What is a community, a brief definition. The process of loss of functions by the community

Community A community is a naturally formed supra-family association of people connected by common interests, sometimes a common origin, emotional or cultural unity, etc. (for example, fellow countrymen, emigrants, religious communities). IN in the narrow sense community - a self-governing and self-reproducing social unit at the supra-family level, which is characterized by personal relationships between the people included in it. Communities based on kinship ties play a leading role in organizing communal land use, access to other resources, and joint labor and spiritual activities. Another type of community is based on territorial neighborhood ties between individual households.

Historical Dictionary. 2000 .

Synonyms:

See what “Community” is in other dictionaries:

COMMUNITY, form social organization. Primitive (generic) O. is characterized collective work and consumption, the later form is neighborly (territorial, rural) O. combines individual and communal ownership, characteristic of ... ... Russian history

The word community is Old Church Slavonicism in the Russian language. It was very common in ancient Russian literature and expressed different meanings. We can distinguish four main meanings in it: 1) communication or the presence of something in common; unity,... ... History of words

- (community) A social group of people connected by a specific place. However, the nature of social ties and the location of the community give rise to ideological disputes. Traditional Conservatives emphasize that community is at the heart of... ... Political science. Dictionary.

The primary form of social organization that arose on the basis of natural, consanguineous relationships. connections. In the process of formation of class society and the state, primitive consanguinity. O. is being transformed into a neighboring (territorial) organization of villages... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

COMMUNITY, a form of social organization. The primitive (tribal) community is characterized by common ownership of the means of production, collective labor and consumption; the later form of the neighboring (territorial, rural) community combines... ... Modern encyclopedia

Form of social organization. The primitive (tribal) community is characterized by collective labor and consumption, the later form of the neighboring (territorial, rural) community combines individual and communal ownership, characteristic of... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

community- and the community. In meaning "the lower house of the English Parliament" community. House of Commons. In meaning "organization, society" usually a community. Student community. Religious community... Dictionary of difficulties of pronunciation and stress in modern Russian language

And (ed.) COMMUNITY, communities, women. (book). 1. A self-governing organization of residents of a territorial unit (village, city; legal entity). Medieval urban communities (communes). A clan is a community bound by blood and property. 2.… … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

I general ina. 1. Oldest form organization of society, characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, joint labor and equal distribution, as well as full or partial self-government (retained in a number of ... ... Modern Dictionary Russian language Efremova

Cm … Synonym dictionary

Books

Community, . "Community" is a book of the Teaching of Living Ethics, compiled by Elena Ivanovna Roerich...

Ushakov's Dictionary

Community

common to And ( rare) community, communities, wives (books).

1. A self-governing organization of residents of a territorial unit (village, city; legal). Medieval urban communities (communes). A clan is a community bound by blood and property.

2. An administrative-estate organization that actually carried out the fiscal interests of the state, a land peasant organization in Russia, whose members bore mutual responsibility and owned the land jointly without ownership of the cultivated plots ( ist.). “...The abolition of mutual responsibility..., the abolition of class divisions, freedom of movement and freedom of disposal of land for each individual peasant will lead to the inevitable and rapid destruction of that fiscal-serf burden, which is, three-quarters, the modern land community.” Lenin (1902 G., "Agrarian program of Russian social democracy").

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference Book

Community

form of social organization - a primitive (tribal) community is characterized by collective labor and consumption, a later form - a neighboring (territorial, rural) community combines individual and communal ownership, characteristic of a pre-capitalist society. The community has full or partial self-government. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the community was a closed class unit, used as an apparatus for collecting taxes (after the Peasant Reform of 1861, it was the owner of the land. During the Stolypin agrarian reform, communal land ownership was replaced by private peasant land ownership. The ancients are also called a community historical communities: urban commune, religious, professional, community community.

Modern economic dictionary. 1999

COMMUNITY

Ethnographic Dictionary

Community

self-governing economic and social - everyday collective, the primary form of social - territorial organization of the pre-class (primitive), capitalist period human history(peasant) or human culture as a whole (religious community).

Dictionary of forgotten and difficult words of the 18th-19th centuries

Community

, s , and.

Association of peasants of several villages, volosts with forced common land use.

* - I will present you with millions of such decisions, - exclaimed Pavel Petrovich, millions! Yes, at least the community, for example... [Bazarov:] - Well, better talk to your brother about the community. Now, it seems, he has experienced in practice what a community is, mutual responsibility. // Turgenev. Fathers and Sons // *

COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY, ◘ COMMUNITY PEASANTRY.

Encyclopedia of Judaism

Community

Society

(Kagal)

In a particular case, a gathering of people for prayer and worship, at least ten Jews over thirteen years of age. The Chazal* demanded strong unity in the Jewish O., and Hillel said: “Do not separate yourself from the O.” When the people are in distress and one of Israel has distanced himself from O., two angels come to accompany him, lay their hands on his head and say: “This one has renounced O., may he not be worthy to see O’s consolation.” Those who renounce O. go to hell. To the same extent that the Chazal cared that O. would not lose her sons and would not become weak, they also cared that O.’s wicked leaders would not take possession of her and oppress her. And the sages warned: not to impose laws and regulations on O., which most of O. are not able to fulfill.

The name "Kahal" or "Kgila" was also used to call the administrative body of O. The roots of this institution were laid in the Jewish communal organization in Babylon. The Jews of Babylon had the right to organize their social life as they saw fit. In creating such an internal strong organization that provided its members with the opportunity to live a separate life even in an alien environment, the Babylonian community set an example for all communities of the dispersion. This example was borrowed by Jews from other countries, of course, with certain nuances suitable for the living conditions of a given community. O. and court are the two pillars of Jewish self-government from the time of the fall of the Second Temple and almost to the present day.

Jewish O. in Babylon were the oldest in the Diaspora. They were founded, without a doubt, during the Babylonian captivity (after the destruction of the First Temple). From the period of the Second Temple, only very meager information has reached us about the way of life of the Babylonian O., but the era of the Talmud* gives us extensive material, mainly in the Talmud itself.

O. were engaged in collecting government taxes. This function was assigned later, in the Middle Ages, to most of O. Europe. Thus, the governments gave O. power over its members. The central and city authorities did not recognize the Jew legal entity and did not contact him directly. The poll tax was also collected from O.; Each organization was assigned a certain amount, which the leaders of the organization divided among all its members. In addition to this, O. was involved in organizing self-defense: repairing the walls of the Jewish quarter, maintaining security, and purchasing weapons. O. was responsible for the supply of water to members of the O., monitored compliance with sanitary rules, etc. O. had guardianship over the markets; O. made sure that prices for goods were not inflated or underestimated. O. took care that its members did not oppress each other. O. granted special privileges to Torah students*, including easing their tax burden. The heads of the organization were intermediaries between workers and employers. It goes without saying that O. took care of synagogues and Houses of Study (Beit Midrash), raising children and maintaining teachers.

O. was headed by seven people from the most respected people in the city. They were authorized to handle all the affairs of the O. But the most important matters were decided by these seven in the presence of members of the O. These seven people could make decisions only with the consent and approval of the chakham (sage) of the city, and then the rabbi. Such consent was necessary especially for the adoption of new regulations. To organize public charity, gabaim (elders) were appointed: one for collecting alms, the second for the daily distribution of food and funds to the poor, the third was responsible for issuing money to the poor on the eve of the Sabbath. The “alms tax” was imposed on all members of the organization, even orphans.

In addition to the persons in charge of collecting money, mention should be made of the ministers of synagogues and Houses of Teaching. At the head of all Jewish O. Babylon was Rosh Ha-Gola* (head of the Diaspora).

Throughout the Middle Ages, Jewish self-government was in the hands of the heads of the O. They were intermediaries between Jews and the state, intercessors and intercessors before the authorities, collected taxes and duties imposed on the Jews, and transferred money to the state. At the same time, Jews enjoyed the right of residence, the right of internal court and the right to practice Judaism. Thus, O. was, as it were, a state within a state. The rabbis and heads of O. established many rules aimed at strengthening religion and strengthening the position of Jews in conditions of hostility from the peoples among whom they lived.

For some time, the Jewish O. of Spain enjoyed the right to try members of the O. who committed criminal offenses, and in almost all countries the O. enjoyed the right to impose fines and confiscations by decision of the Jewish court. In Poland and Lithuania, O. maintained a kind of punishment cell in which offenders were imprisoned for a day or two. The seven leaders of the O. were called in different O. “parnas” (“breadwinners”), “good”, “chief”. In some cities, the "parnassus" was elected monthly and was called "parnassus for the month." “Parnas for a month” concentrated great power in his hands, since he could influence court cases, the work of tax commissions and the decisions of officials. He determined the O.'s budget for the duration of his tenure, approved accounts, organized loans, signed O.'s obligations and documents. There were cases when "parnas" did not correspond to its purpose (he was not honest, became excessively arrogant) and at the same time refused to leave his post at the end of his tenure, continuing to head O. for several years.

In some schools there was an “educational commission” that looked after educational institutions and supervised the morality of the members of the school. This commission made sure that the clothes of the members of the school were not too luxurious, that the musicians did not play too loudly during weddings and celebrations, and so that the old and young do not make noise in the streets. There were also special commissions to encourage the study of the Talmud, etc.

Dictionary of economic terms

Community

one of the historical forms of economic association of a group of people, characterized by common ownership of the means of production, full or partial self-government.

Geopolitical glossary

Community

the natural form of existence of people connected by organic bonds. It opposes a society in which, instead of organic connections, the norms of a formalized agreement between individuals prevail. Society is regulated by Tradition.

Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia

Community

in a broad sense, a variety of social and production associations (city communes, communities, religious communities, etc.), based on the principles of self-government; in the most common meaning - a form of organization of agricultural production and peasant life, which is based on collective land use. It is in this last meaning that O. became the subject of consideration rus. social thought XIX - early XX century Representatives of the noble opposition, who advocated the liberation of peasants from serfdom, put forward arguments in favor of the development of free agriculture. Pestel in Russkaya Pravda proposed using agriculture in the process of the future transformation of Russia in order to avoid the harmful consequences of private land ownership. From the beginning 40s XIX century interest in O. intensified, which was associated with Slavophilism. O. was considered by the Slavophiles as the only social institution that survived in rus. history where individual morality was integral to public morality. Life in O, according to Kireevsky, has a beneficial effect on the development of a person’s spirituality. The history of the existence of Orthodoxy in Russia was associated by L. S. Khomyakov with the peculiarities of Orthodoxy and the “folk spirit” of the Slavs. Although some of the Slavophiles, eg Koshechev, denied O.’s stability, believing that we had passed through it. peoples, but as historical development progressed, it collapsed; nevertheless, the social ideal of Slavophilism included O. as the primary cell of the future society. Khomyakov identified two main principles in O. functions: production and administrative, which must be fully preserved in the future. At the same time, it was believed that “the industrial community is and will be the development of the agricultural community” (Khomyakov A.S. Poln. sobr. soch. M., 1914. T. 3. P. 467). Russia was considered as a “great community”, the region is the actual owner of all the land. Analyzing O.’s life, Khomyakov noted the manifestation of conciliarity in it, which was reflected, in his opinion, in the character rus. people. When making decisions at peasant meetings, all issues were adopted unanimously, since common interests always prevailed over private ones. Rus. a person, in accordance with the teachings of the Slavophiles, renouncing part of his rights and self-will, only elevates himself. The presence of any majority in the voting process means violence against etc. some people are a minority, and this is a prerequisite for the development of contradictions in society. “In the history of our Motherland,” wrote Khomyakov, “the idea of communal unity always lay as the fundamental stone of all social concepts; but for a long time there was a struggle between small communities and the idea of a great community. Finally, the idea of the unity of the great community triumphed... Then it turned out that the unity that seemed to be a consequence historical accident... was truly the affair of the Russian land" (Ibid. M., 1900. T. 1. P. 97). In 1849, Herzen turned to the consideration of O. in Art. "Russia". A significant influence on his views was exerted by the work of A. Haxthausen, “A Study of the Internal Relations of People’s Life and in Particular of Rural Institutions in Russia” (1847). German The researcher of agrarian issues communicated a lot with Slavophiles, who managed to convince him of the value of this form of organization of agricultural production, which allows avoiding the spread of the proletariat and possible revolutionary upheavals. In the beginning. 50s Herzen creates his concept of communal socialism, mainly. The features of the cut largely repeated the social ideal of the Slavophiles. At the same time, there were serious differences between these concepts. Herzen did not connect O. with the peculiarities of Orthodoxy. In O., in his opinion, freedom and civil rights each individual should not be suppressed, otherwise this would be one of the main obstacles in achieving socialism. In the 2nd half. 50s The controversy surrounding O. was conducted on the pages of a number of magazines. So, in magazine"Russian Messenger" Chicherin claimed that rus. O. was initially no different from ancient The German mark, having gone through several stages of its development, turned from a generic mark into an owner's mark, and then into a state mark and was used by the state for fiscal purposes. I. D. Belyaev wrote in the Slavophile organ “Russian Conversation” that all peoples had ancestral O., but in rus. history at the time of the arrival of the Varangians it was negotiable. The people's spirit strengthened rus. O. so much so that all state and local authorities were forced to take it into account. Chernyshevsky considered the existing architecture only as a basis for its future development. Using the example of the life of peasants in the Samara province, he concluded that it is necessary collaboration of all workers, during which it will not be the land that will be distributed, but the products of labor. Such a reorganization of O., in his opinion, is feasible only in the future. Chernyshevsky identified 3 stages in the formation of agriculture: communal ownership without communal production, communal ownership with communal production, communal ownership with communal production and communal distribution. In Art. “Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices against Communal Land Ownership” (1859) Chernyshevsky showed the possibility of using the principles of philosophy at a higher stage of human history, bypassing its certain intermediate phases. After the reform of 1861, Chernyshevsky was less optimistic about development prospects rus. O., the existence of the cut testified to the presence of patriarchal relations in the society. The advanced peoples were approaching socialism, according to Chernyshevsky, regardless of Russia, they had nothing to borrow from its rural O. Further development populist ideology in relation to rus. O. had its own characteristics. M.A. Bakunin and Kropotkin sought to interpret O. as a cell of a new society in the future union of self-governing O., where there will be no state. Mn. The populists believed that the disintegration of agriculture, which occurred after the agrarian reform, could have the most disastrous consequences for the future of Russia. In the 2nd half. XIX century A period of active study of the internal processes occurring in the country begins, based on the results of various economic, historical, and social studies using numerous statistical data. In 1900, the work of K. R. Kachorowski “Russian Community” (vol. 1) was published. Basic The question that worried public opinion at that time related to the possibility of preserving O., the feasibility of its further functioning and development. Populism was experiencing an increasingly greater crisis, which was also associated with the crisis rus. O. Lenin believed that O. was in the end. XIX - early XX century remained “medieval”, “archaic”, “semi-serfdom”. However, the development of capitalist relations and the stratification of the peasants increasingly undermined it. Significant changes in fate rus. O. occurred in the process of agrarian reforms carried out by P. A. Stolypin, largely aimed at its destruction. However, after the revolutionary upheavals of 1917, O. once again showed its viability. A. V. Chayanov, Kondratyev, and I. P. Makarov made a great contribution to the study of clothing, considering it as a special consumer-labor economic type. IN Soviet era O. has retained some of its elements (collective farming, traditions of equality, self-government, neighborly mutual assistance). At present, when agricultural production based on collective principles is experiencing a crisis, the dispute about the prospects for their preservation and development has intensified. Question about the future rus. villages, which carry the traditions of O., are still relevant.

◘ L and t.: Khomyakov A. S. About the rural community // About the old and the new: Articles and essays. M., 1988. S. 159–167; Chernyshevsky N. G. Criticism of philosophical prejudices against communal land ownership // Izbr. Philosopher prod.: In 3 vols. M., 1950. T. 2. P. 449–493; Herzen A.I. Letters to the enemy // Collection. cit.: In 30 volumes. M., 1959. T. 18. P. 511–512; Ogarev N.P. Russian questions // Izbr. socio-political, and philosophical. prod. M., 1952. T. 1. P. 137–169; Kovalevsky M. M. Communal land ownership, causes, course and consequences of its decomposition. M., 1879. Part 1; It's him. Tribal life in the present, recent and distant past. St. Petersburg, 1905. Issue. 1–2; Kachorowski K.R. Russian community. St. Petersburg, 1900. T. 1; Dudzinekaya E. A. Slavophiles in the social struggle. M., 1983; Utopian socialism in Russia. M., 1985; Sukhov A.D. Centenary discussion: Westernism and originality in Russian philosophy. M., 1998; Ettopse T. The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861. Cambridge, 1968; Grant S. Obschina and Mir // Slavic Review. 1976. N 4. encyclopedic Dictionary

Community

form of social organization. The primitive (tribal) community is characterized by collective labor and consumption, the later form - the neighboring (territorial, rural) community combines individual and communal ownership, is characteristic of a pre-capitalist society. The community has full or partial self-government. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the community was a closed class unit, used as an apparatus for collecting taxes (after the Peasant Reform of 1861 - the owner of the land). During the Stolypin agrarian reform, communal land ownership was replaced by private peasant ownership. Ancient historical communities are also called community: city commune, religious, professional, countryman's community.
1) populist magazine, 1870, London, 1 issue. Editors - S. G. Nechaev, V. I. Serebrennikov. 2) Populist magazine, editorial publication "Worker" and former circle members "Tchaikovsky", 1878, Geneva, 9 issues. Editors - D. A. Klements, P. B. Axelrod, Z. K. Rally, N. I. Zhukovsky.

Ozhegov's Dictionary

ABOUT COMMUNITY, s and COMMUNITY, s, and.

1. (community). Under the primitive communal system: a form of social organization characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, joint farming, and full or partial self-government. Ancestral o.

2. Self-governing organization of residents of Kakoin. territorial unit. Krestyanskaya o. (jointly owning land; obsolete).

3. (in 3 digits), organization. Zemlyachaya O. Negro o. in USA. Religious Fr. Baptist Fr.

| adj. communal, oh, oh. Community property.

Efremova's Dictionary

Community

and.
1. Self-governing organization residents of some. territorial unit.
2. A voluntary association, a community of people united on interethnic, professional, industrial, territorial, etc. basis for joint activities; brotherhood, fellowship.
3. Animal Association; flock, herd.
and.
1. A form of social organization characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, joint labor and equal distribution, as well as full or partial self-government (in a primitive communal system).
2. see also community.

Russian language dictionaries

a social and production association of peasants on the basis of self-government, self-organization, mutual assistance and joint ownership of land.

The word "community" is of late origin. It arose by accurately translating similar foreign concepts. Russian peasants said “peace” or “society”.

The foundations of the existence of the community (in all its various forms - rope, zadruga, stove, etc.) lay in “the very spirit of the people, in the mindset of the Russian mind, which does not love and does not understand life outside the community and even wants to see a community in its own blood family, partnership,” wrote a prominent researcher of the Russian community I.N. Miklashevsky. The people's consciousness has developed a countless number of proverbs, one way or another connected with the community (the world), which reflected its dominant significance in the life and destinies of the people. “No layman is away from the world, no layman is away from the world”, “We will demolish everything with peace”, “Worldly glory is strong”, “Peace, the community stands like a pillar”, “You can’t win over the world, the world will stand up for itself”, “On the world and there is no trial”, “Nothing is replaced with peace”, “There is no one to blame in the world”, “Together - not burdensome, but apart - at least leave it.”

The concept of “peace” for the peasant reflected the entire depth of his spiritual and moral consciousness, personifying not just an arithmetic union of peasants, but something more - a conciliar union, which has the character of a higher law.

The peasant said this: “the world was gathering,” “the world decided,” “the world gave its hand,” “the world chose,” putting here the meaning of the highest spiritual and moral authority - “the baptized world,” “the Christian world.”

The economic principle of the community, noted A.I. Herzen is the complete opposite of Malthus’s famous position: she gives everyone, without exception, a place at her table. The land belongs to the community, not to its individual members; the latter have the inalienable right to have as much land as every other member of the same community has.

Malthus believed that only the strongest, victorious in intense competition, have the right to life; the one defeated in it has no such rights. No! - the Russian peasant said decisively. Everyone born into this world has the right to life - a guarantee of which is mutual assistance and mutual support in the community.

Community, wrote the Russian historian and ethnographer I.G. Pryzhov, is based on the eternal law of brotherly love, on the law that “A rope is strong with a twist, and a person with help,” “about each other, and God about everyone.” The world is like one family, whose opinion often stands above the written law: “Fight, but don’t disperse,” “All for one and one for all,” “Don’t get ahead of yourself, don’t lag behind your own,” “If you fall behind, you become an orphan,” “ Even if it was back, but in the same herd." The power, the connecting thought, according to Pryzhov, is a common benefit, a common misfortune: “People are Ivan, and I am Ivan, people are in the water, and I am in the water,” “In the world, death is red.” A person in a community is completely devoted to its interests: “Where the world has its hands, there is my head,” “When I touch the world, I lay my head on it.” The world is the highest authority for the peasant, above which only the king and God: “Peace is a great man,” “Peace is a great cause,” “One hundred heads, one hundred minds.” Devotion to the world is the guarantee of well-being and prosperity, therefore, the decisions of the world are obeyed unquestioningly: “Where the world and people are, there is God’s grace,” “The voice of the people is the voice of God,” “What the world has ordered, God has judged,” “What the world has decreed, so so be it”, “God alone judges the world”, “The world will go crazy - you can’t put it on a chain.”

In the popular consciousness, the world (community) is mighty hero: “When the whole world sighs, and rumors reach the king,” “As the world sighs, and the temporary worker dies,” “The worldly neck is thick” (that is, it can save many), “The worldly neck is tight: it stretches but does not break. The worldly neck is sinewy ", "If the world spits, so does the sea", "You can't bury the world right away."

“The world is strong,” notes Pryzhov. “It doesn’t care about any misfortune, no poverty: “Blame on the world - everything will be demolished,” “The world is a mountain of gold,” “With peace, trouble is not a loss.” The world is strong and indestructible: “With peace you can’t argue,” says the people and at the same time proudly asks: “Who more peace will it happen?”, “You can’t overcome the world,” “The world will roar, so the forests will groan,” “The worldly glory of the bell,” “The world will sing, so the stone will crack,” “We will overcome the devil with a cathedral,” because “One is afraid, but the world is not scary”, “It’s not fear that you’re together, but put your hands on one.”

Self-government of Russian peasants arose in the process of developing the vast territory of our country. Many rivers and lakes, impenetrable forests and a relatively small population who settled here in small villages, between which sometimes lay spaces of 100-200 miles. Territory centered in a relatively large locality was called the volost by the peasants, and the population of the volost was called the world. At its meetings, the volost elected the headman and some other leading officials, decided on the admission of new members to the community and the allocation of land to them. “In the village,” wrote N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky, “real power belongs not to representatives of the tsarist administration, but to volost and village assemblies and their authorized elders and village elders...

The volost community was independently in charge of tax collection, the lower court and the police. Tiun and the closer appeared in the volost only when a criminal case arose in it and a dispute began about the boundaries of its territory with neighboring or large landowners.

The importance of secular self-government was strengthened by the highest elected position of sotsky, the general representative of these volost communities of the camp. Sotsky connected these communities into one whole, into one zemstvo world of the camp. He acted as an intermediary between the volost elder and the governor’s officials... The bureaucrats could receive their feed and levies only... from the highest worldly representative - the sotsky..."

In later times, the elected sotsky performs police functions: he monitors the cleanliness of villages, the purity of water in rivers, fire safety, order during auctions and markets, the sale of good-quality products, the conduct of trade with proper certificates, etc.

The gathering was far from the only form of public meetings of peasants. Historian L.V. Cherepnin tells how back in the XIV-XV centuries. there was a custom of “feasts” and “brotherhood”, which were “collective solemn meetings, during which those who gathered were treated to festive table. The activities of the rural peasant community were manifested in these forms. During "feasts" and "brotherhood" peasant needs could be discussed and worldly affairs resolved. “Feasts” and “brotherhood” were one of the means of uniting the peasantry in separate, little connected villages scattered over a vast territory.”

All tributes and payments, various labor duties were imposed by the princely authority on the entire volost, and at her meetings she herself decided how to distribute these burdens among the peasants: “according to the bellies and trades”, “according to the strength” of each farm, and perhaps they were served certain duties in common, with mutual responsibility of everyone for everyone, the haves for the have-nots, the economic tenants of the village for empty abandoned plots.

“Whoever takes as many souls as he can takes as much land,” the peasants said. “By craving and field”, “At eighteen years old, get married in order to sit on a tax”, “A ram has arrived on the world” (that is, a tax, a burden), “A hateful tax has fallen on the world” (when laying out a tax that no one has taken upon themselves accepts).

In the first stages of the existence of the volost community, peasants were interested in attracting new members: there was a lot of land, but what more people, the less taxes there will be per person. The volost had its own elected peasant court, and only the most important crimes were considered by the princely authorities, and then materials on them were prepared by the elected peasants of the volost. The volost ensured the satisfaction of the spiritual needs of the population: it built churches, looked for a priest for them, determined their content, and sometimes opened schools to train literate people.

As the population and the number of settlements grew, the volost was divided into separate self-governing communities, which elected their elected representatives to the volost administration and accepted Active participation in the development of "volost policy".

Centuries passed, but the Russian village continued to preserve the traditional forms of social life that had developed in ancient times. Back in N. XX century one could meet social structures that existed five hundred or more years ago.

First of all, as in the old days, one or more villages made up the world, rural society necessarily with its own democratic assembly - gathering - and its own elected administration - headman, tenth, sotsky.

At the gatherings, issues on communal ownership of land, distribution of taxes, settlement of new community members, holding elections, issues of forest use, construction of dams, leasing of fishing grounds and public mills, absence and removal from the community, replenishment of public reserves in case of natural disasters were discussed democratically. disasters and crop failures.

At meetings of individual villages (often constituting only part of the community), all aspects were democratically regulated working life villages - the dates of the beginning and end of agriculture. works; matters related to meadows ("orders" of meadows, allocation of howls, drawing lots, auctions); repairing roads, cleaning wells, building fences, hiring shepherds and watchmen; fines for unauthorized felling, failure to appear at gatherings, violation of community prohibitions; family divisions and divisions, petty crimes; appointment of guardians; conflicts between community members and some intra-family conflicts; raising money for general expenses villages

Peasant gatherings, their publicity, and the independent nature of their speeches amazed our intellectuals. This is how writer N.N. described one of these gatherings. Zlatovratsky:

“The gathering was full. A large crowd swayed in front of my hut. It seemed like the whole village had gathered here: old people, wealthy owners, young sons who had returned from working in times of trouble, women and children. The moment I arrived, the oratorical debate reached already its apogee. First of all, I was struck by the remarkable frankness: here no one was embarrassed in front of anyone, there is no sign of diplomacy here. Not only will everyone reveal his soul here, he will also tell you everything he has ever known about you, and not only about you, but also about your father, grandfather, great-grandfather... Here everything comes clean, everything becomes clear; if anyone, out of cowardice or calculation, decides to get away with silence, he will be mercilessly brought to light. And even these cowardly ones at especially important gatherings there are very few. I have seen the most meek, most unresponsive men, who at other times would not say a word against anyone, at gatherings, in moments of general excitement, completely transformed and, believing the proverb: “In public there is death.” red,” they gained such courage that they managed to outdo the obviously brave men. At such moments, the gathering becomes simply an open mutual confession and mutual exposure, a manifestation of the widest publicity. At these very moments, when, apparently, the private interests of everyone reach the highest degree of tension, in turn, the public interests and justice achieve the highest degree of control. This remarkable feature of public gatherings particularly struck me."

An important role at the gatherings belonged to the headman, who organized the gatherings, monitored order, was in charge of worldly affairs, and, if necessary, even had the right to arrest the culprit. “And the world is not without a boss,” the peasants used to say. “The world is older than everyone, and there is a steward for the world,” “A sheaf without a bandage is straw” (about the elder).

The peasants respected and obeyed their elected representatives, but they also approached them quite strictly. The peasants did not choose just anyone and just like that. “If you’re sitting in a row (with the bosses), don’t say “I can’t”,” “If you’re sitting in a row, don’t play the pipe,” “You’re not a petitioner for the headman, but you’re not averse to the world.”

Several rural communities formed a volost, which was also governed democratically. The highest body of the volost was the volost assembly, which met in a large trading village and consisted of village elders and elected peasants (one of ten households). But this did not mean at all that other peasants who wanted to participate in the volost meeting could not come to the gathering. The volost assembly elected the volost elder (usually for three years), the volost board (in fact, these were the elders and all the elders of the volost) and the volost court.

The volost administration kept books to record the decisions of the assembly, as well as transactions and agreements (including labor agreements) concluded by peasants both among themselves and with persons outside the volost. All paper work was carried out by the volost clerk, who, of course, was important person in the village, but he was afraid of the peasant gathering, because he could always be expelled in disgrace. And the peasants were not too afraid of the volost elder. They knew that if the foreman began to abuse the trust of society, he would not be elected next time or his salary would be reduced.

In addition to leaders, at peasant gatherings, as necessary, they elected intercessors for public affairs, petitioners for the provincial or capital city. Such intercessors were called world-eaters (the negative meaning of this word appeared later, and then it meant people who lived at worldly expense during their business trip on public affairs) and chestnuts. “The world-eater, the chestnut, but you can’t live without it,” because “he is a petitioner from the world, but he himself is not an offender to anyone.”

In each volost, at a peasant gathering, a volost court was elected from four judges - peasant householders who had reached 35 years of age, were literate, and were respected among their fellow villagers.

In the volost court, guided by local peasant customs, cases were dealt with according to conscience, and they tried to persuade the disputants to reconcile. Of course, the rights of the volost court were limited to minor disputes and litigation, although they could hear cases of petty theft, extravagance, cases related to the punishment of drunkards and other violators of public morality. The volost courts had the right to sentence the perpetrators to monetary penalties of up to 30 rubles and to arrest on bread and water for up to 30 days.

There were cases when a public gathering in a community turned into a real trial, and sometimes simply into lynching of thieves and horse thieves. There are cases where the perpetrators were immediately put to death.

Communal forms of life existed even in prison, which was even recognized by the prison authorities. All the characteristics of a community were present here - gathering, elections, public opinion, general trial and punishment, sometimes even in the form of death sentences in prison lynching.

Along with self-government, public mutual assistance and mutual support served as the cornerstone of the community. It was carried out primarily through the ancient form of joint labor - help, cabbage, super-pryadok, etc.

Over the many centuries of the existence of self-governing volost and simple communities (in some cases consisting of only one village), the skill for self-government and mutual assistance has become national trait and the social needs of Russian peasants, with whom the central government and individual feudal lords had to reckon.

In the XIV-XVI centuries. there is a widespread distribution of tax volost lands by the prince along with peasant population to the estate in the form of payment for service, or even estate ownership to the boyars, boyar children and nobles. Under these conditions, the volost community dies, since its functions are transferred to the owners of estates and estates, but, as a rule, the ordinary community continues to exist. The votchinniki and landowners, on the one hand, were forced to reckon with this form of peasant life that had developed over many centuries, and on the other hand, the preservation of an ordinary community was beneficial to them organizationally. The community, with the help of mutual responsibility, paid all duties and organized the performance of corvee work. Thus, the landowner had a ready-made organization of labor, production and distribution, and the peasant continued to exist in the forms of social self-government familiar to him. At the same time, the volost community did not perish everywhere, but continued to exist on state lands, carrying out activities right up to the present day. XX century the same functions as many centuries ago.

As M.I. rightly noted. Semevsky, attempts to destroy communal forms of land ownership and social life of peasants were relatively rare even on landowners' lands. In the 2nd half. XVIII century Most of the estates were based on quitrent, and in such estates the peasants, as a rule, completely freely used the land on their favorite communal principles, almost without any interference from the landowner. In this respect, our serf peasant was in an incomparably more advantageous position than the same peasant in Western Europe.

In large serf fiefs, the owner of the serfs and the manager appointed by him, the patrimonial office or office, which often consisted of several departments, was only the top floor of the patrimonial administration; According to ancient tradition, which many landowners were afraid to violate, there was a lower floor of administration - peasant self-government - headman, elected, ten's, sotsky and general assembly, which independently resolved internal issues of the community. Of course, there were also abuses. Landowners often tried to patronize certain peasants when electing them to certain elective positions, although they themselves did not take part in the gatherings.

While there was a lot of land and land in the peasant community, redistributions were not made. But in the XVII-XVIII centuries. Due to population growth, land began to be regularly redistributed among community members.

The land and all other peasant lands (meadows, meadows, forests) were distributed equally to the peasants. At first, all the land was divided into equal pieces according to quality and degree of distance from the village - good, average and bad. Then each peasant, according to lot, received a piece of land of each quality and distance from the village.

“It’s in the bag,” the peasants used to say, as lots were drawn from the hat. But: “Cast lots, don’t blame afterward,” “The lot is God’s judgment.” Land redistributions were carried out every 5-20 years, usually depending on the “reproduction of the people.” Distribution was carried out either by family or by tax (working husband and wife). In the same way, duties were distributed among the peasants - taxes, and among the landowner peasants also corvee or quitrent.

The division of land in the community had a pronounced labor character. The land belongs only to those who can cultivate it.

There was a real ritual in the very procedure of dividing the land. For the divisions, they chose a kind of commission of old-timers and an earthen elder, who was given several heavy assistants. The "Commission" was careful to ensure that sites were of equal merit, counterbalancing inferior quality or inconvenience with more land or compensation elsewhere. Usually, the division began from the nearest land from the humen: the first, spring, field - in the spring before sowing, the second, fallow, - in the so-called interfallow period, and the third - in the fall after harvesting rye bread. No more than three days were used for such a section of each field. Sometimes each field was divided into ten or more sections. The breakdown took into account an important labor rule. The size of a plot or strip of land is determined by “how much a worker can cultivate in one day, which is approximately a third of a tithe.” The community “commission” for the division of land, as a rule, did everything itself, without involving government land surveyors. Communal harmony and the skill of the peasants to measure and redistribute land without the help of surveyors determined the uselessness of land surveyors, because the peasants, in the words of the Tver landowner Zubov, “will make a division among themselves” and “in harmless equality from one to another, using fathoms and arshins for this purpose.” and even the soles of your feet."

Between official redistributions, peasants could exchange plots, remove backbreaking labor from the weak, and transfer the land to those capable of cultivating it. For example, in the village of Yamy, after the death of her husband, his widow with five small children and a two-person plot of land decides to leave the plot of her deceased husband. The widow refuses both her husband’s allotment and her own, since she cannot afford it, even with the collective help of the community members. The landless Naum Shmonin lays claim to the widow's vacated plot. And since the payment of taxes is associated with the use of the allotment, the question arises among the community members whether Naum Shmonin will be able to pay taxes, otherwise the community would have to pay. In addition to the poor community member Naum Shmonin, there were also rich people in the village who, living in the city and engaged in trade, did not particularly need land. Having exchanged with other members of the community, they had the smallest allotment, and therefore paid less taxes. At one of the gatherings, many of the community members expressed the idea that it would be nice to give the rich a larger allotment. And they, in turn, were offended and sent a messenger with the answer that they would only move to their own plots, and the world had no right to pile on more. The disagreement that arose threatened trouble for those peasants who were sitting on other people's plots, and the world decided the following: the land that the widow refused should be transferred to Naum Shmonin - all two plots in full; to help the widow herself reap the grain of the current sowing, while leaving the rich alone until another occasion (stated according to the story of an eyewitness, the writer N. Zlatovratsky).

In receiving all the duties, the landowner dealt not with individual peasants, but with the entire community, which annually paid him a certain fixed amount of money. “This whole arrangement,” wrote an 18th-century landowner, “is done by the peasants on their own, each knowing about the other how much he can pay without burden to others and according to the general worldly verdict.”

How all this happened in the village was well described by the Russian historian Ivan Nikitich Boltin. “The situation,” he says, “is that in a village there are 250 souls of male people, which amount to 100 taxes, that the entire village pays rent to the landowner 1000 rubles, and state taxes, such as capitation, recruitment and various petty expenses, come down to there are 500 of them, a total of only 1500 rubles, and that the entire land of that village is divided into 120 shares. Of these, they distribute 100 shares of land for each tax one by one, the remaining 20 are divided among themselves by those who are more family-oriented or wealthier than others, by voluntary consent or by lot, what part of the share will go to whom. Those who have one share of land pay 12 rubles 60 kopecks per year; those who take the remaining 20 shares for themselves, everyone pays by calculation, i.e. whoever takes half the share pays 6 rubles 30 kopecks, and for a quarter share - 3 rubles 15 kopecks, in addition to 12 rubles 60 kopecks, which everyone owes for owning a whole share."

In all settlements with the state and the landowner, the peasants took into account the elderly, those unable to work, the disabled and widows. Either concessions were made for them, or they did not pay at all the duties that the community contributed for them, shifting the burden onto the shoulders of those who were able to work.

For example, if after the death of a peasant a widow remained, then she often retained an allotment that she could cultivate with the help of farm laborers; if she could not do this, then the community paid taxes for her and if they took the land from her, it was only for a while, until the children grew up.

Reserve plots were arranged for the poor, from which they were allocated land without the obligation to pay community taxes.

From the same reserve plot, a field was allocated for general sowing; its harvesting and harvesting were carried out jointly by all the peasants, and the grain went to the common threshing floor. From the world's bread, assistance was provided to the elderly and orphans, while the rest was sold to pay state taxes.

From the bread collected by the world from public plowing, “society assigns a month for the service of husbands to female soldiers with their children, if relatives refuse to keep it, also to the elderly and lonely who have outlived their families, so that they do not wander around the world.”

The proverbs were truly true: “In Rus' no one died of hunger” (meaning that if something happened, the world would help). “And God will pay for the hungry,” the peasant believed.

Public protection of the poor, disabled, widows, old people, and orphans was guaranteed by the entire peasant world.

“When a misfortune befalls a peasant, for example, his house burns down, then the peasants, out of compassion for him, help him in their free time from their work, carry him free firewood, and logs from the village. new house etc., mainly on Sunday" (Vologda province).

“In the event of a misfortune befalling a householder, for example a fire, the world gives free wood for construction; if someone gets sick, the world corrects his household work free of charge: removes bread, hay, etc.” (Novgorod province).

“To cultivate a field and remove it from a lonely patient, and also to bring timber for construction, the world believes moral duty; in those in rare cases“When one of the fellow villagers, under the pretext of a lack of horses, refuses to participate in help, the world does not take any punitive measures, but public opinion condemns him, and rarely anyone decides to go against the world” (Tula province).

"...Each member of society works, going to work to plow a field or harvest the harvest of a sick householder or a poor widow, taking out timber to build a hut that burned down for one of his members, paying for plots allocated to the poor, sick, old, to the orphans, for the things given to them free of charge: timber for repairing the hut, material for the fence and heating, burying them at his own expense, paying taxes for the ruined, supplying horses for cultivating the field to the owner from whom they fell or were stolen, carrying bread, linen, etc. to the fire victim , waters, feeds, clothes the orphans settled in his hut, and many others." (Tver province).

The peasant community was one of the main stabilizing foundations of Russian life. They talked about the need to preserve it the best minds Russia.

“Communal peasant land ownership, which dominates in Russia,” wrote D.I. Mendeleev, “contains principles that can have great economic significance in the future, since community members can, under certain conditions, run a large-scale farm that allows for many improvements... and therefore I think very important conservation peasant community, which over time, when education and accumulation of capital arrives, can use the same communal principle to organize (especially for winter period) their plants and factories. In general, in the communal and artel principles characteristic of our people, I see the germ of the possibility of a correct solution in the future of many of the tasks that lie ahead during the development of industry and should complicate those countries in which individualism is given final preference, since, in my opinion opinion, after a certain period of preliminary growth, it is faster and easier to make all major improvements, starting from a historically strong communal principle, than going from developed individualism to a social principle."

The course towards the destruction of the community, adopted by the Russian government in 1906, became the first decisive step towards revolution, as it destroyed the main stronghold of stable peasant life. The Stolypin reform broke the connection of times and crossed out the centuries-old peasant tradition. After it, the community, in an already agonizing state, existed until the 1920-30s, when it was officially liquidated with the introduction of the Soviet collective farm system.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Communities are groups of people who live in the same locality (city, village, settlement) and are connected by common spiritual, political and economic interests. One of their main features is the following: each member realizes that he belongs to a group that is different from the others. The community is a form of self-organization of society. We invite you to get to know her in more detail.

Community in the broadest sense

IN in a broad sense communities are any communities of people connected to each other that have developed historically. This connection is determined by the place of residence (urban or rural community), the membership of its members in a particular denomination (confessional), and the similarity of occupations (professional). In addition, communities are associations whose members can be related commonplace birth or belonging to a particular ethnic group. This applies to people who live outside their historical homeland (community).

Community in the narrow sense

In a narrow sense, communities are forms of social organization of the population, which are considered one of the most ancient. They are characteristic of the early stage of development of all civilizations. One person, or a group consisting of several people in the primitive era, as a rule, could not survive. It was very difficult for her to provide herself with at least a minimum of resources and necessary products. Therefore, people had to form large communities in order to farm together. At the same time, they were united by blood relationship - the most natural characteristic. This is how it appeared. Its definition is as follows: relatives who run a joint household. On early stages development of the tribal community it was hunting, then gathering and, finally, cattle breeding and/or farming.

Functions of the community before the emergence of the state

In conditions when the state did not yet exist, all relations related to religious beliefs, the economy, kinship and family relationships were concentrated at the community level. It provided its members with everything they needed and was a self-sufficient organism. The community included individual families, the nature and size of which depended on the characteristics of the development of this civilization. At the first stages of its existence, the community often coincided with the clan. The tribe was an association of several communities. This is how society was structured in ancient times.

House or family community

Brownie, or family community is considered a special type of generic. What are its features? The characteristics of a clan community of this type are as follows. It consists of big family, including from three to five generations of immediate relatives. After cattle breeding or agriculture began to form the basis of the community's economy, the role of its most experienced members increased. They were called elders. They became organizers of collective labor, religious leaders, and leaders of military militia. These people had well-deserved authority in the eyes of other community members. In the institute of military leaders and elders, scientists today see the embryo of future property and social inequality.

Community territorial

The awareness of blood ties between community members weakened with the increase in the number of relatives. More and more distant representatives of the clan settled next to each other. Some began to start families outside the community. Thus, in the unification of people, not all the signs of a tribal community were observed. To replace it during social evolution the territorial or neighbor came. The unification of people took place in in this case based on the proximity of their residence.

The role of the community after the emergence of the state

The community consisted of separate families who ran their own households. It had partial or complete self-government. Most often it united free farmers. In relation to the state, she occupied a subordinate position.

Community in countries ancient world played the role of primary care social system, its indivisible cell. It was she who was the entity that paid taxes (taxes) and supplied soldiers for the army. The community often turned into a political-territorial unit of the state. Within its framework, relations were regulated by unwritten, customary law, and after some time they were consolidated with the help of state laws. As long as the community fulfilled its duties to the state, it usually did not interfere in its affairs. This was facilitated by the so-called mutual responsibility, which operated within the community. It meant that all its members were responsible for the others.

Nomadic community

The type of neighborhood community depended on the people. The nomadic people, for example, distributed pastures and organized mutual assistance during natural disasters or loss of livestock. Nomadic communities had to guard their herds at all times, so they had a permanent military organization.

Agricultural community

The agricultural community was somewhat different. Its main task was to regulate economic and land relations arising between its members. Let us note an important feature of a community: common use of water resources, forest lands and pastures. In each civilization, it had its own characteristics, depending on the form of government and the strength of the state, and the availability of land suitable for cultivation. For example, among the peoples of medieval Asia and in communities ancient East each family received its own allotment for the agricultural season. This plot was the property of the community, and the state acted as the supreme owner of the land. In Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece a community member had rights to his plot. But leaving it led to their loss. Members of the early medieval German community (the so-called mark) had unconditional rights to allotments. At the same time, the functions of the community were limited to judicial matters and issues of use of common lands.

The process of loss of functions by the community

Why did this one fall apart? Let's look at the main reasons. As the community's population increased significantly, there was a shortage of cultivable land. Then restrictions on the size of the plot began to be introduced. As feudal land tenure developed, peasant plots became the property of the feudal lord. Various forms of land and personal dependence on the lord began to spread. At this time, the community began to monitor the timely payment of rent by the peasants to the feudal lord. It gradually lost its judicial functions, and its self-government became very limited. However, neither the procedure for using land owned by the community nor the methods of cultivating the land underwent virtually any changes at this time. Professional differences among members of a caste community (India, Ancient Egypt, tropical Africa, medieval Japan, Oceania) were secured by a rigid division into castes.

Some general signs of a community

Urgent agricultural work that required a lot of effort (harvesting, mowing, etc.) in most civilizations was carried out jointly by community members. The most important decisions, including questions about the distribution of various duties and state taxes, were made by men at general meetings. Current affairs were led by the head of the community. He also represented her before government officials.

What signs of a tribal community have we forgotten to note? It, like the territorial one, has a tendency to equalize the social and property status of farmers. Its rich members bore more. The strength of the community depended on the number of farmers who were part of it. Therefore, she tried to prevent a situation in which her members would be ruined.

How did the community die?

Community in most civilizations is a mandatory feature of a pre-industrial, or agrarian, society. She died in a number of countries Western Europe as a result of the fact that the feudal lords completely seized the lands that belonged to her. Thus the life of the communities was destroyed. However, this process most often occurred as a result of the industrial revolution, the formation of the capitalist system, and development in society commodity-money relations, and also due to urbanization, that is rapid growth urban population. Peasants went to work in cities where large industrial enterprises existed. This gradually weakened the community. The burden of duties assigned to each of its members grew. At the same time, the gap between the poor and the rich in it increased. The latter were burdened by the restrictions imposed by the community on the use of land and tried to leave it. As a result of this, it lost its wealthiest members. Left without them, the community became unable to fulfill the obligations imposed on it by the state. Therefore, the state authorized its dissolution. People stopped living as a community, and the division of its property began. Note that varieties of the neighborhood community still exist in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY - 1) a traditional form of social organization. Primitive (tribal) agriculture is characterized by collective labor and consumption; a later form is neighborly (territorial, rural), combining individual and communal land ownership. In pre-revolutionary Russia, agriculture was a closed class unit used as an apparatus for collecting taxes (after the peasant reform of 1861 g. - owner of the land). During the Stolypin agrarian reform, communal land ownership was replaced by private peasant ownership. In the 1990s. generic O. indigenous small peoples and traditional Cossack O. again received recognition in the legislation of some constituent entities of the Russian Federation, incl. as a special subject of law; 2) in a number of countries the name of the local administrative-territorial unit (synonyms - commune, municipal entity); 3) a set of representatives of a certain faith, religious persuasion or nationality in a country, city, etc. (religious, national O.).

Large legal dictionary. - M.: Infra-M. A. Ya. Sukharev, V. E. Krutskikh, A. Ya. Sukharev. 2003 .

Synonyms:

See what "COMMUNITY" is in other dictionaries:

COMMUNITY, a form of social organization. Primitive (tribal) agriculture is characterized by collective labor and consumption; the later form of neighborly (territorial, rural) agriculture combines individual and communal ownership, characteristic of ... ... Russian history

I general ina. 1. The oldest form of social organization, characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, joint labor and equal distribution, as well as full or partial self-government (preserved in a number of ... ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

Cm … Synonym dictionary

A naturally formed supra-family association of people connected by common interests, sometimes a common origin, emotional or cultural unity, etc. (for example, fellow countrymen, emigrants, religious communities). In the narrow sense, community... ... Historical Dictionary

Books

Community, . "Community" is a book of the Teaching of Living Ethics, compiled by Elena Ivanovna Roerich...