Khrushchev's education reform. Reforms of the era of N.S. Khrushchev

After the death of Stalin, the new leadership of the USSR in the person of Khrushchev faced the need to reform the country in the field of Agriculture and industry, above all, since these industries were vital and gained momentum after the end of the war. In this article, we will evaluate the economic management reform undertaken by Khrushchev, and also show its positive and negative sides.

Economic program of Malenkov

In 1953, Georgy Maksimovich Malenkov, who served as chairman of the Council of Ministers, for the first time said that the country needed economic reforms. In his presentation, it was necessary to focus on agriculture and light industry. The reform of the industry was supposed to lead to the fact that within 3 years the country had to provide all citizens with essential goods.

Changes in agriculture included improvements in land cultivation technologies to increase crop yields, as well as a reduction in taxes paid by peasants for the right to use land. The proposals were enthusiastically received by the people, but Malenkov was very quickly removed from his post, and Khrushchev undertook the reform of economic management. And it turned out to be extremely controversial.

Reforming agriculture under Khrushchev

Agriculture is a key aspect of both Khrushchev's reforms and Malinkov's ideas. But you need to understand that there was a huge difference between them. Contemporaries call Malinkov's program intensive, and Khrushchev - extensive.

The intensive path of development of agriculture meant to achieve an increase in the yield of current fertile soils. An extensive development path based on the constant expansion of cultivated land. With the victory of Khrushchev in the USSR, the implementation of an extensive plan began, but by 1965 it became obvious that this experiment had failed, and agriculture was in terrible decline.

History reference

Malenkov talked about quality, and Khrushchev about quantity. And if locally the quality gave certain results, then at the stage of 10 years a failure followed. To understand the essence, I will cite the first five-year plans under the leadership of Stalin. First, they built enterprises (quantitative approach), then they began to attract qualified personnel and improve the knowledge of workers (qualitative approach). Exactly the same process should have taken place in agriculture - first, the expansion of land (quantitative approach), and then the creation of technologies for its processing and growing crops (qualitative approach). But the reform of economic management in general and agriculture in particular missed the second stage. Therefore, Stalin's five-year plans gave a positive result, and Khrushchev's reforms - a negative one. But the time interval is identical ...

Major reforms in 1953-1958:

• In 1954, the foundation of the virgin lands begins. In total, 42 million hectares of new land were developed.
• Tax cuts for collective farms, as well as the cancellation of previous debts.
• Reduced farm taxes
• It is allowed to increase the subsidiary farm by 5 times
• Collective farms are equipped with the machinery and tools necessary for their work.

Development of virgin lands

Khrushchev's economic reform in agriculture largely began with the development of virgin lands, which began in 1954. New lands for development were selected in Kazakhstan and in Western Siberia. Initially this is not the best place for agriculture, but nevertheless, due to the fact that more than 150 thousand people were involved in the work, it was already possible in 1958 to develop 42 million hectares of new land. Among the people who were involved in the work were party officials, specialists, prisoners.

Interesting fact- Brezhnev was supposed to lead the development of virgin lands. Why exactly him? Leonid Ilyich was a longtime friend of Khrushchev, who in every possible way promoted his friend to leading roles.

History reference

To understand the essence of the development of virgin lands, I propose to pay attention to the table, which indicates the gross grain harvest in the USSR.

What does it say? Even a cursory glance at these numbers shows that Khrushchev's extensive path was extremely inefficient, and here's why:

• The development of virgin lands began in 1953/4. Therefore, the sharp increase in the harvested grain in these areas by almost 25,000 thousand tons is understandable. At the same time, the total harvest of grain in the USSR increased by 30,000 thousand tons. That is, there was a positive dynamic for the whole country.
• The period from 159 to 1963 showed an increase in the grain harvest in the virgin regions by almost 6,000 tons, while the growth in the country as a whole was just over 14,000 thousand tons. That is, the proportion broke and the virgin lands were ineffective. This was the main mistake of Khrushchev's economic reform in agriculture - it was necessary not to pay more attention to the quality of existing lands, and not to focus on new arable land in Siberia and Kazakhstan, which could not be compared in quality with the black soil of the southern regions.

Administrative decisions in collective farms (villages)

One of the main measures to support collective farms in initial stage steel reforms: canceling previous debts and raising purchase prices. Now the state has guaranteed higher prices for the purchase of agricultural products.

A big step forward was the permission for peasants to have subsidiary plots. Let me remind you that before the Khrushchev era, subsidiary farms could exist, but only very small ones, and a tax had to be paid for their presence.

This, combined with the development of new lands, led to an unprecedented increase in agricultural production, which increased by 34% between 1953 and 1958. It was a big leap in development, which could only be compared with the early stages of the NEP.

Amazing Fact, but both dubious reforms (NEP and Khrushchev's reforms) gave in the short term an unprecedented growth in agriculture. But in the medium term (10 years), both of these policies led to dire consequences - a head.

History reference

Administrative methods of influence were put at the forefront at the beginning of agricultural reforms. This led to the following results just a few years after the start of the reform:

• The growth of the welfare of the peasants. The result is good, but the Central Committee of the party revealed dissatisfaction that “kulaks” might reappear in the village.
• The economic growth of the villages minimized the need for administrative influence.

As a result, already since 1959, the reform of agricultural management has changed its essence - now not persecuted economic indicators efficiency, but only administrative pressure from above to force the peasants to do what was considered right in the party.

Failure of agricultural reform

Until 1959, the reform in agriculture was going well, without any exaggeration. But what Khrushchev arranged after that is incomprehensible to the mind, and is the clearest example of how the incompetence of the leadership, as well as the desire to control all people, can ruin any positive undertakings.

The seven-year plan for the development of agriculture (1959-1965) began with the reorganization of the MTS (machine and tractor stations). More precisely, MTS was simply closed, and the equipment was offered to be redeemed by collective farms. In fact, the ransom was mandatory, since the equipment was necessary for cultivating the land. But the state overestimated the price and demanded full payment within 1 year. This was the first blow to the finances of collective farms.

The next blow was dealt to private farms. If in the previous 5 years it was allowed to increase it 5 times, but since the beginning of the 1960s, part-time farming has become practically illegal. He was again returned to the old framework. The administration of economic reforms under Khrushchev said that the peasants should work for the collective farms, and not in their own fields. As a result, officials received an order to buy out all the cattle that are in private farms within 3 years.

In addition to these steps, the leadership of the USSR took other steps:

• Creation of large agricultural holdings. Collective farms were united and enlarged.
• Increase in prices for meat (by 30%), for butter (by 25%).
• Increase in sown area of ​​corn.

If you ask what people know about the Khrushchev era, most will say - they planted corn. And they will be right. Where the Secretary of the Central Committee got this mania is not clear. But it is clear to another - the increase in sown areas of corn was artificial was carried out by reducing the sown areas of wheat and rye. As a result, the deepest crisis of agriculture occurred in the USSR. For the first time in many years, grain began to be purchased abroad! As a result, the economic management reform undertaken by Khrushchev in agriculture failed.

Development of industry under Khrushchev

One of critical issues development of industry in the Khrushchev era was that by the end of 1959 the share of production of objects of group "A" (means of production) was 75%. On the one hand, this emphasizes the country's focus on the development of industry (in 1953, for example, this figure was 70%), but on the other hand, it was very dangerous. The danger is that the share of enterprises in Group B (personal consumption items) practically did not work.

In the post-war era of Stalin, the annual rate of industrial growth exceeded 10%. Khrushchev and his team believed that it was realistic to keep these numbers, it was only necessary to build new enterprises. This was done everywhere - they opened new factories and plants, although they publicly said that they would develop the economy thanks to scientific and technological progress. But this progress was applied only in the military sphere.

Reforming the management of the national economy

The reform of economic management in industry undertaken by Khrushchev also affected management. In 1957, the ministries were abolished, and their place was taken by the regional sectoral ministries. Today they are known as Sovnarhozy (Councils of the National Economy). As a result, there was a partial decentralization of the economy, with the transfer of powers to the regions. There were some positives, but the negatives outweighed:

• Links between regions of the country and sectors of the economy are broken
• The technical concept of production is violated
• The reform had no potential for growth
• Enterprises did not have economic freedom.

These problems became quickly apparent to the leadership of the USSR, and Khrushchev's economic reform moved to the next stage of smoothing out the negative consequences. In particular, the Economic Councils moved from the regional to the republican level (in fact, they returned to the ministries). After that, a plan was announced for 1959-1965 for a qualitative leap in the economy.

Industry Growth Rate

The key indicator of economic development is the rate of industrial growth. And this indicator was inexorable for Khrushchev's leadership - the pace fell, and quite quickly. Below is a table, after reviewing which you yourself will evaluate the reform of economic management undertaken by Khrushchev in terms of industry and agriculture.

Table - economic growth rates.

The growth rate of industry declined regularly, and in the period 1961-1916, both industry and agriculture literally failed. It became obvious that the economic management reform had also failed in terms of industry, although in general an industrial society in the USSR had already been formed.

Social policy under Khrushchev

Khrushchev's economic policy emphasized social policy. But failures in agriculture led, among other things, to uprisings. The most widespread of these was the uprising in Novocherkassk in 1962, for which the army and tanks were used to suppress. But in general, during this period, several important changes were made at once:

• Collective farmers were given passports. Let me remind you that until 1960, people in the countryside did not have passports!
• In 1964, a pension was established for collective farmers. Before that, it didn't exist!
• Collective farmers were guaranteed wages, which became fixed.
• Salary increase by 19%
• Reducing the working day to 46 hours (in production).
• The growth of housing (everyone knows apartments with the name "Khrushchev"). During this period, 54 million people received new apartments.

AT economic policy Khrushchev had its positive moments, but globally for the country this time was a time of great failure. The industry worked, but it became obvious that the enterprises of group "B" were categorically lacking. In agriculture, they experimented to the point that for the first time since civil war grain began to be bought abroad. The increase in prices led to numerous uprisings (it is clear that they are not particularly talked about, but they were). Therefore, Khrushchev's activity is more negative for the USSR than positive. It was from here that the processes that resulted in perestroika began. And the worst thing is that Khrushchev handed over power to his like-minded and student - Brezhnev, who continued with pleasure. In fairness, it should be noted that here the student significantly surpassed the teacher.

I believe that we have spent full assessment management of the economy undertaken by Khrushchev during his reign.

After Stalin's death in March 1953, a struggle for power broke out between Malenkov, Beria and Khrushchev. Khrushchev won in the struggle for power. From September 1958, Khrushchev combined the posts of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Having come to power, Khrushchev held a number of political reforms:

- subordinated the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the KGB to local party bodies;

- stopped repressions, reviewed cases, rehabilitated prisoners, changed the Gulag system;

- At the XX Party Congress in February 1956, he made a report on Stalin's personality cult.

As a result of these reforms, he managed to remove Stalin's supporters from the party bureaucracy and to put his adherents in their place.

A) agriculture. Stalin's policy greatly strengthened heavy industry and ruined agriculture. Khrushchev decided to fortify the village. For this:

- taxes were reduced;

- increased financial support;

- the development of virgin lands in Northern Kazakhstan has begun.

In the first place among the national economic problems was agricultural production. At the September plenum of the Central Committee in 1953 ᴦ. Khrushchev made a series of proposals for the development of agriculture that were important for that time:

Increase purchase prices for agricultural products,

Introduce an advance payment for the labor of collective farmers (before that, payment was made to them only once a year), etc.

At the end of 1958 ᴦ. on the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, a decision is made to sell agricultural machinery, which was at the disposal of the MTS, to collective farms. The sale of machinery to collective farms had a positive impact on agricultural production far from immediately. Most of they were not able to immediately buy tractors and combines and paid the money in installments. This at first worsened the financial situation of a significant part of the collective farms and gave rise to a certain discontent. A negative consequence of the sale of equipment was also the actual loss of personnel of machine operators and repairmen.

While visiting the USA in 1959 ᴦ. Khrushchev visited the fields of an American farmer who grew hybrid corn. Khrushchev came to the conclusion that it was possible to raise the level of development of Soviet animal husbandry by solving the problem of fodder production. From his point of view, it was extremely important to move to wide and widespread crops of corn, which will produce grain and green mass for silage. The indiscriminate introduction of this idea, without taking into account natural and climatic features, led to its discrediting.

B) industry.

Due to the construction of nuclear and large hydroelectric power plants, the capacity of the energy system of the USSR was increased, the electrification of the country was completed, and the sale of electricity abroad began. Enterprises began to re-equip with new equipment.

C) bureaucracy. Khrushchev began all reforms with a change in management systems. The purpose of the reforms was to make the main task of all reforms carried out in the country, Khrushchev considered the accelerated development of the economy in order to overtake the growth rate of the US economy. Due to incorrectly set tasks, methods were chosen incorrectly (the bureaucracy, whose position was very unstable, became the engine of reforms). Reforms were carried out in a hurry and did not have a clear organization. The bureaucracy was not financially interested in reforms and worked for the sake of reports. For this reason, all reforms were unsuccessful. As a result, by the mid-1960s:

- the crisis in agriculture deepened;

- the crisis in the industry began;

- the bureaucracy stopped supporting Khrushchev;

- Due to food shortages and the introduction of cards, unrest began in the country.

more efficient management system.

Khrushchev's reforms. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Khrushchev's reforms." 2017, 2018.

The solution of economic problems remained for Soviet society the most important task. 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.

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 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, 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. 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 retirement pensions for workers and employees doubled their size and reduced retirement age. The working week was reduced from 48 to 46 hours, and compulsory state 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, there was a massive transformation of collective farms into state farms. 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 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 of 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.

ECONOMIC REFORM N.S. Khrushchev

In the second half of 1953, cardinal transformations began in the country's economy. The changes concerned, first of all, the accelerated rise of agriculture in order to provide the population with food and light industry- raw materials. Improving the well-being of the people was declared one of the central tasks of the new leadership. To solve it, the development of a new agrarian policy began, the foundations of which were approved at the September (1953) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. Holding economic reforms associated with the name of N.S. Khrushchev, who in September 1953 became the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

To strengthen the material interest of collective farmers and workers, the purchase prices for agricultural products were increased, the norms for mandatory deliveries from personal subsidiary plots were significantly reduced, and the cash tax levied on each collective farm yard was halved. The social and legal status of collective farmers has changed. They received passports, cash wages were introduced for their work. However, the peasants did not receive the right to choose forms of management.

Since 1954, a campaign has been launched to develop virgin and fallow lands in Northern Kazakhstan. 500 thousand volunteers, 120 thousand tractors, 10 thousand combines were sent here. However, this measure met with short-term success.

Since the mid-1950s, efforts have been made to solve the housing problem. For 1956 - 1960 housewarming was celebrated by about 54 million people (a quarter of the country's population). A law was passed on pensions, which established one of the lowest age limits in the world. All types of tuition fees were abolished. Wages grew by an average of 3% per year. By the end of the 1950s, compared with 1950, the real incomes of workers and employees increased by 60%, and collective farmers - by 90%.

In 1957 N.S. Khrushchev is trying to reform the management of the national economy. Instead of sectoral ministries and departments, economic councils were created - territorial administrations.

Many economic problems in those years, the Khrushchev leadership tried to solve it by political means, through administrative reforms and campaigns (ʼʼcorn campaignʼʼ, ʼʼmeat campaignʼʼ in Ryazan, ʼʼmilk recordsʼʼ, etc.).

In the early 1960s there were shortages of meat, milk, bread and butter. Soviet Union was forced to buy food and feed abroad. This was due to a short-sighted policy towards the villagers (the villagers had their personal plots, they were forbidden to have more than one cow), as well as with endless restructuring of agricultural management. However, the 10-year period of Khrushchev's reformism was the period of the most noticeable rise in the country's economy, living standards Soviet people. In 1956 - 1958 on average, about 800 enterprises were put into operation per year. In 1957, the water was launched nuclear icebreakerʼʼLeninʼʼ. As part of government programs solved the problems of space exploration, the development of electronics and others.

The inconsistency and inconsistency of many undertakings were due to the fact that Khrushchev took shape as a party and statesman in conditions of rigid centralization of the administrative-command style of leadership.

ECONOMIC REFORM N.S. Khrushchev - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "ECONOMIC REFORM N. S. Khrushchev" 2015, 2017-2018.

N. S. Khrushchev - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU 1953 - 1964

Textbook: Special attention was paid to the development of agriculture. The main emphasis was placed on the development of virgin and fallow lands. In Western Siberia and Kazakhstan, hundreds of new state farms, machine and tractor stations were created, roads were laid, settlements were built. However, this was an extensive way for the development of the industry. But he made it possible to achieve a 34% increase in agricultural production in 5 years, to create new areas of agricultural production in the east of the country.

After the September (1953) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, measures are being taken with regard to the development of agriculture. State procurement prices for livestock, poultry, milk, potatoes, and vegetables have increased. Purchase prices for products sold in excess of mandatory deliveries increased. These measures made it possible to significantly strengthen the economy of collective farms. The system of settlements with collective farms for sold products was revised. Collective farmers began to pay advances, part of which was given out on workdays during the agricultural year (guaranteed cash wages). Measures were taken to strengthen the role of the MTS in the development of collective farm production.

The question was raised about the material interest of agricultural workers in the development of production and an increase in its profitability. As a result, gross agricultural output increased by 35.3% in 1954-1958 compared to the previous five years. This meant the birth of a promising alternative, opened up real ways for further development collective farms and state farms. But it happened differently.

Already at the February-March (1954) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the main target setting of agrarian policy was revised. The policy of ensuring in the shortest possible time the rise of agriculture and the well-being of the people began to dominate by solving the food problem under the conditions of a command-administrative management system (a combination of centralized planning and the independence of collective farms and state farms). Then the subsequent measures to curtail personal subsidiary farming, resettlement of villages, consolidated collective farms and state farms are explainable.

The main sources of growth in agricultural production were singled out: the development of virgin lands, the cultivation of corn, alignment with the leaders, and structural changes in management. The main opponents were considered grass-field crop rotations, the inertia of management, the constancy of organizational structures.

In the field of agrarian policy, at least 3 super-programs of action have been identified.

1. The virgin epic, associated with the diversion of human and financial resources for the development of virgin lands, the creation of new farms on arable land, led to the plundering natural resources. Virgin lands did not strengthen the grain balance of the country, but led to a decrease in production volumes, the need to purchase grain abroad.

2. The expansion of the area under crops of corn and other high-yielding "miracle crops" to obtain maximum production and feed was the main condition for the destruction of the optimization of the crop structure and the introduction of rational farming systems. Corn did not become the basis for the rise of animal husbandry.

3. The super-program for animal husbandry set the task of catching up with the United States in the production of meat, butter and milk per capita. The plans were connected both with the solution of the food problem and with the prospects for the growth of the international prestige of the USSR. In part forage base three whales were distinguished: corn, sugar beets and legumes. The desire to complete 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, which was restored only after 15 years. The growth of the livestock of all other types of livestock and poultry was shaken.

Plans for the development of agriculture were not fulfilled, and the growth rate of gross output after the successful five-year period 1953-1958 rapidly declined. The socio-demographic situation in the countryside began to worsen. The result of the reforms was the failure of the plan for the rapid rise of agriculture. There was a lot of reality in each of the super-programs. What made them unrealistic was the scale, methods, and projected deadlines.

Generally agrarian reform turned out to be ineffective due to the strict centralization of management, the extensive path of economic development and the inconsistency of actions. The workers were indignant at the 1962 rise in the price of meat and butter and the shortage of goods. The peasantry and workers of state farms were dissatisfied with the severe restrictions on personal subsidiary plots, undermining the economy of collective farms as a result of high costs for the accelerated purchase of equipment, a shortage of manufactured goods. The masses, spiritually and psychologically, were not ready for fundamental transformations in the socio-political, economic and ideological spheres.

25. The essence of a planned economy, its advantages and disadvantages.

1 ) This system dominated earlier in the USSR, countries of Eastern Europe and a number of Asian states.

2 ) characteristic features administrative-command system are:

public (and in reality state) ownership of almost everything economic resources,

monopolization and bureaucratization of the economy in specific forms,

· centralized economic planning as the basis of the economic mechanism.

3 ) The economic mechanism of the administrative-command system has a number of features .

· Direct management of all enterprises from a single center - the highest echelons of state power, which nullifies the independence of economic entities.

· The state fully controls the production and distribution of products, as a result of which free market relationships between individual farms are excluded.

· The state apparatus manages economic activity with the help of predominantly administrative and administrative methods, which undermines the material interest in the results of labor.

4 ) Advantages: A centrally planned economy hinders social instability and reckless pursuit of profit. Since the economic process does not depend on random solutions entrepreneurs, stability is ensured for a long time.

5 ) disadvantages .

With excessive centralization executive branch develops bureaucratization economic mechanism and economic relations. By its very nature, bureaucratic centralism is not able to ensure the growth of efficiency. economic activity. The point here is, first of all, that the complete nationalization of the economy is causing unprecedented in its scale monopolization production and marketing of products. Giant monopolies, established in all areas of the national economy and supported by ministries and departments, in the absence of competition, do not care about the introduction of new equipment and technology. The scarce economy generated by monopolism is characterized by the absence of normal material and human reserves in case of an imbalance in the national economy.

In countries with an administrative-command system, the solution of general economic problems had its own specific features. In accordance with the prevailing ideological attitudes, the task of determining the volume and structure of products was considered too serious and responsible to transfer its decision to the direct producers themselves - industrial enterprises, collective and state farms.

Therefore, the structure of social needs was determined directly by the central planning bodies. However, since it is fundamentally impossible to detail and foresee changes in social needs on such a scale, these bodies were guided primarily by the task meet the minimum needs .

The centralized distribution of material goods, labor and financial resources was carried out without the participation of direct producers and consumers, in accordance with pre-selected as "public" goals and criteria, on the basis of central planning. A significant part of the resources, in accordance with the prevailing ideological attitudes, was directed for the development of the military-industrial complex .

The distribution of created products among the participants in production was strictly regulated by the central authorities through the universally applied tariff system, as well as centrally approved standards of funds to the payroll. This led to the dominance egalitarian approach to wages .

Distinctive feature distribution of products in the administrative-command system was privileged position of the party-state elite .

6 ) The unviability of this system , its insensitivity to the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution and its inability to ensure the transition to intensive type economic development made fundamental socio-economic transformations inevitable in all former socialist countries. The strategy of economic reforms in these countries is determined by the laws of the development of world civilization.