Academic literature on the topic 'Post-communism – Lithuania'

The paper focuses on the ways of visualizing political and economic transformation in the works of artists from post-communist Europe mainly in the 1990s. Those works, which today, in a wide geographical context, may be interpreted as problematizing the idea of transformation, were often originally appropriated by such discourses of the post-transformation decade as the art of the new media and technology (Estonia), performance (Russia), feminism (Lithuania), body art (Hungary), and critical art (Poland), which marginalized the problem of transformation. Analyses of the works of artists from Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Russia make it possible to determine and problematize the poles of transformation in a number of ways, pointing at the inadequacy of those poles which traditionally spread from the end of totalitarian communism to democracy identified with free market economy. By the same token, they allow one to question their apparent antithetical character which connects the transformation process to the binary structures of meaning established in the period of the Cold War. The presented analyses demonstrate that the gist of the transformation was not so much the fall of communism, which is surviving in the post-1989 art of East-Central Europe due to the leftist inclinations of many artists with a Marxist intellectual background, but the collapse of the binary structure of the world. Methodologically inspired by Boris Buden, Susan Buck-Morss, Marina Gržinić, Edit András, Boris Groys, Alexander Kiossev, and Igor Zabel, they restore the revolutionary character of 1989 and, simultaneously, a dialectical approach to the accepted poles of the transformation. An example of ideological appropriation, which may be interpreted as problematizing the political transformation, is Trap. Expulsion from Paradiseby the Lithuanian artist Eglė Rakauskaitė. The first part of the paper focuses on Jaan Toomik’s May 15-June 1, 1992, interpreted in the theoretical terms proposed by Marina Gržinić and Boris Groys as a work of art that visualizes the concept of post-communism as excrement of the transformation process. Placed in the context of such works as In Fat(1998) by Eglė Rakauskaitė, 200 000 Ft(1997) by the Hungarian artist Kriszta Nagy or Corrections(1996-1998) by Rassim Krastev from Bulgaria, Toomik’s work is one of many created at that time in East-Central Europe, which thematized the transformation process with reference to the artist’s body. Krastev’s Correctionsproblematizes the transformation as a process of self-colonization by the idiom of the West, as well as a modification of the utopia of production, one aspect of which was propaganda referring to the body, changing it in an instrument that transformed the political order into a consumerist utopia where bodies exist as marketable products. The part titled, “The Poles of Transformation as a Function of the Cold War,” focuses on A Western View(1989) by the Bulgarian artist Nedko Solakov and This is my blood(2001) by Alexander Kossolapov from Russia. In a theoretical context drawn from the texts by Zabel, Buden, and Ekaterina Degot, Solakov’s work has been interpreted as problematizing the transformation understood as refashioning the world, no longer based on the bipolar division into East and West. The paper ends with an analysis of Cunyi Yashi, a work of the Hungarian artist Róbert Szabó Benke, which problematizes the collapse of the bipolar world structure in politics and the binary coding of sexual identity. In Szabó Benke’s work, the transformation is represented as rejection of the binary models of identity – as questioning their role in the emergence of meanings in culture.

The main objective of the work described here was to identify core phenomena and processes relating to post-1989 voting behavior in selected CEECs (Poland, Romania and Lithuania). Political and economic changes commencing some 30 years ago triggered the process of transformation of post-communist countries from an economy that was centrally planned and steered, towards one based around the market that was liberal and open to global processes. This transformation was accompanied by dynamic political and social phenomena, as culminating in the accessions of the majority of CEECs to NATO and the European Union. One of the very important consequences of the collapse of the communist system was the introduction of the democratic institution of free elections. Despite decades of unification under communism, differences in terms of political sympathies were still revealed, including with a spatial dimension. One such involved distinct differentiation in voting behavior between cities and rural areas. However, the latter areas were also characterized by visible internal differentiation. Variability occurred not only in space, but also temporally. While the change of influence of individual parties or political options from one election to another is a normal phenomenon, there are more durable changes of a generational character. The researched period proves readily dividable into two intervals, even as all the CEECs considered here are characterised by similar, if regionally differentiated, trends. Thus, in all states the post-1989 period can be divided up into a first (post-communist) part characterized by the dispute between the centre-right, mostly originating from the anti-communist opposition (dissident movements), and the groupings arising out of communist formations. The latter would come to power mainly via support from the inhabitants of rural areas. The second period is undoubtedly linked with the change of generations. People who matured under communism came to be replaced by those who grew up during perestroika and democracy.

Santrauka. Straipsnyje lyginamos tarpukario ir pokomunistinės agrarinių reformų pradinės sąlygos, eiga ir rezultatai, šį diachroninį palyginimą praplečiant ir kontroliuojant sinchroniniais palyginimais su analogiškais procesais kitose Rytų ir Vidurio Europos šalyse tarpukario ir pokomunistiniais laikais. Svarbiausius abiejų reformų panašumus lėmė 1949–51 m. kolektyvizacija, visus Lietuvos žemdirbius pastačiusi į padėtį, kurioje iki 1922 m. reformos buvo dvarų darbininkai kumečiai, kurie dalį atlyginimo gaudavo natūra – ordinarija. Jos dalis buvo dvaro inventoriumi bei gyvuliais dirbamas dvaro žemės sklypas, analogiškas kolūkiečių asmeninių pagalbinių ūkių sklypams. Skirtingai nuo Rusijos, Lietuvos kolūkiečiai nebuvo kolūkių baudžiauninkai, o tik kumečiai. Kaip ir dvarų iki 1922 m. reformos darbininkams, sovietiniams kumečiams buvo taikomas represinis darbo jėgos kontrolės režimas, suteikęs kolektyvinių ūkių vadovams faktinę „raudonųjų baronų“ galią. Pagrindiniai tarpukario reformų Rytų Europos šalyse tikslai buvo anksčiau privilegijuotų tautinių mažumų galios apribojimas ir bolševizmo įtakos slopinimas. Tik Baltijos šalyse ji neturėjo neigiamų ekonominių pasekmių, ką Lietuvoje užtikrino kartu su dvarų parceliacija vykęs kaimų skirstymasis į vienkiemius. Palyginti su tarpukario reforma, pokomunistinė agrarinė reforma buvo mažiau nuosekli, nes jos eigą lėmė interesų konfliktas tarp naujos sovietinių kumečių kartos, suinteresuotų įprastų darbo vietų išsaugojimu, ir išėjusių į miestus buvusių žemės savininkų palikuonių. Kadangi Lietuva buvo viena tų pokomunistinių šalių, kuriose stipresnė buvo antroji stovykla, čia buvo įgyvendinta radikali restitucinė žemės reforma ir šeiminį ūkį restauruojanti de-kolektyvizacija. Dėl sovietmečiu įvykusios vienkiemių likvidacijos ir demografinių pokyčių, ji negrąžino Lietuvos kaimo ir žemės ūkio į 1940 m., bet sukūrė būklę, labiau primenančią Lietuvos kaimo situaciją iki 1922 m. reformos: gausus mažažemių („trihektarininkų“) sluoksnis, gatviniai kaimai (buvusios kolūkinės gyvenvietės), fragmentuota žemės valdų struktūra, iš žemės ūkio bendrovių (ŽŪB) išaugę arba naujai besikuriantys latifundiniai ūkiai, primenantys ikireforminius dvarus. Pačių ŽŪB, įsikūrusių kolūkių gamybiniuose centruose, pokomunistinė raida analogiška 1922 m. reformos apkarpytų dvarų, kurių nuosavybėje liko jų centrai, likimui: dauguma bankrutavo ir buvo išvaržyti, tačiau dalis virto konkurencingomis kapitalistinėms žemės ūkio įmonėmis. Savo ekonominiais rezultatais tarpukario reforma pranoksta pokomunistinę, nes po jos ir bendra žemės ūkio gamybos apimtis, ir jos produktyvumas tik augo, tuo tarpu kai pirmuoju pokomunistinės transformacijos dešimtmečiu abu rodikliai smuko. Ekskomunistinės kairės propaguota nuosaiki agrarinė reforma nebūtų leidusi išvengti gamybos apimties smukimo, nes tą apimtį užtikrino vėlyvuoju sovietmečiu žemės ūkiui sudarytos „ekonominio šiltnamio“ sąlygos (dosnios subsidijos) ir neribota paklausa. Tačiau nuosaikesnė ar palaipsnė reforma veikiausiai būtų leidusi jau pirmajame dešimtmetyje padidinti žemės ūkio gamybos produktyvumą. Lietuvai tapus ES nare ir jos žemės ūkiui vėl patekus į „ekonominį šiltnamį“, žemės ūkio veikla nebegali būti vertinama vien ekonominiais masteliais. Matuojant pokomunistinės agrarinės reformos padarinius Lietuvoje gamtosaugos vertybėmis, jie yra labai pozityvūs.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: 1922 m. žemės reforma Lietuvoje, pokomunistinė agrarinė reforma Lietuvoje, represinė darbo jėgos kontrolė, tarptautinis tarpukario ir pokomunistinių agrarinių reformų palyginimas.Key words: Land reform in Lithuania in 1922, post-communist agrarian reform ir Lithuania, repressive control of labour, international comparison of the interwar and post-communist agrarian reforms.ABSTRACTA COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF AGRARIAN REFORMS IN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIAThe paper compares the initial conditions, the course and the outcomes of the interwar (1922) and the post-communist (since 1989) agrarian reforms in Lithuania, controlling and enlarging these diachronic comparisons with synchronic comparisons of the analoguos processes in other Eastern and Central European countries at the same times. Most important similarities between both reforms were created by the collectivization in 1948–1951, which for all Lithuaniam tillers shaped the condition in which before the 1922 reform the wage workers (kumečiai) at the large estates were living and working. They received in money only part of their salaries. Another part was paid in kind, including a land plot which was cultivated using the inventory and draught animals provided by landlord. This is quite similar to the small plots allocation for personal use to collective farms workers, and how they were cultivated. However, differently from the workers of collective farms in Russia, who untill late 1960s had no passports, Lithuanian collective farmers were not made serfs, because the passportization of Lithuanian countryside population was implemented by Soviet auhorities as part of their efforts to suppress resistance movement. Similarly to agrarian wage workers before 1922, collective farm workers were subject to the repressive labour force control regime, providing for managers of collective farms the de facto power of „red barons“. Main aims of the interwar agrarian reforms were the restriction of power of the formerly privileged minorities and suppression of Communism. However, only in the Baltic States the reforms had no negative economic outcomes. In Lithuania, such outcomes were preempted by the dispersion of villages into individual settlement farms, which proceeded along with the parcellization of large estates. Comparing with interwar reform, post-communist agrarian reform was less consistent, because its course was under heavy impact of the interest conflict between the new generation of the collective farms workers, interested to keep their working places, and those descendants of the former land owners, who left villages for cities. As far as Lithuania was one of those post-communist countries, where second group was stronger, in this country a radical restitutive land reform was implemented along with the de-collectivization which has restored family farming. However, because of the interjacent liquidation of the individual settlements (re-concentration of rural population in the villages) and demographic changes in the Communist time, it did restore in the Lithuanian countryside and agriculture the status quo of 1940. Rather, it has created the state that is more reminiscent of situation in the Lithuanian countryside before the agrarian reform of 1922: broad social stratum of small plots (3 ha) owners; villages; a fragmented land ownership structure; and large farms reminiscent of landed estates before 1922 reform. While some of them are new ventures (e.g. huge swine-breeding farms, operated by foreignly owned agrobusiness), many emerged out of agricultural partnerships, which were the fragments of the former collective farms. They were established by former collective workers to operate technological complexes of former collective farms which were too large for using by family farms. The evolution of these remainders of collective farms is similar to the evolution of the former landlord farms after their landholdings were reduced by agrarian reform of 1922. The reform left in ownership of the landlords the buildings and other estate with part of land (up to 80–150 ha). Most of these residual estates went bankrupt and were sold in parts at auctions, while some of the survived becoming competitive agricultural enterprises. Similarly, most efficient partnerships survived, expanded and became competitive large-scale corporate capitalist agricultural enterprises. The economic outcomes of the interwar reform are superior to those of post-communist reform: after the first reform, both the general agricultural output and the productivity increased, while both indicators decreased during the first decade of the post-communist agrarian reform. Ex-communist Left in Lithuania promoted moderate agrarian reform, involving transformation of collective farms into the private corporate capitalist agricultural companies. The author argues that such reform would not be able to prevent the reduction in output, because the output as of in 1989 was possible only under economic hothouse conditions of the late Soviet time for agriculture (lavish subsidies, unlimited demand, „price scissors“ favouring agriculture). However, most probably, a more gradual reform would help to increase the agricultural productivity already during its first decade. After Lithuania was accepted to EU and its agriculture is in the „economic hothouse“ again, the agricultural activites cannot be assessed only by economic criteria alone. If the outcomes of the post-communist agrarian reform are assessed by values of ecology, they are very positive indeed.

When we observe the social and political life in post-communist countries, we can also notice that generations of people born after the fall of communism are beginning to play an increasingly important role in shaping the views and political preferences of the whole society. Young people socialized in significantly different conditions than their parents’ generation represent (in many areas) attitudes that indicate their “generational difference”. The aim of the article is to describe and explain to what extent the assessments of systemic transformation in chosen post-communist countries are determined by the age of citizens. The author analyzes secondary data from surveys on public opinion in the following countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. In order to explain how young people perceive their position in relation to the older generation, which remembers the communist era, an appropriate case study was conducted. The study was conducted among students from six academic centers in Ukraine (Kyiv, Lviv, Nizhyn, Pereiaslav, Sumy, and Uzhhorod). It was found that the strength of the relationship between age and the perception of systemic change varies across countries. The deepest divisions between the older and younger generations were identified in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and Bulgaria. It was also found that the young generation of contemporary Ukraine is trying to emphasize its own generational difference by creating its own political identity in opposition to the features attributed to older generations.