Revolution 1905 - 1907

Reasons, objectives, driving forces. The causes of the revolution were rooted in the economic and socio-political system of Russia. The unresolved agrarian-peasant question, the preservation of landownership and peasant land shortages, the high degree of exploitation of workers of all nations, the autocratic system, complete political lawlessness and the absence of democratic freedoms, the arbitrariness of the police and bureaucrats and the accumulated social protest - all this could not but give rise to a revolutionary explosion. The catalyst that accelerated the emergence of the revolution was the deterioration of the financial situation of workers due to the economic crisis of 1900-1903. and the shameful defeat for tsarism in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

The objectives of the revolution are the overthrow of the autocracy, the convening of the Constituent Assembly to establish a democratic system, the elimination of class inequality; introduction of freedom of speech, assembly, parties and associations; the destruction of landownership and the distribution of land to peasants; reducing the working day to 8 hours, recognizing the right of workers to strike and creating trade unions; achieving equality of rights for the peoples of Russia. Wide sections of the population were interested in the implementation of these tasks.

Participants in the revolution were: workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors, most of the middle and petty bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and office workers. Therefore, in terms of the goals and composition of the participants, it was nationwide and had a bourgeois-democratic character.

Stages of the revolution. The revolution lasted 2.5 years (from January 9, 1905 to June 3, 1907). It went through several stages in its development. The prologue to the revolution was the events in St. Petersburg - the general strike and Bloody Sunday. On January 9, workers who went to the Tsar with a petition were shot. It was compiled by participants in the “Meeting of Russian Factory Workers of St. Petersburg” under the leadership of G. A. Gapon. The petition contained a request from workers to improve their financial situation and political demands - the convening of a Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage, the introduction of democratic freedoms. This was the reason for the execution, as a result of which more than 1,200 people were killed and about 5 thousand were wounded. In response, the workers took up arms and began building barricades.

First stage. From January 9 to the end of September 1905 - the beginning and development of the revolution along an ascending line, its expansion in depth and breadth. More and more masses of the population were drawn into it. It gradually covered all regions of Russia. Main events: January-February strikes and protest demonstrations in response to Bloody Sunday under the slogan “Down with autocracy!”; spring-summer demonstrations of workers in Moscow, Odessa, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga and Baku (more than 800 thousand); the creation in Ivanovo-Voznesensk of a new body of workers' power - the Council of Authorized Deputies; uprising of sailors on the battleship "Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky"; mass movement of peasants and agricultural workers in 1/5 of the districts of Central Russia, Georgia and Latvia; the creation of the Peasant Union, which made political demands. During this period, part of the bourgeoisie financially and morally supported popular uprisings. Under the pressure of the revolution, the government made its first concession and promised to convene the State Duma. (It was named Bulyginskaya after the Minister of Internal Affairs.) An attempt to create a legislative advisory body with significantly limited voting rights of the population in the context of the development of the revolution.

Second phase. October - December 1905 - the highest rise of the revolution. Main events: the general All-Russian October political strike (more than 2 million participants) and as a result the publication of the Manifesto on October 17 “On the Improvement of State Order,” in which the tsar promised to introduce some political freedoms and convene a legislative State Duma on the basis of a new electoral law; peasant riots that led to the abolition of redemption payments; performances in the army and navy (uprising in Sevastopol under the leadership of Lieutenant P.P. Schmidt); December strikes and uprisings in Moscow, Kharkov, Chita, Krasnoyarsk and other cities. The government suppressed all armed uprisings. At the height of the uprising in Moscow, which caused a special political resonance in the country, on December 11, 1905, a decree “On changing the regulations on elections to the State Duma” was published and preparations for elections were announced. This act allowed the government to reduce the intensity of revolutionary passions. The bourgeois-liberal strata, frightened by the scale of the movement, recoiled from the revolution. They welcomed the publication of the Manifesto and the new electoral law, believing that this meant the weakening of autocracy and the beginning of parliamentarism in Russia. Taking advantage of the promised freedoms, they began to create their own political parties.

In October 1905, on the basis of the Liberation Union and the Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists, the Constitutional Democratic Party was formed (cadets). Its members expressed the interests of the average urban bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Their leader was the historian P. N. Milyukov. The program included the demand for the establishment of a parliamentary democratic system in the form of a constitutional monarchy, universal suffrage, the introduction of broad political freedoms, an 8-hour working day, the right to strikes and trade unions. The Cadets spoke out for the preservation of a united and indivisible Russia with the granting of autonomy to Poland and Finland. The cadet program implied the modernization of the Russian political system along Western European lines. The Cadets became a party in opposition to the tsarist government.

In November 1905 it was created "Union October 17". The Octobrists expressed the interests of large industrialists, the financial bourgeoisie, liberal landowners and wealthy intelligentsia. The leader of the party was businessman A.I. Guchkov. The Octobrist program provided for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy with a strong executive power of the Tsar and a legislative Duma, the preservation of a united and indivisible Russia (with the granting of autonomy to Finland). They were willing to cooperate with the government, although they recognized the need for some reforms. They proposed solving the agrarian question without affecting landownership (dissolving the community, returning the plots to the peasants, and reducing land hunger in the center of Russia by relocating peasants to the outskirts).

Conservative-monarchist circles organized in November 1905 "Union of the Russian People" and in 1908 "Union of Michael the Archangel"(Black Hundreds). Their leaders were Dr. A. I. Dubrovin, large landowners N. E. Markov and V. M. Purishkevich. They fought against any revolutionary and democratic protests, insisted on strengthening the autocracy, the integrity and indivisibility of Russia, maintaining the dominant position of the Russians and strengthening the position of the Orthodox Church. Third stage. From January 1906 to June 3, 1907 - the sweetness and retreat of the revolution. Main events: “rearguard battles of the proletariat”, which had an offensive, political nature (1.1 million workers took part in strikes in 1906, 740 thousand in 1907); a new scope of the peasant movement (half of the landowners' estates in the center of Russia were burning); sailors' uprisings (Kronstadt and Svea-borg); national liberation movement (Poland, Finland, Baltic states, Ukraine).

Gradually the wave of popular protests weakened. The center of gravity in the social movement has shifted to polling stations and the State Duma. Elections to it were not universal (farmers, women, soldiers, sailors, students and workers employed in small enterprises did not participate in them). Each class had its own standards of representation: the vote of 1 landowner was equal to 3 votes of the bourgeoisie, 15 votes of peasants and 45 votes of workers. The outcome of the election was determined by the ratio of the number of electors. The government still counted on the monarchical commitment and Duma illusions of the peasants, so a relatively high standard of representation was established for them. The elections were not direct: for peasants - four degrees, for workers - three degrees, for nobles and the bourgeoisie - two degrees. An age limit (25 years) and a high property qualification for city residents was introduced to ensure the advantage of the big bourgeoisie in the elections. I State Duma (April - June 1906). Among its Deputies there were 34% Cadets, 14% Octobrists, 23% Trudoviks (a faction close to the Social Revolutionaries and expressing the interests of the peasantry). The Social Democrats were represented by the Mensheviks (about 4% of the seats). The Black Hundreds did not enter the Duma. The Bolsheviks boycotted the elections. Contemporaries called the First State Duma “the Duma of people’s hopes for a peaceful path.” However, its legislative rights were curtailed even before convocation. In February 1906, the advisory State Council was transformed into an upper legislative chamber. The new “Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire,” published in April before the opening of the Duma, preserved the formula of the supreme autocratic power of the emperor and reserved for the tsar the right to issue decrees without her approval, which contradicted the promises of the Manifesto of October 17. Nevertheless, some limitation of autocracy was achieved, since the State Duma received the right of legislative initiative; new laws could not be adopted without its participation. The Duma had the right to send requests to the government, express no confidence in it, and approved the state budget. The Duma proposed a program for the democratization of Russia. It provided for: the introduction of ministerial responsibility to the Duma; guarantee of all civil liberties; establishment of universal free education; carrying out agrarian reform; meeting the demands of national minorities; abolition of the death penalty and complete political amnesty. The government did not accept this program, which intensified its confrontation with the Duma. The main issue in the Duma was the agrarian question. The bottom line of the bill was discussed: the Cadets and the Trudoviks. Both of them stood for the creation of a “state land fund” from state, monastic, appanage and part of landowners’ lands. However, the cadets recommended not to touch the profitable landowners' estates. They proposed to buy back the seized part of the landowners’ land from the owners “at a fair valuation” at the expense of the state. The Trudoviks’ project provided for the alienation of all privately owned lands free of charge, leaving their owners with only a “labor standard.” During the discussion, some of the Trudoviks put forward an even more radical project - the complete destruction of private land ownership, declaring natural resources and subsoil as a national property. The government, supported by all conservative forces in the country, rejected all projects. 72 days after the opening of the Duma, the Tsar dissolved it, saying that it did not calm the people, but inflamed passions. Repressions were intensified: military courts and punitive detachments operated.

In April 1906, P. A. Stolypin was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, who became Chairman of the Council of Ministers in July of the same year (created in October 1905). P. A. Stolypin (1862-1911) - from a family of large landowners, quickly made a successful career in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and was the governor of a number of provinces. He received the personal gratitude of the tsar for the suppression of peasant unrest in the Saratov province in 1905. Possessing a broad political outlook and a decisive character, he became the central political figure in Russia at the final stage of the revolution and in subsequent years. He took an active part in the development and implementation of agrarian reform. The main political idea of ​​P. A. Stolypin was that reforms can be successfully implemented only in the presence of strong state power. Therefore, his policy of reforming Russia was combined with an intensified fight against the revolutionary movement, police repression and punitive actions. In September 1911 he died as a result of a terrorist attack. II State Duma (February - June 1907). During the elections of the new Duma, the right of workers and peasants to participate in them was curtailed. Propaganda of radical parties was prohibited, their rallies were dispersed. The Tsar wanted to get an obedient Duma, but he miscalculated. The Second State Duma turned out to be even more left-wing than the first. The Cadet Center “melted” (19% of places). The right flank strengthened - 10% of the Black Hundreds, 15% of the Octobrists and bourgeois-nationalist deputies entered the Duma. Trudoviki, Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats formed a left bloc with 222 seats (43%). As before, the agrarian question was central. The Black Hundreds demanded that the landowners' property be preserved intact, and that allotment peasant lands be withdrawn from the community and divided into cuts among the peasants. This project coincided with the government's agrarian reform program. The cadets abandoned the idea of ​​creating a state fund. They proposed to buy part of the land from the landowners and transfer it to the peasants, dividing the costs equally between them and the state. The Trudoviks again put forward their project for the gratuitous alienation of all privately owned lands and their distribution according to the “labor norm”. Social Democrats demanded the complete confiscation of landowners' land and the creation of local committees to distribute it among the peasants. Projects of forced alienation of landowners' land frightened the government. The decision was made to disperse the Duma. It lasted 102 days. The pretext for dissolution was the accusation of deputies of the Social Democratic faction of preparing a coup d'etat. In fact, the coup was carried out by the government. On June 3, 1907, simultaneously with the Manifesto on the dissolution of the Second State Duma, a new electoral law was published. This act was a direct violation of Article 86 of the “Basic Laws of the Russian Empire,” according to which no new law could be adopted without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma. June 3 is considered the last day of the revolution of 1905-1907.

The meaning of revolution. The main result was that the supreme power was forced to change the socio-political system of Russia. New government structures emerged in it, indicating the beginning of the development of parliamentarism. Some limitation of autocracy was achieved, although the tsar retained the ability to make legislative decisions and full executive power. The socio-political situation of Russian citizens has changed; Democratic freedoms were introduced, censorship was abolished, trade unions and legal political parties were allowed to organize. The bourgeoisie received a wide opportunity to participate in the political life of the country. The financial situation of workers has improved. In a number of industries, wages increased and the working day decreased to 9-10 hours. The peasants achieved the abolition of redemption payments. The freedom of movement of peasants was expanded and the power of zemstvo chiefs was limited. Agrarian reform began, destroying the community and strengthening the rights of peasants as landowners, which contributed to the further capitalist evolution of agriculture. The end of the revolution led to the establishment of temporary internal political stabilization

Stolypin's reforms (briefly)

Stolypin carried out his reforms from 1906, when he was appointed prime minister, until his death on September 5, caused by assassins' bullets.

Agrarian reform

In short, the main goal of Stolypin's agrarian reform was to create a wide stratum of rich peasants. Unlike the 1861 reform, the emphasis was on the individual owner rather than the community. The previous communal form fettered the initiative of the hard-working peasants, but now, freed from the community and not looking back at the “poor and drunk,” they could dramatically increase the efficiency of their farming. The law of June 14, 1910 stated that from now on, “every householder who owns an allotment of land on a communal basis may at any time demand that the part due to him from the said land be strengthened as his personal property.” Stolypin believed that the wealthy peasantry would become the real support of the autocracy. An important part of the Stolypin agrarian reform was the activity of the credit bank. This institution sold land to peasants on credit, either state-owned or purchased from landowners. Moreover, the interest rate on loans for independent peasants was half that for communities. Through a credit bank, peasants acquired in 1905-1914. about 9 and a half million hectares of land. However, measures against defaulters were harsh: the land was taken away from them and put back on sale. Thus, the reforms not only made it possible to acquire land, but also encouraged people to actively work on it. Another important part of Stolypin's reform was the resettlement of peasants to free lands. The bill prepared by the government provided for the transfer of state lands in Siberia to private hands without redemption. However, there were also difficulties: there were not enough funds or surveyors to carry out land survey work. But despite this, resettlement to Siberia, as well as the Far East, Central Asia and the North Caucasus, gained momentum. The move was free, and specially equipped “Stolypin” carriages made it possible to transport cattle by rail. The state tried to improve life in the resettlement areas: schools, medical centers, etc. were built.

Zemstvo

Being a supporter of zemstvo administration, Stolypin extended zemstvo institutions to some provinces where they had not existed before. It was not always politically simple. For example, the implementation of zemstvo reform in the western provinces, historically dependent on the gentry, was approved by the Duma, which supported the improvement of the situation of the Belarusian and Russian population, which constituted the majority in these territories, but was met with sharp rebuff in the State Council, which supported the gentry.

Industry reform

The main stage in resolving the labor issue during the years of Stolypin's premiership was the work of the Special Meeting in 1906 and 1907, which prepared ten bills that affected the main aspects of labor in industrial enterprises. These were questions about rules for hiring workers, insurance for accidents and illnesses, working hours, etc. Unfortunately, the positions of industrialists and workers (as well as those who incited the latter to disobedience and rebellion) were too far from each other and the compromises found did not suit either one or the other (which was readily used by all kinds of revolutionaries).

National question

Stolypin perfectly understood the importance of this issue in such a multinational country as Russia. He was a supporter of unification, not disunity, of the peoples of the country. He proposed creating a special ministry of nationalities that would study the characteristics of each nation: history, traditions, culture, social life, religion, etc. - so that they flow into our great power with the greatest mutual benefit. Stolypin believed that all peoples should have equal rights and responsibilities and be loyal to Russia. Also, the task of the new ministry was to counter the internal and external enemies of the country who sought to sow ethnic and religious discord.

When P. A. Stolypin came to power, life in the state changed significantly. The new leader tried to boost the country's economy and promote its further development as a whole, so he immediately released a number of reforms, one of which was Agrarian. The main goals of this reform were:
transfer of allotment lands into the ownership of peasants;
the gradual abolition of the rural community as a collective owner of land;
widespread lending to peasants;
purchasing landowners' lands for resale to peasants on preferential terms;
land management, which allows optimizing peasant farming by eliminating striping.
As we see, the reform pursued both long-term and short-term goals.
Short-term: resolution of the “agrarian question” as a source of mass discontent (primarily, the cessation of agrarian unrest). Long-term: sustainable prosperity and development of agriculture and the peasantry, integration of the peasantry into the market economy.
Stolypin's agrarian reform briefly states that the document is aimed at improving peasant allotment land use and has little impact on private land ownership. It was carried out in 47 provinces of European Russia; Cossack land ownership and Bashkir land ownership were not affected. The idea of ​​agrarian reform arose as a result of the revolution of 1905-1907, when agrarian unrest intensified, and the activities of the first three State Dumas. Agrarian unrest reached a particular scale in 1905, and the government barely had time to suppress them. Stolypin at this time was the governor of the Saratov province, where the unrest was especially strong due to crop failure. In April 1906, P. A. Stolypin was appointed Minister of Internal Affairs. The government project on the forced alienation of part of the landowners' lands was not adopted, the Duma was dissolved, and Stolypin was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers. Due to the fact that the situation with the agrarian issue remained uncertain, Stolypin decided to adopt all the necessary legislation without waiting for the convening of the Second Duma. On August 27, a decree was issued on the sale of state lands to peasants. On October 14 and 15, decrees were issued expanding 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 issued - the decree “On supplementing certain provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership and land use,” proclaiming the right of peasants to secure ownership of their allotment lands.
Thanks to Stolypin's bold step, the reform became irreversible. The Second Duma expressed an even more negative attitude towards any government initiatives. It was disbanded after 102 days. There was no compromise between the Duma and the government.
The Third Duma, without rejecting the government course, adopted all government bills for an extremely long time. As a result, since 1907 the government has abandoned active legislative activity in agrarian policy and moved to expand the activities of government agencies and increase the volume of distributed loans and subsidies. Since 1907, peasants' applications for land ownership have been satisfied with great delays (there is not enough staff for land management commissions). Therefore, the government's main efforts were aimed at training personnel (primarily land surveyors). But the funds allocated for reform are also increasing, in the form of funding the Peasant Land Bank, subsidizing agronomic assistance measures, and direct benefits to peasants.
Since 1910, the government policy has changed somewhat - more attention begins to be paid to supporting the cooperative movement.
On September 5, 1911, P. A. Stolypin was killed, and Finance Minister V. N. Kokovtsov became prime minister. Kokovtsov, who showed less initiative than Stolypin, followed the planned course without introducing anything new into the agrarian reform. The volume of land management work to clear up land, the amount of land assigned to peasant ownership, the amount of land sold to peasants through the Peasant Bank, and the volume of loans to peasants grew steadily until the outbreak of the First World War.
During 1906-1911 decrees were issued, as a result of which peasants had the opportunity:
take ownership of a plot of land;
freely leave the community and choose another place of residence;
move to the Urals to receive land (about 15 hectares) and money from the state to boost the economy;
settlers received tax benefits and were exempted from military service.
This is a rhetorical question when assessing the activities of reformers; it does not have a clear answer. Each generation will give its own answer to it.
Stolypin stopped the revolution and began deep reforms. At the same time, he fell victim to an assassination attempt, was unable to complete his reforms and did not achieve his main goal: to create a great Russia in 20 peaceful years.
During his reign the following changes occurred:
1. The cooperative movement developed.
2. The number of wealthy peasants has increased.
3. In terms of gross grain harvest, Russia was in first place in the world.
4. The number of livestock has increased 2.5 times.
5. About 2.5 million people moved to new lands.

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (April 2(14), 1862 - September 5(18), 1911) - a prominent statesman during the reign of Nicholas II. Author of a number of reforms designed to accelerate the economic development of the Russian economy while maintaining autocratic foundations and stabilizing the existing political and social order. Let us briefly examine the points of Stolypin’s reform.

Reasons for reforms

By the twentieth century, Russia remained a country with feudal remnants. The First Russian Revolution showed that the country has big problems in the agricultural sector, the national question has become aggravated and extremist organizations are actively working.

Among other things, in Russia the level of literacy of the population remained low, and the proletariat and peasantry were dissatisfied with their social position. The weak and indecisive government did not want to solve these problems radically until Pyotr Stolypin (1906-1911) was appointed to the post of prime minister.

He was supposed to continue the economic policy of S. Yu. Witte and bring Russia into the category of capitalist powers, ending the era of feudalism in the country.

Let's reflect Stolypin's reforms in the table.

Rice. 1. Portrait of P.A. Stolypin.

Agrarian reform

The most important and famous of the reforms concerned the peasant community.
Its goals were:

• Increasing labor productivity of peasants
• Elimination of social tension among the peasantry
• The withdrawal of kulaks from communal dependence and the eventual destruction of the community

Stolypin took a number of measures to achieve his goals. Thus, peasants were allowed to leave the community and create their own personal separate farms, sell or mortgage their land plots, and also pass them on by inheritance.

TOP 5 articleswho are reading along with this

Peasants could receive a loan on preferential terms secured by land or receive a loan to purchase land from a landowner for a period of 55.5 years. The resettlement policy of land-poor peasants to state lands in the uninhabited territories of the Urals, Siberia and the Far East was also envisaged.

The state assumed obligations to support agronomic measures that could increase yields or improve the quality of labor in agriculture.

The use of these methods made it possible to remove 21% of the peasants from the community, the process of stratification of the peasants accelerated - the number of kulaks grew and the yield of the fields increased. However, there were pros and cons to this reform.

Rice. 2. Stolypin carriage.

The resettlement of the peasants did not give the desired effect, since more than half quickly returned, and in addition to the contradictions between the peasants and the landowners, there was a conflict between the community members and the kulaks.

The problem with Stolypin’s reform was that the author himself allocated at least 20 years for its implementation, and it was criticized almost immediately after its adoption. Neither Stolypin nor his contemporaries were able to see the results of their labors.

Military reform

Analyzing the experience of the Russian-Japanese War, Stolypin first of all developed a new Military Regulations. The principle of conscription into the army, the regulations of conscription commissions, and the benefits of conscripts were clearly formulated. Funding for the maintenance of the officer corps increased, a new military uniform was developed, and strategic railway construction began.

Stolypin remained a principled opponent of Russia's participation in a possible world war, believing that the country would not withstand such a load.

Rice. 3. Construction of the railway in the Russian Empire 20th century.

Other reforms of Stolypin

In 1908, by decree of Stolypin, compulsory primary education was to be introduced in Russia within 10 years.

Stolypin was a supporter of strengthening tsarist power. He was one of the main figures in establishing the “June Third Monarchy” in 1907. During this period of the reign of Nicholas II, the Russification of western territories such as Poland and Finland intensified. As part of this policy, Stolypin carried out a zemstvo reform, according to which local government bodies were elected in such a way that representatives of national minorities were a minority.

In 1908, the State Duma adopted laws on providing medical care to employees in case of injury or illness, and also established payments to the family breadwinner who was unable to work.

The influence of the 1905 revolution on the situation in the country forced Stolypin to introduce military courts, and in addition, the development of a unified legal space for the Russian Empire began. It was planned to define human rights and areas of responsibility of officials. This was a kind of beginning of a large-scale reform of the country's governance.

What have we learned?

From an article on the history of grade 9, we became acquainted with the activities of Pyotr Stolypin. We can conclude that Stolypin’s reforms affected all spheres of human activity and over the course of 20 years should have resolved many issues that had accumulated in Russian society, however, first his death, and then the outbreak of war, did not allow Russia to go through this path bloodlessly.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.4. Total ratings received: 1082.

Introduction

The problem of reforming the Russian state concerns, to a greater or lesser extent, almost every citizen of our country. How to study and understand with all objectivity the reformist course of the country’s current leadership? After all, it has long been noted that the real results of reforms, as well as their most objective assessments, do not appear immediately, but after a certain period of time. This is where all their difficulty in understanding arises at a time when reforms are just getting underway and gaining momentum. Meanwhile, historical experience is an inexhaustible source of valuable information: concrete historical examples. If we are talking about reform activities, then we can say with confidence that on the basis of these examples we can to some extent come closer to understanding modern reforms, and in certain cases we can predict and predict the fundamental directions of their development in the future.

The general conclusion can be drawn as follows: only the closest connection between economics and politics makes it possible to achieve positive results of reform, which P.A. understood. Stolypin, trying to implement his reforms. Based on the above, we will determine the purpose and objectives of the abstract. The goal is to provide a historical analysis of the reforms and study various sources and compare different points of view on the essence of the reforms of P.A. Stolypin.

Achieving this goal is achieved by solving the following tasks:

Reveal the economic and political significance of reforms for the development of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century;

Determine the results and failures of P.A.’s reform activities. Stolypin, its significance for the current stage of development of Russia.

Reasons for Stolypin's reforms

Appeal to the historical experience of the Stolypin reforms is associated with the following circumstances:

Firstly, by the end of the 19th century it became clear that the positive transformative potential of the reforms of 1861 had been exhausted. A new cycle of reforms was needed.

Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was still a moderately developed country. In the country's economy, a large share belonged to early capitalist and semi-feudal forms of economy - from manufacturing to patriarchal-natural.

Thirdly, Russia’s too slow political development was determined mainly by its agrarian question.

Fourthly, the country's social class structure was very heterogeneous. Along with the formation of the classes of bourgeois society (bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat), class divisions continued to exist in it - a legacy of the feudal era:

• the bourgeoisie tried to take a leading role in the country's economy in the 20th century; before that, it did not play any independent role in the country's society, since it was completely dependent on the autocracy, as a result of which it remained an apolitical and conservative force;
• the nobility, which concentrated more than 60% of all lands, was the main support of the autocracy, although socially it was losing its homogeneity, moving closer to the bourgeoisie;
• The peasantry, which made up ½ of the country's population, was also affected by the social stratification of society (20% - kulaks, 30% - middle peasants, 50% - poor people). Contradictions arose between its polar layers;
• the wage-labor class numbered 16.8 million people. It was heterogeneous; most of the workers consisted of peasants who had recently arrived in the city, but had not yet lost touch with the land. The core of this class was the factory proletariat, which numbered more than 3 million people.

Fifthly, the political system in Russia remained a monarchy. Although in the 70s of the 19th century a step was taken towards transforming the state system into a bourgeois monarchy, tsarism retained all the attributes of absolutism.

Sixth, with the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the revolutionary situation in the country began to grow (1905-1907).

From all this we can conclude that Russia needed both political and economic reforms that could strengthen and improve the Russian economy. The conductors of these reforms at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th were such different political figures as S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin. Both of them were not revolutionaries and sought to preserve the existing system in Russia and protect it from revolutionary upheavals “from below.” However, Stolypin, in contrast to Witte, believed that changes were necessary, but to the extent and where they were necessary for economic reform. As long as there is no economically free owner, there is no basis for other forms of freedom (for example, political or personal).

Stolypin agrarian reform

The reform had several goals:

1. socio-political: Create in the countryside a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners (farmers), separating them from the bulk of the peasantry and opposing them to it. Strong farms were supposed to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

2. socio-economic: Destroy the community, that is, create private farms in the form of farms and farms, and direct the excess labor to the city, where it will be absorbed by the growing industry;

3. economic: To ensure the rise of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the gap with the advanced powers.

The first step in this direction was taken in 1861. Then the agrarian issue was resolved at the expense of the peasants, who paid the landowners both for land and freedom. The agrarian legislation of 1906-1910 was the second step, while the government, in order to strengthen its power and the power of the landowners, again tried to solve the agrarian question at the expense of the peasantry.

The new agrarian policy was carried out on the basis of the decree of November 9, 1906. The discussion of the decree of November 9, 1906 began in the Duma on October 23, 1908, i.e. two years after he entered life. In total, it was discussed for more than six months.

After the decree was adopted by the Duma on November 9, it, with amendments, was submitted for discussion to the State Council and was also adopted, after which, based on the date of its approval by the Tsar, it became known as the law on June 14, 1910. In its content, it was, of course, a liberal bourgeois law, promoting the development of capitalism in the countryside and, therefore, progressive. Agrarian reform consisted of a number of sequential and interrelated measures. The main direction of the reforms was as follows:

• Destruction of community and development of private property;
• Creation of a peasant bank;
• Cooperative Movement;
• Resettlement of peasants;
• Agricultural activities.

The practice of the reform showed that the mass of the peasantry was opposed to separation from the community, at least in most areas. A survey of peasant sentiments by the Free Economic Society showed that in the central provinces peasants had a negative attitude towards separation from the community. The main reasons for such peasant sentiments: the community is a kind of trade union for the peasant, so neither the community nor the peasant wanted to lose it; Russia is a zone of unstable agriculture; in such climatic conditions, a peasant cannot survive alone; communal land did not solve the problem of land shortage.

In the current situation, the only way for the government to carry out reform was through violence against the main mass of the peasantry. The specific methods of violence were very diverse - from intimidation of village gatherings to drawing up fictitious verdicts, from the cancellation of decisions of gatherings by the zemstvo chief to the issuance of decisions by county land management commissions on the allocation of householders, from the use of police force to obtain the “consent” of gatherings to the expulsion of opponents of the allocation.

As a result, by 1916, 2,478 thousand householders, or 26% of the community members, were separated from the communities, although applications were submitted from 3,374 thousand householders, or 35% of the community members. Thus, the government failed to achieve its goal of separating at least the majority of householders from the community. Basically, this is what determined the collapse of the Stolypin reform.

In 1906-1907, on the instructions of the tsar, part of the state and appanage lands was transferred to the peasant bank for sale to peasants in order to alleviate the land shortage. In addition, the Bank carried out on a large scale the purchase of lands with their subsequent resale to peasants on preferential terms, and intermediary operations to increase 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 the peasants paid it. 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 who acquired land as their sole property, payments were reduced. As a result, if before 1906 the bulk of land buyers were peasant collectives, then by 1913 79.7% of buyers were individual peasants. The Stolypin reform gave a powerful impetus to the development of various forms of peasant cooperation. Unlike the poor community member, who was in the grip of the village world, the free, wealthy, enterprising peasant, living in the future, needed cooperation. Peasants cooperated for more profitable sales of products, organization of their processing, and, within certain limits, production, joint acquisition of machinery, creation of collective agronomic, land reclamation, veterinary and other services.

The growth rate of cooperation caused by Stolypin's reforms is characterized by the following figures: in 1901-1905, 641 peasant consumer societies were created in Russia, and in 1906-1911 - 4175 societies.

Loans from the peasant bank could not fully satisfy the peasant's demand for money supply. Therefore, credit cooperation has become widespread and has gone through two stages in its development. At the first stage, administrative forms of regulation of small credit relations prevailed. By creating a qualified cadre of small loan inspectors and by allocating significant credit through state banks for initial loans to credit unions and for subsequent loans, the government stimulated the cooperative movement. At the second stage, rural credit partnerships, accumulating their capital, developed independently. As a result, a wide network of small peasant credit institutions, savings banks and credit partnerships was created that served the cash flow of peasant farms. By January 1, 1914, the number of such institutions exceeded 13 thousand.

Credit relations gave a strong impetus to the development of production, consumer and marketing cooperatives. Peasants on a cooperative basis created dairy and butter artels, agricultural societies, consumer shops and even peasant artel dairies. The accelerated resettlement of peasants to the regions of Siberia and Central Asia, which began after the reform of 1861, was beneficial to the state, but did not correspond to the interests of the landowners, since it deprived them of cheap labor. Therefore, the government, expressing its will of the ruling class, practically ceased to encourage resettlement, and even opposed this process. The difficulties in obtaining permission to move to Siberia in the 80s of the last century can be judged from materials from the archives of the Novosibirsk region.

Stolypin's government also passed a series of new laws on the resettlement of peasants to the outskirts of the empire. The possibilities for broad development of resettlement were already laid down in the law of June 6, 1904. This law introduced freedom of resettlement without benefits, and the government was given the right to make decisions on the opening of free preferential resettlement from certain areas of the empire, “eviction from which was recognized as particularly desirable.” The law on preferential resettlement was first applied in 1905: the government “opened” resettlement from the Poltava and Kharkov provinces, where the peasant movement was especially widespread.

By decree of March 10, 1906, the right to resettle peasants was granted to everyone without restrictions. The government established numerous benefits for those who wished to move to new places: forgiveness of all arrears, low prices for train tickets, tax exemption for five years, interest-free loans in the amount of 100 rubles to 400 rubles per peasant household.

The results of the resettlement campaign were as follows: firstly, during this period a huge leap was made in the economic and social development of Siberia. Also, the population of this region increased by 153% during the years of colonization. Over 10 years, 3.1 million people moved to Siberia. If before the resettlement to Siberia there was a reduction in sown areas, then in 1906-1913 they were expanded by 80%, while in the European part of Russia by 6.2%. The area under cultivation beyond the Ural ridge has doubled. Siberia supplied 800 thousand tons of grain to the domestic and foreign markets. In terms of the pace of development of livestock farming, Siberia also overtook the European part of Russia.

But impressive successes could not obscure the difficulties. Travel on the railways was poorly organized. Hundreds of people died during the difficult journey. The harsh conditions of Siberia required all efforts.

One of the main obstacles to the economic progress of the village was the low level of farming and the illiteracy of the vast majority of producers who were accustomed to working according to the general custom. During the years of reform, peasants were provided with large-scale agro-economic assistance. Agro-industrial services were specially created for peasants, who organized training courses on cattle breeding and dairy production, and the introduction of progressive forms of agricultural production. Much attention was paid to the progress of the system of out-of-school agricultural education. If in 1905 the number of students at agricultural courses was 2 thousand people, then in 1912 - 58 thousand, and at agricultural readings - 31.6 thousand and 1046 thousand people, respectively.

Currently, there is an opinion that Stolypin’s agrarian reforms led to the concentration of the land fund in the hands of a small rich stratum as a result of the landlessness of the bulk of the peasants. Reality shows the opposite - an increase in the share of the “middle strata” in peasant land use.

Other Stolypin reforms

In addition to agrarian reforms, Stolypin developed very interesting bills in the political, social and cultural fields. It was he, on behalf of the government, who submitted to the Third State Duma a bill on insurance of workers for disability, old age, illness, and accidents, on providing medical care to workers at the expense of enterprises, and limiting the length of the working day for minors and adolescents. Submitted to Nicholas II a draft resolution of the Jewish question.

Few people know that Stolypin was the initiator of the introduction of universal free education in Russia. From 1907 to 1914, state spending on the development of public education constantly increased. Thus, in 1914, more funds were allocated for these needs than in France. Stolypin sought to improve the educational and cultural level of government officials by proposing to increase teachers' salaries.

P.A. Stolypin actively participated in the development of political reform. He proposed a classless system of local government, according to which elections to zemstvos were to be held not according to class curiae, but according to property, and the property qualification should be reduced 10 times. This would significantly expand the number of voters, including wealthy peasants. Stolypin planned to place at the head of the district not a leader of the nobility, but a government official trained in administration. The proposed reform of local governments provoked sharp criticism of the government policy from the nobles.

In developing national policy, Stolypin adhered to the principle of “not oppressing non-Russian peoples, but preserving the rights of the indigenous population,” which in fact often turned out to be a priority for the interests of Russians. They proposed a bill on the introduction of zemstvos in 6 western provinces, according to which zemstvos were to become national-Russian through elections through national curiae.

The version (by I. Dyakov) that Stolypin planned the political separation of Poland from Russia in 1920 seems unlikely. In relations with Finland, whose autonomy was infringed due to some discrepancies between Russian and Finnish laws, Stolypin insisted on the primacy of Russian laws, while in 1809 Alexander 1 granted autonomy to the Grand Duchy of Finland.

The political course that Stolypin outlined provoked sharp criticism of him from both the left and right political forces. It is interesting that his contemporaries assessed his political creed in such mutually exclusive terms as “conservative liberal” and “liberal conservative.” Since 1908, sharp criticism of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers began in the media of that time. Conservatives accused him of indecisiveness and inactivity, liberals labeled him the “all-Russian governor”, ​​accused him of dictatorial tastes and habits, and the socialist parties called him “the chief hangman”, “pogromist”.

At this time, Stolypin's relations with the tsar deteriorated sharply. Many historians believe that Nicholas 11 feared that the prime minister might usurp power. It should be noted that Stolypin allowed one to have one’s own opinion even in cases where it differed from the opinion of the tsar. Proposed by P.A. Stolypin's reforms objectively contributed to the acceleration of the development of market principles in the Russian economy. But if Witte in his policy was focused on the Western European path of development, then Stolypin tried to find his own national, special path. This path was traced in the strengthening of the administrative role of the state in the implementation of reforms, both political, national, and agrarian.

Results of reforms

What were the results of Stolypin’s agrarian course, which was the last bet of tsarism in the struggle for existence? Was Stolypin's agrarian reform a success? Historians generally believe that the results were very far from expected... According to V. Bondarev, the reform of agrarian relations, giving peasants the right to private ownership of land was only partially successful, while the antagonistic contradiction between peasants and landowners remained; carrying out land management work and separating the peasants from the community succeeded to an insignificant extent - about 10% of the peasants separated from the farmstead; The resettlement of peasants to Siberia, Central Asia, and the Far East was to some extent successful. These are conclusions; for an objective assessment it is necessary to turn to basic figures and facts.

In about ten years, only 2.5 million peasant farms managed to free themselves from the tutelage of the community. The movement to abolish "secular" government in the countryside reached its climax between 1908 and 1909. (about half a million requests annually). However, this movement subsequently decreased noticeably. Cases of complete dissolution of the community as a whole were extremely rare (about 130 thousand). "Free" peasant landholdings accounted for only 15% of the total area of ​​cultivated land. Hardly half of the peasants working on these lands (1.2 million) received plots and farmsteads assigned to them permanently as private property. Only 8% of the total number of workers were able to become owners, but they were lost throughout the country.

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. Total for 1906-1915 the bank purchased 4,614 thousand acres of land for sale to peasants, raising prices from 105 rubles. in 1907 to 136 rubles. in 1914 for a tithe of land. 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.

Using the example of the Tula region, we see the collapse of the agrarian reform: Tula peasants aptly said that “the new law was made in order to confuse the peasants, so that they would squabble over their land and forget about the lord’s land.” The results of the reform indicate the collapse of the calculations of tsarism. In the Tula province, over the eight years of the reform, only 21.6% of all peasant householders left the community, and only 14.5% were assigned communal allotment land.

In a word, the reform failed. The Stolypin reform accelerated the “de-peasantization of the peasants” and the proletarianization of the countryside. The number of horseless peasant farms in the Tula province grew from 26% in 1905 to 34% in 1912. The resettlement policy of tsarism did not bring “calm” to the villages. It achieved neither the economic nor the political goals that were set for it. The village, with its farmsteads and farmsteads, remained as poor as before Stolypin. Although, it is necessary to cite the figures cited by G. Popov - they show that some shifts in a positive direction were observed: from 1905 to 1913. the volume of annual purchases of agricultural machinery has increased 2-3 times. Grain production in Russia in 1913 exceeded by a third the volume of grain production in the USA, Canada, and Argentina combined. Russian grain exports reached 15 million tons per year in 1912. Oil was exported to England in an amount twice as large as the cost of the entire annual gold production in Siberia. The surplus of grain in 1916 was 1 billion poods. Encouraging indicators, aren't they? But still, according to Popov, the main task - to make Russia a country of farmers - could not be solved. Most of the peasants continued to live in the community, and this, in particular, predetermined the development of events in 1717. The fact is, and we already briefly touched on this problem when we talked about the results of the elections to the State Duma, that Stolypin’s course failed politically. He did not force the peasant to forget about the landowner's land, as the authors of the decree of November 9 had hoped. The kulak newly created by the reform, plundering the communal land, kept the landowner's land in mind, like the rest of the peasants. In addition, he became an increasingly visible economic competitor of the landowner in the grain market, and sometimes also a political competitor, primarily in the zemstvo. In addition, the new population of “strong” masters, on whom Stolypin was counting, was not sufficient to become a support for tsarism....

Here the main reason for the failure of bourgeois reforms is clearly revealed - the attempt to carry them out within the framework of the feudal system. By the way, let’s say that one can come across the statement that Stolypin’s reforms simply did not have enough time for positive results. In our opinion, these reforms by their nature could not be implemented effectively in that situation. They simply could not have this time: at some stage they would simply get stuck. Let us repeat again that it is impossible, without changing the superstructure, to change the basis - socio-economic relations and, therefore, to carry out bourgeois reforms within the framework of absolutism (even with the election of a representative body, the essence of power has changed little) is not possible. Here, of course, we mean the maxim of transformation. It can be assumed that Stolypin’s reforms, if they had continued, say, another 10 years, would have brought certain results, the main one of which would have been the creation of a layer of small peasant owner-farmers, and even then only in the case, as Lenin put it, if “circumstances turned out extremely favorably for Stolypin." But weren't these same farmers in the United States the basis for the emergence of one of the most anti-bureaucratic forms of a democratic republic? In our opinion, the most realistic result would be the creation of a social force, which would inevitably lead in the end not to revolution. But not socialist, but only bourgeois. But can such a result be considered successful from the point of view of absolutism, within the framework and in the name of which the agrarian reform was implemented!?

Conclusion

Stolypin's reforms did not materialize, firstly, due to the death of the reformer; secondly, he had no support in Russian society and he was left alone for the following reasons: the peasantry became embittered against Stolypin because their land was taken away from them, and the community began to revolutionize; the nobility was generally dissatisfied with his reforms; the landowners were afraid of the reforms, because kulaks separating from the community could ruin them; Stolypin wanted to expand the rights of zemstvos, give them broad powers, hence the discontent of the bureaucracy; he wanted the State Duma to form the government, not the tsar, hence the discontent of the tsar and the aristocracy; the church was also against Stolypin's reforms, because he wanted to equalize all religions.

Stolypin also made several mistakes.

Stolypin's first mistake was the lack of a well-thought-out policy towards workers. In Russia, despite the general economic recovery, over all these years not only the standard of living of workers has not increased at all, but also social legislation has taken its first steps. The new generation turned out to be very favorable to the perception of socialist ideas. Obviously, Stolypin was not aware of the significance of the labor issue, which emerged with renewed vigor in 1912.

The second mistake was that he did not foresee the consequences of the intensive Russification of non-Russian peoples. He openly pursued a nationalist policy and, naturally, set all national minorities against himself and the tsarist regime.

Stolypin also made a mistake on the issue of establishing zemstvos in the western provinces (1911), as a result of which he lost the support of the Octobrists.

The reforms he conceived were late; their effectiveness could only be realized with the establishment of parliamentarism and the rule of law in Russia.

From here we conclude that Russian society was not ready to accept Stolypin’s radical reforms and could not understand the goals of these reforms, although for Russia these reforms would have been life-saving and would have been an alternative to revolution.

List of used literature

1.Avrekh A.Ya. P.A. Stolypin and the fate of reform in Russia. - M., 1991.

2.Borovikova V.G. P.A. Stolypin: savior of the Russian village? // Edges. - 1999. - No. 5.

3.Bok M.P. Memories of my father P.A. Stolypin. // Roman-newspaper. - 1994. - No. 20.

4. Gurvich V.A. One and all Russia // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. – 2002. -No. 66.

5. Zyryanov P.N. Pyotr Arkadievich Stolypin. // Questions of history. 1990. - No. 6.

6. Kazarezov V.V. About Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. - M.: Agropromizdat, 1991.

7.Kuznetsova L.S., Yurganov A.L. Stolypin agrarian reform. - M., 1993.

8.Our Fatherland. Experience of political history. - M., 1991. Part 1.

9. Ostrovsky V.P., Utkin A.I. History of Russia XX century. - M.: Bustard. 1998.

10. Penkov V.V., Stekunov S.M. Our land is Tula. - Tula, Priokskoe book publishing house, 1984.

13.Potseluev V.A. History of Russia in the twentieth century. - M., 1997.

Prime Minister Stolypin was a brutal politician who uncompromisingly fought the revolutionary movement. He thought out a fairly coherent program for the development of Russia. The agrarian question occupied a central place. But in addition to agrarian reform, he developed:

1. social legislation

2. project for the creation of an interstate parliament

3. draft legislation in the field of relations between employers and employees

4. the gradual transformation of Russia into a rule of law state.

Stolypin's views were progressive for that time and he saw how his program would lead to an advanced Russia. He believed that it was unacceptable to destroy landownership. It must be placed in conditions of economic competition, and then the majority of small landowners themselves will go bankrupt. In the political field, he considered it not parliament that was more important for Russia, but local self-government, which teaches citizen-owners that the people cannot immediately be given all the rights and freedoms without first creating a broad middle class, otherwise the lumpen, having received freedom, will lead to anarchy and a bloody dictatorship. Stolypin was a Russian nationalist, but he did not allow insults to other nations. It assumed that the future people of Russia would present a national cult. autonomy. But they did not understand Stolypin. It affected the interests of almost all social strata. There was no support from the king. 1911 killed in a terrorist attack. The reforms are not completed, but the fundamentals of agrarian reform have nevertheless been put into practice,

The reform was carried out using several methods:

1. the decree of November 9, 1906 allowed the peasant to leave the community, and the law of June 14, 1910 made exit mandatory

2. the peasant could demand the consolidation of allotment plots into a single plot and even move to a separate farm

3. a fund was created from part of the state and imperial lands

4. for the purchase of these and landowners’ lands, the Peasant Bank gave cash loans

5. encouraging the resettlement of peasants beyond the Urals. The settlers were given loans to settle in a new place, but there was not enough money.

The purpose of the reform was to preserve landownership and accelerate the bourgeois evolution of agriculture, overcome communal limitations and educate the peasant as an owner, creating in the countryside the support of the government in the person of the rural bourgeoisie.

The reform contributed to the rise of the country's economy. The purchasing power of the population and foreign exchange earnings associated with the export of grain increased.

However, social goals were not achieved. Only 20-35% of the peasants left the community, because... the majority retained collectivist psychology and traditions. Only 10% of householders started farming. Kulaks left the community more often than the poor. The poor went to the cities or became farm laborers.

20% peasants. who received loans from the Peasant Bank went bankrupt. 16% of migrants were unable to settle in their new place; returned to the central regions. The reform accelerated social stratification - the formation of the rural bourgeoisie and proletariat. The government did not find a strong social support in the village, because did not satisfy the peasants' needs for land. Unfortunately, not much happened due to the First World War.

Nevertheless, the reform had positive consequences:

1. peasant farming required industrial goods => production of industrial goods.

2. revival of the financial sector, strengthening of the ruble, growing share of Russian capital in the economy

3. growth in agricultural production of marketable bread, bread exports => currency growth

4. the problem of relocation of the center has decreased

5. increasing the influx of workers in industry

in 1909-1913 there is an industrial boom. The pace of industrialization and railway construction accelerated, production increased 1.5 times, and the industrial growth rate over 5 years was 10%.

Stolypin's reforms (1906-1911)

• On the introduction of freedom of religion
• On the establishment of civil equality
• On the reform of higher and secondary schools
• On reforming local government
• On the introduction of universal primary education
• On income tax and police reform
• On improving the material support of public teachers
• On carrying out agrarian reform

Stolypin agrarian reform 1906-1910 (1914,1917)

Goals of the Stolypin Reform:

1. Strengthening social support in the person of strong peasant owners

2) Create conditions for successful economic development

3) Eliminate the causes that gave rise to the revolution. Distract from the idea of ​​abolishing landed estates

Stolypin reform measures

1. The main event is the destruction of the peasant community (the way of life of the peasants, the land is the property of the community, striped land) - the transfer of land into private ownership in the form of cuts - a plot of land allocated to the peasant upon leaving the community with the preservation of his yard in the village, and a farm - a plot of land allocated to a peasant upon leaving the community and moving from the village to his own plot. By 1917, 24% of the peasants left the community. 10% left to become strong owners (but very few of them became)

2) Acquisition of land by peasants through a peasant bank

3) Organization of resettlement of land-poor peasants to empty lands (Siberia, Caucasus, cf. Asia, Far East)

Results of Stolypin's Reforms

1. The king's support was not created on wealthy peasants.
2. Failed to prevent a new upsurge of revolutionary activity
3. Second social The war in the villages further complicated the discontent of the villages. reform
4. It was possible to create impulsive economic development.
5. High rates of economic growth.
6. The development of the early developed regions was not carried out politically and socially.