Totalitarianism and the formation of the command-administrative system in the USSR. Formation of an administrative-command system
After the victory of the October Revolution, the question arose in the Bolshevik Party about ways and methods further development countries. The socialist revolution could develop in a democratic or administrative-command way. This question - the question of development strategy - became the main one in the internal party struggle in the 20s. This struggle of ideas and views within the Bolshevik Party grew into a struggle for leadership and was reflected in the future fate of Soviet society. In the 30s in the country an administrative-command system was formed. She represented: political field – complete removal of the people from power and governance. The establishment of comprehensive totalitarian state power, the formation of bureaucratic centralized methods of managing society from the army to culture, etc., the curtailment of democracy, the Soviets as bodies of people's self-government become simply a fiction. Under the slogan of class struggle, the fight against dissent is being waged. A climate of fear and intimidation was created in the country, and constant denunciations and repression were practiced. About 12 million people were imprisoned in concentration camps annually, i.e. a fifth of all those employed at that time in the branches of material production. Entire peoples were declared enemies, expelled from their territories and resettled. Of the “punished peoples,” the Poles were the first to be exiled. Back in the mid-20s, Polish national areas in Belarus were liquidated, and in 1936 Poles were resettled from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. In 1937, 190 thousand Koreans and 8 thousand Chinese were taken from Buryatia, Khabarovsk, Primorsky territories, Chita region to Central Asia, Kazakhstan. Before the war from Karelia, Leningrad region Finns were evicted. From the Volga region, Moscow, Voronezh, Tambov and others, 1 million Soviet Germans were evicted to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In 1941, the peoples of the Baltic states were evicted. In 1944, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, Karachais, a total of about 650 thousand people, etc., were evicted from Crimea and the North Caucasus. This process continued after the war. The goal of Stalin's movements was to break society by changing the geography of people's residence, their status, occupations, and also to instill fear.
Totalitarianism manifested itself in foreign policy in imposing their point of view on other peoples.
In economics- the multi-structure system was eliminated and the so-called unified public ownership of the means of production was established. In that situation, when the people were removed from power, from disposing of this property, this property became the property of the party-state bureaucracy, but not the people. Non-economic administrative-command methods of management were formed. Economic policy was based on stimulating the economy, on horse racing, the economy developed at the expense of the people. There was strict centralized planning of the entire economy. Accelerated industrialization was carried out at the expense of the peasantry. Forced collectivization was carried out in agriculture.
IN social sphere – massive repressions were carried out against people, the standard of living of the Soviet people was low. Real incomes declined in the first 10 years of industrialization, and the quality of life deteriorated, especially in the countryside. The rapid growth of monetary incomes, caused by the exorbitant emission of money, was offset even more rapid growth prices; In cities and on construction sites, a card supply system spread.
In a village where there was no rationing, every year of poor harvest caused terrible famine, mortality increased, and slowed down. natural increase population. The Soviet Union became a country with a shrinking population.
In ideology– a cult of the leader, a regime of personal power was formed, a class approach to ideology, culture, and the suppression of free personality were in effect.
The long years of existence of such a system have created a type of social psychology adequate to this system, a specific system of life values and priorities. Shifts in mass consciousness- this, according to some historians, is the most difficult legacy of the administrative-command system.
Could a different society be built? There are 2 points of view on this problem. Some historians say that if not for Stalin, such a system would not have existed. The second point of view is that there could not be another society in the Soviet country, that the administrative-command system most fully corresponded to the level of development of the country, to the type of political thinking that is called barracks-communist, authoritarian. The lecture will discuss this issue in detail.
It is necessary to highlight objective conditions, which gave rise to the administrative-command system. There was a hostile external environment. The Soviet country had to build socialism alone; there was no experience in carrying out socialist transformations. The country was economically backward and experienced major political upheavals - revolution, civil war, which undoubtedly affected society. The working class, which was supposed to become the support of the new government, was small; the peasant population predominated. The country needed to quickly reach the level of advanced developed countries.
But the most important factor was the lack of strong democratic traditions in Russia. Under tsarism, the population could not develop democratic skills. People had no idea about democracy, the value of democracy, the need for democracy. Society was at a breaking point, it was not civilized enough, i.e. was culturally and socially backward. Old traditions have collapsed, and new ones have not yet been formed. All this predetermined the enormous role of the state, the need to concentrate all power in the hands of the state.
These objective conditions could be changed or mitigated subjective factor– the party, its leaders. In the Bolshevik Party, as a result of the struggle for power, the best cadres were destroyed. In the 1920s, there was a sharp increase in the number of party members due to the influx of new members with minimal political experience and theoretical knowledge. It was they who supported Stalin and his version of socialism. These ideas about socialism most fully corresponded to the ideas of the masses. It was a simplified version, fast and understandable.
It is precisely this version of socialism – the administrative-command system – that was created in the Soviet country. When assessing this society, it is necessary to keep in mind that there is a point of view: it was the administrative-command system that ensured the progress of the USSR, the country became industrial, and a developed scientific and technical potential was formed. Another point of view is that this system slowed down the progress of the country, it came at a high cost to society, at the cost of a huge number of lost human lives and broken destinies, and the country’s problems could have been solved differently.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
April 7, 1930–Decree on expansion of the system labor camps, transferred to the Main Directorate of Camps (GULAG) as part of the OGPU.
January 12, 1933–Decision of the Central Committee to hold a section of the party (as a result, its number is reduced by more than 1 million people).
January 26-February 10, 1934-XVII Party Congress. During the secret vote for new line-up A significant part of the Central Committee delegates voted against Stalin.
January 1936-The beginning of a new purge in the party, accompanied by mass arrests.
August 19-24, 1936– an open political trial of prominent party figures G.E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev and others, which ended with the execution of all the defendants.
October 1936–Cleaning in the NKVD apparatus.
May-June 1937–Purge of army command staff and republican party leadership.
1937-1938– Mass repressions against the command staff of the USSR Armed Forces. More than 40 thousand commanders were repressed. Two thirds of the senior command was destroyed.
DICTIONARY OF PERSONALIES
Beria Lavrenty Pavlovich (1899-1953)– former People's Commissar (Minister) of Internal Affairs of the USSR, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee. In July 1953, the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee for criminal, anti-party and anti-state actions removed him from the Central Committee and expelled him from the party. Shot. Bears direct responsibility for the mass repressions of the late 30s - early 50s.
Yezhov Nikolai Ivanovich (1895-1940)- Soviet party statesman. Since 1935 - Chairman of the Party Control Committee under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and at the same time Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. In 1936-1938. - People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR. General Commissioner of State Security (1937), one of the main perpetrators of repression (“Yezhovshchina”). In 1939 he was arrested and executed.
Stalin (Dzhugashvili) Joseph Vissarionovich (pseudonym - Koba) (1878-1953)- Soviet politician and statesman. In the Social Democratic movement since 1898. After 1903 he joined the Bolsheviks. In 1917-1922. - People's Commissar for Nationalities, at the same time in 1919-1922. - People's Commissar of State Control, Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate, since 1918 - member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic. In 1922-1953. General Secretary of the Party Central Committee. In the 1920s during the struggle for leadership in the party and state, he led the party and established a totalitarian regime in the country. At the 20th Party Congress (1956), Stalin's personality cult was exposed.
DICTIONARY OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS
GULAG– Main Directorate of Camps of the NKVD (MVD) of the USSR. Used to designate the system concentration camps that existed under Stalin.
Dictatorship (lat.- unlimited power)- all-encompassing political, economic, ideological power exercised by a certain group of people led by their leader. It is characterized by the absence of separation of powers, the suppression of democracy and the rule of law, the introduction of terror, and the establishment of an authoritarian regime of personal power.
Industrialization– transition from manual labor to machine labor in all sectors of the economy. The process of creating large-scale machine production in industry and other sectors of the economy. In the USSR it was carried out from the late 20s. based on the priority of heavy industry in order to overcome the gap with the West, create the material and technical base of socialism, and strengthen defense capabilities. Unlike other countries of the world, industrialization in the USSR began with heavy industry and was carried out by limiting the consumption of the entire population, expropriating the remaining funds of private city owners and robbing the peasantry.
Collectivization– the policy of forced transformation of agriculture in the late 20s - 30s. on the basis of “dekulakization” and the establishment of collective forms of farming (collective farms) with the socialization of a significant part of peasant property. The masses of wealthy peasants (kulaks), middle peasants and part of the poor (“sub-kulaks”) were subjected to repression. By decree of the President of the USSR of August 13, 1990, the repressions carried out during the collectivization period were declared illegal.
Cult of personality- admiration for someone, veneration, exaltation. In the USSR, the period from 1929 to 1953. defined as the personality cult of J.V. Stalin. A dictatorial regime was established, democracy was eliminated, and during his lifetime Stalin was credited with a decisive influence on the course of historical development.
"New Opposition"- a group in the CPSU (b), formed in 1925 by G. E. Zinoviev and L. B. Kamenev. She made a proposal at the 15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) to remove I.V. Stalin from the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee and to focus the national economy on agricultural exports and industrial imports. The congress condemned this speech. Later, almost all members of the group were repressed.
Repression (lat.– suppression)- a punitive measure, punishment applied by punitive authorities.
Totalitarianism(lat.- whole, complete) - state power exercising complete (total) control over all aspects of society under an authoritarian leadership regime.
Read also:
⇐ Previous12
There is a strict centralization of the management process in all spheres of society, and primarily in the economy. The administrative apparatus began to be built on a sectoral principle, which led to the creation of additional management units (new people's commissariats, main departments) and an increase in the number of officials.
Administrative coercion has become one of the main methods of “socialist construction”. This was particularly evident in the agricultural sector of the economy. In the early 30s. complete collectivization is being carried out (the forced unification of peasants into collective farms - collective farms), dispossession of the strongest peasant farms, physical liquidation and deportation of unreliable peasants to special settlements in the east of the country.
7. Establishment of an administrative-command management system and a regime of personal power by I.V. Stalin.
Strict administration was also used to completely oust private enterprises from the sphere of industry and trade. As a result, the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1934 declared the victory of socialism in the USSR.
Option 2:
⇐ Previous12
Related information:
Search on the site:
Military affairs Formation of an administrative-command control system
Discussions in the party. Different understandings of the principles and methods of socialist construction and public administration caused opposition speeches in the Politburo of the party, in a number of local large party committees, and in the press.
The Party Central Committee increasingly began to discuss ways to modernize the country and methods for its implementation while building the foundations of socialism. In 1928–1929. Discussions have developed in the ruling party in connection with the emerging steps to curtail the NEP. N.I. Bukharin, leader of the Comintern, editor of Pravda, the organ of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars A.I. Rykov, trade union leader M.P. Tomsky, secretary of the Moscow party organization N.A. Uglanov and their like-minded people explained the crisis by miscalculations of the party and state leadership, opposed the use of surplus appropriation in the spring of 1929, and for stabilizing the situation in agriculture based on market methods management. They proposed to compensate for the shortage of food products by importing, adjusting prices, etc. At the same time, the Bukharinites proposed the gradual development of large collective grain farms, a relatively moderate pace of industrialization based on balanced rise of heavy and light industry.
I.V. Stalin, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, supported by the Chairman of the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR V.V. Kuibyshev, People's Commissar of Defense K.E. Voroshilov, Chairman of the Central Control Commission G.K. Ordzhonikidze insisted on the accelerated industrialization of the country and the collectivization of agriculture, which were supposed to turn the USSR into a powerful industrial-agrarian world power.
In April 1929. A joint plenum of the Central Committee (Central Committee) and the Central Control Commission (CCC)* was held, which supported the Stalinist group and his program for industrial modernization. For “anti-party views,” Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky were, on Stalin’s orders, removed from the Politburo. By pitting political opponents against one another and skillfully interpreting their statements as anti-Leninist, I.V. Stalin consistently eliminated his opponents.
If the members of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the party had common sense above opportunistic considerations, they would not have excluded the smart and courageous party workers who allowed themselves to disagree with the opinion of Joseph Dzhugashvili.
Formation of an administrative-command system
In the discussion on the most important issues of public policy in the ruling party, a collective approach to developing the right decision would have prevailed, and not been dominated by the opinion of the leader, who even then considered himself always right and infallible. Perhaps, with a collegial strategy and tactics in domestic and foreign policy, the country would have avoided those cardinal mistakes, which caused irreparable damage to the ideas of socialism with their “clumsy incarnations.”
Under Stalin, the system of public administration underwent a transition from collective leadership to command-administrative methods. Command-administrative methods also extended to the area of planning. If in the first five-year plan detailed targets were determined for approximately 50 industries large industry, then in the second - in 120 industries of large and small industry. Directive methods were established in planning, excluding the independence and initiative of enterprises.
Republican, regional, regional economic councils were transformed into people's commissariats (in the republics) or light industry departments (in the territories and regions). Subsequently, there was even greater differentiation of sectoral management. So, in 1934 ᴦ. The People's Commissariat of Supply of the USSR was divided into the People's Commissariat of Internal Trade of the USSR and the People's Commissariat of the Food Industry of the USSR. In 1936 ᴦ. The People's Commissariat of Defense Industry of the USSR was separated from the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry in 1937. - People's Commissariat of Mechanical Engineering of the USSR. By the end of the 30s. There were already 21 industrial people's commissariat functioning.
Since the early 30s. Internal party control was tightened. In 1934 ᴦ. The Central Control Commission-RKI, which had the right to control party and state bodies at all levels, was transformed into the Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Soviet Control Commission under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
At the end of the 30s, when the military threat became more and more real, it was necessary to militarize the economy and tighten labor laws. It started in the USSR tightening of financial policy. The already meager funds previously allocated to the production of consumer goods were redistributed in favor of the military-industrial complex.
Command-administrative methods were also used in the agricultural sector economy. In the first five-year plan, the agricultural program was reduced mainly to measures of economic regulation of peasant farms and the preparation of material conditions for their unification into collective farms. The second five-year plan included specific tasks for agriculture for the growth of crop production, the development of livestock farming, and the technical reconstruction of collective farms.
In connection with the immediate preparation for war in the agricultural sector, a number of measures were again taken aimed at establishing command methods of managing agriculture and strengthening repressive principles. In April 1939. A resolution was issued “On the prohibition of the exclusion of collective farmers from collective farms.” The state sought to secure the labor force on collective farm lands and in collective farm production through legal methods.
Stalin introduced a system of compulsory deliveries of agricultural products to the state. In January 1940 ᴦ. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a resolution “On the obligatory supply of wool to the state”, in March “On changes in the policy of procurement and purchase of agricultural products”, a resolution “On measures to protect public lands of collective farms from fragmentation”, which secured collective farm lands within established limits and limiting the process of increasing the private lands of collective farmers. Almost simultaneously with this, the agricultural tax system was changed, which included progressive income taxation of personal plots and exemption from tax on workdays received by collective farmers. For collective farms, a per-hectare principle of taxation was established, stimulating more intensive use of land holdings by collective farms.
Administrative command methods of management also penetrated into the management of the socio-political and cultural life of the country. Many were liquidated public organizations. The reasons for their abolition were varied. In some cases - small numbers or financial troubles. In others - being part of societies of “enemies of the people”.
The All-Union Association of Engineers was liquidated, Russian society radio engineers, Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, Society of Russian History and Antiquities. The Society of Old Bolsheviks and the Society of Former Political Prisoners and Exiles, which united, in addition to the Bolsheviks, former anarchists, Mensheviks, Bundists, Socialist Revolutionaries, etc., ceased to exist. Mainly those associations that could be used in the interests of the state continued to operate (Osoaviakhim, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, the International Organization for Assistance to Fighters of the Revolution - MOPR, etc.).
Professional associations of creative intelligentsia were established under control party and government officials. Stalin and his inner circle explained the growing contradictions and crisis phenomena in the economy as the machinations of “class enemies.”
The emergency, which turned into a method of building a new society, met with opposition from part of the party and state apparatus. Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee N.I. spoke out against the use of emergency measures during collectivization. Bukharin. The use of administrative and economic pressure on the peasantry was not supported by members of the Politburo of the Central Committee A.I. Rykov and M.P. Tomsky.
For the purposes of socialist construction, they proposed using the principles of the NEP. I.V.’s statement did not find approval on their part. Stalin about the inevitability of an intensification of the class struggle as we move towards socialism. At the same time, the majority of party leaders regarded the views of opponents of the official political course as erroneous. N.I. Bukharin and M.P. Tomsky were removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee. Other members of the Politburo were also expelled from the Central Committee and convicted: A.I. Rykov, S.V. Kosior, V.Ya. Chubar; candidates for members of the Politburo: P.P. Postyshev, Ya.E. Rudzutak, R.I. Eiche. At the direction of Stalin A.I. Rykov, in addition, was removed from the post of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
Tightening of domestic policy. In July 1940 ᴦ. By decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the mandatory labor requirement was increased. Instead of the existing seven- and six-hour working day, an eight-hour working day was established; instead of a five-day work week - a six-day work week. A month later, a new Decree prohibited the unauthorized departure of workers from enterprises and institutions, as well as the transition from one enterprise (institution) to another.
Criminal penalties were applied to violators of labor discipline. After the eight-hour working day and seven-day working week were introduced in the country, June 26, 1940 ᴦ. A decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR established criminal liability for leaving work without permission and being late for work by more than 20 minutes. In October 1940 ᴦ. By a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the People's Commissariats were given the right to forcibly transfer workers and employees from one enterprise to another, regardless of their territorial location, if the “interests of the case” required it.
At the same time, the Decree “On State Labor Reserves” appeared, on the basis of which a network of vocational schools and factory schools was developed to train skilled workers. State labor reserves were to be at the direct disposal of the government.
July 10, 1940 ᴦ. The Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces “On liability for the production of substandard products and for non-compliance with mandatory standards by industrial enterprises” was issued, and on December 28, 1940 ᴦ. Decree “On the responsibility of students of vocational, railway schools and FZO schools for violation of discipline and for unauthorized departure from the school (school).” The introduction of passports and the institution of registration strengthened administrative control over the population. Villager, who often did not receive passports and other documents, were actually tied to their place of residence and were limited in their right to move around the country.
The leadership of the country became more and more firmly established authoritarian approaches. The main factor determining the policy of I.V. Stalin and those supporting him, the General Secretary's desire to establish sole power became. An administrative-command system developed in economic management, which became the basis of Stalin's political dictatorship.
The administrative-command system of public administration, which was based on the principle of unity of command, when the most important decisions were made by one person, contributed to the formation of Stalin’s personality cult.
Formation and development of the administrative-command management system in the USSR in the late 1920s–30s.
⇐ Previous12
During the period under review, the formation of a totalitarian regime and an administrative-command management system was completed, which ensured the solution to the utopian task of building socialism in the shortest possible time. The characteristic features of the Soviet state model were: the autocracy of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) as the ruling party and the universality of communist ideology, the regime of personal power of I.V. Stalin and the cult of personality of the leader, substitution of state bodies by party bodies, complete nationalization of the economy, command-repressive methods of management, widespread use of state coercion and extrajudicial repression.
Formally, the highest power belonged to All-Russian Congress The Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, however, contrary to the Constitution and other legislative acts, real power was concentrated in the party apparatus. The highest bodies of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) - the Politburo, the Organizing Bureau and the Secretariat of the Central Committee - considered at their meetings not only the most important political problems, but also all current issues of governing the country. Party decisions actually acquired the character of normative acts and were perceived by government bodies as binding. Party authorities formed personnel authorities and management. For this purpose, the so-called nomenklatura lists were used - lists of various positions that were filled exclusively on the recommendation of party bodies. For the Soviet nomenklatura - party workers and officials at various management levels - special standards were established for food supply, housing, and wages.
In the late 20s - 30s. In the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, internal party democracy is being curtailed, and leaders who are in opposition to Stalin are being consistently eliminated (even to the point of physical liquidation on the basis of trumped-up court cases). At the same time, all the most important government posts are occupied by supporters and promoters of Stalin.
There is a strict centralization of the management process in all spheres of society, and primarily in the economy.
2.4. Stalin's administrative command system
The administrative apparatus began to be built on a sectoral principle, which led to the creation of additional management units (new people's commissariats, main departments) and an increase in the number of officials.
Centralization of management and a planned economy led to a restructuring of the credit system. In 1927, private credit organizations were banned, and in 1930, the commercial lending system was banned. Loans began to be issued for their intended purpose exclusively by the State Bank. All payments between enterprises were carried out only through State Bank branches.
Law enforcement agencies are being reorganized. The functions of the police are expanding, and their numbers are growing. In 1933, the USSR Prosecutor's Office was formed, which monitored the compliance of all decisions of central and local authorities and administration with the provisions of the Constitution, the correct and uniform application of laws by judicial institutions, the legality of the actions of the police, the OGPU, and also supported accusations in court. In 1934, the all-Union People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) was created, which included the former OGPU, the Main Directorate of Police, and the Main Directorate of Forced Labor Camps (GULAG). Organizational structures People's Commissariat turned into the main weapon political repression in USSR.
Administrative coercion has become one of the main methods of “socialist construction”. This was particularly evident in the agricultural sector of the economy. In the early 30s. complete collectivization is being carried out (the forced unification of peasants into collective farms - collective farms), dispossession of the strongest peasant farms, physical liquidation and deportation of unreliable peasants to special settlements in the east of the country. Strict administration was also used to completely oust private enterprises from the sphere of industry and trade. As a result, the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1934 declared the victory of socialism in the USSR.
Option 2:
This system previously dominated in the USSR, Eastern European countries and a number of Asian states.
The characteristic features of the administrative-command system are public (and in reality state) ownership of almost everything economic resources, strong monopolization and bureaucratization of the economy, centralized, directive, economic planning as the basis of the economic mechanism.
The economic mechanism of the administrative-command system has a number of features. It assumes, firstly, direct management of all enterprises from a single center - the highest echelons of state power, which negates the independence of economic entities. Secondly, the state completely controls the production and distribution of products, as a result of which free market relationships between individual enterprises are excluded. Thirdly, the state apparatus manages economic activities using predominantly administrative-command (directive) methods, which undermines material interest in the results of labor.
With excessive centralization of executive power, bureaucratization of the economic mechanism and economic relations develops. By its nature, bureaucratic centralism is not capable of ensuring an increase in the efficiency of economic activity.
The point here, first of all, is that complete nationalization of the economy causes monopolization of production and sales of products on an unprecedented scale.
Giant monopolies, established in all areas of the national economy and supported by ministries and departments, in the absence of competition, do not care about the introduction of new equipment and technology. A deficit economy generated by monopoly is characterized by the absence of normal material and human reserves in case of an imbalance in the national economy.
In countries with an administrative-command system, solving key economic problems had its own specific characteristics. In accordance with the prevailing ideological guidelines, the task of determining the volume and structure of production was considered too serious and responsible to transfer its solution to direct producers - industrial enterprises, collective farms and state farms. Therefore, the structure of social needs was determined by central planning authorities. However, since it is fundamentally impossible to detail and anticipate changes in social needs on such a scale, these bodies were guided primarily by the task of satisfying minimal needs.
The centralized distribution of material goods, labor and financial resources was carried out without the participation of direct producers and consumers. It took place in accordance with pre-selected “public” goals and criteria, on the basis of centralized planning. A significant part of the resources, in accordance with the prevailing ideological guidelines, was directed to the development of the military-industrial complex.
The distribution of created products among production participants was strictly regulated by central authorities through a universally applied tariff system, as well as centrally approved wage fund standards. This led to the predominance of an equal approach to wages.
The unviability of this system, its insusceptibility to the achievements of scientific and technological revolution and the inability to ensure the transition to an intensive type of economic development made radical socio-economic transformations inevitable in almost all socialist (communist) countries. The strategy of economic reforms in these countries is determined by the laws of development of world civilization, as a result of which a modern market economy is being built there at a greater or lesser speed
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (LATE 1920S – 1930S)
At the end of the first decade of Soviet power, Soviet society entered a new period of political and economic development, the result of which was the formation that emerged in the 1930s-1940s. command-bureaucratic system and totalitarian political regime. The political processes taking place in the USSR at that time had a decisive influence on the development of events, in particular the aggravation of the political situation in the country associated with the intensification after the death of V.I. Lenin’s struggle for power within the Bolshevik Party and the subsequent rise of I.V. Stalin.
At the end of the 1920s. As a result of a complex political and ideological struggle among party leaders, the line to curtail the NEP, which turned out to be unnecessary in the conditions of the strengthening administrative-command system of government, won. This line was defended by Stalin, who, thanks to a clever bureaucratic game, managed to strengthen his position in the highest echelons of the party elite and oust other equally famous “heirs” of Lenin who were fighting for power.
Stalin countered the prejudice against the “Great Leap Forward” policy that had persisted for some time in the party with a populist commitment to quickly building socialism in one country, which was supported by some of the Bolshevik leaders.
The plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, held in April 1929, supported the Stalinist populist program of “the offensive of socialism along the entire front” and the accelerated transformation of the country into an advanced industrial power. The planned targets for industrialization were revised towards their increase. Thus, already here, Stalin’s passion for administration, running ahead, and voluntaristic methods of management were revealed. Over time, subjectivist planning becomes the main feature of managing the development of the national economy in the USSR.
The need for accelerated industrialization, which acquired the character of a “leap,” was justified by the Stalinist leadership by the aggravation of the international situation in the late 1920s and the threat of war from the “capitalist encirclement.” However, this bogeyman was often used as a convenient excuse for imposing inflated rates of modernization of society and curtailing democracy.
A feature of Stalin's industrialization was that priority was given to the development of heavy industry, to the detriment of light industry and agriculture. The chronic underdevelopment of these industries became over time the main feature of the Soviet national economy. Public administration since the late 1920s. functioned on the basis of five-year plans that had the force of law, which were often revised arbitrarily upward.
In the fall of 1929, a course was announced for accelerated collectivization of agriculture, the nature of which reflected the results of administration and looking ahead. January 5, 1930 published special resolution Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the pace of collectivization and measures of state assistance to collective farm construction,” which proclaimed the implementation of complete collectivization in most regions of the country. Carrying out collectivization, the Stalinist leadership pursued the goal of making collective farms contractors of the state for the non-market seizure of grain and raw materials from the peasants for the successful implementation of industrialization.
The change in the internal political course entailed a change in the country's political leadership, the ousting, and then the destruction by Stalin of the old party cadres. In 1927, on charges of organizing a counter-demonstration in connection with the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution, L.D. was expelled from the party. Trotsky, L.B. Kamenev and G.E. Zinoviev. In 1929, he was removed from his post as editor of Pravda, and then removed from the Politburo by N.I. Bukharin, Stalin's recent ally in the fight against the “left” opposition. In the same year, Trouky was expelled from the country, removed from the post of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and replaced by V.M. Molotov supporter N.I. Bukharina A.I. Rykov.
At the end of the 1920s. marked the turn of the Stalinist leadership to the practice of repression, which began in 1928 with a broad campaign of struggle against “sabotage” and ended with the physical destruction of all major party leaders who were in opposition to Stalin in the second half of the 1930s.
With the victory of Stalin’s “general line” of building socialism in one country and accelerated industrialization, an attack began on the democratic institutions that arose during the NEP period. Grandiose purges of local Soviets were carried out, all of them were made strictly dependent on the financial capabilities of the center, and began to be financed on a residual basis from the funds remaining from the financing of industrialization. Since 1928, the komkhozes and the state administration of agricultural enterprises were closed. The NKVD no longer dealt with issues local government and did not supervise the local economy. Instead, the OGPU was created - a surveillance body over the population and a punitive body of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Against this background, the administrative-territorial reform of 1928-1930, conceived and carried out by the Stalinist leadership, which finally buried hopes for the revival of the institution of self-government in Russia, seems quite logical. In this regard, the regions were “cut up” primarily by a strong-willed decision; their size was 2 times larger than the former provinces. At the same time, the creation of districts that were formed under the slogan “link between town and country” and were engaged in both agriculture and industry led to the virtual destruction of specialized rural authorities. For the same political reasons, cities were “cut up” into districts, the authorities of which were endowed with competence similar to that of the city authorities. As a result, a rigid vertical was created in which authorities at different levels inevitably clashed in areas of competence and finance, which gave the center the opportunity to intervene and resolve disputes in its own interests. By the end of the 1920s. this work was basically completed: in Russian Federation a new so-called three-tier system has been established - district, district, region (region); in other union republics it is two-tier (district, district).
The implementation of a policy of accelerated industrialization required serious changes in the industrial management system.
In the 1920s it was built on a combination of functional (Gosplan, Rabkrin, GOELRO Commission, GPU, etc.) and sectoral (industry people's commissariats) principles of leadership with the predominance of one of them. For the 1930s. was characterized by the predominance of the sectoral management principle, an increasing tendency towards unity of command and centralization in the distribution of raw materials, labor and manufactured products. This process began with the resolution of the USSR Central Executive Committee adopted in January 1932 on the restructuring of industrial management. Formally, the rejection of the previously prevailing functional principle of building the party and state apparatus was announced at the XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (January - February 1934). In March 1934, based on the instructions of the congress, a special resolution was adopted by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, according to which government bodies were to be restructured on the basis of production, sectoral and territorial principles. The implementation of the 1934 resolution was accompanied by fragmentation and disaggregation of almost all People's Commissariats. The unified industrial People's Commissariat - the Supreme Economic Council, and its bodies in the provinces, territories, regions, and districts were abolished. Instead, three sectoral people's commissariats were created: the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry of the USSR (Narkomtyazh, NKTP), the People's Commissariat of Light Industry of the USSR (Narkomlegprom) and the People's Commissariat of the Forestry Industry of the USSR (Narkomlesprom). In 1934, a fourth was added to them - the People's Commissariat of the Food Industry, in 1939 there were already 21 of them (from the NKTP in 1936 the People's Commissariat of Defense Industry and the People's Commissariat of Mechanical Engineering were separated). The People's Commissariat of Water Transport was separated from the People's Commissariat of Railways, and the People's Commissariat of Grain and Livestock State Farms was separated from the People's Commissariat of Land. In May 1939, the People's Commissariat for Construction was created, which headed the management of a huge construction production complex. On the basis of the People's Commissariat of the Fuel Industry, the People's Commissariat of the Oil and Coal Industry, as well as the People's Commissariat of the Electrical Industry, were created.
The People's Commissariat of Labor was abolished and merged with the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (state insurance funds, sanatoriums, rest homes, scientific institutes - it was a body public administration, who led the areas of labor organization.
The emergence of two dozen industrial people's commissariats strengthened state control of the rapidly developing industrialization of the country, mechanization and mechanization of processes in various fields. At the same time, wide opportunities opened up for “shake-up” the apparatus, carrying out purges of management bodies, without which the administrative-command system is unthinkable. The disaggregation of the People's Commissariats and their fragmentation contributed to the emergence and development of departmentalism, which over time became the specificity of the Soviet economic system. Within the framework of this management system, sectoral people's commissariats turned into closed administrative and economic units (departments), which simultaneously acted as central government bodies and economic bodies.
At the same time, all-Union principles, centralization, bureaucratization were strengthened, and responsibility for the implementation of “directives of the party and government” increased. The volume and parameters of public administration, the role of union bodies and the executive apparatus have sharply increased, and the administrative apparatus has grown in number, which has become increasingly cumbersome (“multi-link”). The executive apparatus became the main element of management, acting in a directive and rigid manner.
Another negative consequence of the industrial management reform was the rapid growth of the administrative apparatus. According to the 1939 census, it grew 6 times in 10 years. In order to establish control over the newly created people's commissariats and coordinate their activities, the authorities were forced to create new bureaucratic superstructures. The concentration of power in the hands of all-Union state and party bodies led to an even greater growth of the administrative apparatus and was accompanied by the bureaucratization of state life. This was no less facilitated by the lack of educated, qualified specialist managers, which determined the low level of quality and efficiency of management, which the ruling elite tried to compensate for by giving public administration a strictly bureaucratic, command-administrative character. The personnel of the governing bodies was formed from competent specialists, at the expense of workers and peasants (“promoters”), and their accelerated training at various courses, workers’ faculties, and educational institutions.
Under these conditions, the role of control and punitive bodies in the system of power and management increased significantly. In addition to the newly created People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR (NKVD USSR) in 1934, which exercised general administrative supervision (the functions of political police were transferred to the NKVD from the OGPU), various narrow departmental control bodies operated (financial, planning, etc.). All of them were strictly centralized and worked throughout the USSR, regardless of the Soviets.
The all-Union principle was strengthened throughout the entire management system. By the end of 1940, the USSR government had 25 all-Union People's Commissariat and 16 Union-Republican ones. To coordinate their actions, six economic councils were created: for metallurgy and chemistry, for mechanical engineering, for the defense industry, for fuel and electrical equipment, for consumer goods, for agriculture and procurement. These councils had the right to give mandatory orders to the People's Commissariats of the relevant profile and actually led them. Each council consisted of 3-5 people headed by the Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.
The expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus created the need to improve political control over it. The People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, which carried out this function, was previously burdened with functions unusual for it (road management, cartography, resettlement, etc.) In February 1941, the NKVD was divided into two People's Commissariat: the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and the People's Commissariat of State Security (which led and foreign intelligence, including).
Occurred by the mid-1930s. changes in the economic, social and political development of Soviet society were enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR adopted by the VIII Extraordinary All-Union Congress of Soviets (December 5, 1936). The Constitution announced the completion of the construction of the foundations of socialism, the formation of a unified planned economy and the establishment of socialist property as the basis of the Soviet system, the defeat of the kulaks and the victory of the collective farm system. The restrictions on voting rights that existed in the first Soviet constitutions were abolished, universal, direct and equal suffrage was introduced, which, however, did not change the essence of the matter in the conditions of maintaining a one-party system that did not involve alternative elections. Art. 126 of the Constitution spoke of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) as the leading core of all public and state organizations of workers.
With the adoption of the Basic Law, the structure of state power was changed. The previous system of Soviet congresses ceased to exist. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR became the highest body of state power, the first elections to which were held in December 1937. The system of local Soviets was also changed. The former Councils of Workers', Peasants' and Red Army Deputies were transformed into Councils of Workers' Deputies. Regional congresses of Soviets were abolished. The local administrative bodies, as before, were the executive committees of the Soviets, in whose hands the real power lay. By analogy with the former Union Central Executive Committee, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR consisted of two equal chambers - the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities, equally endowed with the right of legislative initiative. Members of the Council of the Union were elected from the entire population of the country in electoral districts, members of the Council of Nationalities - according to the established norm: 32 deputies from each union republic, 11 deputies from an autonomous republic, 5 from an autonomous region, 1 from Autonomous Okrug. The main form of work of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR were sessions convened in accordance with the Constitution twice a year. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at a joint meeting of both chambers, elected the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR consisting of 37 people (chairman, 11 deputies in accordance with the number of union republics, secretary and 24 members). Its functions included: convening sessions of the Supreme Council, interpreting laws, issuing decrees, dissolving chambers and calling new elections.
Unlike the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Supreme Councils of the Union Republics were not bicameral, therefore their national minorities could defend their interests only through the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The Constitution significantly expanded the powers of all-Union bodies. The right to publish their own codes of laws was withdrawn from the union republics, as well as the right to resolve issues of labor legislation, legislation on the court and administrative-territorial structure.
The 1936 Constitution did not introduce any significant changes to the structure and nature of the functioning of the executive branch. The highest executive body remained the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, which managed sectors of the national economy through people's commissariats, committees and commissions. The Council of People's Commissars was formed by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and in its activities was accountable to it and its Presidium. The Constitution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR was defined as the highest executive and administrative body of state power.
Despite a number of innovations in the structure of government bodies, the nature of the political regime remained the same. State power in the country by the mid-1930s. was completely in the hands of a narrow circle of the party elite. The principle of appointment to responsible positions was formed as a nomenklatura principle of the party leadership, when party authorities actively formed the personnel of government and management bodies through the compilation of lists of nomenklatura positions. By the end of the 1930s. the nomenclature principle covered elected bodies of power, the entire system of state and public administration, economic positions, which gave rise to party despotism and irresponsibility of personnel to the people.. The councils became the power for the working people through the party-state administration, which concentrated power and control, and the participation of broad the masses in governance became a formality that covered up the dictates of the party-state bureaucracy. Many purely state functions are gradually transferred to party authorities. Combining party and government positions was widely practiced. All normative legal acts adopted by the highest bodies of state power, be they decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, decrees of its Presidium or resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, were subject to preliminary consideration and sanctioned by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the party.
It is significant that the ideology of statehood, the idea of the imminent withering away of the state in the process of transition to socialism, was gradually replaced by the ideology of a strong state. At the XVIII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1939, it was announced that the state would be preserved not only under socialism, but also with the victory of communism in one country. At the same time, a thesis was formulated about the growing leading role of the party in public administration and the life of society.
1. What is the reason for the departure from the NEP policy and the transition to the policy of building communism in one country in the internal policy of the USSR? Who is the initiator of this process?
2. How did the internal party struggle of the 1920s affect the development of the USSR public administration system?
3. What was the goal of the country’s industrialization policy? Was this goal achieved?
4. Describe the structure of economic management of the USSR in the 1930s.
5. What was the urgent need for the adoption of a new Soviet constitution in the mid-1930s?
6. Find differences in the system of government bodies under the Constitution of the USSR of 1924 and the Constitution of the USSR of 1936.
7. Name the signs of the totalitarian regime in the USSR in the 1930s.
8. Define the administrative-command system and name its characteristic features.
9. What is nomenclature and how was it formed?
10. Name the structure that actually exercised political power in the USSR in the 1920-1930s.
Economic history: tutorial Shevchuk Denis Alexandrovich
7.5. Conditions for the formation of the command-administrative system of the Russian economy
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. “state capitalism” is emerging in the country.
“State capitalism” is a special system of economic management that combines the strict bureaucratic centralism of state power with the increased strength and independence of private capital, united in large unions and syndicates, as well as a liberal opposition, consisting mainly of the intelligentsia and based on the State Duma.
Reasons for the formation of the system of “state capitalism” in Russia:
1) slow pace of development;
2) insufficient incentives for entrepreneurship;
3) mobilization path of development;
4) connection between industrial development and government orders;
5) the duality of the socio-economic structure: industrial capitalism and archaic agriculture;
6) narrowness of the domestic market and instability financial system.
The desire for macroeconomic regulation was not a specific Russian feature. However, the forms of its manifestation in our country had their own specifics. Until the beginning of the 20th century. their main characteristic was their class character. For example, state-owned industry developed primarily in the interests of the nobility. In the 90s, the main emphasis was placed on the development of private entrepreneurship, the regulation of which is carried out through a system of government orders. World War sharply increased the need to coordinate the activities of all participants in economic life. The formation of a system of centralized regulation was carried out both “from above” through the creation of special government bodies to solve the problems of the war economy, and “from below” through the activities of representative bodies of private capital. There was also a third force: leftist parties and public organizations influencing the formation public opinion in the country. Between 1914 and 1929 Various options for direct government intervention in the implementation of the economic process were tested with the aim of its systematic regulation.
During the war years, the framework of centralized regulation was formed by four special meetings formed in August 1915 - on defense, transportation, fuel and food. They had broad powers and were headed by leading members of the government, whose instructions were subject to immediate execution. Special meetings relied on an extensive network of regional and local bodies.
In case of interdepartmental friction, a “super-meeting” was created with the participation of the Minister of Internal Affairs. Already during this period, features inherent in the Russian model of the command-administrative system emerged:
1) multiple regulatory bodies;
2) the main function is supply and distribution (the introduction of state monopolies on bread, coal, sugar, oil and cotton);
3) covering the lack of financial resources by increasing direct taxation of the peasantry;
4) administrative restrictions on the growth of agricultural prices when industrial prices rise;
5) creation of a system of state plans, primarily for food procurement.
Despite the measures taken by the government, the economic situation in the country worsened, which served as one of the factors of the social revolution.
The experience of centralized regulation of the national economy by the Provisional Government includes two main points: the introduction of a number of state monopolies (on bread, coal and sugar) and an attempt to create an economic center that would develop a unified plan. For this purpose, the government created an Economic Council.
Practical experience in implementing the measures gave results that were exactly the opposite of what was expected. The ineffectiveness of the policy was due to a number of factors: the uniqueness of the bureaucratic government agencies who tried to replace the market mechanism for matching supply and demand; the destruction of the private economic apparatus, which traditionally served the exchange of goods between city and countryside, the disincentive effect on rural producers of fixing prices for their products, while all other prices were rising. Under these conditions, the attention of economists who adhered to different ideological and political orientations increasingly began to be attracted to general issues of systematic regulation of the entire national economy. There are two completely different approaches.
1. The desire to develop a concept of economic reform using the most important principles of planning (antimonopoly legislation, democratization of production activities, linking national and private interests, integrity and centralism of economic policy).
2. Justification for the use of the state as a force capable of replacing the market and actively intervening in the economic mechanism for its modernization. On the extreme left flank of the supporters of this position were the Bolsheviks, who argued the need to bring to its logical end the trend of consolidation and monopolization of social production through forced syndication, nationalization of key areas of production, involving workers in management and organizing workers' control.
The victory of the October Revolution led to the transformation of the second position into the dominant one. However, the government bodies formed in the first years of Soviet power, for example the Supreme Economic Council, largely reproduced the system of centralized industrial management during the First World War. The economic policy of this period was situational in nature, that is, in response to ongoing processes. This was expressed in practical steps: the implementation of the Decree on Land (division, and then redistribution of land); reduction of nationalization of the financial system (State and private banks) and industrial enterprises to spontaneous confiscation, which ultimately pushed the Council of People's Commissars to make a decision on the general nationalization of large (June 1918), and later (January 1919) all industry, the nationalization of trade with its replacement by forced state-organized distribution and the establishment of direct exchange of goods between city and countryside (November 1918); the introduction of food allocation (January 1919) and universal labor service, etc. Obviously, these and other measures were not the implementation general program, but were carried out solely in order to somehow save the remnants of economic ties and concentrate scarce resources in their hands in the face of the threat and flare-up of civil war and intervention. In such conditions, the national economic management system was characterized by the following features:
Strict centralization and lack of effective horizontal connections between vertical formations - central administrations and people's commissariats;
The multiplicity of planning bodies, their interdepartmental nature and spontaneity of occurrence;
Emphasis on centralization of distribution functions;
Alienation of the state's administrative apparatus from the masses and the real economic process.
Reasons for the rapid formation of an administrative-command management system in Soviet Russia:
Reliance of the new government on the repressive apparatus;
Traditionally, strong government intervention in the economy;
The dominance of ideas of justice in the mass consciousness.
From the book History of Economics: a textbook author Shevchuk Denis Alexandrovich8.3. Attempts to reform the command-administrative system in the 50-60s The first attempt to reform the command-administrative system was closely connected with the end of the Stalinist period in the history of the USSR in March 1953. Political changes in the country were required
From the book History of Economic Doctrines: Lecture Notes author Eliseeva Elena Leonidovna3. The first socialist transformations. War communism as a stage in the formation of the command-administrative system (1917 - 1921) The Bolsheviks sought the complete destruction of private property. In December 1917, foreign trade was placed under the control of the People's Commissariat
From the book National Economics: Lecture Notes author Koshelev Anton Nikolaevich3. Factors in the formation of the Russian model of a market economy Russia after a long period of existence of the administrative-command type of the national economic system at the end of the twentieth century. began the transition to a market model of the national economy. This was caused
From the book National Economics author Koshelev Anton Nikolaevich20. Factors in the formation of the Russian model of a market economy The formation of the Russian model of a market economy occurred under the influence of the following main factors that had a significant impact on its character: 1) geopolitical. National economy
From the book Economic Geography author Burkhanova Natalya35. Natural conditions and resources of Russia The landscape of Russia is based on large tectonic structures - platforms, shields, folded belts, they are expressed in various forms - mountains, lowlands, hills, etc. Most of the territory of Russia is occupied
From the book Economic History of Russia author Dusenbaev A A36. “War communism” as a stage in the formation of the command-administrative system (1917–1921) The main direction of activity of the new government after the October Revolution of 1917 was the nationalization of enterprises. By decrees of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars they were nationalized in three years.
From the book Cheat Sheet on Economic History author Engovatova Olga Anatolyevna44. Attempts to reform the command-administrative system (1953–1964) During the “Khrushchev Thaw”, a policy of complete “de-Stalinization” of the country was pursued, when the personality cult of J.V. Stalin was eradicated in every possible way, and political prisoners were rehabilitated. Period
From the book Economic Theory: Textbook author Makhovikova Galina Afanasyevna58. FIRST SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATIONS. MILITARY COMMUNISM AS A STAGE IN THE FORMATION OF THE COMMAND-ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM (1917–1921) At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, despite the rapid pace of industrial production, the overall appearance of the country was largely determined by the rural
From the book Mechanisms and methods of regulation in the conditions of transition to innovative development author author unknown72. SOVIET ECONOMY IN THE ERA OF THE COMMAND-ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. FEATURES OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LIFE Analysis of the country's development in the 1960-1980s. presents considerable difficulty. This is one of the most controversial periods in the history of the Fatherland, intense
From the book Economic History of Foreign Countries: a textbook author Timoshina Tatyana Mikhailovna1.3. The role of economic theory during the period of globalization of the world economy and the formation of a market economic system in Russia In addition to public and personal interests, the range of problems of economic theory now includes the study of such a concept as “national
From the book Money. Credit. Banks [Responses to exam papers] author Varlamova Tatyana Petrovna1.3. Transformation of the market institution in the context of the formation of a global information economy In Russia, two transition processes are taking place simultaneously: the transition to the market and the transition to the information stage of development. In this regard, the question arises of how to transform
From the book One on One with the Stock Exchange. Emotions under control author Raton Alexey4.4. Directions for the formation of an innovative economy based on the development of small businesses There are various terminological definitions of the economic stages of the development of society, used by researchers of different schools and directions to which
From the book Strategies for the development of scientific and production enterprises of the aerospace complex. Innovation path author Baranov Vyacheslav ViktorovichChapter 8 Characteristic features of the formation and development of the market economy of Japan (XVIII–XXI
From the author's book83. Types of banking systems. The main differences between command-and-control and market banking systems There are two main types of banking systems: command-and-control banking and market banking system. The main feature of the market system
From the author's book8.1. Conditions for forming a new habit A habit is a skill that arises gradually, as a result of repeated actions, and is subsequently performed by itself, automatically, without the effort of your will. To form a new habit, you need to perform a series of
From the author's bookChapter 1 Macroeconomic problems of forming an innovative economy in
Command-administrative management system- this is centralized government management, which forces all enterprises to fulfill planned directives (mandatory tasks) using orders and other non-economic methods.
Prerequisites for the formation of an administrative-command system
This form of state system initially affected only the economic sphere, but its effectiveness in the eyes of the Bolsheviks, over time, contributed to its introduction into the social structure of society.
The basis for the formation of the command system was the exceptional dominant role of the Communist Party, the power ambitions of the top of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the complete absence of resistance from opposition forces. Hiding behind the instructions of Lenin and the distorted dogmas of Marxism, the party leadership of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) created an isolated state, which could only be called socialist in theory.
To control the population, a system of punitive bodies of the NKVD was introduced, whose representatives cleansed society of “enemies of socialism,” a category into which every third citizen fell.
The command-administrative system has created an economy whose main purpose is to maintain and maintain power structures. Any comparison with a market economy shows that this type of economy is absolutely uncompetitive
Main stages in the development of the Soviet command and administrative system
During the historically short period of the existence of the USSR, various forms of organizing the state economy were tried and attempts were even made to combine socialism with the market. Economic failures eventually forced the Soviet leadership in the mid-80s. begin a rather radical departure from orthodox Marxism as part of the policy of perestroika.
Therefore, the path that the Soviet economy took before the start of perestroika is an instructive experience for economic theory, demonstrating the historically limited capabilities of command and administrative management of the national economy.
IN economic history The USSR until 1985 can be distinguished into four stages.
On first stage(1918-1921) an attempt was made to directly implement the Marxist doctrine. The economic policy, which later became known as “war communism,” was aimed at the immediate and forced liquidation of private property and “commodity-money relations” (as market relations, instruments and mechanisms were usually called in Marxist theory - money, prices, credit, etc.). d.). In their place came relations of natural exchange between enterprises and the free provision of many goods and services to the population (food rations, free travel on public transport, etc.). Most banks and other financial institutions were closed. Agricultural products were forcibly confiscated from peasants, who received low-quality industrial goods from the city in exchange. Private trade, especially “speculation” (reselling goods for the purpose of generating income) was punished very harshly.
“War communism,” combined with the Civil War, resulted in an economic disaster that threatened Soviet power.
Under these conditions, on Lenin’s initiative, the “New Economic Policy” (NEP) was proclaimed in 1921, which became the beginning of the second stage in the development of the Soviet economy.
By introducing the NEP, the Soviet leadership did not abandon orthodox Marxist ideas, but postponed the implementation of socialist principles until a certain stabilization of the economy was achieved. Therefore, trade, small and medium-sized private production, hiring of workers, market pricing, exchanges, banks, foreign concessions and other market mechanisms and institutions were allowed. At the same time, the state retained the “commanding heights,” that is, complete control over heavy industry. The NEP really contributed to the revival of the economy, the development of industry (mainly light industry), the growth of agriculture and a slight rise in the living standards of the people.
A remarkable achievement of the economic leaders of those years was the stabilization of finances on the basis of monetary reform and the introduction into circulation of hard currency - the chervonets, which was quoted on foreign markets along with the currencies of leading Western countries.
However, the NEP did not last long - until the end of the 20s. It was curtailed because it objectively undermined the party’s monopoly on power, and also because the country’s leadership set a course for accelerated industrialization and militarization.
The third stage has begun- the period of Stalinist dictatorship, which lasted from the late 20s. until 1953, the Stalinist system in its most complete form embodied the essential features of socialism as a special economic model - total domination of the state and planning of all economic activities. During this period, economic activity was carried out exclusively on the basis of planned targets, which were based on politically determined party demands and guidelines. The main task was to create a strong army. Therefore, during the Stalinist period, the basis of the Soviet economy became the powerful military industry. Agriculture was subjected to forced collectivization, that is, in fact, nationalization and transformation into part of the command-administrative economy.
Market relations, naturally, did not find a place in the Stalinist system. In particular, money did not perform the functions that are inherent in it in market economy. The only exceptions were wages and the sphere of consumption - the purchase of goods and services by the population, but even here the ability of money to act as a means of circulation was limited due to the absence of many goods in open trade and the spread of all kinds of forms of non-market distribution of goods and services. In other spheres of the economy, money and related financial and pricing instruments (prices, credit, etc.) played an exclusively control and accounting role. They served to measure production when issuing plan targets and reporting according to the plan, to measure the total social product and other economic indicators, as well as for additional control over the movement of material resources.
Throughout the Stalinist period (naturally, with the exception of the war years), the Soviet economy maintained very high growth rates. Huge structural changes have occurred in the economy - many modern industries have been created practically from scratch. During these years, the savings rate, i.e. that share of national income that goes not for consumption, but for investment, officially amounted to 25-27% (and in fact even more) and was the highest in the world.
The rapid development of the economy was also ensured by the presence of practically inexhaustible reserves of natural resources, the use of slave labor of millions of Gulag prisoners and the brutal exploitation of the urban and especially rural population. Modern researchers note that the main law of the Stalinist economy was to maximize the growth rate of heavy industry by maximizing the consumption of all types of resources: labor, capital investments, raw materials, fixed assets, land. The nature of the Stalinist model is extremely high resource intensity. Therefore, it can “work”, as a rule, only in large countries rich in raw materials, for example, in the USSR and China, and in other states it is usually supported by force from the outside.
Stalinism caused such an overstrain of the forces of the entire society that immediately after the death of the dictator, the new leadership was forced to “loose the screws.”
In 1953, the Soviet economy entered fourth stage- a period of mature socialism and relative stability - which lasted until the mid-80s.
This period was characterized by the departure of the Soviet leadership from the most odious manifestations of Stalinism - mass repressions, brutal exploitation of the population, closeness from outside world etc. By the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s. even the core of the socialist economy - command and administrative control over production and distribution - began to weaken. But throughout the entire period, the Soviet economy retained the essential features established under Stalin.
From the mid-50s to the mid-60s, during the reign of N.S. Khrushchev, new industries related to scientific and technological progress, as well as industries in the consumer sector, grew rapidly. But already at this time, the national economy of the USSR was faced with the exhaustion of its resource base and the need for a transition to an intensive type of development. Therefore, at the turn of the 50s and 60s. In the scientific press, a discussion began “on improving the methods of socialist planning,” at the center of which was the question of how to combine compliance with national interests with the initiative and relative independence of enterprises.
After the change of Soviet leadership in 1964, these discussions became the ideological basis for the economic reform that began in 1965 on the initiative of the new head of government A.N. Kosygina. The reform was intended to give impetus to the socialist economy by expanding the economic independence of enterprises and introducing certain elements of the market mechanism.
The work of enterprises was based on self-financing.
Cost accounting is a management system that provided for self-sufficiency and self-financing of socialist enterprises. In other words, the enterprise had to independently recoup its costs and earn funds for planned capital investments by producing and selling products in accordance with the enlarged tasks of the state plan. The enlarged nature of the planned targets was that, with the exception of the most important types of products, the targets were issued in value terms. This gave the company the opportunity to slightly vary product output within one product group, for example, to make a choice between the production of sports and recreational bicycles, depending on how easier it is to fulfill the bicycle production plan in terms of cost. One of the most important planned indicators was profit from product sales. An important role was played by the opportunity given to enterprises to retain part of their profits for bonuses to employees, as well as to independently sell above-plan products at increased prices.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
The command-administrative system in the USSR and its consequences
Introduction
The overwhelming majority of Soviet and post-Soviet authors evaluate the activities of consumer cooperation from the standpoint of its usefulness for the party and the state; economic processes in cooperation are considered within the framework of the national economy, without highlighting the features of consumer cooperatives as special forms of economic activity. This approach is completely justified, since consumer cooperation in a number of countries actually served the goals of parties and the states they created (and not necessarily of a socialist direction), and the population and shareholders were considered only as participants in the processes of state building.
A fundamentally different approach is visible in the works of pre-revolutionary Russian cooperators and modern foreign researchers of consumer cooperation. Their ideology, as a rule, is apolitical and they consider consumer cooperation from the standpoint of the socio-economic benefits of cooperatives for shareholders, society and, ultimately, for the state.
A critical generalization of these methodological approaches to the study of the genesis and evolution of Russian consumer cooperation makes it possible to establish their pros and cons and makes it possible not only to correctly characterize the uniqueness of historical development paths, the structure and organizational forms of cooperation in the specific conditions of a particular country, but also, what is especially important , assess the place and role of the Russian cooperative movement among the most important mass movements of our time.
The relevance of research. An analysis of the activities of modern consumer cooperation and the choice of ways for its development in Russia cannot be carried out without knowledge of the origins of its development, the historical experience of its emergence, economic activity and the reasons for the disappearance of previously existing consumer farms various forms, which were the prototype of modern cooperatives.
1. Objective and subjective prerequisites for the formation of the command-administrative system in the USSR
The command-administrative management system is a centralized government management that forces all enterprises to carry out planned directives (mandatory tasks) through orders and other non-economic methods. The characteristic features of this system are reflected in the diagram.
Command and control:
Direct management of enterprises from the center.
Full state control over production and distribution.
Management using only administrative-command methods.
The regime of power created by I.V. Stalin in the 1930s, was called totalitarian. Under totalitarianism, the state is headed by one person who exercises supreme power. All rights and freedoms are absent, any dissent is suppressed, and the doctrine that the leader adheres to is proclaimed the only true one. But for the existence of a totalitarian regime it was necessary to create a special state system. Stalin created it, and it was called command-administrative. It was based on the bureaucratic apparatus, the nomenklatura (nomenklatura? a circle of officials, the appointment and approval of which falls within the competence of some higher body). It was in the hands of the nomenklatura that control of all spheres of life of Soviet society was concentrated.
The administrative-command system resembled a pyramid, at the top of which was the leader, surrounded by five or six closest associates, with whom he worked out the main decisions on issues of the country’s domestic and foreign policy, which were later formalized by the nomenklatura in the form of laws and decrees. According to some data, for all the years of Soviet power, from 1917 to 1991, the number of persons directly involved in the adoption and registration of such cardinal decisions, did not exceed 2-3 thousand people. At the base of the pyramid were millions of ordinary Soviet workers? workers, peasants, intelligentsia.
Prerequisites for the formation of the command-administrative system in the USSR in 1920-30.
For the one that arose in the USSR in the 30s. political system Was totalitarianism characteristic? a regime that completely subordinates, controls and regulates all spheres of social life.
One of the important prerequisites for the formation of this system was the monopoly on power of one party. Within the party itself, democratic principles were gradually curtailed, and the collective principles of leadership weakened. Congresses of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and party conferences began to be convened less and less often (in 1918–1929, 9 congresses and 9 conferences were held, in 1930–1941, 3 congresses and 2 conferences).
At the end of the 1920s. The NEP crisis began. The industry of the USSR did not keep pace with the development of agriculture. The individual peasant could not buy the necessary industrial goods with the proceeds from the sale of his products. Cultivated areas began to decline. Fell state procurements agricultural products, famine began in the cities. There were two ways to overcome the crisis. The economic plan, the supporters of which were N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov and their other party associates, provided for foreign investment in the Soviet economy, saturation of the market (due to these funds) with industrial goods, and the gradual launch of industries producing consumer goods (consumer goods). But the implementation of this plan would last for many years and would make the USSR dependent on capitalist states. I.V. Stalin and his supporters preferred what had been proven over the years Civil War a method of forcibly confiscating agricultural products from peasants.
For this purpose, in 1928, it was decided to carry out collectivization? the policy of the Soviet state aimed at the mass creation of collective farms by violent methods. The goals of collectivization were proclaimed: “liquidation of the kulaks as a class,” socialization of the means of production, centralized management of agriculture, increasing the efficiency of agricultural labor, and obtaining funds for the industrialization of the country.
Did forced collectivization provide an influx of funds for industrialization? the process of creating large machine production, forming a new social structure and the transition on this basis from an agrarian society to an industrial one. For the first time, the slogan of the transition to industrialization was proclaimed by the XIV All-Russian Party Conference of the Bolsheviks in 1925. The goals of industrialization were defined as: overcoming the technical and economic backwardness of the USSR from developed Western countries, transforming the country from an agricultural to an industrial one, eliminating the backwardness of the agricultural sector of the economy, creating a powerful defense system and strengthening the international provisions of the USSR.
To successfully carry out collectivization and industrialization, it was necessary to keep millions of people in obedience and not allow any manifestations of independence and dissent. For this purpose, a powerful repressive system was created in our country, which arose during the Civil War and was finally formed in the 1930s. Was it based on the bodies of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs? The NKVD, which replaced the Cheka-OGPU, which gradually got out of the control of not only the state, but also the party apparatus, directly reporting only to I.V. Stalin.
It should be noted that Stalin's politics found approval among the bulk of the communists who joined the party at the time when I.V. Stalin was its general secretary. These were mostly poorly educated, culturally backward, politically illiterate people who associated their joining the party with the opportunity to make a quick career and gain a privileged position. Did repression promote you to leadership positions? first secretaries of regional committees, people's commissars, directors of the largest factories? young people in their thirties. That is why, before the Great Patriotic War, there were too few experienced personnel among the country's top leadership, commanders of armies and military districts.
After the defeat of the “right deviation” there was no longer any open organized opposition in the party. True, there were still isolated manifestations of dissatisfaction and disagreement with the “general line.” But they could no longer change the situation.
The XVII Congress, called the “Congress of the Winners,” was held in the absence of any criticism of Stalin; the speakers praised him in every possible way. They were also joined by former members of opposition groups present at the congress. At the same time, the former oppositionists repented of their mistakes, thereby admitting their final defeat. For the first time in the history of the party, the congress did not adopt a detailed resolution on the report of the Central Committee, but simply invited “all party organizations to be guided in their work by the provisions and tasks put forward in Comrade Stalin’s report.”
Thus, the dictatorship of the party is increasingly turning into the dictatorship of its leader, and a cult of his personality is being formed.
Characteristic feature political system 30s was the merging of the party with the state, the transformation of workers of the party state apparatus (the so-called nomenklatura) into a new ruling stratum of society. At the same time, the working masses were actually alienated from real power. This can be seen in the example of the new Constitution of the USSR, adopted in December 1936. Its text contained many democratic norms: restrictions on the rights of citizens based on class were abolished, universal, direct, equal, secret voting was introduced, broad rights and freedoms were proclaimed, etc. But the Constitution did not have a mechanism for their implementation and remained largely a document? declaration, which sharply diverged from real life that time.
Repressions were one of the most important components of the socio-political life of that time in the USSR. They were carried out by the hands of a powerful cartel apparatus, the basis of which was the organs of the OGPU. Since 1934? The NKVD of the USSR, which was in charge of the extensive Gulag system. Strict ideological control over society and a monopoly on the media made it possible to introduce the image of an internal enemy into the public consciousness. Accompany repression with large-scale propaganda campaigns. A peculiar effect of “getting used to” mass tyranny was formed. The events of December 1, 1934 played a special role in spinning the flywheel of repression. On this day S.M. was killed in Leningrad. Kirov. On the same day, a resolution was adopted by the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee on the procedure for considering charges of preparing or committing terrorist acts. No more than 10 days were allotted for the investigation of these cases, they were considered without a prosecutor or lawyer, and sentences to capital punishment were carried out immediately. Command-administrative management methods also had a detrimental effect on the functioning of the political system of Soviet society. its development was contradictory and complex. The main one was the contradiction between the democratic form and the bureaucratic essence of the political system. This was largely due to the closed nature of the political system of Soviet society, which consisted in the fact that an exhaustive list of all the constituent elements of this system was determined in a constitutional manner (first it was the Constitution of the USSR of 1936, and subsequently the Constitution of the USSR of 1977. With excessive Centralization of executive power develops a kind of cancer - bureaucratization of the state apparatus. In this case, officials work formally, they use their positions for personal and selfish interests. Any bureaucratic apparatus is characterized by an uncontrollable growth of managerial staff.
2. The economic basis of the Soviet model of totalitarianism
In the USSR, totalitarianism as a phenomenon was formed almost immediately after the formation of the state, in the mid-20s of the 20th century. The totalitarian regime was the only way for the ruling RCP(b) to consolidate its position in the state and realize all its strategic goals.
The formation of Soviet totalitarianism
Initially, this form of authoritarian rule affected economic sphere: the Bolsheviks abolished the right of free labor, replacing it with coercion, partially militarized the economy and monopolized most enterprises.
To strengthen the totalitarian regime, members of the RCP(b) physically destroyed the opposition, thus establishing the sole dominance of their party. For the final emergence of totalitarianism, it was necessary to prepare fertile soil in the form of popular obedience.
The authorities began introducing the first ideological propaganda, which consisted of control of the media, ideological isolation of the country, a single ideological education, as well as the unification of spiritual life.
Totalitarianism in action
Historians consider the trial of the Essers in 1922 to be the beginning of the totalitarian machine. For the first time since the October Revolution, according to an official court decision, oppositionists were sentenced to death. By the end of the 20s, all opposition forces were eliminated by Stalin's entourage.
During this period, the functioning of forced labor camps began; thanks to Stalin’s foresight, they were built in Eastern Siberia back in 1919. One of the largest camps at that time was the Solovetsky camp, to which the so-called “enemies of the people” - White Guards, clergy, and kulaks - were sent.
The camp system reached its apogee in 1930, with the formation of the Gulag. Five years after its creation, there were more than one and a half million prisoners in the Gulag system. According to the results of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, at which the cult of Stalin was debunked, more than 20 million people laid down their lives in the Gulag camps, of which 97% were innocent.
During this period, denunciation was actively encouraged - any person had the opportunity to denounce his neighbor and accuse him of anti-state activities. The “guilty” was sent into exile without trial or investigation, and in the worst case, sentenced to death.
Mass repressions also affected artists and scientists who did not support government policy. Many scientists, writers, and artists were forced to secretly emigrate to the USA and European countries.
The main core of totalitarianism was the cult of the leader - Stalin. Having declared himself the only successor of the Leninist movement, Joseph Vissarionovich became the real leader of a great state.
Stalin very skillfully learned to deal with his opponents - he ordered his main competitor, L. Trotsky, to be killed, and the same fate befell Frunze and Kirov. With the help of ideological propaganda and punitive measures, the leader of totalitarianism secured for himself the “love and reverence” of the Soviet people.
The results of Soviet totalitarianism
The number of victims of Soviet totalitarianism is very close to the statistics of victims of fascism. during the period of Soviet totalitarianism, several million people were physically destroyed, many places of worship, which carried centuries-old cultural heritage, the right to freedom of worldview and religion was abolished.
Even the war did not stop the father of totalitarianism: the offending officers and soldiers were accused of betraying their homeland, and the civilian population who managed to escape from the fascist death camps faced accusations of treason against state interests and subsequent execution in their homeland.
After the death of Stalin, a period of political “thaw” began in Soviet society, but the echoes of totalitarianism will be felt by the people until the very end of the existence of the powerful empire Soviet Union.
As a result of the implementation of the totalitarian model of the 1930s - early 1950s. Radical changes took place in Soviet society. According to rough estimates, from 1929 to 1953, about 40 million people died in war, starved to death, were shot, convicted and sent into exile, which amounted to more than 20% of the country's population. Large-scale social, economic, and political processes have affected every family, every social group, every nation. The social structure was simplified; it included workers, collective farmers, intelligentsia and office workers. The simplification of the structure was facilitated by the nationalization of ownership of the means of production, which led to the formation of a huge state economy on the territory of one sixth of the world.
The uniqueness of the totalitarian model lay not only in the scale of the economy, but also in the unstable position of the ruling class - the nomenklatura. It did not have private ownership of the means of production, but could only dispose of the produced social product in the interests of the state. This new ruling class was formed from broad sections of the people through the party career. Repressions against the nomenklatura led to frequent renewal of the layer of managers, which prevented the transfer of social status by inheritance and the transformation of the nomenklatura into a caste. The official ideology did not oppose the ruling elite to the people, providing the opportunity for the average citizen to enter the nomenklatura while observing strict requirements of loyalty to the system.
The Russian village experienced a revolution that affected the relations of production and distribution of products, land use, and technical structure. Small-scale peasant farming, based on intensive manual labor, was preserved in personal subsidiary plots. This ensured the survival of collective farmers and, through market exchange, satisfied from 20 to 50% of the food needs of city residents. Collective and state farms were large farms that used agricultural machinery along with manual labor to produce products for state needs. Agriculture became the donor of industrialization, supplying raw materials, grain and labor.
The totalitarian model ensured high rates of industrialization, which allowed the creation of advanced heavy and mining industries within a decade. In the military and post-war period an extensive military-industrial complex was created, which became a “growth pole” and ensured the development of science, related industries, and defense infrastructure. Mobilization nature of industrialization, limitations internal resources accumulations and support for the world socialist system led to a chronic lag in industries producing consumer goods. Thus, industrial potential was created by artificially lowering consumption and reducing the living standards of the population.
Radical transformations and victory in the Great Patriotic War allowed the USSR to achieve such geopolitical power as never before in history Russian state. After the death of I.V. Stalin in 1953, the party and the whole country realized the need for renewal. The Soviet leadership wanted to prove the ability of the USSR to build a society where indicators of labor productivity, scientific and technological development, social security, and living standards of the population would be higher than in developed Western countries. The question arose about the formation of a model of advanced modernization.
It was necessary to find a way to transition from the mobilization version of economic development to a model of sustainable development. The limited efficiency and exhaustion of totalitarian growth resources (unequal exchange with the countryside, labor enthusiasm, consumption restrictions, forced labor) required the search for new resources and development incentives. Successor I.V. Stalin had to change the mechanism of decision-making and their execution, since no one could inherit the authority and charisma of the leader. Society felt the need to stabilize the social structure and internal connections, designed for evolutionary development without repression, mass migrations to cities, dispossession, deportations, and mobilizations into the army.
3. Formation of a hierarchical system of party-state power
The management structure of the USSR in this chapter is considered as the result of the constructive activity of the subject of power and the mechanism created by him, where the details and methods of combining them into a whole are at least not accidental. The elements of this mechanism were functional positions in the management system - positions of civil servants. Power consisted of an ordered set of positions and the relationships between them.
In jurisprudence, there are several levels of state hierarchies: macrostructure, mesostructure and ministructure. The macrostructure ultimately corresponded to the administrative-territorial division of the country into union republics, regions, territories, districts and settlements. The mesostructure is given internal structure government bodies and is not analyzed in this work. Ministructure is the positions and relationships between them. This chapter examines positions in the administrative apparatus of the USSR, correlated with the macrostructure - the levels of administrative-territorial division.
In Soviet jurisprudence, three branches of government were usually analyzed: administrative, representative and control. The administrative branch was formed by state bodies managing production, distribution, consumption, accounting, defense and security of the country, as well as law enforcement agencies. The representative branch was formed by the Councils of People's Deputies and their governing bodies. The control branch was formed by government bodies whose functions include legislative and regulatory activities (prosecutor's office, people's courts, State Arbitration, Committee of People's Control, Gosatomnadzor and similar national control institutions), as well as structural divisions ministries and departments) that supervise compliance with norms and rules (sanitary and epidemiological stations of the Ministry of Health, hunting inspectors, etc.).
In addition to the above three branches of government, this work introduces the concept of a fourth, political - Communist Party The Soviet Union, which, according to paragraph 6 of the Basic Law of the state, repealed only in 1990, was an element of the general structure of power. The CPSU was represented by a hierarchical set of positions in party committees at different levels of the macrostructure.
Positions in the branches of government were strictly fixed, as in official telephone directories. Lists of positions for functionaries of the management system acted as behavior patterns; they indicated who and on what issue should be contacted to resolve specific issues.
The following paragraphs provide a description of the levels of the macrostructure in the sequence that was specified by the hierarchy of administrative-territorial units before the start of perestroika. The description presents the logic of the organization of power in the USSR at the end of 1987. Over the next four years - until the collapse of the USSR - the organization of power underwent a “perestroika”, during which coordination and subordination ties between branches of government, between blocks of the macrostructure and within them were disrupted.
The branch of political leadership was headed Secretary General The Central Committee of the CPSU, to which the Secretary of the Central Committee - the head of the Secretariat of the Central Committee, and the secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee, supervising individual areas of management, were subordinate. There were at least two levels of secretarial hierarchy. The first level included secretaries - members of the Politburo, the second, secretaries of the Central Committee of parties of the union republics and first secretaries of regional party committees. The next level of the hierarchy of political leadership was made up of the heads of departments of the CPSU Central Committee, who exercise political leadership in propaganda, science, education and enlightenment, culture, construction, mechanical engineering, administrative bodies and all other spheres of public life. The first deputies and deputies supervising sub-sectors of the national economy and other areas of government were subordinate to the heads of departments. Instructors of the CPSU Central Committee were subordinate to the deputy heads of departments.
Subordination ties in the political branch of government were determined by the hierarchy of positions itself. Coordination ties were carried out by the Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee (the highest body of coordinating activities in the political branch) and through meetings of departments of the Central Committee. Coordinating relations within the branch of political leadership were necessary primarily because it was highly ramified: 12 secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee were subordinate to the head of the secretariat, each of whom oversaw the activities of 3-10 departments of the Central Committee.
The administrative branch was headed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, to whom the first deputy chairmen were subordinate. Some of the first deputies headed the working bodies of the Council of Ministers - the bureau for sectors of the national economy. Individual ministers of the USSR, depending on their membership in the coordinating governing body - the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee - occupied positions equivalent to first deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. These are the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Chairman of the State Security Committee and the Minister of Defense. The next level of the hierarchy of the administrative branch consisted of the posts of Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, some of whom were also heads of the bureau of the Council of Ministers. The differences between the first deputies and deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, who led the bureau, are related to state priorities in industry development policy. In particular, problems agro-industrial complex in one situation were more important than construction problems. Therefore, the chairman of Gosagroprom was the first deputy, and the chairman of Gosstroy was the deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
According to formal criteria, the first deputy ministers of foreign affairs, defense and the chairman of the State Security Committee could be correlated with the deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers in terms of rank and place in the hierarchy of administrative power. This means that their actual position is significantly higher than that indicated by the title of their positions. Such relationships have been observed in many other cases. It would seem that the bureau of the Council of Ministers should have overseen the sectors of the national economy represented by sets of ministries and departments. In reality this was far from the case. In particular, the USSR State Construction Committee controlled no more than 51% of capital investments in construction in the country.
Subordinate to the chairmen of the bureau of the Council of Ministers of the USSR were their first deputies in the rank of ministers of the USSR, members of the Council of Ministers and deputy chairmen. The administrative branch at this level of the macrostructure ended with the heads of the Union ministries and departments, the chairmen of the State Committees of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It is necessary to distinguish between State Committees at the rank of bureaus of the Council of Ministers (such as State Committee by education) and at the rank of ministries (Goskomtrud). Their first deputies and deputies were subordinate to the USSR ministers and chairmen of State Committees.
Coordination ties in the administrative branch were carried out through collegiums. The boards of ministries and departments usually included ministers, first deputies and deputy ministers, heads of leading central departments and departments, as well as heads of related sub-sectors of the national economy, and political leaders. The members of the board were appointed by order of the minister. Coordination ties in the administrative branch were complex primarily due to its extreme ramifications, which were represented by more than 100 Union ministries and departments. Starting from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the administrative branch of power at the level of chairmen of the bureau of the Council of Ministers branched into 12 sectors, each of which was divided into 8-10 sub-sectors. Each level of the hierarchy had its own coordination system. At the lower levels these are the already mentioned boards of ministries and departments. At the level of the Bureau of the Council of Ministers - the collegium of sectors of the national economy. At the level of first deputy chairmen of the Sonnet of Ministers - the Presidium of the Council of Ministers. Its composition, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, included the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, his first deputies and deputies, as well as individual ministers and chairmen of State Committees (according to the state status of the elements of the state structure they led). And finally, ministers, chairmen of the bureau of the Council of Ministers, their first deputies with the rank of ministers and chairmen of State Committees were members of the Council of Ministers of the USSR - the highest coordinating body of government for the administrative branch.
The representative branch of government was headed by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, to whom the first deputy and deputies - representatives of all union republics - were subordinate. The next level of hierarchy in this branch is the chairmen of the chambers of the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, who coordinated the activities of the chairmen of the standing commissions of the chambers of the Supreme Council. Members of the standing commissions, like all other functionaries of the representative branch, were chosen from among the deputies of the Supreme Council. Distinctive feature This branch was characterized by a nominal absence of subordination relations. Connections with her are, as it were, the reverse of subordination. Thus, the highest levels carried out decisions made by the highest legislative body of representative power - the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which coordinates the activities of the administrative and control branches of government. Coordination political activity was not within the competence of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Other coordinating bodies were the meetings of the standing commissions of the Supreme Council, the chambers of the Supreme Council and the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR - the working body of the representative branch. Unlike other branches of government, positions, excluding the highest in the hierarchy of power, were not fixed for specific functionaries. The chairmen of the chambers of the Supreme Council and the chairmen of the standing commissions were, as a rule, functionaries of other branches of government - administrative, political and control.
The control branch in this block of the macrostructure is specific in that it lacks the first leader. Already at the highest level of the hierarchy, the existence of many adjacent elements is specified, such as the Committee of People's Control, State Arbitration, the USSR Prosecutor's Office, the Supreme Court of the USSR, specialized state control institutions (Gosatomnadzor, Gosarkhkontrol, State Committee on Standards, Main Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press , and etc.). The same branch included divisions of ministries and departments that exercised departmental control: the sanitary-epidemiological service of the USSR Ministry of Health, the control and audit department of the USSR Ministry of Finance, hunting and fisheries surveillance services, etc.
Absence of a senior leader control services countries and their different departmentalities make it difficult to correlate positions in hierarchies. The highest leaders were the Prosecutor General of the USSR, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, the chairman of the People's Control Committee, while the ranks of the heads of other control services were somewhat lower (in particular, the heads of departmental inspectorates, deputy ministers of the relevant ministries). The positions subordinate to them, such as the Deputy Chief Sanitary Doctor of the USSR, go beyond the boundaries of the highest level of the macrostructure. First deputies and deputies were subordinate to the heads of control services. Subordination ties were set by the very structure of the branches of government, while coordination ties were implemented in the form of boards, presidiums, and meetings. There was no common coordinating body for all structural units of the control branch of government. To some extent, coordinating functions were carried out in bodies such as sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which adopted or repealed laws and norms.
Coordination ties at the highest level formed a structure of administrative, political, representative and control branches. The highest coordinating body for all branches was the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. Before the collapse of the CPSU, it included the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, part of the secretaries of the Central Committee, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and his first deputy, ministers of defense and foreign ministers, the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and his first deputy, the chairman of the Party Control Committee, for the first time secretaries of the Moscow City Committee, Leningrad Regional Party Committee and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party of Ukraine, Chairman of the Supreme Council and Council of Ministers of the RSFSR. Thus, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was formed by the highest leaders of all branches of government, except for the control branch. This reflected the role of law and law enforcement agencies in the functioning of the society management system. The coordinating role of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, if we talk about management tactics, was carried out by the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, in which senior leaders of the state and party, as well as heads of republican and regional party organizations, scientists and cultural figures took part.
The highest coordinating body implementing strategic management, was the congress of the CPSU. The functions of the congress included elections of the CPSU Central Committee (that is, the formation of a list of participants in the plenums of the CPSU Central Committee with decisive and advisory votes) and the determination of the main directions of the political and economic development of the country for long periods of time - the “five-year plan”.
In representative forms, coordinating bodies directed the activities of only three branches of government - administrative, representative and control. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR carried out the functions of operational coordination of activities. He passed decrees, others regulations, which became laws after approval by the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR included all the top leaders of the branches of government, including the control branch. The session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, according to the Constitution of the USSR, was the highest coordinating authority in the field of law and rule-making, as well as in appointment to senior positions in the administrative, representative and control branches. Sessions of the Supreme Sonnet of the USSR met twice a year, usually after plenums of the CPSU Central Committee, which made tactical political decisions, and specified these decisions as applied to the administrative and control branches of government. Representatives of all social groups of society were elected to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in approximately the same respects in which these groups are represented in the population. The deputies of the Supreme Council were almost all functionaries of the department, whose positions are shown in Figure 8, as well as the leaders of the Central Committees of parties of the union republics, regional (territorial) party organizations, chairmen of the Councils of Ministers of the union republics, regions. (region) executive committees of the RSFSR, Presidiums of the Supreme Soviets of the Union republics, heads of the most important enterprises and organizations from the state point of view.
The functioning of the social management system at the highest level of the macrostructure was determined in its main features by the CPSU Congress, which set development goals and means of achieving them for five years. The decisions of the congress were concretized in the “Main Directions for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR”, which were adopted by the session of the Supreme Council and became the laws of state functioning. The session of the Supreme Council approved appointments to senior positions in the administrative, representative and control branches of government.
totalitarianism esser repression power
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
The significance of Khrushchev's reforms. Reasons for the incompleteness of the economic reform of 1965 The emergence of crisis phenomena in the economy. The growth of negative trends in social and political life, the crisis of the ineffective command and administrative system of the USSR.
test, added 03/11/2010
Party-political work in the countryside during the war and its main directions: party penalties, removal from work, putting on trial. Command-administrative approach to agriculture, collective farms and collective farmers, the creation of emergency party bodies.
abstract, added 08/09/2009
Authoritarian regime in the Soviet Union. The nature of authoritarianism and the conditions for its emergence. The connection between authoritarianism and the command-administrative system. Sole power of Stalin. Cult of personality and repression, tightening political and ideological measures.
course work, added 01/16/2014
Basic prerequisites for the formation of the Soviet Union. Analysis of construction principles. Formation of new union republics. Characteristics of central and local authorities. Multi-stage nature of the electoral system. National policy of the USSR.
presentation, added 11/14/2013
Socio-economic and political changes in Russia in 1920-1930. Prerequisites for the formation of a totalitarian system. The struggle for power, the rise of I.V. Stalin. The meaning and goals of mass repression and terror of 1928-1941. Impact of censorship; GULAG system.
course work, added 04/08/2014
General picture of the demographic situation in the USSR. The growing dominance of equalization in wages. Deformation of the structure of the distribution of productive forces. Dynamics national composition population of the country. Reasons for uneven economic development.
abstract, added 12/20/2009
Description of the nature of the development of the Soviet economy in 1921-1928. The reasons and consequences of the introduction of the NEP policy, the prerequisites for its development of the model of building socialism into a command-administrative one. Transfer of the village to the “rails” of mass collectivization.
abstract, added 08/30/2009
Features of the causes and leading trends in socio-political life of the 40–50s in the USSR. Aspects of the work of repressive bodies controlled by Stalin and Beria. Specifics national policy, ideology and cultural activities of that time.
test, added 12/02/2011
Socio-economic prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR: disintegration processes, reforms of the political system, an attempt to strengthen executive power. The collapse of the USSR and the “parade of sovereignties”, the political and socio-economic consequences of this process.
test, added 03/12/2011
Prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR. Reform of the political system. Creation of a new government body - the Supreme Council. Changing attitudes towards religion. Creation of political parties and movements. Economic reform. Union of sovereign countries. Analysis of the causes of the collapse of the USSR.
