Nowadays, quite often one hears from adherents of Bolshevik thought how they “built socialism” in the USSR. The question rightly arises: was it really so? And is the socialist system a system that can be taken and built? Naturally, everything here is not as simple as it might seem to a convinced Bolshevik-Leninist or a simple layman.
Let's start with a little theory. The nature of any social system is determined by the mode of production of material goods. The two aspects of the mode of production are the productive forces and the relations of production corresponding to them. It is clear that communist relations of production cannot arise on the basis of the same productive forces on the basis of which capitalist relations of production arose. The question is brewing: how did the Soviet general secretaries try to build socialism on the basis of capitalist productive forces? The history of the Soviet state has clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to build socialism, to implant it artificially through decrees. Although the Bolshevik leaders did not think so. In reality, everything was different: state capitalism was built in the USSR, and not. A simple decree (in our case, the Land Decree) forbidding wage labor could by no means abolish the system of wage labor; the party nomenklatura was unable to destroy the capitalist class antagonism by getting rid of the bourgeoisie; it did not destroy the capitalist basis either, having nationalized the entire industry, because it makes no difference who exploits the workers - the private owner or the state. This is because it is impossible to change the formation through political decisions: the political superstructure of the Soviet state, of course, could in some way affect the economic basis of Soviet society, but not so much as to change it qualitatively, radically. The basis determines the superstructure, not vice versa. When we talk about the change of production relations from capitalist to communist, we must understand that a corresponding change must also take place in the productive forces.
Socialism in the USSR as in a nation state
This was only one side of the myth about building socialism in the USSR. The point is that it is impossible to build socialism in a single country. Why? One of the progressive missions that it performs is the creation of a single market space, the unification of the economies of all states into a single economic entity based on their mutual dependence. The limits of nation-states for the productive forces have long since become narrow, as evidenced by the crises of overproduction. In fact, industry and trade ceased to be domestic. For example, the Soviet Union, although it produced grain, began to buy it abroad from the mid-1960s. National frontiers are a barrier to the productive forces of capitalism. Again, this is easily confirmed by the example of the USSR, which actively sold its own industrial products and energy resources on the foreign market. The capitalist economic system has long connected all the economies of national states, has become a global system, and therefore the next socio-economic formation - communist - will be a world system. Even the Bolsheviks themselves, who verbally built socialism in the USSR, still cherished the hope of the victory of the world revolution: for this they even broke the tsarist agreements on cooperation with some Third World countries, they also supported the workers' uprising in Hamburg in 1923. It is clear that it didn't end with anything. The world character of the socialist system was also noted by the classics of Marxism themselves, speaking of the need for a socialist revolution in just a few of the most developed capitalist countries. In summary: it was simply impossible to build socialism only in the USSR.
It can be purely hypothetically assumed that socialism was built in the USSR. Plants and factories were being built, industrial production was growing, in a word, the productive forces were developing at full speed, and suddenly the collapse of the Soviet "socialist" state occurred, that is, the restoration of capitalism. Really during these 70 years the "socialist" productive forces have degraded to such an extent that there has been a "restoration of capitalism"? It turns out that there is a discrepancy, because the productive forces progressed in the Soviet era - no one will deny this. Obviously, everything was different: the productive forces, like the relations of production, were capitalist. This can put an end to the question of building socialism in the USSR.
Conclusion on the need for an appropriate material base
It will be possible to speak about the construction of socialism only when the material basis of socialism, the socialist productive forces, has matured for this. The Soviet leaders could introduce as many decrees and laws as they wanted - all the same, this would not lead to a qualitative change in the material base of society. The change of production relations does not depend on anyone's subjective will.
Socialism in the USSR: a historical overview of the phenomenon.
The Soviet Union was the first state created on the basis of Marxist socialism. Before 1989 years the Communist Party directly controlled all levels of government; the party Politburo effectively ruled the country, and its general secretary was the most important person in the country. Soviet industry was owned and controlled by the state, and agricultural land was divided into state farms, collective farms, and small household plots. Politically, the USSR was divided (with 1940 on 1991 year) on 15 union republics-Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Russia, officially the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), was only one of the republics within the USSR, but the terms "Russia", "USSR", and "Soviet Union" were often used interchangeably.
Lenin era
The USSR was the first successor state to the Russian Empire and the short-lived Provisional Government.The fundamental policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was socialized from the very beginning. Between 1918 and 1921 BC, in a period called "war communism", the state took control of the entire economy, mainly through the centralization of planning and the elimination of private property. This led to inefficiency and ruin, and in 1921 There was a partial return to a market economy, with the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP marked the beginning of a period of relative stability and prosperity. AT 1922 Germany recognized the Soviet Union, and most other powers, with the exception of the United States, followed suit in 1924 year. also in 1924 In 1999, a Constitution was adopted based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and based economically on public ownership of land and the means of production (in accordance with the revolutionary proclamation 1917 of the year).
The era of Stalin
The dogma of the new economic policy created in 1921 year, was replaced by full state planning with the adoption of the first five-year plan (1928-32). There was a transfer to Gosplan (State Planning Commission), setting goals and priorities for the entire economy emphasized the production of capital rather than consumer goods. The system of collective farms and state farms was sharply rejected by the peasantry. Seizure of personal property of the inhabitants of villages and villages, persecution of religious confessions, repressions against all segments of the population broke out with renewed vigor.Thaw
Death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 marked the beginning of a new era in Soviet history. "Collective leadership" was curtailed. Soviet citizens received more personal freedom and civil rights. Georgy Malenkov replaced Stalin as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, while Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), began to play an increasingly important role in planning politics. AT 1955 Malenkov was replaced by Nikolai Bulganin. On the 20- At the All-Union Congress (January 1956) Khrushchev severely condemned Stalin's dictatorial rule and personality cult. Nikita Sergeevich replaced N. A. Bulganin in 1958 year, thus becoming the leader of both the government and the party. In general, his reign is characterized by a change in the situation in the country, while the CPSU continues to dominate in all spheres of Soviet life.Stagnation
Khrushchev was quietly and peacefully removed from all posts in 1964 year. In his place came the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU L. I. Brezhnev (who 1960 became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). The official reasons for Khrushchev's overthrow were his advanced age (70) and his failing health. The truth was dissatisfaction with the policies of Nikita Sergeevich and the style of his government. In particular, it has been criticized for the insufficient functioning of the economy, especially in the agricultural sector (crop failure 1963 of the year); for the aggravation of the position of the USSR in the Caribbean crisis; worsening foreign policy with China; extravagant behavior. Several politicians have lost their posts. The new leaders emphasized collective leadership, but due to Brezhnev's position, he had a great advantage and to 1970 year became the most powerful man in the country. The era of stagnation was in full swing. There was a significant stagnation of the Soviet economy. The persecution of opponents of state power intensified. In the end 1960- 1990s, an attempt was made to change attitudes towards Stalin. Foreign policy was based on peaceful coexistence with the West.perestroika
Gorbachev inherited a country with a difficult economic and foreign policy situation. In the first nine months of his tenure, he replaced 40% of the regional leadership. Like his mentor Andropov, he launched an active campaign against alcohol consumption. Like Khrushchev, he approved measures aimed at lifting social restrictions. The measures, which Gorbachev called "glasnost" and "perestroika"), were supposed to improve the Soviet economy by increasing the free flow of goods and information. Glasnost received an immediate response when 1986 d. There was an explosion on 4 power unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The poverty of the Soviet people, corruption, theft of the country's resources, the uselessness of the Afghan invasion for the first time received general condemnation. Rapid and radical changes began. Dissidents were released from custody and allowed to express their opinions. The USSR signed an agreement on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.There is no single position on the historical significance of ideology in the life of the country. The high social security of the population, the developed military-industrial complex, achievements in culture and sports are strongly opposed by violations of human rights and freedoms, persecution of church life, and control over all spheres of life.
I. Statement of the Question.
Was there socialism in the USSR?
A question on which there is still no consensus among adherents of Marxism. This is due to the lack of a Unified Classification Nominal Scale that determines the state of the Social Organism on formal grounds and the oblivion of the main Postulates of Marxism-Leninism.
So, for example, on the Question: What was the social structure of the USSR? There is a wide range of opinions. In this article, we will not touch on “Political Formations”, whether it was “Soviet Power”, “Democracy of the Workers”, or “Power of the Party ... Nomenklatura”, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Monarchy” covered by a “fig leaf of Democracy” ??? Let us dwell on the Economic Formations, which are within the scope of the Marxist Discipline.
According to Marxism, the "Social Organism" in its development goes through Six main Phase transitions in the field of Economics, which received the traditional name - "Economic Formations". Each of the Formations has its own strictly defined Sequence, its own Features and its own specific Functional Tasks.
I don’t know what exactly the researchers at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism were doing, but I didn’t come across any work on identifying and classifying the features of economic formations. If the Classification work would have been brought to its logical conclusion, then, probably, “so many copies would not have been broken” about the question: Was there Socialism in the USSR or Not?
- Stalin announced the construction of Socialism in 1936.
- Khrushchev planned in the 1980s to make the transition from Socialism to Communism.
- Brezhnev, claiming that we are "keeping pace with the times", - announced the construction in the USSR, in the 80s, of "Developed" Socialism.
And, suddenly, after such dizzying successes, Russia in the 90s found itself in "Wild" Capitalism. The transfer of State Property into Personal Property began, for the accumulation of initial Capital. And, at an accelerated pace, the Private Sector of the Economy began to form.
Among the modern Theorists of Social Science, standing on the Methodology of Marxism - Leninism, there is still no Single Opinion: What Economic Formation was in the USSR from 1936 to 1991?
Some argue that there was Socialism in the USSR, but then there is complete discord with its name: who calls it “Barracks”, who is “State”, who is “Mutant”. This allows some modern "Ghosts" to work on the Concept of "Market" Socialism, which causes approving attention among the ruling Bourgeois "Elite".
The author of the article adheres to the Opinion that the Economic Formation in the USSR is the deepest delusion, especially on the part of researchers who call themselves Marxists, to identify in Economics with the Socialist Formation.
It is called socialist either by succumbing to the Propaganda of anti-Marxist declarative statements of the former leaders of the country, or out of Ignorance, or deliberately, with the aim of discrediting this term, and with it the Marxist-Leninist Methodology itself.
II. Classification of Names of Economic Formations,
and Fundamental Postulates of Marxism.
Economic Formations
Sequence Name Phase Type
1 PrimitiveCommunal? SOS
2 Slave? AOC
3 Feudalistic? AOC
4 Capitalist
- Industrial AOC
- Financial AOC
- Information AOC
5 Socialist? CBT
6 Communist? CBT
What happened to the USSR is quite logically explained by the Marxist-Leninist Methodology.
IV. Addendum.
1. The generation of the sixties had the opportunity to experience all the delights of the three Economic Phase Formations of Capitalism: "Industrial", built under the control of the State, and lasted from 1936 to 1991, "Financial" - 1991 - 1993 and since 1993 - " Informational". If the maturation of the Social Organism in Russia proceeds at such a pace, then there is a high probability that the current generation will experience all the delights of the True Socialist Formation.
2. Question: Why did the USSR collapse so easily and with little bloodshed?
Answer: Because State Capitalism has exhausted all possibilities for further improvement of its own National Productive Forces of the Country. In its collapse, both external Social Organisms that have reached more advanced Economic Formations, and their own Productive Forces were interested. After all, the USSR was defeated not by Industrial Power, just in the 80s it had no equal, but in the Financial and Information War. That is, the Social Organism, standing on a lower Form in terms of development, was defeated by the Social Organisms with more developed Economic Formations.
3. To prepare the Socialist Formation - Each of the previous Economic Formations contributes. Primitive Communal System - Tribal Community. Slavery - National Self-Consciousness. Feudalism - Territory. "Industrial" Capitalism - "Material-Technical" Power. "Financial" - "Control and Accounting" Technologies, for the implementation of the principle "To each according to Labor". “Informational” - prepares, through Telephonization and Computerization, the conditions for the elimination of Cash Impersonal Money Carriers (Mineral - Metal - Paper) in order to switch to Computer Personal - Electronic Money - Corresponding to the level of the Socialist Formation.
Until the previous Formations create a Tribal, National, Territorial, Material and Technical, Accounting, Control and Information Base for the Functioning of the Socialist Formation, there can be no talk of any transition.
4. Within Capitalism itself, between its Phase steps, the Law operates: "Negation of Negation". Explanation: Its Higher Phase steps during their development begin to Inhibit the development of the lower ones.
The example of Russian Industry shows that with the development of Financial Capitalism, which manifested itself in a sharp Growth of Banks, Stock Exchanges, Financial Pyramids ... - accordingly, Industrial Enterprises began to go bankrupt and go bankrupt. And, after 1993, when the Imperialist Revolution took place in Russia, the Financial Pyramids and Banks began to burst, along with the continued reduction of Industrial Enterprises, especially the Agricultural Profile.
Telephonization and Computerization have led Humanity away from the Real Worlds into the Virtual Worlds, which is characterized by the reduction of the Country's own Material and Technical Base and the weakening of its Financial Currency. These processes cause an increase in Tension in the country, which awakens active Elements to action, which will become those Driving Forces capable of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation.
5. Under Imperialism, the Role of Trans...National Corporations increases. Borders and Nation States become an obstacle to their development. Therefore, they are interested in the destruction of the National Self-Consciousness of the Peoples of the Earth and the weakening of the Power of State Entities. The national-Patriotic milieu is the Bosom from which one should expect the "Gravediggers of Capitalism". The future Vanguard capable of carrying out the Socialist Revolution, of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation, cannot appear without the growth of the National Self-Consciousness of each Nation.
6. Question: What is the difference between Private Capitalism and State Capitalism?
Answer: Under Private Capitalism, along with the State, the Exploiting Classes continue to exist. While State Capitalism, after the liquidation of the first, acquires the Monopoly Right to Single-handedly Exploit the Population of its Country.
7. Question: What has “State Capitalism” given to Russia?
Answer: "State Capitalism" allowed Russia to Develop Productive Forces and Acquire Industrial Power. The preservation of the Private Sector along with the State, would not allow Russia to achieve Industrial Power, in view of the International Division of Labor among countries with a Private Sector. Since Russia is located in the cold climate zone, the cost of production produced here cannot compete with similar enterprises in warm countries. Therefore, what we are seeing now would happen - the collapse and ruin of the Industrial Sector, and the export of Capitals abroad. When Russia joins the World Trade Organization, it will play the role of a Raw Material Appendage in the international process of Labor integration. So, the "Great Industrial Capitalist Revolution" under the control of the State (party ... nomenklatura), delayed the transformation of Russia into a "Raw Materials Appendage" for 73 years, and allowed to defend its National Independence in 1945. And, to form the Self-Consciousness of the Great People. This is the key to the Revival of Russia, thanks to the nourishment of the Patriots of the Spirit of Revanchism, through the Memory of the former Greatness of their Motherland.
8. Question: The difference between Phase and Formation?
Answer: Formation in its development goes through certain internal phase changes. Phases are Quantitative Changes in Parameters associated with a step-by-step sequence of performing certain Tasks for the normal Functioning of a Social Organism within a particular Formation. Formations are a Qualitative change in the Organism, occurring as some internal parametric changes accumulate.
Inside the Organism (Biological or Social) Phases and Formations represent respectively Quantitative and Qualitative Changes.
Quantitative - these are the processes of Growth and Accumulation ...
Qualitative - processes of Change and Transformation.
9. Question: Is Socialism a Formation or the first Phase of Communism (according to Marx)?
Answer: It is more competent, in my opinion, to give Socialism the status of an independent Formation. The way it manifests its own Principles and Laws, Qualitatively different from the Communist Formation. It is advisable to engage in the identification of its logical Phases and the determination of their sequence. To do this, it is necessary to clarify the Functional Tasks of the Socialist Formation as a Whole, necessary for preparing the transition to the Communist Formation.
However, if one does not contradict Marx's statement, one can consider Socialism as the First Phase of the Communist Formation. But, this approach will not remove the Problem, but only complicate it. We'll have to come up with some other Names for the Second, Third, etc. phase of communism. Therefore, both methodologically and logically, I consider it more justified to consider Socialism as an independent Economic Formation.
V. Summary.
Question: Was there socialism in the USSR?
Answer: No!
Rationale: According to the above Postulates of Marxism and the Nominal Table of Economic Formations, the USSR has not yet created the Objective prerequisites for Socialism.
The Economic Formation, according to the Marxist Methodology, should be Named:
Industrial Capitalism.
-
The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Photo from the site foto-expo.ru
In the year of the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution, it is not superfluous to reflect on why the transition to real ("true", "correct", and so on) socialism did not take place in the Soviet Union during Perestroika. For some reason, no one seriously asks this question, although, it seems to me, it cries out. After all, there was a chance, as it seemed then.
Indeed, by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR in 1985, the material conditions for such a transition were in full. 99% of the means of production in the Soviet Union were state-owned. By itself, this fact did not mean truly socialist relations in the economy, but could serve as a material basis for their creation.
The absence in the country of large private property, and indeed of any more or less broad stratum of owners of the means of production, theoretically assumed a painless transition to a new phase of socialist construction, during which wage workers would have to become the true owners of their enterprises and institutions, and with them the masters of their own lives.
I deliberately emphasize that we are talking here about the means of production, that is, "factories, newspapers, steamboats", since private ownership of the means of consumption existed in the form of millions of cars, summer cottages, small plots of land under these summer cottages, private houses in the countryside, cooperative apartments in the city, this property of Soviet citizens, shamefully called then "personal", has always been in the USSR.
During this new phase of socialist construction, hypothetically, something could and should finally happen, about which the founders of scientific communism wrote so much in their time, but which did not happen in the practice of socialist construction. Namely, "overcoming the alienation of the direct producer from the means of production."
As we remember, this goal could not be achieved by stateization of most of the property in any country in the world where such attempts were made. On the contrary, everywhere in the world in the 20th century, where socialism was built according to the Soviet model, in spite of any national specifics, the hired worker remained a hired worker. Only his owner and employer have changed. The place of the private owner was taken by the state manager.
If we talk about the Stalinist times, which are now customary to remember nostalgically, then the position of the absolute majority of wage workers then worsened even compared to traditional capitalism. If anyone has forgotten, the vast majority of the population of the Soviet Union at that time - the peasants - were deprived not only of elementary labor rights, in particular, they did not receive payment for their work in money (after the war, the peasants worked not for money, but for "workdays", for "sticks ” in the ledgers), but also equally elementary human rights. Let me remind you that collective farmers received passports and with them the right to free movement around the country much later - only in 1974. In fact, and legally, from 1933 to 1974, the peasants in the USSR were serfs of the state.
In 1985, the hopes of those who considered themselves a democratic (true and so on) socialist, communist, flared up with renewed vigor. It seemed that little had to be done - to democratize the political superstructure, to hold normal elections and to transfer the means of production into the hands of the working people (in control or ownership - this was a topic for discussions, which, by the way, have not yet been completed) - and, voila - we get true socialism. But that's in theory. In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated ...
By and large, Gorbachev cannot be reproached for not trying to carry out precisely the reform of socialism. Tried, and even very much. During his short reign, for example, two very important laws appeared: on the state enterprise and on cooperation.
The essence of the first law, adopted on June 30, 1987, was that self-financing was officially introduced at a Soviet enterprise, but, most importantly, the position of director became elective. At the same time, the elections were alternative, each candidate proposed his own program, the labor collective for the first time elected the director from several candidates by secret or open voting (at the discretion of the labor collective) for a period of 5 years. The term, however, was clearly too long - the American president is elected for 4 years. For five years, the director could "grow" into his chair, but more on that below.
The second law - on cooperation, adopted in May 1988, seemed to revive the ideas of the late Lenin, who after the civil war proclaimed "a change in our entire point of view on socialism" and emphasized the widest possible development of cooperation.
Why didn't these reforms work? In my opinion, there are three explanations for this historical failure.
First, among the supporters of socialist development themselves, there were diametrically opposed views on what “correct” socialism should be. The problem was that for most of them, who at that time constituted the "main political force of Soviet society" - the CPSU, "correct" socialism was associated exclusively with strict directive planning of the national economy, state property, which is managed by state officials and managers, and one-party political system. The direct producer in this system, as he was a nobody, so he remained a nobody.
Those who meant by “correct” socialism the transfer of enterprises to the management of their labor collectives were always perceived by representatives of “Soviet” “communism” as a suspicious petty-bourgeois element and as such were resolutely rejected.
The second reason for the failure of the socialist reformers was that by the end of the 1980s, a fairly wide proto-bourgeois and simply bourgeois layer of people had formed in the USSR. It included a significant part of the Soviet nomenklatura bureaucracy, managers and shadow workers. This layer began to form almost from the beginning of the 1920s, that is, immediately after the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, strengthened after the "collectivization" of agriculture in the early 1930s and reached its apogee in the 1950s-80s.
In other words, this broad and influential proto-bourgeois stratum in the Soviet Union was generated not by secret enemies of the Soviet regime, not by “traitors”, about whom the current heirs of the CPSU are so fond of ranting, but by its own economic system.
What, exactly, are we talking about? The fact is that the system of state ownership implies building a powerful bureaucratic apparatus. Such an apparatus at all times and in all countries has always been built according to a strictly hierarchical principle - from the bottom up. Otherwise, it cannot function, because otherwise the principle of centralized control will be violated and the entire system will collapse (which happened in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 90s). In the Soviet Union, as you know, this system was called the principle of "democratic centralism", in tsarist Russia, it was also called autocracy, but the point is not in the name, but in the essence. Here, as they say, at least call a pot ...
In the USSR, the only source of both material wealth and advancement along the bureaucratic ladder was a career in a state enterprise or in the state (party) service. Moreover, in a system where private property was abolished, the career of a state bureaucrat for the vast majority of the population was, in fact, the only legalized type of business.
The word "careerist" in the Soviet Union was a dirty word, because it meant, then, and now, the desire for personal, and not for the common good. That is, for purely selfish purposes. Careerists were scolded and ridiculed by Soviet propaganda and Soviet art for this, however, no one really knew how to deal with this evil. Because fighting him meant fighting the system itself.
Lenin, called the careerists "scoundrels and rogues", worthy only of execution. He rightly feared (and wrote about it more than once) that after its victory in the Civil War, these very “scoundrels and rogues” would pour into the only ruling party in a wide stream. However, he proposed completely utopian and ineffective measures to combat them - either close the admission to the party for new people in general, or “dilute” professional managers with unspoiled workers “from the machine”.
Both measures could only be temporary and did not solve the problem of careerism in principle. The closure of the party to accept new members was violated by Stalin, who immediately after the death of Lenin in 1924 proclaimed the so-called “Lenin call”, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of virgins poured into it (including those from any kind of theoretical knowledge and even from secondary education), but ambitious workers and peasants. They greatly diluted the thin layer of the old party intelligentsia, who still remembered "why it all began."
It was this mass, constantly replenished with new recruits, that became the basis of the Soviet party and state nomenklatura. It was this mass of millions of Soviet bureaucracy that became the basis for the maturation of the new bourgeoisie, since it was initially guided by a purely personal, selfish, and therefore, in essence, bourgeois interest. This was also facilitated by the shortcomings of the purely centralized national economy of the USSR.
The ultra-high level of centralization and the rigidity of the planning system did not allow a quick response to the "increasing demands of Soviet citizens" and led to an endless shortage of basic products and goods, a lack of retail space and long queues in stores.
This inevitably led to the emergence of a "black market" and to an increase in the role of both producers of scarce goods (more precisely, directors of the corresponding industries) and those who "sat" in their distribution - directors of stores and warehouses. There were at least tens of thousands of such people in the country, and they acted, albeit still in illegal, but already in quite market conditions.
That is, unlike the party nomenklatura, whose source of income was mainly the state salary, for the new "black entrepreneurs", many of whom, we repeat, were quite official directors of Soviet enterprises and shops, real income from their "business" became increasingly important. ". There is nothing to say about petty “farmers”, those who illegally worked as a taxi driver in their car, millions of peasants who quite officially traded their own and other people’s products on the “collective farm” markets, and there is nothing to say - in the 1950s-80s, all these types of illegal, semi-legal and legal entrepreneurial activity in the USSR were highly developed.
Therefore, cooperation, which was allowed in 1988, almost immediately became an official cover and a way to legalize all types of private business, both new and already existing in fact. In reality, all the social strata listed above were no longer even the proto-bourgeoisie, but the real bourgeoisie, which was louder and louder declaring its not only economic, but also political rights.
The third reason for the failure of socialist reforms in the USSR under Gorbachev was, shall we say, the unimportant background of Soviet socialism. He was too bloody and merciless, he cost too many victims. Yes, in the late 1980s, he was already quite a vegetarian, but any relaxation after such massacres, as in the Stalinist USSR, is always used as an opportunity to speak openly about them. With all the ensuing circumstances, expressed, first of all, in the rejection of everything (including the positive) that was associated with the establishment of this system.
It must be stated that the historical initiative at the end of the 1980s was by no means behind socialism, which was followed by a heavy trail of many mistakes and mass crimes. Everything that was connected with socialism in the mass consciousness, and especially in the consciousness of the majority of the intelligentsia, caused strong rejection. That is why all attempts at socialist reforms in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 1990s were rejected and ridiculed before they even started.
“Humanity, laughing, says goodbye to its past,” Marx once said. That is exactly what happened in the USSR. Socialism was parted with laughter here. The famous satirist about the perestroika slogan “More socialism ...!” publicly asked the audience: “What? Even more?! Yes, much more!” Or an anecdote from the 1980s about building socialism in the Sahara: “first there will be shortages of sand, and then it will completely disappear” ...
The old Soviet socialism was fading into the past, and nothing could be done about it. New layers of society, generated by its own strengths and weaknesses, blew up this society from within. That is why the new directors of enterprises elected by general meetings of labor collectives, who are increasingly fitting into the market, became active lobbyists for the abolition of the law by which they were elected, and the “cooperators” demanded that they legalize themselves as the main shareholders of new companies and banks ...
Yes, as is usually the case with any reforms, the child was thrown out with dirty water. These words, by the way, were not told to me by some communist, but by a well-known human rights activist, liberal, head of the Civic Assistance Committee, Svetlana Gannushkina. But ... there's nothing to be done about it. Having lost your head, you don't cry for your hair.
The failure of the "socialist reforms" in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s is important for understanding that any society moves forward not only due to the desires and beliefs of individuals, but also due to the objective laws of its development. The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries, regardless of how the party that is now in power calls itself. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Undoubtedly, these are different types of capitalism. But, although somewhere, as in China or Turkmenistan, there is no political democracy at all, somewhere, as in Russia or Kazakhstan, it is imitated, and somewhere a normal democratic republic has been established, the economy is dominated by private property and the market. .
