They need great upheavals – we need a great Russia!

As I continue my research into Russian liberalism, today I took another look at a famous speech to the Russian parliament by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin in May 1907. In contrast to the ‘street’ and ‘opposition’ liberals noted by Boris Chicherin in a piece I translated earlier on this blog, Stolypin was an exemplar of what Chicherin called okhranitel’nyi liberalism – supporting liberal measures and a strong state. Thus, he sought to restore stability to Russia following the troubles of the 1905 revolution by a combination of tough law and order on the one hand and liberal reform on the other.

Stolypin’s program included legislation to expand civil rights and an agrarian reform designed to turn peasants into individual property owners. Unfortunately, Stolypin’s program ran into opposition both from the reactionary right and the liberals and radicals on the left. Stolypin argued for giving peasants the right to exit the communes to which they belonged and turn the land they tilled into their own private property. The left instead insisted on keeping the commune, expropriating private and state land, and redistributing that land to peasants, but not as their private property. It was against this opposition that Stolypin delivered his speech of May 1907 in support of his agrarian reforms. I thought it worth publishing excerpts of it (the whole is too long), since, as far I can tell, it isn’t available online in English. So here it is.

Although the speech is more than 100 years old, if you want to understand the mentality of modern Russia’s ruling class, it’s not a bad place to start. Indeed, it is noticeable that Russian president Vladimir Putin has both quoted this speech and said that Stolypin is among the historical leaders that he most admires. Beyond that, it is, I think, an excellent speech for its statesmanlike qualities.

Excerpts from a speech by Pyotr Stolypin to the 2nd Duma, 10 May 1907 (From Thomas Riha ed., ‘Readings in Russian Civilization’)

Members of the State Duma … I think that all Russians who long for peace in their land desire a speedy solution to the problem which undoubtedly contributes to the growth of sedition and rebellion. Thus I will ignore all those insults and accusations which have been made here against the Government. Nor will I stop to discuss attacks which resembled hostile pressure on the regime. Nor will I discuss the principle of class revenge … which some here have advanced. Rather, I will try to take a statesman-like point of view, and will try to handle this question completely objectively, and even dispassionately.

…

As to the proposals of the various parties, I will first examine those made by parties on the Left. … I readily agree with the picture they have drawn of agricultural Russia’s impoverishment. … I must only say that the method those on the Left have suggested, the path they would choose, would overturn all existing civic relationships.  … It would lead, gentlemen, to a social revolution. It seems to me that these speakers from the Left are well aware of this. One of them … declared that the whole problem of the present moment consists in the destruction of the present state system … and the creation of a modern state based on new cultural principles constructed on the ruins of the old. … But, of course, there is no argument against the Leftists’ proposal, if such upheavals are considered Russia’s means of salvation.

…

Will we see the establishment of property rights in the Russian countryside ruined by an exaggerated egalitarianism? And this re-carved and equalized Russia – would she be richer and more powerful? The power of a country consists of the wealth of its people. The state as a whole would gain nothing from a general land redistribution. Not a single additional piece of bread would be added to the national wealth.

…

Now, gentleman, these spokesmen for the left propose to destroy the existing state system. They propose to ruin Russia in order to build a new fatherland on the ruins. I think that in the second millennium of her life Russia will not permit herself to be ruined. I think that she will be renewed, and that she will improve her way of life and advance in the family of nations. But this will not be the result of decomposition, for decomposition means death.

…

The Government must take into account two things: on the one hand, it is necessary and evidently widely desired that the Government set to work on new legislation aimed at improving our national life without departing from sound legal principles. The Government must welcome this desire and do everything possible to meet it. But along with this there exists another current of thinking. There are some who want to stir up discontent in the land, to sow seeds of rebellion and doubt. They wish to destroy confidence in the Government, undermine its authority, and thus to unite all forces hostile to the Government. … From these very halls, gentlemen, letters went out to the provinces, to the country, letters which were printed in the provincial newspapers and aroused confusion and indignation in the localities. … The letters advised the peasants to resort to violence and seize land by force, in view of the Government’s alleged crimes, its coercive tactics, and cruel oppression. … The Government, of course, cannot allow anyone to overstep this limit, otherwise it would cease to be the Government and would become an accomplice in its own destruction. … Violence will not be tolerated.

…

What is the way out? … The Government wants above all to promote and enhance peasant land ownership. It wants to see the peasant earning well and eating well, since where there is prosperity there is enlightenment and also true freedom. But for this … the industrious peasant … must be given the chance to consolidate the fruits of his labour and consider them his inalienable property.

…

It is impossible to solve this question all at once; it must be solved over a period of time. This has required decades in Western countries. We propose to you a moderate path, but a true one. Those who oppose our state system prefer the path of radicalism, a path of emancipation from Russia`s historic past and from its cultural traditions. They need great upheavals – we need a great Russia!