The collapse of the USSR. post-communist Russia.
Difficulties of transition to a market economy
With the election in 1985 of the General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, a period of reforms begins in the USSR.
At the first stage (from March 1985 to August 1991), the country was in the
process of revising the foundations of the totalitarian political system and the
planned-distributive economic system.
The term “perestroika”, which arose in those years, meant a transition
carried out from above to the democratization of the political system and the
admission of market relations in the economy. This was expressed in the
reduction of the role of the CPSU in public life, in the revival of parliamentarism,
glasnost, in the weakening of the centralized management of the economy, in the
enhancement of the rights and responsibilities of regional authorities. All these
actions of the country's leadership had a positive direction, and this is the
undoubted historical merit of M.S. Gorbachev. In essence, this meant that a
variant of reforming the economy was being implemented, when, with the
regulatory role of the state, there should have been a gradual denationalization of
part of the property and the introduction of market relations into the economy.
However, the developing economic crisis was accompanied by the
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 way to improve in the
decentralization of management, in granting even greater rights and economic
opportunities to the regions to solve economic and social problems locally.At the
same time, their demands were expressed in a movement to leave at the disposal
of the regions a larger share of the national income created there compared to
the previous period. Naturally, this led to a decrease in the share that went to the
centralized funds of the state.
All this forced the government of the USSR to instruct the development of
methodological approaches to solving the issue of the so-called regional cost
accounting, when the amount of national income left at the disposal of the region
was supposed to depend on the region's contribution to the country's economic
potential. At the same time, the task was also meant to muffle dependency
tendencies in certain regions.
, However, this issue has not been resolved. Firstly, there was a war in
Afghanistan, which required high costs, 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 a distorted price system operated in the country, when prices
for raw materials were unreasonably low, and prices for final products were
overstated, the volume of national income created in the republics with
predominantly raw materials production did not reflect their true contribution to
the economy. states.
In addition, the tax system and the procedure for levying taxes distorted
the indicators of the contribution of the republics to the state economy. One of
the main sources of budget revenues - turnover tax - was levied mainly on
consumer goods, and it was available in those republics where these goods were
produced. In the republics with raw materials, as a result of the policy of
specialization and cooperation in production, there were not enough enterprises
producing such goods, and therefore, there was not enough turnover tax for their
budget revenues. In order to provide the budgets of these republics with income,
subsidies were allocated to them from the Union budget, which created the
appearance of dependency of these republics. In turn, this gave rise to nationalist
separatists both in the regions and in the center for mutual accusations, for
inciting ethnic conflicts, and for shaping public opinion about the expediency of
the collapse of the USSR.
This was also reflected in the struggle between the union and republican
parliaments. The economically unskilled deputies who came to these parliaments
on the crest of a wave of democratic movement, instead of looking for ways out
of the crisis, creating a legislative framework to improve the economic situation in
the country, strengthening parliamentary control over the formation and use of
budgetary funds by the government, engaged in destructive political activities
aimed at confronting the center and regions.
At the same time, as shown by the experience of China, where the reform
of the economy proceeded under the conditions of the regulatory role of the
state, this process proceeded relatively painlessly, 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 faster, more radical reforms in politics and
the economy. Such sentiments were prompted by the intensification of crisis
Difficulties of transition to a market economy
With the election in 1985 of the General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, a period of reforms begins in the USSR.
At the first stage (from March 1985 to August 1991), the country was in the
process of revising the foundations of the totalitarian political system and the
planned-distributive economic system.
The term “perestroika”, which arose in those years, meant a transition
carried out from above to the democratization of the political system and the
admission of market relations in the economy. This was expressed in the
reduction of the role of the CPSU in public life, in the revival of parliamentarism,
glasnost, in the weakening of the centralized management of the economy, in the
enhancement of the rights and responsibilities of regional authorities. All these
actions of the country's leadership had a positive direction, and this is the
undoubted historical merit of M.S. Gorbachev. In essence, this meant that a
variant of reforming the economy was being implemented, when, with the
regulatory role of the state, there should have been a gradual denationalization of
part of the property and the introduction of market relations into the economy.
However, the developing economic crisis was accompanied by the
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 way to improve in the
decentralization of management, in granting even greater rights and economic
opportunities to the regions to solve economic and social problems locally.At the
same time, their demands were expressed in a movement to leave at the disposal
of the regions a larger share of the national income created there compared to
the previous period. Naturally, this led to a decrease in the share that went to the
centralized funds of the state.
All this forced the government of the USSR to instruct the development of
methodological approaches to solving the issue of the so-called regional cost
accounting, when the amount of national income left at the disposal of the region
was supposed to depend on the region's contribution to the country's economic
potential. At the same time, the task was also meant to muffle dependency
tendencies in certain regions.
, However, this issue has not been resolved. Firstly, there was a war in
Afghanistan, which required high costs, 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 a distorted price system operated in the country, when prices
for raw materials were unreasonably low, and prices for final products were
overstated, the volume of national income created in the republics with
predominantly raw materials production did not reflect their true contribution to
the economy. states.
In addition, the tax system and the procedure for levying taxes distorted
the indicators of the contribution of the republics to the state economy. One of
the main sources of budget revenues - turnover tax - was levied mainly on
consumer goods, and it was available in those republics where these goods were
produced. In the republics with raw materials, as a result of the policy of
specialization and cooperation in production, there were not enough enterprises
producing such goods, and therefore, there was not enough turnover tax for their
budget revenues. In order to provide the budgets of these republics with income,
subsidies were allocated to them from the Union budget, which created the
appearance of dependency of these republics. In turn, this gave rise to nationalist
separatists both in the regions and in the center for mutual accusations, for
inciting ethnic conflicts, and for shaping public opinion about the expediency of
the collapse of the USSR.
This was also reflected in the struggle between the union and republican
parliaments. The economically unskilled deputies who came to these parliaments
on the crest of a wave of democratic movement, instead of looking for ways out
of the crisis, creating a legislative framework to improve the economic situation in
the country, strengthening parliamentary control over the formation and use of
budgetary funds by the government, engaged in destructive political activities
aimed at confronting the center and regions.
At the same time, as shown by the experience of China, where the reform
of the economy proceeded under the conditions of the regulatory role of the
state, this process proceeded relatively painlessly, 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 faster, more radical reforms in politics and
the economy. Such sentiments were prompted by the intensification of crisis
