Changes in the top leadership of the country. After the death of I.V. Stalin (March 5, 1953), a short period of "collective leadership" began. G.M. became the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Malenkov. L.P. was appointed his first deputy. Beria, who headed the Ministry of the Interior, merged with the Ministry of State Security. N.S. Khrushchev first served as secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, but in September 1953 he was elected to the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. A struggle for power developed between them. Khrushchev had the smallest chance of winning, but it was he who eventually became the leader of the country. What helped him to win the fight was that he led the party - the main element of the political system.

In June 1953. L.P. Beria was accused of "anti-Party activities" and arrested. The capture group was led by Deputy Minister of Defense G.K. Zhukov. Already in December 1953, Beria was shot. In 1955 G.M. Malenkov was removed from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers.

Summer 1957 Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich made an attempt to remove Khrushchev from the post of first secretary of the Central Committee. With the help of G.K. Zhukov, Khrushchev retained power, while Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich were accused of creating an anti-party group and removed from their posts. A few months later, Khrushchev "thanked" Zhukov by removing him from the leadership of the army. In 1958, Khrushchev also headed the Council of Ministers of the USSR, becoming the sole leader.

At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, an important provision appeared in the Party Charter, according to which no one could hold an elected position in the party for more than two consecutive terms, and the composition of the governing bodies must be updated by at least one third. If under Stalin the mass renewal of the managerial stratum took place through repressions, under Khrushchev it had to take place through elections.

At the turn of 1950-1960. The “thaw” was winding down, and the cult of personality of Khrushchev himself was growing. Ripe dissatisfaction with his policy due to the unsatisfactory results of the ongoing reforms.

Industrial management reforms. In August 1953 G.M. Malenkov came up with a program of economic reforms, the essence of which was the priority development of light and food industries (Group B) and agriculture. Plans G.M. Malenkov caused dissatisfaction with the leaders of heavy industry. There was a sharp struggle for power in the top party leadership, and this dissatisfaction with N.S. Khrushchev decided to use to weaken the position of his opponent. G.M. Malenkov was accused of a dangerous underestimation of the development of heavy industry, and he was removed.

The main focus was still on the production of means of production - the "A" group. By the beginning of the 1960s. the share of group "A" in the total volume of the national economy began to be 75%. The production of building materials, mechanical engineering, metalworking, chemistry, petrochemistry, and electric power industry developed especially rapidly.

In 1957 there was the abolition of the ministries, instead of them 105 economic councils were created. The essence of the reform was the transition from the sectoral to the territorial principle. The decentralization of industrial management significantly strengthened the economic role of the Union and Autonomous Republics, but at the same time made it difficult for all-Union ties, the coordination of enterprises located in different regions, and gave rise to a certain disunity.

The organization of economic councils gave some effect, then began to restrain production, since the petty tutelage of local leaders turned out to be worse than the petty tutelage of the branch ministries. In the early 1960s economic growth began to decline steadily.

The deteriorating economic situation prompted Khrushchev to embark on yet another major management reform. In 1962, according to the production principle, all the governing bodies were restructured from top to bottom. Party organizations, Soviets and executive committees were divided into industrial and rural ones. The division along the lines of production led to confusion, to an increase in the number of officials and a significant increase in administrative costs.

Reforms in agriculture. At the September (1953) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, important decisions were made on the economic stimulation of agriculture. Purchasing prices for agricultural products increased depending on the type by 2-6 times. Taxes were reduced from private farms of peasants. Deliveries of tractors and agricultural machinery to the countryside have increased.

In 1954 land development began. About 300 thousand volunteers and a lot of equipment were sent to Kazakhstan and Western Siberia. These resources were detached from the old arable regions of Russia. In the early years, the virgin lands gave a good harvest. However, already in the late 1950s. soil erosion began, and crops fell.

In order to solve the fodder problem, the area under corn was increased by reducing the grain crops.

In 1953-1958. the increase in agricultural output amounted to 34% compared with the previous five-year period. However, since the late 1950s, as N.S. Khrushchev in power, there has been a turn to the old administrative methods of managing agriculture. The restriction of personal subsidiary plots began.

In 1958 MTS was reorganized, instead of which repair and technical stations (RTS) appeared. Machine and tractor stations were liquidated, and their equipment had to be redeemed by collective farms at a high price and in a short time. This ruined many collective farms.

By the early 1960s. the food problem has escalated again. The government's decision to stimulate the development of animal husbandry by raising retail prices for meat and butter (1962) caused acute dissatisfaction among urban residents. Rallies and demonstrations of protest were held in a number of regions, a demonstration of workers and employees of Novocherkassk was suppressed by the troops. There were casualties.

Fearing a further increase in social tension, the party-state leadership for the first time in the history of Russia and the USSR went to the purchase of grain in the United States, which marked the beginning of the country's growing dependence on food imports. An indicator of the crisis in agriculture was the failure of the tasks of the 7-year plan (1959-1965): the actual growth of agricultural production over the years of the seven-year plan amounted to 15% instead of the planned 70%.

The science. The high level of Soviet science contributed to the emergence of nuclear energy. In 1953 the first hydrogen bomb was tested. In 1954, the first nuclear power plant was launched in the city of Obninsk near Moscow. In 1959, the first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" appeared. Then the first nuclear submarines were built. The world's first passenger jet aircraft TU-104 appeared.

In 1957, under the leadership of S.P. Korolyov, the first artificial satellite was launched, and on April 12, 1961, the first man on the planet, Yu.A., flew into space. Gagarin.

However, in general, the leadership of the USSR failed to ensure the full implementation of the scientific and technological revolution, which engulfed all the developed countries of the world, which in subsequent years led to the country's technical lag in the most promising areas.

Social sphere. In 1956, a law on state pensions was adopted. In accordance with it, the size of pensions for certain categories of citizens increased by 2 or more times. Collective farmers received a state pension only in 1964. Tuition fees in schools and universities were abolished. The scale of housing construction has increased.

Foreign policy. In his foreign policy course, N.S. Khrushchev was guided by the principle of peaceful coexistence of the capitalist and socialist systems. But it was not always respected. Breakthroughs in relations with the West gave way to crisis situations.

In 1958 The first visit of the head of the Soviet state to the United States took place. In 1963, an agreement was signed on the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests in three areas - in the atmosphere, in space, under water.

In 1961. there was a second Berlin crisis, which resulted in the division of the city into West Berlin, surrounded by the famous Berlin Wall, and East Berlin, the capital of the GDR.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which arose in connection with the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba, in close proximity to the United States, became especially acute, and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

To strengthen your position in the countries of the socialist camp, the Soviet Union used all possible levers - from financial, economic and technical assistance to forceful pressure. In 1955, a military-political union of the socialist countries of Europe (except Yugoslavia) was created - the Warsaw Pact Organization. In 1956, the Soviet Union crushed an anti-communist uprising in Hungary. In the late 1950s relations between the USSR and the largest socialist country, China, sharply worsened, caused by ideological differences and the divergence of the strategic interests of the two countries.

Much attention was paid to the development of relations with the states of the "third world" (developing countries) - India, Indonesia, Burma, Afghanistan, etc. Trying to ensure its influence in these countries, the Soviet Union assisted them in the construction of industrial facilities. During the reign of N.S. Khrushchev, with the financial and technical assistance of the USSR, about 6 thousand enterprises were built in different countries of the world.

In 1964, against Khrushchev, a conspiracy, in which A.N. Shelepin, N.V. Podgorny, L.I. Brezhnev, V.E. Semichastny and others. At the October (1964) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, N.S. Khrushchev was accused of "voluntarism" and "subjectivism", removed from all posts and retired.

Application for participation in the competition of teaching materials

"Peculiarities of Coverage of "Difficult Issues in the History of Russia" in the Process of Implementing the Historical and Cultural Standard"

1. Title of work

2. Author (full full name)Solomonova Olga Fedorovna ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.Educational organizationMKOU secondary school №7 _________________________________________________________________

4. Postal address of the institution, telephone number with district (city) codep.Vladimirovka st. Lenin №112 Turkmen region 86 565-3-65-39

5. Contact phone and e-mail

8 962 019 52 38 _ solomonova [email protected] inbox . en

Job title:

Causes, consequences and evaluation of the reforms of N.S. Khrushchev

MKOU secondary school №7

Turkmen region

P.Vladimirovka

teacher of history and social studies

Topic: Causes, consequences and evaluation of N.S. Khrushchev's reforms

Target: Create conditions for the implementation and development of independent research activities, evaluate the reforms of N.S. Khrushchev.

Tasks: the formation of skills to establish cause-and-effect relationships, independently draw conclusions, analyze historical sources. Learn how to work in a group, defend your opinion with arguments.

Lesson type: systematization of knowledge.

Forms of organization: individual, group. collective.

Planned resultsSubject: learners will be able to:

Organize the material according to the studied period

Determine the chronological framework of the "Thaw";

Evaluate the activities of N. Khrushchev,

Apply concepts.

Metasubject : learners will be able to:

Search for the necessary information in various sources;

Analyze documents;

Systematize, prove, draw conclusions

Personal: learners will be able to:

Respect the opinions of other people;

Determine your own position;

Show tolerance for different points of view.

Basic concepts: . "thaw", intensive and extensive economy, economic councils,

peaceful coexistence.

During the classes

1 Organizational stage

IIKnowledge update.

Call:“Still, history made the right choice. It was the answer to the real problems of our lives. Increasingly impoverished, but in fact a ruined village, technically lagging behind industry, an acute shortage of housing, a low standard of living of the population, millions of prisoners in prisons and camps, the isolation of the country from the outside world - all this required a new policy, radical changes. ”(F.M. .Burlatsky)

“Very little time will pass, and Manege and corn will be forgotten. And people will live in his houses for a long time. The people he freed. And no one will have evil towards him - not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow. And we realize its true meaning for all of us only after many years. There are enough villains in our history - bright and strong. Khrushchev is that rare, albeit controversial figure who personifies not only goodness, but also desperate personal courage, which it is not a sin to learn from all of us.” M. Romm

IIISetting goals and objectives for the lesson. Motivation of educational activity of students.

Lesson problem:
Once N.S. Khrushchev said: “When I die… people will put my deeds on the scales, the bad ones on one side, the good ones on the other… And the good will outweigh it.”

IVGeneralization and systematization of knowledge

Making sense The solution of economic problems remained the most important task for Soviet society. In the organization of economic development of this period, two periods are clearly distinguished, which seriously differed from each other in terms of methods, goals and final results.

1. Work with documents in groups."From the speech of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.M. Malenkov at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 8, 1953."

Task 1 group: Read the program Malenkov G.M. and highlight the main points

Task 2 group Analyze the program of Malenkov G.M. and make up two content questions .

From the report of N.S. Khrushchev “On measures for the further development of agriculture in the USSR” at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on September 3, 1953.

Task 3 group Read the program of N.S. Khrushchev and highlight the main provisions.

Task 4 groupAnalyze the program of N.S. Khrushchev and make two questions on the content.

2. Independent work. Fill in the tables.

elimination of agricultural tax arrears for previous years;

- increase in productivity;

-increase in costs for the implementation of the rise of agriculture;
- expansion of sown areas at the expense of virgin and fallow lands;
-inclusion of the factor of personal interest of collective farmers:
- reducing the norms of mandatory supplies from personal subsidiary plots;

– increase in personal subsidiary farming by 5 times;

raising state purchase prices for collective farm products;
-reduction of norms of obligatory deliveries of agricultural products to the state;
- halving the cash tax from each collective farm;

improving the culture of agriculture

– What way of development of agriculture was proposed by G.M. Malenkov?
- What way of development of agriculture did N.S. Khrushchev propose?
Who won and why?

-- Khrushchev's approach was much closer and more understandable to party cadres than Malenkov's innovations, and results could be obtained faster --

3. Student's message "Development of virgin lands" What caused the virgin lands development crisis?

4. Work according to the textbook. Industry development. Textbook: A.A. Levandovsky, Yu.A. Shchetinov History of Russia, XX-beginning of the XXI century, 11 cl. par 33

Task 1 group: What progress has been made in the industry? Justify your answer.

Task 2 group: In May 1957, and then in 1959. at the 21st Congress put forward the slogan "Catch up and overtake America"? What did he mean?

Task 3 group:Working with a document. Read and highlight the main directions in the development of industry. -From the directives for the sixth five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR for 1956-1960. XX Congress of the CPSU

Task 4 group: Was the task set in the slogan "Catch up and overtake America" ​​realistic? Justify your point of view .

5. Working with informational text using the method of active reading ("insert")
G. Malenkov (later N. Khrushchev) believed that in the nuclear age, the peaceful future of the people depends on the relations of the USSR with the West. What determined the orientation of the USSR in the post-Stalin period?

With labels V - I know, + "new knowledge", ? - "unclear", analyze the text.

Diplomacy of peaceful coexistence

The Soviet leaders, after Stalin's death, approached the complex problems of the international situation on the basis of the concept of détente; it was the first to enter the new political vocabulary. The fact that they wanted a truce with the outside world at a time when internal difficulties had sharply increased was natural, but not enough: the opponents would not have yielded. mechanism of the Cold War. The very word "detente", which they used to express this idea, is reminiscent of the operation by which the explosive mechanism is discharged. This was their first innovation in foreign policy. Stalin did not reject the Cold War. His successors tried to get out of it without giving up anything, but showing initiative, expanding international ties, resorting to more flexible diplomacy, paradoxically, less defense-oriented than Stalin's. This choice already meant a decisive revision of the methods by which Stalin fought the Cold War. However, the American side did not sympathize with the new direction. The creator of American foreign policy was John F. Dulles - an ardent opponent of detente. He proclaimed as his goal the "liberation" of countries "in which communism reigns." He tried to breathe life not only into the Atlantic Pact, but also into other military alliances in Asia and the Middle East around China and the USSR. He sought to weaken the position of the Soviet side, to force it to concede in the negotiations. If necessary, Dulles said, push them to the "brink of war." All the more important for the USSR was a policy that could prevent the threat of a frontal clash .... D. Boffa

V. Reflection

Let's return to our problem: Once N.S. Khrushchev said: “I will die… people will put my deeds on the scales, the bad ones on one side, the good ones on the other… And the good will outweigh it.”
Was N.S. Khrushchev right or not ..?

Is it democratization or de-Stalinization?

I consider-…

Because…

I can prove it with an example...

Based on this. I conclude that...

VIAnalysis and content of the results of the work, the formation of conclusions on the studied material

--Significant success was achieved in certain areas where fixed assets were directed while other areas of the national economy were constantly lagging behind ...

Quotes - F. Burlatsky, M. Romm.

Attachment 1.

V

The urgent task is to achieve in our country an abundance of food for the population and raw materials for light industry on the basis of a general upsurge in all agriculture and further organizational and economic strengthening of the collective farms.

Without increasing retail prices in trade and steadily pursuing a policy of further reducing them, the Government and the Central Committee of the Party decided already this year to increase procurement prices for meat, milk, wool, potatoes and vegetables handed over by collective farms and collective farmers to the state in the order of mandatory deliveries. ; organize large-scale state purchases of surplus grain, vegetables, potatoes, meat, milk, eggs and other agricultural products at higher prices from collective farms and collective farmers who have fulfilled the mandatory deliveries; to expand collective-farm trade on a broad scale, to assist the collective farms in organizing the sale of surplus agricultural products on the collective-farm markets and through consumer cooperatives.

Simultaneously with the increase in the material interest of the collective farmers in the development of the social economy of the collective farms, the Government and the Central Committee of the Party also decided to seriously correct and change the wrong attitude that has developed in our country towards the personal subsidiary plot of the collective farmer.

It is known that, along with the social economy, which is the main strength of the collective farm, each collective farmer, in accordance with the Rules of the agricultural artel, has a subsidiary farm to meet some of the personal needs of the collective farm family, since these needs can not yet be fully satisfied at the expense of the artel economy.

Due to the shortcomings that we have in the tax policy in relation to the personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers ... The Government and the Central Committee of the Party considered it necessary to significantly reduce the norms of mandatory deliveries from the personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers, decided, as reported by the Minister of Finance Zverev, to change the system of taxation collective farmers with an agricultural tax, reduce the money tax on average by about two times from each collective farm household, and completely remove the remaining arrears on agricultural tax of past years. Perm, vocational school, 1993.) .

Annex 2

The most urgent and most important national economic task is to achieve a steep rise in all branches of agriculture and within 2-3 years to sharply increase the provision of the entire population of the country with food products, to ensure the collective farm peasantry a high level of material well-being. ... It is important to increase the material interest of collective farms and collective farmers in the growth of productivity.

An important problem of the disasters of agriculture is the withdrawal from the village not only of all surplus, but also of part of the necessary product, which lasted for decades, with the help of a system of mandatory deliveries of products by collective farms to the state at extremely low prices, practically free of charge.

... The Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidium of the Central Committee recognized the need to raise the currently existing procurement and purchase prices for livestock products, potatoes, and vegetables. It is recognized ... to reduce the norms of mandatory supplies to the state by collective farms of livestock products and supplies of vegetables.

Increasing productivity is the main task in agriculture. We must really take up the improvement of the culture of agriculture. Along with the use of local fertilizers, it is necessary to sharply increase the production of mineral fertilizers.

A large program for the production of tractors and other machines has been outlined.

... It is necessary to strengthen the collective farms and state farms with leading and mass cadres. Only on the basis of a powerful rise in agricultural production can the tasks of improving the village and the life of the collective farmers be solved.

The Soviet state will spend additionally to carry out the rise of agriculture by

1953 over 15 billion rubles. and in 1954 - over 35 billion rubles.

… It is necessary to resolutely overcome the backlog in the production of grain forage crops. To do this, it is necessary to expand the sown area ... (Leibovich O. Russia. 1941-1991. Documents. Materials. Comments. Perm, PTU, 1993).

Annex 3

economy of the USSR for 1956-1960.XXCongress of the CPSU February 25, 1956

... The XX Congress of the CPSU notes the presence of significant shortcomings in certain areas of economic activity. The development of some branches of industry lags behind the growing needs of the national economy. The task of the five-year plan for the production of agricultural products has not been fulfilled, which has held back the development of light and food industries and the production of consumer goods.

By industry

1. Determine the growth of industrial output over the five-year period by approximately 65 per cent.

Consider the priority tasks of the Sixth Five-Year Plan in the field of industry to be the further development of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, the oil, coal and chemical industries, the provision of faster rates of construction of power plants, the rapid growth of machine building, especially the production of technically advanced machine tools, forging and pressing machines, automation equipment and instruments. To increase the production of means of production (Group A) by approximately 70 per cent over the five-year period.

To ensure the further significant development of industry producing goods for the population. Establish growth in the production of consumer goods (Group B) by about 60 per cent over the five-year period.

(Leibovich O. Russia. 1941-1991. Documents. Materials. Comments. Perm, PTU, 1993.

Appendix 4

"Catch up and overtake"

Since the possibilities of command-and-control methods of stimulating the development of the economy were weakening, the country's leadership was looking for new approaches. It was necessary to give people an inspiring idea, to show the prospects for growth. As a result, in May 1957, and then in 1959, at the XXI Congress of the CPSU, N.S. Khrushchev put forward an adventurous idea: to catch up and overtake the United States in industrial and agricultural production per capita by 1970.

His calculation was based on a simple comparison of the annual rates of industrial development of the two countries. These rates in the USSR were then much higher than the American ones. But these calculations did not take into account the fact that with the completion of industrial modernization, the rate of industrial growth will inevitably decrease.

At the end of the 50s. in the USSR, the building materials industry, mechanical engineering, metalworking, chemistry, petrochemistry, and the electric power industry developed especially rapidly. New sources of energy have been rapidly developed. The largest scientific and technological achievement was the creation of rocket and space technology.

However, in general, the industry continued to move along the usual path. The volume of production increased due to the construction of many thousands of large plants and factories, and not by increasing the efficiency of using the existing potential. At the same time, the country needed consumer goods, products of light, food, woodworking, pulp and paper industries.

A.I. Utkin History of Russia, 1945-2008

List of sources and used literature, Internet resources.

Leibovich O. Russia. 1941-1991. The documents. Materials. Comments. Perm, PTU, 1993. .

Burlatsky F. M. Leaders and advisers. - Moscow, 1990.

D.Boff Scientific and educational journal SCEPSY Diplomacy of peaceful coexistence.-website

History of the CPSU. (M., 1962, p. 626).

International relations after the Second World War, vol. 2, p. 55–56

Textbook A.I. Utkin History of Russia, 1945-2008

Textbook: A.A. Levandovsky, Yu.A. Shchetinov History of Russia, XX-beginning of the XXI century, 11 cl. par 33

Application

Malenkov G.M. From the speech of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR V session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on August 8, 1953.

N.S. Khrushchev from the report “On measures for the further development of agriculture in the USSR” at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU on September 3, 1953

From the directives for the sixth five-year plan for the development of the national

After Stalin's death, a strong leader was to be at the head of the country, capable of leading the people forward, towards an even more successful development of the communist system. Then Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, a man who took a course to reduce the cult of Stalin, actively develop agriculture and fight for leadership in the international arena, was elected General Secretary of the USSR.

This time is rightly called the thaw, especially paying attention to the specifics of Khrushchev's ongoing administrative reforms.

Debunking the cult of Stalin and administrative reforms in the field of agriculture

Once in power in 1954, Khrushchev decided to change the existing power paradigm. He did not defend Stalin's personality cult, but, on the contrary, threw all his strength into highlighting the shortcomings in the policy of the former leader.

Writers, journalists, public figures were actively rewarded if they took part in debunking the cult of Stalin. Along the way, Khrushchev fought discontent at the top of the party, removing Stalin's former allies from power. The repressions characteristic of the 1930s have not disappeared, they have simply taken on a new form. Now the repressions were carried out quietly, without advertising the mood of the country's leader.

Thus, the debunking of the cult of Stalin, the removal of his associates from leading positions and the gradual return to the ideals of Lenin's communist views became the main signs of Khrushchev's administrative policy.

By 1957, the leader of the party had moved on to full-fledged administrative reform, shifting the focus to changing the situation in the field of agriculture. So, what changes took place in the country during this period?

• The administrative decentralization of the governing bodies was carried out with a complete restructuring of the existing structure of the governing authorities.
• The Ministry of Economy was replaced by local economic councils.
• Khrushchev took care of the division of government into rural and urban.
• The sectoral principle of managing the existing economy was established.

Thus, Khrushchev managed to reduce the level of centralization of power, distributing it to places. If earlier all decisions regarding economic and administrative matters came from above, from the very heart of the party, now the Economic Councils could make a whole range of decisions locally. However, the most serious decisions remained with the leadership of the party.

With the help of his administrative reforms, Khrushchev tried to move from a rigid centralization of power to a territorial organization of economic life. In his opinion, slight indulgences in terms of organizing competent local authorities should have led to better functioning of the entire state system. However, as a result, a sharp change in the state manner of government led to a crisis and confusion in the administrative bodies.

Due to the fact that the system of local administration was complicated, the number of officials increased markedly. This led to the fact that the authority of the unified management policy was undermined, and the new, not yet debugged system began to falter.

Conclusions regarding Khrushchev's administrative reforms

At the heart of Khrushchev's reforms was a good goal - to make local power less centralized, entrusting local authorities with if not all power, then at least part of it. However, the management system invented by the head of the country was poorly thought out, which is why it failed in the future.

The complicated structure of administrative management did not allow to solve existing problems as quickly as possible. That is why the situation in the economy and agriculture became more complicated, and the number of officials increased, without bringing any benefit to the state administration system.

The emphasis on debunking the cult of Stalin and the partial removal of duties from the head of the party completely caused discontent in the country. Perhaps Khrushchev tried to introduce elements of a democratic system into the centralized Soviet system of government, but he failed.

Instilling in the localities a limited idea of ​​power, Khrushchev continued to carry out repressions and personnel purges. As a result, his desire to retain maximum powers for himself, simultaneously distributing them to local governments, led to the fact that the reforms cracked at the seams. Unsuccessful administrative measures were one of the reasons why Khrushchev was removed from his honorary position.

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

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

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

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

5. In July 1958, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Regulations on the Rights of the Factory, Factory and Local Trade Union Committee. The trade union committees were entrusted with control over the implementation by the administration of the enterprise of labor legislation and safety regulations, over the work of trade and public catering enterprises, over the correct payment of labor, etc. The dismissal of employees at the initiative of the administration could be carried out only with the consent of the trade unions.

6. In July 1956, a law on state pensions was adopted, which established uniform criteria for awarding pensions. The retirement age for men was set at 60, for women – at 55 years old. The general work experience of a citizen began to play an important role in the appointment of a labor pension. For men, it was set at 25, for women – at 20 years old. When assigning disability pensions, as a result of an industrial injury or in case of an occupational disease, age and length of service were not taken into account. The law established the minimum and maximum pension payments. For categories of low-paid workers, pension rates were increased by 2 times or more.

7. Tuition fees in schools and universities were abolished.

8. Housing construction has increased. The industrialization of construction works, the use of prefabricated reinforced concrete, panel houses with small apartments in housing construction contributed to the acceleration of its pace. At the same time, new principles for the development of residential microdistricts were developed, like the Cheryomushki microdistrict, well-known in Moscow, where residential buildings were combined with cultural institutions and institutions. - household purposes: schools, hospitals, kindergartens, shops, hairdressers, etc.

Results of N.S. Khrushchev. The housing program developed and implemented in the Soviet Union with the active participation of N.S. Khrushchev, allowed in just a few years, already in the second half of 50 - 1990s, to relocate almost a quarter of the country's population to new comfortable apartments. The famous "Khrushchev" reduced the acuteness of the housing problem. Moreover, warrants for moving into panel "Khrushchev" were issued to needy citizens of the USSR is free.And this is just one decade after the end of the devastating Great Patriotic War, which destroyed almost a third of the entire economic potential of a huge country, when almost 2 thousand cities and 70 thousand villages and villages lay in ruins.

In the era of Khrushchev's reforms, science-intensive industries such as electronics, aircraft building, astronautics, and others were rapidly developing. Under Khrushchev, the world's first artificial Earth satellite was launched (October 4, 1957) and the world's first manned space flight. Moreover, the flight of Yu.A. Gagarin into space on April 12, 1961 became a triumph not only for Soviet science and technology, but for some time for the entire country of Soviets, headed by N.S. Khrushchev, the author of many reforms of that period.

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

Some progress in public - legal reforms, economy, social sphere, N.S. Khrushchev, made at the XXII Party Congress, that "the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism", gave rise to too many illusions in society about the possibilities of the socialist economic system. The projects of the reformer were not destined to come true: the construction in two decades was materially - the technical basis of communism, which would allow the implementation of the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", was an obvious utopia of another Kremlin dreamer.

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

On the initiative of L.I. Brezhnev and his supporters on October 13, 1964, an extraordinary meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee was convened, ostensibly to discuss issues related to agriculture. N.S. Khrushchev was in the south at that time, on vacation, but he met with the French Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, he did not immediately accept Brezhnev's insistent offer to urgently arrive in Moscow. For Khrushchev and his companion A.I. Mikoyan, who arrived in Moscow, already at the airport, where they were met only by a KGB officer, it became clear that the Plenum of the Central Committee would not be about agriculture. At the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 22 people gathered, ministers of the USSR were present, several secretaries of regional committees. The discussion was stormy, sharp, frank. Khrushchev resolutely denied almost all accusations against him and himself made several accusations against the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee present. Khrushchev was defended by one A.I. Mikoyan, who stated that Khrushchev's activities – a large political capital of the party, which it has no right to squander so easily. But Mikoyan was not supported by anyone present. It was obvious that this time the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU would not be on the side of the first secretary. However, it was not possible to convince Khrushchev to resign voluntarily, and the meeting, which began on the afternoon of October 13, had to be interrupted late at night for rest. Everyone went home, agreeing to meet on the morning of October 14th. However, at night Khrushchev decided: “If they don’t want me, then so be it,” and the next day the meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee lasted no more than an hour and a half. L.I. was elected the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Brezhnev, and A.N. Kosygin. On October 14, the next Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU opened in the Kremlin, whose members had already arrived in Moscow from all over the country in advance. The meeting was opened by L.I. Brezhnev, chaired by A.I. Mikoyan. He was present at the meeting of the plenum and N.S. Khrushchev, who did not utter a word. M.S. Suslov read out a report at the Plenum, in which there was no objective analysis of Khrushchev's activities for 11 years, but there were comments mostly of a personal nature related to his voluntarism in recent times. Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU released N.S. Khrushchev from all positions held. The first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was approved L.I. Brezhnev. This plenum of the Central Committee is reminiscent of - then a palace coup of the 18th century: a conspiracy – bias – appointment of a new monarch.

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

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

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

L.I. Brezhnev at first did not have a clear program for managing the Soviet state, carrying out urgent reforms. He did not have his own team of professionals - like-minded people to implement the planned changes. But he, like an experienced apparatchik, strengthened the position of the party nomenclature, expanded its powers in managing the regions and the country as a whole. Somewhat later, a team for reforms appeared. Of course, it was based on the party elite, members and candidate members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the apparatus of the Central Committee of the party.

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

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

At the XXIII Congress of the CPSU (1966) the title "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU" was restored. Later, Brezhnev combined the main party position with the post of chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and chairman of the Defense Council.

Initially, Brezhnev showed himself as an energetic and quite competent leader, although he gravitated towards conservatism, but carried out competent leadership in the interests of the country. L.I. Brezhnev in the mid-60s. was an ardent supporter of economic reforms and supported the head of government Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin - author of reforms in industry and agriculture. However, later, by the mid-70s, disagreements began between Brezhnev and Kosygin on issues of further reforming the economy. Unfortunately, this confrontation ended in Kosygin's defeat, and Brezhnev undertook political actions that cemented the Soviet state's rejection of market reforms. Nevertheless, some results of their joint activities gave positive impulses to the socio-economic development of the country.

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

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

2. The peasants received the right to a pension.

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

4. The purchase price for agricultural products increased again, while the norms of mandatory deliveries to the "bins of the Motherland" were reduced. For their above-planned sale, an additional surcharge was introduced to the price of 50%.

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

6. The corn epic was put to an end: now they were not forcibly forced to sow the "queen of the fields" and sunflowers on lands close to the North Pole.

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

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

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

For the economic stimulation of labor and the production of goods, it was decided to leave part of the profits at the disposal of enterprises. Due to deductions from profits at plants and factories, special funds were formed: 1) material incentives; 2) development of production (self-financing) and 3) socio-cultural and domestic development (money was directed to the construction of housing, sanatoriums, houses of culture, etc.). This was a significant step towards the independence of enterprises, stimulating labor productivity.

Kosygin economic reform gave a noticeable impetus to the stalled national economy. Already in 1966, more than 700 production teams began work under the new economic conditions. In accordance with the reform, production associations began to be created with the aim of cooperating in the production of complex products. An example of such cooperation is the association of the Moscow Automobile Plant named after I.A. Likhachev with specialized enterprises in Roslavl and Mtsensk, which produced components and spare parts for cars. This helped to strengthen economic ties and eliminated duplicating production capacities.

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, relations were planted in the country personal devotion, nepotism in the selection and placement of personnel. For example, those people who had previously worked with Brezhnev in Ukraine, Moldova or Kazakhstan and were infinitely devoted to him ended up in high leadership positions, and Brezhnev's son and son-in-law were introduced to the Central Committee of the CPSU.

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

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

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

The country's leadership explained this with objective reasons: an unfavorable demographic situation and a decrease in the proportion of the able-bodied population, the depletion of the traditional raw material base and a sharp rise in the cost of mining; physical deterioration and obsolescence of equipment; a significant increase in military spending, etc. All these factors really took place and had a negative impact on the development of the economy. However, the main circumstance explaining the failure of the reforms was that the very directive model of the economy had exhausted its resources. She could have some more - that time to develop by inertia, but historically was doomed.

The existing methods of public administration could no longer provide a solution to the problems facing the economy. extensive ways of developing the national economy have exhausted themselves. Factors such as the need for direct and indirect subsidizing unprofitable enterprises and inefficient territories, exorbitant military spending and multibillion-dollar loans from the USSR to third world countries.

The situation was saved only by oil, gas and other energy resources, the reserves of which were discovered using space satellites. The export of "black gold" abroad has become a powerful source of obtaining additional currency, a magic wand for solving acute social problems. - economic problems. At the expense of petrodollars, the state began to purchase Western equipment and technologies and, on this basis, solve urgent problems.

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

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

The facts testify: by the beginning of perestroika 80 - x years. a powerful industrial potential was created in the Soviet Union. In the 18 years from 1970 to 1988, industrial production in the USSR increased 2.38 times. The developed countries of Europe over the same 18 years gave a much smaller increase in industrial production. In England it increased only 1.32 times, or almost half as much as in the Soviet Union; in Germany – at 1.33; in France – 1.48 times, that is, significantly less than in the USSR in the "period of stagnation and stagnation." Even the United States lagged behind the USSR, giving an increase in industrial production by only 1.68 times.

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

The foundation of the economy laid in the Brezhnev era, explored oil and gas reserves made it possible to survive the failure of Gorbachev's perestroika, almost a decade and a half of Yeltsin's systemic crisis and the failure of Putin-Medvedev to manage. Thus, the Brezhnev-Kosygin reforms in industry and agriculture, which gave positive results, are of great historical importance.

With all the shortcomings and vices of the political system, the sluggishness of the bureaucratic apparatus of management, the economy under L.I. Brezhnev provided a relatively high level of well-being of the population.

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

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

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

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

Pension provision generally met the needs of people who had gone on a well-deserved rest. Pensions were increased for ferrous metallurgy workers, miners, and other categories with difficult working conditions. Bonuses were introduced for continuous work experience at one enterprise, institution or organization. The pensions for the disabled and veterans of the Great Patriotic War, as well as for the families of servicemen who died at the front, were noticeably raised.

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

There were no delays in the payment of pensions, wages were not in sight. “Indeed, this was the case before, 132 rubles of the Soviet labor pension in terms of natural products, such as: bread, milk, meat, etc. – were undoubtedly more significant than today's my pension. What could you then buy by paying 16 rubles 39 kopecks for an apartment and electricity: 730 loaves of bread, 60 kg of boiled sausage, 32 kg of Swiss cheese. Today's my 3,500 rubles of pension, remaining from the payment of utility bills, – wrote a pensioner Lidia Kulikova in 2007 in the magazine "Russian Federation", – allow you to buy 290 loaves of bread, 17 kg of sausage, 23 kg of Russian cheese, that is, in all respects, three times less. Thus, the social protection of pensioners in the Brezhnev period of government was much higher than in modern Russia.

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

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

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

Under L.I. Brezhnev was built over 1.5 billion square meters. m of housing, which allowed more than 40% of Soviet people receive well-appointed apartments for free. According to official statistics, by the beginning of the 80 - x years. 20th century almost 80% of families had individual apartments, including families of citizens of Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, the Baltic republics, Central Asia and Transcaucasia. In these republics, which left the USSR in December 1991, the lion's share of the housing stock is still made up of apartments of the Brezhnev period of "stagnation and stagnation".

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

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

Recent 100 - anniversary of the birth of L.I. Brezhnev in Russia "passed under a friendly nostalgic sigh: many remembered stagnation as a" golden age ", historical happiness – bright, carefree – published in January 2007 by Komsomolskaya Pravda. Reflecting on this phenomenon, the most influential Russian newspaper in the article "The USSR is returning?" writes: “It’s a strange thing, sometimes ironically over our funny and sad past, we suddenly find in today’s life where there is everything that we dreamed of – from sausages and foreign cars to free trips abroad... – our fellow citizens suddenly began to feel nostalgic for the viscous Brezhnev "stagnation". The newspaper cites the words of Arkady Inin, which contain the answer to the question of why former Soviet citizens liked the Brezhnev era so much. “I don’t dream of anything so much as if I wake up in a“ golden stagnation ”, – famous writer said - satirist. – When there was stability, confidence in the future, security, care for people, respect for veterans, pensions that could not only live but also rest in Crimea, the absence of a cult of money, wild class inequality, villains in Courchevel, homeless people and street children on the Russian streets. And most importantly – there was respect for human dignity. These are the memories of today's Russians who lived in the Brezhnev era, which is often not quite fair called the era of "stagnation and stagnation".

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

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

All these assumptions are based on real facts. Be that as it may, at the end of the Brezhnev era there were changes that became the frontier of the development of society. The country began counter-reforms concerning many spheres of Soviet society. In politics, the concept of building communism was replaced by the concept of developed socialism. In the state apparatus, the principles of collegial leadership were replaced by one-man management. The party has forgotten the principle of rotation of personnel. In civil society, there was a growing persecution of dissenters.

At the end of 70 - X – early 80 - x years. in connection with the beginning of the fall in export prices for oil, investments in the social sphere have sharply decreased. Its financing according to the "residual principle" had a particularly hard effect on the living conditions of the rural population. The provision of villagers with medical and children's preschool institutions, consumer services and public catering enterprises lagged significantly behind the city.

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

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

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

Introduction

1 Path to power

2 Evaluation of N.S. Khrushchev

Conclusion

List of used literature

INTRODUCTION

Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev was born on April 4 (17), 1894 in the Kursk province, in the village of Kalinovka. His parents were simple peasants.

After the October Revolution, Khrushchev headed the Council of Mine and Factory Committees of the Trade Union of Metal Workers in the Mining Industry. In May 1921, he became a cadet at the Donskoy College. At the same time he studied at the working faculty. For his active and indefatigable character, courage and firmness, he was elected secretary of the party cell of the technical school. That was the first step on the path of his ascent to the political leadership of the country.

For the first time at the national level, it manifested itself in 1925, when Khrushchev was elected a delegate to the XIV Party Congress. On the recommendation of Kaganovich, in 1931 he was elected first secretary of the Bauman district committee of the party, then secretary of the Krasnopresnensky district committee, and already in 1932 - second secretary of the MK and MGK of the party. And already in 1935, Khrushchev took the post of first secretary of the MK and MGK.

This was a major appointment, since the Moscow region included the territories of the current Tula, Kaluga, Ryazan and Kalinin regions. With the death of Stalin, the period of the “pure” totalitarian regime ended in the country, and the “thaw” began. The era of Khrushchev and Nikita Sergeevich himself is an occasion for serious reflection. Today, fully armed with our own experience, we carry out certain transformations with incredible work.

How difficult and difficult was it for Khrushchev almost half a century ago? Comparing what we have done and what he has done, one is rather surprised not by the fact that he did not do something, but by how much he managed to do. Thus, the activities of Khrushchev and the assessment of his reforms are still quite relevant today.

The purpose of the work: a comprehensive study and generalization of literary sources on the topic, on their basis, the characterization and evaluation of Khrushchev's reform activities.

The work consists of an introduction, the main part, a conclusion and a list of references. The total volume of work is 20 pages.

1 THE WAY TO POWER

Khrushchev's career developed rapidly. It first appeared at the national level in 1925. Khrushchev was elected a delegate to the 14th Party Congress. At the congress, as is known, there was a sharp clash between Stalin and the "new opposition" led by Zinoviev and Kamenev. Khrushchev decisively took Stalin's side. Returning to his homeland, he spoke in a report at the plenum of the district party committee: "Our line is the line of the majority, that is, the party congress and the Central Committee."

L.M. played a significant role in Khrushchev's career. Kaganovich, who at that time was a member of the Politburo, Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee. It was he who took the initiative in Khrushchev's first major appointments. With his light hand, Nikita Sergeevich's great career began. Kaganovich showed the 36-year-old functionary to Stalin. The "Leader of the Peoples" smitten Khrushchev with his charm and intelligence, and he became the most faithful, devoted and diligent communist of Stalin's rule.

Khrushchev never completed his studies at the Industrial Academy, and on the recommendation of Kaganovich, in 1931 he was elected first secretary of the Bauman district party committee. Only a few months passed, and Khrushchev became secretary of the Krasnopresnensky district committee, and already in 1932 he was elected second secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee. At the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b), 39-year-old Khrushchev becomes a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). Soon he was elected first secretary of the city committee and second secretary of the Moscow regional party committee. And in 1935, barely forty years old, Khrushchev took the post of first secretary of the Moscow Committee and the Moscow City Committee. This was a major appointment, since the Moscow region included the territories of the current Tula, Kaluga, Ryazan and Kalinin regions.

In September 1953 he became the first secretary of the Central Committee, initiating a new process in the life of Soviet society, called by the writer I.G. Ehrenburg "thaw". In 1956, at a closed meeting of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev delivered a report "On the cult of personality and its consequences." Khrushchev understood the urgent need for economic and social reforms and strove for this to be as complete as possible.

2 EVALUATION OF N.S.Khrushchev

The theme of the Khrushchev reforms is one of the most popular in journalism and historical research in recent years. This popularity is not accidental. The very nature of the time, known for high-profile undertakings and equally deafening failures, the colorful personality of the protagonist of the era, which gives rise to the most controversial judgments, and finally, very close analogies with modernity - all this feeds scientific and public interest in the problems of the "great decade".

Khrushchev's time is one of the most significant and difficult periods in our history. Significant - because many great events took place during that period: this is an amnesty for prisoners in the Gulag, and a large number of other reforms; at that time, a man was first sent into space, and under Khrushchev, the world was brought to the brink of nuclear war. Not easy - because it concerns the decade, which at first was called "glorious", and then condemned as a time of "voluntarism" and "subjectivism". For a long, very long time it was not customary to talk about these turbulent years. For almost 20 years, there was a taboo on his name.

One can, of course, treat Khrushchev, his projects and ideas differently, evaluate the experience of social modernization accumulated at that time in different ways. However, with all the "pluses" and "minuses", the 50s - early 60s are interesting for contemporaries already because it was then that the elements of a new political culture, the culture of reformism, began to take shape. This process remained unfinished. What is best evidenced by the realities of today. The last circumstance is another reason to return to the experience of forty years ago.

N.S. Khrushchev, having become secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, got the opportunity to really influence the situation through the party apparatus. On his own initiative, he set the task of exposing the "cult of personality" and creating strong guarantees against its repetition. Khrushchev saw his mission as the leader of the country in giving peace and prosperity to the Soviet people.

The decision to move away from ideological dogmas and totalitarianism created an opportunity to do something for the common man.

Khrushchev's merit is that he was able to turn this possibility into reality.

The cessation of mass repression freed a person from every minute fear for his life. The person felt that he had some rights and some guarantees of these rights. For the first time during the years of Soviet power, the inhabitants of the village received passports and the right, while remaining serfs of the state, to get rid of their dependence on a particular collective farm. The worker received a real right to quit, as the eviction from the departmental square was canceled. The rehabilitation of entire nations has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to start a new life. And the rehabilitation of the victims of repression freed from double morality all those who hid the fate of their grandfather, father, brother, sister. The principle of material interest made it possible to connect one's life with one's own efforts, to determine one's own destiny. The value was not standard, but individuality.

The right to individual tastes was legalized, to« I» different from« we» .

Khrushchev combined the traits of an apparatchik leader with those of a sincere populist. He himself once admitted that Stalin called him a populist. And Stalin cannot refuse the ability to evaluate personnel. Of all Stalin's entourage, Khrushchev knew real life to the greatest extent, was close to the masses. And more importantly, he was inspired by the idea to benefit the people. He sincerely believed that the apparatus of state socialism had no other goals than concern for the welfare of the working people.

One of the key points of the new economic program was the solution of the food problem, and at the same time the solution of the question of bringing agriculture out of a protracted crisis. “If you call the most tragic times for the Soviet countryside - due to hopelessness and already complete abuse of all human feelings,” writes A. Adamovich, “these, in my opinion, are post-war, somewhere from 1946 to 1953.” Having exhausted the last reserves of enthusiasm, the village could rise only with the help of a full-fledged material incentive.

In 1959, at the 25th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev came up with his most adventurous idea: to overtake and overtake the United States both in increasing industrial production and agricultural production per capita by 1970.

Perhaps the most acute among the problems that confronted him was the problem Agriculture. His position was such that in 1953 part of the food stocks from the strategic reserve had to be used. N.S. Khrushchev was the first among the leaders of the country to tell the truth about the plight of the Russian countryside. But his first attempts, even during Stalin's lifetime, to somewhat smooth out the anti-peasant orientation of agrarian policy were not crowned with success.

In September 1953, Khrushchev made a series of proposals for the development of agriculture that were important for that time at the Plenum of the Central Committee. An attempt was made to move from administrative to economic methods of farming in the countryside: if the country needed food, then the peasants had to be paid. The set of planned measures was aimed at solving two interrelated tasks: expanding the independence of collective farms and state farms and strengthening their economic interest. Purchasing prices for agricultural products were increased, advances were introduced for the labor of collective farmers (before that, payment was made to them only once a year). The development of private subsidiary plots by peasants began to be somewhat encouraged.

However, all these solutions could give a return only a few years later, and it was necessary to correct the grain economy immediately. In this regard, at the beginning of 1954, a decision was made on the mass development of virgin and fallow lands. The development of virgin lands was carried out by storm, without serious scientific study. It was mainly factory and factory youth from large industrial centers who went to the virgin lands on Komsomol vouchers, often not knowing how to approach the tractor. In winter, in severe frosts, with an icy wind, tents, wagons, temporary huts were set up in the steppe, equipment and fuel were brought in, and the development of endless fields untouched by the plow began.

Everything they had was sent to the virgin lands. All caterpillar tractors were sent only to Kazakhstan and Siberia. By 1965, the collective farms and state farms of Northern Kazakhstan had almost three times more tractors than in all the northwestern regions of the RSFSR, including the Karelian ASSR. For 1954-1961 more than 20% of all state investments in agriculture over these years have been invested in the development of virgin lands. It made it possible to create a large base for the production of strong and durum wheat varieties, which are essential in baking.

The development of virgin lands played an important role in the development of agriculture in Western and Eastern Siberia, where the sown area increased by almost 10 million hectares in the 1950s. For the first time, new agrotechnical and soil protection systems were mastered in the virgin lands, such as the use of flat cutters to combat wind erosion of soils. In the Altai virgin lands, a slope farming system was mastered. People stopped at nothing to improve the food situation in the country.

But it was a pronounced extensive version of development. At first, but for a very short time, the virgin lands gave a good harvest. The land, due to its age-old fertility, even without fertilization, gave birth well. In 1954, virgin lands produced over 40% of the gross grain harvest. This made it possible to improve the food supply of the population, but successes were only in the first years. But then droughts began, dust storms began, and the production of grain in the virgin lands turned out to be a risky business. Until now, virgin lands remain a zone of very unstable crops. The yield of grain crops on the newly developed lands remained low, land development took place in the absence of a scientifically based farming system. At the same time, the backlog of the old agricultural regions has intensified. 2/3 of the resources allocated at that time for the development of agriculture went to the uplift of virgin lands.

But the virgin lands did not justify the hopes for stable grain harvests. In lean years, in some areas, even seeds were not collected. The virgin lands, of course, delayed the transfer of agriculture to an intensive path of development.

The liquidation of the MTS in March 1958 had far-reaching consequences for the entire country. The existing system of maintenance of collective farm production through the MTS was far from perfect. Collective farms were the only enterprises in the country that did not themselves manage the machines - their main tools of labor. This created great inconvenience. Guardianship on the part of the MTS only tied the collective farms together. On March 31, 1958, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Law on the reorganization of the MTS and the sale of equipment to collective farms. The progressive reform was not well thought out, which ultimately led to a sharp drop in the rate of agricultural production. Instead of the 70% planned for the seven-year period (1959-1965), the real growth in gross output amounted to only 15%. The reform undermined the economy of collective farms. Having no choice, the collective farms bought the cars immediately and immediately found themselves in a difficult financial situation. Most of them drastically reduced wages per workday, economic incentives again ceased to operate.

Having visited the United States, Khrushchev believed that by focusing on corn, it is possible to dramatically increase the productivity of animal husbandry. His struggle for the introduction of corn in the country was in some cases anecdotal. In accordance with party directives, it was often sown where there could be no positive result.

The “corn campaign”, which was planted by force where it could not produce a crop, did not help Khrushchev. But it took several, years! But the irrepressible reformer finds another solution to the problem of the rise of animal husbandry. He carried out a decision according to which almost all personal cattle were bought from collective farmers. Khrushchev hoped that if he was in the public economy, in large livestock complexes, this would give a sharp increase in production.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the illegal liquidation of personal livestock of rural residents began under the pretext of diverting them from work in the public economy. Personal livestock, mainly cows, was partially handed over to public herds for three years, and the main part was destroyed by the peasants. As a result, the country lost millions of livestock.

They bought up some cattle, but winter came, and it turned out: there was no fodder, no premises, a massive loss of livestock began. Someone suggested to the Soviet leader: several million horses devour such scarce feed. They exhausted most of the horses ... They began to drive powerful tractors over trifles ...

The idea with agro-cities also collapsed. The village was empty. Collective farms began to be enlarged into huge farms, but people immediately got lost in these rural conurbations, and there were even more impersonal farms. Endless resolutions, decisions, meetings, shake-ups of personnel did not give noticeable positive results. At that time they still could not understand that the Leninist socio-economic system itself had a very limited reserve for its reform. From the mid-1950s, a new stage in the consolidation of collective farms began. In 1957-1966 about 10,000 collective farms, which had already been enlarged earlier, were liquidated annually. At the same time, many collective farms "for strengthening" were transformed into state farms. By 1963, only 39 thousand collective farms remained instead of 91 thousand in 1955.

Khrushchev was inconsistent in the reforms that began after 1953. Instead of further weakening the guardianship of the peasants, increasing the material interest of the collective farmers, instructions "from above" were followed, which were in the nature of increasingly strict regulation. Peasants were ordered to plant corn and other innovations, which led to enormous losses. Government investment was gradually reduced. The village has become a testing ground for all sorts of hasty decisions and transformations.

The reforms shook up the countryside, and despite all the inconsistency, the new course in the countryside produced practical results.

Thus, after a long stagnation, significant growth began both in agriculture and in animal husbandry. The average annual growth rate of the industry approached the growth rate of agriculture. The application of the principle of material interest led to an increase in the living standards of collective farmers and state farm workers. From 1954 to 1956, an increase in the rural population was observed in the USSR - for the first time in the post-war period. Thus, even the partial implementation of the reform in the 1950s ensured the highest growth in agricultural production since collectivization. By 1958 gross output had grown by more than a third.

On the whole, the major measures in the agrarian sector carried out in 1953-1958 can be summarized as follows:

Purchase prices were sharply increased (they did not compensate for all production costs, but became more reasonable);

Write off the debts of previous years;

Several times increased government spending on the needs of the countryside;

Abolished the tax on private household plots (personal subsidiary plots) and allowed to increase its size by 5 times;

Proclaimed the principle of planning from below;

They began to introduce pensions for collective farmers;

They began issuing passports to collective farmers;

Collective farms were given the right to amend their charters, taking into account local conditions.

However, the adherence of the country's leadership to certain stereotypes, ideological dogmas, boundless faith in the possibilities of the "collective farm system", prejudice against any personal property did not allow for effective reform of agriculture. Therefore, the result of the agrarian reform was disappointing: the crisis in agriculture deepened, the food problem in the country worsened. In 1963, the first purchases of grain abroad were made in the history of the USSR.

Khrushchev sought to decentralize control industry, as it became increasingly difficult to manage enterprises located on the periphery. It was decided that industrial enterprises should be managed not by ministries, but by local bodies - economic councils. Thus, he hoped to rationally use raw materials, eliminate isolation and departmental barriers. In reality, however, the economic councils became simply diversified ministries and failed to cope with their tasks. The reform in industry was reduced to a bureaucratic reorganization, and the structure of production was influenced much more significantly by the transformations in agriculture.

Reform education was supposed to remove the contradiction that had arisen between the general desire for higher education and the needs of an extensive economy in new labor hands. In 1958, the Law was adopted on strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the system of public education in the USSR, according to which the implementation of universal secondary education (eleven years) remained the most important task, but the secondary school acquired a "polytechnical profile". The system of "labor reserves" was eliminated, i.e. a network of paramilitary schools that existed at public expense. They were replaced by ordinary vocational schools, which could be entered after the 7th grade. From the very beginning, the implementation of the reform ran into numerous difficulties. The material and technical base of the school turned out to be unprepared for the implementation of the tasks of industrial training. In the vast majority of schools, the choice of professions was small and most often had a random character. By the autumn of 1963, it became obvious that the secondary school was not suitable as the main source of replenishment of enterprises and construction sites with qualified personnel. Correspondence and evening forms of secondary education did not justify themselves either. In practice, the bulk of those wishing to receive a secondary education chose an eleven-year general education school. The general level of students' preparation has decreased. Decreased interest in the humanities. The result of the reform was also disappointing: the general educational potential of the society decreased, and from the autumn of 1963 the secondary school again became a ten-year one.

Of all the reforms carried out during Khrushchev's "Great Decade", the reforms in social sphere.

The reverse side of the success in the post-war reconstruction of the economy in the Soviet Union was the low standard of living and the extremely high rate of exploitation of workers. In order to create the appearance of material well-being in Moscow, Leningrad, and some other large industrial centers, goods and products produced in the country were brought there. In all sorts of ways, money was withdrawn from the village. The number of in-kind and monetary taxes from the population, and compulsory placement of loans increased. Within seven years after the monetary reform of 1947, mass reductions in retail prices for consumer goods were carried out. Their main goal was purely political: to demonstrate the "care" of the party and government for the people. Indeed, each new price cut was perceived by the masses with a sense of "deep satisfaction." For seven years, for many contemporaries, another regularity became obvious: after another price reduction, the amount of subscription to a state loan invariably increased, prices and wages of workers and employees decreased.

By 1953, such a social policy had logically resulted in a general shortage of elementary consumer goods and an increase in social inequality.

The civil sector of the economy had the greatest success in the area of ​​housing construction, which began in the second half of the 1950s. In 1954, splendor and “decoration” in architecture were strongly condemned, and a transition began to the construction of houses using the industrial method. Numerous panel and block five-story houses appeared, which later received the name "Khrushchev". The war deprived millions of families of their homes, people lived in dugouts, in barracks, in communal apartments. Getting a separate well-appointed apartment for many was an almost unrealizable dream. These houses are still standing. Of course, from the position of today's time, they are inconvenient. Adjacent rooms, small kitchens, narrow corridor, lack of balconies in some houses. In Moscow, a decision was made to demolish Khrushchev's five-story buildings. Our country did not know the pace at which housing construction was carried out in the first half of the 1960s, neither before nor after that period.

At the 20th Congress, a broad program for raising living standards was put forward, which included a reduction in working hours, mass housing construction, wage increases for low-paid workers, and a number of other important changes. Their implementation in subsequent years was not consistent and did not have a comprehensive character.

Why did the reforms fail?N.S. Khrushcheva?

What is the significance of N.S.Khrushchev, who was the closest associate of Stalin, on the one hand, and the great reformer of the decade of the "thaw" - on the other hand?

The question posed in the historical literature is often covered too straightforwardly. Some authors emphasize that Khrushchev's reforms produced considerable positive results in the political, economic, social, spiritual and other spheres. Others emphasize the impossibility of reforming the socialist system and prove the inherent perniciousness of Khrushchev's reforms.

From the point of view of the development of the state, the period is characterized by an abundance of reforms, both reasonable and far-fetched. A common feature is the desire to detail the management of the state, which leads to the expansion of the rights of the union republics and local authorities and administration.

The main merit of N.S. Khrushchev was that, with all his inherent vigor, he destroyed the authoritarian system of government that had developed in the USSR during the thirty-year rule of Stalin. He was the first to begin a return to the Leninist norms of party life. This is N.S. Khrushchev began the democratization of society, involving wide sections of the population in governing the country. It was under him that the search for the optimal model of the economic mechanism began and was tirelessly carried out. The Soviet Union for the first time approached market relations and began to master the first of them. Under N.S. Khrushchev, in many ways, solved the most acute problem - housing. Agriculture began to rise, and industry made a powerful breakthrough.

Major changes in the decade under review were noted in foreign policy. It was at this time that the collapse of the colonial system began. The international communist and workers' movement began to rally around the CPSU. The tension in Europe was removed. The system of socialism was strengthened.

Board N.S. Khrushchev is rightly called the era of the "thaw". This is true not only for the foreign policy activities of the Soviet Union, but also for the internal life of the country. In the USSR, new relations were developing between people. There was a desire of N.S. Khrushchev to convince fellow citizens to live in accordance with the principles of the Moral Code of the builder of communism. For the first time, Soviet society also implemented political pluralism. Culture developed rapidly. New brilliant writers, poets, sculptors, musicians appeared.

During the years of N.S. Khrushchev space became Soviet. The first satellite of the Earth was ours, the first man in space was ours. And most importantly, at that time, nuclear parity was achieved between the USSR and the USA, which allowed the latter to recognize the strength of the Soviet Union and reckon with its opinion in solving all the most important world problems.

In general, the merits of N.S. Khrushchev could be listed for a long time. Only the most important ones are named here, but there were just as many miscalculations. A significant part of them was due to the most difficult of his surroundings and traits of his character.

During the de-Stalinization of the country, which began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, totalitarianism was shaken in all spheres of life, but not crushed. The revival of the Soviets, public organizations, a breakthrough into space and the rise of virgin lands, housing construction, a course towards peaceful coexistence with the West and other achievements were combined with manifestations of the post-totalitarian system. The party apparatus continued to exercise comprehensive control over the political, economic, ideological and cultural life of society. The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was still the "uncrowned autocrat". In the ruling party, contrary to its own rules, the Central Committee, the Politburo of the Central Committee, and the secretaries of the Central Committee remained outside criticism from below. No one dared even hint at the possibility of an intra-party opposition, and even more so, a multi-party system. In the electoral system, the practice of elections without a choice remained unshakable. The economy was dominated by the state and collective farm forms of ownership, the administrative-command system. The ideology did not allow ideas that differed in some way from the official Marxist-Leninist theory.

This was the main reason why the old economic mechanism remained in force, the strictest centralization in management. The country's economy developed along an extensive path. Since the late 1950s, the pace of economic development has slowed down significantly. In the late 50s - the first half of the 60s, there were a number of major failures in agriculture. The situation in the economy of 1959-1964 was in many respects reminiscent of the phenomena of the late 1940s and early 50s. This had a negative impact on the level of material well-being of the people, and on the spiritual development of the country (the "thaw" was increasingly replaced by bitter frosts).

The main reason for the success of the reforms was that they revived the economic methods of managing the national economy and were started with agriculture.

The main reason for the failure of the reforms was that they were not supported by the democratization of the political system. Having broken the repressive system, they did not touch the main one - the administrative-command system. Therefore, already after five or six years, many reforms began to be curtailed by the efforts of both the reformers themselves and the powerful administrative and managerial apparatus, the nomenklatura.

The best thing Khrushchev could do was attack the Gulag system and free political prisoners. The most important event is the restoration of legality in the activities of state security agencies. The mass rehabilitation of people who were unreasonably repressed in the Stalin years began. Conditions are being created that guarantee the impossibility of a repetition of lawlessness.

In particular, Danilov S.Yu. and Nikitin V.M. give the following assessment of Khrushchev's reforms:

1. They were based on the voluntarism of the first person of the country.

2. According to their goals, they were utopian and did not take into account the true state of the economy.

3. In the chosen directions of achieving the goals, the economic policy was contradictory.

4. The methods of carrying out reforms were purely command-administrative, anti-democratic. The opinion of the masses was not actually taken into account.

All this led to the failure of Khrushchev's reforms and to the resignation of Khrushchev himself.

Among the factors directly responsible for the coup in October 1964 are the following.

1. Khrushchev lost the support of almost all social strata of Soviet society.

The workers were indignant at the rise in prices for meat and butter in 1962 and the shortage of goods, which led to the tragic events in Novocherkassk. The peasantry and workers of state farms were extremely dissatisfied with severe restrictions on personal subsidiary plots, undermining the economy of collective farms as a result of high costs for the accelerated purchase of MTS equipment, the line for the elimination of pure fallows and crops of perennial grasses, and a shortage of manufactured goods.

- The intelligentsia was protested by the renewed persecution of prominent writers and artists, the advantages for young production workers in entering universities and, in this regard, the decrease in the level of training of specialists, as well as the use of people of intellectual labor in physical work.

- Dosed liberalization caused outrage and orthodox conservatives.

The party apparatchiks were dissatisfied, firstly, with the division in 1962 of party organizations into industrial and rural ones, since, in their opinion, this created confusion and confusion, weakened the ties between industry and agriculture, and could also lead to the formation of a peasant party of the Socialist-Revolutionary type. Secondly, the party bureaucracy was seriously threatened by the norms introduced in 1961 at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU for the systematic renewal of all party organs. Thirdly, the nomenclature was irritated by frequent and harsh attacks on party officials.

- The leaders of industrial and agricultural enterprises opposed the administrative dictatorship and endless reorganizations.

- Regular military personnel could not forgive Khrushchev for the removal of G.K. Zhukov from the post of Minister of Defense, for a sharp reduction in the army without creating the necessary household base for retired officers.

Finally, over time, the people as a whole became irritated by the praise of Khrushchev, broadcast declarations about the imminent coming of communism, calls in the coming years to catch up with the United States in the production of milk, meat, butter per capita, especially since all this was in the late 50s years came into conflict with the general deterioration of the economic situation.

2. The masses, spiritually and psychologically, were not ready for fundamental transformations in the socio-political, economic and ideological spheres.

3. Even the dissidents, for the most part at that time, were not oriented towards capitalism and, for the most part, did not question the communist perspective. In connection with the failure of the Khrushchev reforms, many working people felt a stronger desire to return to the harsh regime of the Stalinist period. The lack of democratic traditions among the masses and the conformism that had been nurtured by decades of Stalinist arbitrariness had an effect.

4. The main reformer himself - Khrushchev - for all the progressiveness of many of his steps, was the son of the Stalin era and could not immediately discard its prejudices, and partly its methods, methods of approach to business. Hence the half-heartedness, inconsistency, zigzags and fluctuations. In addition, he lacked theoretical training, a general culture. He relied mainly on the reorganization of the structures of administrative management, on the preservation of the intact forms of ownership that already existed, the established economic mechanism and the socio-political system.

And yet, despite the mistakes and miscalculations of N.S. Khrushchev went down in history as a prominent reformer who did an unusually lot of good deeds for the Soviet Union, marked by epoch-making events of our time.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion of this work, the following brief conclusions should be drawn.

The reign of N.S. Khrushchev is marked by both shortcomings and important events for the country.

He conceived huge reforms, in which, first of all, their diversity and their inconsistency are striking: concern for the implementation of the principle of material interest and the elimination of personal farms; the rehabilitation of the victims of the personality cult and the refusal to rehabilitate the leaders of the opposition to Stalin; the return of the Kalmyks to their native places and the denial of this to the Germans; the return of prisoners from the camps and the rejection of the trial of their executioners; raising wages and heading for free public consumption funds and the struggle for peace and the explosions of hydrogen bombs ...

The main reason for the defeat of the reforms is that they were not supported by the democratization of the political system.

The main reason for their success is that they revived the economic methods of managing the national economy.

Merit N.S. Khrushchev lies in the fact that for all his shortcomings, he turned out to be the only person in Stalin's entourage capable of making a radical turn in the policy of the CPSU, the Soviet Union. Only the fact that during the years of Khrushchev's power about 20 million people were rehabilitated, even if in most cases posthumously, only this fact will outweigh all his shortcomings and mistakes. The main result of the turbulent and controversial decade of Khrushchev's rule was the impossibility, the unthinkability of a return to Stalinism. It was during these years that the seeds of a new social and political thinking were thrown into the ground.

Assessment of the Khrushchev decade.

Positive factors: exposure of the personality cult, reform activities, social program, liberal cultural policy, new trends in foreign policy.

Negative factors: inconsistency in the liberalization of society, ill-conceived reformism, utopianism of some plans, own cult.

LIST OF USED SOURCES

1. Bokhanov A.N. History of Russia XX century: Textbook / A.N. Bokhanov, P.N. Zyryanov and others - M.: KGU, 1996.

2. Danilov S.Yu. Essays on the history of the Fatherland: Textbook / S.Yu. Danilov, V.M. Nikitin. - M.: Publishing house "Dashkov and K", 2000.

3. Emelyanov Yu.V. Khrushchev. Troublemaker in the Kremlin / Yu.V. Emelyanov. - M.: Dana, 2005.

4. Zelenin I.E. Agricultural policy N.S. Khrushchev and agriculture of the country // Patriotic history. - 2000. - No. 1.

5. History of the domestic state and law. Part 2: Textbook / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. - M.: Publishing house BEK, 2007.

6. History of Russia IX-XX centuries. Course of lectures / ed. doc. ist. sciences, prof. B.V. Levanova. - M.: Zelo, 1996.

7. Medvedev R.A. N.S. Khrushchev: Political Biography / R.A. Medvedev. - M.: Book, 2000.

8. Naumov V.P. On the history of N.S. Khrushchev at the XX Congress of the CPSU // New and Contemporary History. - 1999. - No. 4.

Similar Documents

The main stages of formation and development of criminal law in Russia in the first half of the twentieth century. The development of criminal law during the years of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. Features of the course of this process during the period of perestroika and the post-perestroika stage.

test, added 04/10/2010


Measures to improve and proposals for improving the activities of authorities in the field of housing and communal services (HCS) in the administration in the municipality of the rural settlement of Akseno-Butyrskoye, Moscow Region. Analysis of the development of the housing and communal services system.

term paper, added 06/17/2015


The concept and types of subjects of agricultural activity. Commercial activity in the field of agriculture and agro-industrial production of the Republic of Belarus. The legal regime of property and land plots of personal subsidiary plots of citizens.

test, added 02/19/2010


Activities in the field of social and pension provision. Activities in the health sector. Training of medical personnel. Activities in the field of sanitary and epidemiological well-being. Commission under the Ministry of Health, Social Protection.

test, added 06/13/2011


Characteristics of the organization and management of the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Tatarstan. Study of the personnel reserve and organizational structure. Analysis of financing activities and implementation of programs of the Ministry.

term paper, added 03/04/2010


The formation of the career of Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Reformatory activity of Speransky. Plan for the state transformation of Russia according to Speransky. The role and personal contribution of Speransky to the development and improvement of the Russian state and law.

abstract, added 07/29/2010


Legality and law enforcement activities of the Department of Internal Affairs. The ratio of legality and expediency in the activities of the Department of Internal Affairs. Requirements of legality to law enforcement acts.

term paper, added 04/04/2002


Normative monetary valuation of a hectare of arable land, land under perennial plantations, natural grasslands and pastures in Ukraine. General characteristics of agriculture in the Republic of Crimea. Monetary valuation of the lands of the Chernomorsky region.

term paper, added 09/11/2014


The functions of the state as a regulator of a market economy, the conditions for the effectiveness of its reform activities. The nature and limits of the market potential of the Russian bureaucracy. Political-imperious and bureaucratic mechanisms of inhibition of market reforms.

control work, added 02/13/2014


Legal regulation of state support for agriculture. State programs aimed at the development of the agro-industrial complex, social and engineering and transport infrastructure. Improving the welfare of the population in the countryside.