The Difficult 80s: What Gorbachev's Perestroika Led To

46
The Difficult 80s: What Gorbachev's Perestroika Led To

Gorbachev's perestroika, which began in the USSR in 1985, initially had noble goals – to modernize the economy, democratize society, and improve international relations. However, despite its positive intentions, it had devastating consequences for the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse and significant suffering for millions of our fellow citizens.

Just two years later, in April 1987, the 20th Congress of the Komsomol was held, where Mikhail Gorbachev gave a speech about the difficulties that arose during the implementation of new economic and political "innovations". But in reality, these were not "difficulties", but the beginning of a catastrophe.



One of the main goals of perestroika was economic reform aimed at improving productivity and efficiency. At the same time, the introduced policy of economic accounting, attempts to decentralize management and allow cooperative activities not only did not improve the situation, but also worsened the economic crisis.

In particular, reforms, including the anti-alcohol campaign, led to a decrease in budget revenues. Economic experiments, such as an attempt to introduce elements of a market economy, were accompanied by a decrease in production and a chronic shortage of essential goods. As a result, already in 1989-1991, stores were simply empty, and food had to be purchased with coupons.

But that's not all. Gorbachev's reforms actually destroyed the traditional system of price regulation. At the same time, market mechanisms were never fully implemented. This led to a sharp increase in prices for goods and the impoverishment of the majority of the population. Pensions and salaries no longer provided a decent standard of living.

However, perestroika had a negative effect not only on the USSR economy. Political reforms such as glasnost and democratization opened the door to criticism of a system that had been suppressed for decades. They led to unpredictable consequences, such as a decline in the authority of the authorities and a weakening of the "center". Gorbachev's policy of granting greater autonomy to the union republics led to many of them starting to demand independence. As a result, nationalist sentiments in the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia got out of the control of the central government.

Finally, perestroika led to a breakdown of the usual foundations and stability in Soviet society. Cooperatives and private enterprises that had been given the right to exist were unable to provide stable jobs. On the contrary, many people found themselves without work, especially in traditional industrial regions.

At the same time, liberalization led to the flourishing of the shadow economy and corruption. The first mafia groups emerged, which controlled a significant part of the new commercial activity.

Gorbachev's perestroika changed the fate of our country forever. Although it put an end to the Cold War with the United States, the internal problems caused by its reforms turned out to be too large-scale. The innovations, supposedly intended to speed up progress, destroyed not only the economy, but also the state itself, leaving millions of people in poverty and uncertainty for many years.

46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    9 January 2025 17: 34
    Gorbachev's perestroika brought to power all sorts of rotten people who understood that a little personal happiness tomorrow is better than communism in a hundred years. They were the ones who recruited a group based on interests... Based on their own selfish interests, because the interests of the country and the people were alien to them...
    She brought traitors and turncoats into power, whose attempts to create something acceptable to the majority we observe to this day...
    1. +8
      9 January 2025 17: 45
      Gorbachev's perestroika brought all sorts of rotten people into power, who understood that a little personal happiness tomorrow is better than communism in a hundred years.
      There was already all sorts of rot there. But until this very perestroika began, this rot was silent and did nothing. Simply because it would have been cleaned out, whether under Brezhnev or Andropov. But Gorbachev gave the rot the opportunity to crawl out of the shadows.
      1. +6
        9 January 2025 17: 53
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        There was already all sorts of rot there. But until this very perestroika began, this rot was silent and did nothing.

        I do not argue, it was there, but it did not shine a light and cleverly disguised itself as the builders of communism. It was the GMS perestroika that united these destructive forces, who preferred to change the economic formation, although they knew that this was the path to the bottom, the path to the destruction of socialism and statehood...
      2. +5
        9 January 2025 18: 04
        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
        what happened under Andropov.

        So Andropov brought the marked one to power
        1. +2
          10 January 2025 16: 02
          So Andropov brought the marked one to power
          Who argues? But I think Gorbachev was no fool. And he just sat quietly and nodded along until he got to the point valid authorities.
  2. +2
    9 January 2025 17: 34
    initially had noble goals – to modernize the economy, democratize society and improve international relations.
    These goals were declared to be noble.
    By the way, the economy is modernized now. Society is democratized to the max. As for international relations, you can always announce that everything has improved. And there the people themselves choose who to believe.
    1. +3
      9 January 2025 19: 45
      These goals were declared to be noble.
      and has it ever happened that politicians immediately declared ignoble goals? I've never heard anyone say that they are going into power to fill their pockets, they are all Leo Tolstoys in words
  3. +6
    9 January 2025 17: 46
    ...Innovations supposedly designed to accelerate progress destroyed not only the economy, but also the state itself, leaving millions of people in poverty and uncertainty for many years.


    No need to talk about "Innovations supposedly designed to accelerate progress."
    V. Putin spoke briefly and clearly about the collapse of the USSR, and also indicated the initiators of this collapse.

    MOSCOW, February 9. /TASS/. Russia voluntarily went along with the collapse of the USSR, considering it an offer of cooperation and alliance to the West. This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with Tucker Carlson, published on the journalist's website. "Russia voluntarily and proactively even went along with the collapse of the Soviet Union and proceeds from the fact that this will be understood by the so-called - already in quotation marks - "civilized West" as an offer of cooperation and alliance. This is what Russia expected from the United States and from the so-called collective West as a whole," Putin said, speaking about the dramatic events of 1991. He drew the attention of his interlocutor to the fact that it is important for him to convey this point to Carlson's American audience. https://tass.ru/politika/19940593


    The political elite of the USSR decided that after the destruction of the state they would be accepted into the bourgeois "family of civilized states". This was the beginning of the three-color (entry) project.

    The head of state emphasized that the previous Russian leadership proceeded from the fact that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, which meant that “no more dividing lines of an ideological nature exist.”
    On this basis, the president said, Russia expected to be accepted into the fraternal family of "civilized nations." "But nothing of the sort happened. You [the United States] deceived us," he lamented. https://tass.ru/politika/19940593


    The elite betrayed the Soviet people.
    1. +10
      9 January 2025 17: 58
      Quote: AA17
      V. Putin spoke briefly and clearly about the collapse of the USSR, and also indicated the initiators of this collapse.

      And did he also indicate the initiators of the creation of United Russia and the construction of the EBN Center?
      It's hard to believe in Putin's altruism, surrounded by a crowd of millionaires... Most likely, it is their interests that are more important to him, because even tax reforms and annual indexation of wages and pensions in the country are not carried out in the interests of those whose income is at the bottom of the average income...
  4. +4
    9 January 2025 17: 48
    nothing better about Gorbatov. but I curse his relatives because they use the fruits of his betrayal
  5. +3
    9 January 2025 17: 51
    Gorbachev's entire reign is his worship of the West. What could one expect from a man who, during the Great Patriotic War, was in the service of the German soldiers. While his peers fought both at the front (as sons of regiments) and as part of partisan detachments. Mishenka Gorbachev at that time plucked chickens to feed the fascists.
    1. +4
      9 January 2025 18: 06
      Quote: Good
      The entire reign of Gorbachev

      First of all, the entire management of the marked one is complete unprofessionalism, no matter what it did, everything was in one place
      anti-alcohol campaign, glasnost, cooperative movement, agreements with the West, everything was done by an illiterate person
      1. +1
        9 January 2025 18: 30
        First of all, the entire management of the marked one is complete unprofessionalism

        You are wrong. He is a high-class professional. Only his goal was to restore capitalism. And he accomplished his task.
        1. +2
          9 January 2025 20: 23
          He's as pro as a bullet from a certain substance, forgive me
          let's put aside political reforms, but he also did economic ones in a lousy way, all he could do was pretend to be a peacock and nothing more, even if they used him, it was in the dark, because God didn't give him any brains
          1. +1
            9 January 2025 23: 17
            It's great, of course, to think your enemies are idiots. If only they really were, then life would probably be much easier. And if you don't see the purpose of your enemies' actions, then so much the worse for you.
            I have 4 articles on this topic, I won’t repeat them here.
            Here is a link to the first one, if you are interested [https://topwar.ru/234205-tehnologija-polzuchej-burzhuaznoj-kontrrevoljucii-19851993-gg-i-kak-ej-protivodejstvovat-chast-1.html]
            1. -2
              9 January 2025 23: 19
              Quote: October
              It's great, of course, to think your enemies are idiots.
              once again, he is stupid, forgive me, all his actions are stupid by default
              Quote: October
              And if you do not see the purpose of your enemies' actions, then so much the worse for you.

              Tell me what is the purpose of the hammer?!
              1. +1
                9 January 2025 23: 21
                I gave you a link to my first article. There, the beginning, the continuation in the others. I don't see the point in starting a discussion here, I have already stated my point of view. I hope I have substantiated it well enough too.
                1. 0
                  10 January 2025 09: 30
                  once again he himself is stupid and untalented
                  1. 0
                    Yesterday, 20: 43
                    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                    once again he himself is stupid and untalented

                    Maybe so, he was stupid to think that he would sit down at the same table with the West as equals. But at the same time he was primitively selfish, like a savage and cunning, like an animal, hiding all this under the mask of a tongue-tied village simpleton.
            2. 0
              9 January 2025 23: 34
              The article is interesting, but the title sounds a bit strange.
              1. +1
                10 January 2025 07: 11
                Are you talking about my article? Why is it strange? There was a change in the mode of production - from socialist to capitalist. That means counterrevolution.
                1. 0
                  10 January 2025 14: 15
                  Quote: October
                  Why strange?

                  I wrote about the title in that article.
            3. 0
              Yesterday, 20: 37
              Found articles on the profile. I'll start reading. It's a pity I didn't see them at the time. With respect hi
  6. +2
    9 January 2025 17: 55
    It's like telling peasants that the sky is blue; the readers already know perfectly well what it led to.
  7. +1
    9 January 2025 17: 57
    The fish rots from the head, everyone knows that. The party elite at all levels was not satisfied with power, wealth (for a union of considerable size, on a global scale - a pauper) and they decided - it's time to grab. And they were egged on, and supported, and directed (and where without it) by the West, naturally. That's in brief. And in detail, much can be said, yes... It hurts, to tears (for me, at least)
  8. +1
    9 January 2025 18: 03
    initially had noble goals
    with good intentions...
    1. +1
      9 January 2025 18: 09
      You can declare anything you want. The policy of acceleration and restructuring was based on two notes by the notorious Yakovlev, which set out point by point the steps that, if followed, would lead the country to collapse.
  9. +2
    9 January 2025 18: 11
    The state is needed to avoid falling into hell - not literally. Then a deeply stupid and very vain politician climbed where he shouldn't, and another one, just like him, with an insatiable thirst for power, laid down millions of our compatriots, or rather exchanged them for a bottle. Well, at least Putin happened, pulled us back from the brink, but he also made mistakes. The most important thing is that he didn't create a continuity of power. Now he's trying to do something, relying on the guys from the war, I'm afraid he came to his senses too late, this should have been done in '14. Although he admitted his mistake with Ukraine, maybe not all is lost.
  10. +2
    9 January 2025 18: 15
    Whenever I see his portrait somewhere, I definitely want to spit on it. Ugh on him.
  11. +2
    9 January 2025 18: 27
    Gorbachev's perestroika, which began in the USSR in 1985, initially had noble goals – to modernize the economy, democratize society and improve international relations.

    She had no such intentions. One should judge by deeds, not by words. And all the deeds of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin clique say only one thing - their goal from the very beginning was to restore capitalism. And they did not announce this to everyone for only one reason - they would have been destroyed immediately.
  12. -1
    9 January 2025 18: 29
    I'm not defending Gorbachev, but he's just a mediocre doctor who was given a patient in a pre-terminal state and needed a world-class luminary to save him.
    The party and the elite were already in a rotten state by 1985, and such a weak leader as Gorbachev could not have done anything with them.
    1. 0
      9 January 2025 23: 02
      Quote: Oldrover
      The party and the elites were already in a rotten state by 1985 and such weak leader how Gorbachev could not have done anything with them.

      That's why a strong leader was needed back then, but who knows what came to power.
  13. 0
    9 January 2025 18: 31
    "Gorbachev's perestroika, which began in the USSR in 1985, initially had noble goals"
    - I don't agree with the wording here. The goals were voiced, declared - perhaps. But, judging by the subsequent execution - the actions clearly did not lead to these goals. At a minimum - they were populist, ill-considered and not calculated. At a maximum - all these "high goals" were voiced to disguise the "movement" that had begun. And which was initially aimed at the collapse of the system.
  14. 0
    9 January 2025 18: 41
    One of the main goals of perestroika was economic reform aimed at improving productivity and efficiency. At the same time, the introduced policy of economic accounting, attempts to decentralize management and allow cooperative activities not only did not improve the situation, but also worsened the economic crisis.

    It's funny how the same things can be said in different ways.
    One of the main goals of perestroika was economic reform aimed at improving productivity and efficiency

    Productivity and efficiency should have been improved first of all along the paths of scientific and technical progress, which we were told about many times at the university before Gorbachev. But the destruction of the existing management system must be justified, right? And they start writing about "productivity and efficiency".
    At the same time, the introduced policy of economic accounting

    Aimed primarily at the initial accumulation of capital (see the Law on Cooperatives)
    attempts to decentralize governance

    Destruction of the mechanism of planned economic management
    permission for cooperative activities

    Again, accumulation of capital and free private trade with Western countries. What the Bolsheviks rejected in the 30s, since capitalist relations are exported to the country.
    Liberalization has led to the flourishing of the shadow economy and corruption.

    But in reality, the shadow economy is precisely cooperators trading with the West and keeping the profits for themselves.
    Just two years later, in April 1987, the 20th Congress of the Komsomol took place, where Mikhail Gorbachev gave a speech about the difficulties

    Which he himself created a planned economy by implementing his plan for the restoration of capitalism
  15. +2
    9 January 2025 19: 24
    Putin spoke respectfully of Gorbachev.
    Buried him with honors.
  16. +3
    9 January 2025 20: 15
    An aspen stake has not yet been driven into his grave: But it needs to be...
  17. +2
    9 January 2025 22: 22
    Although it did put an end to the Cold War with the United States

    But did it put an end to it? The fact that we left the battlefield does not mean that the war is over.
  18. +1
    9 January 2025 23: 54
    Any economic analysis would be incomplete without oil prices.
    Gorbachev's rise to power coincided with a sharp drop in oil prices - more than twofold - from $40 to less than $20 (people quickly got used to high oil prices and other energy sources, and tied the economy to them, so the drop in prices hit hard:((). And immediately economic problems began, which continued throughout the 90s. Such oil prices lasted from 1985 to 2000, after which a rapid rise in prices began. And the economic situation soon improved. Too obvious a coincidence.
    As for the political analysis of the situation of those years, it will be incomplete without understanding that the situation in the late USSR was such that Yeltsin, having gained considerable popularity (up to jokes in the style of "Borya, bend over!"), was still unable to displace Gorbachev as the all-Union leader (maybe if this had happened, it would have been a different story), and began to intercept the levers of power from the all-Union to the republican ones in the RSFSR, wanting to get if not all the power, then at least part of it in the form of the largest republic of the Union, sabotaging the decisions of Gorbachev and the Union center. The idea of ​​​​the collapse of the USSR itself also came from his team, a specific person is now known who voiced this idea in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, where, in fact, they gathered for a completely different reason (despite the fact that at that time it was already practically hanging in the air, it had a specific name and surname, as Kaganovich said, from among the inner circle Yeltsin). :((
    1. 0
      10 January 2025 15: 00
      Regarding the dependence of the USSR on oil prices - this is a liberal myth that has nothing to do with reality. I have already given here my assessments based on open data from the Soviet era. I will repeat them once again.

      According to [Ioffe Ya.A. We and the planet: Figures and facts. 7th edition, expanded. - M.: Politizdat. 1988. - 256 p.] on page 121 oil and gas exports in 1986 amounted to 29.9 billion rubles. At the same time, this year all exports amounted to 68 billion rubles, imports 62.5 billion rubles. The national income of the USSR for this year was, according to [http://be5.biz/makroekonomika/gni/su.html#main], approximately 849.8 billion dollars, at the rate of approximately 0.7 in rubles, about 662.9, respectively, the share of oil is about 4.5% . If they stopped buying oil, it could not affect the country in any way. As for Russia’s dependence on oil, the figures are as follows [https://barrel.black/dohod-rossii-ot-nefti.html]. At an oil price of $60 per barrel, income will be about $114 billion. Russia's income, according to the same site, is $231 billion, the share of oil income in Russia's total income is 49.3%. Thus, when speaking about the dependence of the USSR on oil trade, the author is outright lying.
      It is also necessary to add that during the existence of the USSR there was a commonwealth of socialist countries CMEA, to which the USSR supplied the majority of its export oil under contracts with a fixed price for the period of the plan (5 years) within the framework of a single socialist economy. Thus, less than 2.25% of oil entered the free market, i.e. the USSR practically did not trade oil at all, and accordingly, it could not depend on it!
      1. +1
        11 January 2025 00: 05
        The prices of other energy resources are tied to the price of oil. Energy resources allowed for freely convertible currency, which the USSR always lacked so much that it had to collapse the CMEA, demanding that settlements be converted to freely convertible currency.
        There is no need for this abundance of figures that you yourself do not understand well, just look closely at the price of oil and compare it with the situation in the country. The coincidence is almost complete.
        Oil and gas exports in 1986 amounted to 29.9 billion rubles. At the same time, this year, all exports amounted to 68 billion rubles.

        That is, almost half of the exports were energy resources (and even more in hard currency). And the price for them fell sharply.
        at a rate of approximately 0.7 in rubles

        And this is completely ridiculous. A conditional figure for a forced recount does not mean anything.
        1. +1
          11 January 2025 17: 24
          The prices of other energy resources are tied to the price of oil. Energy resources allowed for freely convertible currency, which the USSR always lacked so much that it had to collapse the CMEA, demanding that settlements be converted to freely convertible currency.
          There is no need for this abundance of figures that you yourself do not understand well, just look closely at the price of oil and compare it with the situation in the country
          ...

          Is it a problem for you to divide two numbers?
          Why are you expressing your fantasies?
          You have only two figures - sold oil and annual income, divide and calculate the percentage. And this percentage says that the USSR did not trade oil, I neglected that insignificant amount.
          What are you talking about with a bunch of empty words?
          Energy resources made it possible to obtain freely convertible currency,

          numbers that you yourself don't understand well

          are you trying to score?
          If you have nothing to say, it's better to remain silent.
          The conversation is over, there is nothing to discuss here.
          1. 0
            11 January 2025 17: 51
            You only have two numbers - oil sold and annual income.

            No need to write nonsense. You need to compare figures for foreign trade, not for the overall gross product, since it was foreign trade that provided the USSR with the currency it desperately needed - it was for it that advanced Western industrial equipment was purchased, which pulled all industries along with it. And when the source of currency income collapsed, it pulled all other industries along with it, like dominoes.
            If you don’t understand what the numbers mean, don’t try to reason about them.
            1. +1
              11 January 2025 17: 54
              It is necessary to compare the figures for foreign trade, and not for the overall gross product, since it was foreign trade that provided the USSR with the currency that was so desperately needed - it was for this that advanced Western industrial equipment was purchased, which pulled all industries along with it.

              This phrase means that you do not understand the meaning of the numbers given at all.
              To school, dear sir.
  19. +2
    10 January 2025 12: 51
    Gorbachev's perestroika, which began in the USSR in 1985, initially had noble goals – to modernize the economy, democratize society and improve international relations.

    I don't agree at all, Gorby was destroying the country from the very beginning. He didn't do anything else...
  20. +1
    11 January 2025 08: 42
    Two senile people continue to mislead people. All indicators (including GDP) of the USSR economy grew until 89-90. In 87, the CIA introduced the RAZLOM plan, according to which criticism and denigration of the government should be considered democracy. They vigorously promoted and brought to the arena Yeltsin, who led the country into a catastrophe. A terrible time.
  21. 0
    Yesterday, 23: 16
    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
    Quote: October
    It's great, of course, to think your enemies are idiots.
    once again, he is stupid, forgive me, all his actions are stupid by default
    Quote: October
    And if you do not see the purpose of your enemies' actions, then so much the worse for you.

    Tell me what is the purpose of the hammer?!

    It doesn't matter what the purpose of the hammer is, those who held the hammer and gave it advice had a clear purpose, and so they achieved their purpose, since they initially acted strictly according to their plan. And you are talking about unprofessionalism.