The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Problem of modernization and country next-to-skin lands during the post-reform period of the Russian history



istoriya

Artur PIREEV, Valery SOLOVYOV, Alexander SOLYANICHENKO

MODERNIZATION PROBLEM

and country next-to-skin LANDS during the post-reform period

RUSSIAN HISTORY

Modernization of Russia at the end of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century affected practically all spheres of activity. Meanwhile updating of the country depended on successful integration into uniform legal space of the most numerous group of the population

>- peasantry. Their class isolation which overcoming, without change of legal status of country next-to-skin lands, was difficult became an obstacle in this way. It was explained by the fact that the specifics of next-to-skin fund were defined by the class nature of a system of country management and court. In this regard embedding of plots in the all-civil legal framework meant radical reorganization of social bases, both the Russian village, and semi-feudal social structure of the Russian society in general.

Reform of 1861 did not lead to elimination of legal isolation of peasants. On the contrary, the national justice was legalized, and the Code of laws is recognized not to the corresponding conditions of country life. The fund of next-to-skin land tenure created during peasant reform under the prevailing influence of Slavophile views initially served the purpose of providing life of peasants, and not formation of conditions of free business and the market of the earth at all. Was explained it iz-PIREEV by yatiye of next-to-skin lands from all-civil circulation. Legal

Artur restrictions for next-to-skin lands pursued several aims.

Ivanovich- For example, in the plan economic they had to keep

the associate professor a group of the small producers giving about a half rural

Saratov economic products; to provide with labor of landowners.

state In the social relation the next-to-skin lands were considered as

agrarian means against stratification of the village, a proletarization krestyans-

university; tva. In political — were designed to provide to autocracy

a conservative support acting through a group of small producers. NIGHTINGALES According to the provision of 1861 two main forms

existed

Valery next-to-skin land use — communal and household. And that

Yuryevich- and other option had a number of essential limiters.

the associate professor So, a legal entity on the next-to-skin lands which appeared in rasporya-

Saratov zheniya of country communities, rural society, in the settlement - was

state which toyanny use there were plots to sovershe-

social niya of the redemption transaction. And after repayment of the earth admitted sobs-

economic tvennost of all society. Society during the first nine

university; years after reform had no right to alienate next-to-skin lands.

After the nine-year period (before payment of redemption SOLYaNIChENKO loans) it could alienate the earth, but with the permission of provincial

Alexander presence and with entering of the gained money into the account ostavshego-

Nikolaevich- sya a redemption debt. Before repayment of repayment of a loan the earth could not

the associate professor to be provided as a deposit for receiving loans from credit

Saratov institutions, according to obligations with treasury or private persons -

state mi. Practice of repartitions of the communal earth strengthened a priority

agrarian communal land right over private also emphasized obosob-

of the university laziness of next-to-skin land use.

07’2008 __________________ POWER ________________________ 101

To be fair it should be noted that in plans of authors of the project of peasant reform there was no aspiration to preserve legal isolation of peasants. Gradual elimination of legal restrictions, after payment by peasants of the loan presented to them by the state was assumed (in 49 years). An exit of certain householders from community by an apportionment in personal property of separate grounds was allowed. Article 165 of the Provision on repayment provided even early repayment by peasants of next-to-skin lands at introduction of the necessary sum. In other words, the mechanism of the transfer of the next-to-skin earth to personal property before the expiration of 49 years was provided. Thus, the Provision on peasants of 1861 contained the ideas capable to direct evolution of next-to-skin land tenure, both towards fixing of the next-to-skin legislation, and towards distribution to plots of the all-civil legislation.

Within the general domestic policy of the government, after regicide and before accession to the throne of Nicholas II, there was a revision of some essential provisions of the legislation on the peasantry. As a result the "conservative" attack of Alexander III the volume of restrictions in use of the next-to-skin earth not only did not decrease, but also significantly increased. On this way laws of June 8, 1893 on land repartitions and of December 14, 1893 became the most important. "About some measures to prevention of alienation of country next-to-skin lands".

The Minister of Finance who resigned by then, the large reformer of an era of reign of Alexander II N. of X became the opponent in principle of the project. Bunge. He consistently and persistently asserted the right of peasants to dispose of the earth on the basis of not cut down, and full authority of a private property. For it and an exit of peasants from community, and sale of the plots by them represented quite natural. The main task of the government seemed to it in simplification of conditions for formation of a private property.

S.Yu. Witte and most of members of the State Council which supported him for which consideration the project of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was submitted adhered to an opposite position.

According to the, of that time, Slavophile views it defended inalienability of next-to-skin lands and was the convinced supporter of community. The problem of legal status of next-to-skin lands was not considered by it at that moment in terms of development of domestic market for the industrialization which is carried out by him. Without any reservations he introduced the ban of pledge and sale of next-to-skin lands to the faces of other estate.

S.Yu. Witte and his supporters saw usefulness for Russia of next-to-skin lands that, first, inalienability of plots guarantees peasants against economic slavery, against their transformation into landless the proletariat as it happened in Western Europe. Though as supporters of next-to-skin lands noted, the specified measure and will increase negative attitude of peasants to the right of a private property for the earth, but will win welfare of the country population as the next-to-skin earth will remain at those who process it. Secondly, the Western European experience of regulation of the land attitudes towards Russia is inapplicable as in the West the unlimited freedom of trade the country earth results in adverse results. Thirdly, post-reform life showed that life of mass of the country population cannot be provided to the natural course. All this, according to the majority, blocked consequences from negative attitude of peasants to the right of a private property for the earth.

The point of view of the majority considering that inalienability of plots corresponds "long since to the developed outlook of our people which did not acquire to itself(himself) a concept about the right of exclusive and full property for the wordly earth at all won, and it is rather inclined to look at it as property of the state represented by the autocratic power". As a result of December 14, 1893 the State Council adopted the law forbidding an exit from community without its consent even at early repayment of a plot (second part of the 165th article) and also sale, pledge and donation of plots to "the persons which are not attributed to rural societies". The law actually destroyed the 165th article. Political and ideological motives at the decision vopro-

102 POWER 07’2008

sa about land property of peasants prevailed.

Peculiar the legal entity was defined on the next-to-skin earth by the legislation. To them the householder appeared. However he was not an owner of land, and was the representative of the country yard, both before rural society, and before the state. He was responsible for payment of taxes, redemption payments and execution of duties. However the head of the family had no personal right of possession of the earth as according to common law it belonged to all family. According to interpretation of the Senate, in the head of the family there is a householder, but it is not an owner, and only the manager of economy and the family representative. Therefore the country land plot was not represented even by possession on the right of common property. It was some absolutely peculiar design of property.

Special attention within the new legislation was paid to alienation of the earth. The law allowed to alienate on December 14, 1893 the next-to-skin earth only to the faces of country estate. The right of alienation of the next-to-skin earth by rural societies also underwent, under this law, restrictions. For example, the sentence of rural society about sale had to be decided with the consent of not less than two thirds of all peasants and is approved by provincial presence. If the cost of the alienated site exceeded 500 rubles, permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs and coordination with the Minister of Finance was required. At alienation of the earth for the mining purposes it was necessary, except above listed, Glavnoupravlyayushchy's consent by land management and agriculture. Also use of the money received from sale of land was limited. The hard coin only in one third came to the owner (society), to the wordly capital. Other two thirds addressed in the governmental or guaranteed by the government percentage papers and were brought on storage in institutions of National bank and treasury. Rural society could use percent from these papers at discretion, and the capital sum could be used only on acquisition of immovable property as for

all society, and, from its consent, for certain members of it or on agricultural improvements.

At household land tenure there was also a number of restrictions. For example, in the absence of the successor the household earth passed to rural society. Before repayment of a redemption loan the household earth (as well as communal) was not subject to pledge. Under the law on December 14, 1893 household sites could be sold only to the peasants attributed to rural society. Besides, household lands as well as at communal possession, belonged not to the householder, but family. The legal priority of "small community" (family) was provided, thus.

The government created the legislative mechanisms constraining washing out of next-to-skin nature of country land use. At preservation of the regulating role of community (rural society) the controlling role of the state in the sphere of the land relations amplified. The form of ownership which developed under the influence of politikoideologichesky reasons of ruling class created an obstacle to natural economic development of the village during the post-reform period, to formation of the land market and integration of the peasantry into the all-civil legal framework of the country.

By the beginning of the 20th century two main approaches concerning the future of the social and economic development of the country directly connected with a condition of the Russian village accurately came to light. For the purpose of studying problems of the peasantry in 1902 two government agencies practically at the same time appear

— Drafting Panel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on revision of the legislation on peasants (RK) and the Special meeting about needs of the agricultural industry. Both institutions in the activity concerned a wide range of questions. However the analysis of development of agriculture and a legal status of the peasantry, definition of measures of improvement of country farms were inevitably given to consideration of a problem about the nature of country land tenure.

Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte and the Special Meeting headed by him about needs of the agricultural industry were guided on burzhuaz-

07’2008 __________________ POWER ________________________ 103

ny modernization of the country. Russia, according to him, after other countries passed to capitalism. For it it was the world immutable law; also there was no different way to raise well-being of nation, except capitalist development. Essence of the moment of S.Yu. Witte saw vprotivorechiya between industrial growth in the country and archaic structure of the agrarian legislation. Industrialization demanded expansion of domestic market, first of all due to rise in agriculture. Success of this strategy finally contacted final legal liberation of peasants. It could not be carried out, without affecting the base of legal isolation — next-to-skin land tenure. It was supposed to distribute the all-civil legislation to next-to-skin fund. To give to plots the status of a private property and to include in a turn. "Liberation" of next-to-skin lands would mean also release of peasants from fetters of communal and family possession of the earth. Transformation of the peasant now in the private owner expanded a way to development of labor market and free business with which interfered attachment of the man to the earth. Reorganization of next-to-skin land tenure, on the basis of a private property, had also political aspects. Now in it, but not saw the shortest way to creation of the conservative peasantry and political stability of autocracy in S.Yu. Witte's community.

If S.Yu. Witte and the Meeting headed by him development of the country and creation of a conservative support of the power connected with the free land owner, then his political opponent, the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve, and the Drafting Panel (DP) headed by it, on the contrary, intended to achieve the same objectives by other methods — due to attachment of peasants to the earth.

Drafting Panel suggested to reform the village within noble and landowner Russia, keeping the peasantry in general first of all as a traditional support of the power. The main danger menacing to patriarchal, monarchic foundations of the Russian peasantry, V.K. Plehve saw in a destructive role of invasion developed tovarno-denezh-

the ny relations in national economy. Unlike S.Yu. Witte he considered that Russia has the another story and a specific system giving everything the grounds to hope for disposal of the empire of oppression of the capital and the bourgeoisie and fight of estates. The patriarchal peasantry, he believed, has to remain still one of backbone elements in structure of "the national monarchy".

V.K. Plehve remained the ardent opponent of a country private property on the earth and persistently protected inalienability of the next-to-skin earth. This principle also was the basis for statutes about the peasantry. After maintaining inalienability the preservation of two of its forms was supposed: communal and household land use as being "natural, developed in the historical way...".

It should be noted that V.K. Plehve was not alien economic innovations. In the Commission, questions of improvement of country land tenure, a measure for increase in country land use, for resettlement of large villages, destruction of a strip farming, an exit of a part of peasants of community were considered. Even partial transition to farm economy was provided. However these measures did not mention bases of class legal status of country next-to-skin land tenure in any way. So, the farm it was supposed to create on the next-to-skin earth, with preservation of all legal restrictions inherent in it. In general, were considered by the Commission of the farm as a simple kind of plots. The peasants leaving community had to refuse gratuitously the right for the plot that would ensure safety of next-to-skin fund of community. Besides, RK was provided expansion of the sphere of the next-to-skin legislation and on vnenadelny country lands. The pieces which are personally acquired by peasants and also all land tenure of the former podatny estates concerned those. Moreover, "traditional" restrictions in the field of the right, court and management extended to them.

In relation to next-to-skin lands on - prezhnemupredpolagalosprovedeniyesta - a swarm of popechitelny policy. The commission highlighted impossibility to equate the next-to-skin earth to private

104 POWER 07’2008

property, owing to the fact that plots had the state purpose — providing life of peasants. The Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve proved need of the state intervention and creation of the mechanism of deduction of next-to-skin fund at peasants in the vsepoddanneyshy report as follows: "Experience of other countries with evidence demonstrates that the small country land tenure deprived of protection and provided to free civil circulation on the basis, identical with other property, is short-lived and gradually disappears, giving way to the land property of other character". Therefore, it was noted by the Commission, the next-to-skin earth cannot become a subject of a free turn and, therefore, is not subject to effect of the general civil laws. In this regard RK opposed both crushing of the next-to-skin earth, and its excessive concentration in some hands, seeing in it special, other than capitalist, a way of development. For justification of legitimacy of the position the Commission used a traditional argument about ability of next-to-skin lands to prevent a peasantry proletarization.

Allocation of next-to-skin lands from a total turnover and their fixing to the bulk of peasants, and peasants — to the next-to-skin earth had the philosophical and political justification. Need of deduction of the peasantry on the earth by the Commission contacted beneficial effect on peasants of agricultural work. Features selskokhozyaystven - a work leg, it was noted by it, were reflected in a moral and legal world view and created all internal warehouse of the country public unions. Ideological approach in work of RK, in definition of a form of country land property obviously dominated.

any of the above strategy was not by

Prior to the first Russian revolution the basis for government policy. Autocracy, fluctuating between two projects, tried to combine the fundamental principles both within a uniform government policy. It found the reflection in the royal manifesto on February 23, 1903 and the royal decree on December 12, 1904. "About outlines to usovershenstvo-

to a vaniye of the state order". Such mixture of opposite principles blocked development of an optimum way of reforming of the country land relations.

The tragic element of the Russian state seems in inability of the traditional power to find new approaches, new political and social technologies in the changing world. In Russia it responded sharp deterioration of the situation of most of population groups, caused the extraordinary tension of national forces and developed a flywheel of social cataclysms. Development of the capitalist relations (on the western sample) created serious problems for autocracy. For their permission the government took a number of economic, social and political steps in which it is possible to see withdrawal from traditional foundations. Patriotically adjusted representatives of public opinion directly connected the autocratic form of government with wellbeing of the state, seeing in the opportunities which are available in hands of the autocratic monarch, guarantee of internal stability and external safety of Russia. Supporters of this point of view presented development of Russia in the form of the uniform state in which there was no landless weight and there were no contradictions between ideals political and economic. Meanwhile the tsarist government during a post-reform era obviously did not cope with the person for Russia a Perestroika task. Carrying out economic and social modernization of the country, the autocracy gave a priority first of all to protection of own interests. Ideals and values all-Russian at the same time were cynically sacrificed. Therefore the Russian monarchy did not manage to find safe ways and faithful allies at a stage of further development of the country. Instead of a support on own national traditions and forces, on enormous internal potential, the monarchy created the new political order copied from the modern Western world. All this led to attacks and attacks on autocracy, an explosive situation in which there was Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, to the huge human victims and, at last, death of the empire.

Joe Harris
Other scientific works: