The significance of the Brezhnev reign. Second Ilyich. Leonid Brezhnev and his great era. Brezhnev in a narrow circle
The period of life of the USSR 1965-1980 is rightly called the Brezhnev era or, in the language of perestroika, the period of “stagnation”. As in any historical period, so in the Brezhnev era, there are pros and cons.
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and the years of his rule do not cause such heated debate among his compatriots as Stalin or even Khrushchev. However, this personality also evokes very contradictory assessments, and the corresponding period left very different impressions in the people’s memory. In the first part (http://inance.ru/2016/04/brezn...), we looked at Brezhnev's rise to power and some indicators of his era.
In this article we will continue to consider the main points of the reign of Leonid Brezhnev.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BREZHNEV ERA
Conservation of the political regime
During almost twenty years of Brezhnev's rule, the administrative and managerial apparatus has changed little. Tired of constant reshuffles and reorganizations, party members happily accepted Brezhnev’s main slogan - “to ensure stability” - which led not only to the absence of serious changes in the structure of the ruling apparatus, but actually froze it.
During the entire period, no changes were made in the party, and all positions actually became lifelong. As a result, the average age of members of the public administration structure was 60-70 years. This situation also led to increased party control - the party now controlled the activities of many, even extremely small, government institutions.
The growing role of the military sphere
The country was in a state of Cold War with the United States, so one of the main tasks was to increase its military power. During this period, weapons began to be produced in large quantities, including nuclear and missile weapons, and new combat systems were actively developed.
Industry, as during the Great Patriotic War, largely worked for the military sphere. The role of the KGB increased again not only in domestic but also in foreign policy.
Decline of the agricultural industry and cessation of economic development
Despite the fact that, on the whole, the country was successfully moving forward, prosperity was growing, the economy sharply slowed down its pace of development. The USSR received its main funds from the sale of oil, most of the enterprises gradually moved to large cities, and agriculture was slowly rotting.
Social life
Natural population growth in Russia
Despite the fact that the further development of the economy inspired fears, the everyday life of citizens improved significantly, and their well-being increased. Many citizens of the USSR had the opportunity to improve their living conditions in one way or another, many became owners of good cars and other quality things.
By the mid-1970s, growth in the non-resource sectors of the economy had slowed significantly. Signs of this included lagging behind in high-tech areas, poor product quality, inefficient production and low levels of labor productivity. Agriculture was experiencing problems, and the country was spending a lot of money on food purchases.
Foreign policy
At the time of Brezhnev's rise to power, Soviet foreign policy power seemed less impressive than at the end of the Stalin era - both in terms of dominance over the communist bloc and in rivalry with the United States. Caribbean crisis outlined the boundaries of nuclear escalation. US presidency Kennedy, despite the signing of the Moscow Treaty in August 1963, was marked by a vigorous intensification of the nuclear and conventional arms race, which gave America an impressive military superiority over the USSR. Brezhnev managed to reverse this trend. In less than ten years, the USSR achieved nuclear parity with the West and created a powerful fleet.
In relation to the Eastern European satellites, the Soviet bosses adopted a strategy that soon became known as the “Brezhnev Doctrine.” That Soviet foreign policy was prepared to apply it without hesitation was demonstrated events in Czechoslovakia. In 1968, Czech communist leader Alexander Dubcek’s attempt to broadly liberalize the political and economic system (under the slogan “socialism with a human face”) aroused the rejection of Moscow, which feared a repeat Hungarian events 1956. In July 1968, the USSR declared the Prague Spring “revisionist” and “anti-Soviet.” On August 21, 1968, after unsuccessful pressure on Dubcek, Brezhnev ordered Warsaw Pact forces to invade Czechoslovakia and replace its government with individuals loyal to the Soviet Union. This brutal intervention determined for two decades the limits of the autonomy that Moscow's foreign policy agreed to grant to its satellites. However, Brezhnev did not punish Ceausescu’s Romania, which did not take part in the intervention, and Enver Hoxha’s Albania, which withdrew in protest at the end of 1968 Warsaw Pact And Comecon. The reconciliation achieved by Khrushchev with the obstinate Tito in 1955, under Brezhnev it was not contested. Contrary to all the alarming forecasts of Western alarmists about the upcoming USSR invasion of Yugoslavia, Brezhnev not only did not undertake it, but also went to Tito’s funeral in May 1980.
But relations with the People's Republic of China continued to deteriorate under Brezhnev - until bloody border clashes in 1969. The restoration of Sino-American relations in early 1971 marked a new stage in foreign policy history. In 1972, President Richard Nixon went to China to meet with Mao Tse-tung. This rapprochement revealed a deep crack in the communist bloc, which had previously flaunted its unity. It convinced Brezhnev of the need for a policy of détente with the West. This policy was intended to prevent the formation of a dangerous anti-Soviet alliance.
The policy of détente began with Nixon's visit to Moscow in May 1972 and the signing of an agreement on this occasion OSV-1 on the limitation of nuclear weapons. In Vietnam, despite the mining of the port of Haiphong on May 8, 1972 (the reason for a certain “coldness” of Nixon’s reception in Moscow), the Soviet Union contributed to the signing of the Paris Agreements on January 27, 1973. They allowed the Americans, who had been mired in Southeast Asia for ten years, to save face for a while - until April 1973. The zenith of detente was the signing Helsinki Final Act in 1975 between the Soviet Union, European and North American states. Soviet foreign policy saw its fundamental success in Western recognition of the borders established following the Second World War.
In return, the Soviet Union accepted a clause stating that the states party to the Helsinki Agreement would respect human rights and fundamental freedoms - including freedom of religion and conscience. These principles were not applied in practice in the USSR, but internal opponents of communist regimes could now appeal to them in their opposition to power.
Soviet dissidents did this too - for example, Andrey Sakharov, who created the Moscow Helsinki Group.
Notes in the margins
Although it may well be that the democratizers nurtured through the KGB were supposed to act as “goat provocateurs” (http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/%D0%...) for the dissident movement, but either got out of control or there were groups in the KGB that bet on them. There are rumors that Navalny is a project of our special services, fulfilling the same provocative role (http://echo.msk.ru/blog/oreh/1...).
The issue of emigration of Soviet Jews also became a source of strong disagreement. It could not be resolved at the meeting between Brezhnev and the president Gerald Ford in Vladivostok in November 1974. A little later, the USSR, demanding respect for its sovereignty, even chose to break the economic agreement in the United States, whose condition was the requirement to give Jews the right to free emigration to Israel.
SALT-1 and concluded in 1979 OSV-2 stated nuclear parity between the two superpowers. However, under the leadership of the Trotskyists, the USSR continued its degradation, as exemplified by the fate of the navy under the leadership of Admiral Gorshkov.
THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RESULTS OF THE PERIOD OF LEONID BREZHNEV’S RULE - BRILLIANT SUCCESSES AS A KEY TO COMING DEFEATS
Unfortunately, despite the fact that during these years the country lived a very measured and stable life, processes took place in the economy that could not help but affect the life of the USSR in the future.
1. With the fall in oil prices, all the “stagnant” phenomena were revealed and it became clear that during the period of stability the economy had become lagging and could no longer support the state only on its own.
2. To form a qualitatively new policy, radical changes were not carried out: an appropriate scientific and educational base was not created, a sharp increase in the efficiency of production, its scientific and technical equipment was not carried out, a strong social policy was not built, the development of democratic principles in the management of society, etc. d.
For such a revolution in politics, a theoretical reassessment of Soviet and party experience and a rejection of many dogmas of Marxist-Leninist ideology were needed.
3. This time is often called the “twenty years of missed opportunities,” the “Brezhnev era,” as the leadership adopted a conservative, traditionalist course. The program for reforming the management system of Soviet society, which Stalin had been hatching since the second half of the 1940s, assumed the separation of the functions of the state and the party. The real center of power was supposed to move to the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It was the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, which Stalin held, that was of key importance in the late Stalinist power hierarchy, and the functions of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) were supposed to be limited to the tasks of ideological education. Khrushchev's program was exactly the opposite. During the de-Stalinization process, he continued the line of transforming the USSR into a party state, a line that was started under Lenin. As for Brezhnev and his associates, it was they, despite their antipathy towards Khrushchev personally, who completed the de-Stalinization process that had begun. In systemic terms, this meant transferring full power to the party apparatus and maintaining strict party control over state security agencies and the armed forces.
4. The party-state elite - the nomenklatura - significantly strengthened its power. Negative trends were growing in the structure of public administration. In the late Soviet party state, there was a process of merging of the party and Soviet administrative apparatus, which led to widespread duplication of administrative functions. This process not only did not contribute to the optimization of the management of the national economy and society as a whole, but also diverted the attention of the party apparatus from issues of organizational and ideological work, that is, from precisely the range of problems on which Stalin intended to focus attention in his failed reforms of the public administration system party bodies.
5 Protectionism, nepotism, and nepotism penetrated to the highest levels. The natural accompaniments of these processes were corruption of unprecedented proportions and the shadow economy. Thus, the partyocracy consolidated its position as a new class of exploiters.
6. The transformation of party membership into a necessary condition for career advancement, joining the party nomenklatura, as well as a decline in the prestige of power, the spread of drunkenness, intrigue, veneration, and servility.
7. The stability of the Soviet economy at that time is associated with the oil boom of the 1970s. This situation deprived the country's leadership of any incentive to modernize economic and social life, which was aggravated by the advanced age and poor health of senior leaders. In fact, negative trends in the economy grew, and the technical and technological gap with capitalist countries increased.
8. The style of Brezhnev's rule is characterized by conservatism. As a politician, Brezhnev was unable to clearly see the prospects for the development of the state. The political life of the Union of the Brezhnev era was characterized by the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus and the strengthening of its arbitrariness.
9. The functioning of the Soviet ideological machine, which, under the leadership of Brezhnev’s faithful ally M.A. Suslova reached the peak of her power in the 1970s. However, the effectiveness of its activities, that is, the degree of influence on the ideological and behavioral attitudes of Soviet people, was steadily declining.
Enormous amounts of money were spent on ideological work in the Soviet Union under Brezhnev and Suslov, books, reports and speeches by party and government leaders were published in huge quantities, and visual propaganda was used on a colossal scale. However, it was obviously ineffective because real problems were not discussed.
Notes in the margins
An interesting fact, but it was during the Brezhnev era that the very controversially received documentary film “Secret and Overt (The Goals and Deeds of the Zionists)” was shot, which was filmed by Boris Karpov and Dmitry Zhukov in 1973, commissioned by the ideologists of the CPSU Central Committee and was supposed to criticize Israel’s policies in the Middle East East from the point of view of the Soviet regime. But the authors clearly crossed the line of what is permitted, which could be allowed by agents of influence operating in the country. He was immediately declared “anti-Semitic” and “Black Hundred”.
The most indignant was front-line cameraman Leonid Kogan, who wrote denunciations addressed to Brezhnev. As a result, the film was personally banned by KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov (Fleckenstein on his mother’s side), and was not released into wide release. Nevertheless, Karpov removed a shortened version of the film from the editing room, which was then shown at closed screenings among anti-Zionist party officials.
Now everyone can watch the film:
All this did not help - ideological indoctrination of the traditional type no longer had the expected impact, and real, albeit unofficial control over the ideological discourse in the country slowly but surely flowed into the hands of such “masters of thought” of the Soviet intelligentsia as A. Solzhenitsyn, A. Sakharov , A. Galich and “City of London, BBC”. The result was the emergence in the 1960-1970s of entire generations of Soviet intellectuals who, as aptly noted in the famous film “Kopeyka” by Ivan Dykhovichny, loved their wife and physics more than anything in the world (option: philosophy, philology, mathematics - further on the list) and dissidents and hated the Soviet government, which gave them everything.
THE COLLAPSE OF THE BREZHNEV ERA - THE LACK OF A WORLDVIEW PARADIGM FOR THE COUNTRY'S DEVELOPMENT
Society needed a transition to a new ideological level (which in turn required the development of sociology, psychology and the entire humanities as a whole) and the modernization of other spheres based on strong ideological rears. Today it is quite obvious that the forces and means for such an ideal solution were not available in the mid-60s.
To stay up to date with the latest news and help promote this information:
Join the group In contact with.
In 1964, the policy of reforms carried out by N.S. ended. Khrushchev. The transformations of this period were the first and most significant attempt to reform Soviet society. The desire of the country's leadership to overcome the Stalinist legacy and update political and social structures was only partially successful. The reforms initiated from above did not bring the expected effect. The deteriorating economic situation caused dissatisfaction with the reform policy and its initiator - N.S. Khrushchev. In October 1964 N.S. Khrushchev was relieved of all his posts and dismissed.
With the resignation of N.S. Khrushchev completed the process of liberalization of socio-political life, the transformations he began ended. New leadership has come to power. L.I. became the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (since 1968 - General Secretary). Brezhnev, who was in party work for many years. It was he who was one of the initiators and organizers of the removal of N.S. Khrushchev. A cautious, conservative man, he most of all strived for the stability of society.
Some of the new leaders, including A.N. Kosygin and Secretary of the Party Central Committee Yu.V. Andropov, considered it necessary to further develop the country, relying on the decisions of the 20th Party Congress. They believed it was necessary to continue the reform course in the economy and further liberalization of socio-political life in order to strengthen the existing system. At the same time, they opposed radical changes in society. A more conservative path of development was advocated by L.I. Brezhnev, M.A. Suslov, A.N. Shelepin and some other workers of the party and state apparatus. They associated the achievement of social stability with a revision of the political course of recent years, with the abandonment of the policy of de-Stalinization and reforms.
The confrontation of opinions on the choice of ways for the further development of society culminated in a turn from the reformism of the Khrushchev “thaw” period to a moderate-conservative course in politics and ideology. The ideological and theoretical basis for the activities of the new leadership was the concept of “developed socialism” developed in the late 60s. In official documents, “developed socialism” was interpreted as an obligatory stage in the advancement of Soviet society towards communism, during which it was necessary to achieve an organic unification of all spheres of public life. The concept did not question the theoretical provisions about the communist perspective contained in party documents of previous years, in particular in the CPSU Program. At the same time, this concept focused attention on the need to solve the current problems of one of the stages of building communism - the stage of “developed socialism”. The shortcomings and crisis phenomena that existed in society were considered as the result of inevitable contradictions in the process of its development. The policy of “improving” socialism should have contributed to the elimination of shortcomings.
In the socio-political life of the 60s and 70s, complex and contradictory processes took place. Under the guise of fighting voluntarism N.S. Khrushchev's reforms were curtailed. At the end of 1964, the unification of industrial and rural party organizations took place. Later, the territorial system of national economic management was abolished. The distortions made in the agricultural sector, in particular in relation to personal plots, were eliminated.
A departure from the course of de-Stalinization began. Criticism of I.V.’s cult of personality has ceased in the press. Stalin, exposing the lawlessness of the Stalin regime. Censorship was tightened again. As before, access to sources of scientific information - domestic and foreign - for researchers was limited. This measure entailed dire consequences for the development of science.
In the early 70s L.I. Brezhnev stated that in the USSR equality of the republics had been achieved in terms of economic and cultural levels and that the national issue in the country had been resolved. It was also stated about the formation of a new historical community - the Soviet people. However, neither during this period nor later was complete de facto equality of the republics achieved. Moreover, new problems arose in interethnic relations that required immediate resolution. Representatives of the republics demanded an expansion of the network of schools with teaching in their native language. The movement to protect the environment, to preserve historical monuments and national traditions has intensified. But the country's leadership did not pay enough attention to the growing conflicts in the national sphere. The growth of national self-consciousness of peoples, speeches in defense of national interests were considered as a manifestation of local nationalism.
In the development of socio-political life, two trends were increasingly clearly visible: democratic and anti-democratic. They manifested themselves, in particular, in the sphere of management of industrial and government affairs. In the 70s and early 80s, the number of public associations in enterprises and institutions grew rapidly. Organizations of people's control and technical creativity, and permanent production meetings were created. They included hundreds of thousands of workers, specialists, and employees. The activities of mass associations, led by party organizations, created the illusion of participation in the management of social production by the broad masses of the population.
Fundamental issues of economic development, forms and methods of its management were considered at party congresses - XXIV (1970), XXV (1975), XXVI (1980). At the congresses, plans for national economic development (the ninth, tenth and eleventh five-year plans) were adopted. Measures were outlined to “improve” the economic mechanism, which did not, however, eliminate excessive centralization and command-and-order methods of management. The number of administrative staff has increased. Over two decades, the number of all-Union ministries grew from 29 to 160. In 1985, about 18 million officials worked in them. The growing difficulties and negative phenomena in the economy were not realized by the country's leadership.
Public associations from representatives of various categories of the population operated under local Soviets. But the social composition of the Soviets themselves, the ratio of workers, collective farmers and intellectuals therein were determined by party bodies. The daily work of all government structures in the center and locally was under party control.
In October 1977, an extraordinary session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a new Constitution. The new Constitution was based on the concept of “developed socialism”. The main principle of state power was the complete power of the people. The political basis of the state, the Soviets, approved by previous constitutions, was consolidated.
The core of the political system of the society of “developed socialism” was called the Communist Party.
Reorganizations and reforms in the economy of the late 50s and early 60s did not lead to positive changes. The pace of economic development fell. For the new leadership of the country, the need to continue economic reforms was obvious.
The transformations affected primarily agriculture. In March 1965, firm plans for the purchase of agricultural products were introduced for several years in advance. Procurement prices for grain crops increased. Premiums to current purchase prices for livestock increased. Collective farms were transferred to direct bank lending. Guaranteed wages for collective farmers were introduced. Restrictions on their personal farms were lifted.
In the fall of 1965, economic reform in industry began to be implemented. The adopted reform established the volume of products sold as one of the main indicators of enterprise performance. The number of planned indicators introduced by the state was reduced. Special funds were created at enterprises through deductions from profits. Their funds were intended for the development of production and material incentives for workers. Changes were introduced to the industrial management system. The Councils of the National Economy were abolished and sectoral management was restored. From now on, it had to operate under the conditions of new principles of planning and economic independence of enterprises. The reform thus increased the role of economic management methods. But it did not touch upon the fundamentals of the command-administrative system.
The reforms of the mid-60s did not stop the growing difficulties in the development of agriculture. Increasing the size of capital investments and supplies of equipment to the village did not bring any economic effect. As before, violations were allowed in the procurement planning policy. Additional tasks for the purchase of agricultural products were established. Purchase prices for it were not always sufficiently justified. Many types of products were sold to the state at symbolic sale prices. This was one of the reasons for the increase in the number of unprofitable farms.
Negative phenomena have deeply penetrated the social sphere, as well as other areas of life. To a large extent, this was due to the emergence of a new social stratum in society - the so-called “nomenclature”. Top and middle level managers occupied a special, privileged position in the system of distribution of material wealth. There was a special supply of food and industrial goods for them, and there were special polyclinics, hospitals, and sanatoriums. The "nomenklatura" was a reliable support" for the ongoing political course. Increased social inequality, violations of the rule of law on the part of some leading officials, and glorification of L.I. Brezhnev at party congresses and in the press caused growing discontent in the country. The authority of the Communist Party fell. Attempts by L.I. Brezhnev’s successors to overcome the “deformations of socialism” were unsuccessful.
At the turn of the 60-70s, the activities of the USSR in the international arena intensified significantly. In the context of increasing nuclear potential in the world, the country's leadership made efforts to ease international tension. In 1969, the UN General Assembly approved the draft treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons proposed by the Soviet Union. The treaty prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-possessing states or military blocs. In March 1970, the agreement came into force. There were positive changes in the relations of the USSR with the diffuse capitalist states.
The process of “discharge” turned out to be short-lived. Very soon a new phase of the arms race began in the leading countries of the world.
The dictatorship on the part of the USSR and the imposition of the Soviet model of development on its allies in the war zone caused growing discontent in the countries of Eastern Europe. Economic integration had a deforming effect on the structure of their economies and inhibited the operation of the market economic mechanism.
The policy of “limited sovereignty” pursued by the Soviet leadership in relation to socialist states was called the “Brezhnev Doctrine” in the West. One of the manifestations of this “doctrine” was the intervention of the USSR in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia. In 1968, Czechoslovak leaders attempted to “renew socialism” by democratizing society, introducing market principles into the economy, and reorienting foreign policy towards Western countries. In August 1968, troops from the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany and Poland were brought into Czechoslovakia. The entry of troops of the countries participating in the EFA into Czechoslovakia caused sharp condemnation from Yugoslavia, Albania, and other states. The new leaders of Czechoslovakia pledged to prevent future “manifestations of anti-socialism.”
This time we will look at the historical portrait of the Secretary General, who is remembered by everyone for his thick eyebrows and kisses. :*
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (1964-1982)
Leonid Ilyich was one of the initiators of Khrushchev's removal. He came to power when he was not young (57 years old), and his tenure as First and then Chief Secretary of the party was 18 years; we can say that his reign was in his old age. In addition, during this period the average age of members of the ruling party was about 60 years, so they often apply to the Brezhnev era
the term “gerontocracy” (from ancient Greek geron - old man, kratos - power, state). It must be said that this is not the only word that is commonly used to describe the reign of Leonid Ilyich, and now, together with the characteristics of the areas of activity, we will consider other names.
Domestic policy
- Transition to the concept of developed socialism
Since Brezhnev was an older man, he had conservative political preferences, in some cases even reactionary. In the best traditions of historical ping-pong, Brezhnev rolled back many of the reforms begun by Khrushchev (the first seven-year plan, criticism of Stalin’s personality cult, and so on) and in domestic politics took a course towards building communism.
In 1977, the “Brezhnev” Constitution of the USSR was adopted, which was based on the concept of “developed socialism” (a stage of society on the path to communism, in which a harmonious unification of all spheres of society is achieved). Before its adoption, this constitution was actively discussed among all segments of the population: at enterprises, in institutes, on collective farms. Everyone had the right to propose their ideas for the draft Basic Law. This was one step towards establishing the sovereignty of the people.
But we can say that the desire of the authorities to listen to the opinion of the people was ostentatious; in fact, the new constitution legislated the leading role of the CPSU in society and actually replaced the Soviet government bodies with the party apparatus.
- Kosygin reform
Kosygin's economic reform was carried out in 1965-1970. Its essence was to increase the interest of enterprises in increasing production volumes and subsequent improvement of the economic situation. The SNK (national economic councils), created under Khrushchev in 1957, were liquidated, elements of self-financing were introduced into enterprises, but the administrative-command system was preserved. Enterprises could now independently determine the range of production, the number of personnel and their wages, suppliers of raw materials, and so on. At the same time, enterprises were obliged to fulfill the plan set by the state, but they also had the opportunity to sell above-plan products and increase their profits.
- Attempts to bring industry out of crisis
In an effort to improve the situation of industry, the state gave preference to an extensive development path, that is, many new plants, production facilities and factories were built, but at the same time, working conditions and technologies at existing enterprises were not improved.
Attempts were also made to modernize established forms of management and planning. The tenth five-year plan (1976-1980) was called the “five-year plan of efficiency and quality”; it was planned to direct the industry towards extensive development, but the plan was not fulfilled; on the contrary, there was a lag in the industry.
- Fighting the agricultural crisis
In the fight against the difficulties of the agricultural sector of the economy, the size of capital investments and supplies of equipment was increased.
In order to increase the production of rural products, associations were created - agro-industrial complexes (AIC). They were associations of collective farms, enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials, transport and trading companies. But these associations did not bring the expected effect - the crisis continued to progress.
After numerous interruptions in providing the population with food, in 1982 the USSR Food Program was adopted, which was aimed at developing all agriculture in a complex, that is, all levels on the way of products from field to counter.
To improve fertility, extensive chemicalization and soil reclamation were carried out.
But all these actions did not help overcome the crisis in the agricultural industry.
- Social sphere
The main characteristics of public life under Brezhnev can be divided into several points
A) Dissemination of the equalizing principle of distribution of material goods among the bulk of the population.
This is due to a simultaneous increase in wages for low-paid workers and a decrease in pay for engineers. When evaluating work, the quality of work and any personal merit were not taken into account.
B) Residual principle of allocating funds for social needs
Most likely, many Soviet party leaders followed this principle. In terms of material support, military production and heavy industry always come first, then the needs of the party elite, and at the very end of the list are “social needs.” The village lacked hospitals, kindergartens and canteens, which caused many villagers to move to the city.
IN) Introduction of a particularly privileged position for the party-state nomenklatura
But the party elite lived well, sanatoriums and hospitals were specially built for them, and the best food was delivered. But such a difference in social status soon contributed to the decline in the authority of the party.
G) The dominance of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the suppression of all dissent (harassment of dissidents)
Since the course was set for building communism, censorship was tightened again, and in addition, a struggle began with those who did not want to come to terms with the established rules and openly expressed their opinions (dissidents)
D) Diktat of atheism and oblivion of religion
We know that even under Khrushchev there was persecution of Orthodoxy, churches were closed. Under Brezhnev, relations between the state and the Church reached a new level; the Council for Religious Affairs was created under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which actually completely subjugated the Church. In addition, compared to the times of Khrushchev, the number of lectures promoting atheism was increased.
E) Carrying out in MoscowXXIIOlympic Games (summer 1980)
Perhaps the most significant event in the cultural life of the period of stagnation. The Summer Olympic Games were held at a high level; this event is still fresh in the memory of the people; many, when recalling the words from the song “Goodbye, our affectionate Bear,” still bring tears to their eyes.
Foreign policy
- The policy of "détente"
The issue of reducing international tension continued to be relevant in international relations . Under Brezhnev, military parity was achieved between the USSR (OVD) and the USA (NATO) through the following treaties:
- Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons between the USSR, USA and Great Britain (1968)
- Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the limitation of missile defense systems and SALT-1 (1972) and SALT-2 (1979)
The development of economic and cultural relations with capitalist countries (Soviet-French Declaration) took a new turn, and trade relations with Europe expanded.
- USSR and socialist countries
The Soviet Union considered the strengthening of the world socialist camp to be paramount in its foreign policy.
In 1968, the OVD army was introduced into Czechoslovakia to suppress the “Prague Spring” - the attempt of the new party secretary to decentralize government and democratize the country.
In 1964-1973, the USSR provided assistance to Vietnam, where socialism was also established, during the US aggression.
Military-political (MIA) and economic (CMEA) cooperation was deepened.
Results of activities:
Brezhnev's reign marked regularity and stability in the life of the country; under him, the so-called era of “stagnation” began. During Brezhnev's 18 years in power, the Soviet government pursued a policy in the direction of “developed socialism” (in 1977, a new “Brezhnev” constitution of the USSR was adopted). Attention was paid to solving problems of public consumption: resources were directed to agriculture, light and food industries. The result of such reforms was a slight increase in the standard of living of the population, especially the rural population, but after the first period of real growth in the country's economy, by the mid-70s, signs of stagnation appeared. Chemicalization of soils has led to a deterioration in the ecological condition of the land and a deterioration in the economic conditions of the agricultural sector. There was complete control over the intelligentsia, and there was a fight against dissidents. In the international arena, Brezhnev continues to follow the course initiated by Khrushchev towards the development of dialogue with the West. The first bilateral disarmament agreements represented tangible achievements of the policy of détente, culminating in the signing of the Helsinki Accords. These successes, however, were seriously undermined by the Prague Spring and then by the direct invasion of Afghanistan, after which tensions re-emerged in international affairs.
And finally cool video from Enjoykin:
And also, jokes on the topic. To watch them, like them on one of your social networks:
Brezhnev walked up to the mirror and thought out loud:
“Yes... he has become old, very old, SUPERSTAR!”
Lenin proved that even cooks can rule the country.
Stalin proved that one person can rule the country.
Khrushchev proved that even a fool can rule a country.
Brezhnev proved that there is no need to govern the country at all.
Brezhnev arrived in the Kremlin on the first day of Easter. Ustinov meets him:
Brezhnev nodded and moved on. Towards Chernenko, smiling fawningly:
- Christ is risen, Leonid Ilyich!
- Thank you, they have already reported to me.
The era of stagnation (period of stagnation) is a time in the development of the Soviet Union, characterized by relative stability in all spheres of life of the state, a fairly high standard of living of citizens and the absence of serious shocks.
The period of stagnation, like any time period in the history of Russia, does not have clear boundaries, but most often historians mean the period of 20 years between L.I.’s coming to power. Brezhnev (mid-1960s) and the beginning (early 1980s). It is conventionally indicated that the period of stagnation lasted from 1964 to 1986.
The concept of the era of stagnation
The concept of “stagnation” was first used in the report of M.S. Gorbachev at the 27th Congress of the CPSU Central Committee, when he noted that stagnation was beginning to appear in the development of the Soviet Union and the lives of citizens. Since then, the term “period of stagnation” has firmly entered history as a designation for this time.
Despite the seemingly negative connotation of the term “stagnation,” it has a dual meaning. On the one hand, it marks one of the brightest periods in the development of the Soviet Union. It was during these 20 years, according to historians, that the USSR reached its greatest prosperity: new cities were built, the country achieved success in the conquest of space, in sports, cultural life and other areas, and the material well-being of citizens increased. The absence of serious political and economic upheavals during this period strengthened the stability prevailing in the country and the confidence of citizens in the future.
However, it should be noted that many scholars attribute the stability in the economy of that period to a sharp rise in oil prices, which allowed state leaders to further delay reforms without losing profits. Economic growth slowed significantly during the era of stagnation, but the sale of oil smoothed out these phenomena, so the state did not experience significant difficulties.
Thus, it turns out that the era of stagnation, on the one hand, was the most favorable period in the life of the USSR, marked by the conquest of space and high social security, but, on the other hand, this period was only the “calm before the storm”, since high prices for oil could not be preserved forever, which means that the economy, which had stalled in its development, was in for serious shocks.
Characteristics of the era of stagnation
Conservation of the political regime. During almost 20 years of Brezhnev's rule, the administrative and managerial apparatus has changed little. Tired of constant reshuffles and reorganizations, party members happily accepted Brezhnev’s slogan “Ensure stability,” which not only led to the absence of serious changes in the structure of the ruling apparatus, but actually froze it.
During the entire period, no changes were made in the party, and all positions became lifelong. As a result, the average age of members of the public administration structure was 60-70 years. This situation also led to increased party control - the party now controlled the activities of many, even extremely small, government agencies.
The growing role of the military sphere. The country was in a state with the United States, so one of the main tasks was to increase its military power. During this period, weapons began to be produced in large quantities, including nuclear and missile weapons, and new combat systems were actively developed.
Industry, as in the period, largely worked for the military sphere. The role of the KGB increased again not only in domestic but also in foreign policy.
Decline of the agricultural industry and cessation of economic development. Although on the whole the country was successfully moving forward, prosperity was growing, the economy plunged into stagnation and sharply reduced the pace of its development. The USSR received its main funds from the sale of oil, most of the enterprises gradually moved to large cities, and agriculture was slowly rotting.
After the agrarian reform, many peasants actually lost their jobs, as the famous “potato trips” were introduced among students. Collective and state farms were increasingly making losses, as the work was done by students rather than professionals. Crop losses have increased in some areas by up to 30%.
A similar situation in the countryside led to the fact that citizens began to move en masse to cities, crop yields fell, and by the end of the period of stagnation, a food crisis began to brew. It was especially difficult during this period for Ukraine, Kazakhstan and other regions whose main activities were agriculture and the mining industry.
Social life. Although the further development of the economy inspired fears, the everyday life of citizens improved significantly and their well-being increased. Many citizens of the USSR had the opportunity to improve their living conditions in one way or another, many became owners of good cars and other quality things.
However, along with the growth of the affluent population, there was an increase in the number of poor people, but this has not yet reached catastrophic proportions, since food was relatively cheap. On average, the average Soviet citizen began to live much better compared to previous periods.
Results and significance of the era of stagnation
As mentioned above, the era of stagnation became only the “calm before the storm.” Although during these 20 years the country finally experienced stability and in some areas (space) rose to the top of the world rankings, the apparent stability in everything forced the leadership of the USSR to once again postpone economic reforms. The economy, which relies on the sale of oil, did not develop even by the end of the 70s. turned into a lagging behind, which resulted in extremely negative consequences when the price of oil dropped significantly. The largely favorable years for citizens during the Brezhnev era brought with them serious upheavals during perestroika.
Soviet party and statesman.
First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee since 1964 (General Secretary since 1966) and Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1960-1964. and since 1977
Marshal of the Soviet Union, 1976
Biography of Brezhnev
Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev born on December 19, 1906 in the village of Kamenskoye, Ekaterinoslav province (now Dneprodzerzhinsk).
L. Brezhnev's father, Ilya Yakovlevich, was a metallurgist. Brezhnev's mother, Natalya Denisovna, had the surname Mazelova before her marriage.
In 1915, Brezhnev entered the zero class of a classical gymnasium.
In 1921, Leonid Brezhnev graduated from labor school and took his first job at the Kursk Oil Mill.
The year 1923 was marked by joining the Komsomol.
In 1927, Brezhnev graduated from the Kursk Land Management and Reclamation College. After studying, Leonid Ilyich worked for some time in Kursk and Belarus.
In 1927 - 1930 Brezhnev holds the position of land surveyor in the Urals. Later he became the head of the district land department, was deputy chairman of the District Executive Committee, and deputy head of the Ural Regional Land Department. He took an active part in collectivization in the Urals.
In 1928 Leonid Brezhnev got married.
In 1931, Brezhnev joined the All-Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks.
In 1935, he received a diploma from the Dneprodzerzhinsk Metallurgical Institute, being a party organizer.
In 1937 he entered the metallurgical plant named after. F.E. Dzerzhinsky as an engineer and immediately received the position of deputy chairman of the Dneprodzerzhinsk City Executive Committee.
In 1938, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev was appointed head of the department of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and a year later received a position as secretary in the same organization.
During the Great Patriotic War, Brezhnev occupied a number of 
leadership positions: deputy Head of the Political Department of the 4th Ukrainian Front, Head of the Political Department of the 18th Army, Head of the Political Department of the Carpathian Military District. He ended the war with the rank of major general, although he had “very weak military knowledge.”
In 1946, L.I. Brezhnev was appointed 1st Secretary of the Zaporozhye Regional Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (Bolsheviks), and a year later he was transferred to the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee in the same position.
In 1950, he became a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and in July of the same year - 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Moldova.
In October 1952, Brezhnev received from Stalin the position of Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and became a member of the Central Committee and a candidate member of the Presidium of the Central Committee.
After the death of I.V. Stalin in 1953, the rapid career of Leonid Ilyich was interrupted for a while. He was demoted and appointed 1st Deputy Chief of the Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy.
1954 - 1956, the famous uplifting of virgin soil in Kazakhstan. L.I. Brezhnev 
successively holds the positions of 2nd and 1st Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Republic.
In February 1956, he regained his position as Secretary of the Central Committee.
In 1956, Brezhnev became a candidate, and a year later a member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee (in 1966, the organization was renamed the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee). In this position, Leonid Ilyich led knowledge-intensive industries, including space exploration.
