Power and collective ownership: the experience of land reform

Abstract

The main reason for the implementation of the next agrarian reform was the profound changes that have taken place in the field of socio-economic relations. The economy of the Russian Empire, after series of crisis and internal political upheavals, found itself in a state of prolonged depression. The economic lag behind Western European countries has led to dependence on foreign investment. The tasks set before the reform of February 19, 1861, were never realized. Starting the agrarian reform, the government headed by P. Stolypin set the task of comprehensively addressing the following issues: increase efficiency, marketability of agricultural production, strengthen the social resistance of the government in the countryside by destroying the community and transferring land to private ownership. It was believed that the appearance of the peasant’s sense of ownership would automatically remove the problem of dissatisfaction with the policy of the authorities in the countryside. The Peasant Land Bank was the main lever for reform. Pre-designed legislation expanded its powers. Of all the hamlets and cuttings, the highest were the share of those that appeared on the lands of the Peasant Land Bank. On the other hand, the State Noble Land Bank actually preserved the existence of the feudal in the form of the creation of aristocratic land tenure, credit support hindered the development of capitalist relations. The Peasant Land Bank, with the aim of lending to peasant land tenure, stimulated the growth of land prices, which indirectly helped the noble land tenure. The reform significantly accelerated the development of capitalist relations in the countryside: as a result of the destruction of the community, capitalist land ownership was created, strips were eliminated, the process of land concentration in the hands of wealthy peasants intensified, and the marketability of agriculture increased. However, in general, P. Stolypin’s reform did not achieve its goal – it did not ensure the creation of a strong capitalist system in the countryside, as aristocratic land tenure was preserved. During its implementation, there were no cardinal changes in land tenure and land use in the provinces of the Right Bank of Ukraine. The main reason was the predominant farmland ownership of peasants. The creation of farms and cuts contributed to a partial solution to the problem across the strip.