The collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the most sensational events of the twentieth century, and when the collapse of the Soviet Union is mentioned, scholars are bound to think of the reforms of the Khrushchev period, after all, there is an inseparable connection between the two.
However, there are also many opinions in academic circles on whether Khrushchev's reforms are correct. So, what reforms did Khrushchev do during his administration? How should we evaluate the reforms of the Khrushchev period? The following author will discuss this issue.
After the end of World War II, the Stalinist model developed by the Soviet Union during the two five-year plans began to expose serious shortcomings, which later buried the foundation of Soviet reform. Although there was a strong trend of reform in Soviet society at that time, under the constraints of Stalin's repressive policies, reform was still impossible to talk about.
On March 5, 1953, with the sudden death of Stalin, Soviet society also entered an eventful autumn.
In fact, in Stalin's last days, perhaps out of jealousy of the young, he distrusted no one, not even his one-handed cronies. As a result, he did not leave any form of political will or designation of an orthodox "successor." This created a peculiar phenomenon: a "window period" of supreme power in the USSR. No member of the Presidium can claim to be Stalin's successor.
In this context, if Khrushchev wants to reach the top, he must overcome one obstacle after another and solve the numerous opponents in the party. In fact, Khrushchev did possess leadership skills and gradually and quietly grasped the supreme power of the Soviet Union.
After Khrushchev came to power, he faced a very grim domestic situation. This grim situation, on the one hand, manifested itself as a political crisis at home, and as mentioned earlier, the shortcomings of the Stalin model were becoming increasingly prominent. What Stalin left to Khrushchev was also a mess, that is, the increasingly impoverished countryside, the low level of life of the Soviet population, all of which required a reform in the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, Khrushchev's regime was unstable after he came to power, and the legitimacy of his administration has always been criticized. Under these circumstances, Khrushchev had to reform to find a new way out for the Soviet Union. Although his reforms were sometimes capricious, they did not stop until he stepped down.
Khrushchev's reforms were divided into two phases, with the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU held in 1956 as the dividing line.
Since 1953, Khrushchev has successively made some reforms in the political, economic, cultural, military and other fields of the Soviet Union. In addition to the total repudiation of Stalin in the political field, he also made achievements in the field of agriculture and diplomacy.
In the field of agriculture, Khrushchev not only abolished the compulsory delivery and sale of agricultural products that had lasted for many years in the Soviet Union, but also vigorously advocated the "corn movement" in an effort to solve the dilemma of grain shortage in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev's agrarian reforms alleviated the Soviet food crisis to a certain extent, but the problem of soviet agricultural backwardness was not fundamentally solved. The industrial reform is mainly aimed at the chaotic situation of the national economy, and some remedial measures have been taken, but the fundamental drawbacks have not been touched.
If the Soviet Union wanted to move forward, it had to use a knife against the Stalin model, so "de-Stalinization" became the primary problem of Khrushchev's administration. However, Khrushchev did mix a lot of selfishness in the process of criticizing Stalin, which was one of the reasons for his later ouster.
Because Stalin had always been admired in the Soviet Union at home and abroad at that time, when Khrushchev "completely repudiated" Stalin, the Soviet people were ideologically confused, and the Polish-Hungarian incident occurred, which seriously dealt a blow to the people's revolutionary enthusiasm.
Of course, Khrushchev's political reforms were not useless; they destroyed the myth that Stalin was the only one, and the practice of letting Stalin step down from the altar liberated people's minds and began to realize the serious harm of the cult of personality. All this is undoubtedly important for advancing the structural reform of the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, we must evaluate Khrushchev's reforms from both positive and negative aspects.
According to the records, Khrushchev himself did not have a high level of education and theoretical accomplishment, which was also an important reason why Stalin considered Khrushchev to be like an "old peasant." It is undeniable that Khrushchev's reforms did have a positive effect on Soviet society, but due to his lack of theoretical knowledge, he often relied on his own intuition in decision-making, making the reforms lack scientific and effective.
Because of this, despite Khrushchev's violent attack on the Stalin model, the reformer's "adventurous" measures also played the role of a Soviet "gravedigger" to a certain extent. Khrushchev himself vigorously criticized the cult of personality, but with the strengthening of personal power, Khrushchev also accepted the praise and praise of others. Isn't this another remake of "Stalin"?
As an important change in the history of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev's reforms are still worthy of people's deep consideration. Although his reforms were not successful, they changed the history of the Soviet Union and extended the life of the Soviet Union, which was Khrushchev's greatest contribution to the Soviet Union!