land plot. “Boundary signs” were installed by specially appointed commissions. They made records of plots within counties, camps and volosts, and the names of the peasants assigned to each plot were listed. Information about abandoned plots in need of processing, free from ownership, was also separately recorded. The objectives of the land reform included the unification into a single system of all land in the territory Russian state, creation of a legal basis for maintaining cadastral, boundary and statistical records.
Reforms of Peter I. The next stage of land reforms is the transformation of Peter I. Agrarian reform as an independent program for reorganizing the way of life was not carried out, however, land relations changed in the process of carrying out a set of social reforms of Peter I. As a result of these reforms, the life of representatives of the Russian classes (nobles, peasants and townspeople) changed dramatically . In 1718, the “poll tax” was introduced, which was imposed both on peasants and on previously non-paying slaves.
The reforms carried out by Peter I led to changes in land relations. First of all, this is inextricably linked with the formation of a regular army and the abolition of local services. In 1714, fiefdoms and estates ceased to exist, and “real estate” and “estate” appeared instead. The Tsar's Decree of 1785 “On the Liberty of the Nobility” freed nobles from compulsory government service. To avoid the division of lands and consolidate feudal land ownership, by decree of Peter I, all lands were henceforth passed by inheritance: from father to son. During the reign of Peter I, a significant amount of church lands were confiscated in favor of the state and the process of their transfer (increase) to monasteries and churches was stopped.
Agrarian reforms of Catherine II. On September 19 (30), 1765, the government of Catherine II promulgated the “Manifesto on the general delimitation of lands throughout the empire with the appendix of general rules given by the Boundary Commission and the highest approved register on prices for the sale of lands in the provinces and provinces.”
The main task of the land survey of 1765 was to delimit privately owned lands from each other and separate them from state-owned lands. “Boundary books” and county plans were drawn up, indicating landowners, the location and total amount of land, their distribution by land, and compiling a list of land by province and province.
The Manifesto was accompanied by instructions for establishing the boundaries of land plots. General surveying was carried out in the second half of the 17th and first half of the 19th centuries. The “landmark books” included descriptions of the territories of 35 provinces of Russia, in which 188,264 independent possessions with a total area of 300.8 million hectares were identified.
For the first time, the survey of each individual landholding (regardless of the size of its area) was formalized not only legally, but with strict geodetic measurements on the ground: as a result, a map was drawn up, a kind of “geometric passport” for this landholding on a scale of 1:8400 (100 fathoms per 1 inch).
In 1799, the Konstantinovsky Land Surveying School was established in Moscow, where specialists in this field were trained. In 1836, the State Council issued a Resolution “On preventive measures for special delimitation of lands.”
Reform of 1861 The need for reform was caused by several reasons: the preservation of “serf relations” hampered the development of the industrial sector, and the defeat in Crimean War, which caused a strengthening of the peasant movement, which, in turn, created a threat to the current regime. Overall for Russia XIX V. Traditional development of agriculture was characteristic (an increase in the volume of agricultural products grown was achieved through the expansion of land areas). In 1856, Alexander II announced the need for a number of reforms. The reform of 1861, which abolished “serfdom” and changed the legal status of peasants, was part of the reforms of Alexander II (1861, 1864, 1870). According to the authors of the reform, it was supposed to reduce the gap between Russia and developed countries in agriculture. However, the abolition of “serfdom” did not lead to the expected results. The law on the abolition of serfdom - “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom” was signed by Alexander II on February 19, 1861. This law consisted of separate “Provisions” that dealt with three main groups of issues: 1. Abolition of the personal dependence of peasants on landowners. 2. Allotment of land to peasants and determination of peasant duties. 3. Redemption of peasant plots.
The first land reform in Russia did not lead to the expected economic prosperity of the peasants, who received from 2.5 to 5.7 dessiatines of average per capita allotment land for “redemption payments.” As a result of the reform of 1861: a) “serfdom” was abolished; b) ownership of the land remained with the previous owners and landowners; c) peasants received “homestead residence” and allotments on the terms of subsequent redemption or working off; d) peasants acted as subjects of land-legal relations only as part of the community; e) the conditions for formalizing temporarily obligatory relations are determined (the status of temporarily obligated peasants, their basic rights and obligations); f) a system of peasant self-government has been created; g) state “assistance” was provided to the peasantry in carrying out the redemption and strengthening the peasant community.
Agrarian reform 1906-1911 . went down in history as “Stolypinskaya” after the name of its organizer (P.A. Stolypin served as chairman of the Council of Ministers). The change in relations in the agricultural sector is associated with the Decree of Nicholas II of November 6, 1906. It contained a provision on the “destruction” of the traditional peasant community and a focus on the creation of private peasant property. The purchase and sale of land plots was allowed, and land began to be concentrated in the ownership of wealthy peasants. From 1908 to 1915 1,201,269 plots were offered for redemption. Since 1907, redemption payments for land have been abolished. The goal of the reform is to increase productivity in the agricultural sector through the distribution of land plots to peasants, as well as providing certain rights and freedoms to rural residents. But this reform did not live up to the hopes of its organizers, since it had little impact on private land ownership. The reform was carried out in 47 provinces of the European part of Russia. Since 1910, more attention has been paid to supporting the cooperative movement.
In this regard, it is necessary to name the following basic normative acts that served as the basis for the “Stolypin agrarian reform”: Decree “On the sale of state lands to peasants” (dated August 27, 1906); Decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former tax-paying states” (dated October 5, 1906), dedicated to improving the civil legal status of peasants; On October 14 and 15, 1906, decrees were issued regulating the activities of the Peasant Land Bank and facilitating the conditions for the purchase of land by peasants on credit; On November 9, 1906, the main legislative act of the reform was signed - the Decree “On supplementing certain provisions of the current law relating to peasant land ownership and land use,” which proclaimed the right of peasants to secure ownership of their allotment lands; The decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former tax statuses”, dedicated to improving the civil legal status of peasants, was published on December 5, 1906.
Land reforms of the 20th century. Fundamental to the reform of land relations were the Decree “On Land” (adopted at the II All-Russian Congress of the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies) and the Law on the Nationalization of Land of January 27, 1918. The basis for the adoption and approval of the Decree was the program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs). The “Decree on Land” proclaimed: “the land is common, the land belongs to the workers’ and peasants’ state.” An integral part of the Decree “On Land” was the “Order on Land”, which provided for the introduction of private ownership of land and the socialization of land. The Decree stipulates: 1) a variety of forms of land use (household, farm, communal, artel); 2) confiscation of landowners' lands and estates; 3) transfer of confiscated lands and estates to the disposal of volost land committees and district Soviets of peasant deputies; 4) transfer of land into the property of the state with its subsequent gratuitous transfer to peasants; 5) abolition of the right of private ownership of land; 6) prohibition of the use of hired labor.
Subsequently, the following Decrees were adopted: “On the prohibition of real estate transactions” (dated December 29, 1917), “On forests” (dated May 27, 1918), “On the bowels of the earth” (dated April 30, 1920). The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 enshrined the principle of socialization of land, the abolition of private property (land was now recognized as a public property and was provided to citizens free of charge). In 1919, in the law “On Socialist Land Management and on Measures for the Transition to Socialist Agriculture,” land was finally assigned to the state.
The codification of land legislation begins during the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP) 1921-1929. The goal is “to create a harmonious set of laws on land that is understandable to every farmer.” In 1922, the Land Code of the RSFSR was adopted, which introduced the concept of “labor land use” into circulation, providing for the possibility of using the maximum amount of rights for agricultural production without restrictions on the timing of land use, but maintaining a state monopoly on its ownership. The main provisions of this Code confirmed that all land within the RSFSR, no matter whose jurisdiction it is, is the property of the workers' and peasants' state and forms a single state land fund.
The first law of the USSR, which determined the legal regime of all categories of land, was “ General beginnings land use and land management”, approved by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR on December 15, 1928. Land reforms of 1953, 1965, the adoption of the “Food Program” of 1982 and the introduction of on-farm, rental and family contracting methods in rural areas did not give the expected result. Radical changes were required in the rules for the use and ownership of land in the Russian Federation, which were carried out in last decade of the past century.
Agrarian reforms in the Russian Federation and modern times
Radical changes in the field of agrarian relations are associated with the adoption of a number of laws in 1990: “On land reform” No. 374-1, “On peasant (farm) farming” No. 348-1 and “On property in the RSFSR” No. 1488-1. With their promulgation, a new stage of agrarian reforms began. However, significant changes in land legal relations at the end of the 20th century. associated with the adoption of the Resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR dated December 3, 1990 No. 397-1 “On the program for the revival of the Russian village and the development of the agro-industrial complex” and the Land Code of the RSFSR dated April 25, 1991 No. 1103-1, which secured land ownership on citizens and their associations.
The second stage of land reform (1991-1993) - the beginning of mass privatization of agricultural land, the reorganization of collective and state farms. Particular importance is attached to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the regulation of land relations and the development of agrarian reform in Russia” dated October 27, 1993 No. 1767.
The third stage of the reform dates back to 2001-2002. Among the documents regulating legal relations in this area: Land Code of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2001 No. 136-FZ, Federal Law “On the turnover of agricultural land” dated July 24, 2002 No. 101-FZ, Federal Law “On the development of agriculture” dated December 29, 2006 No. 264-FZ. These regulations restored private ownership of land. After the land reforms, there were more than 11 million owners who privatized land.
The formation of agricultural law is directly related to amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in 1994, Chapter 17 “Ownership rights and other real rights to land” was introduced. According to Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the disposal, use and ownership of land plots, subsoil and other natural resources is permitted within the limits prescribed by law, in particular in the field of environmental protection and the interests of other owners; Article 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows the circulation of natural resources.
Agrarian reform in Russia allowed the development of peasant (farm) farms, a number of legal acts were adopted regulating issues of land relations, and land payments were introduced. Along with peasant farms, a significant number of personal subsidiary plots have been created, which (unlike peasant farms) do not need to be registered, since the products produced and sold by them are not subject to taxation due to the fact that the crop is grown for own consumption and the surplus can be sold through retail chains or on the market.
On February 12, 2015, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On the Development of Agriculture” (No. 11-FZ) was adopted. Thanks to this law, state support is now guaranteed not only to large agricultural producers, but also to individual entrepreneurs who have chosen agriculture as their main activity. This has become the main direction in the development of agriculture in Russia at the present stage.
Changes to the Federal Law “On the Development of Agriculture” make it possible to obtain loans for the development of rural production on the condition that the share of production in the agricultural sector is at least 70% of total income in production. The Federal Law “On state regulation of the production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic and alcohol-containing products” dated November 22, 1995 No. 171-FZ introduced amendments to make the life of winegrowers easier. This Federal Law clarifies special terminology, defines the quantity and list of wine drinks that agricultural producers have the right to produce, and provides for the conditions for their supply, storage and sale. Here we should mention the Federal Law “On state support in the field of agricultural insurance and amendments to the Federal Law “On the Development of Agriculture” dated July 25, 2011 No. 206-FZ.
The changes also affected farmers. The new Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 74-FZ “On Peasant (Farm) Economy” dated June 11, 2003 (instead of the previously in force Law of the RSFSR of the same name dated November 22, 1990 No. 348-1) consolidated the grounds for the creation of peasant (farm) farms, defining this: a) the concept of a peasant (farm) economy; b) relations between peasant farming and the state; c) rules for creation and registration new form management; d) land and property relations; e) membership in the farm; f) activities and forms of management.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin and his reforms are one of the most controversial topics in the history of Russia. The prime minister became a symbol of the empire’s “lost chance” to move past the tragic and destructive revolution into a bright capitalist tomorrow.
The last reform in the history of the empire continued until its fall, while the reformer himself tragically died on September 5 (18), 1911. The murder of Stolypin is a reason to say: if he had remained alive, history would have gone completely differently. His reforms, and above all the agrarian one, would take Russia on the path of modernization without revolution. Or wouldn't they have taken me out?
It should be taken into account that the reform, which now bears the name of Stolypin, was developed before he came to power and did not end with his death. Pyotr Arkadyevich's role was to start a process that continued under other leaders. What this reform could give, it did.
Who to divide: the community or the landowners?
The key idea of the transformation is to destroy the peasant community and divide its lands. Criticism of the community is associated primarily with the redistribution of land, which violates the sacred right of private property, without which an effective economy is hardly possible for a liberal. The community is considered an economic brake, due to which the Russian village could not follow the path of progress.
But a third of the former landowner peasants switched to household land ownership, and redistribution there was stopped. Why haven’t they taken the lead in labor productivity? In 46 provinces, with the exception of Cossack lands, in 1905, 8.7 million households with 91.2 million dessiatines owned land under communal law. Household ownership covered 2.7 million households with 20.5 million acres.
Household land ownership was not more economically progressive than communal redistribution; interstriping was also developed there; “land relations here are even more complicated than in a communal village. The transition from the traditional three-field system to more advanced crop rotations was even more difficult for a household village than for a communal one.” In addition, the community determined the timing of sowing and harvesting, which was necessary in conditions of limited land availability.
“Even the striping that arose during redistribution and greatly interfered with peasant farming, pursued the same goal of protecting it from ruin and preserving its available labor force. Having plots in different places, the peasant could count on an average annual harvest. In a dry year, stripes in lowlands and hollows came to the rescue, in a rainy year - on hills,” writes the famous community researcher P.N. Zyryanov.
When the peasants did not want to carry out redistributions, they were free not to do them. The community was not at all some kind of “serfdom”; it acted democratically. The redistributions did not occur because of a good life. Thus, as land pressure intensified in the Black Earth Region, land redistributions returned, which almost ceased there in the 1860-1870s.
Speaking about the role of the community in economic development, it should be remembered that it contributed to the spread of three-field farming, and it “had to come into conflict with the desire of some owners, captured by the rush of the market, to “squeeze” the greatest profit from the land. The annual sowing of all arable land, even very fertile ones, led to its depletion.” The community also promoted the introduction of organic fertilizers, not only taking into account the manure of the soil during redistribution, but also demanding that community members “fertilize the land with soil.” Some communities, with the help of zemstvo agronomists, switched to multi-field and grass sowing.
Stolypin's reforms were launched during the revolution. Historians point to non-economic motives for the reforms: “By this time, the situation in the countryside had become threatening, and in the liquidation of the community the government and landowner circles hoped to find a panacea for all ills... The primary, dual task of the reform was the destruction of the peasant community, which gave peasant uprisings a certain organization, and the creation a strong conservative support of power from wealthy peasant owners." The community also seemed to be a lightning rod for landownership, which the democrats pointed to as the true cause of the backwardness of the agrarian sphere.
It was possible to overcome agrarian hunger only by solving two problems: bringing the excess population from the village to the city and employing it there, and at the same time increasing labor productivity so that the workers remaining in the countryside could provide food for the entire population of the country. The second task required not only social changes, but also technical and cultural modernization. By definition, it could not be accomplished quickly, and even with optimal social transformations in the countryside, the subsequent jump in labor productivity required time. In the second half of the 19th century. Russia still had this time, and at the beginning of the twentieth century. no longer - the revolutionary crisis was approaching faster.
In conditions of an acute shortage of land, solving the agrarian problem required a head start in time, and this could be provided by the division of landowners' lands. But neither he nor the resettlement policy, for which in reality there were very few opportunities in Russia, could guarantee a long-term solution to the problem.
Populist author N.P. Oganovsky, assessing the results of the division of landowners' lands after the revolution of 1917, argued that already before it, peasants controlled half of the former landowners' lands in the form of deeds and leases. As a result of the division of land, the allotment per eater increased from 1.87 to 2.26 dessiatines - by 0.39 dessiatines, and excluding rented dessiatines - 0.2. This means an expansion of peasant plots by 21% (11% excluding rented land) while simultaneously removing the pressure on rental payments. This is a noticeable improvement. The peasants' standard of living clearly benefited from the abolition of rent payments and the expansion of allotments, albeit modestly. This did not solve the problems of low labor productivity and land shortage, but it provided a “breathing space” that could be used to solve the problems of intensifying production. Stolypin did not have the opportunity to get such a respite, since he stood guard over the landowners' property.
The famous St. Petersburg historian B.N. Mironov, who has a positive attitude towards Stolypin’s reforms, considers the refusal of the rapid distribution of landowners’ lands to be a mistake of the Provisional Government (and it is difficult to disagree with this). But even more so it is necessary to recognize this refusal as a shortcoming agricultural policy Stolypin. In his case it was not a mistake - he simply could not encroach on the privileges of the aristocracy.
The scale of change
On November 9, 1906, a decree was adopted, which (formally in connection with the termination of the redemption operation) allowed peasants to separate their farm from the community along with the land. Stolypin’s decree, confirmed by the law of 1910, encouraged leaving the community: “Every householder who owns an allotment of land under communal law can at any time demand the consolidation of his ownership of the part due to him from the said land.”
If the peasant continued to live in the village, his plot was called a cut. If the community agreed, the peasant's plots, scattered in different places, were exchanged so that the cut became a single plot. A peasant could move from the village to a farm, to a remote place. The land for the farm was cut off from the community's lands, which made it difficult for the grazing of livestock and other economic activities of the peasant world. Thus, the interests of farmers (usually wealthy ones) came into conflict with the interests of the rest of the peasantry.
Peasants of non-redistribution communities, where land redistribution was not carried out after 1861 (podvorniki), automatically received the right to register the land as private property.
In villages where peasants had previously stopped redistributing land, almost nothing new happened, and in villages where the community was strong and economically justified, conflicts arose between community members and peasants who separated from the community, on whose side the authorities were. This struggle distracted the peasants from actions against the landowners.
Gradually (after Stolypin's death) the reform entered a calmer direction. If before the reform 2.8 million households already lived outside the redistribution community, then in 1914 this number increased to 5.5 million (44% of peasants). In total, 1.9 million householders (22.1% of community members) with an area of almost 14 million acres (14% of community land) left the community. Another 469 thousand members of allotment-free communities received deeds for their allotments. 2.7 million applications for exit were submitted, but 256 thousand peasants withdrew their applications. Thus, 27.2% of those who declared a desire to strengthen the land did not have time or were unable to do this by May 1, 1915. That is, even in the future, the figures could only increase by a third. The peak of filing applications (650 thousand) and leaving the community (579 thousand) occurred in 1909.
87.4% of the owners of the allotment-free communities did not leave the community either. And this is not surprising. In itself, leaving the commune, even one without distribution, created additional difficulties for the peasants without obvious immediate gain. As A.P. writes Korelin, “the fact is that in itself the consolidation of land into personal property in economic terms did not give the “allocated” any advantages, often placing the community in deadlock... The production of individual allotments brought complete disruption to the land relations of societies and did not give any advantages to those leaving the community, with the exception, perhaps, of those who wanted to sell the fortified land.” The owners now interfered with each other's work because of the stripes, everything arose big problems with grazing livestock, and had to spend more on fodder.
Advantages should have arisen when allocating farmsteads and cuttings, but this process of land management in conditions of land shortage was very complex and much more modest in scale. The peak of applications for land development occurred in 1912-1914, in total 6.174 million applications were submitted and 2.376 million farms were developed. On the allotment lands, 300 thousand farms and 1.3 million cuts were created, which occupied 11% of the allotment lands, and together with the courtyards that strengthened the land - 28%.
The land management process could continue further. By 1916, preparations for land management affairs were completed for 3.8 million households with an area of 34.3 million dessiatinas. But the possibilities of improving the situation of the peasants even with the help of such land surveying in conditions of land tightness remained insignificant.
“It can be assumed that, having freed itself from the entrepreneurial and proletarian layers, the community has even stabilized somewhat.” It was preserved as an “institute social protection“and managed to “ensure, to a certain extent, economic and agricultural progress,” concluded famous researchers of Stolypin’s reforms A.P. Korelin and K.F. Shatsillo. Moreover, “the German professor Auhagen, who visited in 1911-1913. a number of Russian provinces, in order to clarify the progress of the reform, being its adherents, nevertheless noted that the community is not the enemy of progress, that it is not at all opposed to the use of improved tools and machines, better seeds, the introduction of rational methods of cultivating fields, etc. Moreover, in communities it is not individual, especially developed and enterprising peasants who begin to improve their economy, but the entire community.”
“On the eve of the First World War, when reapers began to come into peasant use, many societies were faced with the question: either machines or the old small strip, which allowed only a sickle. The government, as we know, offered the peasants to eliminate the striped stripes by going to the farmsteads and cutting them off. However, even before Stolypin’s agrarian reform, the peasantry put forward its plan to mitigate striping while maintaining communal land ownership. The transition to “broad bands”, which began in the first years of the twentieth century, continued later,” writes P.N. Zyryanov.
The administration opposed this work, since it contradicted the principles of the Stolypin reform, solving the problem of striping differently and often more effectively - after all, the “fortified” plots interfered with consolidation, and the authorities prohibited it, even when the owners of the plots themselves did not object. “In the above cases, we see the Stolypin agrarian reform from a hitherto little-known side,” sums up P.N. Zyryanov. - It was believed that this reform, despite its narrowness and undoubtedly violent nature, still brought with it agrotechnical progress. It turns out that only the progress that was prescribed in laws, circulars and instructions was implanted. It was planted from above, not really taking into account the circumstances (for example, the fact that not all peasants with little land were ready to go to the cuttings, because this increased their dependence on the vagaries of the weather). And the progress that came from below, from the peasantry itself, was most often stopped without hesitation if it somehow affected the reform.”
It is no coincidence that at the All-Russian Agricultural Congress of 1913, which brought together agronomists, the majority sharply criticized the reform, for example, as follows: “The land management law was put forward in the name of agronomic progress, and at every step the efforts aimed at achieving it are paralyzed.” The zemstvos, for the most part, soon also refused to support the reform. They preferred to support cooperatives based not on private property, but on collective responsibility - as communities.
To reduce the severity of the “land hunger,” Stolypin pursued a policy of developing Asian lands. Resettlement occurred before - in 1885-1905. 1.5 million people moved beyond the Urals. In 1906-1914. - 3.5 million. 1 million returned, “apparently replenishing the pauperized strata of the city and countryside.” At the same time, some of those who remained in Siberia were unable to organize their economy, but simply began to live here. Relocation to Central Asia was associated with great difficulties due to the climate and the resistance of the local population.
“The migration flow was directed almost exclusively to a relatively narrow strip of agricultural Siberia. Here the free supply of land was soon exhausted. It remained either to squeeze new settlers into already occupied places and replace one overpopulated area with another, or to stop looking at resettlement as a means of alleviating land shortages in the interior regions of Russia.”
Consequences
The results of Stolypin's agrarian reform turned out to be contradictory. The increase in yields of main agricultural crops during the years of reforms decreased, and the situation in cattle breeding was even worse. This is not surprising, given the division of communal lands. “In economic terms, the separation of farmers and otrubniks was often associated with a violation of the usual crop rotations and the entire agricultural cycle of work, which had an extremely negative impact on the economy of the community members.” At the same time, thanks to the support of officials, those who stood out could get the best lands. The peasants protested against the “enslavement of land into ownership,” to which the authorities could respond with arrests.
Protests were also caused by the actions of townspeople provoked by the reform, who had lost contact with the village and were now returning to allocate and sell the plot. Even before, the community could not stop a peasant who decided to go to the city. But she also preserved the land for those who decided to stay in the village and cultivate it further. And in this regard, the Stolypin reform introduced a very unpleasant innovation for the peasants. Now the former peasant could sell this land. The former peasants, who had already lost contact with the land, returned for a while to “strengthen” (one root with serfdom), to cut off part of the land from the peasants. Moreover, the opportunity to sell one’s part of the former peasant land and thus receive “lifting income” led to the fact that the Stolypin reform increased the influx of population into the cities - which were clearly not ready for that. The money raised from the sale of the plot quickly ran out, and a marginal, disappointed mass grew in the cities former peasants who have not found a place for themselves in their new life.
The flip side of Stolypin’s agrarian policy and its effectiveness was the famine of 1911-1912. Peasants in the Russian Empire periodically went hungry before. The Stolypin reform did not change the situation.
The stratification of the peasantry increased. But Stolypin was mistaken in his hopes that the wealthy strata would become allies of the landowners and the autocracy. Even supporter of Stolypin’s reforms L.N. Litoshenko admitted: “From the point of view of the social world, the destruction of the community and the dispossession of a significant part of its members could not balance and calm the peasant environment. The political bet on the “strong man” was a dangerous game.”
In 1909, economic growth began in Russia. In terms of production growth rates, Russia has taken first place in the world. 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 is it the Stolypin reform? The state placed large military orders at factories - after the Russo-Japanese War, Russia prepared more carefully for new international conflicts. The pre-war arms race contributed to the accelerated growth of heavy industry. The rapid growth rates were determined by the fact that Russia was going through a phase of industrial modernization and had cheap labor, which was the flip side of peasant poverty. Pre-war growth lasted no longer than normal business cycle rise, and there is no evidence that such a “Stolypin cycle” could last much longer than usual and would not end in another recession.
In general, the result of Stolypin’s reforms, no matter how you look at them, is very modest. It was not possible to destroy the community. The impact on agricultural productivity has been controversial. Anyway, The reform did not provide a systemic way out of the agrarian crisis and at the same time somewhat increased social tension in the cities.
A reform of this magnitude and direction could not seriously change the trajectory that led the empire to revolution. But this revolution itself could have taken place in very different ways. However, this is not the point Stolypin reform, but in a world war.
(1862-1911). He came from an old noble family and received an excellent education. Stoly-pin had a firm, authoritative character and brilliant oratorical abilities. His speeches in the Duma made a great impression on the deputies. In 1905, Stolypin was appointed governor of the particularly restless Saratov province, where he became famous for his brutal suppression of peasant riots.
Stolypin's firmness and determination were appreciated at the top. In April 1906, Stolypin was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, and in July of the same year - Chairman of the Council of Ministers. A convinced monarchist, supporter of “firm power,” Stolypin advocated the modernization of Russia, the development of the economy and culture. The essence of his program, expressed in the phrase “ First calm, and then reforms“, meant the need to suppress the revolution and restore order as a condition for further transformations.
Stolypin agrarian reform. The main principle of the reform is replacement of communal land use with individual land ownership - proposed back in 1902 S. Yu. Witte, but then the king rejected him. The peasant movement during the years of the revolution forced us to look for ways to solve the agrarian question, but in such a way as not to cause damage to the landowners. The reform was preceded by a number of measures: January 1, 1907 Redemption payments from peasants were cancelled. The sale of land to peasants through the Peasant Bank was allowed. Peasants were equalized with other classes in terms of passports.
Goals of agrarian reform:
1. Destroy the peasant community.
2. Develop capitalism in the countryside without harming the landowners.
3. Eliminate the land shortage of peasants and feudal remnants.
4. Create a “strong” peasant nina - a “support of order” in the village.
5. Eliminate revolutionary activity in the countryside, evict particularly restless peasants beyond the Urals to free lands.
6. Create a system of universal primary education in rural areas.
Community destruction. The essence of the reform was set out in a decree on November 9, 1906. The decree established “the right to freely leave the community with the “strengthening” (consolidation) into the ownership of “household owners” (peasants), transferring to personal ownership, plots from the “mundane” (community) on-things." A peasant could demand, instead of the scattered strips allocated to him in different fields, to be provided with an equal plot of land in one place ( pipe). If the owner transferred his yard with outbuildings to it, then a farm.
They left the community Basically, the peasants who are “extreme” in terms of their property status are the poor and the wealthy. The first tried to sell their holdings and either go to the city or move to the free lands of the Urals and Siberia. They sold over 3.4 million acres of land. These lands were bought not only by the rich, but also by middle peasants. Stolypin did not hide the fact that he was making a bet " not on the wretched and drunk, but on the strong and strong» peasants.
Resettlement of peasants to the lands of the Urals and Siberia. The government assisted in the resettlement of peasants to free lands. For 1907-1914 3.3 million peasants moved beyond the Urals. They received a cash loan to start a farm. But not everyone was able to become householders: many became farm laborers for local old-timers, and over half a million returned back to Russia. Reasons: reluctance of the local administration to help the displaced; opposition to the displaced indigenous peoples of Siberia.
Results of the Stolypin reform.
Stolypin believed that it will take 20 years to complete the agrarian reform. During this time, he intended to carry out a number of other reforms - in the field of local government, courts, public education, the national question, etc. “Give the state twenty years of internal and external peace, and you will not recognize today’s Russia,”- said Stolypin.
For 1907-1914 25% of peasants left the community, and 35% submitted applications to leave. As a result, about 400 thousand farmsteads were formed (1/6 of them emerged). Not all of them were “kulak”; Prosperous farmers numbered about 60%. The emergence of a layer of peasant farmers caused protest from communal peasants, which was expressed in damage to livestock, crops, equipment, and beating of farmers. Only for 1909-1910. The police registered about 11 thousand cases of arson of farmsteads.
For 7 years Actions of the reform: successes were achieved in agriculture: sown areas increased by 10%; Grain exports increased by 1/3. Peasants increased their costs for the purchase of agricultural machinery by 3.5 times - from 38 million to 131 million rubles. The reform stimulated the development of industry and trade. A mass of peasants flocked to the cities, increasing the labor market. As a result, urban demand for agricultural products increased.
The end of P. A. Stolypin's career.
Powerful and independent, Stolypin set many against himself - both on the left and on the right. Intrigues were woven around the prime minister by the court nobility and G. Rasputin. The Tsar became increasingly burdened by Stolypin. In the spring of 1911, the Prime Minister tendered his resignation, but the Tsar decided to wait. During the 5 years of Stolypin’s stay in power, 10 attempts were made on his life by revolutionaries who could not forgive the destruction of the community - “the cell of the future peasant socialism.” September 1, 1911 Socialist-Revolutionary Maxima-List lawyer D. Bogrov with the connivance of the police during a performance in Kievsky opera house In the presence of the Tsar and his family, he mortally wounded Stolypin with two shots from a Browning gun.
Reforms of P. A. Stolypin: diversity of opinions.
There are two opposing points of view on the activities of P. A. Stolypin:
I. Soviet point of view :
Stolypin limited the democratic achievements of the revolution of 1905-1907 because he:
1. He repressed revolutionaries, established military courts.
2. Stolypin was the initiator of the June 3rd coup.
3. According to the new electoral law of 1907 prepared by Stolypin, the voting rights of peasants and workers were limited.
4. Stolypin stood for limiting the political rights of representatives of non-Russian nationalities.
5. Stolypin's agrarian reform was associated with violence against community members who disagreed with it.
6. Stolypin passed many bills without the participation of the Duma.
II . Liberal point of view :
Stolypin's policy was aimed at creating a rule of law state in Russia within the framework of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, because:
1. Stolypin defended the principle of private property, sacred in a rule of law state.
2. Stolypin’s struggle with the revolutionaries contributed to the establishment of order and the triumph of law.
3. Stolypin was against a return to the previous regime of autocracy.
4. Stolypin believed that the creation of a layer of peasant owners would develop respect for the law and a legal culture among peasants.
5. Stolypin intended to expand the system of local self-government, reform judicial system, liquidate the volost court.
6. Stolypin developed public education in the countryside.
7. Stolypin's reforms were supposed to help equalize the rights of peasants with other classes.
Thus, Stolypin's reforms had both positive and negative sides. On the one hand, they put agriculture on the capitalist path and stimulated the development of industry. On the other hand, the reforms were not completed, it was not possible to eliminate the contradictions between the peasants and the landowners, and to create a mass layer of wealthy peasantry. Stolypin did not have 20 years to complete the reform. His transformations were interrupted the first world war And revolution of 1917. Stolypin's agrarian laws were finally abolished by a 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 moderate right - 88;
Center Party - 33; - right - 65;
Progressives and those aligned with them - 32+16;
Cadets and those adjacent to them - 52+7; - “trudoviks” - 10;
Social Democrats - 14 (Bolsheviks - 6; Mensheviks - 8), etc.