The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Attempts of the Khrushchev and Gorbachev - Case Study Example

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the attempts of the Khrushchev and Gorbachev in their attempts to reform the soviet system All the countries of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) are overstrained with the sudden changes of the social and economical structure. In this sense the XX-th century is the most dramatic period in the history of Russia and its neighbours. One can think that the possibility to experience several revolutions and counterrevolutions, which have completely changed the manufacturing facilities, can be realized only by the rich countries, inhabited with the people with great adaptation capacities. It is a fact that the economical mechanism is so delicate and is not stable. The economy of any country ‘does not like sudden changes’. It is worth mentioning that the mentality of the soviet people has some special features and there are always people who want to change everything they do not like. The problem is that they are not always successful in this. If to go back to the history of Russia, it is obvious that there were always the attempts to reform the economy of Russia in market direction. Here it would be appropriate to enumerate some names of the great reformers of Russia and the USSR. They are Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander I, Alexander II, Peter Stolipin, V. Lenin, N. Khrushchev, M. Gorbachev, H. Haidar, B. Eltsin and others. Russia always tries to reach the European level, to reach the western standards of social and economical development, but this country has never had a possibility to succeed in this. The current issue of this work is to define the main weak and strong points of the attempt is Khrushchev and Gorbachev to reform the Soviet system. The interest to this problem is determined by the sudden fall of the effectiveness of the USSR economy that brought the country to collapse. It is worth mentioning that Khrushchev as a leader was prominent for his human features in comparison with Stalin. Many politicians and historians say that he had a humanistic character, kindly sympathized people and their life. During the years of his worked he managed to do so much that it is hardly impossible to compare his activity with any other leaders of Soviet Union. Khrushchev’s reforms are impressive for their variety and antipathy: the care of principles of material interests and the liquidation of the personal property; the rehabilitation of the victims of the cult of personality and the refuse of rehabilitation of the Stalin’s opposition; the return of the Kalmyks to their native land and he refused the Germans in that; the return of the imprisoned people from the camp life and the refusal of justice towards their butchers; the attempt to make the wage stable and the orientation to the free social consumption funds; the striving for peace and the hydrogen bombs. (Kelley, 1992) Speaking about Khrushchev’s attempts to reform the Soviet system it should be mentioned that at the time when he headed the country the USSR was at the top of its development. The results of Khrushchev’s policy were impressive: the USSR became the second industrial country after the United States of America; the USSR possessed a powerful manufacturing and scientific-technical potential, nuclear weapon and unlimited natural and human resources (as it seemed to be). Later some worries about the limited nature of the resources appeared in political and scientific circles. The party and state government tried to find some ways to reform the industrial intensification. (Goldgeier, 1994) At first all the hopes were connected with the governmental reform. It began in 1957 and had a very quick character. The state passed from the branch to the territorial principles of macroeconomical planning. The main ministries were liquidated and the territorial Soviets (councils) of common manufacturing were formed. Theses soviets played a positive role in the process of the local raw materials complex usage, in the process of usage the building materials and human resources. A very important point of this reform was the attempt to decentralize the common manufacturing governing that, in fact, was natural for the market tendency. By the way the soviets were very important in house-building. A famous enactment concerning the removal of the luxuries in projecting and building was passed in 1955 and it gave the beginning of huge industrial house-building. The weak point of this event was that the housed being built did not respond the quality demanded. The peculiarity of Khrushchev’s reforms was that they were meant not for the narrow layer of nomenclature, but for the population of the whole country. As it was mentioned above the first attempts of Khrushchev touched the agriculture: the purchasing prices were increased and the taxation was suddenly reduced, the new technologies began to be used. The opening ups of the virgin lands played an important role in the supplying the population with the products. Khrushchev tried to embody the foreign experience in his country. He tried to achieve the first agricultural revolution. Here it should be mentioned his interest in maize growing. (Kelley, 1992) It is worth saying that the name of Khrushchev is connected with many great achievements in the sphere of science that gave the base for the strategic priority establishment. Khrushchev is prominent for the developing the international relations of the USSR with other foreign countries. The Act that was passed in Helsinki declared new principles of the foreign policy, economic cooperation and ideas and information exchange. At that time many social issues were solved. The level of life in cities and villages was growing rapidly. Nevertheless the planned economic and social reforms were struck by the collapse of the democratic movement in Hungary in 1956. It should be mentioned that ‘khrushchevinism’ - as the concept of socialism reformation – was not successful. (Tompson, 1993) The government was really concerned with the reformation projects by Khrushchev. These projects were always sudden and were always directed against Stalin’s model. After the creation of the common soviets, which struck the bureaucracy structure greatly, Khrushchev planned to reform the political system of Soviet Union completely. He planned to remove the dictation of the proletarian class and to form the institutes of democratic state, the collectiveness of government, and the human resources rotation. The result of Khrushchev’s reforms was the transfer of the state socialism from the form of cult of personality to the form with the nomenclature power. In fact, Khrushchev saved the state socialism from the crisis that could happen, he saved Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the population judging. He did not reform the government only but created a new model of bureaucracy. His reforms were oriented to create a new model of life for the common citizen of the country. By his reforms Khrushchev made the base of the post-Stalin nomenclature form of the state socialism, in addition he made this model to be kept for a long time. Later Brezhnev only developed and made stronger the inheritance he had got. The new government tried to reform the economy in market direction. As a result the citizens of the USSR experienced the great social hardships at the beginning of 1980s: the goods distribution according to the special cards, the endless turns, misbalance of the state financial capital. (Goldgeier, 1994) Mikhail Gorbachev opened a new stage of reforms in Soviet Union. There were a plenty of issues: the rent relationships, cooperatives, individual family activity. There were a lot of discussions of about the market economy and did not go further than talks. A new systemic crisis began. The situation became worse during the time of ant alcohol campaign in 1985 – 1986. This event brought to the loss of the 10 per cent of the state budget. A great part of budget was spent on the needs of the strategic complexes and the alcohol prohibition was unacceptable. (Tompson, 1993) In addition the crisis was accompanied by the range of natural and man-made disasters: the Chornobil disaster in 1986 and earthquake in Armenia that happened in 1988. As a result many people lost their places of living and had to move to others. This situating demanded a huge spending of state budget. Gorbachev’s epoch is characterized by a great number of accidents in transport sphere. It should be mentioned that great money was spent on the provisions import. The international conflicts influenced the USSR greatly. In summer of the year 1989 the ‘work problem’ appeared and the country was full of strikes. This was a great loading for the country and the USSR collapse began. It is worth mentioning that both of the great reformers preferred the attempts to liberalize the political system and the system of planning. At the same time the researching of the reforms in post-Stalin epoch gives the reason to suppose that the opponents of Khrushchev (for example, Malenkov) also thought about the possibility of ‘thaw’ before Khrushchev used this variant to make his power stronger. Probably, Gorbachev deserves more kind words towards his policy, because it is not easy to imagine a person who managed to gain the highest position in 1985 and in addition to make some reformation of the political and economical system of the USSR. Mostly Gorbachev reacted to the outer objective events rather than followed his inner logics. Among the outer objective events it is possible to recollect the degrading defeat in Afghanistan, the Chornobil disaster; the sudden reduce of the prices for oil, and the resistance to the USA at the time when the economical situation could not manage to do this. I consider it to be appropriate to make the strict definitions of the reforms of Khrushchev and Gorbachev in conclusion. Khrushchev’s reforms (Taranovski, 1995) : Thousands of the political imprisoned people were released and rehabilitated; The translations of the modern foreign writers appeared, the Kremlin was opened for the tourists, though the process damping of the foreign broadcasting station continued; The limits in foreign trips became softer; Khrushchev tried to reform the industry (he paid great attention to the manufacturing of the goods of common consumption and to house-building), he tried to improve the agriculture (maize growing even in the regions which did not have the appropriate climate conditions); In the years 1950 – 1965 the oil production increased greatly; New scientific centres appear in Siberia and many young people moved there; The Crimea was given to Ukraine; The beginning of the space program had place in 1961. Speaking about Gorbachev’s reforms two concepts of his policy should be mentioned. These are reorganization and glasnost (publicity). Reorganization – is the economical restructuring and as a result the restructuring of the whole political system. It is an attempt to reform socialism. The aims of reorganization were: 1. The effectiveness and modernization of production; 2. The effectiveness of the work discipline (antialcohol campaign). Glasnost (publicity) – is the freedom in opinions and information, censorship repealing in Mass Media. Nevertheless the concept of glasnost was quite relative. (Taranovski, 1995) Gorbachev’s reforms (Taranovski, 1995): Many political oppositional parties appeared; The relationship between the state and Orthodox church was improved; The phenomenon of the ‘literature and culture is back’ appears; The rock-music prohibition was removed. The end of ‘the cold war’ is connected with the name of Gorbachev, though the USSR lost this war in ideological, political, and economical sense. Gorbachev removed the military forces from Afghanistan. In autumn 1989 it became clear that the economy of the country is in great crisis, though many reformations were undertaken. The activity of many industrial companies was paralyzed, the deficit of the everyday goods appeared, the level of crimes increased. The weakening of soviet regime caused the national conflicts inside the USSR and the independence movement started. References English Robert D., The Revolution Within http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030526/english/2 Goldgeier James M. , Leadership Style and Soviet Foreign Policy: Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev (Perspectives on Security), The Johns Hopkins University Press (1994) Kelley Donald R. , Davis Shannon G. , The Sons of Sergei: Khrushchev and Gorbachev as Reformers , Praeger Publishers (1992) Taranovski T., Reform in Modern Russian History: Progress or Cycle? (Woodrow Wilson Center Press), Cambridge University Press (1995) Tompson W. J., Khrushchev and Gorbachev as Reformers: A Comparison, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 77-105 Read More