The abolition of serfdom and other reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, as already mentioned, marked the beginning of Russia's transition to an industrial society based on private property and a market economy. The main feature of this transition was that it was carried out in the conditions of the incompleteness of the process of initial accumulation of capital and the preservation of numerous remnants of the traditional society in the country.

What are the trends in the formation of an industrial society in Russia?

In branches of large-scale industry, there was a transition from manufactories, based mainly on forced labor, to factory production. After the abolition of serfdom, the domestic market began to expand, including the labor market, and conditions were created for competition between commodity producers. At the same time, enterprises that were in the sphere of state interests were not included in the system of market relations and remained a kind of monopoly.

The process of capital accumulation within the country was quite slow, and the newly-minted Russian entrepreneurs sought to invest in those industries that brought quick and stable profits. Therefore, in the 1870s - early 1880s. light industry, mainly textile, which accounted for more than half of the value of all industrial output in Russia, received predominant development. Large centers of the textile industry were created in the Moscow and Vladimir provinces, St. Petersburg, and the Lodz region of Poland. With the active participation of the textile magnates Morozov, Prokhorov, Ryabushinsky, banks were created in the country, which formed the core of financial groups that took control of Russian industry.

IN 1870s gg. domestic transport engineering and rail production are emerging, and although Russia then smelted about 3% of the world's iron production, rails at Russian factories were made from imported ones. The main types of machine tools, machines, equipment for factories and plants were also purchased abroad.

The backlog of the Russian Empire from the advanced states of the West became threatening, therefore, in the 1880s. a course was set for the industrialization of the country. The main force in organizing the process of industrialization in Russia was the state. His intervention in economic life was manifested in the priority and preferential financing of certain industries, in the implementation of a protectionist customs and tax policy, in attracting foreign capital to Russian industry. Internal sources of accumulation for industrialization were formed mainly through the export of grain and raw materials.

The economy of a huge country could not develop without an extensive transport network. Roads were (and remain!) one of the main troubles of Russia. In the second half of the XIX century. the country experienced a real "boom" of railway construction. By 1880, in the European part of the country, private companies had created the backbone of the railway network (19 thousand km). It was a time when, for several years, railroad contractors S.S. Polyakov, D. E. Bernadaki, and others made millions of fortunes. In order to compensate for the losses incurred, the state began to buy out private railways and organize their state-owned operation. New railway lines in the country began to be built mainly by the state according to a scheme that allows linking the center and the outskirts and giving access to traditional Russian export goods to sea and river ports. The length of railways in Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. more than doubled and amounted to about 50 thousand km.

In the course of railway construction, large Western investments were attracted to the country with the help of loans, amounting to about 4 billion rubles. Almost half of them were sent to the mining and metallurgical, machine-building, chemical and textile industries. Foreign capital also contributed to the introduction of gold circulation in the country, the creation of a banking network and a securities market. Domestic sources of industrialization in the 1890s replenished by increasing taxes and introducing a monopoly on the wine trade, as well as an increase in the export of bread and raw materials.

Railway construction in many respects stimulated industrialization and contributed to the rapid development of a number of branches of domestic industry. In Russia, there has been a turn towards the production of means of production, although the production of consumer goods still accounted for 2/3 of the gross industrial product. In the 1880s Russia stopped importing steam locomotives and wagons, but the growing demand for machine tools and factory equipment was still met through imports.

In the 1880-1890s. there are significant shifts in the territorial distribution of industry. Along with the development of the former centers (the Urals, St. Petersburg, Moscow), new industrial regions arose: the Southern - coal-metallurgical, Baku - for the extraction and processing of oil. The main center of coal mining and metal production in the country was the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog region, in which by the end of the 19th century. smelted more than 40% of all iron. The country also developed regions specializing in the processing of agricultural products: sugar beet, milk, and potatoes.

During the industrial boom of 1893-1899. industrial production in the country has doubled, and the overall growth of its volume over the 40 post-reform years has exceeded 700%. However, even such a rapid pace of development allowed the Russian Empire by the beginning of the 20th century. only slightly reduce its gap with the developed countries of the West.

There was no significant layer of rich people in Russia either. At the beginning of the XX century. of the 150 million people who inhabited the empire, only a little over 550 thousand individuals and legal entities had an annual income of more than 1 thousand rubles, and an income of more than 10 thousand rubles. received about 30 thousand people, which, together with members of their families, amounted to 0.1% of the population.

The process of the establishment of capitalism in Russia was characterized by severe forms of exploitation of the workers, the miserable wages of the vast majority of workers, the arbitrariness of business owners, the lack of labor protection and basic living conditions. According to statistics (a study by F.F. Erisman), there were from 277 to 303 injuries per 1000 workers in Moscow weaving factories annually. Common for Russian factories and factories were apartments of the bed-and-cell type, when a large barracks was divided by light partitions that did not reach the ceiling into residential family compartments.

The symbols of the modernization of an agrarian country are usually cities. According to the 1897 census, there were 865 cities in Russia, but only in 19 of them the population exceeded 100 thousand people, in 37 - 50 thousand people, and in 112 lived from 20 to 50 thousand people. Human. The population of the remaining 697 cities ranged from 400 people to 20 thousand, and no signs of civilization absolutely violated the patriarchal life of many county towns of the empire. At the beginning of the XX century. only 17 cities in the country had sewerage and 35 had trams. Among all residential buildings in 50 provinces of Russia, there were only 3.6% of stone buildings.

The level of development of the country and its place in the world is very eloquently evidenced by the export of goods. At the beginning of the XX century. The Russian Empire exported only 6-8% of its goods abroad, and its share in world exports (4.2%) was lower than its share in world industrial production. In the structure of Russian exports, up to 50% was grain, the second place was occupied by textile products. Russia was not greeted with applause on the world market, it was already divided. An attempt by the Nobel Brothers partnership to break into the world market with Baku oil in competition with the American Standard Oil was unsuccessful.

At the beginning of the XX century. industrial rise was replaced in Russia by a decline in production. It coincided in time with the world economic crisis of 1900-1903. and was due to a large extent to a reduction in the inflow of foreign capital into Russian industry. The decline in production was accompanied by the bankruptcy and ruin of about 3,000 small and medium-sized enterprises, rising unemployment, and a decline in the living standards of the population. Large industrialists used the crisis to expand their influence on the goods market, create monopolistic associations that controlled production, pricing and sales.

In the first decade of the new century, monopolies have become a decisive factor in the economic life of Russia. Established in 1902, the "Society for the sale of products of Russian metallurgical plants" soon turned into the largest syndicate "Prodamet", which took control of the production and sale of more than 80% of the products of the metallurgical industry. The "Truboprodazhka" syndicate monopolized pipe-rolling enterprises. In the oil industry, two firms - the Nobel Brothers partnership and the Mazut society - since 1905 controlled more than 77% of the trade in petroleum products. Syndicate "Produgol" united under its influence up to 75% of Donetsk coal production and price policy or a sharp decline in fuel production could affect not only the consumer, but also the government. In transport engineering, two syndicates, Prodvagon and Prodparovoz, almost completely monopolized the production of wagons and steam locomotives in the country.

At the same time, in the course of the concentration of production in Russia, monopolies of the lowest types arose mainly - cartels and syndicates, which, despite serious successes, could not completely monopolize production. During the industrial boom of 1909-1913. monopolization reached a new level. Monopolies of the highest type began to appear in the country - trusts and concerns, the largest combined enterprises, monopolizing all stages of production - from the extraction of raw materials to the sale of finished products. The monopolization of this type took place under the control of the financial and industrial groups that emerged in the country and with the direct participation of the government. This is how military-industrial concerns were created on the basis of the Putilov-Nevsky Association and the Nikolaev Shipbuilding Trust, which consolidated the country's tendency to merge the state apparatus with military-industrial monopolies.

During the years of the pre-war industrial boom, the sectoral and regional structure of Russia's industry remained unchanged, the total volume of production increased by 2/3. In 1913, the country's industry fully satisfied the internal needs for ferrous metals and rolled products, steam locomotives, wagons and river boats, petroleum products, cotton fabrics and sugar. However, the “transport” orientation of mechanical engineering that developed in the past made the Russian Empire dependent on the import of machine tools for metal processing, factory equipment, and complex agricultural machines. Of the industrial products, Russia exported timber and lumber, petroleum products, fabrics, manganese ore, sugar, and a small amount of steam locomotives and rails.

Despite the rapid development of industry, Russia remained an agrarian country. For 3/4 of its population, labor on the land was the main source of livelihood.

Only an insignificant part of the landowners, mainly in the western provinces, managed to reorganize their farms on a capitalist basis. In the rest of the regions of landownership, for decades, a labor-working system was maintained, in which free peasants cultivated the landowner's land with their tools. At the end of the XIX century. of the 24 provinces of the chernozem zone, mining prevailed in 12, the mixed system - in 3, and elements of the capitalist economy - in 9 provinces.

The crisis in the sale of agricultural products at the end of the 19th century, when American competition almost halved the price of bread on the European market, had the strongest influence on the evolution of landlord farms. Noble landownership began to decline rapidly. The lands of the landlords were bought by wealthy peasants, merchants, and entrepreneurs. The center of gravity of the marketability of agricultural production began to shift. At the end of the XIX century. in European Russia, 64.7 million acres of land were occupied under crops, of which 72.5% fell on the share of peasant farms.

In the post-reform period, the socio-economic differentiation of peasant farms intensified, during which, with the general tendency of the countryside towards middle peasantry, there was a sharp division of the peasantry into the poorest and the prosperous. The wealthy peasantry, through the purchase and lease of land, increased the production of marketable products, the poorest peasantry replenished the ranks of the hired labor force in the countryside and in the city, turning into a social stratum of hired workers with an allotment of land. According to the military horse census in 1888, in 41 provinces of European Russia, 40.1% of peasant households had one horse, 31.3% had 2 horses, 28.6% had 3 or more horses. In the same provinces, 28% of peasant households were horseless.

At the beginning of the 20th century, eight regions of the steppe zone became a large region of commercial grain farming: Bessarabian, Kherson, Tauride, Don, Yekaterinodar, Sratov, Samara and Orenburg. Here there were favorable conditions for the creation of not only individual farms of the farm type, but also large capitalist agricultural enterprises. In the Taurida province, for example, there were capitalist grain-oriented farms, the area of ​​land in which ranged from 10 to 200 thousand acres. So, in the privately owned farm of Falz-Fein, up to 1,100 machines were used during the harvesting period (of which about 1,000 were peasants).

The Russian countryside, especially in the central regions, suffered from agrarian overpopulation. During the post-reform years, the average size of a man's allotment fell from 3.4 to 2.6 acres. As a result of the depeasantization of a significant part of the rural population, by 1905, out of 14.5 million peasant farms, 2.2 million households were landless, up to 5 acres had 2.9 million households, and from 5 to 10 acres - 5.1 million. , i.e., almost 70% of the peasant farms of Russia did not have land or had allotments that did not allow organizing commodity production.

Attempts to get out of want and poverty were far from successful for everyone. Redemption payments, direct and indirect taxes absorbed up to 2/3 of peasant incomes. The peasants simply could not expand their land use by renting or buying land, or acquiring improved tools of labor. They had no right to refuse a meager allotment and leave the community. In search of a way out of the vicious circle, the peasants were engaged in otkhodnichestvo, local crafts, and increasingly turned their gaze towards the landowners' fields.

According to economists of that time, for the rational organization of agriculture in Russia, 20-25% of workers from the number of people employed in the agricultural sector of the economy were quite enough. True, this required changes in land ownership and land use (it was necessary to do something with the landowners' farms and the peasant community), it was necessary to improve agricultural technology, the use of machines and mechanisms in agriculture. To ensure only these conditions, it was necessary to solve a whole range of interrelated social, production and technical problems.

Meanwhile, the culture of agriculture in Russia was extremely low. In agriculture, the three-field system continued to dominate, and only in some areas did multi-field crop rotations take shape. Slash and fire was still practiced in forest areas.

agriculture. Agricultural tools in most regions of Russia remained at the level of the 12th century. Due to the high cost of metal, iron plows came into use very slowly. The number of livestock kept in the peasant and many landowners' farms did not meet the needs of the soil in fertilizers. The consequence of this was a drop in soil fertility and low yields, which averaged about 6.5 centners per hectare across the country.

The most difficult was the situation in the non-chernozem zone, where natural and climatic conditions exacerbated the position of the peasants to the limit. Already at the turn of the century, the first commissions for the "impoverishment of the center" were created. At the beginning of the 20th century the government began to develop various projects for the agrarian reorganization of the country, which would soon become the basis of the Stolypin reforms.

Turn of XIX - XX centuries. occupies a special place in the history of Russia. It was, as it were, a period of calm, a period of reflection between two attempts at European modernization of the country (the reforms of the 1860s and 1870s and the reforms of the early 20th century). Civilizational transformations took place in the country rather contradictory and inconsistent. The key problems of social development (the agrarian issue, the improvement of the political regime, the catching up type of development of society) were still not resolved, and the combination of elements of an industrial society with the remaining remnants of a traditional one led to a deepening of the social crisis of the empire.

Questions for self-control

1. What were the features of Russia as a country of the "second echelon" of capitalism?

2. What are the main trends in the socio-economic development of Russia at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries?

Literature

1. Kokovtsov V.I. From my past: Memories. 1903 - 1919: V2kn.M, 1992.

2. Crisis of autocracy in Russia, 1895-1917. L., 1984.

3. Milyukov P.I. Memories. M., 1991.

4. OldenburgS.S. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. M-, 1992.

5. Stolypin P.A. We need a great Russia: Poln. coll. speeches in the State Duma and the State Council. M., 1991.

6. Tarkovsky K.N. Socio-economic history of Russia. Beginning of XX century. M., 1990.

7. Shatsillo K.F. Nicholas II: reforms or revolution // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, decisions: Essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries. M „ 1991. S. 326 - 366.

8. Shatsillo K.F. Russian liberalism on the eve of the revolution of 1905-1907. M., 1985.

9. Shelokhaev V.V. Ideology and political organization of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie. 1907- 1914GT.M., 1991.

10. Our Fatherland: the experience of political history. M., 1991. T. 1.S. 163-341 (Ch. 5, 6, 7, 8).

So, the light industry of the Russian Empire can be characterized as follows: world-class high-class products, extremely dynamically developing. After the Bolshevik occupation, the entire light industry was, in fact, destroyed and eked out a miserable existence.

Food industry and agriculture

The agriculture of the Russian Empire provided a significant income from exports, especially wheat. The structure of exports can be presented on this graph, for more details on the harvest for 1883–1914, see the detailed report

Russia occupied the first place in grain harvesting, trade in grain, eggs (50% of the world market) and butter brought most of the export earnings. And here, as we see, the role of private forces was again the most important. The state was poorly represented in agriculture, although it owned 154 million acres of land, while 213 million acres belonged to peasant communities and private individuals. Only 6 million acres of the state were sown, the rest was occupied mainly by forests. In other words, enterprising peasants provided the backbone of the country's economy by producing goods whose sale allowed them to buy needed foreign goods.

Yields for 1883–1914

Animal husbandry was relatively developed. “Number of horses per 100 inhabitants: Russia - 19.7, Britain - 3.7, Austria-Hungary - 7.5, Germany - 4.9. France - 5.8, Italy - 2.8. The only European country competing with Russia - Denmark. There were 20.5 horses per 100 people. In general, the supply of horses was at the level of America, but inferior to Argentina, Canada and Australia.
In terms of cattle, Russia was not a leader - rather, a strong middle peasant. On average, there were 29.3 heads of cattle per 100 inhabitants of the Russian Empire. In Austria-Hungary -  30, in Britain -  26.1, in Germany -  30, in Italy -  18, in France -  32.1, in the USA -  62.2. That is, pre-revolutionary Russia was adequately provided with cattle - in fact, every third owned a cow.
In terms of sheep, Russia is also a strong middle peasant: the indicators are not the best, but far from the worst. On average - 44.9 sheep and rams per 100 people. In Austria-Hungary this number was less than 30, in Britain - 60.7, in Germany - 7.5, in Italy - 32.3, in France - 30.5, in America - 40.8 sheep per hundred people. The only industry in which Russia was inferior to some of the leading powers was pig breeding, it was not very widespread. On average, there were 9.5 pigs per 100 people. In Austria-Hungary - about 30, in Britain - 8.1, in Germany - 25.5, in Italy - 7.3, in France - 11.2. However, even here the average level is not inferior to the French or British”. Data from here.

The mechanization of agriculture from 1905 to 1913 can be represented in the following figures:

Steam plows were imported in 1905, 97 units, in 1912, 73 thousand units.

In 1905, 30.5 thousand seeders were imported, in 1913 about 500 thousand.

In 1905, 489.6 thousand locomobiles were imported, in 1913 more than 1 million units.

In 1905, 2.6 million poods of Thomas slag were imported, in 1913 - 11.2 million.

Phosphorites in 1905 were imported 770 thousand pounds, in 1913 3.2 million.

1.7 million poods of superphosphates were imported in 1905, and 12 million in 1913.

Nikolay Vasilievich Vereshchagin. "Merry milkman" of a healthy person.

The production of butter developed. The export of butter in 1897 amounted to 529,000 poods worth 5 million rubles, although before that there was almost no export. In 1900 - 1189 thousand poods worth 13 million rubles, in 1905 exports increased to 2.5 million poods worth 30 million rubles, and a year later 3 million poods worth 44 million rubles were exported. At the same time, the Empire owed the development of the industry to Nikolai Vasilyevich Vereshchagin. “Transportation by rail, as shown by statistics, is over 20,000,000 poods a year, and since up to 3,000,000 poods of oil from this amount is exported abroad and is estimated at approximately 30,000,000 rubles, the rest of the amount, over 17,000,000 poods, in any case, it is worth no less than 30,000,000 rubles, and, consequently, we already produce dairy products for about 60,000,000 rubles a year. The value of more productive cattle and more fruitful land has undoubtedly risen considerably wherever improved dairy farming has taken root.

Sugar production increased from 1887 to 1913 from 25.9 million poods to 75.4 million poods. Its consumption also grew (see table):

Population

It is no secret that the population of the Russian Empire grew at a very rapid pace. The population of the European part of Russia from 1897 to 1914 grew from 94 million to 128 million, Siberia from 5.7 million to 10 million. In total, in the Empire, including Finland, from 129 million to 178 million people (according to other sources, in 1913 the population without Finland was 166 million). The urban population, according to the data of 1913, was 14.2%, i.e. more than 24.6 million people. In 1916, about 181.5 million people already lived in the Empire. In essence, this human asset laid the foundations for future victory in the Second World War - this is the numerical advantage of people who grew up in relatively well-fed imperial years, who received good immunity and physical data, provided Russia with labor and an army for many years to come (as well as those who was born to them in the early 1920s).

Education

The number of students in lower, secondary and higher educational institutions, as well as literacy, grew steadily in the last decades of the Empire. This can be estimated from the following data:

The budget for education of the Ministry of Public Education for the period from 1894 to 1914: 25.2 million rubles and 161.2 million rubles. An increase of 628%. According to other sources, the budget of the MNP was 142 million rubles in 1914. The total expenditure of the ministries on education was 280-300 million + the expenditures of cities and zemstvos were about 360 million rubles. In total, the total expenditure on education in the Republic of Ingushetia in 1914 amounted to 640 million rubles, or 3.7 rubles per person. For comparison, in England this figure was 2.8 rubles.

The intention to achieve full literacy as a long-term goal of the government was obvious. If in 1889 the ability to read in men and women aged 9 to 20 was 31% and 13%, respectively, then in 1913 this ratio was already 54% and 26%. Russia, of course, lagged behind all developed European countries in this regard, where from 75% to 99% of the population could read and write.

The number of primary educational institutions by 1914 was 123,745 units.

The number of secondary educational institutions by 1914: about 1800 units.

The number of universities by 1914: 63 state, public and private units. The number of students - 123,532 students in 1914 and 135,065 students in 1917.

Urban literacy increased by an average of 20% between 1897 and 1913

The increase in literacy among recruits speaks for itself.

In 1914, there were 53 teachers' institutes, 208 teachers' seminaries in Russia, and 280,000 teachers worked. More than 14,000 students studied at pedagogical universities and seminaries of the MNP; in addition, in 1913 alone, 15.3 thousand students graduated from additional pedagogical classes in women's gymnasiums. The number of professionally trained teachers in primary schools also steadily increased, including in the remaining parochial schools (despite the lower pay in them): if by 1906 82.8% (in one-class) and 92.4% (in two-class) professionally trained teachers, then by 1914 - already 96 and 98.7%, respectively.

In general, according to the expectations of that time, the problems with the literacy of the population and the creation of a system of universal education should have been resolved by 1921-1925. And somehow I have no doubt that it would be so.

Results

Thus, we see that absolutely in all parameters of the development of the economy of the Russian Empire from the late 1880s to 1917, the country made significant progress. Undoubtedly, Russia was still lagging behind France, Germany, England, the USA, and even in some respects Italy and Denmark. But the trend of continuous development is obvious - this allows us to conclude that after 1917 the country would have made progress in the economy. As for the relatively low standard of living of the majority of the population in the 1900s, Russia, in principle, almost always lagged behind the rest of Europe, as it lagged behind under the USSR and today. But in the Republic of Ingushetia, we see how the incomes of the population grew continuously and at a rapid pace, which cannot be said about the life of the Soviet people and our current long-term stagnation.

One of the factors hindering the development of the economy was the increase in duties and protectionism. You may already be familiar with the notion that the tariffs allegedly contributed to the development of domestic industry. But this is not so, because it was precisely those industries where there was no competition with foreign products (raw materials, processing, agriculture, handicrafts, textiles) that developed faster. Duties hampered the development of engine building, automotive, aircraft manufacturing, largely because only the emerging industry in these industries lacked foreign components, which were so necessary at the initial stage, making business in these industries unprofitable. The Tariff of 1868, for example, imposed duties on cars. In the same way, duties on cars were raised in 1891. As a result, it is precisely in mechanical engineering since then that the growth has been the least significant and the share of imported machines is high. When, as adherents of protectionism, they always point us to an impressive growth in the raw materials industry and agriculture, where, in general, nothing could threaten Russia with all the will.

As a result of economic development in the post-reform period (especially the industrial boom of the 90s of the 19th century, which ended by 1880-1890), the system of Russian capitalism finally took shape. This was expressed in the growth of entrepreneurship and capital, the improvement of production, its technological re-equipment, and the increase in the number of hired labor in all spheres of the national economy. Simultaneously with other capitalist countries, a second technical revolution was taking place in Russia (acceleration of the production of means of production, widespread use of electricity and other achievements of modern science), which coincided with industrialization. From a backward agrarian country, Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. became an agrarian-industrial power (82% employed in agriculture). In terms of industrial output, it entered the top five countries (England, France, the USA and Germany) and was increasingly drawn into the world economic system.

In modern science, there are three echelons of modernization:

1. Countries with a high level of development of capitalism (England, France, USA)
2. Countries with an average (Germany, Japan) and weak-average (Russia, Austria-Hungary) level of development of capitalism
3. Countries of weak development of capitalism (countries of Latin America, Africa, Asia)

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. capitalism has entered a new, monopolistic stage. Powerful industrial and financial associations (industrial monopolies and financial unions) were formed. Gradually there was a fusion of industrial and financial capital, industrial-financial groups took shape. They occupied a dominant position in the economy - they regulated the volume of production and sales, dictated prices, divided the world into spheres of influence. Their interests were increasingly subordinated to the domestic and foreign policy of the capitalist states. The system of monopoly capitalism, changing and adapting to new historical realities, persisted throughout the 20th century.

The special character of capitalism at the turn of the century was noted by many scientists and politicians, in particular the English economist John Hobson. According to his version (and also according to V.I. Lenin), the characteristic features of imperialism are:

1. creation in the industry of large associations, enterprises - monopolies (to draw an analogy with modern TNCs - transnational corporations), dictating their own rules of the game in the market;
2. the formation, as a result of the merger of banking capital with industrial capital, of a new, more maneuverable and active one, linking banks, enterprises, communications, the service sector, a type of capital - financial into a single system;
3. the export of capital to other countries begins to dominate merchandise exports, which makes it possible to obtain excess profits through the exploitation of cheap labor, cheap raw materials and low land prices;
4. economic division of the world between unions of monopolies;
5. political, territorial division of the world between leading countries, colonial wars.

Monopolies: large economic associations, which concentrated in their hands most of the production and marketing of goods. The main forms of monopolies:

Cartel: participants retain their production independence, while jointly solving issues of production volume, sales of products, profit is distributed according to the share of participation;

Syndicate: production and legal independence of enterprises is preserved, the volume of products, prices, terms of sale are determined; sales are centralized;

Trust: participants lose their production, and often legal viability; most often arise in industries that produce homogeneous products;

Concern: diversified association with independence in management, but with complete financial dependence

The process of formation of monopoly capitalism was also characteristic of Russia. It affected her economic, social and political life. Along with the manifestation of general patterns in Russia, there were some peculiarities of monopoly capitalism. This was due to a number of factors.

First, historical - it switched to capitalism later than many European countries.

Secondly, economic and geographical - an immense territory with various natural conditions and its uneven development.

Thirdly, socio-political - the preservation of autocracy, landlordism, class inequality, political lack of rights of the broad masses, national oppression.

Fourth, national - the different level of economic and socio-cultural state of the numerous peoples of the empire also predetermined the originality of Russian monopoly capitalism.

There are four stages in the process of monopolization in Russia:

1880-1890s - the emergence of the first cartels on the basis of temporary agreements on joint prices and the division of sales markets, the strengthening of banks;

1900-1908 - creation of large syndicates, banking monopolies, concentration of banks; 3. 1909-1913 - Creation of “vertical” syndicates, uniting enterprises for the purchase of raw materials, for their production and marketing; the emergence of trusts and concerns; coalescence of industrial "banking capital, the creation of financial capital;

1913-1917 - the emergence of state-monopoly capitalism; merging of financial capital, monopolies with the state apparatus.

Russia is usually attributed to the second echelon of modernization. There are different points of view of researchers on the question of the level of development of capitalism in Russia: average or weak-medium. In addition, along with the opinion about the “catching up” nature of Russian modernization (formational approach), there is an opinion about the special path of Russia's development, about the uselessness and futility of the “race for the leader” (civilizational approach).

Peculiarities

1. In Russia, railway construction unfolded before the industrial revolution, being a powerful stimulus, on the one hand, for the industrial development of the country, and on the other, for the capitalist evolution of the entire national economy.
2. The system of Russian factory production in many industries took shape without going through the previous stages - crafts and manufactory.
3. The formalization of the credit system took place in a different sequence in Russia. By the beginning of the XX century. this system was represented primarily by large and largest joint-stock commercial banks, and the rapid growth of medium and small credit institutions occurred only at the time of the pre-war industrial boom.
4. There was a rapid growth of various forms of economic organization of production - small-scale private capitalist, joint-stock, state-capitalist, monopoly, and then state-monopoly.
5. Russia was characterized not by the export, but by the import of capital.
6. A high degree of concentration of production and labor force has been created.
7. An important feature of the capitalist evolution of Russia was that the autocratic state played a huge role in economic life, in the formation of the basic elements of new relations. State intervention in economic life was expressed:

• in the creation of state-owned factories (military production), which were excluded from the sphere of free competition;
• in state control over railway transport and the construction of new roads (2/3 of the railway network belonged to the state);
• in the fact that the state owned a significant part of the land;
• the existence of a significant public sector in the economy;
• in the establishment of protectionist tariffs by the state, the provision of state loans and orders;
• in the creation by the state of conditions for attracting foreign investment (in 1897, a monetary reform was carried out (Witte), which eliminated bimetallism and established the gold backing of the ruble, its convertibility).

The state actively patronized the development of domestic industry, banking, transport, and communications. Significant foreign investment began to flow into the country. But the following factors negatively affected the development of the Russian economy:

• the multistructural nature of the economy - along with the private capitalist, monopolistic and state-monopoly, small-scale (handicraft industry), semi-serfdom and natural-patriarchal (community) structures were preserved;
• uneven and profound disproportions in the development of individual sectors;
• dependence on foreign grain markets and foreign investment, as a result of which Russia had a hard time surviving the crises of 1898-1904 and 1907-1910;
• a combination of high rates of economic development with low labor productivity (2-3 times lower than in Europe), a lag in the production of products per population and technical equipment of labor;
• the Russian bourgeoisie did not have access to power and was not free to make decisions; it never left the class framework of the guild merchant class;
• the presence of powerful bureaucratic capital, which was a huge state economy - colossal land and forest funds, mines and metallurgical plants in the Urals, Altai, Siberia, military factories, railways, a state bank, communications enterprises that belonged to the treasury and were managed not by bourgeois, but feudal-bureaucratic methods.

Industry

Russia was characterized by cyclicality.

Crisis of 1900-1903 - Falling prices, reduced production, mass unemployment.

1901 - steam locomotive building syndicate "Prodparovoz"

1902 - syndicates "Prodamet" and "Pipe Sale"

1904-1908 - Decline in the rate of industrial production (depression).

Since 1909, an industrial boom associated with the growth of military orders, the extensive investment of financial (including foreign) funds. The share of domestic products in the world market has almost doubled.

2nd place in the world - oil production

4th - mechanical engineering

5th - mining of coal, iron ore, steel smelting

At the same time, Russia ranked 15th in the world in terms of electricity production, and some industries (automobile and aircraft construction) did not exist at all. In the production of industrial goods per capita, Russia lagged behind the leading capitalist countries by 5-10 times.

Agriculture

Despite the accelerated development of industry, the agricultural sector remained the leader in terms of share in the country's economy. 82% of its population was employed in this industry. It ranked first in the world in terms of production: it accounted for 50% of the world's rye harvest, 25% of the world's wheat exports. Agriculture features:

• grain specialization of agriculture, which led to the agrarian
• overpopulation and land depletion;
• dependence on grain prices in the foreign market in the face of increased competition from the United States, Argentina, and Australia;
• the low capacity of the bulk of the peasant farms, the increase in production was noted only in the landlord farms and the farms of wealthy peasants (no more than 15-20% of all peasants);
• the location of Russia is a “zone of risky agriculture”, which, with low agricultural technology, led to chronic crop failures and famine;
• Preservation of semi-serfdom and patriarchal vestiges in the countryside The agrarian sector was included in the modernization process only partially. It was the problems of agriculture that became the main core of the economic, social and political life of the country at the beginning of the century.

Thus, Russia has embarked on the path of modernization lagging behind Western Europe. The contradictions in the development of the Russian economy were connected precisely with the insufficiency of drawing its individual sectors into modernization. Autocracy and the political dominance of the nobility were a serious brake on the path of economic development.

Finance

Under the conditions of monopoly capitalism, the financial system of Russia was determined by the state and private forms of banking capital. The main place was occupied by the State Bank, which performed two central functions: issue and credit. He provided support to banking monopolies, was engaged in state lending to industry and trade. The Noble Land and Peasant Land State Banks contributed to the strengthening of capitalist relations in agriculture. At the same time, with their credit policy, they supported landownership.

A significant role was played by the system of joint-stock commercial banks, which took an active part in the development of the credit system.

In Russia, there was a concentration and centralization of capital by large joint-stock banks (Russian-Asian, St. Petersburg International, Russian for Foreign Trade, Azov-Don). They combined 47% of all assets. On their basis, a financial oligarchy was formed, closely connected with the bureaucracy and the big nobility. It penetrated into all spheres of the economy, had a strong influence on the socio-political life of the country.

At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. the state financial system was in a difficult position. Neither the establishment of a wine monopoly in 1895, nor the monetary reform of 1897 helped. The state budget was under an unbearable burden for maintaining the bureaucratic and police apparatus, a huge army, conducting an aggressive foreign policy, and suppressing popular uprisings.

The crisis of 1900-1903 dealt a severe blow to public finances. The government treasury was effectively devastated by attempts to save money-losing industrial enterprises and prop up a crumbling banking system. After the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. and revolutions of 1905-1907. Russia's public debt reached 4 billion rubles. The government tried to reduce the budget deficit by increasing direct and indirect taxes, reducing spending on economic, military and cultural reforms. Large government foreign loans temporarily supported the financial system, but the annual payments on them on the eve of the First World War reached a huge figure of 405 million rubles.

Transport

Unlike other sectors of the national economy, the transport system at the beginning of the 20th century. has not undergone significant changes. Rail transport occupied a leading position in the domestic transportation of goods and passengers. However, the extensive state construction of railways was curtailed due to lack of funds. Attempts to organize private railway construction did not give positive results. In terms of the overall provision of rail tracks, Russia lagged far behind the countries of Western Europe and the USA. The vast territory was not easy to cover with an extensive railway network. Construction in the 80s of the XIX century. railway in Central Asia (from Krasnovodsk to Samarkand) and the Great Siberian Railway (from Chelyabinsk to Vladivostok) in 1891-1905. was a significant step in solving this transport problem.

Waterways continued to play an important role. The river fleet of Russia outnumbered the flotillas of other countries in its numbers and was well equipped. Own merchant marine fleet was small. The bulk of Russian cargo was transported by foreign ships.

The road network has increased very little. Russia remained a country of highways and country roads, where horse-drawn carriage prevailed. The car at that time was a luxury item for the privileged classes.

In general, for the Russian economy at the beginning of the 20th century. characterized by the coincidence of the processes of industrialization and monopolization. The economic policy of the government was aimed at accelerated industrial development and was of a protectionist nature. In many respects, the state took the initiative in the development of capitalist relations, using the methods of economic recovery tested in other countries. At the beginning of the XX century. the gap between Russia and the leading capitalist powers was significantly reduced, its economic independence and the possibility of pursuing an active foreign policy were ensured. Russia has become a medium-developed capitalist country. Its progress was based on the powerful dynamics of economic development, which created a huge potential for further forward movement. It was interrupted by the First World War.

Reforms of S. Yu. Witte

He had a significant influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian government, actively contributed to the development of Russian capitalism and tried to combine this process with the strengthening of the monarchy. Witte made extensive use of scientific and statistical data in his work. On his initiative, major economic events were carried out.

Under Witte, state intervention in the economy significantly expanded: in addition to customs and tariff activities in the field of foreign trade and legal support for entrepreneurial activity, the state supported certain groups of entrepreneurs (primarily those associated with the highest government circles), softened conflicts between them; supported some areas of industry (mining and metallurgical industry, distillation, railway construction), and also actively developed the state economy. Witte paid special attention to personnel policy: he issued a circular on the recruitment of persons with higher education, sought the right to recruit personnel on the basis of practical work experience. The management of industry and trade was entrusted to V. I. Kovalevsky.

In general, on the initiative of Witte, major economic measures were carried out:

strengthening the role of the state in the economy:

Introduction of uniform tariffs for railways;

State regulation of domestic and foreign trade through the first system of taxes;

The concentration of most of the railways in the hands of the state;

Expansion of the public sector in industry;

Activation of the activities of the State Bank;

Introduction of a state monopoly on the alcohol trade; 2) strengthening private enterprise:

Flexible tax legislation;

Fighting the budget deficit;

Strengthening of the national currency (the monetary reform of 1897 abolished bimetallism and introduced the gold equivalent of the ruble);

Moderate protectionism towards foreign investors.

Witte proposed a number of measures aimed at the destruction of the community and the transformation of the peasant into the owner of the land, as well as at improving the situation of the workers. Witte's program did not find proper support in the immediate environment of the guy.

Despite the far from complete implementation of his plans, Witte did a lot to turn Russia into an industrial country. Under him, the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, the CER was started, finances were significantly strengthened, and the budget deficit was reduced. The authorities did not have enough foresight to follow the path of reforms "from above" and carry out the political modernization of the country. The next attempt to change the face of Russia was made "from below", during the revolution of 1905-1907.

P.S. Taxes and duties of the peoples of Siberia at the beginning of the 20th century (Lev Dameshek)

The uneven distribution of taxes and taxes, their high amounts gave rise to persistent and numerous arrears, noted among all categories of indigenous people. For 5 years (1895 - 1900), the settled “foreigners” of the Yenisei province had an average of 62% arrears in state zemstvo duties, and 71.4% in private zemstvo duties. Among the nomadic "foreigners" these figures were 19.5 and 32.8%, respectively. The discrepancy between the size of taxes and the level of solvency of the rural aboriginal population gave rise to arrears in other types of tax payments. Sources note chronic arrears in the payment of poll and quitrent taxes, the main type of taxation of settled aborigines. In the Yenisei province, arrears in per capita taxes amounted to 15.7, quitrent - 7.5%. A certain reduction in salary arrears, which is noticed from time to time, is by no means explained by an increase in the solvency of the natives, but by the shameless extortion of them by the tsarist authorities, especially when collecting local taxes. At the same time, the confiscation of property and its sale at auction, the arrest of the ancestors and village foremen, and other forms of administrative coercion, up to the sending of military teams, were widely practiced. But, despite these measures, arrears constantly increased. In the province of Tobolsk, for example, after the transfer of part of the nomads to the category of settled, the tax system fell on foreigners even harder. In 1891, arrears were calculated at 87,566 rubles, which was 140% of the annual salary, in 1901 - already 98,023 rubles. In the Yakutsk region in 1892, arrears in zemstvo payments amounted to 187,664 rubles. By 1900, thanks to the "efforts of the administration," their amount was reduced to 116,589 rubles, but further collection of arrears remained problematic for the local administration.

As a result, we note that in the period under review, taxes and duties of the indigenous population of Siberia were of a mixed nature in form and content. In the total taxation of the peoples of the region, the share of local and personal duties accounted for less than 50% of monetary payments. The taxes and duties of the settled aborigines in practice did not differ in any way from the tax obligations of the Russian peasantry. However, the most characteristic form of tax duties for nomadic and wandering "foreigners" - the absolute majority of the indigenous population - was yasak.

You may also be interested.

Introduction

History describes the development of various states and nationalities, generalizes the experience of mankind. In order to understand the present, it is necessary to know the past, the historical experience of which helps to understand and find solutions to the problems of the present. I was interested in the critical period of Russia's development, which led to radical, inevitable changes.

The theme of this test is the revolutionary crisis in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

The purpose of further work is a detailed study and analysis of the main trends and contradictions of the modernization of Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the study of events during the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, its prerequisites, features and consequences for Russia, as well as to determine what goals were set and what of them have been achieved. Also trace the development of political parties during this period, their programs and tactics during the revolution.

The main contradictions in the development of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.

revolution russian political

Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was distinguished by the depth and scale of social conflicts. They were based on the extreme inconsistency of the post-reform socio-economic and political development of the country, the complex interweaving of advanced forms of industrial development with numerous remnants of the feudal era.

The inconsistency of the process of capitalist restructuring of the country was due to the fact that the transition to a new mode of production occurred with a significant delay and took place in an evolutionary way, through reforms, while maintaining the monarchical state, which determined the form and nature of bourgeois development in Russia. Early 20th century and marked by the struggle of two tendencies, on the one hand, attempts were made to reform activities in the government, on the other hand, the desire to preserve the autocratic system was clearly expressed.

In political life, the remnants of the Middle Ages were expressed in the preservation of Russian autocracy. The power of the sovereign was not limited to any elected bodies. The inviolability of the principle of royal power made the existence of a constitutional regime impossible. Of course, the autocracy could carry out reforms from above, but the death of Emperor Alexander II at the hands of the Narodnaya Volya in 1881 convinced his successor Alexander III of the viciousness of the course of state reforms and the need to preserve the autocracy in an unlimited form. Moreover, the emperor revised a number of his father's reforms. A staunch opponent of Western democracy and parliamentarism, K. P. Pobedonostsev, who retained his influence during the reign of Nicholas II, became the closest adviser to the emperor.

The eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century were marked by the onset of conservatism: the universities were called to order and placed under supervision, the lyceums were purged of the children of shopkeepers and servants, Russification intensified, national protest was suppressed, enmity and distrust between peoples intensified.

The accession to the throne of Nicholas II in 1894 aroused hopes for a return to the course of reforms. Society dreamed of guarantees of fundamental freedoms, the emergence of elected bodies of power, of national sovereignty. But Nicholas II categorically refused any concessions whatsoever. The tsarist government had one urgent task - to preserve the autocracy. Meanwhile, the needs of economic development forced the authorities to encourage the development of industry, which in turn led to the emergence and strengthening of new classes - the bourgeoisie and the working class. The bourgeoisie, having achieved economic power, sooner or later had to declare claims to political power. The nobility inevitably lost its position in society. The emergence of a cohesive, organized and educated proletariat also broke the traditional feudal structure.

Thus, the very existence of an autocratic estate state was contrary to the spirit of the times, contrary to the needs of the country's economic development. In general, among the most striking and painful contradictions of that time, the following can be distinguished:

• 1. Preservation of large-scale landownership in the face of a shortage of land among the peasants. Sections, striped made it difficult to conduct a peasant economy and doomed the village to dependence on the landowner. A heavy financial burden fell on the peasants in the form of redemption payments, current taxes, and rent. This deprived the peasants of the necessary funds for the development of the economy.
• 2. The peasant community was preserved, which slowed down social stratification among the peasants, limited the sale and purchase of land, and the redistribution of labor resources throughout the country.
• 3. The economic thinking of the landowners remained archaic. The landowner did not seek to introduce technical improvements, did not seek to increase labor productivity, since the labor force was available in abundance and almost free of charge. The local nobility gradually fell into decline due to unproductive expenses. This process was also slowed down by government measures to support the nobility: the creation of the State Noble Land Bank, which issued preferential loans to landowners.
• 4. Another serious contradiction in the development of the country's economy was the colossal gap between agriculture, with its archaic methods of production, and the growth of industry, based on advanced technology. In order to keep up with the European powers, the government was forced to develop a wide network of railways and finance heavy industry. For the period from 1861-1900. 51,600 km of railways were built and put into operation. For the period 1892-1904. the construction of the Siberian railway was completed, which simplified the development of Siberia. The production of cast iron, rolled products, and steel increased (tripled). Oil production increased 5 times. Russia ranked 2nd in the world in oil production, 5th in coal production. But the industrial boom did not eliminate the technological lag behind the developed countries. Country before the beginning of the 20th century. imported raw materials and equipment. The economic backwardness of the country was a serious obstacle to industrialization. Russia produced industrial goods per capita 13 times less than Germany; 21.4 times less than the USA. Among the reasons for the economic backwardness of Russia, one can note the weakness and instability of the domestic market, due to the low standard of living of the bulk of the population, and, consequently, its low purchasing power.
• 5. One of the consequences of economic development was the formation of an industrial proletariat. The number of workers employed in various industries was 15 million, of which 9 million were hereditary workers. However, the government refused to consider the proletariat an independent social group, and, consequently, there was no labor legislation in the country that determined the relationship between workers and manufacturers. Low wages, irregular working hours, arbitrary fines by the administration, terrible living conditions, the prohibition of trade unions - all this made the workers an active force in the social struggle against employers and the government.
• 6. The Russian bourgeoisie also had its own claims to the autocracy. Possessing significant capital and determining the economic development of the country, the bourgeoisie at the same time was absolutely powerless politically. The tsarist government put artificial obstacles in the way of economic development, while continuing to support the nobility.
• 7. Finally, the self-preservation of an unlimited autocratic system was archaism, contradicting both the spirit of the times and the interests of most social groups in Russia at that time. The last serious attempt of the autocracy to give acceleration to the socio-economic development of the country, without affecting the foundations of the monarchical system, were the reforms of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte, carried out in the 90s of the 19th century. The essence of these reforms was to strengthen the regulatory role of the state. Witte acted in the following main areas:
  • -tough tax policy, which made it possible to release the capital necessary for investment, but placed a heavy burden on the population;
  • -priority development of railway transport, which led to the development of related industries and increased intrastate commodity exchange;
  • -financial stabilization, expressed in the strengthening of the ruble, which made the Russian economy attractive for foreign investment;
  • -policy of protectionism of the domestic industry;
  • -replenishment of the budget at the expense of the state wine monopoly.

Witte's measures gave a positive, but short-term effect. They expressed the views of Witte himself, but not of Emperor Nicholas II, among whom the struggle between conservatives and moderate liberals continued. In 1903, Nikolai made a choice in favor of the conservatives in the person of the Minister of the Interior V. K. Pleve. Witte was fired. Plehve, on the other hand, adhered to a protective course, increased pressure on society in the hope of avoiding social upheavals in this way.

Thus, the needs of the country's further development came into conflict with the remnants of serfdom. The conflict between capitalism and Russian absolutism assumed either the capitalist evolution of the country on a democratic basis, or the violent overthrow of the autocracy and a radical social reorganization. Economic, political and social contradictions are intertwined in Russia. Cruel exploitation of the workers, lack of land and poverty of the peasants, the political lack of rights of the people, the oppression of national minorities, serfdom, dependence on foreign capital, economic, political and cultural backwardness - all this made Russia a weak link in the world capitalist system. In other words, the possibility of deep social upheavals was much more real in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century than in other developed countries of Europe.

As a result of economic development in the post-reform period (especially the industrial boom of the 1990s), the system of Russian capitalism finally took shape. This was expressed in the growth of entrepreneurship and capital, the improvement of production, its technological re-equipment, and the increase in the number of hired labor in all spheres of the national economy. Simultaneously with other capitalist countries, a second technical revolution was taking place in Russia (acceleration of the production of means of production, widespread use of electricity and other achievements of modern science), which coincided with industrialization. From a backward agrarian country, Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. became an agro-industrial power. In terms of industrial output, it entered the top five countries (England, France, the USA and Germany) and was increasingly drawn into the world economic system.

The political system of autocracy with its powerful bureaucratic apparatus and the relative weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie predetermined the active intervention of the state in the formation of monopoly capitalism. A system of state-monopoly capitalism (GMK) has developed in Russia. This was expressed in legislative regulation and the government's patronizing policy in the creation of monopolies and financial support. The largest Russian banks were led by former senior government officials who were related to financial, commercial and military departments. The peculiarity of Russia lay in the fact that the autocratic state in its domestic and foreign policy began to protect the interests of both the landlords and the big monopoly bourgeoisie.

Late 19th - early 20th century - the time of tangible quantitative and qualitative changes in the Russian economy. Domestic industry grew at a high rate. The accelerated economic growth was largely facilitated by the policy of forced industrialization of the country, which was primarily associated with the name of S.Yu. post of Minister of Finance.

The course taken by S.Yu. Witte for all-round assistance to industrial development was not a fundamentally new phenomenon. To some extent, he relied on the traditions of the Petrine era and the experience of the economic policy of subsequent periods. The components of the “system” of S.Yu. Witte were the customs protection of domestic industry from foreign competition (the foundations of this policy were laid down by the customs tariff of 1891), the widespread attraction of foreign capital in the form of loans and investments, the accumulation of internal financial resources with the help of state-owned wine monopolies and increased indirect taxation. The state actively "implanted" the industry, providing assistance (administrative and material) in the emergence of new and expansion of existing enterprises. One of the largest measures taken by S.Yu. Witte as part of the implementation of his "system" was the introduction in 1897 of gold money circulation. The gold content of the ruble at the same time decreased by 1/3. The credit ruble was equal to 66 2/3 kopecks, gold. The State Bank, which became an issuing institution, received the right to issue credit notes not backed by gold in the amount of not more than 300 million rubles. The financial reform contributed to the stabilization of the ruble exchange rate and the influx of foreign capital into Russia.

Contributing to the development of Russian industry, the "system" of S.Yu. Witte was distinguished by inconsistency. Broad state intervention in the economy, contributing in a certain respect to the rapid capitalist evolution of Russia, on the other hand, hindered the natural formation of bourgeois structures. Forced industrialization was carried out at the expense of an overstrain of the payment forces of the population, primarily the peasantry. Customs protectionism inevitably resulted in a rise in prices for manufactured goods. Increased taxation negatively affected the position of the broad masses of the people.

The most important means of replenishing the state budget was the wine monopoly. In 1913, it provided 27-30% of all budget revenues. The policy of accelerated industrialization, which negatively affected the well-being of the general population, played a certain role in preparing the revolutionary explosion in 1905.

The course of the autocracy for the accelerated industrialization of the country gave significant results. 90s of the 19th century They were marked by an industrial upsurge of unprecedented duration and intensity. Railway construction was carried out on a large scale. By 1900, 22 thousand miles of railways were built, i.e. more than in the previous 20 years.

By the 900s, Russia had the second longest railway network in the world. Intensive railway construction stimulated the development of industry, primarily heavy industry. Russian industry grew at the highest rate in the world. On the whole, during the years of expansion, industrial production in the country has more than doubled, and the production of means of production has almost tripled.

The economic upswing gave way to an acute industrial crisis, the first symptoms of which appeared at the very end of the 1990s. The crisis lasted until 1903. The growth of industrial production in these years decreased to a minimum (in 1902 it was only 0.1%), however, due to the different timing of the coverage of individual industries by the crisis, a general decrease in the volume of output was not observed. First decade of the 20th century for the domestic industry was an unfavorable time. Its development was negatively affected by the Russo-Japanese War and the Revolution of 1905-1907. Nevertheless, industrial growth did not stop, amounting to over 1904-1909. at an average annual rate of 5%. An upward trend in the economic situation emerged at the end of 1909, and from 1910 the country entered a period of new industrial growth, which lasted until the outbreak of the First World War. The average annual increase in industrial output in 1910-1913. exceeded 11%. Industries that produce means of production increased their output by 83% over the same period, and light industries - by 35.3%. At the same time, it should be noted that prior to the outbreak of the First World War, capital investment in industry and its technical modernization, which increased during the years of the boom, had not yet had time to give the desired effect. The growth of large-scale industry was combined in Russia with the development of small-scale production and handicrafts.

Along with 29.4 thousand factories and mining enterprises (3.1 million workers and 7.3 billion rubles of gross output), on the eve of the First World War there were 150 thousand small establishments in the country with a number of workers from 2 to 15 people . In total, they employed about 800 thousand people, and products were produced for 700 million rubles.

On the whole, the general results of the development of domestic industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were quite impressive. In terms of industrial production, Russia in 1913 occupied the 5th place in the world, second only to the USA, Germany, England and France. At the same time, although the volume of industrial production in France was about twice that of Russia, this superiority was achieved mainly due to a number of branches of the light and food industries. In terms of steel smelting, rolling, mechanical engineering, cotton processing and sugar production, Russia was ahead of France and was in 4th place in the world. In oil production, Russia in 1913 was second only to the United States. Despite the impressive successes in the development of industry, Russia still remained an agrarian-industrial country. The gross output of agriculture and animal husbandry in 1913 was 1.5 times the gross output of large-scale industry. The country lagged far behind the most developed countries in the production of manufactured goods per capita. According to this indicator, the USA and England in 1913 surpassed Russia by about 14 times, and France by 10 times. Thus, despite the exceptionally high rates of industrial growth, Russia was still inferior to other great powers in terms of economic development by the beginning of the First World War.

Monopolies occupied a dominant position in the industry of pre-revolutionary Russia as well. They played a particularly important role in the decisive branches of industry - in metallurgy, coal mining, etc. A major role in tsarist Russia was played by the Produgol syndicate (Russian Society for the Trade in Mineral Fuels of the Donets Basin). It was organized in 1906 by 18 largest coal enterprises of Donbass, which were under the command of French capital. Syndicate "Produgol" from the very first steps of its activity covered about three-quarters of all coal production in the Donbass.

In metallurgy, the Prodamet syndicate played a decisive role, concentrating in its hands up to 95 per cent. the entire production of ferrous metals. The syndicate raked in huge superprofits, sharply limiting production and artificially creating a state of metal hunger in the country.

The match syndicate controlled three-quarters of the entire production of matches. Large companies reigned supreme in river and sea transport. Syndicate society "Ocean" seized almost complete dominance in the salt market. On the eve of the First World War, the largest capitalists in the cotton industry - the Ryabushinskys, the Konovalovs, the Yegorovs - began to put together a monopoly organization.

The Prodvagon syndicate (a company for the sale of products of Russian car-building plants) was created in 1904. It included 13 enterprises that controlled almost the entire production and sale of wagons. The syndicate of steam locomotive factories united seven or eight factories, which gave 90-100 percent. all products. The syndicate of sugar producers raised the price of sugar so much that the sale of sugar in the country was reduced. Sugar was exported to England and sold there at bargain prices. The losses from this operation were covered in excess by high domestic prices and special premiums for exports, which were paid to the syndicate by the tsarist government.

The largest monopolistic associations of tsarist Russia were closely connected with foreign syndicates, cartels and banks. In a number of cases they were actually branches of foreign monopolies. Such branches were the syndicates "Prodvagon", "Ocean", match, cement, tobacco, agricultural machinery, etc. The oil industry of tsarist Russia, which occupied a prominent place in the world market, was actually in the hands of foreign monopoly groups that competed with each other. During the years of the First World War, the monopolies, which were dependent on foreign capital and closely connected with it, deepened the devastation and collapse of the economy of tsarist Russia by their predatory management.

The events of the early twentieth century became more relevant, because it was during that period that many difficult moments for Russia took place: the revolutionary upheavals of 1917 and the civil war. In many ways, the events that took place are connected with the domestic policy of the last emperor of Russia, Nicholas II, in which Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin also played a role, unexpectedly finding himself at the heights of power.

Many of his contemporaries began to say that he did not have his own ideas, that he was a "clerk" who carried out other people's orders, a locomotive that pulled the train in the direction indicated by someone. Such characteristics appeared during the lifetime of P. A. Stolypin.

Land reform became the core of his policy, his life's work. This reform was supposed to create in Russia a class of small proprietors - a new "strong pillar of order", a pillar of the state. Then Russia would be "not afraid of all revolutions." Stolypin concluded his speech on land reform on May 10, 1907 with the famous words: “They (opponents of statehood) need great upheavals, we need Great Russia!”

For a more successful consideration of the policy of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, we first analyze the atmosphere in which he had to work - the political and economic situation in the country from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th century.

At the turn of these centuries, society entered a new phase of its development, capitalism became a world system. Russia entered the path of capitalist development later than other Western countries and therefore fell into the second echelon of countries, such countries were called "young predators". This group included such countries as Japan, Turkey, Germany, and the USA.

The speed with which Russia developed was very high, already developed Europe contributed to this, providing assistance in every possible way, sharing experience, and also directing the economy in the right direction. After the economic recovery of the 90s of the 19th century, Russia experienced a severe economic crisis of 1900-1903, then plunged into a long depression of 1904-1908. From 1909 to 1913, the Russian economy made another dramatic leap. The volume of industrial production increased by 1.6 times, the process of monopolization of the economy received a new impetus, as a result of the crisis, weak, small enterprises went bankrupt, which accelerated the process of concentration of industrial production. As a result, in the 1980s and 1990s, temporary business associations were replaced by large monopolies; cartels, syndicates (Produgol, Prodneft, etc.). At the same time, the banking system was being strengthened (Russian-Asian, St. Petersburg International Banks).

The First State Duma met in April 1906, when estates were burning almost all over Russia, peasant unrest did not subside. As Prime Minister Sergei Witte noted, "The most serious part of the Russian Revolution of 1905, of course, was not the factory strikes, but the peasant slogan: 'Give us the land, it must be ours, for we are its workers'." Two powerful forces came into conflict - landowners and tillers, the nobility and the peasantry. Now the Duma had to try to resolve the land question - the most burning issue of the first Russian revolution.

If in the villages the manifestations of the war were the arson of estates and the mass flogging of peasants, then verbal battles were in full swing in the Duma. The peasant deputies ardently demanded that the land be transferred into the hands of the farmers. They were just as passionately opposed by representatives of the nobility, who defended the inviolability of property.

Before the revolution of 1905-1907, two different forms of land ownership coexisted in the Russian countryside: on the one hand, the private property of the landowners, on the other, the communal property of the peasants. At the same time, the nobility and peasants developed two opposite views on the land, two stable worldviews.

The landlords believed that the land - the same property as any other. They saw no sin in buying and selling it. The peasants thought otherwise. They firmly believed that the land was "no one's", God's, and only labor gives the right to use it. The rural community responded to this age-old idea. All the land in it was divided between families "according to the number of eaters." If the size of the family was reduced, its land allotment also decreased.

The creation of the June 3rd system, which was personified by the Third Duma, along with the agrarian reform, was the second step in turning Russia into a bourgeois monarchy (the first step was the reform of 1861).

The socio-political meaning boils down to the fact that Caesarism was finally crossed out: the "peasant" Duma turned into the "lord's" Duma.

On November 16, 1907, two weeks after the third Duma began its work, Stolypin addressed it with a government declaration. The first and main task of the government is not "reforms", but the struggle against the revolution.

The second central task of the government, Stolypin announced the implementation of the agrarian law on November 9, 1906, which is "the fundamental idea of ​​the present government ...".

Of the "reforms", reforms of local self-government, education, workers' insurance, etc. were promised.

After the adoption of the decree on November 9 by the Duma, as amended, it was submitted for discussion by the State Council and was also adopted, after which, according to the date of its approval by the tsar, it became known as the law on June 14, 1910. In its content, it was, of course, a liberal bourgeois law that promoted the development of capitalism in the countryside and, therefore, progressive.

The decree introduced extremely important changes in the land ownership of the peasants. All peasants received the right to leave the community, which in this case allocated land to the escaping in their own possession. At the same time, the decree provided for privileges for wealthy peasants in order to encourage them to leave the community. In particular, those who left the community received "in the ownership of individual householders" all the lands "consisting in his permanent use." This meant that people from the community also received surpluses in excess of the per capita norm. Moreover, if redistribution has not been made in a given community over the past 24 years, then the householder received the surplus free of charge, but if there were redistributions, then he paid the community for the surplus at the redemption prices of 1861. Since prices have increased several times over 40 years, this was also beneficial for wealthy people.

Stolypin, being a landowner, leader of the provincial nobility, knew and understood the interests of the landowners; as governor during the revolution, he saw peasants in revolt, so for him the agrarian question was not an abstract concept.

The essence of the reforms: laying a solid foundation for the autocracy and advancing along the path of industrial, and, consequently, capitalist development. The core of the reforms is agrarian policy.

The agrarian reform was the main and favorite brainchild of Stolypin. The goals of the reform were several:

socio-political - to create in the countryside a strong support for the autocracy from strong owners, splitting them off from the main mass of the peasantry and opposing them to it; strong farms were to become an obstacle to the growth of the revolution in the countryside;

socio-economic - to destroy the community, plant private farms in the form of cuts and farms, and send the excess labor force to the city, where it will be absorbed by growing industry;

economic - to ensure the rise of agriculture and the further industrialization of the country in order to eliminate the lag behind the advanced powers.

The first step in this direction was taken in 1861. Then the agrarian question was solved at the expense of the peasants, who paid the landlords both for land and for freedom. The agrarian legislation of 1906-1910 was the second step, while the government, in order to strengthen its power and the power of the landlords, again tried to solve the agrarian issue at the expense of the peasantry.

The new agrarian policy was carried out on the basis of the decree of November 9, 1906. This decree was the main business of Stolypin's life. It was a creed, a great and last hope, an obsession, his present and future - great if the reform succeeded; catastrophic if it fails. And Stolypin was aware of this.

The agrarian reform consisted of a complex of successively carried out and interconnected measures. Let's consider the main directions of reforms.

From the end of 1906, the state began a powerful attack on the community. For the transition to new economic relations, a whole system of economic and legal measures to regulate the agrarian economy was developed. The Decree of November 9, 1906 proclaimed the predominance of the fact of sole ownership of land over the legal right to use it. Peasants could now leave it and receive land in full ownership. They could now separate what was in actual use from the community, regardless of its will. The land allotment became the property not of the family, but of the individual householder.

The results of the Stolypin agrarian reform are expressed in the following figures. By January 1, 1916, 2 million householders left the community for the interstriped fortification. They owned 14.1 million dess. earth. 469,000 householders who lived in boundless communities received certificates worth 2.8 million dessiatins. 1.3 million households moved to farm and cut ownership (12.7 million dess.). In addition, 280,000 farms and cut-off farms were formed on banking lands - this is a special account. But the other figures cited above cannot be added up mechanically, since some householders, having strengthened their allotments, then went out to farms and cuts, while others went to them immediately, without inter-strip reinforcement. According to rough estimates, about 3 million householders left the community, which is somewhat less than a third of their total number in those provinces where the reform was carried out. However, as it was noted, some of the allocated members actually abandoned agriculture long ago. 22% of the land was withdrawn from communal circulation. About half of them went on sale. Some part returned to the communal cauldron.

During the 11 years of the Stolypin land reform, 26% of the peasants left the community. 85% of the peasant lands remained with the community. Ultimately, the authorities failed to either destroy the community or create a stable and sufficiently massive layer of peasant proprietors. So what can one say about the general failure of the Stolypin agrarian reform.