Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:02:51.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Khutora and Otruba in Stolypin's Program of Farm Individualization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Judith Pallot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The time has passed when it was automatically assumed that the Stolypin Land Reform represented an attempt on the part of the tsarist government to impose on an unwilling peasantry a predetermined plan for a change in land tenure. The revision of opinion has in large measure resulted from the work of George L. Yaney, who has shown that policy and the organization necessary for carrying it out evolved and changed during the course of the implementation of the Stolypin reform. Yaney argues that certain of the changes in the reform came about as a result of the government responding to pressure from the peasants. Inevitably, this pressure concerned those aspects of the land reform that affected the peasants most directly, for instance, the disposition of the land and the timing and sequence of withdrawal from the commune.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 1984 , pp. 242 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Research for this article was funded by the British Academy

1. This is still the view held by Soviet historians who take their cue from the standard work on the Stolypin Land Reform, S. M. Dubrovskii, Stolypinskaia zemel'naia reforma (Moscow, 1963).

2. Yaney, George L., The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia (Champaign, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

3. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (TsGIA), fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 116, Ob uchastii chlenov zemleustroitel'nykh komissii v s “ezde nepremennykh chlenov gubernskikh prisutstvii po vyrabotke pravila o zemleustroistve, I. 441.

4. Ibid., l. 214.

5. Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, p. 320.

6. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 116, l. 215.

7. Ibid., l. 442.

8. Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, p. 386.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., pp. 307–15

11. The report of the tour is in TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 113, 5 materialami po poezdke tov. min. M.V.D. Lykoshina dlia osmotra rabot zemleustroitel'nykh komissii po razbivke na kutora krest'ianskikh zemel'.

12. Ibid., l. 3.

13. Ibid., l. 7.

14. Ibid., l. 58.

15. Ibid., l. 33.

16. The report of Rittikh's tour is in TsGIA, fond 408, 1908, opis’ 1, delo 90, Po poezdke glavnoupravliaiushchego zemleustroistva i zemledeliia i direktora D.G.Z.I, v povolzhskikh guberniiakh dlia obzora zemleustroitel'nykh rabot.

17. Ibid., l. 22.

18. Ibid.

19. This difference in approach may well have reflected different conceptions of the Stolypin Reform's main aim held by the two men. This would not be altogether surprising since Rittikh received his schooling on peasant matters under Witte, while Lykoshin as head of the land section in the Ministry of Internal Affairs was heir to V. I. Gurko, for whom the single most important objective of land reform was, by his own confession, the abolition of the commune. See Gurko, V. I., Features and Figures of the Past, Government and Opinion in the Reign of Nicholas II (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1939), p. 165.Google Scholar

20. TsGIA, fond 408, 1911, opis’ 1, delo 161, Po vyrabotke plana zemleustroitel'nykh rabot na 1911 god. “Vypiska iz pis'ma K. E. Germana, A. A. Kofodu ot 18/X/1910,” l. 13.

21. P. A. Stolypin, Poezdka v Sibir' i Povolzhe (St. Petersburg, 1911). In a letter dated December 30, 1908 to Stolypin, Krivoshein assured the prime minister that land settlement, and particularly whole village consolidation, was catching on everywhere: “The experience of this year showsthat the technical side of consolidating allotment land has not caused any special problems, the majority of land settlement commissions are sufficiently acquainted with what is required of them.” TsGIA, fond 1291, 1908–10, opis’ 120, delo 34, Po voprosu o razverstanii zemel na khutorskoe i otrubnoe zemlepol'zovanie, I. 34.

22. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, no. 117, S soobrazheniiami A. Klopova ob osmotre khutoraskikh posel'kov i zemleustroitel'nykh rabot v 1909.

23. Ibid., p. 8.

24. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 113, p. 19; TsGIA, fond 405, 1909, opis’ 1, no. 117,1.78.

25. TsGIA, fond 1291, 1909–1910, opis’ 120, ed. khr. no. 19, Po otchetu upravliaiushchego mezhevoi chast'iu Chaplina o zemleustroiteVnykh rabotakh v 11 guberniiakh.

26. Ibid., l. 10.

27. Ibid., l. 83.

28. TsGIA, fond 408, 1913, opis’ 1, delo 247, O zemleustroistve v guberniiakh privislinskogo kraia, l. 17.

29. TsGIA, fond 408, 1914, opis’ 1, ed. khr. no. 272, O vyrabotke instruktii upolnomochennym komiteta po zemleustroiteVnym delam. Doklad Kofoda o teknike zemleustroistva, I. 67.

30. Ibid., l. 61.

31. Ibid.

32. Kofod, A. A., Russkoe zemleustroistvo (St. Petersburg, 1914), 2nd ed., pp. 156–61.Google Scholar

33. TsGIA, fond 408, 1911, opis’ 1, delo 161, l. 12.

34. TsGIA, fond 408, 1914–1915, opis’ 1, no. 271, Delo po revizii zemleustroitel’ nykh rabot vtsentralnykh guberniiakh Rossii 1914–1915.

35. Ibid., l. 76.

36. Ibid., l. 91.

37. Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, pp. 326–36.

38. Ibid., l. 365.

39. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 113, l. 15.

40. TsGIA, fond 408, 1910, opis’ 1, no. 696, S materialami po sluzhebnoi poezdke glavnoupravliaiushchego zemleustroistva i zemledeliia i direktora D.G.Z.I, v Av.-Sent. 1910, I. 93.

41. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, no. 117, l. 27.

42. TsGIA, fond 408, 1909, opis’ 1, delo 113, l. 15.

43. TsGIA, fond 1291, 1909–1910, opis’ 120, ed. khr. no. 19, l. 83.

44. TsGIA, fond 408, 1911, opis’ 1, delo 161, l. 3.

45. TsGIA, fond 408, 1910, opis’ 1, no. 696, l. 151.

46. TsGIA, fond 408, 1911, opis’ 1, delo 161, I. 75.

47. Glavnoe upravlenie zemleustroistva i zemledeliia (hereafter C. U. Z. i Z.), Zemleustroiennye khoziaistva: Svodnye dannye sploshnogo po 12 uezdam podvornogo obsledovaniia khoziaistvennogo izmeneniia v pervye gody posle zemleustroistva (St. Petersburg, 1915).

48. TsGIA, fond 408, 1913, opis’ 3, delo 13, Otchety i zamechaniia po revizii zemleustroitel'nykh rabot v Nizhegorodskoi gubernii; opis’ 3, delo 14, Otchety i svedeniia o deiatel'nosti zemleustroitel'nykhkomissii v Iaroslavl'skoi gubernii; opis’ 3, ed. khr. no. 16, Vedemost’ o sostoianii zemleustroitel'nykh rabot po ispolneniiu plana rabot 1913g po Permskoi gubernii; 1914, opis’ 3, delo 21, Otchety i svedeniia o deiatel'nosti zemleustroitel'nykh komissii i o polozhenii zemleustroistva v Viatskoi gubernii.

49. Pallot, Judith, “Open Fields and Individual Farms—Land Reform in Pre-Revolutionary Russia,” Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie (1983), no. 5.Google Scholar

50. TsGIA, fond 1291, 1909–1910, opis’ 120, ed. khr. no. 19, l. 16.

51. Simbirskii, Svoboda na zemle (St. Petersburg, 1912), p. 307.

52. TsGIA, fond 408, 1914–1915, opis’ 1, no. 271, l. 65.

53. TsGIA, fond 1291, 1909–1910, opis’ 120, ed. khr. no. 19, l. 16.

54. TsGIA, fond 1291, 1911, opis’ 120, no. 59, Delo s otchetom chinovnika osobykh poruchenii Ch. 1. Sverzhdinskogo po poezdke ego v Simbirsk na s“ezd dlia oznakomleniia s polozheniem zemleustroitil'nykh del gubernii, I. 18.

55. TsG\A, fond 1291, 1908–1910, opis’ 120, delo 34, l. 153.

56. Yaney, Urge to Mobilize, pp. 297–99.

57. G.U.Z.i Z., Obzor deiatelnosti za 1909 (St. Petersburg, 1910), p. 46.

58. G.U.Z.i Z., Zemleustroistvo 1907–10 (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 38; G.U.Z.i Z., Obzor deiatel'nosti uezdnykh zemleustroitel'nykh komissii 1907–1909 (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 5.

59. By 1914, for example, Kofod acknowledged that otruba were the most popular type of consolidated farm among the peasants but held that they would in the future be settled as khutora (TsGIA, fond 408, 1914, opis’ 1, ed. khr. no. 272, l. 69). The retention of common pastureland, which he also was forced to recognize as a usual occurrence, was put down as a temporary phenomenon; pasture could normally be expected to be subdivided approximately two years after initial land settlement (Kofod, Russkoe zemleustroistvo, pp. 84–85).