The unstable economic situation in the country in the early 60s of the last century gave rise to doubts about the effectiveness and expediency of the administrative dictatorship even among the state leadership itself. Even during the time of Khrushchev, a discussion began in print media about new production incentives. A new term appeared on their pages - “the economy of developed socialism.” The reforms (a table reflecting the main changes will be given later in the article) generally did not reject the directive model. However, at the same time, certain mechanisms of self-regulation were introduced, as well as the material interest of producers in labor efficiency. Let us further consider what the economy of developed socialism was like, the pros and cons of the measures taken.

Transformations in agriculture

What measures did the economy of developed socialism provide for? The reforms primarily affected agriculture. Their start was announced in March 1965. Measures were outlined aimed at solving social problems in the village and introducing economic incentives to work. Purchasing prices were increased, and a 50 percent premium to the basic cost was introduced for the sale of products above the plan. At the same time, capital investments also increased. The economy of developed socialism in the USSR presupposed the establishment of a ten-year firm plan for government procurement. To increase incentives, restrictions on private farming were reduced.

Disadvantages of Change

The economy of developed socialism relied on administrative levers. The government continued to try to strengthen the role of the Ministers of Agriculture in the leadership and planning of the agricultural sector. Emphasis was placed on increasing capital investment and writing off the debt of collective farms. Huge amounts of money were spent on the development of the agricultural industry. However, they were used extremely ineffectively. Part of the funds was used for the construction of giant complexes, the purchase of expensive equipment, and the implementation of ill-conceived chemicalization and soil reclamation. Stable cash salaries were introduced on collective farms. At its core, this is one of the most important achievements in the social sphere. However, after their introduction, dependent attitudes began to develop. What did the economy of developed socialism lead to? The conclusion is very disappointing. As a result of the transformations, the activities of state and collective farms became unprofitable. Over 25 years, from 1964 to 1988, there was a reduction in developed arable land by 22 million hectares. Losses in agricultural output were also high. Losses in this sector ranged from 20 to 40%. The country, which had fertile black soil, became the world's largest importer of food and grain.

Industrial sector

The economy of developed socialism in the initial stages developed through improving the economic mechanism or stimulating workers. In September 1965, change leaders attempted to combine these approaches. Thus began changes in the industrial sector. Unlike agriculture, the reforms here did not reject the foundations of directive economics. The main principles of activity were changes in planning conditions and increased incentives. The economy of developed socialism maintained strict standards for the volume of output. At the same time, new indicators were introduced aimed at ensuring product quality. To increase incentives, producers were allowed to keep part of their income at the disposal of enterprises. Profits were divided into funds:

• Self-financing of production.
• Household and socio-cultural development (construction of boarding houses, clubs, housing, and so on).
• Material incentives.

The economy of developed socialism assumed that the sectoral ministries, which were planned to be restored, would act not as the former “dictators”, but as consultants and partners of enterprises. They were supposed to promote the organization of production on self-supporting terms, based on strengthening self-government, self-financing and self-sufficiency. As part of the activities that included the economy of developed socialism, a combination of unified state planning with local initiative was envisaged. At the same time, the right to adjust plans that were approved belonged only to the enterprises themselves.

The economy of developed socialism: briefly about the results of industrial transformations

Despite all the inconsistency and limitations, the transformations led to significant results. At the end of the Eighth Five-Year Plan from 1966 to 1970, there was an increase in industrial production by 1.5 times. About 1,900 fairly large enterprises were built in the country. Among them, for example, is the Volzhsky plant in Tolyatti. But by the end of the 60s the progress of transformations had slowed down. This was due to fairly objective reasons. First of all, the proportion of the working-age population in the country has decreased significantly. In addition, the traditional raw material base was depleted, mining prices rose sharply, equipment became obsolete, and military expenses increased. But the main problem was that the economic model itself, which rejected all innovations, had exhausted itself - development could proceed by inertia for some period, but in the long term the system was doomed to failure.

Main problems

The reform gave rise to certain difficulties. In particular, the construction of giant production complexes led to monopolization in the industry. This, in turn, led to low quality products and a lack of choice for consumers. The introduction of indicators for assessing quality based on the price of a product led not only to its rise in price, but also to a significant reduction in production volume. As a result, there was a shortage of products. Every year the volume of imports of products that domestic industry was not able to produce increased.

Conservation of the political regime

The economy of developed socialism was faltering. What caused this? The leadership apparatus recounted Brezhnev’s opinion on the report made by Kosygin at the plenum in September 1965. In ruling circles it was believed that the reform would lead nowhere. And it was not a matter of the need for transformation, but a lack of desire to work. According to a number of authors, it was precisely this attitude that caused the failure of the reform. Soon the emphasis shifted to new raw material resources that were discovered in the eastern territory of the country. At the same time, it was decided to adjust the economic management system. In 1979, an attempt was made to revive the situation by improving economic levers and strengthening the influence of the party leadership. But all these efforts could not solve the problems at hand. In ruling circles they again began to talk about the advantages of moral incentives over material ones. To compensate for the shortcomings of the imperfect economic mechanism, socialist competitions revived. It was only in 1983, after Brezhnev's death, that Andropov, the country's new leader, undertook a "large-scale experiment." During it, it was planned to weaken centralized distribution and planning, and make a number of changes in pricing at the level of certain regions and enterprises. These events were successful, but their effect was short-lived. The change of economic levers remained an urgent problem.

NTP

By the beginning of the 70s, the stage of post-industrial development began in the West. This entailed the automation of production processes, the massive use of computers and robots, and the introduction of new high-tech technologies. At the same time, the individualization of labor began, its transformation into creative activity, free from restrictions. In the USSR they talked a lot about scientific and technical progress. As part of the nascent scientific and technological progress in the country, first-class examples of computers were created. In 1971, at the next congress of the CPSU, a new directive was voiced. The plan for the next years was to be implemented by combining the achievements of progress with the advantages of socialism. But the shortcomings of the existing regime significantly slowed down the progress of technology and science, and the introduction of achievements into the production process. Periodically, reports of major developments and discoveries appeared. However, if they did not have military significance, they remained unrealized due to a lack of funds, as well as a lack of support from developers in those bodies where the further fate of the discoveries was decided.

Attempts to solve the NTP problem

The country's leadership began to understand the need to transition to progressive production methods. As a result, the number of large enterprises built each year has decreased by 4 times. Instead, NGOs (scientific production associations) began to be created, new industries appeared (nuclear engineering, microelectronics, robotics, and so on). Despite the efforts made, these trends could not become decisive. Soviet scientists carried out first-class and sometimes unique developments in fundamental science. However, in practical life, scientific and technological progress was almost not felt. By the 1980s, about 40% of workers, 60% of builders, and 75% of rural workers were still working manually.

Reaction of the world community

It should be noted that by 1985 in the United States there were about 1.5 million new computers and about 17 million PCs. By this time, several tens of thousands of similar machines were in operation in the USSR, the vast majority of which were outdated models. The aggravation of the situation was caused by sanctions adopted in the West in the early 80s. As a result of their introduction into the USSR, the import of advanced equipment, as well as high-tech technologies from abroad, practically ceased. Thus, by the mid-80s, the country again, as in the twenties, found itself under the threat of falling behind Western countries again.

Economy of developed socialism (table)

Reform		results
In the agricultural sector	Introducing the material interest of the manufacturer, self-regulation mechanisms, solving problems in rural areas.	Unprofitability of collective and state farms, losses of agricultural products, reduction of developed arable land.
In industry	Improving economic mechanisms in combination with increasing material incentives for workers.	Growth in production volumes, emergence of large factories and industrial complexes. Weakening of the working population, depletion of the raw material base, rising costs of mineral extraction, aging and wear and tear of equipment, increased military spending.
In the social sphere	Reducing healthcare costs, introducing a card system for food distribution.	An increase in mortality, an aggravation of the food problem, an increase in food imports, a decrease in real incomes of the population.

Finally

What did the economy of developed socialism ultimately lead to? The table presented above shows that the overall picture is depressing. However, the situation of the majority of the state's residents has improved somewhat. Fewer and fewer people continued to live in communal apartments; televisions, refrigerators, and washing machines began to appear in their homes. There was also a slight increase in wages. Nevertheless, the country ranked only 77th in the world in terms of consumption.

1. In March 1965 the reform was announced:

1) education 4) pension system

2) healthcare 5) tax system

3) in agriculture

2. Among the measures aimed at boosting agriculture in the 2nd half of the 60s were:

1) purchase prices for agricultural products have been increased

2) firm (for 6 years) plans for government grain purchases

3) investment in the industry has been increased

4) a 50% premium has been established for the delivery of above-plan products

5) all of the above are true

3. Reforming agriculture, the Brezhnev leadership placed the main emphasis on:

1) increasing the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, increasing capital investments and writing off debts

2) ill-conceived reclamation

3) chemicalization of the soil

4) production of expensive equipment

5) construction of giant livestock complexes

4. For 1966-1980 Almost 400 billion rubles were allocated for the development of agriculture, which were spent, among other things, on:

1) construction of giant livestock complexes

2) expensive equipment

3) ill-conceived reclamation and chemicalization of soil

4) all of the above are true

5) 1 and 2 are true

5. The introduction of stable cash salaries on collective farms was an important social achievement, but it turned out to be:

1) increased drunkenness

2) growth of dependent sentiments

3) increasing shortage of goods in rural areas

4) significant depreciation of money

5) sharply increased outflow of population from the village

6. As the line to develop interest in the results of labor in agriculture was winding down by the beginning of the 80s:

1) collective farms and state farms in general turned out to be unprofitable

2) developed arable land for 1964-1968. decreased by 22 million hectares

3) losses of agricultural products ranged from 20% to 40% of the harvest

4) the country with the richest black soils turned out to be the largest importer of grain and food products

5) everything stated is correct

7. In the industrial reform announced in September 1965, its main provisions were:

1) changes in planning conditions

2) economic incentives

3) banking regulators (loans, securities, etc.)

4) 1 and 2 are true

5) 1, 2 and 3 are correct

8. The 1965 industrial reform allowed part of the profits to remain at the disposal of enterprises for the fund:

1) material incentives

2) fund for social, cultural and everyday development (housing, clubs, boarding houses)

3) self-financing of production

4) 1 and 2 are true

5) 1, 2 and 3 are true

9. Industry management through line ministries (instead of economic councils) was restored in... the year:

1) 1964 2) 1965 3) 1966 4) 1967 5) 1970

10. During the years of the 8th Five-Year Plan (1966-1970), about... large enterprises were built in the country:

1) 1600 2) 1700 3) 1800 4) 1900 5) 2000

11. Despite all its limitations, the 1965 industrial reform produced considerable economic results, because already during the 8th Five-Year Plan (1966-1970) the volume of industrial production increased:

1) one and a half times 4) two times

2) by 30% 5) by a quarter

12. By the end of the 60s. industrial reform declined mainly due to

1) Czechoslovak events of 1968

2) a directive model of the economy, which has exhausted its resource

3) a significant increase in military spending

4) a sharp rise in the cost of mining

5) physical wear and tear and obsolescence of equipment

13. The country's leadership made another attempt (after 1965) to revive the directive economy in... the year:

1) 1977 2) 1978 3) 1979 4) 1980 5) 1982

14. The official justification for the reduction in the effectiveness of the directive economy for the Brezhnev leadership was such objective reasons as:

1) worsening demographic situation

2) increase in the cost of mining

3) physical wear and tear and obsolescence of equipment

4) increase in defense spending

5) all specified

15. In 1983 Yu.V. Andropov undertook an economic experiment to weaken central planning, which:

1) did not give any results

2) brought short-term success

3) brought short-term success, but went almost unnoticed

4) went almost unnoticed and was curtailed due to Andropov’s illness

5) was curtailed due to Andropov’s illness, almost without starting

16. The party’s goal of “combining the achievements of scientific and technical progress with the advantages of socialism” was voiced at:

1) XXIV Congress of the CPSU 4) XXVII Congress of the CPSU

3) XXVI Congress of the CPSU Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee

17. The country's leadership in the 70-80s realized the need to transition to intensive methods in the economy, which was expressed in:

1) fourfold reduction in the number of enterprises being built

2) development of robotics and microelectronics

3) expanding nuclear engineering

4) all of the above are true

5) 2 and 3 are true

18. By the beginning of the 80s. 40% of industrial workers and 60% of construction workers worked manually, and 10% in agriculture.

1965 and its results. Failures in the development of the country's economy in the early 60s. even among political leaders they raised doubts about the effectiveness of administrative dictatorship. Even under Khrushchev, another economic discussion began on the pages of the press, at the center of which were the problems of economic stimulation of production. From these discussions, the main outlines of the future economic reform emerged. In general, of course, it did not reject the directive model of the economy, but only introduced into it some mechanisms of internal self-regulation, the material interest of the producer in the results of labor.

In March 1965, agricultural reform was announced. Measures were outlined to solve the social problems of the village, to partially use economic incentives for work (purchase prices were increased, a firm government procurement plan was established for 6 years; a 50% premium was introduced to the base price for above-plan sales of products; capital investments increased). “Repressive” measures for running private farms were also weakened. All this led to the revival of economic activity in the Soviet countryside.

Already in 1970, the total state farm production amounted to 22%, and collective farm production - 34%.

However, relying exclusively on administrative levers during this reform, the authorities continued to place the main emphasis on increasing the role of the Ministry of Agriculture in the planning and management of the agricultural sector, as well as on increasing capital investment and writing off the debts of collective farms.

Huge funds allocated for the development of agriculture (for 1966-1980, their amount amounted to almost 400 billion rubles) were used extremely ineffectively. Some of them were spent on the construction of giant complexes, expensive equipment, ill-conceived reclamation and chemicalization of the soil.

The introduction of stable cash salaries on collective farms (essentially an important social achievement of that time) resulted in an increase in dependency sentiment.

As the line of developing interest in the results of labor was winding down, by the beginning of the 80s. Collective and state farms in general turned out to be unprofitable.

As a result, over 25 years (1964-1988), the developed arable land decreased by 22 million hectares. Losses of agricultural products ranged from 20% to 40% of the harvest.

The country, which had the richest chernozem soils in the world, turned out to be the largest importer of grain and food products.

It became increasingly obvious that in order to solve the food problem it was necessary to go beyond the decisive development of economic incentives to the pile.

Reforms in industry: plans and results. In September 1965, the party leadership announced industrial reform. Despite the fact that it did not encroach on the foundations of a directive economy, it was the most radical reform in all the years of Soviet power.

Its main provisions were changes in planning conditions and increased economic incentives. The number of prescriptively planned indicators was reduced to a minimum. Along with maintaining strict standards for the gross volume of production, new indicators were introduced to ensure its quality.

To economically stimulate producers, it was allowed to leave at the disposal of enterprises a part of the income, which was divided into three funds: a fund for material incentives, a fund for socio-cultural and everyday development (construction of housing, clubs, boarding houses, etc.), and a fund for self-financing of production.

Instead of economic councils, management of industry through line ministries was restored. Moreover, it was noted that these would not be the former “dictator” ministries, but new partners and consultants on organizing production in conditions of self-financing (based on the development of self-government, self-sufficiency, self-financing). A combination of unified state planning with local initiative was also planned. Moreover, the right to adjust the approved plans was granted only to the enterprises themselves.

The expansion of the rights of ministries was in clear contradiction with the thesis of the reform on the “independence” of enterprises.

Despite its limitations, the reform produced significant economic results. During the years of the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1966-1970), the volume of industrial production increased by one and a half times. About 1,900 large enterprises were built (including the Volzhsky Automobile Plant in Togliatti, etc.).

However, by the end of the 60s. (especially after the Czechoslovak events of 1968), the reform, despite the fact that no one canceled it, began to decline. And at the same time, the planned indicators began to creep down: the average annual growth rate from 7.7% during the Eighth Five-Year Plan fell to 3.5% during the Eleventh (1981-1985), the growth rate during the same time decreased from 6.8 % until 3 %.

The country's leadership explained all this by objective reasons: an unfavorable demographic situation and a decrease in the share of the working-age population (which made it impossible, in the context of continued extensive economic development, to meet its labor needs); depletion of the traditional resource base and a sharp rise in the cost of mining; physical wear and tear and obsolescence of equipment; a significant increase in military spending, etc. All these factors really had a negative impact on economic development.

However, the main circumstance explaining the failure of the reforms was that the directive model of the economy itself, rejecting everything new, had exhausted its resource. It could have developed for some time by inertia, but historically it was doomed. The existing conditions for the organization and management of production could no longer provide solutions to the objective problems facing the economy.

In 1979, the government made another attempt to revive the country's economy by “improving” the hopelessly outdated economic mechanism and increasing the role of the party leadership. However, these efforts could no longer revive the economy. At the same time, they again started talking about the need to prioritize moral incentives for work over material ones (probably, from the point of view of the authorities, the material incentives provided for by the 1965 reform, which did not exceed 3% of workers, seemed excessive). A new round of socialist competition has begun, which should compensate for the costs of the economic mechanism. New slogans began to sound (“The economy must be economical”, etc.). However, the matter did not move forward.

Only in 1983, after the death of L. I. Brezhnev, the new leader of the country, Yu. V. Andropov, undertook a “large-scale economic experiment,” which involved weakening central planning and distribution, and some changes at the level of individual enterprises and regions. These measures had a short-term effect, but went almost unnoticed against the backdrop of political changes that were gaining momentum.

Changing the economic mechanism remained a vital problem.

Scientific and technical progress. In the early 70s. The West has entered the stage of post-industrial development. This meant not only the automation of production, the widespread use of robots and computers, the introduction of high-tech technologies, but also the individualization of the labor process, turning it into free creative activity. In the public life of Western countries, these changes caused the humanization and democratization of all its aspects.

In the USSR they also started talking about scientific and technological progress (or rather, they continued to talk). At the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, there was even a directive to “combine the achievements of scientific and technical progress with the advantages of socialism.” However, it was precisely these “advantages” that hampered the development of science and technology and the introduction of their achievements into production. From time to time, however, reports appeared about new major discoveries and developments, but if they did not have military significance, then most often they were never implemented, either due to “lack of funds” or due to the lack of powerful support among developers in those authorities where the fate of discoveries was decided.

Of course, the country's leaders began to realize the need to transition to intensive production methods (the number of large enterprises built annually was reduced by four times; scientific and production associations were created; new industries emerged that met the needs of the time: robotics, microelectronics, nuclear engineering, etc.). However, these trends did not become decisive for economic development.

Despite the first-class and sometimes unique developments of Soviet scientists in fundamental science, the progress of science and technology was not felt in practical life. Even by the beginning of the 80s. 40% of industrial workers, up to 60% of construction workers, and up to 75% of agricultural workers worked manually.

By 1985, when there were 1.5 million new computers and 17 million personal computers in operation in the United States, in the USSR there were no more than several tens of thousands of similar machines, mostly outdated models.

The situation worsened due to sanctions imposed by the West against the USSR after the outbreak of the Afghan war, when access to the country of the best foreign models of equipment and high-tech technologies virtually ceased.

As a result, by the mid-80s. The USSR again (as in the 20s) faced the threat of a new stage-by-stage lag behind Western countries. It was impossible to avoid this while maintaining the existing one.

Solving economic problems on an extensive basis also predetermined the weakness of social programs. The social sphere was financed exclusively on a residual basis. For example, the share of capital investments in housing construction (to their total volume) decreased from 17.7% in 1966-1970. up to 15.1% in 1981 - 1985). As a result, in the early 80s. In the USSR, an acute housing problem once again developed (in 1984, only 2 million apartments were built - the same as how many were built in the early 60s, although the country's population has increased noticeably).

Government spending on health care was cut significantly. The result was immediate. If in the early 60s. The USSR had the lowest mortality rate in the world, and in terms of life expectancy we were among the most prosperous countries, then by the beginning of the 80s. The USSR was already in 35th place in the world in terms of life expectancy and in 50th place in terms of infant mortality.

Population growth and a decline in agricultural production have again led to an exacerbation of the food problem. In the early 80s. The USSR lagged behind advanced countries not only in nutritional structure, but also in the consumption of traditional foods. Food consumption in the USSR was three times lower than allowed by medical standards. At the same time, import supplies of food increased sharply (over 1970-1987, purchases of meat and meat products increased by 5.2 times, fish and fish products - by 12.4, vegetable oil - by 12.8, grain - by 13.8 , animal oils - 183.2 times). The main source of funds for these purchases was oil exports (the share of fuel and raw materials exports to the USSR in 1960-1985 rose from 16.2% to 54.4%, and the share of machinery and equipment fell from 20.7% to 12.5 %).

Already in the 70s. In some areas, a card system for food distribution began to be introduced. Increase in real income per capita from 5.9% in 1966-1970. fell to 2.1% in 1981-1985. But still, in general, the situation of the bulk of the population has improved. Fewer and fewer people continued to live in communal apartments. Everyday life included refrigerators, televisions, and washing machines. Wages also increased slightly. However, the share of the wage fund in the national income created in the industry of the USSR was 36.5% (1985), while in the USA it was 64%, and in some other countries up to 80%.

By this time, the USSR occupied only 77th place in terms of per capita consumption.

All this showed that it was possible to maintain the status of a great power in the conditions of growing pre-crisis trends only through a relative increase in the exploitation of workers, reduction of social programs, and merciless exploitation of the natural environment.

Agrarian reform of 1965 and its results

Failures of the early 60s. in the economy raised doubts about the effectiveness of administrative dictatorship even among the country's leadership. Even under Khrushchev, another discussion about economic incentives for production began on the pages of the press. The basic outlines of the future economic reform have taken shape. In general, it did not reject the directive model of the economy, but introduced into it some mechanisms of self-regulation and the producer’s material interest in the results of labor.

In March 1965, agricultural reform was announced. Measures were outlined to solve social problems in the village and use economic incentives to work. Purchasing prices were increased, a firm government procurement plan was established for 10 years, a 50% premium to the base price was introduced for above-plan sales of products, and capital investments increased. Restrictions on private farming were also relaxed.

However, relying solely on administrative levers, the authorities continued to emphasize increasing the role of the Ministry of Agriculture in planning and managing the agricultural sector, increasing capital investment and writing off collective farm debts.

Huge funds allocated for the development of agriculture were used extremely ineffectively. Part of it was spent on the construction of giant complexes, expensive equipment, ill-conceived reclamation and chemicalization of the soil. The introduction of stable cash salaries on collective farms (in fact, an important social achievement) resulted in an increase in dependency sentiment. The activities of collective and state farms as a whole turned out to be unprofitable. Over 25 years (1964-1988), developed arable land decreased by 22 million hectares. Losses of agricultural products ranged from 20 to 40% of the harvest. The country, which had the richest chernozem soils, became the largest importer of grain and food products.

Reforms in industry: plans and results

In September 1965, industrial reform began. If earlier reformers tried to rely either on improving the economic mechanism or on economic incentives for workers, now they tried to combine these two approaches.

The 1965 reform did not encroach on the foundations of directive economics. Its main provisions were changes in planning conditions and increased economic incentives. The number of planned indicators was reduced to a minimum. Along with maintaining strict standards for production volume, new indicators were introduced to ensure its quality.

To economically stimulate producers, it was allowed to leave at the disposal of enterprises part of the income, which was divided into three funds: a material incentive fund, a fund for socio-cultural and everyday development (construction of housing, clubs, boarding houses, etc.), and a fund for self-financing production.

It was noted that the restored line ministries will not be the former “dictators”, but partners and consultants of enterprises in organizing production in conditions of self-financing (based on the development of self-government, self-sufficiency, self-financing). A combination of unified state planning with local initiative was also planned. Moreover, the right to adjust the approved plans was granted only to the enterprises themselves.

For all its limitations and contradictions, the reform produced considerable economic results. During the years of the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1966-1970), the volume of industrial production increased by one and a half times. About 1,900 large enterprises were built (including the Volzhsky Automobile Plant in Togliatti, etc.). However, by the end of the 60s. the progress of reform has stalled.

Rice. Analyze the diagram. What are the features of the country's economic development in 1965-1985? does it allow you to install?

There were objective reasons for this: a decrease in the proportion of the working-age population, the depletion of the traditional raw material base and a sharp rise in the cost of mining, wear and tear of equipment, an increase in military spending, etc.

However, the main thing was different: the economic model itself, which rejected everything new, had exhausted its capabilities. It could develop for some time by inertia, but in the long term it was doomed.

Moreover, the reform itself gave rise to new problems. The construction of giant factories led to their monopoly position in the industry, and ultimately to low quality products and a lack of choice for the consumer. The introduction of indicators for assessing quality based on the price of products led not only to an increase in their prices, but also to a reduction in production volumes, and ultimately to a commodity shortage. Every year, the import of goods that the domestic economy could not produce increased. As a result, as the reform unfolded, disappointment in it grew both in the political leadership and in society.

The bet was soon placed on new raw materials discovered in the eastern regions of the USSR, as well as on adjusting the economic management system. In 1979, the government made an attempt to revive the economy by improving the economic mechanism and increasing the role of the party leadership. However, it was not possible to achieve a significant acceleration of economic development. They started talking again about the advantages of moral incentives to work over material ones. Socialist competition revived, designed to compensate for the shortcomings of the economic mechanism.

Rice. The first cars roll off the assembly line of the Kama Automobile Plant in Naberezhnye Chelny. 1976

Only in 1983, after the death of L. I. Brezhnev, the new leader of the country, Yu. V. Andropov, undertook a “large-scale economic experiment,” which involved weakening central planning and distribution, and some changes in pricing at the level of individual enterprises and regions. These measures brought only short-term success.

Changing the economic mechanism remained a vital problem.

Scientific and technical progress

In the early 70s. The West has entered the stage of post-industrial development. This meant not only the automation of production, the widespread use of robots and computers, the introduction of high-tech technologies, but also the individualization of the labor process, turning it into free creative activity.

• From the courses in Contemporary History and Social Studies, remember what a post-industrial society is. What are its features?

There was a lot of talk about scientific and technological progress in the USSR. First-class computer samples were created. At the XXIV Congress of the CPSU (1971), the goal was to “combine the achievements of scientific and technical progress with the advantages of socialism.” However, it was precisely the shortcomings of the existing economic mechanism that hampered the development of science and technology and the introduction of their achievements into production. From time to time there were reports of new major discoveries and developments. But if they did not have military significance, then most often they were not implemented due to a lack of funds and the lack of strong support among the developers in those instances where the fate of the discoveries was decided.

Of course, the country's leaders were beginning to realize the need to switch to intensive production methods. The number of large enterprises built annually decreased by 4 times, research and production associations were created, new industries emerged: robotics, microelectronics, nuclear engineering, etc. However, these trends did not become decisive.

Despite the first-class and sometimes unique developments of Soviet scientists in fundamental science, the progress of science and technology was almost not felt in practical life. Even by the beginning of the 80s. 40% of industrial workers, up to 60% of construction workers, and up to 75% of agricultural workers worked manually.

By 1985, when there were 1.5 million new computers and 17 million personal computers in operation in the United States, in the USSR there were no more than several tens of thousands of similar machines, mostly outdated models.

The situation worsened due to sanctions imposed by the West against the USSR in the early 80s, when the import of the best foreign models of equipment and high-tech technologies virtually ceased.

As a result, by the mid-80s. The USSR again (as in the 20s) faced the threat of a new stage-by-stage lag behind Western countries.

Social politics

Solving economic problems on an extensive basis also predetermined the weakness of social programs. The social sphere was poorly financed. For example, the share of capital investments in housing construction (to their total volume) decreased from 17.7% in 1966-1970. to 15.1% in 1981-1985. As a result, in the early 80s. In the USSR, the housing problem worsened again (in 1984, only 2 million apartments were built - the same as in the early 60s, although the country's population has increased noticeably). Government spending on health care was cut.

The result was immediate. If in the early 60s. The USSR had the lowest mortality rate in the world, and in terms of life expectancy we were among the most prosperous countries, then by the beginning of the 80s. The USSR was already in 35th place in the world in terms of life expectancy and 50th in terms of infant mortality.

Population growth and a decline in agricultural production have led to an exacerbation of the food problem. In the early 80s. The USSR lagged behind advanced countries not only in nutritional structure, but also in the consumption of traditional foods. At the same time, import supplies of food increased sharply (over 1970-1987, purchases of meat and meat products increased by 5.2 times, fish and fish products - by 12.4, vegetable oil - by 12.8, grain - by 13.8 , animal oil - 183.2 times). The main source of funds for these purchases was the export of oil and gas.

Already in the 70s. In some areas, a card system for food distribution began to be introduced. Real per capita income growth has fallen.

However, overall the situation for the bulk of the population has improved. Fewer and fewer people continued to live in communal apartments. Everyday life included refrigerators, televisions, and washing machines. Wages have increased slightly. Nevertheless, the share of the wage bill in national income remained low. By that time, the USSR occupied only 77th place in the world in terms of per capita consumption.

Rice. What conclusions can be drawn from analyzing the diagram?

All this showed that maintaining the status of a great power became possible only by reducing social programs and mercilessly exploiting the natural environment.

Self-test questions

1. Why did the economic reform of 1965 not produce the expected results?
2. What was the main bet on economic development by the country's leadership in the 70s?
3. What do you see as the reasons for the relative improvement in the lives of Soviet people in the 70s?
4. Name the reasons for the increasing gap between the USSR economy and the economy of Western countries in the 70s - early 80s.
5. Compile a terminological dictionary “Economic development of the USSR in the mid-60s - mid-80s.” Be sure to include terms such as: self-financing, self-sufficiency, self-financing, self-government, mechanism of stagnation, economic incentives.
6. In his memoirs, A. A. Gromyko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in 1957-1985, wrote: “Some members of the Politburo rightly pointed out that heavy industry and giant construction projects absorb colossal funds, and industries producing consumer goods... are in the pen." Remember when the question of the need to redistribute funds in favor of the light and food industries was first urgently raised. How did this attempt end? Discuss as a class the reasons why proposals to redistribute funds were ultimately rejected. Are these facts explained only by the personal views of the then leaders of the party and state?

Subject: history

Lesson topic: Economics of “Developed Socialism”

Lesson objectives:

To acquaint students with the main results of the economic development of the USSR in 1964-1985. To bring students to an understanding of the causes of the coming economic crisis in the Soviet Union.

To promote the development of cognitive interest in the subject through dialogue with the computer. Continue to develop the skills to work with historical documents, analyze them, draw conclusions, and present “cross-cutting” issues of the topic. Contribute to the formation of subject information competence at the elementary level

Lesson type: Lesson on learning new material.

Form of delivery: lecture session using the multimedia textbook “History of Russia. XX century” Antonova T.S., Kharitonova A.L., Danilova A.A., Kosulina L.G. M.2000.

Teaching methods: visual-illustrative, partially search-based.

The following competencies are formed during the lesson:

- informational,

- educational and cognitive,

- communicative,

- value-semantic.

Educational equipment: map, textbook, multimedia textbook (disc No. 4),

Board design: lesson topic, plan for studying a new topic, new words (extensive economics), homework.

Main dates:

March 1965 - proclamation at the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee of the reform of the agricultural sector of the economy;

September 1965 - adoption by the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee of the main directions of industrial reform;

1979 . - reform of the economic mechanism.

intensive, extensive development;

self-sufficiency;

self-financing.

During the classes

I. Organizational moment

Checking accessories;

Setting goals and objectives for the lesson.

II. Check of knowledge

Use of media tests SD-4 § 43

Frontal survey of students.

1. Why is the period 1964-1985? called the golden age of nomenklatura.

2. What new features in socio-political development appeared during this period?

3. What ways of reforming the economy were proposed in the 50-60s.

4. What consequences for the economic and social sphere could the implementation of the line for the priority development of agriculture, food and light industry cause?

5. Evaluate the agricultural reform undertaken by Khrushchev. Show its positive and negative sides. How can the improvement in the second half of the 50s be explained? and deterioration in the early 60s. supplying the population with food? What political decisions was this related to?

6. What new appeared in the development of industry under Khrushchev?

7. What were the contradictions and limitations of Khrushchev’s economic reforms?

III. Learning new material

Plan.

1. Agrarian reform 1965 and its results.

2. Industry reform: plans and results.

3. Scientific and technical progress.

4. Social politics.

(Teacher's story.)

Goal of the reform:

1) changing the conditions of planning and strengthening economic incentives;

2) overcome the traditional disadvantages of the existing economic model:

- growth in capital investment and construction in progress;

- mass production of products that were not sold;

- the discrepancy between labor productivity growth and faster wage growth;

- increase in paperwork.

Problem task. What was the Soviet economy like in 1965-1984: prosperity, crisis or stagnation? Why do you think so? Explain your point of view.

The essence and main directions of the reform.

Working with computer textbook materials:CD-4.

eProgress and results of reform in agriculture

While studying the video sequence of the media textbook, students are asked to write down the main directions of agrarian reform in their notebooks:

1. Solving social problems of the village.

2.Partial use of economic incentives to work:

a) increase in purchase prices,

b) establishing a firm public procurement plan for 6 years,

c) introduction of a 50% surcharge to the base price for excess sales of products,

d) increasing investment in agriculture.

3. Easing restrictions on private farming.

Next, the data presented in the media textbook on the total profitability of agricultural production in the USSR in 1970 are analyzed. Analyzing the given data, students answer the questions:

What are the reasons for such low profitability of state and collective farm production despite huge investments in agriculture?

Taking into account previous historical experience (including the Soviet period), indicate the levers that could significantly increase the profitability of agricultural production.

How can one explain the fact that, despite huge, constantly increasing allocations for agricultural development, food shortages in the country grew from year to year?

How did the authorities try to solve the problem of food shortages?

Compare the reforms of Khrushchev and Kosygin. What similarities can be identified?

eProgress and results of reform in industry

When considering issues of industrial reform, students should pay special attention to the search for internal contradictions in the 1965 reform.

During viewing, students are asked to write down the main directions of reform:

- changing planning conditions and increasing economic incentives;

- introduction of new indicators designed to ensure its quality;

- reducing to a minimum the number of planned indicators, along with maintaining strict standards for production volume;

- permission to leave at the disposal of enterprises part of the income, which was divided into three funds: a fund for material incentives, a fund for socio-cultural and everyday development (construction of housing, clubs, boarding houses, etc.), a fund for self-financing production;

- restoration of industrial management through line ministries;

- a combination of unified state planning with local initiative. The right to adjust approved plans was granted to the enterprises themselves.

(Checking the completion of the task.)

Working with the diagram p.303 of the textbook. Task: Analyze the diagram. What are the features of the country's development in 1965-1985? does it allow you to install?

Average annual growth rate key indicators economic development, in%

Further, during a conversation with students, the main reasons for the collapse of the economic reform of 1965 are identified and the table “Objective and subjective reasons for the collapse of the economic reform of 1965” is filled out:

(Filling out the table)

Objective reasons

Subjective reasons

Extensive foundations of development.

Inconsistency of reform.

An attempt to carry out reform while simultaneously curtailing the process of democratization in political life.

Even the mention of market relations was declared anti-socialist; total planning dominated in theory and practice.

Most of the economic apparatus was formed in the Stalin era and used command management methods that did not “fit into the reform.”

After filling out the table, students answer the questions: what are the reasons for the decline in the country's economic growth rate? Which ones do you consider the main ones? Why?

eScientific and technical progress.

After watching the video sequence of the media textbook, students are asked to answer the questions:

What stage of development did the West enter in the early 70s?

Describe post-industrial society.

What is the position of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU on NTP.

How did the achievements of scientific and technical progress combine with the advantages of socialism?

Point out the positive trends at this time.

What shortcomings did the USSR have in the 70-80s?

Why did the situation worsen by the 80s? Make an evaluative conclusion.

eSocial Policy Analysis.

After watching the video series of the media textbook, students are asked to answer the questions:

Prove that the life of Soviet people in the 70s relatively improved.

What are the reasons for life improvement?

How and why did the situation change by the 80s?

How could they maintain the image of a great power?

IV. Consolidation.

Conducted based on the materials of the test control of the media textbook

Completing a problematic task.

V. Homework: § 44.

1) Compile a terminological dictionary on the topic, including terms such as cost accounting, self-sufficiency, self-financing, self-government.

2) Analyze document 307 of the textbook and answer the questions to it in writing.

VI. Summing up the lesson.