The period of perestroika in the USSR. What was the essence of perestroika started by Mikhail Gorbachev

19.10.2019

Perestroika in the USSR: Causes, Characteristics and Results.
Perestroika is a name used to refer to a huge number of reforms in the Soviet Union, primarily in the political, economic and social spheres. Perestroika began under Gorbachev in the second half of the 1980s and continued until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The date of the beginning of Perestroika is considered to be 1987, when this reform program was declared a new state ideology.

Reasons for Perestroika.
Before the start of Perestroika, the Soviet Union was already experiencing a deep economic crisis, which was also joined by political and social crises. The situation in a huge state was very difficult - the people demanded changes. The state demanded cardinal changes in all spheres of life that they had.

Unrest began in the country after people learned about life abroad. They were frankly shocked when they saw that the state in other countries controls all spheres of life of the population: everyone is free to wear whatever they want, listen to any music, eat not in certain portions, but as far as funds allow, and the like.

In addition, the people were very angry because the stores started having problems with essential goods, with various equipment. The state drove the budget into minus and could no longer produce the required amount of products on time.

In addition, we can add problems with industry and the agricultural sector: all enterprises have long been outdated, as well as equipment. The goods produced were already of such poor quality that no one wanted to buy them. The USSR gradually began to turn into a resource-based state. But even in the middle of the century, the Union was one of the most developed countries in the world, with a powerful economy.
In 1985, Gorbachev came to power, who highlighted the need for global reforms that could at least try to save the country from disintegration, which had been brewing for quite a long time.

All of the above could not remain so for too long, the country demanded changes, and they began. Although it was already too late to change anything, the collapse was still inevitable.

Characteristics.
Gorbachev provided for measures of complete technological "re-equipment" at all obsolete enterprises, especially in heavy industry. He also planned to seriously increase the effectiveness of the human factor by making specially trained specialists from the workers. In order for enterprises to give even greater profits, they had to begin to be controlled by the state.
What Gorbachev really managed to reform was the sphere foreign policy states. We are talking about relations, first of all, with the United States, with which the USSR had for several decades continued a deep economic, political, cultural and ideological confrontation - the so-called "cold war".

In order to effectively conduct such a struggle on all fronts, the USSR spent huge amounts of money, only 25% of the entire state budget was required to be spent on maintaining the army, and this huge amount of money was very much needed for other needs. Having rid the USSR of such an adversary as the United States, Gorbachev was able to transfer funds to the reorganization of other spheres of state life.

As a result of the "peace policy" with the West, relations between the two states began to improve and the two peoples stopped looking at each other as an enemy.

Returning to the deep economic crisis, it should be noted that the Soviet leadership did not fully realize how deep it was - the situation was really catastrophic. Unemployment began to rise in the country and, in addition, drunkenness on a global scale began to spread among the male population. The state tried in every possible way to fight drunkenness and unemployment, but there was no particular success from this.

The Communist Party was losing its influence and authority among the people with every new day. Liberal views began to actively emerge, which were eager to completely sweep away power and rebuild the state according to a new type, because such communism was simply not feasible.

In order to reassure the population a little, every citizen was allowed to speak about his political views, although earlier this was disastrously forbidden - for this, under Stalin, they could not only be put in the Gulag, but shot. Previously inaccessible literature has now become publicly available - books by foreign authors, previously banned by the party, began to be imported into the country.

At the first stages, changes in the economy took place with little success, the country really began to produce more quality products, but by 1988 this policy had exhausted itself. Then it became clear that nothing could be changed, the collapse of communism was inevitable, and the USSR would soon cease to exist.

Results of Perestroika.
Despite the fact that Perestroika was not able to change the situation in the Union so that it continued to exist, a number of important changes did occur and should be noted.
The victims of Stalinism were fully rehabilitated;
The country has freedom of speech and political views, strict censorship was removed, including on literature;
The one-party system was abandoned;
There was a possibility of free exit / entry from the country / to the country;
Students no longer serve in the military while they are in training;
Women were no longer sent to prison for cheating on their husbands;
The state gave permission for rock in the country;
The Cold War has ended.

These were the positive results of Perestroika, but there were much more negative results. Among the most important are economic ones.
The gold and foreign exchange reserves of the USSR decreased by about 10 times, which led to such a phenomenon as hyperinflation;
The international debt of the USSR increased and at least tripled;
The pace of economic development has dropped to almost zero - the country just froze.

Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991 - large-scale changes in the economic, political, and ideological life of the country, achieved through the introduction of radically new reforms. The goal of the reforms was the complete democratization of the political, social and economic system that had developed in the Soviet Union. Today we will take a closer look at the history of Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991.

Stages

The main stages of Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991:

March 1985 - early 1987 The phrases "acceleration" and "more socialism" became the slogans of this stage.
1987-1988 At this stage, new slogans appeared: "glasnost" and "more democracy".
1989-1990 Stage of "confusion and vacillation". The perestroika camp, which had been united before, split. Political and national confrontation began to gain momentum.
1990-1991 This period was marked by the collapse of socialism, the political bankruptcy of the CPSU and, as a result, the collapse of Soviet Union.

Reasons for perestroika in the USSR

The beginning of major reforms in the Soviet Union, as a rule, is associated with the coming to power of MS Gorbachev. At the same time, some experts consider one of his predecessors, Yu. A. Andropov, to be the "father of Perestroika". There is also an opinion that from 1983 to 1985, Perestroika experienced an “embryonic period”, while the USSR entered the stage of reform. One way or another, due to the lack of economic incentives to work, the ruinous arms race, the huge costs of military operations in Afghanistan, and the growing lag behind the West in the field of science and technology, at the dawn of the 1990s, the Soviet Union needed a large-scale reform. The gap between the slogans of the government and the real situation was huge. Distrust of communist ideology grew in society. All these facts became the reasons for Perestroika in the USSR.

The beginning of change

In March 1985, M. S. Gorbachev was elected to the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The following month, the new leadership of the USSR proclaimed a course towards the accelerated development of the country in the social and economic spheres. This is where the real Perestroika began. "Glasnost" and "acceleration" as a result will become its main symbols. In society, more and more often one could hear slogans like: "we are waiting for changes." Gorbachev also understood that changes were urgently needed by the state. Since the time of Khrushchev, he was the first General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, who did not disdain communication with the common people. Traveling around the country, he went out to people to ask about their problems.

Working on the implementation of the set course for the development and implementation of the Perestroika reforms in the USSR in 1985-1991, the country's leadership came to the conclusion that the sectors of the economy needed to be transferred to new ways of managing. From 1986 to 1989 laws were gradually issued on state enterprises, individual labor, cooperatives, and labor conflicts. The last law provided for the right of workers to strike. As part of the economic reforms, the following were introduced: state acceptance of products, economic accounting and self-financing, as well as the appointment of directors of enterprises based on the results of elections.

It is worth recognizing that all these measures not only did not lead to the main goal of Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991 - positive improvements in the country's economic situation, but also worsened the situation. The reason for this was: the "dampness" of reforms, significant budget spending, as well as an increase in the amount of money in the hands of the common population. Due to state deliveries of products, the communications established between enterprises were disrupted. The shortage of consumer goods has intensified.

"Publicity"

From an economic point of view, Perestroika began with "acceleration of development." In the spiritual and political life its main leitmotif was the so-called "glasnost". Gorbachev declared that democracy is impossible without "glasnost". By this he meant that the people should know about all state events of the past and the processes of the present. The ideas of changing “barracks socialism” to socialism with “human appearance” began to appear in the journalism and statements of party ideologists. Culture during the years of Perestroika of the USSR (1985-1991) began to "come to life". The authorities have changed their attitude towards dissidents. Camps for political prisoners gradually began to close.

The policy of "glasnost" gained special momentum in 1987. The legacy of the writers of the 1930s and 1950s and the works of Russian philosophers have returned to the Soviet reader. The repertoire of theatrical and cinematographic figures has expanded significantly. The processes of "glasnost" found expression in magazine and newspaper publications, as well as on television. The weekly "Moscow News" and the magazine "Spark" were very popular.

Political transformation

The policy of Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991 assumed the emancipation of society, as well as its deliverance from party tutelage. As a result, the question of the need for political reforms was put on the agenda. The most important events in the internal political life of the USSR were: the approval of the reform of the state system, the adoption of amendments to the constitution and the adoption of the law on the election of deputies. These decisions were a step towards the organization alternative system elections. The Congress of People's Deputies became the supreme legislative body of power. He nominated his representatives to the Supreme Council.

In the spring of 1989, elections were held for members of the Congress of People's Deputies. The legal opposition was included in the congress. The world-famous scientist and human rights activist Academician A. Sakharov, the former secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee B. Yeltsin and the economist G. Popov were placed at its head. The spread of "glasnost" and pluralism of opinions led to the creation of numerous associations, some of which were national.

Foreign policy

During the years of Perestroika, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union changed radically. The government abandoned confrontation in relations with the West, stopped interfering in local conflicts and revised its relationship with the countries of the socialist camp. The new vector of foreign policy development was based not on a "class approach", but on universal human values. According to Gorbachev, relations between states should have been based on maintaining a balance of national interests, the freedom to choose the paths of development in each individual state, and the collective responsibility of countries for resolving global issues.

Gorbachev was the initiator of the creation of a common European home. He regularly met with the rulers of America: Reagan (until 1988) and Bush (since 1989). At these meetings, politicians discussed disarmament issues. Soviet-American relations were "unfrozen". In 1987, agreements were signed on the destruction of missiles and missile defense. In 1990, politicians signed an agreement to reduce the number of strategic weapons.

During the years of Perestroika, Gorbachev was able to establish trusting relationship with the heads of the leading states of Europe: Germany (G. Kohl), Great Britain (M. Thatcher) and France (F. Mitterrand). In 1990, the participants in the European Security Conference signed an agreement to reduce the number of conventional weapons in Europe. The USSR began to withdraw its soldiers from Afghanistan and Mongolia. During 1990-1991, both the political and military structures of the Warsaw Pact were dissolved. The military bloc, in fact, ceased to exist. The policy of "new thinking" brought fundamental changes to international relations. This was the end of the Cold War.

National movements and political struggle

In the Soviet Union, as multinational state, there have always been national contradictions. They gained special momentum in conditions of crises (political or economic) and radical changes. Being engaged in the construction of socialism, the authorities paid little attention to the historical features of the peoples. Having announced the formation of the Soviet community, the government actually began to destroy the traditional economy and life of many peoples of the state. The authorities exerted particularly strong pressure on Buddhism, Islam and shamanism. Among the peoples of Western Ukraine, Moldova and the Baltic States, who joined the USSR on the eve of the Second World War, anti-socialist and anti-Soviet sentiments were very common.

The peoples deported during the war years were strongly offended by the Soviet government: Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Ingush, Karachays, Kalmyks, Balkars, Meskhetian Turks and others. During Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991, there were historical conflicts between Georgia and Abkhazia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, and others.

The policy of "glasnost" gave green light to create nationalist and national social movements. The most significant of them were: the "People's Fronts" of the Baltic countries, the Armenian committee "Karabakh", the Ukrainian "Rukh" and the Russian community "Memory". The broad masses were attracted to the opposition movement.

The strengthening of national movements, as well as opposition to the allied Center and the power of the Communist Party, became the determining factor in the crisis of the “tops”. Back in 1988, tragic events unfolded in Nagorno-Karabakh. For the first time since the civil war, demonstrations were held under nationalist slogans. They were followed by pogroms in Azerbaijani Sumgayit and Uzbek Fergana. The apogee of national discontent was the armed clashes in Karabakh.

In November 1988, the Supreme Council of Estonia proclaimed the supremacy of the republican law over the all-union law. The following year, the Verkhovna Rada of Azerbaijan proclaimed the sovereignty of its republic, and the Armenian social movement began to advocate the independence of Armenia and its separation from the Soviet Union. At the end of 1989, the Communist Party of Lithuania declared its independence.

1990 elections

During the 1990 election campaign, the confrontation between the party apparatus and opposition forces was clearly expressed. The opposition received the Democratic Russia electoral bloc, which became nothing more than an organizational center for it, and later turned into a social movement. In February 1990, many rallies took place, the participants of which sought the elimination of the Communist Party's monopoly on power.

Deputy elections in Ukraine, Belarus and the RSFSR were the first truly democratic elections. About 30% of positions in higher legislatures received by deputies with a democratic orientation. These elections have become an excellent illustration of the crisis in the power of the party elite. The society demanded the abolition of the 6th article of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, which proclaims the supremacy of the CPSU. Thus, a multi-party system began to take shape in the USSR. The main reformers - B. Yeltsin and G. Popov, received high posts. Yeltsin became chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and Popov became the mayor of Moscow.

The beginning of the collapse of the USSR

MS Gorbachev and Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991 are associated by many with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It all started in 1990, when national movements began to gain momentum. In January, as a result of the Armenian pogroms, troops were sent to Baku. military operation, accompanied by a large number of victims, only temporarily distracted the public from the issue of Azerbaijan's independence. Around the same time, Lithuanian parliamentarians voted for the independence of the republic, as a result of which Soviet troops entered Vilnius. Following Lithuania, a similar decision was made by the parliaments of Latvia and Estonia. In the summer of 1990, the Supreme Soviet of Russia and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted declarations of sovereignty. In the spring of the following year, independence referendums were held in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Georgia.

Autumn 1990. MS Gorbachev, who was elected President of the USSR at the Congress of People's Deputies, was forced to reorganize the authorities. Since then, the executive bodies have been directly subordinate to the President. The Federation Council was established - a new advisory body, which included the heads of the Union republics. Then the development and discussion of a new Union Treaty began, regulating relations between the republics of the USSR.

In March 1991, the first referendum in the history of the USSR was held, in which the citizens of the countries had to speak out regarding the preservation of the Soviet Union as a federation of sovereign republics. Six union republics (Armenia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia) out of 15 refused to take part in the referendum. 76% of those polled voted for the preservation of the USSR. In parallel, an All-Russian referendum was organized, as a result of which the post of president of the republic was introduced.

Russian presidential elections

On June 12, 1991, popular elections were held for the first president in the history of Russia. According to the voting results, this honorary post went to B. N. Yeltsin, who was supported by 57% of voters. So Moscow became the capital of two presidents: Russian and all-Union. Reconciling the positions of the two leaders was problematic, especially given the fact that their relationship was far from the most "smooth".

August coup

By the end of the summer of 1991, the political situation in the country had deteriorated greatly. On August 20, after heated discussions, the leadership of the nine republics agreed to sign an updated Union Treaty, which, in fact, meant the transition to a real federal state. A number of state structures of the USSR were eliminated or replaced with new ones.

The party and state leadership, believing that only decisive measures would lead to the preservation of the political positions of the Communist Party and stop the collapse of the USSR, resorted to forceful methods of management. On the night of August 18-19, when the President of the USSR was on vacation in the Crimea, they formed the GKChP (State Committee for the State of Emergency). The newly formed committee declared a state of emergency in some parts of the country; announced the dissolution of power structures that are contrary to the 1977 Constitution; hindered the activities of opposition structures; banned gatherings, demonstrations and rallies; took control of the funds mass media; and finally sent troops to Moscow. AI Lukyanov - Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, supported the GKChP, although he himself was not a member of it.

B. Yeltsin, together with the leadership of Russia, led the resistance to the KGChP. In an appeal to the people, they urged them not to obey the illegal decisions of the committee, interpreting its actions as nothing more than an unconstitutional coup. Yeltsin was supported by more than 70% of Muscovites, as well as residents of a number of other regions. Tens of thousands of peaceful Russians, expressing support for Yeltsin, were ready to defend the Kremlin with weapons in their hands. Frightened by the unleashing of a civil war, the GKChP, after three days of confrontation, began to withdraw troops from the capital. On August 21, members of the committee were arrested.

The Russian leadership used august coup to defeat the CPSU. Yeltsin issued a decree according to which the party should suspend its activities in Russia. The property of the Communist Party was nationalized, and the funds were seized. The liberals, who came to power in the central part of the country, took away from the leadership of the CPSU the levers of control of law enforcement agencies and the media. Gorbachev's presidency was only formal. The main number of republics refused to conclude the Union Treaty after the August events. No one thought about "glasnost" and "acceleration" of Perestroika. The question of the future fate of the USSR was on the agenda.

final decay

In the last months of 1991, the Soviet Union finally collapsed. The Congress of People's Deputies was dissolved, the Supreme Soviet was radically reformed, most of the union ministries were liquidated, and an inter-republican economic committee was created instead of the cabinet of ministers. The State Council of the USSR, which included the President of the Soviet Union and the heads of the union republics, became the supreme body for managing domestic and foreign policy. First decision State Council was the recognition of the independence of the Baltic countries.

On December 1, 1991, a referendum was held in Ukraine. More than 80% of the respondents spoke in favor of the independence of the state. As a result, Ukraine also decided not to sign the Union Treaty.

December 7-8, 1991 B. N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk and S. S. Shushkevich met in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. As a result of the negotiations, the politicians announced the end of the existence of the Soviet Union and the formation of the CIS (Union of Independent States). At first, only Russia, Ukraine and Belarus entered the CIS, but later all the states that were previously part of the Soviet Union, except for the Baltic states, joined it.

Results of Perestroika in the USSR 1985-1991

Despite the fact that Perestroika ended disastrously, it nevertheless brought a number of important changes to the life of the USSR, and then of its individual republics.

Positive results of the restructuring:

The victims of Stalinism were fully rehabilitated.
There was such a thing as freedom of speech and views, and censorship became not so tough.
The one-party system was abolished.
There was a possibility of unhindered entry / exit to / from the country.
Military service for undergraduate students has been cancelled.
Women are no longer jailed for adultery.
Rock was allowed.
The cold war has formally ended.

Of course, Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991 also had negative consequences.

Here are just the main ones:

The country's gold and foreign exchange reserves decreased by 10 times, which caused hyperinflation.
The country's international debt has at least tripled.
The rate of economic growth of the country has fallen almost to zero - the state simply froze.

Well, the main negative outcome of Perestroika in the USSR in 1985-1991. - the collapse of the USSR.

Conversation with Doctor of Economics Hegumen Philip (Simonov)

April 23, 1985 General Secretary Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev announced plans for broad reforms aimed at the comprehensive renewal of society, the cornerstone of which was called "acceleration of the country's socio-economic development."

And exactly 30 years ago, on October 15, 1985, the next Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU considered and approved the draft of the main directions of economic and social development USSR for 1986-1990 and for the period up to 2000. Thus was given an official start to the new economic course, known as "perestroika".

The consequences of numerous "reforms" and "transformations", begun in those years and continued in subsequent years, affect to this day. About what kind of economy they “rebuilt”, what they wanted to come to and why it turned out “as always”, what transformations our country really needed, what the “experience” of those years can teach and what each of us Orthodox should do, we talk with the abbot Philip (Simonov), Doctor of Economics, Professor, Honored Economist of the Russian Federation, Head of the Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.

Father Philip, they talk about two types of economic systems: command-administrative and market. What is their fundamental difference? What are the pros and cons?

First, let's say a few words about a certain commonality that unites these two concepts. This commonality lies in the fundamental economic illiteracy of those who introduced these terms for political reasons, then picked up and used them in the framework of the political struggle, and those who conveyed these concepts - perfect historical and political economic rubbish - to our time.

Any sane person, even without a higher economic education, not to mention academic degrees and titles, talking about something, usually finds out its main characteristics. That is, trying to answer the question "what is it?", finds out, which it is what are its characteristics that make it exactly that, and not something else.

Therefore, speaking of the "market economy", one immediately wants to ask: which is it a market economy?

After all, the market existed and mediated exchange both in slave-owning antiquity, and in the stage-incomprehensible East, and in feudal Europe, and in early capitalism, and at its later stages.

Public figures who abandoned political economy as a science due to its “dark Soviet past” and threw the term “market economy” into society as the main idea of a bright future, themselves acted very politically and economically: they used this meaningless term to fight for power, but no one was told what kind of "market economy" they were talking about.

Everyone thought that it was socially oriented, with the preservation of the achievements that society already had (free education and health care, full employment, an 8-hour working day with a 41-hour working week, etc.), and with the acquisition of those preferences, which the market gives (private business initiative, growth in management efficiency, quality improvement based on competition, etc.).

But this is exactly what, as it turned out, no one guaranteed. Because what happened was what happened: complete violation of the rights of workers, rampant "gangster capitalism" in the spirit of the era of primitive capital accumulation based on the unproven dogma "the market will solve everything", the emergence of a system of almost feudal "feeding" and other delights that fit perfectly into a "market economy" - provided that no one gave an exact definition of this phenomenon. What has grown has grown.

Now about the "command system". Don't you feel the economic inferiority of the term itself? It's not the language of economics, it's pure politics! By the way, no one has given a scientific definition of this term either - because it is simply impossible from the point of view of theory.

Economics does not talk about a “market” and “command” economy, but about systems of directive and indicative planning

In science, however, there was a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of systems of directive (as in the USSR) and indicative planning - the latter was the basis for the sectoral development of the countries of post-war Europe. On the basis of indicative planning, Gaullist France, for example, created its own competitive aerospace industry. Is this not an indicator of the effectiveness of the method? By the way, the intersectoral balance model, on which the Soviet planning and forecasting model was based, was developed by the American economist of Russian origin, Nobel laureate Vasily Leontiev. It’s now that we realized it, we adopted the unreadable law “On Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation”, only the system of this strategic forecasting over 25 years has been so destroyed that there is not only no one to calculate this intersectoral balance, but there is no one to teach how to calculate it.

At the same time, the main problem lay in the limits of application of one or another model, which, in essence, determines the effectiveness of both. In short: is it possible to plan production to the maximum range, or are there still some boundaries beyond which the inefficient use of the resources of the economy begins?

The Western world limited itself to indicative planning, within the framework of which it was planned not to produce (in natural units), but the resources necessary for the development of this production - those sectors that are recognized as priorities for the economy at the moment. At the same time, a combination of public and private financing was envisaged: the state made initial investments in priority sectors for itself, setting a certain development vector, and private capital, having this benchmark, joined the investment process, increasing its efficiency.

The domestic economy, even in the conditions of that strange “market”, the transition to which began under Gorbachev, could not abandon the dogmas of directive planning “from above” (at the same time, enterprises did not participate in the process of preparing the plan, but received ready-made planning targets from the center), despite even to the fact that it began to very clearly demonstrate its shortcomings against the background of the growth in the well-being of the population and the corresponding increase in demand: a “deficit economy” arose, under the sign of which all the Gorbachev years passed. Let us leave aside the question of how much this deficit was the result of objective factors and how much it was man-made, consciously organized. It's not about that. The question is that the government of that time failed to ensure the effective implementation of that speculative intersectoral balance that the State Planning Committee worked on in its last years; failed to combine their own ideas about the standard of living of the population of the country with the ideas of this same population; failed to separate the economy from the ideology (as China did, for example).

- On October 15, 1985, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU proclaimed a new economic course, known as "perestroika". Tell me, please, what did this mean for the Soviet Union?

The idea that “all of us, comrades, apparently need to rebuild” was first expressed by Gorbachev in May 1985. But even earlier, in 1983, in the leading party magazine Kommunist, the then Secretary General of the Central Committee of the CPSU Yu.V. Andropov set the task of accelerated "progress of the productive forces", which was subsequently exploited by Gorbachev under the amorphous slogan of "acceleration".

In essence, it came down to three streams of situational reform measures that were little linked to each other: « publicity» (which came down to chewing on the negative points in the media Soviet history and everyday life, without developing any significant concept as a result further development society) - « cooperation» (to which you need to add an epic to create joint ventures with foreign capital, which ended, in general, ingloriously and did not make a significant contribution to economic growth; apologists for “perestroika” say that it was through cooperation and joint ventures that “elements of the market were introduced into the socialist economy,” but these elements existed before them, but what cooperation really introduced into the economy were elements of the wild market, “gray "schemes, raiding, consumer deception - all that flourished later, in the 1990s) - « new thinking» (emphasis - M.S. Gorbachev) in foreign policy (in fact, it meant the rejection of the ideological imperative in diplomacy and a certain "thaw" in relations with the West).

The reforms imposed by the IMF were designed for the economies of developing countries. They were not applicable to the developed economy of Russia

Ultimately, for the Soviet Union, all this resulted in an uncontrolled increase in borrowing on the world market. loan capital, where at that time they were very willing to give "credits for Gorbachev", entering into an external debt crisis and receiving an IMF stabilization program (such a program has been carried out in all countries that fell into the "debt spiral" since the 80s of the twentieth century), a condition for financing in the framework of which were those "reforms" that destroyed the country's economy. And not only due to some malicious intent (although 1991 in the West was quite reasonably perceived as a brilliant victory in the Cold War, with which, however, they could not figure out what to do for a long time), but also because, according to the usual Western laziness, this program, the foundations of which were developed for developing countries, was not designed for a developed economy, and neither those who set the tasks nor those who thoughtlessly carried them out understood this.

The simplest example: agrarian reform”, according to the stabilization program, implies the elimination of large inefficient land ownership (such as pre-revolutionary landowners), the formation of small peasant (farmer) farms on the basis of actually confiscated land and then their cooperation with the prospect of creating an agro-industrial complex capable of meeting the country's needs for food. This model is valid, for example, for the Upper Volta.

But in the former USSR did not have large landownership of the landowner type. But were cooperation and agro-industrial complex. Nobody noticed this.

As a result, large landed cooperative property was disbanded, and in its place was formed exactly what can be compared with inefficient landlord latifundial land ownership, which does not give a marketable product. Former arable fields and fodder territories - those that are not built up with cottages - have been overgrown with undergrowth for 25 years, farmers have failed, and now we have to restore agriculture and cooperation - this word, by the way, was banned throughout the 1990s, even articles have not been published on this topic. And now our Ministry of Agriculture is planning to start a reform already like the Upper Volta, in order to mix the consequences of the stupidity that, under the dictation of the IMF, was committed in the 1990s: to return unused agricultural land to the state land fund and find an effective way to ensure the restoration of their productive potential.

The people have always called it: "A bad head does not give rest to the legs."

On the whole, for the USSR, “perestroika” meant in fact a complete rejection of the political, economic and ideological model that the CPSU adhered to in the post-war period, in Lenin’s language (which was sharp on labels): opportunism and revisionism. With quite predictable consequences: "cooperation" (or rather, those capitals that arose on its basis and, naturally, showed their political ambitions) removed Gorbachev from the domestic political arena, and "glasnost" finally buried him as a politician, along with the USSR destroyed by his hands.

What were the results of "perestroika"? Were the set goals achieved? Is it fair to say that this led to the collapse of the USSR?

“Perestroika” could not lead to any real results: it was a voluntaristic policy that situationally suited its creator

Actually, I already answered this question. “ ” could not lead to any real results: it was a voluntaristic policy that situationally suited its creator, who tried to sit on all chairs at once: both improve socialism and directive planning to preserve, and introduce the capitalist market into this economic system, and did not while implementing the ideas of self-financing, to be both the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the President - and all in one bottle. Actually, there were no scientifically substantiated goals - there were some impulsive good wishes "between Lafite and Cliquot", to which the Academy of Sciences frantically tried to give a scientific appearance.

And when there is no real - not situational, but scientifically substantiated - development goal, from which the tools to achieve it follow, there can be no positive result by definition.

What changes did the Soviet Union really need? And what does the experience of the last decade of the existence of the Soviet Union teach us in terms of the organization of economic life?

I must say that the "Kremlin elders" of the last Soviet period did one big stupidity: they considered the whole people stupid.

Let me explain. I started traveling abroad on official business in the late 1980s. Yes, everything was good and beautiful there. In general, decently than we have under Gorbachev. But there, in prosperous Vienna, for the first time I saw homeless people with carriages, in which all their meager belongings were placed. People who, in no less prosperous London, spent the winter sleeping under bridges in cardboard boxes, for whom Vladyka Anthony (Bloom) urged them to collect at least something at Christmas that would make them feel the joy of the birth of Christ. People who rummaged through garbage cans in search of food.

If the "elders" did not consider the Soviet people headless idiots, they would allow them to freely travel abroad - not on tours accompanied by the KGB, but freely, simply by taking a visa. We are not idiots, we, besides jeans and street cafes, would see something else that would make us understand: tourism should not be confused with emigration. We knew full well that we were never in danger of becoming homeless or unemployed. We understood that we do not have to pay for education, and our education is such that our reports at international conferences were listened to with attention. We understood that we did not need to pay at the clinic or hospital, that we had already paid for it in the form of income tax.

And now we understand that you have to pay for everything - but where to get it? Right now, in a crisis, according to polls, people no longer have enough money for food, the share of expenditures for these purposes in general expenses is growing, someone is already getting into savings, and the quality of food is deteriorating. And it is impossible to compete for wages, because, unlike in Europe, we do not have normal trade unions that would respond to the needs of the working people, and would not satisfy their own needs.

In a healthy society, the state assumes the function of socially oriented distribution of funds

Here we are talking about church charity, we are working to help the poor and the homeless - but this help in itself is an indicator of the unhealthy of society, because in a healthy society there should not be socially unprotected strata, and the task of ensuring social protection (including ensuring full employment of the population) the state assumes the function of socially oriented distribution of funds received from the population as taxes. And if the Church, which does not have a tax source of income, is forced to take on the function of social protection, performing it at the expense of voluntary donations (that is, in fact, re-taxation of the population: after all, taxes have already been paid to the state, and we have the right to expect the state to fulfill its social functions, as soon as it exists in this connection), this means that the state does not fulfill its constitutional functions, and society does not control it.

As for the experience of the “decline and fall of the USSR”. Then they talked a lot about the Chinese model - but, unfortunately, no one really bothered to either study this model in detail or justify the possibility of using its elements in the conditions of the Soviet economy: some looked with lust at the West, others - forward "back to Lenin ”, the economy, meanwhile, was suffocating from an inefficient management model, and where, under the guise of a “socialist market”, the management model changed (initially at the micro level, then, with the folding of organized groups, already at a higher level), the processes of initial accumulation of capital began with cruelty late medieval and early modern times.

No real model was proposed based on its own economic complex, taking into account its features: the Central Committee of the CPSU, which actually ruled the country, rewrote old dogmas "from congress to congress", and the scientific world tried - through meditation - to discover "new content" in them. Some “unknown forces” also interfered: I remember well how in one of the working groups on Staraya Square they prepared a draft decree on foreign economic activity, got excited and argued, finally did it by night and went home - and the next morning they read in the newspaper “ True” text, where all our thoughts were spelled out “exactly the opposite”… By whom? And why?

There can be only one conclusion: you need to know exactly what you are doing and what exactly should come of it.

Thus, there can be only one conclusion from this negative experience: you need to know exactly what you are doing and what exactly should come of it, and not today or tomorrow (“and after us even a flood”; “yes, we drink pits, morning we will die" - 1 Corinthians 15:32), but for years to come. If we talk about the economy, there should be a development model consciously chosen as a goal with known characteristics, defined scientifically, and not “from the wind of our own head” (too often we are guided not by economic reality, but by our own ideas about this reality); directions, methods and tools for achieving the set goal should be determined, ensuring, among other things, the stability of the national economy to internal and external stresses that no one has canceled, no matter how much we would like to; finally, there must be the right people who would not tell pleasant tales made up of their own ideas about reality, but would work effectively for this goal, and not against it.

Otherwise, we will constantly encounter unpleasant surprises for ourselves: it suddenly turns out that we do not have self-sufficiency in food, then we suddenly realize that some industry has collapsed in our country, and as a result, rockets are falling, then it turns out that the level of education has dropped to zero (by the way, according to polls, almost half of the respondents, in connection with the abolition of school astronomy, are now sure that the sun revolves around the earth), otherwise an insight will suddenly happen, from which it will become clear that global community they just flirted with us like a cat with a mouse: they showed PR candy wrappers from sweet candies (like the notorious myth about "G-8", which in practice never ceased to be "G-7"), but in fact they pursued the old policy of ousting a competitor from market. And the number of such discoveries can multiply to infinity.

What economy should be in Russia? What should we strive for? What potential for the development of the economy, if I may say so, is inherent in Orthodoxy, its ethics?

Effective, that is, ensuring the growth of the produced national income and its distribution and redistribution to achieve development goals - and not individual sectors, industries or industries, but the entire economic complex of the country.

Based on scientific and technological progress, without which we will be doomed to trail behind world development.

Socially oriented, as it should be, the economy of the “welfare state”, which is spelled out in our Constitution, that is, satisfying the basic legitimate needs of the population - not some part of it, but all citizens, since we are so fond of talking about “civil society”.

Diversified, that is, configured to provide a wide range national needs and various areas national security.

integrated into world economy not as a raw material appendage, but as an equal partner in the emerging global division of labor.

Life will show what place Orthodoxy can take in this system. The economy is a non-confessional phenomenon. Religious ethics (and this is the only and most important thing that faith can offer to participants in the economic process) begins to work when organizational processes begin to operate: in the organization of the production process and everything connected with it (rest time, disability, pensions, etc. .), as well as in the organization of distribution, exchange and consumption of the produced product (in a general sense). How fair will these organizational processes be, how focused on the apostle indicated uniformity(see 2 Cor. 8, 14), how prepared a person will be for this justice in the process of education and upbringing - all this is not only not indifferent to religious ethics and its bearers, but is also an open field for influence.

And then everything will depend on how much we ourselves, the bearers of religious ethics, are not indifferent to all these problems, how much we ourselves are rooted in Christ's teaching, how much it is not external and temporary for us (that is, existing only when we enter from the world into church walls in order to, as they say now, “satisfy one’s religious needs”), but internally, experienced and assimilated, which has become not even a part of life, but life itself, insofar as we ourselves are “not strangers and not aliens, but fellow citizens saints and their own to God” (Eph. 2:19).

Those who are God's own cannot be absolutely alien to economic reality.

See how this “own” sounds in Greek: οἰκεῖοι (ikii). Those who inhabit God's οἶκος (ikos), who - their God, οἰκεῖοι, domestici, His household, those cannot be absolutely alien to economic reality. They are like members at home, by virtue of their rights and obligations, by all means participate, in their measure, in its creation and organization - economy.

And what other participation does the Master of the house expect from us, if not evidence, do not preach the Gospel of His beloved Son - "not the letter, but the spirit, because the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3: 6), - "even to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1: 8).

Previous Next

Term

On April 8, 1986, M. S. Gorbachev visited Togliatti, where he visited the Volga Automobile Plant. In his speech in Togliatti, Gorbachev for the first time uses the word "perestroika" to refer to the socio-political process. The term was picked up by the media and became the slogan of the beginning of a new era in the USSR. Gorbachev's later published speech was called "Faster to rebuild, act in a new way":

1985-1989

background

In March 1985, MS Gorbachev became General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.

At the April Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1985, supporters of Gorbachev became full members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU: secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU E. K. Ligachev and N. I. Ryzhkov, Chairman of the KGB of the USSR V. M. Chebrikov; candidate member of the Politburo - Marshal of the Soviet Union, Minister of Defense S. L. Sokolov. A “Gorbachev majority” is forming in the Politburo.

Gorbachev's opponents were gradually withdrawn from the Politburo: G. V. Romanov (July 1985), N. A. Tikhonov (October 1985), V. V. Grishin (December 1985), D. A. Kunaev (January 1987), G. A. Aliev (October 1987), V. I. Dolgikh (September 1988), P. N. Demichev (September 1988), M. S. Solomentsev (September 1988).

They were replaced by proteges of the new General Secretary: A. N. Yakovlev, who was one of the most staunch supporters of reforms, V. A. Medvedev, A. I. Lukyanov, B. N. Yeltsin (later Yeltsin was expelled from the Politburo on February 18 1988). During 1985-1986, Gorbachev updated the composition of the Politburo by two-thirds, 60% of the secretaries of the regional committees and 40% of the members of the CPSU Central Committee were replaced.

Domestic politics

At the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on April 23, 1985. Gorbachev announced plans for broad reforms aimed at the comprehensive renewal of society, the cornerstone of which was called "acceleration of the country's socio-economic development."

At a meeting of the Politburo in April 1986, Gorbachev first announced the need for a Plenum on personnel issues. Only on it it was possible to make a cardinal decision to change the personnel policy. In June 1986, at a meeting with secretaries and department heads of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Gorbachev said: “Without a “small revolution” nothing will come of the party, because the real power is in the party bodies. The people will not drag around their necks an apparatus that does nothing for perestroika.”

At the XXVII Congress of the CPSU (February-March 1986), Gorbachev declared: “The question of expanding publicity is of fundamental importance for us. This is a political issue. Without glasnost, there is not and cannot be democracy, the political creativity of the masses, their participation in government. The media began to get more freedom in describing existing problems. The editors-in-chief were replaced in a number of newspapers and magazines, which subsequently acted as the most oppositional (New World, Moscow News, Arguments and Facts). From the end of 1986, previously banned literary works began to be published, films lying on the shelves were shown (the first of them was Tengiz Abuladze's film "Repentance").

In May 1986, the V Congress of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR opened, at which the entire board of the Union was unexpectedly re-elected. According to this scenario, later there were changes in other creative unions.

On September 4, 1986, the Glavlit of the USSR issued Order No. 29c, in which the censors were instructed to focus on issues related to the protection of state and military secrets in the press, and to inform party bodies only about significant violations in the ideological sphere.

By a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU of September 25, 1986, it was decided to stop jamming the transmissions of some foreign radio stations (Voice of America, BBC) and increase the jamming of others (Freedom, Deutsche Welle). On May 23, 1987, the Soviet Union finally stopped jamming the radio programs of the Voice of America and some other Western radio stations. The jamming of foreign radio stations in the USSR was completely stopped on November 30, 1988.

In 1987, the Interdepartmental Commission, headed by the Glavlit of the USSR, began its work, which began to review publications in order to transfer them from special storage departments to "open" funds.

The policy initiated by the 27th Congress was first called "perestroika" in June 1986. Now it included not only the acceleration of the country's economic development, which was originally proclaimed, but also deeper economic, political and social reforms. The new terminology reflected the deep and comprehensive nature of the changes that had begun.

Despite the mentioned individual steps, serious changes in the life of the country in 1985-86. did not have. The starting point for truly fundamental reforms should be considered the Plenum on personnel issues, held in January 1987. Its preparation began in the fall of 1986. After much debate and agreement, the final text of Gorbachev's report at the Plenum included a statement about the need for elections across the entire party vertical from several candidates (approval of candidates proposed from above was a common practice). In addition, it was pointed out that party functionaries are obliged to systematically report on the work they have done to those who elected them.

On January 27, 1987, the long-prepared Plenum opened. Gorbachev made a report "On perestroika and the personnel policy of the party." It identified the following areas:

the beginning of the transformation of the CPSU from a state structure into a real political party (“We must resolutely abandon managerial functions that are unusual for party bodies”);

promotion of non-partisans to leadership positions;

expansion of "intra-party democracy";

changing the functions and role of the Soviets, they were to become "genuine authorities on their territory";

holding elections to the Soviets on an alternative basis (elections since 1918 were voting for a single candidate for each seat).

Alternative elections to local Soviets were held already in the summer of 1987 in many electoral districts, for the first time in the history of the USSR.

Gorbachev's speech at the January Plenum also devoted much space to glasnost. At the same time, he stated that "the time has come to start developing legal acts guaranteeing publicity." He stated: “We should not have areas that are closed to criticism. The people need the whole truth... More than ever, we need more light now, so that the Party and the people know everything, so that we don’t have dark corners where mold would start up again.”

On January 23, 1988, the Pravda newspaper published an article by V. Ovcharenko “Cobras over gold”, which presented materials from the investigation team that had been investigating the so-called Cotton case in Uzbekistan since 1983. Moreover, it was not about simple cotton growers, but about the highest elite of the party and state leadership of the republic. The article in Pravda became a signal for other Soviet newspapers. There is practically not a single newspaper left, both in the center and in the localities, in which the corruption of the local party leadership would not be exposed.

In December 1986, A. D. Sakharov and his wife E. G. Bonner were released from exile in Gorky. In February 1987, 140 dissidents were released from prison by pardon. They immediately became involved in public life. The scattered, small dissident movement, which ended its active existence in 1983, was again revived under the slogans of a democratic movement. Several dozens of informal, gradually politicized, weakly organized organizations(the most famous of them was the "Democratic Union" formed in May 1988, which held two anti-communist rallies in Moscow in August-September 1988), the first independent newspapers and magazines.

In 1987-1988, such previously unpublished and banned works as "Children of the Arbat" by A. N. Rybakov, "Life and Fate" by V. S. Grossman, "Requiem" by A. A. Akhmatova, "Sofya Petrovna" by L. K. Chukovskoy, “Doctor Zhivago” by B. L. Pasternak.

In 1987, the first non-state television associations were created, such as NIKA-TV (Independent Television Information Channel) and ATV (Author's Television Association). In contrast to the dry semi-official program "Vremya", nightly releases of TSN appeared. The leaders in this regard were the youth programs "12th floor" and "Vzglyad", programs of the Leningrad television.

In 1987, in the film by Sergei Solovyov "Assa", the song of the rock group "Kino" "We are waiting for changes" appears on the words of Viktor Tsoi, which became a kind of unofficial anthem during perestroika.

major event 1988 was the XIX All-Union Party Conference of the CPSU, held in June-July. For the first time since the 1920s, the delegates really expressed their own opinions, sometimes allowing themselves to criticize the actions of the party leadership, and this was broadcast on television. Conference on the initiative of Gorbachev adopted a decision on reform political system. A fundamental decision was made on alternative elections of deputies to the Soviets at all levels. Everyone should have the opportunity to be nominated as a candidate.

But at the same time, measures were outlined to preserve the role of the CPSU in the country. Previously, the supreme body of legislative power was the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, elected by the population according to the territorial and national-territorial districts. Now the Supreme Soviet was to be elected by the Congress of People's Deputies, ? who, in turn, were to be elected by the people. The remaining 750 people were to be chosen by "public organizations", with the CPSU choosing the largest number of deputies. This reform was formalized into law at the end of 1988.

The Party Conference also decided to combine the positions of the head of the party committee and the chairman of the Council of the corresponding level. Since this leader was elected by the population, such an innovation should have brought to the leading party posts people who were energetic and practical, able to solve local problems, and not just deal with ideology.

Nationalism and separatism

Conflict in Almaty

In December 1986, after the removal of the Kazakh D. Kunaev from the post of the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan and the appointment of the Russian G. Kolbin in his place, riots broke out in Alma-Ata. Demonstrations of Kazakh youth who opposed Kolbin (since he had nothing to do with Kazakhstan) were suppressed by the authorities.

Azerbaijan and Armenia

In August 1987, Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan SSR and making up the majority of the population in this autonomous region sent a petition signed by tens of thousands of people to Moscow to transfer the autonomous region to the Armenian SSR. In October 1987, protest demonstrations were held in Yerevan against incidents with the Armenian population of the village of Chardakhlu, north of Nagorno-Karabakh, where the First Secretary of the Shamkhor Regional Committee of the CPSU, M. Asadov, came into conflict with the villagers in connection with their protests against the replacement of the director of the state farm an Armenian to an Azerbaijani. Mikhail Gorbachev's adviser Abel Aganbegyan speaks in defense of the idea of resubordinating Karabakh to Armenia.

On February 13, 1988, the first rally was held in Stepanakert, at which demands were put forward for the annexation of the NKAR to Armenia. The Board of Directors established in the NKAO, which included the heads large enterprises regions and individual activists, decides to hold sessions of city and district councils, and then convene a session of the regional Council of People's Deputies. On February 20, an extraordinary session of the People's Deputies of the NKAO addresses the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR and the USSR with a request to consider and positively resolve the issue of transferring the NKAR from Azerbaijan to Armenia. On February 21, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopts a resolution according to which the demand for the inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenian SSR is presented as adopted as a result of the actions of "extremists" and "nationalists" and contrary to the interests of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Armenian SSR. The resolution is limited to general calls for the normalization of the situation, the development and implementation of measures for the further socio-economic and cultural development of the autonomous region.

On February 22, near the Armenian settlement of Askeran, there is a clash with the use of firearms between groups of Azerbaijanis from the city of Aghdam, heading to Stepanakert "to restore order", and the local population. 2 Azerbaijanis were killed, at least one of them - at the hands of an Azerbaijani policeman. More massive bloodshed that day was avoided. Meanwhile, a demonstration is taking place in Yerevan. The number of demonstrators by the end of the day reaches 45-50 thousand. On the air of the Vremya program, the topic of the decision of the NKAR Regional Council is touched upon, where it is called inspired "extremist and nationalist-minded individuals". Such a reaction of the central press only increases the indignation of the Armenian public. On February 26, a rally is held in Yerevan, in which almost 1 million people participate. On the same day, the first rallies in Sumgayit begin. On February 27, Deputy Prosecutor General of the USSR A.F. Katusev, who was then in Baku, appeared on television and reported on the death of two Azerbaijanis in a skirmish near Askeran that took place on February 22.

On February 27-29, an Armenian pogrom takes place in the city of Sumgayit - the first mass explosion of ethnic violence in recent Soviet history. According to official data from the USSR Prosecutor General's Office, 26 Armenians and 6 Azerbaijanis died during these events (Izvestiya, 03.03.1988). Armenian sources indicate that these figures are underestimated. Hundreds of people were injured, a huge number were subjected to violence, torture and abuse, many thousands became refugees. No timely investigation into the causes and circumstances of the pogroms, identification and punishment of provocateurs and direct participants in the crimes was carried out, which undoubtedly led to an escalation of the conflict.

The resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU, adopted in March 1988 regarding the interethnic conflict in the NKAR, did not lead to stabilization of the situation, since the most radical representatives of both conflicting parties rejected any compromise proposals. The majority of members of the regional Council of People's Deputies and the regional party committee supported the demands for the transfer of the NKAO from Azerbaijan to Armenia, which were formalized in the relevant decisions of the sessions of the regional Council and the Plenum of the regional party committee headed by G. Poghosyan. In the NKAR (especially in Stepanakert) a massive ideological indoctrination of the population unfolded - daily crowded processions, rallies, strikes by the collectives of enterprises, organizations, educational institutions of the region demanding secession from Azerbaijan.

An informal organization is being created - the Krunk Committee, headed by the director of the Stepanakert Building Materials Plant Arkady Manucharov. Its stated goals are to study the history of the region, its ties with Armenia, and the restoration of ancient monuments. In fact, the committee assumes the functions of the organizer of mass protests. By the decree of the Supreme Council of the Azerbaijan SSR, the committee was dissolved, but it continued its activities. A movement to support the Armenian population of the NKAO is growing in Armenia. A Karabakh committee has been set up in Yerevan, whose leaders call for increased pressure on state bodies in order to transfer the NKAO to Armenia. At the same time, Azerbaijan continues to call for a "decisive restoration of order" in the NKAR. Public tension and national enmity between the Azerbaijani and Armenian populations are increasing every day. In summer and autumn, cases of violence in the NKAR become more frequent, and the mutual flow of refugees increases.

Representatives of the central Soviet and government agencies USSR. Some of the identified problems that have accumulated over the years in the national sphere are becoming public. The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR urgently adopt a Resolution "On measures to accelerate the socio-economic development of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of the Azerbaijan SSR in 1988-1995."

In May 1988, on the initiative of the Shusha Regional Committee of the CPSU, the deportation of the Armenian population from Shusha began. June 14, 1988 The Supreme Council of Armenia gives its consent to the inclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region into the Armenian SSR. On June 17, 1988, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan decides that Nagorno-Karabakh should remain part of the republic: “In response to the appeal of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR, the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan SSR, proceeding from the interests of preserving the existing national-territorial structure of the country, enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR , guided by the principles of internationalism, the interests of the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples, other nations and nationalities of the republic, considered the transfer of the NKAR from the Azerbaijan SSR to the Armenian SSR impossible.

In July 1988, many days of strikes by collectives of enterprises, organizations, educational institutions, mass rallies took place in Armenia. As a result of a clash between protesters and soldiers of the Soviet Army at the Yerevan Zvartnots airport, one of the protesters was killed. Catholicos Vazgen I addresses on republican television with an appeal for wisdom, calmness, a sense of responsibility of the Armenian people, and for an end to the strike. The call goes unheeded. Enterprises and organizations have not been operating in Stepanakert for several months, processions and mass rallies are held every day, the situation is heating up more and more. According to Izvestia correspondents, powerful support comes from Armenia - hundreds of people leave for Yerevan every day and, on the contrary, come to Stepanakert (an air bridge has been organized between these cities for this, the number of flights sometimes reaches 4 - 8 per day).

As of mid-July, about 20 thousand people (more than 4 thousand families) left for Azerbaijan from Armenia. Meanwhile, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan is trying to normalize the situation in the places densely populated by Azerbaijanis in Armenia. Refugees from Azerbaijan continue to arrive in the Armenian SSR. According to local authorities, as of July 13, 7,265 people (1,598 families) arrived in Armenia from Baku, Sumgayit, Mingachevir, Gazakh, Shamkor and other cities of Azerbaijan.

On July 18, 1988, a meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was held, at which the decisions of the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR and the Azerbaijan SSR on Nagorno-Karabakh were considered and a Resolution on this issue was adopted. The Decree noted that, having considered the request of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR of June 15, 1988 on the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to the Armenian SSR (in connection with the petition of the Council of People's Deputies of the NKAR) and the decision of the Supreme Council of the Azerbaijan SSR of June 17, 1988 On the unacceptability of transferring the NKAO to the Armenian SSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet considers it impossible to change the borders and the constitutionally established national-territorial division of the Azerbaijan SSR and the Armenian SSR.

In September 1988, a state of emergency and a curfew were introduced in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and the Aghdam region of the Azerbaijan SSR. In Armenia, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR decided to dissolve the "Karabakh" committee. However, the attempts of party and government bodies to calm the population have no effect. Calls for organizing strikes, rallies and hunger strikes continue in Yerevan and some other cities of Armenia. On September 22, the work of a number of enterprises and public transport in Yerevan, Leninakan, Abovyan, Charentsavan, as well as the Echmiadzin region was stopped. In Yerevan, along with the police, military units are involved in ensuring order on the streets.

In November-December 1988, mass pogroms took place in Azerbaijan and Armenia, accompanied by violence and killings of the civilian population. According to various sources, pogroms on the territory of Armenia lead to the death of 20 to 30 Azerbaijanis. According to the Armenian side, 26 Azerbaijanis died in Armenia as a result of ethnic offenses in three years (from 1988 to 1990), including 23 from November 27 to December 3, 1988, one in 1989, and two in 1990. . At the same time, 17 Armenians were killed in clashes with Azerbaijanis in Armenia. In Azerbaijan, the largest Armenian pogroms take place in Baku, Kirovabad (Ganja), Shamakhi, Shamkhor, Mingechaur, Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. A state of emergency is introduced in a number of cities in Azerbaijan and Armenia. At this time, there is the most massive flow of refugees - hundreds of thousands of people from both sides.

In the winter of 1988-1989, the deportation of the population of Armenian villages in rural areas of the AzSSR is carried out - including the northern part of Nagorno-Karabakh (not included in the NKAO) - the mountainous and foothill parts of the Khanlar, Dashkesan, Shamkhor and Gadabay regions, as well as the city of Kirovabad (Ganja) . Upon completion of these events, the Armenian population of the Azerbaijan SSR is concentrated in the NKAO, the Shahumyan region, four villages of the Khanlar region (Getashen, Martunashen, Azad and Kamo) and in Baku (where it decreased from about 215 thousand to 50 thousand people during the year) .

the Baltic States

In the Estonian SSR, on August 23, 1987, about two thousand supporters of Estonian independence gathered in Hirve Park in Tallinn to mark the next anniversary of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact.

September 26, 1987 in the newspaper of the Tartu City Committee of the Communist Party of Estonia "Edasi" ( "Forward"), a proposal for the economic autonomy of Estonia within the USSR was published, which received significant support in society. A corresponding program was developed, called Economically independent Estonia(est. Isemajandav Estonia, abbreviated IME(MIRACLE)).

On April 13, 1988, during a television talk show, Edgar Savisaar proposed the creation of the Popular Front (Est. Rahvarinne) - a socio-political movement that was supposed to contribute to the goals of Gorbachev's perestroika. Such a Popular Front was created.

On June 3, 1988, the "Lithuanian Movement for Perestroika" was created in the Lithuanian SSR, which became known as Sąjūdis.

On June 10-14, 1988, over one hundred thousand people visited the Singing Field of Tallinn. The events of June-September 1988 went down in history as the "Singing Revolution".

On June 17, 1988, the delegation of the Communist Party of Estonia at the XIX Party Conference of the CPSU made a proposal to transfer additional powers in all spheres of public, political and economic life to the republican authorities.

On September 11, 1988, the musical and political event “Song of Estonia” was held on the Song of Estonia in Tallinn, which brought together about 300,000 Estonians, that is, about a third of the Estonian people. During the event, a call for Estonian independence was publicly voiced.

Economy

By the mid-1980s, all the problems of the planned economy that existed in the USSR became more acute. The artificially caused shortage of consumer goods, including foodstuffs, has intensified. The sharp decline in oil export earnings led to a shortage of foreign exchange for imports, including consumer goods. Budget revenues from oil exports decreased in 1985-1986 by 30%. According to a number of authors, the backlog of the USSR in the development of science-intensive sectors of the economy increased. So, A. S. Narignani wrote in 1985: “The situation in the Soviet computer science seems catastrophic. ... The gap separating us from the world level is growing faster ... We are close to the fact that now not only will we not be able to copy Western prototypes, but in general we will not even be able to follow the world level of development. ”

At the April 1985 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, for the first time, the economic and social problems existing in the USSR were openly declared. According to M. S. Gorbachev, the country was in a pre-crisis state. The situation was especially difficult in agriculture, where the loss of production amounted to about 30%. During the harvesting and transportation of livestock, 100 thousand tons of products were lost annually, fish - 1 million tons, potatoes - 1 million tons, beets - 1.5 million tons. mechanical engineering as the basis for the re-equipment of the entire national economy (the so-called "acceleration").

The program "Intensification-90" adopted in 1986 provided for the rapid development of the sector of consumer goods by 1.7 times in comparison with other branches of engineering and, to a certain extent, was a continuation of previous reforms. At the same time, disproportions in investment policy led to the undermining of non-priority industries.

In addition to this, during the initial period of perestroika, several insufficiently thought-out decisions were made. In May 1985, the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On measures to overcome drunkenness and alcoholism" was issued. This decision aimed at resolving both social and economic problems, primarily labor discipline, and was supposed to contribute to the growth of labor productivity and its quality. It was planned to reduce the production of vodka and other alcoholic beverages by 10% per year. By 1988, the production of fruit and berry wines was to be stopped. These measures led to a decrease in mortality in the country, their economic effect was negative and resulted in more than 20 billion losses in budget revenues, but several million lives were saved.

At the beginning of 1986, the XXVII Congress of the CPSU was held, at which whole line economic and social programs providing for a new investment and structural policy. In addition to "Intensification-90", it was planned to carry out such long-term programs as "Housing-2000" and others.

On November 19, 1986, the USSR Law “On Individual Labor Activity” was adopted. On February 5, 1987, the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a resolution “On the Creation of Cooperatives for the Production of Consumer Goods”. On May 26, 1988, the USSR Law “On Cooperation in the USSR” was adopted, which allowed cooperatives to engage in any activities not prohibited by law, including trade.

On January 13, 1987, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted Decree No. 48, which allowed the creation of joint ventures with the participation Soviet organizations and firms in capitalist and developing countries.

On June 11, 1987, the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 665 “On the transfer of enterprises and organizations of sectors of the national economy to full self-financing and self-financing” was adopted. On June 30, 1987, the USSR Law “On state enterprise(association)”, redistributing powers between ministries and enterprises in favor of the latter. Products manufactured after the fulfillment of the state order could be sold by the manufacturer at free prices. The number of ministries and departments was reduced, cost accounting was introduced into all branches of the national economy. However, granting the labor collectives of state enterprises the right to choose directors and granting enterprises the authority to regulate wages led to the dependence of directors of enterprises on the decisions of labor collectives and an increase in wages that was not ensured by the presence of an appropriate volume of goods on the consumer market.

One of the positive results of economic reforms was the cessation of the decline in the growth rate of national production and labor productivity in the mid-1980s. To a large extent, this was determined by the growth of investment, which, however, was accompanied by an increase in the budget deficit, which in 1985 amounted to 17-18 billion rubles, and in 1986 almost tripled. The deficit was partly caused by a reduction in foreign exchange earnings, the ongoing Afghan war, the Chernobyl tragedy and losses from the anti-alcohol campaign, but the main reason for the reduction in budget revenues was the gradual decrease in the share of profits of enterprises and organizations deducted to the state (the corresponding figure fell from 56% in 1985 to 36% in 1989-1990).

Even more radical reforms were envisaged to be carried out in the period after the 19th party conference in 1988.

The volumes of production of consumer goods were much lower than the huge money supply, since they proceeded from rather conditional estimated terms and volumes of consumption. Customers instantly snatched up goods on store shelves. A situation of "empty shelves and full refrigerators and crammed apartments" was created. Any more or less high-quality product that hit the store shelves was sold in a matter of hours. A significant amount of non-food products actually ceased to fall into the official trade and were sold by trade workers through acquaintances or through “farmers”. This problem was aggravated with the permission of private trade, which was actually carried out by cooperatives. Confusion began with allied deliveries, some republics, in particular Ukraine, stopped shipping meat, milk to Moscow, Leningrad, and the military department. In the capital itself, the picture was generally depressing. Hundreds of thousands of residents from almost all of central Russia arrived daily by train to Moscow and literally stormed grocery stores. They grabbed everything that was on the shelves, loaded with shopping bags, with heavy backpacks behind their backs, dragged to the stations.

Foreign policy

Having come to power, M. S. Gorbachev set a course for improving relations with the United States. One of the reasons for this was the desire to reduce exorbitant military spending (25% of the USSR state budget).

However, his first meeting with US President Ronald Reagan in Geneva in the autumn of 1985 ended with a little binding solemn Declaration on the inadmissibility of nuclear war. On January 15, 1986, the "Declaration of the Soviet Government" was published, containing the program nuclear disarmament By 2000, the USSR called on the leading countries of the world to join the moratorium on nuclear testing that had been observed by the Soviet Union since the summer of 1985 and to gradually reduce various types of nuclear weapons.

Some adjustments were made to Soviet policy in Afghanistan, where the USSR replaced the country's leadership in May 1986. The new General Secretary of the PDPA, M. Najibullah, proclaimed a course towards national reconciliation, adopted a new Constitution, according to which he was elected President of Afghanistan in 1987. The Soviet Union sought to strengthen the position of the new leadership in order to subsequently begin the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country.

In October 1986, a meeting of Soviet and American leaders took place in Reykjavik, which marked the beginning of a new foreign policy of the USSR. M. S. Gorbachev suggested to R. Reagan to eliminate all medium-range missiles, while the Soviet Union made more concessions than the United States. Although the initiative of the Soviet leadership was not supported by the American side, this statement had a great international resonance.

In 1987, the Warsaw Pact countries worked out a new, purely defensive military doctrine, providing for the unilateral reduction of armaments to the limits of "reasonable sufficiency." Resistance to the new course in foreign policy by individual representatives of the military leadership was prevented by a purge in the army after the unhindered landing on May 28, 1987 on Red Square of the plane of a German citizen Matthias Rust. On May 30, 1987, General of the Army D.T. Yazov, who replaced S.L. Sokolov, became the new Minister of Defense.

The main ideas of the new foreign policy course were formulated by Gorbachev in his book Perestroika and New Thinking for Our Country and for the Whole World, published in 1987. According to Gorbachev, all ideological and economic differences between the world systems of socialism and capitalism must recede before the need to protect universal values. In this process, the leading countries must sacrifice their interests in favor of small countries, the common goals of peace and détente, because mutual goodwill is needed to survive in the nuclear age.

In addition to M. S. Gorbachev himself and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR E. A. Shevardnadze, A. N. Yakovlev played a major role in the development and implementation of the concept of “new thinking”, since September 1988 he held the position of chairman of the Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU on international issues. politicians.

Since 1987, the intensity of the confrontation between the US and the USSR began to decline sharply, and in the next 2-3 years, the confrontation completely disappears. However, the weakening of the confrontation was achieved largely due to the pliability of the Soviet leadership. M. S. Gorbachev and his entourage made significant concessions when concluding the Treaty on Short Intermediate-Range Missiles (signed on December 8, 1987 at a meeting between R. Reagan and M. S. Gorbachev in Washington); by their passivity contributed to the overthrow of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in the second half of 1989; in particular, did not interfere with the unification of Germany.

1989-1990

Domestic politics

In March 1989, elections were held for the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, the first elections of the highest body of power in the USSR, in which voters were given a choice between several candidates. Discussion of pre-election programs (including on TV debates) was a real breakthrough towards freedom of speech and real political struggle.

The First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR opened on May 25, 1989. On the very first day of the Congress, he elected Gorbachev Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The meetings of the congress were broadcast on television, and many citizens of the USSR followed them closely.

On the last day of the Congress, in a relative minority, radical deputies formed the Interregional Group of People's Deputies (co-chairs of the group: A. D. Sakharov, B. N. Yeltsin, Yu. N. Afanasiev, G. Kh. Popov, Anatoly Sobchak, V. Palm ). They advocated the acceleration of political and economic transformations in the USSR, for a radical reform of Soviet society, and in relation to their opponents - the deputies who voted in accordance with the line of the Central Committee of the CPSU used set phrase"aggressively obedient majority".

On December 12 - 24, 1989, the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR took place. On it, the radical minority, which after the death of the Sakharov Congress was headed by Yeltsin, demanded the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR, which stated that "the CPSU is the leading and guiding force" in the state. In turn, the conservative majority pointed to the destabilizing disintegration processes in the USSR and, consequently, to the need to strengthen the powers of the center (the Soyuz group).

In 1989, the first significant strike of miners in the USSR began in the city of Mezhdurechensk.

In February 1990, mass rallies were held in Moscow demanding the repeal of Article 6 of the USSR Constitution. Under these conditions, during the break between the II and III Congresses of People's Deputies of the USSR, Gorbachev agrees to the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, at the same time initiating the question of the need for additional powers of the executive branch. On March 15, 1990, the III Congress repealed Article 6, adopted amendments to the Constitution allowing for a multi-party system, introduced the institute of presidency in the USSR and elected M. S. Gorbachev as the President of the USSR (as an exception, the first President of the USSR was elected by the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, and not popularly) .

In March 1990, elections were held for people's deputies of the union republics (elections to the Supreme Soviets of the Baltic republics were held earlier, in February 1990) and to local Soviets of people's deputies.

With the adoption of the “law of the USSR dated 09.10.1990 No. 1708-1 on public associations”, it became possible to officially register political parties other than the CPSU, the first of which were the DPR, SDPR and RPRF registered by the Ministry of Justice of the RSFSR on March 14, 1991.

In the RSFSR, unlike the other republics, a two-stage system of legislative bodies was created, similar to the one that existed at the level of the Union - people's deputies at the Congress elected a permanent Supreme Soviet from among their number. In the elections of people's deputies of the RSFSR, supporters of radical reforms, united in the Democratic Russia bloc, achieved significant success. The number of deputies who at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR in 1990-91 voted in at least 2/3 of the cases in support of radical reforms was 44% (in some important votes - more than half), and the proportion of conservative communists was 39- 40%.

On May 14, 1990, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR opened. On May 29, after a threefold vote, he elects B. N. Yeltsin Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR (B. N. Yeltsin received 535 votes, A. V. Vlasov - 467 votes).

On June 12, 1990, with 907 votes "for" and only 13 votes "against", the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the "Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR". It proclaimed that “in order to ensure political, economic and legal guarantees of the sovereignty of the RSFSR, the following is established: full power of the RSFSR in resolving all issues of state and public life, with the exception of those that it voluntarily transfers to the jurisdiction of the USSR; the supremacy of the Constitution of the RSFSR and the Laws of the RSFSR throughout the entire territory of the RSFSR; acts of the USSR that conflict with the sovereign rights of the RSFSR shall be suspended by the Republic on its territory.” This marked the beginning of the "war of laws" between the RSFSR and the Center.

On June 12, 1990, the Law of the USSR "On the Press and Other Mass Media" was adopted. It forbade censorship and guaranteed freedom for the media.

The process of "sovereignization of Russia" leads November 1, 1990 to the adoption of the Decree on the economic sovereignty of Russia.

During the period under review, various parties were formed. Most of the parties operated on the territory of one union republic, which contributed to the strengthening of the separatism of the union republics, including the RSFSR. Most of the newly formed parties were in opposition to the CPSU.

The CPSU experienced a serious crisis during this period. The 28th Party Congress (July 1990) led to the exit of the most radical members, led by Yeltsin. The membership of the party in 1990 decreased from 20 to 15 million people, the communist parties of the Baltic States proclaimed themselves independent.

The IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR approved constitutional changes that gave Gorbachev additional powers. There was an actual resubordination to the President of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, now renamed the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR. The post of Vice-President was introduced, for which the Congress elected G. I. Yanaev. Instead of V. V. Bakatin, B. K. Pugo became the Minister of Internal Affairs, E. A. Shevardnadze was replaced as Minister of Foreign Affairs by A. A. Bessmertnykh.

Economy

In 1989, a new Government of the USSR headed by N. I. Ryzhkov was formed. It included 8 academicians and corresponding members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, about 20 doctors and candidates of sciences. The new government initially focused on the implementation of economic reforms and fundamentally different methods of management. In this regard, the structure of the Government has changed significantly and the number of sectoral ministries has significantly decreased: from 52 to 32, that is, by almost 40%.

In May 1990, N. I. Ryzhkov spoke at a meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with a report on the economic program of the Government. Ryzhkov outlined the concept of transition to a regulated market economy developed by the "Abalkin Commission". It called for price reform. This performance led to an emergency situation in Moscow trade: while Ryzhkov was speaking in the Kremlin, everything in the city was sold out: a month's supply of vegetable and butter, a three-month supply of pancake flour, cereals sold 7-8 times more than usual, instead of 100 tons of salt - 200.

A wave of rallies swept across the country demanding not to raise prices. Mikhail Gorbachev, who repeatedly promised that prices in the USSR would remain at the same level, distanced himself from the government program. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR postponed the implementation of the reform, inviting the Government to finalize its concept.

In June 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a Decree "On the Concept of Transition to a Market Economy", and in October 1990 "Main Directions for Stabilizing the National Economy and Transition to a Market Economy". The documents provided for the gradual demonopolization, decentralization and denationalization of property, the establishment of joint-stock companies and banks, and the development of private entrepreneurship.

In December 1990, the government of N. I. Ryzhkov was dismissed. The Council of Ministers of the USSR was transformed into the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR, headed by Prime Minister V. S. Pavlov. But the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers in 1991 were reduced to a two-fold increase in prices from April 2, 1991 (they, however, remained regulated), as well as to the exchange of 50- and 100-ruble banknotes for banknotes of a new type (Pavlov's Monetary Reform). The exchange was carried out for only 3 days on January 23-25, 1991 and with serious restrictions. This was explained by the fact that shadow businessmen allegedly accumulated huge sums in large banknotes.

The economy of the USSR in 1991 was going through a deep crisis, which was expressed in an 11% decline in production, a 20-30% budget deficit, and a huge external debt of 103.9 billion dollars.

Nationalism and separatism

Armenia and Azerbaijan

On May 27, 1990, an armed clash between Armenian "self-defense units" and internal troops took place, as a result of which two soldiers and 14 militants were killed.

middle Asia

The pogroms of the Meskhetian Turks in 1989 in Uzbekistan are better known as the Fergana events. In early May 1990, a pogrom of Armenians and Jews took place in the Uzbek city of Andijan.

Chronology of events

1985

May 7, 1985 Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures to overcome drunkenness and alcoholism, the eradication of home brewing."

1986

May 23, 1986 Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures to strengthen the fight against unearned income."
On November 19, 1986, the USSR Supreme Council adopted the USSR Law “On Individual Labor Activity”.

1987

May 6, 1987 The first unauthorized demonstration of a non-governmental and non-communist organization - the Memory Society in Moscow.
On June 25, 1987, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU considered the question "On the tasks of the party for a radical restructuring of economic management."
June 30, 1987 The law of the USSR "On the state enterprise (association)" was adopted.
On July 30, 1987, the “Law on the procedure for appealing to the court against unlawful actions of officials” that infringe on the rights of a citizen was adopted
August 1987 First unlimited subscription to newspapers and magazines.

1988

March 13, 1988 Article by N. Andreeva in "Soviet Russia" - "I cannot compromise my principles"
May 26, 1988 The law "On cooperation in the USSR" was adopted.
June 28 - July 1, 1988 XIX All-Union Conference of the CPSU, which adopted resolutions "On some urgent measures for the practical implementation of the reform of the political system of the country", "On the implementation of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU and the tasks of deepening perestroika", "On the democratization of Soviet society and reform of the political system”, “On the fight against bureaucracy”, “On interethnic relations”, “On Glasnost”, “On Legal Reform”.
July 28, 1988 Decrees of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces "On the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, street processions and demonstrations in the USSR" and "On the duties and rights of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs in protecting public order."
September 5, 1988 The trial of Yu. M. Churbanov and others began (September 5 - December 30).
September 30, 1988 - The largest "purge" of the Politburo since Stalin's times is held at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

1989

January 1989 The first free nomination of candidates began. dep. USSR.

1990

Spring 1990 The “Law on Property in the USSR” was adopted

Events after perestroika

International changes

Withdrawal of medium and short range missiles from Europe
Reduction nuclear weapons
The collapse of the USSR
Disintegration of the socialist camp and the Warsaw Pact (according to the Protocol on the complete termination of the Treaty on July 1, 1991)
Unification of Germany followed by the withdrawal of Soviet troops
The end of the Afghan war with the withdrawal of Soviet troops (February 15, 1989)
Restoration of diplomatic relations with Albania (July 30, 1990) and Israel (January 3, 1991)

Introduction of democratic freedoms

Freedom of speech.
Glasnost, the abolition of censorship.
Pluralism of opinions.
Freedom of movement of citizens abroad.
The introduction of pluralism of power and the abolition of the one-party system.
Permission of private enterprise and private property.
An end to the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious organizations.

National conflicts, wars and incidents

Zheltoksan
Karabakh war

Sumgayit pogrom
Khojaly massacre

Georgian-Abkhaz conflict
South Ossetian conflict
Civil War in Georgia
Civil war in Tajikistan
Chechen conflict
Transnistrian conflict
Ossetian-Ingush conflict
in Uzbekistan (conflict with the Meskhetian Turks)
in Kyrgyzstan (conflict in Fergana)

Changes in the economy and domestic life

Anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR 1985-1987.
Spread of cooperatives, and subsequently - the introduction of free enterprise
USSR miners' strikes in 1989
Monetary reform 1991 (Pavlovian reform)
Washout of goods from stores, and subsequently - hyperinflation
Reduction of the country's gold reserves by ten times
Decline in economic growth from +2.3% in 1985 to recession (decrease) to -11% in 1991
Devaluation of the national currency from 0.64 rubles per US dollar to 90 rubles per US dollar
An increase in external debt by at least three times,

Changes in the CPSU

Withdrawal of "elders" from the Politburo (09/30/1988)
Withdrawal of "elders" from the Central Committee of the CPSU (24.04.1989)

catastrophes

Since the beginning of perestroika in the USSR, natural and man-made disasters have received great public outcry, although sometimes with serious delays due to attempts by party structures to hide information:

July 10, 1985 - Aeroflot Tu-154 (Tashkent-Karshi-Orenburg-Leningrad flight), having entered a tailspin, crashed near the city of Uchkuduk (Uzbekistan). 200 people died. This is the largest air crash in terms of the number of victims that occurred on the territory of the USSR.
April 26, 1986 - Chernobyl accident - several dozen died from exposure, 200 thousand people were resettled
August 31, 1986 - shipwreck of the steamer Admiral Nakhimov 423 dead
December 7, 1988 - Spitak earthquake 25,000 dead
June 3, 1989 - Railway accident near Ufa 575 dead
April 7, 1989 - the death of the nuclear submarine "Komsomolets" 45 dead

attacks

On March 8, 1988, the Ovechkin family hijacks a Tu-154 aircraft flying Irkutsk-Kurgan-Leningrad.

Criticism

There are several versions of why the restructuring did take place. Some scholars contend that perestroika was largely a breeding ground for property grabs by the Soviet elite, or nomenklatura, who were more interested in "privatizing" the state's vast fortune in 1991 than in keeping it. Obviously, actions were carried out both on one side and on the other. Let us dwell in more detail on the second catalyst for the destruction of the Soviet state.

As one of the possible versions, they even put forward the fact that the Soviet elite actually had a minuscule compared to what the elite of the poor banana republics has, and compared to what the elite of developed countries owns. Based on this, it is argued that even in the Khrushchev era, part of the party elite set a course to change the Soviet system, with the goal of turning from managers into owners of state property. Within this theory, no free market economy no one planned to create.

Some researchers (for example, V. S. Shironin, S. G. Kara-Murza) see in the victory of perestroika primarily a product of the activities of Western intelligence services, with the help of their extensive network of “agents of influence” and external pressure, deftly using shortcomings and miscalculations in the economic and state building of the USSR for the destruction of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camp. "Agents of influence" acted according to the scenario described by V. M. Molotov back in the early 1930s: " they sought to plan individual branches of industry in such a way as to achieve the greatest disproportion between them: they reduced planning assumptions and exaggerated difficulties, invested excessively large funds in some enterprises and retarded the growth of others. Producing ineffective costs and deadening capital, ... they hoped to lead the Soviet state to financial crisis and the disruption of socialist construction a".

The Soviet way of life was formed under the influence of specific natural and historical circumstances. Based on these circumstances, the generations that created the Soviet system determined the main criterion for selection - the reduction of suffering. On this path, the Soviet system achieved successes recognized by the whole world, in the USSR the main sources of mass suffering and fears were eliminated - poverty, unemployment, homelessness, hunger, criminal, political and interethnic violence, as well as mass death in a war with a stronger enemy. For the sake of this, great sacrifices were made, but already from the 60s a stable and growing prosperity arose. An alternative criterion was the criterion of increased enjoyment. The Soviet way of life was created by the generations that survived ordeal: accelerated industrialization, war and reconstruction. Their experience determined the choice. In the course of perestroika, its ideologists convinced the politically active part of society to change their choice - to follow the path of increasing pleasure and neglecting the danger of mass suffering. We are talking about a fundamental change, which is not limited to a change in the political, state and social structure (although it is inevitably expressed in them)

Although the directly indicated choice was not formulated (more precisely, attempts to formulate it were suppressed by the leadership of the CPSU, which determined access to the rostrum), the statements related to it were very transparent. Thus, the demand for a massive transfer of funds from heavy industry to light industry acquired the character not of an economic decision, but of a principled political choice. The leading ideologist of perestroika, A.N. Yakovlev, stated: “ What is needed is a truly tectonic shift towards the production of commodities. The solution to this problem can only be paradoxical: to carry out a large-scale reorientation of the economy in favor of the consumer ... We can do this, our economy, culture, education, and the whole society have long since reached the required initial level».

The proviso that “the economy had already reached the required level a long time ago” was not checked or discussed by anyone, it was immediately discarded - it was only about a tectonic shift. Immediately, even through the planning mechanism, a sharp reduction in investment in heavy industry and energy was carried out (the Energy Program, which brought the USSR to the level of reliable energy supply, was terminated). Even more eloquent was the ideological campaign aimed at curtailing the defense industry, created in the USSR precisely on the basis of the principle of reducing suffering.

This change in the criterion of living conditions contradicted the historical memory of the Russian people and the insurmountable restrictions imposed by geographical and geopolitical reality, the availability of resources and the level of development of the country. To agree to such a change was to reject the voice of common sense. (S. G. Kara-Murza, "Manipulation of Consciousness")

In support of the above theory, the following statistics are given:

The ideologists of perestroika themselves, who are already retired, have repeatedly stated that perestroika did not have any clear ideological basis. However, some activities since at least 1987 cast doubt on this view. While on initial stage the common expression “more socialism” remained the official slogan, an implicit change in the legislative framework in the economy began, threatening to undermine the functioning of the former planned system: the actual abolition of the state monopoly on foreign economic activity(for example, Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of December 22, 1988 No. 1526 “on approval of the regulation on self-supporting foreign trade organizations ...”), revision of the approach to the relationship between state bodies and manufacturing enterprises(Law of the USSR "On the state enterprise (association)" of June 30, 1987).

Methodological approaches to the analysis of perestroika

The Marxist theory of socio-economic formations, as it was interpreted in the USSR, proceeded from the existence of a universal scheme for the development of all countries and peoples, which meant the successive replacement of each other by primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist, communist formations. Moreover, each subsequent formation was declared more advanced than the previous one. This scheme allowed that certain peoples might have bypassed or not known this or that social formation, but all of them, in one way or another, moved along a given path. But the transition from socialism to capitalism does not fit into this pattern.

The events that took place in the USSR after 1985 led to the fact that many of those who adhered to the formational approach abandoned it and turned to the search for other theoretical approaches to the historical process. Those who remained true to this orthodox Marxist approach (representatives of the communist and nationalist camps) assessed the historical changes that have taken place as "unnatural" and resort to explanations designed to prove the "artificial" nature of the collapse of socialism in the USSR. They see the cause of what happened in the intrigues of the United States, and the "agents of influence" of the United States in the USSR itself. This theory can be classified as a conspiracy theory due to its inability to recognize the real and underlying causes of events.

According to many representatives of Western Marxist thought, the method of replacing the capitalist formation with the socialist one, which was realized in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, does not correspond to the teachings of Marx and is in blatant contradiction with him. A striking example of such an interpretation is the work of the American socialist Michael Harrington. He wrote that Marx considered the transition from the capitalist formation to the socialist one as possible only when all the material and spiritual prerequisites for this mature. But the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia grossly violated this fundamental postulate of Marxism, and the result was sad: "the socialization of poverty could only establish a new form of poverty." Instead of overcoming the alienation of workers from the means of property, political power, spiritual values, the regime that triumphed in Russia imposed new forms of alienation, and therefore Harrington defined it as "anti-socialist socialism." From these assessments, it is concluded that the collapse of socialism in the USSR is a consequence of an attempt to jump over historical stages the replacement of capitalism by socialism and the post-Soviet countries must go through those stages of "ripening" to socialism, which the Bolsheviks tried to bypass. Moreover, such a prominent Marxist theorist as Karl Kautsky wrote as early as 1918 in connection with the revolution in Russia: “Strictly speaking, the ultimate goal for us is not socialism, but the destruction of every kind of exploitation and oppression, no matter whether class, gender or races... In this struggle, we make the socialist mode of production our goal because, under modern technical and economic conditions, it is the best means of achieving our goal.If it were shown to us that we are mistaken and that the emancipation of the proletariat and mankind is achieved in general and even more expediently on the basis of private ownership of the means of production, as Proudhon already thought, then we would reject socialism without abandoning our final goal. and the second is the end; they are both means to the same end.

Proponents of the theory of modernization draw attention to the fact that Soviet leaders unwittingly recognized Western civilization as the most advanced, at least in technological and economic terms and therefore the USSR tried to copy Western technological and organizational models. In the course of perestroika, it became clear that the possibilities for reforming and ensuring progressive development on a socialist basis were exhausted for the USSR, and as a result, it became necessary to borrow capitalist mechanisms, as well as the democratic structure of the state.

In works of art

In the 1990s, the well-known Russian emigrant philosopher Alexander Zinoviev wrote the book “The Catastrophe”, in which he described the process of the collapse of the centuries-old Russian state with the name of the USSR. After the publication of the book, the term "katastroyka" began to be used in the Russian media to refer to perestroika itself.

Back forward

Attention! The slide preview is for informational purposes only and may not represent the full extent of the presentation. If you are interested this work please download the full version.

Goals:

Find out the historical background and the inevitability of a radical reform of the Soviet political and economic system and consider alternative ways of its development.
Continue the formation of skills to conduct a dialogue, cooperate in groups, simulate situations.

Lesson type: a lesson in studying a new topic (the topic is studied in a 2-hour lesson)

During the classes

Organizing time.

Exploring a new topic.

Prerequisites for perestroika in the USSR, its tasks.
Reform of the political system. Changes in culture and public consciousness.
Social - economic reforms. acceleration strategy.
Foreign policy of the USSR in the years of perestroika.

Topic Dictionary:

Publicity is the availability of information for public review and discussion.

1. Prerequisites for perestroika in the USSR, its tasks.

At the March (1985) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, MS Gorbachev was elected General Secretary. He proposed a course towards the modernization of the Soviet system, which was called "perestroika".

Perestroika is a set of reforms carried out in all spheres of life by the Communist Party and the Soviet government since 1985 in order to eliminate stagnation.

Task: listening to the story, name the reasons reforms in all spheres of society.

By the mid 80s. in the socio-economic system of the USSR, “stagnation” gradually turned into a crisis situation. The Soviet economy lost its dynamism. There was a drop in the growth rate in the industry. Crisis phenomena were observed in the sphere of the consumer market and finance (including in connection with the fall in world oil prices).

In 1965-1985 the formation of the main institutions of the Soviet bureaucratic system was completed. There was a degradation of the ruling elite - the nomenklatura, which was mired in corruption and protectionism. Society faced the phenomenon of gerontocracy, when aging sick leaders were in power.

There was a crisis in social sphere. In the beginning. In the 1980s, real per capita incomes fell, and life expectancy declined. The remaining egalitarian and scarce system of distribution in the lower part of the social pyramid came into conflict with the protected system of privileges of the nomenklatura.

There were problems in interethnic relations. The Union republics demanded real rights and opportunities to independently solve economic and social problems, blaming the Russian population for the crisis,

The ongoing Cold War and the established bipolar system led by the US and the USSR resulted in an exhausting arms race. The stalemate of the Afghan war contributed to the aggravation of the international situation. All this happened against the backdrop of the increasing economic and technological backwardness of the USSR from developed countries.

So, reasons for perestroika:

A sharp drop in the rate of economic development of the USSR.
The crisis of the planned economy.
An increase in the bureaucratic apparatus of management.
Social inequality.
The crisis of interethnic relations.
Loss of the international prestige of the USSR.

Task: based on the reasons, formulate the tasks of restructuring.

Restructuring tasks:

In the field of economics - to change the economic model, to create a market economy, to eliminate the backlog from the advanced countries.
In the social sphere, to achieve a high standard of living for the entire population.
In the field of internal political - change political regime, create a democratic, civil society, the rule of law, change the concept of relations between the republics within the Union.
In the field of foreign policy - to create a new doctrine of state security, to develop new approaches to international relations.

Conclusion: in the early 80's. the crisis of the system matured in the country, all sectors of society were interested in transformations.

2. Reform of the political system
.

Directions for the implementation of restructuring

Glasnost is the availability of information for public familiarization and discussion (the term first appeared in February 1986 at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU).

Stages of restructuring:

April 1985 - January 1987
Early 1987 - Spring 1989
Spring 1989 - August 1991

The first stage of restructuring - personnel revolution (1985-86), when the rejuvenation of the composition of the party and state leaders took place, their support for perestroika.

Yeltsin, Ryzhkov, Ligachev, Shevardnadze appeared on the political arena. In connection with the emergence of a multi-party system - Zyuganov (leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), Zhirinovsky (leader of the Liberal Democratic Party), Novodvorskaya (leader of the Democratic Union), Gaidar (leader of Democratic Russia).

Second phase - reform of the political system. Decisions made on:

Democratization of the process of elections to representative bodies of power.

The course towards the creation of a socialist legal state.

Separation of powers. The establishment of a two-tier system of legislative power - the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, elected from the deputies of the congress.

Law to change the electoral system (1988) Direct representation of public organizations in the highest legislative bodies. Of the 2,250 deputies, 750 were elected from the CPSU, Komsomol, trade unions, etc.

The beginning of the formation of a multi-party system.

Elimination of the monopoly right of the CPSU to power by abolishing the 6th article of the Constitution.

Introduction of the post of President of the USSR (March 1990, III Congress of People's Deputies).

In May-June 1989, the First Congress of People's Deputies took place, at which Gorbachev was elected Chairman of the Supreme Council, B.N. Yeltsin became Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.

The Third Congress of People's Deputies in March 1990 elected MS Gorbachev President of the USSR.

By the beginning of 1991, Gorbachev's centrist policy increasingly coincided with the position of the conservatives.

Glasnost Policy Achievements

The cost of publicity

Recognition of the crisis of the system;

Striving for full awareness of the people;

Relaxing censorship

Publication of the works of emigrants of the “third wave” (Brodsky, Galich, Solzhenitsyn, Voinovich)

Rehabilitation of the repressed 20-50s.

Adoption of the Declaration on the illegality of the Stalinist policy of forced resettlement of peoples (November 1989)

Filling in the gaps in history.

Semi-freedom of speech, i.e. permission to say only what was required by the leadership;

Defense of Stalinism (N. Andreeva's letter “I can't compromise my principles”, 1988 in defense of Stalin) was published.

Glasnost contributed to the clash of ideological, social, national and other currents, which led to the aggravation of interethnic contradictions and the collapse of the USSR.

The rise of the yellow press.

3. Economic reforms. acceleration strategy.

The USSR lagged behind the leading world powers in terms of economic development, the economy plunged into a crisis. Restructuring of the economy was taking place all over the world; the transition to the information society was carried out, in our country the economy experienced stagnation.

Assignment: Independent group work of students with the text of the textbook, highlighting 3 stages of economic reform. Make notes in the form of a diagram.

1st stage of reforms

Outcome: acceleration has come to a standstill.

April (1985) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU

The course to accelerate the social-economy. development of the country

Levers:

Scientific and technical progress

Technical re-equipment of mechanical engineering

Activation of the “human factor”

The introduction of state acceptance, which led to the growth of the administrative apparatus, an increase in material costs;

Intensive operation of old equipment has led to an increase in accidents (the largest disaster was the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986)

2nd stage of reforms

1987 - 1989

Goal: transition from administrative to economic methods while maintaining

centralized management (i.e. the introduction of elements of a market economy)

June (1987) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU

The main directions for the restructuring of economic management were approved

Granting a law on independence to enterprises and transferring them to self-financing
Decrease in planned indicators

Enterprise Law (1987)

The beginning of the development of laws in the sphere of private initiative

creation of activity cooperatives”

Laws 1988

“About cooperation”
“On individual labor

legalization of the shadow economy;
reduction in production;
rationed distribution of products and essential goods;
mass strikes

Options for the transition to a market economy

3rd stage of reforms

Outcome:

Discussion of programs in the Supreme Council - autumn 1990
We synthesized both programs and issued a declaration of intent.
It provided for the transition to the market in the USSR by 1997.
The refusal of the Union republics to accept it for execution.

Conversation on:

What does the term "acceleration" mean? What are the acceleration levers? Results?
What elements of a market economy have been introduced?
What program for overcoming the crisis did Yavlinsky, Shatalin, Ryzhkov propose?
How did the collapse of economic reforms affect the fate of the Soviet state?

4. Foreign policy of the USSR during perestroika.

Teacher's word. The change in the foreign policy strategy was prepared by the arrival of a new leadership at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1985, headed by Shevardnadze E.A.

Gorbachev M.S. put forward a new philosophical and political concept, called "new political thinking". Its main provisions were:

Rejection of the idea of splitting the world into two opposing systems, i.e. abandonment of the Cold War policy;

Refusal to use force as a means of resolving international problems;

Recognition of the world as integral and indivisible;

The priority of universal human values, the recognition of generally accepted norms of morality.

New political thinking is a set of ideas and approaches that express the interests of people, regardless of their nationality and state affiliation, and ensure the survival of mankind in the nuclear space age.

The main priorities in the foreign policy of the USSR after 1985

Reducing tensions between East and West through disarmament talks with the US;
Settlement of regional conflicts;
Recognition of the existing world order and expansion of economic ties with all countries.

Directions of the foreign policy of the USSR

Normalization of East-West relations

Unblocking regional conflicts

Establishment of economic and political contacts

- meetings of US-USSR leaders:

1985 - Geneva

1986 - Reykjavik

1987 - Washington

1988 - Moscow;

Treaty on the destruction of intermediate and short-range missiles;

Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (OSNV-1) -1991.

- withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan (February

Normalization of relations with China Israel;

Refusal of the USSR to intervene in regional conflicts in Ethiopia, Angola, Nicaragua;

Withdrawal of the SA from Mongolia, Vietnam, Kampuchea.

- “Velvet revolutions” in the countries of socialism, non-intervention of the USSR;

Dissolution of the CMEA, ATS

RESULTS

End of the Cold War (1988)
The collapse of the bipolar system of international relations
USA is the only superpower
Escalation of international military conflicts

Conclusions:

During the period of perestroika, the Soviet political system was finally destroyed.
On the wave of democratization, political pluralism and a multi-party system were formed.
The socio-economic system could not exist outside the administrative-command form, so the half-hearted reforms in the field of the economy failed.
The Cold War ended, but the international positions of the USSR weakened.
Perestroika ended with the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the communist system.

Reflection:

Define the terms:

perestroika
"Personnel revolution"
Acceleration strategy
Publicity policy
Regional conflicts
Velvet revolutions

List of used literature

Artemov V.V., Lyubchenkov Yu.N. History for professions and specialties of technical, natural science, socio-economic profiles: a textbook for the beginning. and avg. prof. education: in 2 Ch., M., 2011, - Ch 2, paragraph 97.
Araslanova O.V., Pozdeev A.V. Lesson developments on the history of Russia (XX - beginning of the XXI century): Grade 9. - M., 2007, - 320 p.

Stages

Reasons for perestroika in the USSR

The beginning of change

"Publicity"

Political transformation

Foreign policy

National movements and political struggle

1990 elections

The beginning of the collapse of the USSR

Russian presidential elections

August coup

final decay

Results of Perestroika in the USSR 1985-1991

Conversation with Doctor of Economics Hegumen Philip (Simonov)

Term

1985-1989

background

Domestic politics

Nationalism and separatism

Conflict in Almaty

Azerbaijan and Armenia

the Baltic States

Economy

Foreign policy

1989-1990

Domestic politics

Economy

Nationalism and separatism

Armenia and Azerbaijan

middle Asia

Chronology of events

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

Events after perestroika

International changes

Introduction of democratic freedoms

National conflicts, wars and incidents

Changes in the economy and domestic life

Changes in the CPSU

catastrophes

attacks

Criticism

Methodological approaches to the analysis of perestroika

In works of art

1. Prerequisites for perestroika in the USSR, its tasks.

2. Reform of the political system

3. Economic reforms. acceleration strategy.

4. Foreign policy of the USSR during perestroika.

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):