In November 1906, the famous agrarian reform of Pyotr Stolypin began, which ended in failure.
In the post-Soviet period, the authorities of the new Russia, overthrowing the idols of the Soviet period from the pedestal, tried to find the figure of a "prophet in their Fatherland" who would serve as a positive example of a political figure.
Soothing Executioner
This is how Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, a native of Dresden, chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire from 1906 to 1911, was elevated to the rank of "great reformer".
The personality of Pyotr Stolypin is extremely ambiguous and controversial, as well as his methods and the results he achieved. Having come to the post of head of government at the height of the first Russian revolution, Stolypin, under the slogan "first calm down, then reform", deployed a system of martial courts in the country, which began to suppress popular uprisings through punitive actions. The politician himself justified the massacres committed by Stolypin with a rather beautiful phrase: "I hope that the descendants will distinguish the blood on the hands of the doctor from the blood on the hands of the executioner."
Petr Arkadievich generally had the talent of an orator and was able to beautifully express his own thoughts. It is possible that this was what allowed him to create an impression of himself as a great reformer.
Having put an end to executions (or by reducing their number), Prime Minister Stolypin moved on to eradicate the causes of revolutionary uprisings. For this, according to the plan of the politician, Russia had to go through a number of cardinal reforms, the main of which was to be agrarian.
Promotional video:
Community destroyer
Stolypin himself expressed the essence and purpose of the reform in a speech in the State Duma: "So much is needed for the reorganization of our kingdom, its reorganization on strong monarchical foundations, a strong personal owner, so much is he an obstacle to the development of the revolutionary movement."
Stolypin swung himself neither more nor less on the centuries-old basis of peasant life in Russia - the community. The prime minister believed that in order to strengthen the existing system, it was necessary to create a class of peasant owners, for which purpose it was necessary to deprive the peasant community of land, transferring the land to private ownership.
To make it clear about the changes of what scale we are talking about, one must remember that the collapse of the peasant community in Western Europe, due to the prevailing socio-cultural conditions, took place around the 9th century, that is, when statehood was just emerging in Russia. The Russian prime minister considered it possible to turn over the whole mentality of the Russian peasants and their way of life in relatively short lines.
The problem was also that there were no free lands in the European part of Russia. And it was absolutely impossible to get strong business executives without expanding land holdings. But the landowners in European Russia were in control of the land, and the authorities could not deal with their redistribution.
Stolypin believed that the main method for solving the arising problem was the resettlement of landless peasants beyond the Urals, where there were a lot of free land suitable for agricultural activity.
The lot of the weak
To implement Stolypin's ideas, special carriages were created, which were supposed to transport the peasants to their new place of residence with all their property. They went down in history under the name of "Stolypin wagons", as earlier the ropes for the gallows went down in history under the name of "Stolypin neckties".
To understand what goals Stolypin was trying to achieve, let us quote one more of his words: "When we write a law for the whole country, it is necessary to keep in mind the reasonable and the strong, and not the drunk and the weak." This phrase reveals not only the social-Darwinian approach of the prime minister to the reform, which is not very worried about those who will suffer from the changes. After that, the reason for the love of Stolypin on the part of the liberal reformers of the 1990s becomes clear - they also believed that in the course of their changes, the interests of the "weak" could be neglected.
About 3 million peasant farms migrated to Siberia in the "Stolypin wagons". Much less is said about the fact that up to 20 percent of the settlers returned back to their homes. Over the years of the reform, up to a quarter of the peasants separated from the peasant community, many of whom turned into large suppliers of grain. They would later become known as the "world-eating fists". The real reasons for disliking these people will be discussed below. At the same time, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of the peasants who had separated remained associated with the community, including in the field of economic activity.
Despite the introduction of new lands into agricultural circulation and their redistribution, there was sorely lack of land for everyone who wanted to work on it. And the process of landlessness of the peasants, which had begun, revealed another problem - the peasants who went to the cities could not pass into the class of workers, since the domestic industry could not employ so many workers. The level of industrial development was such that at the beginning of the First World War, Russia was unable to provide the army with rifles and ammunition in the required quantity.
Peasants who lost their land, did not have jobs, were doomed to poverty. Of course, from the point of view of Stolypin, these were the very "weak" that could be neglected. But were the reforms worth such sacrifices?
Unsolved problem
During the reform of Stolypin, there was no technical re-equipment of agriculture - more than half of the farms did not have plows, and the plow was the main tool of labor.
Here are even more graphic figures - the increase in agricultural production in Russia in 1901-1905. averaged 2.4% per year, and after the start of the reform in 1909 - 1913. - 1.4%.
In practice, another tendency has also emerged - farms that separated from the community and aimed at making a profit, in conditions of low profitability associated with the Russian climate, began to rapidly go bankrupt. And with the beginning of the war, the "private traders" began to completely collapse, while the communal economy not only fed itself, but also provided the needs of the army.
Russia really actively exported bread abroad. However, in 1911-1912, famine began in the country, affecting 30 million people.
This famine did not acquire the character of a total catastrophe, but revealed one very characteristic tendency associated with “strong masters”. In the starving regions, "kulaks" inflated the price of bread several times. Those who could not pay were starved to death. To be saved, they went into the service, gave their personal property, found themselves in debt bondage. It was from this ability of "strong masters" to amass capital on human tragedy that a negative attitude towards "kulaks" was formed, and not at all from Bolshevik propaganda.
But back to Stolypin. The main thing that the prime minister did not manage to achieve was the liquidation of the peasant community. She retained her influence, despite the best efforts of the reformer. Moreover, the class of "strong business executives" created by Stolypin did not save the empire from collapse.
Judging by deeds, not intentions
Among Stolypin's contemporaries who criticized his approach were such diverse people as the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, the writer Leo Tolstoy, and the "Octobrist" Alexander Guchkov. All of them agreed on the main thing - Stolypin's reform did not solve either the problems of the state or the problems of the countryside.
In principle, supporters of the Prime Minister admit this. Moreover, Petr Arkadyevich Stolypin himself understood this. In his opinion, for the successful implementation of reforms and transformation, Russia needs "twenty years of internal and external peace."
Stolypin, who was killed in 1911, did not have these years, and the country, plunged into the abyss of the First World War, did not have these years.
That is, in fact, we are talking about an unfinished reform that has not solved its main tasks.
And then the dispute between supporters and opponents of Pyotr Stolypin takes place in the category “if only”. From the point of view of Stolypin's apologists, if the country had received twenty years of rest, and Stolypin's reforms would have made it a world leader. Stolypin's admirers have no other arguments, except for firm conviction.
Opponents logically believe that it is correct to judge the reform not by intentions, but by results. And they turned out to be not at all those that Stolypin himself had counted on.
Today, Stolypin's figure as a successful reformer is supported by a firm belief in the correctness of this assessment of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But, as the story of the Finns, who allegedly played a key role in the October Revolution, suggests, the presidency is not a guarantee against serious historical delusions.
Therefore, understanding all the ambiguity of the figure of Pyotr Stolypin, it must be admitted that his reform did not achieve the set goals, and, therefore, failed.