The years of MS Gorbachev's rule will probably be appreciated a little later, when the accusations of the fall of the Soviet Union will step aside, and the summing up of his activities will be viewed through the prism of state, public, but not private interests. In this brief review, we will try to look at the former president of the USSR from this point of view, and at the same time understand what Mikhail Sergeyevich turned out to be right about and where the fatal mistake occurred, which led to such a negative-neutral perception of this, of course, an outstanding personality.
But first of all, I need to say a few words about the person himself. Gorbachev, whose reign dates back to the second half of the 1980s, is in itself a model of a classic Soviet communist disillusioned with Soviet power. He sincerely believed in the Bolshevik integrity of Lenin's state ideas, was a truly sincere anti-Stalinist, and also sincerely believed that the Brezhnev era was an era of stagnation, the inability to develop further, a social and political impasse. Therefore famousthe April theses of 1985 were a kind of declaration of a new party course, which, in theory, was supposed to offer scenarios for the deconstruction of the obsolete Soviet state machine. However, this was not done.
Moreover, already in May of the same year, two opposite intentions were proclaimed. In the economy, it is a course towards acceleration, not supported by practical steps and a reform plan. Whether in the moral sphere, or in the same economy - the beginning of an anti-alcohol campaign. As a result, starting from the first year of Gorbachev's rule, it became obvious that the era of changes and, at the same time, inconsistent decisions had begun. However, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in a certain sense can be understood: heading a huge country, he understood that these changes were not only necessary, they were necessary, but what kind and what should be the logic of actions, he most likely had no idea.
In addition, it was necessary to solve completely different tasks: to pacify the "old guard" that impedes reforms, to assemble our own team and offer a new social contract to society. As a result, a year later, a “housing and communal” order of the party was issued, thanks to which people were able to receive free private ownership (legally, this status was formalized a little later) apartments, suburban houses and plots. It turns out that just from the point of view of personal interests, the years of Gorbachev's rule turned out to be the most profitable. People got the opportunity to work for themselves. At the same time, the cooperative movement was legalized,legalized the legal framework for the creation of joint ventures with foreign capital and the possibility of doing business. Who will say now that the years of Gorbachev's rule were in vain? Another thing is that Nepmen were forced to work under the power and administrative roof of the party. But has this situation fundamentally changed since then?
The summer of 1987 is a significant time. In fact, from that moment practical restructuring began. Glasnost, freedom of speech, a course towards disarmament, liberation from nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and a constructive dialogue with the world, not only with the West. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the emergence of alternative intra-party platforms, the congress of people's deputies, the development of a social movement and the formulation of political, social and economic demands on power - all these were the years of Gorbachev's rule. In fact, the second half of the 80s was the era of the social classification of the then Soviet society, where every element, professional group, class, society of interests lived in the hope that their interests would be clarified, and all citizens would have a direct opportunity to influence the adoption of state solutions.
And last. The years of Gorbachev's rule are the rehabilitation of the repressed generation of the 20-50s. The generation that "made" the revolution and whose mistakes Mikhail Sergeevich tried to correct. However, how much can be done without the party, the state apparatus and in the conditions of constant positional battles, then with the authorities, whichwould belong to you, then with the people who did not elect you. The lack of direct legitimacy is probably the main reason why the perestroika policy was almost completely failed.
