The Address of the President to the National Assembly noted that the most important task in 2000 is still to ensure sustainable dynamic socio-economic development of the country, to maintain economic growth in production, which is the basis for improving the welfare of the Belarusian people. The well-being of the republic and its people is primarily determined by the sustainable development of industry.

As noted above, the industry of the city of Bobruisk, following the results of work for 1999, ensured the fulfillment of the most important forecast indicator - the growth in industrial production. With a target of 103.4%, the actual performance was 107.9% (Appendix 4). Compared to the level of 1990, this figure was only 88.1%. (Appendix No. 8).

An analysis of the development procedure and timing of bringing the main forecast indicators to business entities by higher management bodies, the formation of a forecast for the socio-economic development of the region and the city of Bobruisk in particular, showed that these results were laid down at the planning stage.

The main reason for this state of affairs is the lack of coordination of plans in the sectoral and regional contexts. From appendices 9 and 10, the discrepancies in the tasks brought to business entities by higher authorities and the city executive committee are clearly visible.

In this regard, in the latest decisions of the executive committee, such a function as planning is more clearly traced, its form is an indicative plan. Indicative planning is a mechanism for coordinating the actions and interests of the state and other economic entities, based on the development of a system of indicators (indicators) of socio-economic development and including the definition of its national priorities, goal setting, forecasting, budgeting, programming, contracting and other procedures for coordinating decisions on micro and macro level.

As indicators of socio-economic development for the city of Bobruisk, as a major industrial center, the following indicators are used: production of industrial products and consumer goods, trade through all sales channels, provision of paid services to the population, including household, foreign economic activity (export and import raw materials, goods, works and services), commissioning of residential buildings at the expense of all sources of financing.

The forecast of socio-economic development of the city of Bobruisk was twice submitted for consideration by the city executive committee, and only on March 16 this year, the main indicators were approved by the session of the city Council of Deputies. After the approval by the session, the most important parameters of the forecast of socio-economic development within a week were brought to the attention of the administrations of urban areas and business entities. However, by this time, 11 industrial enterprises were not informed by the higher authorities (of the regional and republican levels) of the forecast indicators.

According to the author of the work, the forecast of socio-economic development for the short term should be developed annually and formed at least a month before the start of the forecast period. Forecasts before their approval must be agreed in the sectoral and regional contexts. The solution of this issue is purely organizational in nature and does not require additional financial costs.

The author of the work sees the second important direction of accelerating the socio-economic development of the city in the activation of the process of privatization of state (republican and communal) property.

Until now, despite the adopted Laws and various by-laws, the strategy, technology and mechanism for privatization remain unclear in detail. Approaches to privatization in the republic are constantly changing not only in tactical terms, but also in terms of targets. If at the first stages of privatization (1991-1992) the stake was placed on labor collectives, who were given the pre-emptive right to acquire privatization objects, mainly through rent, then in the Law "On denationalization and privatization of state property in Republic of Belarus" the emphasis has shifted towards the so-called "people's" (voucher) privatization.

In the city of Bobruisk in 1934, 13 state-owned enterprises and 2 municipal enterprises changed their form of ownership by transforming them into open joint-stock companies. In 1995, two more open joint-stock companies were formed (OJSC "Canning Plant" and OJSC "Tormolzavod"), in 1996 two more (OJSC "Bobruisk Plant of Vegetable Oils" and OJSC "Bobruiskbytmebel"). In 1997, 3 industrial enterprises (furniture factory named after P.Osipenko, "Spetsavtotekhnika" factory, bakery plant) and one transport enterprise (Bobruisk ATEP) changed their form of ownership and became open joint-stock companies.

The main factors hindering the privatization process are:

• - Understanding and reducing privatization to a change of ownership of state facilities. Functioning in the national economy, i.e. transformation of state (republican and communal) property into private property. And to a lesser extent, attention is paid to creating conditions for the emergence and development of new subjects (objects) of management of non-state property in addition to functioning subjects (objects) of state property and the creation of equal conditions for competition of all forms of ownership;
• - weak material and technical base of enterprises (most trade and consumer services enterprises are located in rented premises, which are not subject to sale during privatization), lack of own working capital (property of trade and public catering facilities, as a rule, 80% consists of working capital) .

In general, an assessment of the course and mechanism of privatization of republican and communal property in the city indicates that the process cannot yet be fully called privatization. This is mostly commercialization of enterprises.

Improving the strategy and mechanism for the privatization of republican and municipal property of the city should include the following points:

• - The privatization strategy should be constructive and multivariate. The substantive part of privatization projects and programs should be to develop and thoroughly justify a plan for future production and financial development (business plan) and a mechanism for its implementation at any enterprise that ensures the growth of production efficiency;
• - when conducting privatization, priorities should be given not so much to labor collectives as to active investors, entrepreneurs who will be able to more rationally dispose of property. Both centralized (through the relevant state privatization bodies) and decentralized (when labor collectives themselves choose the method of privatization) privatization should be allowed;

when privatizing the property of state-owned enterprises, it is necessary to use a wide arsenal of methods: public or private sale of shares, sale of enterprise assets, buyout of an enterprise, transfer to use, division or fragmentation of an enterprise, new private investments, privatization through reorganization or liquidation of an enterprise);

Privatization should be carried out on the basis of the Financial Attestation of Enterprises, their financial certification, fixing which objects are subject to liquidation, which restructuring, which - privatization.

In the future, it is proposed to corporatize enterprises of the light and food industries, consumer services and trade.

One of the important tasks of the executive authorities is to create optimal conditions for the formation and development of entrepreneurship as one of the directions of the economic development of the city of Bobruisk.

The main problems hindering the development of entrepreneurship are the lack of start-up capital and the possibility of using bank loans, the lack and inaccessibility of industrial and non-industrial premises, and the low level of entrepreneurs' qualifications.

The main tasks of supporting small business are:

• - expansion of the system of financial support for small businesses, including preferential lending to business entities, together with the city executive committee, the district administration, agent banks, the provision of gratuitous assistance in areas;
• - creation of a leasing fund;
• - preparation of proposals for the formation of a venture fund;
• - completion of the formation of a local trust fund for non-residential premises to accommodate business entities and their infrastructure, the formation of a city trust fund;
• - creation of favorable conditions for the use of funds;
• - creation of a business incubator, a territorial center for entrepreneurship support;
• - provision of information and educational and methodological support to small business;
• - ensuring the economic security of small enterprises and the quality of their products.

As noted in the annual Address of the President to the National Assembly, the strategic task of the socio-economic policy of the state is to increase the efficiency of the use of labor resources and improve the quality of the employment structure.

The task was set to maintain a high and stable level of employment on the basis of maintaining and creating new jobs, increasing the professional and educational level of workers and labor productivity, and keeping the unemployment rate no higher than 2.2% for the economically active population.

In the city of Bobruisk, the unemployment rate as of 1.01. 2000 was 2.5% (Appendix 6). To ensure the fulfillment of the set task and the creation of a regulated and organizational market for the labor force (labor) adequate to the market economy, which is an integral element of the market mechanism, it is proposed to carry out a number of measures in the city aimed at creating new jobs, providing assistance in employment and material support for citizens, development of a system of public works, provision of additional employment guarantees for citizens who are not able to compete on equal terms in the labor market, promotion of self-employment of citizens and support for their entrepreneurial activities, vocational guidance and retraining of the unemployed population:

• - to create a database of creation of new jobs and vacancies;
• - intensify work on the creation of new jobs by business entities of various forms of ownership;
• - organize public works;
• - annually hold a "Job Fair" and "Training Places Fair";
• - annually review the quotas for hiring socially unprotected citizens;
• - more widely practice the allocation of loans and subsidies in order to support the entrepreneurial activity of citizens;
• - to develop a system of vocational guidance, training and retraining of the unemployed;
• - develop a regulation on stimulating employers to preserve and create jobs.

The political-state system created in the country also determined the general course of economic reforms. The coming to power of the Bolsheviks led to the creation of a new model of the economy, which was supposed to demonstrate the superiority of the revolutionary way of transforming society over other ways. This model, based on the teachings of K. Marx, was intended to put into practice the triumph of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The implementation of measures in the field of labor protection, which began to be carried out in Russia at the end of the 19th century, contributed to strengthening the foundations of an industrial society. With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, activities in this area acquired a pronounced ideological coloring. Positioning itself as a defender of the interests of the working class, the Soviet government was not slow to implement a number of measures in the interests of the working people. An 8-hour working day was established, a system of labor protection for women and adolescents was introduced, insurance in case of illness, etc. Implementing new decrees, V.I. Lenin declared that the new government would be based on the principle of "workers' control", which, however, had already been replaced by state control over the workers themselves by the autumn of 1918. Under the control of party structures were trade unions. At the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b) in March 1921, the leadership of the Bolshevik Party declared that the Party alone was the true spokesman for the interests of the working people. In subsequent years, trade unions in the USSR turned into formal structures that united workers according to the sectoral principle. In order to strengthen the centralization of political power in the context of the ongoing Civil War in the country and the catastrophic devastation that was gaining inertia, the Soviet government in 1918 announced a transition to the so-called war communism policy. In an effort to assert its dominance in the sphere of economic policy, the government, as early as December 1917, declared a monopoly on foreign trade, carried out the nationalization of banks and a number of large industrial enterprises, the owners of which were often repressed for resisting the measures of "workers' control." Subsequently, all enterprises were nationalized, where the number of workers was more than ten people - or more than five using a mechanical engine. To manage the nationalized industry, the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) was created. An essential feature of the economic policy of the Bolsheviks was the practice of introducing universal labor service. Initially introduced for representatives of the "non-working classes", later it became universal. The practice of conducting subbotniks - unpaid work on weekends - has become widespread. This innovation, partly justified by the conditions of the Civil War, in fact, nullified one of the main advantages of the Bolsheviks' economic policy - the 8-hour working day. In an effort to centralize the distribution of food products in the context of the ongoing Civil War, the country's leadership pursued a policy of food dictatorship. In rural areas, in June 1918, the creation of committees of the peasant poor began ( comedians), designed to become the backbone of the Soviet government on the ground. To supply the army and the urban population since 1919, a general surplus - forced seizure of "surplus agricultural products" from the peasants. Such innovations aroused the indignation of the villagers, numerous pockets of peasant uprisings arose. Experiments with the economy had a severe impact on the state of agriculture, industry, trade, transport and communications. The introduction of surplus appropriation led to a noticeable reduction in sown areas, a significant drop in production in some industries, an increase in the scale of the black market, and an increase in the role of private merchants - "bags". Infrastructure has undergone significant destruction, inflation has risen significantly. The measures taken in the socio-economic and political spheres were accompanied by the loss of one of the main components of an industrial society - private property.

The need to change the economic course of the government was expressed by L.D. Trotsky after his trip around the country in 1920. Mass peasant unrest (“Antonovshchina”, “chapan” war in the Volga region, etc.), the uprising of Kronstadt sailors accelerated the decision to change the foundations of economic policy. This happened in March 1921 at the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b). With the replacement of the food surplus with the tax in kind and the legalization of domestic trade, events began in the country new economic policy(NEP). The financial system was restored. In 1921, the State Bank was revived, in the period 1922-1924. the currency reform was carried out. Gold coins were put into circulation. According to V.I. Lenin, the essence of the NEP was an alliance of workers and peasants, necessary to overcome the backwardness of the country. One of the ways to overcome this backwardness was to be the development of the cooperative movement. The activity of tens of thousands of production, trade and consumer cooperatives was legalized in the country. Much attention was paid to the restoration of the agricultural sector. After paying the tax in kind, the peasant could sell all the surplus agricultural products on the market. Thus, the peasant economy received an incentive to restore the previous volumes of production and to their possible expansion. The implementation of the NEP in some parts of the country began much later. In particular, due to the mass famine in the Volga region, the recovery period began in late 1923 - early 1924. Nevertheless, even under such conditions, the NEP measures managed to give positive results in a very short period. Most researchers point out that in 1926-1927. the level of development of agriculture reached pre-war levels. The recovery of the industrial sector had its own characteristics: small and medium-sized enterprises returned to private hands on a leasehold basis, large enterprises remained in state ownership. With all the acuteness there was a need to update the production equipment, which remained unresolved.

Numerous problems led to NEP crises. The first of these arose in 1923 and was associated with the uneven pace of recovery in agriculture and industry, which created an imbalance in prices for agricultural and industrial products (“price scissors”), which was overcome by economic measures. In 1925, a crisis of overproduction broke out, to solve which the government also used a number of economic measures, including the abolition of the "dry law", returning vodka products to the open sale. The next major crisis came at the end of 1927 - 1928, when an acute shortage of grain began to be felt in the country. The shortage of goods and low purchase prices for grain forced the peasants to engage in the sale of industrial crops, which were quite highly valued on the market. Disruption of the grain procurement campaign, the leadership of the country, headed by I.V. Stalin explained the hostile activities of the kulaks and decided to forcibly confiscate agricultural products. In the course of resolving the grain procurement crisis, the government worked out repressive mechanisms for influencing the peasants, which were later used during the complete collectivization peasant farms.

The ongoing socio-economic activities in the country under the NEP caused a different attitude towards them on the part of the party and government leadership. Intra-Party Struggle in the 1920s reflected not only the desire of various groups to strengthen their influence, but also determined the paths for the further economic and social development of the country. In the context of the accelerated industrial growth of European countries, and especially the United States, the economic gap between the USSR and the "capitalist encirclement" was becoming more and more noticeable. This ultimately determined the adoption of the course towards "building socialism in one country." It was envisaged to carry out a "great leap" in the development of industrial production, which was required to be carried out without foreign assistance. The need for a large-scale modernization of the economy was given a pronounced political coloring. In February 1931 I.V. Stalin, in his speech at the First All-Union Conference of Socialist Industry Workers, declared: “We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it or we will be crushed.” At the beginning of 1929 was adopted the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR, the original version of which was revised several times. The leadership of the government and the party, headed by Stalin, demanded to speed up the pace of industrialization, focusing on the development of heavy industry, which received 78% of all capital investment. At the same time, a policy of promoting new cadres and liquidating old specialists was carried out, against whom a number of broad exposing campaigns were carried out in 1928-1933. (“Shakhty case”, “case of the Industrial Party”, etc.). As a result, the leadership of many industrial enterprises and government institutions has changed. The previous generation has been replaced by a new lineup of executives who are more determined to carry out the tasks of the first five-year plans. The composition and size of the working class in the country changed rapidly. By 1933, the number of workers in the country increased from 3.7 million to 8.5 million people, mainly due to people from the countryside. This was especially true in the context of the dominance of manual labor in production. Of particular importance was the movement of leaders in production - shock workers, and since 1935 - Stakhanovites (A.G. Stakhanov, A.Kh. Busygin, M.I. Vinogradova and others). The practice of distributing scarce goods and services served as a significant stimulus to the manifestation of business activity. During the years of the first five-year plans, a number of branches of heavy industry developed: electric power, machine tool building, automotive, tractor building, the chemical industry, coal mining, metal smelting, and so on. More than six thousand new industrial enterprises were built in the country. Among the largest are DneproGES, Uralmash, metallurgical plants in Magnitogorsk, Lipetsk, Chelyabinsk, Novokuznetsk, Norilsk, tractor plants in Stalingrad, Chelyabinsk, Kharkov, automobile plants GAZ, ZIS, etc. This was the period of the highest growth rates of industrial production in the USSR . Thus, in 1937, compared with 1928, iron smelting increased by 439%, steel - by 412%, coal mining - by 361%, electricity generation - by 724%. Industrial production for a given period in various sectors increased by 2.5-3.5 times. At the same time, the race for indicators had negative consequences. Already in the period 1937-1941. labor productivity declined, real industrial growth did not exceed 3-4% per year compared with 10-16% in the period 1928-1937. Recognizing the slowdown in economic growth, the government actively used an arsenal of repressive methods of influencing workers. In particular, the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of June 26, 1940 was adopted, which provided for the transition to a seven-day working week, an increase in the length of the working day and the application of criminal liability for violations of labor discipline. Carrying out large-scale measures to modernize the economy required huge investments. Basically, internal reserves were involved. From the end of the 1920s. the rate of money emission increased, the organization of regular state loans began. The source of funds for the development of the economy was also deployed in the 1930s. collecting valuables from private individuals and exchanging them for consumer goods (within the framework of Torgsin's activities), as well as selling some cultural property abroad. The agricultural sector, which has undergone significant reorganization, has become an internal source for industrialization. The idea of ​​carrying out the collectivization of agriculture was voiced back in December 1927 at the XV Congress of the CPSU (b). On October 31, 1929, Pravda called for complete collectivization; a week later, I.V. Stalin, in the article "The Year of the Great Turning Point," declared that "the middle peasant has turned his face to the collective farms." The November Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1929 approved the plan for carrying out "complete collectivization." Ukraine, the North Caucasus, the Lower and Middle Volga regions were declared its regions. Collective farms were supposed to be created here by the autumn of 1930 - early 1931. Other grain-growing regions were to be collectivized a year later. At the plenum, it was decided to send 25,000 urban workers to the collective farms to "manage the created collective farms and state farms." At the same time, a policy of dispossession was announced, which turned, in fact, into the destruction of the peasantry as a class. The number of evicted peasants was, according to the national historian V.N. Zemskov, about 2 million people, of which about 300 thousand for the period 1932-1934. died in places of exile 1 . The pace of collectivization grew rapidly, by March 1930 they reached 58.6%. At the same time, most collective farms existed only on paper. The increase in violence against the peasants caused a counter wave of resistance. For the peasants, collectivization "was an apocalypse, a war between the forces of good and evil," involving more than 2 million people in its eventful whirlpool. The threat of a repeat of the civil war forced the government to change tactics. In the article "Dizziness from success", published on March 2, 1930, I.V. Stalin, declaring that "the radical turn of the countryside towards socialism can be considered already secured," condemned the representatives of local authorities for violating the principles of voluntariness committed during the creation of collective farms. A mass withdrawal of peasant farms from the collective farms began, but already on July 1, 1931, the percentage of collectivized farms returned to the level of March 1930. Tax pressure on individual farms increased. As a result, these farms either went bankrupt or joined collective farms. Meanwhile, the situation of the collective farms remained difficult. The grain procurements of 1931 did not produce the expected results (partly due to a poor harvest). The desire of the government to get the planned amount of grain at any cost, as well as the fall in prices for agricultural products exported from the country (due to the influence of the global crisis) led to a large-scale famine of 1932-1933, which engulfed the territories of Ukraine, the North Caucasus, the Volga region, the victims of which were from 4 to 5 million people. The need to ensure the grain procurement plan led to the use of emergency measures. Among them was the adoption on the initiative of I.V. Stalin on August 7, 1932, the resolutions of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the protection of property of state enterprises, collective farms and cooperation and the strengthening of public (socialist) property." Under this law, tens of thousands of collective farmers were arrested for collecting ears, stealing food, etc. At the same time, realizing the critical situation in the agrarian sector, the leadership of the CPSU (b) took a number of decisive measures. System contracting has been replaced by mandatory supplies to the state, were created yield commissions, the system of purchases, deliveries and distribution of agricultural products was changed. In addition, purges were carried out in the bodies of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR, and measures were taken to strengthen the party leadership in collective farms and machine and tractor stations (MTS), designed to help collective farms in agricultural work. The measures taken by the government of the country only partly contributed to the improvement of the situation. The level of mechanization of labor in the collective farms remained extremely low, despite the increase in the import of tractors into the country in the 1930s. Collective farmers, who receive in-kind payment for their work only once a year, were obliged, in addition to fulfilling state deliveries, to pay with grain and with the MTS. All this resulted in mass resistance on the part of collective farmers, most often manifested in passive forms (slaughtering, absenteeism, failure to fulfill the required number of workdays, etc.). By February 1935, 98% of all cultivated land was claimed to be socialist property. In the second half of the 1930s. the main measures for the collectivization of agriculture were completed. As a result, the food supply for urban residents improved somewhat: in 1935, the rationing system for bread and other food products was abolished. The result of the reorganization of the agricultural sector was the creation of a new production base for agricultural products.

Features of the development of the political and economic spheres largely determined the specifics of the course of social processes that accompanied the further entry of Soviet society into industrial civilization. The social structure underwent a significant restructuring. Already in the initial period of its activity, the Soviet government proclaimed the equality and sovereignty of the peoples, abolished national and religious privileges, proclaimed the free development of all the peoples inhabiting Russia. A series of decrees was adopted to eliminate the former social structure. In particular, estates, the system of ranks, ranks and awards were abolished, the rights of men and women were equalized. The introduction of Soviet symbols, new holidays and memorable dates began, reflecting the values ​​of the class struggle (March 18 is the day of the Paris Commune, May 1 is the International Day of Solidarity of Workers, November 7 is the day of the October Revolution, etc.). The alphabet was reformed, the transition to the Gregorian calendar was carried out, the institution of marriage was significantly modernized. In January 1918, a law was passed on the separation of the church from the state, and the schools from the church. In subsequent years, struggling with old customs and traditions, the authorities tried to educate a new person, devoted to the ideals of communism. The role models were to be the Bolsheviks themselves - modest, unpretentious in everyday life "knights of the revolution." However, the representatives of the authorities generally behaved in quite the opposite way. The presence of a membership card became a necessary condition for the implementation of vertical mobility. A new privileged class was formed - Soviet nomenklatura. The rights and privileges of this class, strictly regulated depending on the position held, were a kind of guarantor of support for the regime on the part of the workers of the Soviet state apparatus. Changes in the social structure were dictated by the Civil War and the policies of "war communism", which affected the daily lives of millions of citizens. In the early 1920s. there was a significant displacement of huge masses of the population: workers who were starving in the cities returned to the villages, and the stratum of bag merchants, artisans and representatives of other marginal groups increased in the cities. Economic ruin, reduction in the scale of production, rising inflation, the introduction of a food dictatorship turned into an intensification of the processes of marginalization. This socio-political phenomenon had a negative impact on the development of public institutions in our country for a long time. At the same time, the peasantry retained a decisive role in the social structure of the country. Unlike Western countries, where the development of market relations and the growth of production contributed to the growth of the farming class, in the USSR, the individual peasant farm continued to be the main production unit until the collectivization of the agrarian sector. The violent nature of the ongoing transformations in culture and everyday life undoubtedly aroused the resistance of the peasants, which took both active and passive forms. "The weapon of the weak", in the words of one of the greatest experts of the XX century. on the problem of developing countries, by the American historian J. Scott, was used whenever the foundations of the existence of "small communities" were threatened. The actual destruction of the peasantry as a class in the course of the policy of collectivization led to the further development of migration processes and the growth of marginal strata in the structure of the urban population. Attempts by the authorities to limit social mobility in various ways (in particular, by introducing the passport system in the country in 1932), in fact, turned out to be ineffective. At the same time, the increase in the proportion of city dwellers in the overall structure of the country's population contributed to the further development of the healthcare system, education, and the development of the media. Similar processes were activated in the countries of Europe and America, where the network of educational and scientific institutions continued to develop, the circulation of magazines and newspapers grew, and the system of radio and television broadcasting developed. In the USSR in the period of 1920-1930s. The policy of the "cultural revolution" was based primarily on the fight against illiteracy. The creation of a new Soviet school, consisting of two steps. The first stage included four years of study, the second - five years. Numerous working faculties were created to prepare young people from the working and peasant environment for higher education (workers' faculty). However, the adult population often showed a rather indifferent and sometimes even hostile attitude towards educational work. The reason for this was a complex of socio-economic and psychological factors, such as an acute shortage of teachers, school premises, educational supplies, employment of the peasant population in the economy, an anti-religious course in educational and upbringing work, etc. As a result, the quality of education remained low:

1996. S. 26-59.

graduates of educational programs and schools often lost the acquired skills. However, according to official data, by the end of the 1920s. 40% of the country's population was considered literate, and by the end of the 1930s. declared victory over illiteracy. The modernization of industry raised the question of developing a network of primary and secondary specialized schools (FZU), as well as universities that train technical specialists. At the same time, new standards were introduced into the curricula of schools and universities. The humanities - history, economics, sociology, etc. - were subjected to special control. In 1934-1935, a broad campaign was launched to revise history in order to reassess the Russian past and the history of relations between various peoples of the USSR. A peculiar outcome of this process was the release in 1938 of Stalin's "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks", which turned into a kind of foundation for the formation of the only true worldview of the "new Soviet man". The development of the foundations of an industrial society was accompanied by the expansion of the information network. The circulation of newspapers and magazines grew noticeably, their assortment increased, and the radio network developed. At the same time, this process was also influenced by the radical leftist model of revolutionary development. Unlike the democratic countries of the West, where radio stations, newspapers and magazines presented their audience with different points of view, forming a pluralism of views and opinions, in the USSR, the development of the media was subordinated to the goals of strengthening the ideological influence of the party and state apparatus. The means of preserving the traditional culture of society and protecting society from ideological manipulations on the part of power structures was the preservation of channels of oral communication. Talks and rumors acquired a special role in rural areas, where informal communication continued to have a serious influence on the formation of public opinion. Period 1920-1930s was characterized by the further introduction of the population to the culture of urban life. This process has acquired its own specifics. While mass housing construction was developing in Western countries, in the USSR the absence of such programs in the face of growing urbanization gave rise to serious problems. In the words of the noted Sovietologist Sheila Fitzpatrick, the city's public utilities "were overwhelmed by sudden population growth, rising demands from industry, and tight budgets." The condition of many cities remained deplorable: the lack of power supply, water supply, and sewerage systems was also characteristic of large industrial centers. The overcrowding of the population, the lack of the necessary sanitary and hygienic conditions of life was accompanied by a state of chronic commodity shortage. The difficult living conditions of the population created special forms of survival that determined the way of life of several generations of Soviet people. A duality of human consciousness arose: on the one hand, it experienced the ideological influence of party and state structures, on the other hand, it was formed in the conditions of daily survival in difficult socio-economic conditions. Thus, a special, according to some researchers, hybrid identity of the Soviet person was formed, who recognizes himself as a part of an industrial society and at the same time is influenced by the traditions of agrarian culture. The discrepancy between the theory of socialist transformations and the practice of their implementation caused public discontent, which was most clearly manifested among the youth. The practice of non-traditional forms of social behavior became widespread as early as the 1920s. The results of such “experiments” have been an increase in alcoholism, an increase in the number of divorces, children left without parental care, and other negative consequences that have affected the deformation of demographic characteristics. The need to restore them intensified in the 1930s. the revival of traditional moral principles, the rehabilitation of the institution of the family began. To this end, a number of laws were adopted to strengthen it. In June 1936, the practice of abortion was banned. The family began to be regarded as the basis for the development of Soviet society and the state. A negative role in the development of public institutions was played by the policy of repression and especially the "great terror" of the 1930s. The practice of combating dissent has spread since the seizure of power by the Bolshevik leadership in October 1917. The creation of a repressive apparatus in the person of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (VChK), the conduct of the "Red Terror" during the Civil War testified to the desire of the Soviet government to assert its monopoly on power in the political, economic and ideological spheres. With the beginning of the modernization of the economy in the late 1920s - early 1930s. repression became widespread. The murder of S.M. Kirov, the closest associate of I.V. Stalin, in Leningrad on December 1, 1934 served as a pretext for the "great terror". In the period 1936-1938. a series of major trials took place, the defendants of which were representatives of the highest political elite (G. E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev, G.Ya. Sokolnikov, G.L. Pyatakov, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov and others), the command staff of the Red Army (M.N. Tukhachevsky, V.K. Blyukher, A.I. Egorov and others), heads of enterprises, institutions, collective farms, representatives of the technical and creative intelligentsia. Carrying out repressions for the party leadership was due to the implementation of a number of tasks. First of all, it was necessary to suppress any manifestations of dissent, the personification of which was the activity of various kinds of "spies", "saboteurs", "class enemies", etc. enemies of the people, all the failures and costs of the command economy were written off. The destruction of the "pests" was supposed to reassure society to a certain extent. Finally, mass repressions and the creation of the Gulag also performed economic functions: in the face of a lack of equipment and technology, prison labor was widely used at “shock construction sites”. Evidence of the repressions were lower population growth rates than previously expected (instead of the "planned" 156 million people, the 1937 population census revealed only 152 million). The next census conducted in 1939 "showed" the desired result (170.6 million people). At the same time, the personality cult of I.V. Stalin as the leader of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet people, who became the only legitimate successor to V.I. Lenin. The Constitution of the USSR, adopted in December 1936, acquired an important ideological significance.

The democratic principles underlying it, along with the propaganda campaign of its nationwide discussion, created the impression of the unity of power and society. Together with the idea of ​​the final building of socialism in the USSR, the Constitution contained a provision on the creation of a homogeneous Soviet society in the country, which was supposed to illustrate the process of completing its formation. Thus, the period of 1920-1930s. was marked by the final entry of the USSR into the world of industrial modernity. This process was largely due to the establishment in the country of the radical left model of socio-political transformations, which, in turn, contributed to the subsequent strengthening of the theoretical foundations of Bolshevism, which acquired the features of an independent political doctrine. Among its key points, such as theory and practice of creating a revolutionary party of a new type, strategy and tactics for the implementation of the socialist revolution, stood out building socialism in a single country. The socio-economic and political system created in the USSR cannot be assessed unambiguously. On the one hand, in the late 1920s - 1930s a powerful industrial base was created in the country, which determined the nature of industrial development for many decades to come. This became possible thanks to large-scale economic transformations, the development of new types of industrial production, and the improvement of the transport system and means of communication. The reorganization of the sphere of education and healthcare, the expansion of the network of scientific and educational institutions in the context of the implementation of the policy of the "cultural revolution" testified to the familiarization of the population with the standards of an industrial society. All this represented a large-scale modernization of the economy and culture, created the conditions for their accelerated restructuring on a military footing during the Great Patriotic War, thereby ensuring victory over fascism. On the other hand, the sphere of economy, politics and public life was placed under the strict control of the party-state structures, dictated by the very specifics of building a "society of victorious socialism." This specificity was due to the general features of the left-wing radical model of totalitarianism: the foundations of the command-administrative system of managing state and economic institutions were strengthened, the peasantry as a class was destroyed during the collectivization of agriculture, the system of private property and entrepreneurship, which remained the core in the states of the West, was liquidated, and was severely persecuted. dissent. Nevertheless, despite all its contradictions, created and strengthened in the 1920s - 1930s. The “Soviet model” of socio-economic and political development, with certain changes, existed until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Control questions

• 1. What factors contributed to the establishment of the radical left model of the development of the economic and political system in our country?
• 2. What factors led to the refusal of the Soviet leadership from the policy of war communism?
• 3. What is Bolshevism? What are the main differences between this doctrine and classical Marxism?
• 4. What impact did the practice of accelerated modernization have on the public institutions of the Soviet country?
• 5. What was the specificity of the development of culture in the USSR in the period of 1920-1930s?

• Zemskov V.N. GULAG (historical and sociological aspect) // Sotsiol. research 1991. No. 6. TsGAOR USSR. URL: http://www.hrono.info/statii/2001/zemskov.php
• Viola L. Peasant revolt in the era of Stalin: collectivization and the culture of peasant resistance. M.: ROSSPEN, 2010. S. 12.24.
• Scott J. Weapons of the Weak: Common Forms of Peasant Resistance // Peasant Studies. Theory. Story. Modernity. Yearbook. 1996. M.: Aspect-Press,
• Fitzpatrick Sh. Everyday Stalinism. Social history of Soviet Russia in the 30s. Town. Moscow: ROSSPEN; Foundation of the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, 2008. S. 32.

Since the summer of 1918, the economic ruin has taken on proportions that threaten the Bolshevik government. The most developed and wealthy regions got out of their control: Ukraine, the Baltic States, the Volga region, Western Siberia. Economic ties between town and country have long since been broken. The cities were threatened with famine. Food was the first necessity. In May, it was decided to organize food detachments, which were supposed to go to the countryside and take grain from the kulaks and grain merchants, who, it was believed, were hiding their stocks. By a decree of June 11, 1918, Committees of the rural poor were established in the countryside, the general leadership of them was carried out by the People's Commissariat for Food (Narkomprod). The duties of the commanders included “the distribution of bread, essentials and agricultural implements; assistance to local food authorities in seizing grain surpluses from the hands of the kulaks and the rich.”

The Decree of May 13, 1918 gave broad powers to the People's Commissariat for Food, and the committees were supposed to become his kind of assistants in carrying out grain requisitions in the countryside. The state proclaimed itself the main distributor and resorted to coercive measures in order to solve the problem of supplying food to the city and the army. From January 1, 1919, the indiscriminate search for surpluses was replaced by a centralized and planned system of surplus appropriations. Each region, county, parish, each peasant community had to hand over to the state a predetermined amount of grain and other products, depending on the expected harvest. Each peasant community was responsible for its own supplies. And only when the whole village did, the authorities issued receipts giving the right to purchase industrial goods, and in quantities much smaller than required. The state encouraged the creation of collective farms by the poor with the help of a government fund. These collective farms were given the right to sell their surplus to the state, but they were so weak and their technique so primitive that these farms could not produce a significant amount of surplus. Only a few state farms, organized on the basis of former estates, provided a serious contribution to the supplies of paramount importance intended for the army.

In parallel with these measures, a decree of November 21, 1918 established a state monopoly on domestic trade. Since the beginning of the year, many shops have been "municipalized" by local authorities. On January 23, 1918, the merchant fleet was nationalized; on April 22, 1918, foreign trade. After that, on June 28, 1918, the Soviet government began the nationalization of all enterprises with a capital of over 500,000 rubles. The supreme body involved in nationalization was the All-Russian Council of the National Economy (VSNKh), subordinate to the Council of People's Commissars. By October 1, 1919, 2,500 enterprises were nationalized. In November 1920, a decree was issued extending nationalization to all “enterprises with more than ten or more than five workers, but using a mechanical engine,” which turned out to be about 37 thousand. Thus, during the years of the civil war, almost complete nationalization of Russian industry took place.

The government also carried out a number of measures to militarize labor in industry. Such coercive measures were taken as the introduction of a work book (June 1919) in order to reduce the turnover of the labor force and universal labor service, mandatory for all citizens from 16 to 50 years old (April 10, 1919). But the most extremist method of recruiting workers was the attempt to turn the Red Army into a "labour army" (to use the military to solve economic problems), to militarize the railways. These projects were put forward by Trotsky and supported by Lenin. In the areas under the direct control of Trotsky during the civil war, attempts were made to carry out these projects. They tried to use Lenin's government and ideological levers to activate cheap labor to restore the economy: the introduction of the famous communist subbotniks - work on weekends without pay, started by party members, and then became mandatory for everyone.

civil war army intervention

April 1985- at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a course was proclaimed to "accelerate" socio-economic development (rapid implementation of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, growth in labor productivity by increasing material interest; fight against leveling; purchase of advanced equipment abroad; increase in investment in the production of consumer goods; improvement product quality due to the introduction of state acceptance).

Outcome: an attempt to reform the economy without affecting the foundations of the command and control system ended in failure, largely due to inept leadership and bureaucracy (for example, the introduction of state acceptance only led to the growth of the bureaucracy; purchased equipment often stood idle due to a lack of qualified personnel).

1986- the anti-alcohol campaign and the Chernobyl disaster further undermined the financial stability of the USSR economy;

1987-88- Abalkin's project of economic reform (transfer of state enterprises to self-financing; expansion of cooperation; admission of the private sector into the economy; reduction and streamlining of the activities of ministries).

1989- passed the law on state enterprise(they got the opportunity to keep part of the profits for themselves and freely dispose of it; create subsidiaries - cooperatives) and cooperation law (actual permission of the private sector in trade and services); attempt the introduction of a rental contract in the village(but only 2% of collective farmers switched to lease relations, and even then they mostly sold the land they received or subleased it for non-agricultural needs).

Outcome: 1990-91– severe economic crisis; the actual loss of control over sectors of the economy due to extremely incompetent leadership; a rapid decline in production with an increase in the monetary income of the population - as a result - a total shortage of consumer goods and the introduction of a rationing system; the budget deficit amounted to 100 billion rubles (10% of GNP); at the same time began a rapid criminalization of the economy because of the extremely unsuccessful law on cooperation, which led to the legalization of the "shadow economy" and the increase in crime by several times. By the middle of 1991 The country was on the brink of an economic disaster.

Events in the political sphere.

1985- at the April Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a course was taken to introduce glasnost and democratization in the socio-political sphere and a revision of the assessment of many events in Russian history (confirmed at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU in February 1986) - the beginning of a broad rehabilitation of the victims of Stalin's repressions and criticism of the "era of stagnation".

The consequence of this is the activation of public opinion, the beginning of the democratization of society, while at the same time undermining the authority of the ruling regime.

1988. – XIX party conference- a decision is made on political reform, on changing the entire structure of power, the introduction of "Soviet parliamentarism" - the announcement of alternative elections to the new supreme body of legislative power - the Congress of People's Deputies.

1989. - Beginning of work Congress of People's Deputies The USSR and the emergence of legal opposition and the first parties and movements alternative to the CPSU

March 1990–III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR; cancellation of the 6th article of the Constitution on the leading role of the CPSU ( which meant the legalization of multi-party system) and the establishment of the post of President of the USSR (Gorbachev became this, but he was elected by the Congress, and not by the entire population, which gave his opponents a reason to talk about the lack of legitimacy of his power).

All these events took place against the backdrop of a sharp aggravation of the national question and separatism(interethnic clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh since 1988; pogroms of Armenians in Sumgayit and Baku in 1988-89, separatist movements in the Baltic republics, clashes in Transnistria).

At the same time, the central authorities headed by Gorbachev were actually inactive, which further aggravated the situation.

Outcome: by the middle of 1991 - the situation actually got out of Gorbachev's control; with the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence of the RSFSR and the election of B. Yeltsin as President of Russia, the transfer of power from the Union Center to the republics began.

No. 53. Foreign policy of the USSR in 1985-1991.

April 1985- Gorbachev's proclamation of a new foreign policy course - "new thinking"(the essence: the rejection of the old thesis about the irreconcilable split of the world into 2 camps; the recognition of the world as whole and indivisible; the rejection of forceful methods of resolving conflicts; the initiative to negotiate with the United States on disarmament).

Based on the new doctrine, the foreign policy of the USSR had the following tasks: 1) to achieve a breakthrough in the international isolation of the country; 2) by normalizing relations with the United States and the capitalist bloc, create conditions that would make it possible to stop the arms race, ruinous for the USSR; 3) expand economic ties with all states, no longer giving preference to states with a socialist orientation. In achieving these goals, special attention was paid to the priority of peaceful means in solving global problems and the recognition of universal human values.

Central location in the foreign policy of the USSR occupied relations with the USA. The main efforts of Soviet diplomacy in this direction were aimed at stopping the arms race and detente relations. In the summer of 1985, the USSR unilaterally stopped nuclear explosions and confirmed a unilateral moratorium on testing anti-satellite weapons, which created a solid basis for the start of negotiations between the heads of the USSR, M. S. Gorbachev, and US President R. Reagan.

After a series of high-level meetings between the leaders of the two countries in Geneva (1985) and Reykjavik (1986) the Soviet and American sides signed December 8, 1987 in Washington, an agreement on the destruction of a whole class of missiles - medium and short range. The Soviet side undertook to dismantle and destroy 1752 missiles within three years, the American side - 869. In 1991. Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms was signed in Moscow (OSNV - 1), which provided for the new elimination of part of the nuclear weapons.

Almost simultaneously, the Soviet Union put forward a program that provided for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons until 2000. In 1987, during the negotiations between M. S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, an agreement was reached on ending the participation of the two sides in the Afghan war, which had become from the beginning of its occurrence one of the main lines of confrontation between the two world powers in the Cold War. The United States pledged to stop providing assistance to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (the promise was not kept), and the Soviet Union was withdrawing its troops from that country. Withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan (1988-1989) became the most important foreign policy act of the USSR. In general, it was the right decision, since the war was extremely unpopular in the USSR. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan made possible the resumption of dialogue between the USSR and China, for which the end of Soviet interference was one of the three main obstacles to the normalization of relations with their neighbor. Soviet diplomacy paid considerable attention to European direction. The Soviet leadership hoped, by normalizing relations with developed Western European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain), to receive from them the economic assistance necessary for reforms within the country, as well as massive supplies of modern equipment and technologies. To this end, it made unprecedented unilateral concessions to the West, agreeing to withdraw its troops from a number of Eastern European countries, and in fact refusing to provide assistance to its ally, the GDR. In 1990, the USSR approved the unification of the GDR and the FRG into a single state. The policy of concessions objectively contributed to the weakening of the positions of the USSR in Europe, although MS Gorbachev's personal popularity among the population of Western European countries grew significantly.

If in relation to the countries of Western Europe the USSR pursued a more or less clear policy, then in relation to the socialist camp, the countries of Eastern Europe, there was no such clarity. Most of the leaders of the socialist countries did not accept the "new political thinking", believing that this course would lead to a change in the socio-political system in their states. The confrontation between these countries and the leadership of the USSR led to the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to support them in full. At the same time, the totalitarian regimes of the countries of Eastern Europe tried to limit the development of democratic processes in their countries. The result of this policy was the decline in the authority of the ruling parties of the socialist countries, the growth of anti-Soviet and anti-communist sentiments among the population. From 1989 to 1990 v Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria passed "velvet revolutions"(bloodless), which resulted in the collapse of the communist system of power. The national-democratic forces of the countries of Eastern Europe that came to power set a course for the Western European path of development and gradual entry into NATO. Spring 1991 The USSR agreed to the dissolution of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territories of Eastern European countries. The era of military and political domination of the USSR in Eastern Europe came to an end.

Conclusion: "New political thinking" in foreign policy was an attempt to implement the government of M. S. Gorbachev's "ideas of perestroika" in the international arena. The implementation of this policy had a certain success, because it contributed to the end of the period of military confrontation between the USSR and the USA and the change in the eyes of Europeans of the image of our country as an "evil empire". The destruction of the "Iron Curtain" allowed Soviet citizens to actually rediscover the world around them in many ways. The process of destroying nuclear weapons was initiated.

At the same time, the doctrine of new political thinking, on which the foreign policy of the USSR was based, was rather vague and did not have clear strategic goals. The desire of the government of M. S. Gorbachev to establish friendly relations with the West at any cost caused irreparable harm to the positions of the USSR in the international arena. The result of this policy was the destruction of the bipolar world(two world powers - the USSR and the USA). In the international arena, the position of the United States, which remained the only superpower, has sharply strengthened. .

From the second half of 1989, the economic crisis in the USSR acquired the features of stagnation: The disintegration of economic ties intensified, which led to the stoppage of an increasing number of industries. The financial system has completely collapsed. Problems began with the provision of food and consumer goods to the population.

Against the backdrop of the deteriorating economic situation in the USSR, centrifugal tendencies sharply intensified. Especially their growth was noted in 1990 when a real one swept across the country "Parade of Sovereignties" accompanied by the adoption by a number of union republics of unilateral decisions on self-determination and the creation of independent nation-states. Gathered June 12 1990. I Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR accepted Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Its adoption ultimately predetermined the collapse of the USSR, which could exist only as long as Russia served as its unifying principle. In the spring and summer of the same year, declarations of national sovereignty were adopted by the Baltic and other republics of the USSR. Following national sovereignty, individual republics began to accept state sovereignty, declaring the priority of their own legislation over that of the Union.

Under these conditions, the union leadership lost the opportunity to manage the resources of the republics and effectively manage the country. It could no longer retain power democratically. Attempts to strengthen its influence with the help of military force, which was used in April 1989 in Tbilisi, in January 1990 in Baku, in January 1991 in Vilnius and Riga ended in failure. The only possible means to keep the process of the disintegration of the Soviet Union under way was the use of economic ties. However, the leadership of M. S. Gorbachev could not effectively use it.

Assembled in March 1990 Extraordinary III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR made a last attempt to strengthen the executive power by establishing the post USSR President, to which M. S. Gorbachev was elected. On March 17, 1991, an all-Union referendum was held on the fate of the USSR, in which the majority of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the Union and for the desire to live in one state. However, these actions turned out to be largely belated, since the “parade of sovereignties” that had swept by that time had already changed the face of the country beyond recognition.

Under these conditions, M. S. Gorbachev suggested that the leaders of the Union republics conclude a new Union Treaty, since it was clear that the former Union Treaty of 1922 no longer corresponded to realities. April 23, 1991 in Novo-Ogaryovo an agreement was reached with the leaders of nine republics (there were no Baltic republics and Georgia) to conclude a new Union Treaty, which became known as the “9 + 1” agreement (nine leaders of the union republics + the President of the USSR). According to this document, the republics received wide autonomy as part of the new Union, and the center was supposed to play only a coordinating role, leaving defense, financial policy and internal affairs in its charge. The renewed Union was named "Commonwealth of Sovereign States"(SSG). The signing of the new Union Treaty, scheduled for August 20, 1991, was sharply negatively received by conservative forces, since it deprived the top of the CPSU of real power. They tried by force to prevent his imprisonment. August 19, 1991 taking advantage of M. S. Gorbachev’s vacation, a group of top party leaders headed with Vice-President of the USSR G. I. Yanaev undertook coup d'état. On August 18, KGB troops loyal to the conspirators blocked a man who was on vacation at his dacha in Foros(Crimea) of the President of the USSR M. S. Gorbachev. On August 19, the conspirators announced that it was impossible for the President of the USSR to perform his functions for health reasons. All full power for an indefinite time passed to State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR(GKChP) of 8 people. All those who entered the GKChP were members of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The GKChP announced its intention to restore order in the country and prevent the collapse of the USSR. In a number of regions of the country (mainly on the territory of the RSFSR), a state of emergency was introduced, administrative power in them was to be transferred to the military leadership. The activities of democratic parties and organizations, the publication of opposition newspapers were suspended, rallies, demonstrations and strikes were prohibited. Troops were brought into Moscow and some other large cities.

The advanced public immediately declared the unconstitutional nature of the actions of the State Emergency Committee. Some free radio stations immediately called the events in Moscow putsch. The President of the RSFSR B. N. Yeltsin openly condemned the coup and called on the population to openly resist the actions of the putschists. Thousands of protesting Muscovites took to the streets of the capital. Part of the troops went over to the side of the Russian government. Under these conditions, the State Emergency Committee did not dare to suppress the masses by force of arms. By the evening of August 21, 1991. the putsch failed. On August 22, its members were accused of attempting a coup d'état and arrested. The next day, the President of the USSR MS Gorbachev was returned to Moscow. The coup led to a radical change in the socio-political situation in the country. Even during the coup on August 19, by decree of the President of the RSFSR B. N. Yeltsin, the activities of the Communist Party of the RSFSR were suspended. In fact, the CPSU was placed outside the law. The party began to leave the political arena. Despite the fact that the coup essentially ended in the collapse of totalitarianism, the situation in the country continued to be extremely acute. The process of disintegration of the USSR accelerated sharply.

Immediately after the suppression of the August coup, the three Baltic republics announced their withdrawal from the USSR. In September 1991, the President of the USSR signed decrees recognizing this withdrawal. Somewhat later, on December 1, 1991, at a referendum in Ukraine, the largest republic after the RSFSR, the population voted overwhelmingly for the independence of their republic. In this situation, unification with other republics lost its meaning. December 8, 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha near Minsk In secret from the President of the USSR, the leaders of three republics: President of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin, President of Ukraine L.M. Kravchuk and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the BSSR S.S. Shushkevich signed an agreement on the formation Commonwealth of Independent States(CIS). December 21, 1991 in Alma-Ata The Belovezhskaya Agreement was signed by eight more former Soviet republics. With the signing of these treaties, the USSR ceased to exist as a subject of international law. The next day, MS Gorbachev was forced to resign from his duties as President of the USSR.

No. 55. October events of 1993 Political change of the state system in Russia.

From the end of August 1991 to December 1993, the issue of power was being resolved, which took the form of a clash of two models of its organization: presidential and parliamentary republics. The August events of 1991, the liquidation of the USSR put forward the task of forming the foundations of a new statehood. First of all, presidential structures began to be created - the Security Council and the Presidential Council. The institution of representatives of the President was introduced locally. They exercised powers of authority bypassing the local Soviets. The government of Russia was also formed directly by the President, management was carried out on the basis of decrees by B.N. Yeltsin. The changes made came into conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978, which stated that all power in the center and in the localities belonged to the Soviets of People's Deputies. Since 1990, the official supreme body of power has been the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. During 1992-1993. conflict between the legislature and the executive grew rapidly. An attempt by deputies in the spring of 1993 to remove the President failed. The referendum held on April 25, 1993 showed that the majority of citizens approved of the policy of Yeltsin and the government, while at the same time opposing the early elections of the President and people's deputies. Russian society has demonstrated a desire to stabilize the political life of the country. The confrontation between the authorities in the autumn of 1993 resulted in a bloody conflict. By this time, Yeltsin's advisers had prepared a draft of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, which was rejected by the deputies of parliament. In response to this September 21, 1993. Yeltsin dissolved the representative bodies of power by an unconstitutional decree - The Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies calling for new elections. The next day, the deputies by a majority of votes removed Yeltsin from office and entrusted the powers of the President to Vice-President Rutskoy. Attempts to negotiate and search for a compromise failed. The parliament building was blocked by law enforcement agencies that were subordinate to Yeltsin . October 3 armed supporters of the parliament, together with nationalist detachments, crushed the police cordon around the White House, seized the building of the Moscow City Hall and tried to storm the Ostankino television complex. The result of these events were human casualties. Generals Rutskoi and Makashov called for the capture of the television center. There was a threat of civil war. On October 4, the government took action. The assault on the White House began, where the so-called "irreconcilable" deputies of the Supreme Soviet remained. The building was fired from tanks with direct fire, and then it was captured by the fighters of the Alpha group. The leadership of the parliament and its defenders were sent to prison. According to official figures, 145 people died during the tragic events. December 12, 1993 A referendum was held on the new Constitution. 58% of those who participated in the voting cast their votes for it. The constitution established the principle of separation of powers legislative, executive and judicial each of which became independent. head state was proclaimed The president, elected for 4 years and determining the main directions of domestic and foreign policy. The President of the Russian Federation is the guarantor of the Constitution and acts as an arbitrator, mediator between the various branches of government and state institutions. In fact, he mediates between the state and society.

Thus, according to the Constitution of 1993, Russia turned into a presidential republic. The constitution provided for the election of a legislature - The Federal Assembly consists of two chambers - the State Duma and the Federation Council. The President received the right to dissolve the State Duma in the event of a threefold rejection of the candidacy of the Prime Minister proposed by the President. It may issue decrees having the force of a normative act. The President is the Supreme Commander, all "power" ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Security Council, are directly subordinate to him.

With the concentration of the main powers in the hands of the President, the role of his administration has objectively increased. The mainstay of power and the conductor of the policy of the President was the state apparatus, which included some of the former union departments. On December 22, 1993, Yeltsin signed a decree by which federal officials were singled out in a special category with their own charter and a preferential system of financial, medical, household and other support.

No. 56. Socio-economic development of Russia in the post-Soviet period.

One of the most complex and controversial areas of economic policy in the 1990s. became privatization of state property. The concept of privatization in our country was developed by the State Property Committee of Russia headed by A.B. Chubais. Formally, it primarily pursued the goal of creating a class of private owners. All property of Russian enterprises as of January 1, 1992 was valued at 1 trillion 260.5 billion rubles. Dividing this amount by the population of Russia (148.7 million), the government believed that it was able to determine the share of property of each citizen at 10 thousand rubles, due to which, from September 1, 1992, each Russian received his share in state property in the form of a privatization check (voucher). From January 1, 1993, it was possible to purchase shares of any enterprise with a voucher. For this, state enterprises were corporatized: 51% of the shares were distributed among employees of enterprises, and the rest went on open sale. Since the vast majority of Russians did not know how to dispose of vouchers themselves, check investment funds (ChIFs) were created throughout the country. They had to exchange the vouchers of the population for the shares of the most efficient enterprises to be privatized. However, most of the 2,000 CHIFs who collected vouchers from the population disappeared without a trace within one or two years, enriching the fraudulent, according to Chubais himself, "semi-criminal leadership." Most of the ordinary shareholders at the enterprises were also left with nothing: as a result of various frauds, their shares ended up in the hands of the management and its entourage. In addition, due to inflation, vouchers have completely depreciated. Second- monetary - the stage of privatization began in 1995. Its purpose was - the creation of an effective owner. As a result of the so-called "loan auctions" large profitable state-owned enterprises with export potential were taken over by private owners who were closest to state power, and at symbolic prices. As a result of privatization, two-thirds of the country's wealth became the property of 6% of the population. Modern Russian oligarchs did not earn their fortune, but received it from the hands of the state.

Other government measures to artificially create the thinnest layer of large owners in the country were the administrative distribution of quotas and licenses for exports and imports; selective exemption of privileged structures from paying customs duties on tobacco, alcohol, medicines, cars, etc.; interest-free government loans to private banks. Financial crisis of 1998 and its aftermath After privatization in 1992-1998. the main task of the Russian leadership was financial stabilization and reduction budget deficit.

The main method of this struggle was chosen to reduce the money supply in every possible way. In 1995, a "currency corridor" was introduced (the exchange rate of the ruble against the dollar is fixed within certain limits). The reduction of the budget deficit was also achieved due to the refusal of the state from obligations in the field of medicine, education, science, and the social sphere. At the same time, the economy was seized by the deepest investment crisis (the outflow of money from the sphere of production). Money was more and more replaced by direct exchange in kind (barter), mutual non-payments, offsets, etc. As a result, in these years, only about 20% of the economy was provided with "live" money, and 80% of transactions were carried out without their participation. The volume of industrial production decreased by 56%.

To cover the budget deficit, the state constantly borrowed funds both domestically and abroad. The “life on loan” began through the financial pyramid of GKOs (government short-term obligations). In the spring of 1998, Yeltsin appointed S.V. Kiriyenko, who worked as the Minister of Fuel and Energy for only a few months. The new government tried to bet on the stabilization of financial markets and resolution of the budget crisis. On August 17, 1998, the government announced a three-month moratorium (postponement) on the payment of debts by banks to foreign creditors. An acute financial crisis erupted, which was called the word "default"(refusal to pay debts). The result of the crisis was the collapse of most large private banks, the ruin of thousands of small businesses, the confusion of the emerging "middle class", private owners. Prices rose rapidly. Ruble savings of Russians once again depreciated. The default led to a loss of public and investor confidence in the Russian authorities. The crisis has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the reform course pursued since 1992 and dealt a powerful blow to the political authority of those who stood behind it.

In this situation, the government, led by EAT. Primakov , as part of its policy of "calming down" the country, deliberately moved away from the extremes of liberalism. The government allowed a certain expansion of money emission (issuance of paper money and securities into circulation). A course was announced for strengthening state regulation in the economy, a resolute fight against economic crimes and corruption. For the first time in a number of years, a small budget surplus (an excess of revenues over expenditures) was assumed.

As a result of the financial crisis, the ruble significantly "depreciated" against foreign currencies, imports decreased, and this objectively strengthened the positions of domestic producers. In other words, the financial crisis led to a certain recovery of the economy and served as an impetus for the development of Russian industry. But this did not improve the situation of the consumer. All analysts agreed that the economic situation in Russia is extremely difficult and the way out of the current situation under the most favorable conditions will take a long time.

The main economic achievement of the reforms, despite all the negative consequences, is that money has been earned in the country. The state no longer controlled and did not set the price of goods, did not limit wages. Russia has embarked on the path of integration into the world economy, its economy has become open. The Russian market began to attract the attention of foreign investors and commodity producers. In the 1990s a layer of businessmen has emerged, a new middle class is emerging, which included representatives of various professions. All types of markets were created in the country: real estate, goods, services, labor, capital, loans, etc. At least a third of the employed population worked in the sharply expanded service sector.

To the negative results of the economic reforms of the 1990s. It should be attributed to the fact that the gradual formation of a market infrastructure is taking place against the background of the rapid impoverishment of a significant part of the population, the emergence of sharp social contrasts, the destruction of a huge number of enterprises, the emergence of unemployment and other diseases of the market economy. A hasty attempt to introduce farming into the Russian village ended in failure. In 2000, peasant farms produced only 3% of the country's agricultural output. Farming did not take root due to the lack of material base and skills of individual farming. Many farms went bankrupt, lost their material base. The liberalization of foreign trade has led to a massive invasion of Russian markets of cheap agricultural products from abroad.

No. 57. Political development of Russia in 1993-2008

One of the most urgent tasks that the new Russian government had to solve was the preservation of the territorial integrity of Russia. In 1991 there was a threat of disintegration of Russia. The Russian leadership, proceeding from the new political situation, encouraged the processes of "sovereignization" of the republics. Yeltsin urged the regions to take as much independence as they can take. In 1990, the republics that were part of the RSFSR declared their sovereignty and renunciation of the status of autonomies. Autonomous regions (except for the Jewish) also declared themselves sovereign. Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, the Republic of Sokha (Yakutia), Chechnya headed for secession from the Federation. As a result of the negotiations, on March 31, 1992, an agreement was signed in Moscow that determined the relationship between the subjects of the Federation and the borders of the state. It was of a compromise nature, but allowed to stop the process of disintegration of the state. Only two years later, an agreement was signed between the Russian Federation and Tatarstan on special conditions. History of Russia in the 90s. marked by major political campaigns - elections of the President of the Russian Federation, elections to the State Duma, as well as elections of governors and presidents in all subjects of the Federation. In December 1993, in the elections to the country's new parliament - the State Duma - an unexpected success (which could be seen as a reaction to the rejection of government policy) was won by the Liberal Democratic Party (leader - V.V. Zhirinovsky), receiving 24% of the vote. The Communists and the Agrarian Party won a total of 22% of the votes. Other opposition-minded parties (including G.A. Yavlinsky's Yabloko) received a total of just over 28%. Government party E.T. Gaidar - the Democratic Choice of Russia (DVR) - scored only 15.4%. Thus, the majority in the State Duma began to belong to the opposition, and the representative of the farmers I.P. was elected its chairman. Rybkin.

Unsuccessful military operations in the North Caucasus, the economic policy of the government, and the increased stratification of society caused the growth of opposition in the country, which was convincingly shown by the results of the 1995 State Duma elections.

Since the relative majority in the State Duma were communists, it was nicknamed "red". A great influence on the socio-economic and political situation in Russia had 1996 presidential election It seemed to many that with such a baggage of problems, failures and unfulfilled promises, B.N. Yeltsin cannot win. His popularity among voters dropped to 6%, and the victory of his rival, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G.A. Zyuganov seemed very likely. Thanks to foreign loans, partial repayment of the government's debts to state employees began. The government announced the development of a new program for the transformation of the country's economy. Yeltsin removed unpopular figures from the government - Foreign Minister Kozyrev and Deputy Prime Minister Chubais, who is responsible for privatization. The government announced a rapprochement with Belarus. Energetic steps were taken to solve the Chechen problem - from the development of a plan for a peaceful settlement to the physical elimination of Dudayev and the cessation of military operations. Yeltsin himself, who until recently seemed ill and lethargic, showed energy and activity. He visited 24 cities and regions - more than in all the years of his presidency. Many people who voted for Yeltsin were not his supporters, but they remained opponents of the communists, did not want them to return to power. In the late 90s. the political process is characterized by "personnel ministerial leapfrog". E.M. becomes prime minister in October 1998. Primakov. He rather supported the position of the Duma, and not the President.

An attempt by the State Duma to hold impeachment(removal from office) of the President gave Yeltsin a reason for the early resignation of the government of E.M. Primakov. In May of the same year, S.K. Stepashin, who manages to stay in power for only three months.

Yeltsin focused on the problem of finding his successor. Yeltsin named his name on August 9, 1999 after signing the decree on the appointment Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and. O. prime minister. Yeltsin chose a man who at that time was very little known not only among the people, but also among the nomenklatura. The growth of the authority of V.V. Putin took place against the backdrop of another Chechen crisis. On March 26, 2000, early presidential elections were held, where Vladimir Putin was elected. An important step towards the creation of a strong state was administrative reform. In May 2000, a seven federal districts : Central, Northwestern, Southern, Volga, Ural, Siberian and Far Eastern. The districts acted as intermediate and at the same time connecting links between the center and 89 regions of Russia. Plenipotentiary representatives of the President were appointed to each of the districts. In a short time, we managed to solve an extremely important task: to bring local laws in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal legislation. Another political reform in 2000 was reorganization of the Federation Council. The upper chamber of the Federal Assembly began to be formed not from governors, but from representatives of the regions (two from each), elected by local legislative bodies and appointed by heads of administrations. In order to ensure the constant participation of the heads of regions in the development of state policy, in August 2000 a Council of State - advisory body under the head of state. There has been a change in the Russian multi-party system. In 2001, the State Duma adopted a law "About political parties". As a result, instead of about 300 political organizations participating in the 1999 elections, only 26 parties were allowed to participate in the elections to the State Duma, which took place on December 7, 2003.

Has been completed judicial reform. It provided for the introduction of jury trials throughout the country from 2003, the introduction of the institution of magistrates, the arrest of citizens only by court order, the transfer of correctional facilities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, etc. The 2003 parliamentary elections demonstrated the desire of Russian society for stability. The pro-presidential "party of power" United Russia won an impressive victory, receiving 37.57% of the vote and 2/3 of the deputy mandates in the Duma. The outcome of the presidential elections held on March 14, 2004 was predictable. Despite the presence of six applicants, the alternatives to the Path

Remark 1

The implementation of the strategic goals of the long-term development of the socio-economic activity of the Russian Federation needs to achieve social harmony, as well as assistance in developing a mechanism for social support, adaptation and minimization of social inequality. Measures that provide a solution to the above tasks should be aimed at harmonizing the actions of the state, markets and families in the field of quality and level of life support.

This may require the development of the social services sector and its modernization, as well as the implementation of targeted assistance programs for the poor and the formation of various benefits. To do this, it is necessary to ensure the formation of a structure of social support and adaptation that will meet the needs of the current society, as well as to implement the functions of social development and accessible social development mechanisms for vulnerable groups of the population.

Main goals of social policy

To date, the main targets of social policy by 2020 are:

• minimizing the level of relative or absolute poverty (of the low-income part of the population), as well as increasing the middle class of citizens to half of the entire population;
• reduction in the classification of population strata by income level (the ratio of 10% of the richest and poorest people) from 17 times in 2007 to 20 times in 2020;
• an increase in the size of social and pension payments to military personnel to a level that would correspond to the importance and value of this type of activity in the field of state defense;
• bringing social payments to targeting, which are tied to the level of income of the population, up to 80% by 2012, and by 2020 the coverage of the poor with social programs should reach 100%;
• to solve by 2020 the main problem of the elderly part of the population - the full satisfaction of their need for regular care and support;
• achieve by 2020 the employment of people with disabilities up to 40% of the total number of people with disabilities.

Main measures of social policy

The long-term policy of social support for Russian citizens consists in the implementation of many priority areas. The primary direction is to improve the social atmosphere in society, to minimize the differentiation of citizens in terms of their income, as well as to reduce poverty.

Remark 2

The main measures to combat poverty and improve the well-being of citizens are the rapid pace of economic growth, wage increases and the creation of new jobs. Changes in the educational sphere and the healthcare system have a significant impact on improving social policy by improving the quality of access to these services, reducing informal payments, and also through the positive impact of the updated educational system on the opportunities for effective economic activity of citizens.

But despite this, economic growth cannot automatically lead to the minimization of poverty, and may be accompanied by increased social instability and increased inequality. To reduce the poverty of the population by dividing it by income level, it is necessary to implement a set of social policy measures that would be aimed at:

• an increase in the minimum wage and payment for the labor process of employees of budgetary organizations, these measures will help reduce poverty among working citizens;
• an increase in the average size of old-age labor pension payments to the level that the minimum consumer budget can provide;
• increasing the effectiveness of social support for certain segments of the population by strengthening the targeting of social projects, improving the procedures for the need of the population, as well as the introduction of new technologies for the provision of social assistance and contracts;
• improving the skills of the tax system on income management issues through the expansion of tax deductions and the introduction of a tax on real estate, which depends on its market value (due to this, it is possible to evenly distribute the burden among population groups with different income levels).

An important measure of social policy is to increase the effectiveness of family support at the social level. These measures include the development and improvement of the system for providing payments in connection with the birth and upbringing of a child. It is also possible to strengthen the stimulating role of additional state support measures for families with minor children, including the development and expansion of the educational services market, and the construction of affordable housing for them.

It is possible to increase the effectiveness of state support through the development of social support programs for families in the upbringing of preschool children by opening children's institutions and minimizing family distress. Also, an effective measure of social policy is to strengthen the system of homelessness, to consolidate the actions of regional, federal and local social institutions that are aimed at solving the problem of homelessness. A special role in this matter will be played by increasing the efficiency of social services, whose activities are related to minimizing family distress and providing psychological and social assistance to those children who are in a socially dangerous situation.

The next measure that can increase the effectiveness of social policy is the social integration and rehabilitation of people with disabilities. It includes:

• institutional and organizational improvement of the system of medical and social expertise, as well as the rehabilitation of disabled people;
• development of the level of social integration of people with disabilities and the implementation of measures to provide transport, infrastructure facilities, and housing for the disabled;
• creation of the necessary infrastructure in rehabilitation centers that provide comprehensive rehabilitation for disabled people and guarantee a return to a full-fledged social life.

A special place in the state social policy is given to the social security of elderly citizens. Measures to improve and improve social policy in this direction include:

• implementation of the availability of social assistance and services to all those in need of advanced age through the development of a network of institutions of various legal forms that will provide social services;
• development of various forms of providing social services to elderly citizens and people with disabilities in order to maintain the ability of these citizens to move or self-service, as well as providing social assistance to those families who provide related home care for the elderly and disabled;
• provision of elderly citizens and disabled people who need help from outsiders with places, necessary needs, as well as stationary social service institutions.

Figure 1. Social policy measures. Author24 - online exchange of student papers

The implementation of social policy measures requires the achievement of social harmony, as well as the development of mechanisms for social support and adaptation of the population. This may require the modernization and improvement of the social services sector, the development of targeted programs and privileged categories of citizens.