22.3. The collapse of the USSR. Post-Communist Russia. Difficulties of transition to a market economy

With the election in 1985, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, MS. Gorbachev in the USSR, a period of reform. At the first stage (from March 1985 to August 1991), the country underwent a process of revising the fundamentals of the totalitarian political system and the planned-distribution economic system.

The term “perestroika” that arose in those years meant a transition from above to the democratization of the political system and the admission of market relations in the economy. This was reflected in the reduction of the role of the CPSU in public life, in the revival of parliamentarism, publicity, in the weakening of the centralized leadership of the economy, in enhancing the rights and responsibilities of regional authorities. All these actions of the country's leadership had a positive direction, and in this the undoubted historical merit of MS Gorbachev. In essence, this meant that the option of reforming the economy was carried out, when, with the regulatory role of the state, a gradual denationalization of part of the property and the introduction of market relations into the economy should have taken place.

However, the developing economic crisis was accompanied by a deterioration of the political situation in the country. Noting the inability of the central government to improve the economic situation, the leadership of the Union republics, territories and regions saw a path to improvement in the decentralization of government, in providing even greater rights and economic opportunities for regions to solve local economic and social problems. At the same time, their demands were expressed in the movement for leaving at the disposal of the regions a larger share of the national income created there in comparison with the previous period. Naturally, this led to a decrease in the share of funds entering the centralized funds of the state.

All this led the USSR government to instruct the development of methodological approaches to addressing the issue of so-called regional cost accounting, when the national income left at the disposal of the region should depend on the region’s contribution to the country's economic potential. At the same time, the aim was also to muffle dependent tendencies in certain regions.

However, this issue has not been resolved. Firstly, there was a war in Afghanistan, which required a lot of expenses, and therefore the cost of maintaining the military-industrial complex. Therefore, the state did not have the opportunity to increase the share of national income left at the disposal of the regions. Secondly, due to the fact that the country had a distorted pricing system, when the prices for raw materials were unreasonably undervalued, and the prices for final products were too high, the volume of national income created in the republics with primarily raw materials did not reflect their true contribution to the economy. of the state.

In addition, the tax system and the procedure for collecting taxes distorted indicators of the contribution of the republics to the economy of the state. One of the main sources of budget revenues, the turnover tax, was levied mainly on consumer goods, and it existed in the republics where these goods were produced. In the commodity republics, as a result of the pursued policy of specialization and cooperation of production, enterprises producing such goods were not enough, and consequently, there was not enough turnover tax for the incomes of their budgets. To provide the budgets of these republics with income, they were allocated subsidies from the union budget, which created the appearance of dependency of these republics. In turn, this gave a reason for nationalist separatists, both in the regions and in the center, to mutual accusations, to incite ethnic contradictions, to form public opinion about the expediency of the collapse of the USSR.

This is reflected in the struggle of the union and republican parliaments. Economically unqualified deputies who came on the crest of a wave of democratic movement to these parliaments instead of looking for ways out of the crisis, creating a legislative base to improve the economic situation in the country, strengthening deputy control over the government’s formation and use of budget funds, were engaged in destructive political activities aimed at confronting the center and regions.

At the same time, as the experience of China showed, where the reform of the economy proceeded under the regulatory role of the state, this process proceeded relatively smoothly, but for many years. Without taking this experience into account, in the USSR, part of the party leadership and the democratic public began to call for more rapid, radical reforms in politics and in the economy. These sentiments were prompted by the intensification of crisis phenomena in the economy and the outbreak of political crises in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Lithuania, with mass demonstrations by the population. At the same time to suppress unrest had to use the armed forces. In addition, since the beginning of the 90s, strikes of workers demanding higher wages have swept the country.

Under these conditions, the leadership of the USSR decides on the preparation of a new union treaty, in which the expansion of the rights of the Union republics should be reflected. However, in August 1991, on the eve of the signing of this treaty, a group of persons from the top leadership of the state imposed a state of emergency in the country. The inconsistent policy pursued by the President of the USSR M. S. Gorbachev, undermined his credibility. December 8, the presidents of the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus, B.N. Yeltsin, L.M. Kravchuk and S.S. Shushkevich signed an agreement in which it was stated that "the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist." Thus, on the basis of the Union republics, independent states were created.

After the collapse of the USSR, the stage of radical reforms begins in Russia. The new Russian government formed these reforms based on monetarism and shock therapy. This was reflected in the accelerated privatization of state property, in the rejection of state regulation of prices and the artificial exchange rate of the ruble, the planned management of the economy and the planned distribution of the products of enterprises, budget subsidies to branches of the national economy and the population, administrative binding of the producer to the consumer, etc.

Thus, the country moved to the capitalist economic system. There were no obstacles to such a transition. Usually, as evidenced by the experience of world history, classes and social strata of the population, losing their property and power, resisted the transition to a new socio-economic system. In Russia, by this time, a classless society was created. Practically, there was no longer any difference between the method of the working class and the peasant class. There was no ruling class of the owner of the means of production losing power, and the ruling party-bureaucratic elite hoped to remain in power and did not oppose change.

As for the ownership of the means of production, no one lost it, since it was state-owned. On the contrary, as a result of the changes, representatives of the party-bureaucratic elite, business leaders, representatives of the shadow economy and the criminal world, who have power and money, seized it.

The population was inspired by the media through the idea that under socialism and state ownership it was impossible to effectively organize production and ensure an acceptable standard of living. In the conditions of a long-term permanent commodity and food deficit, low wages, the population was psychologically prepared for the situation that K. Marx described: “A terrible end is better than horror without end” ¹ . All these circumstances contributed to the country's transition to capitalism. A transition without resistance, bloodless, but not painless for the economy and the population.

Thus, the militarization of the economy, excessive arms race, the conduct of hostilities in other countries, the provision of military and economic assistance to states pursuing the ideology and foreign policy of the USSR, insufficiently efficient economic management and mismanagement led to the depletion of the state and the economic breakdown of the country, caused economic, and then the political crisis and, finally, the collapse of the USSR.

The consequences of this were the destruction of the single economic space and economic ties, the loss of economic benefits from inter-regional integration, the decline of the economy, the decline in the standard of living of the population, the ideological disorder, the unstable domestic political situation, and psychological discomfort in society. From the standpoint of international relations, the collapse of the USSR led to the elimination of the balance of the two superpowers in the world and the hegemony of the United States.

The reforms that began after the collapse of the USSR led to a deepening economic crisis. First, such cardinal changes associated with a change in the form of ownership and political institutions cannot be painless. Secondly, the reforms were carried out hastily, without thorough methodological and organizational preparation. Thirdly, the centralized, planned-distributive management system was destroyed, and it takes time to create market relations.

All this is reflected in the decline of the most important economic, demographic and social indicators.

For the period 1992-1995. in Russia, industrial production fell by 81%, agricultural products by 53%, national income by 63%. The average annual number of people employed in the national economy decreased from 72.1 to 67.1 million. The real incomes of the population in 1995 were 40% of the 1991 level, while the share of residents with incomes below the subsistence minimum was 24.7% of the total population. The commissioning of residential buildings fell from 29.2 to 9.5 million square meters. m. In 1992, the natural increase in population (i.e., the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths per 1000 inhabitants) was 1.5 ppm, in 1995 it was 5.7 ppm. Despite the fact that 3.8 million people arrived in the country during these years, the number of Russian residents decreased from 148.8 million to 147.9 million people. ²

In 1993, opposition forces to the government, which included representatives of various trends, from communists to fascists, attempted to impede the country's capitalist development path. In early October 1993, they tried to capture the television center and other objects in Moscow. The country was on the verge of civil war. Only with the help of military units managed to eliminate this action and the impending civil war.

Election in June 1996 of the President of Russia and the victory of B.N. Yeltsin decided the question in favor of the capitalist development of Russia.

Questions for self-test

1. 1. Describe the economic damage caused by the USSR as a result of hostilities on its territory.

2. 2. How did the country's economy develop in the first post-war five-year plans?

3. 3. What are the main reasons that complicated the economic situation of the USSR in the 1970s – 1980s?

4. 4. Describe the economic and political situation in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.