Military Review

Jump into the void

44
Jump into the void



Stolypin's agrarian reform was the last attempt to modernize tsarist Russia.

Like many events a hundred years ago, the results of Stolypin’s reforms still serve as a bone of contention for publicists. Perhaps the main motive in these disputes is not historicalbut political. If the reforms were successful, then Russia was moving along the right path and, if not for a radical change in the economic system as a result of the October Revolution, would have achieved socio-economic prosperity. If the destruction of the community was a mistake, then collective farms, largely copying the structure of the rural community, were the most natural form of economic units in the countryside, and collectivization was largely justified.

No, I'm not Byron, I'm different ...

Peter Stolypin was born on April 2 of the year 1862 in Dresden, where his mother was visiting. This is rarely remembered, but he was Mikhail Lermontov’s second cousin — his grandfather, Dmitri Alekseevich Stolypin, and the poet’s grandmother, Elizaveta Alekseevna Stolypin, were siblings. His father, Arkady Dmitrievich, became famous for his heroic participation in the defense of Sevastopol, served as governor of Eastern Rumelia after the Russian-Turkish war of 1876 – 1877. Mother, Natalya Mikhailovna, was the daughter of Mikhail Dmitrievich Gorchakov, who commanded the troops in the Crimea in the last period of the Crimean War. In a word, the boy was in a sense condemned to make a public career.

The family often moved, and Peter studied at the gymnasium first in Vilna, and then in Orel. After graduating from high school, he entered the natural department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University. He married a man of his environment unusually early - in the 22 of the year, as a result of a tragic and romantic story: his elder brother Mikhail was killed in a duel and bequeathed to his brother to marry his bride Olga Neydgardt, who was a maid of honor under Empress Maria Fedorovna. Olga (who, by the way, was Suvorov’s great-granddaughter) was three years older than Peter, but the marriage was successful: she lived with him until his death and gave birth to six children.

After graduating from university, Peter Arkadyevich was enlisted in the service of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Industry of the Ministry of State Property, and after a few years he was appointed leader of the nobility of the Kovno district and chairman of the Kovno congress of conciliators. In the Kovno province, he will live 14 for years, and it is at this time that he will acquire important work experience with the peasants - working, among other things, on increasing yields and introducing new varieties of grain crops.

Servant to the Tsar

In 1902, Stolypin received an appointment to the post of the Grodno governor, being the youngest among the heads of provinces in that period - he was only 40 years old. The province, however, was zashtatnoy, but he managed to prove himself: the Minister of Internal Affairs Plehve sent him a draft simplified Zemstvo self-government in the western provinces to recall and was very pleased with a wise comment on this document. Stolypin knew well that in the western provinces the economic and political elite were mostly Poles, and the peasant and petty-bourgeois classes were represented by Lithuanians, Byelorussians and Jews. So that, on the one hand, not to exacerbate national contradictions, and on the other - not to take away their main meaning from the elections, he proposed to create a college of electors who would elect publics. The board could include peasants and even Jews.

Speaking to the Grodno landowners, Stolypin gave them his views on ways to improve the lives of the peasants: he offered to save them from the intersection where the land of the same family was scattered in several separate areas, and settle them in the hamlets - integral areas where they could put the house. Subsequently, this idea will become part of his famous reform. Having proved himself to be a subtle politician and caring for the prosperity of the population of the province, Stolypin nevertheless was tough when he considered it necessary - so he mercilessly suppressed revolutionary sentiments among Polish youth.

Just a year later, Stolypin received a transfer to the post of Saratov governor. It must be said that he didn’t like the idea of ​​moving from a quiet Grodno - even though the Stolypin ancestral lands were in the Saratov province. Saratov province was one of the foremost provinces of the country. In contrast to the northwestern lands of the empire, zemstvos and active social life existed here. The county was considered to be restless - peasant unrest arose here and there, and Stolypin had a good reputation for stopping them. He repeatedly negotiated with an angry mob, addressing her with harsh words without fear. Nicholas II in letters to the Saratov governor expressed his thanks to him.

It was this combination of will and loyalty that made him the best candidate for the post of Minister of the Interior, although Peter Arkadyevich did not always support the sovereign's decisions. So, Stolypin did not approve of the war that began soon with Japan - he believed that the need to send soldiers to the far front, where they would fight for ideas that they do not understand, contributes to their susceptibility to socialist agitation. The post of interior minister, by the way, was not a gift at all: two of Stolypin’s three closest predecessors in this post, Sipyagin and Plehve, were killed by terrorists, and the third, Prince Svyatopolk-Mirsky, allowed the tragedy of “bloody Sunday”. At first Stolypin refused - and changed his decision only after the words of Nicholas II: “I ask you to accept this post, I order you”. The head of the Interior Ministry was the second influential minister after the prime minister; however, in the same year, Stolypin also became the head of the government as a result of the resignation of the former head of the cabinet of ministers, Goremykin, who failed to find a compromise in the dialogue with the first State Duma in Russia.


P.A. Stolypin meets members of the imperial family. Reproduction: TASS photo chronicle


Fighting the community


Let us leave Stolypin’s internal political activity in this post, for which he had to pay with his life, to remain outside the scope of the article. We are more interested in the attempt made by him to improve the welfare of the most numerous social group in the country - the peasantry. At that time, rural residents made up four-fifths of the empire’s population. However, the role of the peasants in the economy fell steadily - in 1906, agriculture provided only a little over half of the country's income, being in deep crisis. Paradoxically, it was the abolition of serfdom. And it was not for nothing that Nekrasov described it as a broken chain:

"The great chain was broken,

Broke up and hit, -

One end on the master,

Another - on the peasant.

The fact is that the peasants were released virtually without land: they had to buy out their land from the landowner and, in order not to starve, they had to borrow money from usurers or (from 1883) on the Peasant Land Bank. However, there was nothing for the majority of peasants to repay debts - discontent with the situation was clearly manifested during the First Russian Revolution, when mass demonstrations began in the villages. The authorities were forced to abolish the redemption payments and forgive the arrears - but this measure did not bring instant relief. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the free Russian peasant lived noticeably worse than half a century ago his father, who was “in the fortress” of the master.

Stolypin saw a way to improve the situation in the village in several measures. First of all, he was going to motivate the peasants to leave the peasant community, which played a controversial role. On the one hand, it was for the peasants a system of social protection and at the same time an instrument of self-government. Distributing the land according to the number of members of each family that cultivated one or another plot, it, on the one hand, did not allow the poorest peasants to die of hunger, on the other hand, prevented financial stratification in the village, conserving the patriarchal order, and thus hampered the development of capitalism in the village . The latter circumstance was largely due to the low efficiency of agriculture. The emergence of rich rural households was also hampered by the interleaving - another product of community activity: in an effort to give the peasants a land of about the same quality, the community gave them plots in different places.

It was the destruction of the community that Stolypin considered as the first step. According to a decree issued by the State Council 9 in November 1906, with the surprisingly modest title “On the addition of certain resolutions of the current law concerning peasant land tenure,” the peasants received the right to demand the separation of their household from the community as personal property: “Every householder who owns communal land can at any time to demand the strengthening of the part of the said land due to him for his personal property. ” Having allocated his inter-strip plot from the communal land fund, the householder could immediately demand that it be replaced with “a corresponding plot, but if possible to one place”. Thanks to such a solid plot (it was called a cut or a farm - if it had a family house), the peasant turned into an individual owner of the land, a sort of farmer. Moving to the farm, the peasant was forced to fight for the existence of their own labor, not relying on the support of fellow villagers; it was supposed to encourage him to increase productivity, including by attracting employees. Such a strong owner, as Stolypin believed, with time was to turn into a new pillar of the state.


P.A. Stolypin visits a farm near Moscow. Reproduction: TASS photo chronicle

As another measure aimed at the destruction of the community, Stolypin considered the resettlement of land-poor peasants in the peripheral regions of the country, where they could acquire an almost free plot — first of all, Siberia, Central Asia, the North Caucasus, and Kazakhstan were subject to internal colonization. The state allocated to immigrants means for moving and settling in a new place. Peter Arkadyevich planned to take away its power from the community, establishing two different “societies” instead: the first, the land, would retain the right to dispose of the land, and the second, the township, would become a unit of local government. However, this reform item was never implemented.

The reform was difficult for Stolypin. We must not forget that after the 1905 – 1907 revolution, the State Duma appeared in the country through which it was now necessary to carry out all the bills. And in the Duma, the peasants' interests were represented by the faction of the Trudoviks, who nominated their own project, which was based on confiscating landowner lands and nationalizing the whole land fund of the empire - unlike the Stolypin project, which guaranteed the inviolability of landowners. Stolypin spent a lot of time and nerves before the State Duma and the State Council gave the go-ahead to the project of his reform, which 14 of June 1910 of the year was approved by the king.

Did not have enough time?


As you know, Pyotr Arkadyevich did not even see the immediate results of his reform - he was shot dead by terrorist Bogrov in the Kiev 1 Opera House on September 1911 of the year. But what were the results of the measures prepared by him? Can they be considered successful?

There is no doubt that the reform really had a huge impact on the life of the peasantry, spurring the development of capitalist relations in the countryside: wealthy peasants-kulaks consolidated large tracts of land in their hands, using hired labor to increase them, strengthened the domestic market . At the same time, the reform could not be called progressive in the sense that it substantially facilitated the transfer of land to those who were ready to efficiently process it, because the reform did not affect the vast landlord land. And this is not surprising if we recall that the goal of the reform was largely political: it had to reduce social tensions in the country.

Avron Avrekh, a well-known Soviet researcher of Stolypin’s activity, believed that the agrarian reform failed neither economically nor politically - and it is difficult to disagree with this. In the conditions of poor development of rural infrastructure, poor agronomic methods, the Russian “farmer”, who owned tenths of 5 – 7 of land, could not significantly improve the efficiency of his individual farm. The number of kulaks before the revolution did not exceed 4 – 5% of the rural population; therefore, they never turned into a support for the regime and significant economic power. The fact that in ten years - from 1905 to 1916 a year - only about a third (3 million) of householders in those provinces where the reform was carried out is eloquent. This means that the agrarian reform failed to destroy the community.

Stolypin did not succeed in forcing the peasants to forget about a far more delicious piece than their miserable tithes, the landlords' lands: this was clearly manifested in the squatters that began after the February revolution. The “internal colonization” suffered a failure: already in 1908 – 1909, 1,3 million people left their familiar spots, dreaming about their own allotment in underdeveloped regions of the country, but soon many began to return - cultivating the land in the wild corners of the country turned out to be much more difficult than at home. .

Perhaps the results of the reform would have been more impressive if it had not been for the ensuing war and two revolutions. However, some historians find it difficult to even trace the positive dynamics of agriculture, which would reliably be the result of reform. Thus, the former director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Andrei Sakharov, noted that encouraging facts such as the increase in the volume of marketable grain and the rising standard of living in the Russian countryside in the prewar years, which liberal writers often point to, could actually be due to several other favorable factors - industrial growth in Russia, the growth of world grain prices, the absence of crop failures, as well as the abolition of redemption payments, which we discussed above.

Be that as it may, Peter Stolypin’s agrarian reform was the last attempt at the social modernization of Russia before the 1917 revolutions of the year. The lack of a quick effect was largely responsible for the growth of social tension, which led to tragic upheavals and a change of power in the country.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/society/pryijok-v-pustotu-19310.html
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. VseDoFeNi
    VseDoFeNi 26 October 2015 09: 11 New
    +2
    Stolypin's agrarian reform was the last attempt to modernize tsarist Russia.


    Very successful, I must admit. For which they killed.

    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 26 October 2015 18: 32 New
      +1
      World experience has proven that small-scale farming is inefficient. Ask the farmers: how much ha is needed for successful grain production - they will tell you: about 300. At that time it was all the land around a small village. There were two ways out: either quickly unite the peasants in cooperatives so that they could buy equipment, stocks, jointly play in the consumer market, or slowly increase the area of ​​the most capable and smartest - 5% of peasants, while ruining and turning the remaining 95% into beggars which were 80% of the country's population. The first option is the collectivization that has taken place, the second option is the Stolypin reforms. True, it is strange that the second option failed, despite the fact that agricultural efficiency would be higher? The main question: where to put the excess population in the village? Stalin resolved this issue by involving the population in construction and industry. How did Stolypin propose to solve it? Just like Chubais with the company - let them die, since they cannot work effectively. At the same time, Stalin is portrayed as a bloody tyrant, and Stolypin is a wise lamb. No.
      1. VseDoFeNi
        VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 07: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        World experience has proven that small-scale farming is inefficient. Ask the farmers: how much ha is needed for successful grain production - they will tell you: about 300.

        The effectiveness of the CX depends on the yield, and not on the area itself.
        Some facts. The state of ancient Sumerians - evidence on clay plates about the productivity of wheat in ordinary years at 250, and in favorable years 350 centners per hectare. And this is for centuries. The end of the XIX century. Ivan Evgenievich Ovsinsky developed a new farming system, thanks to which he received in the fields up to 57 centners per hectare at a time when the average yield in Russia was 6 centners per hectare.

        That is, the Sumerians received such crops for centuries, which are unattainable today. And their fields were not depleted. So, talking about a person’s victory over something there, at least, is stupid.
        1. atalef
          atalef 27 October 2015 07: 12 New
          0
          Quote: VseDoFeNi
          That is, the Sumerians received such crops for centuries, which are unattainable today. And their fields were not depleted. So, talking about a person’s victory over something there, at least, is stupid.

          Well, yes, according to the Bible, our protesters lived
          Not only biblical characters lived for 900 years. The ancient texts of many cultures mention people with an incredible life expectancy. Some say that these are simply translation errors, while others suggest that these numbers have symbolic meaning.

          One way or another, such evidence is of interest to historians who are wondering if the human lifespan has really decreased so much over thousands of years.


          One possible explanation is that in the Middle East in antiquity there was a different chronology, and the length of the year was different from the modern one. For example, for a year the revolution of the Moon around the Earth (month) could be taken, and not the revolution of the Earth around the Sun (12 months).

          If we translate the age of biblical characters according to this system, then the age of Adam instead of 930 years will be 77 years, which sounds realistic. However, then another problem will arise: this will mean that he became a grandfather at 11 years old when his grandson Enoch was born. And Enoch himself was only five years old when he became the father of Methuselah.

          Exactly the same mismatch arises if we use seasons instead of a sunny year, Carol A. Hill notes in her article “Finding Meaning in the Numbers of Genesis,” published in December 2003, The Look at Science and Christianity.

          Similar problems arise if we assume that the authors of ancient texts used a certain formula to change their present age (for example, they multiplied it by a specific number).

          "The numbers in Genesis can have both real (numerical) meaning and sacred (numerological or symbolic)," Hill writes.

          Mathematical patterns?

          Both in Genesis and the 4000-year-old list of kings of Sumer and Akkad, where there are references to kings who ruled for 30 years, squares of integers appear, analysts say.

          This reminds me of the tales of various characters (including my daughter a vegetarian) that you need to eat natural, give up chemistry and be as close to nature as possible.
          Only now * the harsh truth * lies in the fact that the natives of Africa, Avtstrali, etc. - who do not know either chemistry, or tablets, or all the * horrible * charms of civilization - live up to a maximum of 40 years, extremely rarely up to 60 years old, and filled in throat chemistry * natives * in the same Europe or Japan - over 80 (average life expectancy.)

          Fairy tales need less faith. You can say anything.
          And they harvested 300 centners each and lived for 900 years laughing
          It all depends on the honesty of the narrated and the quality of the translation.
          Well, the desires of the next scientist are promoted.
          1. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 17: 42 New
            0
            Quote: atalef
            You can say anything.

            Go to the tax authority and tell tales there.

            As for crop production in any form, everything is determined by the capabilities of plants and soil fertility.
          2. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 08: 10 New
            0
            Quote: atalef
            including my daughter a vegetarian

            Vegetarianism is a crafty thing. Do you have a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian? Tell her from me that the Whole Vegetable Diet (MDG) is our everything.

            Quote: atalef
            abandon chemistry

            Do you think that a heart attack occurs from a lack of validol in the blood?

            Quote: atalef
            Only now * the harsh truth * lies in the fact that, the natives of Africa, Avtstrali, etc. - do not know any chemistry

            This is not a matter of chemistry. wink

            - Human health depends on the quality of medical care by no more than 10%.
            20% from heredity, and another 20% from the state of the environment. And here 50% of health is determined by that way of life, which the person adheres to, - told the head of the department of medical prevention of the medical information and analytical center Ivan Ryasik, justifying the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation to revive the direction of prevention.

            According to him, it is easier to prevent the disease than subsequently treat it. With the help of prevention, 60% of deaths from cardiovascular diseases can be prevented, and more than 300 thousand people die every year from smoking in the country.
  2. Finches
    Finches 26 October 2015 09: 20 New
    +1
    "Противникам государственности хотелось бы избрать путь радикализма, путь освобождения от исторического прошлого России, освобождения от культурных традиций. Им нужны великие потрясения, нам нужна Великая Россия!" - фраза произнесенная в Государственной думе, как и последующие его действия на посту министра МВД и премьер-министра, очень характеризуют Столыпина, как государственника, сильную и цельную личность, но именно это во многом и предопределило его трагичный конец!Фигура царя на его фоне смотрелось смешно, поэтому за Богровым стояла царская охранка, а не революционеры, хотя и они особой любви к Петру Аркадьевичу не испытывали. Все таки он был немного идеалистом мечтавшим в одиночку сломать вековечный уклад российской жизни, но думается мне, что в том числе и его пример реформатора дал толчок к формированию у Ленина основного теоретического революционного принципа:"Верхи не могут, низы не хотят!", то есть по-простому, к пониманию, что так дальше жить нельзя!
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 26 October 2015 13: 13 New
      0
      You can say anything you want, in fact, the reform of the revolution only contributed.
    2. MrK
      MrK 26 October 2015 14: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Finches
      дал толчок к формированию у Ленина основного теоретического революционного принципа:"Верхи не могут, низы не хотят!", то есть по-простому, к пониманию, что так дальше жить нельзя!


      I agree. I will supplement it.
      In European Russia, 76 million acres of land belonged to 25 000 landowners, and 70 million acres belonged to 12 000 000 peasant households. Such a proportion.
      There is an interesting treasury document, the so-called "Transactions of the tax commission." It follows from this that in the form of taxes and taxes, the peasant contributed ninety-two percent more of the income a year! And in the Novgorod province - all a hundred.
      Here are excerpts from the orders of the peasants to their deputies in the State Duma of the 1906-1907 years.
      Moscow province: "The whole earth has been paid back by us with sweat and blood for several centuries. It was processed in the era of serfdom and for the work received beatings and exiles, and thereby enriched the landowners. If you sue them now for 5 cop. per day per person for all serfdom, they do not have enough to pay the people of all the lands and forests and all their property.
      In addition, for forty years we have been paying fabulous rents for land from 20 to 60 rubles. for tithing in the summer, thanks to the false law of the 61 year, according to which we got freedom with a small allotment of land, half-starved people, and the parasites of the landowners formed tremendous wealth. "
      And where does the Bolsheviks - like any other "politicians"
      ». This is the genuine, undistorted voice of the peasantry. What kind of Bolsheviks are needed here ?!

      The merciless peasants in the destruction and fires then kept the landlords in such tension that General D.F., one of the main expressors of the landlord interests, was the commandant of the Tsar’s court. Trepov resolutely spoke out: “I myself am not a poor landowner, ”he said,“ but I will be very glad to give half of my land for free, being convinced that only under this condition will I save the other half».
      In 1905, the project of land alienation began to be developed. NN Kutler, a lawyer by training, was engaged in it.
      Lenin, being in exile, wrote then that success in alienating land in favor of the peasants would mean the victory of the protracted “Prussian path” of the development of capitalism in agriculture and would lead to a radical change in the balance of class forces in the country. In fact, this meant that the peasantry in Russia would not support the revolution !!! But Lenin understood that a revolution in Russia, without the support of its peasants, was impossible.
      And, despite the fact that a huge ransom was envisaged from the peasants, Nikolai rejected the project. On which, by the way, there was a noteworthy Witte resolution, while still heading the government: "It seems preferable for the landlords to give up part of the land and secure ownership of the rest of the land, rather than lose everything."
      НO Emperor deigned to write with his own hand on the report: “Private property must remain inviolable”. And below: "Kutler from his post to dismiss."
      And how, after all this, does the language of “different Svanidze” turn to say that Lenin is to blame for the revolution ?!
      However, Naum Korzhavin (Naum Moiseevich Mandel), who once wrote - “What woke Lenin? Who bothered that the child was sleeping, "did not understand that this" bitch "was Nikolashka.

      Quote from Alexander Kurlandchik’s book “Damned Soviet Power” ... on Prose. RU. This book is on hearing today.
  3. corn
    corn 26 October 2015 11: 16 New
    0
    My opinion.
    If we consider the essence of the modern discussion about Stolypin reforms in the context of philosophy, that discussion in its pure form translates into a solution to the question of the relationship between the team and the individual. Whose interests are more priority - collective or individual? In the West, this issue, today, has been resolved in favor of the individual. Russia, historically, now faces a choice.
    1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 26 October 2015 18: 39 New
      0
      Situations when the lives of 80% of the population had to be put in a lower priority than anything else could hardly end with something good for the state.
  4. Riv
    Riv 26 October 2015 12: 29 New
    0
    Undoubtedly the peasant reform of Stolypin did not reach the goal. In England, kings broke the peasant community for two hundred years, and at the cost of enormous human sacrifice they nevertheless achieved their goal. In Russia, they tried to resolve the issue faster. But the rapid increase in the number of the proletariat just led to the revolution. Moreover, after the revolution, collective farms became a modification of the same communities.
    So the reform was progressive, definitely, but it was not brought to the end.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 26 October 2015 13: 18 New
      +1
      But the Bolsheviks invested 4,5 billion rubles in agricultural production in the first five-year period, more than in industry (4 billion rubles) and transport (1,5 billion rubles).
      How progressive was it if the community collapsed in the course of the reforms?
      1. Riv
        Riv 26 October 2015 14: 24 New
        0
        Firstly: not collapsed. The village lost a relatively small percentage of people, and some of them later returned as farm laborers and landless people. Ready fuel for the future revolution.
        Secondly: the increase in the number of the proletariat in Russia was also undoubtedly progressive. The proletariat for the peasantry is the fuse for a grenade. The quote, in my opinion, belongs to Trotsky.

        And before the first five-year period there was still life, but to live ...
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 26 October 2015 16: 27 New
          -1
          Потому,что реформу провели не до конца, "лишних" людей на селе в начале 20-ого века,по разным оценкам от 20 до 32 миллионов, у этих людей реформа забирает право на жизнь, последствия представляете?
          1. Riv
            Riv 26 October 2015 17: 46 New
            0
            Ну так вы сами и ответили на свой вопрос. Если "лишних" людей (а чего удивительного, если земля распределялась общиной по едокам?) было двадцать миллионов, а переселено в Сибирь было менее полмиллиона, то сколько времени потребовалось бы на реформу? Ее вообще-то трудновато было до конца довести, не находите?
            However, Stolypin seems to have planned it for fifty years. But in the European part, if people are not resettled, the new land also has nowhere to come from. Land belongs to the landowners. Well, the peasant stood out, well, got his allotment - anyway, he is small. There wasn’t enough in the community - and not enough on the farm. All the same, I would have to rent it from the landowner. In this case, the peasants would continue to multiply like rabbits.
            In general, this reform would not have been possible without a nationwide land reform.
            1. VseDoFeNi
              VseDoFeNi 26 October 2015 19: 58 New
              0
              Quote: Riv
              less than half a million to Siberia

              Where does the data come from?
              1. Riv
                Riv 27 October 2015 08: 15 New
                0
                The remains of higher education.
                1. VseDoFeNi
                  VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 08: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Riv
                  The remains of higher education.

                  And where did you get the idea that all processes should go evenly?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Riv
                    Riv 27 October 2015 11: 34 New
                    0
                    Do you know that bouillon cubes are actually parallelepipeds?
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. strannik1985
              strannik1985 26 October 2015 22: 57 New
              0
              Так остановили её потому,что грохнуло, через военно-полевые суды "реформу" проводили. На выходе массовые выступления в 1905-1907 и массовая поддержка революций в 1917.
              1. VseDoFeNi
                VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 07: 07 New
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                At the exit, mass performances in 1905-1907

                This is at the entrance. Reform began in 1906.
                Mass demonstrations, as today in different countries, were for the sake of arrogant Saxons.
                For these performances during the war it is necessary to put on the wall of speakers.
                1. Riv
                  Riv 27 October 2015 08: 20 New
                  0
                  In fact, if the reform continued and Russia did not fit into the First World War, the result would be extremely difficult to predict. Most likely, after about fifty years, it would have almost completely destroyed the landowner tenure. The settlement of Siberia and the Urals would continue. Now the population density there would be many times greater than now. Continued lending to peasants would lead to the separation of large latifundia farms ...
                  But this is a topic for science fiction.
                  1. VseDoFeNi
                    VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 08: 25 New
                    0
                    Quote: Riv
                    In fact, if

                    In fact, if in Russia the rebels during the war in 1905 were put to the wall or sent to fines at the front. With the subsequent ban of the then NGOs, today we would live in a completely different world.
                    "Но это уже тема для фантастов."
                  2. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 27 October 2015 11: 05 New
                    0
                    The number of peasants grew where there was a strip of hair, more boys, more allotted, no community, no sharp population growth.
                    Reform began at such an inopportune time in the hope of easing social tension. Happened? No, the peasants did not want to starve to death.
                    Куда девать лишних при том,что обеспечить финансирование сельского хозяйства на уровне большевиков царское правительство не может,вести индустриализацию для обеспечения занятости "лишнего" населения в нужных масштабах не может,расселить в Сибирь и на ДВ даже тех,что переехали не смогли,нужны десятки миллионов вложений в организацию инфраструктуры,строительство жилья и т.п. Проблемы уже накопились,а денег на их решение нет.
                    A theme for science fiction writers, only scary fantasies.
                    1. VseDoFeNi
                      VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 17: 47 New
                      0
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      The number of peasants grew where there was a strip of hair, more boys, more allotted, no community, no sharp population growth.

                      Численность населения Российской Империи с 1897 по 1913 выросла на 49 с лишним миллионов человек. Вас читаешь, как газету "Правда".
                      1. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 27 October 2015 22: 06 New
                        0
                        And what do you want to prove this?
                        As a result of the reform, only 5% of the farms were left behind (out of the 15 million small-scale peasant farms), the community remained and remained.
                        Or maybe we will clarify the quality of life?
                        Doubtful championship in six major infectious diseases (dispute, corpuscle, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhoid)
                        As Gurko brought up according to the appeals of 1871-1901-40% of conscripts first tried meat in the army.
                        The average height of draftees is 160-161 cm at the turn of the century.
                        The average life expectancy is 32,9 years (against the average European 49 years).
                        Do you replace quality with quantity?
                      2. VseDoFeNi
                        VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 06: 32 New
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        And what do you want to prove this?

                        You can’t prove anything.

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        diseases (dispute, corpus, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhoid)

                        In cities, uncle, in cities. Not everything is so obvious here, but this is the result of the abolition of serfdom.

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        As Gurko brought up according to the appeals of 1871-1901-40% of conscripts first tried meat in the army.

                        You still won’t believe that meat, like animal food in general, is the main pathological factor for a person.

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        The average height of draftees is 160-161 cm at the turn of the century.

                        Read Gilyarovsky, not a very small uncle, about the same chieftain Repka, about movers. Yes, and Zass with Poddubny do not fit into your picture of the world.

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        The average life expectancy is 32,9 years (against the average European 49 years).

                        But what was the average human temperature in Russia?
                        What did you get to this average life expectancy?
                        They ceased giving birth in Europe, elementary became less young and more old, the average duration increased. In an aging society, life expectancy will be higher.

                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Do you replace quality with quantity?

                        There is no quality, there are manipulations.
                        Today everyone is talking about a higher standard of living in the West compared to Russia, although only the level of consumption is taken into account.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. VseDoFeNi
                        VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 06: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: atalef
                        Living is not in statistics !!!!! laughing

                        Sorry uncle. No, no, no.
                        But taking into account mass graves, the age of the dead will be considered.
                    2. atalef
                      atalef 28 October 2015 06: 52 New
                      0
                      laughing
                      Quote: VseDoFeNi
                      You still won’t believe that meat, like animal food in general, is the main pathological factor for a person.


                      Its absence - or are you going to challenge the conclusions of scientists that the transition to meat food (with its heat treatment) turned human ancestors into a reasonable person?

                      Quote: VseDoFeNi
                      Read Gilyarovsky, not a very small uncle, about the same chieftain Repka, about movers. Yes, and Zass with Poddubny do not fit into your picture of the world.


                      Peter the first - was also tall, but about the rest
                      I understand why not rush names

                      He first performed in the circus arena in 1908 in Orenburg, in the Andrzhievsky circus [4]. Not possessing outstanding physical data (growth - 167,5 cm, weight not more than 75 kg at the peak, chest circumference when inhaling - 119 cm, biceps - 41 cm),


                      The fact that people were small in size - primarily from a lack of food - did not need to be proved if you had visited the museum at least once and saw both clothing samples and utensils, and even when photography began, even more so.

                      Quote: VseDoFeNi
                      They ceased giving birth in Europe, elementary became less young and more old, the average duration increased. In an aging society, life expectancy will be higher.


                      Pearl !!!
                      The average life expectancy, in general, is considered according to the age of the dead !!!!!!
                      What does it matter - many young or few?
                      Living is not in statistics !!!!!

                      Quote: VseDoFeNi
                      There is no quality, there are manipulations.


                      This is what you do - sweeping off official statistics and grabbing individual ears - facts that are convenient for you - like Poddubny

                      Quote: VseDoFeNi
                      Today everyone is talking about a higher standard of living in the West compared to Russia,


                      Well, what are you, the situation in Africa is even better - if you do not take the level of consumption laughing
                    3. VseDoFeNi
                      VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 07: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: atalef
                      Its absence - or are you going to challenge the conclusions of scientists that the transition to meat food (with its heat treatment) turned human ancestors into a reasonable person?

                      I’m not going to, it’s they who contest the laws of nature.

                      Quote: atalef
                      This is what you do - sweeping off official statistics and grabbing individual ears - facts that are convenient for you - like Poddubny

                      Come on. You sacredly believe in the benefit of alcohol poisoning and are doing your best to convince others of this. Yes, boasting at the cost of this poison. laughing

                      Quote: atalef
                      Well, what are you, the situation in Africa is even better - if you do not take the level of consumption laughing

                      Africans are stupidly starving. The technology is well described, for example, here http://subscribe.ru/group/svobodnyij-mikrofon/6728178/ With reference to the source http://benraz.ru/starneft.pdf
                      First, the Americans with great fanfare allocate huge amounts of food aid to starving Africa. A whole show is being arranged, with pictures and films showing horrific content. Skeleton-like African children barely move their legs or lie covered in flies. Charitable organizations raise funds, but the bulk of the money comes from the United States government. These are millions and tens of millions of dollars. However, this money does not leave the United States. They buy products. What is so strange here? It turns out that under American law all food aid should consist of food produced in the United States.

                      Are you starting to understand? Move on.

                      Humanitarian aid can only be exported on ships flying the US flag. So, the Americans gave hidden subsidies to their agricultural sector, their farmers, gave jobs for sailors and port workers. But these are still flowers. Berries begin when products designed to save the starving arrive at their destination.

                      Humanitarian organizations do not distribute food aid to the starving. They are selling it!

                      The brain of a normal person cannot imagine this turn. How is it possible to sell products starving? But like this. Arriving American food is being sold to countries where hunger is rampant at dumping prices. But now they spend money on the proceeds from the sale in the fight against poverty and raising the agriculture of a poor country. There is no one left to raise in Ethiopia or Mozambique: cheap overseas food in the bud destroys local producers in African countries. African farmers cannot compete with the products of Washington-subsidized US agricultural giants. As a result, former farmers and peasants themselves become poor and hungry and become recipients of American assistance.

                      African regimes cannot refuse to take “humanitarian aid”.
                      .


                      "Ножки Буша" так же "убили" наш птицепром.
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 28 October 2015 15: 39 New
                    0
                    The selection of facts convenient for you against statistics is not proof.
                    No respected, high mortality, relatively short life expectancy-the consequences of hidden hunger (the use of surrogates-bread with quinoa, acorns, in hunger-bark, even sawdust).
                    This is elementary illiteracy of the population (for example, bread chewing instead of a nipple for a child), it is the practice of leaving the child under the supervision of the elderly or older children while the mother works (appropriate care). At the exit, up to 5 years of age, 550 out of 1000 children survived.

                    Are you ready to challenge Gurko’s words with evidence?

                    So you are not even trying to prove your claim. I do not deny that perhaps the Poddubny family has been eating well for generations, how does this relate to the rest of the population of the Empire?
                    By 1913, 60% of peasant farms were poor (by 1917-75%), half of the farms bought bread, that is, they could not feed themselves.
                  4. VseDoFeNi
                    VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 17: 15 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Are you ready to challenge Gurko’s words with evidence?

                    I will prove to you without Gurko that a person has all the illnesses from an improper lifestyle and, above all, nutrition.
                    And if a person, by his own stupidity, eats another type of milk, intended by nature for feeding a cow calf, these are problems of a person. In addition, the so-called fermented milk products do not exist in nature. I can tell you about the rennin, which we do not have, like all mammals that switched to specific foods in infancy, be it grass, meat or something else.

                    Quote: strannik1985
                    By 1913, 60% of peasant farms were poor (by 1917-75%), half of the farms bought bread, that is, they could not feed themselves.

                    Throw in the trash the lying Bolshevik propaganda.
                    Говоря об "отсталости" царской России ее противники (советские и западные) нередко приводят примеры из XIX века. Однако с 1900 по 1913 гг. промышленное производство России удвоилось. С 1880 по 1917 гг. было построено 58.251 км железных дорог (ежегодный прирост 1 575 км), тогда как за такое же время при советской власти, до 1956 г. -36.250 км (ежегодный прирост 955 км).

                    Agriculture also showed a noticeable increase: in the five-year period of 1908-1912. in comparison with the previous five-year period, wheat production increased by 37,5%, barley - by 62,2%, oats - by 20,9%, corn - by 44,8%; during these years, Russia produced 28% more grain than the United States, Canada and Argentina combined. In the years of a good harvest (for example, in 1909-1910), the export of Russian wheat accounted for 40% of the world, in the years of a poor harvest (for example, in 1908 and 1912) it decreased to 11,5% of the world export. Europe was littered with Russian oil, eggs.


                    PS By the way, which Gurko?
                  5. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 29 October 2015 11: 20 New
                    0
                    Now taxes more than 40% of incomes are considered prohibitive, it is impossible to live with such a load, what should be the standard of living with taxes of 92,7 ... 198 ... 275%?
                    Они "сами виноваты" в том,что у них денег на нормальную пищу не оставалось? С вами все в порядке?

                    And you are not the growth rate, but look at the per capita, we have half of the peasants plowed the land with wooden plow, do you think just like that, out of love for antiquity?

                    V. Gurko.
                    The percentage of those unfit for military service with the introduction of universal military duty was 6, from 1883 to 1892 7,5%, after which it increased rapidly and by 1901 already 13% unfit, and this despite the fact that the requirements for a recruit in relation to growth and chest volume were reduced . Gurko calls this degeneration due to malnutrition.
                    In Gurko Fragmentary thoughts on the agrarian question. Page 6
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 27 October 2015 10: 02 New
      0
      Did the Anglo-Saxons decide to sell their own land to peasants on average 4 times more expensive than its cost? Former state peasants paid taxes and taxes in the amount of 92,7% of net income from the land, former noblemen contributed 198,25% of income from agriculture (peasants with a small allotment of up to 275%).
      They put it, it didn’t help much in the reform, the military courts were introduced in 1906, after the cadre was stitched off in 1914-1915, decomposition is underway and February 1917 is the culmination.
      1. VseDoFeNi
        VseDoFeNi 27 October 2015 17: 50 New
        0
        Quote: strannik1985
        there is a decay and February 1917 as a climax.

        Under Gaddafi, the standard of living in Libya was one of the highest. And now ... the climax.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 27 October 2015 22: 08 New
          0
          About everything and about nothing? Are you bored?
          1. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 06: 41 New
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            About everything and about nothing? Are you bored?

            The methodology for organizing all the revolutions and revolts of recent centuries has been worked out by the Anglo-Saxons to fight their geopolitical rivals from the inside. What they brilliantly do is destroy different countries with color and not very color revolutions.

            Russia was neither a prison of peoples, nor anything else, drawn by the Bolsheviks and other Social Revolutionaries with the money of the Naglosaks and Co. Remember where the congresses of the RSDLP took place and by whom ... And they even have the numbering through the RSDLP-VKPb-KPSS.

            Запад точно так же помогал красным в гражданской войне, как сегодня помогает "умеренной" оппозиции в Сирии. Ничего личного, просто бабло.
          2. strannik1985
            strannik1985 28 October 2015 15: 44 New
            0
            So what? Is this an occasion in the bestial way (purely from the universal point of view, the logical meaning in the reform of 19861 was, in contrast to the reform of Stolypin) to deal with the overwhelming majority of its own population? The basis for these revolutions is not English, they themselves have created.
          3. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 17: 24 New
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            The basis for these revolutions is not English, they themselves have created.

            So again.
            “Today, under Putin, people in Russia live as RICH as they never lived in the foreseeable past. Vivid evidence of this is the courtyards of Russian cities, clogged with cars, many of which were bought with overpayment on credit. This indicates that people have money to overpay and the lack of intelligence, so as not to overpay.
            And I will repeat it as long as there are those who do not understand this. ”© VseDoFeNi

            This is objective, but the shobla assembled at Bolotnaya said otherwise. About the same thing as you.
            All the revolutions of the last couple of hundreds of years are a matter of the manuals of the Naglosax. The collapse of the USSR is a vivid example, destroyed by corrupt brainless communists.
          4. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 28 October 2015 17: 24 New
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            The basis for these revolutions is not English, they themselves have created.

            So again.
            “Today, under Putin, people in Russia live as RICH as they never lived in the foreseeable past. Vivid evidence of this is the courtyards of Russian cities, clogged with cars, many of which were bought with overpayment on credit. This indicates that people have money to overpay and the lack of intelligence, so as not to overpay.
            And I will repeat it as long as there are those who do not understand this. ”© VseDoFeNi

            This is objective, but the shobla assembled at Bolotnaya said otherwise. About the same thing as you.
            All the revolutions of the last couple of hundreds of years are a matter of the manuals of the Naglosax. The collapse of the USSR is a vivid example, destroyed by corrupt brainless communists.
          5. strannik1985
            strannik1985 29 October 2015 11: 32 New
            0
            One another does not cancel.
            For a 20-year period from 1882 to 1901, Russia paid 5.740 million rubles abroad (4.372 million rubles of interest and urgent repayment of foreign capital invested in state and private industrial securities, plus Russian expenses abroad 1.370 million rubles for 20 years), this is 15 1/2 billion francs. That is, every 6 1/2 years, the amount equal to the indemnity of France to Germany for the war of 1870 leaves the economy of the Republic of Ingushetia and this is without military defeat, without costs and casualties (despite the fact that the Republic of Ingushetia switched to the gold coin standard from 1897 from 100% security, that is, the amount of money in the economy has decreased).
            Unwilked. From ruin to prosperity. Page 3
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 October 2015 14: 36 New
    0
    In fact, collective farms were not loved and not natural; at the first opportunity, people went to state farms. There have already been more or less humanly, incl. maybe Stolypin was right.
  • Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 26 October 2015 17: 23 New
    +2
    Первый раз слова "на отруба" я услышал от своей пробабушки во второй половине 60-х годов прошлого века. Как я могу судить, многие крестьяне в этом видели шанс вырваться из того жуткого состояния, в котором большая часть их них пребывала.
    Сейчас сторонников Столыпина не меньше, чем его противников. Я думаю, что Петр Аркадьевич - величина российской истории. Он пытался (что делали не многие) преобразовать огромную аграрную страну. И "пробивать" реформы ему приходилось при активном сотротивлении оппозиции и слева (трудовики), и справа (помещики).
    It is now easy to give ratings. And which of the premieres can be compared with Stolypin? Apart from Kosygin and Primakov, there is probably no one.
    1. VseDoFeNi
      VseDoFeNi 26 October 2015 18: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Army 2
      He tried (which not many did) to transform a huge agricultural country.

      He did not try, he transformed Russia!
    2. VseDoFeNi
      VseDoFeNi 26 October 2015 18: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Army 2
      He tried (which not many did) to transform a huge agricultural country.

      He did not try, he transformed Russia!