obshchina

This type of traditional, village style cooperation is very similar to a late 19th-century Russian system called obshchina.

In Russia the word was used until the early 20th century to denote the elected leader of obshchina.

The peasant holding in the form of the Obshchina is both an economic unit and a home .

Chuprov viewed the Russian obshchina as a valuable social institution which should be preserved.

In the Obshchina alliances were formed ptimarily through marriage and common descent of kin.

This was due to the disruption more production would bring to the community as well as the Obshchina's dislike of wealth accumulation.

The organization of the peasant mode of production is the primary cause for the type of social structure found in the Obshchina.

In contrast, the Russian obshchina did not legitimate private landed property as such, but rather believed that "all land belonged to God."

The nineteenth-century Russian philosophers attached signal importance to obshchina as a unique feature distinguishing Russia from other countries.

Khomyakov viewed the Russian obshchina as a perfect example of sobornost and extolled the Russian peasants for their humility.

The institutional basis of the Emancipation was based on the obshchina: a village commune that controlled property in land and distributed access to it among individual households.

The Mir or Obshchina became a topic in political philosophy with the publication of August von Haxthausen's book in 1847.

The goal of the reform was to transform the traditional obshchina form of Russian agriculture, which bore some similarities to the open field system of Britain.

Stolypin's reforms abolished the obshchina system and replaced it with a capitalist-oriented form highlighting private ownership and consolidated modern farmsteads.

The obshchina decided when they would all plant, when they would all harvest and often how they would all work the fields.

Some of them believed that the Russian obshchina, or mir, offered an attractive alternative to modern capitalism and could make Russia a potential social and moral savior.

Among the supposed drawbacks of the obshchina system were collective ownership, scattered land allotments based on family size, and a significant level of control by the family elder.

He was in charge of the distribution of taxes, resolving conflicts within obshchina, distribution of the usage of community lands, assigning people for military service, etc.

After Konstantin Kavelin was elected President in 1861, the Free Economic Society concentrated on discussing the future of the Russian village commune (obshchina).

Narodniks viewed aspects of the past with nostalgia: although they resented the former land ownership system, they opposed the uprooting of peasants from the traditional obshchina (communes).

In 1878, Arbore was also the editor of the international tribune of the Revolutionary Community, Obshchina ("Community"), which was published as a successor of Rabotnik.

The more powerful the narodniks became, the lower sank the reputation of Uspensky who continued to denounce obshchina as conducing to people's lowest instincts and thus corrupting itself from inside.

It was the obshchina's collective interest in expanding its landholdings, as well as its weakening of private property rights, that contributed to the Russian peasant revolution and its accomplishments.

"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?

Even after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, a peasant in his everyday work normally had little independence from obshchina, governed at the village level (mir) by the full assembly of the community (skhod).