Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-29
THE RUSSIAN MIR.
HOW THE PEAsANTRY OF RUSSIA GOV
ERN THEMSELVES.
A Pure Democracy Under an Extreme Dss-
potism-Anomalies in Russian So
ciety Sufficiently Explained.
boston Herald.I

OF landed aristOcracy and an order OF
manufacturers and traders. From the
thirteenth century onward the Tartars
and the Germans combined to cut
Russia off from the rest of the world,
and there was no means by which the
people could become wealthy save by
brigandage. The land has always yield
ed the peasant q poor subsistence, and in
the cruel struggle with nature and with
hostile nations the working classes have
been closely pressed together. Two
centuries ago the farming peasants
had to huddle together in little vii
lagos near the forts of the Gar, in order
to protect themselves from the savages
who swooped down upon them like hun
CRY falcons. These villages were small,
and were located here and there, in the
forests and marshes, and among them
the people lived in constant alliance and
intimate relations. The Russian mir was
circumference about 200 miles in ex-
tent. and included large number of
these hamlets. The commune did not at
first exist, but the sentiment of solida-
rity that the life in the mir developed
prepared mems minds by degrees
for the communal holding OF land.
An inquiry into the better organiza-
ton of the mir led to this. The neces-
sites of the commune forced each man
to think out the way in which it could be
improved. The inhabitants had to or
ganize their own forces. and this self
government was under the rule OF COM
plete equality. The Russian people,
growing up under these circumstances,
could not develop any class feeling.
When society had become better organ
lied, the mass Of the people already or
ganized in the mir prevented the de-
velopment OF the privileged classes.
This statement shows lhe double
character OF Russian society. It
is almost pure democracy among
the peasants, and there has been nothing
in the way of creating the opposite eX
treme, which IN Russia takes the form
of despotism. The peasants not only
long prevented the creation of the noble
class, but have later on interfered with
the development of the bourgeoisie. 1t is
this curious inversion of society. which is
very fully explained in Mr. Tikhomirov's
work on "Russia, Political and Social,
which has been translated from the
French by DR.. Edward Aveling,
and has lately been published by
Swan, Sonnenschein Il Co., of Lon
don. 1t is from this basis that
the study of the character and institu-
tions of the people in Russia becomes
deeply interesting. The Gar had his
master over the villages in the mir
because he had his fort near by for their
protection. and the master gathered
tribute from the peasants wherever he
could. In process of time the Gar had
the rule of the country, and the people
had such easy relations with him that
they did not knoI or .eel his power.
They were serfs, and the Gar was their
sovereign, and that was the end of the
whole matter. The Gar was their dis
tant lord, and they obeyed him III return
for the sort of protection which they
! needed.
This statement explains at once why
society in Russia is so different from
what il is in every other European coup-
try. Even serfdom could not repress
the sentiment Of democratic equality
among the people. 1t was ever we'll
established social order. The peasants
were always convinced that 1t was
transitory institution. They obeyed the
mobiles as "lords of the Gar.
THE POPULAR IDEA OF sERFDoM
was that the Czar, needing the services
of his employees, repaid them by pea
SAINT labor. In their opinion he had an
equal right to make n peasant a noble,
or a noble a serf, for the common veal.
The people never would believe that the
lands OF the nobility did not belong to
those who worked on them. They never
consented to the slavery to which the
| Gar and his mobiles had degraded them,
and when serfdom ceased the Russian
peasant emerged from serfdom with the
same qualities Of character with which
he entered it. The mir WIS the insttu-
ton in which they exercised their rights
as men and protected themselves from
the despotism OF their masters.
The peasant mir is commune whose
bond OF unity is in its political autono-
my and in the possession Of land. Some
times the mir is a single village again,
a large village is divided into many rural
communes, each ofwhich has its special
economic administration, while the civil
and political administration is common
TO all. The church in one Of these viii
lagos is in the central square, and the
several streets radiate from IT. The men
are not tied together mechanically. They
are bound by thousand common inte-
rests; they are linked together
by community of property. There
is something more elementary than
even a mir, and that is the partial
sharings which is called the osmak or
circle. These are all equal as to labor
power, but each man in them IS free to
choose his companions in accord with his
| friendships or interests. Through them
all inequalities in labor are made good.
In sharing the land the communal as
sembly tries to distribute itequally among
the osmaks, and thus the members Of
each osmak share among them their
common portion and make out OF
| il small lots for each family. This
organization gives almost n mill
tary order and discipline to all the Mrs
acts at the same time it guarantees very
thoroughly the independence Of each
family. Each village has an administra-
ton, and is represented by mayor
chosen by the mir. The assembly of the
mir decides all questions connected with
the land, and all the peasants living In
the village, even the women, are mem
bers of il. The women have many more
rights than the State law grants them
One of the sex may even be mayor OF
the village. At times the whole village
consists Of women only, and this assem-
bly determines the general division Of
the land. The peasant idea is that the
woman. il independent, has the same
right as men.
The assemblies are very lively. Order
is sometimes wanting, but liberty never.
The peasants meet very frequently.
They do not decide by the majority, but
always try to find an arrangement salts
factory to every one. The aim in the
meetings is TO reach decision as unsni-
nous as possible. AS rule the mir is
always oppressed and robbed; but it
does not yield, and it contends bravely
AGAINST ALL ABUSES.