The majority of other soviet and post-soviet anthropology researches confine to studies of countries that were not included into the Soviet Union. Regarding the property relations, their conclusions could be acceptable only partly as the most of Soviet-block countries distinguished by limited commercial activities in the private sector, which actualised in a form of co-operative property (e. g. agricultural enterprises in Soviet Poland)22. By contrast, the realisation of any surplus product from the private sector was treated as illegal in the Soviet Union till “perestroika”.

From the positions of history of civilisations, the problematics in research is mostly related with the model of Lithuania as a periphery of Western civilisation, developed by Lithuanian historian E. Gudavičius, who underlines the importance of individual farming as an indicator of cultural/civilisational dependence23.

Referring to the data of the year 1939, 77,1 per cent of Lithuanian inhabitants lived in village24. The majority of them worked in agriculture and maintained private farmlands, which were owned by themselves or agrarians.

Occupation, which commenced interruptedly, launched not only totalitarism, which was alien to the political traditions, but also a new model of community relations, built on collective property and communal farming, as well as artificially forcing the industrialisation and urbanisation of the country25. Despite the intense migration from village to town, the population living in town did not exceed 50 per cent till 197026. Therefore, during the most time in occupation, the village-type society prevailed in Lithuania. Its production made not less than 28 per cent of total GDP of the country27.

During Sovietism in Lithuania, private sector was treated as a rudiment of commercial activities and therefore contradicted the society model that was constructed by the official Communist ideology. Following this, it was pursued to eliminate it from the market. Nevertheless, legally, a person could possess private property only for uncommercial purposes. All personal and real estates as well as their output were controlled by the state. However the Soviet power structures were unsuccessful in totally eliminating private sector. In reality, private sector, which produced surplus production for commercial purposes, remained a half-legal, informal and shadow structure in village or city.

[image]

Private sector for the rural and urban societies was one of the main sources of incomes, resources for which were rendered from the state sector. Private business tradition in Sovietism

___

22 Wedel J. The private Poland. New York, 1986,
p. 53–54.

23 Gudavičius E. Lietuvos europėjimo kelias: istorinės studijos. Vilnius, 2002, p. 19–20.

24 Lietuvos statistikos metraštis 2001, p. 31.

25 Šimėnas A. Ekonomikos reforma Lietuvoje. Vilnius, 1996, p. 17–18.

26 Lietuvos statistikos metraštis 2001, p. 24.

27 Šimėnas A. Ibid, p. 146–148.