Brezhnev vs Khrushchev. Common features of Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's economic measures

So, summing up the results of two polls in the magazine - about and.

When the survey on Khrushchev took place, I received a certain picture of preferences [ the audience of this magazine]. However, there was a question about the problem of comparison, which caused difficulties. With whom to compare something? With Stalin/Lenin? It is illogical, too different figures in scale. With Nicholas II? Even less logical - he is too far away from Khrushchev. The rest of the leaders of the Soviet era were not yet "developed" here.
And now, after a Brezhnev survey was conducted a week ago, this difficulty was removed. Khrushchev and Brezhnev are comparable figures, historically close and known to almost everyone, whether from the stories of relatives or from personal impressions (for the older part of the voters). And yes - a comparison of their perception by a respected public gave a very curious picture. Highly:-)
However, about all this - read further under the cut.

To begin with, I would like to note that the audience of the voting was very stable - within 800-900 people. It is curious that both Soviet leaders aroused somewhat less seething of passions in the magazine than Lenin (not by comments, but by voters - Lenin's poll: 1,450 people who voted). Anyway. A stable audience is also good, because then you can ensure comparability of perception.

Let's look at the overall results first.

A) Here is Nikita Sergeyevich:

B) And here is Leonid Ilyich:

Do you see how fundamentally different their pyramids of perception are? It seems that Khrushchev personifies the era of take-off, and Brezhnev - stagnation. But no, the first received a much more negative attitude. N.S. a huge train of ratings -2 and -3, and the good-natured L.I. - on the contrary, a lot of positive karma.

Average score, in general for polls:

Brezhnev +0,60
Khrushchev -0,65
Nicholas II -1,34
Lenin +0,06
Stalin +0,61

In practice, the average score is the same as that of Stalin (+0.60 versus +0.61). However, if commentators evaluated Stalin for his groundwork, global projects (nuclear shield, industrialization) and winning a total war, then Brezhnev - for a well-fed, prosperous and calm life. He had no won wars to his credit, but a generation and a half lived quietly, prosperously and well. Important: this is not about the well-being of a resident of Moscow and St. Petersburg (as is practiced in comparisons now), but about an average resident of the USSR - from Sakhalin to Lvov and Klaipeda, including medium and small cities - although the situation is more complicated with the village.

The difference in perception will be even more clearly visible if the scores for both leaders are summarized in one table. See how it turned out visually (bottom - negative, darker, top - positive, lighter):

I put Nikita Sergeyevich -1, and Leonid Ilyich +1. Why is that?

According to N.S. - because I believe the results of his activities in long term unequivocally destructive: it was he who laid an ideological mine under the USSR (XX congress), actually destroying and devaluing the authority of the USSR military victory in the eyes of the rest of the world, and introduced the economy at the end of his reign into a serious stupor (sovnarkhozes and other campaign shyness). At the same time, without denying his episodic strong steps in the tactical (propaganda exhaust from the space race) and medium-term plan (reorganization of the nuclear shield). And the quarrel with China cannot be justified at all: in fact, with it, he devalued all his temporary measures to reduce the army and laid the foundations for increasing the defense burden on the country, which his successors had to disentangle. It must be honestly admitted that Mao eventually outplayed his frantic opponent historically. And, cleanly. Alas...

According to L.I. - I agree with many commentators who pointed out that it was under him that many negative phenomena began to appear in Soviet society, which I personally would summarize in one term: ideological crisis. However, I cannot forget that I personally had a really happy, calm childhood and a constant increase in the well-being of our family with him. Apartments were also received under L.I. In addition, the atmosphere in society was also measured, calm, stable - remember at least our flimsy doors of the 1970s and the fact that we calmly left the keys to the apartments in the mailboxes. And already from the 2nd quarter of the 1st grade they went to school on their own, without the wires of their parents. For today, it is unthinkable. It was under L.I. and the very welfare state was built, which was ruthlessly destroyed by the reformers of the 1990s.
That is, the mind requires to put it -1 or 0, and the memory stubbornly puts +2. So, +1.

* * *
And a small selection of comments from polls.
The spelling has been preserved. It is clearly seen for what reasons such a different pyramid has developed, N.S. or.

Khrushchev.

el_myg
It is impossible to evaluate Khrushchev without comparison with his predecessor, and here X loses as a statesman to Stalin in everything. Under Stalin, all decisions were made very balanced, calculated, sometimes, for returns in decades (forest belts), and under X, all state planning is often was replaced by spontaneous and emotional decisions of the first person, and this person clearly did not differ in erudition, knowledge, or intelligence. You can talk a lot, but I will finish with one more consideration, it was under Khrushchev that the period when the communists were guided by Marxism-Leninism as a theory for developing practical policies ended. If Stalin read the classics, was interested in philosophy, political economy, and "understood dialectics," then the subsequent "leader" could not even pronounce the word "Marxism" properly.
()

dr_guillotin
Option "1 = Generally positive, but with serious reservations"
Until recently, he had a negative attitude towards N.S. Khrushchev. However, recently he has somewhat corrected his opinion, having familiarized himself with the policy of N.S. in the field of armaments. See note by N.S. Khrushchev to the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the further reduction of the Armed Forces of the USSR. A completely reasoned and reasonable position: in the era of thermonuclear missiles, a large land army with cannon tanks is not needed and is ruinous for the economy. And the completely prophetic statement "our ideological disputes with the capitalist world will be resolved not through war, but through economic competition." But he was removed, they did not listen, and the result (1991) is on his face. It must also be said that N.S. Khrushchev did not follow the path of L.Z. Mekhlis during the war and did not interfere in command and control.
With reservations in view of the not too sensible move with the 20th Congress.
()

alex_nik
The man who planted a bomb under the entire USSR and the socialist camp and broke his ideological backbone. How it can be positive I have no idea.
()

paredox_wczoraj
I would put him in the minus XX Party Congress with the exposure of the cult. It turned out so clumsily that later the consequences were not cleared up in the socialist camp. The foreign policy damage was too great. Of course, it was obviously necessary to move away from Stalinism, but the path that was chosen turned out to be sabotage.
()

rigort
The answer was generally negative, although Khrushchev is the author of several positive political programs.
Why?
1. The revival of "Leninist revolutionary norms." The revival (or rather, the creation - it took shape precisely in the Khrushchev years) of the cult of "commissars in dusty helmets", the exaltation of the glorious "1920s". Russophobia in culture - the destruction of historical monuments, partisanship in literature.
2. A new attack on the countryside, finally finishing off individual farms, cutting back on personal plots, a new wave of mobilization (with the help of tough economic and administrative measures) of the population for the construction of communism, which finished off the population of the Russian center. Actually, it was Khrushchev who dealt the last blow to the Russian village.
3. New wave of political repressions. Because I was engaged in this, I can say that 1957-1959 is more than ten thousand political cases, 1962 is a sharp increase in the regime of detention in political zones. Let's not forget the Novocherkassk execution.
On the positive side, I will note a good foreign policy, some social measures (introduction of pensions, housing construction)
()

urgui
- 2,
in 1955 he turned out to be the most successful professional in the field of intrigue and politicking (the country was not lucky),
then for some reason (a riddle) began to dance on the bones of Joseph Vissarionovich, as a tactician Khrushchev is obviously not bad, but not a strategist, and the fear of his comrades-in-arms was stronger than anything else,
and everything else, as in the fifth chapter of Nosov's great book "The Adventures of Dunno and His Friends", where the main character drove a car on soda ...
Although, in principle, why blame him, just like Dunno .... I think that I quite wanted the best, but what brains God gave - he used those ...
()

stolbvoy_d
In Khrushchev's times, he lived with his grandmother in the village. I have always remembered the weaning of personal livestock from the population, the plowing of public pastures for corn (these are our northern floodplain meadows!). I remembered, in connection with this, the disappearance of milk and meat. The closure of shops and schools in "unpromising" villages, the appearance of rangers with whips in the fields. In the villages he was hated and despised. Worse, in my memory, was only Yeltsin.
The score is, of course, negative. He was an exceptionally cunning man, but stupid, uneducated and incapable of self-education. It was with him that the formation of the Soviet partocracy as an independent class and the monstrous degradation of the Soviet party elite began.

P.S.
Indicative, in this respect, the fate of his son - Sergei Nikitich. He was a teacher in my department. A very decent teacher. I knew his subject well - I received early fives. Before perestroika, Sergei Nikitich was very thin and wore thick horn-rimmed glasses - this made him unlike his father. After perestroika, his physiology miraculously changed: visual defects disappeared (along with glasses) and the famous Khrushchev egg-shaped belly grew in a short time. He became surprisingly similar to his father, received American grants and went to the USA to write a book about Nikita Sergeyich and his fight against the horrors of the USSR.
()

sitr
It is not clear why no one mentioned the flourishing of culture that took place under Khrushchev. Entire trends in literature appeared (or flourished) - "lieutenants' prose", "bard song", "village people". A whole galaxy of outstanding poets appeared (I think everyone knows the names). Cinema flourished - for the first time a Soviet film received the Palme d'Or at the Cannes IFF (1958) and the Golden Lion at the Venice IFF (1962), and its own (Moscow) IFF appeared. People were able to learn more about the outside world (for example, the first article about A. Schweitzer appeared in the Soviet press in 1957). The publication of writers who died as "enemies of the people" began. So the name "thaw" for this period appeared not in vain. And this is also the reason why Khrushchev receives "pros" from users. I even dare to suggest that for many this is even more important than space, since space is far away, and this applies to everyone.
()

Brezhnev.

max_27
negative attitude
I think it was under dear Leonid Ilyich that the processes that destroyed the USSR were launched
1) Irremovability and non-rotation of the cutting top
2) Lack of progress in ideology
3) Inflating the military-industrial complex and the army
4) An extremely contradictory system of selection and selection of leading comrades, in which it became possible for such a character as Gorbachev and Co. to appear at the top
5) Growing economic problems
The list goes on
But it was during his reign that China began its rise. The experience of which remained unclaimed and unnoticed
()

legatus_minor
So: the time of Brezhnev's rule.
-The most peaceful time for the USSR, both in foreign and domestic policy.
-The time of economic growth, the growth of real incomes of the population, the growth of living standards.
-Time to move away from the tough confrontation with the West, the thesis of peaceful coexistence is accepted.
-Time to achieve strategic parity with the West.

So what's not to like here, you ask?
One, but extremely important detail. Brezhnev's time is the period when material wealth begins to become the goal and meaning of life, first of the elites, and then of the people. The consequences of this psychological change in the form of an exchange of sovereign power and great aspirations for a hundred varieties of sausage, cars without a queue and jeans in stock - were not long in coming.
()

partisan_p
on the one hand, under him, the standard of living reached a peak, according to some indicators, his period is still unsurpassed
on the other hand, being drawn into the consumption race where the USSR obviously could not compete with the West made the collapse of the system a matter of time
so the colossal pluses are roughly balanced by the colossal minus
()

iz_zaborja
I lived with him for a long time, and I remember well the hungry Russian village in the Bryansk region after Khrushchev's corn, when the only breadwinner, the cow, was not allowed to pasture, and I dragged her grass from the roadsides with a sickle and a bag.
Yes, under Brezhnev there were few in stores, but at home - everyone had a lot!

It is a pity, of course, that he did not solve the problem of shortages, imbalances in the economy, and much more, but only friendly teamwork could clear up the rubble after the maize plant.
I remember his reign as a golden age - no exaggeration! And first of all - not so much materially as spiritually - we really were brothers to each other in the vast majority.
()

grey_croco
I put +1. On the one hand, in the 1970s, a truly unique civilization in world history was born, which did not know many troubles and difficulties that were previously considered commonplace. On the other hand, many bad phenomena came from there. Was it possible to fix them? I think so. But for this it was necessary to act in a completely different way, and in general, this is a very long topic ..

Nevertheless, for my completely happy childhood, I give, albeit a modest, but plus. After all, a normal person first of all remembers good things, and fractional marks (like +0.5) are not provided in the survey :)
()

urgui
Mostly positive.
1. I remember very well his rise to power. Under HNS, it was a bit tight with food, they didn’t sell flour at all (this is Transbaikalia, if only cho), my mother used vermicelli noodles instead of flour for pancakes and pancakes, which were “thrown away” from time to time. And then in the autumn of 1964, vermicelli appeared in the Olovskoye (tin food supply) store - take it as much as you want. Mom scraped together and bought a box! plywood! vermicelli. Happiness, cho! We ate this verimshel for a long time, because then flour appeared.
2. School, institute graduated under Brezhnev. Naturally, my mother could not provide Lisapet, masasikla and other bells and whistles for the salary of a nurse. But in rags and hungry did not go. At the institute, I lived quite tolerably on a scholarship, summer earnings in practice and the usual covens. It was possible to make good money by tutoring, but somehow I was not accustomed to taking money for it. For food ... There were no fears at all, well, maybe in the first courses I was afraid of expulsion (I was more afraid of shame). But the confidence in his future was even too much!
3. Worked under his authority for six years. Here yes - there are claims: overly bloated and stupid ideological bodies and idiotic !? (I suspect specially brought to the point of absurdity) economic policy (semi-literate economists, as a rule, females, who, except as "walking adding machines", are difficult to name, muzzled). It seems to me that they crushed us with our own enthusiasm (and he was present, that's for sure!) Well, these jokes and other laughs that were composed by all sorts of scum and idlers. Regarding corruption, a person is weak and greedy, well, was it necessary to shoot them?
4. When LI passed away, we were Komsomol tourists in Cuba. The head of the group gathered us, asked us to moderate the entertainment ardor (and you probably know how Komsomol members who are over 25 can do this), put out vodka, a simple snack, and we remembered Leonid Ilyich. I did not observe any exaltation in one direction or another. Here the Cubans (many) quite sincerely (some even cried) condoled with us. Personally, it was amazing to me at the time.
5. I don’t know how things would have been under a different leader, but we must give him his due - he turned out to be a smart, prudent, unbelievable politician, almost completely outplayed the “wise men” who assigned him the role of a passing figure, put together a strong team and allowed the country to breathe easy . And against the background of those who followed, and especially the traitors Gorbachev and Yeltsin, he looks like a very worthy figure.
6. It’s a pity, of course, that he didn’t “squeeze” the internationalist ideologists, bred poorly educated economists, didn’t help Europe get rid of the American occupation at the end of the 70s
()

el_myg
Within the framework and coordinates of the system in which Leonid Ilyich had to work, he did almost the maximum possible. Unfortunately, the system did not allow him to leave in time, so the end of his "reign" was spoiled by illness and weakness.
()

-------------
This is such an instructive picture.
And from me: a big thank you to all those who take part in the surveys :-)
We will continue.

Question 01. Give a comparative analysis of L.I. Brezhnev and N.S. Khrushchev. To what extent L.I. Brezhnev met the requirements of the time?

Answer. Politics L.I. Brezhnev largely revived the approaches of the Stalin era, but not the repressions of that time. A distinctive feature of the Stalin era was also the collegiality of decisions, their approval in many instances. This made it possible to reduce tension within the party, to find compromises that suited everyone, but at the same time, many decisions got stuck in the depths of the bureaucratic apparatus. Given the absence of repressions, the highest echelon of the state and party apparatus turned out to be inviolable, its aging was outlined (the so-called “gerontocracy” was established - the power of the elderly). The advanced age of the leadership, which in its essence usually does not encourage innovation (although there are bright exceptions in history) also did not contribute to the reform of the system, although the need for reform began to mature more and more clearly over time.

Question 02. Describe the necessity and essence of the economic reforms of the 1960s, their results. What elements of these reforms have already been used in the economic policy of the Communist Party of the USSR?

Answer. The need for reforms was caused by the growing lag behind the United States in terms of economic growth, despite the party program, and most importantly, the catastrophic situation in agriculture, the need to purchase food abroad. Reform A.N. Kosygin in industry as a whole was new to the experience of the Soviet economy (but not the world one). And measures to stimulate agriculture largely repeated the second half of the 1950s, when the welfare of the peasants grew so much that the party was afraid of the emergence of new kulaks.

Question 03. What were the reasons for the stagnation in the country's economy? Were they objective?

Answer. As can be seen, in general, the problems were associated with specific unsuccessful decisions of the leadership in previous years (they stemmed from the essence of the planned economy and the dominance of the CPSU, but they could be avoided without affecting the main ideological premises) and the inability to eliminate mistakes later. The reasons are as follows:

1) the postscripts caused by the nomenklatura's feeling of their impunity became widespread;

2) the results of scientific and technological revolutions were almost not introduced into industry (which was not due to the peculiarities of the planned economy, since they were widely used in the production of weapons);

3) in the conditions of maintaining the collective farm system (which was not a prerequisite for a socialist economy, as can be seen from the example of the NEP), measures to increase the interest of the peasants in the results of their labor did not bring results and the shortage of agricultural products was not eliminated;

4) enterprises were not interested in improving the quality of their products, since there was no competition in a planned economy and there was no shortage;

5) the use of new technology, which increases labor productivity, did not lead to an increase in wages, the fund of which was determined from above, but to a decrease in existing rates, that is, it was not profitable for employees;

6) often the labor force was used inefficiently to fulfill the plan, not for its intended purpose (for example, students harvested crops instead of studying);

7) the bureaucratic apparatus was exorbitantly swollen (up to 1/7 of the able-bodied population) and demanded large expenses for its maintenance;

8) a significant part of the GDP went to military spending;

9) in general, a situation developed in the country when neither employees (who thought more about how to get the deficit, and also about what could be taken out of the enterprise), nor managers (who were encouraged from above or were not punished) were interested in the efficiency of the enterprise. for real results of work, but for reports on these results, which is not always the same).

Question 04. Describe the impact of changes in the country's information sphere on the development of ideological opposition to the authorities.

Answer. The transmission of a television signal via satellite made it possible to expand the territory of broadcasting, and television was one of the main means of propaganda. On the other hand, the broadcasting of Western radio stations was spreading, specially broadcasting in Russian for the Soviet population, which, despite attempts to “mute” them, conveyed to people, primarily in the western part of the USSR, information that was alternative to the official Soviet ideology.

Question 05. Compare the methods of dealing with dissent in the 1970s - early 1980s. and in the previous stages of the development of the Soviet state.

Answer. During the stagnation, people were sent to camps much less frequently than during Stalin's time and on charges not of espionage, but of parasitism. But new ways of fighting appeared, in particular, placement in a psychiatric hospital (a “scientific” basis was laid for the assertion that dissatisfaction with the Soviet system was one of the forms of schizophrenia, but its treatment was more like torture).

Domestic policy of N.S. Khrushchev (1953 - 1964).

After Stalin's death on March 5, 1953, new development prospects opened up for the country. could be implemented several development options:

· it was possible to follow the path of complete democratization, but there is also no leader and the society is not ready for such a serious turnaround.

· the path of partial democratization, the rejection of the most terrible features of the totalitarian regime - repression. This option was implemented during Khrushchev's reign. This decade in the history of the state was called the “Khrushchev thaw”.

After Stalin's death, the struggle for power continues among politicians from his inner circle: Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov, Beria, Mikoyan, Khrushchev. As a result, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev wins her victory. The power struggle is over several stages:

1. March–June 1953 - at this stage, the positions of Malenkov and Beria were strong. Changes began in the country:

They started talking about the dangers of the cult of personality - the name of Stalin began to be mentioned less often, they stopped publishing collected works.

The rehabilitation of the convicts begins.

Beria proposed to solve the national question in a new way - to appoint representatives of indigenous nationalities to leadership positions.

Reorganization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Many powers of the Central Committee of the party were transferred to state structures.

There is a conspiracy of high officials. On June 26, Beria was arrested in the Kremlin, and in December, by decision of a special court, he and 6 other people were shot.

2. summer 1953 – February 1955 - at this stage there is a struggle for power between Malenkov and Khrushchev. Khrushchev's positions are significantly strengthened. This was facilitated by the trial of the organizers of the Leningrad case, one of whom was Malenkov. Malenkov was removed from the post of head of government and appointed minister of power plants.

4. February 1955 - March 1958 - Khrushchev, from a position of strength, fought against the united opposition in the person of Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich. In 1957, they tried to pass a decision to abolish the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee. Khrushchev insisted on holding a plenum of the Central Committee, which did not support this decision. As a result, the anti-party group was condemned and its members were deprived of leadership positions. In March 1958, Khrushchev became the sole ruler, combining the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee and head of government in one person.

XX Congress of the CPSU.

Khrushchev's greatest merit is the rehabilitation of people who were illegally repressed during the years of the Stalinist regime.

The rehabilitation process begins immediately after Stalin's death:

The business of doctors is closed.

Rehabilitated convicts in the course of the Leningrad case.

Released the military, convicted after the war,

Individual cases of the 1930s are reviewed.

Overcoming the consequences of Stalin's personality cult began before the role of the leader was appreciated.

The 20th Party Congress was held in February 1956 of the year. Khrushchev made the keynote speech. The first part of the report gave an assessment of the international situation, talked about the need for peaceful coexistence of countries with different systems, about the possibility of avoiding wars, about the advantages of socialism. The second part was devoted to the internal problems of the country - the results of the 5th five-year plan were summed up, tasks for the 6th were set. The third part dealt with the role of the party.

25 February At the morning meeting, Khrushchev delivered a report "On the cult of personality and its consequences." The report consisted of 14 parts, it assessed the role of Stalin in many events, cited the facts of fabricated cases. The text of the report was first published in 1989.

Report value:

· For the first time, the role of Stalin in our history was openly shown.

· The rehabilitation process went faster, 90 commissions were set up to review the cases of prisoners.

· disbanded the Gulag, in the years of Khrushchev were rehabilitated about 20 million people.

The rehabilitation process was not consistent, since not all peoples were rehabilitated (the rights of the Volga Germans and Tatars were not returned), those who fabricated cases, conducted interrogations and torture were not punished, and the cases of the 1930s were not reviewed.

Socio-economic policy of Khrushchev.

Agriculture.

During the years of Khrushchev's rule in agriculture, the task was set to strengthen the country's grain balance, to solve the problem of providing its own products. Certain positive results:

1. purchase prices for agricultural products have been raised, old debts have been written off.

2 . collective farmers received pensions, passports, sick leave, the tax on personal subsidiary plots was canceled, the size of household plots was increased.

3 . the state increased spending on the social development of the village - schools, hospitals, clubs were built.

4 . it was allowed to plan on the ground what and in what volumes to sow.

5 . in 1954 2009, due to the development of virgin lands, the sown areas were expanded - the plowing of virgin and fallow lands begins in Kazakhstan and in the south of Siberia, 42 million hectares of arable land). It was a vivid example of the extensive development of agriculture. In the first years, the virgin lands gave good yields, but then the yield drops due to improper plowing of the land. It was a heroic page in the life of a whole generation.

At the same time, many issues in the development of agriculture were tried to be solved not by economic, but by administrative methods. This led to negative consequences:

1 . "corn epic", when corn crops in the country were unjustifiably increased by reducing the crops of traditional crops. Corn was planted everywhere, and not just where it gives a good harvest, in order to provide livestock feed.

2 . in 1959, MTS (machine and tractor stations) were closed. Collective farms had to buy equipment from the state within a year. This led to the fact that the collective farms again became debtors to the state, the maintenance of equipment deteriorated, and a problem arose with the personnel of tractor drivers.

3 . an unrealistic livestock program was adopted. In 1957, the goal was set in the coming years to catch up and overtake America in the production of meat, milk, butter per capita. For this, production had to be increased by 3.5 times. The plan was carried out at any cost: in many collective farms, most of the herd was sent to account for the supply of meat, cattle were bought from collective farmers and in other areas. As a result, the level of agricultural production dropped sharply, the state raised prices for meat and dairy products.

4 . there is a process of amalgamation of collective farms (1955 - 91 thousand collective farms, 1963 - 39 thousand). This led to the fact that many villages fell into the category of unpromising, young people are leaving. The specialization of farms changed unjustifiably often.

5. the experience of the socialization of livestock was planted, when the peasants sold their personal livestock to collective farms, and had the opportunity to buy products from collective farms at low prices.

As a result, an increase in agricultural production was observed only in 1953-58, and in subsequent years a crisis sets in. The state is forced to buy grain abroad.

Industry.

1. industrial management was reformed. Instead of ministries that managed individual industries nationwide, they introduced economic councils(councils of the national economy), which led all the enterprises of various industries in a certain territory. This led to a worsening of the situation.

2. there is also a division of party organizations into urban and rural ones.

3. The 6th Five-Year Plan (1956-1960) was transformed into the Seven-Year Plan. The real reason is that the plans of the 6th five-year plan were not fulfilled. This was motivated by the need for long-term planning and a change in plans in connection with the goal of building communism in the near future (1961 - a new Party Program was adopted).

4. disproportions remain between the development of heavy and light industry (ratio 75:25).

5. more than 5 thousand industrial enterprises were built.

6. new labor initiatives arise (movement for the improvement of all indicators under the slogan "More, cheaper, better!", movement for communist labor, for the title of "brigades of communist labor").

7. the petrochemical industry and metalworking are developing especially rapidly.

8. still the best scientists work for defense. In production, technical innovations are introduced slowly.

By the early 1960s, the foundations of an industrial society had been built in the USSR.

Social politics.

Significant progress was made in social policy, despite the fact that it was funded according to the residual principle:

The salaries of workers and employees were increased.

The working week has been reduced from 48 to 46 hours.

Increased pensions and lowered the retirement age.

Compulsory government loans have been abolished.

Active housing construction was carried out - 54 million people celebrated housewarming.

The country was completely radio-equipped, the first televisions appeared.

A universal compulsory 8-year education was introduced. The school was oriented along with education to give and vocational training.

Science and culture.

Changes in this area were visible:

1. there are changes in ideology associated with criticism of Stalinism.

2. ideological control over the development of culture was weakened. The intelligentsia received a certain freedom of creativity.

3. The writers Kataev, Koltsov, Babel, Vesely were rehabilitated. The decrees against the composers Prokofiev, Khachaturian, Shostakovich were cancelled. But a number of decisions were not revised.

4. new art magazines appeared - "Moscow", "Neva", "Our Contemporary", "Friendship of Peoples", "Youth".

5. Significant success was achieved by cinema - the films "The Cranes Are Flying", "The Ballad of a Soldier", "The Fate of a Man".

6. often the evaluation of works by senior leaders became official. this influenced creativity and destiny (Khrushchev's visit to the Manezh exhibition in 1957, where he criticized the Impressionists).

7. science is making significant progress:

1954 - the world's first nuclear power plant was built in Obninsk.

1957 - The first artificial Earth satellite is launched.

1957 - an intercontinental ballistic missile was created.

1957 - the first nuclear-powered icebreaker "Lenin" was launched.

1957 - a powerful elementary particle accelerator - the synchrophasotron - was launched.

Nobel Prizes were awarded to the Soviet physicists Cherenkov, Tamm, Frank, Landau, Basov, Prokhorov.

1963 - Tereshkova's flight into space.

Khrushchev's resignation.

In October 1964, at the plenum of the Central Committee, Khrushchev was removed from leadership positions. Brezhnev, Semichastny, Podgorny, Ignatov, Shelepin became participants in the conspiracy against Khrushchev. The official reason is “due to advanced age and deteriorating health.” The real one is the crisis of Khrushchev's policy.

The reasons:

Deterioration of the economic development of the country. Reforms are not working.

Dissatisfaction of the people with the policy pursued. Execution of a demonstration in Novocherkassk.

Khrushchev was no longer supported by the intelligentsia, as they expected greater freedom of speech.

Dissatisfaction with Khrushchev's policy of the party apparatus (numerous reforms, frequent turnover of personnel, no stability).

The formation of the personality cult of Khrushchev himself.

The decision referred to voluntarism(a policy that does not take into account objective laws, real conditions and opportunities) and subjectivism(exaggeration of their personal assessments, lack of objectivity). Khrushchev was retired, Brezhnev became the first secretary of the party, and Kosygin became the head of government.

Thus, the Khrushchev decade was an important period in the development of our state.

Foreign policy of N.S. Khrushchev.

She got the name of the period thaw. The Cold War saw a period of improvement in international relations. This manifests itself:

1. in 1955, on the initiative of the USSR, relations with Yugoslavia were normalized.

2. Khrushchev visited many countries of the world, and bilateral contacts are very important (USA, India, Burma, Afghanistan and others).

3. At the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, the thesis was put forward about the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, about the expansion of competition between the two social systems, the possibility of creating conditions for preventing wars in the modern era. The variety of forms of transition of different countries to socialism and the many variants of its construction were also recognized.

4. in 1953, a compromise was reached with the United States, which resulted in the end of the war in Korea.

5. in 1955, an agreement was signed with Austria, according to which foreign troops were withdrawn from its territory.

6. Khrushchev proposed to create a system of collective security in Europe, and then in Asia, as well as to begin immediate disarmament (unilateral reduction of the armed forces, a moratorium on nuclear testing - a skeptical attitude).

7. in 1956, it was possible to prevent the combined aggression of Western countries against Egypt during the Suez crisis.

8. In 1963, the Treaty on the Ban on Nuclear Tests in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain was signed in Moscow.

At the same time, there were failures in the foreign policy of the USSR:

· Deteriorating relations with China, which does not accept Stalin's criticism. Albania is in a similar position.

· in 1956 The democratic revolution in Hungary was suppressed. The troops of the Warsaw Pact countries were introduced into the country. Hungary remained among the socialist countries.

· 1961 - As a result of the political crisis, the Berlin Wall was erected.

· 1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. In 1959, a revolution won in Cuba, and Fidel Castro came to power. The United States established an economic blockade, there was a threat of a military invasion. The USSR is secretly deploying missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba. It becomes known. As a result of the negotiations between Khrushchev and US President John F. Kennedy, a compromise solution was reached - the USSR would withdraw missiles from Cuba, and the United States would guarantee that there would be no military invasion, and would liquidate several military bases in Turkey. After the resolution of the Caribbean crisis, the understanding was established that there would be no winners in a nuclear war.

Thus, foreign policy was determined by the confrontation between the two systems.

N. Khrushchev saw such a way out of the impasse in the activation of the party, the lower and higher party apparatus, in the communication of public life, in the broad involvement of the masses in socialist transformations, in the return to communist ideals, from which, in his opinion, Stalin had departed. Khrushchev held the palm in criticism of Stalinism. In June 1953, the term "personality cult" appeared in the Pravda newspaper. In July 1953, Khrushchev managed to organize the removal from office and the physical destruction of L. Beria. Already in 1953, about 4 thousand prisoners were released from the Gulag. The process of rehabilitation of the innocently convicted has begun. These events received wide publicity. I. Ehrenburg aptly named this period the "thaw".

On the crest of criticism of Stalinism, Khrushchev made an attempt to create "barriers" to new "cults". When preparing a new, third Program of the CPSU in 1961, he supported the idea of ​​the withering away of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat with its repressive functions and its development into a state of the whole people. On Khrushchev's initiative, in 1961 the Charter of the CPSU included a provision on the norms for the turnover of the party apparatus, which, however, were already canceled in 1966. After the XXII Congress of the CPSU (1961), the coffin with the body of Stalin was taken out of the Mausoleum of V. Lenin. An attempt was made to decentralize the grassroots party apparatus, etc.

However, N. Khrushchev did not want and, apparently, could not realize that the real guarantees from dictatorship lie in the deep democratic reforms of the political system of Soviet society, in the rejection of the monopoly of one party on power, in the creation of a rule of law state, in the implementation of the principle of separation of powers, in the development of constitutional costs and counterbalances to dictatorship, the formation of civil society, the denationalization and demonopolization of the economy, etc.

50s - first half of the 60s. imbued with innovations in foreign policy. Soviet society opened up to the world. Khrushchev declared that his government staked on peaceful coexistence with capitalist countries and respect for the right of peoples to choose their own path of socialist transformation. Khrushchev traveled abroad about 40 times, and twice visited the "center of world imperialism" in the United States. He could not connect the successes of Western society with the specifics of their political constitution. Nikita Sergeevich remained the defender of communism. That is why the slightest attempts to curtail socialist transformations in the Eastern European countries (Hungary, Yugoslavia) were severely suppressed.

Khrushchev's activities were distinguished by a sincere desire to boost the economy of the Soviet Union. He could not help but worry that the grain yield remained at the level of 1910-1914: there was not enough bread and other foodstuffs. Such concepts as profit, self-financing, were considered alien to socialism, anti-Marxist, therefore the prices for goods were set arbitrarily and did not cover the costs of their production. The government was looking for a way out of the economic crisis in expanding and strengthening state property, in improving the forms and methods of managing the economy.

Since 1954, the development of virgin and fallow lands began, which increased the area of ​​agricultural land by 35 million hectares and gave a 27% increase in grain. However, the plowing of additional areas did not solve the problems of mismanagement and low productivity. The virgin lands temporarily weakened the acuteness of the grain problem, but created new ones: an ecological imbalance caused by dust storms, undermining traditional economic systems for Kazakhstan, worsening national relations, etc.

The base of state farms in the countryside was strengthened. In 1950–1964 the number of state farms increased by 4 times and amounted to 20 thousand, and the number of collective farms decreased by 2.5 times. They carried out repeated reorganizations of farms (consolidation of collective farms, sale of equipment of machine and tractor stations to collective farms), there was even talk about the liquidation of personal subsidiary farms. The communization of agriculture did not produce the desired results. In 1962, the USSR purchased 12 million tons of grain from abroad. In 1970, one peasant farm in collective-farm Russia "fed" an average of 10 townspeople, while the "bourgeois small peasant farm" in Great Britain - 71, Belgium - 56, USA - 57 people.

Common sense told Khrushchev that the over-centralization of the management of the national economy served as an obstacle to economic development. But could he solve this problem without departing from the principles of the communes, without going beyond state property? He tried to abolish the branch ministries by organizing in 1958 territorial administrative bodies - economic councils. The whole country was divided into 15 economic regions headed by economic councils. As a result, the economic independence of the regions has somewhat expanded. However, the economic councils, included in the general system of a non-democratic state and centralized directive planning, soon turned into "micro-ministries" in the localities. Experience has shown that the decentralization of management within the framework of a single state property turned out to be inexpedient and only led to the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus.

In the 50s. the government initiated social programs. The Soviet people turned into consumers, albeit without a market. The average monthly salary grew, the wage gap between workers and engineers narrowed. Rural residents received passports and guaranteed cash wages. In 1954, the construction of housing using the industrial method began. In 1954–1963 more housing was built than in 1917-1953, barracks and communal apartments were a thing of the past.

At the end of the 60s. began a reform in public education. The semi-serf system of labor reserves was liquidated. The secondary school was transformed into a labor, polytechnic. A system of vocational schools was created. Workers' faculties were created in the universities.

Under Khrushchev, for the first time in the years of Soviet power, the task of developing scientific and technological progress was set. New research centers have emerged. In 1959, the construction of the Novosibirsk Academgorodok began. Television broadcasting expanded. In 1957, the Lenin nuclear icebreaker was launched. On October 4, 1957, an artificial Earth satellite was launched into orbit. In 1956, the first automatic workshop was launched at Altayselmash. In 1957, Yakutian diamond mining began. The world's largest Bratsk and Irkutsk hydroelectric power stations were built. In 1961, the world's first manned space flight by Yu. Gagarin was carried out in the USSR.

As for ideology and culture, in this area, as Khrushchev admitted, he remained a Stalinist. Liberalization in it did not go beyond the truncated publicity of individual facts. On the crest of a wave of revelations of Stalinism, it became possible to publish anti-Stalinist prose, poetry, and journalism. The mouthpiece of glasnost was the Novy Mir magazine, whose editorial board was headed by A. Tvardovsky. The magazine published A. Solzhenitsyn's story "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", E. Yevtushenko's anti-Stalinist poems "Babi Yar", "Stalin's Heirs", etc. At the same time, writers, artists and other artists who deviated from the principle of communist party membership in his works (for example, B. Pasternak, whose novel Doctor Zhivago was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1958).

After the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, the anti-Stalinist theme was abruptly curtailed. Khrushchev's one phrase - "enough about the camps" - was enough to postpone the publication of the novels by V. Grossman "Life and Fate", A. Solzhenitsyn "In the First Circle" for many decades.

In 1964 Khrushchev's political career was interrupted. At the October Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, he was removed from the post of first secretary. He was blamed for the collapse of agriculture, the weakening of the military power of the state, unreasonable transfers of personnel, subjectivism and voluntarism in politics, personal indiscretion, etc.

What is the significance of Khrushchev's liberal-communist reforms? The communist dictatorship was freed from mass repressions. There was an understanding of the inefficiency of the country's economic system in the era of the scientific and technological revolution. The communist ideology was forced out of the sphere of administration into the sphere of upbringing and education.

L. Brezhnev came to power under the slogan of strengthening stability, and this idea was supported at all levels of Soviet society. In his first keynote speeches, Brezhnev declared that the success of a business depends not so much on abstract programs as on the correct selection of people and strict control over the implementation of decisions made.

In 1966, at the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, the norms for the turnover of leading party workers were removed from the Charter of the Communist Party. The new wording written in the Charter on the renewal of the personnel corps - "as necessary" - opened the way for complete arbitrariness in personnel policy. In 1964–1980 only 10 people left the Politburo, and half of them “naturally” (Grechko, Kulakov, Mazurov, Kosygin, Masherov died). The composition of the Politburo for almost 20 years was distinguished by "enviable" constancy and consisted of leaders who were mostly familiar to Brezhnev from previous guarantee-state work.

The party apparatus strove for the inalienability of privileges. Privileges were paid not only from the party, but also from the state treasury, but neither party members nor taxpayers had the opportunity to control the state and party apparatus. The lower the standard of living became, the more intolerable the privileges looked. The explosiveness of the situation was prevented by the fact that the authorities skillfully "fed" part of the working class, the intelligentsia, put up with mismanagement, theft, theft of state property, and pursued an equalizing policy in the field of wages. In the 70s–80s. The CPSU returned to brutal party centralism, and the right of party organizations to control the administration was expanded.

The Soviets were increasingly turning into decorative organs. Party congresses performed similar functions. The logical consequence of the concentration of state power was the combination of positions and posts in one hand. Despite the condemnation of Khrushchev, Brezhnev in 1968 combined the post of head of the Soviet state with the post of general secretary of the CPSU.

In the process of stabilizing Soviet society, a special role was assigned to communist ideology. Even Khrushchev's glasnost was seen as an attack on communist principles. Any dissent was persecuted. The suppression of the "Prague Spring" of 1968, the arrests of the poet I. Brodsky, writers A. Sinyavsky, Y. Daniel, the expulsion of A. Solzhenitsyn and others destroyed the dreams of "humane socialism". Gradually, criticism of the Soviet regime acquired an anti-communist character. A movement in defense of human rights and freedoms began. V. Chelidze, I. Gabai, N. Gorbanevskaya and others stood at the origins of the human rights movement. A. Sakharov opposed political and ideological repressions.

It became more and more difficult for the regime to rely on the communist idea, it was sufficiently compromised by Stalin's socialism and Khrushchev's communism. In 1967, Brezhnev put forward the "concept of developed socialism" as a stage on the road to communism. However, after 4 years, the Secretary General concluded that "the construction of a developed socialist society in the USSR." For 10 years, the best scientific and propaganda forces of the Party have been creating a myth about developed socialism as some kind of ideal, socially harmonious society, without flaws and contradictions, capable of satisfying the diverse needs of people.

Talk about "developed socialism" in the 70s. fueled by the colossal amount of petrodollars received from the sale of oil and gas from newly discovered fields in the Tyumen North. The foreign exchange support turned out to be so significant that economic and social problems were alleviated for some time. And if in the second half of the 60s. they were looking for a way out of the economic impasse on the path of economic reform, the purpose of which was the introduction of socialist economic calculation, the introduction of economic incentives for work, then already in the early 70s. only memories of the reform remained.

However, the development of the Soviet economy in the 70s. couldn't be durable. The slightest fluctuations in the situation on the world market contributed to a reduction in the inflow of petrodollars. The Soviet people felt the first signs of a “return” to the crisis in the second half of the 1970s. Certain foodstuffs and manufactured goods, items of daily demand, periodically disappeared from state trade. The system of trade "from under the counter", "blat" was growing. The war in Afghanistan turned out to be short-sighted and criminal, in which up to 15 thousand Soviet soldiers died, 36 thousand people were injured. The war cost the taxpayer 60 million rubles. Social tension grew in the country. The “king” of the situation becomes a person close to the state distribution system (official, trade worker, oil depot employee, etc.). Consumers were forced to overpay large amounts of money to purchase shoes, cars, apartments and other goods. The deficits were growing.

At the same time, the volume of output of certain types of products decreased, labor productivity fell noticeably, and the growth rate of national income decreased: from 50% in 1966-1970. up to 3% in 1981–1985 At the same time, expensive programs of the military-industrial complex, the construction of the Baikal-Amur Mainline, space exploration, support for communist regimes abroad, etc. were implemented.

The bureaucracy grew exorbitantly: there were 13-14 Soviet people per manager. Along with the bureaucracy, embezzlement, demagoguery, and postscripts grew. In addition, the largest state monopolies - banks, the military complex, energy, raw materials, etc. - became even stronger. The experience of world civilization teaches that sooner or later they had to "raise the issue" of privatizing state property. Thus, in society and in the CPSU itself, a consciousness of the inevitability of change was ripening. After Brezhnev's death, it took two years of administrative reshuffling for supporters of new communist reforms to come to power against the backdrop of a deepening crisis.

In 1953, I. Stalin died, after which an intra-party struggle began, as a result of which a follower of I. Stalin stood up in the leadership of the CPSU Nikita Khrushchev. In 1956 on XX congress The CPSU N. Khrushchev made a report in which he sharply criticized I. Stalin, the cult of his personality, as well as the political repressions carried out during his years. Despite the fact that the report was closed, the country began the processes of de-Stalinization and even, to a certain extent, democratization. These processes are called Thaws". At the same time, the socialist system itself, the Soviet system, the foreign policy and monopoly of the CPSU were not questioned. The persecution of opponents of Soviet power did not stop either.

Under N. Khrushchev, the USSR experienced significant economic growth and made a huge breakthrough in the field of scientific and technological progress. It was during his leadership of the country that the flight of the first man took place ( Yuri Gagarin) into space (April 12, 1961), launched the first artificial Earth (1957), built the world's first nuclear power plant (1954), developed and tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (1957), built the first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" (1959), developed the first jet passenger aircraft Tu-104. Scientific campuses (science cities) began to be built throughout the country. In the field of industry, the industrialization of the country was completed, large hydroelectric power stations were built, oil production increased 5 times (primarily due to deposits in Siberia), the chemical industry is actively developing, and new metallurgical plants are being built.

In the field of agriculture, the policy of N.S. Khrushchev was remembered for the development of empty lands ( virgin lands) and an attempt at general distribution corn, which was curtailed after the departure of N.S. Khrushchev. Housing construction has also skyrocketed, and many families have been able to obtain housing in new multi-apartment buildings (the so-called Khrushchev»).

In 1964, on charges of "voluntarism" and economic miscalculations, N.S. Khrushchev was removed from the party leadership, and L Leonid Brezhnev. Under L.I. Brezhnev, despite the extensive social policy and a number of scientific and technological achievements (the first lunar rovers, the launch of satellites to Venus, the Tu-144 supersonic aircraft, the construction of the Druzhba oil pipeline and the KamAZ automobile plant, the laying of the Baikal-Amur Mainline railway), the growth rates of the USSR economy slowed down , and the progressive development of the country stopped. This period was called the "Age of Stagnation". In the 1960s, the USSR became a leading producer and exporter of oil and natural gas. It was through the export of these resources that the country's economy was supported.

The monopoly of the CPSU on power did not stop, moreover, in the new Constitution of the USSR 1977 The CPSU was consolidated as a "leading and guiding force" ( article 6). The persecution of dissidents continued dissidents(dissenters).

In 1980, Moscow hosted XXII Olympic Games to which a huge number of sports facilities were built. At the same time, the international prestige of the USSR began to weaken, especially after the entry of troops into Afghanistan in 1979.

In 1982, L. Brezhnev died, after which the party was led for a short time Yuri Andropov(1982-1984) and Konstantin Chernenko(1984-1985), which did not fundamentally change the existing system of power in the USSR.