Donate

The humorous and satirical magazine Perets, published (albeit intermittently) since 1922, served as a supplementary weapon for the government in its fight against social issues. Its editorial board frequently aligned with various official campaigns, wielding its sharp wit to expose violations, shortcomings, and vices, thereby shaping public attitudes.

Hryhorii Bezborodko, an experienced feuilletonist for Perets, often targeted the “antipodes of Soviet morality,” such as indifference, mismanagement, careerism, and other societal flaws. His report was no coincidence; it aimed to bolster the campaign against the misuse of official vehicles. Despite the 1959 restrictions on the use of state cars, members of the nomenklatura continued to exploit loopholes, necessitating public shaming rather than relying solely on legal enforcement. At its peak circulation of 250,000 copies, a publication in Perets could serve as a powerful catalyst for such public accountability.

The articles in Perets speak volumes about the scale of vehicle misuse among middle-ranking managers—such as department heads, supervisors of industrial artels, motor pool dispatchers, and trust managers—who wielded day-to-day authority and controlled significant resources. The documented cases reveal a pervasive habit of using official vehicles for private errands, a practice so entrenched that it outweighed the inconvenience of traveling in trucks or vans after the 1959 reduction in the official fleet.

The timing of the journalistic investigation was no accident. Conducted on a Saturday afternoon, it strategically eliminated any pretense by the caught officials that their private trips were necessary for business purposes. To heighten the impact of the exposé, the article was accompanied by photographs of the violators, graphically underscoring their breach of “state discipline.”

Title:

A satirical report by the Soviet magazine Perets on the use of official vehicles for private Affairs, 1960

Author:
Hryhorii Bezborodko
Year:
1960
Source:
Bezborodko, H. “Reporting from the Wide Road.” Perets, no. 16 (1960): 4–5.
Original language:
Ukrainian

Reporting from the Wide Road

Recently, I traveled with a traffic inspector. 

I became acquainted with the cargo of service vehicles speeding along after a short Saturday workday outside Kyiv.

Frankly, I didn’t expect what I encountered.

Let me start from the beginning.

A passenger car with license plate ЩБ 29-96, marked by a large blue cross on the front and an even bigger one on the back, is coming straight toward us (photo 1). The blue cross indicates it’s an ambulance. Somewhere, it seems, a cow, sheep, or pig must have fallen ill. I wonder who is rushing to its aid so quickly?

“An elderly man. Head of the Veterinary Department of the Ministry of Agriculture,” introduces himself, sitting next to the driver.

“How far are you going?” I ask.

“Oh, I’m taking my relatives to Brovary. You know, it’s difficult to travel by bus…”

And it’s true; paying for transportation out of pocket is inconvenient when you can ride a state vehicle.

“What’s the blue cross for? Isn’t it supposed to be a special-purpose vehicle?” I ask.

The head of the veterinary department is silent. But, in fact, what can you say? He was not the first to cross a crucian carp into a pig…

The head of the veterinary department remains silent. But really, what could he say? He’s not the first to blur the line between public duty and personal convenience.

***

Soon, a Skoda with license plate ЩС 43-31 (photo 2) appears. This van is meant for transporting small cargoes. And “small cargo” is indeed pouring out of it: Olena Romanivna Shulha, head of the Panfilov Brovary Cooperative Artel, along with her husband and child. They went to Kyiv to buy ice cream. She especially likes the new crème brûlée flavor.

The artel members haven’t yet calculated the cost of this “brûlée.” But they could. And, who knows, they might even call a meeting to ask the head of the artel: 

“How long, Olena Romanivna, will you keep hopping from Skoda to trouble?” 

***

What kind of “Skoda” is this? (photo 3). It belongs to the Kyiv Prosthetics Factory, driven by Mykola Hryhorovych Shuvalov, head of the Prosthetic Industry Trust. Today, he and his family are headed out to nature. Others, in such cases, would take a taxi at their own expense. But the head of the prosthetic industry trust prefers not to. Why? Who knows… Maybe it’s because Mykola Hryhorovych missed out somewhere: others were given a conscience, and he was given a prosthesis.

***

The road to Kyiv Beach, as you know, crosses a pedestrian suspension bridge, where cars aren’t allowed. But Ivan Andriyovych Trenin, a dispatcher engineer at Buddormash, isn’t used to walking. So, he chose a different route, equipping the factory’s ЯЮ 20-63 truck “to pick up parts” and drove it across the Paton Bridge, bringing this three-ton truck, along with himself, whose weight is far from being three tons, down to the beach (photo 4).

***

Another dispatcher here wouldn’t even consider taking a truck. He has access to dozens of passenger cars. With such resources, Yakiv Ovsiyovych Volkenstein, dispatcher at the motor depot, hopped into his personal Pobeda, license plate КИА 10-67, and headed out of town with his family (photo 5). The trip was long, and the speedometer ticked up accordingly. So, Yakiv prudently applied for a voucher for the trip from the Ukrainian SSR Construction Bank.

Thus, Yakiv is swimming and lounging on the sand, while the Construction Bank foots the bill…

***

Two cars are racing along the Kyiv-Odesa highway.

Ahead, in a Moskvich van with license plate ЩБ 27-44, is Arsentii Hryhorovych Zaichenko, head of the Kyiv City Trade Department’s fruit and vegetable section (photo 6). Just behind him, in a GAZ ЩБ 19-86, is Naum Blumen, head of the planning department of Zhovtnevyi District Food Trade, observing all from the backseat with a newspaper in hand (photo 7).

“What plans are in place to transport trade employees and their families on public funds for their vacations?” I ask.

The head of the planning department doesn’t answer. Clearly, there are no such plans.

“Of course not,” interrupts the driver of the oncoming car.

“And who are you?” I ask.

“I’m the driver. From Lutsk. I just stopped to ask for directions and overheard you talking. Personally, I have no plans to use government cars for personal business. But I do have a mother-in-law who has her own ideas about these things.”

“Any examples?” I ask.

“Examples? Certainly. In Volyn, we have the Zaturivka State Breeding Station. It has a GAZ 69 car. Recently, it made a trip from Volyn to Vinnytsia. Do you know who traveled on that trip? The director’s mother-in-law, Mrs. Lashutka. That’s the first fact. Here’s another one: not long ago in Lutsk, we stopped a Moskvich, ЩШ 47-96, with a red cross on the side. Inside was Oleksiy Fedorovych Kozhurkevych, the head of the clinic, alive and well, on his way to the market… Need more examples?”

“That’s enough,” I said. “But, comrade driver, could you explain why such things happen?”

“Well, for one, some people used to owning cars forget how to use public transportation. Others worry they’ll lose authority if, heaven forbid, a subordinate sees them riding a tram. That’s one thing. And then, of course, there are those who still enjoy a free ride at the state’s expense.”

The driver from Lutsk certainly wasn’t wrong. The only thing he didn’t mention was how to deal with such behavior.

Perhaps it’s time to create a new road sign that says: “No! Don’t board a state vehicle for personal business!”

H. BEZBORODKO

Related sources:

Documents (7)

icon
Corruption in Kolomyia, Stanislav (Ivano-Frankivsk) Oblast, 1962
In the early 1960s, the Ukrainian prosecutor's office reported to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine about “exposed groups of large-scale embezzlers of socialist property and bribe-takers who had long been operating within various sectors of the national economy.” The scale of the defendants' shadow income was staggering: during investigations into four cases, authorities seized hundreds of thousands of rubles, single-story houses, kilograms of gold, dozens of cars, and other assets. Such wealth was enabled by a well-developed “shadow economy.” Despite inflated economic plans, strict resource controls, and rigorous oversight, resourceful producers consistently found ways to generate “surplus” production, which they used to enhance their own comfort and secure patronage....
icon
Illegal Construction of Dachas in Kherson, 1970
The satisfaction of Soviet citizens’ basic needs led to a growing demand for an improved quality of life, with one key indicator being access to comfortable recreation. Members of the nomenklatura became active participants in the establishment of “gardening societies,” which involved allocating land plots to factory workers for gardening and horticulture. However, the widely publicized “Kherson case” revealed that their interest lay less in gardening and more in personal comfort. Instead of allowing the construction of simple “summer-type buildings,” the nomenklatura opted for “permanent brick large summer cottages, often equipped with heating.” These practices not only violated the 1960 government decree banning the construction of such dachas but also involved the illegal...
icon
Abuses of a Sugar Factory Director and his Party Rehabilitation, 1953
The case of H. illustrates the activities of the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which reviewed appeals for reinstatement into the party. H. had been expelled for “the use of his official position for mercenary purposes and illegal spending of public funds” while heading a sugar factory. Specifically, he exchanged his old cow for a younger one and fed his pig on the farm of the Division of Workers' Supply (rus. Отдел рабочего снабжения), which was under his supervision. Additionally, he had two employees in excess of the factory’s staffing needs and persecuted the chief accountant for exposing his abuses. H. was also accused of selling sugar...
icon
“Connections” as a Preventive Measure of Punishment for Abuse, 1985
The discussion of Case N at the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine was initiated by letters from citizens—a typical occurrence in Soviet realities. What was unusual, however, was that these appeals eventually proved effective, leading to the punishment of a high-ranking official and his patrons. The central issue under the party commission’s consideration was N’s flawed management style, which resulted in a subjective personnel policy and adversely impacted the economic performance of the main department (abbreviated as Glavk), which had accumulated substantial receivables. Case N underscores the pervasive influence of patron-client relationships and sycophancy within the Soviet system. Despite repeated deficiencies in performance between 1981...
icon
Financial Fraud by High-Ranking Party Officials in the Voroshylovhrad Oblast of the Ukrainian SSR, Early 1970s
Nelia Nemyrynska, born in 1930 in Odesa, worked as a lawyer at the Luhansk Bar Association beginning in 1954. Over her career, she defended and provided moral support to dissidents such as Mykola Rudenko, Yosyp Zisels, and others. In her memoirs, written in 1995, she exposed the darker side of Soviet justice: backroom deals, the political dependence of judges, the dictates of the CPSU, the impunity of the nomenklatura, and more. A fragment of her memoirs recounts two cases she deemed “not quite ordinary for the period of communist rule in Ukraine and the former USSR.” These cases vividly illustrate the interplay between the nomenklatura and the legal system. The first case involves...
icon
Unjustified Bonuses for High-Ranking Officials in the Crimean Oblast, 1987
In response to the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine dated August 28, 1987, which highlighted instances of unjustified bonuses for high-ranking officials, oblast committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine were tasked with investigating similar practices in their respective oblasts. The Crimean Oblast Committee submitted a top-secret report to the Central Committee, providing a typical account of their findings. The violations uncovered followed a familiar pattern: exceeding prescribed bonus limits, lack of justification, and breaches of established procedures. The dubious grounds cited for awarding these bonuses reflected informal agreements between the heads of the awarding institutions and the beneficiaries. Notably, those involved were aware of the illegality...
Show more Collapse all

Images (0)

Show more Collapse all

Videos (0)

Show more Collapse all

Audio (0)

Show more Collapse all
Worked on the material:
Reflections, research

Viktor Krupyna

Translation into English

Yuliia Kulish

Comments and discussions