Peter Stolypin is a talented politician of the beginning of the 20th century. His plan includes reforms aimed at transforming Russia into an advanced state. The leading role in this was to play the peasantry. Let us consider in more detail what the essence of the transformations was, and also analyze the pros and cons of Stolypin's reforms.
Transformation Prerequisites
In 1861, the first steps toward individualizing land holdings in Russia were outlined. The abolition of serfdom could lead to an increase in private property, but this did not happen.
The government at the end of the XIX century sought to build community structures in the village, which prevented the formation of private peasant property.
Stolypin proposed his own solution to the problems that arose. He developed a concept for the development of a multistructure economy, in which both state and private forms of economy were to develop.
The essence of change
The pros and cons of Stolypin’s reforms will be considered later, but it’s interesting to know what the changes were.
The politician insisted on creating a layer of wealthy peasants in the village. He was sure that in this case the people would stop thinking about the revolution. Wealthy peasants were to become a solid foundation for state power.
Stolypin believed that peasant needs should not be provided at the expense of the landlords. He planned to destroy the peasant community in order to carry out his programs. The politician did not take into account the fact that the community for the peasants was reliable support, especially in lean periods.
Stolypin wanted every peasant to be responsible for himself and his family when he left the community. Since lazy people and alcoholics also lived off of common labor, Stolypin thus planned to get rid of these vices among the peasantry. The politician wanted to turn every peasant into a hardworking owner who can meet all his needs with his labor.
The beginning of the transformation
The pros and cons of Stolypin's economic reforms are the subject of our consideration. But how were the events held?
First, a decree was issued on the exit of peasants from the community. When leaving her, any peasant could secure a certain piece of land. So, by the beginning of 1916, 2.5 million people left the community.
The second direction of Stolypin’s reforms (which certainly had pros and cons) was the resettlement of peasants. Thus, the politician sought to reduce land hunger and inhabit Siberia. Those who were resettled were given land and benefits. It was possible for everyone to move, without restrictions. The government spent huge funds on resettlement.
The first fruits of the resettlement were expressed in the growth of the Russian wheat crop. Those who could not adapt to living in Siberian conditions were few - no more than 12% of peasants who moved to the East.
Policy Results
During the reforms of Stolypin (which had enough pros and cons), the country has seen an active growth in agricultural production, the volume of the domestic market has increased, and exports to agriculture have increased. All these events not only brought agriculture out of the crisis, but also made it dominant in the Russian economy of that time.
The resettlement of peasants in Siberia also contributed to economic growth. Sown areas expanded, livestock developed. By all significant indicators, Siberia was ahead of the European part of the Russian state.
Negative moments
Despite success, Stolypin’s reforms could not solve all the problems that existed at that time. Hunger and agrarian overpopulation did not stop. The country, as before, was backward in terms of economy, technology and culture. The pace of agricultural growth was slow when compared with the United States and European countries.
An obstacle to economic development was the low level of literacy in agriculture. The government provided the peasants with comprehensive assistance, raising their cultural and educational level. Agricultural courses were created to help introduce progressive forms of production into the peasant environment.
In the period under review (from 1906 to 1913), much was done to move to a new stage of economic development.
Analysis of activities
So, if we talk about the results of Stolypin’s reforms, the pros and cons should be considered more carefully. Among the advantages it is worth highlighting:
- The beginning of the destruction of the communal system. A quarter of all households left the community.
- Increased grain yield during the period of transformation of 1906-1913.
- A 2-fold increase in agricultural exports.
- The development of the cooperative movement and small commodity relations. A system of peasant lending appeared. Artels, shops, agricultural societies were built.
- Relocation of 3 million families to Siberia.
- Industrial growth in the economy of those years. The beginning of the formation of prosperous farms.
Speaking about the pros and cons of Stolypin's agrarian reform, it should be said about the disadvantages. They can be considered the following points:
- A significant part of peasant farms remained in the community.
- Half a million migrants returned back and joined the ranks of workers, as well as beggars and tramps.
- The famine of 1911-1912, spanning 30 million people.
- As a result of changes in society, a new wave of discontent has arisen directed against former community members who managed to get rich.
- Land holdings owned by the landlords remained untouched.
Speaking generally about the results of Stolypin’s agrarian reform, the pros and cons, it should be noted that the politician’s desire to implement bourgeois relations in Russia did not give the expected result.
Transformations were criticized. The politician planned that the reforms will be carried out over 15-20 years. But after the unexpected tragic death of Stolypin, they stopped and gradually came to naught.