Translated material
"Acceleration" and "Perestroika". 1986-1988. The debunking of a socialist myth
"Acceleration" and "Perestroika". 1986-1988. The debunking of a socialist myth July 27, 2022, Natalia Eliseeva 
The position of the church in the conditions of publicity the party weakened the traditional control of the party over the church. This was due not so much with the abandonment of atheism as one of the postulates of communist ideology, but with the intention to demonstrate the commitment of democratic freedoms, among which the freedom of religion did not seem so dangerous. The Russian Orthodox Church considered what was happening in the country as an opportunity to expand its influence in preparation for the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity in Rus' in 1988. The policy of the Central Committee in relation to the church was contradictory. Gorbachev publicly declared the cultural significance of the Russian Orthodox Church, and at meetings in the Central Committee, the question was considered the question "On countering foreign clerical propaganda in connection with the 1000th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in Rus'." On the one hand, there was a desire to present the upcoming holiday as a purely church, on the other hand, it was impossible in the conditions of the democratization of society to maintain a former attitude to the church. Therefore, the updated policy has acquired the features of the cultural program. The publications and the open sale of church literature were allowed, the anniversary celebrations were covered in secular press. Official propaganda used the anniversary to illustrate the "liberality" of the Soviet leadership. The delegations of the Moscow Patriarchate were able to freely participate in foreign conferences, colloquions and congresses on the 1000th anniversary. In June 1987, the UNESCO Executive Council adopted the resolution nominated by the USSR with a call to all members of the organization to widely celebrate this anniversary. In the secular press, the word "God" began to write with a capital letter. The story of C. Aitmatov “Plokh” was published, which actually legalized a religious topic. In January 1986, a union law on cults was adopted, in which the legal status of churches and clergymen was put under the legal basis. The communities of believers returned the ownership of church buildings. Visiting churches and compliance with religious rites has become open. The servants of other churches also showed activity. The debunking of a socialist myth in the spring and summer of 1988, public life was seething. Discussion clubs, committees of assistance to “Perestroika”, popular fronts and other informal political associations were created. The press openly spoke about a multi -party, market, radical restructuring of economic relations. The works of prohibited historians, philosophers were removed from the archives and special guard of libraries, and the documents were declassified. The spiritual awakening was evidenced by the public speeches of cultural figures, the recognition of such phenomena as the arbitrariness of law enforcement officers, the unlawful of many sentences of the court, the growth of drug addiction and prostitution. Films were previously prohibited by censorship. The cash desks of cinemas were lined up, films were discussed at work and at home. Of great interest were the films “Checking on the Roads”, “My Friend Ivan Lapshin”, “Commissar”, the television series “Strokes to the portrait of Lenin” and others. In the film “Repentance”, director T. Abuladze raised the question of the responsibility of every Soviet man for the crimes of Stalin and his environment. The picture caused an exceptional public outcry and was perceived as a signal to changes. The film, shot from M. Bulgakov’s story “Dog Heart”, entered the Golden Fund of Russian Cinematography. The truth of history, the tragedy of Stalinism, outlined by artistic means in M. Dudintsev’s novels “White Clothes”, D. Granin “Zubr”, A. Bek “New appointment”, A. Rybakov “Children of Arbat”, “Thirty -Fifth and Other years”, “Fear”, became a revelation. A previously prohibited classic of Russian literature - the novels of V. Grossman “Life and Fate”, B. Pasternak “Doctor Zhivago”, Yu. Dombrovsky “Guardian of Antiquities”, stories and novels by Yu. Tendryakov, A. Bitov, F. Iskander, became available. The spiritual life of Russians was enriched at the expense of emigrant writers-classics of Russian and world literature V. Nabokov, M. Aldanov, E. Zamyatin, N. Berberova. The publication of the “Cursed Days” by I. Bunin for many gave rise to doubts about the causes of the October Revolution and the values of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Publications of the works of V. Aksenov, V. Voinovich, V. Maksimov, S. Dovlatov, A. Zinoviev, Sasha Sokolov, V. Nekrasov, E. Limonov, who left the USSR in 1970-1980, significantly expanded the political horizons of many Soviet people. Political thought was enriched thanks to the publications of the works of outstanding Russian philosophers, expelled by Lenin in the 1920s, N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, I. Ilyin, P. Sorokin and the religious philosopher P. Florensky. In the spring of 1987, they stopped jamming radio broadcasting on the USSR from the countries of Europe, America and Asia: the Voice of America (by a special agreement dedicated to the visit of M. S. Gorbachev to the United States), and then the BBC, “Freedom”, “The German Wave”, etc. The opinion of foreign journalists on the solutions to our problems even more expanded political discussions. The liberation of thought, words, creativity took place in fierce clashes, attempts to discredit supporters of publicity. Especially a fierce confrontation was in the writer, writer's environment. Publicers and writers turned to readers based on their political addictions. The protective-patriotic, state direction prevailed in the theme of the magazines “Young Guard” and “Our Contemporary”. Magazines led among themselves the most acute controversy. In the newspaper Soviet Russia, an article of historians V.V. Gorbunov and V.V. Zhuravlev was published “What do we want to see in the mirror of the revolution? Reflections on the play of M. Shatrov "Further ... further ... further." The article stated that the accelerated pace of construction of socialism in the USSR in the 1930s was caused by historical necessity and the party did not have an alternative. The conclusion followed from such a statement that one could justify the “costs” of this policy - mass repressions, the robbery of peasants, a sharp increase in export abroad, and as a result of the Holodomor. The socio-political position of publications was identified. The democratic line was held by the magazines “Banner”, “New World”, “October”, “Neva”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Spark”, the newspapers “Moscow News”, “Arguments and Facts”, “Moscow Komsomolets”, Leningrad School. Then the unprecedented reader boom began. The circulations of literary and artistic magazines grew ten times and reached astronomical figures: “Youth”-3.1 million, “New World”-1.6 million, “The Banner”-700 thousand. Even scientific journals sharply increased circulation: “History issues”-70 thousand, “Questions of philosophy”-52 thousand copies [33]. In 1989, 8.8 thousand newspapers were published in a total circulation of 230 million copies and 1.6 thousand magazines with a circulation of more than 220 million. A year later, newspapers grew by 4.6%, magazines - by 4.3% [34]. The spiritual sphere of a recently calm society has set in motion. Since the beginning of 1998, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU has not subsided about the “border” of publicity, this topic was discussed at all its meetings. Gorbachev tried to extinguish the outbreaks of discontent with the press, which some members of the Politburo reproached for the bias and one -sided coverage of problems. The letter of Nina Andreeva on March 13, 1988 in the newspaper “Soviet Russia” published an article by the teacher of chemistry of the Leningrad Technological Institute N. Andreeva, under the characteristic name “I cannot be subject to principles”. In fact, it was a manifesto of opponents of Perestroika. N. Andreeva wrote: “To take a question about the place of I.V. Stalin in the history of our country. It is with his name that all the obsession of critical attacks is associated, which, in my opinion, concerns not so much the historical personality itself as the entire complicated transitional era. An era associated with an unprecedented feat of the whole generation of Soviet people, who today gradually depart from active labor, political and social activity. ... All this is called into question. It came to the point that from the "Stalinists" (and in their number you can enroll anyone if you want) began to persistently demand "repentance" [35]. The publication of the article was associated with the name of E.K. Ligachev. At a meeting in the Central Committee, he allegedly praised the article, recommended to carry out the appropriate work on the ground. Information about this leaked from the Academy of Social Sciences, from the Foreign Ministry, as well as from Leningrad, where some party organizations recommended the study of this article. They said that the article was preparing with the direct participation of the employees of the Central Committee. Ligachev did not hide that the ideas expressed in the article were close to him, but categorically rejected his involvement in its publication. The article was reprinted by some newspapers in the province. By the personal instructions of E. Honecker, she appeared in the GDR, in the newspaper Neyes Deutschland. It is clear that this was not an ordinary publication, but a carefully planned political action. Conceptually, the article diverged sharply from the interpretation of Soviet history, which was expressed by Gorbachev and was considered objective by that time. It would seem that in the context of pluralism and publicity, the interpretation of reform set forth in the article also had the right to exist. But taught by bitter historical experience, seeing the meaning of the party apparatus gives this publication, democratic forces perceived the article by N. Andreeva as a signal to stop reform, a call to return to their former positions. According to the staff of the Communist magazine, which was an active conductor of reform ideas, all week after publication they went, pulling their heads into the shoulders, with the thought: "That's it all ended." The situation changed after the broadcast on television of a grandiose rally of democratic forces in Leningrad against this article and after the editorial article of the newspaper Pravda was given an official response to it. Criticism of Andreeva’s theses was made by famous publicists, cultural figures, scientists: A. Helman “Time of Gathering forces”, Yu. Chernichenko “Two Secrets”, F. Burlatsky “What socialism people need?”, L. Shevtsov “Guarantees of Narmosion”, A. The shooting “On crackers and newspapers”. Having caught the public sentiment and the reaction of Gorbachev, “Soviet Russia” faded the hift: on April 6, 1988, it reprinted the Pravdinsky article, and on April 12 she placed a selection “from the post of these days”, where the “remorse” of the newspaper’s editorial office was clearly manifested. The rethinking of the Soviet past went even faster. The victims of the political processes of the 1930s and the post-war period were rehabilitated, memoirs, biographies, and memories of the rehabilitated leaders of the Bolsheviks of the “Leninist set” were published-N. I. Bukharin, L. D. Trotsky, A. G. Shlyapnikov, F. F. Raskolnikov. On television, documentary films dedicated to them were shown. The flow of publications about Bukharin, his understanding of market relations under socialism literally swept the "perestroika" publications. It is important to understand that it was with the “Bukharin” alternative to Gorbachev and his associates in the Central Committee that connected the last hope of the country's socialist model. On the pages of the magazines, the names of the political opponents of V. I. Lenin - A. F. Kerensky, B.V. Savinkov, V. M. Chernov, N. N. Sukhanov, I. G. Tsereteli; Representatives of the liberal intelligentsia - P.N. Milyukov, P. B. Struve. Then, the works of opponents of Bolshevism, leaders of the White Movement - A. I. Denikin, P. N. Wrangel and others began to be published - the author - professor of the Russian State University, the head of the educational and scientific center "New Russia. History of post -Soviet Russia". The original text is published on the website "History of the New Russia".
________________________________
[33] Kuznetsov I.V. History of Russian journalism (1917–2000). M.: Flint: Science. 2002. - http://evartist.narod.ru/text8/01.htm [34] arguments and facts. 1990. No. 19. [35] Soviet Russia. March 13, 1988.
.
The position of the church in the conditions of publicity the party weakened the traditional control of the party over the church. This was due not so much with the abandonment of atheism as one of the postulates of communist ideology, but with the intention to demonstrate the commitment of democratic freedoms, among which the freedom of religion did not seem so dangerous. The Russian Orthodox Church considered what was happening in the country as an opportunity to expand its influence in preparation for the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity in Rus' in 1988. The policy of the Central Committee in relation to the church was contradictory. Gorbachev publicly declared the cultural significance of the Russian Orthodox Church, and at meetings in the Central Committee, the question was considered the question "On countering foreign clerical propaganda in connection with the 1000th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in Rus'." On the one hand, there was a desire to present the upcoming holiday as a purely church, on the other hand, it was impossible in the conditions of the democratization of society to maintain a former attitude to the church. Therefore, the updated policy has acquired the features of the cultural program. The publications and the open sale of church literature were allowed, the anniversary celebrations were covered in secular press. Official propaganda used the anniversary to illustrate the "liberality" of the Soviet leadership. The delegations of the Moscow Patriarchate were able to freely participate in foreign conferences, colloquions and congresses on the 1000th anniversary. In June 1987, the UNESCO Executive Council adopted the resolution nominated by the USSR with a call to all members of the organization to widely celebrate this anniversary. In the secular press, the word "God" began to write with a capital letter. The story of C. Aitmatov “Plokh” was published, which actually legalized a religious topic. In January 1986, a union law on cults was adopted, in which the legal status of churches and clergymen was put under the legal basis. The communities of believers returned the ownership of church buildings. Visiting churches and compliance with religious rites has become open. The servants of other churches also showed activity. The debunking of a socialist myth in the spring and summer of 1988, public life was seething. Discussion clubs, committees of assistance to “Perestroika”, popular fronts and other informal political associations were created. The press openly spoke about a multi -party, market, radical restructuring of economic relations. The works of prohibited historians, philosophers were removed from the archives and special guard of libraries, and the documents were declassified. The spiritual awakening was evidenced by the public speeches of cultural figures, the recognition of such phenomena as the arbitrariness of law enforcement officers, the unlawful of many sentences of the court, the growth of drug addiction and prostitution. Films were previously prohibited by censorship. The cash desks of cinemas were lined up, films were discussed at work and at home. Of great interest were the films “Checking on the Roads”, “My Friend Ivan Lapshin”, “Commissar”, the television series “Strokes to the portrait of Lenin” and others. In the film “Repentance”, director T. Abuladze raised the question of the responsibility of every Soviet man for the crimes of Stalin and his environment. The picture caused an exceptional public outcry and was perceived as a signal to changes. The film, shot from M. Bulgakov’s story “Dog Heart”, entered the Golden Fund of Russian Cinematography. The truth of history, the tragedy of Stalinism, outlined by artistic means in M. Dudintsev’s novels “White Clothes”, D. Granin “Zubr”, A. Bek “New appointment”, A. Rybakov “Children of Arbat”, “Thirty -Fifth and Other years”, “Fear”, became a revelation. A previously prohibited classic of Russian literature - the novels of V. Grossman “Life and Fate”, B. Pasternak “Doctor Zhivago”, Yu. Dombrovsky “Guardian of Antiquities”, stories and novels by Yu. Tendryakov, A. Bitov, F. Iskander, became available. The spiritual life of Russians was enriched at the expense of emigrant writers-classics of Russian and world literature V. Nabokov, M. Aldanov, E. Zamyatin, N. Berberova. The publication of the “Cursed Days” by I. Bunin for many gave rise to doubts about the causes of the October Revolution and the values of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. Publications of the works of V. Aksenov, V. Voinovich, V. Maksimov, S. Dovlatov, A. Zinoviev, Sasha Sokolov, V. Nekrasov, E. Limonov, who left the USSR in 1970-1980, significantly expanded the political horizons of many Soviet people. Political thought was enriched thanks to the publications of the works of outstanding Russian philosophers, expelled by Lenin in the 1920s, N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, I. Ilyin, P. Sorokin and the religious philosopher P. Florensky. In the spring of 1987, they stopped jamming radio broadcasting on the USSR from the countries of Europe, America and Asia: the Voice of America (by a special agreement dedicated to the visit of M. S. Gorbachev to the United States), and then the BBC, “Freedom”, “The German Wave”, etc. The opinion of foreign journalists on the solutions to our problems even more expanded political discussions. The liberation of thought, words, creativity took place in fierce clashes, attempts to discredit supporters of publicity. Especially a fierce confrontation was in the writer, writer's environment. Publicers and writers turned to readers based on their political addictions. The protective-patriotic, state direction prevailed in the theme of the magazines “Young Guard” and “Our Contemporary”. Magazines led among themselves the most acute controversy. In the newspaper Soviet Russia, an article of historians V.V. Gorbunov and V.V. Zhuravlev was published “What do we want to see in the mirror of the revolution? Reflections on the play of M. Shatrov "Further ... further ... further." The article stated that the accelerated pace of construction of socialism in the USSR in the 1930s was caused by historical necessity and the party did not have an alternative. The conclusion followed from such a statement that one could justify the “costs” of this policy - mass repressions, the robbery of peasants, a sharp increase in export abroad, and as a result of the Holodomor. The socio-political position of publications was identified. The democratic line was held by the magazines “Banner”, “New World”, “October”, “Neva”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Spark”, the newspapers “Moscow News”, “Arguments and Facts”, “Moscow Komsomolets”, Leningrad School. Then the unprecedented reader boom began. The circulations of literary and artistic magazines grew ten times and reached astronomical figures: “Youth”-3.1 million, “New World”-1.6 million, “The Banner”-700 thousand. Even scientific journals sharply increased circulation: “History issues”-70 thousand, “Questions of philosophy”-52 thousand copies [33]. In 1989, 8.8 thousand newspapers were published in a total circulation of 230 million copies and 1.6 thousand magazines with a circulation of more than 220 million. A year later, newspapers grew by 4.6%, magazines - by 4.3% [34]. The spiritual sphere of a recently calm society has set in motion. Since the beginning of 1998, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU has not subsided about the “border” of publicity, this topic was discussed at all its meetings. Gorbachev tried to extinguish the outbreaks of discontent with the press, which some members of the Politburo reproached for the bias and one -sided coverage of problems. The letter of Nina Andreeva on March 13, 1988 in the newspaper “Soviet Russia” published an article by the teacher of chemistry of the Leningrad Technological Institute N. Andreeva, under the characteristic name “I cannot be subject to principles”. In fact, it was a manifesto of opponents of Perestroika. N. Andreeva wrote: “To take a question about the place of I.V. Stalin in the history of our country. It is with his name that all the obsession of critical attacks is associated, which, in my opinion, concerns not so much the historical personality itself as the entire complicated transitional era. An era associated with an unprecedented feat of the whole generation of Soviet people, who today gradually depart from active labor, political and social activity. ... All this is called into question. It came to the point that from the "Stalinists" (and in their number you can enroll anyone if you want) began to persistently demand "repentance" [35]. The publication of the article was associated with the name of E.K. Ligachev. At a meeting in the Central Committee, he allegedly praised the article, recommended to carry out the appropriate work on the ground. Information about this leaked from the Academy of Social Sciences, from the Foreign Ministry, as well as from Leningrad, where some party organizations recommended the study of this article. They said that the article was preparing with the direct participation of the employees of the Central Committee. Ligachev did not hide that the ideas expressed in the article were close to him, but categorically rejected his involvement in its publication. The article was reprinted by some newspapers in the province. By the personal instructions of E. Honecker, she appeared in the GDR, in the newspaper Neyes Deutschland. It is clear that this was not an ordinary publication, but a carefully planned political action. Conceptually, the article diverged sharply from the interpretation of Soviet history, which was expressed by Gorbachev and was considered objective by that time. It would seem that in the context of pluralism and publicity, the interpretation of reform set forth in the article also had the right to exist. But taught by bitter historical experience, seeing the meaning of the party apparatus gives this publication, democratic forces perceived the article by N. Andreeva as a signal to stop reform, a call to return to their former positions. According to the staff of the Communist magazine, which was an active conductor of reform ideas, all week after publication they went, pulling their heads into the shoulders, with the thought: "That's it all ended." The situation changed after the broadcast on television of a grandiose rally of democratic forces in Leningrad against this article and after the editorial article of the newspaper Pravda was given an official response to it. Criticism of Andreeva’s theses was made by famous publicists, cultural figures, scientists: A. Helman “Time of Gathering forces”, Yu. Chernichenko “Two Secrets”, F. Burlatsky “What socialism people need?”, L. Shevtsov “Guarantees of Narmosion”, A. The shooting “On crackers and newspapers”. Having caught the public sentiment and the reaction of Gorbachev, “Soviet Russia” faded the hift: on April 6, 1988, it reprinted the Pravdinsky article, and on April 12 she placed a selection “from the post of these days”, where the “remorse” of the newspaper’s editorial office was clearly manifested. The rethinking of the Soviet past went even faster. The victims of the political processes of the 1930s and the post-war period were rehabilitated, memoirs, biographies, and memories of the rehabilitated leaders of the Bolsheviks of the “Leninist set” were published-N. I. Bukharin, L. D. Trotsky, A. G. Shlyapnikov, F. F. Raskolnikov. On television, documentary films dedicated to them were shown. The flow of publications about Bukharin, his understanding of market relations under socialism literally swept the "perestroika" publications. It is important to understand that it was with the “Bukharin” alternative to Gorbachev and his associates in the Central Committee that connected the last hope of the country's socialist model. On the pages of the magazines, the names of the political opponents of V. I. Lenin - A. F. Kerensky, B.V. Savinkov, V. M. Chernov, N. N. Sukhanov, I. G. Tsereteli; Representatives of the liberal intelligentsia - P.N. Milyukov, P. B. Struve. Then, the works of opponents of Bolshevism, leaders of the White Movement - A. I. Denikin, P. N. Wrangel and others began to be published - the author - professor of the Russian State University, the head of the educational and scientific center "New Russia. History of post -Soviet Russia". The original text is published on the website "History of the New Russia".
________________________________
[33] Kuznetsov I.V. History of Russian journalism (1917–2000). M.: Flint: Science. 2002. - http://evartist.narod.ru/text8/01.htm [34] arguments and facts. 1990. No. 19. [35] Soviet Russia. March 13, 1988.
.
| Print version |
-
Leonid Gozman: No matter how circumstances develop, no one will want to go to real risks for the principles of justice and deposition. Although someone may well believe in the opposite.
