The most important of the complex of reforms conceived by P. A. Stolypin, of course, was agrarian reform.
Main provisions of the reform
The essence of the Stolypin reform was to preserve landownership intact and resolve the agrarian crisis by redistribution of communal peasant lands among peasants. While preserving landownership, P. A. Stolypin protected the social stratum of landowners as the most important support of tsarism, taking into account that as a result of the revolution of 1905–1907. the peasantry was no longer such a support. P. A. Stolypin hoped that the stratification of the peasantry through the redistribution of communal lands would create a layer of new fsrmsr owners as a new social support of power. Consequently, one of its most important goals was the Stolypin reform, ultimately, to strengthen the existing regime and tsarist power.
The reform began with the publication on November 9, 1906 of the Decree on additions to certain provisions of the current law relating to peasant land ownership and land use. Although formally the Decree was called an addition to the regulations on the land issue, in fact it was a new law that radically changed the system of land relations in the village.
By the time the law is published, i.e. by 1906, in Russia there were 14.7 million peasant households, of which 12.3 million had land plots, including 9.5 million households on communal law (mainly in the central regions, the black soil zone, in the North and partly in Siberia) and on household law - 2.8 million households (in the Western and Vistula regions, the Baltic states, Right Bank Ukraine).
The decree of November 9, 1906 granted peasants “the right to freely leave the community, with the strengthening of the ownership of individual householders, transferring to personal ownership, plots of worldly allotment.” Those leaving the community were assigned lands that were in their actual use, including those rented from the community (in excess of the allotted allotments), regardless of the change in the number of souls in the family. Moreover, in communities where there were no redistributions for 24 years, all land was assigned free of charge. And where redistributions were made, the surplus land, in excess of what was due to the available male souls, was paid at the “initial average redemption price,” i.e. significantly cheaper than market prices.
These rules were aimed at encouraging the most prosperous peasants, who had a surplus of allotment and leased land, to leave the community as soon as possible.
Householders leaving the community had the right to demand that the land due to them be allocated in one piece - cut(if the allocated yard remains in the village) or farm(if this yard moves the estate outside the village).
In doing so, two goals were pursued:
- – eliminate striping (when the allotment lands of one peasant household were located in separate plots in different places) – one of the most important reasons for the backwardness of agricultural technology;
- - to disperse and divide the peasant masses.
Explaining the political meaning of the dispersal of the peasant masses, P. A. Stolypin wrote that “a wild, half-starved village, not accustomed to respecting either its own or other people’s property, not afraid of any responsibility, acting peacefully, will always be a combustible material, ready to burst into flames.” every occasion."
Considering that land allocated to households leaving the community in one block or farm in most cases infringed on the interests of the remaining community members (therefore, communities could not consent to the allocation), the Decree of November 9 provided for the right to demand the consolidation of part of the community land into personal ownership, which must be satisfied by the community within a month. If this is not done within the prescribed period, then the allocation of land can be formalized forcibly - by order of the zemstvo chief.
Not hoping to receive approval of the Decree of November 9, 1906 by the Second State Duma, P. A. Stolypin issued its publication in accordance with Art. 87 Basic Laws without the Duma. And, indeed, the Decree received support only in the Third Duma, elected after the June Third coup d'etat of 1907 under the new electoral law. Relying on the votes of the right and Octobrists, the government finally achieved its approval on June 14, 1910 in the form of a law.
Moreover, the right-wing Octobrist majority of the Third Duma supplemented this law with a new section, which stated that those communities in which redistributions had not been made since 1863 should be considered to have switched to plot-household hereditary land use. In other words, the law of June 14, 1910 forcibly dissolved this category of communities regardless of the wishes of the peasants.
The subsequent law of May 29, 1911 took the final step towards equalizing the legal status of allotment and privately owned lands. Householders, i.e. heads of peasant households, and not the entire peasant household as a collective owner (as was the case previously).
However, despite the strongest government pressure, the mass of the peasantry did not accept the reform.
In total, during the period from 1907 to 1916, just over 2 million peasant households left the communities. In addition, 468.8 thousand households in those communities in which there have been no redistributions since 1863 received deeds of ownership of their lands without their consent, i.e. forcibly. In total, about 2.5 million peasant households left the communities in this way.
As one of A. A. Stolypin’s closest collaborators, the chief manager of land management and agriculture, A. V. Krivoshein, stated in the State Duma, the land should be in the hands of “the one who is better than others able to take from the land everything that it can give,” and for this we must abandon the “pipe dream that everyone in the community can be well-fed and satisfied.” He saw the redistribution of communal land as a guarantee that “a broad general rise in agriculture is a matter of the near future.”
And indeed, the main sellers of land turned out to be land-poor and horseless community members who left the community. Selling land, they went to work in the city or went to new lands (Siberia, the Far East, Central Asia).
Although many peasants wanted to buy land, this turned out to be not at all an easy matter. The state did not have the money needed to carry out the reform (and this amount was determined at 500 million gold rubles). The amount actually allocated to finance the reform (issuing a state loan) was completely insufficient and, moreover, was stolen by officials and did not reach the peasants.
One could only hope for a loan from the Peasant Bank. A special decree, also adopted in November 1906, abolished the previously existing ban on pledging allotment peasant lands. The peasant bank was allowed, on the security of allotment land, to issue loans for the purchase of land when settling into farms and farms, for improving agricultural technology (purchase of agricultural machinery), etc.
However, the Peasant Bank, buying land for 45 rubles. for a tithe (a little more than a hectare), he sold them for 115–125 rubles. for tithes, and issued loans secured by land and for relatively short periods on enslaving conditions. If interest and regular payments to repay the debt were not paid on time, the bank took away the mortgaged land from the debtors and sold it. The money that went to purchase land and pay interest on loans placed overhead costs on the price of agricultural products of peasant farms.
And yet, despite the high price and enslaving conditions, some middle peasants and even poor people bought land, denying themselves everything, trying to “become one of the people.” Rich peasants also bought land, turning their farms into commodity farms based on capitalist principles and wage labor.
But even more land was bought by persons, as they were called then, of the non-peasant class, who were not engaged in peasant labor, from among the rural and petty urban bourgeoisie, who had accumulated capital for themselves not by working on the land, but in other ways; volost elders and clerks, wine shop owners, police officers, clergy, merchants, etc. This category bought land for speculation (after all, land was constantly becoming more expensive) and for renting it out to the same peasants, and the rent reached half the harvest.
Since the practice of buying land for speculation and leasing became widespread, the government, concerned about this phenomenon, issued a circular establishing the norm for the purchase of allotment land of no more than 6 plots within one county. However, in reality, many speculators and rentiers bought (using the corruption of officials and bribes) 100-200 plots.
An important element of the Stolypin reform was resettlement policy.
In September 1906, part of the lands belonging to the royal family in Western Siberia, the Far East, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan was transferred for the resettlement of peasants from Central Russia. By relocating peasants, the government tried to solve a number of problems:
- – to defuse the agrarian overpopulation in the center of the country and, above all, in the Black Earth Region;
Agrarian question occupied a central place in domestic politics. The beginning of agrarian reform, the inspirer and developer of which was P.A. Stolypin, put a decree on November 9, 1906.
Stolypin reform
After a very difficult discussion in the State Duma and the State Council, the decree was approved by the Tsar as a law from June 14, 1910. It was supplemented by the law on land management from May 29, 1911.
The main provision of Stolypin’s reform was community destruction. To achieve this, an emphasis was placed on the development of personal peasant property in the countryside by giving peasants the right to leave the community and create farmsteads.
An important point of the reform: landlord ownership of land remained intact. This caused sharp opposition from peasant deputies in the Duma and the masses of peasants.
Another measure proposed by Stolypin was also supposed to destroy the community: resettlement of peasants. The meaning of this action was twofold. The socio-economic goal is to obtain a land fund, primarily in the central regions of Russia, where the lack of land among peasants made it difficult to create farmsteads and farms. In addition, this made it possible to develop new territories, i.e. further development of capitalism, although this oriented it towards an extensive path. The political goal is to defuse social tension in the center of the country. The main resettlement areas are Siberia, Central Asia, the North Caucasus, and Kazakhstan. The government allocated funds for the migrants to travel and settle down in a new place, but practice has shown that they were clearly not enough.
In the period 1905 - 1916. About 3 million householders left the community, which is approximately 1/3 of their number in the provinces where the reform was carried out. This means that it was not possible to either destroy the community or create a stable layer of owners. This conclusion is complemented by data on the failure of resettlement policy. In 1908 - 1909 the number of displaced people amounted to 1.3 million people, but very soon many of them began to return back. The reasons were different: the bureaucracy of the Russian bureaucracy, the lack of funds for setting up a household, ignorance of local conditions and the more than restrained attitude of the old-timers towards the settlers. Many died along the way or went completely bankrupt.
Thus, the social goals set by the government were not achieved. But the reform accelerated the stratification in the countryside - a rural bourgeoisie and proletariat were formed. Obviously, the destruction of the community opened the way for capitalist development, because the community was a feudal relic.
Stolypin's agrarian reform became a natural effort to eliminate the problems identified by the revolution of 1905 - 1907. There were several attempts to solve the agrarian question before 1906. But they all boiled down to either the confiscation of land from the landowners and allocating it to the peasants, or to the use of nationalized lands for these purposes.
P. A. Stolypin, not without reason, decided that the only support for the monarchy was the landowners and wealthy peasants. The confiscation of the landowners' lands meant undermining the authority of the emperor and, as a consequence, the possibility of another revolution.
To maintain tsarist power, Pyotr Stolypin announced a government program in August 1906, which proposed a number of reforms regarding equality, police regulations, local government, and education. But of all the proposals, only Stolypin’s agrarian reform was implemented. Its goal was to destroy the communal system and provide land to the peasants. The peasant was to become the owner of the land that previously belonged to the community. There were two ways to determine the allotment:
- If the communal lands had not been redistributed over the past twenty-four years, then each peasant at any time could demand his allotment as personal property.
- If there was such a redistribution, then the plot that was last cultivated went into land ownership.
In addition, peasants had the opportunity to buy land on credit at low mortgage rates. For these purposes, a peasant credit bank was created. The sale of land plots made it possible to concentrate significant areas in the hands of the most interested and able-bodied peasants.
On the other hand, those who did not have sufficient funds to purchase land, the Stolypin agrarian reform proposed to resettle to free territories where there were uncultivated state lands - to the Far East, Siberia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The settlers were provided with a number of benefits, including a five-year tax exemption, low cost of train tickets, forgiveness of arrears, and a loan in the amount of 100 - 400 rubles without charging interest.
Stolypin's agrarian reform, at its core, placed peasants in a market economy, where their prosperity depended on how they were able to manage their property. It was assumed that they would work more efficiently on their plots, causing the flourishing of agriculture. Many of them sold their lands and went to the city to earn money, which led to an influx of labor. Others emigrated abroad in search of better living conditions.
The Stolypin agrarian reform and its results did not live up to the hopes of Prime Minister P. A. Stolypin and the Russian government. In total, during its implementation, less than one third of the peasant households left the community. The reason for this was that the reform did not take into account the patriarchal way of life of peasants, their fear of independent activity, and their inability to manage without community support. Over the past years, everyone has become accustomed to the fact that the community takes responsibility for each of its members.
But, nevertheless, the Stolypin agrarian reform also had positive results:
- The beginning of private land ownership was laid.
- The productivity of peasant land has increased.
- The demand for the agricultural industry has increased.
- Grew up
Preparation of reform
By the end of the 19th century, it became clear that the positive transformative potential of the reforms of 1861 had been partially exhausted, and partially emasculated by the counter-reformist course of the conservatives after the tragic death of Alexander II in 1881. A new cycle of reforms was needed. At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the need to accelerate capitalist development began to emerge. especially clearly. After the 60s bourgeois relations developed to the necessary level for things to come to an open confrontation between the feudal and capitalist systems. This conflict could not but be resolved. It is known that the disproportion between the political superstructure and the base (socio-economic relations) inevitably leads to a crisis, a pronounced contradiction that can cause a revolution. Let us add that for a number of reasons, a feature of the Russian big bourgeoisie was the willingness to make any compromise with absolutism and, consequently, the corresponding feudal socio-economic base. Despite this, for purely subjective reasons of the tsar, absolutism did not want to meet him halfway. And in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, the authorities undertook some kind of transformation in society and the state for reasons of preserving the dynasty and strengthening their positions. Unfortunately, the top leaders often did not quite correctly assess the real socio-political situation in society and, because of this, made irreparable mistakes. Another attempt to avoid reforms through a “small victorious war” with Japan not only failed, but also led to the country falling into a revolutionary abyss. And the royal dynasty did not perish in it only because such outstanding people as S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin were near the king.
- 1905-1907 clearly showed the unresolved agrarian and other pressing issues of Russia at that time. The reform program was designed for bourgeois-democratic development, but Stolypin sincerely hoped to implement them within the framework of the previous, regressive, inert political system for a qualitatively new level of capitalist relations. The reformer believed that changes were necessary, but to the extent and where they were necessary for economic reform. While there is no economically free owner, there is no basis for other forms of freedom (for example, political or personal). Stolypin argued that as long as the peasant is poor, does not have personal land property, while he is in the grip of the community, he remains a slave, and no written law will give him the benefit of civil freedom. The close connection between economics and politics does not allow achieving positive results from reforming one public sphere without changing the other. According to G. Popov, modern reforms also began “with a course towards a new state. And now we see the well-known stubble of authoritarian bureaucracy growing on his face. Yes, the apparatus cannot be anything else as long as it is omnipotent, and if there are no independent owners in the country, in Stolypin’s words.” On March 6, 1907, P.A. Stolypin spoke before the Second State Duma outlining the government reform program. The list opened with the famous decree of November 9, as well as other agricultural events. Several bills dealt with freedom of conscience. Bills were promised on personal immunity and the introduction of volost zemstvos, workers - a trade union and state insurance, and the country as a whole - education reform. The program attached great importance to the revival of the combat power of the army and navy, lost during the Russo-Japanese War.
- On May 10, 1907, Stolypin presented a government concept for solving the agrarian issue. This was his final crowning speech in the Second State Duma. The decree of November 9, 1907 was interpreted as a choice between a peasant-idler and a peasant-owner in favor of the latter. To emphasize the general significance of the chosen course, Stolypin ended his speech with a phrase that, as time has shown, turned out to be the best in his oratorical arsenal and the most politically effective. On August 24, 1906, a government program was published, consisting of two parts - repressive and reformist. In accordance with the first, in areas declared under martial law and a state of emergency protection, military courts were introduced, and at the center of the reformist part was the above-mentioned decree of November 9, 1906 on secession from the community with its accompanying laws. It was with these components, according to A. Ya. Avrekh - Stolypin’s agrarian policy and “Stolypin ties” - that contemporaries primarily associated the new head of government. His declaration before the Third State Duma, not much different from the previous one, declared the first and main task of the government not “reforms”, but the fight against revolution, opposing this phenomenon only with force. The second central task of the government, Stolypin declared the implementation of the agrarian law on November 09, which is the “root thought government, guiding its idea... not the indiscriminate distribution of land, not calming the rebellion with handouts - the rebellion is extinguished by force, but the recognition of the inviolability of private property and, as a consequence, the creation of small personal property, the real right to leave the community and resolve issues of improved land use - These are the tasks the implementation of which the government considered and considers to be issues of the existence of the Russian state.”
Among the reforms, reforms of local self-government, education, insurance of workers, etc. were promised. Further, Stolypin proclaimed full support for the dominant Orthodox Church, the policy of nationalism and promised to show “special care” in raising the armed forces to the heights.
Carrying out reform
Stolypin placed changes in the economic sphere at the forefront of his reforms. The Prime Minister was convinced, and his speeches indicate this, that it was necessary to start with agrarian reform. Both Stolypin himself and his opponents emphasized the main task of the reform - to create a rich peasantry, imbued with the idea of property and therefore not needing a revolution, acting as a support for the government. Here the political considerations of agrarian reform clearly emerge: without the peasantry, no revolution in Russia was possible. On December 5, 1908, in a speech on the “land bill and land management of the peasants,” Stolypin argued that “a strong personal owner is so necessary for the reconstruction of our kingdom, its reconstruction on strong monarchical foundations, so much so is he an obstacle to the development of the revolutionary movement, as can be seen from the latter’s works Congress of Socialist Revolutionaries, which was held in London in September of this year... this is what it decided: “the government, having suppressed an attempt at an open uprising and seizure of land in the countryside, set itself the goal of dispersing the peasantry by intensifying the planting of personal private property or farm farming. Any success of the government in this direction causes serious damage to the cause of the revolution.”
In addition to political aspirations, the government also included economic meaning in the November 9 law. Stolypin argued in a speech before the State Council on March 15, 1910 that “... it was this law that laid the foundation, the foundation of a new socio-economic peasant system.”
The Stolypin agrarian reform is a set of legislative acts of the tsarist government, carried out from the end of 1906 to 1916, aimed at eliminating communal peasant land ownership in order to create a broad social support for tsarism in the person of the merchants. The Stolypin reform was productive for the reactionary Councils of the United Nobility and was of a clearly violent nature towards the majority of the peasantry. The central place in these events was occupied by the decree of November 9, 1906 on the procedure for peasants leaving the community and securing the allocated land as personal property. After approval with some changes by the Duma and the State Council, this decree received the name of the Law of June 14, 1910. It was supplemented by the “Regulations on Land Management” of May 29, 1911. Other reform measures included the activities of the Peasant Bank, as well as resettlement policy.
The struggle of the peasants forced the government to cancel redemption payments in half (1905), and from 1907 - completely. But this was not enough. The peasants demanded land. The government was forced to return to the idea of abandoning communal ownership and transitioning to private peasant land ownership. It was expressed back in 1902, but then the government refused to implement it. P.A. Stolypin insisted on carrying out the reform, and therefore it was called Stolypin.
Stolypin's plan for agrarian reform was to allow peasants to freely leave the community and secure their allotment as private property. This achieved two goals: 1) the destruction of the community, which, due to its backward traditions and customs, had long become a brake on progress in agriculture; 2) a class of small private owners was created, which should become the support of power - this moment acquired special knowledge, since the disintegration of the class of landowners and the reduction of their land holdings continued intensively; being full owners of the land, the peasants will begin to take care of increasing its fertility, productivity, expanding the use of agricultural machines (11/09/1906 - the decree gave the right to peasants to freely leave the community, assigning ownership of this land in the form of a separate plot (cut), to which they could to move their estate (farm). The decree did not specifically destroy peasant communities, but freed the hands of peasants who wished to farm independently. Thus, it was planned to create a layer of strong home-based owners in the village, alien to the revolutionary spirit, and generally increase agricultural productivity).
A large role was assigned to the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, which organized the correct demarcation of land on the ground; a fund was created from part of the state and imperial lands (for the purchase of these and landowners' lands, the Peasant Bank gave cash loans); resettlement of peasants from zones with acute land shortages to Siberia, Kazakhstan, and other sparsely populated areas was organized.
Stolypin set a period of 20 years for the reform, so that peasants would have the opportunity to become convinced of the advantages of individual partial farming over public farming.
The goal of the reform was to preserve landownership and at the same time accelerate the bourgeois evolution of agriculture, overcome the communal mentality and instill in every peasant a sense of ownership, master of the land, thereby relieving social tension in the village and creating there a strong social support for the government in the person of the rural bourgeoisie .
The reform contributed to the rise of the country's economy. Agriculture has become sustainable. The purchasing power of the population and foreign exchange earnings associated with the export of grain have increased. However, the social goals set by the government were not achieved. In different regions, only 20-35% of the peasants left the community, since the majority retained their collectivist psychology and traditions. Only 10% of householders started farming. Kulaks left the community more often than the poor. The first ones bought land from landowners and impoverished fellow villagers and started a profitable farm. 20% of the peasants who received loans from the Peasant Bank went bankrupt. About 16% of the migrants 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 proletariat. The government did not find strong social support in the village, since it did not satisfy the peasants' needs for land.
Land management policy did not produce dramatic results. The Stolypin land management, having shuffled the allotment lands, did not change the land system; it remained the same - adapted to bondage and labor, and not to the new agriculture of the decree of November 9. The activities of the peasant bank also did not give the desired results. High prices and large payments imposed by the bank on borrowers led to the ruin of the masses of farmers and brat farmers. All this undermined the peasants' trust in the bank, and the number of new borrowers went down. The resettlement policy clearly demonstrated the methods and results of Stolypin’s agrarian policy. The settlers preferred to settle in already inhabited places, such as the Urals and Western Siberia, rather than engage in the development of uninhabited forest areas. Between 1907 and 1914 3.5 million people left for Siberia, about 1 million of them returned to the European part of Russia, but without money and hopes, because the previous farm was sold.
Ignoring regional differences was one of the shortcomings of Stolypin's agrarian reform. It went relatively well in such provinces as Samara, Stavropol, Kherson, Tauride, where the community was weak and inert. With difficulty, but it went in the central black earth provinces, where it was greatly hampered by the peasant shortage of land. It almost did not go on in non-black earth provinces (for example, in Moscow), where the community was more dynamic and became so fused with developing capitalist relations that sometimes it was impossible to destroy it without damaging these very relations. And she met embittered resistance in Ukraine, where there were no land redistributions, where the peasant got used to his scraps and strips, invested labor and money in them and did not want to leave them either for a farm or for a plot. In addition, Stolypin himself recognized that this reform could only be successful in combination with other major measures to improve the peasant economy, including credit, land reclamation, agronomic assistance, and the development of education. Due to financial difficulties, this set of measures remained largely unimplemented.
It should be noted that some of the events that accompanied the reform were useful. This concerns giving peasants greater personal freedom (in family matters, movement and choice of occupations, in complete separation from the village). Undoubtedly, Stolypin’s idea of creating farms and cuts on bank lands was fruitful, although it did not receive sufficient development. Some types of land management work also brought benefits: the establishment of cuts in the southern provinces, the demarcation of neighboring communities in the Non-Black Earth Region. Finally, as part of the reform, resettlement to Siberia reached an unprecedented development.
In general, Stolypin's agrarian reform had a progressive significance. By replacing obsolete structures with new ones, it contributed to the growth of productive forces in agriculture. During the reform, noticeable changes occurred in the country's agriculture: the sown area increased from 1905 to 1913 by 10%; The gross grain harvest increased from 1900 to 1913 by 1.5 times, and industrial crops - by 3 times. Russia accounted for 18% of world wheat production and 52% of rye. It supplied 25% of world grain exports, which was more than the US, Canada and Argentina combined. The value of bread exports from Russia increased by 1 billion rubles compared to the end of the 19th century. The most important consequence of the agrarian reform was a significant increase in the marketability of agriculture, and the purchasing power of the population increased. Trade turnover in 1903-1913 increased by 1.5 times. Foreign trade was generally profitable, especially due to the fact that world prices for bread before the war (Russian-Japanese (1904-1905) and the First World War (1914-1918) increased by 35%. These circumstances were one of the factors of the industrial boom in the country in 1909-1913. During this time, industrial production increased by 54%, and the total number of workers by 31%. The industrial boom spread, first of all, to the basic industries - metallurgy, metallurgy. oil production, power generation and mechanical engineering.
Under « agricultural reform» is understood as a legislatively formalized radical reorganization of the existing land system and land relations, associated with the transformation of forms of ownership of land, the transfer of land from one owner and user to another and with a corresponding change in the forms of territorial structure in the country. In other words, agrarian reform is a regulated and state-controlled process of transition to a different land system. The reform involves the development and implementation of a number of organizational, legal and economic measures designed to ensure a relatively quick and painless transition to new forms of land ownership, land tenure and land use.
Stages of formation of agricultural legislation
The formation of agrarian law can be divided into the following periods:
Reforms of Ivan IV the Terrible. The development of legal regulation in the field of agrarian relations began during the formation of the Moscow Principality. Central power belonged to the Grand Duke, it was supported by the military strength of the squad. The main form of land ownership is “votchina”. The name of the term came from the word “otchina,” which means “father’s property.” The plot was used for farming and could be trusted and bequeathed. The estates were owned not only by the boyars, but also by monasteries and the highest clergy.
The accession to the throne of Ivan IV was associated with a number of changes - the squad acquired the status of a regular army, the estates began to be populated by military men, who were called up for service only in the event of a declaration of war. At this time, the housekeeping was handled by serfs and serfs.
Russian lands were rapidly populated. The princes provided benefits to peasants who moved to other regions to cultivate new lands. The goal of agrarian reform is the development of empty land plots. Thus, the foundations of the feudal system were laid, when the princes began to rapidly accumulate wealth, measured by the land plot belonging to each of them. The richest landowner was the king, who owned state land.
Gradually, estates began to be given out for use for good service; they acquired the status of fiefdoms. Since in that historical period there were constantly conflicts between the owners of estates, and the acquisition of land plots did not make sense without peasants cultivating the plots, there was a need to assign workers to certain plots. This was the basis for the emergence of “serfdom”; however, initially the attachment of peasants to the land was carried out subject to “scribal surveying”. The “scribal books” reflected a description of the location of the land and the boundaries of the land plot. “Boundary signs” were installed by specially appointed commissions. They made records of plots within counties, camps and volosts, and the names of the peasants assigned to each plot were listed. Information about abandoned plots in need of processing, free from ownership, was also separately recorded. The objectives of the land reform included the unification into a single system of all land on the territory of the Russian state, the creation of a legal basis for maintaining cadastral, boundary and statistical records.
Reforms of Peter I. The next stage of land reforms is the transformation of Peter I. Agrarian reform as an independent program for reorganizing the way of life was not carried out, however, land relations changed in the process of carrying out a set of social reforms of Peter I. As a result of these reforms, the life of representatives of the Russian classes (nobles, peasants and townspeople) changed dramatically . In 1718, the “poll tax” was introduced, which was imposed both on peasants and on previously non-paying slaves.
The reforms carried out by Peter I led to changes in land relations. First of all, this is inextricably linked with the formation of a regular army and the abolition of local services. In 1714, fiefdoms and estates ceased to exist, and “real estate” and “estate” appeared instead. The Tsar's Decree of 1785 “On the Liberty of the Nobility” freed nobles from compulsory government service. To avoid the division of lands and consolidate feudal land ownership, by decree of Peter I, all lands were henceforth passed by inheritance: from father to son. During the reign of Peter I, a significant amount of church lands were confiscated in favor of the state and the process of their transfer (increase) to monasteries and churches was stopped.
Agrarian reforms of Catherine II. On September 19 (30), 1765, the government of Catherine II promulgated the “Manifesto on the general delimitation of lands throughout the empire with the appendix of general rules given by the Boundary Commission and the highest approved register on prices for the sale of lands in the provinces and provinces.”
The main task of the land survey of 1765 was to delimit privately owned lands from each other and separate them from state-owned lands. “Boundary books” and county plans were drawn up, indicating landowners, the location and total amount of land, their distribution by land, and compiling a list of land by province and province.
The Manifesto was accompanied by instructions for establishing the boundaries of land plots. General surveying was carried out in the second half of the 17th and first half of the 19th centuries. The “landmark books” included descriptions of the territories of 35 provinces of Russia, in which 188,264 independent possessions with a total area of 300.8 million hectares were identified.
For the first time, the survey of each individual landholding (regardless of the size of its area) was formalized not only legally, but with strict geodetic measurements on the ground: as a result, a map was drawn up, a kind of “geometric passport” for this landholding on a scale of 1:8400 (100 fathoms per 1 inch).
In 1799, the Konstantinovsky Land Surveying School was established in Moscow, where specialists in this field were trained. In 1836, the State Council issued a Resolution “On preventive measures for special delimitation of lands.”
Reform of 1861 The need for reform was caused by several reasons: the preservation of “serf relations” hampered the development of the industrial sector; the defeat in the Crimean War also played a huge role, causing a strengthening of the peasant movement, which, in turn, created a threat to the current regime. In general, for Russia in the 19th century. Traditional development of agriculture was characteristic (an increase in the volume of agricultural products grown was achieved through the expansion of land areas). In 1856, Alexander II announced the need for a number of reforms. The reform of 1861, which abolished “serfdom” and changed the legal status of peasants, was part of the reforms of Alexander II (1861, 1864, 1870). According to the authors of the reform, it was supposed to reduce the gap between Russia and developed countries in agriculture. However, the abolition of “serfdom” did not lead to the expected results. The law on the abolition of serfdom - “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom” was signed by Alexander II on February 19, 1861. This law consisted of separate “Provisions” that dealt with three main groups of issues: 1. Abolition of the personal dependence of peasants on landowners. 2. Allotment of land to peasants and determination of peasant duties. 3. Redemption of peasant plots.
The first land reform in Russia did not lead to the expected economic prosperity of the peasants, who received from 2.5 to 5.7 dessiatines of average per capita allotment land for “redemption payments.” As a result of the reform of 1861: a) “serfdom” was abolished; b) ownership of the land remained with the previous owners and landowners; c) peasants received “homestead residence” and allotments on the terms of subsequent redemption or working off; d) peasants acted as subjects of land legal relations only as part of the community; e) the conditions for formalizing temporary obligatory relations are determined (the status of temporarily obligated peasants, their basic rights and obligations); f) a system of peasant self-government has been created; g) state “assistance” was provided to the peasantry in carrying out the redemption and strengthening the peasant community.
Agrarian reform 1906-1911 . went down in history as “Stolypinskaya” after the name of its organizer (P.A. Stolypin served as chairman of the Council of Ministers). The change in relations in the agricultural sector is associated with the Decree of Nicholas II of November 6, 1906. It contained a provision on the “destruction” of the traditional peasant community and a focus on the creation of private peasant property. The purchase and sale of land plots was allowed, and land began to be concentrated in the ownership of wealthy peasants. From 1908 to 1915 1,201,269 plots were offered for redemption. Since 1907, redemption payments for land have been abolished. The goal of the reform is to increase productivity in the agricultural sector through the distribution of land plots to peasants, as well as providing certain rights and freedoms to rural residents. But this reform did not live up to the hopes of its organizers, since it had little impact on private land ownership. The reform was carried out in 47 provinces of the European part of Russia. Since 1910, more attention has been paid to supporting the cooperative movement.
In this regard, it is necessary to name the following basic normative acts that served as the basis for the “Stolypin agrarian reform”: Decree “On the sale of state lands to peasants” (dated August 27, 1906); Decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former tax-paying states” (dated October 5, 1906), dedicated to improving the civil legal status of peasants; On October 14 and 15, 1906, decrees were issued regulating the activities of the Peasant Land Bank and facilitating the conditions for the purchase of land by peasants on credit; On November 9, 1906, the main legislative act of the reform was signed - the Decree “On supplementing certain provisions of the current law relating to peasant land ownership and land use,” which proclaimed the right of peasants to secure ownership of their allotment lands; The decree “On the abolition of certain restrictions on the rights of rural inhabitants and persons of other former tax statuses”, dedicated to improving the civil legal status of peasants, was published on December 5, 1906.
Land reforms of the 20th century. Fundamental to the reform of land relations were the Decree “On Land” (adopted at the II All-Russian Congress of the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies) and the Law on the Nationalization of Land of January 27, 1918. The basis for the adoption and approval of the Decree was the program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs). The “Decree on Land” proclaimed: “the land is common, the land belongs to the workers’ and peasants’ state.” An integral part of the Decree “On Land” was the “Order on Land”, which provided for the introduction of private ownership of land and the socialization of land. The Decree stipulates: 1) a variety of forms of land use (household, farm, communal, artel); 2) confiscation of landowners' lands and estates; 3) transfer of confiscated lands and estates to the disposal of volost land committees and district Soviets of peasant deputies; 4) transfer of land into the property of the state with its subsequent gratuitous transfer to peasants; 5) abolition of the right of private ownership of land; 6) prohibition of the use of hired labor.
Subsequently, the following Decrees were adopted: “On the prohibition of real estate transactions” (dated December 29, 1917), “On forests” (dated May 27, 1918), “On the bowels of the earth” (dated April 30, 1920). The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 enshrined the principle of socialization of land, the abolition of private property (land was now recognized as a public property and was provided to citizens free of charge). In 1919, in the law “On Socialist Land Management and on Measures for the Transition to Socialist Agriculture,” land was finally assigned to the state.
The codification of land legislation begins during the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921-1929. The goal is “to create a harmonious set of laws on land, understandable to every farmer.” In 1922, the Land Code of the RSFSR was adopted, which introduced the concept of “labor land use” into circulation, providing for the possibility of using the maximum volume of rights for agricultural production without restrictions on the period of land use, but maintaining a state monopoly on its ownership. The main provisions of this Code confirmed that all land within the RSFSR, no matter whose jurisdiction it is, is the property of the workers' and peasants' state and forms a single state land fund.
The first law of the USSR, which determined the legal regime of all categories of land, was the “General principles of land use and land management”, approved by the Central Executive Committee of the USSR on December 15, 1928. Land reforms in 1953, 1965, the adoption of the “Food Program” in 1982 and the introduction of on-farm farming methods. , rental and family contracts in rural areas did not give the expected result. Radical changes were required in the rules for the use and ownership of land in the Russian Federation, which were carried out in the last decade of the past century.
Agrarian reforms in the Russian Federation and modern times
Radical changes in the field of agrarian relations are associated with the adoption of a number of laws in 1990: “On land reform” No. 374-1, “On peasant (farm) farming” No. 348-1 and “On property in the RSFSR” No. 1488-1. With their promulgation, a new stage of agrarian reforms began. However, significant changes in land legal relations at the end of the 20th century. associated with the adoption of the Resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR dated December 3, 1990 No. 397-1 “On the program for the revival of the Russian village and the development of the agro-industrial complex” and the Land Code of the RSFSR dated April 25, 1991 No. 1103-1, which secured land ownership on citizens and their associations.
The second stage of land reform (1991-1993) - the beginning of mass privatization of agricultural land, the reorganization of collective and state farms. Particular importance is attached to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the regulation of land relations and the development of agrarian reform in Russia” dated October 27, 1993 No. 1767.
The third stage of the reform dates back to 2001-2002. Among the documents regulating legal relations in this area: Land Code of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2001 No. 136-FZ, Federal Law “On the turnover of agricultural land” dated July 24, 2002 No. 101-FZ, Federal Law “On the development of agriculture” dated December 29, 2006 No. 264-FZ. These regulations restored private ownership of land. After the land reforms, there were more than 11 million owners who privatized land.
The formation of agricultural law is directly related to amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in 1994, Chapter 17 “Ownership rights and other real rights to land” was introduced. According to Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the disposal, use and ownership of land plots, subsoil and other natural resources is permitted within the limits prescribed by law, in particular in the field of environmental protection and the interests of other owners; Article 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows the circulation of natural resources.
Agrarian reform in Russia allowed the development of peasant (farm) farms, a number of legal acts were adopted regulating issues of land relations, and land payments were introduced. Along with peasant farms, a significant number of personal subsidiary plots have been created, which (unlike peasant farms) do not need to be registered, since the products produced and sold by them are not subject to taxation due to the fact that the crop is grown for own consumption and the surplus can be sold through retail chains or markets.
On February 12, 2015, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On the Development of Agriculture” (No. 11-FZ) was adopted. Thanks to this law, state support is now guaranteed not only to large agricultural producers, but also to individual entrepreneurs who have chosen agriculture as their main activity. This has become the main direction in the development of agriculture in Russia at the present stage.
Changes to the Federal Law “On the Development of Agriculture” make it possible to obtain loans for the development of rural production on the condition that the share of production in the agricultural sector is at least 70% of total income in production. The Federal Law “On state regulation of the production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic and alcohol-containing products” dated November 22, 1995 No. 171-FZ introduced amendments to make the life of winegrowers easier. This Federal Law clarifies special terminology, defines the quantity and list of wine drinks that agricultural producers have the right to produce, and provides for the conditions for their supply, storage and sale. Mention should also be made of the Federal Law “On state support in the field of agricultural insurance and amendments to the Federal Law “On the development of agriculture” dated July 25, 2011 No. 206-FZ.
The changes also affected farmers. The new Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 74-FZ “On Peasant (Farm) Economy” dated June 11, 2003 (instead of the previously in force Law of the RSFSR of the same name dated November 22, 1990 No. 348-1) consolidated the grounds for the creation of peasant (farm) farms, defining this: a) the concept of a peasant (farm) economy; b) relations between peasant farming and the state; c) rules for creating and registering a new form of business; d) land and property relations; e) membership in the farm; f) activities and forms of management.
