Khrushchev's reforms and their results. Economic reforms N

Khrushchev's policy Reforms of the 50s - 60s of the 20th century

From the second half of 1953 to the end of the 50s, there were

reforms were carried out that had a beneficial effect both on the pace of development of the national economy and on the well-being of the people.

The main reason for the success of the reforms was that they

gave birth to economic methods of managing the national economy and were started with Agriculture, and therefore received widespread support among the masses.

The main reason for the failure of the reforms is that they were not supported by the democratization of the political system. Having broken the repressive system

Well, they didn’t touch its basis - the command-administrative system. Therefore, after five or six years, many reforms began to be curtailed through the efforts of both the reformers themselves and the powerful administrative and managerial apparatus, the nomenklatura.

Where could the country go after Stalin's death? The answer to this question must be sought in the balance of forces in the highest stratum of the party and state leadership. It was possible either a temporary continuation of Stalinism, which created a serious threat to the lives and well-being of millions of people and entire nations, or some softening of it while maintaining the general political course, or a turn to de-Stalinization. De-Stalinization did not mean the elimination of the totalitarian regime. Society as a whole was not yet ready for this. We could only talk about an initial cleansing from the legacy of Stalinism: the liberation of the repressed, a turn to solving the most pressing agrarian problems, and a weakening of the dogmatic pressure in culture. The first option was associated with the prospect of Beria coming to power; Molotov and Bulganin would probably take part in the implementation of the second; in practice, the third option began to be implemented. And N.S. Khrushchev associated himself with him.

The most influential political figures in the leadership were Malenkov, Beria and Khrushchev. The balance was extremely unstable.

The policy of the new leadership in the spring days of 1953. was controversial, reflecting the contradictions in its composition. At Zhukov’s request, a large group of military personnel returned from prison. But the Gulag continued to exist, the same slogans and portraits of Stalin hung everywhere.

Each of the contenders for power sought to seize it in their own way. Beria - through control over the organs and troops of the State Security Service

safety. Malenkov - declaring his desire to pursue a popular policy of increasing the well-being of the people, “to take care of the maximum satisfaction of their material needs,” calling for “in 2-3 years to achieve the creation in our country of an abundance of food for the population and raw materials for light industry"But Beria and Malenkov did not have connections among senior military leaders who did not trust them. The main thing was in the mood of the party apparatus, which wanted to preserve the regime, but without reprisals against the apparatus. Objectively, the situation developed favorably for Khrushchev. Khrushchev showed these days, extraordinary activity. In September 1953, N.S. Khrushchev was elected First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Articles about the dangers of the cult of personality began to appear in the press. The paradoxical thing was that their authors referred to the works of Stalin, declaring that he was an opponent cult. A review of the "Leningrad Case" and the "Doctors' Case" began. Party and economic leaders and doctors convicted in these cases were rehabilitated. But at the same time, in the end

In 1953, prisoner strikes were brutally suppressed in the mines of Vorkuta, which were under the jurisdiction of the still existing Gulag.

After Stalin's death, certain

shared hopes associated with amnesty and rehabilitation. These sentiments played the role of a detonator of unrest. A year later, rehabilitation began based on the political processes of the 1930s. People began to return from exile and prison. Now we can evaluate that first step in different ways: from the height of the past years, everything is clearer and more obvious. But one thing still cannot be denied: despite all the costs and omissions, it was a step from permanent civil war to civil peace.

There has been a turn in real politics. And this turn had to be supported by decisions of an economic nature. In August 1953 At a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Malenkov for the first time raised the question of turning the economy towards people, of the state's priority attention to the well-being of the people through the accelerated development of agriculture and the production of consumer goods. “Now, on the basis of the successes achieved in the development of heavy industry, we have all the conditions to organize a steep rise in the production of consumer goods.” It was supposed to dramatically change the investment policy, significantly increase the financial “feeding” of non-material production sectors focused on the production of goods for the people, Special attention for agriculture, to involve in the production of consumer goods machine-building plants and heavy industry enterprises. Thus, a course was set for a social reorientation of the economy, which quickly began to be translated into concrete goods, money, and housing.

Choosing a new political path required a change in economic guidelines. However, at that time no one in the country's political leadership questioned the principles of the command-administrative system. It was about overcoming its extremes, such as the almost complete absence of material incentives for workers, the lag in the mass introduction of scientific and technological achievements into production. Rejection of the market and commodity-money relations continued to prevail, and the advantages of socialism were considered as something given once and for all, capable of in itself ensuring development and prosperity.

Agricultural production took first place among the national economic problems. Khrushchev, we must give him his due, in terms of origin and interests, was always closer to the needs of the peasants than any of the other top political leaders. At the Plenum of the Central Committee, Khrushchev made a series of proposals for the development of agriculture that were important for that time. From today's perspective they may seem insufficient, but back then they were of considerable importance. Purchase prices for agricultural products were increased, advance payment for the labor of collective farmers was introduced (before this, payments to them were made only once a year), etc.

Khrushchev condemned the practice of the existence of weak farms by transferring funds from strong ones to them, criticized the bloated administrative apparatus, and insufficient assistance from the city to agriculture. Peasants began to be somewhat encouraged to raise poultry and small livestock. Many farms now have cows, which was unthinkable for a collective farmer just a year ago.

The ideas expressed and the decisions adopted could give effect only a few years later. And grain farming needed to be improved immediately. A solution was found in the development of virgin and fallow lands. This was a clearly expressed extensive development option. Suitable lands were located on the territory of Kazakhstan, South Siberian

ri, in the Volga region, in the Urals, in the North Caucasus. Among them, Kazakhstan, the Urals and Siberia looked the most promising. The very idea of ​​developing these lands was not new. Thoughts about the possibility of their use were expressed at the beginning of the century. A feature of the mid-50s was the revival of mass enthusiasm, especially among young people. Changes were slowly but steadily taking place in the country, arousing in millions of young people a sincere desire to make their personal contribution to strengthening the material foundations of Soviet society. Enthusiasm lived in the souls of people, and not just in slogans, calls and marches. A favorable moment had been created, from a socio-psychological point of view, when mass enthusiasm, supported by material incentives and attention to social and everyday problems, could have a long-term economic and political effect. However, the outburst of youth enthusiasm was perceived by the leadership as a constant, unchanging and always manageable force in the future.

By the spring of 1954 Over 120 state farms were organized in the virgin lands of Kazakhstan. The pioneers of the virgin lands had to live in tents, in conditions of no roads, alternating between severe cold and sweltering heat. Round-the-clock work during the sowing and harvesting period was replaced by a period of relatively short rest with construction work. The first results of the virgin lands epic could not but inspire optimism. In 1954 Virgin lands accounted for over 40 percent of the gross grain harvest. The production of meat and milk has increased. All this made it possible to somewhat improve the food supply of the population.

However, there were successes only in the first years. The yield of grain crops on newly developed lands remained low; land development took place in the absence of a scientifically based farming system. Traditional mismanagement also had its effect. The granaries were not built on time, and reserves of equipment and fuel were not created. It was necessary to transfer equipment from all over the country, which increased the cost of grain, and consequently, meat, milk, etc.

The development of virgin lands delayed the revival of old arable land

commercial regions of Russia. And yet, the initial stage of the development of virgin lands will remain in history as a true epic of labor, as a real surge of enthusiasm, as a striking feature of the time when the country was moving towards the historical turn made by the 20th Party Congress.

The country lived with renewal. Numerous meetings were held

tions with the participation of industry, construction, and transport workers. This phenomenon in itself was new - after all, previously all the most important decisions were made in a narrow circle, behind closed doors. At the meetings, the need for change and the use of global technical experience were openly discussed.

But despite the novelty of a number of approaches, persistent stereotypes of the old were also observed. The reasons for the lags were seen in the fact that “weak leadership” was being exercised “on the part of ministers and leaders,” and it was proposed to create new departments to introduce new technology. But the principle of a planned, centralized, command-bureaucratic system was not questioned.

1956 - the year of the 20th Congress - turned out to be very favorable for the country's agriculture. It was this year that there was great success in the virgin lands - the harvest was a record one. The chronic difficulties with grain procurements in previous years seemed to be becoming a thing of the past. And in the central regions of the country, collective farmers, freed from the most oppressive shackles of the Stalinist system, which often resembled state serfdom, received new incentives to work, and the share of monetary compensation for their labor increased. Under these conditions, at the end of 1958. On the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, a decision was made to sell agricultural equipment to collective farms. The fact is that before this, the equipment was in the hands of machine and tractor stations (MTS). Collective farms had the right to buy only trucks. Such a system developed since the late 20s and was a consequence of deep distrust of the peasantry as a whole, which was not allowed to own agricultural machinery. For the use of equipment, collective farms had to pay MTS in kind.

The sale of equipment to collective farms did not immediately have a positive impact on agricultural production. Most of them were unable to buy them immediately and paid the money in installments. This initially worsened the financial situation of a significant part of the collective farms and gave rise to a certain discontent. Another negative consequence was the actual loss of machine operators and repairmen. previously concentrated in the MTS. By law, they had to move to collective farms, but for many of them this meant a decrease in living standards, and they found work in regional centers and cities. Attitudes towards technology worsened, since collective farms, as a rule, did not have parks and shelters for storing them in the winter, and general level The technical culture of collective farmers was still low.

Traditional shortcomings in prices for agricultural products, which were extremely low and did not cover costs, also had an impact.

But the main thing was not discussed - the need to provide the peasantry with freedom to choose forms of management. There was an unshakable confidence in the absolute perfection of the collective and state farm system, which was under the close supervision of party and state bodies.

But some solution had to be found. While on a visit to the USA in 1959. Khrushchev visited the fields of an American farmer who grew hybrid corn. Khrushchev was literally captivated by her. He came to the conclusion that it is possible to raise the “virgin meat land” only by solving the problem of feed production, and that, in turn, is based on the structure of sown areas. Instead of grass fields, we need to switch to widespread and widespread crops of corn, which provides both grain and green mass for silage. Where corn does not grow, decisively replace leaders who “have dried up and are drying the corn.” Khrushchev began to introduce corn into Soviet agriculture with great zeal. It was promoted all the way to the Arkhangelsk region. This was an outrage not only against the centuries-old experience and traditions of peasant agriculture, but also against common sense. At the same time, the purchase of hybrid varieties of corn, an attempt to introduce American technology for its cultivation in those areas where it could give full growth, contributed to the growth of grain and feed for livestock really helped to cope with the problems of agriculture.

Agriculture, as before, was pressured by stereotypes of report mania and the desire of bureaucrats to achieve significant indicators by people, even illegally, without awareness of the negative consequences.

Agriculture was on the verge of crisis. The increase in cash incomes of the population in cities began to outpace the growth of agricultural production. And again, a way out seemed to be found, but not in economic ways, but in new endless reorganizational rearrangements. In 1961 The Ministry of Agriculture was reorganized

economy of the USSR, turned into an advisory body. Khrushchev himself traveled around dozens of regions, giving personal instructions on how to conduct agriculture. But all his efforts were in vain. The desired breakthrough never happened. Many collective farmers' faith in the possibility of change was undermined. The outflow of the rural population to cities increased; seeing no prospects, young people began to leave the village. Since 1959 persecution of personal subsidiary plots. It was forbidden for townspeople to have livestock, which helped supply the residents of small towns. Then farms and rural residents were persecuted. Over the course of four years, the number of livestock in a private farmstead has halved. This was a real defeat of the peasantry, which had just begun to recover from Stalinism. Slogans were heard again that the main thing was public, not private, economy, and that the main enemy were “speculators and parasites” trading in the markets. Collective farmers were expelled from the markets, and real speculators began to inflate prices.

However, the miracle did not come, and in 1962. The government decided to stimulate livestock farming by increasing meat prices by one and a half times. The new prices did not increase the quantity of meat, but caused unrest in the cities. The largest of them in Novocherkassk was suppressed by force of arms. There were casualties.

There were also strong, prosperous farms in the country, headed by skilled leaders who knew how to get along with both their superiors and their subordinates. But they existed rather in spite of the current situation. Difficulties in the agricultural sector grew.

The following year there were shortages not only of meat, milk and butter, but also of bread. Long lines lined up outside bread stores overnight. Anti-government sentiments grew. And then it was decided to get out of the crisis by purchasing American grain. This temporary measure became an organic part of state policy until the death of the USSR. The gold reserves of the Soviet Union were used to support, strengthen and develop the American farms, while the farms of their own peasants were persecuted. But the organizers of this “exchange” received a new and seemingly inexhaustible source of personal enrichment.

Seven-year plan for the development of the national economy (1959-1965) in terms of the development of agricultural production

was a failure. Instead of the planned 70 percent, the increase was only 15 percent.

The USSR turned into a powerful industrial power. The emphasis continued to be placed on production, which by the beginning of the 60s accounted for 3/4 of the total rise in industrial production. The building materials industry, mechanical engineering, metalworking, chemistry, petrochemicals, and electric power developed especially quickly. Their production volume has increased 4-5 times.

Group B enterprises (primarily the light, food, woodworking, and pulp and paper industries) developed much more slowly. However, their growth was twofold. In general, the average annual rate of industrial production in the USSR exceeded 10 percent. Such high rates could only be achieved by actively using the harsh methods of administrative economics. The leaders of the USSR were confident that the rate of industrial growth of the country would not only be high, but also increasing. The conclusions of Western economists about the inevitable “decay” of the pace as the economic potential of the USSR increased were rejected as attempts to judge socialism by analogy with capitalism. The thesis about the accelerating development of the national economy in the USSR (primarily industry) has become firmly established political propaganda and social sciences.

Despite the introduction of a machine base for the national economy, its scientific and technical level began to lag behind the needs of the time. The proportion of workers and peasants engaged in heavy manual and unskilled labor was high (in industry - 40 percent, in agriculture - 75 percent). These problems were discussed at the plenum of the Central Committee in 1955, at which the course towards mechanization and automation of production was determined. A few years later, the main link was named, by seizing on which they hoped to extend the entire chain of the scientific and technological revolution of chemistry. The accelerated development of the chemical industry was justified by the strengthening of its role in creating the material and technical base of communism.

However, the symbol of scientific and technological progress of the USSR became

space assault. In October 1957 the first artificial

Earth satellite. Then space rockets carried animals into space,

flew around the moon. And in April 1961 Man was the first to step into space

man of the planet, soviet man- Yuri Gagarin. Conquest of space

required enormous funds. They didn't care about the price. This was not only scientific, but also military interest. They believed that the time was not far off when Soviet cosmonauts, like hospitable hosts, would greet envoys from other countries, including the United States, in deep space. It seemed that the Soviet Union had finally and firmly become the leader of scientific and technological progress of mankind.

The commissioning of the first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" and the opening of the Institute for Nuclear Research were impressive for the Soviet people and for the whole world. Of course, these were major events. But nothing was said then about the dangers posed by the massive development of nuclear energy, about the need for the strictest adherence to technological discipline, and increasing the level of safety at nuclear facilities. The Soviet people also did not know about the accident in the city of Kyshtym near Chelyabinsk, as a result of which the territory of a number of regions was contaminated with radioactive substances. Hundreds of people were irradiated, over ten thousand villagers were resettled from the radioactive zone, although tens of thousands of villagers continued to live there for many decades.

In 1957, attempts were made to reform the management of the national economy. The existing over-centralized sectoral ministries, in Khrushchev's opinion, were unable to ensure the rapid growth of industrial production. Instead, territorial administrations were established - councils of the national economy. The very idea of ​​decentralizing economic management for such huge country At first I received positive responses. However, in the spirit characteristic of the administrative-command system, this reform was presented by its authors as a miraculous one-time act capable of radically changing the economic situation in the country: destroying the departmental monopoly, bringing management closer to the localities, raising their initiative, balancing the economic development of the republics and regions, strengthening the internal their economic ties will ultimately accelerate economic development. Management of the defense sector of the economy remained centralized. Any doubts regarding the reform were not expressed, since it came from Khrushchev himself.

It should be said that the organization of economic councils gave some

Effect. Senseless counter transportation of goods was reduced, hundreds of small production enterprises of different ministries that duplicated each other were closed. The freed up space was used for the production of new products. The process of technical reconstruction of many enterprises accelerated: in 1956-1960, three times more new types of machines, units, and devices were put into operation than in the previous five-year period. There was a significant reduction in administrative and management personnel in production.

However, there were no fundamental changes in economic development. Enterprises, instead of the petty tutelage of ministries, received the petty tutelage of economic councils. The reform did not reach the enterprise, the workplace, and could not reach it, since it was not even focused on this. The senior economic leaders of the ministries in the capital were also dissatisfied, as they were losing a considerable part of their now familiar power. But the provincial bureaucracy supported these steps of Khrushchev.

Instead of searching for the material interest of each worker in the results of his work, changes were made in rationing and payment. The result of this was a significant reduction in workers who worked on a piece-rate basis and an increase in the number of time workers. And without that, the low material incentives to work began to decline sharply. Promises, repeatedly repeated from high tribunes, about wage growth led to the fact that workers en masse began to make statements that “wages should be increased for everyone, without exception, as Khrushchev said.” The “deduction” began to spread ", i.e. adjusting wages to a certain level.

Moral incentives began to play an increasingly active role.

A new movement - brigades of communist labor - emerged. Members of these brigades, as well as members of the DIP ("catch up and overtake") brigades in the early 30s, tried to introduce communist methods into their daily lives, spend free time together, improve their general educational, technical and professional level. However, the idealism of the founders of the movement for communist labor faded away quite quickly, faced both with the “rough” needs of everyday life, and with the fact that the initiative was quickly made by the party, trade union, and Komsomol bureaucracy, which made it just another column in the “socialist competition table.”

The civil sector of the economy had the greatest success in the area of ​​housing construction. In the USSR there was no mass housing construction; in other periods they simply did not build housing. The war deprived millions of families of shelter; people lived in dugouts, barracks, and communal apartments. For many, getting a separate, comfortable apartment was almost an impossible dream. Our country did not know the pace at which housing construction was carried out in the first half of the 60s, either before or after this period.

Not everyone could manage to maintain a high level. This movement could not be massive. But trade union organizations, in pursuit of numbers, tried to involve as many people as possible in it. more people. In the end, everything was formalized. The love for ringing phrases, slogans, the haste of conclusions and decisions were characteristic features of that time, where genuine innovations and concern for the common people were intricately intertwined with spotlighting, idle talk, and sometimes even elementary social ignorance.

The 21st Congress is another attempt at radical acceleration. The reform and the changes made led to confusion in the administrative apparatus and failures in the implementation of the sixth five-year plan. However, the country's leadership did not recognize this and make the necessary adjustments. Another solution was found: to replace the five-year plan for 1956-1960 with a seven-year plan for 1959-1965. Then the “shortage” of the first years of the five-year plan will be covered by new plans. The justification for this measure was the scale of the economy and the need to establish a long-term perspective of economic planning.

Although the seven-year plan spoke about the need to make a decisive breakthrough in providing the people with housing and consumer products, its main ideas, as before, boiled down to the constant rapid development of capital-intensive industries of group “A”. Clearly unrealistic goals were set for the complete mechanization of the construction industry.

It was this congress that marked the starting point of an inaccurate, exaggeratedly optimistic forecast of the development of the USSR for the next decade. He solemnly proclaimed that the country had entered the “period of extensive construction of a communist society.”

The task was set to quickly catch up and surpass the most developed capitalist countries in terms of production per capita. Looking into the future, Khrushchev estimated that this would happen around 1970. Khrushchev also touched upon some theoretical issues in his report. He concluded about the complete and final victory of socialism in our country. Thus, in his opinion, the question of the possibility of building socialism in one country was resolved.

The most important internal political event of the period under study was the XXII Congress of the CPSU. It adopted a new party program. The XXII Congress of the CPSU was both a triumph of all politics associated with the name of N.S. Khrushchev, and the beginning of his end. The course of his work and decisions reflected all the contradictions of the era: real achievements of the de-Stalinization process, certain successes in economic development and fantastic, utopian plans, steps towards democratization of internal party life, a sharp strengthening of the cult of personality of Khrushchev himself. The main line to decentralize management of the national economy was lost.

To build communism, it was supposed to solve a threefold task: in the economic field - to build the material and technical base of communism (i.e., to take first place in the world in production per capita; to achieve the highest labor productivity in the world; to ensure the highest standard of living in the world people); in the socio-political field, move to communist self-government; in the field of spiritual and ideological - to educate a new, comprehensive developed person. The historical framework of the CPSU program was mainly limited to twenty years.

In the early 60s, the image of communism in the mass consciousness was associated with specific large social programs. Social commitment programs were as follows:

firstly, solve the food issue completely

providing the people with high-quality products of rational and uninterrupted nutrition;

secondly, to fully satisfy the demand for consumer goods;

thirdly, to solve the housing problem by providing each family with a separate comfortable apartment;

finally, to eliminate low-skilled and heavy manual labor in the national economy.

There was nothing utopian in these tasks. They became such after the USSR got involved in a new round of an unprecedented arms race, which decided their material base.

Big influence The Cold War had an impact on international relations. After the end of World War II, the trust of the anti-Hitler coalition allies in each other began to inexorably melt away. The growing influence of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the formation of governments there led by communists, the victory of the Chinese revolution, the growth of the anti-colonial liberation movement in Southeast Asia led to a new balance of power on the world stage, to a gradual confrontation between yesterday's allies. The most acute clash between the two forces in the early 50s was the Korean conflict. It showed how easily the Cold War could escalate into armed conflict.

The new leadership of our country has demonstrated a desire for dynamism foreign policy. It undertook a number of trips abroad in order to establish personal contacts with the leaders of friendly countries. An important milestone in strengthening relations between socialist states was the creation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization - a Union that declared its goal to pursue a defense policy. The thaw also affected our country’s relations with Western countries. A treaty on collective security in Europe was concluded with the participation of the United States. The peak between East and West was the Cuban Missile Crisis, caused by the Soviet Union's deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster was resolved through negotiations and the compromises reached there. After this culmination of the Cold War, a slow process of improvement in relations between East and West began. The thaw in international relations was real and allowed the people of many countries to look at each other differently.

In the development of culture in the late 50s - early 60s, contradictory trends appeared. The general approach to the cultural environment was distinguished by the previous desire to place it at the service of the administrative-command ideology. But the renewal process itself could not but cause revival cultural life. At the same time, Khrushchev quite sensitively felt the need to carry out reforms in one of the

The main link of culture is at school: the period of study in secondary school was increased to 11 years, and from the ninth grade, students had to master industrial specialties. Neither the material base nor the teaching staff existed for this. A certain emancipation in historical science played an important role in spiritual life. There was also an undoubted revival in artistic culture. New literary and artistic magazines emerged: “Youth”, “Young Guard”. Opened in Moscow new theater“Contemporary”, which attracted attention not only with its current productions, but also with the performances of many actors. Television was part of people's lives. However, the inconsistency of cultural policy made itself felt in the fact that some works were received with hostility by Khrushchev and a number of cultural figures. The political leadership of the country in the early 60s sought to keep culture within strict limits. But still, bold, highly artistic works, imbued with truth and citizenship, made their way through. Documentary stories and memoirs were published that revealed the horrors of illegal repressions and the inhumane life of Stalin’s camps.

1962-1964 remained in the memory of many people as years of internal turmoil and growing tension. The food supply to the growing urban population has deteriorated. Prices turned out to be frozen. The reason for this was sharp increase purchasing prices, which began to surpass retail prices. Likes ordinary people to Khrushchev began to weaken. In the fall of 1963, a new crisis broke out. Bread has disappeared from stores because... virgin soil gave nothing. Bread coupons appeared.

The rise in prices and the emergence of new deficits were a reflection of the growing crisis in the country's economy as a whole. The rate of industrial growth began to slow down. Technological progress has slowed down. Khrushchev and his entourage tried to correct the discovered disruptions in the work of industry by drifting towards the recreation of a centralized bureaucratic command-administrative system of the Stalinist type. Khrushchev, on the one hand, sought to improve the situation in the economy by reshuffling the party apparatus, and on the other, to push the two parts of the party apparatus into conflict in order to protect himself with the “divide and conquer” policy. The party apparatus has grown sharply. Regional committees, Komsomol and trade union organizations began to divide. The entire reform boiled down to inflating the apparatus of party and state bodies. The collapse of power was obvious.

Khrushchev's loss of personal popularity, support from the party and economic apparatus, a break with a considerable part of the intelligentsia, and the lack of visible changes in the standard of living of the majority of workers played a fatal role in the implementation of anti-bureaucratic reforms. And attempts at reforms took place at the top, in anti-democratic ways. Most of the people did not participate in them. Real decisions were made by a very limited circle of senior political leaders. Naturally, in case of failure, all political responsibility fell on the person who held the first post in the party and government. Khrushchev was doomed to resign. In 1964 he tried to intensify reform activities by ordering the start of preparation of a draft of a new Constitution of the USSR.

The turbulent consequences of the transformation into the USSR, inconsistent and contradictory, nevertheless managed to pull the country out of the torpor of the previous era.

The party-state nomenklatura achieved strengthening of its positions, but dissatisfaction with the restless leader in its ranks grew. The disappointment of the intelligentsia with the strictly dosed nomenklatura “thaw” grew. Workers and peasants are tired of the noisy struggle for a “bright future” while their current life is deteriorating.

All this helped the party-state nomenklatura without

any social upheavals to get rid of N.S. Khrushchev. He was accused of "valentarism", removed from all posts and sent into retirement. L.I. Brezhnev became the first secretary of the Central Committee.

The new government decides to begin new economic reforms. The first steps of the reform in 1965 gave hope. Economic growth accelerated. The Eighth Five-Year Plan, which coincided with the implementation of the reform, turned out to be fulfilled in a number of important economic indicators. But by the beginning of the 70s. the essence of the reform turned out to be so distorted that it actually ceased to operate. The main reasons that led to the failure of the reform were the reluctance of the majority of leaders of the administrative-command economy to abandon the usual methods of management, which was accompanied by the curtailment of timid reforms in the political sphere

LITERATURE.

1. "History of the Fatherland" Textbook for 11th grade Wednesday. school V.P. Ostrovsky, V.I. Startsev, B.A. Starkov, G.M. Smirnov. Moscow, Publishing house Enlightenment, 1992

2. Light and shadows of the “great decade” N.S. Khrushchev and his time 1989.

3. Agrarian policy of the CPSU in the 50s - 60s. 0

Magazine N9 "Questions of the History of the CPSU" I.V. Rusinov, Moscow, 1988.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

ECONOMIC REFORM N.S. KHRUSHCHEV

In the second half of 1953, radical changes began in the country's economy. The changes concerned, first of all, the accelerated rise of agriculture in order to provide the population with food and light industry with raw materials. Improving the well-being of the people was declared one of the central tasks of the new leadership. To solve this problem, the development of a new agricultural policy began, the foundations of which were approved at the September (1953) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. The implementation of economic reforms is associated with the name of N.S. Khrushchev, who became the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee in September 1953.

To increase the material interest of collective farmers and workers, purchase prices for agricultural products were increased, the norms for mandatory supplies from personal plots were significantly reduced, and the cash tax levied on each collective farm yard was reduced by half. The social and legal status of collective farmers has changed. They received passports, and monetary payment for their work was introduced. However, peasants did not receive the right to choose forms of farming.

Since 1954, a campaign has been launched to develop virgin and fallow lands in Northern Kazakhstan. 500 thousand volunteers, 120 thousand tractors, 10 thousand combines were sent here. However, this measure had short-term success.

Since the mid-50s, efforts have been made to solve the housing problem. For 1956 – 1960 About 54 million people (a quarter of the country's population) celebrated housewarming. A pension law was passed, establishing one of the lowest age limits in the world. All types of tuition fees were abolished. Salaries grew by an average of 3% per year. By the end of the 50s, compared to 1950, the real incomes of workers and office workers increased by 60%, and of collective farmers by 90%.

In 1957 N.S. Khrushchev is trying to reform the management of the national economy. Instead of sectoral ministries and departments, economic councils were created - territorial departments.

The Khrushchev leadership tried to solve many economic problems in those years by political methods, through administrative reforms and campaigns (corn campaign, meat campaign in Ryazan, milk records, etc.).

In the early 60s, there were shortages of meat, milk, bread, and butter. The Soviet Union was forced to purchase food and feed abroad. This was due to short-sighted policies towards the villagers (village residents had their plots cut back, they were prohibited from having more than one cow), as well as endless restructuring of agricultural management. However, the 10-year period of Khrushchev's reformism became a period of the most noticeable rise in the country's economy and the standard of living of Soviet people. In 1956 – 1958 On average, about 800 enterprises came into operation per year. In 1957, the nuclear icebreaker “Lenin” was launched. Within government programs problems of space exploration, development of electronics and others were solved.

The contradictions and inconsistency of many undertakings were due to the fact that Khrushchev emerged as a party and statesman under conditions of strict centralization of the administrative-command style of leadership.

ECONOMIC REFORM N.S. KHRUSHCHEV - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "ECONOMIC REFORM OF N.S. KHRUSHCHEV" 2015, 2017-2018.

Transformations N.S. Khrushchev touched upon various aspects of the life of Soviet society and were partly associated with criticism of the personality cult of I. Stalin.

Management reform

At the end of January 1957, a note from N.S. was sent to a wide circle of the country’s leaders for discussion. Khrushchev on improving the management of industry and construction. The essence of the note was a proposal to abolish the departmental subordination of enterprises and place them under the jurisdiction of the regions.

After discussion, in May 1957, a law was adopted on the management of industry through the Councils of the National Economy (Soviet Economic Councils), subordinate directly to the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics. The reform consisted of dividing the territory of the USSR into so-called “economic administrative regions” with the creation within the regions, territories and republics of the USSR of a network of territorial councils of the national economy, under whose jurisdiction enterprises that were previously subordinate to industrial and agro-industrial ministries were transferred. At the same time, many ministries, both federal and republican, were abolished.

In November 1962, the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, on the initiative of Khrushchev, set a course for restructuring all governing bodies along the production principle. Party organizations - from regional and lower - were divided into industrial and rural. After this, regional organizations and departments of communications, trade, public education, health care, subordinate to both industrial and rural party and Soviet bodies, began to receive duplicate resolutions and orders on the same issues every day.

In 1962-1963 There was a further consolidation of the economic councils, and new bodies were built over them (republican and all-Union Councils of National Economy). In March 1963, the Supreme Council of the National Economy was created, which essentially revived the centralized structure of economic management.

To implement a unified technical policy, instead of the abolished industrial ministries, state production committees were formed - industry management bodies that concentrated research, design and design organizations, to provide direct assistance to enterprises subordinate to the economic councils. They moved from decentralization to centralization, but attempts to adjust the reform still failed to provide the necessary impetus for economic development, since the system formed back in the 30s. The command-administrative management system continued to exist even when there was an attempt to introduce some features of territorial management.

In July 1964, Khrushchev proposed the idea of ​​another restructuring of agricultural management: it was planned to create about a dozen specialized central departments responsible for production individual species products. He proposed to boost agriculture and increase the production of consumer goods by reducing spending on the army and weapons.

Industry

In the 50s, the USSR carried out the first stage of the scientific and technological revolution of the 20th century, which was expressed in the development of new sectors of the economy, such as electronics, nuclear energy, and astronautics. At the same time, heavy industry developed at a faster pace, enterprises of group “B” (light, food and other industries) developed more slowly, but their growth was doubled. During the Khrushchev years there were 2 five-year plans (1951-1955; 1955-1958) and a seven-year plan (1959-1965).

Average annual growth rates of industrial production in the USSR in 1951-1955. were, according to official data, 13.1%, and 1956-1960. - 10.3%, in 1961-1965. - 8.6%.

On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant in Obninsk gave power. In June 1959, the Angara was closed, where the Bratsk hydroelectric power station was being built, which, after the introduction of all capacities, became the most powerful in the world in 1964.

The course for restructuring the country's fuel and energy complex was taken in 1956-1961, the USSR gradually moved away from the use of coal in favor of gas and oil. Development of the gas industry in the territory North Caucasus and the Volga region made it possible to gasify more than 160 cities. In 1962, the development of the first oil-rich fields in Siberia began. By 1963, the total production of oil and gas for the first time in the history of the USSR exceeded the share of coal fuel.

Agrarian reform

The new course, proclaimed in August 1953 at a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, proclaimed, among others, the rise of agriculture, which was going through difficult times. The foundations of the new agrarian policy were approved at the September plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1953. Since that time, the economic position of collective farms has been strengthened, the amount of agricultural tax has been reduced, and purchase prices have increased. Farms were provided with loans, received new technology. To strengthen the leadership cadres of collective farms, party workers (“thirty thousanders”) were sent to work there.

In 1954, a campaign was launched to develop virgin lands in Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Urals and Povolozhye. Already in the first three years of the campaign, 32 million hectares of new land were developed. A sharp rise followed with bumper harvests. The Komsomol conscription played a major role in the development of virgin lands. But due to wind erosion of the soil, most of the developed land had to be converted to pasture. The non-black earth center of the country fell into complete decline due to increased attention to the virgin lands (all the equipment and young people were heading there).

In 1957, Khrushchev declared that in the coming years the USSR would not only catch up, but also surpass the United States in the production of meat, milk and butter per capita. This competition turned into an embarrassment associated with registrations and mass slaughter of livestock. The most famous case occurred in Ryazan, the secretary of the local regional committee A.N. Larionov received the title of Hero of Socialist Labor, but at the end of 1960 the deception was revealed and the secretary shot himself.

In February 1958, a decision was made to reorganize machine-motor stations (MTS) into repair and tractor stations on collective farms. Such a merger placed a heavy burden on poor collective farms, which were forced to purchase equipment. To solve this problem, Khrushchev proposed consolidating collective farms - transforming them into state farms. Then economic councils were created.

In order to quickly achieve the goals of communist construction, the authorities launched an offensive on private farms. Collective farmers' land plots were again cut (from 1.5 acres per collective farm yard in 1955-1956 to one hundred square meters in 1959-1960; in 1950-1952 there were 32 acres), livestock was forcibly bought out. Against this background, a campaign of public condemnation of traders and money-grubbers and a struggle against the invaders of collective farm lands unfolded. As a result, there was a decline in private farming.

After the visit of the leader of the USSR to the USA in 1959, the corn epic also became part of Khrushchev’s image - this crop began to be intensively planted everywhere, even where it could not grow in principle. The reduction in rye and wheat crops for corn led to a general decrease in grain harvest. Therefore, the crop failure of 1962 led to a shortage of wheat and rye. The deficit had to be made up by purchasing wheat from the United States. After this, it became clear that agriculture needed other ways out of the crisis. In December 1963, the plenum of the Central Committee adopted a special resolution on the development of the chemical industry, which was tasked with the development of mineral fertilizers in agriculture. The impact of these measures came already in the 70s.

Social reforms

Working time standards have been established, in particular - a 6-hour working day for teenagers 16 years old. In 1956, the working day of workers and employees on Saturdays and pre-holidays was reduced by 2 hours; in 1957, the transition to a seven-hour working day began. In March 1957, taxes on workers and employees were reduced.

The housing stock was actively expanding, while housing construction was based on industrial methods; the Moscow Cheryomushki became a symbol of the new standard housing construction. In the late 50s - first half of the 60s. In terms of the pace of construction and the amount of residential space commissioned, the USSR came out on top in the world. The country's housing stock is increasing by 40% over the seven-year period. This stimulated the development of construction-related sectors of the economy. True, the housing that was built went down in history under the name “Khrushchev”, but the housing crisis was resolved in the country, and communal apartments gradually began to become a thing of the past. For 1956-1960 Almost 54 million people moved to new apartments.

Since September 1956, a decision was made to abolish tuition fees in high schools and universities. In 1958, instead of the seven-year school, a compulsory eight-year polytechnic school was created. Those wishing to receive a complete secondary education had to continue their studies at a secondary polytechnic school (in a vocational school, in an evening or correspondence school), and for those who wanted to continue their education at a university, mandatory work experience was introduced. But such a reform did not achieve the desired effect, the level of education fell, and since 1964 the secondary school again became ten years old.

Under Khrushchev, a radical reform of pension legislation took place; from July 1956, men began to receive pensions after 60 years of age and women over 55 years of age. In February 1958, the gradual certification of collective farmers began. In July-November 1964, a set of measures was adopted to pay pensions to peasants, which was the last initiative in N.S.’s career. Khrushchev. For the first time in the history of the Soviet village, old-age pensions began to be received by men at the age of 65, and women - by 60 years. Payments were made from a fund created using funds from collective farms and the state budget. But it should be noted that the pensions of collective farmers were significantly lower than those of workers and employees.

Results of reforms

The positive result of the reforms by N.S. Khrushchev had impressive quantitative economic indicators compared to economically developed countries. In particular, by 1965, the national income of the USSR increased by 53% compared to 1958, production assets increased by 91%, and industrial production by 84%. Real income population grew by one third.

At the same time, numerous reforms have failed to resolve the issue of economic modernization. After the failures of N.S. Khrushchev’s controversial transformative activities, a syndrome of fatigue from constant reform arose in society, and after it the era of “stagnation” began.

1. In April 1956, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was issued, abolishing criminal liability for absenteeism and unauthorized departure from the enterprise; it was replaced by disciplinary liability.

2. In January 1957, a new Regulation on the procedure for resolving labor disputes was adopted, on the basis of which commissions for labor disputes were created at enterprises (on issues of dismissal, transfer, payment, etc.). The commission's decisions could be appealed to the factory committee and then to the court.

3. The Committee on Labor and Wages, created under the Government of the USSR, implemented in 1955 – 1960s a number of measures to streamline wages.

4. Since 1956, the length of the working day on Saturdays and pre-holidays has been reduced by 2 hours; a 6-hour working day was established for working teenagers; The duration of maternity leave has increased.

5. In July 1958, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Regulations on the rights of the factory, factory, and local trade union committees. Trade union committees were entrusted with control over the implementation by the enterprise administration of labor legislation and safety regulations, over the work of trade and public catering enterprises, over correct remuneration, etc. Dismissal of workers on the initiative of the administration could only be carried out with the consent of trade unions.

6. In July 1956, the law on state pensions was adopted, establishing uniform criteria for the assignment of pensions. The retirement age for men was set at 60 years, for women – at 55 years old. Important for purpose labor pension began to play common seniority citizen. For men it was set at 25 years old, for women – at 20 years old. When assigning pensions for disability, due to work injury or occupational disease, age and length of service were not taken into account. The law established the minimum and maximum pension payments. For categories of low-paid workers, pension rates increased by 2 times or more.

7. Tuition fees in schools and universities were abolished.

8. The scale of housing construction has increased. The acceleration of its pace was facilitated by the industrialization of construction work, the use of prefabricated reinforced concrete and panel houses with small-sized apartments in housing construction. At the same time, new principles were developed for the development of residential microdistricts like the famous Cheryomushki microdistrict in Moscow, where residential buildings were combined with institutions and cultural institutions - domestic use: schools, hospitals, kindergartens, shops, hairdressers, etc.

The results of the reign of N.S. Khrushchev. A housing program developed and implemented in the Soviet Union with the active participation of N.S. Khrushchev, allowed in just a few years, already in the second half of 50 - 90s, to move almost a quarter of the country's population into new comfortable apartments. The famous “Khrushchev buildings” reduced the severity of the housing problem. Moreover, warrants for moving into panel “Khrushchev” buildings were issued to needy citizens of the USSR for free.And this is just one decade after the end of the destructive Great Patriotic War, which destroyed almost a third of the entire economic potential of the huge country, when almost 2 thousand cities and 70 thousand villages lay in ruins.

During the era of Khrushchev's reforms, high-tech industries developed rapidly: electronics, aircraft manufacturing, astronautics and others. Under Khrushchev, the world's first artificial Earth satellite was launched (October 4, 1957) and world's first manned space flight. Moreover, the flight of Yu.A. Gagarin into space on April 12, 1961 became a triumph not only of Soviet science and technology, but for some time of the entire Soviet country, led by N.S. Khrushchev, the author of many reforms of that period.

Thus, Khrushchev’s implementation of state and legal reforms, progressive initiatives in industry, agriculture, development of virgin and fallow lands, a new successful social policy, his elimination of Stalin’s repressive regime, debunking the cult of personality of the leader of all nations – all this became manifestations of a new approach to public administration. The Khrushchev period of governing the country turned out to be a major step in the development of our state.

Certain successes in government - legal reforms, economics, social sphere, promises of N.S. Khrushchev, made at the XXII Party Congress, that “the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism,” gave rise to too many illusions in society about the possibilities of the socialist economic system. The reformer’s plans were not destined to come true: the construction took two decades to materially - The technical basis of communism, which would make it possible to implement the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” was a clear utopia of another Kremlin dreamer.

Removal of N.S. Khrushchev from power. Khrushchev's voluntarism, his gradual departure from the principles of collective leadership, the concentration of party and state power in one hand and other mistakes led to the fact that his inner circle was dissatisfied with his rule and took measures to remove the leader from power.

On the initiative of L.I. Brezhnev and his supporters on October 13, 1964, an extraordinary meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee was convened, ostensibly to discuss issues on agriculture. N.S. Khrushchev was in the south at that time, on vacation, but met with the French Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, he did not immediately accept Brezhnev’s insistent offer to urgently arrive in Moscow. For Khrushchev and his companion A.I. Mikoyan, who arrived in Moscow, already at the airfield, where they were met only by a KGB officer, it became clear that at the Plenum of the Central Committee it would not be about agriculture. At the meeting of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, 22 people gathered, ministers of the USSR and several secretaries of regional committees were present. The discussion was stormy, sharp and frank. Khrushchev resolutely rejected almost all the accusations against himself and himself made several accusations against the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee present. One A.I. spoke in defense of Khrushchev. Mikoyan, who stated that Khrushchev’s activities – the party’s great political capital, which it does not have the right to squander so easily. But none of those present supported Mikoyan. It was obvious that the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee this time would not be on the side of the First Secretary. However, it was not possible to convince Khrushchev to resign voluntarily, and the meeting, which began in the afternoon of October 13, had to be interrupted late at night for rest. Everyone went home, agreeing to gather on the morning of October 14th. However, at night Khrushchev decided: “If they don’t want me, then so be it,” and the next day the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee lasted no more than an hour and a half. L.I. was elected First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Brezhnev, and the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR - A.N. Kosygin. On October 14, the next Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee opened in the Kremlin, whose members had already arrived in Moscow from all over the country in advance. The meeting was opened by L.I. Brezhnev, chaired by A.I. Mikoyan. N.S. was also present at the meeting of the plenum. Khrushchev, who did not utter a word. M.S. Suslov read a report at the Plenum in which there was no objective analysis of Khrushchev’s activities for 11 years, but there were comments of a mainly personal nature related to his voluntarism lately. Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee released N.S. Khrushchev from all positions held. Was confirmed as the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev. This plenum of the Central Committee is reminiscent of - then the palace coup XVIII century: conspiracy – bias – appointment of a new monarch.

13.3. Socio-economic development of the country in the “Brezhnev era”

Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, who came to power as a result of a party “palace coup,” was a typical representative of the nomenklatura. During the Great Patriotic War, he was a colonel and head of the political department of a division that fought on Malaya Zemlya near Novorossiysk. After the war, he headed the Zaporozhye, then the Dnepropetrovsk regional committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine. During the period of virgin lands development he led Kazakhstan, in 1950 – 1952 – Moldova. In a conspiracy against N.S. Khrushcheva L.I. Brezhnev served as Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

Public administration in the Brezhnev era. After eliminating N.S. Khrushchev from the authorities of L.I. Brezhnev, then still full of strength and energy, carried out a whole range of state, legal, economic and social reforms that significantly changed the face of our country. L.I. Brezhnev carried out some counter-reforms of public administration. Instead of Khrushchev's economic councils, he revived everything line ministries. Together with them, a return to the sectoral principle of industrial planning and management was carried out. However, some independence of the union republics was preserved. Planning was carried out by the USSR State Planning Committee through the Union and Union-Republican ministries.

L.I. At first, Brezhnev did not have a clear program for managing the Soviet state or carrying out urgent reforms. He didn’t have his own team of professionals either. - like-minded people to implement planned changes. But he, as an experienced apparatchik, strengthened the position of the party nomenklatura, expanded its powers in managing the regions and the country as a whole. A little later, a team appeared to carry out reforms. Of course, its basis was the party elite, members and candidate members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, and the apparatus of the Central Committee of the party.

Without the sanction (resolution, approval) of the relevant sector or department of the CPSU Central Committee, and in some cases – The Secretariat or the Politburo, not a single government body could make a single decision of any importance at that time. Through the Central Committee of the CPSU, the so-called political, often direct management of sectors of the national economy was carried out.

A similar situation arose in the localities, where the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the Union Republics, regional committees and regional committees monopolized all political decisions and controlled the activities of Soviet and Komsomol organizations, local courts, industrial and agricultural enterprises.

At the XXIII Congress of the CPSU (1966), the name “ general secretary Central Committee of the CPSU". Later, Brezhnev combined the main party position with the post of chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and chairman of the Defense Council.

Initially, Brezhnev showed himself to be an energetic and fairly competent leader, although he gravitated toward conservatism, but exercised competent leadership in the interests of the country. L.I. Brezhnev in the mid-60s. was an ardent supporter of economic reforms and supported the head of government Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin - author of reforms in industry and agriculture. However, later, by the mid-70s, disagreements began between Brezhnev and Kosygin on issues of further economic reform. Unfortunately, this confrontation ended in Kosygin's defeat, and Brezhnev took political actions that cemented the Soviet state's abandonment of market reforms. And yet, some results of their joint activities gave positive impetus to the socio-economic development of the country.

Agrarian reform was proclaimed at the March (1965) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. It included measures to solve social problems in the countryside, the use of economic incentives in agriculture, and increased financing for agricultural production. During the implementation of agrarian reform, the following changes were made.

1. The peasants received additional land for personal use for the development of household farming, and the “extra” land was no longer cut off.

2. Peasants received the right to a pension.

3. On collective farms, a minimum wage was guaranteed in cash, and the rest was payment in kind (grain, vegetables, etc.).

4. The purchase price for agricultural products increased again while the norms for mandatory deliveries to the “bins of the Motherland” were reduced. For their above-plan sales, an additional price premium of 50% was introduced.

5. A firm plan for government purchases of grain and other agricultural products was established for a period of 6 years. This increased the stability and interest of peasants in the results of their labor.

6. The corn epic was put to an end: they were no longer forced to sow the “queen of the fields” and sunflowers on lands close to the North Pole.

All this led to an increase in labor productivity in agriculture. By the end of the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1965-1970), the total profitability of state farm production was 22%, and collective farm production was even higher – 34%. Thanks to agricultural reform, the country's supply of agricultural products has improved significantly.

The course to increase agricultural production was continued with the approval of the ninth and tenth five-year plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR. In just three five-year plans from 1966 to 1980, almost 400 billion rubles. If we take into account the fact that the ruble at that time at the exchange rate was higher than the US dollar, it becomes clear what gigantic sums were allocated under L.I. Brezhnev for the implementation of agrarian reforms. However, these funds were used extremely ineffectively. They invested in the construction of gigantic expensive complexes, ill-conceived reclamation and chemicalization of fields that did not bring real returns.

Reforms in industry. In November 1965 A.N. Kosygin made a report at the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in which he substantiated the need for economic reform in industry. The head of government proposed introducing market categories and concepts into economic activity enterprises: profit, profitability, cost accounting, cost of production, etc. The reform significantly reduced the list of planned indicators previously introduced by the state. One of the main indicators of the performance of industrial enterprises was the volume of sold, and not all produced, products. This was a step forward to the modern concept of "market conditions", that is, producing what the consumer requires.

To economically stimulate labor and produce goods, it was decided to leave part of the profits at the disposal of enterprises. Due to deductions from profits at plants and factories, special funds were formed: 1) material incentives; 2) development of production (self-financing) and 3) socio-cultural and everyday development (money was allocated for the construction of housing, sanatoriums, cultural centers, etc.). This was a significant step towards the independence of enterprises and stimulation of labor productivity.

Kosygin economic reform gave a noticeable impetus to the stalled national economy. Already in 1966, over 700 production teams began working under the new business conditions. In accordance with the reform, production associations began to be created for the purpose of cooperation in the production of complex products. An example of such cooperation is the merger of the Moscow Automobile Plant named after I.A. Likhachev with specialized enterprises in Roslavl and Mtsensk, which produced components and spare parts for cars. This contributed to the strengthening of economic ties and eliminated duplicate production capacities.

In the Soviet Union during this period, in order to develop science and technology, new knowledge-intensive industries were created: microelectronics, nuclear engineering, etc., arose scientifically - production associations that met the requirements of the time.

The progressive significance of economic reforms in the Brezhnev era, especially at the initial stage, is evidenced by the following figures and facts. Only for the eighth five-year plan industrial production increased by one and a half times, labor productivity – by 33%. The Eighth Five-Year Plan became one of the most successful for the country's economy. Was built 1900 new industrial enterprises, construction of the first stage of the Volzhsky Automobile Plant in Tolyatti was completed, Western - Siberian Metallurgical Plant, thermal power plants in Konakovo and Krivoy Rog, construction of the Central Asia gas pipeline was completed – Center" with a length of 2750 km. Construction of the first stage of the famous oil pipeline "Druzhba", length 8,900 km. Total length of petroleum built in the USSR - and gas pipelines exceeded 35 thousand km.

Economic growth rates under L.I. Brezhnev at 60 – 70- x years were significantly higher than in developed European countries. The average annual growth rate of national income during the Eighth Five-Year Plan reached 7.7%. This figure significantly exceeds the current rate of development of the Russian economy.

Since mid 70s - x years real control in the party was concentrated in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. Within the framework of this body, a narrow group of the party super-elite was formed consisting of Yu.V. Andropova, A.N. Gromyko, D.F. Ustinova, M.I. Suslova, K.U. Chernenko, who together with Brezhnev actually resolved all the most fundamental issues.

Party leaders, understanding the importance of the development of science and technology, called on the Soviet people to “combine the achievements scientifically - technical progress with the advantages of socialism." However, it was precisely these “advantages” that hampered the development of science and technology, the introduction of their achievements into production, since the problem was not solved incentives. Economic incentives were replaced by socialist competition in scientific - research institutes and scientific - production associations. From time to time, however, there were reports of new major discoveries and developments, but if they were not of military significance, then most often were not introduced into mass production then from - for “lack of funds”, then from - for the lack of strong support among developers in those instances where the fate of discoveries was decided.

At the same time, relations were established in the country personal loyalty, nepotism in the selection and placement of personnel. For example, those people who had previously worked with Brezhnev in Ukraine, Moldova or Kazakhstan and were endlessly devoted to him found themselves in high leadership positions, and Brezhnev’s son and son-in-law were introduced to the CPSU Central Committee.

The isolation of the power elite, its practical irremovability and lack of control, the “unsinkability” of the party nomenklatura and senior officials, no matter what mistakes they made in leadership, – all this caused discontent in society and social apathy of citizens. Thus, on December 12, 1979, a narrow circle of Politburo members at Brezhnev’s dacha decided to send Soviet troops into Afghanistan. As it turned out later, this was a serious political mistake.

Social differentiation grew, based not on labor contribution, but on the degree of access to scarcity. It was aggravated by an increase in undeserved and illegal privileges for certain categories of citizens, mainly party and Soviet workers and other nomenklatura.

By mid 70s - x years reforms in the economy were practically curtailed. As a result, the growth rate of labor productivity in the Ninth Five-Year Plan (1971–1975) compared to the Eighth Five-Year Plan decreased from 6.8 to 3%, that is, more than doubled.

The country's leadership explained this by objective reasons: an unfavorable demographic situation and a decrease in the proportion of the working-age population, the depletion of traditional raw material base and a sharp rise in the cost of mining; physical wear and tear and obsolescence of equipment; significant increase in military spending, etc. All these factors really took place and had a negative impact on economic development. However, the main circumstance explaining the failure of the reforms was that the directive model of the economy itself had exhausted its resources. She could do something else - At that time it developed by inertia, but in historical terms it was doomed.

Existing methods of public administration could no longer provide solutions to the problems facing the economy. Extensive methods of developing the national economy have exhausted themselves. Factors such as the need for direct and indirect subsidies to unprofitable enterprises and ineffective territories, exorbitant military spending and multi-billion dollar loans from the USSR to third world countries.

The situation was saved only by oil, gas and other energy resources, the reserves of which were discovered with the help of space satellites. The export of “black gold” abroad has become a powerful source of obtaining additional currency, with a magic wand to solve acute social problems - economic problems. Using petrodollars, the state began to purchase Western equipment and technology and, on this basis, solve pressing problems.

Instead of trying to improve product quality, intensification of production, To make a profit by introducing the achievements of scientific and technological progress into production, the bureaucracy relied on imported pumping. The main task was to maintain the achieved production rates. As a result, the USSR actually “slept through” the information revolution – computerization and IT technologies. While the United States, Western Europe and Japan developed along post-industrial lines of modernization, the Soviet economy traditionally and inertly developed within the framework of the industrial stage. The backwardness of the Soviet Union is evidenced by the fact that by 1985 it had a thousand times fewer personal computers and computers than, for example, the USA. The situation has escalated from - for the sanctions imposed by the West against the USSR after the outbreak of the Afghan war, when access to the country of the best foreign models of equipment and high-tech technologies virtually ceased.

In the USSR by the beginning of the 80s. There were signs of a slowdown in economic growth, stagnation and stagnation. But the label of “stagnation and stagnation”, hung by biased politicians and economists, is not entirely correct in relation to to all Brezhnev era. If we take as a whole the Brezhnev period of development of a huge country that occupied an area of ​​22.4 million square meters. km, where almost 280 million people lived, then big picture will be strikingly different from the one that is being imposed on inexperienced Russians by dependent media and, first of all, federal television channels.

Facts show: by the beginning of perestroika 80 - x years A powerful industrial potential was created in the Soviet Union. Over the 18 years from 1970 to 1988, industrial production in the USSR increased 2.38 times. Over the same 18 years, the developed countries of Europe showed a significantly smaller increase in industrial production. In England it increased by only 1.32 times, or almost 2 times less than in the Soviet Union; in Germany – at 1.33; in France – 1.48 times, that is, significantly less than in the USSR during the “period of stagnation and stagnation.” Even the USA lagged behind the USSR, giving an increase in industrial production of only 1.68 times.

The volume of gross domestic product in the period from 1960 to 1988 in the USSR increased almost 5 times! Moreover, the growth rate of the finished social product was maintained throughout almost the entire Brezhnev period. Compared to 1960, its volume in 1970 was exceeded by 2.1 times, in 1980. – 3.5 times, and in 1988 – 4.7 times. Therefore, it is at least unscientific to hang the label “Brezhnev’s stagnation” on an economy that, in terms of its main economic indicators, was ahead not only of the developed countries of Western Europe, but also the USA. The economic indicators of the USSR would have been much higher if Brezhnev had not been so ill in last years leadership of the country or gave way in time to a more energetic leader of the state.

The foundation of the economy, laid in the Brezhnev era, proven oil and gas reserves made it possible to survive the failure of Gorbachev’s perestroika for almost a decade and a half systemic crisis Yeltsin and failures in the Putin-Medvedev administration. Thus, the Brezhnev-Kosygin reforms in industry and agriculture, which yielded positive results, have important historical significance.

Despite all the shortcomings and vices of the political system, the slowness of the bureaucratic administrative apparatus, the economy under L.I. Brezhnev ensured a relatively high level of well-being of the population.

Success in the social sphere. Successes in the economic field allowed the socialist state to solve many social problems. The Constitution of the USSR, adopted in 1977, and special laws regulating the social policy of the state were aimed at this. Public consumption funds increased, serious financial investments were made in public medicine, education, sports, and recreation.

Education in higher and other educational institutions under L.I. Brezhnev was free. (For comparison: the cost of annual training in prestigious state Russian universities in 2010 was: at the Higher School of Economics, Faculty of State and Municipal Administration - 250 thousand rubles. per year, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov at the Faculty of Political Science for master's programs - 261.6 thousand, at MGIMO for bachelor's programs - from 280 thousand rubles).

During the Brezhnev period, close attention was paid to the quality of education and the high level of training of specialists. The degree of professional training of that time can be judged by the fact that the current leaders of the Russian state, regional authorities and administration, rectors of leading universities (the list goes on) were educated under L.I. Brezhnev.

Healthcare made it possible to successfully combat child mortality, epidemics and other diseases. Operations, even the most complex ones, were free for people.

Pension provision generally met the needs of people who had retired. Pensions for ferrous metallurgy workers, miners, and other categories with difficult conditions were increased labor activity. Bonuses were introduced for continuous work experience at one enterprise, institution or organization. Pensions for disabled people and participants of the Great Patriotic War, and families of military personnel who died at the front were noticeably increased.

The maximum pension for ordinary citizens (teachers, doctors, engineers, etc.) was 132 rubles and allowed them to live almost comfortably. A loaf of bread cost a little more than 10 kopecks, sausage – 2 rubles 20 kopecks per 1 kg, meat – no more than 2 rubles per kg, 1 kWh of electricity – 4 kopecks, gasoline – 7 kopecks per 1 liter, rent was charged no more than 10–15 rubles per month, etc. At these prices, the cost of living was low, and pensioners could afford some - what to save for a rainy day.

There were no traces of any delays in the payment of pensions or salaries. “Indeed, this was the case before, 132 rubles of the Soviet labor pension translated into natural products, such as bread, milk, meat, etc. – were undoubtedly more significant than my pension today. What could you buy then by paying 16 rubles 39 kopecks for an apartment and electricity: 730 loaves of bread, 60 kg of boiled sausage, 32 kg of Swiss cheese. Today my 3,500 rubles of pension remaining from paying utility bills, – wrote pensioner Lidia Kulikova in 2007 to the Russian Federation magazine, – allow you to buy 290 loaves of bread, 17 kg of sausage, 23 kg of Russian cheese, that is, in all respects, three times less.” Thus, the social security of pensioners during the Brezhnev period of government was significantly higher than in modern Russia.

Soviet people during the Brezhnev period of leadership of the state had other social guarantees , including housing. The housing legislation in force at that time determined the order free providing citizens with living space. It should be emphasized that the housing legislation of that period also provided for the improvement of living conditions for citizens at the expense of the state.

The law established categories of citizens who had benefits in providing housing. These categories included disabled people and participants of the Great Patriotic War, Heroes of the Soviet Union and Heroes socialist labor, holders of the Order of Glory of three degrees, etc. If there were less than 12 square meters per person. m of living space, then citizens living in such cramped conditions also had the right to improve their living conditions at the expense of the state.

No one could evict a citizen from an apartment or residential building occupied by law. His home was his real fortress. Entering a home was punishable by law.

Under L.I. Brezhnev built over 1.5 billion square meters. m of housing, which allowed More than 40% of Soviet people received comfortable apartments for free. According to official statistics, by the beginning of 80 - x years XX century Almost 80% of families had separate apartments, including families of citizens of Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, the Baltic republics, Central Asia and Transcaucasia. In these republics, which left the USSR in December 1991, the lion's share of the housing stock is still made up of apartments from the Brezhnev period of “stagnation and stagnation.”

In 1966 – 1967 not without the participation of L.I. Brezhnev was introduced five-day work week with two days off. Wages for the main categories of workers increased, and the minimum wage was significantly increased. In 1970, the Fundamentals of Labor Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics were adopted. On their basis, new codes of labor laws of the union republics were developed and put into effect. In the RSFSR, a new Labor Code was adopted in 1971. The new labor legislation attached great importance to the protection labor rights women and youth. Women received the right to partially paid leave to care for children up to one year of age. The rights of pregnant women were protected: no one could deprive them of work and earnings, deny them maternity leave, etc.

During the Brezhnev reform period supply of food to the population and consumer goods reached the highest level compared to other periods of the country's socialist development. Moreover, prices for goods and services were relatively low, affordable to the average consumer. For example, with a salary of 200 rubles, one could buy four vouchers to a sanatorium on the Black Sea (with treatment, food and accommodation in equipped rooms) for a period of 24 days.

Recent 100 - anniversary of the birth of L.I. Brezhnev in Russia “passed under a friendly sigh of nostalgia: many remembered the stagnation as a “golden age”, historical happiness – bright, carefree" – published in January 2007 by Komsomolskaya Pravda. Reflecting on this phenomenon, the most influential Russian newspaper in the article “Is the USSR returning?” writes: “It’s a strange thing, sometimes ironizing our funny and sad past, we suddenly discover in today’s life where there is everything we dreamed of – from sausages and foreign cars to free trips abroad... – our fellow citizens suddenly began to feel nostalgic for the viscous Brezhnev “stagnation”. The newspaper quotes the words of Arkady Inin, which contains the answer to the question why former Soviet citizens liked the Brezhnev era so much. “I dream of nothing more than waking up in a “golden stagnation” – famous writer stated - satirist. – When there was stability, confidence in the future, security, care for people, respect for veterans, pensions on which you could not only live, but also relax in Crimea, the absence of the cult of money, wild class inequality, scoundrels in Courchevel, homeless people and street children on Russian streets. And most importantly – there was respect for human dignity.” These are the memories of today's Russians who lived in the Brezhnev era, which was often not entirely fair called the era of “stagnation and stagnation.”

To maintain objectivity, it should be noted that at the end of the article, A. Inin lists what he did not like about that era. He, like most former Soviet citizens, would not like to see the Iron Curtain, the power of the CPSU and political censorship again.

The end of the Brezhnev era. It should be borne in mind that the beginning and end of the Brezhnev era are strikingly different from each other. This is due primarily to the leader of the state himself, his attitude towards the state - legal reforms and changes in social - economic sphere. At the end of his reign, Brezhnev lost the opportunity critical thinking and even tried, with the support of his circle, to organize a semblance of a cult of his personality. Some historians are inclined to explain the dramatic changes by serious health problems of the reformer, a negative attitude towards the transformations of his immediate circle, especially the elderly members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee.

All these assumptions are based on real facts. Be that as it may, at the end of the Brezhnev era changes occurred that became a milestone in the development of society. The country began counter-reforms, affecting many areas of Soviet society. In politics, the concept of building communism was replaced by the concept of developed socialism. In the state apparatus, the principles of collegial leadership were replaced by unity of command. The party has forgotten the principle of personnel rotation. In civil society there was increasing persecution of dissidents.

At the end of 70 - X – early 80s - x years in connection with the beginning of the fall in oil export prices, investment in social sphere. Its financing on the “residual principle” had a particularly difficult impact on the living conditions of the rural population. The provision of villagers with medical and preschool institutions, consumer services and public catering enterprises lagged significantly behind the city.

A special contrast in the social security of rural workers was noticeable in comparison with the standard of living of the leaders of party and Soviet bodies, who occupied a special, privileged position in the system of distribution of material goods. There was a special supply of food and industrial goods for them; they were served by special clinics, hospitals, and sanatoriums. At the end of Brezhnev’s rule in the USSR, the facts became increasingly obvious how the servants of the people turned into masters. They acquired various privileges, benefits, and many of the party and Soviet functionaries – and wealth.

Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev went down in the history of the USSR and Russia as the most controversial ruler who influenced the development of new directions in the foreign and domestic policy of the USSR and carried out several reforms during the decade of his rule.

Domestic policy Khrushchev

Stalin's death in 1953 led to a behind-the-scenes struggle for a place on the “throne,” but the post of first secretary went to Khrushchev. At the 20th Congress (1956) he delivered a report that received worldwide resonance. The main topic was the exposure of Stalin with a list of a number of crimes of the 30s-50s. and harsh criticism of his repression. The beginning of de-Stalinization and democratization has been made.

Khrushchev's reforms

De-Stalinization had, however, neither consistency nor integrity. According to Khrushchev, it consisted of condemning the cult of Stalin and establishing party control over the punitive authorities. There was a restoration of law and order, legality and constitutional rights citizens.

Khrushchev's reforms continued - the ruling party was restructured: democratization, changes in the conditions for admission to it, expansion of the rights of local organizations and union republics. In 1957, the rights of the peoples deported by Stalin were restored. New bodies of public self-government are emerging, etc.

Management reform

An attempt to switch to economic methods of management led to a more complex management structure and an increase in the number of officials. In 1962, the most unsuccessful of the reforms was undertaken: the specialization of party organizations (industrial and rural). The country was divided into 105 economic regions.

Agrarian reform

Khrushchev's reforms began with agriculture. Since 1953, the economic position of collective farms has been strengthened, and the amount of agricultural tax has been reduced. Farms were provided with loans, new equipment arrived. In the mid-50s, their wholesale consolidation began - their transformation into state farms. Then economic councils were created.

The peasants were issued passports and were given a pension.

The corn epic also became part of Khrushchev’s image - following the example of the United States, this crop began to be intensively planted everywhere, even where it, in principle, could not grow (right up to the Far North!).

In 1954, a development campaign began. A sharp jump followed with unprecedented harvests, and for the first time in the post-war years, the purchase price of grain increased. But erosion destroyed virgin soils. The non-chernozem center fell into complete decline.

Khrushchev's military reforms

After coming to power, he took the direction of raising the defense and heavy industries. The SA and the fleet received nuclear missile weapons. In terms of military power, the USSR reaches parity with the United States. The direction towards peaceful coexistence of states of different social systems is considered.

Social reform

After the adoption of the law on the payment of pensions to peasants, it was decided to abolish tuition fees for eight-year education and became mandatory. Established in particular - a 6-hour working day for teenagers 16 years old.

The housing stock is actively expanding. Housing construction is based on industrial methods. The country's housing stock is increasing by 40% over the seven-year period! True, construction was carried out in a style that went down in history as “Khrushchev”, but the housing crisis disappeared.

School reform led to a unified eight-year school. Those wishing to receive complete secondary education had to continue their studies at a secondary polytechnic school (in a vocational school, in an evening or correspondence school).

Khrushchev's foreign policy

Foreign relations in those days developed in the style of traditional Bolshevik politics. The main direction of foreign policy was the strengthening of security systems along all borders.

Contacts with foreign countries, positive reviews about other countries also appear in the press. Trade relations are expanding. This entails mutual benefit, because Western countries receive a vast amount of money for their products.

The launch of the first satellite in 1957 had a significant impact on the global situation; a new space era began. Khrushchev, a supporter of Korolev, supports his idea to overtake the Americans in space exploration.

This changed the prioritization; now the West was in the crosshairs of the USSR’s intercontinental missiles.

In 1961 The Berlin Ultimatum was delivered, in which Khrushchev demanded the construction of a wall between West and East Berlin. Huge response from the world community. After the “Berlin crisis”, another one is flaring up, the so-called. "Caribbean" or "missile crisis". Kennedy tried to seize Cuba, to which the USSR provided economic and now military assistance, sending there military and technical advisers and various types of weapons. Including missiles, which threatened the United States with a strike. Kennedy demanded that missiles not be unloaded in Cuba, and Khrushchev accepted these demands.

Kennedy's assassination led to the need to establish contact with President Johnson. But accusations of voluntarism were brought against Khrushchev, and he was dismissed. The attempt to cut benefits and privileges for civil servants also ruined him. Under Khrushchev, an authoritarian system developed in the USSR, however, the foundations of the command-administrative system were strengthened.