Untitled - OUDL Home

members of the commune regulated in common the useof meadows, pasture, fisheries, woods, etc., and thedisposal of any communal land not already utilized andthe acquisition of new land or working rights.One school of historians took the view that the agriculturalcommune with periodical redistribution of landhad been in various forms a continuous feature throughoutRussian history, in sharp distinction from Europeandevelopment, and that the commune was a spontaneous,popular co-operative association which owed nothing, ornothing essential, to state action or influences from above.Another school of historians took the opposite view thatthe commune as known in the nineteenth century wasthe outcome of financial and administrative measurestaken by the state since the late sixteenth century,combined with the effects of the rule of the serf-owners.Subsequent research during the last sixty years has shedmuch light on the problem of the commune, though itshistory before about 1550 still remains very obscure. Itis now clear that the first view is untenable, and thatthe second requires much modification. In particular,the necessity has been shown of distinguishing betweendifferent types of communes which developed in differentways and at different periods in the very diverse naturaland social conditions of different regions of Russia.Further, the importance has been shown of distinguishingbetween (i) the commune as an agricultural-forestcommunity of working family units, combining in agreat variety of labour and economic partnerships orassociations, varying much in size and composition,developing diverse forms of land ownership and utilizationof land and other means of subsistence, and (ii) thecommune as an administrative and fiscal organization,of still more varying size, in dependence on state powerand state needs.It is clear that the agricultural commune was notthe mere product of administrative action, though boththe state and the serf-owners greatly influenced its developmentat least from the sixteenth century. Despitethe comparative scantiness and the obscurity of theevidence before then, it seems certain that both in Kiev156