What is stagnation in the USSR? Does stagnation suck? What was the era of “dear Leonid Ilyich” like for the country?

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 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

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.

Colossal 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.

The period of stagnation was one of the quietest for citizens of the Soviet Union. Stagnation in the USSR is briefly characterized by many scientists as a period in which all spheres of the life of the state were in a state of stability. There was neither an economic crisis nor technological progress. In the history of the state, this period can rightly be called its heyday.

Like all other periods, this does not have a clearly defined period. Scientists often disagree with each other, arguing about the beginning and end of the period of stagnation. Most agree that stagnation is a period that lasted approximately 20 years, from Brezhnev's rise to power in 1964 until Gorbachev's rise to power, or more precisely, the start of his Perestroika policy in 1986. It was Gorbachev who first described stagnation in the USSR; he briefly expressed it by saying that stagnation appeared in the development of the state and public life. Thus, we owe the generally accepted name of this period to Gorbachev.

You should not perceive the period of stagnation as a purely negative phenomenon. It should be noted that at this time the Soviet Union reached its heyday. New cities were constantly being built, production potential was expanding, and space programs continued to operate. The USSR began to take part in international activities, restoring its reputation as an adequate partner. The level of well-being of the country's residents has also increased significantly. During this period there were no serious economic or political shocks; people began to believe in the future. However, modern historians determine that such stability was achieved thanks to the high cost of oil on the international market. Abundant supplies of “black gold” abroad made it possible to fill the state treasury without carrying out effective reforms and without improving the economic potential of the country. Economic growth stopped, and the state felt calm only through the export of raw materials. However, it looked like the calm before the storm.

Apparently, the country's leadership sensed some alarming signs, both within society and in international politics. In order to defuse the situation in the state itself and put pressure on the oil market, a military intervention was carried out in Afghanistan. An unsuccessful and aimless war, in which the entire civilized world stood on the side of the state’s sovereignty, undermined the shaky foundations of the state during Perestroika.

The period of Brezhnev stagnation

The period of stagnation (era of stagnation) is a period in the development of the Soviet Union, which is characterized by relative stability in all spheres of life, the absence of serious political and economic upheavals and an increase in the well-being of citizens.

The era of stagnation is usually understood as the period between the coming to power of L.I. Brezhnev in the mid-1960s and the beginning of perestroika in the early 1980s. On average, we can roughly designate the years of stagnation from 1964 to 1986.

The concept of a period of stagnation

The term “stagnation” was first coined in a political report by M.S. Gorbachev at the 27th Congress of the CPSU Central Committee, when in his speech he noted that certain stagnation phenomena began to appear in the development of the Soviet Union and the lives of citizens. Since then, the term has become widely used by politicians, economists and historians.

It should be noted that the term does not have an unambiguous interpretation, since stagnation is understood as both positive and negative phenomena. On the one hand, it was during these twenty years, according to historians, that the USSR reached its highest development - a huge number of large and small cities were built, the military industry was actively developing, the Soviet Union began to explore space and became a leader in this area; The country has also achieved significant success in sports, the cultural sphere and a variety of sectors, including the social sphere - the level of well-being of citizens has increased significantly, and confidence in the future has appeared. Stability is the main term that describes that period.

However, the concept of “stagnation” has another meaning. The country's economy virtually ceased its development during this period. By a fortunate coincidence, the so-called “oil boom” occurred and prices for black gold rose, which allowed the country’s leadership to make a profit simply from the sale of oil. At the same time, the economy itself did not develop and required reforms, but due to the general welfare, less attention was paid to this than required. Because of this, many people call the period of stagnation “the calm before the storm.”

Thus, on the one hand, at this time the USSR reached its highest peak, provided citizens with stability and became one of the world powers, and on the other hand, laid a not very good foundation for the economic development of the country in the future - during the period of perestroika.

The concept of a period of stagnation

Characteristics of the period of stagnation

Conservation of the political regime. For almost twenty years of stagnation, there were practically no changes in the administrative and managerial apparatus. This was a consequence of the fact that during Khrushchev’s time, reforms and reshuffles in the party occurred too often, so the course towards stability outlined by Brezhnev was taken literally and with joy. As a result, not only did no reorganization of the country's political structure take place, but all positions in the party became almost lifelong. This led to the fact that the average age of the country's leaders was 60-70 years old, for which the USSR was called the country with the oldest leaders. This situation also led to the fact that the party’s control over all spheres of life significantly increased; many state-owned enterprises, even the smallest ones, were completely subordinate to the party’s decisions. During the same period, the foreign policy and domestic political role of the KGB increased.

The growing importance of the military industry. During the era of stagnation, the USSR was in a state of cold war with the United States, so it was extremely important to increase its military power. The number of military enterprises increased sharply, and weapons, including nuclear and missile weapons, began to be produced in huge quantities. The latest combat systems were being developed and industry was again, as during the war, directed towards the military sphere.

The cessation of economic development and the decline of the agricultural sector. The economy almost completely stopped in its development and required urgent reforms, but attempts to carry them out were unsuccessful. The national economy was not in the best condition - this was due to the agrarian reform, which introduced the well-known “potato trips”, when students were sent to harvest the harvest. This practically deprived the peasants of work; in addition, the percentage of spoiled crops during harvest began to grow steadily. Many collective and state farms brought only losses, people began to gradually move to large cities, and food shortages grew in the country, which became very noticeable after Brezhnev left. This economic situation especially affected regions of the USSR, such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others, which relied on agriculture and the mining industry.

Social life. Despite all the negative phenomena, the growth of citizens' well-being continued. Many city residents had the opportunity to improve their living conditions; many could now buy a good car and other high-quality and expensive things. At the same time, the number of poor people grew, but this was not so noticeable due to low food prices. Overall, the life of an ordinary citizen was good, secure and stable, which was what mattered most. Residents of the USSR believed in a bright future and were completely confident in the future, since for all twenty years the economy, backed by oil, maintained a good standard of living compared to the post-war period.

The meaning and results of the period of stagnation

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. With the fall in oil prices, all the stagnation 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. The difficult era of perestroika began.

(first, and since 1966 General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee), A.N. Kosygin (Chairman of the Council of Ministers), M.A. Suslov (Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for Ideology). Under their leadership, with increasing ideological pressure, economic reform began to be carried out 1965, conceived under N.S. Khrushchev. The reform began with the liquidation of economic councils and the restoration of central line ministries. At the same time, enterprises gained some independence in economic activities (self-accounting).

In agriculture, restrictions on private farming were partially lifted and allocations were increased. There has been an increase in the production of agricultural machinery, an increase in the role of agricultural science, and an increase in purchase prices. However, strict centralization and planning from above put an end to these trends and led to the displacement of self-financing. Conservative tendencies finally prevailed after the 25th Congress of the CPSU in March 1976. From that time on, the “era of developed socialism” began in the USSR, closely associated with the rule of L.I. Brezhnev.

It is necessary to note the main features of this period, which was later called the “era of stagnation.” The main priorities in the economy remained heavy industry and military-industrial complex, and development of new oil and gas fields. The sale of raw materials and energy to developed countries provided foreign currency that was used to patch holes in the economy. The country was unable to effectively solve the problems of economic modernization.

A new technological revolution was taking place in the world, accelerating the transition of advanced countries from industrial to post-industrial (information) society, based on the use of cybernetics, microelectronics, and information technology. In the new conditions of global development, computerization, the growth of knowledge-intensive industries, and resource- and energy-saving technologies acquired great importance. The USSR lagged significantly behind advanced countries, produced obsolete products, and continued to develop industries characteristic of the industrial period. But the main reason for the lag was crisis of the entire socialist system.

A characteristic feature of this period is considered strengthening of administrative centralization of the economy and growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. Crisis phenomena in the national economy have become especially acute since the late 70s. Despite the increase in investment in agriculture, the expansion of collective farm rights, the introduction of collective farmers' salaries and the expansion of personal plots, the principle of collective farming and several lean years led to a sharp decline in agricultural production.

The Soviet Union began to regularly purchase grain and other products abroad. Accepted in 1982 The “food program” did not produce practical results. The depletion of the raw material base, the unfavorable demographic situation, the physical deterioration of equipment, the increase in military expenditures, confusion in the organization of labor, and the lack of material interest led to a drop in production rates, a decrease in the return on investment and the level of consumption.

Negative phenomena were also observed in public life. A decrease in the birth rate and an increase in mortality have led to an aggravation of the demographic situation in the country. There was a sharp increase in the urban population due to the outflow of people from rural areas. Constitution of the USSR 1977 Article 6 established the dominant role of the CPSU in the political system. The party elite has stabilized. At the same time, active resistance to the system grew in society, dissident movement . Representatives of the intelligentsia, religious people and some national minorities expressed their dissatisfaction with the omnipotence of the party apparatus.

Foreign policy of the Brezhnev era was more dynamic. The goal of Soviet diplomacy in relations with socialist countries is to eliminate the threat of the collapse of the military and economic union. In this regard, the following events should be noted: the entry of troops of five countries participating in the Warsaw Pact into Czechoslovakia in 1968 with the aim of suppressing the liberal movement; attempts in 1970 and 1980 by introducing martial law, stop the labor movement in Poland; material and military support for North Vietnam in the American-Vietnamese War of the late 60s - the first half of the 70s; a sharp deterioration in relations with China, leading to border military conflicts.

Relations between the USSR and Western countries in the 70s are usually called the period "discharge". This process was marked by a departure from the harsh confrontation of the Cold War and the conclusion of a series of bilateral agreements on economic, scientific and cultural cooperation with Western countries. Agreements were also signed on the limitation of strategic and conventional weapons with France, and with Germany on the non-use of force in resolving controversial issues about post-war borders. In 1972 L.I. Brezhnev and R. Nixon signed a number of agreements on the limitation of strategic weapons.

The culmination of the détente process was the signing by the leaders of European countries, the USA and Canada in Helsinki August 1, 1975 Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). At this meeting, an act on human rights was adopted, also signed by the Soviet delegation. However, the violation of human rights in the USSR, the expansion of “socialism” into African and Asian countries, especially the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan (December 1979) The process of detente was finally curtailed.

In November 1982, Yu.V. became secretary general. Andropov, who held this post until 1984. He was replaced in February 1984 by K.U. Chernenko led the country for just over a year and died in March 1985. Andropov’s domestic policy was characterized by attempts to morally cleanse the party and eliminate the most blatant manifestations of corruption in the “family circles” of the party apparatus. Andropov also made attempts to strengthen labor discipline in production. Sanctions against violators were tightened, but after a slight increase in labor productivity in the first half of 1983, everything remained the same.

In the foreign policy of this period, tensions between East and West reached their highest point. In November 1983, all negotiations regarding weapons were interrupted. This situation continued until he came to power in April 1985

The Years of Stagnation is usually the name given to the period of time from 1964 to 1987 in the union. That is, from the moment L.I. became at the helm of the state. Brezhnev and before the Plenum in January 1987, which is famous for the launch of radical reforms in all areas of the country.

The appearance of the term “stagnation” is primarily due to M.S. , who, in his report at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, read a report on disappointing prospects under such a course, which he called “stagnant phenomena in the life of society.” This period of time is characterized by a decline in the rate of economic development, deterioration of indicators in all areas of the country, a decline in living standards, and all this in the absence of obvious global problems.

The period from 1964 to 1987 has both good and bad sides. Formally, the country’s development continued, and by some indicators it was very successful. For example, the construction of new factories, cultural centers, and stadiums continued. I was in space not so long ago - 1961. The society actively explored medicine and sports.

But on the other hand, there was a clear trend of dependence on the export of minerals. The growth of non-resource sectors of the economy has practically disappeared. Exact and high-tech sciences were experiencing a crisis. Agriculture was not left out either; to describe the state of its development, it is enough to say that the USSR imported food and agricultural products in general! Dissent and any manifestation of national identity were persecuted as in times.

The reason for the “stagnation” is often considered to be the energy dependence of the USSR, or rather the dependence on the sale of Oil and Gas. Dominance in the world market quickly passed in the 1970s, due to the so-called oil boom, when the technological backwardness of the USSR came to the surface and oil prices began to fall.

Such trends were not at all comforting, as a result of which the young and energetic Mikhail Gorbachev took over the leadership of the state. As General Secretary from 1985 to 1987, no changes for the better were observed, but Perestroika was announced - the official direction in the development of the USSR, and a full-scale reform of the social and economic spheres. Of the positive aspects during the period of stagnation, it should be noted that by 1980 The USSR held first place among European countries and ranked second after the United States in terms of industrial production. Compared to 1960, the gap in industrial output from the United States decreased from 45% to 20%. The USSR achieved very great results in cement production, which proves world leadership in this industry.

According to statistics, the population's income has increased 1.5 times, which is quite significant. The population of the Soviet Union increased by almost 12 million people. An interesting fact is that the USSR exported heavy equipment such as tractors to more than 40 countries. On the one hand, the complete provision of agriculture with machinery was the pride of the Union, but there was no yield, the results were worth working on.

The most pressing problem of stagnation was shortages. The commodity shortage, according to many historians, was artificial, and was created for the so-called “Seller Economy”. Planned management enterprises were not interested in timely deliveries, proper quality of products, etc. The disappearance of essential goods was critical.