Hmm, yoda_daro claims that this is a test to determine their sexuality...
Instruction The frames of the film merge for us into continuous movement due to ...
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 methods, goals and final results.
1953-1957 Economic course of G.M. Malenkov After Stalin's death the new economic course of the USSR was associated with the name of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.M. Malenkov(1953-1955). It consisted in the social reorientation of the economy, which meant shifting the center of gravity to the development of light, Food Industry, as well as Agriculture.
An attempt was made to solve the food problem and bring agriculture out of the crisis by increasing productivity (i.e., intensifying production) and using the factor of personal interest of the collective farmer. To this end, it was planned to reduce taxes on personal subsidiary plots, increase procurement prices for agricultural products, write off agricultural tax arrears (1.5 billion poods of grain) to collective farms, and increase household plots. It was one of the variants of the new agrarian course.
Agricultural Transformation Agenda carried out N.S. Khrushchev, was somewhat different from the strategic plan of G.M. Malenkov. In addition to these measures, Khrushchev intended to ensure the rise of agriculture through the rapid expansion of sown areas through the development of virgin lands (an extensive path for the development of agriculture). He also paid special attention to the processes of mechanization of agriculture, for which it was planned in the future to turn collective farms into large industrial-type farms.
In 1954, the development of virgin lands in the Trans-Volga region, Siberia and Kazakhstan began. With the participation of 300 thousand volunteers, mostly young people, 42 million hectares of new land were developed.
Purchase prices for agricultural products were doubled, debts of collective farms on agricultural tax of previous years (1.5 billion poods of grain) were written off, expenditures for social development villages. Taxes on personal subsidiary plots were abolished, which were allowed to be increased five times. In 1958, mandatory deliveries of agricultural products were canceled with household plots, reduced taxes on it.
On the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, the criteria for planning in agriculture were changed, the collective farms received the right to amend their charters.
For 1953-1958 the growth of agricultural production amounted to 34% compared with the previous five years. In order to solve the food problem, the area under corn was increased: from 1955 to 1962. from 18 to 37 million ha.
Administrative and economic reform. In 1957, N.S. Khrushchev tried to decentralize the management of industry, to create a new organizational and economic structure built on the management of industry not according to sectoral (through ministries), but according to the territorial principle.
In order to limit the possibility of interference by local party apparatuses in economic activity were created economic councils who were directly subordinate to the Union Ministry. 141 all-union and republican ministries were abolished and 105 economic councils were created instead.
The reorganization of the management system gave certain results: industrial specialization and intersectoral cooperation increased, and the process of technical reconstruction of the economy took place. Expanded rights and economic powers union republics. However, the reform as a whole not only did not introduce any qualitative changes in the economic conditions, but also gave rise to a certain disunity in the sectoral mechanism of the Soviet economy.
Social politics. Economic policy post-Stalinist leadership, despite the contradictions, had a pronounced social orientation. In the mid 50s. A program of measures aimed at raising the living standards of the population was developed.
The salaries of workers in industry were regularly raised. The real incomes of workers and employees increased by 60%, of collective farmers - by 90% (since 1956, collective farmers were transferred to a monthly advance payment of wages). The law on retirement pensions for workers and employees doubled their size and reduced retirement age. Work week decreased from 48 to 46 hours, compulsory government loans were abolished. Trade unions have gained greater rights in production.
Housing construction has become one of the important achievements of social policy. From 1955 to 1964 the urban housing stock increased by 80%, 54 million people received new apartments. The material base of education, health care, and culture was strengthened.
1958-1964 At the end of the 50s. a transition was made from five-year to seven-year planning (1959-1965). Since that time, the process of displacing economic incentives in the development of the economy by administrative coercion began. AT agriculture this trend is most pronounced.
Kolkhoz policy. Among the disproportions of the seven-year plan, the most severe was the crisis in agriculture. Farms experienced a constant lack of electricity, chemical fertilizers, seeds of valuable crops.
In order to industrialize agriculture, collective farms were enlarged (as a result, their number decreased from 91,000 to 39,000). In the course of extensive communist construction, with the aim of turning all property into public property, a massive transformation of collective farms into state farms took place. A characteristic feature was also the consolidation of collective farms at the expense of the so-called unpromising villages. In 1959, a forced purchase of all the equipment of the liquidated machine and tractor stations (MTS) by collective farms was carried out, which undermined the financial situation of rural producers, given that they also did not have a sufficient number of technical personnel.
The corn epic did not give positive results, in 1962-1963. the crisis in the development of virgin lands worsened.
In order to achieve the tasks of communist construction as soon as possible, the authorities ordered attack on private farms. The collective farmers were again cut land(from 1.5 acres per collective farm yard in 1955-1956 to one acre in 1959-1960; in 1950-1952 there were 32 acres), cattle were forcibly redeemed. Against this background, a campaign of public condemnation of traders and money-grubbers, a struggle against the invaders of collective farm lands, unfolded. As a result, there was a decline in personal subsidiary farming. Collective farm workers turned into hired workers.
As a result of the difficulties that arose, the seven-year plan for the development of agriculture was not fulfilled: instead of the planned 70%, the increase in agriculture amounted to only 15%. The food problem in the country has worsened. The resulting food shortage caused a rise in prices, in particular for meat by 25-30%. The economic difficulties coincided with a bad harvest in 1963, which had disastrous consequences. As a result, the crisis in agriculture led to the first mass purchases of grain abroad (12 million tons).
Industry. In general, in the period under review, the average annual growth rate industrial production in the USSR exceeded 10%, which was ensured solely thanks to the harsh methods of the command economy. Scientific and technological progress was considered one of the levers for the development of industry.
Further development administrative system. There has been a process development of vertical centralization economic councils (SNKh). In June 1960, the Republican Council of National Economy was created, in March 1963 - Supreme Council National Economy (VSNKh). The system of national economic planning became progressively more complex.
The system of governing bodies of the agrarian sector has changed. From March 1962 created kolkhoz-sovkhoz administrations (KSU).
The administrative reform affected and structures of party organizations. In order to strengthen the role of the party in the development of agriculture in rural areas, district committees were abolished (their functions were transferred to party organizations of the Constitutional Court, party organizers in production); regional committees were divided according to the production principle - into industrial and agricultural. On the whole, the management restructuring reform retained the essence of the administrative and economic mechanism, the territorial management system led to sectoral imbalance and the growth of parochial tendencies of economic councils.
Reorganization of the administrative system became a permanent feature. Continuous shake-ups of the apparatus and personal displacements seriously disturbed party and government officials who were striving for the stability of their personal position. N.S. Khrushchev, on the other hand, declared his readiness to scatter everyone like kittens. It seemed to the apparatchiks that de-Stalinization did not bring the desired confidence in tomorrow. In bureaucratic circles, dissatisfaction with N.S. Khrushchev was growing, a desire to subordinate him to the apparatus. A major step along this path was the campaign against the creative intelligentsia, as a result of which Khrushchev the reformer lost firm support among them.
Dissatisfaction with Khrushchev was also expressed by representatives of all levels of the party apparatus (after its division into two independent systems and the formation of a kind of dual power). Therefore, a conspiracy against N.S. Khrushchev became inevitable.
Social politics. At first in the social sphere continued positive developments. getting better financial situation population, public consumption funds grew. By 1960, the transfer of workers and employees to a 7-hour working day was completed. The introduction of pensions for collective farmers was being prepared. The housing stock increased (for 1959-1965 - by 40%).
In the context of a slowdown in development and the growth of crisis economic phenomena social politics was not consistent. The government froze for twenty years payments on domestic loans issued before 1957 (in order to reduce the budget deficit). ).
It caused spontaneous actions of workers. In 1959, with the help of the troops, a 1,500-strong uprising of workers - builders of the Kazakhstan Magnitka (Temirtau) was suppressed. In 1962, a 7,000-strong workers' demonstration took place in Novocherkassk, also dispersed by troops using tanks (24 people died, 105 participants in the unrest were convicted). Working performances were held in many industrial areas - in Moscow, Leningrad, Donbass, Kemerovo, Ivanovo.
RESULTS. During the period Khrushchev thaw serious modernization attempt. N.S. Khrushchev set the impetus for the development of political processes, embarking on the path of liberalization.
However use of the old political and economic mechanism in the course of the reforms predetermined their failure. Course N.S. Khrushchev was characterized by the absolutization of organizational factors, the solution of economic problems by administrative and political methods. The situation was aggravated by the lack of any scientific and managerial foundations. administrative reforms, randomness and subjectivity of the transformations carried out in the administrative and economic system.
N.S. Khrushchev and the leadership of the party, remaining on the positions of the communist ideology and preserving many of the traditions of the Stalinist leadership, not only turned out to be unprepared, but also did not seek radical change.
After the failures of N.S. Khrushchev’s contradictory transformative activity, a fatigue syndrome arose in society, striving for sustainable forms of social and personal life. During this period, the party-state bureaucracy, thirsting for stability, came to the fore in the hierarchy of power, or nomenclature, which played a decisive role in the removal of N.S. Khrushchev in October 1964.
Previous articles:
| The following articles:
|
Reforms of N. S. Khrushchev and their consequences. In March 1953, more than thirty years of Stalin's rule ended. A whole era in the life of the Soviet Union was connected with the life of this man. Everything that has been done for 30 years has been done for the first time. The USSR was the embodiment of a new socio-economic formation. Its development took place under the most severe pressure from the capitalist environment. The socialist idea that had taken possession of the minds of the Soviet people worked wonders. great genius Soviet man managed to turn backward Russia into a powerful industrial power in a historically short time.
Exactly Soviet Union, and not the United States or any other country in the world, utterly defeated Nazi Germany, saved the world from total enslavement, saved its sovereignty and its territorial integrity.
However, behind all these successes lay the terrible crimes of the authoritarian Stalinist leadership, which cost many millions of innocent victims, which cannot be justified by any arguments. The country was like a compressed spring. The economy was in serious pain. The development of culture was held back. Ripe denouement. A person was needed who, after Stalin's death, could untie the tight knot of problems and lead the country to progress.
And there was such a person - Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. It was he who was determined by history to stand at the head of the Soviet Union for a whole decade, an unusual decade that shook the world with metamorphoses, called in the world "the decade of the thaw." The fate of Khrushchev himself, and indeed of a number of the most important events of his period, was unknown until recently. Much has become clear thanks to glasnost and democracy. Many publications appeared in the periodical press, previously unknown archival materials on this issue were published.
1. BACKGROUND TO THE KHRUSHCHEV REFORM
The reformation of Soviet society in the second half of the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s, a period that went down in history as a thaw, has its roots in the last, post-war years of Stalin's rule. Many political turns emerged after Stalin's death. Look at Khrushchev's reforms from the standpoint of the post-war years, it makes it possible to clarify and improve the understanding of a number of key issues in the development of post-Stalinist society. One of the central themes of key political importance during the thaw period was the question of the relationship between production, means of production, and production of consumer goods. The economic state of society, its economic characteristics directly depended on the formation of these proportions. The emphasis on heavy industry was made by deliberately infringing on light industry and agriculture, and agriculture acted as an economic donor, constantly being plundered by the state. This situation was one of the main reasons for the low level of well-being of the population, the chronic lagging behind of living standards from Western standards. It is no coincidence that after the death of Stalin, Khrushchev and Malenkov began the reform process with a change in approaches to the development of light industry and agriculture. Measures to expand trade and revitalize trade objectively required the strengthening of the monetary system, the abolition of cards for the purchase of goods.
The abolition of the rationing system and monetary reform was accompanied by a powerful propaganda campaign about the successes of the Soviet economy, the collective farm system, and their role in quickly overcoming the consequences of the war. However, the confiscation nature of the reforms remained behind the facade of this company. The negative costs of the monetary reform were indirectly mentioned in the decree of the USSR government and the Central Committee of the party. The idea was widely circulated that the state had lost 57 billion rubles in connection with the reform, but these losses would be compensated for a short time by increasing labor productivity and expanding trade.
The situation in agriculture required a serious program, its transformation, the reform of many production relations existing in the countryside. However, the state did not seek serious changes, still considering the agricultural industry as a source for pumping out funds coming into the industry.
The proposed mechanisms for the functioning of agriculture did not give efficiency. As a result, the "Stalin plan for the development of animal husbandry", having turned out to be a virtual failure, was consigned to oblivion during the next mass campaign of the early 50s to strengthen the collective farms.
Paradoxically, but Khrushchev took the toughest position in relation to the countryside during these years. His political face in many respects did not coincide then with the image of the future architect of the “thaw”. This is how one can characterize his initiative to evict peasants from the Ukrainian SSR. In a letter to Stalin in 1948, the future reformer outlined his sore points.
The letter is accompanied by a draft resolution (soon adopted), which proposed to give the meetings of collective farmers the right to expel (undesirable elements) for a period of up to 8 years.
For the leadership of the country, one of the lessons of the victory was the measures to further strengthen the defense of power at the expense of other sectors of the national economy. First of all, those that influenced the growth of well-being and the standard of living of the population.
Obviously, all this programmed a certain course of economic development of Soviet society in the 1950s and 1960s.
The strengthening of ideological control affected not only the intelligentsia, but the entire Soviet society as a whole. One of its reasons was the participation of a large number of ordinary citizens in the liberation campaign against fascism in many European countries. For the first time in another world, Soviet people got the opportunity to compare the realities of life of the two systems. The comparison, as a rule, was not in favor of the Soviet Union. The authorities understood that this could serve as a basis for the formation of protest tendencies.
After Stalin's death, the main thing remained unchanged: the Khrushchev leadership of the party almost completely retained the strategy of communist construction, formed in the post-war period. At the 21st Congress of the CPSU (1959), Khrushchev repeated the conclusion about the complete and final victory of socialism and for the second time (after the 19th Congress) about the onset of a period of extensive construction of communist society, and the program of the CPSU adopted at the 22nd Congress even reproduced the time frame this construction, named under Stalin for 20 years. At the XVIII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, specific dates were named by A. Poskrebyshev. In the post-war period, many ideas took shape, subsequently vigorously introduced into life by Khrushchev himself. The project of the CPSU(b), prepared in 1947, gives an idea of this.
Particular emphasis is placed on the social aspects, filed attractively, on a grand scale. Thus the task was set.
2. KHRUSHCHEV'S REFORM
For a multi-purpose economy, management and planning methods were no longer suitable Stalin era, which consisted in the absolute priority of some goals, to which the rest were subordinate. Enterprises began to switch to self-financing from their own funds. In 1957-1958, N.S. Khrushchev carried out three reforms. They concerned industry, agriculture and the education system.
1 INDUSTRY REFORM
By the mid-1950s, much had changed in the life of Soviet society. It has entered new frontiers of its development. However, its further development objectively required reforms in the political and socio-economic spheres.
The political system needed a radical restructuring in connection with the new political situation. However, authoritarian, voluntaristic methods of government continued to persist. N.S. Khrushchev, along with the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, also assumed the post of head of government, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
The actions of the political leadership, headed by N.S. Khrushchev, did not cause profound changes in political life and in social psychology the masses of the people. Almost unaffected were the old public structures: power, economic relations administration, judiciary and law, the place of the party in society, etc.
Attempts to democratize public life had to find an adequate continuation in the economy. The post-war recovery period is over - this was evidenced by the indicators of the development of the national economy, the well-known successes in the field of science and technology: 1954 - the world's first nuclear power plant, 1956 - nuclear icebreaker"Lenin", jet passenger aircraft TU-104, 1957 - launch of a satellite into space, 1961 - the world's first flight of a Soviet man into outer space. There were major achievements in the field of physics and mathematics, but a backlog remained in the field of computers, genetics, agricultural sciences, cybernetics, and chemistry.
The strengthened economy also made it possible to solve social issues: a law on pensions was adopted, the duration of maternity leave for women was increased, tuition fees were abolished in high schools and universities, compulsory eight-year education was introduced in schools, workers were transferred to six- and seven-hour working days, widely housing construction is being developed on the basis of industrial methods, the rights of the union republics are expanding, the rights of the peoples repressed during the war years are being restored: Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Kalmyks.
The economic restructuring of the second half of the 1950s was designed to solve the problem of democratization of management: to expand the economic rights of the Union republics by transferring to their jurisdiction issues that had previously been decided in the center, to bring management closer to the “locals”, to develop a new economic mechanism, to reduce management apparatus, etc.
Both objectively and subjectively, the reform was aimed at modernizing the cumbersome command-administrative system of managing the economy.
In 1957, the sectoral ministries were abolished and a transition was made to the territorial principle of administration. The country was divided into 105 economic regions, economic councils were created, which for the first time contributed to the development of local initiative and gave positive results. However, after a short period, the influence of negative trends was revealed. new system management: localism and paperwork grew rapidly, the sectoral development perspective and a unified scientific and technical policy were lost.
The search for the reasons for the failures of the economic reform led to a return to the methods of pressure and diktat.
Nikita Sergeevich strove for the decentralization of industrial management. The fact is that every year it became more and more 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. N.S. Khrushchev hoped in this way to rationally use raw materials, eliminate isolation and departmental barriers. There were many opponents to this decision. In reality, the economic councils became simply diversified ministries and failed to cope with their tasks. The reform was reduced to a bureaucratic reorganization.
2 AGRARIAN REFORM
For 12 years, from 1953 to 1964, 11 special meetings and Plenums of the Central Committee on the development of agriculture were held, and at two more these issues were considered along with others. One would expect corresponding shifts in agriculture itself, but the impact of policy on production in that period as a whole turned out to be clearly ineffective.
The fact is that the violent methods of implementing complete collectivization, associated with the violation of the principles of the development of cooperation, such as voluntariness, the variety of forms, the sequence of their development, led to the fact that the type of agricultural enterprises created in the USSR was significantly deformed, and the collectives of these enterprises were deprived of elementary democratic norms of self-government and life. Between the workers of the village and the land they received from the state - their hope and breadwinner - powerful bastions of the administrative command of the management system arose, which they could not destroy.
But there was another alternative to the formation of the collective farm system. Its essence consisted in the gradual rejection of the load of distortions in the development of cooperation, as if returning it to the natural-historical course, but already at a new level of management, the development of production relations. It was necessary to abandon the strict regulation of collective farm life, granting collective farms the right to independently solve their economic and social needs, combining and linking them with the guidelines for the democratization of the entire management system.
It must be admitted that Khrushchev, despite the inconsistency of his assessments of the state of affairs in agriculture, was the first among officials to actually recognize such an alternative and in many ways seeks to implement it. It was in the 1950s that an attempt was made to transition to the relative independence of collective farms and state farms.
The September Plenum of the Central Committee in 1953 played an important role. In accordance with his decisions, state procurement prices for livestock and poultry increased by more than 5 times, for milk - 2 times, potatoes - 2.5 times, vegetables - by 25-40%. Purchase prices for products sold in excess of mandatory supplies also increased. These measures made it possible to significantly strengthen the economy of collective farms. Effective measures were taken against the violation of the most important principle of the artel form of collective farm production - the correct combination of interests in the development of public and private economy: the norms of mandatory supplies of products from personal subsidiary farms were reduced, and fixed tax rates were provided in accordance with the size of personal plots.
The system of settlements with collective farms for the sale of products was revised. They began to be paid cash advances, part of which was intended for distribution to collective farmers on workdays throughout the year. This procedure subsequently made it possible to introduce cash guaranteed wages on the collective farms. Measures were taken to improve planning, to strengthen the collective farms with personnel, and to strengthen the role of the MTS in the development of collective farm production.
The reorganization of the MTS and the sale of equipment to collective farms in accordance with the decision of the February (1958) Plenum of the Central Committee made the collective farmers potentially full owners or users of all the main means of production. The abolition of mandatory deliveries and payment in kind for the work of the MTS, the introduction of cash wages and the same account for the cost of production and profitability of production practically included the collective farm economy in the unified commodity-money relations of the entire Soviet economy, which created a real basis for the transition of collective farms to self-financing. The increasing role of the principle of material interest led to an increase in the real incomes of collective farmers, workers and specialists of state farms.
N.S. Khrushchev believed in the possibility of solving the food problem in the country and adequately satisfying the needs of the population for food. Three super programs were developed.
First of all, this is a virgin epic. A country that had the world's largest expanses of already involved in the circulation of the most fertile chernozems and fertile naturally irrigated non-chernozem lands, but received scanty grain harvests compared to developed capitalist countries, as well as other countries; a country in which about half of the livestock was housed in temporary and unsuitable premises, in which even the already received gross grain harvest was not provided with reliable storage facilities, in which there was an acute shortage of labor resources, and, above all, machine operators, precisely in the main grain and livestock areas, - this country, in order to further increase the production of grain and livestock products, went, and even under the flag of intensification, to a huge diversion of human and financial resources from already developed areas, to a colossal expansion of the front of work, the development of huge tracts of virgin lands, a significant increase in the area of arable land, and the creation of new farms on it. It's hard to understand. Exorbitant scales, strong-willed methods, unjustified deadlines, in the absence of any design and scientific research, turned the development of virgin lands into a voluntaristic super-program with all the ensuing consequences. One cannot, of course, ignore the fact that the development of virgin lands meant, in essence, the creation of a fairly large grain base in the east of the country. But the price of this was disproportionate to the results.
The next super-program of those years was the hasty in time and utopian in scale expansion of the area under corn and other “miracle crops”. At the same time, the logic was extremely straightforward: to plow all arable land, sow all arable land, potentially sow, regardless of zonal differences, with the most “high-yielding” crops and thereby obtain maximum production, feed.
The idealization of the possibilities of "miracle crops" led to an almost tenfold expansion of corn or, for example, "king peas" in the country. Meanwhile, the results were disastrous. In 1962, the yield of corn for silage and green fodder on the collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem zone of the RSFSR was 33.6 centners per hectare on an area of 3.3 million hectares. In 1963, it dropped to 31.2, the difference between the desired and the actual exorbitant. Indeed, in order for the “Queen of the Fields” to ascend the throne and prove her high rank, naturally, time is needed. But the command and control apparatus cannot wait. He begins to act immediately and finds a job for himself: he clears the way for her and inflicts a crushing blow on the “potential opponents” found in the wilderness of offices - perennial grasses, pure vapors.
And, finally, a truly fantastic super-program of those years for animal husbandry. N.S. Khrushchev set the task: "In the coming years, to overtake the United States in the production of meat, butter and milk per capita." Newspapers reported on a widespread increase in meat production, but in fact there was a reckless forced socialization and destruction of the livestock of personal subsidiary farms, there was a direct deception, postscripts. The desire to fulfill the "program" at any cost led to the fact that in 1963 alone almost 30 million (42%) of the pig population in the country were slaughtered. And only 15 years later, this previously continuously growing livestock was restored, and after another 10 years it increased by about 10 million heads - exactly as much as it increased after 1956 every two years.
So, three tasks, three super programs and three complete failures.
.3 EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Khrushchev's third reform affected the education system. The reform was based on two measures. N.S. Khrushchev liquidated the system of "labor reserves", that is, a network of paramilitary schools that existed at the expense of the state. They were created before the war to train skilled workers. They were replaced by ordinary vocational schools, which could be entered after the seventh grade. The secondary school received a "polytechnic" profile, which involved a combination of education with labor activity so that the student gets an idea about one or more professions. However, the lack of funds did not allow schools to be equipped with modern equipment, and enterprises could not fully bear the pedagogical load.
The successes of the USSR in the conquest of outer space and in some other science-intensive areas, mainly in defense areas, did not allow a sober assessment of the then state and prospects for the development of public education, science and culture. Having made a huge leap from semi-literacy to universal compulsory secondary education, having taken a leading place in the world in terms of the number of teachers, doctors, engineers, scientists, that is, in the leading areas of intellectual work, the USSR missed the revolutionary explosion in the quality of secondary and higher education that occurred in developed countries in the early 60s.
CONSEQUENCES OF REFORM
Thus, the promising reforms initiated in the second half of the 1950s did not take place. They gradually faded away and gave way to the old methods of leadership and management.
The second half of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s were marked by a struggle between democratic and bureaucratic tendencies in the development of public life. At the end of this period, as a result of leadership errors, the democratic trend began to weaken, which subsequently served as a direct prerequisite for strengthening the position of the command-administrative system.
One of the results of the failed reforms in the second half of the 1950s and early 1960s was the resignation of NS Khrushchev.
In October 1964, unexpectedly there was a message that an extraordinary Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee granted Khrushchev's request to relieve him of his duties as the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR due to advanced age and deteriorating health.
At the Plenum of the Central Committee, in a report delivered by M.A. Suslov, N.S. Khrushchev was accused of voluntarism, subjectivism, incompetence of the leadership, rudeness, personal indiscretion, etc.
L.I. Brezhnev was elected the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the Plenum, and A.N. Kosygin was recommended for the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. In addition, it was considered expedient not to combine in one person the positions of the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. The release of N.S. Khrushchev from the first positions in the party and the state drew a line under one of the most significant and difficult periods in the history of our country.
It was then that a significant attempt was made to define and implement a new political course countries. It was then that Soviet society breathed in the air of renewal, lived in an atmosphere of thaw, and experienced a turning point.
During this period, in the international field, the positions of the Soviet Union as one of the great powers of the world were preserved. US attempts to dictate in world politics failed, the Soviet Union successfully resisted them in various areas the globe, largely contributed to the collapse of the colonial system by supporting the national liberation movement.
In the economic field, our country has made a new major step forward, retaining its position as the second industrial power in the world. In 1960, as a result of the successful implementation of the three post-war five-year plans, the main production assets increased by 3.3 times compared with 1940. The produced national income increased 4.4 times, the productivity of social labor in the national economy increased 4 times.
Major shifts have taken place in the social sphere. The real incomes of the population have grown significantly, and the living conditions of the people have improved. Only for the period from 1950 to 1966. received apartments in new buildings or improved their living conditions 155 million hours. The scientific and educational potential of the country has increased significantly.
But perhaps the most significant were the achievements in the military field. Despite the enormous difficulties and lack of funds, the army was completely re-equipped with new nuclear missile weapons, jet aircraft and artillery. The infantry as a branch of the military has become obsolete. It was replaced by mechanized troops. The main result of the military policy of the Soviet state was the disruption of plans for unleashing a world thermonuclear war and the provision of peaceful conditions for economic development.
Not all reforms have been successful. Many experiments of a structural plan in the national economy have shown their failure, the country was not ready for deep restructuring processes in the field of political, economic and spiritual. The consequences of the devastating war, the lag in scientific and technological progress, the heavy burden of the arms race and the cold war also had a significant effect. New reforms were needed.
Khrushchev politics reform post-war
CONCLUSION
Decade of N.S. Khrushchev is rightly called the decade 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. 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 are named here. However, the characterization of the Khrushchev decade would have been incomplete if an analysis of the miscalculations made personally by N.S. Khrushchev.
Office of N.S. Khrushchev had to lead in the conditions of the most difficult both foreign policy and domestic situation in the country. The Stalinist group was very strong. Taking often important decisions, not taking into account the alignment of forces, without preparing the base, N.S. Khrushchev was often defeated. This created the impression of jerks and did not at all create authority for him. He was especially let down by his lack of economic knowledge and his desire to solve global problems as soon as possible, although the conditions for their implementation were not objectively ripe yet.
And yet, despite the mistakes, miscalculations, N.S. Khrushchev went down in history as a prominent reformer who did an unusually many good deeds for the Soviet Union, marked by epoch-making events of our time.
Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev entered the history of the USSR and Russia as the most controversial ruler who influenced the development of new directions in the foreign and domestic policy of the USSR and carried out several reforms over the decade of his reign.
Khrushchev's domestic policy
Stalin's death in 1953 led to a behind-the-scenes struggle for a place on the "throne", but Khrushchev got the post of first secretary. At the 20th Congress (1956) he delivered a report that received a worldwide response. The main topic was the exposure of Stalin with a list of a number of crimes of the 30s-50s. and harsh criticism of his repression. The beginning of de-Stalinization and democratization has been laid.
Khrushchev's reforms
De-Stalinization had, however, neither consistency nor integrity. According to Khrushchev, it consisted in condemning the cult of Stalin and establishing party control over the punitive organs. There was a restoration of law and order, legality and constitutional rights of citizens.
Khrushchev's reforms were continued - the ruling party was restructured: democratization, changes in the conditions for admission to it, expansion of the rights of local organizations and union republics. In 1957, the peoples deported by Stalin were restored to their rights. New bodies of public self-government appear, and so on.
Governance reform
Trying to go to economic methods management led to the complication of the management structure, an increase in the number of officials. In 1962, the most unsuccessful of the reforms was undertaken: the specialization of party organizations (industrial and rural). The country was divided into 105 economic regions.
agrarian reform
Khrushchev's reforms began with agriculture. Since 1953, the economic position of the collective farms has been strengthened, and the size of the agricultural tax has been reduced. The farms were given loans, new equipment arrived. In the mid-1950s, their general enlargement began - they were transformed into state farms. Then economic councils were created.
Peasants were given passports, they were assigned a pension.
The corn epic has also become part of Khrushchev's image - following the example of the United States, this culture has been intensively planted everywhere, even where it cannot grow in principle (up to Far North!).
In 1954, a development campaign was launched. A sharp jump followed with unprecedented harvests, for the first time in the post-war years, the purchase price of grain rose. But erosion destroyed virgin soils. The non-chernozem center fell into complete decline.
Khrushchev's military reforms
After coming to power, he took the direction of the rise of the defense and heavy industries. The SA and the fleet received nuclear missile weapons. In terms of the ratio of military power, the USSR reaches parity with the United States. The direction towards peaceful coexistence of states of different social systems is considered.
After the adoption of the law on the payment of pensions to peasants, it was decided to abolish tuition fees in the eight-year education becomes mandatory. Established in particular - a 6-hour working day for teenagers of 16 years.
The housing fund is actively expanding. Housing construction is based on industrial methods. The country's housing stock is increasing by 40% over the seven-year period! True, the construction was carried out in a style that went down in history under the name "Khrushchev", but the housing crisis disappeared.
School reform led to a unified eight-year school. Those wishing to receive a complete secondary education had to continue their studies at a secondary polytechnic school (in a vocational school, in an evening or correspondence school).
Khrushchev's foreign policy
Foreign relations in those days developed in the style of traditional Bolshevik politics. main direction foreign policy was the strengthening of security systems on all frontiers.
Actively renewed contacts with foreign countries, appear in the press and positive reviews about other countries. Expanding trade relations. This entails mutual benefit, because the countries of the West receive the most extensive for their products.
The launch of the first satellite in 1957 had a significant impact on the world situation, and a new, space age began. Khrushchev, a supporter of Korolev, supports his idea of overtaking the Americans in space exploration.
This changed the alignment of priorities, now the West was under the gun of the intercontinental missiles of the USSR.
In 1961 The Berlin Ultimatum was delivered, in which Khrushchev demanded the erection of a wall between West and East Berlin. Huge resonance of the world community. After the “Berlin crisis”, another one flares up, the so-called. "Caribbean", or "missile crisis". Kennedy tried to seize Cuba, to which the USSR provided economic, and now also military assistance, sending military and technical advisers there, various types of weapons. Including missiles, which threatened the United States with a blow. Kennedy demanded that the missiles not be unloaded in Cuba, and Khrushchev accepted these demands.
The assassination of Kennedy led to the need to contact President Johnson. But accusations of voluntarism were brought against Khrushchev, and he was dismissed. It was also ruined by an attempt to cut benefits and privileges for civil servants. Under Khrushchev, an authoritarian system developed in the USSR, however, the foundations of the command-administrative system were strengthened.
- 2. KHRUSHCHEV'S REFORMS. The multi-purpose economy was no longer suited to Stalin-era management and planning methods of absolute priority for some goals over others. Enterprises began to switch to self-financing from their own funds. In 1957-1958, N.S. Khrushchev carried out three reforms. They concerned industry, agriculture and the education system.
- 1 REFORM INDUSTRY. By the mid-1950s, much had changed in the life of Soviet society. It has entered new frontiers of its development. However, its further development objectively required reforms in the political and socio-economic spheres.
The political system needed a radical restructuring in connection with the new political situation. However, authoritarian, voluntaristic methods of government continued to persist. N.S. Khrushchev, along with the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, also assumed the post of head of government, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
The actions of the political leadership, which was headed by N.S. Khrushchev, did not cause profound changes in political life and in the social psychology of the masses. The old social structures were also practically unaffected: power, economic relations, management, legal proceedings and law, the place of the party in society, and so on.
Attempts to democratize public life had to find an adequate continuation in the economy. The post-war recovery period is over - this was evidenced by the indicators of the development of the national economy, well-known successes in the field of science and technology: 1954 - the world's first nuclear power plant, 1956 - the nuclear icebreaker "Lenin", jet passenger aircraft TU-104, 1957 - launch of a satellite into space, 1961 - the world's first flight of a Soviet man in space. There were major achievements in the field of physics and mathematics, but a backlog remained in the field of computers, genetics, agricultural sciences, cybernetics, and chemistry.
The strengthened economy also made it possible to solve social issues: a law on pensions was adopted, the duration of maternity leave for women was increased, tuition fees were abolished in high schools and universities, compulsory eight-year education was introduced in schools, workers were transferred to six- and seven-hour working days, widely housing construction is being developed on the basis of industrial methods, the rights of the union republics are expanding, the rights of the peoples repressed during the war years are being restored: Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Kalmyks.
soviet union khrushchev destalinization
The economic restructuring of the second half of the 1950s was designed to solve the problem of democratization of management: to expand the economic rights of the Union republics by transferring to their jurisdiction issues that had previously been decided in the center, to bring management closer to the “locals”, to develop a new economic mechanism, to reduce management apparatus, etc.
Both objectively and subjectively, the reform was aimed at modernizing the cumbersome command-administrative system of managing the economy.
In 1957, the sectoral ministries were abolished and a transition was made to the territorial principle of administration. The country was divided into 105 economic regions, economic councils were created, which for the first time contributed to the development of local initiative and gave positive results. However, after a short period, the influence of the negative trends of the new management system was revealed: localism and paperwork grew rapidly, the sectoral development perspective and a unified scientific and technical policy were lost.
The search for the reasons for the failures of the economic reform led to a return to the methods of pressure and diktat.
Nikita Sergeevich strove for the decentralization of industrial management. The fact is that every year it became more and more 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. Khrushchev hoped in this way to rationally use raw materials, eliminate isolation and departmental barriers. There were many opponents to this decision. In reality, the economic councils became simply diversified ministries and failed to cope with their tasks. The reform was reduced to a bureaucratic reorganization.
2. AGRARIAN REFORM
For 12 years, from 1953 to 1964, 11 special meetings and Plenums of the Central Committee on the development of agriculture were held, and at two more these issues were considered along with others. One would expect corresponding shifts in agriculture itself, but the impact of policy on production in that period as a whole turned out to be clearly ineffective.
The fact is that the violent methods of implementing complete collectivization, associated with the violation of the principles of the development of cooperation, such as voluntariness, the variety of forms, the sequence of their development, led to the fact that the type of agricultural enterprises created in the USSR was significantly deformed, and the collectives of these enterprises were deprived of elementary democratic norms of self-government and life. Between the workers of the village and the land they received from the state - their hope and breadwinner - powerful bastions of the administrative command of the management system arose, which they could not destroy.
But there was another alternative to the formation of the collective farm system. Its essence consisted in the gradual rejection of the load of distortions in the development of cooperation, as if returning it to the natural-historical course, but already at a new level of management, the development of production relations. It was necessary to abandon the strict regulation of collective farm life, granting collective farms the right to independently solve their economic and social needs, combining and linking them with the guidelines for the democratization of the entire management system.
It must be admitted that Khrushchev, despite the inconsistency of his assessments of the state of affairs in agriculture, was the first among officials to actually recognize such an alternative and in many ways seeks to implement it. It was in the 1950s that an attempt was made to transition to the relative independence of collective farms and state farms.
The September Plenum of the Central Committee in 1953 played an important role. In accordance with his decisions, state procurement prices for livestock and poultry increased by more than 5 times, for milk - 2 times, potatoes - 2.5 times, vegetables - by 25-40%. Purchase prices for products sold in excess of mandatory supplies also increased. These measures made it possible to significantly strengthen the economy of collective farms. Effective measures were taken against the violation of the most important principle of the artel form of collective farm production - the correct combination of interests in the development of public and private economy: the norms of mandatory supplies of products from personal subsidiary farms were reduced, and fixed tax rates were provided in accordance with the size of personal plots.
The system of settlements with collective farms for the sale of products was revised. They began to be paid cash advances, part of which was intended for distribution to collective farmers on workdays throughout the year. This procedure subsequently made it possible to introduce cash guaranteed wages on the collective farms. Measures were taken to improve planning, to strengthen the collective farms with personnel, and to strengthen the role of the MTS in the development of collective farm production.
The reorganization of the MTS and the sale of equipment to collective farms in accordance with the decision of the February (1958) Plenum of the Central Committee made the collective farmers potentially full owners or users of all the main means of production. The abolition of mandatory deliveries and payment in kind for the work of the MTS, the introduction of cash wages and the same account for the cost of production and profitability of production practically included the collective farm economy in the unified commodity-money relations of the entire Soviet economy, which created a real basis for the transition of collective farms to self-financing. The increasing role of the principle of material interest led to an increase in the real incomes of collective farmers, workers and specialists of state farms.
N.S. Khrushchev believed in the possibility of solving the food problem in the country and adequately satisfying the needs of the population for food. Three super programs were developed.
- 1. First of all, this is a virgin epic. A country that had the world's largest expanse of fertile black soil and fertile naturally irrigated non-chernozem lands, but received scanty grain harvests compared to developed capitalist countries, as well as other countries; a country in which about half of the livestock was housed in temporary and unsuitable premises, in which even the already received gross grain harvest was not provided with reliable storage facilities, in which there was an acute shortage of labor resources, and, above all, machine operators, precisely in the main grain and livestock areas, - this country, in order to further increase the production of grain and livestock products, went, and even under the flag of intensification, to a huge diversion of human and financial resources from already developed areas, to a colossal expansion of the scope of work, the development of huge tracts of virgin lands, a significant increase in the area of arable land , creation of new farms on it. It's hard to understand. Exorbitant scale, strong-willed methods, unjustified deadlines, in the absence of any design and scientific research, turned the development of virgin lands into a voluntaristic super-program with all the ensuing consequences. One cannot, of course, ignore the fact that the development of virgin lands meant, in essence, the creation of a fairly large grain base in the east of the country. But the price of this was disproportionate to the results.
- 2. The next super-program of those years was a hasty in time and utopian in scale expansion of the area under crops of corn and other "miracle crops". At the same time, the logic was extremely straightforward: to plow up all arable land, sow all arable land, potentially sow, regardless of zonal differences, with the most "high-yielding" crops and thereby obtain maximum production, fodder.
The idealization of the possibilities of "miracle crops" led to an almost tenfold expansion of corn or, for example, "king peas" in the country. Meanwhile, the results were disastrous. In 1962, the yield of corn for silage and green fodder on the collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem zone of the RSFSR was 33.6 centners per hectare on an area of 3.3 million hectares. In 1963, it dropped to 31.2, the difference between the desired and the actual exorbitant. Indeed, in order for the "Queen of the Fields" to ascend the throne and prove her high rank, naturally, time is needed. But the command and control apparatus cannot wait. He begins to act immediately and finds a job for himself: he clears the way for her and inflicts a crushing blow on the "potential opponents" found in the wilderness of offices - perennial herbs, pure vapors.
1. And, finally, a truly fantastic super-program of those years for animal husbandry. N.S. Khrushchev set the task: "In the coming years, to overtake the United States in the production of meat, butter and milk per capita." Newspapers reported on a widespread increase in meat production, but in fact there was a reckless forced socialization and destruction of the livestock of personal subsidiary farms, there was a direct deception, postscripts. The desire to fulfill the "program" at any cost led to the fact that in 1963 alone almost 30 million (42%) of the pig population in the country were slaughtered. And only 15 years later, this previously continuously growing livestock was restored, and after another 10 years it increased by about 10 million heads - exactly as much as it increased after 1956 every two years.
So, three tasks, three super programs and three complete failures.
3. REFORM EDUCATION. Khrushchev's third reform affected the education system. The reform was based on two measures. N.S. Khrushchev eliminated the system of "labor reserves", that is, a network of paramilitary schools that existed at public expense. They were created before the war to train skilled workers. They were replaced by ordinary vocational schools, which could be entered after the seventh grade. The secondary school received a "polytechnic" profile, which involved combining education with work, so that the student got an idea about one or more professions. However, the lack of funds did not allow schools to be equipped with modern equipment, and enterprises could not fully bear the pedagogical load.
The successes of the USSR in the conquest of outer space and in some other science-intensive areas, mainly in defense areas, did not allow a sober assessment of the then state and prospects for the development of public education, science and culture. Having made a huge leap from semi-literacy to universal compulsory secondary education, having taken a leading place in the world in the number of teachers, doctors, engineers, scientists, that is, in the leading areas of intellectual labor, the USSR missed the revolutionary explosion as a secondary and higher education which occurred in developed countries in the early 60s.
EFFECTS REFORM. Thus, the promising reforms initiated in the second half of the 1950s did not take place. They gradually faded away and gave way to the old methods of leadership and management. The second half of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s were marked by a struggle between democratic and bureaucratic tendencies in the development of public life. At the end of this period, as a result of leadership errors, the democratic trend began to weaken, which subsequently served as a direct prerequisite for strengthening the position of the command-administrative system.
One of the results of the failed reforms in the second half of the 50s - early 60s was the resignation of N.S. Khrushchev. In October 1964, unexpectedly there was a message that an extraordinary Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee granted Khrushchev's request to relieve him of his duties as the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR due to advanced age and deteriorating health.
At the Plenum of the Central Committee, in a report delivered by M.A. Suslov, N.S. Khrushchev was accused of voluntarism, subjectivism, leadership incompetence, rudeness, personal indiscretion, and so on. L.I. was elected the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the Plenum. Brezhnev, and A.N. was recommended for the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Kosygin. In addition, it was considered expedient not to combine in one person the positions of the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Liberation of N.S. Khrushchev from the first positions in the party and the state drew a line under one of the most significant and difficult periods in the history of our country. It was then that a significant attempt was made to define and implement a new political course for the country. It was then that Soviet society breathed in the air of renewal, lived in an atmosphere of thaw, and experienced a turning point. During this period, in the international field, the positions of the Soviet Union as one of the great powers of the world were preserved. Attempts to dictate the United States in world politics failed, the Soviet Union successfully resisted them in various regions of the globe, and to a large extent contributed to the collapse of colonial system by supporting the national liberation movement.
In the economic field, our country has made a new major step forward, retaining its position as the second industrial power in the world. In 1960, as a result of the successful implementation of the three post-war five-year plans, the fixed production assets increased 3.3 times compared to 1940. The produced national income increased 4.4 times, the productivity of social labor in the national economy increased 4 times.
Major shifts have taken place in the social sphere. The real incomes of the population have grown significantly, and the living conditions of the people have improved. Only for the period from 1950 to 1966. received apartments in new buildings or improved their living conditions 155 million hours. The scientific and educational potential of the country has increased significantly.
But perhaps the most significant were the achievements in the military field. Despite the enormous difficulties and lack of funds, the army was completely re-equipped with new nuclear missile weapons, jet aircraft and artillery. The infantry as a branch of the military has become obsolete. It was replaced by mechanized troops. The main result of the military policy of the Soviet state was the disruption of plans for unleashing a world thermonuclear war and the provision of peaceful conditions for economic development.
Not all reforms have been successful. Many experiments of a structural plan in the national economy have shown their failure, the country was not ready for deep restructuring processes in the field of political, economic and spiritual. The consequences of the devastating war, the lag in scientific and technological progress, the heavy burden of the arms race and the cold war also had a significant effect. New reforms were needed.
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 methods, goals and final results.
1953-1957 Economic course of G.M. Malenkov After Stalin's death the new economic course of the USSR was associated with the name of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR G.M. Malenkov(1953-1955). It consisted in the social reorientation of the economy, which meant shifting the center of gravity to the development of the light, food industry, and agriculture.
An attempt was made to solve the food problem and bring agriculture out of the crisis by increasing productivity (i.e., intensifying production) and using the factor of personal interest of the collective farmer. To this end, it was planned to reduce taxes on personal subsidiary plots, increase procurement prices for agricultural products, write off agricultural tax arrears (1.5 billion poods of grain) to collective farms, and increase household plots. It was one of the variants of the new agrarian course.
Agricultural Transformation Agenda carried out N.S. Khrushchev, was somewhat different from the strategic plan of G.M. Malenkov. In addition to these measures, Khrushchev intended to ensure the rise of agriculture through the rapid expansion of sown areas through the development of virgin lands (an extensive path for the development of agriculture). He also paid special attention to the processes of mechanization of agriculture, for which it was planned in the future to turn collective farms into large industrial-type farms.
In 1954, the development of virgin lands in the Trans-Volga region, Siberia and Kazakhstan began. With the participation of 300 thousand volunteers, mostly young people, 42 million hectares of new land were developed.
The purchase prices for agricultural products were doubled, the debts of collective farms for agricultural tax of previous years (1.5 billion poods of grain) were written off, and expenditures on the social development of the village were increased several times. Taxes on personal subsidiary plots were abolished, which were allowed to be increased five times. In 1958, mandatory deliveries of agricultural products from household plots were abolished, and taxes on it were reduced.
On the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, the criteria for planning in agriculture were changed, the collective farms received the right to amend their charters.
For 1953-1958 the growth of agricultural production amounted to 34% compared with the previous five years. In order to solve the food problem, the area under corn was increased: from 1955 to 1962. from 18 to 37 million ha.
Administrative and economic reform. In 1957, N.S. Khrushchev tried to decentralize the management of industry, to create a new organizational and economic structure built on the management of industry not according to sectoral (through ministries), but according to the territorial principle.
In order to limit the possibility of interference of local party apparatuses in economic activity, economic councils who were directly subordinate to the Union Ministry. 141 all-union and republican ministries were abolished and 105 economic councils were created instead.
The reorganization of the management system gave certain results: industrial specialization and intersectoral cooperation increased, and the process of technical reconstruction of the economy took place. The rights and economic powers of the union republics were expanded. However, the reform as a whole not only did not introduce any qualitative changes in the economic conditions, but also gave rise to a certain disunity in the sectoral mechanism of the Soviet economy.
Social politics. The economic policy of the post-Stalin leadership, despite the contradictions, had a pronounced social orientation. In the mid 50s. A program of measures aimed at raising the living standards of the population was developed.
The salaries of workers in industry were regularly raised. The real incomes of workers and employees increased by 60%, of collective farmers - by 90% (since 1956, collective farmers were transferred to a monthly advance payment of wages). The law on old-age pensions for workers and employees doubled their size and lowered the retirement age. The working week was reduced from 48 to 46 hours, and compulsory government loans were abolished. Trade unions have gained greater rights in production.
Housing construction has become one of the important achievements of social policy. From 1955 to 1964 the urban housing stock increased by 80%, 54 million people received new apartments. The material base of education, health care, and culture was strengthened.
1958-1964 At the end of the 50s. a transition was made from five-year to seven-year planning (1959-1965). Since that time, the process of displacing economic incentives in the development of the economy by administrative coercion began. AT agriculture this trend is most pronounced.
Kolkhoz policy. Among the disproportions of the seven-year plan, the most severe was the crisis in agriculture. Farms experienced a constant lack of electricity, chemical fertilizers, seeds of valuable crops.
In order to industrialize agriculture, collective farms were enlarged (as a result, their number decreased from 91,000 to 39,000). In the course of extensive communist construction, with the aim of turning all property into public property, a massive transformation of collective farms into state farms took place. A characteristic feature was also the consolidation of collective farms at the expense of the so-called unpromising villages. In 1959, a forced purchase of all the equipment of the liquidated machine and tractor stations (MTS) by collective farms was carried out, which undermined the financial situation of rural producers, given that they also did not have a sufficient number of technical personnel.
The corn epic did not give positive results, in 1962-1963. the crisis in the development of virgin lands worsened.
In order to achieve the tasks of communist construction as soon as possible, the authorities ordered attack on private farms. The land plots of the collective farmers were again cut down (from 1.5 acres per one collective farm yard in 1955-1956 to one hundred square meters in 1959-1960; in 1950-1952 there were 32 acres), cattle were forcibly redeemed. Against this background, a campaign of public condemnation of traders and money-grubbers, a struggle against the invaders of collective farm lands, unfolded. As a result, there was a decline in personal subsidiary farming. Collective farm workers turned into hired workers.
As a result of the difficulties that arose, the seven-year plan for the development of agriculture was not fulfilled: instead of the planned 70%, the increase in agriculture amounted to only 15%. The food problem in the country has worsened. The resulting food shortage caused a rise in prices, in particular for meat by 25-30%. The economic difficulties coincided with a bad harvest in 1963, which had disastrous consequences. As a result, the crisis in agriculture led to the first mass purchases of grain abroad (12 million tons).
Industry. In general, during the period under review, the average annual growth rate of industrial production in the USSR exceeded 10%, which was ensured solely due to the harsh methods of the command economy. Scientific and technological progress was considered one of the levers for the development of industry.
Further development of the administrative system. There has been a process development of vertical centralization economic councils (SNKh). In June 1960, the Republican Council of National Economy was created, in March 1963 - Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh). The system of national economic planning became progressively more complex.
The system of governing bodies of the agrarian sector has changed. From March 1962 created kolkhoz-sovkhoz administrations (KSU).
The administrative reform affected and structures of party organizations. In order to strengthen the role of the party in the development of agriculture in rural areas, district committees were abolished (their functions were transferred to party organizations of the Constitutional Court, party organizers in production); regional committees were divided according to the production principle - into industrial and agricultural. On the whole, the management restructuring reform retained the essence of the administrative and economic mechanism, the territorial management system led to sectoral imbalance and the growth of parochial tendencies of economic councils.
Reorganization of the administrative system became a permanent feature. Continuous shake-ups of the apparatus and personal displacements seriously disturbed party and government officials who were striving for the stability of their personal position. N.S. Khrushchev, on the other hand, declared his readiness to scatter everyone like kittens. It seemed to the apparatchiks that de-Stalinization did not bring the desired confidence in the future. In bureaucratic circles, dissatisfaction with N.S. Khrushchev was growing, a desire to subordinate him to the apparatus. A major step along this path was the campaign against the creative intelligentsia, as a result of which Khrushchev the reformer lost firm support among them.
Dissatisfaction with Khrushchev was also expressed by representatives of all levels of the party apparatus (after its division into two independent systems and the formation of a kind of dual power). Therefore, a conspiracy against N.S. Khrushchev became inevitable.
Social politics. At first in the social sphere continued positive developments. The material situation of the population improved, and public consumption funds grew. By 1960, the transfer of workers and employees to a 7-hour working day was completed. The introduction of pensions for collective farmers was being prepared. The housing stock increased (for 1959-1965 - by 40%).
In the context of a slowdown in development and the growth of crisis economic phenomena social policy was not consistent. The government froze for twenty years payments on domestic loans issued before 1957 (in order to reduce the budget deficit). ).
It caused spontaneous actions of workers. In 1959, with the help of the troops, a 1,500-strong uprising of workers - builders of the Kazakhstan Magnitka (Temirtau) was suppressed. In 1962, a 7,000-strong workers' demonstration took place in Novocherkassk, also dispersed by troops using tanks (24 people died, 105 participants in the unrest were convicted). Working performances were held in many industrial areas - in Moscow, Leningrad, Donbass, Kemerovo, Ivanovo.
RESULTS. During the Khrushchev thaw, a serious modernization attempt. N.S. Khrushchev set the impetus for the development of political processes, embarking on the path of liberalization.
However use of the old political and economic mechanism in the course of the reforms predetermined their failure. Course N.S. Khrushchev was characterized by the absolutization of organizational factors, the solution of economic problems by administrative and political methods. The situation was aggravated by the absence of any scientific and managerial foundations for administrative reforms, the randomness and subjectivity of the transformations carried out in the administrative and economic system.
N.S. Khrushchev and the leadership of the party, remaining on the positions of the communist ideology and preserving many of the traditions of the Stalinist leadership, not only turned out to be unprepared, but also did not seek radical change.
After the failures of N.S. Khrushchev’s contradictory transformative activity, a fatigue syndrome arose in society, striving for sustainable forms of social and personal life. During this period, the party-state bureaucracy, thirsting for stability, came to the fore in the hierarchy of power, or nomenclature, which played a decisive role in the removal of N.S. Khrushchev in October 1964.
