Imperial Russia 1850-1917. Economics - Politics

[vorosilov]

Statistics, economic datas, articles during the period of 1850 - 1917.

[vorosilov]

Illiteracy in Europe in 1900


In the table given by Mulhall for the year 1885 the countries with more than 80 per cent. of the population literate are, in this order of merit: Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (slowed down by the illiteracy of Ireland), and Holland. At the bottom of the scale are Austria (55 per cent. able to read - though the Liberals had effected an improvement), Italy (47, the new anti-Papal Government having done much), Spain (23), Portugal (20), Spanish America (10-20). The relative positions were much the same at the end of the century, according to statistics in the Cyclopaedia of Education, published by Columbia University, and a report of the U.S. Commissioners of Education quoted by Webb for the year 1900. While at that date the proportion of illiterates had been reduced to 0.11 in Germany, 0.30 in Switzerland, 3.57 in Scotland, 4.0 in Holland, 4.90 in France, and 5.80 in Great Britain, it was still 7.0 in Ireland, 23.80 in Austria, 28 in Hungary, 30 in Greece, 38 in Italy, 61 in Russia, 68 in Spain, 79 in Portugal, 86 in Serbia, and 89 in Rumania. Although these statistics, furnished by a Government department of America, were available everywhere, American Catholic apologists continued, like those of England, to boast of the Church's zeal for education in all ages. Until five years ago all systems were under secular authorities, and the figures rose, but the triumph of clerical-Fascism has ruined education in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Austria, and is debasing it in France. But the mere capacity to read and write is not enough. Progress depends on the matter taught in the schools and available for reading afterwards. Compare in this respect the fine system in Soviet Russia to-day highly praised by Prof. Dewey and other authorities, and that of Italy and Spain under Fascism, or the school-life of Mexico to-day and that of Fascist Peru or Brazil.

-----------------------------------------------------------
After reading this I assume, that communism did some good in Russia , Hungary, Romania and Serbia. This article was written in the thirties.

61 percent of the people couldn't read in Russia in 1900.
0.1 percent of the people couldn't read in Germany in 1900

[vorosilov]

The productivity of the Russian agricultural worker was 25% of the American's. It is not because of laziness.

Annual net output per agricultural worker (male)
measured in million of calories

1910
Britain 23.5

France 17.0

Germany 25.0

Russia 11.0

U.S.A. 42.0

Source: Paul Bairoch, 'Niveaux de développement économique de 1810 à 1910,' Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations, 20 (1965), 1096, Table 1.
http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/3RUSSBAR2.htm

[vorosilov]

The advanced industrial nation some claim Russia was needed coal for running the railways and factories and for heating.
You compared Russia to Britain. So why did Britain's out put was nine times more than Russia's. Tiny Belgium's only 20% lower and Germany's 8 times higher than Russia's output of coal.
I think there were plenty coal in Russia and more than enough manpower to bring it up.

I have to conclude, that the backwardness of the Russian industry didn't demand more.
As many economists refer to Russia as a peripheral country at the begining of the twentieth century.

Here is the statistic

Table 3.

OUTPUT OF COAL IN MILLIONS OF METRIC TONS:

FOR SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, DECENNIAL MEANS: 1820/9 - 1910/3


Decade Great Belgium France Germany Russia

Britain

1820-9 20.00 n.a. 1.30 1.40 n.a.

1830-9 25.45 2.75 2.45 2.45 n.a.

1840-9 40.40 4.60 3.95 5.25 n.a

1850-9 59.00 7.70 6.45 11.95 n.a

1860-9 95.50 11.35 11.35 25.90 0.45

1870-9 129.45 14.70 16.20 45.65a 1.60

1880-9 163.40 17.95 20.85 71.90b 4.35

1890-9 194.15 20.70 28.45 107.05c 9.05

1900-9 245.30 24.05 34.70 179.25d 20.50

1910-3 275.40 24.80 39.90 247.50e 30.20

In 1913 England's out put of coal was 9 times, Germani's 9 times more than Russia's


Source: Carlo Cipolla, ed., Fontana Economic History of Europe (London, 1973), Vol. IV:2, p. 770

[vorosilov]

The peasents did not have enough land by 1910 due 100 %increase in the population beetwen 1861 and 1910. Their productivity did not improved accordingly. Their productivity was 25% of the American farmers.


"The Russian peasantry were organised into communes, which controlled village life. Land was divided into strips and allocated by the commune according to need. Although peasants could, and did, own private land, in 1910 151 million hectares of land in European Russian were owned and farmed communally, and only 14 million were privately owned. Many people in government realised that this system prevented agricultural improvements, since peasants did not own their land and had no incentive to try out new methods, but the peasants preferred it because it guaranteed everyone a fair and adequate share of land.

Bewilderingly, given the size of Russia, the principal problem in the countryside was shortage of land. The problem was that of 15 million square kilometres of land in European Russia and Siberia, only 2 million were suitable for agricultural production. Rapid population growth meant that the size of allotments was decreasing from an average of 5.24 hectares in 1861 to 2.84 in 1900. In the west, the growing population was absorbed by the growth of industry, but that option was not available in Russia. Despite the advances made in the 1890s, Russian industry could only absorb about one third of the excess rural population. There was a growing feeling in Russia that unless something was done the countryside would soon explode into unrest. The peasants had a simple solution to their problems - confiscate all private land owned by the landlords and give it to the commune.

Ever since the Emancipation Edict of 1861 had given the peasants only half of the land they had worked as serfs, the peasants had believed that sooner or later they would get the rest. This stemmed from their belief that ownership of land was conferred by work, not by title, illustrated by the saying of serfs, ‘We are yours, but the land is ours'. The peasants were in a permanent state of expectation that they would receive the rest of 'their' land and the only thing that stopped them from taking it was fear of reprisal. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the peasantry were a profoundly conservative group, there existed the constant potential for revolutionary activity. For a long time they believed the good tsar would order the land to be given to the communes. When it became obvious that this would not happen, or that he did not have the power to prevent it, their allegiance wavered. It was by adopting this demand that the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and later the Bolsheviks, were able to win peasant support in the events of 1917."

Why didn't they give the land to the peasents?


Thank you for your attention, Best Regards: Vorosilov


__________________

[vorosilov]

"Witte and Accelerated Industrialization

In the late 1800s, Russia's domestic backwardness and vulnerability in foreign affairs reached crisis proportions. At home a famine claimed a half-million lives in 1891, and activities by Japan and China near Russia's borders were perceived as threats from abroad. In reaction, the regime was forced to adopt the ambitious but costly economic programs of Sergey Witte, the country's strong-willed minister of finance. Witte championed foreign loans, conversion to the gold standard, heavy taxation of the peasantry, accelerated development of heavy industry, and a trans-Siberian railroad. These policies were designed to modernize the country, secure the Russian Far East, and give Russia a commanding position with which to exploit the resources of China's northern territories, Korea, and Siberia. This expansionist foreign policy was Russia's version of the imperialist logic displayed in the nineteenth century by other large countries with vast undeveloped territories such as the United States. In 1894 the accession of the pliable Nicholas II upon the death of Alexander III gave Witte and other powerful ministers the opportunity to dominate the government.

Witte's policies had mixed results. In spite of a severe economic depression at the end of the century, Russia's coal, iron, steel, and oil production tripled between 1890 and 1900. Railroad mileage almost doubled, giving Russia the most track of any nation other than the United States. Yet Russian grain production and exports failed to rise significantly, and imports grew faster than exports. The state budget also more than doubled, absorbing some of the country's economic growth. Western historians differ as to the merits of Witte's reforms; some believe that domestic industry, which did not benefit from subsidies or contracts, suffered a setback. Most analysts agree that the Trans-Siberian Railroad (which was completed from Moscow to Vladivostok in 1904) and the ventures into Manchuria and Korea were economic losses for Russia and a drain on the treasury. Certainly the financial costs of his reforms contributed to Witte's dismissal as minister of finance in 1903."


As we see, not even a genius like Wiite could bring Russia up to twentieth century level. Much boasted railways in Russia. Germany had only one km less. Compare the size of the two country and everybody can see, how much backward country Russia was.
Also, was the Russian industry developing or Western countrie's(mainly French, Belgian, German, British) economi was expanding in to Russia? As we all know, that extensive foreigner investments in any country comes with interference with the countrie's internal and political affairs.

[vorosilov]

Russia's industrial development or the invasion of foreigner(French-Belgian, British, German)burgoise.

The major bond and stock holders were those British, French, Belgian and German in Russia.

A. Percentages of Main Types of Russian Securities Held by
Foreigners

1. State and state-guaranteed bonds 48.7%

2. Shares of joint-stock companies 39.4%

3. Debentures of joint-stock companies 55.3%

4. Municipal bonds 74.0%

5. Mortgage debentures 5.0%

Aggregate: 7.8 billion rubles out of a total of

21.6 billion rubles invested in Russia in 1914 36.1%


B. Distribution of Investments in Russia by Nationality


1. French and Belgian 47%

2. British 23%

3. German 20%

4. American 5%

5. Other 5%

As you see, the foreigner ownership dominated the prewar Russia and held the tzar and the goverment as their vassals. The country was sold to the foreigners.
The typical case of neocolonialization. Mixed with political purpose by France.