The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Goods and the prices in the Soviet Russia in 19171921 (on materials of Central Volga area)



d. M. Zavzhalov, K.I. Konovalov, M.D. Pepeskul, M.N. Hlopin.

V.M. Baydala-kov was elected the chairman of a congress. He read the first paper in which he emphasized: "The union turned into the movement". At this moment of group of the Union existed in fifteen countries of the Abroad - in Europe, in the Far East, in Australia.

Adoption of the new charter which had obviously expressed authoritative character and which was bringing together the organization with popular at that time fascist, and national socialist movements became one of the most important moments of work of a congress. In this regard M.A. Georgiyevsky wrote: "The discipline and authoritativeness became the slogan of the modern political organizations. The organizations which proved the firmness (fascists, national socialists) are constructed on the principle of the consecutive, from top to bottom carried-out submission. They were under construction for fight against militant communism. Its successful implementation, justified the principle, created final authority and popularity of these of the fighting, in essence, organizations".

Within the 1920th years the new generation of Russians abroad grew. Views of these young people strongly differed from views of their parents. Born at the turn of the century, they in the childhood or youth learned horrors of revolution and civil war. some cadets and grammar-school boys were at war in white armies and saw enough such things from which even those who were more senior went crazy and are more skilled.

hating the Bolshevism, these young emigrants, nevertheless, were deprived of nostalgic attachment peculiar to the senior generation to pre-revolutionary life forms. They respected the monarchy, but did not wish to deal with monarchists, including their the relics which had the time. They admired

some aspects of socialist exercises, but despised socialist emigrants, believing that those wallowed in theoretical disputes. They were eager for action. They looked around in search of something dynamic, some real counteraction to the Bolshevism [4] around.

Thus, on formation of political culture of the younger generation of the Russian emigration in 1920-1930goda, the civil war in Russia and participation in white fight against the Bolshevism had significant effect. The national, white idea around which there is an association of beloemigrantsky youth in the National Union of the Russian Youth transformed in 1931 to NSNP became the driving idea for youth in emigration. Irreconcilability to the Bolshevism, the aktivivizm, a nadpar-tiynost, a nepredreshenchestvo became the ideological platform of the new organization.

list of references

1. A.B. Arsenyev. At a bend of Danube: essays of life and activity of Russians in a new Garden / under edition

V.B. Kudryavtseva. M.: Russian way, 1999. Page 142.

2. V.M. Baydalakov. Yes Russia will become famous. Yes our names perish... Memoirs of the chairman of NTS of 19301960 M., 2002. Page 10.
3. Warsaw V.S. Unnoticed generation. New York.: Publishing house of Chekhov, 1956. Page 24, 2526, 98.
4. Stefan D. Russian fascists: the tragedy and the farce in emigration. 1925-1945. M.: "Word", 1992. Page 50.
5. Ya. Trushnovich. Preparation, the first steps and the first losses//"Crops" of 1990. No. 4. Page 115-116, 117.
6. Emigration and repatriation in Russia. V.A. Iontsev,

N. M. Lebedeva, M.V. Nazarov, A.V. Okorokov. M.: Guardianship about needs of the Russian repatriates, 2001.

C. 415, 416.

UDC 947.084.3

goods and the prices in the Soviet Russia in 1917-1921

(on materials of Central Volga area)

A.V. TISHKINA

Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky department of national history

Goods and the prices in the Soviet Russia during civil war were closely connected with food policy of Bolsheviks. Its basis was formed by grain monopoly of the state (ban of private trade, establishment of fixed prices of products, etc.). This measure caused disagreements both in the center, and on places. In article carrying out grain monopoly on average the Volga region is described, comparisons of fixed and market prices of products are given. Besides, the attention to significant increase in the prices in comparison with the pre-revolutionary period, their ratio with the salary of some categories of citizens is paid. In the conditions of deficiency of industrial output in the village the principle of commodity exchange of the industry and agriculture had to be continuation of grain monopoly. Failures and shortcomings of its realization are shown in article carrying out this principle in the Penza, Samara and Simbirsk provinces. The conclusion is drawn that fixed prices and goods stimulated peasants to delivery of bread to the state a little. Thus, materials of article represent position of the population and the policy of the authorities in the conditions of a lack of goods and significant increase in the prices, allow to compare them to modern economic problems of the Russian Federation.

Now security problems on- mo to address historical analogies. In chastnos-

settlements goods of domestic production, growth ti, to experience of a transition period of civil war,

the prices are relevant. In this regard neobkhodi- when growth of market prices of products and goods put

the population of the country in distress. Of course, the Soviet power tried to pursue the policy in the conditions of wartime and the state monopolies, but the free market existed up to the beginning of the new economic policy (though with illegal status). In total during civil war about a half of products to the cities was delivered by free dealers-meshochnikami [1]. That is, experience of the first years of the Soviet power can be considered in development of modern Russia in the conditions of market economy of a transition period.

Fundamentals of the Soviet economic policy of military communism was comprehensive nationalization. For example, in the industry it was expressed in nationalization, in trade - monopolization. In the solution of the most painful, food, a question the principles of commodity exchange and grain monopoly were used.

In January, 1918 the Third All-Russian congress Sovetov confirmed need of the state monopoly for domestic and foreign trade in bread entered by Provisional government in March

1917 . It meant prohibition of private trade, obligatory delivery of grain surplus to the state at fixed prices, concentration of all grain resources in hands of the state, distribution of bread, food and consumer goods only through the state organizations [2].

Further the grain monopoly of the state was confirmed by the decree of VTsIK and SNK of February 9, 1918 "About socialization of the earth", the May decrees of 1918 entering food dictatorship and also the decree of VTsIK and SNK of June 11

1918 years "About the organization and supply of the rural poor" [3].

The idea of the state grain monopoly was not new. It was implemented at the time of the Great French revolution when surplus needed to be sold at low prices to municipalities or in the special public markets; violators were threatened by prison or the death penalty. In Germany in 1915 the law on grain monopoly was adopted, from now on trade in bread was allowed only at the established prices, with the state permission [4]. In both cases the deficiency of the main food threatening with mass hunger became the reason of this measure.

The Soviet power could bring more or less firm soil under grain monopoly only by means of rigid centralization of food bodies, fixed state control of food activity and also by means of the armed force, prodotryad and poor committees. However the soil was only "more or less" firm as speculation in bread, a meshochnichestvo remained up to introduction the New Economic Policy, and in huge scales. Undoubtedly, prosperous layers of the city and village could provide themselves with food and at distribution of free trade in bread at the high speculative prices. However Soviet power

was guided first of all by workers and the poorest peasantry whom first of all and struck the free prices.

There were also subjective reasons of introduction of grain monopoly: the aspiration of representatives of the new power to immediately destroy all elements of market economy and to begin socialist transformations, including cancellation of trade and money and introduction of a natural produktoobmen.

In provinces of Central Volga area the introduction of grain monopoly was met hostilely. The Lower Lomov and Chembar's district Councils cancelled grain monopoly in February-March, 1918, and Penza and Mokshana - were demanded by the terminations of requisitions. Despite the bans of the National commissariat on food the district and volost Councils of the Penza province gave a set of permissions to independent purchase and transportation of bread, therefore, the meshochnichestvo prospered. There were cases of an ottsepka of the railway cargoes going to other provinces. In Saransk and Narovchat because of permission of sale of bread in the free market of the price of it considerably grew [5].

In the Samara province the grain monopoly was also apprehended ambiguously. At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies the decree on a food question which was contrary to opinion of Bolsheviks was adopted on February 20, 1918. Next day the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies adopted the resolution on cancellation of fixed prices of bread and permission of free import of bread to Samara at centralization of purchases in a prodkoma. In the Simbirsk province the facts of permission of free trade also met.

A special plot - activity of Committee of members of the Constituent assembly (Komuch) which cancelled grain monopoly. Here is how the situation with the prices in the Simbirsk newspaper "Vozrozhdeniye" in a note under the name "The Dancing Prices" is described: "Something silly is created in the market where each small trader dictates to the buyer the price, absolutely any, appointed, as they say, approximately. and look how the prices of such product as cucumbers dance. In the morning the day before yesterday cucumbers were on 50 kopeks for ten, hour later - 1 rub, 2 hours later - 1 rub 30 kopeks of-1 rub 50 kopeks and during a lunch time reached 2 rub for ten" [6].

Opponents of fight against the free market were also among the Soviet prodovolstvennik though their voice in process of strengthening of the Soviet power sounded more and more quietly. For example, the researcher of food policy famous for the book "Food Work of the Soviet Power", N.A. Orlov, considered that it is impossible to smother the free market, and it is necessary to establish control over business owners through norm of capitalist profit [7].

An integral part of grain monopoly is commodity exchange between the industry and agriculture. Its essence consists in the following: the peasant sells the commodity surplus to the state at fixed prices; in turn, and go-

the sudarstvo has to sell to peasants necessary manufactured goods. In principle, conditions for implementation of barter were: the products of the large-scale and average industry were the property of the state, and products of agriculture - the property of millions of small producers of the village. But whether the state had enough manufactured goods and whether peasants instead of favorable sale of bread in the market will want to sell it to the state at fixed prices? In it the main problem of barter also consisted.

Still the Provisional government tried to use this idea. Transition to the Soviet barter in the state scale was carried out gradually.

On March 25, 1918 the Council of People's Commissars adopted "The resolution on allocation of 1162 million rubles to the National commissariat of food for barter with the village", and on March 26 - "The decree about barter for strengthening of grain preparations" [8]. From now on transition to organized state barter was carried out. Narkomprod acquired the exclusive right of purchases of a certain part of goods for exchange with the village: fabrics, threads, haberdashery, skin, footwear, matches, soap, candles, kerosene, lubricating oil, farm vehicles and tools, wire, iron, nails, rope products, glass, ware, tobacco, salt, sugar and others.

Final transition to the system of distribution in the state scale was carried out in May, 1918, from the beginning of policy of food dictatorship. All commodity fund of the country and also the right of creation of the general plan of its distribution, pricing was transferred to Narkomprod's order. For these purposes at Komproda the Council of supply from representatives of commissariats was established: food, trade and industry, means of communication, agriculture and also VSNKh, Naval department, regional and capital committees of food, central union of consumer societies. On places, prodorgana with the participation of cooperation on the basis of the decree about the consumer cooperative organizations of April 11 were engaged in distribution

1918 years. The Chastnotorgovy device could be allowed only under control regional and provincial about-dorganov according to general provisions on private trade [9].

What results of spring barter? Let's address figures. In 1918 42000 cars with manufactured goods were sent to the village, and it is received in exchange - about 36000 cars of food and fodder, including a hlebofurazh - 30448 cars, meat and fat-1271 cars, vegetable oil and cow - 2022 cars, eggs - 220 cars, potatoes and vegetables - 1870 cars [10]. The amount of the received bread was estimated several times less, than quantity of the goods sent to the village. Thus, barter in the state scale remained unrealized, and the spring campaign of 1918 ended with failure.

We will address materials of Central Volga area and we will try to establish the reasons of this failure. In one of

reports at a meeting of the Penza gubprodkom it was said that peasants do not want to change bread for a manufactory at its limited delivery. For the population of the city of Penza the appeal in which it was said that it will not receive a manufactory as it is more necessary for exchange for bread with the peasantry was issued

[11]. In March, 1918 the Penza province received 35% of a dress on a manufactory, for the remained 65% Gubprodkollegiya had no money.

The main part of products went to grain areas: to Siberia, to the Urals, the North Caucasus, in the Volga region. However the fact of military operations in the territory of the Samara and Simbirsk provinces influenced reduction of supply with their goods.

In general it is possible to note that the government was not ready to such large economic operation: the industry did not carry out the decision of the government on a broadcast of goods Narkomproda; food bodies at distribution of goods were not guided by the established principles; the contact with cooperation was not come, it was often perceived as hostile body in relation to the Soviet state. Played a role and negative attitude of the peasantry to the basic principle of the Soviet food policy - grain monopoly of the state. It preferred to sell bread to meshochnik, than to carry it for several versts, to receive for it test receipts (handing over to the state at fixed prices), to go with them to cooperative warehouses and only there to take away goods, and in the minimum quantities.

On August 5, 1918 the Council of People's Commissars approved the resolution "About Obligatory Barter in Grain Rural Areas". In 12 grain-producting provinces all not agricultural products had to be released only in exchange for bread and agricultural raw materials. For complete control of the state over barter of the city and village it was necessary to resolve an issue with trade, first of all private. On November 21, 1918 SNK adopted the decree "About the organization of supply" (the population all products of personal consumption and a household)

[12]. According to this decree, preparation and distribution of products for private use and a household were assigned on Narkomprod. Private trade wholesale warehouses, trading companies, private retail trade were subject to nationalization. From now on not only food surplus of the village, but also the consumer goods developed by the industry were transmitted to Narkomprod's order. The commissariat also acquired the right to make requisitions and confiscations of wholesale trade warehouses. The state and cooperative system of supply representing network of the state and cooperative wholesale warehouses and retail Soviet and cooperative benches was formed.

In the Penza province after a release of the decree about obligatory barter the distribution of goods for money without amount of the handed-over bread was stopped. On August 15, 1918 prohibition followed

deliveries to country people of products, on August 30 - the order of a gubprodkollegiya about obligation of barter, first of all on oil, potatoes, hay, linen, hemp. However the main difficulty - the shortage of industrial output - remained, as well as cases of plunder of the available goods [13].

In general decrees about obligatory barter and about nationalization of trade improved situation in the province as solved a problem of shortage of money at local food bodies for the account poluche-

However goods still not always reached the destination, that is the "grain" peasantry. There are some examples. From the Saransk Uprodkom's audit it is visible to the Penza province that more than a half of goods arrived not to destination, and mainly to members of food bodies that caused "deaf grumble and discontent with the Soviet power" [16]. In the village of Shelaleyke of the Chembarsky County in March, 1919 the manufactory for barter was received. The communistic cell discharged cooperation of distribution, having decided to give it first of all to the members.

A significant amount of goods was lost at the expense of their negligent transportation on warehouses, shops, ssypny points, mills. In general the general disorganization in delivery of a manufactory is noted. In the report of control and distribution department of a gubprodkom for November, 1919 it is said that barter is still not adjusted, there are no data on where the goods are already distributed; citizens store at themselves receipts on receiving goods instead of handing over them in local cooperatives [17].

In the Samara province of goods was also not enough. For example, in November, 1919 to the population of Samara intended: manufactories - 420 thousand arshins, threads - 30.680 pieces of hanks, glass - 28.080 pieces, soda-52 pood., blues - the 145th pood., leather footwear - 6.100 couples, tarpaulin footwear - 6 thousand couples, valyany footwear of-700 couples, felt cloaks - 500 couples, rubber galoshes - 7.100 couples [18]. If to consider that the population of Samara consisted of 175.918 people (in 1920), then it turns out that to one citizen about 2.3 arshins of a manufactory (about 2 m), about 0.2 pieces of a hank of threads, near arrived

0.11 pairs of shoes (leather, tarpaulin, valyany and another). Besides, not all goods reached the consumer, so, these figures could be even less. At the same time and such small quantity arrived sometimes with big delay [19].

a niya them goods on credit and also due to requisition of the goods which "got lost" in the province [14]. Goods began to come to the province more rapidly, connection with the Purchasing Bureau organized in Moscow was established; played a role and that fact that the province took out 2 million poods of bread (to spring of 1919).

From table 1 it is visible that the bulk of a manufactory arrived to "grain" country people though at the rate on one villager it it was the share even less, than of one citizen.

One of the reasons of economic disinterest of the peasantry in delivery of bread to the state, at least and in exchange for goods, were low fixed prices of agricultural products.

Their discrepancy with the prices of manufactured goods was a trouble of the Soviet fixed prices also. The increase in fixed prices which is repeatedly made by the Soviet power was so insignificant a little in relation to the free prices that practically did not influence the peasantry relation; it still preferred to sell bread to meshochnik. On the other hand, the significant increase in fixed prices practicing Provisional government had negative consequences, first of all, inflation. Therefore the Soviet fixed prices were revised carefully.

The Soviet power tried to interest in increase or decrease in the fixed procuring prices the peasantry in the fastest delivery of bread. It was supposed that the later the peasant will repay "debt" to the state, the less he will receive money: if between February 1 and on April 10, 1919 - is 35% less than fixed prices, between April 10 and on June 16, 1919 - for 40%, after June 15 - for 50%.

It is necessary to notice that all these changes of fixed prices could hardly affect sharply the peasantry relation as in comparison with market prices they gave the products to the state practically though it is possible to see from tables 2 and 3.

Thus, from data of the table it is visible that market prices many times over exceeded the procuring prices established by the state. However it is necessary to emphasize that at the expense of this difference of the prices not producers of the main products, i.e. peasants were enriched at all; the main profit was got by intermediaries-meshochniki, reselling bread about 10 times more expensive which was purchased from the peasantry. And than further from areas of preparation they transported produk-

table 1

supply of the population of the Penza province with a manufactory [15]

number of the population, people, 1920 quantity of a manufactory, September, 1919

only an arshin arshin on 1 person

Penza 80000 403124 5

urban population 1.52.303 722.932 4.7

country people 1.600.000 7.238.940 4.5

table 2

A ratio of market and fixed prices in the Samara province [20] (rubles for pood)

Bread Rye Wheat Potatoes

Fixed prices Market prices Fixed prices Rural market City market Fixed prices Rural market City market Fixed prices Rural market City market

December, 1915 March, 1918 March, 1918 January, 1919

1, 19 1, 20 1, 19 1, 20 500-800 8 30-60 900-1300 6, 5 10 600-1000

Table 3

A ratio of market and fixed prices in the Penza province [21] (rubles. for pood)

Years A rye Millet Potatoes Egg (rub for des.)

fixed prices market prices 1 2 1 2 1 2

1913 1, 03 1.22-1.25 20-23 kopeks 17-25 kopeks
1919 23, 5 75 37, 8 110 7 20 17 20-70

you, the more profits were got. For example, if in Penza 1 pood of rye flour (at the beginning of 1919) cost 75 rubles, then in Ryazan - 300 rubles, N. Novgorode-400, Kostroma - 450 rubles; if in Penza 1 pound of meat cost 6, 5 rubles, then in Kostroma and Nizhny Novgorod-15-17, and in Moscow - 23-29 rubles [22].

Average monthly salary of the working commerce and industry enterprise of Samara for the period

from December 15, 1918 to January 15, 1919 made 548 rubles, the worker-food industry worker in January, 1919 - 394 rubles. The prices of many manufactured goods are not correlated to such salary at all: for example, the men's suit cost several tens of thousands of rubles [23]. More bright examples are presented in table 4.

Table 4

the Ratio of the salary of the Soviet prodovolstvennik and market prices in the Penza province in the winter of 1919 [24]

The salary (in rubles) till February, 1919 Since February, 1919 Market prices of products

Prodkomissar Penz. the county 800 1544 75 rye flour rub for pood

Member of an uprodkom 752 1472 110 millet

Head of department 708 1208 20 potatoes

Assistant to the Head of Department 664 1032 160 goose

The typist 488 736 12-16 raises. oil rub for pound

Registrar 444 712 6, 5 meat

the clerk 576 880 20 cabbage rub for piece

Thus, to support family of several people, buying products in the market, it was almost impossible for the ordinary employee or the worker. This fact specifies, in our opinion, advantage of grain monopoly and fixed prices as basic principle of collecting and distribution of products among population bulk. First of all, workers of the large cities, Red Army men and also dependent population needed it (children, old men, disabled people and other).

Thus, the basic principle of the Soviet food policy - grain monopoly of the state - was carried out at the expense of noneconomic methods of impact on the peasantry, and was necessary, first of all, to the cities and army. Commodity exchange of the village and city was necessary, but after all not -

a sufficient incentive for receiving country bread.

Conclusions which are relevant for the modern Russian economy: 1) it is necessary to develop domestic production, including agricultural products; 2) to strengthen state regulation in the Russian economy.

Argument of these conclusions:

1) Following the results of the All-Russian agricultural census of 2006, 30% of large and 38% of the small agriculture organizations do not carry out the activity. A share of not used farmlands - to] & in the large and average organizations, almost S - in small, 1/3 - in subsidiary farms, every fifth hectare - at farmers. More S are not engaged in cultivation of cattle, that is preob-

patches crop production [25]. Thus, the prices for domestic goods can fall in connection with increase in their production.

2) More profits on increase in prices are got not by producers, but dealers (in the period of "military communism" - meshochnik). Therefore the state has to interfere with pricing process. In principle, at the moment it is carried out in the form of activization of antimonopoly services, establishment of "price ceiling" on a number of products of prime necessity.

So, the transitional market economy of the modern Russian Federation needs expansion of public sector that confirms historical experience of 19171921

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Civil war and military intervention in the USSR. M.: Soviet encyclopedia, 1987. Page 115.
2. Decrees of the Soviet power. M.: Politizdat, 1957. T.1. Page 350-351.
3. In the same place. M, 1959. T.2. Page 264-266, 307-312, 348-354.
4. A.Yu. Davydov. Illegal supply of the Russian population and power. 1917-1921: Meshochniki. SPb.: Science, 2002. Page 14-15.
5. P. Sumerin. Poor committees in the Penza province. Penz: Prince publishing house, 1960. Page 11; State Archive of the Penza Region (SAPR). F.R-9. Op.1. 6. NN. 25, 59.
6. Revival. 1918. July 31.
7. Genisv. L., OrlovN. And. "... NehochubytMolchalin!"//history Questions. 2001. No. 2. Page 87.
8. Decrees of the Soviet power. M.: Politizdat, 1959. Other Page 22-24.
9. In the same place. Page 91-92, 307.
10. N. Orlov. Food work of the Soviet power. M.: Narkomproda edition, 1918. Page 350.
11. GAPO. F.R-9. Op.1. 6. L.6.
12. Decrees of the Soviet power. M.: Politizdat, 1968. T.^. Page 41-46.
13. GAPO. F.R. 9. Op.1. 44. NN. 56-57; Red banner. 1920. On February 19, on February 26.
14. Narkomprod's news. 1919. No. 7-10. April-May. Page 61.
15. The table is made on the basis of data: The collection of statistical data on the Penza province. 19201926. Penz, 1927. Page 18-19; GAPO. F.R. 9. Op.1. 104. L.43.
16. GAPO. F.R. 9. Op.1. 119. L.44.
17. The Department of Funds of the Social and Political Organizations (DFSPO) there is GAPO. F.36. Op.1. 112. L.45; GAPO. F.R. 9. Op.1. 119. L.39; 132. L.14.
18. Commune. 1919. No. 310. December 23.
19. Narkomprod's news. 1919. September-October. No. No. 17-20. Page 30.
20. The table is made on the basis of data: E.I. Medvedev. From the history of fight for bread in the Samara province in
1918 //Scientific notes the Kuibyshev state. ped. Inta. Issue 20. Ch.3. Kuibyshev, 1958. Page 25; State Archive of the Samara Region (SASR). F.r-76. Op.1. 306. L.531; Narkomprod's News. No. 1-2, January, 1919. Page 34.
21. The table is made on the basis of data: GAPO. F.R. 9. Op.1. 48. L.30; 188. L.116. Narkomprod's news. No. 1-2, January, 1919 of Page 34; No. 7-10, April-May
1919 of Page 32.
22. Narkomprod's news. No. 7-10. April-May, 1919.

S. 32.

23. N.A. Sharoshkin. Financial position and life of workers of the Volga region in the first years of the Soviet power (1917-1920)//the Volga region region: Interhigher education institution. scientific collection / Saratov un-t. Issue 10. Saratov: publishing house Saratov un-that, 1988. Page 79.
24. The table is made on the basis of data: GAPO. F. R-136. 43. NN. 78-78ob.; Narkomprod's News. 1919, April-May. No. 7-10. Page 32.
25. V. Leonov. Secret granaries of the Homeland//Arguments of week. No. 10 (44). On March 6, 2007

PODATNY POLICY for the PEASANTRY DURING the POST-REFORM PERIOD (SUBEAR MODEL of TAXATION)

A.E. Ulyanov

Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky

department of history and right

Article is devoted to the policy pursued by the state concerning the peasantry of Russia during the post-reform period. The main attention is paid to the general questions of this policy and also some of its features in relation to Central Volga area. In article various taxes existing at the appointed time, dynamics of their change, projects of tax reforms, etc. are considered

Cancellation in 1861 became more important than the serfdom- With an abolition of serfdom before the governor -

PWM by the event which defined development of Russia in a stvo rose a problem of revision class (podush-

the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century, modernization of the country country, its transition from agar to agrarian-industrial and industrial stages. It is obvious that the solution of a country question was closely connected with podatny reform: the country people made the main contingent of taxpayers of the country.

ache) the model of taxation based on possession of property both a personal labor and corresponding to an agrarian stage of development of society. During this period in the countries of Europe and in the USA, exercises about irrationality of a subear tax and indirect taxes on necessities dominated. Progressive taxation, i.e. vzima-was in exchange offered

Wauters Robert
Other scientific works: