Mutual responsibility in ancient Rus'. The meaning of "mutual responsibility. Corporate mutual responsibility
Material from ENE
Mutual responsibility- in the civil law sense correlative obligations (see) in its Roman form, the only remnant of this form, it seems, in modern law. Obliging each for all and all for one, the participants in K. bail are bound in all the consequences of the debt. Acts of liberation, which do not matter as to the means of material satisfaction of the creditor, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, act here and for all: the purpose of the mutual guarantee is precisely to place before the creditor, instead of individual persons, a whole community like this. Therefore, the participants in a bond may not be members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit. The liability of members of other unions (partnerships) is always joint liability in the modern sense of this legal concept (see Correal obligation). The approximation of K. bail with a simple guarantee (Gordon) and the application to it of the rules on the gradual collection ( beneficium excussionis): the purpose of K. bail, as well as any solidary obligation, is to guarantee timely and immediate fulfillment of the obligation. Therefore, it is closest to a guarantee for a period, and the latter, in essence, does not differ from a solidary obligation in modern Russian law (cassation decision 69/1186). Therefore, the attempt to establish a distinction between mutual responsibility and joint and several obligations in general, in the form of correlativity or pure solidarity, is also incorrect.
See Gordon, "St. 1548 v. X. part I and the question of K. guarantee and solidarity in obligations ”(“ Journal of the Ministry of Justice ”, vol. 35, 1868).
Mutual responsibility in Russia
On the initial steps public life legal subjects are not individuals, but genera. The genus is responsible for the actions of a person, and if the responsibility is transferred to the individual, it is only because the latter is considered as a representative of the genus. Mutual responsibility formula: all for one and one for all - leads, thus, its origin from the times of tribal life. Although the transformation of a tribal union into a communal-territorial union, and then into a state one, is associated with the gradual separation of the individual as a legal entity, nevertheless, the institution of k. , constituting society, partly due to state considerations about the convenience of imposing the execution of certain tasks on the responsibility of territorial unions. The first indications of the existence of K. bail in Russia are found in Russkaya Pravda (some scholars see a hint of the existence of this institution in Oleg's agreement with the Greeks). K. bail, within a certain territorial unit (vervi), was applied to the payment of a penalty (vira, sale) for a crime committed in the district, when the offender remained unknown or when the murder was committed not for the purpose of robbery, but in a quarrel, out of revenge, etc. n. In the XV - XVI centuries. The establishment of K. bail found application in the organization of the province districts, the inhabitants of which were entrusted with the duty of preventing and eradicating crimes, with liability, monetary and criminal, for the improper fulfillment of this duty. The beginning of K. bail was used in the Muscovite state and in some other cases. So, shortfalls in customs and tavern revenues were sometimes collected from townspeople and district people who chose the perpetrators of the shortfall as kissers; losses caused to the treasury by the contractor were sometimes recovered from the settlement to which he belonged; recruiting detachments of archers from free people, the government made them responsible for K. bail for the proper performance of each of his duties and for material damage to the treasury in the event of flight from service, etc. Over time, the scope of government application of the institution of K. bail is reduced, and in the end it remains only in the region of the fisk. Inhabitants of this territorial unit from time immemorial were obliged to pay a certain amount of taxes. In the interests of the treasury and the payers themselves, the layout of the collection between households was provided to the population. In the same forms, the collection of taxes was entrusted to persons chosen by the payers. From this, some scientists conclude that in Moscow. state on the society of payers was responsible for the tax-free receipt of taxes. Undoubtedly, in any case, that the responsibility to the government for the arrears in Moscow and the emperor. Rus' was carried by tax collectors, governors and other persons in charge of peasants of this category. Under fear of this liability (property and personal), the named persons could, when collecting arrears, apply, to a greater or lesser extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in the case when K. bail was not sanctioned by law. The government of the 18th century, developing more and more bureaucratic orders and refusing to use the principle of guarantees in various branches of state affairs, apparently lost any concept of tax liability of taxpayers, as one of the principles of organizing taxation in former times. . This is seen from the fact that, being finally forced by life itself to turn to guarantees as a means of ensuring the regular receipt of taxes, the government did not immediately introduce it, applied it at first as an extreme measure and gave this application various motivations. So, by decree of January 15, the arrears in the collection of taxes from the merchants and state peasants these estates were ordered to be divided among themselves “according to the rank of their trades and belongings and the ownership of land”, and the collection of arrears lying on the peasants of the palace, factory, monastery, etc., should be directed to the peasants themselves only if it cannot be replenished from the property patrimonial administrators, clerks, etc. With the establishment, in the city, of the department of appanages and the formation of the category of appanage peasants, it was adopted as a rule that in the event of accumulation of arrears due to laziness and negligence of the villagers, the perpetrators are brought to justice, and the arrears are recovered from society , as a punishment for the fact that "seeing his partner in laziness and negligence who fell into labor and the correction of his duty, he did not try to turn him." The obligation of society to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes, as general rule , established by the manifesto on May 16, supplemented by the decree of the city; but at the same time, no specific penalties were indicated to be applied to the whole village. With a new division in the city of settlements of the treasury. peasants to societies, the obligation of the latter to be responsible for the regular payment of taxes was also confirmed, with the addition that if the arrears of the society increase to the annual salary, then the responsibility is transferred to the entire volost. By this addition, the government clearly showed that it does not consider K. to be bound by the land relations of members of the society. Although with the establishment of the Ministry of State Property, the responsibility of the volost for the arrears of rural communities was abolished, nevertheless, K. bail was not brought in connection with land ownership. Only in the city of K. was the responsibility for collecting state taxes, with communal ownership of land, limited to the boundaries of a land unit. In the current legislation of Kazakhstan, the responsibility of peasants is determined by Art. 187 common pos. about cr. and note. To her. Each rural society, both in communal and district or household (hereditary) use of land, is responsible for K. guarantee for each of its members in the proper service of state, zemstvo and worldly duties. Rural communities located within the same volost are provided, to facilitate K. guarantees, to unite with each other, according to their common worldly sentence. Peasants who have all the land of their allotment in separate possession cannot be held accountable for the regular serving of state taxes and duties for other peasants, even if they are members of the same society or village, but do not participate in the said ownership. If in a village or part of a village that has separate land ownership and receives a separate salary sheet on this basis, there are less than 40 audit souls who are on salary, then taxes and duties are collected from the peasants without K. bail. Laying responsibility on societies for the proper serving of taxes and duties by their members, the government initially did not indicate the means to which rural gatherings could resort to compel individual payers to pay the fees due from them. In the law of May 16, volost heads, elected officials and elders, in order to prevent arrears, were given the right to use, according to a worldly sentence, stubborn non-payers to work in the village itself or send them to a workhouse, until the arrears are paid, with leave home for rural work on time from April 1 to November. The same measures could be taken in relation to elders and elected officials found guilty of negligence. The sale of movables, "as if ruinous for the peasants and useless for the fidelity of taxes," is prohibited. Much more extensive powers are given to the society in the "Regulations on the collection of fees" on November 28; the rules taught by this Provision, with some changes and additions, have become part of the current legislation. On the basis of the Regulations of February 19, the collection of taxes and other state, zemstvo and secular dues from peasants lies with the duties of elected persons - village elders and collectors, who are under the supervision of the volost foreman. These persons do not have the right to resort to any coercive disciplinary measures, with the exception of a short-term arrest and a small fine (Articles 64 and 86 of the general provisions). More serious penalties can be applied to faulty payers only by rural companies, namely:
1) application for compensation of arrears of income from real estate owned by the debtor; 2) the return of the debtor or any of the members of his family in extraneous earnings, with the circulation of the earned money to the worldly cash desk; 3) the appointment of a guardian to the debtor or the appointment of a senior in the house, instead of a faulty owner, of another member of the same family; 4) sale of immovable property belonging to the debtor personally, with the exception of the purchased estate; 5) the sale of that part of the movable property and buildings of the debtor, which does not constitute a need for his economy; 6) taking away from the debtor the entire field allotment allotted to him or part of it.
To the measures referred to in paragraphs. 4, 5 and 6, the society should apply only in extreme cases, when other penalties prove to be insufficient (Article 188 of the general provisions) [Approximately the same means of coercion of faulty payers were armed with petty-bourgeois societies.]. If, despite all the measures taken, the arrears lying on the peasant are not replenished by October 1, then it is laid out by the village meeting for other peasants of the same society and must be cleared by January 15 of the next year (Article 189 of the general position). . In case of failure of the entire rural society, it is forced to pay arrears through the local police (Article 190); and if coercive measures fail, the arrears are replenished by the police through the sale of peasant movable property (Article 191). In practice, the procedure for collecting taxes in general and the application of K. bail in particular follow a path that deviates significantly from that specified in the law. Thus, the measures of coercion of payers, provided by law to society, all the time, especially in areas with household land ownership, are used by the village and volost authorities and even the police. When society resorts to them (usually under strong pressure from the police), then in most cases it is limited to measures indicated by law as extreme: the sale of the movable property of the debtor or the temporary taking away of his allotment, for renting out to replenish the arrears, bypassing the funds specified in paragraphs. 1-3 art. 188 total floor., as inapplicable in peasant life. The article of the law regarding the distribution among all members of society of the arrears, unpaid by a certain time by individual peasants, is also very rarely applied. Such an additional layout is far from being carried out everywhere, and if it is applied, then not as a usual measure, but sporadically, at the request of the police, who suddenly took up energetically to collect neglected arrears; in these cases, the share of the payment that falls on wealthy householders sometimes reaches 100 r. and more. Just as rarely observed is the measure of the sale of movable property of all members of a rural society for shortfalls; maybe in more than half of the counties of European Russia this measure has not been applied at all over the past 6 years or has been applied to an extremely limited extent; in the remaining uyezds, according to tax inspectors, during the specified period of time, the property of peasants was sold for arrears of the whole society for several hundred or thousand rubles in each, and in very few uyezds - in the amount of 10 to 20 thousand rubles. Therefore, the ruinous effect of the sale of peasant property for arrears, according to the law on K. bail, does not extend to large areas, but to individual societies. Inventories of peasant property are made immeasurably more often than sales; in most counties, the number of sales is no more than 10-15% of the number of inventories. In one province, or even in one district of any province, the police resort to inventories several times more often than in another province or another district. There are also counties where there is not even one sale for a hundred inventories. These facts lead to the conclusion that the police very often resort to inventory of peasant property not in the form of preparation for the sale, but solely for the purpose of intimidation; as soon as the frightened population contributes a part of the arrears on them, the matter does not receive further movement. There are, however, areas where the number of sales of peasant property differs little from the number of inventories. The inventory itself, if it is not followed by a sale, does not always leave a trace on the economic situation of the population, since, under the threat of selling property, the arrears are ready to resort to the most ruinous methods of acquiring funds to pay part of the arrears (loans from usurious interest, premature sale of products Agriculture , selling their labor, leasing land, etc.). Societies, out of fear of K. responsibility, tend to encourage the peasants to such transactions, and in extreme cases they themselves take away their land. With the exception of the last method of clearing the arrears, undertaken by the society for fear of liability under K. bail, the rest of the means used by the arrears to obtain money to pay taxes cannot be considered a product of the law on mutual guarantee, since the sale of the movables of the arrears (as well as the taking away from of land for rent) is allowed by law and in relation to payers who are not bound by K. responsibility. Although the principle of k. bail is applied very rarely in the form specified in the law, nevertheless it is an inseparable part of the entire land-tax communal life, being closely intertwined with economic motives and being used not only in tax matters, but also in purely economic enterprises. . It serves as one of the reasons for the desire existing in peasant societies to adjust the share of payments imposed by them on their members - regardless of the nature and origin of the latter - with their economic viability; and since the peasants tend to connect all payments with the land, in areas with a low profitability of the economy, systems of apportionment of communal land (and, consequently, taxes) are used, based on the labor power of householders, as the most important source of income for people who live by the labor of their own hands. At the same time, as auxiliary conditions, extraneous earnings of the family, its household equipment, etc. are sometimes taken into account. changing paying capacity, the community of non-chernozem areas developed a system of private redistribution, the so-called. landfills-heaps of souls (land and taxes) - a system by which the transfer of land and taxes from one family, economically weakened, to another, more prosperous, is easily achieved. When laying out the current salary of the fees, the societies sometimes release from all or part of the payments the poorest or most unfortunate of their members, and also take on some of the old, mostly hopeless, arrears. In some places, societies monitor the economic activities of their unreliable members, do not allow them to engage in ruinous acts, do not allow them to give them an insurance premium, but order that it be paid for timber for construction or for work on building a hut, etc. n. Sometimes societies elect special persons in order to exert a moral influence on the peasants in the sense of compelling them to pay taxes on time. When it is difficult for poor peasants to clear the payments due to them in a timely manner, societies very often cover the next tax from such peasants by borrowing from worldly sums, from income from quitrent items, or resort to public loans of money, usually on unfavorable terms, sometimes with an obligation to pay capital or percent by labor, agricultural products or by giving to the creditor for the use of communal land. Borrowings from worldly capitals are usually credited to the debtors, but a significant part of these debts is not paid back.
The falsification of documents is influenced by such common factors as 1) a high level of decentralization of the company, control bodies; 2) setting unrealistic financial goals by management;
At the first stage, the state did not have bodies that could levy 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 artificial union formed by it - a city or a 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. Between the payer and the state there is such an alliance that shields the payer from the state. During this period, mutual responsibility is beneficial both for the government and for such unions. The union of mutual guarantee guarantees the 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. Mutual responsibility provided not only direct, but also indirect taxes. The so-called salary in indirect taxes is being developed. The government entrusts the collection of indirect taxes to the self-governing unions, with responsibility placed on persons chosen by the union itself to levy.
The second period is characterized by the fact that government agencies, which take over part of the functions of the union. The state makes an attempt to approach the payer, but does not dare to stand face to face with him. The amount (quota) is determined by the state, but it is distributed among individual payers not by him, but by unions, each of which the state assigns the amount of taxes. Since the state has abandoned its complete neutrality in the area of tax distribution within the unions, the mutual guarantee is also removed from the union. He lays out according to the norm specified by the government, and this is where his functions end. Each payer is personally responsible for paying the tax. 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 layout of fees by rural gatherings and the exact procedure for their collection, as well as facilitated and simplified the procedure for granting benefits for the payment of both wages and arrears. The use of mutual responsibility was first weakened and streamlined, and from 1903 it was completely canceled. Supervision over the collection of salary fees from the peasants was removed from the police and entrusted to the tax inspection and zemstvo chiefs. The involvement of the authorities of two different departments in the tax case was a weak side.
Their response was the formation of mutual responsibility, mutual blat and the attachment of their children and relatives to advantageous places. But still, they wanted to finally turn the right of disposal into the right of their undivided possession of what so far remained public property.
Finally, there is a fairly clear tendency towards mutual responsibility. Heads of departments or services within departments show a reaction of solidarity in the face of the central directorate, which makes them, for example, hide the true costs of a department that is in a difficult situation.
Corporate mechanisms are associated with attachment to the team, group, organization, solidarity and responsibility are manifested, but mutual responsibility, 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 in him, the leaders who signed the characteristic grossly violate the principles of working with personnel, corrupt people, and create an atmosphere of mutual responsibility. We obtain convincing evidence of the inconsistency of such characteristics by studying, so to speak, after the fact those of them that were issued on the computer.
With such an independent and voluntaristic approach of the leader to the formation of the administrative apparatus, a particularly dangerous situation can develop - and indeed often develops - when the leader manages to pick up all his surroundings on the basis of personal loyalty. As a result, a collective bonded by mutual responsibility is created. The greatest possibilities for the emergence of this kind of phenomena exist in the administrative 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 the timely and complete collection of taxes by making the peasant community as a whole responsible for their payment. 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 rest 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 fees from state peasants. In 1861, with the abolition of serfdom, the Communist Party was extended to all 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 labor collectives still differ in terms of 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 loafer will be forced to work in good faith, a truant and a drunkard will be called to account, and the leader 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 area of production, trade, used by a certain group 2) a method of securing tax revenues by imposing on a certain circle of persons the obligation to answer for each other with all their property (was distributed before the creation tax apparatus).
Why lower-level managers prefer a moral and psychological effect, striving to defend the autonomy of management in resolving the production tasks of today Because their credo is to fulfill the production plan, avoiding incidents and conflicts with subordinate employees, otherwise you will not fulfill it. But their preferences turn out to be distorted if the plan is carried out as a result of forgiveness, condescension, familiarity, mutual responsibility. Fulfilling the plan by any means means devaluing its moral and psychological effect, depriving the 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 the landlords (whose role was also played by the state) in general, by the chokh - from the common lands and farmsteads of the community. The peasant assembly itself distributed such dues among the farmsteads on the basis of mutual responsibility. The peasants led not only their patriarchal households, but also participated in communal production and self-taxation in kind for the benefit of the landowner and the state.
Mutual responsibility - in pre-revolutionary Russia, in relation to taxes, a way to ensure the 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 position. 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 statements, 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 reward. 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, the failure to provide the auditors with the necessary explanations by the auditees, and in general any cases of serious evasion of the audited from constructive cooperation with the auditors. The typical vision of an audit by Western experts is that the shareholders invest their money in some business, hire a manager who manages this business on a daily basis, and once a year auditors come and inform the shareholders that the reports of the hired manager on his work and its results are true. Or, on the contrary, auditors open the eyes of shareholders to miscalculations, errors 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 such a situation is generally typical), and the auditor sees that when trying to inform the shareholder about the abuses of the manager, he encounters mutual responsibility or finds himself in a situation when information about abuses is reported only to the person responsible for these abuses, and all this does not allow changing the situation for the better. Western practice recommends that the auditor in such a situation abandon the assignment, demanding payment for the actual labor costs. Rather, the ISA uses this wording If persons responsible for fraud are suspected of committing fraud
TREASON - infidelity common cause, bonds of solidarity, camaraderie, love. The negative assessment of I., given to her by moral consciousness, is due to the positive value that is attached to these bonds. If these bonds lose their positive meaning or even acquire an antimoral meaning, the violation and rejection of them is no longer I. On the contrary, fidelity 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 a universal (except Siberia) abolition from January 1, 1886 of the poll tax, which, since the time of Peter I, had been the cornerstone of the financial system of the Russian Empire. 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 an increase in the tax on alcohol (from 9 kopecks per degree), and part by an increase in 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 fact, nothing more than a disguised increase in the dues tax. The law of June 12, 1886 established a mandatory redemption for state peasants. The abolition of the poll tax was to entail the abolition of mutual responsibility. And in
Redemption payments were also subjected to some reduction, which, although entered into a special painting department, essentially differed from direct taxes only in their urgency. Under Witte, measures were taken to settle the fate of arrears in redemption payments, which accumulated in large numbers after the bad harvests of 1891 and 1892, as well as to reduce their salary. The law of February 7, 1894 ordered the local administration to sort out the reasons for the origin of arrears in individual villages and to establish for each village the share of arrears that could be repaid annually together with the salary for the same cases when their increase to the salary was recognized as impossible, it was allowed to defer payment arrears until the time when the salary payment period expires. The assumptions of the local authorities were subject to the approval of the Ministries of Interior and Finance. The laws of May 13, 1896 and May 31, 1899, were intended to reduce the burden of the salary of redemption payments. This was achieved by providing, at the request of the peasants, an installment plan for the outstanding balance of the redemption debt for new terms - 28, 41 and 56 years. Thus, the redemption debt was converted, which led to a decrease in the annual payment due to the lengthening of the redemption period. In view of the weak application of the laws of 1896 and 1899, the amount of benefits was increased. Laws 1894, 1896 and 1899 gave the local and central administration a huge job that lasted for many years, but turned out to be useless. Studies of the solvency and arrears of individual villages were carried out poorly; their verification in the central administration was impossible. The conversion of the redemption debt was not clear to the majority of peasants. By 1900, the installment of arrears was almost over, but since arrears arose again, work had to be constantly resumed. Great importance had a Regulation on June 23, 1899 on the procedure for collecting salary dues from allotment lands, supplemented by the Law on February 12, 1903 on the abolition of mutual responsibility.
The situation of a person who has been ostracized is all the more sad because the higher leadership is far from always aware of the presence of mutual responsibility in this team. It is not always and not immediately behind apparent well-being that the truth is guessed that people are united not by high goals, but by collective egoism, one-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 someone does not take it into their heads to take dirty linen out of the hut. Do I need to explain how dangerous this kind of phenomenon is.
Needless to say, how intolerable is also the placement in positions on the grounds of personal loyalty, kinship and fellowship. On this basis, the role of criticism and self-criticism is belittled, nepotism and nepotism flourish, an atmosphere of undemanding, mutual responsibility, servility and irresponsibility is created, which inevitably leads to various abuses. People who have taken leadership positions without special education and professional knowledge are not in a position, of course, to exercise effective management, and for this reason alone they tend to surround themselves with narrow-minded and low-initiative workers. Some of them, firmly clinging to someone's tails, sometimes reach high positions, by the very fact of being in such a position they undermine people's faith in justice. Is it not clear that these people cannot serve as an example for subordinates, maintain 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, joint activities of employees. Even surrogates of collectivity, illusory collectivity, are placed at the service of capital. Especially great attention is paid to the exploitation of imaginary collectivity in the developed capitalist countries in modern conditions. In the USA, Japan and some other imperialist states, the ideas of paternalism, the theory and politics of human relations in production, which the ideologists of capitalism are trying to declare as truly collectivist, have become quite widespread. In Japan, for example, lifetime employment is quite widely practiced, a sophisticated system of circular responsibility for the results of production is used, carried over from pre-capitalist eras and providing the strictest supervision of the behavior of each by each. The system of mutual responsibility and universal strict control over the behavior and actions of employees, 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 the capitalist economy. 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 at Los Angeles (USA), William Ouchi strongly recommends the widespread introduction of a new philosophy, i.e. a conceptual framework for management, which boils down to the use of organizational structures that ensure collective management factories and trade organizations. At the same time, he does not hide the fact that collective efforts are necessary to increase profit, which serves as the only
Class contradictions in pre-capitalist formations developed in the depths of the tribal 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 the 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 estates, and antagonism of classes.
In Russia, P.N. was introduced by Peter I instead of the household tax from 1724. This tax was levied in the same amount on the entire male population, regardless of age. From the end of the 18th century B.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 conducted by the peasant community, the full receipt of the tax was guaranteed by mutual guarantee, when the amounts unpaid by someone were laid out on the rest of the peasant households. Severe sanctions were applied to non-payers, up to the seizure of property for debts. Such a 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 the tax was determined, which was further decomposed by provinces, counties and volosts. The final distribution of the tax among the individual payers was carried out by the rural communities themselves, and the principle of totality lost its decisive importance and was replaced by property.
Legally, allotment lands became the property of the peasants only after their redemption. Instead of kunchih, 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 the peasants were called the owners of the land, the general civil rights did not apply to allotment lands. legislation. They were considered 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 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 allotments to persons not belonging to the community were also prohibited, and other restrictions were established on the disposal of peasants of their allotments. In addition, but the Regulations of 1861 assigned land to villages. societies, not the peasants. The community answered with mutual responsibility for each householder. She had the right to distribute the land according to the souls, for each land. the allotment corresponded to onredel. the share of duties, from which it was impossible to refuse, because since 1893 leaving the community without the consent of the society was prohibited. So, II. h. retained semi-critical. relationship.
CIRCULAR LIABILITY, joint and several 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 time 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 in 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 levying a fine (vira) for a crime committed on the territory of a community (vervi). In Russia, later, mutual responsibility was widely used mainly in the fiscal sphere when collecting various state taxes and fees, payments for arrears, etc.: their layout was transferred to the discretion of the members of the community under collective responsibility (for the same purpose, the collection of payments was assigned to those elected by the payers themselves persons).
Legislatively, the collective responsibility of members of the peasant community for the proper payment of state taxes and arrears was established by the decree of Empress Catherine II dated May 19 (30), 1769, confirmed by the Manifesto of Emperor Alexander I dated May 16 (28), 1811 and other laws. However, in practice, the introduction of mutual responsibility and especially its observance depended on the discretion of the landowners and officials responsible for the proper collection of payments. After the peasant reform of 1861, mutual responsibility remained an important tool ensuring the timely payment of state, zemstvo and secular taxes and dues by peasants. The arrears of individual householders, by the decision of the village meeting, were distributed among all householders in accordance with the profitability of their farms, or were covered at the expense of worldly capital. To pay off the debt, the property of the debtor could be sold, and his allotment could be temporarily taken away by the society and leased out. The non-payers could be guarded by the rural community. If the society refused to pay arrears voluntarily, it was forced to do so by the police. As a preventive measure, the police described the property of rural communities; in case of further non-payment of arrears, the property could be sold. However, such cases, even with large debts of many rural communities, were rare, since the state was interested in keeping 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. In order to prevent penalties from all members of the community of rural society, when laying out taxes and fees, the poorest or most affected by emergency peasant farms were exempted from all or part of the payments and established higher fees from wealthy farms, forced non-payers to borrow from various sources (loans from worldly capital often did not return). As a last resort, rural communities took away in advance the allotment from the arrears 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 settlements with less than 40 male residents, the principle of individual responsibility of taxpayers was applied exclusively. By Emperor Nicholas II, the use of mutual guarantee in European Russia was significantly limited, and then completely abolished, instead of mutual guarantee, individual responsibility of households for paying taxes and fees was established (their distribution between households remained within the competence of the rural gathering). 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 ancient monuments of their legislation. 2nd ed. Har., 1888; Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Organization of direct taxation in the Muscovite state from the time of the Time of Troubles to the era of transformations. SPb., 1890; Brzhesky NK Mutual responsibility of rural communities. SPb., 1896; he is. Shortfalls and mutual responsibility of rural communities. SPb., 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.
All members of the team (partnership or community) for the obligations assumed by one. Most often, this term has a property value. The expression arose in antiquity, we know its Roman form. The first mentions of it are found in Russkaya Pravda, and some scholars believe that this institution existed even under an agreement 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 a sense of revenge or because of a quarrel. That is, the punishment fell on the inhabitants 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 member of the community extended to the entire community as a whole.
In the 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 first act, for them friendship is above all.
But the same notion of "mutual responsibility" underlies the vendetta - a terrible relic of the past. could destroy the whole family 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, the punishment was distributed not to the guilty, but to those belonging to this society on a territorial basis.
They also executed members of the families of communists, whether infant or a feeble old man. Later, according to the same principle, the children of Soviet soldiers who left the encirclement or fugitive from concentration camps fell under the "distribution".
On the one hand, bail is a strong tool that implies friendship and fidelity. On the other hand, it is a strong psychological weapon for setting wild rules “man is a wolf to man”.
Today, the expression "mutual responsibility" often has a negative connotation in our speech. The way to hide behind "society" is often used in order to justify their misdeeds. For example, after a fight between young people, a corpse is found. During legal proceedings, 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 the narrow-minded "warriors" that if the murder is committed by a crowd, then the responsibility will be shared by everyone. However, in reality, everything turns out to be different: more severe 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-sided coverage. Often he was explained not by the position “one for all”, but only exclusively “all for one” or even “someone for one”.
The petitioner asked for help from a specific person, however, he did not specifically refuse the person who applied, but he did not give a final answer either. The phrase: “I am incompetent in this matter, you need to turn to another person,” was the crown. And no one knew where that competent person was.
The second option would be ideal, when a single official would take responsibility for the shortcomings of the entire company, would make every effort to resolve any urgent issue.
Today, many organizations also suffer from mutual responsibility. In particular, medical institutions are engaged in harboring the perpetrator in the provision of unskilled assistance to the patient. It is difficult to find a violator of the law during the bankruptcy of a bank where the funds of a huge mass of people were invested. Communist contributions safely went abroad, and the perpetrators were never found. Unfinished apartments, for which contributions have already been paid, are still non-residential. People who already have a warrant to move in are still looking for those who were supposed to complete the construction.
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 Law Dictionary, mutual responsibility is the responsibility of all members of a community or other collective 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 law sense, is a kind of correlative obligation in its Roman image.
In everyday life, this terminology is used to indicate the consent of the members of the group with the actions of any of their own members, as well as his support, active or passive. Quite often, this phrase is used with a negative connotation.
With regards to loans, here each for all and all for one - the members of mutual responsibility are also connected in all the consequences of the debt. Release acts, which do not matter how the creditor is materially satisfied, if they are allowed in relation to one debtor, extend their effect in the case of mutual guarantee to all its member participants. Thus, the purpose of mutual responsibility is to put before the creditor, not individuals, but the whole 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 the participants in the mutual guarantee may not be members of any union, but only members of a certain territorial unit. To designate the joint liability of members of other partnerships, the term joint and several liability was used.
Remark 1
It should be noted that the mutual guarantee should not be confused with the guarantee of a simple type and the rule of gradual recovery (“beneficium excussionis”) should be applied to it. The purpose of mutual responsibility, as well as any solidary 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 guarantee was applied, in particular, if a crime was committed in a specific territory (“vervi”), and the offender remained unknown, the punishment in the form of payment of fines (“vira”) was imposed on the whole 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, the inhabitants of the lipo districts were obliged to prevent and eradicate crimes; for failure to fulfill these duties, they had to bear:
- financial responsibility;
- criminal liability.
In the state of Moscow, mutual guarantee was also used in cases of shortfall in customs and tavern revenues - a shortfall could be collected from the tenant, who elected the culprit of the shortfall as a kisser. In addition, the losses that were caused to the treasury by the contractor could sometimes be recovered from the settlement to which he belonged. Gathering detachments of archers from free people, the government endowed them with mutual responsibility for the proper performance of each of their own duties, as well as for material damage to the treasury if the serviceman ran away from service.
Over time, the use of the institution of mutual responsibility by the state was preserved only in the field of fiscal: the inhabitants of a 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 elected persons by the payers. Some scientists have concluded from this that the responsibility for the tax-free receipt of taxes was assigned to the society of payers. In any case, there is no doubt that tax collectors, governors and other persons who were in charge of peasants of this category were responsible to the government for arrears. Under fear of such liability - personal and property, they could, when collecting arrears, use, to a lesser or greater extent, the beginning of the responsibility of some payers for others, even in cases where mutual guarantee was not sanctioned by law.
In the 18th century, increasingly developing bureaucratic orders, turning away from the use of the beginning of mutual responsibility in various branches of public affairs, it apparently lost any concept of the circular responsibility of taxpayers, as one of the principles of organizing the tax business of former times. In view of this, being eventually forced to turn to mutual guarantee as a way to ensure the timely receipt of payments, the government did not introduce it immediately, but used it initially as a measure of last resort and set various motivations for this use.
In 1739, by decree of the Tsar, an arrears in the collection of taxes were ordered:
- from the merchants and state peasants to divide the members of these estates among themselves;
- arrears from the peasants of the palace, monasteries, factory, first of all, replenish from the property of patrimonial clerks and rulers, and only if they are unable to pay the shortages, collect arrears from the peasants.
With the establishment in 1797 of the department of appanages and the formation of the category of appanage peasants, it was decided that in the event of an arrears due to the negligence and laziness of the villagers, the perpetrators would be brought to court, and the arrears would be recovered from the entire rural community as punishment for seeing a partner of their own no one tried to turn him into laziness and negligence, to labor and the correction of his own debt.
In the form of a general rule for all, the obligation of the society to answer for a regular payment of taxes was fixed in the Manifesto of 05/16/1811, supplemented by a decree of 1828, but, moreover, certain penalties were not indicated to be applied to the whole village. At the same time, in the manifesto of 1811, in order to prevent arrears, volost heads, elected and headmen were given the right to use non-payers in work in the village or send them to the workhouse until the debt was paid, from which they were released for rural work from April to november.
