The years of the reign of M.S.Gorbachev will probably be appreciated a little later, when the accusations of the fall of the Soviet Union are sidestepped, and the results of his activities will be seen 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 was right in and where the fatal error occurred that led to such a negatively neutral perception of this, of course, outstanding personality.
But first of all, you need to say a few words about the person himself. Gorbachev, whose reign years fall in the second half of the 80s, in itself is an example of the classic Soviet communist who was disappointed in the Soviet regime. He sincerely believed in the Bolshevik integrity of Lenin’s state ideas, was truly a sincere anti-Stalinist, and also sincerely believed that the Brezhnev era was an era of stagnation, of the impossibility of further development, of a social and political impasse. Therefore, the famous April theses of 1985 presented 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 has not been done.
Moreover, already in May of that year, two opposing intentions were proclaimed. In economics, a course towards acceleration, not supported by practical steps and a reform plan. Either in the moral sphere, or in the same economy, is the beginning of the anti-alcohol campaign. As a result, starting from the first year of Gorbachev’s reign, it became obvious that the era of change and, at the same time, inconsistent decisions had begun. However, in a certain sense, the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee can be understood: when heading a huge country, he understood that these changes were not just needed, they were necessary, but he probably had no idea what and what should be the logic of action.
In addition, it was necessary to solve completely different tasks: to pacify the "old guard", which impeded reforms, to assemble your team and propose a new social contract to society. As a result, a party’s “housing and communal” order came out a year later, thanks to which people were able to get into private ownership (this status was legally issued 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. Then they legalized the cooperative movement, legally drafted the legal framework for creating 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 Nepmans were forced to work under the power and administrative roof of the party. But has such a situation changed since then?
The summer of 1987 is a significant time. In fact, from this moment, practical restructuring began. Glasnost, freedom of speech, the course towards disarmament, liberation from nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War, and 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 the social movement and the formulation of political, social and economic requirements for power - all these are 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, and 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 decisions.
And the last one. The years of Gorbachev's reign are the rehabilitation of the repressed generation of the 20-50s. The generation that “made” the revolution and whose mistakes Mikhail Sergeyevich tried to correct. However, how much can be done without the party, the state apparatus and in the conditions of constant positional battles, either with the power that seems to belong to you, or with the people who did not elect you. The lack of direct legitimacy is probably the main reason why the policy of perestroika was almost completely failed.
