Question on Stolypin's Reforms from the Textbook

How Successful Was Stolypin in Helping Improve the Lot of the Peasants in Russia Between 1906 and 1911?

Stolypin’s reforms were highly successful in improving the state of Russian agriculture within this period, but is debatable the extent to which he helped to improve the lot of peasants per se.

It would appear initially that the reforms should have improved their lot, going beyond much previous reform - even the Serf Emancipation Act of 1861. Under the reforms, peasants were given ownership of their land and the strip farming system was abolished in favour single areas. Redemption Payments were also abolished and peasants were given additional support through Land Organisation Committees and Land Banks. They were also given the opportunity to buy state and crown land and thereby increase their holdings.

However, their assessment of their actual impact is mixed. The reforms did bring about an increase in peasant ownership and the heredity ownership of land increased during this period. A good harvest also helped to increase production and thereby peasant prosperity. Famers who took the subsidy and moved to Siberia to farm were particularly fortunate as the region quickly became one of the Empire’s major agricultural regions.

On the other hand, however, while a number of farmers grew rich, the reforms also led to many peasants becoming poorer. An increasing gap between rich and poor peasants emerged and many in the latter group lost their land and became increasingly alienated. Moreover, many of those who grew richer did not do so in the manner of the Kulaks, as planned by Solypin, but just helped to improve the situation of some of the poorest. The reform process was also a slow one, with only 14% of communal land passing into communal land during this period and only just over a 1/5th of applications for consolidation of heredity tenure having been processed. There were also wide variations across the country in terms of its impact with, indeed, some peasants continuing to strip farm as they had for decades.

In this way, while the reforms were somewhat of a success in reforming the lot of peasants (much more so than, for example, Alexander II’s reforms), they were not an unmitigated success. While output increased and the lot of some peasants increased, this was achieved at the cost of a growing divide between rich and poor. Many also suffered from the inefficiencies of the system in processing their applications that would, in theory, improve their lot.