Fascinating! A couple of things spring to mind after reading this.
1. Most contemporary readers don't realise that Marxism was a compelling proposition to Russian peasants because, unlike the rest of Europe, they were still living as serfs: that is, they owned nothing (and were happy) because the landowner for whom they toiled was responsible for providing for them. Unlike slaves in the traditional sense, serfs weren't bought and sold as individuals; entire familes were simply considered part and parcel of the property. When you literally own nothing, the idea of seizing everyone's property and owning it communally sounds like a great idea.
2. Against this backdrop, Stolypin's idea of gradual privatization is genius. Indeed, it's similar to what China has done over the past few decades. Although the CCP is communist in name, China's economic engine runs on private enterprise.
3. Similarly, Stolypin's idea of granting equal rights to Jews was also brilliant. Contemporary observers who look with disdain on the Jewish enthusiasm for Marxism don't understand that Jews were continually subjected to violence ("pogroms") and discrimination in Tsarist Russia. While the atheism of Communism was a deal-breaker for most religious Jews, younger, more rebellious Jews saw Marxism as a path to the equality and assimilation that they yearned for. In subsequent decades, as fascism grew in Germany and Italy, Communism was perceived by most European Jews as the only alternative, leading to strong adoption of it. Stolypin's ideas, had they been implemented, could have provided a third and far superior option, not only for Jews but for all of Europe.
Thanks for the comments, Alex. I very much agree with you on #1 and #2. Re: #3, it touches on a continuation of our prior discussion over the nature of victim vs. perpetrator, and who decides and on what basis. Maurice Samuel, a Romanian-born British and American award winning novelist (winning the 1944 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and the Itzik Mangar Prize), translator and lecturer of Jewish heritage, argues that Jews and non-Jews have fundamentally different outlooks and approaches in his 1924 book “You Gentiles", and that those fundamentally different approaches inevitably leads to conflict. If Samuel is correct, then the Stoylpin reforms may have had a positive effect, perhaps a large positive effect, but likely would not have solved long-term conflict between the groups.
Hi TonyZa, yes this is true. I commented on this specific point in footnote 2: "Stolypin insisted in the Duma that no repartition could make Russia as a whole richer, it would only lead to the ruin of the best farms and a reduction of the harvest. He quoted agrarian statistics quite unknown to the uninstructed peasant (none of whose rulers had ever felt inspired to leave his snug estate and explain such things to the common people), but also so unpalatable to the Kadets that they refused to accept and digest them. The country, said Stolypin, had 140 million desyatins of state land, but most of that was tundra or desert, and the rest was already allotted to peasants. The peasants had, altogether, 160 million desyatins, the gentry a third of that, 53 million, much of it forest, so that if the last scrap was redistributed it would not make the peasants rich. So then, handing out land left and right, seeking to pacify rebellious peasants by almsgiving, ws useless. Instead of trying to grab more land from others everyone should ill his own holding differently, learn to get eighty or a hundred puds from a desyatin, as the most efficient farmers didd, instead of thirty-five.”
Russia's history is a deeply tragic one. Peter the Great's dream of a modernized Russia never fully came into fruition. Instead, centuries passed with limited success and many regressions. Communism is a plague that destroyed so many nations. It always frustrated me that things were starting to get better in Russia just before the revolution. But then again, it goes to show how communists love bad ideas and impatience. All of this has made it harder for Russia to achieve its full potential. Maybe one day it'll get there...
"The Shadow of the Winter Palace" made Stolypin so likeable and real, though not sure that was Crankshaw's objective. Do you have any recommendations for full books on Stolypin?
Hi Tara, there’s unfortunately only one full-length biography of Stolypin in the English language that I’m aware of, which is P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia by Abraham Ascher (I own the book but have not read it yet): https://www.amazon.com/P-Stolypin-Search-Stability-Imperial/dp/0804745471/
I've read a book on Stolypin's agricultural reforms and it convincingly claimed that privatizing village lands did not improved productivity, was costly and increased rural discontent. Other measures like internal colonization and land swaps were better.
Fascinating! A couple of things spring to mind after reading this.
1. Most contemporary readers don't realise that Marxism was a compelling proposition to Russian peasants because, unlike the rest of Europe, they were still living as serfs: that is, they owned nothing (and were happy) because the landowner for whom they toiled was responsible for providing for them. Unlike slaves in the traditional sense, serfs weren't bought and sold as individuals; entire familes were simply considered part and parcel of the property. When you literally own nothing, the idea of seizing everyone's property and owning it communally sounds like a great idea.
2. Against this backdrop, Stolypin's idea of gradual privatization is genius. Indeed, it's similar to what China has done over the past few decades. Although the CCP is communist in name, China's economic engine runs on private enterprise.
3. Similarly, Stolypin's idea of granting equal rights to Jews was also brilliant. Contemporary observers who look with disdain on the Jewish enthusiasm for Marxism don't understand that Jews were continually subjected to violence ("pogroms") and discrimination in Tsarist Russia. While the atheism of Communism was a deal-breaker for most religious Jews, younger, more rebellious Jews saw Marxism as a path to the equality and assimilation that they yearned for. In subsequent decades, as fascism grew in Germany and Italy, Communism was perceived by most European Jews as the only alternative, leading to strong adoption of it. Stolypin's ideas, had they been implemented, could have provided a third and far superior option, not only for Jews but for all of Europe.
Thanks for the comments, Alex. I very much agree with you on #1 and #2. Re: #3, it touches on a continuation of our prior discussion over the nature of victim vs. perpetrator, and who decides and on what basis. Maurice Samuel, a Romanian-born British and American award winning novelist (winning the 1944 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award and the Itzik Mangar Prize), translator and lecturer of Jewish heritage, argues that Jews and non-Jews have fundamentally different outlooks and approaches in his 1924 book “You Gentiles", and that those fundamentally different approaches inevitably leads to conflict. If Samuel is correct, then the Stoylpin reforms may have had a positive effect, perhaps a large positive effect, but likely would not have solved long-term conflict between the groups.
By the time of Stolypin's reforms serfdom had been abolished by 50 years and most of the land belonged to the village not the aristocrats.
Hi TonyZa, yes this is true. I commented on this specific point in footnote 2: "Stolypin insisted in the Duma that no repartition could make Russia as a whole richer, it would only lead to the ruin of the best farms and a reduction of the harvest. He quoted agrarian statistics quite unknown to the uninstructed peasant (none of whose rulers had ever felt inspired to leave his snug estate and explain such things to the common people), but also so unpalatable to the Kadets that they refused to accept and digest them. The country, said Stolypin, had 140 million desyatins of state land, but most of that was tundra or desert, and the rest was already allotted to peasants. The peasants had, altogether, 160 million desyatins, the gentry a third of that, 53 million, much of it forest, so that if the last scrap was redistributed it would not make the peasants rich. So then, handing out land left and right, seeking to pacify rebellious peasants by almsgiving, ws useless. Instead of trying to grab more land from others everyone should ill his own holding differently, learn to get eighty or a hundred puds from a desyatin, as the most efficient farmers didd, instead of thirty-five.”
Russia's history is a deeply tragic one. Peter the Great's dream of a modernized Russia never fully came into fruition. Instead, centuries passed with limited success and many regressions. Communism is a plague that destroyed so many nations. It always frustrated me that things were starting to get better in Russia just before the revolution. But then again, it goes to show how communists love bad ideas and impatience. All of this has made it harder for Russia to achieve its full potential. Maybe one day it'll get there...
"The Shadow of the Winter Palace" made Stolypin so likeable and real, though not sure that was Crankshaw's objective. Do you have any recommendations for full books on Stolypin?
Hi Tara, there’s unfortunately only one full-length biography of Stolypin in the English language that I’m aware of, which is P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia by Abraham Ascher (I own the book but have not read it yet): https://www.amazon.com/P-Stolypin-Search-Stability-Imperial/dp/0804745471/
I’m so glad I read this. The people in the middle class who occupy Western countries should be shitting themselves.
Time to act lower class!
I’ve always found it fascinating that Yagoda and Hitler look like doppelgängers. God surely has a wry sense of humor.
Very interesting historical analogy to our present predicament!
Thank you. Very educational. Also very relevant.
I've read a book on Stolypin's agricultural reforms and it convincingly claimed that privatizing village lands did not improved productivity, was costly and increased rural discontent. Other measures like internal colonization and land swaps were better.
Hi Tony, which book are you referencing? I would be happy to take a look.
Hi, the book is:
Land Reform in Russia, 1906-1917
Peasant Responses to Stolypin's Project of Rural Transformation
by Judith Pallot