Priemiesčio kolūkis: kolūkinė "demokratija"

LTStraipsnyje gvildenamos prie antrojo pagal dydį Lietuvos miesto Kauno prigludusio Rokų kolūkio 1949-1992 m. veiklos problemos. Tyrimui pasirinkta kaimiškoji priemiesčio vietovė yra būdingas sovietmečio ir vėlesnių nepriklausomybės metų Lietuvos kaime vykusių procesų pavyzdys. Remiantis Kauno apskrities archyve saugomų kolūkio valdymo organų protokolų duomenimis, juos gretinant su autoriaus stebėjimu ir apklausos būdu gautomis žiniomis, šioje pirmoje dalyje atskleidžiama kolūkio raida, narių priėmimo ir kolūkio valdymo tvarka. Sunkiausiais pokario Stalino diktatūros metais kolūkis buvo valdytas dar gana demokratiškai, sprendimai buvo priimami atsižvelgiant ne tik į kolūkio valdybos narių, bet ir į visuotinių susirinkimų metu pasisakiusių eilinių kolūkiečių nuomonę. „Chruščiovinio atšilimo“ laikais vieningai išreikšta nuomonė lemdavo netgi kolūkiui nepriimtinus aukštesnės valdžios primestus sprendimus. Tačiau, švelnėjant politiniam režimui, kolūkio vadovaujančiųjų organų sprendimai, kuriais buvo siekiama kolūkio narius priversti atlikti visus privalomus darbus, griežtėjo. Sprendimai griežtėjo ir po 1964 m., kai, pasikeitus SSSR vadovybės žemės ūkio politikai, kolūkio nariai pradėjo gauti užtikrintą piniginį atlygį ir visus darbus noriai atlikdavo patys. Griežti sprendimai atskleidžia ne tik kolūkio vadovybės siekius įvykdyti įsipareigojimus valstybei, bet ir rodo kaime įsigalinčios vietinės biurokratijos galią, kai dėl naudos kolūkiui, nepaisant netgi galiojančių įstatymų, pradedami ginti savi, netgi prasižengę jo nariai.

ENArticle treats the problems of Rokai collective farm’s (near the second largest Lithuanian city Kaunas) activities and the way of life of its members during the period of 1949-1992. The rural suburban area selected for the study is a characteristic example of the processes that took place during the Soviet period and later years of independence in the Lithuanian village. During the postwar period the farmers of Rokai and surrounding villages were forcibly herded into the collective farm, although the proximity of a city and a difficult farm members’ position drew a considerable part of the working-age population to leave the village. During the development of the collective farm, its economic power grew, but the people – though the collective farm then was a voluntary community – in fact had no rights, as the decisions were made not by the general meeting of collective farmers, but the officials of the Communist Party. The collective farm system changed not only the farming, but also the lifestyle. In 1958-1966, most of the collective farm villages and farmsteads were destroyed, people had to move to the settlements. In 1958 there came to live people from the villages flooded in 1959 by Kaunas Lagoon, and in 1970, when an economically strong collective farm began to experience labor shortage, also the population from more distant places in Lithuania. The latter peaked in 1976-1978, as they were attracted by the proximity of Kaunas city. In 1964, after the changes in agricultural policy of the Soviet leaders, the standard of living of its members greatly improved. After the liquidation Rokai collective farm in 1992, there were established two agricultural companies: one of them provides only transport services, and other works in the former Rokai pig-breeding complex.In the first part, on the basis of the data of the collective farm management records of the meetings kept in the Kaunas regional archives, comparing them with the author’s observations and survey data, there is described the history of the collective farm, admittance rules to it and its management. During the most difficult post-war Stalinist dictatorship years the collective farm was managed in a rather democratic way, decisions were taken not only taking into account the opinion of the collective farm board members, but also of the ordinary collective farmers who expressed their opinion during general meetings. Unanimity in “Khrushchev’s Thaw” times helped to refuse the unacceptable to the farm decisions of higher government. However, when the political regime softened, the decisions of the managing bodies of the collecting farm in order to force to do all the required work stiffened. Especially in 1964 after the changes in the Soviet leadership’s agricultural policy, when the collective farm members began to receive guaranteed cash reward and willingly did all the works themselves. Rigorous decisions reveals not only the farm management’s aims to fulfill obligations to the state, but also show the power of local bureaucracy in the village, when for the benefit of the collective farm, even despite the existing laws, the members of the farm, even the offenders, started to be defended.