– (born April 14, 1862 - death September 18, 1911) - statesman. 1903-1906 - Governor of Grodno and Saratov provinces. 1906, April - was Minister of Internal Affairs, and from July - also Chairman of the Council of Ministers. He was the leader of the suppression of the Revolution of 1905-1907, encouraged the activities of military courts and the death penalty.
Mortally wounded by Socialist Revolutionary D.G. Bogrov.
The First Russian Revolution (1905-1907) revealed many problems preventing the Russian Empire from becoming a powerful capitalist power;
Thanks to the revolution, anarchy arose that had to be fought;
The Russian ruling class had too different understandings of the country's development paths.
The implementation of Stolypin's agrarian reform was dictated by the need to eliminate dissatisfaction with the government of a large number of people. By 1906, such actions had acquired a large-scale character and a revolutionary upsurge.
Stolypin's agrarian reform pursued several goals at once:
Make peasant-owners out of communal peasants;
Acceleration of bourgeois development of agriculture;
Preservation of land for landowners;
Give land to peasants;
Relieving social tension;
Creation of a power base at the expense of the peasants.
Stolypin's agrarian reform had the following advantages:
The private peasant is less susceptible to the revolutionary spirit than the communal peasant;
People with personal land plots are interested in the final result, therefore they will try to increase their harvest and profit;
To distract the peasantry from the desire to divide the land of the landowners.
The problem with Stolypin’s reform was that the author himself allocated at least 20 years for its implementation, and it was criticized almost immediately after its adoption. Neither the reformer himself nor his contemporaries were able to see the results of their labors.
During the seven years of Stolypin’s agrarian reform, which was stopped by the participation of the Russian Empire in the First World War (in which the reformer opposed participation), Russia was able to achieve the following successes:
In some regions where the peasant left the community, the sown area increased by 150%, in the whole country - by 10% as a whole;
Grain exports increased, accounting for 25% of the world;
Purchases of agricultural equipment increased 3.5 times;
The volume of fertilizers used increased 2.5 times;
Industry growth took first place in the world and amounted to 8.8%.
The defeat of the Russian Empire was able to clearly demonstrate the need for speedy reforms in the army.
Goal: to increase the defense capability of the state, restore the military power of Russia, reform the army and navy.
Stolypin remained a principled opponent of Russia's participation in a possible world war, believing that the country would not withstand such a load.
Mass technicalization and mechanization of the army, an increase in the rate of fire and range of small arms, heavy and rapid-fire artillery, armored vehicles, and airplanes began to appear;
New means of communication began to be actively introduced - telegraph, telephone, radio;
Changes in the recruitment of the army: they were based on the principles of universal conscription (the clergy, foreigners and some categories of the population were exempt from service), the service life was reduced: in the infantry to three years, in other branches of the military to four. The army reserve was divided into 2 categories: 1st junior age for replenishing field units; 2nd older ages, replenishing reserve and rear units;
Along with the usual types of troops, new ones began to appear: chemical, aviation, armored vehicles;
The officer training system has improved significantly, and new schools (electrical, automobile, railway, aeronautics) and schools for warrant officers began to appear. At the same time, there was a process of democratization of the officer corps, religious and national restrictions were removed;
Much attention was paid to the development of the fleet and shipbuilding.
The size of the army has increased significantly and its military-technical training has improved;
Technical weapons have been strengthened;
The centralization of command of the army and navy has increased, which has made it possible to clearly coordinate the actions of all branches of the military.
Being a supporter of zemstvo administration, Pyotr Arkadyevich extended zemstvo institutions to some provinces where they had not previously existed. And it was not always politically simple. For example, the implementation of zemstvo reform in the western provinces, which historically depended on the gentry, was approved by the Duma, which supported the improvement of the situation of the Belarusian and Russian population, which constitutes the majority in these lands, but was met with sharp rebuff in the State Council, which supported the gentry.
The school reform, approved on May 3, 19 08, envisaged the introduction of compulsory primary free education for children from 8 to 12 years old. From 1908 to 1914 The public education budget tripled and 50,000 new schools were opened. It should be noted that Pyotr Arkadyevich set the third condition for the modernization of the state (after agrarian reform and industrial development) to achieve universal literacy to the extent of compulsory 4-year primary school for all.
Even when he was the leader of the nobility in Kovno, he wrote on this subject that only literacy can help in the dissemination of agricultural knowledge, without which a class of real farmers cannot arise. Summing up the results of the school reform, it must be said that in reality there was not enough time for it: to implement the plan for universal primary education at the same pace as in 1908-1914, at least another 20 years were required.
The main stage in resolving the labor issue during the years of Stolypin's premiership was the work of the Special Meeting in 1906 and 1907, which prepared 10 bills that affected the main aspects of labor in industrial enterprises.
These were questions about rules for hiring workers, insurance against accidents and illnesses, working hours, etc.
On transformations in the sphere of judicial power. Their essence boiled down to the fact that, in accordance with Stolypin’s plans, in the most general terms, the local court, distorted by the reactionary ones, was supposed to return to its original form.
The bill “On the transformation of the local court” was supposed to help make the court cheaper and more accessible to ordinary people. He intended to restore in rural areas the institution of justices of the peace, elected by zemstvo assemblies (in the city - by the city duma). They would consider a limited range of civil cases and criminal cases that did not entail particularly severe punishment. Their decisions could be challenged in higher authorities.
In fact, the revival of the magistrate’s court could mean the abandonment of the “debris” of class legal proceedings - the peasant volost and zemstvo chief, who predominantly represented the local nobility. At the same time, the practice of passing sentences according to customary norms, i.e., became a thing of the past. unwritten law based on legend and tradition. This was supposed to contribute to the rationalization of legal proceedings, eliminating constant misunderstandings and random and illogical decisions.
Russia's participation in wars, the emergence of free-thinking parties and the strengthening of revolutionary sentiment did not allow us to develop opportunities to increase the potential of the state and its emergence as a leading position in the world.
In an effort to transform the Russian Empire into a prosperous bourgeois country, Stolypin tried to carry out reforms in various areas. 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 state predetermined the revolutionary events of 1917.
One of the history topics in 11th grade is the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin. We talk briefly about Stolypin’s agrarian reform in this article.
The implementation of agrarian reform was dictated by the need to eliminate dissatisfaction with the authorities of a large number of people. By 1906, such actions had acquired a large-scale character and a revolutionary upsurge.
The agrarian reform pursued several goals:
Rice. 1. Portrait of P.A. Stolypin.
Stolypin set aside at least 20 years to carry out the reform, so he did not expect instant results, but called for the consequences of the reform to be expected much later.
Rice. 2. Stolypin carriage.
An important measure in addressing these two areas of reform was the law of June 14, 1910, which made leaving the community mandatory. This law was adopted due to the fact that at the first stage of the reform, peasants were reluctant to leave the community.
Stolypin's agrarian reform had the following advantages:
Rice. 3. Relocation of peasants to Siberia in the 20th century.
Let's look at the main activities, as well as their pros and cons, using a table.
TOP 5 articleswho are reading along with this
|
Creation of new forms of land ownership |
Resettlement of peasants |
||
|
Creation of private peasant farms |
Only 25% of peasants left the community |
More than 3 million peasants moved beyond the Urals |
The problem of land shortage has not been solved |
|
Growth in agricultural labor productivity |
The division between peasants has increased |
30 million dessiatines of land have been developed |
Over 0.5 million people returned back |
|
Agronomic assistance to the village |
In addition to the conflict between peasants and landowners, a conflict emerged between communal owners and private owners. |
Development of corporate forms of management |
|
|
Growth in bread exports |
|||
To give additional impetus to the development of the agricultural sector and speed up the reform, the Peasant Bank provided loans for the purchase of land, and on May 3, 1908, Stolypin signed a decree on compulsory primary education, which was supposed to raise the literacy level of peasants.
Over the 7 years of agrarian reform, which was stopped by Russia’s participation in the First World War (in which the reformer opposed participation), Russia has achieved the following successes:
Agrarian reform was one of the stages of mass reform in Russia. It was not possible to solve the task by 1914, since community traditions were very strong. However, since 1907, artels began to be created everywhere as a possible replacement for the peasant community in the future.
Agrarian reform could solve the accumulated problems, since even in a short period it was already producing positive results. For Russia, Stolypin’s activities would have been successful if not for the war...
Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 680.
The results of the reform were characterized by rapid growth in agricultural production, an increase in the capacity of the domestic market, an increase in the export of agricultural products, and Russia's trade balance became increasingly active. As a result, it was possible not only to bring agriculture out of the crisis, but also to turn it into a dominant feature of Russia’s economic development.
The gross income of all agriculture in 1913 amounted to 52.6% of the total GDP. The income of the entire national economy, due to the increase in the value of products created in agriculture, increased in comparable prices from 1900 to 1913 by 33.8%.
Differentiation of types of agricultural production by region led to an increase in the marketability of agriculture. Three quarters of all raw materials processed by the industry came from agriculture. The turnover of agricultural products increased by 46% during the reform period.
Exports of agricultural products increased even more, by 61% compared to 1901-1905, in the pre-war years. Russia was the largest producer and exporter of bread and flax, and a number of livestock products. Thus, in 1910, Russian wheat exports amounted to 36.4% of total world exports.
This does not mean at all that pre-war Russia should be represented as a “peasant paradise.” The problems of hunger and agricultural overpopulation were not resolved. The country still suffered from technical, economic and cultural backwardness. According to calculations by I.D. Kondratiev in the USA, on average, a farm had a fixed capital of 3,900 rubles, and in European Russia the fixed capital of an average peasant farm barely reached 900 rubles. The national income per capita of the agricultural population in Russia was approximately 52 rubles per year, and in the United States - 262 rubles.
The rate of growth in labor productivity in agriculture has been comparatively slow. While in Russia in 1913 they received 55 poods of bread per dessiatine, in the USA they received 68, in France - 89, and in Belgium - 168 poods. Economic growth occurred not on the basis of intensification of production, but due to an increase in the intensity of manual peasant labor. But during the period under review, socio-economic conditions were created for the transition to a new stage of agrarian reforms - the transformation of agriculture into a capital-intensive, technologically progressive sector of the economy.
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.
The results of the Stolypin agrarian reform are expressed in the following figures. By January 1, 1916, 2 million householders had left the community for the interstitial fortification. They owned 14.1 million acres of land. 499 thousand householders living in allotment-free communities received certificates of identification for 2.8 million dessiatines. 1.3 million householders switched to farm and cut ownership (12.7 million dessiatines). In addition, as already mentioned, 280 thousand farms and farms were formed on bank lands - this is a special account. 22% of land was withdrawn from communal circulation. About half of them went on sale. Some part returned to the community pot. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a stable and sufficiently massive layer of peasant-owners. So we can talk about the general failure of the Stolypin agrarian reform.
At the same time, it is known that after the end of the revolution and before the outbreak of the First World War, the situation in the Russian village improved noticeably. Some journalists frivolously connect this with the implementation of agrarian reform. In fact, other factors were at work. Firstly, as already mentioned, since 1907, redemption payments, which peasants had been paying for more than 40 years, were abolished. Secondly, the global agricultural crisis ended and grain prices began to rise. From this, one must assume, something also fell to ordinary peasants. Thirdly, during the years of the revolution, landownership decreased, and in connection with this, bonded forms of exploitation decreased. Finally, fourthly, during the entire period there was only one lean year (1911), but there were excellent harvests for two years in a row (1912-1913). As for agrarian reform, such a large-scale event, which required such a significant land shake-up, could not have a positive impact in the very first years of its implementation.
The positive results of the reform include the fact that a whole class appeared, it can be called “middle” by modern standards, peasants could sell and buy land, which was now their personal property. If we compare the situation at the beginning of the 20th century and its end, it is unlikely that we will be able to note any positive changes in agriculture. However, recalling the words of Prince M. Andronnikov, we note that the effectiveness of the reform was very small: per farm there were many dispossessed peasants who lost their land due to some reason, usually it was drunkenness, i.e. householders drank their plots of land, of course all these people replenished the army of proletarians, which was already quite large, but this is unlikely to be any fault of Stolypin, I note that Stolypin was never able to update the cabinet of ministers as he wanted, the main obstacle was the huge bureaucratic machine built in our country, which did everything as it was convenient for it.
Some of Stolypin's plans were realized only after his death; Thus, only in 1912 were laws passed on primary schools and workers' insurance. Stolypin's insistence on approving bills often led to conflicts with the State Council, and in 1911 it led to a government crisis.
Stolypin's reform yielded results a few years later, around 1912-1913. We can observe the advantage of individual farming in the example of collective farms, which were created by the Soviet government as a kind of community. Thus, we have come to the need for a “repeat” Stolypin reform in new economic and political conditions. It is worth noting that such a reform is already proceeding very slowly, and it is a pity that at the end of the 20th century we found ourselves in such a situation.
|
Results of the Stolypin agrarian reform |
|
|
Positive |
Negative |
|
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 |
From 70 to 90% of peasants who left the community retained ties with it; the bulk were labor farms of community members |
|
3 million households moved from European Russia |
0.5 million displaced people returned to Central Russia |
|
4 million acres of communal land were involved in market circulation |
There were 2-4 dessiatines per peasant yard, while the norm was 7-8 dessiatines |
|
The cost of agricultural implements increased from 59 to 83 rubles per yard |
The main agricultural implement is the plow (8 million pieces), 52% of farms did not have plows |
|
Consumption of superphosphate fertilizers increased from 8 to 20 million poods |
Mineral fertilizers were used on 2% of the sown area |
|
For 1890-1913. per capita income of the rural population increased from 22 to 33 rubles per year |
In 1911-1912 the country was struck by famine, affecting 30 million people |
– 1906 – 1913 represent an unsuccessful attempt by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire to create conditions in the country for its economic growth, while maintaining autocracy, as well as the existing political and social order. It should be noted that Russian society met the reforms with active resistance.
Brief plan:
The main reason that prompted Russia to make changes to the government structure was dissatisfaction with the authorities of a large number of ordinary people.
In accordance with the reform, peasants could leave the community and create their own private farms. They had the right to mortgage or sell their plots of land and pass them on by inheritance.
Peasants were given a preferential loan secured by land or a loan to purchase land from landowners for a period of 55.5 years. A resettlement policy was introduced, relocating landless peasants to uninhabited lands in the Far East, Siberia and the Urals. The state was obliged to support agronomic measures that could increase yields or lead to an improvement in the quality of agricultural labor.
These methods made it possible to remove 21% of the peasants from the community and significantly accelerated the process of stratification of peasant society. As a result, the number of kulaks increased, and the yield of the fields also increased. The increase in acreage and the use of technology contributed to the growth of agricultural production. Thus, in October 1909, Russia was in first place in the world in grain production and export. However, there were also disadvantages to the reform.
The resettlement of the peasants did not bring the desired effect, since half of them soon returned. In addition, conflicts between kulaks and community members were added to the existing contradictions between landowners and peasants.
The reason for urgent reforms in the army was the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.
The following directions of military policy were identified as the goal:
During the military reform, a new Military Regulations were created, which clearly defined the rights and responsibilities of conscription commissions, the procedure for conscription into the army, as well as benefits for those serving military service. The document also provided for the opportunity to appeal the decisions of the authorities.
Thanks to the reform, the state increased allocations for re-equipping the army and maintaining the officer corps. A new military uniform was created. Much attention was paid to the construction of the country's linear fleet.
Taking into account the military-strategic interests of the Russian state, new railway lines were laid. Thus, the second branch of the Siberian Railway and the Amur Railway were designed to ensure the transfer of forces from the European part of the empire to the Far Eastern outskirts of Russia.
Strengthening the Russification of the western provinces of the Russian Empire and preventing the advantage of representatives of national minorities in local governments.
A qualitative transformation of the entire system of local self-government, implying its democratization and efficiency.
Zemstvo institutions extended to part of the provinces where they had not existed before. This process was not always easy. Thus, the State Council, which supported the gentry, opposed the reform in the western provinces.
Stolypin highly appreciated the role of zemstvos. He was engaged in the spread of zemstvo institutions in the territories of those provinces where they had not existed before. The essence of the reform was to divide electoral assemblies and congresses into two: Polish and non-Polish. However, with the condition that the non-Polish branch could elect more zemstvo councilors.
The impossibility of systemic modernization of the country, without the main population receiving basic knowledge, became the main reason for the educational reform.
Expand and improve educational activities, form a unified system of pedagogical institutions.
A draft law “On the introduction of universal primary education in the Russian Empire” was developed. It was to provide basic education to children of both sexes equally. Gymnasiums were assigned the role of a system-forming element in the environment of pedagogical institutions.
All this required new cadres of teachers, who were planned to be trained in special pedagogical courses. The creation of the Teachers' Institute in Yaroslavl was initiated. Significant funds were allocated for the retraining of secondary school teachers, and study trips abroad were planned.
During the reform, allocations for the needs of primary education increased from 9 million to 35.5 million rubles.
The ongoing reforms, and above all the agrarian reform, had a huge impact on the life of the peasantry and had significant consequences. They accelerated the development of capitalist relations in the countryside, because large tracts of land ended up in the hands of the kulaks. The use of hired labor increased, the marketability of farms increased, and ties with the domestic market strengthened.
The more a person is able to respond to the historical and universal, the broader his nature, the richer his life and the more capable such a person is of progress and development.
F. M. Dostoevsky
Stolypin's agrarian reform, which began in 1906, was determined by the realities that took place in the Russian Empire. The country was faced with massive popular unrest, during which it became absolutely obvious that the people did not want to live as before. Moreover, the state itself could not govern the country based on previous principles. The economic component of the empire's development was in decline. This was especially true in the agricultural complex, where there was a clear decline. As a result, political events, as well as economic events, prompted Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin to begin implementing reforms.
One of the main reasons that prompted the Russian Empire to begin a massive change in government was based on the fact that a large number of ordinary people expressed their dissatisfaction with the authorities. If until this time the expression of discontent was limited to one-time peaceful actions, then by 1906 these actions became much larger in scale, as well as bloody. As a result, it became obvious that Russia was struggling not only with obvious economic problems, but also with obvious revolutionary upsurge.
It is obvious that any Victory of the state over the revolution is based not on physical strength, but on spiritual strength. A strong-willed state itself must take the lead in reforms.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin
One of the significant events that prompted the Russian government to begin early reforms happened on August 12, 1906. On this day, a terrorist attack occurred on Aptekarsky Island in St. Petersburg. In this place of the capital lived Stolypin, who by this time served as chairman of the government. As a result of the explosion, 27 people were killed and 32 people were injured. Among the wounded were Stolypin's daughter and son. The Prime Minister himself miraculously escaped injury. As a result, the country adopted a law on military courts, where all cases related to terrorist attacks were considered in an expedited manner, within 48 hours.
The explosion once again indicated to Stolypin that the people wanted fundamental changes within the country. These changes had to be given to people as soon as possible. That is why Stolypin’s agrarian reform was accelerated, a project that began to advance with giant steps.
Stolypin clearly understood that the implementation of agrarian reforms alone would not calm the population and would not allow the Russian Empire to make a qualitative leap in its development. Therefore, along with changes in agriculture, the Chairman of the Government spoke about the need to adopt laws on religion, equality among citizens, reforming the local government system, the rights and life of workers, the need to introduce compulsory primary education, introduce an income tax, increase teachers' salaries, and so on. In a word, everything that Soviet power was subsequently realized was one of the stages of the Stolypin reform.
Of course, it is extremely difficult to start changes of this scale in the country. That is why Stolypin decided to start with agrarian reform. This was due to a number of factors:
Stolypin's agrarian reform began with an attempt to destroy the community. Until this point, peasants in villages lived in communities. These were special territorial entities where people lived as a single community, performing common collective tasks. If we try to give a simpler definition, then communities are very similar to collective farms, which were later implemented by the Soviet government. The problem with the communities was that the peasants lived in a close-knit group. They worked for a common goal for the landowners. Peasants, as a rule, did not have their own large plots, and they were not particularly worried about the final result of their work.
On November 9, 1906, the Government of the Russian Empire issued a decree that allowed peasants to freely leave the community. Leaving the community was free. At the same time, the peasant retained all his property, as well as the lands that were allocated to him. Moreover, if land was allocated in different areas, then the peasant could demand that the lands be combined into a single allotment. Upon leaving the community, the peasant received land in the form of a farm or a farm.
Stolypin's agrarian reform map.
Cut This is a piece of land that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with this peasant retaining his yard in the village.
Khutor This is a plot of land that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with the relocation of this peasant from the village to his own plot.
On the one hand, this approach made it possible to implement reforms within the country aimed at changing the peasant economy. However, on the other hand, the landowner's economy remained untouched.
The essence of Stolypin’s agrarian reform, as conceived by the creator himself, boiled down to the following advantages that the country received:
To some extent, Stolypin's agrarian reform was similar to the creation of advanced farms. Small and medium-sized landowners were supposed to appear in the country in large numbers, who would not depend directly on the state, but would independently strive to develop their sector. This approach was expressed in the words of Stolypin himself, who often confirmed that the country, in its development, places emphasis on “strong” and “strong” landowners.
At the initial stage of development of the reform, few enjoyed the right to leave the community. In fact, only wealthy peasants and the poor left the community. Prosperous peasants came out because they had everything for independent work, and they could now work not for the community, but for themselves. The poor came out in order to receive compensation money, thereby improving their financial situation. The poor, as a rule, having lived for some time away from the community and having lost their money, returned back to the community. That is why at the initial stage of development very few people left the community for advanced agricultural farms.
Official statistics show that only 10% of all newly formed agricultural enterprises could claim the title of successful farming. Only these 10% of farms used modern technology, fertilizer, modern methods of working on the land, and so on. Ultimately, only these 10% of farms operated profitably from an economic point of view. All other farms that were formed during Stolypin’s agrarian reform turned out to be unprofitable. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of people leaving the community were poor people who were not interested in the development of the agricultural complex. These figures characterize the first months of the work of Stolypin’s plans.
One of the significant problems of the Russian Empire at that time was the so-called land famine. This concept means that the eastern part of Russia has been extremely little developed. As a result, the vast majority of land in these regions was undeveloped. Therefore, Stolypin’s agrarian reform set one of its tasks to resettle peasants from the western provinces to the eastern. In particular, it was said that peasants should move beyond the Urals. First of all, these changes were supposed to affect those peasants who did not own their own land.
The so-called landless people had to move beyond the Urals, where they were supposed to establish their own farm. This process was absolutely voluntary and the government did not force any of the peasants to move to the eastern regions by force. Moreover, the resettlement policy was based on providing peasants who decided to move beyond the Urals with maximum benefits and good living conditions. As a result, a person who agreed to such relocation received the following benefits from the government:
The significant advantages that the state guaranteed to the peasants led to the fact that in the first years of the implementation of the agrarian reform, a large number of people moved from the western provinces to the eastern ones. However, despite such interest of the population in this program, the number of immigrants decreased every year. Moreover, every year the percentage of people who returned back to the southern and western provinces increased. The most striking example is the indicators of people moving to Siberia. Between 1906 and 1914, more than 3 million people moved to Siberia. However, the problem was that the government was not ready for such a massive relocation and did not have time to prepare normal living conditions for people in a particular region. As a result, people arrived at their new place of residence without any amenities or devices for a comfortable stay. As a result, about 17% of people returned to their previous place of residence from Siberia alone.
Despite this, Stolypin’s agrarian reform in terms of resettlement of people produced positive results. Here, positive results should be considered not from the point of view of the number of people who moved and returned. The main indicator of the effectiveness of this reform is the development of new lands. If we talk about Siberia, the resettlement of people led to the development of 30 million acres of land in this region, which was previously empty. An even more important advantage was that the new farms were completely separated from the communities. A man came independently with his family and raised his own farm. He had no public interests, no neighboring interests. He knew that there was a specific plot of land that belonged to him, and which should feed him. That is why the efficiency indicators of agrarian reform in the eastern regions of Russia are slightly higher than in the western regions. And this is despite the fact that the western regions and western provinces are traditionally better funded and traditionally more fertile with cultivated land. It was in the east that it was possible to achieve the creation of strong farms.
Stolypin's agrarian reform was of great importance for the Russian Empire. This is the first time the country has begun to implement changes of this scale within the country. Positive changes were obvious, but in order for the historical process to give positive dynamics, it needs time. It is no coincidence that Stolypin himself said:
Give the country 20 years of internal and external peace and you will not recognize Russia.
Stolypin Pyotr Arkadevich
This was indeed the case, but, unfortunately, Russia did not have 20 years of silence.
If we talk about the results of the agrarian reform, then its main results, which were achieved by the state over 7 years, can be reduced to the following provisions:
These are far from complete indicators of the reform in the Russian Empire in terms of agriculture, but even these figures show that the reform had a clear positive trend and a clear positive result for the country. At the same time, it was not possible to achieve the full implementation of the tasks that Stolypin set for the country. The country has not been able to fully implement farming. This was due to the fact that the peasants had very strong traditions of collective farming. And the peasants found a way out for themselves in creating cooperatives. In addition, artels were created everywhere. The first artel was created in 1907.
Artel This is the unification of a group of persons who characterize one profession, for the joint work of these persons with the achievement of common results, with the achievement of common incomes and with common responsibility for the final result.
As a result, we can say that Stolypin’s agrarian reform was one of the stages of the massive reform of Russia. This reform was supposed to radically change the country, transforming it into one of the leading world powers not only in a military sense, but also in an economic sense. The main goal of these reforms was to destroy peasant communities by creating powerful farms. The government wanted to see strong land owners, which would include not only landowners, but also private farms.
