Citations:hromada

English citations of hromada, hromady, and hromadas

• p. 1972–a. 1977, Все́волод Сергі́йович Голубни́чий [Vsevolod Holubnychy], “The 1917 Agrarian Revolution in Ukraine” (essay 1, pages 3–65), in Іва́н Святосла́в Коропе́цький [Iwan Swiatoslaw Koropeckyj], editor, Soviet Regional Economics: Selected Works of Vsevolod Holubnychy (The Canadian Library in Ukrainian Studies), Edmonton · Downsview: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (University of Alberta), distributed by the University of Toronto Press, published 1982, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, The Structure of the Ukrainian Peasant Movement, Peasant Self-Government in the Revolution, pages 21–22:

  Until about 1925, a Ukrainian village (selo) was ruled by a skhod (general meeting) of peasants. It was similar to the mir in Russia, but had less significant socio-economic functions and prerogatives. The village inhabitants in Ukraine comprised a hromada. (It translates better into Russian as obshchestvo [society] than as obshchina [commune], the latter being a socio-economic institution, the former a territorial-administrative one.) In Ukraine, the term obshchina was always distinguished from the hromada (except in late-nineteenth-century popular socialist literature) and usually referred to Russian-type and Russian-settled communities. The skhod ruled the hromada through elections of its executive and judicial officers. Prior to 1861 the skhod possessed universal male suffrage. Between 1861 and 1910, however, its primitive democracy was curtailed by tsarist legislation: the male members of the hromada (heads of households only) had first to elect the delegates to the skhod (one or two per ten households). This limited skhod of delegates then elected a starosta (chief) of the village and other village officials. It allocated taxes among households, was responsible for the total amount of redemption payments of former serfs, and fulfilled other collective socio-economic functions that concerned the whole hromada. The same 1861–1910 legislation on rural government also applied in Russia. But the main difference between the Ukrainian hromada and skhod, on the one hand, and the Russian obshchestvo or mir, on the other, was the obshchina.

• ibidem, pages 22–23 (with endnote 84 from page 60):

  Subsequently, and especially after 1861, the tsarist government tried to foster the obshchina as a vehicle of taxation and collective responsibility for redemption of payments, but in most cases the hromady took care of the latter and the obshchina system was not adopted. In Ukraine the predominant and traditional land tenure was individual hereditary strip farming, which had survived (with various constraints) even under serfdom. After emancipation, among both former serfs and non-serfs in Ukraine, the head of the peasant household had the right to sell or lease his allotment and the hromada could not interfere with his decisions. But the common areas, such as collective pastures, woods and rivers, were under the hromada’s control. Prior to the Stolypin reforms, the Russian-type obshchiny prevailed only in the provinces of Kherson, Katerynoslav, Kharkiv and to some extent Chernihiv, and most of them (except for those settled by the Russians) were obshchina in name only: functionally they did not differ much from the hromady, and not less than 80 per cent of them were non-repartitional, with individual hereditary landholdings and the right to sell and buy the land, at least inside the obshchina.⁸⁴
  A law of 1910 had restored male suffrage to the village skhod, and the 1917 revolution extended the right of skhod to the entire hromada.
   [ ⋮ ]
  84. V. Kubijovyč, ed. Entsyklopediia ukrainoznavstva: Slovnykova chastyna (Paris-New York: Molode zhyttia, 1948), 2: 785. The real problem of land tenure in the Ukrainian hromada system was the absence of the law of primogeniture.

• ibidem, page 23:

  The most widespread executive organ of the hromady in 1917 was called the komitet (committee), headed by a holova (head, chairman). There were at least five different committees, though their functions and prerogatives seem to have been the same: (1) the hromada (hromadskyi) committee; (2) the village (silskyi) committee; (3) the peasant (selianskyi) committee; (4) the land (zemelnyi) committee (on the village level); and (5) the executive (vykonavchyi) committee.

• ibidem, pages 23–24:

  The next level of peasant self-government was the volost (the same name as in Russia), which had jurisdiction over a group of villages, but was considerably smaller than a county in the United States or England. The volost had a long history similar to that of the hromada. Prior to 1917 it was governed by a volost skhod, consisting of the volost and hromada officials, and hromada delegates (one per ten households). The volost skhod elected a starshyna (chief), a pravlinnia (permanent council), a court of justice, a pysar (secretary), etc. The volost government collected taxes from the hromady, but had no other significant economic functions until 1917. It was under the control of the zemskyi nachalnyk, a tsarist government supervisor with broad dictatorial powers. There was no significant difference between the Ukrainian and Russian system at the volost level.

• ibidem, page 24:

  In 1917 the volost executive government consisted of a variety of committees, such as the volost hromada committees, executive committees and, in a few cases, rady and revolutionary committees.

• ibidem, § The Land Committees, pages 26–27 (quoting several articles translated from the “Land Law of the Central Rada”, adopted by the Central Rada of the Ukrainian People’s Republic on the 18th [O.S.] or 31st [N.S.] of January 1918):

  4(b). The right of management (poriadkuvannia) of agricultural lands belongs to: the village hromady, the volost, povit and gubernia land committees.
   [ ⋮ ]
  8. The land committees shall allocate confiscated land “for private-labour use” (pryvatno-trudove korystuvannia) to the village hromady and to voluntary societies; the rules of use of the allotted lands will be established by the hromady and societies in accordance with this law.
  10. Local land allotment norms per household and per mutual society, “and their equalization,” shall be determined by the land committees and village hromady under the instructions and after the approval of a “central organ of state power.” The basic norm, however, according to Article 9, is the amount of land that can be cultivated by a family or a society without hired labour, and a minimum norm must not be smaller than is necessary for their consumption needs.
  13. “The time period for the use of land” shall be determined by the hromady and societies according to the rules established by the land committees. (Note: The right of use “can be” hereditary (mozhe perekhodyty v spadshchynu).
  14. Transfer of the right of use of land to other users is possible only with the permission of the hromada and land committees.
  15. Allotments that are no longer in use, or on which a “non-labour” (netrudova) farm was established, are to be returned to the hromady and/or land committees.
  17. In their land management practices, the village hromady and mutual societies “are responsible” to the land committees.
  25. Together with the above-mentioned lands, under the management of the land committees shall also pass livestock, agricultural implements and buildings, except those required for livelihood and the conduct of private-labour farming, or for business and industrial enterprises mentioned in Article 23. [N.B. The law does not explain what was to be done with these items after their confiscation, or how they should be distributed. One can only assume that, as with the land, these decisions would be made by the hromady and land committees. — V. H.]
   [ ⋮ ]
  32. Model farms shall be transferred intact into the use of societies or hromady for collective management in accordance with plans approved by the land committees.

  [original: 4. б. Порядкування в межах цього закону належить: землями міського користування — згідно з §§ 6 і 7 — органам міського самоврядування; іншими — сільським громадам, волосним, повітовим і губернським земельним комітетам, в межах їх компетенції.
  8. Землі нарізуються земельними комітетами в приватно-трудове користування сільським громадам та добровільно складеним товариствам, які встановлюють правила порядкування одведеними їм землями з додержанням вимог цього закону.
  10. Встановлення цієї норми й урівнення в користуванні землею проводиться земельними комітетами і сільськими громадами під керуванням і з затвердження центрального органу державної влади.
  13. Строки користування землею встановлюються сільськими громадами й товариствами на підставі правил, встановлених земельними комітетами згідно з цим законом.
  Примітка: право користування може переходити в спадщину.
  14. Передача права на користування участком землі можлива лише з дозволу громад і земельних комітетів.
  15. Участки приватно-трудового користування, на которих зовсім припиняється господарство, або заводиться нетрудове, переходять в порядкування громад і земельних комітетів.
  17. Сільські громади й товариства хліборобів за порядкування землею відповідають перед земельними комітетами.
  25. Одночасно з цими землями від власників переходять до розпорядження земельних комітетів живий і мертвий сільськогосподарський інвентар і будівлі, за винятком тієї кількості їх, котра конче потрібна їм для життя й ведення приватно-трудового господарства чи торгових і промислових підприємств, згідно з ст. 23.
  32. Висококультурні господарства передаються цілими в користування товариствам або сільським громадам, котрі будуть вести господарство спільно, по планах, затверджених земельними комітетами. На таких самих умовах без поділу передаются в користування сади, хмільники, виноградники й таке ін.]

  4. b. Porjadkuvannja v mežax cʹoho zakonu naležytʹ: zemljamy misʹkoho korystuvannja — zhidno z §§ 6 i 7 — orhanam misʹkoho samovrjaduvannja; inšymy — silʹsʹkym hromadam, volosnym, povitovym i hubernsʹkym zemelʹnym komitetam, v mežax jix kompetenciji.
  8. Zemli narizujutʹsja zemelʹnymy komitetamy v pryvatno-trudove korystuvannja silʹsʹkym hromadam ta dobrovilʹno skladenym tovarystvam, jaki vstanovljujutʹ pravyla porjadkuvannja odvedenymy jim zemljamy z doderžannjam vymoh cʹoho zakonu.
  10. Vstanovlennja cijeji normy j urivnennja v korystuvanni zemleju provodytʹsja zemelʹnymy komitetamy i silʹsʹkymy hromadamy pid keruvannjam i z zatverdžennja centralʹnoho orhanu deržavnoji vlady.
  13. Stroky korystuvannja zemleju vstanovljujutʹsja silʹsʹkymy hromadamy j tovarystvamy na pidstavi pravyl, vstanovlenyx zemelʹnymy komitetamy zhidno z cym zakonom.
  Prymitka: pravo korystuvannja može perexodyty v spadščynu.
  14. Peredača prava na korystuvannja učastkom zemli možlyva lyše z dozvolu hromad i zemelʹnyx komitetiv.
  15. Učastky pryvatno-trudovoho korystuvannja, na kotoryx zovsim prypynjajetʹsja hospodarstvo, abo zavodytʹsja netrudove, perexodjatʹ v porjadkuvannja hromad i zemelʹnyx komitetiv.
  17. Silʹsʹki hromady j tovarystva xliborobiv za porjadkuvannja zemleju vidpovidajutʹ pered zemelʹnymy komitetamy.
  25. Odnočasno z cymy zemljamy vid vlasnykiv perexodjatʹ do rozporjadžennja zemelʹnyx komitetiv žyvyj i mertvyj silʹsʹkohospodarsʹkyj inventar i budivli, za vynjatkom tijeji kilʹkosti jix, kotra konče potribna jim dlja žyttja j vedennja pryvatno-trudovoho hospodarstva čy torhovyx i promyslovyx pidpryjemstv, zhidno z st. 23.
  32. Vysokokulʹturni hospodarstva peredajutʹsja cilymy v korystuvannja tovarystvam abo silʹsʹkym hromadam, kotri budutʹ vesty hospodarstvo spilʹno, po planax, zatverdženyx zemelʹnymy komitetamy. Na takyx samyx umovax bez podilu peredajutsja v korystuvannja sady, xmilʹnyky, vynohradnyky j take in.

  — The original Ukrainian is excerpted from Вістник Ради народніх міністрів Української Народньої Республіки. — 1918. — 30 січ. [Vistnyk Rady narodnix ministriv Ukrajinsʹkoji Narodnʹoji Respubliky. — 1918. — 30 sič., Bulletin of the Rada of people’s ministers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. — 1918. — 30 Jan.], reproduced as «Тимчасовий земельний закон, затверджений Українською Центральною Радою» [Tymčasovyj zemelʹnyj zakon, zatverdženyj Ukrajinsʹkoju Centralʹnoju Radoju, “Temporary land law, ratified by the Ukrainian Central Rada”] (№ 64), in Владисла́в Фе́дорович Верстю́к [Vladyslav Fedorovych Verstiuk] et al., editors (1997), Українська Центральна Рада: Документи і матеріали. У двох томах. [Ukrajinsʹka Centralʹna Rada: Dokumenty i materialy. U dvox tomax., The Ukrainian Central Rada: Documents and materials. In two volumes.] (Пам’ятки історії України. Серія V: Джерела новітньої історії · Monumenta Ukrainae historica. Series V: Fontes historiae novissimae [Pamʺjatky istoriji Ukrajiny. Serija V: Džerela novitnʹoji istoriji · Monumenta Ukrainae historica. Series V: Fontes historiae novissimae, Monuments of the history of the Ukraine. Series V: Sources of the most recent history]) (in Ukrainian), Том 2: 10 грудня 1917 р. — 29 квітня 1918 р. [Tom 2: 10 hrudnja 1917 r. — 29 kvitnja 1918 r., Volume 2: 10th of December 1917 – 29th of April 1918], Київ · Kiovia [Kyiv]: Наукова Думка [Naukova Dumka], →ISBN, pages 128–130

• ibidem, § The Ukrainian Social-Democratic Labour Party, page 33:

  Point 3 [sciꝫ of the six-point agrarian programme adopted by the USDRP at the Third Congress of the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party in 1905, viꝫ “Abolition of laws that limit the right of the peasants to make free decisions concerning their land; granting them the right of separation (vydil) from and partition of the communal (hromadskyi) land.”] meant that peasant lands should not be confiscated, that peasants should remain free to sell and buy them at will, and to move from village to individual homesteads without the interference of the hromada.

• ibidem, page 36:

  The National Land Fund was to be managed by the Ukrainian parliament and the land committees; no mention was made of the hromady.
   [ ⋮ ]
  All confiscated lands were to be held by the National Land Fund under the supervision of the land committees (not the hromady).

• ibidem, § The Ukrainian Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, pages 39–40 (with endnote 152 from page 63):

  The Second UPSR Congress called for the socialization of land and set out the following guidelines:¹⁵²
   [ ⋮ ]
  2. The transferral of all lands in Ukraine (Ukrainian Land Fund) without compensation “for the use of all labouring people” under the supervision of the village hromady and land committees.
   [ ⋮ ]
  If this programme is compared with the one adopted by the spilka’s First All-Ukrainian Peasant Congress under the Social Democrats’ influence, apart from the use of the word “socialization,” the only significant difference is the UPSR’s demand that the village hromady participate in the distribution of confiscated lands. Its main difference with the agrarian programme of the USDRP, adopted in October, in addition to the role of the hromady, is its emphasis on the equalization of landholdings within the subsistence/labour norm. These two differences, then, embrace the UPSR’s understanding of socialization: the maximum degree of decentralization in deciding the distribution of land (the rights of the hromady) and equal distribution within the specified subsistence/labour norm. In all other respects the UPSR programme upheld the principles of nationalization, as understood by the Social Democrats. The UPSR inserted these same principles, except for the word “socialization,” into the Central Rada Land Law of 18 January 1918.
   [ ⋮ ]
  152. Khrystiuk, Zamitky i materiialy, 1: 108.

• ibidem, page 40:

  Furthermore, and this is, perhaps, the key to the whole “socialization syndrome,” the UPSR’s emphasis on the hromada as distinct from the obshchina, made it clear to everyone, and especially to the hromada peasants, that the principle of hereditary land use was included by definition. This principle was one of the basic differences between the hromada and the obshchina.

• ibidem, page 41:

  In their agrarian programme, the Ukrainian SRs were influenced more by the Russian SRs than were the Ukrainian SDs by their Russian counterparts. Nevertheless, the differences between the hromada and the obshchina were fundamental.

• ibidem, § The Third Universal and Its Aftermath, page 43:

  The draft was rejected and a new commission was formed, with UPSR members in the majority, to produce a new draft based on the principles of socialization, i.e., leaving the establishment of allotment norms to local land committees and village hromady, within the subsistence/labour range.

• ibidem, page 44:

  The lands were to be supervised and distributed according to the consumption/labour formula by the land committees and the village hromady.

• ibidem, § Agrarian Programme of the Bolsheviks in 1917, The Left SR-Bolshevik Agrarian Legislation, pages 48–49:

  Another significant difference between the two laws is that the Ukrainian law places the village hromada on almost equal footing with the volost land committees in the distribution of local lands and properties, and their subsequent management. The hromada is a legally recognized, local government institution at the bottom of the land committees’ pyramid.

• ibidem, pages 49–50:

  The time period for the use of land is to be allocated by the hromady and land committees, which suggests that redistributions are to be spasmodic under the Ukrainian law.
   [ ⋮ ]
  Finally, according to the Russian law, the confiscated cattle, draught animals, agricultural implements, machinery and similar properties that are designated for distribution are in the charge of the land committees (not the hromady as in Ukraine), and are to be distributed for temporary, repartitional use among the recipients for a fee (rent). On the other hand, the Ukrainian law leaves distribution of items to the discretion of the hromady and land committees, but explicitly states that “there will be no payments for [their] use.”

• ibidem, § Bolshevism in Ukraine from the Agrarian Perspective, Two Months of Bolshevik Occupation, pages 54–55:

  The Lenin decree, in practice, varied from one region of Ukraine to another. A typical session of the Terny volost land committee, Kharkiv gubernia, on 5 March 1918 debated four different proposals submitted by twenty-one villages. These were as follows: (1) to divide the land between each ten households, and leave further partition to the latter’s discretion; (2) for the whole village to sow the land collectively and then divide it per household; (3) to partition the land per capita and then let the people cultivate it; and (4) to leave the entire matter to the hromada.

• ibidem, § Results of the 1917 Revolution, page 57:

  Pershin estimated that, in the course of 1917, in the south of Ukraine and in Moldavia, 27.4 per cent of all peasant households participated in the distribution of land, of which 82.4 per cent were individual farmers, and the rest, 17.6 per cent, in hromady.

• 1985, Богда́н Олекса́ндрович Кра́вченко [Bohdan Krawchenko], Social Change and National Consciousness in Twentieth-Century Ukraine (The Canadian Library in Ukrainian Studies), paperback edition, Edmonton · Downsview: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (University of Alberta) in association with St Antony’s College, Oxford, distributed by the University of Toronto Press, published 1987, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, chapter 2: “Ukrainian Society in the 1920s”, § 3. The Village, page 59 (with endnote 56 from page 271):

  When the Third Universal abolished the private ownership of land by ‘non-toiling’ elements, the peasantry, organised into local committees (hromady), had already seized control of almost a third of all non-peasant lands.⁵⁶
   [ ⋮ ]
  56. Vsevolod Holubnychy, ‘The 1917 Agrarian Revolution in Ukraine’, in I. S. Koropeckyj (ed.) Soviet Regional Economics: Selected Works of Vsevolod Holubnychy, (Edmonton, 1982) pp. 42, 56–7.

• ibidem, chapter 3: “Ukrainian Society in the 1930s”, § 3. Class Structure, page 128:

  The institutions of collective and democratic decision-making in the village, such as the hromady (community assemblies) were liquidated. Collectivisation destroyed the age-old collectivism of rural life.

• 1988, Васи́ль Васи́льович Ма́ркусь [Vasyl Markus], “Hromada.” (spans four pages), in Володи́мир Миха́йлович Кубійо́вич [Volodymyr Kubijovyč], editor, Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Volume II: G–K, Toronto · Buffalo · London: University of Toronto Press, →DOI, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, no pagination, page 1 of 4:

  Hromada. The Ukrainian term for a commune or community – the most basic administrative-territorial unit in any one (rural) settlement. Historically the social and legal significance of the term has varied. It has also been used to refer to church-parish communities and to groups sharing property (to the exclusion of non-members). During the medieval Princely era a community was called a *verv. Several vervy made up a *volost. Other terms for communities at the time were the desiatok (clan), sotnia (larger clan), and *tysiacha (tribe); with time these took on the same meaning as the hromada, verv, and zemlia (land,’ ie, ‘domain’) respectively, and in the end acquired additional military meanings (see *desiatskyi and *Tysiatskyi).

• ibidem, pages 1–2 of 4:

  In the 14th and 15th centuries, when *Rus’ law was still in effect in Galicia and the Lithuanian-ruthenian state, many volost hromady existed and enjoyed wide-ranging self-rule. The head of each *dvoryshche (an extended-family group) met with his peers (muzhiie, liudy) to elect the leader (starets or *starosta) of a volost. The general assembly of a volost – the *kopa – had judicial and enforcement functions (see *Community court), and members of the volost were collectively responsible for tax collection and apprehending and handing over wrongdoers. In introducing serfdom (see *Voloka land reform), the nobility of the 16th century broke up the volost hromady into individual village hromady. The latter retained vestiges of self-rule and fought to maintain their ancient rights, but they lost their autonomy with the advent of Polish-Lithuanian rule and the substitution of Rus’ law with *Germanic law. Thereafter the hromada was subject to the authority of a *viit (reeve) designated by the local demesnal owner (a noble, the church, or the king).

• ibidem, page 2 of 4:

  In the Carpathian Mountains of Galicia the pastoral hromady were governed by *Wallachian law; they elected their leader (kniez) and enjoyed self-rule for a much longer time because of their isolation and non-agricultural economy.
  In Left-Bank Ukraine, hromady existed well into the 19th century. They were either purely Cossack, mixed (ie, consisting of Cossacks and commoners sharing the same rights but headed by a Cossack otaman), or purely peasant-village hromady (headed by a viit or starosta). The otaman and viit/starosta were elected and were responsible for convening assemblies to resolve communal matters of administration, justice, and land use.

• ibidem, pages 2–3 of 4:

  Because the hromady each owned some land, they came to be known as land communities. Allotments of arable land and their subdivision were designated by the hromada assembly. In Ukraine, land ownership by the hromady diminished during the 18th century; in Russia proper, land ownership by the peasant commune (*obshchina) had deeper roots and continued up to the 1917 revolution. The 1861 *land reform and abolition of serfdom in the Russian Empire gave the land hromady new Relevance: land ownership was granted not to individual peasants, but to the hromada, which then distributed the land and had collective responsibility for ensuring that its members paid their taxes and redemption payments. This kind of hromada was prevalent in Left-Bank and Southern Ukraine. Not until the *Stolypin agrarian reforms after the 1905 revolution did private land ownership and use supersede that of the commune. This transformation occurred far more extensively in Ukraine than in Russia proper (see *Land tenure system).

• ibidem, page 3 of 4:

  Under Russian rule, the hromada as an administrative unit existed in the form of a ‘rural society,’ and throughout the 19th century it was allowed a minimum of social organization and autonomy. Until 1861, only state peasants could belong to village hromady; afterwards, all emancipated serfs were included. The governing bodies of the village hromada were the skhod (assembly, consisting of the village elders and 2 adult male family heads for every 10 households) and the starosta. The skhod elected the starosta and other officials, set taxes, and resolved various husbandry problems. Nonetheless, the village hromada had extremely limited self-rule and was directly supervised by various volost authorities. On an informal and extra-legal level the hromada also acted to preserve community solidarity and interests through social control of behavior. Community action (samosud) was taken against fellow villagers or outsiders who broke the law or infringed upon local customs.
  Under Austrian rule, the West Ukrainian village hromada had much more extensive autonomy. In addition to specific functions delineated by various laws, it performed others handed down by the civil administration. The governing organs of the hromada were the council and the viit. Only adult males who paid taxes or were enumerated in the census as part of a particular professional category could take part in its elections.
  During the period of Ukrainian statehood in 1917–20, self-government of the hromady was restored and democratized but had little opportunity to develop. Under Soviet rule, the village and municipal hromady were replaced in the 1920s by *rural Soviets and *municipal governments.

• ibidem, pages 3–4 of 4:

  In Western Ukraine under interwar Polish rule the village hromada did not, in fact, have its own government but was, in most cases, administered by an appointed government commissioner. The traditional system, however, was not officially abolished until 1933, when a new law concerning territorial self-rule was introduced and several hromady came to constitute a *gmina. The hromada was responsible for taking care of its village’s communal property and roads, and co-operating with the gmina authorities in cultural, agricultural, and health matters affecting the village. The head of the hromada – the *soltys – and its council were elected by all inhabitants of the hromada who were 24 years of age or older. The election of the soltys was confirmed by the county head (starosta), and the entire hromada was supervised by the county office and the gmina head (viit, Polish: wójt), who, despite the existence of this legal framework, was frequently appointed in many Ukrainian regions by the commissioner.

• ibidem, page 4 of 4:

  In Transcarpathia, each village had a self-governing hromada, which elected its starosta. Only in matters concerning the administration of the state as a whole (under Hungary and Czechoslovakia) were several hromady subordinated to a district notary office.

• 1988 January, John Channon, “The peasantry in the revolutions of 1917” (chapter 6, pages 105–130), in Edith Rogovin Frankel, Jonathan Frankel, ברוך קני-פז [Baruch Knei-Paz], editors, Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917, Cambridge · New York · Port Chester · Melbourne · Sydney: Cambridge University Press, published 1992, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, page 109:

  The hromada in the Ukraine and the mir in Russia both evidently gained ground, and regions not strongly communal before 1917 became more so during 1917 and after.

• 1992, Edith Rogovin Frankel, Jonathan Frankel, ברוך קני-פז [Baruch Knei-Paz], editors, opere citato, Glossary (pages xix–xx), page xix:

  hromada: (Ukrainian) community or assembly; a term favoured by Ukrainian populists (analogous to mir and obshchina in the terminology of the Russian narodniki)

• 1999, Graham Kee Lee Tan, Village social organisation and peasant action: Right-bank Ukraine during the revolution 1917–1923 (doctoral dissertation), London: University College London School of Slavonic and East European Studies, chapter six: “The Initial Attempts of Community and State to Resolve the Land Question during the Political and Military Turmoil of the Civil War”, page 190:

  A survey of mill ownership and use in Starokonstantinivsʹkyi povit in 1919 revealed the continuing role of the community in negotiating rental contracts on behalf of the whole village. In some cases the renter was listed as a cooperative enterprise or group of village workers but, of seventy-four mills registered in the document, twenty-seven were rented directly by the community on one-year contracts.¹³⁰ This suggests continued community influence over economic affairs.
  130 TsDAVO, f. 1062, op. 1, spr. 82, ark. 218–230. Vidomost pro arendu staniv ta mliniv v Starokonstiantinivsʹkomu poviti, June 1919. The community is referred to as the hromada in the original text.

• ibidem, chapter eight: “Land Distribution and the Issue of Agricultural Resources in the Right Bank after 1920.”, page 243:

  In other cases local peasants’ demands took priority, as evidence from Lipovetsʹkyi povit, Kyiv hubernia, reveals. The former private land fund was first to go to ‘local peasants registered in the hromada before 1918 even if they were absent’ and those who had lived and worked in the village without being registered. Those who held land in several hromady (a common occurrence in the Right Bank) could choose the community in which to receive a share of land. The second priority in any redistribution of land were those who had arrived in the village after 1918 to work on the land or as hired labourers. At the bottom of the scale, there were those who were registered in the hromada but who had lived outside it for years, and those who did not work on the land, whether permanent or temporary residents in the village. Therefore, in some instances, the land went to those groups who had the most direct and longest historical claim to it.

• ibidem, Glossary of Terms, page 296:

  hromada (Ukr) –        term for rural community and meeting of its members

• ibidem, page 300:

  zemelʹna hromada (Ukr) –    land community introduced throughout Ukraine and Russian Federation in 1922
  zemelʹnoe obshchestvo (Rus) – land community introduced throughout Ukraine and Russian Federation in 1922

• 2001 June 18th, Богда́н Олекса́ндрович Кра́вченко [Bohdan Krawchenko], “Agrarian Unrest and the Shaping of a National Identity in Ukraine at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” (chapter 2, pages 18–33), in മാധവൻ കെ. പാലാട്ട് [Madhavan Kezhkepat Palat], editor, Social Identities in Revolutionary Russia, London: Palgrave Macmillan, →DOI, →ISBN, →LCCN, →OCLC, →OL, page 29 (with endnote 60 from page 33):

  By the end of September 1917 the peasantry, organized into local committees (hromady) had already redistributed about one-third of all non-peasant lands.⁶⁰
   [ ⋮ ]
  60. Vsevolod Holubnychy, ‘The 1917 Agrarian Revolution in Ukraine’, in I. S. Koropeckyj (ed.), Soviet Regional Economics: Selected Works of Vsevolod Holubnychy (Edmonton, 1982) pp. 10, 12, 57.

• 2014 June 26th, “Poroshenko suggests granting status of regions to Crimea, Kyiv, Sevastopol, creating new political subdivision of ‘community’”, in Interfax-Ukraine‎^[1], archived from the original on the 1st of July, 2014:

  Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has proposed changing the political division of the country, which should include regions, districts and “hromadas” (communities).