- What was the specificity of P. A. Stolypin’s policy as prime minister? On what basis did he himself define his course as “order and reform”? What transformations did he plan to carry out, and how are they interconnected?
The ambiguity of the position of the prime minister, who had to act as a “servant of the king”, an official and a parliamentary politician at the same time, was fully exploited.
Stolypin, pursuing a new political course of “order and reform”, found himself in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the revolution was suppressed, but unrest in society remained. Most of the population did not trust the authorities. There were also dissatisfied on the part of the revolutionaries and the bourgeois opposition. The latter opposed the punitive actions of the government. On the other hand, Stolypin was subjected to great criticism from the Black Hundreds. He did not give the Black Hundreds full will, he used them to fight the revolutionaries, thereby keeping them under control in order to avoid pogroms and bloodshed. Stolypin was not without support. The Octobrists deeply believed in his course. These were rich and influential people: big businessmen, landowners. As a result, it turned out that the left and right criticized Stolypin, and the center was ready to provide the most powerful support.
Stolypin planned to carry out a number of transformations: to reform local government, introduce universal primary education, establish state insurance for workers, etc. But as the revolution faded into the past, and fear of it weakened at the top, Stolypin faced more and more stubborn resistance from the tsar and the Black Hundreds around him. As a result, the only reform that he managed to put into practice more or less consistently was the agrarian one. It was planned to reform the legislation regulating relations between the entrepreneur and employees: the legalization of economic strikes and trade unions, the creation of a system of insurance and labor protection.
The reorganization of the educational sphere was to be based on the observance of the principle of continuity of the lower, middle and higher schools. P.A. Stolypin was a supporter of the introduction of universal primary education for the entire population of Russia.
A transition to the collection of income tax and some increase in taxation of the wealthy classes was planned.
Much attention was paid to restoring the military power of the Russian Empire. Having lost almost completely in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The Baltic and Pacific fleets, the government in the naval program of 1907 made the main emphasis on the creation of a combat-ready Baltic squadron. It was supposed to ensure the safety of the capital and the coast of the Gulf of Finland from a possible attack by the German fleet and landing.
P.A. Stolypin attached great importance to the implementation of the so-called “policy of Russian nationalism”, which was supposed to protect the reformed Russia from disintegration. But it is precisely this part of the country’s modernization program that has come under the most fierce attack, both from the right and from the left. Large government expenditures were required to implement the planned reforms. P.A. Stolypin noted that “for the success of the case, an increase in peasant land ownership must be associated with an improvement in the forms of land ownership, for which incentive measures and, mainly, credit are needed.”
- Describe the Election Regulations of June 3, 1907. How did it affect the composition and nature of the activities of the State Duma of the III and IV convocations? What are the features of the June 3rd political system?
During the elections to the Third Duma, the electoral congresses of the landowners in most cases were not divided. Poles stood out in the western provinces. In several counties, special branches were formed by representatives from small owners (or only from churches).
In the elections to the Third Duma, in the vast majority of provinces, the nobility dominated the curia of landowners. At the elections to the Fourth Duma, at the direction of the authorities, the priests appeared almost in full force, and due to the weak turnout of landowners, especially small ones (in many counties no more than a few percent of them voted and the priests made up about 4/5 of the representatives), often received an advantage.
The State Duma of the Russian Empire of the IV convocation is a representative legislative body
Russian Empire. Chairman of the Duma M. V. Rodzianko. Founded November 15, 1912.
The Fourth Duma had pronounced flanks (left and right) with a very moderate
center (conservatives). A total of 432 deputies were elected.
Elections to the IV State Duma (late 1912) testified to the disappointment of a significant part of the local nobility and urban bourgeoisie in the policy of moderate constitutionalism advocated by the Octobrists. Soyuz 17 Oktyabrya won only 98 seats. The State Duma retained two majorities – the Right-Octobrist and the Octobrist-Cadet. However, the liberals failed to unite to put pressure on the government to deepen reforms.
THE THIRD JUNE MONARCHY (June 3, 1907–1915) is a system of state power that developed after the coup d’état on June 3, 1907 and lasted until the middle of the First World War.
The State Duma of the 3rd convocation (November 1, 1907 – June 9, 1912) was elected according to the new “June Third”, “shameless”, according to the definition of the Social Democrats, the law on representation, approved by the tsar. Compared to the previous, Second Duma, the representation was reduced: from the peasants – by 2 times (now they had the right to elect only 22% of the electors, and before – 42%), from the workers – by 2 times (the number of electors decreased from 4% up to 2%). The number of seats decreased by 3 times from Poland (instead of 37 seats 14 were left), the Caucasus (instead of 29 seats – 10) and Asian Russia (non-Russian peoples of Transbaikalia, peoples of Central Asia), Astrakhan and Stavropol provinces. At the same time, military personnel, young students under 25, not to mention women, did not have the right to vote. Thus, in 1907 only 13% of the country’s population entered the electorate, and the number of members of the Duma was reduced from 524 to 442.
The internal political course that was established in the country after the dissolution of the Second State Duma and the change in the electoral law is commonly called the June 3rd monarchy , which became the last phase in the evolution of Russian autocracy. The political system of this period combined elements of the new and the old, features of parliamentarism and features of classical autocracy . The transformations carried out during the period of the revolution (the creation of the State Duma, etc.) marked a movement towards a rule of law state. At the same time, institutions and norms inherited from the past continued to play a huge, largely leading role in the political life of the country. The social nature of the June 3rd monarchy was also distinguished by duality. Although the nobility retained the status of the first estate of the empire, the transformations carried out in 1905–1907 opened up wider opportunities for the Russian bourgeoisie to influence the government of the country than it was before (to influence through the Duma). The Third State Duma, which met in the autumn of 1907, became the embodiment of the June 3 system.
- What are the prerequisites and goals of P. A. Stolypin’s agrarian reform? Expand the content of the reform of 1906 according to the following parameters: the destruction of the community, the creation of the Peasants’ Bank, resettlement policy.
The goals of the reform were several: socio-political – to create in the countryside a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners, splitting them off from the bulk of the peasantry and opposing them to it; strong farms were to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside; socio-economic – destroy the community, plant private farms in the form of cuts and farms, and send the excess labor force to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry; economic – to ensure the rise of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the backlog from the advanced powers. The goals of the Stolypin agrarian reform were to win over the side of the regime of broad sections of the peasantry and prevent new agrarian uprisings. At the same time, the reformers did not seek to destroy the social and administrative organization of the community. It was only about the elimination of its economic land distribution mechanism. The ultimate goal was proclaimed a general rise in the country’s agriculture. Changing the form of ownership of peasant land, turning them into full-fledged owners of their allotments, was supposed primarily by strengthening the allotments into private property.
1) Ensuring the development of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the lag behind the advanced powers.
2) Creation of a broad stratum of small proprietors and thereby ensure stability in society.
3) Deliverance of the peasants from lack of land through the resettlement policy.
4) With the help of the destruction of the peasant community, divert the attention of the peasants from the idea of dividing the landowners’ land and revolution.
The main measures for the implementation of the reform:
1) The destruction of the peasant community.
2) Distribution of land for personal use by resettlement to the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus (settlement policy).
3) Creation of cuts – plots of land allocated to the peasant when leaving the community with the preservation of his yard in the village and farms – a plot of land allocated to the peasant when he leaves the community with relocation from the village to his own plot.
4) Development of the activities of the Peasants’ Bank, which gave loans and credits for the purchase of land.
1) The unresolved agrarian question in Russia. This was expressed in the existence of some problems in Russian agriculture:
– Lack of land of peasants;
– Preservation of landed estates, which were used inefficiently;
– Preservation of peasant communities. Most of the peasant land was jointly owned. The community did not allow the ruin of its members, made sure that everyone got the land equally. But its shortcomings became more and more obvious: the community, saving the weak, hindered the activities of strong, economic peasants; it aspired to relative equality, but hindered the improvement of the general welfare of the village.
2) Social tension in the villages. There were conflicts between peasants and landlords, peasants and authorities, within the peasant class, due to social stratification (kulaks, poor people, etc.).
3) The low level of agricultural technology in agriculture. (Fields were cultivated with a plow and a wooden harrow).
4) The active participation of the peasants in the first n revolutions of 1905-1907. The community contributed to the revolutionary unity of the peasants.
The decree of November 9, 1906 introduced very important changes in
peasant land ownership. All peasants received the right to leave the community,
which in this case allotted land to the person leaving for his own possession. At
This decree provided privileges for wealthy peasants in order to
encourage them to leave the community. In particular, those who left the community received “in
property of individual householders” all lands “consisting in his permanent
use”. This meant that people from the community received surpluses in excess
shower rate. At the same time, if in this community over the past 24 years there has been no
redistributions were made, then the householder received the surplus free of charge, if
there were redistributions, he paid the community for the surplus at the redemption prices of 1861.
Since prices have increased several times over 40 years, this was also profitable.
At the same time, measures were taken to ensure the strength and
stability of labor peasant farms. So to avoid speculation
land and concentration of ownership, by law
limited the size of individual land ownership, was
allowed the sale of land to non-peasants.
The practice of the reform showed that the peasantry in its mass was
opposed to separation from the community – at least in most
areas. Survey of the mood of the peasants by the Free Economic Society
showed that in the central provinces the peasants had a negative attitude towards
isolated from the community (89 negative indicators in the questionnaires against 7
In 1906 – 1907, according to the instructions of the tsar, part of the state and specific
land was transferred to a peasant bank for sale to peasants in order to
alleviate land scarcity. In addition, the Bank carried out on a grand scale
purchase of land with subsequent resale to peasants at preferential
conditions, intermediary operations to increase the peasant
land use. He increased credit to the peasants and significantly reduced the cost of it,
and the bank paid more interest on its obligations than they paid him
peasants. The difference in payment was covered by subsidies from the budget,
amounting to 1457.5 billion rubles for the period from 1906 to 1917.
The Bank actively influenced the forms of land ownership: for peasants,
acquiring land in sole ownership, payments were reduced. AT
As a result, if before 1906 the bulk of land buyers were
peasant collectives, then by 1913 79.7% of buyers were sole
The Stolypin government also passed a series of new laws on resettlement
peasants to the outskirts. Opportunities for widespread development of resettlement were
laid down already in the law of June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom
resettlement without benefits, and the government was given the right to decide on
the opening of free preferential resettlement from certain areas of the empire,
“the eviction from which was recognized as especially desirable.” For the first time, the law on preferential resettlement was applied in 1905: the government “opened” resettlement from Poltava and Kharkov
provinces, where the peasant movement was especially broad.
By decree of March 10, 1906, the right to resettle peasants was
provided to everyone without restrictions. Government allocated
considerable funds for the costs of settling settlers in new places,
their medical care and public needs, for the construction of roads. The results of the resettlement
companies were next. First, during this period,
a huge leap in the economic and social development of Siberia. Also
The population of this region increased by 153% during the years of colonization.
If before the resettlement to Siberia there was a reduction in sown areas,
then in 1906-1913 they were expanded by 80%, while in
European part of Russia by 6.2%. In terms of livestock development rates Siberia
also overtook the European part of Russia.
- How can one evaluate the results of P. A. Stolypin’s reforms? Why did you fail to achieve the main goals and implement all the transformation projects?
However, the social goals set by the government were not achieved. Only 20-35% of the peasants left the community in different areas, since the majority retained a collectivist psychology and traditions. Only 10% of households started farming. The kulaks left the community more often than the poor. The former bought land from landlords and impoverished fellow villagers, started a profitable commodity economy. The poor went to the cities or became agricultural workers. 20% of the peasants who received loans from the Peasants’ Bank went bankrupt.
About 16% of the settlers were unable to settle in a new place, returned to the central regions of the country and joined the ranks of the proletarians.
The reform accelerated social stratification – the formation of the rural bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The government did not find a strong social support in the countryside, since it did not satisfy the needs of the peasants in the land.
Outcomes and implications of the reform:
1. The peasants received permission to leave the community along with the land.
2. Combine separate strips of your allotment in one place (cut), transfer your yard (farm) to it.
3. Buy land, expand the economy.
4. The land ceased to be communal and turned into the personal property of the peasants.
5. Through the Peasant Bank, the government provided financial assistance to peasants leaving the community to purchase land from landlords who wanted to sell it.
During the reform years, the marketability of the peasant economy has increased significantly, largely due to farms and cuts. New farming systems and crops were introduced. From a third to a half of individual farmers participated in credit partnerships, which gave them funds for modernization. On the whole, a revolution in the agro-economy did not take place, but when evaluating economic results, it is important to take into account that the reform, designed for decades, has only managed to clarify the direction and gain momentum in a few years. In socio-political terms, the reform was a relative success. The community, as a body of self-government in the Russian village, was not affected by the reform, but the socio-economic organism of the community began to collapse. The number of communities decreased from 135,000 to 110,000. At the same time, almost no disintegration of the community was observed in the central regions. In the Center, communal traditions were the strongest, and agriculture was the most backward in socio-economic terms. The main reason for the relative failure of the reform was the socio-political half-heartedness of the transformations, which manifested itself in the preservation of the landowners’ lands intact.
The main goals were far from being achieved. Introduction of a private backyard
instead of communal ownership of land, it was possible to introduce only a quarter of
community members. It was not possible to territorially tear off from the “world” of the prosperous
owners, because less than half of the
fists. Resettlement to the outskirts also could not be organized in such
sizes that could significantly affect the liquidation of land
tightness in the center. All this foreshadowed the collapse of the reform even before the start of the war, although
her fire continued to smolder, supported by a huge bureaucracy during
headed by the energetic successor of Stolypin – the chief manager
land management and farming
There were several reasons for the collapse of the reforms: the opposition of the peasantry,
lack of allocated funds for land management and resettlement, poor
organization of land management works, the rise of the labor movement in 1910-1914
gg. But the main reason was the resistance of the peasantry to the new