Russia and Agriculture
Agriculture was a major component of Russia’s economy for many decades leading up to 1917. Even with industrialisation, the majority of Russians were peasants working the land. To remain in power, the Romanovs had to keep the peasants on their side.
In 1861, Alexander II had emancipated the serfs. However, such a move had not run smoothly and by the start of the C20th, land problems remained a major issue for the government. The 1905 Revolution had shown that the people in the cities were discontented. The government could not take for granted the loyalty of the peasants. If they lost the support of both groups, then the government was in extreme trouble.
Before becoming the Minister of the Interior, Peter Stolypin had been involved in land issues, which led to the establishment of land organisation commissions. These commissions were meant to supervise more thoroughly the land reforms that were meant to have taken place after 1861. When Stolypin was appointed Minister of the Interior, he forced the commissions to speed up their work – such was the importance he attached to successful land reform. Their work led to the two decrees of 1906. The October decree dealt with personal rights while the November decree was considered so important that it was called the ‘Great Land Decree of 1906’. At 800 pages, it was an enormous piece of work.
The October 1906 Decree stated that a communal assembly in a village no longer had the right to impose forced labour on any person from that village who had defaulted on his public obligations. The head of a household and elected peasant officials were also forbidden from denying passports from would-be seceding peasants.
The November 1906 Decree stated that any head of a peasant family who held allotment land by communal tenure, had the right to claim his share to himself as private property. The amount of land was determined as follows:
1) Where no general redistribution of land had taken place in the last 24 years, the head of a family had the right to claim all the land he worked within the communal tenure at the time when he made his claim to become a private property holder.
2) Where land redistribution had taken place in the last 24 years, the head of a family could claim his land if the area claimed was smaller than the actual land he worked. If he claimed more than the land he worked, he could buy this land at a price set out in 1861.
3) Peasants who took the opportunity to own land, were not denied the right to use land used communally by the whole village, such as pastures for communal grazing, woods etc.
4) Peasants who took the opportunity to own land, were allowed to have whole blocks of land not just strips. If they owned scattered strips, they had the right to have these strips consolidated.
5) All land held in private ownership was held by the head of the household and not the whole household.
6) If two-thirds of a commune wanted to secede and take ownership of land, the commune itself would come to an end and complete land redistribution would take place.
What was the impact of the November Decree?
In the 1915 Year Book up to May 1st, in the 40 provinces of European Russia there had been 2,736,172 applications for land ownership of which 1,992,387 had been confirmed. This represented 22% of all householders living under communal tenure in these 40 provinces and 14% of the land held under communal tenure in European Russia.
In June 1910, a new land decree was issued. It stated that all communes in which there had been no general distribution of land since 1861 were declared dissolved. Documents of private ownership of land would be issued to anyone who applied. Land held by the commune, such as pastures, woods etc, were to be shared out if a simple majority in the village voted for this.
This decree had the potential to impact 3.5 million households. If this figure is added to the figure from 1906 and to those who had gained land since the 1861 emancipation decree, somewhere in the region of 7 million households were affected by these land reforms – about 50% of the total number of peasant households in Russia. In European Russia, there were an estimated 80 million peasants. Therefore, these reforms affected about 40 million people.
On paper, Stolypin’s reforms were remarkable by any standards. However, they did not do anything to affect the ownership of land by the monarchy. In 1905, the monarchy owned 145 million desyatin of land. By 1914, this had fallen to 143 million. The nobility were slightly more affected as their total land holding fell by 10 million desyatin. Land owned by the peasants increased from 160 million desyatin to 170 million. However, when the number of peasants is taken into account, this increase actually represented just 1/8th of a desyatin per peasant family. Such a paltry increase did nothing to alleviate hunger in the countryside.
Nor could Stolypin’s reforms do anything to modernise farming techniques in the countryside. The use of artificial fertiliser was minimal and year in year out from 1905 to 1916, there was no increase in production per acre in Russia. Production of grain was so low that Russia had to import grain just to feed itself. The peasants still grew for themselves. As Russia had an expanding industrial workforce, this clearly was a concern. Skilled workers in the cities had to spend their time growing their own food where possible. 40% of the workers in the Moscow printing trade had their own land to grow their own crops – despite being involved in what was considered to be a highly skilled profession.
Did Stolypin succeed in bringing the peasants onto the side of the government?
The land reforms ended in 1915, when about 50% of all peasant households were still under a form of communal tenure. There was still a great deal of poverty in rural areas, which the reforms could not address. The mentality of the peasants was to grow for themselves with any extra being sold locally. The rich peasants did well out of the land reforms. The so-called Kulaks could use their comparative wealth to buy up land and modern equipment and become even richer (by the standards of the peasant society they lived in). An estimated 15% of all households could be classed as Kulaks. These men were supportive of the government. But the evidence would indicate that for all his work, Stolypin failed in his desire to bring on board the majority of the peasants.
- Bolshevik Land Reforms Land reform was very important to the Bolsheviks. Support from the peasants was needed if the fragile Bolshevik government was going to…
- When the Restoration Settlement was discussed, land was considered to be the most pressing of all problems and potentially the most troublesome of problems. During…
- Land, and the ownership of land, was to dominate Ireland's history in the Nineteenth Century. The problems caused by who owned the land was partly…
Kilimo kilikuwa sehemu muhimu ya uchumi wa Urusi kwa miongo mingi hadi 1917. Hata baada ya usanifu-kibuni, wengi wa Warusi walikuwa wakulima waliofanya kazi ya shamba. Ili wabaki madarakani, Romanov walilazimika kuwa na wakulima upande wao. Mwaka 1861 Aleksanda wa Pili aliwaweka huru watumwa. Hata hivyo, hatua hiyo haikuenda vizuri na mwanzoni mwa karne ya 20, matatizo ya ardhi yalibaki suala kubwa kwa serikali. Mapinduzi ya 1905 yalionyesha kwamba watu katika miji walikuwa na hali ya kutoridhika. Serikali haingeweza kuamini kwamba wakulima wangekuwa washikamanifu. Ikiwa wangepoteza utegemezo wa vikundi vyote viwili, basi serikali ingekuwa katika shida kubwa sana. Kabla ya kuwa Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani, Peter Stolypin alikuwa amehusika katika masuala ya ardhi, ambayo yalisababisha kuanzishwa kwa tume za shirika la ardhi. Tume hizo zilikuwa na jukumu la kusimamia kwa uangalifu zaidi mageuzi ya ardhi yaliyopaswa kufanyika baada ya 1861. Wakati Stolypin aliteuliwa Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani, alilazimisha tume kuharakisha kazi yao - hivyo ilikuwa umuhimu alitoa kwa mafanikio ya mageuzi ya ardhi. Kazi yao ilisababisha amri mbili za 1906. "Katika mwaka wa 1906 amri ya Oktoba ilitolewa kwa ajili ya haki za watu, na katika mwaka wa 1906 amri ya Novemba ilitolewa kwa ajili ya haki za watu, na ilijulikana kama ""Mkataba Mkuu wa Ardhi wa 1906.""" Kwa kuwa kitabu hicho kina kurasa 800, ni kazi kubwa sana. "Katika mkataba wa Oktoba 1906, ""mkutano wa kijiji katika kijiji hakukuwa na haki ya kulazimisha kazi kwa mtu yeyote kutoka kijiji hicho ambaye alikuwa ameshindwa kutimiza wajibu wake wa umma.""" Kichwa cha familia na maofisa wa wakulima waliochaguliwa pia walikatazwa kukataa pasipoti kutoka kwa wakulima wanaotaka kujitenga. "Katika mkataba wa Novemba 1906, ""mkuu wa familia yoyote ya wakulima ambaye alikuwa na ardhi ya makazi ya jamii, alikuwa na haki ya kudai sehemu yake mwenyewe kama mali binafsi.""" """Katika hali ambapo hakuna ugawaji wa jumla wa ardhi uliofanyika katika miaka 24 iliyopita, kichwa cha familia alikuwa na haki ya kudai ardhi yote aliyoifanya kazi ndani ya uwanja wa umma wakati alipotoa madai yake ya kuwa mmiliki wa mali binafsi." Katika nchi ambazo umegawanywa ardhi katika miaka 24 iliyopita, mtu anaweza kudai ardhi yake ikiwa eneo alilodai ni dogo kuliko ardhi halisi aliyoifanya kazi. Ikiwa alidai zaidi ya ardhi aliyoifanya kazi, angeweza kununua ardhi hii kwa bei iliyowekwa mnamo 1861. Wakulima waliotumia fursa ya kumiliki ardhi, hawakunyimwa haki ya kutumia ardhi inayotumiwa kwa pamoja na kijiji chote, kama vile malisho kwa ajili ya malisho ya pamoja, misitu, na kadhalika. Wakulima waliopata nafasi ya kumiliki ardhi, waliruhusiwa kuwa na vipande vya ardhi, si vipande tu. Ikiwa walikuwa na vipande vilivyotawanyika, walikuwa na haki ya kuunganisha vipande hivyo. 5) Ardhi yote iliyokuwa katika umiliki wa kibinafsi ilikuwa inamilikiwa na kichwa cha nyumba na si nyumba nzima. Ikiwa thuluthi mbili ya watu wa kijiji fulani wangetaka kujitenga na kuchukua ardhi, kijiji hicho kingekoma na kugawanywa upya kabisa kwa ardhi. Amri ya Novemba ilikuwa na matokeo gani? Katika kitabu cha mwaka wa 1915 hadi Mei 1, katika mikoa 40 ya Urusi ya Ulaya kulikuwa na maombi 2,736,172 ya umiliki wa ardhi ambayo 1,992,387 ilikuwa imethibitishwa. Hii inawakilisha 22% ya wamiliki wote wa nyumba wanaoishi chini ya umiliki wa kijiji katika mikoa hii 40 na 14% ya ardhi iliyoshikiliwa chini ya umiliki wa kijiji katika Urusi ya Ulaya. Mnamo Juni 1910, amri mpya ya ardhi ilitolewa. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""mashirika yote ambayo hayakuwa na usambazaji wa jumla wa ardhi tangu 1861 yalitangazwa kufutwa.""" Hati za umiliki wa kibinafsi wa ardhi zitatolewa kwa yeyote atakayetaka. Ardhi iliyomilikiwa na kijiji, kama vile malisho, misitu, nk, ilipaswa kugawanywa ikiwa idadi ndogo ya watu katika kijiji hicho walipiga kura kwa ajili ya hili. Amri hiyo ilifikia kufikia watu milioni 3.5 Ikiwa takwimu hii inaongezwa kwa takwimu kutoka 1906 na kwa wale ambao walikuwa wamepata ardhi tangu amri ya uhuru ya 1861, mahali fulani katika mkoa wa nyumba milioni 7 ziliathiriwa na mageuzi haya ya ardhi - karibu 50% ya idadi ya jumla ya nyumba za wakulima nchini Urusi. Katika Urusi ya Ulaya, kulikuwa na wakulima wapatao milioni 80. Mabadiliko hayo yaliathiri watu milioni 40. Kwenye karatasi, marekebisho ya Stolypin yalikuwa ya ajabu kwa viwango vyovyote. Hata hivyo, hawakufanya chochote ili kuathiri umiliki wa ardhi na ufalme. Mwaka 1905 serikali ya kifalme ilikuwa na ardhi ya milioni 145 ya desyatin. Kufikia mwaka wa 1914, idadi hiyo ilikuwa imeshuka hadi milioni 143! Watu wa tabaka la juu waliathiriwa zaidi, kwa kuwa jumla ya ardhi waliyokuwa nayo ilipungua kwa desyatini milioni 10. Kwa mfano, ardhi iliyomilikiwa na wakulima iliongezeka kutoka milioni 160 hadi milioni 170. Hata hivyo, ikiwa idadi ya wakulima inazingatiwa, ongezeko hili kwa kweli liliwakilisha tu 1 8th ya desyatin kwa kila familia ya wakulima. Ongezeko hilo dogo halikusaidia kupunguza njaa katika maeneo ya mashambani. Wala mageuzi ya Stolypin hayakuweza kufanya chochote ili kuboresha mbinu za kilimo mashambani. Matumizi ya mbolea ya bandia yalikuwa ya chini sana na mwaka baada ya mwaka kutoka 1905 hadi 1916, hakukuwa na ongezeko la uzalishaji kwa ekari nchini Urusi. Uzalishaji wa nafaka ulikuwa mdogo sana hivi kwamba Urusi ililazimika kuagiza nafaka ili tu kujilisha. Wakulima bado walijiruzuku wenyewe. Kwa kuwa Urusi ilikuwa na idadi kubwa ya wafanyakazi wa viwanda, jambo hilo lilikuwa jambo la kuogopesha. Wafanyakazi wenye ustadi katika majiji walipaswa kutumia wakati wao kukuza chakula chao wenyewe pale ilipowezekana. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""40% ya wafanyakazi katika biashara ya uchapishaji wa Moscow walikuwa na ardhi yao wenyewe kukuza mazao yao wenyewe, licha ya kuhusika katika kile kilichohesabiwa kuwa kazi ya ujuzi wa juu.""" Je, Stolypin alifanikiwa kuwaingiza wakulima upande wa serikali? Marekebisho ya ardhi yaliisha mwaka 1915, wakati ambapo karibu asilimia 50 ya makazi yote ya wakulima yalikuwa bado chini ya aina fulani ya umiliki wa jamii. Bado kulikuwa na umaskini mkubwa katika maeneo ya vijijini, ambao mageuzi hayakuweza kushughulikia. Mawazo ya wakulima yalikuwa ya kujilima wenyewe na ziada yoyote iliuzwa mahali hapo. Wakulima matajiri walifaidika sana kutokana na marekebisho ya ardhi. Kulaks waliweza kutumia utajiri wao wa kulinganisha kununua ardhi na vifaa vya kisasa na kuwa hata tajiri zaidi (kwa viwango vya jamii ya wakulima waliokaa). Inakadiriwa kwamba asilimia 15 ya familia zote zaweza kuainishwa kuwa Wakulaki. Wanaume hao waliunga mkono serikali. Lakini ushahidi unaonyesha kwamba kwa kazi yake yote, Stolypin alishindwa katika tamaa yake ya kuwaleta wakulima wengi. - Marekebisho ya Ardhi ya Bolshevik Marekebisho ya Ardhi yalikuwa muhimu sana kwa Bolsheviks. "Mashirika ya kijeshi ya Bolshevik yalijaribu kuimarisha ""Uhakika wa Urekebishaji"" na kuunda ""Uhakika wa Urekebishaji"" ambao ulikubaliwa kuwa tatizo kubwa zaidi la nchi." Wakati... - Ardhi, na umiliki wa ardhi, ilikuwa kutawala historia ya Ireland katika karne ya kumi na tisa. Matatizo yaliyosababishwa na mmiliki wa ardhi hiyo kwa sehemu...