No matter what he was guided by. It is important that, in essence, “perestroika” became a crime against its people.
According to the latest data from the Levada Center today, 56% of Russians see more harm in Gorbachev's “perestroika”, and only 23% is more useful.
The numbers fluctuate by year, but one thing remains stable: the majority sees it as a harm, a minority - the benefit. For ten years, the minimum number of those who see more harm did not fall below 55%. The maximum number of those who see the benefit was not understood above 25%. Standard distribution on many key issues: on the one hand - three fifths, on the other hand - one quarter.
Moreover, those who have not seen the restructuring itself and have not seen what the country has lost and acquired have mostly noticed the benefit. Harm is more seen by those who have seen and restructuring - and the fact that the country has lost as a result of it.
A survey on this topic conducted at KM.RU gave an even more unequivocal assessment - 96% of portal readers believe that the “reforms” launched by the last general secretary went to the country to harm.
As was Vertinsky: "You tell me who and why it is needed, who sent them to death with an injured hand." Only here it is not only about people - about the country.
Six years over the country mocked. Six years she was killed. Six years of people deceived and decomposed. Under the beautiful slogans, with the proclamation of the right words, with "the expansion of democracy and publicity and increased activity of the masses." Moreover, they did it based on the real expectations of the transition to the breakthrough development of the country. The energy of creativity pushed together. The desire to create turned into a skill to destroy. Conflicts created from scratch, and did not do anything to resolve them.
Only those who really saw all this can fully realize the madness of the creation.
Of course, it was a crime. The crime is more monstrous than the crimes of Hitlerism: they trampled the soul of the people. The self-consciousness of the people of the victor and the people of the pioneer were turned into the self-consciousness of the “people-slave”, “people-criminal”.
You need to remember, you need to remember how it was and tell the truth, as it were.
"Perestroika" can be divided into three relatively equal in duration stage.
The first of these covers the 1985-87 years, when the struggle is conducted mainly within the higher old elite on the degree of radical change and the choice between two possible vectors.
The second is the 1987-89 years, when the most privileged sections of society, previously not allowed to real power, are included in the struggle, the liberal course of change is adopted and the demand is made to change the political system.
The third is 1989-91, when a real counter-elite is being formed, the power from the CPSU passes into the hands of the newly elected representative bodies, the question of a radical change in the political and socio-economic system is raised.
During the first stage, opponents of change suffered a final defeat. However, the group that came to power also split. The quick change in the economic situation could not be achieved, the management system found itself in a situation of confronting the requirements “to work in a new way” from above and the requirements coming from below to clarify what and how to do in a new way.
The unpreparedness of the country's top leader for setting new tasks before the managerial apparatus was really revealed. The result was a growing alienation of professional managers and their leader, which caused growing and poorly concealed irritation on his part, the emergence of a focus on the dismantling of the managerial apparatus itself, the transition to a management system that would not require his constant participation. A social block is being formed that aims at the development of commodity-money relations.
The first manifestation of the transition to a new course is the legalization of private enterprises in the still infrequent form of "cooperatives".
The political outcome of this period is a decline in the masses' confidence in the old elite, annoyance at the lack of real changes, striking the growing property differentiation between public sector workers and few co-operators, which has been used since the 1987 year with party propaganda to oppose the masses to the party apparatus.
The economic result is the legalization of a new social stratum associated with private enterprise, the opportunity to openly use the accumulated funds, the leaching of cheap goods and the massive transfer of non-cash money into cash, which leads to an increase in the money supply mismatch.
The ideal of the first stage is to transfer the model of society created in the GDR to the USSR.
At the second stage, the liberal version of perestroika is finally adopted. The struggle between the "humanities", "orgovikami" and "technocrats" in the Central Committee of the CPSU is expanding. At the initiative of the first, the elite intelligentsia is drawn into the struggle.
As part of the discussion on historical tough polemics are being waged over questions of the vision of socialism. With the preservation of the party system, public organizations emerge (usually on the initiative of party bodies) that advocate a transition from the "Stalinist" to the "Bukharin" version of development.
In the framework of the postulate of publicity put forward, the social democratic vision of socialism is being strengthened and strengthened. The elite intelligentsia is really fighting for its direct entry into the political elite. An opposition press is being formed, the first rallies and demonstrations of opposition nature are being held. The slogan of the “struggle against Stalinism” is used as the banner of the struggle against the old administrative apparatus.
After the short-term compromise reached on the 70 anniversary of the October Revolution and the report on this subject expressed in assessments, the struggle flared up with a new force, starting in February 1988, the scandal over the publication in “Soviet Russia” of the unnoticed article of Nina Andreeva “ I can not sacrifice principles. ” A special moment during this stage is the well-known split among the leaders of the “hard hand” E. Ligachev and B. Yeltsin, which ended with the latter’s action against the amorphous and inconsistent Gorbachev line and his liberation from party posts, and ultimately the reinforcement of supporters of the liberal course.
Adopted in the summer of 1987, the policy of “radical economic reform”, on the one hand, did not create (and could not create) new levers of economic regulation, on the other hand, it marked the beginning of the disorganization of old ones.
The last party X-conference in June 1988 XIX decided to reduce the term of office of the elected authorities and hold new elections on an alternative basis. The model of “Hungarian socialism” is put forward as the ideal of society.
The political outcome of this period is the formation of political structures, more or less openly challenging the power of the CPSU. In the 1989 election of the year, its leadership suffers an actual defeat. A situation arises when entry into the political elite becomes possible without the will of the CPSU, which creates the prerequisites for the formation of a counter-elite and the official opposition, using the extensive manipulation of the sentiments of the masses.
The economic outcome of this period is the beginning of the disorganization of the economy, the disappearance of essential goods from the sale, the beginning of the breakdown of economic ties, the fall in the standard of living of the population.
The third period spans the 1989-91 years. The election at the I Congress of People’s Deputies of Gorbachev as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR practically meant his departure from party work and the loss of the CPSU directing powers, while retaining considerable indirect influence. However, from this moment on, the demand for the abolition of the 6 article of the Constitution, which consolidated the leading role of the CPSU, is becoming ever wider.
During the propaganda campaigns that began, the opposition succeeds in completely blocking the left wing, personified by Ligachev. However, from the summer of 1989, the formation of an informal left movement begins, initially in the form of the United Front of Workers, as an alternative in many respects ensuring the victory of the People’s Front in elections.
The election of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR is the first attempt of the informal left movement to speak independently, separately from the official party leadership. “Democratic Russia”, formed on the basis of the Popular Front and the Interregional deputy group, united around a sharply shifted from the supporters of the “hard hand” to the number of supporters of Yeltsin’s democracy, managed to ensure his election as the head of the RSFSR.
During this stage, a counter-elite, previously unrelated to the authorities, is being challenged, which challenges not only the old party leadership, but also the liberals, who are in favor of softening the system. A real alternative to the power of the CPSU appears, demands are being put forward for an active transition to a market economy and a change in the country's socio-political system. The leadership is discredited, national conflicts flare up, a number of republics declare their separation from the USSR.
During 1990, the left-conservative bloc of the CPSU is formed and organized, which at the XXVIII Congress succeeds in defeating the social-democratic wing of the party. The result of this is a clear transfer of the struggle from its ranks to the struggle against itself.
The growing danger of losing power leads to a temporary consolidation of the CPSU and its transition to a counteroffensive in the winter of 1990-91. Gorbachev’s conclusion after the first price increase (April 1991) of an agreement with the leaders of the republics on the signing of a new union treaty and the reorganization of the USSR in violation of the referendum on March 17. completely repels the party from him, the demands of his resignation from all posts are growing. Yeltsin's victory in the presidential election of the RSFSR 1991 June 12. activates the left wing in the leadership of the USSR and the CPSU, but his speech in August 1991. defeated, the Communist Party loses power, is banned.
The economic result of this period is complete disorganization of economic management, the rupture of economic ties, a sharp drop in the standard of living.
The overall result of the whole period as a whole and its content really turns out to be the transfer of power from the hands of the old elite to the hands of the new socio-political bloc of the elite intelligentsia, the corrupt part of the bureaucracy and the criminal non-bourgeoisie.
So it was. But this is a chronicle. The Chronicle does not transmit tragedy.
The result of all this was:
By the middle of 90, after going through a series of reorganizations of politics and economics, the country was in a state of increasing degradation and decay. In essence, the declared promises were not realized in any of the areas. The tools proposed for the implementation of those other problems that worried the society really exacerbated these problems and gave rise to new ones.
The following changes actually took place in politics: given the stated goals of developing democracy, restricting bureaucratic dictatorship, increasing the role of civil society in relations with the state, transferring the latter to a legal regime, reducing social differentiation, fighting privileges, limiting crime, increasing the participation of the masses in the elites and development priorities, in fact the following has been achieved:
1) A single Union State was dismembered, with the result being more than a hundred and fifty national state territorial claims, which in a number of regions turned into open civil war. The victims of only acute, hot forms of this process were up to a million people.
2) The political forces that declared their commitment to democracy turned out to be unprofessional and showed a tendency toward authoritarian governance. The role of representative bodies of power, which are deprived of real levers of control over the actions of appointed structures, is sharply limited. The number of elected posts has decreased by an order of magnitude. On the ground, representative authority is reduced to the level of observers under administrations.
3) The number of the bureaucratic apparatus has increased by an order of magnitude, in effect becoming uncontrollable to any authorities. Outside the country, directories are openly published, indicating which official should be given a bribe in what amount. At the same time, the bureaucratic apparatus, devoid of common semantic attitudes, in essence professes not its corporate or individual interest as a priority.
4) The destruction of such instruments as the CPSU, the People’s Control, the Soviets, which had a number of indisputable flaws, actually turned out to be the destruction of all previously formed instruments of control of civil society over the state.
5) The governing bodies have demonstrated open disregard for any legal norms, subjecting them to their administrative will.
6) Social differentiation has sharply increased, the middle class of society that was formed earlier has been destroyed, a few percent of the population owns 30% of the wealth of society.
7) Criminally growing crime, more and more often directly merging with the state apparatus.
8) The leadership of the country has demonstrated the inability to prevent emerging conflicts, or to resolve them without bloodshed.
9) A political and economic course is being pursued, enjoying more or less pronounced, albeit in a passive form, the support of a minority of the population of the country.
10) The elite was not changed - in fact, it consists of the same groups and personalities that formed it ten years ago. The elites are not institutionalized, therefore they do not have prestige in the eyes of the masses, the masses, due to the destruction of the system of medium-sized bonds and the system of values, are easily manipulated and show growing passivity.
That was the result. The result of the greatest crime in human history. And as such it must be called.
It doesn’t matter what guided those who conceived and accomplished it. It is important how it ended for the country, and how it paid for their adventures. And it still pays - for only the blind one does not see that the roots of today's Ukrainian tragedy lie precisely there - in the insane acts of the first and last president of the USSR.