Perestroika in the USSR and its consequences briefly. Who benefits from perestroika in the USSR

Reasons for the restructuring

The command economy was unable to further modernize, i.e. profound transformations covering all aspects of the life of society, it turned out to be incapable of ensuring the proper development of the productive forces, protecting human rights, and maintaining the country's international prestige in the fundamentally changed conditions. The USSR, with its gigantic reserves of raw materials, hardworking and selfless population, lagged more and more behind the West. The Soviet economy was unable to cope with the increasing demands for the variety and quality of consumer goods.

Industrial enterprises not interested in scientific and technological progress rejected up to 80% of new technical solutions and inventions. The growing inefficiency of the economy negatively affected the country's defense capability. In the early 1980s, the USSR began to lose its competitiveness in the only industry in which it successfully competed with the West, in the field of military technology.

The economic base of the country ceased to correspond to the position of a great world power and needed urgent renewal. At the same time, the tremendous growth in education and awareness of the population during the post-war period, the emergence of a generation that does not know hunger and repression, formed a higher level of material and spiritual needs of people, questioned the very principles underlying the Soviet totalitarian system... The very idea of a planned economy has collapsed. More and more often, state plans were not fulfilled and were constantly redrawn, proportions in the sectors of the national economy were violated. Achievements in the field of health care, education, culture were lost.

The spontaneous degeneration of the system changed the entire way of life of Soviet society: the rights of managers and enterprises were redistributed, departmentalism and social inequality increased.

The nature of production relations within enterprises has changed, labor discipline has begun to fall, apathy and indifference, theft, disrespect for honest work, envy of those who earn more have become widespread. At the same time, non-economic compulsion to work persisted in the country. The Soviet person, alienated from the distribution of the produced product, turned into a performer who works not according to conscience, but under compulsion. The ideological motivation for labor developed in the post-revolutionary years was weakening along with faith in the imminent triumph of communist ideals.

Early 80s all strata of Soviet society, without exception, experienced psychological discomfort. In the public mind, an understanding of the need for profound changes was ripening, but the interest in them was different. The larger and more informed Soviet intelligentsia found it increasingly difficult to put up with the suppression of the free development of culture and the country's isolation from the outside civilized world. She was acutely aware of the perniciousness of nuclear confrontation with the West and the consequences of the Afghan war. The intelligentsia wanted true democracy and individual freedom.

The nature of the reform of the Soviet system was predetermined by the economic interests of the nomenklatura, the Soviet ruling class. The nomenclature is burdened by communist conventions, the dependence of personal well-being on official position. To protect herself, to legitimize her domination, she seeks to change the social system in her own interests. This move split the unified ruling class. On one side of the "barricades" were the so-called "partocrats", accustomed to view government positions as nothing more than a feeding trough and not be responsible for anything. Thus, by the beginning of the 1980s, the Soviet totalitarian system was actually deprived of the support of a significant part of society.

The country's top leaders were clearly aware that the economy was in need of reform, but none of the conservative majority of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee wanted to take responsibility for implementing these changes. Even the most pressing problems were not resolved in a timely manner. Every day it became obvious: for change, a renewal of the country's leadership is necessary.

In March 1985 g. after the death of K.U. Chernenko, at the extraordinary Plenum of the Central Committee, the youngest member of the political leadership was elected General Secretary of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev... He did not strive to change the socio-political system, believing that socialism had not exhausted its possibilities. At the April 1985 plenum, Gorbachev proclaimed a course to accelerate the country's socio-economic development.

Restructuring can be roughly divided into three stages:

First step(March 1985 - January 1987). This period was characterized by the recognition of some of the shortcomings of the existing political and economic system of the USSR and attempts to correct them by several large companies of an administrative nature - anti-alcohol campaign, "The fight against unearned income", the introduction of state acceptance, a demonstration of the fight against corruption.

No radical steps have yet been taken during this period; outwardly, almost everything remained as before. At the same time, in 1985-86, the bulk of the old cadres of the Brezhnev draft were replaced with a new management team. It was then that A. N. Yakovlev, E. K. Ligachev, N. I. Ryzhkov, B. N. Yeltsin, A. I. Lukyanov and other active participants in future events were introduced to the country's leadership. Thus, the initial stage of perestroika can be regarded as a kind of “calm before the storm”.

Second phase(January 1987 - June 1989). An attempt to reform socialism in the spirit of democratic socialism. It is characterized by the beginning of large-scale reforms in all spheres of Soviet society. In public life, it is proclaimed publicity policy- softening censorship in the media and lifting bans on what were previously considered taboo. In the economy, private entrepreneurship is legalized in the form of cooperatives, and joint ventures with foreign companies are being actively created.

In international politics, the main doctrine is "New Thinking" - a course to abandon the class approach in diplomacy and improve relations with the West. Part of the population is gripped by euphoria from long-awaited changes and unprecedented freedom by Soviet standards. At the same time, during this period, general instability begins to gradually increase in the country: the economic situation is deteriorating, separatist sentiments appear on the national outskirts, and the first interethnic clashes break out.

Stage Three(June 1989 - 1991). The final stage, during this period, there is a sharp destabilization of the political situation in the country: after the Congress, the confrontation between the communist regime and the new political forces that emerged as a result of the democratization of society begins. Difficulties in the economy develop into a full-blown crisis. A chronic commodity shortage reaches its climax: empty store shelves are becoming a symbol of the turn of the 1980s-1990s. Perestroika euphoria in society is being replaced by disappointment, uncertainty about the future and massive anti-communist sentiments.

Since 1990, the main idea is no longer the "improvement of socialism", but the building of democracy and a market economy of the capitalist type. "New thinking" in the international arena boils down to endless unilateral concessions to the West, as a result of which the USSR is losing many of its positions and superpower status. In Russia and other republics of the Union, separatist-minded forces come to power - a "parade of sovereignties" begins. The natural result of this development of events was the elimination of the power of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Perestroika results

The laws adopted by the union leadership expanded the rights of enterprises, allowed small-scale private and cooperative entrepreneurship, but did not affect the fundamental foundations of the command-distribution economy. The paralysis of the central government and, as a consequence, the weakening of state control over the national economy, the progressed disintegration of production ties between enterprises of different Union republics, the increased autocracy of directors, short-sighted policies - all this led to an increase during 1990-1991. economic, crisis in the country. The destruction of the old economic system was not accompanied by the emergence of a new one in its place.

The country already had real freedom of speech, which grew out of the policy of "glasnost", a multi-party system was taking shape, elections were held on an alternative (from several candidates) basis, and a formally independent press appeared. But the predominant position of one party remained - the CPSU, which actually merged with the state apparatus. By the end of 1991, the economy of the USSR was in a catastrophic state. The decline in production accelerated. The growth of the money supply in the country threatened with the loss of state control over the financial system and hyperinflation, that is, inflation of over 50% per month, which could paralyze the entire economy.

The accelerated growth of wages and benefits, which began in 1989, increased unsatisfied demand; by the end of the year, most goods had disappeared from state trade, but were sold at exorbitant prices in commercial stores and on the black market. Between 1985 and 1991, retail prices almost tripled, and government price controls could not stop inflation. Unexpected interruptions in the supply of various consumer goods to the population caused "crises" (tobacco, sugar, vodka) and huge queues. A normalized distribution of many products (by coupons) was introduced. People feared possible hunger.

Western creditors had serious doubts about the solvency of the USSR. The total external debt of the Soviet Union by the end of 1991 amounted to more than $ 100 billion. Until 1989, 25-30% of the amount of Soviet exports in convertible currency was spent on servicing external debt (repayment of interest, etc.), but then, due to a sharp drop in oil exports, the Soviet Union had to sell gold reserves to acquire the missing currency. By the end of 1991, the USSR could no longer fulfill its international obligations to service its external debt.

In March 1985 M.S. Gorbachev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR - N.I. Ryzhkov. The transformation of Soviet society began, which was to be carried out within the framework of the socialist system.

In April 1985 g. at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU was proclaimed course to accelerate the country's socio-economic development (policy of “acceleration”). Its levers were to be 1) the technological re-equipment of production and 2) an increase in labor productivity. It was supposed to increase productivity through labor enthusiasm (socialist competition was revived), the eradication of alcoholism ( anti-alcohol company - May 1985) and the fight against unearned income.

The "acceleration" led to some economic revival, but by 1987 a general decline in production in agriculture began, and then in industry. The situation was aggravated by the huge investments required to eliminate the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (April 1986) and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

The country's leadership was forced to undertake more radical reforms. In the summer of 1987, perestroika itself began. The program of economic reforms was developed by L. Abalkin, T. Zaslavskaya, P. Bunich. The NEP became a model for perestroika.

The main content of the restructuring:

In the economic sphere:

1. There is a transfer of state-owned enterprises to self-financing and self-sufficiency.

2. Since defense enterprises were not able to operate in the new conditions, conversion - transfer of production to a peaceful track (demilitarization of the economy).

3. In the countryside, the equality of five forms of management was recognized: state farms, collective farms, agricultural enterprises, rental collectives and farms.

4.To control the quality of products, state acceptance was introduced.

5. The directive state plan was replaced by the state order.

In the political sphere:

1. Internal party democracy is expanding. Intra-party opposition emerges, connected, first of all, with the failures of economic transformations. At the October (1987) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee B.N. Yeltsin.

2.At the XIX All-Union Conference of the CPSU, a decision was made to ban uncontested elections.

3. The state apparatus is being substantially restructured. In accordance with the decisions of the XIX Conference (June 1988). new supreme body of legislative power - Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the corresponding republican conventions. The permanent Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the republics were formed from the number of people's deputies. General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee M.S. Gorbachev (March 1989), Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR - B.N. Yeltsin (May 1990).

In March 1990, the post of president was introduced in the USSR. The first president of the USSR was M.S. Gorbachev.

4. Since 1986, a policy of "glasnost" and "pluralism has been pursued.", I.e. in the USSR, a kind of freedom of speech is artificially created, which presupposes the possibility of free discussion of a range of issues strictly defined by the party.

5. The country is beginning to take shape multiparty system.

In the spiritual realm:

1. The state weakens ideological control over the spiritual sphere of society. Free previously banned literary works are published, known to readers only from "samizdat" - "The Gulag Archipelago" by A. Solzhenitsyn, "Children of the Arbat" by B. Rybakov, etc.

2. Within the framework of "glasnost" and "pluralism", "round tables" are held on certain questions of the history of the USSR. Criticism of Stalin's "personality cult" begins, the attitude towards the Civil War is being revised, etc.

3. Cultural ties with the West are expanding.

By 1990, the idea of perestroika had practically exhausted itself... Failed to stop the decline in production. Attempts to develop private initiative - farmers 'and cooperators' movements - turned into a flourishing "black market" and a deepening of the deficit. "Glasnost" and "pluralism" - the main slogans of perestroika - to the fall of the authority of the CPSU, the development of nationalist movements. Nevertheless, since the spring of 1990, the Gorbachev administration has been moving to the next stage of political and economic transformation. G ... Yavlinsky and S. Shatalin prepared the program "5oo days" involving a relatively radical economic transformation with the aim of gradual transition to the market... This program was rejected by Gorbachev under the influence of the conservative wing of the CPSU.

In June 1990, a resolution was adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on a gradual transition to a regulated market economy. Provided for a gradual demonopolization, decentralization and denationalization of property, the establishment of joint stock companies and banks, the development of private entrepreneurship. However, these measures could no longer save the socialist system and the USSR.

Already in the mid-1980s, the disintegration of the state has actually been outlined. Powerful nationalist movements emerge... In 1986, pogroms of the Russian population took place in Kazakhstan. Interethnic conflicts arose in Fergana (1989), in the Osh region of Kyrgyzstan (1990). Since 1988, the armed Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict begins in Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1988-1989. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova are out of control of the center. In 1990, they officially proclaim their independence.

June 12, 1990 I Congress of Soviets of the RSFSR adopts the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation.

The President of the USSR enters into direct negotiations with the leadership of the republics on the conclusion of a new Union Treaty. To give legitimacy to this process in March 1991, an all-Union referendum was held on the preservation of the USSR... The majority of the population was in favor of preserving the USSR, but on new conditions. In April 1991, Gorbachev began negotiations with the leadership of 9 republics in Novo-Ogarevo ("Novoogarevsky process").

By August 1991, it was possible to prepare a compromise draft of the Union Treaty, according to which the republics received significantly greater independence. The signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 22.

It was the planned signing of the Union Treaty that provoked speech of the State Emergency Committee (August 19 - August 21, 1991), trying to keep the USSR in the old form. Vice-President of the USSR G.I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D.T. Yazov, Minister of Internal Affairs B.K. Pugo, the chairman of the KGB V.A. Kryuchkov.

GKChP issued an arrest order B.N. Yeltsin, elected on June 12, 1991 President of the RSFSR... Martial law was introduced. However, the majority of the population and military personnel refused to support the Emergency Committee. This predetermined his defeat. On August 22, the members were arrested, but the signing of the agreement never took place.

As a result of the August putsch, the authority of M.S. Gorbachev. Real power in the country passed to the leaders of the republics. At the end of August, the activity of the CPSU was suspended.

On December 8, 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (Boris N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk, S. S. Shushkevich) announced the dissolution of the USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - "Belovezhskaya agreement". On December 21, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan joined the CIS.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

Abstract on the topic:

"Perestroika in the USSR: causes, course, consequences"

Introduction

§1. Reasons for perestroika in the USSR

§2. The course of perestroika in the USSR

§3. The consequences of perestroika in the USSR

Conclusion

Bibliography

Vveating

Since the mid 80s. and especially from the beginning of the 90s. in Russia, as well as in the USSR as a whole, serious changes began to take place. These changes affected all aspects of the socio-economic and especially the political life of Soviet society. They proceeded very quickly, were contradictory and had serious consequences for Russia and all the republics that were part of the Soviet Union.

At the same time, the political events that took place in the Soviet Union and its republics were reflected in the process of world political history.

Perestroika is a very high-profile period in the history of the USSR. The policy of perestroika, initiated by a part of the leadership of the CPSU headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, led to significant changes in the life of the country and the world as a whole. During perestroika, the problems that had been accumulating for decades were exposed, especially in the economy and the international sphere. Added to all this were the mistakes and miscalculations made in the process of carrying out the reforms themselves. The political confrontation between the forces advocating the socialist path of development, parties and movements that link the future of the country with the organization of life on the principles of capitalism, as well as issues of the future appearance of the Soviet Union, relations between union and republican bodies of state power and administration, sharply escalated. By the early 1990s, perestroika led to an aggravation of the crisis in all spheres of society and to the further collapse of the USSR.

§1. Reasons for perestroika in the USSR

By the beginning of the 80s. The Soviet Union has reached a new technical level, new industries have developed (electronics, precision instrument making, the nuclear industry, etc.). The creation of production, scientific-production, agro-industrial, inter-collective farm associations has become a mass phenomenon. A unified energy system, a transport system, an automatic communication system, oil and gas supply were formed and operated. The economic ties of the republics and regions have become closer. However, the administrative - command system of management, the practice of planning and the guardianship of decision-making bodies over enterprises remained.

The country's leadership at the congresses of the CPSU has repeatedly made decisions aimed at overcoming the diktat of the departmental bureaucracy, at developing economic methods of management, and expanding the independence of the enterprise. However, these decisions remained on paper. There was no transition from extensive to intensive economic development. The scientific and technical process was sluggish. As before, progressive changes were restrained by the old management system. Serious deformations have accumulated in planning. Miscalculations were made in commodity-money relations. Cooperative forms of farming were underestimated. Weakened economic control over the use of forms of ownership. Gross blunders were made in economic policy.

The course towards increasing the income of the population, the growth of its education and the improvement of housing conditions contributed to the development of needs, an increase in demand for new, better quality goods and consumer goods. However, the production of consumer goods, the organization of food supply, the development of the service sector, trade, transport, the culture and recreation industry, and medical services were at a low level. In the 60s - the first half of the 80s. a deep need arose for social and economic renewal, for the development of new policies and new priorities. However, this need has not been met. As a result, the deformations in economic and social life intensified more and more.

1. The systemic socio-economic crisis caused by the arms race in the foreign policy of the USSR, the financial dependence of the socialist countries on Soviet subsidies. Unwillingness to change the command-administrative system of management in accordance with the new conditions - in domestic politics ("stagnation").

2. There were also accompanying prerequisites and reasons for perestroika in the USSR: the aging of the Soviet elite, whose average age was within 70 years; the omnipotence of the nomenclature; rigid centralization of production; shortage of consumer goods and durable goods.

All these factors led to an awareness of the changes necessary for the further development of Soviet society. These changes began to be personified by M. S. Gorbachev, who became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in March 1985.

§2. The course of perestroika in the USSR

First stage: April 1985-1986 It was initiated by the April Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which proclaimed a course to accelerate the country's socio-economic development by intensifying production based on the implementation of the achievements of scientific and technological progress. In this process, the key role was assigned to mechanical engineering. The priority in development was given to machine-tool building, computer technology, microelectronics and instrument-making, to improve control and planning bodies. For this purpose, a number of new management structures were created: the Bureau of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for mechanical engineering, the State Committee for Computer Engineering and Informatics, etc. A decision was made on the need to create non-departmental control over the observance of standards (in the mid-1980s, only 29% of machine-building products met world standards). State acceptance of manufactured products (state acceptance) is introduced at the enterprises, which by the beginning of 1988 existed at 2 thousand enterprises.

Anti-alcohol campaign: On May 7, 1985, the CPSU Central Committee adopted a resolution "On measures to overcome drunkenness and alcoholism." In accordance with it, in each work collective it was required to create an atmosphere of intolerance to drunkenness and violations of discipline. Also, to combat drunkenness, it was envisaged to annually reduce the production and sale of alcoholic beverages and by 1988 to completely stop the production of fruit and berry wines. The anti-alcohol campaign initially met with some success. Alcohol consumption has dropped markedly (according to official data, in 1984, per capita consumption was 8.4 liters in 1985 - 7.2; 1987 - 3.3). The number of industrial injuries and deaths has decreased. However, the negative consequences were much more significant. The production of moonshine began everywhere, as a result of which there was a shortage of sugar, and the quality of bread decreased due to the lack of yeast. The lack of alcohol affected industry and medicine. The consumption of surrogate alcohol has increased. (In 1987, 11 thousand people died from the use of chemical liquids, especially antifreeze and methyl alcohol). Reduced budget revenues. For 1985-87. the state has lost more than 37 billion rubles. Under these conditions, in the fall of 1988, the government was forced to lift the restriction on the sale of alcoholic beverages. Increasing labor productivity by strengthening discipline and order in all sectors of the economy. The strengthening of discipline began with a massive anti-alcohol campaign.

In the same vein, in May 1986, a decree was adopted aimed at combating unearned income (requisition of agricultural products from local markets, demolition of greenhouses and other "unauthorized objects", etc.). Improvement of material incentives for labor and activation of social policy. To this end, a number of decrees were adopted on raising the salaries of scientists, raising pensions and benefits, introducing new benefits for participants in the Great Patriotic War, etc.

In general, the first period of reforms was characterized by the predominance of the administrative approach to solving economic problems. The basic principles of the Soviet economy remained unchanged.

At the second stage of reforms (1987-1989), the concept of "perestroika" was formed and the first attempts were made to liberalize the economy.

The beginning of this was laid by the January (1987) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. It was decided to introduce self-government in production. It was to be carried out through the creation of councils of labor collectives, which were endowed with decisive powers on a wide range of issues. The plenary session recommended introducing the election of managers in production and reporting of officials to labor collectives.

On January 1, 1988, the law “On the state enterprise (association)” came into force: instead of the plan, a “state order” was introduced, after which the enterprises were allowed to independently sell their products. From now on, the manufacturer had to build its activities on the basis of full cost accounting and self-financing. The indicator of economic activity is profit (!). Enterprises received independence in determining the size of the workforce, setting wages, and choosing business partners. The activities of unprofitable and insolvent enterprises could be terminated. The role of the center was reduced to preparing a general plan and determining the volume of state orders.

Some changes are taking place in foreign economic policy. Since 1987, a number of ministries and departments have acquired the right to independently carry out export-import operations in the external market. The creation in the USSR of mixed (joint) enterprises and associations with the participation of foreign firms was allowed. (Moreover, in the authorized capital, the Soviet part had to exceed 50%, and the director of the enterprise had to be a citizen of the USSR). By the end of 1988, more than 100 enterprises with joint capital were operating in the country. However, their creation was slow (bureaucratic red tape, high tax rates, lack of legislative protection of investments).

On July 1, 1988, the law “On cooperation in the USSR” is enacted. Cooperative enterprises, along with state ones, were recognized as the main link in the national economy. Cooperatives could operate in agriculture, industry, construction, transport, trade, and public catering. According to the Soviet leadership, cooperatives were supposed to help saturate the consumer market with goods and services. In mid-1988, laws were passed that allowed private activity in more than 30 types of production of goods and services.

In the countryside, the equality of five forms of management was recognized: collective farms, state farms, agricultural complexes, rental cooperatives and peasant (farmer) households. Collective farms, according to the new regulation (1988), could independently set the size of individual allotments and the number of livestock in subsidiary plots. The villagers received the right to lease land for a period of 50 years and fully dispose of the products produced.

At the end of the 1980s, government structures were also transformed. They were started by the XIX All-Union Party Conference. A sharp struggle between the opinions of the supporters and opponents of perestroika on the issue of the tasks of the country's development unfolded there. Most of the delegates supported the point of view of M. Gorbachev about the urgent need for economic reform and transformation of the political system of society.

The democratization of public life was one of the tasks of perestroika, its most essential characteristic at that time. It permeated all spheres of society, in the sphere of politics it assumed a change in the very mechanism of power, a transition from hierarchical management of society for workers through a relatively narrow ruling stratum, to self-government of workers. In the economic sphere, democratization was focused on changing the mechanism for the implementation of public and personal property, so that labor collectives and all workers receive real rights as the masters of social production, and the opportunity to show individual labor initiative.

In 1988. fulfilling the decision of the XIX Conference, the structure of the supreme authorities and the electoral system of the country were changed through the constitutional reform. A new legislative body was established - the Congress of People's Deputies, which met once a year. He elected from among his members the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Chairman. Similar structures were created in the union republics.

Also, the reform approved the post of President of the USSR, endowed with broad powers. The President became the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR, appointed and removed the military command. The President represented the USSR Armed Forces, and then the Congress of People's Deputies for approval and dismissal of the Chairman of the USSR Government, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General, the Chairman of the USSR Supreme Arbitration Court and the personal composition of the USSR Constitutional Supervision Committee.

As perestroika developed, it became more and more obvious that its fate rests on the state of the political system, the political life of society. The growing public attention to the problems of social development showed more and more that without radical changes in public life, it is impossible to solve either economic or social problems. The original idea of the reformers about preserving the socialist political system and only partially democratizing it, became more and more utopian.

The differences between the reformers and the emerging social movements, primarily the new labor movements, were very serious. A federation of independent trade unions of Russia was formed, a congress of miners announced the creation of a new miners' trade union, similar steps were taken by workers in a number of other industries. The past congress of councils of labor collectives and workers' committees expressed readiness to share responsibility for the course of economic transformations in the country, to prevent the uncontrolled sale of state property, the transformation of the previously all-powerful ministries into new monopoly associations, concerns and associations.

By that time, the life support system was in an extremely difficult situation, the domestic food and industrial supply was noticeably reduced, the transport, telecommunication and other systems were seriously damaged, the housing and communal services were in decline. An orientation toward elite expensive medical care, paid higher education and the provision of benefits to various categories of workers began to take shape.

In these conditions, M. Gorbachev and a team of reformers were looking for various ways out of the crisis. And here an important role was played by the restoration of relations between church and state. Several meetings of Gorbachev with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Pimen and representatives of other religious denominations took place. In 1988. at the state level, jubilee celebrations were held in connection with the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus. New religious communities were registered, religious educational institutions were opened, and the circulation of published religious literature increased. The religious buildings that had been taken away from them were returned to the believers. The authorities have given permission to build new temples. Church figures were given the opportunity, along with all citizens, to participate in public life; several prominent church hierarchs were elected as deputies to the country's Supreme Soviet.

The ongoing economic reform did not improve the state of affairs in the national economy, and the growth rates of industrial production dropped sharply. The size of the state budget deficit increased, unemployment grew, mass demonstrations of workers who were not satisfied with the economic policy of the state intensified, and powerful strikes of miners began.

In relation to agricultural enterprises, the party reformers from the very beginning took a tough stance, M. Gorbachev's associate A. Yakovlev directly proclaimed that it was necessary to destroy the Bolshevik community - the collective farm.

The anti-collective farm information campaign and hostility towards collective farms peaked in the early 90s. The agrarian policy of the reformers, based on the destruction of collective farms and state farms, and the planting of farming came to a standstill. The failure of the agricultural reform largely deprived Gorbachev of public support, since for many the criterion for evaluating his activities was the availability of food in stores.

The reforms carried out in the country have fundamentally affected the armed forces; the reorganization of this institution of the state took place in an atmosphere of a tough ideological campaign against the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Considering them the most conservative part of the Soviet state, the ideologists of perestroika tried to psychologically disarm them. Actions were purposefully carried out to destroy the positive image of all the armed forces in the public consciousness and to undermine the self-esteem of the officer corps.

Following its peace-loving policy, the Soviet government unilaterally declared a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, and the deployment of medium-range missiles in the European part of the country was also suspended. To the detriment of national interests and unnecessarily, Soviet troops and military equipment were withdrawn from the territory of the GDR, the armed forces were reduced by 500 thousand people. The conversion of military production began and the transfer of military factories to the production of civilian products, mainly consumer goods. Under public pressure in February 1989. the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan was completed, but for another two years, Afghanistan received assistance with weapons and ammunition. Without preconditions, the withdrawn Soviet troops were stationed in unprepared military camps; as a result, the morale in the troops was rapidly falling.

A real step towards the implementation of political reform and the creation of the rule of law was the reform of the law enforcement system of the USSR. Serious changes that have taken place in the psychology of Soviet people could not but affect the activities of the court, prosecutor's office, state security agencies and the police. In the conditions of building the rule of law, democratization of public life, harmonization of legislation, much has changed in the activities of the internal affairs bodies. The restructuring in the political and economic life of the country contributed to the deterioration of law and order and the growth of crime, the registration discipline was significantly weakened, the concealment of crimes from registration and illegal prosecution flourished. By this time, in society, conditions had developed for the formation of organized crime and banditry.

In 1989-1991. there have been outwardly subtle, but important changes in all law enforcement agencies (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB, the court, the prosecutor's office), this is the departure of most of the qualified personnel from the system. This was prompted by objective reasons: strong pressure from the press, which discredited these bodies, the rapid decline in wages, which in these bodies cannot be compensated for by side earnings, the inadequacy of social guarantees to the standard of living and, most importantly, the squeezing out of the professional core of the Soviet orientation. All this led to a significant increase in crime, violations of public order, a decrease in the level of public safety of the population and an acceleration of the collapse of the USSR.

§3. The consequences of perestroika in the USSR

The consequences of perestroika are extremely ambiguous and multifaceted. Undoubtedly, the receipt by society of social and political freedoms, publicity and the reform of the planned distribution economy are positive aspects. However, the processes that took place during the perestroika period in the USSR in 1985 - 1991 led to the collapse of the USSR and the aggravation of interethnic conflicts that had been smoldering for a long time. The weakening of power, both in the center and in the localities, a sharp decline in the standard of living of the population, the undermining of the scientific base, and so on.

The collapse of the USSR was the result of mistakes in the ruling environment and the impact of external factors. Throughout the history of the Soviet state, attempts were made to reform the socialist system, but all the reforms were incomplete. In society, there was a gradual alienation of the people from power, it had no social support. Even extremely moderate, evolutionary reforms were opposed by real forces, the old production relations, the existing administrative apparatus, and ossified economic thinking.

The reforms were doomed for another reason. The transformations in the country's economy were not supported by transformations in the political and social spheres, the overwhelming majority of resources were directed to the development of the military-industrial complex.

Although it was necessary to develop high-tech industries, to invest in the field of computer technology. Instead, there was an exorbitant development of heavy industry. In the field of foreign policy, the USSR made colossal expenditures on wars. Waging the Cold War took up huge amounts of money, the United States set itself the goal of exhausting the Soviet Union with a large-scale arms race.

Attempts by the USSR leadership to make the bureaucratic system more efficient without significant structural changes, increased exactingness and control, and the fight against individual vices did not bring the country out of a crisis state.

anti-alcoholic perestroika glasnost gorbachev

Conclusion

The collapse of the Soviet system was inevitable, since while maintaining the foundations of the old system, the democratization of the old institutions of power was reduced only to replacing outwardly new, but authoritarian institutions. The democratic Gorbachev regime was never able to overcome the internal conflict with the remaining foundations of the previous political system.

All of the above does not diminish the significance of the restructuring that has taken place. The greatness and at the same time the tragedy of perestroika will be appreciated and studied over time. Ultimately, this was yet another attempt at a breakthrough, carried out by unusual and therefore ineffective methods.

The history of the state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is over. The numerous reasons for the death of a mighty country are still just becoming the subject of study by historians. Humanity knows no other example of the death of a superpower without external military intervention. Utopia came to an end, because the very attempt to create an ideal state was doomed from the beginning. Many scientists and historians predicted what a terrible price, years later, will have to pay for the experiment begun in Russia.

It is naive to believe that Gorbachev or those leaders who gathered in December 1991. in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, predetermined the collapse of the USSR. The political system has outlived its usefulness. This conclusion was made before 1991.

Bibliography

1. Gorbachev, M.S. Perestroika and new thinking for our country and for the whole world / M.S. Gorbachev. - M .: Politizdat, 1989 .-- 271 p.

2. Gorbachev, M.S. Persistently move forward (Speech at a meeting of the activists of the Leningrad Party Organization on May 17, 1985) / M.S. Gorbachev. - M .: Politizdat, 1985.

3. Batalov E. Perestroika and the fate of Russia.

4. Butenko V. "Where and where we are from", Lenizdat, 1990.

5. J. Boffa "History of the Soviet Union"; M: International relations, 1994.

6. "Perestroika and the modern world", otv. ed. T.T. Timofeev; M: International relations, 1989.

Posted on Allbest.ru

The policy of "perestroika" and its main content

In March 1985, a change in the party leadership took place in the USSR. The new leader M.S. In assessing the situation in the country, Gorbachev combined optimism with elements of criticism. The latter was quite appropriate. Unfavorable trends have appeared in the development of the economy. Over the past ten years, the pace of economic development has noticeably slowed down. The growth in the national economy was mainly due to extensive methods. The production apparatus had aged and needed a significant upgrade. The country lagged more and more behind the Western states in terms of technology. The state of affairs in the agro-industrial sector was difficult.

The supply of food to the population was accompanied by considerable difficulties. The needs of citizens in industrial goods were not fully satisfied. Since the early 1980s. the statistics showed stagnation of the population's income. Stagnant phenomena were found in economic and social relations. There was an expectation of change in society, although there were no signs of a revolutionary situation. Socio-economic reforms are ripe. But what were they supposed to be? There was no clarity and unanimity in the country on this issue. New strategies: acceleration and restructuring. The decisive choice was made by the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, held in April 1985. The plenum proposed a versatile and ambitious program aimed at achieving a new qualitative state of society. It included the highest world level of labor productivity, improving social relations, improving people's lives, activating the entire system of political and social institutions, deepening socialist democracy, and self-government of the people. However, in the report of M.S. Gorbachev at the plenum of the Central Committee, the achievement of a new qualitative state of society was not correlated with such traditional tasks as improving developed socialism or building communism.

It was clear that the announced approach of a new stage of social development would require many efforts and a long time. For these reasons, the plenum of the Central Committee focused on more immediate and specific economic problems. Of the various possible ways to resolve them, this party body chose a significant acceleration of the development of the national economy on the basis of an intensification of the economy, scientific and technological progress, the restructuring of structural and investment policies, and an increase in organization. At the same time, mechanical engineering was chosen as the key means of achieving the expected results, the pace of development of which was supposed to increase by 1.5-2 times over the next 12th five-year plan.

The 27th Congress of the CPSU, held in February-March 1986, confirmed the directions of reforms chosen by the April plenum of the Central Committee, while simultaneously expanding and concretizing many of its directives. In particular, the congress made an acceptance of the need to open up space for the initiative and creativity of the masses, the further development of democracy, self-government of the people, the strengthening of the rule of law, the expansion of publicity, and the psychological restructuring of cadres. In principle, the planned measures fit into the usual Soviet standards for improving society and did not contain any new recipes for bringing the economy to new frontiers.

From June 1986, the acceleration strategy was suddenly reoriented towards the policy of "perestroika". The new term reflected the need for versatile transformations that served the purpose of eliminating subjective and objective inhibiting factors on the way to accelerating socio-economic development. M.S. Gorbachev began to intensively introduce into the public consciousness the idea that perestroika is a revolution "from above," and the CPSU is its vanguard. At the same time, criticism of the existing social order began, which often received the name "barracks socialism". The ideas of "popular socialism", "socialism with a human face", "more socialism", the use of the ideas of NEP in modern conditions, "mixed economy", "Swedish" model of socialism were widely discussed.

The first year and a half of perestroika led to some growth in industrial production, but these were far from the expected results. Moreover, the country's financial situation has deteriorated. The anti-alcohol campaign and the fall in world oil prices have reduced budget revenues. The budget deficit was covered by loans and unsecured issues. The growth of wages outpaced the increase in labor productivity. Contributions to the accumulation and development fund were declining.

Analysis of the current situation led the party leadership to the conclusion that the implementation of the tasks of perestroika was hampered by the inertia and bureaucracy of the state and party apparatus.

In January 1987, the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted an important resolution, which emphasized the decisive dependence of the success of perestroika on personnel policy, on how quickly and deeply the party apparatus becomes imbued with the consciousness of the need for revolutionary changes in society. Given the inertia of the party and state apparatus, it was proposed to use a significant expansion of democracy, accountability of elected officials, publicity, criticism (especially from below) and self-criticism, ensuring the rights of citizens, increasing the role of the court and the independence of judges, inflowing new forces into the governing corps, and revitalizing the work of the Soviets. This plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU gave an impetus to a decisive renewal of the middle and higher echelons of the leading cadres of Party and Soviet bodies. A number of prominent leaders were removed from the Politburo and the Central Committee. 1986-1989 82% of the first secretaries of the regional committees and 91% of the first secretaries of the regional committees were replaced.

The absence of the desired economic results was the result not so much of the influence of the subjective factor (inertness of the leading cadres), as of the influence of many objective circumstances. The June 1987 plenum of the Central Committee dealt with the issues of their elimination. He decided to decentralize planning, dramatically expand the boundaries of the independence of enterprises, transfer them to full cost accounting and self-financing, achieve widespread use of collective contracts, introduce self-government of the labor collective, establish a direct dependence of the level of its income on work efficiency. These measures were designed to promote the development of enterprises in accordance with the laws of the economy. In turn, the planning and economic departments were obliged to manage the economy on the basis of economic methods.

In April 1989, the restructuring of economic relations and management in the agro-industrial complex began on the same principles.

The economic results of 1987 were worse than in the previous year. Inflationary processes have begun. The state budget deficit has increased. There was a hidden increase in prices under the guise of improving the quality of goods. The prime cost of many types of goods turned out to be higher than their value.

In 1988-1989. the financial and economic situation in the USSR continued to be difficult. In 1989, the promised turn for the better in the national economy did not take place: 30% of industrial enterprises did not fulfill the production plan. The emerging private sector of the economy exploited the socialist sector at the expense of the difference between free and state prices. Business processes went against "perestroika".

In the period between these two economic reforms, a grandiose political reform was launched. It was approved by the 19th All-Union Conference of the CPSU in the summer of 1988. The modernization of the political structure was supposed to give a new impetus to the development of the economy. But even on the eve of the party conference of M.S. Gorbachev announced a "new political thinking", the core of which was the priority of "universal human values."

The party conference spoke in favor of the full revival of intra-party democracy, a clear delineation of the functions of state and party bodies, leaving the latter to solve only the tasks of the political leadership. Measures were outlined to democratize Soviet society and its political system, radically increase the role of the Soviets, combat bureaucracy, modernize national relations, develop publicity and carry out legal reform. The party conference set the task of building a legal state in the USSR.

First political reform. It was carried out for about a year and a half from the end of 1988. It expanded democracy and significantly increased the role of the Soviets in the management of public affairs. On the basis of the elections, new representative bodies of the USSR and the union republics were created, and one of them - the Supreme Soviet of the USSR - became a permanent state body. And although most of the seats in it belonged to members of the ruling party, the leading role of the CPSU was greatly weakened. It included a very influential and well-organized interregional deputy group, which took an oppositional position towards the CPSU, although it also included the communists. It had its own program, which included such provisions as a market economy, a multi-party system, freedom to secede from the USSR, and freedom of the press.

The democratization of the regime changed the course of socio-political processes. "Perestroika" as a revolution "from above", carried out by the central government, has ceased to be such. The development of events began to take on an increasingly spontaneous character, largely beyond the control of the authorities. After the 19th All-Union Party Conference, the party committees were at a loss and practically stopped their work. The new management mechanism did not take shape, since the Soviets, especially in the union republics, behaved inert in the political niche freed up for them. On the contrary, anti-socialist and nationalist forces intensified sharply and the initiative began to gradually pass to them. Glasnost as a means of "perestroika" has become an instrument for criticizing socialism. The latter, since 1989, acquired a frontal and intense character and contributed to the penetration of bourgeois ideals into the public consciousness. The governing bodies of the CPSU did not wage any struggle against these phenomena.

Second political reform. At the beginning of 1990, speeches took place in the country demanding further democratization. The democrats called them the "February revolution" of 1990. The authorities were forced to carry out a second political reform: to eliminate the leading role of the CPSU, constitutionally consolidate private property, and introduce the post of President of the USSR.

A significant success of the anti-socialist forces and an indicator of their influence was their independent demonstration on May 1, 1990 on Red Square in Moscow under anti-socialist and anti-Soviet slogans. The CPSU itself was in crisis. M.S. Gorbachev was able to convince the party to revise the fundamental provisions of the current Program of the CPSU, which in fact means a rejection of the old socialist doctrine. The programmatic statement of the XXVIII Congress (July 1990) "Towards a humane, democratic socialism" included such attitudes as a multi-structured economy, a variety of forms of ownership, a regulated market, civil society, and separation of powers. The goals of the CPSU were indicated very vaguely. It was declared a party of "socialist choice and communist perspective", which implied a continuation of the search for this path and a very wide freedom of maneuver.

The recognition of private property and the planned privatization of the people's wealth no longer left any doubt about the bourgeois direction of Russia's social development. The unsuccessful coup of August 19-21, 1991, carried out by a number of senior officials of the Union leadership, triggered the "August revolution" in Russia, which led to the leadership of bourgeois-oriented leaders and became the direct cause of the collapse of the USSR.

In addition to solving internal political problems, perestroika also included international aspects. Moreover, the improvement of the international position of the USSR was seen as a necessary condition for the implementation of the plan of perestroika. Therefore, since 1986, the foreign policy activity of the Soviet state has sharply increased, aimed at bringing closer international detente. An understanding was reached with the United States and other leading Western countries. An agreement was signed between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles. The Paris Treaty with the participation of the USSR stopped the conventional arms race. The Soviet Union ended the incomprehensible and devastating war in Afghanistan and withdrew its troops from there. The USSR agreed in 1990 to liquidate the GDR and include its population and territory in the FRG. By the end of perestroika, the Cold War ended with the defeat of the USSR.

The policy of perestroika in the USSR was the impetus for carrying out similar transformations in the socialist states of Europe. The processes of social transformation went quickly and the communist regimes in this region soon collapsed. Pro-bourgeois forces came to power. The Warsaw Pact Organization and CMEA were disbanded in the summer of 1991.

The policy of "perestroika" as a way of improving socialism ended in complete collapse. Its finale brought about a revival of capitalism. Such an unexpected result requires an assessment of the policy of "perestroika" and the production of an analysis of the reasons that led precisely to this result.

Assessment of restructuring processes. In the political literature, the assessment of the policy of "perestroika" is characterized by a wide range of opinions, including those with directly opposite views on the problem. There are many intermediate positions between these polar points of view.

Supporters of the bourgeois path of development of Russia give "perestroika" a high assessment, consider it a "great revolution." Politicians and scientists with a socialist orientation, as well as some other authors, declare perestroika to be "the greatest tragedy", "catastrophe", "catastrophe", "treason." "The architect of perestroika" M.S. Some call Gorbachev “an outstanding world leader”, “the best German”, “a man of the decade”, others see him as “Manilov”, “would-be reformer” and even a “traitor”, “Judas”, “Herostratus”.

In order to understand this kaleidoscope of opinions, it is necessary to find out the undeniably positive and undeniably negative results of this policy, and then compare them with each other and strike a balance.

"Perestroika" caused such positive changes as democratization of the political system and political regime, pluralism, glasnost, elimination of the remnants of totalitarianism, the reality of most constitutional rights, and above all individual freedom, wide access of imported goods to the domestic market. It demilitalized the country, contributed to the elimination of the threat of a world war, and a more complete involvement of Russia in the world market.

Negative moments There are many more “perestroika”, and they are often larger than many of its advantages. Perestroika triggered a great crisis that has plagued Russia for about 15 years. There was a destruction of the country's economy and social sphere, a multiple drop in the standard of living of the population, a decrease in social protection of citizens, an increase in unemployment and social tension due to the formation of antagonistic classes, an increase in crime and moral degradation, bloody conflicts on the territory of the USSR and its collapse. There is a decline in the role of Russia in international relations, an increase in its economic dependence on the developed countries of the West. "Perestroika" did not bring closer the solution of the most pressing economic problems - the restructuring of the national economy and the modernization of the country's technopark.

As you can see, the overall result is not in favor of a positive assessment of "perestroika" 1 V.V. Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, in his message to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation called the incident "a real drama" for the Russian people (see: Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2005. April 26)..

Now let us analyze the reasons that led perestroika to the final that took place in reality. As a starting point for further reasoning, we should put the idea that this policy was not sufficiently scientifically substantiated, although, given the enormous scale of the proposed or real changes, the corresponding developments were absolutely necessary. She did not have a clear plan, was superficial and at some moments resembled hasty improvisations. The difficulties arising in the course of its implementation were not always assessed correctly and the proposed means of overcoming were erroneous or controversial.

Let's start with a statement of the main socio-economic problems of Soviet society in the mid-1980s. There are several of them: a reduction in the growth of gross domestic product, an economy burdened by military spending, stagnation in the living standard of the population, and an incorrect pricing policy. All of them are closely interconnected and interdependent. The decrease in the volume of GDP growth was the result of insufficient introduction of new technologies. This problem could be solved through the structural reform of the national economy, primarily industry.

Funds for these purposes could be obtained by reducing military spending. GDP growth, a greater orientation of the economy towards the production of consumer goods would cause an increase in living standards. But the primary measure was the reform of prices, since the existing pricing policy created imbalances, distortions and was the cause of a number of economic absurdities. However, all these problems could be solved within the framework of the existing economy and did not require a formation shift.

M.S. Gorbachev decided to change the socio-economic situation in the USSR through the accelerated development of mechanical engineering, directing huge capital investments into this sector. The choice of this vector of change is controversial and poorly grounded. Indeed, why was it necessary to start not with agriculture, as China did? Or why not with the development of science-intensive technologies, which led to the effective development of the economy in a number of advanced Western countries? Moreover, they were widely represented in the military sector of the economy. And in general, why make a responsible decision on the ways of further development of society just a month after coming to power? It seems that there are traces of haste.

Despite the large injections into the economy, while the old price parity remained unchanged, the progress was insignificant. The hopes did not come true, as the manufacturers did not have strong incentives. Moreover, the more the production volumes increased, the more the losses of many enterprises grew. The analysis of the situation made by M.S. Gorbachev in January 1987 at the plenum of the Central Committee, turned out to be mistaken: in the absence of proper results, it was mainly the leading cadres who were accused. M.S. Gorbachev overestimated the inhibiting influence of the leaders on the course of social processes and did not see any miscalculations in the sequence of his actions to carry out “perestroika”. A three-year personnel leapfrog began, which led to a complete renewal of the leadership core. Workers who did not have sufficient training and experience gained access to power.

Further, without proper preparation and subsequent adjustment, a responsible decision is made to fully transfer industrial and agricultural enterprises to cost accounting and self-sufficiency. This step was wrong and contributed to the collapse of the economy. Many enterprises have become debtors due to the lack of working capital.

Since the end of 1989, the authorities announced the entry of the USSR economy into the "socialist market". Even in the presence of all other necessary conditions, a normal market could not arise, since in the conditions of exiting the planned economy there was no mechanism of competition. In addition, government orders, which replaced the planned targets, practically did not differ from the latter. The creation of a market economy at this stage was more declarative than a real step.

However, the state lost control over the growth of wages and prices. This caused inflation, led to a fall in the role of the ruble, an aggravation of the deficit and the rampant of speculative capital. Since 1990, a noticeable drop in production volumes began. The ill-considered actions of M.S. Gorbachev was unleashed by the economic crisis in the country.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its leader M.S. Gorbachev began "perestroika" in conditions of enthusiasm and full support for the ideas of renewal by the population. At the same time, the society was determined to achieve quick results, as promised by M.S. Gorbachev. However, they did not appear, moreover, the economic situation worsened. Therefore, the policy of "perestroika" began to cause disappointment and distrust. The social base of this course was sharply reduced. In such an environment, in order to maintain his rating, M.S. Gorbachev decided to carry out a radical political reform, enshrined in the decisions of the XIX All-Union Conference of the CPSU.

It was necessary for the creation of a democratic political regime, but it began to be implemented out of time, in the context of the growing economic crisis and at a rapid pace. In addition, the "new thinking" presupposed softer methods of state leadership. As a result, the authorities lost the necessary control over economic and political processes, the degree of state leadership of society fell sharply, development began to acquire a spontaneous character, which largely led to the collapse of "perestroika".

M.S. Gorbachev spent a lot of energy on fighting his opponents within the party and the state apparatus, on “dismantling the braking mechanism,” on suppressing the resistance of the counter-perestroika forces. However, he did not pay due attention to the real danger posed by the forces of bourgeois revenge, which by their actions caused the tragic ending of the policy of "perestroika".

These forces are heterogeneous in their sources, but the essence is as follows:

the shadow economy and criminal capital that surfaced at the end of perestroika in connection with the liberalization of the regime;
international pressure ("world behind the scenes");
bourgeois degeneration of a part of the CPSU, primarily within its governing core (the CPSU Central Committee objectively in many ways contributed to the restoration of capitalism in Russia).

However, the main reason for the collapse of perestroika is associated with such a subjective fact as the personality of M.S. Gorbachev. He, by his own admission, made in a speech at a seminar at the American University in Turkey, had a lifelong goal "to destroy communism, an intolerable dictatorship over people." However, for the time being, he hid this way of thinking from the members of the CPSU and citizens of the country, but at the same time remained in the post of leader of the party, which aims to build communism.

To achieve his goal, he "had to replace the entire leadership of the CPSU and the USSR, as well as the leadership in all socialist countries." His ideal at that time "was the path of the social democratic countries." In the light of this recognition, the meaning of those personnel changes that began in the January 1987 plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU becomes clearer. And is it any wonder that perestroika was defeated.

We are waiting for changes...". These words are from the leader's song popular in the 80s. groups "Kino" V. Tsoi reflected the mood of the people in the first years of the policy of "perestroika". She was proclaimed the new general secretary, 54-year-old M. S. Gorbachev, who took over the baton of power after the death of K. U. Chernenko in March 1985. Elegantly dressed, speaking "without a piece of paper", the secretary general gained popularity by his external democracy, the desire for transformations in a "stagnant" country and, of course, promises (for example, each family was promised a separate comfortable apartment by 2000), no one since the time of Khrushchev This is how he communicated with the people: Gorbachev traveled around the country, easily went out to people, in an informal setting he talked with workers, collective farmers, and the intelligentsia. With the arrival of a new leader, inspired by plans for a breakthrough in the economy and restructuring of the entire life of society, hopes and enthusiasm revived in people.
A course was proclaimed to "accelerate" the country's socio-economic development. It was assumed that the core of this process in industry would be the renewal of mechanical engineering. However, already in 1986 Gorbachev and other members of the Politburo were faced with the fact that there was no "acceleration". The course for the priority development of mechanical engineering failed due to financial difficulties. The budget deficit increased sharply (in 1986 it tripled in comparison with 1985, when it amounted to 17-18 billion rubles). This phenomenon was caused by a number of reasons: “deferred” demand of the population for goods (money was not returned to the treasury, and some of it circulated on the black market), falling prices for exported oil (receipts to the treasury decreased by a third), loss of income as a result anti-alcohol campaign.
In this situation, the "top" came to the conclusion that all sectors of the economy should be transferred to new methods of management. Gradually, in 1986 - 1989, in the course of economic transformations, state acceptance of products, cost accounting and self-financing, elections of directors of enterprises were introduced; the laws on the state enterprise, on self-employment and cooperatives came into force, as well as the law on labor conflicts, which provided for the right of workers to strike.
However, all these measures not only did not lead to an improvement in the economic situation in the country, but, on the contrary, worsened it due to the half-heartedness, lack of coordination and ill-considered reforms, large budget expenditures, and an increase in the money supply in the hands of the population. Production ties were broken between enterprises for state supplies of products. The deficit of consumer goods has increased. At the turn of the 80-90s. store shelves were emptied more and more. Local authorities began to introduce coupons for some products.
Publicity and evolution of the state system. The process of democratization has embraced Soviet society. In the ideological sphere, Gorbachev put forward the slogan of glasnost. This meant that no events of the past and present should be hidden from the people. In the speeches of party ideologists and publicism, the idea of the transition from "barracks socialism" to socialism "with a human face" was promoted. The attitude of the authorities towards dissidents has changed. Academician AD Sakharov returned to Moscow from Gorky (that was the name of Nizhny Novgorod), exiled there for criticizing the war in Afghanistan. Other dissidents were also released from places of detention and exile, camps for political prisoners were closed. In the course of the renewed process of rehabilitation of victims of Stalinist repressions, N. I. Bukharin, A. I. Rykov, G. E. Zinoviev, L. B. Kamenev and other political figures who did not deserve this under N. S. Khrushchev.
The processes of glasnost and de-Stalinization were clearly manifested in newspaper and magazine publications and television broadcasts. The weekly Moskovskie Novosti (edited by E. V. Yakovlev) and the magazine Ogonyok (V. A. Korotich) enjoyed immense popularity. Criticism of the dark sides of Soviet reality, the desire to find a way out for society from a crisis situation permeated many works of literature and art, both new and those that were previously banned by the authorities, and now have become the property of a wide audience. The novels of A. Rybakov “Children of the Arbat”, V.S. E. Abuladze "Repentance", M. E. Goldovskaya "Power of the Solovetsky", S. S. Govorukhin "You can't live like that."
The emancipation of society from party tutelage, critical assessments of the Soviet state system, expressed in the conditions of publicity, put the issue of political transformations on the agenda. Important events in domestic political life were the approval by the participants of the XIX All-Union Party Conference (June 1998) of the main provisions of the reform of the state system, the adoption by the Supreme Soviet of amendments to the constitution, as well as the law on the election of people's deputies. The essence of these decisions was reduced to the transition from the nomination of one candidate for deputy for one seat in the government to an election system on an alternative basis. The supreme body of legislative power was the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, which nominated members of the Supreme Soviet from among its members. However, only two thirds of the congress deputies were elected on the basis of universal suffrage, another third were nominated by public organizations, primarily the CPSU. The elections of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR in two rounds took place in the spring of 1989, at the end of May it began its work. As part of the congress, a legal opposition was formed: an Interregional Deputy Group was created. It was headed by the world-renowned scientist, leader of the human rights movement Academician A.D. Sakharov, former First Secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee and candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee B.N. Yeltsin, economist G. Kh. Popov.
Under the conditions of political pluralism, simultaneously with the emergence of active opposition in the Supreme Soviet, various social and political movements emerged, almost all of whose representatives at first acted under the slogan of "renewal of socialism." At the same time, tendencies, alarming for the communist government, were outlined in their activities. They were primarily associated with the growth of social discontent and nationalist sentiments.
In the USSR, as in any other multi-ethnic state, national contradictions could not but exist, which are always most vividly manifested in conditions of economic and political crises and radical changes. In the Soviet Union, these contradictions were exacerbated by a number of circumstances. Firstly, building socialism, the Soviet government did not take into account the historical characteristics of peoples - the traditional economy and way of life were destroyed, an attack on Islam, Buddhism, shamanism, etc. During the Patriotic War and which twice (immediately after the annexation and after liberation from the Nazi occupation) were "cleansed" of hostile elements, manifestations of nationalism were very strong, anti-Soviet and anti-socialist sentiments were widespread (Baltic, Western Ukraine, to some extent Moldova). Thirdly, the grievances of the peoples deported during the Great Patriotic War, who were returned to their homes (Chechens, Ingush, Karachais, Balkars, Kalmyks), and even less those who were not returned (Germans, Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, etc. .). Fourth, there were old historical conflicts and claims of various kinds (for example, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh sought to secede from the Azerbaijan SSR, the Abkhaz advocated the transfer of autonomy from the Georgian SSR to the RSFSR, etc.). During the years of "perestroika" mass national and nationalist social movements arose, the most significant of which were the "popular fronts" of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Armenian committee "Karabakh", "Rukh" in Ukraine, the Russian society "Memory".
New Thinking and the End of the Cold War."Perestroika" was closely related to a radical change in the course of Soviet foreign policy - the rejection of confrontation with the West, the end of intervention in local conflicts and a revision of relations with socialist countries. The new course was dominated not by the "class approach", but by universal values. This approach received its theoretical substantiation in the book by M. S. Gorbachev "Perestroika and new thinking for our country and for the whole world." It spoke of the need to create a new international order designed to replace post-war international relations. It should be based on maintaining a balance of national interests, freedom of choice by countries of development paths, joint responsibility of powers for solving global problems of our time. Gorbachev advocated the concept of a "common European home" in which there would be a place for both capitalist and socialist countries.
Mikhail Gorbachev regularly met with the presidents of the United States: with R. Reagan (in 1985 - 1988) and George W. Bush (since 1989). At these meetings, Soviet-American relations were “unfrozen” and disarmament issues were discussed. Gorbachev negotiated from the standpoint of reasonable sufficiency in matters of defense and the program of a nuclear-free world put forward by him.
In 1987, an agreement was signed on the elimination of medium-range missiles - Soviet SS-20 and American Pershing-2 and cruise missiles. The American and Soviet sides promised to abide by the ABM Treaty in the form in which it was signed in 1972. In 1990, a strategic arms reduction treaty was signed.
To build confidence, 500 tactical nuclear warheads were unilaterally removed from Eastern European countries.
On November 9, 1989, Berliners, confident that the USSR would not interfere in all-German affairs, destroyed the Berlin Wall, a symbol of divided Germany and Europe. After the unification of Germany, the USSR agreed to the entry of this already unified state into NATO. In 1990, the participants in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe signed a treaty on the reduction of conventional arms in Europe.
The Soviet leadership realized the need to withdraw troops from Afghanistan (more than 100 thousand) and in 1988 pledged to do this within 9 months. In mid-February 1989, the last Soviet military units left Afghan soil. In addition to Afghanistan, Soviet troops were also withdrawn from Mongolia. After the "velvet revolutions" in the Eastern European countries, negotiations began on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and they were being withdrawn from the GDR. 1990-1991 the dissolution of the military and political structures of the Warsaw Pact took place. This military bloc has ceased to exist. The result of the policy of "new thinking" was a fundamental change in the international situation - the "cold war" was over. At the same time, many of the concessions to the Western states, which Gorbachev made, were not sufficiently thought out (mainly in their concrete implementation), and this did not correspond to the country's national interests.
Power crisis. After the publication in the summer of 1988 of a decree on meetings, rallies, processions and demonstrations against the background of a sharp deterioration in the economic situation in the country, massive miners' strikes began. Gradually, dissatisfaction with the too slow pace of transformations grew in society; in the eyes of society, the conservative wing in the leadership of the CPSU was seen as the culprit for the "slipping" of reforms.
After the collapse of the communist regimes in the countries of Eastern Europe, the opposition's hopes for the implementation of radical transformations in the Soviet Union increased. If the opposition "at the top" consisted of the Interregional Deputy Group and democratically minded intellectual circles, then the opposition movement "from below" involved broad masses of residents of large cities, the population of a number of union republics in the Baltic States, Transcaucasia, and Moldova and Ukraine. The elections of people's deputies at all levels, scheduled for March 1990, contributed to Russia's political awakening. In the election campaign, the opposition of the party apparatus and opposition forces was clearly indicated. The latter received an organizational center in the person of the Democratic Russia electoral bloc (later it was transformed into a social movement). February 1990 was the month of mass rallies, the participants of which demanded the elimination of the CPSU's monopoly on power.
The elections of people's deputies of the RSFSR became the first truly democratic - after the election campaign to the Constituent Assembly of 1917. As a result, about a third of the seats in the supreme legislative body of the republic were given to deputies of a democratic orientation. The results of the elections in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus demonstrated the crisis of the power of the party elite. Under the pressure of public opinion, the 6th article of the USSR Constitution, which proclaimed the leading role of the CPSU in Soviet society, was canceled, the formation of a multi-party system began in the country. Supporters of reforms B. N. Yeltsin and G. Kh. Popov occupied high posts: the first was elected chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, the second - the mayor of Moscow.
The most important factor in the crisis of the "top" was the strengthening of national movements that led the struggle against the allied (in the terminology of their representatives - imperial) Center and the authorities of the CPSU. Back in 1988, tragic events unfolded in Nagorno-Karabakh and, as they said then, around it. The first demonstrations since the civil war took place under nationalist slogans, pogroms (Armenians in Azerbaijani Sumgait - February 1988, Meskhetian Turks in Uzbek Fergana - June 1989) and armed clashes (Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia) on ethnic grounds. The Supreme Soviet of Estonia proclaimed the supremacy of republican laws over all-Union laws (November 1988). By the end of 1989, both in Azerbaijan and in Armenia, passions on ethnic grounds were heating up. The Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan declared the sovereignty of its republic, and an Armenian public movement was created in Armenia, which came out for independence and separation from the USSR. At the very end of 1989, the Lithuanian Communist Party declared its independence in relation to the CPSU.
In 1990, national movements developed in an ascending order. In January, in connection with the Armenian pogroms, troops were sent to Baku. The military operation, accompanied by mass casualties, only temporarily removed the issue of Azerbaijan's independence from the agenda. At the same time, the Lithuanian parliament voted for the independence of the republic, and troops entered Vilnius. Following Lithuania, similar decisions were made by the parliaments of Estonia and Latvia, in the summer the Supreme Soviets of Russia (June 12) and Ukraine (July 16) adopted declarations of sovereignty, after which the "parade of sovereignties" swept over other republics. In February-March 1991, referendums on independence were held in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia.
Two presidents. In the fall of 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was elected President of the USSR by the Congress of People's Deputies, was forced to reorganize the state authorities. The executive bodies are now directly subordinate to the president. A new advisory body was established - the Federation Council, whose members were the heads of the union republics. The development and coordination of the draft of a new Union Treaty between the republics of the USSR began with great difficulty.
In March 1991, the first referendum in the history of the country was held - the citizens of the USSR had to express their opinion on the issue of preserving the Soviet Union as a renewed federation of equal and sovereign republics. It is significant that 6 (Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova) out of 15 union republics did not take part in the referendum. No less significant is the fact that 76% of those who participated in the vote were in favor of preserving the Union. In parallel, the All-Russian referendum was held - the majority of its participants voted for the introduction of the post of president of the republic.
On June 12, 1991, exactly one year after the adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR, the nationwide election of the first president in the history of Russia took place. It was BN Yeltsin, who was supported by more than 57% of those who took part in the voting. After these elections, Moscow turned into the capital of two presidents - the all-Union and the Russian. It was difficult to reconcile the positions of the two leaders, and the personal relations between them did not differ in mutual disposition.
Both presidents were in favor of reforms, but at the same time they looked differently at the goals and ways of transformations. One of them, Mikhail Gorbachev, relied on the Communist Party, which was going through a process of split into conservative and reformist parts. In addition, the party ranks began to melt - about a third of its members left the CPSU. The backbone of another president, Boris N. Yeltsin, was opposition to the CPSU forces. Naturally, in July 1991, Yeltsin signed a decree banning the activities of party organizations at state enterprises and institutions. The events unfolding in the country testified that the process of weakening the power of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union was becoming irreversible.
August 1991: a revolutionary turn in history. By August 1991, drafts of two most important documents were developed - the new Union Treaty and the CPSU program. It was assumed that the ruling party would take up social democratic positions. The draft Union Treaty provided for the creation of a Union of Sovereign States on new foundations. It was approved by the heads of 9 republics and the President of the USSR Gorbachev. It was planned that the program would be approved at the upcoming congress of the CPSU, and the signing of the Union Treaty would take place on August 20. However, the draft treaty could not satisfy either the supporters of the federation closed to the Center, or the supporters of the further sovereignization of the republics, primarily the Russian radical democrats.
Representatives of the party and state leaders, who believed that only decisive actions would help preserve the political positions of the CPSU and stop the collapse of the Soviet Union, resorted to forceful methods. They decided to take advantage of the absence in Moscow of the President of the USSR, who was on vacation in the Crimea.
Early in the morning of August 19, television and radio informed the citizens that due to M. Gorbachev's illness, the duties of the President of the USSR were temporarily entrusted to Vice-President G. I. Yanayev, and that the State Emergency Committee (GKChP). This committee consisted of 8 people, including the vice-president, prime minister V. S. Pavlov, power ministers. Gorbachev found himself isolated in a state dacha. Military units and tanks were introduced to Moscow, and a curfew was declared.
The center of resistance to the Emergency Committee was the House of Soviets of the RSFSR - the so-called White House. In an address “To the citizens of Russia,” President of the RSFSR BN Yeltsin and Acting Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR RI Khasbulatov called on the population not to obey the illegal decisions of the State Emergency Committee, qualifying the actions of its members as an anti-constitutional coup. The support of Muscovites gave firmness and determination to the Russian leadership. Tens of thousands of residents of the capital and a considerable number of visiting citizens came to the White House, expressing their support for Yeltsin and their readiness to defend the residence of the Russian state power with arms in hand.
The confrontation between the GKChP and the White House lasted three days. Fearing the outbreak of a civil war, Yanaev and his associates did not dare to storm the House of Soviets. On the third day, demoralized GKChP representatives began withdrawing troops from Moscow and flew to Crimea, hoping to come to an agreement with Gorbachev. However, the President of the USSR managed to return to Moscow together with the Vice-President of the RSFSR A. V. Rutskoi who had flown to the rescue. GKChP members were arrested.
Yeltsin signed decrees on the suspension of the activities of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR and the publication of newspapers with a communist orientation. Gorbachev announced his resignation as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and then issued decrees that actually terminated the activities of the party and transferred its property to the state.
The collapse of the USSR and the creation of the CIS. The last months of 1991 were the time of the final collapse of the USSR. The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR was dissolved, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was radically reformed, most of the Union ministries were liquidated, and a powerless inter-republican economic committee was created instead of the cabinet of ministers. The supreme body that directed the domestic and foreign policy of the state was the State Council of the USSR, which included the president of the USSR and the heads of the union republics. The first decision of the State Council was the recognition of the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Meanwhile, on the ground, the republican authorities began to reassign the branches of the national economy and state structures that were previously under the jurisdiction of the federal Center.
It was supposed to sign a new Union Treaty and create not a federation, but a confederation of sovereign republics. But even these plans were not destined to come true. On December 1, a referendum was held in Ukraine, and the majority of those who took part in it (over 80%) spoke in favor of the republic's independence. Under these conditions, the leadership of Ukraine decided not to sign a new Union Treaty.
On December 7-8, 1991, the presidents of Russia and Ukraine B. N. Yeltsin and L. M. Kravchuk and the chairman of the Supreme Soviet of Belarus S. S. Shushkevich, having met in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, not far from the border Brest, announced the termination of the existence of the USSR and the formation of as part of the three republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In the future, all the former Soviet Union republics, with the exception of the Baltic ones, entered the CIS.