| collective or state farm. Any attempts to privatise it publicly are recognised as a direct trial to deprive the fairly earned possession. Respondents found it difficult to realise the economical function of shares pajai. They are not trusted, because their value does not correspond to what was earned de facto.
“Company is the company: it is the same collective farm. They only put all the property into papers and those, who were closer to the government or more cunning, had wangled some machinery. At the start, when the company functioned, it distributed some centner of grains. But now everything is finished, if one had not sold pajai, one can throw them at oneself.“ (A. P., 55 yrs.)
The employees of the company, who managed to peculate lots of property (mostly of personal estate type) during the collapse of planned economy, are not condemned. They are reproached only in a way that they obtained property and profited from their former status. The illegal embezzlement of property or goods from the company or enterprise is perceived as a way of reclamation of legitimate earnings.
“Clean” vs “dirty” property
The understanding of property, the categories of evaluation emerges: real – unreal, clean – dirty, etc. These distinctions developed while the responders evaluated the activities of the aforementioned individual enterprises or joint stock companies as well as the role of businessmen in privatisation. The responders firstly pinpointed that currently, contrary to sovietism, every type of property is “real”. This reflects the transformation of mental categories that were being formed by former economical model.
The factor of obtained possession is treated otherwise. The first privatisation stage after the recovery of the independence is often remembered and cited. Years spent in the collective or state company formed a specific approach towards the property of the company as “own“, the management and division of which should firstly rest on its employees.
“We have worked for that farm for ages, health was rendered and everything […] was built by own hands. Whom does it belong more? Who had to parcel it the foremost?“ (M. B., 62 yrs.)
The privatisation of former collective/state farm was inspected as through the reading-glass. Every purchase of private or real estate evoked wide attention of local community. Businessmen or newcomer farmer, who benefited from legal gaps of the first stage of privatisation, reaped ambiguous evaluation of the property procured.
The responders estimate the property according to the criteria of the way the property was obtained and managed. The dimension of “clean” and “dirty” is introduced.
The prevailing opinion about the farms, which are managed by individuals, who used to be the officers in soviet collective/state farms, is that their property was obtained in a “dirty” way, i. e. by exercising their status. It is emphasised that the successful farming or involvement into the business is determined not only by good education or management, but also by unequal start positions, which rest on illegally accumulated material base and former relationships.
“Now it is simple for the former zoo-technician to farm. As far as she knew that everything should have collapsed, she wangled best machinery, live stock for oneself.” (K. R., 68 yrs.)
The approach towards the businessmen distinguishes by the categories of soviet mentality in the most of the cases. Though the context is slightly changing in the past years, the majority of “brought up by sovietism” inhabitants still associate business with the speculation that flourished in sovietism and the revenues as well as property generated from that period are always “dirty”. Few elements influence this understanding.
First of these elements, is sovietism persistent image of businessmen/speculator, who, suppo- | 
dizainas ir programavimas giriaus