Stolypin agrarian reform. The process of agrarian reform

The most important of the reform complex, conceived P. A. Stolypin, of course, appeared agrarian reform.

The main provisions of reform

The essence of the Stolypin reform was to, keep land in the immunity of landlord, resolve the agricultural crisis due to redistribution between the peasants of community peasant lands. Keeping landlord land ownership, P. A. Stolypin defeated the social layer of landowners as the most important support of tsarism, given that as a result of the revolution 1905-1907. The peasantry was no longer such a support. P. A. Stolypin expected that the stratification of the peasantry due to the redistribution of community lands will create a layer of new owners of the FSERMSR as a new social support of power. Consequently, one of the most important goals of the Stolypin reform had ultimately strengthening the existing regime and the royal power.

The reform began with the publication on November 9, 1906. Declaration of additions of certain decisions of the current law relating to peasant land tenure and land use. Although formally, the decree was named additions to the regulations on the land issue, in fact it was a new law, which radically changed the system of land relations in the village.

By the time of publication of the law, i.e. By 1906, in Russia there were 14.7 million peasant yards, of which land plots had 12.3 million, including 9.5 million courtyards (mainly in the central regions, the Black Earth, in the north and partially In Siberia) and on the residential right - 2.8 million courtyards (in the Western and Priviline region, Baltic States, Right Bank Ukraine).

Decree of November 9, 1906 provided the peasants "the right to free exit from the community, with the strengthening of individual housekeeping, moving to personal ownership of the units of the world,". Behind the emerging from the community, the land was fixed in their actual use, including those rented by the community (beyond relying posts), regardless of the change in the number of souls in the family. Moreover, in communities, where there was no redistribution for 24 years, the whole earth was fixed for free. And where the redels were produced, surplus the earth, excess of the male souls due, were paid for, but the "initial average redemption price", i.e. significantly cheaper market prices.

These rules were aimed at encouraging the most prosperous peasants who had surplus and rented land.

The householders who came out of the community had the right to demand that the land standing out by one piece. fight (if the distinguished courtyard remains in the village) or farm (If this yard carries the estate outside the village).

At the same time, two goals were pursued:

• - eliminate the checker (when the exact lands of one peasant yard were separate sites in different places) - one of the most important reasons for the backwardness of agricultural equipment;
• - dispersal, disconnect the peasant mass.

Explaining the political meaning of the dispersal of the peasant mass, P. A. Stolypin wrote that "wild, half-starved village, who was not accustomed to respecting her, nor someone else's property, not worried, acting the world, no responsibility, will always be a combustible material, ready to flare up Each occasion. "

Given that the interests of the other communities, allocated to the courts of the Earth, were charged with the interests of the other communities in most cases (therefore, communities could not give consent to the allocation), decree on November 9 provided for the right to demand strengthening in the personal property of a part of community land, which must be satisfied with the community within a month. If this is not done within the prescribed period, the allocation of land can be decorated forced - the order of the Zemsky chief.

Without hoping to get approval of the decree of November 9, 1906 by the State Duma, P. A. Stalypin issued his publication in the order of Art. 87 basic laws without the Duma. And, indeed, the decree was supported only in the III Duma, chosen after the Treysun state coup in 1907 under a new electoral law. Based on the votes of the right and Octobrists, the government finally achieved his statements on June 14, 1910 as a law.

Moreover, the right-ending majority of the III of the Duma supplemented this law with a new section, which indicated that those communities in which the redels were not made since 1863 should be considered transmitted to the district-residents of hereditary land use. In other words, the law on June 14, 1910 was forcibly dismissed the specified category of communities regardless of the desire of the peasants.

The law then followed on May 29, 1911 made the final step to the equation of the legal status of extreme and private ownership. Legal owners of farms and cuts, as well as ridiculous lands in forcedly loose communities, if there were at least a small part of the purchased land, householders were recognized, i.e. The heads of the peasant yards, and not the entire peasant yard as a collective owner (as it took earlier).

However, despite the strongest government pressure, the peasantry did not perceive the reform in their mass.

In total, from 1907 to 1916, a little more than 2 million peasant yards were out of communities. In addition, 468.8 thousand courtyards in those communities, in which from 1863 there were no redistribution, received acts of ownership of their lands without their consent, i.e. Forced. In total, about 2.5 million peasant yards out of communities thus dropped out of communities.

As stated in the State Duma, one of the nearest employees A. A. Stolypin Major-right-handed land management and agriculture A. V. Krivoshein, the Earth must be in the hands of the one who is better than others will be able to take from the ground everything that she can give ", and for this It is necessary to abandon the "unless dreams that everything in the community can turn out to be satisfied and satisfied." In the redistribution of community land, he saw the key to the fact that "a wide overall rise of agriculture is the case of a near future."

And indeed, the main sellers of the Earth were outstanding from the community of small-earth and shortcoming communities. Selling land, they went to the city or drove to new lands (in Siberia, to the Far East, in Central Asia).

Although many peasants wanted to buy land, but it turned out to be at all a simple matter. The money required for the reform (and this amount was defined in 500 million gold rubles) in the state did not turn out. The amount actually allocated to finance the reform (state loan issuance) was completely insufficient and also unfolded by officials and did not reach the peasants.

Hope it was possible only on the loan of the peasant bank. Special decree, adopted also in November 1906, was canceled by the previously existing ban to give away the ridiculous peasant lands. The peasant bank was allowed on the guarantee of the ridiculous land to issue loans for the purchase of land at the resettlement on the farm and cut, to improve agrotechnology (purchase of agricultural machinery), etc.

However, the peasant bank, buying the land of 45 rubles. Over the tith (a little more hectares), sold them at 115-125 rubles. Over the tenth, and the loan on the security of the Earth and for a relatively short time issued on the bible conditions. When not paying percent and regular payments on the return of debt, the bank selected from the debtors and sold the laid land. The money that went to the purchase of land and the payment of interest on loans was laid in false expenditures on the price of agricultural products of peasant farms.

And yet, despite the high price and the boom conditions, some of the peasants-middle peasants and even the poor bought the land, refusing to themselves in everything, striving to "get out of people." I bought the land and rich peasants, turning our farms in the commercial farms based on capitalist principles and hired labor.

But even more land bought persons, as they were called, a non-peasant labor, who did not deal with peasant labor, from among the rural and small city bourgeoisie, which accumulated capital did not at the expense of work on earth, but in other ways; Volossey elders and pisari, owners of wine shops, police, clergy, merchants, etc. This category bored the land for speculation (because the earth was constantly more expensive) and to lease it to the same peasants, and the rent rented until half of the harvest.

Since the practice of buying land for speculation and lease has been widespread, the government, concerned about this phenomenon, issued a circular, which establishes the norm of the purchase of a valid land no more than 6 stations within one county. However, in reality, many speculators and Earns bought (using sales of officials and bribes) at 100-200 stations.

An important element of the Stolypin reform was migrating policy.

In September 1906, part of the land owned by the royal family in Western Siberia, in the Far East, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, was transferred to resettle the peasants from Central Russia. The relocation of the peasant the government was trying to solve a number of problems:

• - discharge agrarian overpopulation in the center of the country and primarily in Chernozem;

1. Value 3.

2.1. Causes of the reforms of Stolypin 5

2.2 Career PA Stolypin. 6.

2.3 Stolypinsky Agrarian Reform 8

2.4. The destruction of the community and the development of private property. nine

2.5.Crestean Bank 12.

2.6. Corporate movement 13.

2.7. Passenger Passenger 14.

2.8. Agrocultural events 16.

2.9. Polytic and other reforms of Stolypin. 17.

2.10. Reform results. eighteen

2.11. Causes of faults of agrarian reform. 21.

3. Conclusion 22.

Bibliography. 24.

1. Introduction

Today, when our country has freed itself from ideological canons of socialism, when it comes in a difficult way to reform, alas, often using the method of samples and errors, is extremely important and interesting to turn to the historical past of our country. After all, the past, as a subject of history, is a wise teacher who helps us avoid mistakes in the present, correctly determine our path to the future.

Since the current stage of finding the right solutions in the formation of market relations has a clear compliance of a certain era of overcoming the economic crisis in Russia, it will be useful to deepen in times of Tsarist Russia. A large number of interesting books are printed, the ancient archives are revealed that the methodological analysis of historical parallels becomes not only an interesting occupation, but the bright embodiment of the famous thesis of Plutarch: "History - teaches!" The theme of Stolypin reforms is most relevant today, since today's Russia needs a reformer such as Stolypin was.

In the historical literature, the question has recently been discussed - whether the reforms of Stolypin could create a farmers in Russia and become an alternative to revolution. Various judgments are expressed:

Soviet journalists considered him a real reformer, whose reforms were carried out.

Struve gave the following characterization of Stolypin's activities: "No matter how the greatest evil can be taken to the agricultural policy, it is possible to bless it as a benefactor surgical operation," he made a huge shift in Russian life with this policy. And - the shift is truly revolutionary and The essentially, and formally. For there can be no doubt that with the agricultural reform, liquidated the community, in the meaning of the economic development of Russia in one row, only the liberation of peasants and railways can be delivered.

Historian Avrech, a researcher of the activities of P.A.Stolapina, noted that Stolypin - "This is precisely and above all the right extreme reactionary, a conductor of politics in history under the name of the Stolypin reaction."

The point of view of another researcher-historian Zyryanova is: Stolypin was "undoubtedly a major statesman, although it is hardly extremely outstanding. "Customer" of the king and landowners, he at all of his not exclusive qualities still saw on and deeper than its owners. "

Milyukov also believed that "Stolypin performed in a double appearance - liberal and the extreme nationalist," and ranked it "to the circle of persons who imagined themselves by the saviors of Russia from her great shocks."

French historian Vert N. expressed the following point of view: "P. Stolypin - a wrestler for preserving the monarchy by its modernization, a conservative on the views, a former leader of the nobility in Coveno, where watching the life of the Polish-Lithuanian peasantry, became a convinced supporter of private property. "

Say, by the way that this dispute between historians, politicians in relation to reforms and the personality of P.A. Stolypin, relevant now.

The general conclusion can be done like this: only the close connection of the economy and politics allows you to achieve positive results of reform, which understood P.A. Stolypin, trying to carry out his reforms.

Based on the foregoing, we define the purpose and task of the abstract. The goal is to give a historical analysis of reforms and explore various sources and compare various points of view on the essence of the reforms of P.A. Stolypin.

Achieving the goal is carried out by solving the following tasks:

reveal the economic and political importance of reforms for the development of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century;

determine the results and failures of the reform activity P.A. Stolypin, its value for the current stage of Russia's development.

2.1. Causes of reforms of Stolypin

Appeal to the historical experience of Stolypinsky reforms is associated with the following circumstances:

First, by the end of the XIX century it became clear that the positive transducery potential of the reforms of 1861 was exhausted. We needed a new cycle of reforms.

Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was still a medium-breeding country. In the economy of the country, a large proportion belonged to the early Baptist and semi-pefe formal forms of the economy - from manufactory to patriarchal-natural.

Thirdly, too slow political development of Russia was determined mainly by its agricultural issue.

Fourth, the socio-class structure of the country was very heterogeneous. Along with the formation of classes of bourgeois society (bourgeoisie, small bourgeoisie, proletariat), the estates of the feudal era continued to exist in it - the legacy of the feudal era:

the bourgeoisie tried to take a leading role in the country's economy in the 20th century, before that she did not play any independent role in the society of the country, since it was completely dependent on autocracy, as a result of which remained an apolitical and conservative force;

the nobility that focused more than 60% of all lands was the main support of autocracy, although in social terms it lost its homogeneity, approaching the bourgeoisie;

the peasantry, which was the population of the country, was also affected by the social bundle of society (20% - fists, 30% - middle peasants, 50% are poor). Between the polar layers arose contradictions;

the class of hired workers numbered 16.8 million. He was heterogeneous, most of the workers consisted of peasants who had recently arrived in the town, but not yet lost contact with the Earth. The core of this class became the factory proletariat, which was more than 3 million people.

Fifth, the monarchy remained political in Russia. Although in the 70s of the XIX century, a step was taken towards the transformation of the state system into the bourgeois monarchy, the tsarism retained all the attributes of absolutism.

Sixth, with a defeat in the Russian-Japanese war began to increase the revolutionary situation in the country (1905-1907).

Of all this we can conclude that Russia was required both political and economic reforms that could strengthen and improve the economy of Russia. The conductors of these reforms of the late XIX - beginning of XX were such different political figures as S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin. Both were not revolutionaries and sought to preserve the existing system in Russia and protect it from the revolutionary shocks below.

However, Stolypin, as opposed to Witte, believed that changes are necessary, but to the extent where they are necessary for economic reform. There is no economically free host - no and base for other forms of freedom (for example, political or personal).

1. Career P.A. Stolypin.

The service path made by Stolypin in the province was ordinary, on the different officials who were different from the career of other officials who became governors. Arching from the old noble family, Stolypin, graduating from Vilen Gymnasium, enters the Physics and Mathematics Faculty of St. Petersburg University. After his end, it serves as the Ministry of Public Property, but a year later he translated into the Ministry of the Interior by the leader of the nobles in the Koven province. So the appointment of Stolypin was happy. Communicating a lot with the peasants, he understood their conversations: about Earth, about the management of the economy. His daughter wrote "My Father loved agriculture ...".

After 10 years, Stolypin is appointed by the Koven Governor, and in 1902, the Grodno Governor.

In 1902, Stolypin participates in a meeting on the development of the agricultural industry, where he spoke in favor of the destruction of communal sevisper and settlement of farms. This position was expressed later in 1906 and in combination with other innovations was adopted as "Stolypin reform".

In March 1903 P.A. Stolypin is prescribed by the governor to a larger Saratov province. Here and found his first revolution, for the suppression of which he applied the entire arsenal of funds - from direct appeal to the people before massacre with the help of Cossacks.

In April 1906, Stolypin is appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, although he did not expect such an appointment. The fight against the revolution falls on his shoulders. And on August 24, 1906, a government program is published. In it, Stolypin declared directions of his policy in the preparation of the most important laws:

about freedom of religion;

about the inviolability of personality and civil equality, in the sense of eliminating restrictions and constraints of individual groups of the population;

on the improvement of peasant land tenure;

on improving the life of workers and, in particular, about the state insurance;

on the reform of local self-government;

on the transformation of local courts;

about the reform of the highest and secondary school;

about Zemsky self-government in the Baltic, as well as the North and South-West Territory;

about police reform ...

For this, Stolypin took advantage of 87 articles of the basic laws, which provided the government to solve issues during breaks in the work of the Duma and in case of exceptional circumstances.

2.3 Stolypin Agrarian Reform

The reform goals were somewhat:

1. social and political: Create a solid support in the village for autocracy from strong owners (farmers), the openings of them from the majority of the peasantry and opposing them to it. Strong farms were supposed to be an obstacle to the risk of revolution in the village;

2. socio-economic: To destroy the community, that is, to create private farms in the form of cuts and farms, and excess labor to send to the city, where it will absorb the growing industry;

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

The first step in this direction was made in 1861. Then the agricultural question was decided at the expense of the peasants who paid the landowners and for the land, and for the will. The agrarian legislation of 1906-1910 was the second step, while the government to strengthen his power and the power of the landowners, again tried to solve the agricultural issue due to the peasantry.

The new agrarian policy was carried out on the basis of the decree on November 9, 1906. Discussion of the decree on November 9, 1906 began in the Duma on October 23, 1908, i.e. Two years later, after he went into life. In total, discussion of it went over six months.

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

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

The destruction of the community and the development of private property;

Creating a peasant bank;

Cooperative movement;

Resettlement of peasants;

Agricultural events.

Stolypin's activities began in qualitatively new for Russia the political conditions created by the revolution of 1905. For the first time in its history, autocracy was forced to coexist with the representative state duma, besides radical. Thus, deputies of the I-th Duma from the peasants who made the impressive faction of the labor workers were put forward to discuss the agricultural project, which was based on the requirement of confiscation of landlord land and the nationalization of the whole land, which would undermine the foundations of the Russian autocracy. The beginning of the agrarian reform, the inspirer and the developer of which was Stolypin, was given by decree of November 9, 1906. After a difficult discussion in the State Duma and the State Council, the decree of June 14, 1910 was approved by the king as a law. A complement to him was the law on land management of May 29, 1911.

Decree on November 9, 1906 "On the addition of some decisions of the current law concerning peasant land tenure and land use" (extraction) by the manifesto from November 3, 1905. Charged from the peasants of redemption payments for the extraordinary lands is canceled from January 1, 1907. From this term Lands are exempt from lying on them, due to redemption debt, restrictions, and peasants acquire the right to free exit from the community, with the strengthening of individual households, moving to personal ownership, sites from the worldly one. However, the real implementation of this right of law in most rural societies will meet practical difficulties in the impossibility of determining the size and produce distinctions due to housewife vehicles ... Recognizing, as a result of this, it is necessary to eliminate the obstacle to the actual implementation of the peasants who belong to them On the exact lands and approved the special magazine of the Council of Ministers, we, on the basis of Art. 87 Vault of the main state laws, ed. 1906, we command: 1. Each householder who owns land in communal law may, at all times, demand strengthening about him in the personal property of the part of the land from the same land ... 2. Requirements for strengthening in personal The property of the part of the land of the land ... is presented through a rural elder to society, which, by the sentence, a certain majority of votes, is obliged to specify the sections in the sentence from the date of submission of the application ... During this sentence, this sentence will not put this sentence during the specified period. then at the request ... Housewood All the marked actions are performed on the site of the Zemsky boss ... 3. Each householder ... has the right ... demand that society highlighted him in returning sections of its own plot, if possible to one place.

After the state coup on June 3, 1907 and the dissolution of the State Duma, the desired calm was achieved, the revolution was suppressed. It's time to start reforms. "We are designed to free the people from the beggrel, from ignorance, from the powerlessness," Petr Stolypin said. He saw the path to these goals primarily in strengthening statehood. The rod of his politics, the land reform was the matter of his life. This reform was supposed to create a class of small owners in Russia - a new solid support of the order ", the state support. Then Russia would be" all the revolutions are not terrible. "On May 10, 1907, Stalypin completed the famous words:" Him (statehood opponents ) We need great shocks, we need a great Russia! "." Nature has invested in a person some congenital instincts and one of the strongest feelings of this order - a sense of property. " - wrote Peter Arkadyevich in a letter L.N. Tolstoy in 1907. - "You can not love someone else's on a par with my own and cannot be causing, improving the land that is in temporary use, along with its land. Artificially in this regard is the destruction of our peasant, the destruction of a congenital sense of property leads to a lot of bad and, most importantly, to poverty. And poverty, for me, the worst of slavery "P.Stolypin stressed that he did not see the meaning of" to drive a more developed element of landowners from the ground. " On the contrary, it is necessary to turn peasants in these owners.

The main position of the reform of Stolypin was the destruction of the community. For this, a bet on development in the village of personal peasant property was made by providing peasants to leave the community and create a farm, cut. Important moment of reform: The community was destroyed, and the landowner ownership of land remained in immunity. This caused a sharp counteraction of peasants. The peasants perceived the ideas of reform ambiguously. On the one hand, they took the idea of \u200b\u200bprivate ownership of Earth, but, on the other hand, they understood that such a reform would not save the village from Malozide and landlessness, would not raise the level of the peasant agriculture. The other measure proposed by Stolypin was to destroy the community: the resettlement of the peasants. The meaning of this promotion was double. Socio-economic goal is to obtain a land fund, primarily in the central regions of Russia, where the minor-earth peasants had no opportunity to create farms and cuts. At the same time, they received the possibility of mastering new territories, i.e. further development of capitalism.

Political goal is to discharge social tensions in the center of the country. The main areas of resettlement are Siberia, Central Asia, North Caucasus, Kazakhstan. The government highlighted displaced funds for travel, arrangement in a new place, but these funds were clearly lacked. Why did Stolypin made the main emphasis on the fact that in his expression, "knock the wedge to the community," to destroy it? The answer to this question is simple. The community has always been for the peasants the protector (inside it every peasant had the right to earth, i.e. everyone was equal); Each householder was relatively free, i.e. in its own way of earth; The community helped the peasants to master the culture of agriculture; The community stood on the protection of peasants in their relationship with landowners; The community stipulated with landowner Hiring and rental conditions. Thus, the community's elimination was primarily the interests of landowners who in new conditions could dictate to the peasants their conditions. The landowner could be calm for his land. Obviously, the destruction of the community opened the road to capitalist development, since the community was undoubtedly a feudal remnant.

Undoubtedly, the reform had a bourgeois orientation, but the preservation of landowners was constrained by the development of capitalism. Even on December 5, 1906, in his speech in defense of the reform, Stolypin noted that it was impossible to transfer land to the faces of non-Christian class, to sell for personal debts. The land was laid only in the peasant bank and tested only close relatives. To protect the landowner from competition from the wealthy peasants, measures were taken (56th Article Decree), which did not allow the concentration of land in their hands: only 6 puts could buy in some hands.

In the period 1905-1916. About 3 million households came out of the community, which is a third of their number in the provinces, where the reform was carried out. This means that it was not possible to destroy the community, nor create a stable layer of the peasants of the owners. This conclusion can add data about the failure of a migrating policy. In 1908-1909. The number of immigrants amounted to 1.3 million people, but very soon many of them began to return back. Causes: Bureaucracy of Russian officials, lack of funds for the economy, ignorance of local conditions and restrained attitude towards the migrants of old-timers. Many died in the way or completely broke. In the national regions of the country among the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz took their lands to settle the immigrants. They were not solved as a result of the reform of the problem of small-earth and landless, agricultural overpopulation, i.e. The basis of social tensions in the village remained. Thus, the reform failed in either economic or political part.

Stolypin understood that the results of his works would be affected soon. In 1909, he stated: "Give the state for 20 years of peace of internal and external, and you will not recognize the current Russia." Reforms were given and noticeable results: Sowing areas increased by 10% as a whole, and in areas where the peasants were most actively extended from the community - by 15% of bread exports increased by a third, reaching on average 25% of world grain exports. The number of mineral fertilizers used, the purchases of agricultural machines increased almost 3.5 times. The development of agriculture influenced the industrial growth, the pace of which during these years were the highest in the world - 8.8% in 1913. 6 million oils of oil were exported from Siberia. Abroad 4.4 million, which gave huge revenues of the treasury. In 1912, a cooperative Moscow People's Bank was created, which helped the peasants in the acquisition of agricultural equipment, fertilizers, seeds. Cooperation allowed to reduce market prices (it was useful not only to prosperous and middle peasants, but also to the poor.

Imperial Russia in the life of Stolypin did not really appreciate his merit: he did not reach the highest ranks and awards. Yes, and did not really care about it, because otherwise approached its achievements. "I was taken up the wave of events - probably for one moment! - he wrote L.N. Tolstoy. - I want to use this moment as much as my strength, understanding and feelings for the benefit of people and my homeland, which I loved how to love her in ancient ... "

Under « agrarian reform» a legislatively decorated radical reorganization of the existing land system and land relations associated with the transformation of ownership of land, transferring land from one owners and users to others and with the corresponding change in the forms of the territorial device in the country. In other words, the agrarian reform is adjustable and under the control of the state the process of transition to another land. The reform prevents the development and conduct of a number of measures of an organizational, legal and economic nature, designed to provide a comparatively fast and painless transition to new forms of ownership of land, land tenure and land use.

Stages of formation of agricultural legislation

The formation of agrarian law can be divided into the following periods:

Reforms Ivan IV Grozny. The development of legal regulation in the field of agrarian relations began in the period of the formation of the Moscow principality. The central government belonged to the Great Prince, she was supported by the military force of the squad. The main form of ownership of the land is "Vasta". The name of the term took place from the word "father", which means "Father's property". It was used to be used for agriculture, it could be trusted and token. Persons owned not only boyars, but also monasteries, the highest clergy.

The adoption of Ivan IV's throne is associated with a number of changes - the squad acquired the status of a regular army, and they were wrapped in taking care of people who were called upon service only in the event of a war announcement. At this time, the economy was engaged in slaves and deaths.

Russian lands were rapidly settled. Princes provided benefits to peasants who have passed to other areas for processing new land. The purpose of agrarian reform is the development of empty land. Thus, the foundations of the feudal system were laid when the princes began to rapidly accumulate wealth, measuring the land owned by each of them. The richest landowner was the king, which owns state land.

Gradually, the estates began to distribute for good service, they acquired the status of Votchin. Since in that historical period, conflicts between the owners of Votchin constantly took place, and the acquisition of land plots did not make sense without peasants, machining, then there was a need to attach workers to certain sites. This was the basis for the origin of "serfdom"; However, initially the attachment of the peasants to the Earth was carried out under the condition of the "pesting survey." The "test books" reflected a description of the location of the land, the boundaries of the land plot. "Main Signs" were installed by specially designated commissions. They recorded records about areas as part of counties, mills and volosts, named the peasants attached to each put on. Also individually enshrined information about abandoned posts in need of processing free from ownership. The tasks of land reform included an association into a single system of all land in the territory of the Russian state, the creation of a legal framework for the conduct of cadastral, parietal and statistical accounting.

Peter I. reform The next stage of land reforms - Peter I. Agrarian reform as an independent program of lifefire life program was not carried out, but land relations changed in the process of conducting a complex of social reforms of Peter I. As a result of these reforms, the life of representatives of Russian estates (nobles, peasants and citizens) changed dramatically . In 1718, the "pillow" was introduced, which was imposed on both the peasants and the previously displaced tax, the Halds.

The reforms carried out by Peter I led to a change in land relations. First of all, it is inextricably linked to the formation of a regular army and the abolition of local services. In 1714, the defenders and estates ceased to exist, instead there were "immovable property" and "estate". The decree of the king of 1785 "On the liberty of the noble" liberated the nobles from the mandatory state ministry. To avoid land division and consolidate feudal land tenure, by the decree of Peter I, all lands were inherited from now: from the Father to the Son. During the reign of Peter I, a significant number of church lands was seized in favor of the state and the process of their transition (increase) to monasteries and churches was stopped.

Agrarian reforms of Catherine II. September 19 (30) 1765. The Government of Catherine II was published "Manifesto on the General Distribution of Lands in the whole empire with the application of the General Rules, the Data of the Meeting Commission and the highest approved register of prices for land selling in the provinces and provinces."

The main task of interviewed 1765 was in the delimitation of private ownership of the land between him and marching them from states of state. "MEAR BOOKS" and estates of counties with the indication of landowners, the location and the total number of land, their distribution by land and drawing up the list of land and provinces and provinces.

The "Manifesto" was attached to the establishment of land boundaries. The general survey was conducted in the second half of the XVII-first half of the XIX centuries. In the "Meeting Books" described descriptions of the territories 35 of the provinces of Russia, in which 188,264 independent ownership of a total area of \u200b\u200b300.8 million hectares were allocated.

For the first time, the interviewing of each individual land tenure (regardless of its size) was drawn up not only legally, but with maintaining strict geodesic measurements on the ground: as a result, a map of a kind of "geometric passport" was made on this land tenure on the scale of 1: 8400 (100 seedlings in 1 inch).

In 1799, Konstantinovskaya Zemadmer School was established in Moscow, where specialists were preparing in this area. In 1836, the State Council issued a decree "On Preventive Measures to Special Land Area".

Reform 1861 The need for reform was caused by several reasons: the preservation of "serfdom" made it difficult to develop the industrial sector, a huge role was played by defeat in the Crimean War, which caused the strengthening of the peasant movement, which, in turn, created a threat to the current regime. In general, for Russia XIX century. The traditional development of agriculture was characterized (an increase in the volume of grown agricultural products was achieved by expanding land areas). In 1856, Alexander II announced the need for a number of reforms. The reform of 1861, which abolished the "serfdom" and changed the legal status of the peasants, was part of the reforms of Alexander II (1861, 1864, 1870). According to the plan of the authors of the reform, she had to reduce Russia's gap in agriculture from developed states. However, the cancellation of "serfdom" did not lead to the expected results. The law on the abolition of serfdom - "Regulations on the peasants who came out of the serfdom" was signed by Alexander II on 19 February 1861. This law consisted of individual "provisions" concerning three main groups of issues: 1. The abolition of the personal dependence of the peasants from the landowners. 2. End of the peasants of the Earth and the definition of peasant duties. 3. Redemption of peasant pans.

The first land reform in Russia did not lead to the expected economic prosperity of the peasants who received the "redemption payments" from 2.5 to 5.7 decidents of the average valid land. As a result of the reform of 1861: a) canceled "Serf Law"; b) ownership of the land remained for the previous owners of the landowners; c) the peasants received the "manor settlement" and put on the terms of the subsequent redemption or work out; d) the peasants performed as a subject of land relations only in the community; e) the conditions for registration of temporary and obligatory relationships (the status of temporary and obliged peasants, their basic rights and obligations) are determined; e) a system of peasant self-government was created; g) the state "assistance" was provided to the peasantry in the implementation of redemption and strengthening the peasant community.

Agrarian reform 1906-1911 . He entered the story as "Stolypinskaya" by the name of its organizer (P.A. Stolypin served as chairman of the Council of Ministers). The change in relations in the agrarian sector is associated with the Decree of Nicholas II of November 6, 1906, it contained a provision on the "destruction" of the peasant traditional community and the orientation for the creation of private peasant property. The sale of land plots was allowed, the land began to focus on the ownership of wealthy peasants. From 1908 to 1915 It was proposed for redemption 1 201 269 stalls. Since 1907, repurchase payments on Earth are canceled. The purpose of the reform is an increase in productivity in the agricultural industry through the distribution of land to the peasants, as well as the provision of individual rights and freedoms to a rural resident. But this reform did not justify the hopes of its organizers, as it was not enough to affect private land tenure. The reform was carried out in 47 provinces of the European part of Russia. Since 1910, more attention is paid to the support of cooperative movement.

In this regard, it is necessary to name such basic regulatory acts that served as the basis for the "Stolypin Agrarian Reform": Decree "On the sale of state land peasants" (from August 27, 1906); Decree "On the cancellation of certain restrictions on rural ordinary people and individuals of other former state-owned states" (dated October 5, 1906), dedicated to improving the civil law status of peasants; On October 14 and 15, 1906, decrees governing the activities of the peasant land bank and facilitated the conditions for the purchase of land with peasants on credit; On November 9, 1906, the main legislative act of reform was signed - a decree "On the addition of certain decisions of the current law relating to peasant land tenure and land use", proclaimed the right of peasants to consolidate the ownership of their valid land; Decree "On the abolition of certain restrictions in rural orders and persons of other former applied states", dedicated to improving the civil and legal status of the peasants was issued on December 5, 1906

Land reforms of the XX century. The fundamental to the reform of land relations was the decree "On Earth" (adopted at the II All-Russian Congress of the Council of Workers and Soldiers) and the Law on the Nationalization of the Earth dated January 27, 1918. The basis for the adoption and approval of the decret was the program of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (Social University). In the "Decree of Earth", it was proclaimed: "The Earth is common, the land belongs to the workers' and peasant state." An integral part of the decree "On Earth" was the "Association of Earth", providing for the introduction of private ownership of land and the socialization of land. On the decret are fixed: 1) the diversity of land use forms (residential, farm, community, alcohol); 2) confiscation of landlord land and estates; 3) the transition of confiscated land and estimates at the disposal of volost land committees and county councils of peasant deputies; 4) the transition of land in the state of the state with the subsequent gratuitous transfer to its peasants; 5) cancellation of the right of private ownership of land; 6) Prohibition of the use of hired labor.

Further decrees were adopted: "On the prohibition of real estate transactions" (dated December 29, 1917), "On Forests" (dated May 27, 1918), "On the depths of the Earth" (from April 30, 1920). In the Constitution of the RSFSR 1918, the principle of socialization of the Earth, the abolition of private ownership (the land from nowend was recognized as a common trend and was provided to citizens for free). In 1919, the Law "On Socialist Land Department and on Measures of Transition to Socialist Agriculture", the Earth was finally fixed behind the state.

The codification of land legislation begins during the period of the new economic policy (NEPA) of 1921-1929. The goal is to "create a slim, affordable understanding of each agriculture Audit of Earth Laws." In 1922, the Land Code of the RSFSR was adopted, which introduced such a concept as "Labor land use", providing for the opportunity to use the maximum amount of rights for agricultural production without restrictions on the terms of the Earth's use, but with the preservation of the state monopoly to possession of it. In the main provisions of this Code, it was confirmed that the whole land within the RSFSR, in someone who would be conducted, is the property of the working and peasant state and forms a unified State Land Fund.

The first law of the USSR, identifying the legal regime of all categories of land, became the "General start of land use and land management", approved by the USSR CEC on December 15, 1928. Land reforms of 1953, 1965, the adoption of the "food program" of 1982 and the introduction of intra-economic techniques , rental and family-friendly in a row on the village, did not give the expected result. We needed radical changes in the rules for the use and possession of lands in the Russian Federation, which were held in the last decade of the past century.

Agrarian reforms in the Russian Federation and modernity

Radical changes in the field of agricultural relations are associated with the adoption of a number of laws in 1990: "On Land Reform" No. 374-1, "On the peasant (farmer) economy" No. 348-1 and "On property in the RSFSR" No. 1488-1. The new stage of agrarian reforms began with their promulgation. However, significant changes in land legal relations at the end of the XX century. They associate with the adoption of the resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR of December 3, 1990 No. 397-1 "On the Renaissance Program of the Russian village and the development of the agro-industrial complex" and the Land Code of the RSFSR of April 25, 1991 No. 1910-1, which secured the ownership of land On citizens and their association.

The second stage of the land reform (1991-1993) is the beginning of the mass privatization of agricultural land, the reorganization of collective farms and state farms. Of particular importance is attached to the decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On the regulation of land relations and the development of agricultural reform in Russia" of October 27, 1993 No. 1767.

The third stage of reform refers to 2001-2002. Among the documents regulating legal relations in this field: Land Code of the Russian Federation of October 25, 2001 No. 136-FZ, FZ "On the turnover of agricultural land" dated July 24, 2002 No. 101-FZ, FZ "On the Development of Agriculture" December 29, 2006 №264-ФЗ. These regulatory acts returned private property to Earth. After the land reforms conducted by the owners who privatized the Earth became more than 11 million.

The formation of agricultural law is directly related to amending the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in 1994, Gl.17 "Ownership and other real rights to Earth was introduced. According to Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the disposal, the use and possession of land plots, subsoils and other natural resources is allowed within the limits prescribed in the laws, in particular, in the field of environmental protection and the interests of other owners; Article 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allowed the turnover of natural resources.

Agricultural reform in Russia made it possible to develop the peasant (farmer) farms, a number of regulatory acts regulating the issues of land relations were adopted, the land fee was introduced. Along with the peasant farms, a significant number of personal subsidiary farms was created, which (in contrast to KFH) do not need to register, since the products produced and implemented by them are not taxed due to the fact that the crop is grown for its own consumption and excess can be realized through Trading networks or markets.

On February 12, 2015, the Federal FZ of the Russian Federation "On Amendments to the FZ" On Agriculture Development "(№11-ФЗ) was adopted. Thanks to this law, state support is now guaranteed not only to large agricultural producers, but also individual entrepreneurs who choose agriculture. This became the main direction in the development of agriculture in Russia at the present stage.

Changes in the Federal Law "On Development of Agriculture" make it possible to receive loans for the development of rural production with that condition that the proportion of production in the agricultural industry has been at least 70% of the total income in production. In the Federal Law "On State Regulation of the production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcohol and alcohol-containing products" of November 22, 1995 No. 171-ФЗ amended, facilitating the lives of wine producers. This FZ clarified special terminology, the amount and list of wine beverages, which have the right to produce agricultural producers, are provided for the conditions for their supply, storage and implementation. Here, it is necessary to mention the Federal Law "On State Support in the Sphere of Agricultural Insurance and Amendments to the Federal Law" On Agriculture Development "of July 25, 2011 No. 206-FZ.

Changes touched and farmers. The new Federal FZ of the Russian Federation No. 74-FZ "On the peasant (farmer) economy of June 11, 2003 (instead of the previously active RSFSR law of November 22, 1990 No. 348-1) consolidated the foundation of the creation of peasant (farmer) farms, determining this: a) the concept of the peasant (farmer) economy; b) the relationship between the peasant economy and the state; c) the rules for creating and registering a new form of management; d) land and property relations; e) membership in the economy; (e) Activities and form of management.

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

General description of agrarian reform

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

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

The reform unfolded in several directions:

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

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

Reform events in a general historical context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rural community and land tenure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peasant self-government and faculty institutions

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

Agrarian question

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

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

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

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

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

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

The situation with an increase in the density of the rural population and a decrease in incidents was perceived by contemporaries mainly as the process of launching the village and decline of the economy. Modern studies, however, show that in general, in agriculture, the second half of the XIX century was observed not only growth and yields, but also the growth of revenues included in the busy. However, this growth, not too fast, in the eyes of contemporaries was completely hidden the increasing break between the standards of life of the city middle class and the life of the village. In the era, when there was no electric lighting, water supply, central heating, telephone and car, the life and life of the village were already in the life of the townspeople. A stereotypical panic perception of a liberal intellectual of a peasant as a person who is ending the continuous need and disaster living in unbearable conditions has been established. This perception was determined by the broad support for the liberal intelligentsia (including lower earthly employees) and all political parties from the cadets and the left ideas of endowing the peasants nationalized landlord.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peasant unrest

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

Unrest in the easiest form had the kind of unauthorized rod in the owner belonging. Peasants, almost no forests as part of community lands, were traditionally inclined not to recognize any ownership of forests in general, and considered a fee for the use of privately robbery.

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

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

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

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

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

Government events between 1896 and 1906

Special Meeting about the needs of the agricultural industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgiveness of debts on food capital loans

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

Canceling redemption payments

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

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

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

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

Establishment of land management commissions

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

Agrarian bills in the first and second thought

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

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

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

Strengthening the ownership of the peasants of false lands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law 14 June 1910

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Management Act 1911

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

The features of the law were the following provisions:

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

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

Activities of land management commissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately it became apparent that the result of the work of the Commissions depends not as much on the number of officials involved, how much from the number of land surveyors and land surveyors. The available states of the regional branches of the provincial boards were insufficient (in the end, it was decided to use these divisions only for reader data processing), and Gaziz decided that the county commissions should independently hire the necessary personnel. The necessary specialists in the labor market did not exist, and Guziz began to develop special educational institutions. 5 existing land schools have been strengthened and 9 new institutions were established; The temporary courses of land assistants were opened, which produced 1500 people per year by 1910.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For sale peasants of state and specific land

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

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

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

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

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

Operations of the peasant landing bank

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agronomical help

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

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

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

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

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

Cooperative movement

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

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

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

Administrative reform of the rural community

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

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

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

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

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

Agrarian unrest in 1907-1914

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fate of the reforms of Stolypin after 1911

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

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

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

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

Results of reform

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

Estimates of reform

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

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

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

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

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

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