| edly, eludes earning for the fortune by “real” work and exploits earnestly working people. Second element comprises the understanding of the “dirty” privatisation, which took place during the early years of recovered independence, when a part of farm properties were cheaply bought by businessmen and later on sold out more expensively.
“How can the property of “biznierius” be “clean”? They are the same speculators as they used to be under the Soviet Union. They cheat ordinary people, stick with expensive stuff and that’s all. The difference is that now they are called as businessmen and behave as big lords. Earlier on such persons were regarded as gypsies and police used to catch them.” (V. N., 57 yrs.)
Life according to the principles of market economy and larger involvement of people in one or other activity transforms the understanding and estimations of business. Businessmen themselves are segmented into “simple” and “biznierius”. The “simple”, small scale businessmen are positively approached. The property of such businessmen is treated as earned fairly. The so called “biznierius” or “bosas”, whose owned property resources cannot be clearly identified, are negatively approached. This most often relates the representatives for big business.
“Secure” vs. “insecure” property
The other aspect, evolving while evaluating the property, is the dilemma of its “security” and “insecurity”. Any property possessed during sovietism was insecure, because state acknowledged the possession of private property for only non-commercial activities. All other property, which exceeded the limitations allowed (e. g. increase of cattle, limited amount of real estate or production) or was earned by engaging into illegal (e. g. commercial) activities, could officially be confiscated by the state at any time. In reality, the appliance of the aforementioned situation was rather restricted by a number of cut-outs such as useful acquaintanceship, relations, bribes and similar. The mostly secure layer was civil service, less secure – ordinary employees.
Many responders acknowledge that currently one may hardly figure a state, which could penalise a person for managing business or estate qualification by confiscating his property. It this way property is secure. From the other side, part of the habitants, who manage business or commercial activities, pursue to develop the efficiency of their activities and therefore are forced to take loans from the banks to finance the purchase or renovate the machinery or buildings. The real or personal estate is mortgaged as a guarantee. In some occasions, the production-generated revenues do not repurchase the credit received. Therefore, one may get into a vicious circle: either one borrows again, or other sources are searched. A threat to lose one’s property menaces.
“These times the property is equally insecure. If, at Russian, you had to mind the government not taking it away, now - you mind the banks and the production is bought up for cents. How the credits shall be re-paid then?“ (R. P., 50 yrs.)
“Effective“ vs. “ineffective”
During the occupation of the Soviet Union, the property relations were directly incorporated into a plan based modelling of the central economy, because of its direct influence on the market and base of communist ideology. In post-sovietism, when the state reduced its control on market relations, the escalation of social problems in the society posed particular approaches towards public and state sectors.
The dimension of “effective” vs. “ineffective” rests in the society since sovietism, when an approach towards state sector formed, which distinguished by an enforced derivative that sought to control the private activities by all means and advocated ineffective farming. |
dizainas ir programavimas giriaus