40 years of the "Brezhnev" Constitution

92
40 years of the "Brezhnev" Constitution

40 years ago, on October 7, 1977, the last Constitution of the USSR - "Brezhnev" - was adopted. On October 8, the new Constitution of the USSR was published in all the newspapers of the country.

The first Constitution in Russia was adopted in 1918 in connection with the formation of the RSFSR (Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic). After the establishment of the Soviet system, control functions, in accordance with the principle "All power to the Soviets!", were concentrated in the highest body of Soviet power. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 established that the supreme authority in the country is the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and in the period between congresses - the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). It differed in that, while granting civil liberties to the working class and the peasantry, it deprived the freedoms of all persons who had unearned income or used wage labor. In fact, the dictatorship of the proletariat was consolidated by the basic law of the state, strengthening the positions of the Bolshevik Party in the class struggle.



The second Constitution (the first in the USSR) was adopted in its final version by the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924 in connection with the formation of the Soviet Union. The Congress of Soviets of the USSR became the supreme body of state power, in the period between congresses - the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the USSR, and in the period between sessions of the CEC of the USSR - the Presidium of the CEC of the USSR. The Central Executive Committee of the USSR had the right to cancel and suspend acts of any authorities on the territory of the USSR (with the exception of the higher - the Congress of Soviets). The Presidium of the Central Executive Committee had the right to suspend and cancel the decisions of the Council of People's Commissars and individual people's commissariats of the USSR, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the Union republics.

On December 5, 1936, the second Constitution of the USSR was adopted in the USSR, which became part of history under the name "Stalin". As in the Constitution of the USSR of 1924, it was said here that the existence of the state is the merit of the working class and the result of the achievements of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The document pointed to the dominance of state property, and also recognized the existence of cooperative-collective farm property. However, this did not mean, however, that the state denied the existence of private property. The existence of small private farming in the countryside and handicraft activities was allowed, but without the use of hired labor. The right of citizens to personal property, as well as its inheritance, was protected by the state. Unlike the previous basic law, now the rights and freedoms became equal for all citizens of the country, regardless of belonging to a particular social class, and also regardless of what rights and freedoms are in question. The period of intense struggle was over.

At the 1961nd Congress of the CPSU in 7, it was noted that the Soviet state had grown from a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a nationwide one, and proletarian democracy had become a nationwide one. The congress considered it necessary to consolidate the new qualitative state of Soviet society and the state in the Basic Law. On October 1977, 21, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR unanimously approved the Constitution of the USSR. It was divided into a preamble, 9 chapters, 174 sections and contained XNUMX articles.

For the first time in Soviet constitutional history, the preamble became an integral part of the Basic Law. It traced the historical path of Soviet society, as a result of which the construction of a developed socialist state was considered. The preamble gave a description of the main features of this society. In Art. 1 spoke of the Soviet state as a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants and intelligentsia; working people of all nations and nationalities of the country. The Soviets of People's Deputies were fixed as a political basis.

The economic basis was socialist ownership of the means of production in the form of state (national) and collective-farm cooperative property. The Constitution provided for the personal property of citizens, which could contain household items, personal consumption, conveniences and auxiliary households, a residential building and labor savings. In the use of citizens could be plots of land provided for farming, horticulture and horticulture, as well as for individual housing construction.

The Constitution details the political system of the Soviet Union. The supreme legislative body was the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which consisted of two chambers: the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. Chambers were equal (Article 109), consisted of an equal number of deputies. The Council of the Union was elected by electoral districts, the Council of Nationalities was elected according to the norm: 32 deputies from each union republic, 11 from an autonomous, 5 from an autonomous region, and one deputy from an autonomous district (Article 110). Sessions of the Supreme Council were convened twice a year. A law was considered adopted if in each of the chambers a majority of the total number of deputies of the chamber voted for it (Article 114). The highest executive and administrative body was the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which was formed by the Supreme Council. The supreme judicial power belonged to the Supreme Court, which was also elected by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

The strength of the "Brezhnev" Constitution was the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. Indeed, the time of L. I. Brezhnev was in some respects the "golden age" of the Soviet Union. This is a time of breakthroughs in space and military affairs, respect for the Soviet superpower in the international arena, stable development of the national economy, security that all Soviet citizens felt, consistent improvement in the lives of the majority of the population, etc. True, most residents of the Soviet Union understood this only after the collapse THE USSR. When they felt all the delights of “early capitalism”, and in some places neo-feudalism and other archaism (especially in the republics of Central Asia).

The 1977 Constitution significantly expanded the rights and freedoms of citizens. To the previously established rights were now added the right to health protection, housing, the use of cultural heritage, the right to participate in the management of state and public affairs, to make proposals to state bodies, to criticize shortcomings in their work. For the first time, the right of citizens to appeal against the actions of any officials in court was envisaged (Article 58). However, the mechanism for the implementation of this right was not established, which could not but affect the reality of its implementation. The constitution has fixed new forms of direct democracy: popular discussion and referendum (item 5).

The following duties of citizens received a detailed interpretation: to observe the Constitution and laws; respect the rules of socialist community life; bear with dignity the high title of a citizen of the USSR; work conscientiously and observe labor discipline; preserve and strengthen socialist property; protect the interests of the Soviet state and contribute to the strengthening of its power, protect the socialist Fatherland; fight waste and promote public order.

Thus, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 consolidated the victory of developed socialism and significantly expanded the rights of citizens. Many of its foundations would be useful in modern Russia, which needs to restore social justice.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    October 7 2017
    Thus, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 consolidated the victory of developed socialism and significantly expanded the rights of citizens. Many of its foundations would be useful in modern Russia, which needs to restore social justice.
    I agree with the author in many respects, but not in everything.
    This article allowed the party organs to interfere in the economic activities of the state and not be responsible for anything
    Article 6. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the guiding and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
    Armed with Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Communist Party determines the general outlook for the development of society, the line of internal and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great creative activity of the Soviet people, and gives a systematic, scientifically substantiated character to its struggle for the victory of communism.
    All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.
    1. +7
      October 7 2017
      Quote: Amurets
      But this article allowed the party bodies to interfere in the economic activities of the state and not be responsible for anything

      Yes, all these constitutions were written to please the ruling party.
      Expressing the will of the Soviet people and fulfilling their instructions...
      hypocrisy. In such a short time, under the same government, four constitutions. This is fine? In the USA for 200 years one, with amendments.
      1. +14
        October 7 2017
        Quote: verner1967
        In such a short time .. four constitutions. .. In the USA for 200 years one, with amendments.

        "for 200 years one, with amendments"- and that one is not being fulfilled. In England, there is still not one and there was not, and nothing, they do not suffer from this at all. Maybe it's not the constitution at all?
        1. +3
          October 7 2017
          Quote: venaya
          "for 200 years one, with amendments" - and that one is not fulfilled.

          why did you decide so?
          Quote: venaya
          In England, there, there is still not one, and there never was,

          here you are wrong, it is there, just not in the same form as we have, but it is.
          Quote: venaya
          Maybe it's not in the constitution at all?

          The constitution is the basic law of the country, how could it be without it?
          1. +8
            October 7 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            "In England, over there, there is still not one (constitution) and there has not been," - here you are wrong, it is, just not in the same form as we have ..

            That's interesting, please share your discovery, otherwise no one has seen it yet (probably hidden). By the way, it seems to me that the first constitution was written for the Poles in England, by order of their elites interested in this. And to be more careful, besides our "Stalin" of the 36th year, the rest also seem to have been written under the dictation of external customers. Kon-stity-tion - as I understand it, the form of limitation of the basic "horses", and naturally limiting the field of possibilities for subsequentcongivers, well, like a certain primary religious attitude. In principle, the British never needed this, they themselves established similar (Protestant) restrictions, and in other countries. Now the situation in the world has changed somewhat, but not significantly.
            1. 0
              October 7 2017
              Quote: venaya
              That's interesting, please share your discovery, otherwise no one has seen it yet (probably hidden).

              yeah, in your concept, the constitution is such a book, but it (your concept) cannot be the only and correct one. Type in the search engine "Constitution of Great Britain" and you will find.
              Quote: venaya
              By the way, it seems to me that the first constitution for the Poles was written in England

              what difference does it make to whom, what and where they wrote, the constitution is either there or not.
              1. +9
                October 7 2017
                Quote: verner1967
                .. the constitution either is or is not.

                For a better understanding of what you just wrote, let me remind you of a parable: "The tyrant gathered his wise men and said to them: I will do, and you must explain what I am doing". In England, from time immemorial, this is precisely the situation that exists. All English legal legislation is based on the concept of CASE LAW. Never in the entire history of England did they have a written constitution, that is, horses established by someone. Sites on the Internet are best characterized by the not very common concept of "chutzpah", try to figure out what it is - usually it is an outrageous violation of any logic, try to realize it. By the way, they often write to me without thinking, referring to sky-high nonsense. hands, I just don’t even understand how to answer in these cases.When people learned to use the Internet, it seems they stopped using their own brain, this is a very bad thing.Try to think: is all information from the Internet worthy of citation, because before 99% the information in it is just misinformation. Please don't fall for her.
                1. +1
                  October 7 2017
                  Quote: venaya
                  Never in the history of England did they have a written constitution.

                  And I told you right away that their constitution is not what you imagine. And then, you wrote a lot, but it's all blah blah blah, the political system of Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy, no matter what you imagine yourself there
                  1. +5
                    October 7 2017
                    Quote: verner1967
                    The British government is a constitutional monarchy

                    Is there a Constitution in the UK or not? If not, what kind of "constitutional monarchy" are you talking about?
                    Everywhere in the world, Great Britain is considered to be a limited constitutional monarchy. No matter how...

                    - The Queen of England has the right to DECLARATION WAR without legal restrictions and without giving reasons and without coordinating it with anyone and without requiring permission;
                    - the English queen has the right to dismiss the government (similarly);
                    - The Queen of England has the right to dissolve Parliament;
                    - once a year, she speaks to the parliament and voices her demands for the near future (that is, she actually forms the policy of the state);
                    - to appoint the prime minister (moreover, whoever he wants, and not necessarily the head of the party that won the election);
                    - leads the armed forces, etc.
                    YOU CAN SAY ONE THING:
                    THE "CONSTITUTIONALITY" OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY IS ONLY A FORMALIST LIGHTNING ROD OF PEOPLE'S ANGER FROM THE CROWN TO THE PARLIAMENT UNDER THE QUEEN'S CONTROL. AND BRITAIN IS THE STILL EMPIRE, ONLY IN A MODIFIED FORMAT.
                    1. 0
                      October 7 2017
                      Quote: badens1111
                      Everywhere in the world, Great Britain is considered to be a limited constitutional monarchy. No matter how...
                      - The Queen of England has the right to DECLARATION WAR without legal restrictions and without giving reasons and without coordinating it with anyone and without requiring permission;
                      - the English queen has the right to dismiss the government (similarly);
                      - The Queen of England has the right to dissolve Parliament;
                      - once a year, she speaks to the parliament and voices her demands for the near future (that is, she actually forms the policy of the state);
                      - to appoint the prime minister (moreover, whoever he wants, and not necessarily the head of the party that won the election);
                      - leads the armed forces, etc.

                      and where is it written?
                  2. +2
                    October 7 2017
                    You've already been completely dug up enough to disgrace yourself.
                    1. 0
                      October 7 2017
                      Quote: Ken71
                      enough embarrassment.

                      in front of whom? laughing Allegations? laughing
                      1. +4
                        October 7 2017
                        Quote: verner1967
                        in front of whom?

                        Before the VO user community.
                2. +2
                  October 7 2017
                  Reading your comments, most people came to the conclusion that you didn’t use your own brain even before the advent of the Internet, this is a very bad thing. Are you by any chance A. Samsonov? If you think well, then 99% "info" in the articles of a respected author and in your comments is not even "just misinformation", but a complete X. Materials classified as X.
          2. +1
            October 7 2017
            and the number of amendments will not tell how much? Maybe it's easier to rewrite or the mind is not enough for a new one?
            1. 0
              October 8 2017
              Quote: rumatam
              Maybe it's easier to rewrite or the mind is not enough for a new one?

              The constitution is the fundamental law of the country, then what the state rests on, if this support is constantly changed, then the state will collapse, which was demonstrated to us in the 91st
      2. +8
        October 7 2017
        And the current one was written for whose sake? And to what people is it intended? And under whose dictation was it written?
        1. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: EvgNik
          And the current one was written for whose sake?

          and why is it written? According to the principle, "I feel bad, but my neighbor is even worse"?
      3. +12
        October 7 2017
        Quote: verner1967
        arisianism. In such a short time, under the same government, four constitutions. This is fine? In the USA for 200 years one, with amendments.

        In the US, 200 years of capitalism and it does not change. Socialism was built in the USSR, the superstructure and the basis were constantly developing, these new transformations were constantly developing and were reflected in the new editions of the Constitution.
        And why, for example, do you not like the Stalin Constitution, which, as I understand it, your ancestors, offended by the Soviet government, returned all the rights that were limited by the Constitutions of 1918 and 1924.
        1. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: Alexander Green
          Socialism was built in the USSR, the superstructure and the basis were constantly developing, these new transformations were constantly developing and were reflected in the new editions of the Constitution.

          and that, every time there was a new socialism? Or do you want to say that it was built and the construction was completed?
          1. +7
            October 7 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            and that, every time there was a new socialism? Or do you want to say that it was built and the construction was completed?

            Didn't you understand? The constitutions reflected the development of the base and the superstructure. The first Constitution of 1924 was the Constitution of the transitional period, it provided for the restriction of the rights of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements. The Stalinist Constitution gave these rights to all citizens of the USSR. The 1977 constitution sealed the victory of socialist relations.
            1. 0
              October 7 2017
              Quote: Alexander Green
              The constitutions reflected the development of the base and the superstructure.

              So I say, it was written for the sake of power. The rights of citizens should be the same regardless of the political system
              1. +1
                October 7 2017
                Quote: verner1967
                The rights of citizens should be the same regardless of the political system

                And where, according to the 1977 constitution, did citizens have different rights? Just in chapter 6, it was said about the equality of citizens in all areas, regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.
                1. 0
                  October 7 2017
                  Quote: SERGUS
                  And where, according to the 1977 constitution, did citizens have different rights?

                  and if you compare the evolution of constitutions from 1924 to 1977, I’m talking about this, read all the posts, and don’t pull it out of context
              2. +4
                October 7 2017
                Quote: verner1967
                So I say, it was written for the sake of power. The rights of citizens should be the same regardless of the political system

                Well, if you look like that, then all the constitutions of the whole world are written for the sake of the authorities, you can also say that the criminal code (for example) was written for the sake of the police and try to prove the opposite.
                And where in the 1977 constitution does it say that citizens have different rights? Just in chapter 6 it is said that citizens in all spheres have the same rights, regardless of race, religion, origin, etc.
                1. 0
                  October 7 2017
                  Quote: SERGUS
                  And where in the 1977 constitution does it say that citizens have different rights?

                  see above
              3. +2
                October 7 2017
                [quote = verner1967] The rights of citizens should be the same regardless of the political system [/ quote]
                should be the same regardless of the political system [/ quote]

                I explain why it is impossible after the victory of the socialist revolution to give the same rights to all citizens of the country, i.e. why it is necessary to limit the rights of counter-revolutionary and other bourgeois elements. I show this on the example of Nicaragua.
                In 1979, the Democratic Sandinista Revolution won in Nicaragua. Power was taken over by the Sandinista National Liberation Front, which declared itself a Marxist organization. Its leader Daniel Ortega began the restructuring of the political regime on the model of Cuba and the USSR, began to carry out the nationalization of industry and agrarian collectivization. However, the political opposition and private entrepreneurship were not completely destroyed, both were allowed to a limited extent (as in the days of the NEP in the USSR).
                But the counter-revolution, with the support of the United States, unleashed a civil war, the active phase of the war lasted for 6 years. The people are tired, therefore, despite the fact that the successes of the contras were limited, the Ortega government nevertheless agreed to go to a political dialogue, and in 1988 concludes an agreement with the contras, according to which the civil war is stopped, the opposition is legalized, free presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled .
                As a result of the 1990 elections, the Sandinistas are defeated. A pro-American government comes to power, headed by a representative of big business, Violetta Barrios de Chamorro. Her government immediately began to implement a set of liberal reforms in the political and economic system, i.e. began the restoration of capitalism.

                If the Bolsheviks in the 20s had retreated from the dictatorship of the proletariat and had not restricted the rights of the counter-revolution and other bourgeois elements, then we would already have had the restoration of capitalism in the 20s.
                But still, in the USSR, as a result of the global betrayal of the Khrushchev leadership and the political myopia of the majority of communists and Soviet people who did not even understand what had happened, in 1961, at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, a new Party Program was adopted, in which it was written that the dictatorships of the proletariat exhausted itself, that the Soviet state is now a state of the whole people, and the CPSU is the party of all the people. This refusal was enshrined in the 1977 Constitution. The result is known - the restoration of capitalism and the collapse of the USSR.

                It was impossible to retreat from the dictatorship of the proletariat, it was a departure from Marxism, which teaches that the dictatorship of the proletariat must be preserved throughout the entire transitional period from capitalism to communism, and this is the entire first phase of communism (socialism), under which we lived.
                1. 0
                  October 7 2017
                  Quote: Alexander Green
                  I explain why it is impossible after the victory of the socialist revolution to give the same rights to all citizens of the country,

                  Well, that's what I said that the constitution was written by the authorities for their beloved
                  1. +2
                    October 8 2017
                    Quote: verner1967
                    Quote: Alexander Green
                    I explain why it is impossible after the victory of the socialist revolution to give the same rights to all citizens of the country,

                    Well, that's what I said that the constitution was written by the authorities for their beloved

                    Dear,. you still need to read a textbook on historical materialism. And then you remind the ensign from a joke.
                    The ensign at the Kalashnikov assault rifle class explains: "This is a butt, it is made of wood. This is a fore-end, it is made of the same material."
                    After these words, he raises Private Ivanov: "Private Ivanov, what material is the handguard made of?"
                    Ivanov jumps up and clearly answers: "From wood, comrade ensign!"
                    To which the ensign replies: "The answer is incorrect. From the same material"

                    I explain again. After the socialist revolution, the exploiting classes lose their rights, and they threaten the restoration of capitalism. It's done workers' and peasants' government in the interests of the majority of the people, namely the working class and the working peasantry
                    1. 0
                      October 8 2017
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      in the interests of the majority of the people,

                      that's because they acted in the interests of the "majority of the people" and got a civil war, devastation and famine. Wouldn't it be better to take into account the opinion of the whole people? Well, yes, this is such stupidity, then the Soviet government would not have lasted even a month. Having rested against ideological dogmas about
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      workers' and peasants' power,
                      Quote: Alexander Green
                      the majority of the people, namely the working class and the working peasantry
                      you are reminiscent of the same ensign who, apart from these stamps, knows nothing.
          2. +1
            October 7 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            and that, every time there was a new socialism? Or do you want to say that it was built and the construction was completed?

            The construction was completed by the honorary builder Mikhail Gorbachev! There is a difference in approaches: in the USSR, a new constitution was written every time, in the USA, as far as I know, it is impossible to change the text of the constitution, only amendments can be applied, as a result, only amendments are practically valid at the moment.
            1. 0
              October 7 2017
              Quote: SERGUS
              only amendments can be applied, as a result, only amendments are practically valid at the moment.

              amendments are not a change to the constitution as a whole
              1. +1
                October 9 2017
                Quote: verner1967
                amendments are not a change to the constitution as a whole

                There are just so many of them that the constitution "which has not changed for 200 years" is just a formality, from the amendments you can draw up a new constitution and not brag, so we say that we have the right democracy and one constitution for all ages.
    2. +5
      October 7 2017
      Quote: Amurets
      allowed party organs to interfere in the economic activities of the state and not be responsible for anything

      I agree, Kolya, I watched from the inside, the desks were engaged only in production, nothing else interested them.
      1. +3
        October 7 2017
        Quote: EvgNik
        Desk cells were engaged only in production, they were not interested in anything else.

        And most importantly, they did not answer for anything.
        1. +4
          October 7 2017
          Why answer for anything? An alcoholic was accepted into the party, I voted against it alone, although I myself am not a saint. They say: We will educate, after 2 years he died, he drank a solvent instead of vodka.
    3. +5
      October 7 2017
      Quote: Amurets
      All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.

      Are the current "party members" from the ruling party responsible for something? At the same time, this does not prevent the liberal course of this party from destroying the remnants of the country's industrial base.
      One "entry" to the WTO is worth something.
      1. +2
        October 7 2017
        Quote: Sovetskiy
        All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.

        Well, let's say this quote is from the 6th chapter of the constitution, and not mine. What about the rest? So nothing has changed except the name of the party
        1. +1
          October 7 2017
          Quote: Amurets
          Quote: Sovetskiy
          All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.

          Well, let's say this quote is from the 6th chapter of the constitution, and not mine. What about the rest? So nothing has changed except the name of the party

          The question arises: "And to hell with this circus with" democracy "and" freedom "(true, what was the need for" freedom "? If the 1977 Constitution was present, the phrase - Socialist democracy"), if in essence there is nothing at the top changed?) For the sake of dividing (robbery) of socialist property, which created the benefits of society at the expense (without obsceneness) of the exploits of the working people, it was necessary to ruin the state in order to get "nothings" for individual farmers? So for this, there is the Criminal Code with an indication of the article of the same name, but we have the State Duma, which saves from the Criminal Code, and therefore the authorities are not subject to jurisdiction, because they won! But the question is: "For how long?"
      2. +1
        October 7 2017
        Quote: Sovetskiy
        Are the current "party members" from the ruling party responsible for something?

        of course, for nothing, they are the direct heirs of "those" party members, and those who survived remained in power, why be surprised?
        1. +2
          October 7 2017
          Quote: verner1967
          Quote: Sovetskiy
          Are the current "party members" from the ruling party responsible for something?

          of course, for nothing, they are the direct heirs of "those" party members, and those who survived remained in power, why be surprised?

          If you judge by the actions that took place in the 90s, then this is similar to the current Communist Party, which is not the heir to the CPSU (substitution of terms for "Suckers") but does not apply to true communists in any way. Got it?
          1. 0
            October 7 2017
            Quote: Sovetskiy
            but in no way refers to the true communists.

            you look at the names of these leaders, and then read their biographies, all from the CPSU or Komsomol functionaries or their children
            Quote: Sovetskiy
            Got it?
    4. +4
      October 7 2017
      I would like to speak about the interference of Party organs in the economic activity of the state. At the level of the State Planning Commission, ministries and allied departments, there was certainly control over the implementation of the decisions made. And how without it. At the enterprise level, there was only intervention if the enterprise ceased to operate normally. In this case, indeed, the party bodies of the highest instance, for their part, dealt with personnel and problems. I found all this and know both from my own experience and from observing the work of my father and his colleagues in the highest instances of the Soviet state. In fact, economic activity was still more controlled by ministries and departments, and party control over economic activity was not great and was rather reduced to control over the appointment of leading cadres. And as I understand it today, this control was not very objective. Otherwise, how can one understand that the former communist directors in the 90s overnight turned into quite capitalists. Wow control over personnel and activities. By and large, he didn't have a damn thing.
    5. +4
      October 7 2017
      As for not answering for anything, I won’t announce. There was a Party Control Committee and there was demand and hard for economic jambs and the like. Another thing is that party bodies often removed themselves from the leadership (and often were the initiators of that mess in the republics) by the end of 80 -X.
      Quote: Amurets
      Thus, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 consolidated the victory of developed socialism and significantly expanded the rights of citizens. Many of its foundations would be useful in modern Russia, which needs to restore social justice.
      I agree with the author in many respects, but not in everything.
      This article allowed the party organs to interfere in the economic activities of the state and not be responsible for anything
      Article 6. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the guiding and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
      Armed with Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Communist Party determines the general outlook for the development of society, the line of internal and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great creative activity of the Soviet people, and gives a systematic, scientifically substantiated character to its struggle for the victory of communism.
      All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.
      1. +2
        October 7 2017
        Quote: 210ox
        Another thing is that the party bodies often removed themselves from the leadership (and often were the initiators of that mess in the republics) by the end of the 80s.

        This is where you should have started. At the local level, very often, whether for career reasons or for other reasons, such decisions were sometimes made, you are still horrified, and the business executives were responsible for this, fulfilling the decisions of the plenums of city committees and district committees, and not the district committees and city committees of the CPSU who made these decisions.
    6. +1
      October 7 2017
      Article 6
      everyone lives perestroika myths. Now it seems there is no such clause in the constitution. But ... first Our House Russia, now United Russia, still leading and guiding
  2. +3
    October 7 2017
    Indeed, the time of L. I. Brezhnev was in some respects the "golden age" of the Soviet Union. This is a time of breakthroughs in space and military affairs, respect for the Soviet superpower in the international arena, stable development of the national economy, security that all Soviet citizens felt, consistent improvement in the lives of the majority of the population, etc.

    ... work conscientiously and observe labor discipline; preserve and strengthen socialist property; protect the interests of the Soviet state and contribute to the strengthening of its power, protect the socialist Fatherland; combat waste and promote public order....

    Everything is correct! I remember that day well. It was Friday ... And when they heard the message about the adoption of the new Constitution, the people immediately realized that they (the people) had "taken" a day off on December 5 (Constitution Day), and the next day off regarding the adoption of the new one would be only three years later ... And the transfer of holidays that fall on weekends could not have occurred to anyone .... This is how the work schedule was compacted ....
    And now .... Walk, I don’t want to ....
  3. +3
    October 7 2017
    One joint was article 6 .. And so .. you can’t say bad things about her ...
    1. +1
      October 7 2017
      Quote: parusnik
      One joint was article 6 .. And so .. you can’t say bad things about her ...

      this cant crosses out a lot, but promising and fulfilling is not the same thing
  4. +11
    October 7 2017
    The strength of the "Brezhnev" Constitution was the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. .. This is a time of breakthroughs in space and military affairs, respect for the Soviet superpower in the international arena, stable development of the national economy, security that all Soviet citizens felt, consistent improvement in the lives of the majority of the population, etc. True, most residents of the Soviet Union understood this only after the collapse of the USSR.

    “We don’t keep what we have lost, crying lost” - then we were all so used to all forms of guarantees of all kinds of stability in our lives that we foolishly thought that this would certainly not leave us. It's gone, and how it's gone - tens of millions of lives have been lost, industrial losses exceeded the losses in WWII by an order of magnitude in the complete absence of any guarantees for future prospects, and you can’t list everything.
  5. +6
    October 7 2017
    Oh, there was a time, reinforced concrete confidence in the future, stagnation, however!
    1. +13
      October 7 2017
      Yes, nostalgia is not about the party now, but about that confidence in the future, about peace of mind for the future of children ... It was a good time, don’t say it ...
  6. +7
    October 7 2017
    The constitution of a society whose law of life is the concern of all for the welfare of each.

    Somehow now I point-blank do not notice Chubais's concern for my personal well-being. sad
    1. +11
      October 7 2017
      I agree and subscribe to every word!
    2. +1
      October 7 2017
      Quote: Gormengast
      Somehow now I point-blank do not notice Chubais's concern for my personal well-being.

      Why should anyone care about your welfare? And we also scold the consumer society when we ourselves come from there
      1. +8
        October 7 2017
        Quote: verner1967
        Why should anyone care about your welfare?

        And who will take care of a student? A lonely pensioner? A young mother? A large family?
        I see you are passionate about social Darwinism, and it’s not far from it to slide down to Nazism .. the same for me, a representative of the "superior race" from among those who have become rich drastically ..
        Many of you have divorced with similar views, and among the people your reasoning is already encountering a corresponding reaction, but I won’t guess what will happen next, but the fact, with your views, can only speak on the Internet, in reality they may consider yours differently claims..
        1. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: badens1111
          a representative of the "superior race" from among the sharply enriched ..

          Well, yes, they raised their pension, so I got rich laughing
          Quote: badens1111
          And who will take care of a student? A lonely pensioner? A young mother? A large family?

          you need to take care of yourself at a working age, and if a misfortune happened, and life just threw it to the sidelines, then, for example, in the USA (and someone here said that the constitution does not work there) there are decent benefits for such people. The state must provide one thing, the opportunity to work and have a decent reward for this.
          1. +5
            October 8 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            The state must provide one thing, the opportunity to work and have a decent reward for this.

            This state does not provide this. Unlike the USSR.
      2. +3
        October 7 2017
        Quote: verner1967
        Why should anyone care about your welfare?

        Well, yes, well, yes, teachers' salaries are small? So you can do business after school. With such an attitude, it will soon be like in ancient Japan to send old people to the forest so as not to feed them. It seems to me that we are losing our human face, we are only thinking how to snatch a bigger piece.
        1. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: SERGUS
          Well, yes, well, yes, teachers' salaries are small?

          is it? My wife, a nurse, gets half as much as a teacher and nothing, we live and don't eat)))
          1. 0
            October 8 2017
            My wife, a nurse, gets half as much as a teacher and nothing, we live and don't eat

            And most, dear, to earn what? Out of order....
          2. 0
            October 9 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            My wife, a nurse, gets half as much as a teacher and nothing, we live and don't eat)))

            I also know a nurse who works in the countryside, so to speak, and her salary is mere pennies. And she also lives and does not whine, only A - this does not mean that it should be so, and B - does not make our teachers a prosperous population. If you think that a modest apartment on a mortgage for 15 years and a cheap car on credit is the pinnacle of our country's development, then you can live and enjoy, but only I, and as I see it, many people are not happy with this state of affairs. Russia with its natural and mental resources deserves something else. And there is no need to shout, let it be better that way, otherwise there will be a civil war in Ukraine, as history shows, trampling in one place does not lead to anything good. I do not call for running into the street and blocking roads, I would like our authorities to think about this, but they have your position:
            Quote: verner1967
            Why should anyone care about your welfare?

            and this "Well, yes, well, yes, teachers' salaries are small? So you can do business after school" (the essence of the conversation at one of the meetings of our prime minister with teachers) I cited as proof of this.
  7. +4
    October 7 2017
    Thus, the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 consolidated the victory of developed socialism and significantly expanded the rights of citizens. Many of its foundations would be useful in modern Russia, which needs to restore social justice.

    I hope that the GDP will find the strength to correct the constitution written for us by the penguins. The people will certainly support the abolition of the odious articles on the supremacy of international law (no one has this), on the independence of the central bank, and on the absence of ideology.
    1. 0
      October 11 2017
      Quote: Rostislav

      I hope that the GDP will find the strength to correct the constitution written for us by the penguins. The people will certainly support the abolition of the odious articles on the supremacy of international law (no one has this), on the independence of the central bank, and on the absence of ideology.
      I hope so too. I want to add that not everyone knows about this until now. Perhaps the mind rejects such wildness that the great USSR became controlled by the states. colony.
  8. +4
    October 7 2017
    Actually, "leading and guiding" concerned more politics, as can be seen from the text. Perfectly normal. Otherwise, it was supposed to be a redundant control system, which is also not bad at all. That fools got into high positions and began to draw devils - I’m not quite sure somehow, I didn’t observe such people myself. Their comrades-in-arms either deprived the idiots of the opportunity to steer, or pushed them out of sin.
    Numerous stories about screeching party nomenklatura who forced to sow almost into the snow, just to report - artistic exaggerations of the time of preparation for the destruction of the USSR. Because then we would simply die of hunger.
    1. 0
      October 7 2017
      Quote: groks
      Actually, "leading and guiding" concerned more politics, as can be seen from the text.

      so let them be engaged in politics, and not climb into the economy
      Quote: groks
      Perfectly normal.

      nothing normal, where is the competition, why did they consider themselves the only correct and infallible? The result is logical in 1991.
      Quote: groks
      Otherwise, it was supposed to be a redundant control system, which is also not bad at all.

      yeah, to feed not one official, but two, besides, "seven nannies have a child without an eye"
      Quote: groks
      Their comrades-in-arms either deprived the idiots of the opportunity to steer, or pushed them out of sin.

      Well, yes, and when a boarding house of decrepit senile people rules the country, then who will move whom?
      1. +6
        October 7 2017
        And they definitely climbed, these are not the tales of those who slammed our country? That's when serious production stopped in the Far East, the first secretary came pretty quickly. And he never even yelled. He asked how he could help.
        They changed the general secretary to a younger one - he ruined our country. Fine?
        Here L.I. spoke (I respect him very much!) indistinctly, for which there were reasons, in fact, he spoke uninterestingly, but everything seemed to be not bad in the country. Since then, they have been saying better and better, but the result is negative. So can find someone with a broken jaw? wink
        And in general, if I need to sweep the apartment, then I don’t tear down the walls and don’t bite off the balcony. Now we are also feeding many officials, the State Duma, in which they are now deciding the most important issue - to pray before meetings or after. And us all the time then? We feed EdRu - indirectly, but we feed. What they are doing is incomprehensible to the mind. For such cases, an official of any level would be sentenced to the VSW.
        1. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: groks
          That's when serious production stopped in the Far East, the first secretary came pretty quickly.

          you do not notice the strangeness in your sentence?
          Quote: groks
          stopped serious production

          How is that? Why? If this is a serious production, then it should not stop.
          Quote: groks
          the first secretary arrived pretty quickly

          from here what? In a normal country, the management of the corporation will throw out the production director of the unlucky one and recruit a team of professionals who will not allow the enterprise to stop. For forced downtime, hard workers are paid only part of the salary, so think about who cares more about them. Watch the Soviet film "Premiya", starring Leonov. It seems like an ordinary Soviet film on a production theme, but what problems of that time does it raise.
          1. 0
            October 8 2017
            Baby babbling. All pieces of iron tend to break. And in 24/7/365 production, in fact, repairs are ongoing. Well, there is nothing to discuss here, with those who have not worked on this. So the director can be removed only with the wording "I could not cancel the laws of the universe."
            And the first one could, for example, ask for a few assistants at another enterprise. If it was really hard.
        2. 0
          October 7 2017
          Quote: groks
          They changed the secretary general to a younger one - he ruined our country

          like this, one came and ruined ... and the men came from dinner and everything was in ruins .... what kind of country is this, which collapsed from a poke with a finger?
          1. 0
            October 8 2017
            All this has been discussed many times and there is no point in repeating it.
      2. +2
        October 7 2017
        when the boarding house of decrepit senile people rules the country, then who will move whom

        well, is it better now? fool
        young, and not very, impudent, quick-tempered, thieving, very thieving. negative decades of wholesale hopeless unpunished robbery in Russia is better?! negative
        BECOME A DEVELOPING ECONOMY!!! negative
        1. +5
          October 7 2017
          Quote from serry
          BECOME A DEVELOPING ECONOMY!!!

          As long as the bearers of views like verner1967 rule the ball, we will trudge along in the convoy.
          Even if, in some way, we are demonstrating something .. though everything is from the reserves of the USSR, which this writer curses ..
          1. 0
            October 7 2017
            Quote: badens1111
            though everything is from the stocks of the USSR,

            And what do we have left in stock?
          2. 0
            October 7 2017
            Quote: badens1111
            As long as the bearers of views like verner1967 rule the ball, we will trudge along in the convoy.

            in what? The advanced countries of the world, because they don’t have the Constitution of the USSR, so it’s not about her. When you stop whining about handouts from the state, then you will be a locomotive.
            Don't ask what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
            D.F. Kennedy. hi
  9. +1
    October 7 2017
    The most "communist" constitution was in Portugal, after Salazar's dokhtur. Did not help :)
  10. 0
    October 7 2017
    In principle, the constitution is not bad. If you follow it.
  11. 0
    October 7 2017
    Just pick up the wounds. What now to talk about what was lost and can not be returned crying Our country was great...
  12. +3
    October 7 2017
    And I agree with Comrade Brezhnev's position! I personally have no complaints about this comrade. Apparently this was the happiness that clicked.
    1. +8
      October 7 2017
      Quote: Petrol cutter
      I personally have no complaints about this comrade. Apparently this was the happiness that clicked

      For the first time, the right of citizens to appeal against the actions of any officials in court was envisaged (Article 58). True, the mechanism for the implementation of this right was not established, which could not but affect the reality of its implementation.

      If this right worked now, it would not matter to the social system ... but - this (specifically this !!) right does not work so far.
      My regrets request
      1. +2
        October 8 2017
        May be. It may not be. I was too young in those days. One thing I know as a working person (now in defense production) is that earlier there was confidence in the future. Now she is gone. Such is the squiggle.
  13. 0
    October 7 2017
    Quote: badens1111
    Before the VO user community.

    yes you have mania, my friend laughing
  14. +2
    October 7 2017
    Author, you wrote in the month of August that the Bolsheviks are scoundrels and we just need to return the monarchy. And now it turns out we need a "Brezhnev Constitution". Do you have a split personality? I am outraged by the fact that you did not link the constitution to the Russian matrix.
  15. 0
    October 8 2017
    Quote: verner1967
    Quote: venaya
    "for 200 years one, with amendments" - and that one is not fulfilled.

    why did you decide so?
    Quote: venaya
    In England, there, there is still not one, and there never was,

    here you are wrong, it is there, just not in the same form as we have, but it is.
    Quote: venaya
    Maybe it's not in the constitution at all?

    The constitution is the basic law of the country, how could it be without it?

    ... the law that the drawbar, where it turned - that happened ..
  16. 0
    October 8 2017
    Quote: SERGUS
    Quote: verner1967
    Why should anyone care about your welfare?

    Well, yes, well, yes, teachers' salaries are small? So you can do business after school. With such an attitude, it will soon be like in ancient Japan to send old people to the forest so as not to feed them. It seems to me that we are losing our human face, we are only thinking how to snatch a bigger piece.

    ... so it was in * enlightened Europe * - to put children in the forest on the right .. - there are no forests left there - you won’t get rid of * hungry mouths * in this way now ..
  17. +1
    October 8 2017
    Quote: verner1967
    that's because they acted in the interests of the "majority of the people" and got a civil war, devastation and famine. Wouldn't it be better to take into account the opinion of the whole people?

    No, not better. It's just not possible. How can conflicting interests be taken into account? The former defended by you (nobles, landowners, capitalists, bankers, manufacturers, breeders, etc.) wanted to continue to parasitize on the working people. And the workers, the peasants did not want to hump back on them anymore, so the Soviet government acted in the interests of the majority of the people, which were the working people.
    1. 0
      October 8 2017
      Quote: Alexander Green
      And the workers, the peasants did not want to hump back on them anymore

      do you think they wanted to hunchback at the CPSU?
      1. 0
        October 8 2017
        Quote: verner1967
        do you think they wanted to hunchback at the CPSU?

        No one hunchbacked at the CPSU, there is no need to invent, even the fact that at the end of the 90s there were somewhere around 18 million people in the party. They didn't work? Everyone worked, they were held accountable for parasitism.
        1. 0
          October 9 2017
          Quote: Alexander Green
          They didn't work? Everyone worked

          Numerous instructors, secretaries of Obkoms, Gorkoms and, God forgive me, propagandists of all stripes especially "worked" laughing I'm talking about these, not about
          Quote: Alexander Green
          there were about 18 million people in the party.
          1. 0
            October 9 2017
            Quote: verner1967
            Numerous instructors, secretaries of Obkoms, Gorkoms and, God forgive me, propagandists of all stripes especially "worked"

            Of course they worked, I confirm this, because. I had to see their work from the inside. In 1980, when the 26th Congress of the CPSU was held, I was in the reserve and I was sent to work in the Regional Party Committee. Comrades worked late. For example, I was sent to the station for checking the letters of workers, I checked the complaints and their satisfaction with the local authorities.
            1. 0
              October 9 2017
              Quote: Alexander Green
              Comrades worked late. For example, I was sent to the station for checking the letters of workers, I checked the complaints and their satisfaction with the local authorities.

              and meat, sausage, butter appeared in stores, sausage trains stopped going to Moscow, fartsa was all ruined, because high-quality and beautiful clothes and shoes appeared, well, well .... laughing
              1. +1
                October 10 2017
                Quote: verner1967
                and meat, sausage, butter appeared in stores, sausage trains stopped going to Moscow, fartsa was all ruined, because high-quality and beautiful clothes and shoes appeared, well, well.

                The store had everything - meat and sausage and butter, what was missing could be bought on the market, in cooperation stores, there at that time they didn’t flog the skin as they do now. None of the Soviet people had empty refrigerators. Clothes and shoes were of high quality and hygienic, those who were not satisfied with industrial goods could sew a suit and shoes in an individual tailoring studio. Prices were affordable even for students, in 1969 a meter of material for a suit cost from 8 to 13 rubles, tailoring from 10 to 15 rubles.
                PS Dear friend, why are these your barbs, you are bored, and I'm already tired of answering your nonsense, don't write them in front of me, I lived these years myself and saw everything with my own eyes.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"