Pirklių teisinis apibrėžimas ir socialinė tapatybė Rusijos imperijoje XIX a. pabaigoje - XX a. pradžioje

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Pirklių teisinis apibrėžimas ir socialinė tapatybė Rusijos imperijoje XIX a. pabaigoje - XX a. pradžioje
Alternative Title:
Legal definition and social identity of merchants in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century
In the Journal:
Teisė. 2012, t. 84, p. 66-79
Reikšminiai žodžiai: Pirkliai; Rusijos imperijos teisė; Merchants; Law of the Russian Empire.
Pirkliai; Rusijos imperijos teisė; Teisės istorija / History of law.
Law of the Russian Empire; Merchants.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamas Rusijos imperijos teisėje formuojamas pirklių socialinės ir ekonominės veiklos bei jų socialinės padėties įsivaizdavimas XIX a. pabaigoje – XX a. pradžioje. Šiuo laikotarpiu keitėsi pirklių teisinė ir socialinė padėtis, taip pat pirklių savęs vertinimo kriterijai, socialinė tapatybė. Šie pokyčiai atskleidė pirklių teisinio ir socialinio identifikavimo Rusijos imperijoje problemas. [Iš leidinio]

ENIn the law of the Russian Empire, a merchant meant a person declaring a certain guild-based capital minimum established by the state, who had no outstanding taxes to the state and who submitted a receipt of the taxes paid and purchased the guild certificate in his name. Merchant division to guilds provided them with different business opportunities and social privileges. A merchant guild was established as a certain business association or a corporate organisation, with its members entitled to certain social guarantees (privileges) from the state and the opportunity to strive for a prestige social status as remuneration for economic activities. Therefore, merchant privileges could neither be inherited nor awarded for life but for certain economic activities. Failed to purchase a trade certificate, a merchant used to be expelled from a guild, and his business enterprises were closed down. Hence, in the event of a failure or bankruptcy, a merchant did not only lose capital but also social status. In such a way, economic activities were associated with social status. By means of social politics, the empire did not only carry out consistent and systematic formation of big business but also an economically strong group of entrepreneurs, an estate of city elite.The support of such estate could mean that the state entrusted merchants with one of the key roles in the economic life of the country, while merchants were identified with the representatives of big business. Even though the state looked with favour to big business by highlighting the exclusive position of merchants and their higher social status in the society and legally singled out this economically active social estate financially beneficial to the state by providing it with social privileges and establishing it as a group of townspeople of higher status, the nobility nevertheless retained the exclusive right to be considered the upper social class. The empire did not recognise merchants as a new upper social class next to the nobility. [From the publication]

1392-1274; 2424-6050
Related Publications:
2018-12-17 13:25:03
Views: 18    Downloads: 6