The biography of the scientist outlined in the article will help prepare a message about Pavel Nikolaevich Yablochkov, electrical engineer, inventor and entrepreneur.
Pavel Nikolaevich Yablochkov short biography
Born on September 2, 1847 in the village of Zhadovka, Saratov province, in the family of a small nobleman. Until 1862, the boy studied at the Saratov gymnasium, and after 3 years he graduated from the St. Petersburg private preparatory boarding house, and was enrolled in the ranks of students at the Nikolaev Military Engineering School.
After graduating from college in 1866, he received the title junior officer and was assigned to the Fifth Engineer Battalion. He served in the battalion less than a year and resigned with the rank of lieutenant military service. BUT in 1868 Yablochkov returns to service for one reason - he wants to get electrical engineering education in the “Officer Galvanic Classes” at the Technical Military Galvanic Institution in the city of Kronstadt. By the will of fate, having received the desired education, Pavel Nikolaevich was again assigned to the Fifth Engineer Battalion. True, in a different rank - head of the galvanic team. After serving for 3 years, he retired to the reserve in 1871 and until 1874 he worked at the Moscow-Kursk railway head of the telegraph service.
After quitting his job, Yablochkov opened his own workshop in Moscow, specializing in physical instruments. In tandem with electrical engineer Glukhov, he is improving the dynamo and batteries, and conducting experiments on lighting. Pavel Yablochkov invented an electromagnet of an original design. In parallel with this, his work continues to improve the design of arc lamps.
In 1875, Pavel Nikolaevich left for Philadelphia to show his inventions at the World Exhibition. While in Paris, he meets a famous specialist in the field of telegraphy, academician L. Breguet. He offers Yablochkov a job in his company and he agreed. And not in vain. After all, it was in Paris that he invented what Pavel Yablochkov became known for all over the world. This is an electric candle, which was arc lamp without regulator. On March 23, 1876, the scientist received a French patent for his invention under number 112024.
In addition, for French period activities he implemented the system electric lighting on single-phase alternating current and developed a method of “splitting light by induction of coils” (he also received a patent for this invention).
His lighting system was presented in 1878 in Paris at the Universal Exhibition and was enjoyed huge success. In many countries, companies have been created for the commercial exploitation of Pavel Nikolaevich’s candles.
The scientist returned to Russia in 1878 and began distributing the electric lighting system. In St. Petersburg, the company “Partnership of Electric Lighting and Manufacturing of Electrical Machines and Apparatuses P.N. Yablochkov - Inventor and Co.” was established. She worked on lighting installations.
Yablochkov also invented a “magneto-dynamoelectric machine” and a car battery. He initiated the creation of the Electricity magazine. For his achievements, the scientist received a medal from the Russian Technical Society.
Concerning personal life, then the researcher was married twice. The first wife was Nikitina Lyubov Ilyinichna. The second is Albova Maria Nikolaevna.
Pavel Yablochkov died at the age of 47 in Saratov in 1894 from heart disease.
By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was increasingly lagging behind Western competitors in its technical, economic and social development. The so-called “catch-up” modernization, which began in the middle of the 19th century, did not help to bridge this gap. Didn't bring it desired results and large-scale reforms of the 1860s and 70s. The state simply needed new
transformations that would rebuild the economy and social development in a capitalist way.
Beginning of reform
Such an attempt was a set of reforms by the head of government, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. First of all, this concerned transformations into agricultural sector. It was expected that the results of Stolypin’s reform would give a powerful impetus to the development of all significant areas in the country. Their main plan was to create a powerful layer of prosperous, independent and enterprising peasantry that would revive commodity relations and turn Russia into an even more important exporter of agricultural products. The final results were seen by its inspirer in the emergence of a class of strong business executives, similar to American farmers. For these purposes, the state
The credit bank, by government decree, launched a massive campaign to issue loans to peasants to purchase land. At the same time, failure to repay the debt was punished quite severely - by confiscation of the purchased plot. This, according to the reformers, was supposed to spur private initiative. Second important part agrarian reform became a program for land development in Siberia. Plots in this region were distributed free of charge to willing peasants for use. And the government in every possible way encouraged and facilitated the move peasant families for the Urals. For these purposes, special trains were created, later known as “Stolypin cars”. In addition, infrastructure was actively created in Siberia during this period.
Results of Stolypin's agrarian reform
The plans are, without a doubt, significant in Russian history policies were never brought to their logical conclusion. Their implementation was first interrupted by his death in 1911, and later finally postponed due to the continental
war. Thus, it can hardly be said that the results of Stolypin’s reforms were in any way sufficient. However, a number of trends emerged during the period of their implementation, so some conclusions can be drawn.
Positive results of Stolypin’s reform in the agricultural sector
The result of government actions was that from 10% to 20% of the population separated from the peasant community. The latter began independent farming. In the next few years, successful peasants began to provide up to half of all the grain that appeared on the market. Plans were partially implemented since more than 3 million households moved there during the reform. As a result, new regions were involved in commodity-market relations. The area of arable land in the country has significantly expanded.
Negative results of Stolypin's reform
The stratification of the independent village led to the emergence of poor peasants along with the successful ones. Even farms that left the community still maintained close relations with it. In this regard, the reform turned out to be half-hearted. It also had no significant impact on technological development Agriculture. By 1911, the main tool of the Russian peasant was still the archaic plow.
How more people is able to respond to the historical and universal, the broader his nature, the richer his life and the more capable such a person is of progress and development.
F. M. Dostoevsky
Stolypin's agrarian reform, which began in 1906, was determined by the realities that took place in the Russian Empire. The country was faced with massive popular unrest, during which it became absolutely obvious that the people did not want to live as before. Moreover, the state itself could not govern the country based on previous principles. The economic component of the empire's development was in decline. This was especially true in the agricultural complex, where there was a clear decline. As a result, political events, as well as economic events, prompted Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin to begin implementing reforms.
Background and reasons
One of the main reasons that prompted the Russian Empire to begin a massive change in state structure were based on the fact that a large number of ordinary people expressed their dissatisfaction with the authorities. If until this time the expression of discontent was limited to one-time peaceful actions, then by 1906 these actions became much larger in scale, as well as bloody. As a result, it became obvious that Russia is struggling not only with obvious economic problems, but also with an obvious revolutionary upsurge.
It is obvious that any Victory of the state over the revolution is not based on physical strength, but on spiritual strength. Strong in spirit the state itself must take the lead in reforms.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin
One of significant events, which prompted the Russian government to begin early reforms, happened on August 12, 1906. On this day, a terrorist attack occurred on Aptekarsky Island in St. Petersburg. In this place of the capital lived Stolypin, who by this time served as chairman of the government. As a result of the explosion, 27 people were killed and 32 people were injured. Among the wounded were Stolypin's daughter and son. The Prime Minister himself miraculously escaped injury. As a result, the country passed a law on military courts, where all cases related to terrorist attacks were considered expedited within 48 hours.
Explosion once again pointed out to Stolypin that the people wanted fundamental changes within the country. These changes had to be given to people in as soon as possible. That is why Stolypin’s agrarian reform was accelerated, a project that began to advance with giant steps.
The essence of the reform
- The first block called on the country's citizens to calm down, and also informed about the state of emergency in many parts of the country. Due to terrorist attacks in a number of regions of Russia, they were forced to introduce state of emergency and military courts.
- The second block announced the convocations State Duma, during which it was planned to create and implement a set of agrarian reforms within the country.
Stolypin clearly understood that the implementation of agrarian reforms alone would not calm the population and would not allow the Russian Empire to make a qualitative leap in its development. Therefore, along with changes in agriculture The Prime Minister spoke about the need to adopt laws on religion, equality among citizens, and reform of the system local government, about the rights and life of workers, the need to introduce mandatory primary education, introduction of income tax, increase in teachers' salaries and so on. In a word, everything that was subsequently implemented Soviet authority, was one of the stages Stolypin reform.
Of course, it is extremely difficult to start changes of this scale in the country. That is why Stolypin decided to start with agrarian reform. This was due to a number of factors:
- Main driving force evolution is a peasant. It has always been so in all countries, so it was in those days in Russian Empire. Therefore, in order to remove the revolutionary tension, it was necessary to appeal to the bulk of the dissatisfied, offering them qualitative changes in the country.
- The peasants actively expressed their position that the landowners' lands needed to be redistributed. Often landowners kept for themselves best lands, allocating non-fertile plots to peasants.
First stage of reform
Stolypin's agrarian reform began with an attempt to destroy the community. Until this point, peasants in villages lived in communities. These were special territorial entities, where people lived as a single team, performing common collective tasks. If we try to give a simpler definition, then communities are very similar to collective farms, which were later implemented by the Soviet government. The problem with the communities was that the peasants lived in a close-knit group. They worked for a common goal for the landowners. Peasants, as a rule, did not have their own large plots, and they were not particularly worried about the final result of their work.
On November 9, 1906, the Government of the Russian Empire issued a decree that allowed peasants to freely leave the community. Leaving the community was free. At the same time, the peasant retained all his property, as well as the lands that were allocated to him. Moreover, if land was allocated in different areas, then the peasant could demand that the lands be combined into a single allotment. Upon leaving the community, the peasant received land in the form of a farm or a farm.
Stolypin's agrarian reform map.
Cut This is a piece of land that was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with this peasant retaining his yard in the village.
Khutor This land plot, which was allocated to a peasant leaving the community, with the relocation of this peasant from the village to his own plot.
On the one hand, this approach made it possible to implement reforms within the country aimed at changing the peasant economy. However, on the other hand, the landowner's economy remained untouched.
The essence of Stolypin’s agrarian reform, as conceived by the creator himself, boiled down to the following advantages that the country received:
- Peasants living in communities were massively influenced by revolutionaries. Peasants who live on separate farms are much less accessible to revolutionaries.
- A person who has received land at his disposal and who depends on this land is directly interested in end result. As a result, a person will think not about revolution, but about how to increase his harvest and his profit.
- To divert attention from the desire of ordinary people to divide the landowners' land. Stolypin advocated immunity private property Therefore, with the help of his reforms, he tried not only to preserve the landowners' lands, but also to provide the peasants with what they really needed.
To some extent, Stolypin's agrarian reform was similar to the creation of advanced farms. Small and medium-sized landowners should have appeared in the country in large numbers, who would not be directly dependent on the state, but would independently strive to develop their sector. This approach was expressed in the words of Stolypin himself, who often confirmed that the country, in its development, places emphasis on “strong” and “strong” landowners.
On initial stage development of the reform, few enjoyed the right to leave the community. In fact, only wealthy peasants and the poor. Wealthy peasants came out because they had everything for independent work, and they could now work not for the community, but for themselves. The poor came out in order to receive compensation money, thereby improving their financial situation. The poor, as a rule, having lived for some time away from the community and having lost their money, returned back to the community. That is why at the initial stage of development very few people left the community for advanced agricultural farms.
Official statistics suggests that only 10% of all formed agricultural enterprises could claim the title of successful farming. Only these 10% of farms used modern technology, fertilizer, modern methods work on the land and so on. Ultimately, only these 10% of farms worked profitably with economic point vision. All other farms that were formed during Stolypin's agrarian reform turned out to be unprofitable. This is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people leaving the community were poor people who were not interested in the development of the agricultural complex. These figures characterize the first months of the work of Stolypin’s plans.
Resettlement policy as an important stage of reform
One of the significant problems of the Russian Empire at that time was the so-called land famine. This concept means that the eastern part of Russia has been extremely little developed. As a result, the vast majority of land in these regions was undeveloped. Therefore, Stolypin’s agrarian reform set one of its tasks to resettle peasants from the western provinces to the eastern. In particular, it was said that peasants should move beyond the Urals. First of all, these changes were supposed to affect those peasants who did not own their own land.
The so-called landless people had to move beyond the Urals, where they were supposed to establish their own farm. This process was absolutely voluntary and the government did not force any of the peasants to move to the eastern regions by force. Moreover, the resettlement policy was based on providing peasants who decided to move beyond the Urals with maximum benefits and good conditions for accommodation. As a result, a person who agreed to such relocation received the following benefits from the government:
- The peasant's farm was exempt from any taxes for 5 years.
- The peasant received the land as his own property. Land was provided at the rate of 15 hectares per farm, as well as 45 hectares for each family member.
- Each settler received a cash loan on a preferential basis. The amount of this loan depended on the region of resettlement, and in some regions reached up to 400 rubles. This is a lot of money for the Russian Empire. In any region, 200 rubles were given free of charge, and the rest in the form of a loan.
- All men who formed a farming enterprise were exempt from military service.
The significant advantages that the state guaranteed to the peasants led to the fact that in the first years of the implementation of the agrarian reform, a large number of people moved from the western provinces to the eastern ones. However, despite such interest of the population in this program, the number of immigrants decreased every year. Moreover, every year the percentage of people who returned back to the southern and western provinces increased. Most a shining example is the indicators of people moving to Siberia. Between 1906 and 1914, more than 3 million people moved to Siberia. However, the problem was that the government was not ready for such a massive resettlement and did not have time to prepare normal conditions for people living in a specific region. As a result, people arrived at their new place of residence without any amenities or devices for comfortable stay. As a result, only from Siberia to old place About 17% of people returned home.
Despite this, Stolypin’s agrarian reform in terms of resettlement of people gave positive results. Here, positive results should be considered not from the point of view of the number of people who moved and returned. The main indicator of the effectiveness of this reform is the development of new lands. If we talk about Siberia, the resettlement of people led to the fact that this region 30 million acres of land, which had previously been empty, were developed. An even more important advantage was that the new farms were completely separated from the communities. A man came independently with his family and raised his own farm. He didn't have any public interest, no neighboring interests. He knew that there was a specific plot of land that belonged to him, and which should feed him. That is why the effectiveness indicators of agrarian reform in eastern regions Russia is slightly higher than in the western regions. And this despite the fact that western regions and the western provinces are traditionally better funded and traditionally more fertile with cultivated land. It was in the east that it was possible to achieve the creation of strong farms.
Main results of the reform
Stolypin's agrarian reform had great value for the Russian Empire. This is the first time the country has begun to implement changes of this magnitude within the country. Positive changes were obvious, but in order to historical process could give positive dynamics, he needs time. It is no coincidence that Stolypin himself said:
Give the country 20 years of internal and external peace and you will not recognize Russia.
Stolypin Pyotr Arkadevich
This was indeed the case, but, unfortunately, Russia did not have 20 years of silence.
If we talk about the results of the agrarian reform, then its main results, which were achieved by the state over 7 years, can be reduced to the following provisions:
- The area under cultivation throughout the country was increased by 10%.
- IN individual regions, where peasants left the community en masse, the sown area was increased to 150%.
- Grain exports were increased, accounting for 25% of all world grain exports. In good years, this figure increased to 35 - 40%.
- The purchase of agricultural equipment over the years of reforms has increased 3.5 times.
- The volume of fertilizers used has increased 2.5 times.
- The growth of industry in the country took colossal steps of +8.8% per year, the Russian Empire in this regard came out on top in the world.
This is far from full indicators carrying out reform in the Russian Empire in terms of agriculture, but even these figures show that the reform had a clear positive trend and a clear positive result for the country. At the same time, it was not possible to achieve the full implementation of the tasks that Stolypin set for the country. The country failed in in full implement farms. This was due to the fact that the peasants had very strong traditions of collective farming. And the peasants found a way out for themselves in creating cooperatives. In addition, artels were created everywhere. The first artel was created in 1907.
Artel is an association of a group of persons who characterize one profession, for collaboration these individuals with achievement overall results, with achievement total income and with shared responsibility for the final result.
As a result, we can say that Stolypin’s agrarian reform was one of the stages of the massive reform of Russia. This reform was supposed to radically change the country, transforming it into one of the leading world powers not only in a military sense, but also in an economic sense. The main goal of these reforms was to destroy peasant communities by creating powerful farms. The government wanted to see strong land owners, which would include not only landowners, but also private farms.
In short, Stolypin’s reform in the agrarian sector was a set of certain measures that were carried out with the aim of improving the situation of peasants in the country, as well as revitalizing economic life states.
About the prerequisites for reforms (briefly)
It implied a comprehensive modernization of public,
political and economic life states. The point is that already in late XIX- in the first decade of the 20th century, the lag of the Russian Empire from the developed countries of Europe was clearly exposed. And even though Imperial Courtyard continued to shine with magnificent balls and demonstrative luxury, a painful crisis was brewing in the country. Commodity-economic relations developed weakly, the formation of the bourgeoisie and the working class hopelessly lagged behind the Western pace, just like centuries ago, and relied on the most primitive manual labor, which contrasted sharply with the results of France and even Germany. Moreover, the aristocracy itself in Russia, for the most part, was in no hurry to transfer the economy of its farms to a capitalist track, continuing to squeeze the juice out of the peasants. What can we say about the latter? Serfdom was abolished half a century ago, but its relic, the rural community, was never eliminated. The empire, weakening from within, risked repeating the sad path of Iran or Turkey, which
At this time they turned into semi-dependent raw material appendages of Europe. (briefly about her we'll talk below), as well as transformations in other sectors state economy were clearly brewing. The head of government himself came to power in the turbulent year of 1906, when the throne began to shake for the first time under Nikolai Romanov.
Stolypin's reforms: summary
Pyotr Arkadyevich’s transformations concerned several public spheres. In particular, it assumed more wide use throughout the country there were zemstvo self-government bodies, which were supposed to replace the reactionary noble and gentry (in Ukraine) authorities. Industrial reform introduced new rules, which were extremely necessary in the conditions of the emerging classes of industrialist capitalists and workers. However, the most important in the activities of the tsarist government were transformations in agriculture.
On the goals and implementation of agrarian reform (briefly)
Stolypin's reform in agriculture was aimed at creating a strong class of independent peasant farms(following the example of American farmers), as well as for the development wide open spaces Siberia. For the first purpose, with the support of the state, the credit bank massively issued loans to all peasants who wanted to leave the community to create their own farm. To the credit of the government, it is worth noting that the percentage was very low and manageable. However, if this loan was not repaid, the purchased land was taken away and put up for sale again. Thus
economic activity was further stimulated. In Siberia, land was allocated by the government free of charge to everyone, according to the second reform program. The Cabinet of Ministers did its best to stimulate the movement of peasants to the east of the country and the development of infrastructure there. For these purposes, the so-called “Stolypin carriages” were created.
About the results of agrarian reform (briefly)
Stolypin's reform actually began to produce positive results. However, it was slowed down by the death of Pyotr Arkadyevich in 1911, and then completely interrupted by the First World War. At the same time, a little more than 10% of the peasant class left the communities, developing independent economic activity market oriented. In modern historiography, the activities of Pyotr Stolypin are generally assessed positively.
“The main thing that is necessary when we write a law for the whole country is to keep in mind the intelligent and strong, and not the drinkers and the weak. This saying belongs to one of the most prominent economic and politicians the beginning of the 20th century - Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. The importance of his reforms in historical development Russia and, in particular, the emergence of Russian farming. But everything is learned by comparison, so you shouldn’t close your eyes to negative consequences Stolypin's reforms. First of all, it is worth considering the very personality of the reformer.
Stolypin came from a noble background noble family, his character organically combines both monarchical views and pronounced patriotism. His civic position can be concluded in the following formula: “Calmification and Reform.” Many historical figures they talked about Stolypin as a strong-willed, good-natured man, a master of his word. “The Motherland demands service so sacrificially pure that the slightest thought of personal gain darkens the soul,” said Stolypin.
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the need to accelerate capitalist development began to appear especially clearly. After the 60s, bourgeois relations developed to the necessary level for things to come to an open confrontation between the feudal and capitalist systems. Stolypin presented a government concept for solving the agrarian issue. This statement and the decree that followed it were interpreted as a choice between the peasant-owner and the peasant-idler in favor of the first. The main directions of the reform were: allowing peasants to leave the community, encouraging the formation of farms and cuts, carrying out resettlement policy.
I am of the opinion that in its economic content it was a liberal bourgeois reform, promoting the development of capitalism in the countryside. Relying on the emerging layer of small owners, the authorities tried to push the development of the entire economy of the country as a whole. Apparently, the minister took as his basis the argument that peasants, separating from the community, turn into consumers of domestic agricultural products, thereby stimulating the development of Russia as an industrial and modernized country. Essentially, Pyotr Arkadyevich tried to combine the American path of development of the capitalist economy with the preservation of the apparatus of the bureaucracy of the autocracy. Objectively assessing Stolypin's principle, I partially agree with the widespread opinion that it was one of the most brilliant ideas of that government in terms of the development of capitalism. Agrarian reform was also intended to divert attention from ideas about the seizure and division of landowners' lands, to prevent revolutionaries from solving their main task - organizing the people to fight against their exploiters.
What are the results of the agricultural course? Unfortunately for the government of that time, only a little more than 10% of peasant farms could be called farms. The small successes of newly-minted farmers often became the cause of hatred, and the emergence of communal peasants who tried in every possible way to hinder the development of their more successful neighbors. There are known cases when wealthier peasants left the community and received better land plots from the former communal lands. As a result, there was a direct struggle between community members and farmers. The resettlement policy clearly demonstrated the results and methods of the reform itself. In my opinion, the implementation of a resettlement policy, if this plan was successfully implemented, would carry with it significant significance in the development of not so much farming as in the development of new, still poorly developed lands. But the resettlement department, in my opinion, was poorly prepared for the transportation and accommodation of a huge mass of peasants. The settlers tried to settle in already inhabited places rather than develop uninhabited areas. Over 7 years, 3.5 million people were resettled, and 1 million returned back to European part country, but without money and hope.
There were also positive results. The volume of grain production and exports of products abroad have increased, the number of purchased agricultural machinery, and the volume of gross product have increased. But the Russian peasant never became an “American farmer.” I believe that the Stolypin agrarian reform has a very low, I would call, efficiency. Most peasants continued to live in the community. Stolypin made a huge mistake by violently destroying community traditions. With his agrarian reform, he brought the Russian village to a boiling point, and this predetermined the development of events in 1917, that is, throughout the future national history. But the peasants tried to find their own, more rational, path to capitalism, creating cooperatives and artels, taking as a basis one of the main principles of communism, how collective activity. It is in the collective, I think (especially if the collective means the entire Russian peasantry) that it is possible to create a great industrial power. Despite the fact that in history it does not happen subjunctive moods, I still allow myself to express my opinion regarding the development of capitalism in the Russian Empire. I don’t think that capitalism in our country would lead to the general welfare of the people. After all royal Russia remained a country with a bureaucratic administrative apparatus, in which bureaucratic arbitrariness and corruption reigned. If there had not been revolutionary upheavals, a narrow layer of large owners would have formed in the country, who were the main support of the emperor, in whose hands were the majority natural resources And most of monetary capital.
In our time, the personality of P.A. Stolypin is gaining popularity in society, especially in high circles Russian authorities. In her opinion, the reformer managed to form the foundations social policy, carry out reconstruction state mechanisms, ensure impressive industrial growth. And in my opinion, the authorities found in Stolypin a certain point of support from history in order to look more patriotic. Nevertheless, personally in my mind, P.A. Stolypin still remains an important figure in Russian history, but not a person who can change the course of history itself, unlike many other reformers.