Soviet non -ranges

*

In Soviet times, the man had to be white. There was nothing in stores. And he, therefore, in the paint shop pours a bucket of car paint, takes a brush and along the railway line entering the enterprise, measures five steps and puts the cross on the rails. He measures five steps, and the cross puts a brush. Well, ”I need to, - as he said, to march the guard. The authorities sent . ” Well, " go, mark . " I went, went around the corner ... Well, yes, a small clerical brush, threw it away and that’s it. There is a bucket of paint ” [1] .

Before us is a real story from the everyday life of AvtoVAZ in the 1970-1980s, a collective image of the employee of the Soviet plant. Such incidents are described by many storytellers, in one way or another, connecting the story about the bucket of paint and crosses on the rails with their biography. Similar cases can be “caught” in the written documents of the era. According to the minutes of the meetings of the Party Committee of one of the Perm metallurgical plants, in May 1964 to the Communist, the master of the workshop, a strict reprimand was announced with the entry on the account “ for the use of the official position, which entailed the embezzlement of white and paints ” [2] . And if the situation described above at AvtoVAZ formed differently and this employee, also a communist, was still noticed when trying to take out a unfortunate bucket of paint from the plant? Would he announce a party penalty with a similar wording, as the Perm master?

“Nesunov” is considered to be a common place of Soviet culture. The Internet is full of stories about the resourcefulness and ingenuity of employees of Soviet enterprises on the question of what and how it was possible to endure through the passing one. The authors of the forums are recognized in “heroic” actions and immediately give an acquittal of their actions: in the era of deficiency it is not a sin; Everyone carries, and you carry; He did this in protest, etc. Others report strict punishments that relatives of acquaintances or acquaintances of relatives were subjected to. The third exprore the "nesuns" as thieves. All these memories, reflection and discussions suggest that every Soviet man was a “nesun”; carried through the passing to their home, without hiding; They were not silent about what they did. And yet not everything is so simple.

There could only be a minority in the Soviet state

The Soviet state is a union of workers and peasants, conscious workers, and communism fighters. Such an image of the country and people was created by propaganda. The attitude to work was an important ideological element in this image. Including because it could be brightly, simply and clearly express such basic, but abstract concepts of Marxist philosophy as “productive forces” and “production relations”.

Simplify and specify, “transfer to personalities” - this is the art of propaganda. And the most simple and effective technique is the contrast: the hero is opposed to the anti -hero, the moral action is immoral. Propaganda of the Stalinist period cutting: Antherler - enemy, immoral action is a crime. But this sharpness in the country of the victorious socialism is gradually decreasing, nullifying the developed socialism into the state.

In the “peaceful” 1960-1980s, the enemy builds intrigues beyond the borders of the USSR, and the Soviet people-a single and monolithic-creates and is the right way to a bright future. It is already impossible to declare a “ness with an internal enemy. Propaganda rhetoric denounced the retractors of public property in the pre -war time and socialist - in the post -war period. "Nesunov" officially did not exist. They were not “anti -heroes” - just the “small stains” of the country of socialist labor.

In the 1970s, the Crocodile magazine is a mouthpiece of Soviet propaganda-he concentrated his criticism on drunkards, parasites, idly staggering in the workplace. We add here construction and contracting organizations that break off plans for the construction of residential buildings, presumptuous officials, dishonest trade workers and just marriage.

The theme of “unclean on the hand” of trade workers was also picked up by Soviet art that performed propaganda tasks [3] . Satira brought “to pure water” those who, in their post, had to provide Soviet people with goods of consumer consumption, but could not cope with the temptations, did not restrain his greed. And as a result of these very goods, simple Soviet people are not enough. Is it possible in this case to say that the art denounced the twists? Rather, here you can see an explanation of the causes of the deficit.

The denunciation of "Nesunov" in satirical drawings is rare. Moreover, on most drawings of the “crocodile” they are not called in any way: neither by segments, nor thieves, nor “non -funds”. The assumption that with the widespread spread of the criticized phenomenon, we are talking about typologization, does not withstand criticism. The language of propaganda produces a default figure. This fact is not accidental.

The image designed by propaganda should be specific to “work”. Recall the created images of enemies, external and internal. If the success of propaganda is evaluated in how it encourages the action, then the campaign of the 1930-1940s to expose enemies, as well as agitation during the Great Patriotic War can be considered effective.

The main point in the construction of a particular image is the hanging of a label, speaking the scientific language is stigmatization. It has both social and psychological aspects, since it is associated with the identity of the individual. According to Irving Hoffmann, society hung labels on those whose identity includes undesirable qualities, “which do not correspond to our stereotypical ideas about what this type of individual should be” [4] . In the words of the same Hoffmann, in the political campaigns of the 1930-1940s, the images of enemies were created on the basis of “structural” (type of classes) and “personal” (for example, honesty) qualities.

In the Soviet Union, the team was allowed to hang certain labels, and it was performed by artists and propaganda workers. The image of the “nursery” is an ideological construct of Soviet propaganda, built on a shortcoming of an individual nature: weak will, weak control over passions, the inertness of beliefs, etc. Its shameful property is that it does not distinguish between public and personal, on the example of the attitude to property and means of production.

"Nesun" does not at all check each of its actions with the Civil Code, which recorded:

Personal property is a derivative of socialist property and serves as one of the means of satisfying the needs of citizens. As they advance to communism, the personal needs of citizens will be more and more satisfied at the expense of public funds ” [5] . It acts in accordance with learned knowledge and norms of behavior that can maintain (backward) traditions.

With all the justifications of “inferiority” and “public danger”, attempts to form a hostile (implacable) attitude to the “tender of socialist property”, Soviet propaganda draws a “nesun” as a fixed individual . The Soviet worker, if it still shows unconsciousness in some ways, must have a chance to fix. The worker is subject to normalization, or discipline, both indirectly, in art (having deficiencies, the Soviet person always reaches the end of the novel, story or film), and directly - with the help of educational measures of various social institutions (comradely court, party recovery, imprisonment).

The Soviet government has always been interested in the problems of labor and production discipline. These issues were supposed to pay attention to the entertainment or workshop meetings, party conferences; In the local and central press, on television. The denunciations, perhaps, as a tribute to tradition, was of the character of campaigns, each of which began with a decree of power. The administrations of the plants were responded in accordance with, that is, they performed the prescribed actions.

The struggle for increasing labor discipline was carried out in several directions. Key of them: work at a high pace, inadmissibility of absenteeism, inadmissibility of drunk work. At one of the metallurgical plants of the city of Perm, from 1970 to 1975, the low pace of work was spoken only at general factory meetings. In the reports of representatives of the administration, the figures of “lost” working time prepared by the department of the scientific organization of labor (notes) were reported. In the same period, most of the penalties announced by the Power Party Committee contain the wording “ For absenteeism in the booze ” and (or) “ Having entered the Little Committee ” [6] .

In total, in 1970-1975, the party committee made 634 decisions. Of these, 211 decisions are the withdrawal of previously imposed penalties; 57 times the party committee excluded from members or candidates for members of the CPSU; 183 Communists for different misconduct were announced by different penalties (from a reprimand without entering a account card to a strict reprimand with entering a account card).

Of the entire mass of the considered personal files, only nine touched the “Nesunov”: two reprimands with the record card, one strict reprimand with entering the account card; Six communists were expelled from the party. We see that the authorities are considering labor discipline primarily as the establishment of control over the body and activity of the employee. Personality correction associated with value attitudes, despite the fact that this also forms labor discipline, falls out of the focus of the authorities and, as a result, the factory administration.

Is this "omission" by chance?

Silence of the right of some

As already mentioned, the party committee of the large metallurgical enterprise of the city of Perm from 1970 to 1975 examined the nine personal affairs of the Communists, who brought something out (abducted) from the plant. The number of “Nesunov” detected is not proportional to the value of the phenomenon.

At the end of the 1960s, more than 2000 communists worked at the factory in the late 1960s. This means that the Party Party of the Party Party on the issues of admission to the CPSU, the registration of members and candidates for members of the party and the consideration of personal affairs of the Communists was granted. The procedure for consisting of personal cases consisted of discussing the Communist's behavior, first at the meeting of the primary party organization (for example, in the workshop), and then at a meeting of the Party Party Committee, which were held twice a month.

Three of the identified cases (in one of which are two defendants) are the result of the desire of a city person to improve his own housing, to create comfort in it. The energy and mechanic of one of the workshops were convicted of embezzlement of daylight lamps. Their cases were considered in one day, but the affordable information allows us to say that they “came across” at different times. The case of energy is described in detail:

December 10, 1971, at the request of the energy of Comrade. G ** from the base was obtained for installation in the workshop of 10 daylight lamps, of which one was lost yet to the workshop, the remaining 9 lamps of Comrade. G ** received from the pantry, 2 gave the head of the planning and technical bureau Comrade. A **, I took two to myself, as well as the rest were distributed for personal needs [7] .

The mechanic, as follows from the case file, was “caught” at the moment when he replaced the energy during the vacation. Colleagues suffered a different punishment: a strict reprimand was announced to a higher position with entry into the account card, while the second person involved was reduced by reprimand. In this example, the measure of disciplinary influence is directly related to the volume of official powers: career growth should correlate with an increase in consciousness.

In two more cases, participants in the proceedings were excluded from the members of the CPSU. Obviously, the exception was connected not so much with the strict policy of the party organization in relation to the moral appearance of the Communists, so much with practice to exclude from the party those who were brought to judicial responsibility. So, the master of electrical equipment of another workshop was excluded from the party, which was taken out of the territory of the plant on the car “ 765 pieces of Metla tile, having no documents for it, for which it was held accountable for one year of correctional labor at the place of work with a deduction of 20 % of the salary ” [8] .

Another defendant (by accidental coincidence is also an electrician) was held accountable and excluded from the party for the theft of radio components from the workshop's workshop. An aggravating guilt was the fact that he “ with a friend on the night shift ” was made by the moonshine from the Streol (a liquid containing ethyl rectifical technical alcohol). Since the “friend” was not discussed at the meeting, we can conclude that he was not a member of the party. Whether some additional measures of disciplinary correction were applied to it is unknown.

The next three cases, when party penalties were imposed on Nesunov, give information about the connections of the defendants with the village. To argue that he live in a village house within the city or in one of the villages nearby to the city, there is no reason, but what they carried out is usually used in a peasant farm. Thus, two plant workers, whose positions contain the definitions of the “boss”, took out 100 kg of forage oats intended for horses of the guard service, and firewood from the workshop.

The stolen forage oats was expelled from members of the CPSU. An aggravating guilt of the circumstance was an open fact of repeated non -return of the money occupied by his colleagues - a dishonest attitude towards a comrade was subject to condemnation. So through the punishment of one person, the community demonstrated the value of trust within the team.

The Communist, who stole firewood, the primary organization of the workshop announced a strict reprimand with entering the account card. However, the Party Party replaced this recovery with a softer. His decision recorded:

The decree of the primary party organization of workshop No. * dated June 25, 1970 is considered correct, but given the sincere recognition of its misconduct and certification to prevent such facts, for drinking alcohol in production on June 13, 1970 Comrade. C ** reprimand with entry into the account card [9] .

And this is despite the presence of aggravating circumstances. According to the case materials, firewood was taken out in the morning, and during the day the defendant “ organized a booze in the workshop ”, “ appeared in the workshop in a drunken state and slept in a party card ”.

In this example, as in all others, one can notice a subjective approach to the assessment of the misconduct. The situation under consideration occurred before the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On Strengthening the fight against drunkenness and alcoholism” in 1972, that is, at the time of weakening the anti -alcohol campaign. The public repentance of the defendant played a role. Thus, the fact of theft of firewood became secondary, and the educational effect, which the party organization was counting on, acquired significance. The repented kidnapper of firewood is an example of the fixed individual. Such examples gave material for a report in the effectiveness of educational work.

The person involved in the next case can be attributed to the "malicious", but unsuccessful "nonhuns." He was already announced for a waste and paints for embezzlement. Six years later, he fell on the embezzlement of 2.6 tons of coke in the amount of 80 rubles 43 kopecks. This was no longer a petty fraud. He was convicted by the People’s Court and sentenced to a year of forced labor, with a deduction from wages 20 % in state revenue.

All cases considered have a common foundation that allows you to explain why they were recorded in party documents. In each case, the fact of theft is not independent, it is noted due to other circumstances that suddenly intervened in the situation. This is either the campaign that has begun, when the factory administration and the party committee had to react to the decisions that have been released, or the fact of theft became one of the arguments in resolving an internal conflict, the presence of which can be fixed.

A vivid confirmation of this position is the last case. The head of one of the workshops was reprimanded with the entry on the account “ for the use of official position for mercenary purposes and unprincipled ” [10] . The punishment is very soft if you turn to the case file. This defendant made at the enterprise racks from a metal corner " for giving the chief designer ." The racks were made from the waste of metallurgical raw materials.

Unlike other cases, this episode was considered at a meeting of the party committee in more detail: the names, the numbers of the outfits, the mismatch of the initial and final cost of the order are indicated. And yet, judging by the description, the situation when employees made parts or part of building structures from the waste of metallurgical production for personal purposes. For the defendant and all persons mentioned in the protocol, the procedure is understandable: the economist considers the cost of materials, workers are manufactured according to the outfits, the manager is preparing the product for the issuance according to the invoice.

Поводов для рассмотрения данного дела на партийном собрании было два: отказ ответственного лица оформить отпуск этих стоек, потому что в накладной было указано, что они изготовлены « для личных нужд », а фамилия заказчика не совпадала с фамилией главного конструктора; вскрывшийся факт привлечения фигурантом дела некоторых работников цеха для строительства личного гаража. Администрацию смутило то, что возникла путаница с лицом, для которого изготавливались эти стойки. Статус обнаруженного получателя не оправдывал изготовления изделия на 109 руб. 77 kopecks. в течение четырех смен, с оплатой работы маляра и дополнительного наряда в 26 часов для электросварщика.

Логичен вывод, что фигурант, начальник цеха, нарушил некоторое негласное правило о правах работников на использование производственных ресурсов в личных целях в соответствии со статусом в заводской иерархии. Другими словами, указанные в протоколе лица, а также заводская администрация воспринимали как норму изготовление в рабочие смены силами нескольких человек изделия из заводского металлолома для главного конструктора, но не приняли претензии начальника цеха изготовить сложную конструкцию для какого-то третьего лица.

Обращает на себя внимание тот факт, что обстоятельства дела считаются недостаточными, чтобы рассмотреть его на заседании парткома завода. Требуется дополнительная информация, которая и создает в конечном итоге повод для наказания. Так, в протоколе говорится:

Comrade И*** используя свое служебное положение, привлекал к работе в личных целях своих подчиненных. Например, плотник т. Б*** (в нарушение штатной дисциплины оформлен слесарем) обшивал ворота для гаража тов. И***, в апреле грузил кирпич, в сентябре 3 дня работал, настилал пол, изготовлял крышки на яму. Партийный комитет постановляет: За использование служебного положения в корыстных целях и беспринципность тов. И*** объявить выговор с занесением в учетную карточку [11] .

Итоговым решением нивелируется целая страница доказательств факта посягательства на социалистическую собственность. Ценность этого протокола в том, что он фиксирует нарушение неформальных практик, судя по всему, важных для участников. Речь идет об использовании ресурсов промышленного предприятия в личных целях. Эти практики имели разные формы, но выполнялись с прямого или молчаливого согласия администрации. Например, изготовление сложного изделия, как было показано выше, требовало вовлечения множества людей и не было доступно любому работнику.

При этом, если работнику нравится «мастерить что-то для себя» из обрезков металлического листа, оставшихся после штамповки изделий, то этому не будут чинить препятствий. Никто не «мелочился», высчитывая убытки, которые несло государство от «недоучтенного» металлолома. А для работника металлургического предприятия иметь в доме кухонные ножи, шампуры, кронштейны или уголки для книжной полки и т. д., изготовленные на заводе во время «перекуров», было обычным делом.

Официальная заводская иерархия существовала параллельно с неофициальной, строившейся в том числе и на делегировании работнику права использовать промышленное оборудование, сырье, а в некоторых случаях изделия или детали изделий в личных целях. Система взысканий и поощрений, премиальные выплаты не всегда оказывались эффективными мерами дисциплинарного воздействия на работника.

Дополнительным мотивационным ресурсом заводской администрации было заключение негласных конвенций с отдельными работниками. Если сказать более прозрачно, мастер цеха «закрывал глаза» на некоторые действия работника, а тот, в свою очередь, выполнял невыгодные ему поручения. Предметов конвенций мы не знаем, но о фактах их нарушения сигнализируют протоколы партийных собраний. Проступки партийцев, как то: опоздание на работу, появление на рабочем месте в нетрезвом виде или установление факта мелкого хищения государственной собственности, подвергались рассмотрению и наказанию в зависимости от мнения непосредственного руководителя.

А в сумме мы видим парадокс

Борьба с «несунами» велась в СССР как в довоенное, так и в послевоенное время; имела волновой характер (то вспыхивала, то затухала), но не занимала ведущего места в списке других кампаний. Поздняя советская пропаганда рассматривала «несуна» как «отдельный недостаток» социалистической экономики, как исправимого индивида.

Парадокс в том, что исправимый индивид не может быть редким исключением, «отдельным недостатком». Мишель Фуко, исследуя генеалогию аномалий, считает исправимого индивида обычным явлением: « До такой степени обычное, что ему свойственно – и это его первый парадокс – быть, если можно так выразиться, регулярным в своей нерегулярности » [12] . Вторым парадоксом Фуко называет неисправимость исправимого индивида. По этой причине исправимый индивид « навлекает на себя …ряд вмешательств, не сводящихся к техникам укрощения и коррекции обиходного и внутрисемейного уровня, то есть некую новую технологию перевоспитания, дополнительной коррекции » [13] . В итоге вокруг индивида « сплетается своеобразная сеть взаимодействия неисправимости и исправимости ». Рассматривая советскую ситуацию, мы видим сложное переплетение предписаний и исключений.

«Несун» в советской культуре – это человек, который использует в личных целях общественные средства производства и присваивает социалистическую собственность. В последнем случае его деяния могут квалифицироваться уголовным и гражданским кодексами как хищение, однако действия «несуна» этим не ограничиваются. К тому же многие из них настолько малы, что практически незримы, или, лучше сказать, не могут быть подвергнуты количественному подсчету (в минутах, часах, рублях, единицах энергии). Соответственно государственная машина, которая, несомненно, заинтересована в нормировании подобных личностей, не может установить эквивалент возможного ущерба. Это затрудняет проведение коррекционных мероприятий.

Распространенное и всем известное явление неуловимо, и поэтому не имеет названия. И ответственность за него несет сконструированная социальная роль, вобравшая в себя ряд индивидуальных характеристик, признанных нежелательными. Вокруг личностных качеств очень сложно выстроить устойчивый образ, который можно было бы использовать для навешивания ярлыков.

Ситуацию усугубляет производственный рационализм. Администрации заводов не могли выполнять план, не изыскивая способов дополнительной мотивации. Им нужно было удержать опытного и умелого работника в ситуации «текучки кадров»; воздействовать на других, чтобы получить согласие на сверхурочную работу. Долгосрочные обещания срабатывали не всегда. Тут-то и повышается важность издержек плановой экономики. Товарный дефицит значительно повлиял на то, что практики мелкого хищения с государственных предприятий стали составной частью стратегии выживания населения. Так и «несуны» были меньшинством, сконструированным пропагандой. А практика выносить с предприятия «всякие мелочи» была мотивационным ресурсом заводской администрации в вопросе регулирования взаимоотношений с работником.

* Работа выполнена при поддержке Gerda Henkel Stiftung. Стипендия AZ 12/SR/10.

[1] Коллективная беседа № 1. Участвовали: а) жен., в/о, 1946 г. р.; б) жен., в/о, 1946 г. р.; в) муж., в/о, 1946 г. р.; г) жен., в/о, 1952 г. р.; д) муж., в/о, 1960 г. р. Записано 02.01.2011. Личный архив автора. Собеседник сообщил, что этот случай ему рассказал его друг, у которого есть друг, тоже работник АвтоВАЗа в 1970–1980-х гг.

[2] Пермский государственный архив новейшей истории (ПермГАНИ) Ф. 889. Оп. 26, Д. 2. Л. 214–215.

[3] Так, комедия в одном действии «Преступление и наказание» М. Зощенко легла в основу сценариев двух фильмов. Первый был снят П. Коломойцевым в 1940 году и имел одноименное название. Л. Гайдай, добавив к произведению известного сатирика еще пару комедий, снял в 1975 году фильм «Не может быть!». Обличительная фраза «Проклятый, расхититель социалистической собственности, мерзавец» звучит в другом известном фильме Л. Гайдая «Операция ”Ы” и другие приключения Шурика» (1965).

[4] Гофман И. Стигма: Заметки об управлении испорченной идентичностью // Социологический форум, 2001.

[5] Гражданский кодекс РСФСР, 1964.

[6] Примечательно, что после выхода постановления ЦК КПСС «О мерах по усилению борьбы против пьянства и алкоголизма» (1972) количество принятых парткомом завода решений о строгих выговорах и исключениях из партии увеличилось.

[12] Фуко М. Ненормальные. Курс лекций, прочитанных в Коллеж де Франс в 1974-1975 учебном году. СПб.: Наука, 2004. С. 82.

[13] Фуко М. Там же. С. 83.