(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 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 moved 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 household. 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, cities’ demand for products increased Agriculture.

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 at the Kiev 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 the judicial system, and eliminate 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.

Stolypin managed to carry out almost all of his main reforms without discussion in the State Duma, knowing that the projects he introduced would not receive approval there.

Being a great patriot and a convinced monarchist, Stolypin believed that for the good of Russia it was necessary to complete the reforms of Emperor Alexander II. Therefore, he decided to liquidate first revolutionary movement, and then destroy the causes that contributed to it. Like Witte, Stolypin considered the main evil the community, which was the cause of the poverty of the peasants. Only thanks to exceptional energy, Stolypin managed in 1906 to carry out the famous “Law of November 9th”, which he developed, which gave peasants the right to leave the community. While carrying out his reform, Stolypin also contributed to the massive voluntary resettlement of peasants to free lands in Siberia and Turkestan.

Peasant reform Stolypin was received with joy by the majority of the peasants, but met opposition in the Duma. This slowed down its implementation, since the necessary cash loans depended on the Duma. With the outbreak of the First War in 1914, reforms stopped, as many peasants were immediately drafted into the army. Thus, the reform was not completed and was unable to stop the growing revolutionary events in 1917.

political considerations of agrarian reform: without the peasantry, no revolution in Russia was possible. Program reforms, which was based on the desire to strengthen the peasantry as the main support autocracy, without destroying landownership, slightly changing the agrarian government policy. Agrarian reform was designed for at least 20 years. The task of the resettlement administration, as already mentioned, included resolving the pressing issue of overpopulation in the central provinces of Russia. The main areas of resettlement were Siberia, Central Asia, Far East and the North Caucasus. The government did its best to encourage the settlement of these regions: all obstacles were removed and a serious incentive was created for resettlement to the developed areas of the country. Loans issued to migrants Travel was free, specially designed, “Stolypin” carriages allowed them to carry livestock and property. m, increased fourfold compared to the period 1900-1904. The peasant also received help in the form of seeds, livestock, equipment, all of which could only be used on the farm: there was no one to sell all this in Siberia. In the connection “state-peasant”, the reseller and merchant was excluded.

After 1906, the number of immigrants increased noticeably, among whom the poorest peasants predominated. In general, resettlement to the outskirts failed to solve the problem of land shortage in the central regions. Stolypin reform contributed further specialization of agriculture and the growth of its intensification, as evidenced by the increase in demand for agricultural machinery.

Since 1909, there has been a steady increase in the marketability of agricultural production.
However, tension in the village remained. Many peasants, mostly poor and middle peasants, went bankrupt. Due to poor organization of the resettlement process, the flow of “return” migrants grew. Having returned to their homeland, they no longer received either a yard or land. In addition, the peasants did not consider the reform fair, since it did not affect landownership.

The reform was implemented at a time when the country was in a situation of executions, gallows, and direct violence by the authorities. Stolypin created a precedent: the authorities have the right to punish without explanation.
Stolypin also approved the right of the authorities to interfere in purely economic relations. The right of the state to use violence in the economy was first demonstrated on a nationwide scale by Stolypin during his reforms. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a stable and sufficiently massive layer of peasant-owners. So you can talk about the general failure of Stolypin’s agrarian reform. Towards positive results agrarian reform can be attributed:
- up to a quarter of the farms were separated from the community, the stratification of the village increased, the rural elite provided up to half of the market grain,
- 3 million households moved from European Russia,
- 4 million dessiatines of communal lands were involved in market circulation,
- the cost of agricultural implements increased from 59 to 83 rubles. per yard,
- consumption of superphosphate fertilizers increased from 8 to 20 million poods,
- for 1890-1913 per capita income of the rural population increased from 22 to 33 rubles. in year,
Negative results of the reform:
- from 70% to 90% of the peasants who left the community in one way or another retained ties with the community, the bulk of the peasants were the labor farms of community members,
- returned back to Central Russia 0.5 million

migrants,
- there were 2-4 dessiatines per peasant household, while the norm was 7-8 dessiatines,
- the main agricultural implement is the plow (8 million pieces), 58% of farms did not have plows,
- mineral fertilizers were used on 2% of the sown areas,
- in 1911-1912 The country was struck by famine, affecting 30 million people.

Firstly, Stolypin began his reforms very late (not in 1861, but only in 1906). Secondly, the transition from a natural type of economy to a market economy under the conditions of an administrative-command system is possible, first of all, on the basis of the active activity of the state. In this case, the financial and credit activities of the state should play a special role. The collapse of the Stolypin reform did not mean that it had no serious significance. It was a major step along the capitalist path and contributed to a certain extent to the growth in the use of machinery, fertilizers, and an increase in the marketability of agriculture.

In addition to agrarian reforms, Stolypin developed very interesting bills in the political, social and cultural areas. It was he who, on behalf of the government, submitted to the Third State Duma a bill on insurance of workers for disability, old age, illness and accidents, on providing medical care to workers at the expense of enterprises, and limiting the working day for minors and adolescents. He also submitted to Nicholas II a project to resolve the Jewish question. Few people know that Stolypin was the initiator of the introduction of universal free primary education in Russia.

Stolypin sought to increase the educational and cultural level of government officials and precisely for this purpose proposed increasing the salaries of teachers, postal employees, railways, priests, government officials.

Pyotr Arkadyevich also participated in the development of documents on political reform. He proposed a classless system of local government, according to which elections in the zemstvo were to be held not according to class curiae, but according to property ones, and the property qualification was to be reduced tenfold. This would significantly expand the number of voters, at the expense of wealthy peasants. Stolypin planned to place at the head of the district not a leader of the nobility, but a government official. His proposed reform of organs local government caused sharp criticism from the nobles.

In developing national policy, Stolypin adhered to the principle of “not oppressing non-Russian peoples, but protecting the rights of the indigenous Russian population,” which in fact often turned out to be a priority for the interests of Russians, regardless of their place of residence. Stolypin proposed a bill on the introduction of zemstvos in six western provinces (Minsk, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Kyiv, Volyn, Podolsk), according to which zemstvos were to become national-Russian through elections through national curiae.

The last reform projects in his life were related to strengthening finances by increasing direct and especially indirect taxes, increasing the excise tax on alcoholic beverages, and introducing a progressive tax and turnover tax. For the first time, Stolypin raised the question of reforming industry - foreign loans were supposed to be used only for exploration of the bowels of the earth, construction of railways and especially paved roads. The creation of seven new ministries was envisaged.

2. Education reform
As part of the school reform, approved by the law of May 3, 1908, it was planned to introduce compulsory primary free education for children from 8 to 12 years old. From 1908 to 1914 budget public education managed to triple, 50 thousand new schools were opened. Note that Stolypin set the third condition for the modernization of the country (in addition to agrarian reform and industrial development) to achieve universal literacy in the amount of four years compulsory for all primary school. Even when he was the leader of the nobility in Kovno, he wrote on this occasion that only literacy will help spread agricultural knowledge, without which a class of real farmers cannot emerge. To sum up the school reform, let’s say that there really wasn’t enough time for it: to implement the plan for universal primary education at the same pace as in 1908-1914, at least 20 more years were required.
3. Zemstvos
Stolypin highly appreciated the role of zemstvos and therefore planned to extend zemstvo institutions to many provinces, where they did not operate for a number of reasons, and to lay a foundation for them in the form of volost zemstvos to replace the obsolete volost assemblies. Stolypin made a serious mistake on the issue of establishing zemstvos in the western provinces (1911), as a result of which he lost the support of the Octobrists. The fact is that the western provinces continued to economically depend on the Polish gentry. In order to improve the position of the Belarusian and Russian population, who constituted the majority, in them, Stolypin decided to establish a zemstvo form of government there. The Duma willingly supported him, but the State Council took the opposite position; class feelings of solidarity with the gentry turned out to be stronger than national ones. Stolypin turned to Nicholas II with a request to interrupt the work of both chambers for three days, so that during this time the government would urgently adopt a new law.

The Duma meetings were suspended and the law was adopted. However, this procedure clearly contradicted the legal procedure for the adoption of laws, which demonstrated disregard state power to their own institutions. This led to a split between the government and even the most moderate liberals. Stolypin lost the support of Nicholas II, who was clearly disgusted by having such an active minister, accused by far-right opponents of wanting to “expropriate all landowners in general” with the help of agrarian reform.
4. Judicial reform
The transformations in the sphere of judicial power should also be briefly mentioned. Their essence boiled down to the fact that, in accordance with Stolypin’s plan, in the most general terms, the local court, distorted by the reactionary reforms of the emperor Alexandra III, had to return to its original appearance.
5. Reform in the industrial sector: solving the labor issue
Finally, it remains to touch on the work issue. It, like the peasant one, was inherited by Stolypin from the revolution of 1905-1907. It is interesting to note that before this, not only tsarism, but also the bourgeoisie denied its existence. According to A. Ya. Avrekh, this non-recognition was tantamount to recognizing the untenable policy of relying on the peasant community. The revolution dispelled all doubts... A special commission was created on the labor issue. Several stages of drafting legislation can be distinguished. The first is related to the activities of the above-mentioned commission chaired by Kokovtsov, the then Minister of Finance. Its activities immediately gave rise to an open conflict with the bourgeoisie: it did not want to make even purely economic concessions to the workers and accused the government of wanting to resolve the labor issue at the expense of factory owners.
The program developed by the commission, headed by V.K. Kokovtsov, was entirely based on the premise that in Russia the labor issue is of the same nature as in the West, and, therefore, it must be solved in the same way as, for example, it was decided Bismarck in Germany. In accordance with this, a program was developed that boiled down to four main points:
1. Mandatory organization of health insurance funds on the basis of joint contributions by both employers and workers;
2. Creation of mixed bodies in factories and plants consisting of representatives of the administration and workers;
3. Reducing the working day from 11.5 hours to 10, limiting the amount of overtime work by law;
4. Revision of articles of law punishing strikes and early termination of employment contracts.
In a note from the “St. Petersburg Society for Promoting the Improvement and Development of the Factory Industry” dated May 12, objections to the project to reduce the working day to 10 hours boiled down to two main arguments:
- the very fact of government intervention in the regulation of working hours is unacceptable;
- the reduction will lead to the fact that Russian industry “will be eliminated forever from any role in international competition.” The general conclusion of the note boiled down to a number of demands, including the following:
a) “recognizing, in principle, the legislative regulation of working time as unnecessary, maintain the norms for its duration, established by law 1897 /i.e. 11.5 hour day / due to the fact that they exist";
b) maintain overtime work in such a way that total number compulsory and optional working hours did not exceed 75 hours per week.
Ultimately, Kokovtsov's commission ceased to exist. However, despite the failure, a certain result was achieved. It consisted in the fact that tsarism, under the influence of the revolution, firmly took the course, as in agrarian policy, towards a bourgeois policy in the labor issue, abandoning a purely police method of resolving it. The common platform of the government and industrialists was the recognition of the right of workers to strike and their professional organizations. The labor question in a bourgeois solution, along with the agrarian one, became one of the cornerstones of the June Third course, one of the manifestations of the June Third course of tsarism, Stolypin's Bonopartism, with the difference that in one case the maneuvering was between the landowners and the peasantry, and in the second between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Further development the workers' issue in the “top” and the Duma proved this clearly.
The next stage in resolving the work issue was a Special Meeting (1906-1907). This was already entirely the era of Stolypin. The agenda of the session included 10 bills, which boiled down to several points: insurance of illnesses, accidents, and disability; provision savings banks; rules for hiring workers; work time; measures to encourage the construction of healthy and affordable housing; and so on. It is important to note that the issue of workers’ organizations was left unattended; it was believed that the “Temporary Rules” on unions would temporarily solve the problem. Based on these rules, during the years of Stolypin's rule, hundreds of trade union organizations were closed and hundreds more were denied registration.
Other issues were discussed, but met with strong resistance from industrialists, i.e. big bourgeoisie. For example, Nobel argued that “if we are not given the right to some resistance to the influence of the masses, then we are lost...”
With the transfer of bills to the Duma in June 1908, their final stage of transformation into laws began. It became the longest. There was resistance not only from industrialists, but also from the left: Trudoviks and Social Democrats criticized the insurance bills from truly democratic positions.
The insurance bills ultimately became one of the reasons that aggravated relations between the right and the Octobrists, the landowners and the bourgeoisie. We can say that Stolypin's labor policy failed. The response to it on the part of the working class was a new revolutionary upsurge.

6. Solving the national question

A special problem for the government during these years was the national question. 57% of Russia's population were of non-Russian origin, and they were subject to all kinds of discrimination by Russian officials. In these relations, Russia not only oppressed certain peoples, but also pitted them against each other. Many, under pressure from the Russian-speaking population, emigrated to nearby Western countries and were hired there. A noticeable part of the emigrants were people who made the fight against tsarism the goal of their lives. Pyotr Arkadyevich approached the solution of this issue with particular care and considered it a matter of special national importance for Russia. The essence of his national policy was to unite and not divide peoples. It provided for the creation of a Ministry of Nationalities, which was supposed to study the cultural, religious, social life of each nation and create conditions for all nations to have equal rights and be loyal to Russia. The duties of the ministry should also have included the task of not forgetting about the external and internal enemies of Russia, who in every possible way sought to dismember it. Stolypin nevertheless made a number of mistakes that put his reforms in danger of failure. Stolypin's first mistake was the lack of a well-thought-out policy towards workers. As the experience of Prussia showed, for the successful implementation of conservative policies it was necessary to combine harsh repression of revolutionary parties with simultaneous efforts in the field of social security for workers. In Russia, despite the general economic rise, over all these years not only the standard of living of workers has not increased at all, but also social legislation has taken its first steps. The 1906 law on the ten-hour workday was hardly enforced, as was the 1903 law on insurance for workers injured in the enterprise. Authorized trade unions were under the watchful eye of the police and lacked confidence among workers. Meanwhile, the number of workers was constantly and noticeably growing. The new generation turned out to be very favorable to the perception of socialist ideas. Obviously, Stolypin was not aware of the significance of the labor question, which arose with renewed vigor in 1912.
Stolypin's second mistake was that he did not foresee the consequences of the intensive Russification of non-Russian peoples. Stolypin did not hide his nationalist convictions; Once, at a meeting of the Duma, he sharply answered a Polish deputy that he considered it “the highest happiness to be a subject of Russia.” He openly pursued a nationalist Great Russian policy and, naturally, set all national minorities against himself and the tsarist regime. Stolypin also made a mistake on the issue of establishing zemstvos in the western provinces (1911), as a result of which he lost the support of the Octobrists. The fact is that the western provinces continued to economically depend on the Polish gentry. In order to strengthen the position of the Belarusian and Russian population, who constituted the majority, in them, Stolypin decided to establish a zemstvo form of government there. The Duma willingly supported him, but the State Council took the opposite position - class feelings of solidarity with the gentry turned out to be stronger than national ones. Stolypin asked Nicholas II to interrupt the work of both chambers for three days, so that during this time the government would urgently adopt a new law. The Duma meetings were suspended and the law was adopted. However, this procedure, which demonstrated the government's disregard for its own institutions, led to a split between the government and even the most moderate liberals.

With the agrarian reform of the early 20th century. The name of P. A. Stolypin, who was the main leader, organizer and executor of all reforms in the field of agriculture and land use, is closely connected.

The economic situation of the Russian peasant worsened after 1861, and in 1900 he generally lived poorer than in 1800.

Reasons for the deterioration of the situation of peasants:

- payment of redemption payments (to purchase or lease land, it was necessary to borrow from moneylenders, and then from the Peasant Bank; debts grew, and after the revolution of 1905-1907, the government abolished redemption payments in 1907 and forgave arrears);

- land shortage of peasants;

- imbalance in agriculture.

The state supported the community. The community was considered the most reliable support of the autocracy in the village. But tension between the community and private property gradually grew. In 1905, these contradictions resulted in a real “war for the land.” The authorities quelled the unrest with the help of military expeditions. During the peasant unrest of 1905, it became clear that it was impossible to maintain the previous situation in the village. In this regard, the idea of ​​liquidating the community and transferring the land to private ownership arose. The creation of the June Third system, which was personified by the Third Duma, along with agrarian reform, was the second step in transforming Russia into a bourgeois monarchy. Stolypin identified two priorities as priorities: the fight against the revolution and the implementation of the agrarian law of November 9, 1906. In its content, it was a liberal bourgeois law that promoted the development of capitalism in the countryside and, therefore, progressive.

Stolypin adhered to purely economic principles of economic reform.

The main goals of the Stolypin agrarian reform:

1) transform Russia from a landowner-monarchist state into a bourgeois-monarchist state;

2) create, by stratifying the peasantry, a middle layer - the peasant bourgeoisie;

4) relieve social tension in the countryside, distract peasants from thoughts about the forced alienation of landowners' lands.

Achieving these goals involved the implementation of three main tasks: the destruction of the community, the creation of individual peasant farms (private peasant land ownership) and the resettlement of peasants from the central provinces of Russia to the outskirts.

Components of the reform:

- Decree of November 3, 1905 on reducing the redemption payments of peasants from January 1, 1906 by half, and from January 1, 1907 - completely.

— Decree on the Peasant Bank, to which state-owned lands were transferred for sale to needy peasants.

— Decree of November 9, 1906 on peasant land ownership and land use. This most important decree gave each owner of a communal plot the right to secure it as his personal property in the form of a farmstead or a farmstead. The striped pattern was largely preserved.

— The decree of December 5, 1906 introduced freedom to choose a place of residence for peasants, abolished Physical punishment by verdict of the volost peasant courts, abolished the right of zemstvo and peasant chiefs to arrest and fine peasants for administrative violations.

— The law of June 14, 1910 actually forcibly recognized as personal owners all householders of those communities where redistributions had not been made for 24 years.

— Organization of the resettlement movement in Western Siberia with the aim of providing landless and land-poor peasants with land and solving the problem of overpopulation in the European part of Russia.

— Widespread construction of rural schools and the involvement of huge masses of the population in the public education system.

Development of the cooperative movement

Loans from the Peasant Bank could not fully satisfy the peasant's demand for money goods, so credit cooperation became widespread. As a result, a wide network of small peasant credit institutions, savings and loan banks and credit partnerships was created that served the cash flow of peasant farms. Peasants on a cooperative basis created dairy and butter artels, agricultural societies, consumer shops and even peasant artel dairies.

Consequences of agrarian reform

It is important to note not only the very exit of the peasants from the community, but also the destruction of the strip and the development of cuts and farmsteads partially within its framework. The reform qualitatively changed the community itself, increasing the efficiency of its functioning.

The grain harvest increased by 1913 to 5.6 billion poods (86 million tons) against 4 billion poods at the beginning of the century. Cultivated areas since the beginning of the century (until 1914) increased by 10.6 million dessiatinas. At the same time, the export and productivity of many agricultural crops, as well as the production and import of agricultural machinery, increased. In some southern regions, the peasant community almost completely disappeared (for example, in the Bessarabian and Poltava provinces). In other regions (Kursk province) the community lost its dominant position.

a) Reasons for the incompleteness of the reform

- Short time periods.

— Resistance from the right and left political forces.

— Complex relationships between the Tsar’s entourage and P. A. Stolypin.

From an economic point of view, the agrarian reform launched was necessary and progressive.

For the success of agrarian reform it was necessary overcome three obstacles:

1) resistance of the conservative landowner-bureaucratic elite (from 1907 to 1911, until the law on farmsteads and cuts was approved by the tsar);

2) conservatism of the peasant community: the idea of ​​“black redistribution” was widespread among the peasants; many of the peasants, even having the opportunity, did not buy land;

3) resistance from the Russian “socialist” intelligentsia and the Russian Orthodox Church, who believed that the reform would enrich 10-15% of the peasants, and send the rest around the world without communal protection.

However, certain changes did occur. Over the 8 years of reform, 26.1% of peasants left the community, but only 15% of them were allocated to farmsteads. This was due to objective reasons: a farm is an autonomous farm, where everything should be - a field, a pasture, and a watering place; the farms were small and weak; as before, the majority of the peasants did not have horses or only had one.

The vast majority of those leaving the community were poor. Many sought to sell their lands and go to the city or go to Siberia. 2.44 million peasants permanently resettled in Siberia, many of them became quite strong owners. However, this did not solve the problem of overpopulation in the European part of Russia.

b) Contradictory results of reform in agriculture

Positive results:

- up to a quarter of the farms were separated from the community, the stratification of the village increased, the rural elite began to provide up to half of the market grain;

— 3 million households moved from European Russia to sparsely populated areas, 4 million acres of communal land were involved in market circulation;

— the cost of agricultural implements has increased, the consumption of superphosphate fertilizers has increased;

— income per capita of the rural population has increased.

Negative results:

- 70-90% of peasants who left the community retained ties with the community;

— the bulk of the peasants were the labor farms of community members;

- up to half a million displaced people returned to European Russia;

— the unresolved problem of land shortage;

— the predominance of primitive tools and traditional methods of land cultivation.

As the most serious consequence, it should be noted that in 1911-1912. The country was struck by famine, affecting 30 million people.

After the completion of the revolutionary events in Russia, a period of reform began, in which the Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. took an active part. Stolypin. Considering the main reason for the stagnation to be the preservation of the peasant community, he directed all efforts towards its destruction. At the same time, the strengthening of peasant private ownership of land began.

All reforms had to take place with the consent of the autocracy, the nobility and the bourgeoisie. Their ultimate goal was to change the balance of class forces in favor of the bourgeoisie, to join it with peasants who, becoming small landowners, were supposed to serve as a support for autocratic power in the countryside. The most important goal of the reform is the integration of Russia into the world economic system.

The main problem facing rural producers was land hunger in the European part of Russia. The lack of land among the peasantry was explained by the concentration of huge plots in the hands of landowners and the very high population density in the center of the country.

In June 1906, Stolypin began to carry out moderate reforms. The decree of November 9, 1906 allowed the peasant to leave the community. He had the right to demand the consolidation of allotment plots into a single cut or to move to a farm. A fund was created from part of the state, imperial and landowners' lands for sale to peasants. A specially opened peasant bank issued cash loans for purchases.

The implementation of the decree was entrusted to the provincial and district land management commissions, consisting of officials and peasants, chaired by the governor and the district leader of the nobility.

On May 29, 1911, a law was issued to expand the rights of land management commissions to form cuts (a plot allocated to a peasant from community land) and khutors (a separate peasant estate with land). These measures were supposed to destroy the peasant community and increase the number of small owners.

The problem of land shortage was solved by the resettlement of peasants in order to develop the lands of Siberia and Central Asia and the development of artisanal peasant and handicraft farms in the central part of the country. This reduced the peasantry's need for land.

The reform also pursued political goals. The resettlement of peasants from the central part of the country helped to relieve the severity of the class confrontation between peasants and landowners. The peasants' exit from the community, where communist ideology reigned, reduced the risk of them being drawn into the revolution.

The Stolypin reform was generally progressive in nature. Having finally buried the remnants of feudalism, it revived bourgeois relations and gave impetus to the productive forces in the countryside. By 1926, 20-35% of the peasants separated from the community, 10% started farmsteads, the specialization of agriculture increased, the area of ​​sown land, the gross grain harvest and its export increased.

A significant part of the peasantry, which consisted of middle peasants, was in no hurry to leave the community. The poor left the community, sold their plots and went to the city. 20% of peasants who took out bank loans went bankrupt.

Only the kulaks, who had the means to invest in the economy, sought to form farms and farms. 16% of the migrants, unable to gain a foothold in new places, returned and, joining the ranks of the proletariat, increased social tension in the country.

In an effort to transform Russia into a prosperous bourgeois state, Stolypin tried to carry out reforms in various areas(laws on civil equality, personal integrity, freedom of religion, on the development of local self-government, on the transformation of the judicial and police systems, national and labor issues).

Almost all of Stolypin's bills were not adopted by the State Council. His initiatives were not supported by both tsarism and democratic forces. The failure to reform the country predetermined the revolutionary events of 1917.

Municipal educational institution average comprehensive school Novostroevo village, Ozersky district, Kaliningrad region

Reforms P.A. Stolypin.

Work completed

11th grade student

Municipal educational institution secondary school of the village. Novostroevo

Avagimyan Yulia

Head: Mosina Galina

Alexandrovna,

a history teacher

1. Introduction 3

2. Main part 4

2.1 Agrarian reform 5

2.2 Education reform 10

2.3 Military reform 12

3. Conclusion 14

4. Literature used 16

Introduction.

“The homeland requires service to itself

so sacrificially honest,

that the slightest thought about personal

benefit darkens the soul and para-

licks his work"

P.A. Stolypin

Each nation puts forward from its midst the most prominent representatives, whose destinies are inextricably linked with its destiny, personifying the most important, joyful or tragic stages. At the turn of the millennium, against the backdrop of our Russian losses, the tragic face of the Russian reformer, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, appears more and more significantly.

Looking into the face of a man whose name is Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin, one can see that his features radiate intelligence, strength, will, and dignity. This was recognized by everyone: both his like-minded people and his obvious enemies. Some called Pyotr Arkadyevich the savior of the Motherland, the support of the Fatherland, the hope of Russia in Time of Troubles, others - an executioner.

Statesman and politician P.A. Stolypin was a deeply Orthodox man, but together with Christian humility and deep faith in the Savior, there lived in him a staunch warrior, a defender of the Russian Land, ready to take up the sword for her sake in order to stand to the end

The “Name of Russia” program was recently completed. Stolypin P.A. took 2nd place. I had questions: “Who was the great Russian reformer? What is the most important thing in his activity? What was he aiming for? What did he manage to do?

In my work I tried to answer these questions.

2. Main part

Reforms of P.A. Stolypin

Pyotr Arkadyevich's reforms affected all key areas of the country's life. The task was to carry out systemic reforms, the semantic core of which was the formation of the initial institutions of the rule of law and civil society. The following main directions of the reform policy of the Stolypin government can be distinguished:

Military reform

Land (Agrarian) reform

Education, science and culture

Strategic goals of the Stolypin domestic policy were not about land management. Reform cannot be the goal. Both agrarian reform and economic modernization are all means. What is the goal? The goal was to, without losing centuries-old traditions, save the country and not lose in global competition.

Innovation P.A. Stolypin as a reformer was that he pursued a policy of consistent modernization of all political and social institutions of the Russian Empire.

2.1 Agrarian reform

Stolypin, being a landowner, leader of the provincial nobility,

knew and understood the interests of landowners; As governor during the revolution, he saw rebel peasants, so for him the agrarian question was not an abstract concept.

Agrarian reform was Stolypin's main and favorite brainchild. Goals

the reform had several: socio-political- create in the village

a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners, splitting them off from

the bulk of the peasantry and contrasting them with it; strong farms

should have become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

socio-economic- destroy the community, establish private farms in the form of farms and farms, and send the excess labor to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry; economic- to ensure the rise of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the gap with the advanced powers.

The first step in this direction was taken in 1861. Then the agrarian issue was resolved at the expense of the peasants, who paid the landowners for land and freedom. Agrarian legislation of 1906-1910 was

the second step, with the government to consolidate its power and

the power of the landowners, again tried to solve the agrarian question at the expense of

peasantry.

of the year. This decree was the main work of Stolypin's life. It was a symbol of faith, a great and last hope, an obsession, his present and future

Great if the reform succeeds; catastrophic if it fails, and Stolypin realized this.

1908, i.e. two years after he entered life. The discussion of the decree went on for more than six months.

came up for discussion State Council and was also accepted

after which, according to the date of its approval by the king, it began to be called law 14

June 1910. In its content it was, of course, liberal

bourgeois law promoting the development of capitalism in the countryside and,

hence progressive.

The decree introduced extremely important changes in land ownership of peasants. All peasants received the right to leave the community, which in this case allocated land to the exiting individual for his own ownership. At the same time, the decree

provided privileges for wealthy peasants in order to encourage them

to leave the community. In particular, those who left the community received “in the ownership of individual householders” all the lands “consisting of their permanent use.” This meant that people from the community received surpluses in excess of the per capita norm. Moreover, if there were no redistributions in a given community over the last 24 years, then the householder received the surplus for free, but if there were redistributions, then he paid the community for the surplus at the redemption prices of 1861. Since prices have increased several times over 40 years, this was also beneficial for wealthy immigrants.

Communities in which, since the transfer of peasants to ransom, there have been no

redistributions were recognized as mechanically transferred to the private property of individual householders. To legally register ownership of their plot, peasants of such communities only had to submit an application to the land management commission, which would draw up documents for the householder’s property that was actually in their possession. In addition to this provision, the law differed from the decree in some simplification of the procedure for leaving the community.

In 1906, “Temporary Rules” on land management were adopted

Land management commissions created on the basis of this law are entitled to

granted the right, in the course of general land management of communities, to allocate from

private householders without the consent of the gathering, at their own discretion, if

the mission believed that such allocation did not affect the interests of the community.

The commissions also had the final say in determining land disputes. Such a right opened the way to the arbitrariness of the commissions.

In 1906-1907 by the tsar's decrees some of the state and

specific lands were transferred to the Peasant Bank for sale to peasants in order to ease land pressure. In fact, this land was bought mainly by kulaks, who thus received additional opportunities for expanding the economy.

Stolypin's government also introduced a series of new laws on the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts. The possibilities for broad development of resettlement were already laid down in the law of June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom

resettlement without benefits, and the government was given the right to make decisions on the opening of free preferential resettlement from certain areas of the empire, “eviction from which was recognized as particularly desirable.”

The law on preferential resettlement was first applied in 1905: the government “opened” resettlement from the Poltava and Kharkov provinces, where the peasant movement was especially widespread.

In general, a series of laws of 1906-1912. was bourgeois in nature.

The medieval allotment of land ownership of peasants was abolished, exit from the community, sale of land, free resettlement to cities and outskirts was allowed, redemption payments, corporal punishment, and some legal restrictions were abolished.

Simultaneously with the publication of new agrarian laws, the government is taking measures to violently destroy the community, without fully hoping for action economic factors. Immediately after November 9, 1906, the entire state apparatus was set in motion by issuing the most categorical circulars and orders, as well as by repressing those who did not implement them too energetically.

The practice of the reform showed that the peasantry for the most part was

opposed to separation from the community - at least in the majority

localities. A survey of peasant sentiments by the Free Economic Society showed that in the central provinces peasants were negatively

related to separation from the community (89 negative indicators in the questionnaires

against 7 positive). Many peasant correspondents wrote,

In the current situation, the only way for the government

carrying out the reform was the path of violence against the main peasant mass.

Specific methods of violence were very diverse - from intimidation

rural gatherings to drawing up fictitious verdicts, from canceling decisions