The meaning is “mutual responsibility.” Mutual guarantee Mutual guarantee in Russia

CIRCULAL RESPONSIBILITY, joint responsibility of the group for the actions of each of its members, the purpose of which is the timely fulfillment of their obligations. The practice of mutual responsibility in the community has existed since the times of the primitive communal system, being one of the foundations of tribal relations and the most important norm of customary law. As a rule, mutual responsibility consisted of joint property liability for debts (payment of taxes, etc.), and in the early Middle Ages also in the responsibility of the community for a crime committed by one of the members of the group or on its territory. The presence of mutual responsibility is recorded in Russkaya Pravda; it was used when collecting a fine (vira) for a crime committed on the territory of the community (vervi). In Russia, mutual responsibility was later widely used mainly in the fiscal sphere when collecting various government taxes and fees, payments for arrears, etc.: their allocation was transferred to the discretion of the community members themselves under collective responsibility (for the same purpose, the collection of payments was entrusted to those elected by the payers themselves persons).

Legislatively, the collective responsibility of members of the peasant community for the correct payment of state taxes and arrears was established by the decree of Empress Catherine II of May 19 (30), 1769, confirmed by the Manifesto of Emperor Alexander I of May 16 (28, 1811) and other laws. However, in practice, the introduction of mutual responsibility and especially its compliance depended on the discretion of the landowners and officials responsible for the proper collection of payments. After the peasant reform of 1861, mutual guarantee remained an important means of ensuring timely payment by peasants of state, zemstvo and secular taxes and fees. The arrears of individual householders, by decision of the village meeting, were distributed among all householders in accordance with the profitability of their farms or were covered by worldly capital. To pay off the debt, the debtor's property could be sold, and his allotment could be temporarily taken away by the company and rented out. Guardianship by the rural community could be established over defaulters. If society refused to voluntarily pay arrears, it was forced to do so by the police. As a precautionary measure, the police described the property of rural societies; in case of further non-payment of arrears, the property could be sold. However, such cases, even with large debts of many rural societies, were rare, since the state was interested in preserving taxpayers, and a number of Senate clarifications of the current legislation limited the range of property liability of peasants for debts mainly to movable property. To prevent collections from all members of the community of rural society, when assessing taxes and fees, the poorest peasant farms or those affected by emergency circumstances were exempted from all or part of payments and established increased fees from wealthy farms, forcing defaulters to borrow from various sources (loans from worldly capital are often did not return). As a last resort, rural societies would take the land from arrears in advance to rent it out and cover the arrears from the rent.

Since 1869, if a rural society included several villages, the principle of mutual responsibility was applied only to villages for which there were arrears; For villages with fewer than 40 male residents, the principle of individual taxpayer responsibility was applied exclusively. Emperor Nicholas II significantly limited the use of mutual responsibility in European Russia and then completely abolished it; instead of mutual responsibility, individual responsibility of householders for the payment of taxes and fees was established (their distribution between households remained within the competence of the village assembly). In the Asian part of Russia, mutual responsibility was abolished on October 5(18), 1906.

Lit.: Sobestiansky I. Mutual responsibility among the Slavs according to the ancient monuments of their legislation. 2nd ed. Har., 1888; Lappo-Danilevsky A. S. Organization of direct taxation in the Moscow State from the Time of Troubles to the era of transformations. St. Petersburg, 1890; Brzhesky N.K. Mutual responsibility of rural societies. St. Petersburg, 1896; aka. Arrears and mutual responsibility of rural societies. St. Petersburg, 1897; Zyryanov P. N. Peasant community of European Russia, 1907-1914. M., 1992; Vronsky O. G. Peasant community at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries: Structure, management, land relations, law and order. Tula, 1999.

The principle of shared responsibility for the actions of one. Mutual concealment, mutual revenue.

In the Russian village, people lived in communities. All issues were resolved at general meetings of village or village residents.

The peasants usually gathered around the headman, forming a kind of circle. In the southern regions of Russia, such meetings were called a circle.

The circle decided all the affairs of the community and examined the guilt of its individual members. If the offenses were minor, then the circle took the offender on bail and was responsible for his correction.

This is how mutual responsibility arose. In our time, this expression has acquired a negative meaning: this is what they say when lawbreakers, out of fear of being judged, cover for each other.

How this mutual guarantee of leniency was created - I do not undertake to explain, but that this guarantee was once very strong - every provincial will confirm this.

Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin. "Diary of a Provincial"

CIRCULAR LIABILITY

The principle of shared responsibility for the actions of one. Mutual concealment, mutual gain.

❀ ❀ ❀

Definition 1

Mutual responsibility is a group, collective joint and several liability, when a community of people is responsible for the violated obligations of one of its members.

The essence of mutual responsibility

In accordance with the Legal Dictionary, mutual responsibility is the responsibility of all members of a community or other group for the actions or performance of duties of each of its members.

According to the encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, mutual responsibility, in the civil legal sense, appears to be a type of correal obligation in its Roman form.

In everyday life, this terminology is used to denote the agreement of group members with the actions of any of its own members, as well as its support, active or passive. Quite often this phrase is used with a negative connotation.

With regards to loans, here everyone for all and all for one - members of the mutual responsibility are bound in all consequences of the debt. Liberation acts, which do not matter the methods of material satisfaction of the creditor, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, extend their effect in the case of mutual responsibility to all its members. Thus, the purpose of mutual responsibility is to confront the creditor, not with individuals, but with the entire community as such.

In Russia, until the beginning of the 20th century, this terminology was applied to the responsibility of the rural community for arrears and taxes of its own members. It was noted that participants in mutual responsibility may not be members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit. To denote the joint liability of members of other partnerships, the term joint and several liability was used.

Note 1

It should be noted that mutual guarantee should not be confused with a guarantee of a simple type and the rule of gradual recovery (“beneficium excussionis”) should be applied to it. The purpose of mutual responsibility, like any joint and several obligation, is to guarantee the timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation.

History of mutual responsibility

The first mention of mutual responsibility is contained in Russkaya Pravda. Mutual responsibility was used, in particular, if a crime was committed in a specific territory (“vervi”) and the offender remained unknown, punishment in the form of payment of fines (“vira”) was imposed on the entire community. Some scientists see a hint of the presence of this institution in the agreement between Oleg and the Greeks.

In the 15th-16th centuries, residents of the provincial districts were charged with the responsibility for preventing and eradicating crimes; for failure to fulfill these duties they had to bear:

• financial responsibility;
• criminal liability.

In the Moscow state, mutual responsibility was also used in cases of shortfall in customs and tavern revenues - the shortfall could be recovered from the posad, which elected the culprit of the shortfall as a kisser. In addition, losses that were caused to the treasury by the contractor could sometimes be recovered from the settlement to which he belonged. By assembling detachments of archers from free people, the government gave them mutual responsibility for the proper performance of each of their own duties, as well as for material damage to the treasury if a serviceman escapes from service.

Over time, the state's use of the institution of mutual responsibility was preserved only in the fiscal sphere: residents of any territorial unit originally had obligations to pay a certain amount of taxes. The distribution of taxes payable by local residents of a certain territorial unit between households was carried out by the residents themselves, and the collection of taxes was entrusted to selected persons by the payers. Some scientists concluded from this that responsibility for the arrear-free receipt of taxes was assigned to the society of payers. In any case, there is no doubt that responsibility to the government for arrears rested with tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category. Under pain of such liability - personal and property, they could, when collecting arrears, use, to a lesser or greater extent, the beginning of the liability of some payers for others, even in cases where mutual responsibility was not sanctioned by law.

In the 18th century, increasingly developing bureaucratic systems, turning away from the use of the principle of mutual responsibility in various branches of state affairs, they apparently lost any concept of the mutual responsibility of tax payers, as one of the principles of organizing the tax affairs of previous times. In view of this, being ultimately forced to turn to mutual responsibility as a way to ensure timely receipt of payments, the government did not introduce it immediately, but initially used it as a measure of last resort and gave various motivations for this use.

In 1739, by decree of the Tsar, arrears in the collection of taxes were ordered:

• from the merchants and state peasants to divide the members of these classes among themselves;
• The arrears from the peasants of the palace, monastery, and factory must first be replenished from the property of the patrimonial clerks and rulers, and only if they are unable to pay the shortfalls, the arrears be collected from the peasants.

With the establishment of the department of appanages in 1797 and the formation of the category of appanage peasants, it was decided that in the event of arrears arising due to the negligence and laziness of the villagers, the perpetrators would be transferred to the court, and the arrears would be recovered from the entire rural community as punishment for seeing their own partner I did not try to turn him into laziness and negligence, to work and correcting his own debt.

In the form of a general rule for all, the obligation of the society to answer for the correct payment of taxes was enshrined in the Manifesto of May 16, 1811, supplemented by the decree of 1828, but at the same time, certain penalties to be applied to the entire village were not indicated. At the same time, in the manifesto of 1811, in order to prevent arrears, volost heads, elected officials and elders were given the right to use defaulters in work in the village or send them to a workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to november.

All members of a team (partnership or community) for obligations undertaken by one. Most often this term has a property meaning. The expression arose in antiquity; we know its Roman form. The first mentions of it are found in Russkaya Pravda, and some scientists believe that this institution existed even under the treaty with the Greeks.

In addition to financial responsibility, it extended to liability for crimes when the offender was unknown, or for murder not for the purpose of robbery, but out of revenge or because of a quarrel. That is, the punishment fell on the residents of the district where the crime was committed. This was done in order to eradicate crime or reduce material damage to the state treasury.

In Russia, mutual responsibility was in use until 1903; it was applied mainly to peasants: taxes and arrears of each community member were applied to the entire community as a whole.

In a literal sense, this expression can be explained as the motto “one for all and all for one.” It is interpreted by the authors from the most positive side. Indeed, friends do not understand difficult situations, but act first; for them, friendship is above all.

But the same concept of “mutual responsibility” underlies vendetta - a terrible relic of the past. could destroy the entire clan for the misconduct of one member of the tribe.

Fascist Nazis often used a similar method when entering occupied lands. As soon as they noticed any action of an unknown partisan or disobedience, the execution of every tenth or every third was announced. That is, punishment was distributed not to the guilty, but to those belonging to this society on a territorial basis.

Family members of communists were also executed, be it an infant or a frail old man. Later, according to the same principle, children of Soviet soldiers who escaped encirclement or escaped from concentration camps were subject to “distribution.”

On the one hand, bail is a strong weapon that implies friendship and loyalty. On the other hand, it is a strong psychological weapon for establishing wild rules “man is a wolf to man.”

Today, the expression “mutual responsibility” often has a negative connotation in our speech. They often use the method of hiding behind “society” to justify their wrongdoings. For example, after a fight between young people, a corpse is discovered. During trials, almost everyone explains their participation in the crime with the phrase: “Everyone went - and I went. Everyone fought - and I fought!”

For some reason, it seems to narrow-minded “warriors” that if a murder is committed by a crowd, then the responsibility will be shared by everyone. However, in reality it turns out that everything is not so: more stringent sanctions are applied to a crime committed by a group of people.

Mutual responsibility had its heyday in Soviet times in the bureaucracy. True, this institute had one-way lighting. Often it was not explained by the position of “one for all,” but only exclusively “all for one” or even “someone for one.”

The petitioner turned to a specific person for help, however, he did not refuse the specific person who applied, but he also did not give a final answer. The phrase: “I am incompetent in this matter, you need to turn to another person,” was the crowning phrase. And no one knew where that competent person was.

The ideal would be the second option, when an individual official would take responsibility for the shortcomings of the entire company and make every effort to resolve any pressing issue.

Today, many organizations also suffer from mutual responsibility. In particular, medical institutions are engaged in concealing the culprit when providing unqualified care to a patient. It is difficult to find a violator of the law when a bank is declared bankrupt, where the funds of a huge mass of people were invested. Communist contributions went safely abroad, and the culprits were never found. Unfinished apartments, for which contributions have already been paid, remain uninhabited. People who already have a warrant to move in are still looking for those who were supposed to bring the construction to completion.

The falsification of documents is influenced by such common factors as 1) a high level of decentralization of the company and control bodies 2) management setting unrealistic financial goals 3) lack of understanding by managers of the role of accounting and auditing in operational management 4) collusion and mutual responsibility among department employees.

At the first stage, the state did not have bodies that could collect taxes. Hence the desire of the state to find an intermediary between itself and the payer. It entrusts the entire collection of taxes to a natural or artificially formed union - a city or community - under mutual responsibility, and itself determines only the total amount that it requires from the union. The entire union is responsible for paying the required amount. There is an alliance between the payer and the state that shields the payer from the state. During this period, mutual responsibility is beneficial for both the government and such unions. The mutual guarantee union guarantees full payment of the required amount and uses this guarantee as a means of protection against administrative interference in its internal affairs, which was of great importance in the absence of legal guarantees. Not only direct, but also indirect taxes were ensured by mutual guarantee. The so-called salary in indirect taxes is developing. The government entrusts the collection of indirect taxes to self-governing unions, with responsibility assigned to persons chosen by the union itself to collect.

The second period is characterized by the creation of state institutions that take over some of the functions of the union. The state makes an attempt to get closer to the payer, but does not dare to come face to face with him. The amount (quota) is determined by the state, but it is distributed among individual payers not by it, but by unions, to each of which the state assigns an amount of taxes. Since the state has abandoned complete neutrality in the distribution of taxes within unions, mutual responsibility is removed from the union. He distributes according to the norm specified by the government, and that’s where his functions end. Each payer is responsible for paying the tax personally. Thus, the state is trying to get closer to the payer in order to better use the solvency of citizens.

These laws established certain rules for the distribution of fees by village assemblies and the exact procedure for their collection, as well as facilitated and simplified the procedure for providing benefits for the payment of both salaries and arrears. The use of mutual responsibility was first weakened and streamlined, and from 1903 it was completely abolished. Supervision over the collection of wage taxes from peasants was removed from the police and assigned to the tax inspectorate and zemstvo chiefs. Involving authorities of two different departments in the tax case was a weak point.

Their response was to form a mutual guarantee, mutual cronyism and place their children and relatives in advantageous positions. But still, they wanted to finally transform the right of disposal into the right of their undivided ownership of what still remained public property.

Finally, there is a fairly clear tendency towards mutual responsibility; the heads of departments or services within departments show a reaction of solidarity in the face of the central directorate, which forces them, for example, to hide the true costs of a particular department that is in a difficult situation.

Corporate mechanisms are associated with attachment to a team, group, organization; solidarity and responsibility are manifested, but mutual responsibility and group egoism can also appear.

Unprincipled characteristics are to a large extent responsible for the promotion of weak workers to leadership positions. By endowing a person with positive qualities that are not inherent to him, the managers who signed the characteristic grossly violate the principles of working with personnel, corrupt people, and create an environment of mutual responsibility. We receive convincing evidence of the inconsistency of such characteristics by studying, so to speak, after the fact, those of them that were issued on computer

With such an independent and voluntaristic approach by a leader to the formation of a management apparatus, a particularly dangerous situation can develop—and indeed often does—when a leader manages to select his entire entourage on the basis of personal loyalty. As a result, a team is created, bonded by mutual guarantee. The greatest potential for the occurrence of this kind of phenomenon also exists in the management apparatus of relatively small enterprises, associations, internal divisions of departments, and institutions.

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY (as applied to taxes) - in pre-revolutionary Russia, a way to ensure timely and complete collection of taxes by placing responsibility for their payment on the peasant community as a whole. Members of the community were responsible for each other with all their property; in the event of non-payment of taxes by individual payers, the amount of tax was distributed among the remaining members of the community. The action of the K. p., which existed in Rus' since ancient times, was legalized by certain state acts in the 19th century. it received its clearest expression in the law of November 28, 1833 on the procedure for collecting monetary fees from state peasants. In 1861, with the abolition of serfdom, serfdom was extended to the entire rural population, since tsarism was interested in preserving it as a means of enslaving the peasant poor, extorting taxes and collecting arrears. The progressive and revolutionary public in Russia (from N. G. Chernyshevsky to V. I. Lenin) exposed the reactionary essence of the Communist Party. It was abolished by legislative acts of 1903 and 1906. in connection with the preparation of the Stolypin agrarian reform.

It should be said that work collectives still differ in their level of social maturity. A healthy, mature team is not one where everyone supports each other on the principle of mutual responsibility, but where a lazy person will be forced to work conscientiously, a truant and a drunkard will be called to account, and the manager will be helped to correct mistakes if he makes them.

Mutual responsibility - 1) a method of ensuring significant income, a dominant position in a particular sphere of production, trade, used by a certain group 2) a method of ensuring tax revenues by imposing on a certain circle of persons the obligation to answer for each other with all their property (was common before the creation tax apparatus).

Why do subordinate managers prefer the moral and psychological effect, trying to defend management autonomy in solving today's production problems? Because their credo is to carry out the production plan, avoiding incidents and conflicts with subordinate employees, otherwise it will not be fulfilled. But their preferences turn out to be distorted if the plan is carried out as a result of forgiveness, leniency, familiarity, and mutual responsibility. To carry out the plan by any means means to devalue its moral and psychological effect and to deprive workers of a sense of pride in their work.

In those countries where communal land use was preserved, there was a periodic redistribution of arable land among peasant farmsteads, as was the case in Russia. Rent in kind was collected by landowners (in whose role the state also acted) as a whole, and by chokhs - from common lands and community farmsteads. The peasant assembly itself distributed such rent among farmsteads on the basis of mutual responsibility. The peasants not only ran their patriarchal farms, but also participated in communal production and self-taxation of taxes in kind in favor of the landowner and the state.

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY - in pre-revolutionary Russia, in relation to taxes, a way to ensure timely and complete collection of taxes or taxes by placing responsibility for their payment on the peasant community as a whole.

Let us especially note the last point. This provision is very important and corresponds to the main trends of modern Western audit. On the one hand, the purpose of the audit is to express the auditor’s opinion on the reliability of the reporting, and the audit organization enters into an agreement with the audited organization, according to which it is contracted to perform such work for a certain monetary remuneration. On the other hand, there are certain objective obstacles due to which the audit organization may not be able to fulfill its contractual obligations. Such circumstances primarily include the absence of any important accounting documentation, failure to provide auditors with the necessary explanations, and, in general, any cases of serious evasion of those being audited from constructive cooperation with the auditors. The typical vision of auditing by Western experts is that shareholders invest their money in a certain business, hire a manager who runs this business every day, and once a year auditors come and inform the shareholders that the hired manager’s reports on his work and its results are true. Or, on the contrary, auditors open the eyes of shareholders to the miscalculations, mistakes or abuses of the manager or chief accountant. However, sometimes the main shareholder and the manager of the enterprise are the same person or related persons (and in Russian small and medium-sized businesses this situation is generally typical), and the auditor sees that when trying to inform the shareholder about the manager’s abuses, he is faced with mutual responsibility or finds himself in a situation , when information about abuses is reported only to the person who is guilty of these abuses, and all this does not allow the situation to change for the better. Western practice recommends that the auditor in such a situation refuse the assignment, demanding payment for the actual labor costs incurred. More precisely, the following wording is used in the ISA: If persons responsible for committing fraud are suspected of

TREASON - violation of loyalty to a common cause, bonds of solidarity, camaraderie, love. The negative assessment of I. given to her by moral consciousness is due to the positive meaning attached to these ties. If these bonds lose their positive meaning or even acquire an anti-moral meaning, violation and abandonment of them is no longer I. On the contrary, loyalty in this case is immoral and is regarded as false partnership, mutual responsibility, nepotism, groupism, etc.

In 1885, Bunge entered the State Council with the idea of ​​the universal (except for Siberia) abolition from January 1, 1886 of the poll tax, which had been the cornerstone of the financial system of the Russian Empire since the time of Peter I. This measure was supposed to reduce the resources of the state treasury by 57 million rubles, part of which was supposed to be compensated by increasing the tax on alcohol (from 9 kopecks per degree), and part by increasing the quitrent tax from state peasants (which the government refused to increase in 1886 for 20 years). The State Council, however, decided to transfer the state peasants to a ransom, which was, in reality, nothing more than a disguised increase in the quitrent tax. The law of June 12, 1886 established compulsory redemption for state peasants. The abolition of the poll tax should have entailed the abolition of mutual responsibility. And in

Redemption payments were also subject to some reduction, which, although they were entered into a special department of registration, essentially differed from direct taxes only in their urgency. Under Witt, measures were taken to regulate the fate of arrears in redemption payments, which had accumulated in huge quantities after the bad harvests of 1891 and 1892, as well as to reduce their salaries. The law of February 7, 1894 ordered the local administration to understand the reasons for the origin of arrears in individual villages and establish for each village the share of arrears that could be repaid annually together with the salary; for the same cases when an increase in salary was considered impossible, it was allowed to defer payment arrears until the salary payment period expires. The assumptions of local authorities were subject to approval by the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Finance. The laws of May 13, 1896 and May 31, 1899 were intended to reduce the burden of redemption payments. This was achieved by providing, at the request of peasants, an installment plan for the outstanding balance of the redemption debt for new terms - 28, 41 and 56 years. Thus, a conversion of the redemption debt was carried out, which led to a reduction in the annual payment due to the lengthening of the redemption period. Due to the weak application of the laws of 1896 and 1899, the amount of benefits was increased. Laws of 1894,1896 and 1899 gave the local and central administration an enormous amount of work that lasted many years, but turned out to be useless. Research into the payment capacity and arrears of individual villages was carried out poorly; checking them in the central administration was impossible. The conversion of the redemption debt was not clear to most peasants. By 1900, the payment of arrears in installments was almost completed, but since arrears arose again, the work had to be constantly resumed. Of great importance was the Regulation of June 23, 1899 on the procedure for collecting wages from allotment lands, supplemented by the Law of February 12, 1903 on the abolition of mutual responsibility.

The situation of a person who has been subjected to ostracism is all the sadder because senior management does not always realize that there is mutual responsibility in this team. Not always and not immediately behind the apparent well-being is the truth that people are united not by lofty goals, but by collective egoism, single-mindedness, the author of which is the leader. In such a team there is usually no visible movement forward, but they are vigilantly watching so that no one decides to wash dirty linen in public. Is it necessary to explain how dangerous such phenomena are?

Needless to say, how intolerant it is to hold positions on the basis of personal loyalty, kinship and fraternity. On this basis, the role of criticism and self-criticism is downplayed, nepotism and nepotism flourish, an atmosphere of undemandingness, mutual responsibility, servility and irresponsibility is created, which inevitably leads to various abuses. People who occupy leadership positions, without special education and professional knowledge, are, understandably, unable to exercise effective management and for this reason alone tend to surround themselves with narrow-minded and uninitiative workers. Some of them, tightly clinging to someone's coattails, sometimes reach high positions, and the very fact of being in such a position undermines people's faith in justice. Isn’t it clear that these people cannot serve as an example for their subordinates, or establish discipline and order, if they themselves are the personification of irresponsibility?

At the same time, it is beneficial for entrepreneurs to exploit all forms of mutual support and joint activities of employees. Even surrogates of collectivity, illusory collectivity, are put in the service of capital. Particularly great attention is paid to the exploitation of imaginary collectivity in developed capitalist countries in modern conditions. In the USA, Japan and some other imperialist states, the ideas of paternalism, the theory and policy of human relations in production, which the ideologists of capitalism are trying to declare truly collectivist, have become quite widespread. In Japan, for example, lifelong employment is quite widely practiced, a sophisticated system of mutual responsibility for the results of production is used, transferred from pre-capitalist eras and providing the strictest supervision over the behavior of everyone on the part of everyone. The system of mutual responsibility and general strict control over the behavior and actions of hired workers, which brings dividends to entrepreneurs, of course, has nothing to do with collectivity. According to bourgeois economists, the use of various forms of collectivity (following the example of Japan) can play the role of a factor accelerating the development of a capitalist economy. William Ouchi, a well-known specialist in the field of Japanese management in the West, professor at the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles (USA), strongly recommends the widespread introduction of a new philosophy, i.e., a conceptual framework of management, which boils down to the use of organizational structures that ensure collective management in factories and trade organizations. At the same time, he does not hide the fact that collective efforts are necessary to increase profits, which serves as the only

Class contradictions in pre-capitalist formations took shape in the depths of the clan organization, made their way, destroying various forms of primitive and semi-primitive community of people. The development of the social division of labor was the objective prerequisite that contributed to the formation of new forms of socio-economic community of people. The community organization becomes not only a bearer of the traditions of collectivism and mutual assistance, but also an instrument of relations of exploitation, turning into a fiscal cell bound by mutual responsibility, manifesting itself in the exclusivity of castes, inequality of classes, and antagonism of classes.

In Russia P.n. was introduced by Peter I instead of the household tax in 1724. This tax was imposed in the same amount on the entire male population, regardless of age. From the end of the 18th century. P.n. becomes the main income of the state (up to 50% of all income). Gradually, as the wealthy segments of the population were excluded from taxation, P.n. turned into a purely peasant tax. The collection of the tax was carried out by the peasant community, the full receipt of the tax was guaranteed by mutual guarantee, when the amounts not paid by someone were distributed to the rest of the peasant households. Strict sanctions were applied to defaulters, including confiscation of property for debts. This policy led to the ruin of the peasantry. By decree of Catherine II in 1783, the calculation and collection of the poll tax were changed. Based on these audits and the established salary, the total amount of tax was determined, which was then broken down by province, district and volost. The final distribution of taxes among individual payers was carried out by the rural communities themselves, and the principle of universality lost its decisive importance and was replaced by property.

Legally, allotment lands became the property of peasants only after their redemption. Instead of kun-chih, special data were issued for the allotment land acquired by the peasants, and the land itself was pledged to ensure the correct payment of redemption payments. And although peasants were called land owners, general citizenship did not apply to allotment lands. legislation. They were viewed as a special cross, property. For 9 years these lands could not be alienated. After this period, until the redemption loan was repaid, in order to alienate the allotment lands it was necessary to obtain permission from the provincial presence, and the proceeds were used primarily to pay off the debt on the redemption loan. Subsequently, the pledge and donation of plots to persons not belonging to the community was also prohibited, and other restrictions were established on the disposal of peasants with their plots. In addition, according to the Regulations of 1861, land was assigned to villages. societies, not peasants. The community was responsible for each householder's responsibility. She had the right to distribute land per soul, for each land. the allotment corresponded to onredel. share of duties, which could not be refused, since since 1893 leaving the community without the consent of society was prohibited. Thus, II. h. preserved semi-fasting. relationship.