Historical-sociological descriptions of rise and development of modern bureaucratic attribute great significance to war and taxation. According to so-called military-taxation theory, collects taxes, which grant it resources to survive in geopolitical competition. The ability of a to regularly raise necessary tax revenue to conduct war is viewed as one of most important indicators of successful building. According to this theory, that adopt most productive taxes and institutionalize most modern forms of tax administration are able to mobilize ever greater quantities of labor and materiel and therefore have edge in this perpetual arms race.... In long run, military competition led all surviving states to converge on efficient and productive tax systems, and those tax systems in turn led to militarization and bureaucratization of society. (1) The history of early modern Russian state, too, has been analyzed through prism of military-taxation theory. Chester Dunning and Norman Smith detect a fiscal-military in Russia in 16th century, while Endre Sashalmi prefers period between second half of 17th century to first quarter of (18)th century for emergence of a Russian fiscal-military state. (2) By contrast, Janet Hartley concludes that Russia could hardly be defined as a fiscal-military even in (18)th century. (3) The observations and conclusions of these authors (as well as my own) should be taken as preliminary and open to discussion, because of both current of historical research and existence of important theoretical problems that still require further attention. From 20th century through present day, historians of taxation have reconstructed budget, yearly fluctuation of returns from various types of taxes, and structure of tax apparatus. They have also reconstructed composition of tax apparatus and its daily activities related to collection of taxes and revenue from population. (4) Yet more research is required, working with sources of (16)th through (19)th centuries to resolve new and important theoretical problems. One such question concerns manner in which we approach itself. As Douglass North, John Wallis, and Barry Weingast note, economists and social scientists concerned with understanding how develops and interacts with larger society have modeled as a revenue-maximizing monarch, a stationary bandit, or a single-actor 'representative agent.' By overlooking reality that all states are organizations, this approach misses how internal dynamics of relationships among elites within dominant coalition affect how states interact with larger society. (5) Their approach may not be entirely new, after all, Max Weber already recognized as a human community, one that claims a monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. (6) North, Wallis, and Weingast are right, however, to remind us that as a human community is an organization, and that its internal structure and institutions have had a decisive effect on course of building. (7) In Russia, state emerged in late (15) th century as an organization of hereditary landowning class (termed nobility in (18)th century), centralized and united around figure of monarch. Social collaboration within ruling class was in many respects what allowed Russian autocracy to function. Regionally based, independent magnates were absent. As David Goldfrank notes, the aristocracy contributed only glue, not centrifugal counter-force to central establishment. (8) Occupying a office was both right and duty of ruling class. The Russian administrative apparatus of (17)th and (18)th centuries performed function of a corporate structure for ruling class. …