Perestroika. Shootout. Redrawing
Thirty years marks these days event which has changed almost beyond recognition our country. And not only ours. In April 1985 at the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party when the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev declared "decisive party in the course of large-scale reforms", denoting their capacious word "perestroika".Many, as they say, water has flowed since then. It does not become the Soviet Union (and with it the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia). On the ruins of a great country, new state entities, including, so far not recognized - the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the Republic of Abkhazia, the People's Republic of Karabakh. The Warsaw Pact collapsed decades provides military parity in the world ...
But not for the same restructuring was started? Something positive has brought it into our lives? Or all the empty: the aspirations of the country's multi-million dollar, the unlimited patience of people suddenly found themselves on the brink of poverty, the cost of the reform of billions, the new borders of the new state heavily truncated to break kinship and even family ties?Told "SP" talked to experts, it is necessary, we can say half of my life to the study of the phenomenon called "perestroika in the USSR."- Now, many in Russia are nostalgic for the Soviet past, - says Andrey Stolyarov, known in St. Petersburg writer, a cultural geopolitics. - But in the late 1980s, such feelings even imagine it was difficult. It is not only in line for toilet paper, has been a sharp and moral fatigue from endless demagogy power discrepancy that speaks to the crowd and that it really is. In my opinion, the need for major structural reforms did not come in the days of Gorbachev, and in the early 1970s, when our rich as it was considered a world power began to buy foreign food and goods. Suddenly it became clear that a socialist economy can not provide people with the necessary."SP": - By the way, why did this happen?- We had a lot of the shortcomings of the economy, one of the most important - the party leadership. Each regional committee was interested in a quick report on progress. For example, in the seed of the villagers demanded to sow the field as quickly as possible, no matter the weather allows it or not, the main report. The area falls into foremost, get a reward. And then I had replanted. Imagine what the cost! Quality is almost required. The main amounts were. For example, the Soviet Union held the world record for the number of tractors. And no one is bothered that the majority of these tractors were too heavy, ruined topsoil in the fields. We kept the first place in the world for the production of iron and steel. But the steel was produced not too high quality. West in those years have moved into new, more economical ways of casting and production of almost all mechanisms. Therefore, "their" Our technique was easier, more convenient, cheaper. And so almost everything."SP": - But on the part of the defense, space we were in front of ...- Yes, about 40% of the state budget was spent on the army. Our ocean-going fleet was comparable to the US. But his entire output in the seas and oceans has not been possible, very expensive.In addition, there was a great help to developing countries. As soon as any developing country to announce that it is building socialism as poluchalabezvozvratny credit. Hence the inevitable increase in the deficit. And by 1986, more and oil prices collapsed - up to 10 dollars per barrel (about 20 at the current rate - Ed.). And keep at least 13 years. No products, no food and nothing to buy, as petrodollars rapidly melting. The country was on the brink of economic disaster. It was only about whether we can make a controlled crash, that is, to minimize its consequences, or there will be chaos. In this situation, the restructuring began."SP": - Personally, you know what to expect from her?- Freedom, interesting and full of life. I disliked Soviet split consciousness. All this, as rust corroding the society and the state.- Expectations of change are universal in the country - says Dmitry Travin, scientific director of the Center for Modernization Studies at the European University in St. Petersburg - in those years I actively lectured on society "Knowledge". Were they in enterprises, institutions and in rural areas. Never none of the students told me that he was against the promised changes. Apart from the case in the Leningrad region, where one lineman shouted from his seat: "Yes, what perestroika - the country needed Stalin!". When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, said the need to change a life, it's the whole country was taken at the "Hurrah." Everyone was poor, and everyone believed: a new leader knows how and what to do. But he, unfortunately, did not.The first half of the year the General Secretary spoke about the reforms very often, a lot of very vague. While speaking, the situation in the country deteriorated. Only in the spring of eighty-seven, he turned finally to the economists from academic institutions to develop a program of reforms. Since 1988 she began to act. But as bad has been prepared, such were her inconsistencies between individual mechanisms that the situation did not improve. Is that money in people becoming more and fewer goods. And the charm of restructuring, rather, the fact that it initially promised to gradually become a great disappointment."SP": - In addition, that "everything went to talk" that the restructuring program was untenable, about which more errors we can say that if they do not, then everything would have turned out?- When the end of the 1980s, Gorbachev felt that losing popularity due to the deceleration in the transformations, he decided to carry out political reform. Namely - to consolidate his power by partial democratization of the society. Fears that can be removed from the post of party colleagues Khrushchev in 1964. As a result, and he became head of the Communist Party, and, thanks to the people's deputies of the USSR State. Since the deputies elected by the people, and the release of presidential powers only he could. Tactically conceived correctly. A strategic mistake again. Because this reform has led to a dual power: on the one hand - the deputies, on the other - the party. And each of these two main branches considered itself. Further more. In 1990, elections were held in the Union republics. And, in particular, in Russia there was troevlastie. More years passed after the Russian presidential election. There was a fourth power in the face of Yeltsin, who considered himself the chief of the Soviet Union as its "just-elected all the people." Hence the political crisis of August 1991, the Emergency Committee."SP": - This "emergency committee" is also thought of himself as the "chief of the USSR ..."- Yes, the fifth power, even if only for a few days. All this eventually led to the bloody events of October 1993Following the economic mistakes "reformer of the CPSU" followed policy. That "the bottom line"? "Bialowieza Forest", the collapse of the USSR, the prolonged crisis of the 1990s."SP": And - end has not received restructuring.- Here, I disagree with you. Because, as an economist, do not believe it did not happen. Substandard reforms decided not to aggravate the problem of shortage and some others that have somehow solved, all contributed to the dismantling of obsolete. If the economy, and with it an outdated system of life organization in the country, if not completely destroyed, there would be no further reforms. So would live today in total deficit on everything. This is at best."SP": - Above you mentioned, that the era of Gorbachev's political crisis has led to the bloody events in Moscow in 1993. But it is believed that the restructuring had already two years as the end.- Purely chronologically restructuring ended with the departure from the Kremlin, Mikhail Gorbachev. But in fact it was she who brought revolutionary changes in the political system of the country. The ongoing revolution from 1989 to 1993., Allowing blood and the establishment of Yeltsin hard sole authority.Many of those who today remembers the restructuring, analyzes the events of that time, spoken mainly about the deficit in the USSR of goods and products. But it is not by bread alone, as you know, the person is alive. For purely domestic difficulties our Russian (Soviet) the person does not get used. It was, perhaps, something else that required fundamental changes in our society. What is still not primarily suited people?- For me the answer is obvious: not suit split consciousness, a split life, splitting power - meets Marina Mackiewicz, a senior fellow at the Institute of Sociology. - People mentally tired from all this. From childhood to old age, we all felt a sharp discrepancy between what we can say officially what was said in the kitchens. At the end of 1980 for the abolition of Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution, which proclaims the "leading and guiding role of the Communist Party" were the overwhelming majority of the population is not only machines, but also members of the Communist Party. While the changes were initiated by itself in the face of Gorbachev. True, the authorities do not really know how to implement these changes. In those years, I loved to quote Zhvanetskogo: "It is not necessary - everyone knows how to - no one knows." As a result, the Communist Party leaders began differences. Incidentally, these differences resulted in the end in what the memory of restructuring at all different depending on to which social group the person belongs.For some it's thick journals, publication before the forbidden literature, legal inhouse movies, for which the Soviet Union before it was possible to get a term, etc. And for the other - rich food and goods shelves, no queues, the opportunity to travel abroad. It reminds relation to 1960. For the villagers while there was no "thaw", all of these books and movies. They recalled prohibitions on farms, the construction of personal houses, bans on trade in the market. Mitigating censorship of little concern."SP": - And if you look at the stratification of society - then and now, on the financial possibilities of the party elite and the current "big bosses"?- In the Soviet Union the "big bosses" have a lot of opportunities. Could, for example, with a single call to throw the person in jail. But to build a palace on the Cote d'Azur, have several luxury apartments in the capital, they could not, even if you really would want. The income level of the current governor has been unreachable for their predecessors as regional leaders - secretary of the city and province. The system does not allow it. What is also affected, of course, on the idealization of the country that has gone along with the restructuring."SP": - Still, that was its main "driving force" for the citizens of the USSR - the moral priorities of a sausage or a deficit?- Of course, moral priorities, the desire to live in an open, fair country. Although, if they were to what all will, I think, would hardly have started it.Mottos and sayings during perestroika"So you can not live!", "Acceleration", "Glasnost", "More socialism!", "Strike while the iron until Gorbachev," "Boris, you're wrong!".A popular anecdote perestroika period"At first restructuring. Then - a skirmish. Then - roll. "
Ludmila NikolaevaSource: svpressa.ru
Thirty years marks these days event which has changed almost beyond recognition our country. And not only ours. In April 1985 at the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party when the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev declared "decisive party in the course of large-scale reforms", denoting their capacious word "perestroika".Many, as they say, water has flowed since then. It does not become the Soviet Union (and with it the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia). On the ruins of a great country, new state entities, including, so far not recognized - the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the Republic of Abkhazia, the People's Republic of Karabakh. The Warsaw Pact collapsed decades provides military parity in the world ...
But not for the same restructuring was started? Something positive has brought it into our lives? Or all the empty: the aspirations of the country's multi-million dollar, the unlimited patience of people suddenly found themselves on the brink of poverty, the cost of the reform of billions, the new borders of the new state heavily truncated to break kinship and even family ties?Told "SP" talked to experts, it is necessary, we can say half of my life to the study of the phenomenon called "perestroika in the USSR."- Now, many in Russia are nostalgic for the Soviet past, - says Andrey Stolyarov, known in St. Petersburg writer, a cultural geopolitics. - But in the late 1980s, such feelings even imagine it was difficult. It is not only in line for toilet paper, has been a sharp and moral fatigue from endless demagogy power discrepancy that speaks to the crowd and that it really is. In my opinion, the need for major structural reforms did not come in the days of Gorbachev, and in the early 1970s, when our rich as it was considered a world power began to buy foreign food and goods. Suddenly it became clear that a socialist economy can not provide people with the necessary."SP": - By the way, why did this happen?- We had a lot of the shortcomings of the economy, one of the most important - the party leadership. Each regional committee was interested in a quick report on progress. For example, in the seed of the villagers demanded to sow the field as quickly as possible, no matter the weather allows it or not, the main report. The area falls into foremost, get a reward. And then I had replanted. Imagine what the cost! Quality is almost required. The main amounts were. For example, the Soviet Union held the world record for the number of tractors. And no one is bothered that the majority of these tractors were too heavy, ruined topsoil in the fields. We kept the first place in the world for the production of iron and steel. But the steel was produced not too high quality. West in those years have moved into new, more economical ways of casting and production of almost all mechanisms. Therefore, "their" Our technique was easier, more convenient, cheaper. And so almost everything."SP": - But on the part of the defense, space we were in front of ...- Yes, about 40% of the state budget was spent on the army. Our ocean-going fleet was comparable to the US. But his entire output in the seas and oceans has not been possible, very expensive.In addition, there was a great help to developing countries. As soon as any developing country to announce that it is building socialism as poluchalabezvozvratny credit. Hence the inevitable increase in the deficit. And by 1986, more and oil prices collapsed - up to 10 dollars per barrel (about 20 at the current rate - Ed.). And keep at least 13 years. No products, no food and nothing to buy, as petrodollars rapidly melting. The country was on the brink of economic disaster. It was only about whether we can make a controlled crash, that is, to minimize its consequences, or there will be chaos. In this situation, the restructuring began."SP": - Personally, you know what to expect from her?- Freedom, interesting and full of life. I disliked Soviet split consciousness. All this, as rust corroding the society and the state.- Expectations of change are universal in the country - says Dmitry Travin, scientific director of the Center for Modernization Studies at the European University in St. Petersburg - in those years I actively lectured on society "Knowledge". Were they in enterprises, institutions and in rural areas. Never none of the students told me that he was against the promised changes. Apart from the case in the Leningrad region, where one lineman shouted from his seat: "Yes, what perestroika - the country needed Stalin!". When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in March 1985, said the need to change a life, it's the whole country was taken at the "Hurrah." Everyone was poor, and everyone believed: a new leader knows how and what to do. But he, unfortunately, did not.The first half of the year the General Secretary spoke about the reforms very often, a lot of very vague. While speaking, the situation in the country deteriorated. Only in the spring of eighty-seven, he turned finally to the economists from academic institutions to develop a program of reforms. Since 1988 she began to act. But as bad has been prepared, such were her inconsistencies between individual mechanisms that the situation did not improve. Is that money in people becoming more and fewer goods. And the charm of restructuring, rather, the fact that it initially promised to gradually become a great disappointment."SP": - In addition, that "everything went to talk" that the restructuring program was untenable, about which more errors we can say that if they do not, then everything would have turned out?- When the end of the 1980s, Gorbachev felt that losing popularity due to the deceleration in the transformations, he decided to carry out political reform. Namely - to consolidate his power by partial democratization of the society. Fears that can be removed from the post of party colleagues Khrushchev in 1964. As a result, and he became head of the Communist Party, and, thanks to the people's deputies of the USSR State. Since the deputies elected by the people, and the release of presidential powers only he could. Tactically conceived correctly. A strategic mistake again. Because this reform has led to a dual power: on the one hand - the deputies, on the other - the party. And each of these two main branches considered itself. Further more. In 1990, elections were held in the Union republics. And, in particular, in Russia there was troevlastie. More years passed after the Russian presidential election. There was a fourth power in the face of Yeltsin, who considered himself the chief of the Soviet Union as its "just-elected all the people." Hence the political crisis of August 1991, the Emergency Committee."SP": - This "emergency committee" is also thought of himself as the "chief of the USSR ..."- Yes, the fifth power, even if only for a few days. All this eventually led to the bloody events of October 1993Following the economic mistakes "reformer of the CPSU" followed policy. That "the bottom line"? "Bialowieza Forest", the collapse of the USSR, the prolonged crisis of the 1990s."SP": And - end has not received restructuring.- Here, I disagree with you. Because, as an economist, do not believe it did not happen. Substandard reforms decided not to aggravate the problem of shortage and some others that have somehow solved, all contributed to the dismantling of obsolete. If the economy, and with it an outdated system of life organization in the country, if not completely destroyed, there would be no further reforms. So would live today in total deficit on everything. This is at best."SP": - Above you mentioned, that the era of Gorbachev's political crisis has led to the bloody events in Moscow in 1993. But it is believed that the restructuring had already two years as the end.- Purely chronologically restructuring ended with the departure from the Kremlin, Mikhail Gorbachev. But in fact it was she who brought revolutionary changes in the political system of the country. The ongoing revolution from 1989 to 1993., Allowing blood and the establishment of Yeltsin hard sole authority.Many of those who today remembers the restructuring, analyzes the events of that time, spoken mainly about the deficit in the USSR of goods and products. But it is not by bread alone, as you know, the person is alive. For purely domestic difficulties our Russian (Soviet) the person does not get used. It was, perhaps, something else that required fundamental changes in our society. What is still not primarily suited people?- For me the answer is obvious: not suit split consciousness, a split life, splitting power - meets Marina Mackiewicz, a senior fellow at the Institute of Sociology. - People mentally tired from all this. From childhood to old age, we all felt a sharp discrepancy between what we can say officially what was said in the kitchens. At the end of 1980 for the abolition of Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution, which proclaims the "leading and guiding role of the Communist Party" were the overwhelming majority of the population is not only machines, but also members of the Communist Party. While the changes were initiated by itself in the face of Gorbachev. True, the authorities do not really know how to implement these changes. In those years, I loved to quote Zhvanetskogo: "It is not necessary - everyone knows how to - no one knows." As a result, the Communist Party leaders began differences. Incidentally, these differences resulted in the end in what the memory of restructuring at all different depending on to which social group the person belongs.For some it's thick journals, publication before the forbidden literature, legal inhouse movies, for which the Soviet Union before it was possible to get a term, etc. And for the other - rich food and goods shelves, no queues, the opportunity to travel abroad. It reminds relation to 1960. For the villagers while there was no "thaw", all of these books and movies. They recalled prohibitions on farms, the construction of personal houses, bans on trade in the market. Mitigating censorship of little concern."SP": - And if you look at the stratification of society - then and now, on the financial possibilities of the party elite and the current "big bosses"?- In the Soviet Union the "big bosses" have a lot of opportunities. Could, for example, with a single call to throw the person in jail. But to build a palace on the Cote d'Azur, have several luxury apartments in the capital, they could not, even if you really would want. The income level of the current governor has been unreachable for their predecessors as regional leaders - secretary of the city and province. The system does not allow it. What is also affected, of course, on the idealization of the country that has gone along with the restructuring."SP": - Still, that was its main "driving force" for the citizens of the USSR - the moral priorities of a sausage or a deficit?- Of course, moral priorities, the desire to live in an open, fair country. Although, if they were to what all will, I think, would hardly have started it.Mottos and sayings during perestroika"So you can not live!", "Acceleration", "Glasnost", "More socialism!", "Strike while the iron until Gorbachev," "Boris, you're wrong!".A popular anecdote perestroika period"At first restructuring. Then - a skirmish. Then - roll. "
Ludmila NikolaevaSource: svpressa.ru
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий