L and Brezhnev stagnation or stability. Why do some consider the Brezhnev era to be stagnant, while others consider it to be flourishing? The growing role of the military sphere
The era of stagnation (period of stagnation) is a time in the development of the Soviet Union, characterized by relative stability in all spheres of life of the state, quite high level lives of citizens and the absence of serious shocks.
The period of stagnation, like any time period in the history of Russia, does not have clear boundaries, but most often historians mean the period of 20 years between L.I.’s coming to power. Brezhnev (mid-1960s) and the beginning (early 1980s). It is conventionally indicated that the period of stagnation lasted from 1964 to 1986.
The concept of the era of stagnation
The concept of “stagnation” was first used in the report of M.S. Gorbachev at the 27th Congress of the CPSU Central Committee, when he noted that stagnation was beginning to appear in the development of the Soviet Union and the lives of citizens. Since then, the term “period of stagnation” has firmly entered history as a designation for this time.
Despite the seemingly negative connotation of the term “stagnation,” it has a dual meaning. On the one hand, it marks one of the brightest periods in the development of the Soviet Union. It was during these 20 years, according to historians, that the USSR reached its greatest prosperity: new cities were built, the country achieved success in the conquest of space, in sports, cultural life and other areas, and the material well-being of citizens increased. The absence of serious political and economic upheavals during this period strengthened the stability prevailing in the country and the confidence of citizens in the future.
However, it should be noted that many scholars attribute the stability in the economy of that period to a sharp rise in oil prices, which allowed state leaders to further delay reforms without losing profits. Economic growth slowed significantly during the era of stagnation, but the sale of oil smoothed out these phenomena, so the state did not experience significant difficulties.
Thus, it turns out that the era of stagnation, on the one hand, was the most favorable period in the life of the USSR, marked by the conquest of space and high social security, but, on the other hand, this period was only the “calm before the storm”, since high prices for oil could not be preserved forever, which means that the economy, which had stalled in its development, was in for serious shocks.
Characteristics of the era of stagnation
Conservation of the political regime. During almost 20 years of Brezhnev's rule, the administrative and managerial apparatus has changed little. Tired of constant reshuffles and reorganizations, party members happily accepted Brezhnev’s slogan “Ensure stability,” which not only led to the absence of serious changes in the structure of the ruling apparatus, but actually froze it.
During the entire period, no changes were made in the party, and all positions became lifelong. As a result average age members of the structure government controlled was 60-70 years old. This situation also led to increased party control - the party now controlled the activities of many, even extremely small, government agencies.
The growing role of the military sphere. The country was in a state with the United States, so one of the main tasks was to increase its military power. During this period, weapons began to be produced in large quantities, including nuclear and missile weapons, and new combat systems were actively developed.
Industry, as in the period, largely worked for the military sphere. The role of the KGB increased again not only in domestic but also in foreign policy.
Decline of the agricultural industry and cessation of economic development. Although on the whole the country was successfully moving forward, prosperity was growing, the economy plunged into stagnation and sharply reduced the pace of its development. The USSR received its main funds from the sale of oil, most of the enterprises gradually moved to large cities, and agriculture was slowly rotting.
After the agrarian reform, many peasants actually lost their jobs, as the famous “potato trips” were introduced among students. Collective and state farms were increasingly making losses, as the work was done by students rather than professionals. Crop losses have increased in some areas by up to 30%.
A similar situation in the countryside led to the fact that citizens began to move en masse to cities, crop yields fell, and by the end of the period of stagnation, a food crisis began to brew. It was especially difficult during this period for Ukraine, Kazakhstan and other regions whose main activities were agriculture and the mining industry.
Social life. Although further development The economy was intimidating, the everyday life of citizens improved significantly, and their well-being increased. Many citizens of the USSR had the opportunity to improve their living conditions in one way or another, many became owners of good cars and other quality things.
However, along with the growth of the wealthy population, there was an increase in the number of poor people, but this has not yet reached catastrophic proportions, since food was relatively cheap. On average, the average Soviet citizen began to live much better compared to previous periods.
Results and significance of the era of stagnation
As mentioned above, the era of stagnation became only the “calm before the storm.” Although during these 20 years the country finally experienced stability and in some areas (space) rose to the top of the world rankings, the apparent stability in everything forced the leadership of the USSR to once again postpone economic reforms. The economy, which relies on the sale of oil, did not develop even by the end of the 70s. turned into a lagging behind, which resulted in extremely Negative consequences when the price of oil dropped significantly. The largely favorable years for citizens during the Brezhnev era brought with them serious upheavals during perestroika.
Brezhnev's "era of stagnation" (a term coined Mikhail Gorbachev) arose from a combination of many factors: a long “arms race” between two superpowers, the USSR and the USA; the Soviet Union's decision to participate in international trade, thereby abandoning economic isolation but ignoring the changes taking place in Western societies; the growing severity of its foreign policy, which manifested itself, for example, in sending Soviet tanks to suppress Prague Spring 1968; interventions in Afghanistan; a bureaucracy oppressing the country, made up of elderly personnel; lack of economic reforms; corruption, commodity hunger and other economic problems unresolved under Brezhnev. Social stagnation within the country was intensified by the growing need for unskilled workers, a general labor shortage, and a decline in productivity and labor discipline. In the late 1960s and 1970s, Brezhnev, albeit sporadically, with the help Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin, tried to introduce some innovations into the economy, but they were extremely limited and therefore did not give noticeable results. These innovations included economic reform of 1965, undertaken on the initiative of A. N. Kosygin. Its origins partly go back to Khrushchev. This reform was curtailed by the Central Committee, although it recognized the existence of economic problems.
Caricature of Brezhnev by Estonian-American artist E. Valtman
In 1973, the growth of the Soviet economy slowed. It began to lag behind the West due to the high level of spending on the armed forces and too little spending on light industry and consumer goods. The agriculture of the USSR could not feed the urban population, much less provide them with the increase in living standards that the government promised as the main fruit of “mature socialism.” One of the most famous critics economic policy Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev, later called the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev period “the lowest stage of socialism.” The growth rate of the USSR's gross national product in the 1970s decreased markedly compared to the rates of the 1950s and 1960s. They lagged behind the levels of Western Europe and the United States. GNP growth slowed to 1–2% per year, and in the technology sector the lag was even more obvious. Since the early 1980s, the Soviet Union was clearly in economic stagnation. IN last years Brezhnev, the CIA reported that the Soviet economy reached its peak in the 1970s, then accounting for 57% of American GDP. The development gap between the two countries was widening.
The last significant reform undertaken by the Kosygin government (and the last in the pre-perestroika era in general) was a joint resolution of the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers entitled “On improving planning and enhancing the impact of the economic mechanism on increasing production efficiency and quality of work,” also known as the 1979 reform. This The measure, unlike the 1965 reform, was aimed at expanding the influence of the central government on the economy by expanding the duties and responsibilities of ministries. But in 1980 Kosygin died, and his successor Nikolai Tikhonov had a conservative approach to economics. The “Reform of 1979” was almost never implemented.
Speech by L. I. Brezhnev on Japanese television, 1977
The Soviet Union's Eleventh Five-Year Plan reflected all these disappointing facts, calling for economic growth of only 4–5%. During the previous tenth five-year period, it was planned to increase production by 6.1%, but this goal was also not achieved. Brezhnev somehow avoided economic collapse by trading with Western Europe and the Arab world. Even some Eastern Bloc countries became economically more developed than the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era of stagnation.
IT writer Michael Lopp recently published an interesting note on his blog, touching on a very non-trivial question: is it worth abandoning any program, even if it is well made, but has not received major updates for years?
Specifically, Lopp writes about the Things task manager, which he enjoyed using for many years, but eventually abandoned in favor of another GTD system. The product is really good, it copes wonderfully with the tasks assigned to it, and it looks nice. And by and large, Lopp liked everything about Things. But anyone who has worked more or less closely with this product knows well how rare and insignificant the updates were within its main version. Lopp writes:
“Part of me was calm about the lack of change, because all I needed from the program was to add a task to the list, conveniently add it to the desired category, set the required priority, and at the right time easily find this task through a search or filter - that’s all it worked without a hitch in Things.”
“[But] How can I believe that I am using a masterpiece among task managers if the program took more than two years to get a simple and convenient synchronization function? What other innovations still fail to reach the final product? Why does graphic design remain unchanged for centuries? What does it smell like? It smells like stagnation."
The lack of dynamic development of the program was the main reason why Lopp deleted Things from his computer.
Programmer Daniel Yalkut warmly defended his colleagues from Cultured Code (the developers of Things), citing a vivid furniture metaphor as a counterargument:
“...once the chair is cut and assembled, the work on its functionality ends. Here it is, a chair, and you can sit on it. He's ready. But buyers will rightly complain about rough work until a craftsman completes the labor-intensive process of detailing, polishing and varnishing. Only then will the chair be considered well made.”
Yalkut agrees that software, like any other product, should be criticized - but only when it fails to do something important, and not at all for what it does not do general changes. Although the developer immediately admits that he himself thought about stagnation in relation to the Keynote presentation editor: the program - and now the best of its kind - was discouraging Yalkut more and more precisely because little had changed in it for years. Apple, which, as it seemed then, had given up on its office applications, was also remembered with kindly, quiet words. True, Yakut never gave up Keynote (well, don’t switch to PowerPoint!).
So the question arises: is it worth looking for a replacement for an application with an established set of tools, if the tasks assigned to this application, by and large, do not change, and the program itself copes with these tasks consistently well?
As I have already noted, the question is not trivial, since on the one hand there are the real needs of the user and the objective shortcomings of the application, and on the other hand, the desire to get something new for free, not entirely necessary, but certainly exciting. And the more professionally a person looks at his working tool, the less the second puts pressure on the first...
How important is it for you personally to regularly update your favorite programs if you have no complaints about their basic functionality? Do you consider dynamic development of the program mandatory, or can developers relax indefinitely if the toolkit satisfies the needs of the majority?
What do you think about this?
Plan
1. Ideological consequences of the removal of N.S. Khrushchev from power. Dissidents in the USSR. Political portrait of L.I. Brezhnev.
2. Successes and failures of the foreign policy of the Soviet government: aggravation of Soviet-Chinese relations, the deployment of troops to Czechoslovakia, the Peace Program, the Helsinki process, the deployment of troops to Afghanistan.
3. Economic reforms and their incompleteness. USSR in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution. Increasing difficulties and contradictions in society.
4. Adoption of the USSR Constitution in 1977. Development of culture, science, education.
Glossary
Developed socialism, “stagnation”, “shadow” economy, self-financing, scientific and technological revolution, “détente”, Soviet people, dissidence, samizdat, tamizdat.
Issues for discussion
1. What factors contributed to the growth of the USSR economy in the second half of the 60s - 70s?
2. What was the foreign policy “Brezhnev Doctrine”? Name its positive and negative features.
3. What influence did the human rights movement have on the socio-political life of the country?
4. Do you think the political and socio-economic processes that took place in the USSR in 1964 - 1984 became a period of “stagnation” or stability in the history of our country?
5. Why did the Soviet Union end up in the mid-1980s? on the verge of a deep socio-economic and socio-political crisis?
Tasks
Are common:
a) names of prominent government and socio-political figures, representatives of culture, science of the USSR and other countries from 1964 to 1984, and also prepare short biographical information about them (2-3 of your choice);
b) the main dates of the era;
2. Using a map (atlas), show and comment on the areas of industrial and agricultural specialization in the USSR.
3. Independently read and take notes from the documents from the anthology on the history of Russia (authors: A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. - M.: TK Welby, Publishing house -Prospect, 2006. – P. 519 – 527, 532 – 539); use them as examples when preparing questions and assignments.
Individual:
1. Make a table “Agriculture of the USSR in 1964 – 1984.” (indicate and explain the tasks, results and consequences of the development of the agricultural sector of the economy in 1964 - 1984).
2. Make a table “Industry of the USSR in 1964 – 1984.” (indicate and explain the objectives, results and consequences of industrial development in 1964 - 1984).
3. Make a table “Culture, science and education of the USSR in 1964 – 1984.” (indicate and explain the main achievements and contradictions in the culture and science of this period).
4. Prepare mini-reports ( short messages) on topics:
a) “Socio-economic and cultural development of the Kursk region in 1964 – 1984”;
b) “History of the signing of the SALT-1 and SALT-2 treaties”;
c) “Prague Spring 1968.”
5. State in the form of a mini-essay (essay) your reasoned opinion about whether there was a possibility of holding in 1964 - 1984. fundamental socio-economic reforms, subject to the preservation of the Soviet one-party system.
6. State in the form of a mini-essay (essay) your reasoned opinion about whether the period 1964 - 1984 was. a time of “stagnation” or progressive development of the country. In your opinion, in what cases did the stability factor play a positive and negative role in socio-economic and socio-political development? modern Russia?
7. Write texts (prepare a slide show) for correspondence tours of the virtual museum exhibitions dedicated to Soviet culture, science and education 1964 - 1984, and give their presentation.
Test:
1. The main directions of reform in industry were:
a) reducing to a minimum the number of directively planned indicators
b) maintaining strict standards for the gross volume of output
c) creation of enterprises with private capital
d) providing enterprises with a portion of income to provide financial incentives for the manufacturer
e) abolition of economic councils
f) restoration of line ministries
2. The main measures of reform in agriculture were:
a) increase in purchase prices for agricultural products
b) establishment of a guaranteed 6-year government procurement plan
c) introduction of premiums for agricultural products delivered above the plan
d) increase in capital investment
e) assumption of private property and private entrepreneurship
f) complete freedom of trade in agricultural products
3. Establish the chronological sequence of events:
a) Soviet-Chinese armed clash in the area of the border river Ussuri
b) input Soviet troops to Afghanistan
c) meeting in Helsinki on security and cooperation in Europe
d) signing of the SALT-1 Treaty between the USSR and the USA
e) entry of troops of the Warsaw Warsaw countries into Czechoslovakia
4. Match events and dates:
5. What was the name of the foreign policy of the USSR from 1972 to 1979, aimed at limiting strategic weapons and implementing new principles of relations and cooperation between countries, ______________________________.
Seminar No. 15
The destruction of the party-state management system in the USSR and the formation of a new Russian statehood:
1985 – 2010s(2 hours)
Plan
1. Soviet Union in 1985 – 1991:
a) perestroika and new political thinking. The phenomenon of M.S. Gorbachev;
b) I Congress of Soviets of People's Deputies of the USSR;
c) from economic reform to economic crisis;
d) the formation of a multi-party system and the “parade of sovereignties”: 1985 – 1991;
e) August 1991, the collapse of the USSR and the Belovezhskaya Agreement.
2. Russia on the path of radical socio-political modernization:
a) The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 and the constitutional crisis. October 1993;
b) culture in modern Russia;
c) foreign policy activities Russian government in a new geopolitical situation.
Glossary
Write down and define the following terms:
Perestroika, new political thinking, glasnost, democracy, multi-party system, sovereignty, federation, rule of law, referendum, market economy, “shock therapy”, price liberalization, privatization, default, inflation, separatism, terrorism, postmodernism, new prose, conceptualism.
Assignment: write down other terms that you came across while preparing for the seminar lesson and give their definitions.
Issues for discussion
1. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? What were the consequences of the end of the Soviet superpower?
2. Why in the early 1990s. Russian leadership began to carry out radical reforms? Do you think there was a possibility of a different development for Russia in the 1990s?
3. How can you evaluate domestic and foreign policy developments? Russian Federation in the 2000s – 2010s?
Tasks
Are common:
1. Compile and comment on a summary table on the topic being studied in the seminar session, indicating in it:
a) the names of outstanding government and socio-political figures, representatives of culture, science of the USSR - Russian Federation and other countries of the 1985 - 2010s, and also prepare short biographical information about them (2 - 3 of your choice);
b) the main dates of the era;
c) main geographical names period.
2. Using a map (atlas), show and comment:
a) “hot spots” that appeared on the territory of the USSR and Russia;
b) states (including those unrecognized by the international community) formed after the collapse of the USSR.
3. Independently read and take notes from the documents from the anthology on the history of Russia (authors: A.S. Orlov, V.A. Georgiev, N.G. Georgieva, T.A. Sivokhina. - M.: TK Welby, Publishing house -Prospect, 2006. – P. 540 – 563); use them as examples when preparing questions and assignments.
Individual:
1. Make a table “Collapse of the USSR” (indicate and explain the prerequisites, process and consequences of the collapse of the country).
2. Make a table “Liberal reforms of the early 1990s.” (indicate and explain the objectives of the reforms, their content, results and consequences).
3. Prepare mini-reports (short messages) on the following topics:
a) “History of the main political parties Russia";
b) “Chechen war”;
c) “National priority projects and their implementation.”
Uncover the historical and contemporary significance of these events.
4. State in the form of a mini-essay (essay) your reasoned opinion about why the USSR collapsed; what socio-economic and political-ideological measures would you propose to preserve the country.
5. Write texts (prepare a slide show) for correspondence tours of the virtual museum exhibitions dedicated to Soviet culture of the perestroika period and Russian culture of the 1990s - 2010s, and give their presentation.
Test:
1. The economic reform of 1987 provided for:
a) expanding the independence of enterprises
b) introduction of self-financing and self-financing
c) gradual revival of the private sector
d) abandonment of the foreign trade monopoly
e) deeper integration into the world market
f) reduction in the number of line ministries and departments
g) denationalization of property (privatization), corporatization
h) price liberalization
a) “children of Arbat” A.N. Rybakova
b) “The Journey of Amateurs” by B.Sh. Okudzhava
c) “White clothes” by V.D. Dudintseva
d) “Bison” D.A. Granina
e) “Life and Fate” by V.S. Grossman
f) “The golden cloud spent the night” by A.I. Pristavkova
g) “The Master and Margarita” by M.A. Bulgakov
h) “We” E.I. Zamyatin
3. Among the reasons for the difficulties and failures of economic reforms in the early 1990s. can be attributed:
a) violation of traditional economic ties between Russia and the former republics of the USSR and the countries of the Eastern bloc
b) dismantling the previous economic management mechanism
c) lack of gold and foreign exchange reserves
d) imbalances in economic development (dominant role of the military-industrial complex and heavy industry)
e) aggravation of the political situation due to the confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government
f) weak legislative support for reforms
g) inconsistency and half-heartedness in pursuing a solid economic course
h) the fallacy of the chosen course towards the formation of a market economy
i) lack of economic and financial support for reforms promised by the West
4. Establish the chronological sequence of events:
a) signing of the START-2 treaty between Russia and the United States
b) agreement between the Russian Federation and NATO on coordination of actions in ensuring international security
c) signing of the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1)
d) the signing of a treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles between the USSR and the USA
e) signing in Paris of the Founding Act between the leaders of NATO countries and Russia
f) Russia’s accession to the Partnership for Peace program
g) dissolution of the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs
5. Match dates and events:
6. What was it called new concept Soviet foreign policy, in which a central place was given to the priority of universal human values over class interests, _______________________.
Questions for the exam (knowledge assessment)
1. History as a science. Main periods of Russian history.
2. East Slavs: territory of settlement, occupations, beliefs.
3. Formation of Kievan Rus. Norman theory.
4. Internal and foreign policy of the Old Russian state: IX – XIII centuries.
5. Adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The flourishing of the culture of Kievan Rus.
6. Gathering of Russian lands around Moscow: XIII-XV centuries. Ivan Kalita.
7. The fight against the Tatar yoke. Battle of Kulikovo. Standing on the Ugra River.
8. Education and strengthening of a single Russian state in the XIV-XVI centuries.
9. Ivan the Terrible. Domestic and foreign policy of the state in the 60-80s of the 16th century.
10. Formation of an original national culture in the XIII-XVI centuries.
11. End of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. Dynastic crisis and time of troubles in Rus'.
12. Development of Russian national culture and the influence of the West in the 17th century. The contribution of Kursk residents to the development of national culture.
13. International policy of the first Romanovs (XVII century). Accession of Ukraine. Advancement to Siberia.
14. Domestic policy of the first Romanovs. Cathedral Code of 1649
15. Church schism, its causes and consequences. Nikon and Avvakum.
16. Peter I and his time. Objective necessity and prerequisites for transformations in the field of economics, political system, culture of Russia by the beginning of the 18th century.
17. International situation and foreign policy of Russia at the beginning of the 18th century. North War(1700-1721) and military reform.
18. Russia during the period of “palace coups”: 1725-1762. (according to V.O. Klyuchevsky’s estimates).
19. Culture and art of Russia in the 18th century: loss of identity by the Russian nobility and the development of culture on European soil.
20. The policy of “enlightened absolutism” and the people of “Catherine’s era”: illusions of European education and Russian reality (according to V.O. Klyuchevsky).
21. Alexander I and M. Speransky: public administration reforms.
22. The international position of Russia at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Patriotic War of 1812 and foreign campaigns of 1813-1815.
23. Government policy and the mood of Russian society after the victory over Napoleon; “Arakcheevism”, speech of the Decembrists.
24. Reactionary political course of the 30-50s of the 19th century. Crimean War 1853-1856
25. Agrarian reform of 1861; legal status of peasants and peasant institutions, features of the redemption operation. Manifesto and regulations of 1861
26. Alexander II and his political program. The era of glasnost.
27. Zemstvo, judicial, educational, military reform 60-70s XIX century Their destiny.
28. Modernization of the Russian economy and the development of Russian capitalism in the second half of the nineteenth century. Kursk in the second half of the nineteenth century.
29. Political crisis in Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Formation of political parties and the Manifesto of October 17, 1905.
30. Experience of Russian parliamentarism: 1906–1917. The Third State Duma and the political activities of P.A. Stolypin.
31. Russia in the First World War 1914–1918. The Soviet government and the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.
32. From February to October revolution 1917: national crisis and choice of paths for the historical development of Russia.
33. Russian culture of the “Silver Age”.
34. Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, its decrees and resolutions (1917). The fate of the Constituent Assembly.
35. Civil war and foreign intervention: causes, main stages, tragic consequences
36. Formation Soviet state: the first decrees, the policy of “war communism”, the first Soviet constitution (1918).
37. 1920s: international and domestic situation of the country after the end Civil War. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin.
38. Changes in domestic policy at the end of the 20s. Dismantling the NEP: industrialization, collectivization, cultural revolution.
39. USSR at the beginning of the Second World War. Soviet-German treaties of 1939 and the war with Finland (1939–1940)
40. Economic and political state of the USSR, spiritual life on the eve of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War. The Constitution of 1936 and political repression.
41. The beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Reasons for the retreat of the Red Army in 1941. Moscow battle.
42. A radical turning point during the Great Patriotic War (November 1942 - 1943) Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk.
43. The final period of the Great Patriotic War (1944 - May 1945). Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences.
44. Victory of the USSR over fascism in Germany and Japan: price, results and reasons for the victory. Kursk region during the war.
45. Aggravation international relations USSR and USA after the Second World War. "Cold War".
46. Difficulties in the transition of the population of the USSR to peaceful life in the post-war period 1945-1953: economic recovery, political repression, isolation of the country from world culture.
47. Political revolution in the USSR in 1953. Death of Stalin. Beria's case.
48. USSR and Eastern Europe in the second half of the 40s - 50s. Comecon. ATS. Events in Hungary and Poland after the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
49. Culture, science and art of the USSR in the 50-60s.
50. Economic reforms and attempts to democratize public life in the second half of the 50s - early 60s. N.S. Khrushchev.
51. Political portrait of L.I. Brezhnev. The contradictory nature of the economic, political and spiritual development of the USSR in the 70s - the first half of the 80s.
52. USSR in 1985–1991. The policy of “perestroika” and its consequences.
53. End of the Cold War. The international position of the USSR - Russia in the late 80s - early 90s.
54. Foreign policy The USSR in the 70s - the first half of the 80s: successes and failures.
55. Events of August 1991. Collapse of the USSR. Education CIS. Symbols of the Russian Federation.
56. Formation of the sovereign Russian Federation and its modern development(1990–2010s). Constitution of 1993
In 1964, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev became the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and, therefore, the real head of the party and the country as a whole. True, unlike Khrushchev, L. Brezhnev did not combine the post of First Secretary and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the country. The combination was considered inappropriate. But this is at the beginning. Very soon, in 1966, Brezhnev began to be called the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, as Stalin’s party post was called for 30 years. In 1976, Brezhnev took the highest official position in the state, becoming at the same time Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Soviet Union. Neither Lenin nor Stalin allowed themselves such a combination.
Comparison with Stalin in a conversation about the activities of L. Brezhnev in leadership positions is more than appropriate. If the policy pursued, although not always consistently, by N.S. Khrushchev, can be described as de-Stalinization society, the policy pursued by L. Brezhnev and his entourage can in many respects be characterized as re-Stalinization . According to some researchers, at the XXIII Congress of the Communist Party in 1966, it was supposed to declare Khrushchev’s actions to debunk Stalin’s personality cult as erroneous, i.e. it was assumed that Stalin would be officially rehabilitated at the highest party and state forum. But, having learned about the supposed rehabilitation of Stalin, representatives of the delegations of some communist parties of European countries (guests of the congress) announced that they would leave the congress in protest. Brezhnev's entourage did not dare to face the scandal. But at the same time, it was decided to rehabilitate Stalin - and, therefore, his crimes and repressions - in a “working order”, that is, without official statements. How could this be done?
Stalin's rehabilitation took several years. In history textbooks, less and less space was devoted to repressions and camps, and then they stopped writing about them altogether. An unspoken ban was introduced on the publication of literary works and the creation of films showing repression. The country's leadership allocated a huge amount of money for the creation of a multi-part film about the last years of World War II, “Liberation.” This film consumed approximately half of the country's film production costs and in all its episodes Stalin was portrayed as a wise, unerring statesman and military leader who made only reasonable decisions. This film was shown on the screens of all cinemas in our country for many years and became the main source of information about the role of Stalin in the history of our country. Around the same time, the television series “Seventeen Moments of Spring” was created, which was repeatedly shown on television at the request of the party leadership. The series ended with a fundamental episode: the wise and noble Stalin gives lessons in morality and sensible politics to Western politicians. The impact of this episode can be compared to the effect of frame 25, which acts on the subconscious in an effective way. Other films of this kind were also created, and corresponding books were written and published in mass circulation, for example, the novel by A. Chakovsky “Victory”. This process of hidden rehabilitation of Stalin ended with the official Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the birth of the former dictator. In the Resolution, Stalin was called a great political figure who had done a lot for the country. True, it was admitted that Stalin made mistakes. The mistakes probably meant mass repressions, war with peasants and the death of millions of people.
Re-Stalinization found expression in the active persecution dissidents , i.e. those people who began to express their disagreement with the communist system. But now the ruling regime has changed its policy of mass repression against people who did not criticize the system and did not intend to fight it. Other ways of dealing with dissent were developed. For example, the placement of dissidents in psychiatric hospitals is actually precisely because they thought differently from what the authorities demanded. In the context of scientific and technological progress, many people acquired radios, and at the same time the opportunity to receive information via radio about the situation in the country and the world, which criticized the communist system. These radio broadcasts, which were conducted by specially created radio stations “Liberty” and “Free Europe”, located in Germany, in Munich, allowed many citizens of our country to form an independent view of the state of things in society. Therefore, the communist regime paid a lot of attention to neutralizing these broadcasts with the help of special technical measures to jam these broadcasts on the air.
In general, throughout the 60-70s, the ruling regime felt quite confident and calm, the situation in the country was stable. If any changes occurred in the country, they were all of a quantitative nature: the number of weapons, the number of space flights, the number of tractors, cars and other goods produced, even in general demand, increased. The number of factories and the length of railways increased, but there were no visible, qualitative changes, although periodically, even at the official level, the need for qualitative reforms, better use of the achievements of scientific and technological progress, and the introduction of new forms of management and organization of production were spoken about. But in reality, no new forms took root.
A state has formed in the country planning management economy and society as a whole. According to a unified state plan, the quantity and list of all goods produced, from diesel locomotives to nails and matches, were determined. The economy was regulated in a completely centralized manner. Such a system guaranteed stability and predictability, but at the same time completely suppressed creative initiative on the ground. It made any creative changes for the better impossible - even at individual factories, factories, institutions, in certain regions of the country, in certain spheres of public life. Along with the dominance of the military-industrial complex, planned regulation determined the low quality level of consumer goods. The planned system ultimately suppressed freedom of activity, freedom of creativity, freedom of thought.
The stability of the system in the 60s was helped by favorable conditions for our country on the world market in the field of energy raw materials. In our country, especially in Western Siberia, more oil and gas began to be produced, which were sold abroad at high prices. The closure of the Suez Canal after the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 contributed to the rise in oil prices. As a result, oil revenues during this period amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. Thanks to this, our country was able to purchase some consumer goods abroad: food, clothing, etc. More advanced technical equipment was also purchased, but in most cases it was used ineffectively. According to academician Georgy Arbatov, a specialist in international relations, billions of petrodollars were spent by the ruling regime ineptly, ineffectively, and without prospects. These years of stability and favorable economic conditions led to a fairly high standard of living for many citizens of the country, especially residents of Moscow, Leningrad and the capitals of the union republics in the 70s. It was the standard of living and stability of the mid-70s that contributed to the collapse of the system as a myth about a prosperous life under the communists.
At the end of the 70s, after the opening of the Suez Canal, after the development of easily accessible oil reserves, revenues from oil sales fell, and the demands of the military-industrial complex continued to increase. After the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in December 1979, international relations deteriorated, which also negatively affected the economy. The situation in the economy began to steadily deteriorate, but its planned nature, its inertia, and its fundamental incompatibility with initiative made effective economic reforms impossible.
Stability turned into stagnation of the system. Stagnation led to the degradation of the country's economy. The most dangerous thing for the future of the country has become the ever-increasing technological gap of our country from developed economic countries. In the 70-80s, advanced economically countries have switched to computer technology in all spheres of life - from astronautics to home computers, to computers for every accountant and secretary. And in the Soviet Union they continued to use accounting accounts and outdated typewriters. The technological lag in the computer sphere also threatened to lag in the creation of new weapons. The planned communist system has failed in the age of computer technology.
Loading...
