Петр Столыпин – талантливый политик начала XX century. His plan belongs to the reforms aimed at turning Russia into an advanced state. The leading role in this was to play the peasantry. Let us take a closer look at what the essence of the transformations was, and analyze the pros and cons of Stolypin’s reforms.
In 1861, the first steps were made towards the individualization of landowning farms in Russia. The abolition of serfdom could lead to an increase in private property, but this did not happen.
At the end of the 19th century, the government sought to build community structures in the countryside, which prevented the formation of private peasant property.
Stolypin offered his option to solveproblems encountered. He developed a concept for the development of a diversified economy, in which both state and private forms of farms were to develop.
The pros and cons of Stolypin’s reforms will be discussed later, but it’s interesting to know what the changes were.
The politician insisted on creating a layer in the villagewealthy peasants. He was sure that in this case the people would stop thinking about the revolution. The well-to-do peasants were to become a solid basis for state power.
Stolypin believed that the peasant needs should notensured by landlords. He planned to destroy the peasant community to carry out his programs. The politician did not take into account the fact that the community for peasants was a reliable support, especially in lean periods.
Столыпин хотел, чтобы, выйдя из общины, каждый the peasant could answer for himself and his family. Since lazy people and alcoholics also lived at the expense of common labor, Stolypin thus planned to get rid of these vices in the peasant environment. The politician wanted to turn every peasant into a hardworking owner who can provide all his needs with his work.
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 leaving the peasants from the community. 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 (pros andcons of which, of course, there were) there was a resettlement of the peasants. Thus, the politician sought to reduce land hunger and settle Siberia. Those who resettled were given land and benefits. It was possible to move everything, without restrictions. The government spent huge amounts of money on relocation.
The first fruits of resettlement were expressed in growthRussian wheat harvest. Those who could not adapt to living in Siberian conditions were few — no more than 12% of the peasants who moved to the East.
In the course of the reforms of Stolypin (the pros and cons ofwhich was enough) in the country there has been an active growth of agricultural production, the volume of the domestic market has increased, exports in agriculture have increased. All these events not only brought agriculture out of the crisis, but also made it the dominant Russian economy of that time.
The resettlement of peasants to Siberia alsocontributed to economic growth. Sown area expanded, livestock developed. In all significant indicators, Siberia was ahead of the European part of the Russian state.
Despite the success, the reforms of Stolypin could notsolve all the problems existing at the time. Hunger and agrarian overpopulation did not stop. The country, as before, was backward in terms of economy, technology and culture. The pace of agrarian growth was slow when compared with the United States and European countries.
The obstacle to economic development was lowagriculture literacy level. The government provided comprehensive assistance to the peasants, raising their cultural and educational level. Agricultural courses were created to help introduce progressive forms of production into the peasant environment.
During the period under review (from 1906 to 1913), much was done to move to a new stage of economic development.
So, if we talk about the results of the Stolypin reforms, the pros and cons should be considered more carefully. Among the advantages worth highlighting:
Speaking about the pros and cons of Stolypin's agrarian reform, it should be said about shortcomings. They can be considered the following points:
If we talk in general about the results of Stolypin’s agrarian reform, the pros and cons, it should be noted that the politician’s desire to embody bourgeois relations in Russia did not produce the expected result.
Conversions have been numerous.criticized. The politician planned that the reforms will be carried out for 15-20 years. But after the unexpected tragic death of Stolypin, they stopped and gradually disappeared.
