Lietuvių sovietinė nomenklatūra kaip kontrolės objektas ir subjektas

LTPostalininiame laikotarpyje regint didėjantį nomenklatūros vaidmenį, šiuo straipsniu siekiama pažvelgti į lietuvių nomenklatūrų kaip į kontrolės objektų ir subjektų. Kadangi centrinės valdžios nustatyta valdymo hierarchija ir stilius apėmė sovietinių respublikų priežiūrų, bandoma apžvelgti, kokios situacijos apibrėžia lietuvių sovietinės nomenklatūros buvimų kontrolės objektu ir kokiose plotmėse ji sugebėjo reikšti savus interesus, rodyti aktyvumų ir taikyti kontrolės priemones atskiroms institucijoms ar visuomenės grupėms. Gilinantis į planinių tikslų vykdymo, darbo drausmės, tikrinimų ir ideologinio reguliavimo laukų, atskleidžiama vietinės nomenklatūros įtraukimo į sistemų ir galimybių laviruoti joje specifika. [Iš leidinio]

EN[…] Many studies hesitate to call the post-Stalin system totalitarian and secretary-generals of the Communist Party as unilateral leaders. In individual studies, nomenclature, particularly top ranking, is clearly perceived as an acting and influencing subject, capable of subjecting system resources to its articulated aims. However, the discussion of the role of Lithuanian nomenclature as a certain peripheral elite and its relationship with the system shows that it is impossible to treat it only as an acting subject. The interests and management style of the central government determined greater or lesser control of the Soviet republics. […] The Soviet institutional environment was saturated with control. Control measures were designed not only to control processes in society; they were also applied to the system of nomenclature itself by applying hierarchical control principles both to the governing political party and lower executive ranks. Information was collected about ideological compliance and participation in the execution of plans. Transgressions recognised to be ideological were assessed most strictly. The tools of control were diverse: in addition to control bodies (peoples control, GLAVLIT, KGB) Communist party structures and ministries had their own divisions responsible for control of the activities of a particular area and even the suitability of people. In addition to routine planned activity, individual influential officials carried out controlling functions and exposed ad hoc cases. It can be stated that the system was essentially saturated with control activities – the same area was controlled by at least 3–4 levels dillerent levels of ollicials and this obviously stilled the dynamics of any activity.In the late Soviet period, locality as a factor of social environment can be clearly distinguished whereby local representatives of the nomenclature would often reduce the effect of control by replacing the object "what and how to control" with the consensus of higher ranking officials of the nomenclature regarding the areas and leaders to be controlled and possible consequences of control (including penalties for members of the Communist Party). This model complemented institutional regulation and was applied not only to ensure control inside a republic but also in relation to the supervision carried out by the centre. The government of the republic frequently faced hostility from some leaders controlling the manufacturing industry, but except for one incident, it managed to "localise" both local and arriving leaders, thereby creating a certain closed social network of members of the nomenclature of the republic and simultaneously opening more opportunities for higher ranking officials of Lithuanian nomenclature to express their personal interests, assess the situation subjectively, and act in the area of control as a subject rather than an object. The social network of members of the nomenclature of the republic rather actively and using various measures sought to isolate their own circle therefore ensuring not only the integrity of the circle, but also control of the space subordinate to it, while at the same time maintaining good relations with the centre. The top ranking officials of the republic were very keen to maintain the stability of this network and their primary goal was to preserve the routine of governing, given that this status quo was in line with Brezhnev's governing style. [From the publication]