The history of Russia offers an excellent example of the paper that the property plays in the development of the civil laws and politicians, demonstrating as its absence becomes possible the maintenance of an arbitrary and absolute in power government. (Richard Pipes) In Russia, the notion of individual rights was total submerged for the notion of obligations stops with the monarch. In 1785 the crown only guaranteed the ownership of properties. To compare the history of Russia with the one of England, as it made Richard Pipes in its book Property and Freedom, is sufficiently elucidative to prove the theory of the author of whom the right of private property is a total necessary condition so that freedom exists, still that is not enough condition. When the land is scarce, the population finishes having that to find ways to decide the conflicts pacificamente the respect of it. The land excess in Russia finished generating a perverse effect in this direction, therefore it offers seemed inexhaustible. First vikings in Russia was formed by a chaste military man-advertising, and they had not developed agriculture nor they had acquired real properties - in contrast with England, where the Norman conquerors had all demanded the ownership of the ground. The private property was a product of the benevolence of the State. The monarchy was so hostile stops with the private property that opposed to recognize it as inviolable property exactly personal belongings, recognized as such for the societies most primitive. The development of the parliamentary power in England was strict on to the necessity of the crown to financially assure the parliamentary approval of the taxes and the customs taxes for not being independent. In Russia, in contrast, the czars did not need the authorization of nobody to create taxes, exemptions and tariffs. They did not have necessity of parliaments. They could assume themselves of lands and confiscate any marketable merchandise, being able to tax the in agreement population its will. The agricultural aristocracy and the bourgeois ones were serving of the State in Russia, not enjoying of no economic security. What it mattered they were the favors of the crown. Peter, the Great one, although seen as the monarch who more tried to ocidentalizar Russia, finished in the practical one marking the apogee it czarist patrimonialismo. The power of the crown became still more arbitrary. The tax burden immensely was increased. The government and the Church had withheld the exclusive right to print books up to 1783, and after this they had exerted the power through the censorship. The State also controlled the commercial companies, practical well different of that it occurred in England, where since century XIII already had permitted companies, working for particular. The servants had become citizens obligatory the military service in the permanent exercise. During the government of Catherine, the Great one, some rights of property had been recognized, but they were something as 600 years delayed in relation to England.
Small the e delayed advances had had it the necessity of Catherine to enter into an alliance it the small agrarian fidalguia to fortify its power. It sufficiently was influenced by the fisiocratas, that saw the property private as most basic of the laws of the nature and agriculture as main source of wealth. However, the biggest freedom favored only one small minority, while that for the majority the servitude finished intensified. Since its start, already sufficiently delayed, the right of property in Russia was associated to the consolidation of the power of the nobility on the camponeses. In the first half of century XIX, measured adopted for Alexander I and Nicholas I they had given to bigger steps route to the freedom of the servants and noblemen. In 1802, Alexander forbade the gentlemen to exile servants for Siberia, and in 1807 to condemn them it forced works. Nicholas I extended the economic laws of theservants, allowing them in 1848 to acquire depopulated country properties and urban. In 1861 the decree of emancipation of the servants was signed. The democracy politics, still sufficiently limited, only arrived at Russia in 1905 as resulted of the pressures on the czarist regimen brought by the defeat in the war against Japan. The hostility was intensified during the First World War. Palco for the revolution bolchevique, inhaled in philosophes French, was armed. With the taking of the power for the Communists, all the freedoms and rights, together with the property, had disappeared for complete. They had very little deep raízes, and had been reduced the dust. The terror and the slavery that had come with the revolution had made the years of the czars to seem soft. Richard Pipes concludes that the experience of Russia indicates that the freedom cannot be legislated; it needs to grow gradually, in strong association with the property and the law . Unhappyly for the Russians, the private property never fincou its raízes in the ground of the Russia, whose power always arbitrariamente was concentrated in the State. While the English mentality, calcada in the private property, give birth in 1776 the nation until then freer of history, the Russian patrimonialista mentality generated the regimen genocida of the world. It has an unsurmountable abyss between both.