Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
What are the strengths and limitations of Stolypin's agricultural reforms (Use the attatched sheet for info)

What are the strengths and limitations of Stolypin's agricultural reforms (Use the attatched sheet for info)

icon
Related questions
Question
Context: Russia & Stolypin What are the strengths and limitations of Stolypin's agricultural reforms (Use the attatched sheet for info)
New methods and approaches The commune was not such a barrier to change as has been thought (although it remained conservative in the central region). In more fertile regions pastureland and meadow was used to produce arable crops. Some communities started to use different crop rotations, new varieties of crops, fertilisers, iron instead of wooden ploughs and other new methods. Potatoes became more important and production grew by 43 per cent between 1880 and 1913. Increasing urbanisation and improved transport also affected areas near large cities and towns, such as Odessa. Here peasants were growing fruit and vegetables or supplying dairy products for the market, giving them increased income. There was also a burgeoning co-operative movement in some villages which provided facilities for credit and savings, such as loans to buy livestock and tools. It was not just peasants who were adopting new approaches to farming. Although many nobles had sold land or were renting to peasants, others started to build more commercial farming operations to supply markets, using agricultural labourers or, as the beginning of the twentieth century progressed, mechanised equipment such as threshing machines. This was particularly the case after prices for grain and other products rose in the late 1890s. Stolypin's agrarian reforms The 1891-92 famine (see page 81) prompted the Russian government to look more closely at agriculture and what they perceived to be a lack of progress. Historians now think that most of the reports they were getting were from the poorly performing traditional agricultural areas where peasant poverty was at its worst. The reports painted a picture of the 'dark masses - drunken, illiterate, violent and rebellious peasants who needed to be educated. The government was also concerned about the dangerous and threatening peasant disturbances of the early twentieth century and particularly of 1905-06 (see page 82). Peter Stolypin, who became Prime Minister in 1906, believed that peasant prosperity was the key to political stability and thought his land reforms would transform Russia into a stable and prosperous country. He identified the peasant commune with its antiquated farming methods which paralysed personal initiative' as the problem. His reforms, carried out from 1906 to 1911, aimed to: • allow peasants to leave the Mir (commune), to consolidate their strips of land into a single unit reduce the power of the Mir ● redistribute the land of some nobles • help go-ahead peasants to buy land from less enterprising peasants and create larger, more efficient, farms. He called it a gamble not on the drunken and feeble but on the sober and strong'. Financial assistance was provided by the Peasant Land Bank to help the independent peasant buy land. Also, he thought that making peasants into independent property owners and giving them full civil rights would give them a stake in the country and lead to them becoming supporters of the regime. Over the next few years there was a transfer of land from the poorer peasants to the more enterprising It was a slow process disentangling the land from the commune and trying to ensure that each household gained land equivalent to the quality of the strips they would surrender. 59 60 Year 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 Independent households 48,271 508.334 579,409 342.245 145,567 122,314 134,554 97,877 A Figure 8 The number of peasant households becoming independent 1907-14 fout of an estimated total of 10-12 million households. The consolidated holdings took two forms: the khutor - where the owner lived on land with his own house separate from the village the otrub-where the owner had land in one unit but lived in the village with rights of access to communal pastures and woods. The response of the peasantry was mixed. Some relished the chance to escape from the restrictions of the Mir. Others saw those who left - the 'Stolypin separators' - as traitors to the peasant tradition. By 1914 only about ten per cent of households in European Russia had set up farms separated from the commune land (see Figure 8, opposite). Of those, only a minority lived on farms in the western European sense, with a cottage and fields fenced off from their neighbours. The reform was more successful in the west- in the Ukraine and Belorussia-than in other parts of Russia where reform was most needed, especially the densely populated central regions. The view of Abraham Ascher is that, 'given more time for implementation, the agrarian reforms might have contributed to a more moderate revolution than the one of 1917. Judith Pallot argues that, 'Stolypin's reforms were "in essence a utopian project", and too narrowly conceived to create a loyal peasantry and modernise peasant farming-there were alternatives which could have done as much if not more to increase peasant farm productivity. She points out that some go-ahead communes were employing new methods and new crops (see above) while some 'separators, eager to make a quick profit, used poor farming methods that exhausted the soil. By 1914, Russia had become the largest cereal exporter in the world. Investment in agricultural machinery rose at an annual rate of nine per cent between 1891 and 1913. Potatoes, dairy products and sugar beet were being produced for the market on a large scale. On the other hand, over-concentration on grain production for export contributed to the failure of livestock to keep pace with population increase. While the total number of horses, pigs and sheep increased, the number per capita fell. In 1914, the vast majority of agricultural production, in what was still an overwhelmingly agricultural country, was the responsibility of 20 million peasant households, most of whom were still organised in rural communes, many of which used traditional, old-fashioned methods of farming. The three-field strip system was still in common use as were wooden ploughs and there was a lack of capital and draft animals. Large parts of the agricultural sector of the economy remained unmodernised despite the improvements in overall production.
Transcribed Image Text:New methods and approaches The commune was not such a barrier to change as has been thought (although it remained conservative in the central region). In more fertile regions pastureland and meadow was used to produce arable crops. Some communities started to use different crop rotations, new varieties of crops, fertilisers, iron instead of wooden ploughs and other new methods. Potatoes became more important and production grew by 43 per cent between 1880 and 1913. Increasing urbanisation and improved transport also affected areas near large cities and towns, such as Odessa. Here peasants were growing fruit and vegetables or supplying dairy products for the market, giving them increased income. There was also a burgeoning co-operative movement in some villages which provided facilities for credit and savings, such as loans to buy livestock and tools. It was not just peasants who were adopting new approaches to farming. Although many nobles had sold land or were renting to peasants, others started to build more commercial farming operations to supply markets, using agricultural labourers or, as the beginning of the twentieth century progressed, mechanised equipment such as threshing machines. This was particularly the case after prices for grain and other products rose in the late 1890s. Stolypin's agrarian reforms The 1891-92 famine (see page 81) prompted the Russian government to look more closely at agriculture and what they perceived to be a lack of progress. Historians now think that most of the reports they were getting were from the poorly performing traditional agricultural areas where peasant poverty was at its worst. The reports painted a picture of the 'dark masses - drunken, illiterate, violent and rebellious peasants who needed to be educated. The government was also concerned about the dangerous and threatening peasant disturbances of the early twentieth century and particularly of 1905-06 (see page 82). Peter Stolypin, who became Prime Minister in 1906, believed that peasant prosperity was the key to political stability and thought his land reforms would transform Russia into a stable and prosperous country. He identified the peasant commune with its antiquated farming methods which paralysed personal initiative' as the problem. His reforms, carried out from 1906 to 1911, aimed to: • allow peasants to leave the Mir (commune), to consolidate their strips of land into a single unit reduce the power of the Mir ● redistribute the land of some nobles • help go-ahead peasants to buy land from less enterprising peasants and create larger, more efficient, farms. He called it a gamble not on the drunken and feeble but on the sober and strong'. Financial assistance was provided by the Peasant Land Bank to help the independent peasant buy land. Also, he thought that making peasants into independent property owners and giving them full civil rights would give them a stake in the country and lead to them becoming supporters of the regime. Over the next few years there was a transfer of land from the poorer peasants to the more enterprising It was a slow process disentangling the land from the commune and trying to ensure that each household gained land equivalent to the quality of the strips they would surrender. 59 60 Year 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 Independent households 48,271 508.334 579,409 342.245 145,567 122,314 134,554 97,877 A Figure 8 The number of peasant households becoming independent 1907-14 fout of an estimated total of 10-12 million households. The consolidated holdings took two forms: the khutor - where the owner lived on land with his own house separate from the village the otrub-where the owner had land in one unit but lived in the village with rights of access to communal pastures and woods. The response of the peasantry was mixed. Some relished the chance to escape from the restrictions of the Mir. Others saw those who left - the 'Stolypin separators' - as traitors to the peasant tradition. By 1914 only about ten per cent of households in European Russia had set up farms separated from the commune land (see Figure 8, opposite). Of those, only a minority lived on farms in the western European sense, with a cottage and fields fenced off from their neighbours. The reform was more successful in the west- in the Ukraine and Belorussia-than in other parts of Russia where reform was most needed, especially the densely populated central regions. The view of Abraham Ascher is that, 'given more time for implementation, the agrarian reforms might have contributed to a more moderate revolution than the one of 1917. Judith Pallot argues that, 'Stolypin's reforms were "in essence a utopian project", and too narrowly conceived to create a loyal peasantry and modernise peasant farming-there were alternatives which could have done as much if not more to increase peasant farm productivity. She points out that some go-ahead communes were employing new methods and new crops (see above) while some 'separators, eager to make a quick profit, used poor farming methods that exhausted the soil. By 1914, Russia had become the largest cereal exporter in the world. Investment in agricultural machinery rose at an annual rate of nine per cent between 1891 and 1913. Potatoes, dairy products and sugar beet were being produced for the market on a large scale. On the other hand, over-concentration on grain production for export contributed to the failure of livestock to keep pace with population increase. While the total number of horses, pigs and sheep increased, the number per capita fell. In 1914, the vast majority of agricultural production, in what was still an overwhelmingly agricultural country, was the responsibility of 20 million peasant households, most of whom were still organised in rural communes, many of which used traditional, old-fashioned methods of farming. The three-field strip system was still in common use as were wooden ploughs and there was a lack of capital and draft animals. Large parts of the agricultural sector of the economy remained unmodernised despite the improvements in overall production.
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer