Brezhnev's reign. What is stagnation (period)? The era of stagnation in the history of the Soviet Union. "Golden Age" of nomenclature
After the dismissal of Khrushchev, L.I. became the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Brezhnev (since 1966 - General Secretary, since 1977 - at the same time Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). The post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR was taken by A.N. Kosygin.
Both in character and intellect, Brezhnev did not possess the qualities of a leader of a great power, necessary for the implementation of a radical renewal of society. The unofficial "small" Politburo, which included Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov, Minister of Foreign Affairs A.A. Gromyko, Secretary of the Central Committee M.A. Suslov, KGB Chairman Yu.V. Andropov, who determined domestic and foreign policy.
The basis of the course is "stability", which meant the rejection of any attempts at a radical renewal of society. Both the authorities and society are tired of the emergency conditions and constant tension in which the country lived for the previous half century.
political development.
Characteristic features of the political development of the country in the second half of the 1960s - the first half of the 1980s. became the centralization and bureaucratization of the administrative apparatus. The adopted resolutions on the further democratization of public life remained declarative.
Brezhnev's rule was a "golden time" for the bureaucracy. Under Stalin, she lived under constant fear of arrest; under the constant Khrushchev reorganizations, she also felt restless. After Stalin's death and Khrushchev's removal, the elite wanted a quiet life, confidence in the future, and wanted to protect themselves from personnel changes. Brezhnev was ideally suited to the role of spokesman for the interests of the bureaucracy.
The total number of managers by the end of Brezhnev's rule amounted to almost 18 million people (for 6-7 employees - one manager). The rapid growth of the bureaucracy was ensured by numerous benefits and privileges. To maintain such an apparatus by the mid-1980s. more than 40 billion rubles, or 10% of the budget, were spent annually.
By the beginning of the 1980s. in the management of the national economy alone, up to 200,000 various orders, instructions, and other by-laws accumulated, which regulated every step of business executives and fettered their initiative.
31.10.2019
The time of Brezhnev's rule - "stagnation" or "golden era" (part 2)? - Information and Analytical Center (IAC)
The period of the life of the USSR in 1965-1980 is rightly called the Brezhnev era or, in the language of perestroika, the period of "stagnation". As in any historical period, the Brezhnev era has its pluses and minuses.
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and the years of his reign do not cause such heated debate among compatriots as Stalin or even Khrushchev. However, this person also causes very contradictory assessments, and the corresponding period left a variety of impressions in the memory of the people. In the first part, we examined the rise to power of Brezhnev and some indicators of his era.
In this article, we will continue to consider the main points of the reign of Leonid Brezhnev.
Characteristics of the Brezhnev era
Conservation of the political regime
In almost twenty years of Brezhnev's rule, the administrative and managerial apparatus has changed little. Tired of constant reshuffles and reorganizations, party members happily accepted Brezhnev's main slogan - "ensure stability" - which led not only to the absence of serious changes in the structure of the ruling apparatus, but actually froze it.
For the entire period, there were no reshuffles in the party, and all positions actually became for life. As a result, the average age of members of the public administration structure was 60-70 years. This situation also led to the strengthening of party control - the party now controlled the activities of many, even extremely small, state institutions.
The growing role of the military sphere
The country was in a state of cold war with the United States, so one of the main tasks was to increase its military power. During this period, weapons began to be produced in large quantities, including nuclear and missile weapons, and new combat systems were actively developed.
Industry, as in the period of the Great Patriotic War, largely worked for the military sphere. The role of the KGB increased again not only in domestic but also in foreign policy.
The decline of the agricultural industry and the cessation of economic development
Despite the fact that, in general, the country was successfully moving forward, prosperity was growing, the economy sharply slowed down the pace of its development. The main funds of the USSR received from the sale of oil, most of the enterprises gradually moved to large cities, and agriculture slowly decayed.
Social life
Natural population growth in Russia
Despite the fact that the further development of the economy inspired fears, the everyday life of citizens has improved significantly, well-being has grown. Many citizens of the USSR had the opportunity to improve their living conditions in one way or another, many became owners of good cars and other quality things.
By the mid-1970s, the growth of non-resource sectors of the economy slowed down considerably. Signs of this were the backlog in high-tech areas, poor product quality, inefficient production and low labor productivity. Agriculture experienced problems, and the country spent a lot of money on food purchases.
Foreign policy
At the time of Brezhnev's rise to power, Soviet foreign policy power seemed less impressive than at the end of the Stalin era, both in dominating the communist bloc and in rivalry with the United States. Caribbean crisis marked the boundaries of nuclear escalation.
In the US, the presidency Kennedy, despite the signing of the Moscow Treaty in August 1963, was marked by a vigorous intensification of the nuclear and conventional arms race, which gave America an impressive military superiority over the USSR. Brezhnev managed to reverse this trend.
In less than ten years, the USSR achieved nuclear parity with the West and created a powerful fleet.
note
In relation to the Eastern European satellites, the Soviet bosses adopted a strategy that soon became known as the Brezhnev Doctrine. That Soviet foreign policy was ready to apply it without hesitation was demonstrated events in Czechoslovakia.
In 1968, an attempt by the Czech communist leader Alexander Dubček to broadly liberalize the political and economic system (under the slogan "socialism with a human face") provoked rejection in Moscow, which feared a repetition Hungarian events 1956. In July 1968, the USSR declared the Prague Spring "revisionist" and "anti-Soviet".
On August 21, 1968, after unsuccessful pressure on Dubcek, Brezhnev ordered Warsaw Pact forces to invade Czechoslovakia and replace its government with people loyal to the Soviet Union. This brutal intervention determined for two decades the limits of the autonomy that Moscow's foreign policy was willing to grant to its satellites.
However, Brezhnev did not punish Ceausescu's Romania, which did not take part in the intervention, and Enver Hoxha's Albania, which, in protest, withdrew from Warsaw Pact and CMEA. The reconciliation achieved by Khrushchev with the obstinate Tito in 1955, under Brezhnev, was not challenged.
Despite all the alarming forecasts of Western alarmists about the upcoming Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia, Brezhnev not only did not undertake it, but even went to Tito's funeral in May 1980.
But relations with the People's Republic of China continued to deteriorate under Brezhnev, until bloody border skirmishes in 1969. The restoration of Sino-American relations in early 1971 marked a new stage in foreign policy history.
In 1972 President Richard Nixon traveled to China to meet Mao Tse-tung. This rapprochement showed a deep crack in the communist bloc, which had previously flaunted its unity. It convinced Brezhnev of the need for a policy of détente with the West.
This policy was intended to prevent the formation of a dangerous anti-Soviet alliance.
The policy of détente began with Nixon's visit to Moscow in May 1972 and the signing of an agreement on that occasion. OSV-1 on the limitation of nuclear weapons.
In Vietnam, despite the mining on May 8, 1972 of the port of Haiphong (the reason for a certain "coldness" of Nixon's reception in Moscow), the Soviet Union facilitated the signing of the Paris Agreements on January 27, 1973.
They allowed the Americans, who had been mired for ten years in Southeast Asia, to save face for a while - until April 1973. The zenith of détente was the signing Helsinki Final Act in 1975 between the Soviet Union, European and North American states.
Soviet foreign policy saw a fundamental success in the recognition by the West of the borders established at the end of the Second World War.
In return, the Soviet Union adopted a clause stating that the states parties to the Helsinki Agreement would respect human rights and fundamental freedoms - including freedom of religion and conscience. These principles were not put into practice in the USSR, but internal opponents of communist regimes could now appeal to them in their opposition to power.
So did the Soviet dissidents - for example, Andrey Sakharov who founded the Moscow Helsinki Group.
OSV-1 and prisoner in 1979 OSV-2 declared nuclear parity between the two superpowers. However, under the leadership of the Trotskyists, the USSR continued its degradation, which is an example of the fate of the navy under the leadership of Admiral Gorshkov.
The meaning and results of the period of Leonid Brezhnev's rule - brilliant successes as a guarantee of future defeats
Unfortunately, despite the fact that during these years the country lived very measuredly and stably, processes took place in the economy that could not but hit the life of the USSR in the future.
1. With the fall in oil prices, all “stagnation” phenomena were exposed and it became clear that during the period of stability, the economy had become lagging behind and could no longer support the state only on its own.
2. For the formation of a qualitatively new policy, radical changes were not carried out: an appropriate scientific and educational base was not created, a sharp increase in the efficiency of production, its scientific and technical equipment was not carried out, a strong social policy was not built, the development of democratic principles in the management of society and etc.
For such a revolution in politics, a theoretical reassessment of the Soviet and party experience was needed, as well as the rejection of many dogmas of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.
3. This time is often referred to as the “twenty years of missed opportunities”, the “Brezhnev era”, as the leadership adopted a conservative traditionalist course. The program for reforming the management system of Soviet society, which was hatched by Stalin from the second half of the 1940s, assumed the separation of the functions of the state and the party.
At the same time, the real center of power had to move to the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It was precisely the post of chairman of the Council of Ministers, which Stalin held, that was of key importance in the late Stalinist power hierarchy, and the functions of the CPSU (b) were supposed to be limited to the tasks of ideological education. Khrushchev's program was exactly the opposite.
During the process of de-Stalinization, he continued the line of turning the USSR into a party state, a line that had been started under Lenin. As for Brezhnev and his associates, it was they who, despite their antipathy towards Khrushchev personally, completed the process of de-Stalinization.
In systemic terms, this meant the transfer of all power to the party apparatus, the preservation of strict party control over the state security agencies and the armed forces.
4. The party-state elite - the nomenclature has significantly strengthened its power. Negative tendencies were growing in the structure of public administration. In the late Soviet party state, there was a process of merging of the party and Soviet administrative apparatus, which led to widespread duplication of managerial functions.
This process not only did not contribute to the optimization of the management of the national economy and society as a whole, but also diverted the attention of the party apparatus from questions of organizational and ideological work, that is, from precisely the range of problems on which Stalin, in his failed reforms of the state administration system, intended to focus attention party bodies.
Brezhnev's reign was marked by an important stage in history. The professional activities and personal life of this politician have always been the subject of "hot" disputes and discussions.
For some, he was a good-natured person and a wonderful husband, and for others, a strict leader.
Opinions about the characteristics of those years that the Secretary General spent in power are also divided. There is no single answer. But what was L.I. Brezhnev and what events do you remember about his reign?
Brief biography of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev
Born in a simple working-class family, Leonid Ilyich started working early. His career began at a conventional factory. He graduated from a technical school, and then an institute. He worked in different places where he had career growth, and in various positions.
Brezhnev - four times Hero of the Soviet Union!
Since 1964 - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, since 1966 - General Secretary. Historians give an ambiguous assessment of his managerial activities. The country began to lag behind in development (in various directions) from other states. In total, Brezhnev ruled the country for about twenty years.
Interesting fact: once Leonid Ilyich signed for Lenin. This happened at the time of the presentation of the first membership card. Lenin was assigned number one, and Brezhnev number two. Since Lenin was "forgotten" to give out on time, both were given to Brezhn, in the first of them he put his autograph.
In the photo you can clearly make out the signature of the head of the country.
Origin and childhood
Year of birth of L. I. Brezhnev - 1906. The politician was born in Kamenskoye (now the territory of the Dnipropetrovsk region). He had a younger brother and sister, whose names were Yakov and Vera.
L.I. Brezhnev's parents - Ilya Yakovlevich Brezhnev and Natalya Denisovna Mazalova
His parents were ordinary workers. There is no unequivocal data about who he was by nationality. Some sources indicate that they are Russian, while others say that the nationality of Leonid Ilyich is Ukrainian. Birthday 6 (19) December.
Brezhnev is a real surname. The politician's father comes from the village of Brezhnevo.
Education
He graduated from the future politician Kamensk gymnasium. After graduation, he was admitted to the technical school for the specialty "Surveyor", in which he successfully worked for some time.
Later, the young and promising Brezhnev leaves for Moscow, where he enters the Institute of Agricultural Engineering. He did not study there for long, as he transferred to the Metallurgical Institute of the city of Dneprodzerzhinsk.
Rise to power
Before coming to the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, he passed a long career path. In 1931 he became a member of the CPSU (b). He has been in party positions since 1937. In different periods of time he held positions of various sizes.
Came to power during Khrushchev's dismissal. Brezhnev participated in a conspiracy against N.S. Khrushchev. Then he became the first secretary. Time of government - 1964-1982.
Domestic politics
The era of this politician's rule is characterized as "Brezhnev's stagnation". This happened due to the fact that the country was slowly developing in terms of the economy, there were problems in the social, spiritual and other spheres of society.
At first, Brezhnev supported criticism of the Stalinist regime, the rehabilitation of victims of repression, and favored limited liberalization. But as soon as Leonid Ilyich came to power, this process stopped.
In the year 66 of the last century, he returned to use the title of General Secretary, which was under Stalin. He did not encourage any form of dissent.
The historical portrait of Brezhnev as the head of the country is controversial.
Brezhnev's reforms
Leonid Ilyich carried out a number of economic, industrial and foreign reforms. It is also worth highlighting the anti-alcohol campaign that took place in 1972.
The economic reform of 1965 failed to produce the desired results. Kosygin was removed from his post, after which the economy began to decline.
Foreign policy
During the reign of Khrushchev, the foreign policy power of the USSR weakened. The US has taken the lead in this segment. Brezhnev was able to change this opinion, and during his reign a powerful fleet was created, the country achieved nuclear parity.
The Brezhnev era was also marked by the entry of troops into Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.
Personal life
Leonid Ilyich met his wife in his youth. The general secretary was married only once. Victoria Denisova (later Brezhnev) - that was the name of his wife.
They met at a dance. They both went to college. They later had two children, a daughter and a son.
When and how did Brezhnev die?
The years of life of the Secretary General - from 1906 to 1982. Date of death - 10 November. He was buried in Moscow, right on Red Square.
On the grave there is a monument in the form of a bust made of granite. At the time of death, the age was 75 years.
Brezhnev's successor is Yuri Andropov. It was he who ruled in the period after Brezhnev to Gorbachev.
The results of Brezhnev's rule - the pros and cons for Russia
The years of government of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev are estimated differently. As for Brezhnev, on the one hand, the country experienced stagnation. But on the other hand, it has achieved foreign policy power.
The political development of the country did not proceed as quickly as we would like (due to various factors). Of course, Brezhnev tried to do a lot of good for his country and bring its socio-economic development to a new level. However, the economic reforms of 1965 produced virtually no results.
On the other hand, due to reforms in the field of improving relations with the United States, the "iron curtain" began to weaken, and relations between the two countries improved, which helped to reduce the level of political tension in the world.
Lived quietly and muffled
This is a whole era in the life of the country, and one of the longest and, to be honest, not the worst. Although, of course, there were bad things in it too. Analyzing this time, we recall the Helsinki agreements, the historic Soyuz-Apollo docking, the entry of troops into Afghanistan, the Olympics-80, the construction of the century, dissident processes and, of course, stagnation. Today in Pyatnitsa, eyewitnesses and experts talk about Brezhnev and his role in history.
Each person who lived in the 70-80s of the last century has his own image of that era. I also have it, and not just one, so this is an ambiguous period. The very first thing that comes to mind is the feeling: is it really going to be like this forever? Will the endless plenums and meetings in the Central Committee of the CPSU, the speeches of the dull Kremlin elders, the battles for the harvest, hockey matches on TV and queues, queues, queues never end ...
Recalls Arnold Kharitonov, famous journalist, writer:
“When Brezhnev came, we vaguely understood that they were fighting up there, and everyone thought that Brezhnev was a temporary figure. And in the end, he stayed in office until his death, 18 years. At this time, anecdotes entered our life, which never happened under Stalin and could not be. And interestingly, under Stalin everything was hidden, and under Brezhnev everyone knew everything: that he did not write the books “Small Land” and “Virgin Land” about the lovers and husbands of his daughter Galina. And one more thing: Brezhnev did not make any shocking movements. 18 years old and nothing to say. They lived quietly and muffled.
Arnold Innokentevich recalls the famous phrase: "History repeats itself twice: the first time in the form of a tragedy, the second - in the form of a farce." Undoubtedly, the Brezhnev era is a complete farce.
“Remember how he could hardly stand on his feet and could not speak. And this is his childhood love for various orders and medals! Everyone laughed at him. One day he came to Irkutsk, talked to an aircraft factory worker, and immediately this worker was given the title of Hero of Socialist Labor. I remember the last time it was shown on TV in 1982 during a visit to Baku. Together with Heydar Aliyev, they arrived at the monument to 26 Baku commissars. Aliyev held him very tightly by the arm. First, Brezhnev bowed towards the monument, then Aliev turned it around to the people, and for some reason he bowed again. Apparently, he didn’t understand what was going on.”
Just during these years, Arnold Kharitonov had a chance to work both in newspapers and on television, that is, at the forefront of the ideological front.
“Censorship was rampant. We were under two caps - the regional committee of the CPSU and the Komsomol. Behind every word, every photograph they imagined a catch, a provocation, a second meaning. Once I was called by the head of the press sector to reprimand me for a photo of a dog in a tattered vest. Like, the sailors will be indignant, how dare they put a vest on a dog - a symbol of the Soviet fleet. I was stunned: what a connection - sailors in many countries of the world wear vests, and even pirates wore them. I can tell hundreds of such cases.
Vladimir Demchikov, a blogger, publicist and impresario, recalls the numerous portraits of "dear Leonid Ilyich" and his colleagues in the Politburo, which were everywhere - from newspapers and house walls to schools and TV:
“Moreover, these images were deliberately made on the cheap. Some rags, plywood, frames for banners... Such deliberate modesty of the ubiquitous, the fragility of the unshakable. It was a little funny, a little pitiful, bewildering and perceived simply as a visual manifestation of the absurdity inherent in life. We avoided all of this."
Vladimir Sevastyanovich does not feel any emotions about that time, according to him, it was obvious that the country was simply rolling downhill by inertia.
Indeed, everything was exactly like this: plywood banners, obligation to go to demonstrations on May 1 and November 7, conversations in kitchens, jokes ... And the very image of Leonid Ilyich, who was called nothing more than a fiery Marxist-Leninist, an outstanding leader of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, the most prominent figure in the international communist and workers' movement, a tireless fighter for peace and friendship between peoples, appears through the prism of numerous anecdotes. But most importantly, no one was afraid of Brezhnev, and they were not taken seriously at all. Especially in recent years. Here it is worth remembering how he was buried, because in our country a funeral is, so to speak, the moment of truth. It is during the funeral that the true attitude of people towards a statesman is manifested. No, of course, there were official speeches, national mourning, but, to be honest, many breathed a sigh of relief, because they no longer had the strength to look at the helpless old man.
“We went to show our new film in the Nizhneudinsky district,” recalls Arnold Kharitonov, “the first secretary of the district party committee was with us. And here we are sitting in the hut, and on the radio they announce his death. I ask the secretary: “The show should probably be canceled?” He: “Why cancel? There was no team." “Well, maybe a minute of silence to announce?” - "Not. We can’t announce it ourselves, there was no team.” - “You are probably going to Nizhneudinsk now?” - "Why? After the film, let's go, have a drink, eat, and the next morning I'll go. And no one sobbed, only the watchman nailed the mourning ribbon to the flag. And when Stalin died, I remember very well, everyone was crying. Both adults and children."
Was there a stalemate?
For some, the Brezhnev era is hopeless darkness, stagnation, timelessness, while others remember this period as a time of rapid development.
“Of course, it was not stagnation,” I am sure Vladimir Aksenov, secretary of the Irkutsk Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for outreach work, - there was growth in the country in all sectors. Everything is known in comparison: under him, 38 poultry farms were built in the Irkutsk region, now only three are working. As for Leonid Ilyich himself, he was a practical and completely disinterested person. We evaluate it positively, although time required more. Everyone says - coupons, shortages, but I think that this was done artificially. Many of the conquests of that time were adopted by other countries, such as free medicine and education. And they still haven't given up on it."
According to Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Limnological Institute Mikhail Grachev, under Brezhnev there was a sense of calm. Yes, there were dissidents, but the attitude towards them was more humane than under Khrushchev. The people were no longer afraid. Students hung out slogans, read samizdat.
“Someone had stagnation,” the academician says, “I didn’t have any stagnation. I generally believe that times do not choose. Of course, there was a lot of alluvial, hence the jokes. The man became old, and the environment did not want to change anything.
For Viktor Borovsky, ex-director of Irkutskenergo and chairman of the Legislative Assembly of the Irkutsk region in 2000-2002, the Brezhnev era was also not a lost time, much less stagnation, on the contrary, it was in those years that he took place as a successful head of a large enterprise.
“I can’t say anything bad about that era and about Brezhnev himself. This is the business of politicians: they wanted to change the regime, so they used the word “stagnation”. I worked at Irkutskenergo, there was rapid construction going on.”
Viktor Mitrofanovich said that at that time he worked at CHPP-9 in Angarsk. And when the problem of lack of capacity arose, he personally went to solve it in the Central Committee of the Party and the State Planning Commission, where they listened to him carefully and made a decision very quickly. That is, in those days there were no bureaucratic barriers: all issues were resolved promptly.
And another important point. At that time there were social elevators. Viktor Borovsky is a clear example of this. The son of a weaver and a military man, he had no connections at the top, but he was appointed to lead a large enterprise, and after that he was elected a deputy of the Angarsk Council of People's Deputies. That is, capable and active people under Brezhnev were identified and promoted. This is to the question of the supposedly existing negative selection in the Soviet years, which some publicists are so fond of talking about today.
Let us also recall that it was under Leonid Ilyich that science developed rapidly. Clear evidence of this is the Irkutsk Scientific Center. Tells Vera Rogozhina, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of the Earth's Crust, People's Deputy of the USSR (1989-1991):
“I can say one thing: I worked and did not feel any stagnation. Under him, I had the opportunity to realize all my scientific tasks. Our institute developed, money was given for research as much as necessary. There were prospects, no one interfered with us, we could travel in the field, we were given helicopters and equipment. Everyone got an apartment. And for free. Yes, meat stamps appeared in the early 80s. But there was a cooperative store where you could buy the same sausage, but not for 2.20, but for 5 rubles. And all the products at that time were natural: when they brought sausage, the smell stood for several hundred meters, because it was real.
We will return to the topic of coupons and total deficits, but first we need to figure out: was there a stagnation after all or not? In general, when you think about the Brezhnev era, you always experience a kind of, as they say now, a break in the pattern. Why stagnation, if it was in the 1970s that so much was built in the USSR that neither before nor after Brezhnev was built? Let us recall the all-Union shock construction projects: the Ust-Ilimskaya hydroelectric power station, BAM, KamAZ, the Druzhba oil pipeline, etc.
Word to the historian Alexander Shubin, Candidate of Sciences, Associate Professor of the East Siberian Institute of Economics and Law:
“The Brezhnev era can be divided into two periods - from 1964 to 1976 and from 1976 to 1982. The first period of his reign was successful. It was then that our economy reached high rates of development. And what is very important, for the first time in the history of the USSR, the production of consumer goods was going at a faster pace. That is, they began to produce clothes, furniture, televisions, refrigerators, etc. I remember as soon as I got married in 1979 and immediately received a warrant for an apartment, my wife and I went to the store and calmly bought a refrigerator. And before, you had to stand in line for three years.”
During this period, wages began to rise. Recall that under Khrushchev, honorary diplomas and titles were the main incentives for increasing efficiency.
Cash prizes were symbolic, five rubles, no more. Under Brezhnev, they began to pay the 13th salary. Enterprises have the opportunity to allocate part of the earned funds for housing construction. The foreign policy of the USSR was also successful. A cooperation agreement with the United States, the Helsinki Act, was signed. The USSR constantly came up with peace initiatives, which increased our authority in the international arena.
But it was not possible to keep this course. Late Brezhnev is the revival of imperial politics in its purest form.
We again began to spend huge amounts of money on defense, the production of tanks and weapons. The money also went to support friendly regimes in other countries. And the apotheosis of this unreasonable policy was the introduction of troops into Afghanistan. All this eventually undermined the country's economy, and we spoiled relations with the whole world. Thus, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev was a major political figure until the mid-70s, and after that he was a minor politician of the era of Alla Pugacheva.
Historian, Ph.D. Sergei Schmidt managed to catch the Brezhnev era. When the General Secretary died, he was 11 years old, and he perfectly remembers both the deficit and talk about the queue, but he also remembers the rapid housing construction in Irkutsk, and the fact that the families of classmates received apartments.
“Not a single historian will deny that 18 years of Brezhnev's rule is the most peaceful period in the history of the country in the 20th century. Paradoxical as it may seem, but the Brezhnev era is actually the birth of private life in the USSR, the formation of a new individualistic psychology, freed from Stalinist totalitarianism and the sixties "collectivism". You can talk about the Soviet deficit for a long time, but it was in the era of stagnation that the foundations of the modern consumer society and consumer psychology were formed.
Yes, the Brezhnev USSR was doomed, like any authoritarian-conservative regime. He did not much outlive his symbol and creator. An attempt to "reboot" a thoroughly frozen system led to its collapse. However, for a researcher free from the prejudices of zoological anti-Sovietism, the significance of this period in Russian history is undeniable, and Brezhnev's Soviet society is in some ways much more interesting than the Soviet society of the era of Stalin and Khrushchev.
And read and watch
Contradictions are at every turn. They say: when the scoop was strangled freedom, including creative. But for some reason, it was under Leonid Ilyich that the heyday of Soviet cinema took place. And the films loved since childhood, which can be watched endlessly and from any place, were created just then: “Three Poplars on Plyushchikha”, “Kalina Krasnaya”, “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, “Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson” and many others. It was during the Brezhnev years that Andrei Tarkovsky filmed Andrei Rublev, Solaris, Stalker, and the absolute masterpiece of all time, The Mirror. There is a version that censorship even in some way encouraged artists to look for new forms and metaphors. Interestingly, many films of that time are generally devoid of an ideological component, for example, The Irony of Fate by Eldar Ryazanov looks like a story that could happen in any country. And after all, somehow they were missed on the screens of cinemas. Although, of course, many films went on the shelf, this cannot be denied.
At the same time, outstanding theater directors worked: Yuri Lyubimov, Anatoly Efros, Oleg Efremov, Georgy Tovstonogov. Yes, they had problems, and not everyone was allowed to stage, but they still worked and created legendary performances. And Brezhnev personally did not allow the famous Taganka Theater to be shut down, that's a fact.
Also during this period, a great interest in various spiritual teachings and philosophical knowledge appeared in society. And it doesn't seem to be banned. This was especially carried away among scientists and the intelligentsia.
“I myself, as a graduate student, participated in the work of the Novosibirsk group Integral,” recalls Nikolai Vasiliev, Philosopher, Candidate of Sciences, Head of the Department of Humanitarian Disciplines at the Russian Law Academy of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. - No one forbade us to hold Roerich readings. I listened to the speech of Svyatoslav Roerich twice. I saw Lev Gumilyov when he returned from exile. Imagine! His ideas were disseminated through various articles and collections. I personally belonged to the association of Zen Buddhists, and we mastered this culture from a cognitive standpoint. And all this happened quite officially at seminars in the House of Scientists. The Brezhnev period is a great creative time: science, space, art.”
And television! It was customary to kick him, they say, one lie and propaganda. But remember that under the “totalitarian” Brezhnev regime, in addition to the programs “Serving the Soviet Union” and “Lenin University of Millions”, the legendary and even avant-garde KVN, What? Where? When?”, “You Can Do It” and “Funny Guys”. And interestingly, the heroes of these programs looked absolutely normal, modern young people, not crushed by propaganda. That is, the communist ideology was on its own, and people lived and developed on their own. Especially the youth. It differed little from the youth in Europe. I listened to the same music (although I had to get it out), dressed the same way, went to discos the same way.
Coupons, shortages, queues
Until the end of the seventies, there were no big problems with products. I was a child, but I remember huge heads of cheese and hams hanging on hooks in our deli. Then there were queues for sausage, and quite wild ones, you had to stand in them for hours without hope, because the sausage could suddenly end in front of you.
Gradually, standing in lines in the USSR became the meaning of life. Seeing the line, people automatically got into it, not even knowing what they were selling.
In 1980 (and according to some sources, in 1979), coupons for meat and butter were introduced in Irkutsk. Two coupons per person per month. On the ticket you could take 800 g of sausage, or a pack of dumplings, or a soup set, or a chicken, or 10 cutlets. Coupons were issued in the house management strictly according to the passport for all family members, including newborns. Moreover, the presence of a coupon was not a guarantee of the purchase of the desired product.
“It was good luck to take two packs of dumplings for one ticket, which were stretched for several days,” recalls the sociologist, dean of the social faculty of the Institute of Social Sciences of ISU, candidate of philosophical sciences Evgenia Goltsova. - Coupons were not merchandised in all stores, so there were always queues, crush and even tragedy. In a grocery store on Zhukovsky Street, the buttons from my coat were somehow torn off in a stampede.
Interestingly, people did not particularly grumble and even welcomed the introduction of the coupon system. They said: let 800 grams of sausage, but everyone will have enough. Later, after Brezhnev's death, coupons for vodka, sugar, toilet and laundry soap, and vegetable oil appeared.
double morality
And now, more than 30 years later, many Russians have begun to feel nostalgic for the Brezhnev era. On the Web, you can find dozens of forums where people write that there was no better time in their life. Why?
“Firstly, people tend to forget everything,” Evgenia Goltsova explains, “especially the bad. The social memory of our population is short. People have forgotten Stalin's sins and in the same way they have forgotten all the bad things that happened under Brezhnev. I remember how in the spring of 1979 we, students, were gathered in the gym of the technical school and held a rally in support of the decision of the party and government to send troops to Afghanistan. Around the same time, a graduate of our technical school, the brother of my classmate, joined the army. And a few months later he returned ... in a zinc coffin.
Secondly, many of those who today say that everything was fine under Brezhnev were then much younger. And in youth, as they say, "the girls were more beautiful, and the sausage was tastier." For many, longing for the Brezhnev years is a longing for bygone youth.
Thirdly, we must not forget that everything is known in comparison. There is interesting data from VTsIOM at the beginning of the 2000s on the attitude of the population towards the Brezhnev era, in which people rated it with a plus sign. Why? Because those who had just survived the "dashing" 90s answered. Under Brezhnev, they already had something: a job, an apartment, a dacha, a sense of stability, but in the 90s they had to survive. People were losing their savings, jobs, loved ones... Therefore, many began to remember the old days with nostalgia.
However, not everyone is nostalgic for Brezhnev's stability. Because it was then that such phenomena as deficit, blat appeared. According to the sociologist, in the 1980s, the needs and interests of the population grew, and the possibilities of satisfying them lagged behind. The so-called double morality appeared, which was reflected in art. Many films were shot in which this was condemned: “Award”, “I ask for words”, “Alien letters”, “Joke”, etc. As a result of adapting to such a life, people developed a kind of immunity, which was otherwise called indifference, that is don't take anything seriously. And of course, the alcoholization of society. People drank from hopelessness, from lies, from constant breaks in the pattern.
Thus, ideology came into conflict with real life. Many experts believe that in the 1970s, Soviet society had already moved away from the Leninist ideology, in fact it had become bourgeois. The main values of that period are an apartment, six acres, a Romanian wall, a Czech chandelier. And, of course, people are already tired of the slogans "The plans of the party are the plans of the people."
Historian, professor at ISU Viktor Dyatlov believes that it is necessary to separate the personality of Brezhnev himself and his era.
“The era of stagnation is a very inadequate definition,” says the professor. - In fact, this is an era of huge internal transformations associated with the ideological demobilization of society, and in many respects the authorities. For socialism, as an ideocratic system, this is death. Unanimity, the dissolution of a person in the state, unity, mobilization - these are the most important conditions for existence.
Under Brezhnev, society began to lose faith in a bright future, in the justice and justification of the existing system of relations. Socialism offered to live in conditions of constant mobilization and ideological excitement, constant struggle. And people are just tired. They wanted simple human joys.
“I would define stagnation as a process of privatization of a person. People in the mass did not rebel, they did not become ideological opponents of socialism. They just started living for themselves. And it was this life that pronounced a death sentence on the system for itself. Yes, and the government itself was disappointed in the mobilization, under Brezhnev there were no more mass repressions. And the regime began to rot alive. Cynicism and doublethink became the norm. Publicly they said one thing, in the kitchen - another, they thought the third. Socialism gradually turned into a ritual, into an empty shell in which no one believed. And he collapsed himself, fell apart, as they say, out of the blue. No war, no cataclysms, no internal opposition. Not one of the 18 million members of the CPSU came to his defense in 1991.”
In conclusion, it begs to throw a bridge from the era of stagnation to our time. Today in Russia we have almost everything that was under Brezhnev: stability, pride in the state, and even the stores have everything. Only for some reason new Tarkovskys and Lyubimovs do not appear.
- The independent think tank Yuri Levada recently asked Russians which of the last century's leaders they value most and remember best. And the citizens chose Brezhnev, who - at first with a firm, and then with an increasingly weak hand - ruled the empire from 1964 to 1982. And although liberals are tearing their hair out, there is nothing to be surprised here. ( An excerpt from an article by Vatslav Radzivinovich “Dear Leonid Ilyich”).
In 2017, they conducted a survey dedicated to the centenary of the February Revolution - the Russians were asked to answer under which ruler over the last century the country lived best. Of the more than 1,500 respondents, 29% named the best era of Leonid's rule (for example, Stalin's leadership gathered only 6% of supporters, perestroika - 2%, and Yeltsin - 1%). Interestingly, over the years, love for Brezhnev has grown stronger - in April 2006, only 39% of Russians had a positive attitude towards him, and in January 2017, 47% of the survey participants admitted to liking him.
The Russians really have something to thank Leonid Brezhnev for - after the war and the seething reforms of Nikita Khrushchev, peace and prosperity were necessary for Soviet citizens to take a breath and gain strength for the changes that were just around the corner.
During the 18 years that Brezhnev spent in power, real incomes of the population increased by more than 1.5 times, the population of Russia increased by 12 million people, and 162 million inhabitants of the USSR received free housing.
At the same time, the rent on average did not exceed 3% of the family income. The availability of medicine and higher education also reached the highest development.
The illusion of reform
Brezhnev's reign began with economic reform led by the chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers. Its development began under Nikita Khrushchev, and the new leadership of the country decided to give the transformation a chance. The essence of the reform was to give enterprises and collective farms more independence, as well as to update the methods of central planning.
The changes benefited the economy - compared with the previous five-year plan, in 1966-1970, the average annual growth rate of national income increased by an average of 1.1%, and the gross social product increased by more than 350%. In the USSR, they began to produce four times more products than in the previous four five-year plans: the output of industrial goods jumped by 485%, and agricultural - by 171%. However, soon the economic reform stalled and stalled, because without political reforms it had no future.
“Since the mid-1970s, the oil factor has become a determining factor in the development of the country for many years and made unnecessary, in the view of the country's leadership, economic transformations. The country was severely crippled by the "resource curse", the economy became even more inefficient, one-sided, undiversified, dependent not only on oil revenues, but also on imports. The income received from oil exports, of course, contributed to the growth of real incomes of the population, securing the country's leading positions in the world in terms of volume indicators. However, they were not aimed at structural transformations, at investments in advanced industries,” says Doctor of Economics, Professor Alla Dvoretskaya
As a result, the growth rate dropped from 7-8% to 3-4%, and the objective impossibility of winning the arms race completed the picture of the economic failure of a huge country.
“The transition to the market and political transformations have become inevitable,” the expert sums up.
The era of "stagnation"
The term "stagnation", which is now often used to denote the period of Leonid Brezhnev's rule, appeared due to - in 1986, in a report that he read at the XXVII Congress of the Central Committee of the CPSU, it was said that "stagnation began to appear in the life of society." Moreover, he meant "stagnation" in all areas of the country's life - from political and economic to social.
“I remember that time well - at the end of the Brezhnev period, I was a student. Then, of course, it was perceived as “stagnation”, then there was a demand for change. When people live too long in an environment of stability, they stop appreciating it - this has happened many times throughout human history. At the end of this period, there was a tense state of expectation of change. Tsoi has the song “Changes, we are waiting for changes,” which was then perceived very clearly, it was clear to everyone what he was singing about, ”recalls Vladimir Bessonov.
Changes were required not only for people, but also for the economy: according to the economist, in the 70s, to increase national income by 1%, production fixed assets and capital investments for their growth increased by 1.5%, the volume of raw materials and materials - by 1, 2, the number of labor force - by 0.3%.
“The economy suffered a lot of ailments. We had a very large military-industrial complex, and that's bad,
there was an inflated investment complex (when the planned era ended, there was a lot of unpacked equipment in boxes, bought for foreign currency abroad), and we spent many times more raw materials, materials, electricity and labor per unit of output,” Bessonov comments on these figures .
According to the expert, under Brezhnev the highest level of development of the planned economy was achieved, but at this highest stage all the flaws of the existing system were manifested, and first of all, the lack of motivation at the micro level.
“Because everything was planned from above, there was little that could be done from the level of the household, the individual worker or the enterprise. This killed the initiative from below, and the planned nature of the system brought the situation to the point of absurdity: for example, in the light industry, to make minimal changes in the design of clothes, it took an extremely long time to coordinate them in different instances. Thus, the potential of people in this system could not be used, and in this sense it was vicious, and the years of its highest development were the years on the eve of the collapse,” Vladimir Bessonov is sure.
Stable hopelessness
Experts give different assessments of the economy of the Brezhnev period - although the number of its opponents prevails, there are also active defenders of a stable government without reforms and changes.
“If in 1960 the national income of the USSR amounted to 58% of the US level, then in 1980 it was already 67%. And this despite the fact that the USSR developed based solely on its own resources and helped many foreign countries,
while the well-being of the United States was based on an unequal exchange with other, primarily developing states. Somewhere at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, there was a certain rollback, but later, in the second half of the eleventh five-year plan, everything fell into place, and the development of the USSR again continued in advance mode, ”says in his book“ The USSR under Brezhnev" historian Dmitry Churakov.
However, there are also directly opposite data. According to the authors of the book "Economics in Transition", edited by, "there is convincing scientific evidence that the economic development of the USSR and closely related CMEA member countries in the 70-80s. had an internally unstable character, that from this trajectory there was no longer an exit to the regime of at least a stagnant, but stable socialist economy.
As a result, both the Soviet Union and most other countries of the socialist bloc embarked on a path of change, beginning the transition from socialism to a market economy.
“The Brezhnev period appears to be something homogeneous when we judge it in contrast to the previous and subsequent ones. This is stagnation in the eyes of those for whom the Khrushchev period was a thaw, and the 1990s were a time of freedom. And stability is the perception of those for whom Khrushchev is associated mainly with controversial improvisations, and the nineties with economic and social losses. Be that as it may, periods in history remain largely their results, their legacy. During the Brezhnev period, more problems were accumulated than solved. So, it’s still stagnant, ”explains the first vice-rector of the Higher School of Economics.
