On February 22, 1921, Mournal was formed by the decree of the Council of the RSFSR. Its creation was due to the transition of the country to peaceful economic construction, and the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO) was a prototype.
The first Chairman of the State University became G.M. Krzhizhanovsky. The same decree of the Council, the main content of the work of the new body was clearly defined - this is the development of a single national economic plan, methods and procedures for its implementation; Consideration and coordination with this plan of production programs and planned assumptions of various departments, as well as regional (economic) organizations in all sectors of the national economy.
The time has come to the new consideration of the functions and methods of the work of Mamurn in terms of their utility and applicability in our time. First of all, about the main function of the State Marna. Now few people will correctly call it. The majority will say - the development and organization of the implementation of state national economic plans. Externally, this is true. But the main essential function of Goslana was another. What is it? And why does the government's activities in terms of financial and economic policies do not answer the challenges of society?
What comes to mind when we remember the past twentieth century? Wars and revolutions? Right. And also? And we remember an amazing, unlike any other country - the USSR. The country, boldly opposing itself to the whole other, "civilized" liberal-bourgeois world. The world of the market propaganda, the world of capitalism, the world of "Market Element" Soviet authorities opposed the plan, subsequently supplemented by the market.
It is these, the very first five-year plans helped the young USSR with an incredible speed to heal the wounds of the First World and Civil Wars, in compressed, fabulous on rapid times to create completely new industries, engineering, design, scientific schools. It was the plans of the first five-year plans in many respects that the "architecture" and century of the current, XXI on the score, bringing the USSR among the most advanced states of their time.
You can scold or praise then Glav, but the fact remains a fact: the plan provided the opportunity to create, hold, catch up and distinguish, provided the opportunity to survive and defeat the worst of wars, ensured the unprecedented beauty and power of the breakthrough.
The plan of Goello was the first in the history of Soviet Russia - the first successes, failures, experience. Almost the entire composition of the headquarters of Goello entered the new body - Glav. And the energy was one of those who were the plans of the first five-year plans - they were already practitioners, and not theorists, they already understood what the integrated development of the regions.
Goello - "Father" of all our plans, energy - the basis of industrial, and hence the military, political power of the Soviet Union.
However, why only the Soviet Union? Open newspapers, turn on the TV: If the world speaks of Russia, then he speaks of its energy reserves, energy power, energy technologies. We are North, and in the north can only survive the owners, energy conquers.
But in 25 years after the start of market reforms, as a result of the collapse of the USSR under the populist slogans, the government completely lost the management of reproductive processes in the Russian economy, and a small business, barely arising, was "suffocked" the Ministry of Finance in the cradle. Here it came to the disposition, turning into the insight.
It turned out that the majority of the Russian population did not know and do not know now, as GRAN USSR worked.
Gosla (now - State Duma)
February 22, 2017 marks 97 years since the creation by the Council of People's Commissars of the State Planning Commission - Murnan of the USSR, - for 70 years that has been the Center for Economic Planning in the country. Is it worth remembering this date now? After all, Gamin USSR was the source of the Soviet political tough centralized system, flesh from the flesh of this system (Liberals say).
So why now, when a return point for the old age has long been completed, remember what can ever be revived? Of course, not for the sake of nostalgia. But in order to look at the current ones on the actions of our authorities through the prism of the past. There was a lot of instructive as in the work of Mamurn itself and in the fact and history of its creation.
The creation of Gosplan meant the choice and becoming a new economic device, the system of economic management in the new political system. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were also periods of changing political and economic systems. However, it is necessary to say that at the beginning of the 20s, the authorities were objectively much more difficult than now.
The change of power and property in those days caused a crucial civil war. Otherwise, it could not be. After all, the property was then taken away from an impersonal state, as now, but for specific people and social groups. Yes, and the power was selected at the former "elite" much more decisively. Of course, these social groups (if you want, classes) were prepared with weapons in the hands of protecting their power and their property. And the new system of management of the country's economy was necessary to create during the Civil War.
The then the authorities were harder and because there were no analogues of the new economic system, no one could teach, who had no one to write off. Marx and Engels are only theoretical, but did not give (and could not give) practical advice. Everything had to be inventing from pure sheet. Naturally, there were searches and throwing. Military communism quickly showed its unsuitability. The NEP seems to be recovered, helped at least somehow feed people. He gave freedom to a small manufacturer and merchant, but for the development of a large industry on an advanced technical basis, it was necessary to either return to the capitalist system, or to look for something fundamentally new.
Naturally, the question of managerial structures capable of ensuring the implementation of new plans. And in February 1921, on the basis of the Commission of the Goello, who developed the plan of electrification of the country, and was created by Gamin USSR (about the Galro Plan, read our WWW articles. Site / article / 5540).
He began his work with the preparation of annual people's economic plans, and in 1925 he began to develop the first five-year plan (read our article about the State Lamine - http://inance.ru/2015/08/gosplan/).
Centralized planned system has earned. Of course, the country still had to go through the hard period of collectivization. But it was largely caused and prepared by the already operating system of centralized planning.
It seems that it is useful and for us to look at the current financial and economic policy from this point of view. Is it managed managed? Upon expiry of so many years, the search for managerial structures that ensure the formation and consolidation new Economic system. We see too frequent changes in the format of economic departments with far from always clear functions. This is due to the lack of a government long-term economic program that would define the nature and functions of managerial structures designed to perform it.
Apparently, it's time new Consideration of some functions and methods of the work of Mamurn in terms of their usefulness and applicability in our time. In 1992, the forms and methods of the work of Mamurn were completely discarded. Such were the actions of the "primers". The main task of that time was the dismantling of the planned centralized system, and methods and on the deadlines made this process irreversible. Now, when the return point is passed, you can safely, without ideological emotions to consider the experience of the work of Mamla and take everything useful for use.
First of all, about the main function of the State District. Now few people will correctly call it. The majority will say - the development and organization of the implementation of state national economic plans. Externally, this is true. But the main essential function of Goslana was another.
Everyone knows that the economy is moving interests. Interests of all sectors submitted by the Councils, all industries, regions, while balanced on a methodological basis. That was the main function of the State Mamar. The slogan - "Everything for a person, everything in the name of a person," was embodied by the state.
These interests, rising from the bottom, formed the interests of the population, branches of government, state bodies and enterprises. It is so with any political and economic strict. This is an objective reality.
Soviet planned system included Glav and Gosnab. Glav predicted (planned) General Development and Budget Revenues, and the State Bank "tied" suppliers to consumers, which allowed a national economic complex of the country to develop a planned and progressively, and each resident of the country was confident in her future.
In all developed capitalist countries, the state is planning the main directions of economic development, carries out scientific and social programs, controls from 10 to 30% of all prices, causes the Central Bank to reduce to zero refinancing rate and print a lot of money (quantitative softening policy) to maintain the demand and development of industry and s / x; Small business revenues in the composition of GDP of developed capitalist countries range from 50 to 80%; The effective rate of the Central Bank (minus inflation rate) has negative countries.
The fact is that (on the hierarchy of lending) after the Central Bank there are system-forming banks, then industry, and then massive commercial banks. On each passing rates of loans increase. In order for the corporation (or small business enterprise) to receive an affordable loan under 3-4% per annum, the Central Bank has to reduce the rate to zero. But these "losses" are more than paying for the growth of indirect income in the growth of production and services in the real sector, which includes (in addition to industry and C / x) trade and banking.
But it is precisely this and does not want to do our Central Bank and our government! Why? Let's open the "terrible" state secret. We (after 25 years of reforms) there is no real market economy. The central bank, the monetary system, economic mechanism and the most important mechanisms of self-regulation - the wretched parody of the relevant elements of the economy of developed countries in which the planned system in the form of a bunch of "Banks - Corporation" is operating by default, adopted by officially liberal propaganda. Reproduction processes are on the verge of attenuation, and current economic processes are just the redistribution of natural rent under the control of the state apparatus.
Rent owners contain legislative, administrative and law enforcement agencies. They beneficially the existing state of affairs and, no matter how literate economists and scientists have not explained to the government and the Committees of the GD of their mistake, no one will change anything. With the help of political structures, everything "grasped" and everything is controlled. All constructive proposals are silent, or infinitely "specified" and "finalized".
"Projects of Perestroika" assured the population and leadership of Russia that the Constitution and the financial system from us will be the most advanced. After 25 years, it turned out that we do not even have our own payment system, and the Constitution and the financial system correspond to the level of the English colony, well-tied to the metropolis. Reducing defense capability (in the early years "Perestroika"), the collapse of science, industry and agriculture, emigration of scientific personnel, capital outflow, lack of efficient price control, hyperinflation (in the 90s), the lack of "long money" in the economy passed all Permissible limits and turned into a strategic threat.
Therefore, experts began to think about a new system for managing the Russian economy.
To think about the right distribution of responsibilities in the government, the functional purpose of the Central Bank, ministries and departments, on the indicative planning system. And the Parliament even adopted the "Law on Strategic Planning" than eating all professionals: in a country in which there are no legislatively approved standards for the costs and profits of corporations, strategic planning is in principle impossible. After a number of economic failures of the government, the idea of \u200b\u200bstate of state began to turn in the media space of Russia. But the creation of a new management system is a painful topic for a conversation, since many are afraid to lose their posts, property and privileges. And if you save what works well? And if you transplant managers and officials to other chairs, explaining in detail the new responsibilities? And if you save salary and property? Then, perhaps, will agree.
The main thing is that the new control system is really effective. Now, to survive in the conditions of a rapidly changing world, it is necessary to continuously improve the system of economic management. This is possible only with the agreed work of politicians, lawyers, economists, administrators, systemics and mathematicians, which should have an adequate and agreed system of representations. But at the country's senior leadership, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe possibilities of the existing system and the design of the new managerial apparatus is absent. Even at the level of the documents of the strategic development of the country, the lawmakers do not coordinate their terminological apparatus, not to mention to coordinate the objectives of priority in the vector documents. They made so many documents that now the president and the prime minister is no longer able to "recycle" the colossal amount of information that "collapses" on them. The specialized body of the Higher Economic Department is needed, which "unloads" them from the routine of small approvals and the adoption of important decisions where the intuition of a normal person ends, but the organization of such a body requires a scientific methodology, which takes into account the positive moments of the State Institution, including the balance sheet method, which is planned intersectoral interaction.
I must say about the main methodological instrument of state of the USSR - balance method. All the work of Gosplan was based on the balancing of needs and resources. The balance sheet is the invention of Mamurn, which is undeservedly forgotten and discarded. We give one very relevant example.
Even in Soviet times, it was decided to build the Burea hydroelectric station, and in the expert period it was started. The decision on the construction of this HPP was made on the basis of promising balances of production and consumption of electricity and fuel in the Far East. Already then from these balances it was clear that in the future there may be a shortage of fuel and electricity. In 1992 - 1993, the construction of the HPP was practically frozen due to budget deficit. Balances already did not interest anyone. The main national interest in the field of economics was as mentioned above, minimizing budget deficit. In the budget for 2001, the funds for its construction are allocated, but it has not saved the situation. And could have already been to 2000 and to complete. Then there would be no such problems with electricity in Primorye.
It is necessary to revive fully balance jobs. Of course, it cannot be policy makers, as in the State Times. Let it be pierced, forecast balances. The name is not important - it is important that the government knows in advance, where it can be subtle, and the lack of economic providence and the current composition of the government.
In this sense, the state can be sectoral balances by industry, including them in a promising development plan.
The requirements for it are simple: plans by industry should be given such that the industry can be guaranteed to fulfill them, that is, to have a certain margin of stability. In other words, plans should not be strained and even more so - "overdress", i.e. Obviously impossible due to their insecurity by resources and production facilities.
The presence of available resources and reserves of production facilities in all industries should be as guaranteed to ensure the implementation of the general plan, as well as - over-fulfillment if society needs this product in more volume, rather than this is provided for by the plan.
A question may arise: why do such a general plan need, if it should be obviously fulfilled? If plans in the field of the national economy are assessed, then such industries will try to "jump above heads", and then either the results and reporting, or the industry, working at the limit of opportunities, will go into the separation as it could not be observed on economic experience THE USSR.
The plan should ask the border below which the production should not fall out, because otherwise the quality of life of society will be unacceptable. And all that the industry produces in excess of the plan will go to the stability of the industry plan and doparere after the market.
In addition to the fact that the plan should initially be provided with a reserve of production facilities in all sectors, scientific and technical and technological progress, also goes to the stability of the plan.
Scientific and technical progress is unpredictable, and therefore it is impossible to plan at the national level. Innovations are created on the ground in an initiative order. Further fate is determined by the fact that the national system of macroeconomic management and ethics that dominates society can integrate innovation into products, technology and in the organization of its production, distribution and consumption.
The requirements for socio-economic development plan denied the practice of planning in the USSR, when the plan had to be extremely tense (and was really overdought and therefore not fulfilled). Scientific and technological and technological progress "was planned" from the ceiling, and the economic system was immune to him, since the speed of monopolized centralized planning and the policy-address management was not able to take into account and evaluate all the plurality of inventions and give the team to their introduction into practice Management.
Read more about events that should be implemented for effective government regulation of the economy, read the article - http://inance.ru/2014/11/gosregulirovanie02/.
Yes, it is democracy, in the conditions of the totalitarian political system. It must be said here about the fact that such a state of the USSR is organizational. The state planned commission was the body of several dozen people, which was included in the leadership of the USSR State University, devices of the Federal Republic of Mamar, many ministers and a large number of largest scientists, and not only economists, but also representatives of all branches of science. It was a body that concentrated the mind of society.
The largest and most complex problems took place for consideration by the USSR. Often, when the decision was particularly difficult, the meeting of the USSR of the USSR lasted two full days. Given the opportunity to speak to everyone. They sounded a variety of points of view. Not a single decision was made authoritarian, without exit, as they say now, to some consensus. The meeting of the Collegium of the State University also took place. It would be dishonest to argue that these bodies did not experience the pressure of party, political requirements. Of course, they were tested, especially after the 1953 state vehicle (about it, the cycle of articles http://inance.ru/2015/02/iuda/), when the role of Mamurn became subordinate, depending on the party conjuncture. But still, in the framework of these political requirements, the possibility of finding the best solution, while the science voice was listened.
Now there were also attempts to form such bodies in the form of different councils under the president or government. These attempts have not yet been crowned with success. It's a pity. Apparently, such tips in their format are not adapted to business consideration and decision-making. An example of this is the Council under the leadership of A. Kudrin. What the members of this council are offered (they simply do not want to call experts) - an increase in retirement age, an increase in VAT for social and significant goods (which will immediately increase prices), reducing the share of social spending in the budget structure, etc.
And all this is presented to implement the installation of the IMF to reduce the level of inflation to 4%, which became a kind of mantra of the government and the Central Bank, which the question of the system of inflation in the economy are interest rates, do not even consider interest rates. So it turns out that the only true to the funds listed above.
Such a structure (advice), which includes high-ranking civil servants, entrepreneurs, may apparently work efficiently only as part of the economic state body responsible for planning the development of the entire economy, both at the production level and at the level of the financial system, and not for which - It is part of it. But for this you need to have such an organ.
The sign of democratism was also a special role in the State Specialists. It must be said that the main meaningful work of Mamurn was made not a different kind of chiefs, but by experts. There was even such a post - the chief specialist whose opinion was decisive. Specialists in the state of law were grown, cherished.
We confine ourselves to mention some of the first specialists who have entered GRANS USSR 97 years ago: G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, I.T. Alexandrov, V.R. Williams, I.M. Gubkin, D.N. Spanks, s.g. Stunilin, MA Blood. These are all people of world fame.
Power, money, capital and prediction of the future at all times were shrouded in a mystical secret. There are always many wishing to talk on this topic, but not everyone can explain their nature.
In the XIX century, scientists used to explain the change of social formations used the language of dialectical logic, which mathematics still cannot formalize. And only in the XX-century, a systematic and reasoned study began and explaining social and economic phenomena. The science of the XIX century, starting to understand the control systems (SU) of electrical and mechanical systems, did not have an adequate tool for describing Su Economic and social systems. The western science of the XX century only began to study with the economic and social systems, but did not bring it to the end. But the specialists of the Soviet Union brought this work until the end and at the end of the 1980s have formed a terminological apparatus of a sufficiently common control theory, with which you can describe any processes, since any process can be described as a process or management or self-management.
And a fairly general theory of management (DOT) will play a decisive role in the 21st century. If the maintenance of electrical and mechanical systems is based on devices that have their own purposes, then the SU social and economic systems are based on managing people with their goals, aspirations and future intentions. Therefore, the insensible approach of Western science is doomed at the collapse. The basis of the culsible control of the super-system of mankind (the theory of supersystems is an integral part of the Dota) is an ethical approach, affecting the relationship between the elements of the supersystems for the entire depth of the universe, up to the all-incidence of God.
The complete economic illiteracy of the part-time "elite" of the CPSU Central Committee led to the fact that the reform of the economic mechanism in the new Russia was commissioned to people with very peculiar "theoretical views" that were formed abroad. In the process of restructuring (1985-1995), annoying and incompetent criticism (real and imaginary) vices of "totalitarian socialism" led to the fact that (in the absence of a scientific school of the economy and finance), we received a market economy in the very vulgar interpretation that excludes any "planning Systems "(term from the book" Economic Theory and Objectives of the Company "J.Gelbright, Advisor of two US presidents).
In 1985 - 1995, good prognostic models for the transition economy were developed at the USSR Central Academy of Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (these developments are partially used, for example, division into federal districts - our approx.) And with some transformation, Min Laman could become first-class prognostic The centers that focus on our entrepreneurs and the government in the context of a continuously changing market situation.
But the meaning of almost the finished design of the "Probami Perestroika" understood was not and they were abolished. And the first was destroyed by the GCT (State Committee on Science and Technology) with a unique system of observation and introduction of new equipment and technologies. Then - the State Committee, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and others, invariant to the Forms of Property Property.
The Ministry of Economics failed to replace the GRAND and many important processes (management of labor and federal programs, the budget process and accounting for state security factors) still have no relevant administrative bodies or algorithms, nor responsible persons.
Modern Russian Academy of Sciences for 25 years of complete ideological freedom has failed to create a full-fledged system of economic views. Economic training in universities is conducted on primitive Western textbooks.
In the terminological apparatus of all economic departments of leading universities of Russia there are gaping failures.
Especially - in matters of finance and government. Shamanic spells of the heads of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance (about the targeting of inflation) and political scientists (about democracy) became noticeable even to inexperienced listeners. Modern government figures do not negate such words as "indicative planning", "economic efficiency" and "reporting on the implementation of state programs." The term "forecast" is used so irresponsible that the devaluation of this concept began. Parliament is imposed on the options for forecasting the activities of the government, without mentioning, for which option it is specifically responsible.
No prime minister read about the achievement of advanced goals. But no academician from the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences elevated his voice at the sight of this "state madness". Therefore, the general situation, despite the external fit, resembles the USSR before decaying. "Elite" does not want to change anything without knowing about its real future. But who cares?
The history of our country - everything that was and good and bad - largely reflected in the activities of the USSR states. GRANS USSR is an outstanding phenomenon in history. Such a phenomenon can not be simply forgotten, but should be used for the future, but where are you in the network to find the scanned reports on the first five years? We found them only in the paper version in the library. Lenin.
Plan
Introduction
1. History
1.1 Building
1.2 Previous Names and Subordination
1.3 Tasks and functions of the USSR
1.3.1 Evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry during the Great Patriotic War
1.3.2 after the war
2 Plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR
2.1 GRANS USSR and the implementation of plans for the development of national economy of the USSR
2.1.1 First five-year plan (1928-1932)
2.1.2 Second Five-Year Plan (1933-1937)
3 apparatus of state of law of the USSR
3.1 Apparatus in the 1920s
3.2 "The Case of State University" in 1949
3.3 apparatus in the 1980s
3.4 Chairmen of the USSR
3.5 Deputy Chairman
3.5.1 20 years
3.5.2 30 years
3.5.3 40 years
3.5.4 50 years
3.5.5 60 years
3.5.6 70 years
3.5.7 80 years
3.5.8 90 years
3.6 Structural units
4 Commissions for the USSR
5 institutes under the USSR
6 Organization for the USSR
7 editions of Mamurn USSR
Bibliography
Introduction
1. History
On August 21, 1923, the State Commission of the USSR on Planning under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (one hundred USSR) was established. Initially GRAND USSR He played a consultative role, coordinating the plans of the Union republics and producing a general plan. From 1925, Gamran USSR began to form an annual plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control numbers".
The prototype of its creation was the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), who worked from 1920 to 1921.
1.1. Building
To understand the history of this most important for the socialist era of the USSR state authority, it is necessary to briefly describe the history of the building occupied by the USSR.
· The building is built on the site of the Paraskewra Church (Friday) Reverend in Okhotny Row (1686-1928)
· The main building is located on the street Okhotny row, house 6. It was built in 1934-1938 on the project of architect A. Ya. Langman for the placement of the Council of Labor and Defense, then the Council of People's Comisiversary of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and Finally, state of the USSR. The building has a characteristic imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.
· The second building of the USSR of the USSR was the building that was published on the St. George alley, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely consists of glass and concrete.
Between itself, the buildings are connected by the transition.
According to some data, the building of the USSR of the USSR was mined in 1941, and was clear only in 1981. For a happy accident, the builders found the wires "Going nowhere"
· Currently, the building is located the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.
Also, for the USSR state name in 1936, on the project of an outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on the aircrafttener in Moscow, currently known as the Garage of the State Mourner and is a monument of history and culture.
Previous names and subordination of the task and functions of the USSR
See also: five-year plan, seventels.
In the Regulations on the State Commission Commission approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on February 28, 1921, determined:
"Under the Board of Labor and Defense, a generally established commission is created for the development of a single national economic plan based on an electrification plan and for overall monitoring of this plan"
At the beginning of its activities, Gamran USSR was studying the situation in the economy and drawing up reports on certain problems, for example, to restore and develop coal mining regions. The development of a single economic plan of the country began with the release of annual control numbers, directives for 1925-1926, which identified landmarks in all sectors of the economy.
The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the USSR economy, drawing up the country's development plans for various times.
· In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the V All-Russian Congress of the Council on July 10, 1918, to the subject of the management of the All-Russian Congress of the Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Council: "K) the establishment of the foundations and common plans of the entire national economy and its individual industries on the territory of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic. "
· In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of the Councils of the USSR January 31, 1924, the maintenance of the Supreme Authorities of the USSR: "C) The establishment of the foundations and general plans of the entire National Economy of the Union, the definition of industry and individual industrial enterprises with the Union of Industry , conclusion of concession contracts, both the Union and Union and Union republics. "
· Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of the Soviet Councils on December 5, 1936 provided that in the conduct of the USSR, in the person of its higher authorities and government bodies, it is: "K) the establishment of national economic plans of the USSR", and Article 70 attributed to Gamla USSR to Public Administration authorities, the Chairman of the USSR, Chairman of the USSR, was part of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
· Article 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the USSR Supreme Council on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of the "economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account the industry and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations. " To maintain the USSR, in the person of his senior authorities and management include: "5) carrying out a single socio-economic policy, the leadership of the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for the rational use and protection of natural resources; Development and approval of state plans for economic and social development of the USSR, approval of reports on their implementation ", control over the implementation of state plans and tasks are carried out by the folk control bodies formed by the Councils of People's Deputies (Article 92). The approval of state plans of the economic and social development of the USSR is carried out by the Supreme Council of the USSR (Article 108). Council of Ministers of the USSR: "2) develops and introduces current and promising state plans for the USSR to the USSR Supreme Council, the USSR state budget; takes measures to implement state plans and budget; Represents the Supreme Council of the USSR reports on the implementation of plans and budget execution "(Article 131). Mention of Murnan of the USSR in this constitution is absent.
· The law of the USSR of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI of Lamin USSR from the Union-Union transformed into the Union-Republican authority. The same act determined that the Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee is part of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).
· The main task of Murnan of the USSR since the end of the 60s before the liquidation in 1991 was: Development in accordance with the CPSU program, directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of State People's Plans to ensure the proportional development of the national economy of the USSR, continuous growth and improving the efficiency of social production In order to create a material and technical base of communism, a steady increase behind the life of the people and strengthening the country's defense capability.
"The state plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR should be optimal, based on the economic laws of socialism, on the modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results of scientific research of economic and social problems of communist construction, comprehensive study of social needs, on the right combination of industry and territorial planning. , as well as centralized planning with economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on State Lamina of the USSR, approved. Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers of September 9, 1968 No. 719) "
The work of the Namurnan of the USSR on the planning of the national economy was coordinated with the central statistical offices (CSB), the drug addict (later by the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (HSSR HSSR), and later with the GKST USSR, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Bank.
Evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry during the Great Patriotic War
Resolution of the State Committee for Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 "On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises", the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry is entrusted with the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry. In particular, special attention was paid to ensuring that when placing evacuated enterprises, the advantage was given to the aviation industry, industrial ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored cars, black, colored and special metallurgy, chemistry. Commissarians were prescribed to coordinate with the USSR Mamurn and the Evacuation Council endpoints for enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicate industries.
N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized GKO on the implementation of the industrial plan for the production of ammunition, and his deputy M. Z. Saburov
For July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million people - workers, engineers, technicians and other specialists were relocated to the east of the country. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out in the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as in the southern republics of the country - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.
After the war
In May 1955, Gamran USSR was divided into two parts:
· The State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for promising planning has developed long-term plans for 10-15 years
History of economic science
GRAND and state strategic planning
B.A. Raysberg
The article outlines the main milestones of the creation and activities of Mamurn as the central body of strategic planning in the Soviet economy. The problems of the revival of strategic planning of socio-economic development in modern Russia are related to these.
The name "GRAND" is known to the younger generation of Russians except as a historical category of irrevocably past past, the relic of the Soviet era. Older people associates Glavov with a symbol, the personification of the building that prevailed in Russia for seven decades, formerly for the presentation of many people by the Bastion of the Planned Management System, General Staff of the so-called "command" economy. Persons experiencing for one reason or another for hostility to the Communist ideology, to the Soviet past, little that know about the activities of the State Planning Committee as the Government body of the Soviet Union, are inclined to unconditionally condemn Gran, consider it by archaism who has ever been in the summer due to complete unsuitability for market management economy. And on the contrary, experiencing nostalgia for old times, remembering not only the deficit of goods and queues in stores, but also solid state prices, not subject to chronic inflation, and sometimes declining, remember the "late" state of state with regret.
The existence of the State District (State Planning Committee) covers the period from February 22, 1921, when he was created by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on the basis of the Commission on the Development of the State Plan of Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), and until 1991, when the Ministry was created instead of Murnan Economy of the Russian Federation. Glav was organized as a body that exercise the national planning of the development of the national economy of the country and control over the implementation of national economic plans. Personal friend of Lenin, a well-known scientist in the field of energy, academician G.M. Krzhizhanovsky.
At first, Glavov acted as an analytical and consulting center, since 1925 he began to develop planned reference points for the development of sectors of the economy for the next year in the form of control numbers. Since 1928, the development of state five-year plans for the development of national economy has begun. In just 1990, 12 such plans were drawn up (one of them from 1959 to 1965 was at the wild of Khrushchev seven-year).
There is no doubt that Granmark made a significant contribution to the formation and growth of the Soviet economy, the country's industrialization, the formation of industrial potential, which has reserved and defeat the Terrible War years. The field of activity of the State Unitary Enterprise of the State Enterprise, his relations with other government bodies were continuously expanded, a network of scientific organizations included in the State Unitary Enterprise, the development of draft planners and finding ways to solve periodically emerging economic and social problems was involved in institutions and prominent scientists of the Academy of Sciences, Research and Research and project sectoral, regional organizations (Streamlin, 1957). Alas, the State District Tradition of Economic Science In the process of developing and justifying strategic national economic decisions was largely lost.
The history of Goslana is far from cloudless, a political struggle was put on her, intrigues, eliminating the so-called "enemies of the people." Already in the 1920s. Scientific controversy, when there was a creative discussion about plans and planning in the conditions of socialism, which was involved in the largest Russian scientists-economists of that time, was ousted by a party dictation. Academic scientists have been declared by bourgeois, dismissed from scientific research, physically destroyed. The victims of persecution and repression were outstanding scientists with world name
A.B. Chayans and N.D. Kondratyev.
The creator of the theory of economic cycles, the long waves of Kondratyev defended the idea that the role of promising plans is not to fix quantitative volumetric indicators, but in establishing a general development orientation, developing a strategy. Meanwhile, in the political report of Stalin at the XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in December 1927, it was clearly stated: "Our plans are not forecasting plans, not plans for guesses, but directive plans that are mandatory for the governing bodies and which Determine the direction of our economic development in the future on the scale of the country. " Perhaps, it was this Stalinist plant that determines the influence of rejection, the rejection of state indicative planning (forecast plans), still observed in our country.
The leading workers, the leaders of Murnan did not avoid personnel cleaning and repression. Among the persons repressed in 1937 were the Chairmen of State University V.I. Interlak I.
B.I. Smirnov, shot in 1938, the same tragic fate was postgrad in 1949 N.V. Voznesensky, who led GRAM in the period of the Great Patriotic War, appointed in 1949 by the authorized state committee of defense for the production of ammunition, one of the main Kuznetsov obsessed in the war of victory over fascism.
Throughout the Soviet history, despite the most mentioned and other tragic events, failures in the state planning, which did not allow to enter many scheduled frontiers, win the competition with the capitalist system, Gamram has steadily expanded the scale of their activities. In 1921, the staff of the State University of State Affairs consisted of 40 economists, engineers and employees of support services, in 1923 there were already 300 employees in the State University, in 1950 - 1500 people, and in the 80s. The number of employees in the State System exceeded 3,000 employees (Baybakov, 2001).
But it is not only in numbers. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, who inherited a small tolik of the management functions of the State University, in 2006 there were over 2,000 employees. Meanwhile, Glav sent and controlled the economic activity of all ministries and departments of the country, i.e. The circle of functions performed by them went far beyond the limits of the action zone of one separately taken modern ministry, even such as the Ministry of Economy or the Ministry of Finance.
The Laman's system included an extensive network of research organizations (Economic Institute, Institute of Planning and Standards, Institute of Integrated Transport Problems, Timing Council for the Study of Productive Forces), Chief Computing Center, State Expert Commission, Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reformations, Higher Economic Courses. Glav has published the leading magazine of the economic profile "Planned economy", transformed into the magazine "Economist". Thus, the country's planned center has had a scientific and information infrastructure that allowed the methodological support for planning developments in a high damage. Moreover, scientific organizations were directly involved in the preparation and justification of plans, in the development of forecasts and targets
programs based on short and medium-term plans (http://www.cultinfo.ru/ & shech ^ 1/001/008/012 / 165.htm).
In the poststalin period of socio-political thaws observed in the 1960s, tangible changes in the methodology and organization of government planning occur, the policy-team planning shifts towards the split-but-co-approval, acquires a more democratic, liberal character. Forecasting is not only recognized, but becomes part of the planning process at the state level. At the initiative of the chairman of Government A.N. Kosygin, formerly before the Chairman of the State District, in 1965, an economic reform was carried out, which raised the economic independence of industrial enterprises. The number of planned indicators descended from the top, by the State of state and ministries, was reduced. Enterprises have gained the opportunity to plan their activities based on the indicators of the products sold, the profits and profitability of the production, which were previously brutal as "capitalist".
The movement towards the combination of government planning with the gradual expansion of the commodity-cash zone, the contractive-level-market relations continued in subsequent years along with the liberalization of planned processes. Predestly sectoral national economic planning was increasingly linked to the regional. Part of the promising plans were the general schemes for the placement of the productive forces, developed with the participation of the Union republics, major regions of the country.
The planning process was built according to the scheme of iterative inter-level coordination. Projects of the plans received from the State District In the form of enlarged control figures, the main directions were disaggred, detailed, were specified by ministries, regional planned authorities, production organizations
and, after which he retracted in an aggregated form back to the upper levels of the planned system, which ensured the coordination of the vertical plans in the territorial and sectoral cuts.
It is fundamentally important to note that the planned directives (and rather installation) of Murnan in the form of indicators of the production of goods and services and financial indicators were supported by the allocation of the relevant volume of government investments and material and material resources, the supply of which was provided by the state system of logistics in the person of the State Service. The volume of resource provision of commodity producers was determined according to regulations, and rather stable price parameters were guaranteed by operating methods of state pricing, price planning. To a certain extent there was a counter planning, in which planned initiatives and suggestions were made on top, and from the bottom - on the part of enterprises, organizations, ministries, departments, regions.
It cannot be said that the Soviet system of government planning was excessively tight. Failure to comply with plans rarely punishable by strict punishments. Gosplan devoted to the adjustment of plans at least than their development. In Wednesday, Mourn Novtsov with a smile and hidden sarcasm, a statement was made: "The final idea of \u200b\u200bthe annual plan can only be obtained at the end of the year when it is subjected to the last adjustment." It is clear that the corrected plans were mainly carried out.
I would like to refute the common false belief, according to which Glav planned the entire nomenclature of the products produced up to the "screw and wrench". In reality, the State Annual Plan of Economic and Social Development was developed by the State University for the production of only a few thousand types of products.
the five-year-old - at an even more narrowed structure of the indicators, while the Soviet economy produced tens of millions of types of products. A certain degree of "planned freedom" had almost all business entities.
With all the imperfections and individual defects of the Soviet system of state planning, in which there is no so much of Glav, how many party and state ideology, tied by the Communist in the form that existed during this period in shape and non-compliant power, the Methods and the Organization of State Planning were continuously progressed. In any case, the improvement, improvement of planning on the national, union-republican, ministerial, local production levels was the subject of constant care and attention of the Laman itself and the highest bodies of state power. The status position of state socio-economic planning was enshrined in ch. 16 of the USSR Constitution, the State Plan himself had the power of the law. The Soviet planning system was studied and socialist, and capitalist countries borrowed in something.
The following organizational and methodological principles and forms of strategic government planning were worked out in the Soviet economic science and practice of planned management and partially embodied the following organizational and methodological principles.
Construction of a system of multi-level plans with a different current period of a planning period, uniting short, medium- and long-term plans, extended through the use of continuously sliding planning;
Combining forecasting, planning, accounting and monitoring the progress of plans to a single process;
Development and implementation of targeted programs as one of the forms of state promising planning;
The use of economic and mathematical methods, computer and information technology in planning, the creation of an automated planning system of planned calculations (ASPR) of the State University of the USSR and the State Union of the Union republics.
The least successful undertakings of the State University have to include numerous attempts to learn long-term strategic planning in the form of long-term, calculated for 15 years, state plans for economic and social development. It was also failed to solve the problem of embedding in annual and five-year plans for targeted programs that were not linked to goals, resources, terms with production plans and budget opportunities.
But the crushing blow to the state planning in Russia was inflicted not inherent in the planned imperfection system, and market reforms, accompanied by the same collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of its economy. As you know, there was no holistic, thoughtful, pre-planned program for the transition from a centrally manageable Soviet economy to some other, more attractive economy, which was noticed by a market, not knowing, essentially, she will be represented in Russia. Rather, the political task of eliminating the system that existed 70 years has been raised, and prevents its rebirth than the task of building an updated economy on a reasonable project built, taking into account the historical, national, natural features of the country and the mentality of its people.
In order to reliably solve the political task, the reformers ringed it with the elimination of economic, managerial institutions that existed in the dying political system. State property began to take care, dispel and immediately choose through early privatization. From the deficit of goods got rid of, having released the price "Gina", which immediately ate, turned into dust
population consignments of hundreds of billions of rubles, causing hyperinflation. A planned management system has declared not only unnecessary, but also a harmful, contraindicated desired market. Sacrifice was also brought by Glav.
The logic of refusal from plans and planning was amazing, difficult to compile. For example, the retriever lady of Larisa Piyashev from among those who are fond of crazy, but impressively sounding ideas expressed in a nontrivial form, stated to the whole voice: "Or a plan, or market, you can not be semi-cleaning." Whatever enough, but the physiological analogy in its application to the management of the economy was acceptable and for more solid persons who have decided to eliminate Mamurn, as well as for the apologists of the free market, which believes that state planning is evil.
The opposition of the plan and the market as incompatible categories refers to the discharge of misunderstandings. Plans, planning is a universal property immanently inherent in any kind of conscious, purposeful, managed from the outside of activities, including market. Man, social group, society, the state, which have certain goals, are forced to establish plans to achieve these goals. Otherwise, the goals themselves are a fiction, the fruit of imagination, a suggestion tool or deception.
The main agents of any market in the face of producers of goods, sellers, buyers, other personnel of the sphere of treatment cannot do without planning. The manufacturer must plan production, and the seller is the sale of goods based on market solvent demand. Buyers, acquirers, customers before entering the market, plan volumes and structure of procurement, orders, based on their needs and solvency. So the market itself needs planning and forecasting. It can only be about how much market turnover is planning, buying and selling is the case of market participants, and
in what - the state, although the state itself is, the market participant.
Adam Smith's fair remark that the market regulates its own "invisible hand", in no way excludes planning. After all, this "Hand" is guided by business plans concluded by contracts, contracts, pre-planned production programs, purchases, sales, price intentions, representing nothing but not declaring plans before time.
The dismissive attitude to the plans characteristic of the liberal doctrine did not extend, fortunately, its influence on corporate planning. In the conditions of forming market forms and business methods in Russia, entrepreneurial planning on the contrary strengthened its position, embodied in numerous, largely mandatory business plans, programs, projects, planned and reporting balances of firms. At the regional and government levels, budget planning has strengthened. Budgets have become the main form of macroeconomic financial plans, showed a tendency to transition from annual budgeting to a three-year-old. The ban on the development of state plans formally did not affect federal, regional and municipal socio-economic programs and projects, which, on the conviction of the market workers, are able to replace so hated national plans.
A powerful blow to market reforms caused government planning in its material and real form: in the form of macroeconomic indicators of production plans and consumption in the natural, physical dimension, representing the most reliable way to obtain an objective idea of \u200b\u200bthe economy. In the established system of fiscal-and-software macroeconomic planning, natural figures that occupied the leading place in the Soviet state planning are pushed by cost, monetary.
As a result of the cumulative action of market transformations, which brought from the outside of the liberal model of economic management, strategic, national, national planning for the remote perspective practically stopped its full existence in Russia. It has been reduced to declarative concepts that do not have a planned force that do not bind and not generate responsibility. Objectivity, we note that in the former newsletter system, it was not possible to breathe life into long-term plans, give effective, reality long-term strategic government targeted programs. But nevertheless existed and largely achieved the guidelines for five years of state plans for economic and social development. Nowadays, the visibility of strategic planning is supported except for long-term forecasts, periodically updated target programs that are not leaving for the intended end result, and formed long-term developmental strategies for the development of oil and gas, fuel and energy, transport complexes.
The legislative and regulatory framework of state forecasting, programming, planning was presented in 1995 by Federal Law No. 115-FZ "On the State Forecasting and Programs of the Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation". The imperfection of this law was clearly noticeable at the stage of his consideration and approval, but it acts and so on with minor changes. The draft law on state strategic planning prepared by the Government of the Russian Federation is at an early stage of consideration. The concepts "strategic plan", "State Plan" have been so lost interest from the Company, which for their revival had to resort to the formula "Putin Plan".
An important role in the extrusion of state strategic planning
we played coagulation of scientific research in this area, the exclusion of government planning from the composition of the subjects studied in universities of the economic profile, the absence of "program-target planning" courses.
Transformation of forms and business methods in the Russian economy, which ranked the name of market reforms, led to the abolition of the Soviet system of state planning, the elimination of Mamla without replacing it with an adequate planning body across the country in which the reformers simply did not see the need. The functions of public prediction were assigned to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation. These functions have been reduced to the periodic development of several options (optimistic, pessimistic, medium) on the basis of medium-term, and in fact short-term forecasts that did not have a significant impact on the conduct of state economic, industrial, social policy. The forecast developments of the ministry did not go to scheduled design, to build strategic plans and did not have a significant impact on the formation of disparate, non-associated federal, regional, municipal targeted programs. The transition from annual to three-year budgets did not lead to the development of strategic planning through the synthesis, combining the planned and management activities of the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, to achieving the coherence of budget and software designs.
Separate functions of strategic planning and management in modern Russia fulfills the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, which follows from the increasing binding of the main directions and decisions in the field of socio-economic policy for annual presidential messages. To some extent, it is legitimate to consider that expert management is related to strategic planning
President of the Russian Federation authorized to engage in coordination, development and expertise of nationwide projects, forecasting and scenarios for the development of socio-economic relations (Polterovich, 2007).
At the same time, there are practically no public discussion and the publication of the state socio-economic strategy in the form, accessible to the perception of each citizen, the mechanisms, technology and the organization of the formation of the strategy remain, are not clear who develops it, justifies, gives it a public character, is carrying it a responsibility. The need to create a federal body is obvious, in the hands of which instruments of the state production and financial, industry and regional, program-target, foreign economic, social planning in its strategic, promising embodiment should be focused.
The major theoretical, methodological, organizational problems of state strategic planning include the establishment of the relationship between promising state plans and targeted socio-economic programs. It is well known that in the conditions of an economy based on market relations and forms of management, many functions of the plan take on state social, production and technological, scientific and technical, environmental, military, foreign economic programs. It even exists that the combination of such programs implemented by the state with the involvement of private companies through state orders and interested participation will embody state planning in a market economy. In confirmation of this thought, the facts are given, indicating that in some economically developed countries, state programs absorb the lion's share of the budget.
The Russian practice of developing and implementing federal, regional, inter-sectoral and sectoral socio-economic programs and in the Soviet, and in the post-Soviet periods did not give rise to the transformation of strategic state planning into a program-target, although he did not reject such an opportunity. Numerous federal target programs, which is now numbering about 50, serve as a way to extracting funds from the state budget by initiators and participants in programs than tools of strategic national planning. Perhaps, as a result, targeted programs are underfunded by the budget, are not implemented, transferred to new terms, and even forgotten. In addition, targeted programs in Russia are not covered by the entire range of urgent large-scale socio-economic problems.
In recent years, the most acute, significant federal target programs have gained the status of national projects, which to a certain extent made it possible to achieve the concentration of efforts and funds to solve the strategic tasks to ensure housing for citizens of Russia, the development of education and health care, lifting the agro-industrial complex. However, the totality of national projects does not reimburse the lack of a holistic system of state strategic planning.
The process of developing and approving federal targeted programs does not actually provide for the procedures for their mutual approval, the same refers to the linking of federal and regional programs, only their "fitness" is checked in the total amount of budget allocations. It is legitimate to argue about the absence of consistency, accounting for interpenetration and "intersection" of national projects.
Do not challenge the validity of the provision, according to which government target programs are capable of a reasonable choice of problems solved.
software, and the application of progressive methods for managing and implementing programs to become a full-fledged tool for state strategic planning. But the availability of programs does not exclude the need to develop a single, incarnated in the form of a long-term state plan of the strategy of socio-economic development for a long term, in the tissue of which programs and national projects should be woven. It is necessary to find out whether it should be a purely conceptual plan, an indicative forecast plan, a binding and interest plan, based on the principles of public-private cooperation, partnership.
Among the most serious difficulties of creating an effective, non-reported, but a real system of strategic planning, seems to see the lack of scientifically based goaling, non-inertia and prejudice, not limited to a period of time, the duration of which depends on the length of the zone of own, group, public interests of persons hosting Strategic solutions. Objective formation and substantiation of the objectives of the country's strategic plan reflecting genuine needs, in the form of interrelated quantitative and qualitative indicators, the combination of which forms a "tree of goals" of a promising plan, represents a subject of highly intelligent activity, limited formalization, which requires mental insight and synthetic experience. Without a systemic, integrated scientific approach, libraged from bias, controlled by different branches of power and civil society, do not do here.
The Russian practice of strategic planning and a preceding target-assumption everywhere confirms the tendency to overstate the promises to persons designed to design, express targets related to the long term in the verbal form and numerical dimension.
The adoption of such propaganda, ferry landmarks undermines the plan, encourages it to the obvious inadvertence of the results. Russian Society has repeatedly witnessed the formulation of illusory strategic goals and a participant in subsequent searches for those responsible for the fact that the goals were not achieved, turned out to be forgotten replaced by new equity landmarks.
As follows from the above, the path to the revival and construction of an updated system of state strategic planning in Russia, a thorny, requires overcoming many expected and not yet known obstacles, such as psychological barriers, inertia, insufficient personnel professionalism. But the advantages of a substantiated planned strategy of actions receiving public recognition, the costs will be deliberately. And there is simply no other successful path of the Russian economy. Without strategic planning system, social orientation of the economy, the provision of economic, financial, military security of the country, the translation of the national economy on the innovative path of development and the achievement of a high level of competitiveness is not provided.
In the public science department and the Economy Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Literature
Baybakov N. Modern Russia needs a planning system // Independent newspaper. 2001. Feb 22.
Polterovich V.M. On the strategy of catching development for Russia // Economic science of modern Russia. 2007. № 3 (38).
Source - Wikipedia
GRAND USSR
(State Planned Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR) is a state body that carried out the national planning for the development of the national economy of the USSR and the control of the implementation of national economic plans. In the Union republics (including Russia) and autonomous formations, state planned commissions existed (in Russia - the State Planned Commission of the RSFSR), in areas (including autonomous regions) - regional planned commissions, in areas - district planned commissions, Cities - city planning commissions.
On August 21, 1923, the State Commission of the USSR was established for planning at the Obliga and Defense Council of the USSR (STR USSR) at the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
The prototype of its creation was the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), who worked from 1920 to 1921.
In the Regulations on the State Commission Commission approved by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 28, 1921, determined:
"With the Board of Labor and Defense, a generally established commission is created for the development of a single nationwide economic plan based on an electrification plan and for overall monitoring of this plan"
Initially, Gamran USSR played a consultative role, coordinating the plans of the Union republics and producing a general plan. Since 1925, Gamin USSR began to form the annual plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control numbers".
At the beginning of its activities, Gamin USSR was studying the situation in the economy and drawing up reports on certain problems, for example, to restore and develop coal mining regions. The development of a single economic plan of the country began with the release of annual control numbers, directives for 1925-1926, which identified landmarks in all sectors of the economy.
At first, the apparatus of Gosplan consisted of 40 economists, engineers and other personnel, by 1923 there were already 300 employees in it, and by 1925 a network of obeying the USSR of planning organizations was created by 1925 throughout the USSR.
Gamin USSR united first of all the functions of the Higher Expert Organ in the economy and the Scientific and Coordination Center.
The work of the apparatus of the USSR of the USSR in the 1920s, illustrates V. Kabanov in his book.
Take the Foundation of the State Foundation of the USSR, stored in RGAE. Suppose we are interested in material on agriculture of the mid-20s. Where to look for it?
It is possible to establish that the complexes will include documents formed as a result of the activities of the Presidium of the State University, the Agricultural Section, as well as all other sections whose work in one way or another in contact with agricultural issues. First of all, an economic and statistical section can be distinguished, which carried out preparatory work to build a promising plan for the development of the national economy, who studied the methodology for the preparation of bread-fodder balance, yield, grain prices, peasant budgets, etc. To the problems of the internal and external agricultural market market internal and foreign trade. Machinery issues for agriculture reveal the documents of the industrial section. The materials of the agricultural section, which prepared the question of consideration in the Presidium of the State District, was necessarily a stage of discussion in all interested sections. The preliminary discussion of the issue took place in the Presidium of the Agricultural Section and then after approval, his results were received for consideration by the Presidium of the State District.
Thus, the first thematic set of documents on this or that matter was first at the level of the agricultural section and was concentrated as part of the application materials to the protocol of the meeting of the Presidium of the Agricultural Section. Then, in the final form, with the addition of the composition of the materials, the conclusions of the drug addicts and departments, the document complex is formed as part of applications to the protocols of the Presidium of the State District.
The structure of the State University, before the arrival of N. A. Voznesensky, consisted of seven sections:
accounting and distribution of material resources and the organization of labor;
energy;
Agriculture;
industry;
transport;
foreign trade and concessions;
zoning.
In 1927, the Sector of the Defense Sector of the USSR was added to them.
Under the leadership of the USSR of the USSR, large-scale programs of industrialization of the USSR were successfully implemented, which turned the USSR from mainly an agrarian country into the leading industrial power.
During the first five-year plan (1928-1932), 1,500 large enterprises were built, including: automotive plants in Moscow (AZLK) and Nizhny Novgorod (gas), Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsky metallurgical plants, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants).
On January (1933), the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) was stated on the fulfillment of the first five-year plan for 4 years and 3 months.
As a result of the fulfillment of the second five-year plan of development of the USSR national economy, 4500 large state industrial enterprises was introduced. For the preparation of the USSR of the Second Five-Year Plan, see R. Devis, O. V. Glevniuk: "The second five-year plan: mechanism for changing economic policies"
Resolution of the State Committee for Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 "On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises", the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry is entrusted with the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the USSR industry. In particular, special attention was paid to ensuring that when placing evacuated enterprises, the advantage was given to the aviation industry, industrial ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored cars, black, colored and special metallurgy, chemistry. Commissarians were prescribed to coordinate with the USSR Mamurn and the Evacuation Council endpoints for enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicate industries.
N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized GKO on the implementation of the industrial plan for the production of ammunition, and his deputy M. Z. Saburov
For July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million people - workers, engineers, technicians and other specialists were relocated to the east of the country. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out in the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as in the southern republics of the country - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.
In 1945, active work began on the Soviet atomic project, a special committee was created to manage the works. Goslana was assigned a special role in the activities of the Special Committee:
The head of State University N. A. Voznesensky entered the special committee;
The State Panel No. 1, which was responsible for the work of the Special Committee. The head of the Office No. 1, I. V. Stalin appointed N. A. Borisov, freed him from other duties in the state.
Also, the tasks of supplying organizations of the nuclear industry were imposed on the provisions of the Nuclear Industry, the leader of the State University, the head of State Mamos Surnone, was assigned to their implementation.
In 1949, state security bodies began the organization of the largest series of political processes in the post-war period - the so-called "Leningrad business". The head of Murnan Voznesensky was supposed to become a key figure of a conspiracy on the overthrow of the Soviet power and the separation of Russia from the USSR, making Leningrad to the capital of the new state. The "Leningrad business", the "Case of Voznesensky" and "The Case of the State Delo" worked closely and complemented each other, they were the result of rivalry and struggle between Stalin's comrades in the highest echelons of power.
The result of the adoption of the decision of the USSR Council of Ministers of March 5, 1949 "On the USSR state" and the Politburo Resolution of September 11, 1949 "On the numerous facts to the disappearance of secret documents in the USSR states" became a significant personnel cleaning in the apparatus of the USSR USSR:
By April 1950, the entire basic composition of responsible and technical workers was tested - about 1400 people. 130 people were fired, more than 40 - translated from Mamla to work in other organizations. During the year, 255 new employees were adopted in Glavov. Of the 12 Voznesensky deputy removed seven, and only one by April 1950 was arrested, and four received a new responsible work (which also testified to the mainly non-political nature of the "Business of the State Affairs"). The composition of the heads of departments and departments and their deputies was updated by a third. Of the 133 sector bosses, 35
.
The Chairman of the State University N. A. Voznesensky was removed from all posts, derived from the Politburo of the Central Committee, was excluded from the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and from members of the WCP (b). October 27, 1949 was arrested, October 1, 1950 shot. Rehabilitated in 1954.
In May 1955, Gamran USSR was divided into two parts:
The State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on prospective planning has developed long-term plans for 10-15 years
The State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR under the current planning of the National Economy (State Commission) (1955-1957) - developed five-year plans.
On November 24, 1962, the State University of the USSR was transformed into the Council of National Economy of the USSR. On the same day, a new rule of law of the USSR was formed on the basis of the State Scientific and Economic Council, see the USSR.
Later, Gran was renamed several times, which can be seen from the table below.
The successor of the USSR of the USSR can be conditionally considered the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation (formally speaking, it is the successor of the Murnan RSFSR).
Official Names and Subordination
1921-1923 State Commission Commission at the Board of Labor and Defense of the RSFSR
1923-1931 State Planned Commission for the Board of Labor and Defense of the USSR
1931-1946 State Planned Commission at the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
1946-1946 State Planned Commission at the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1946-1948 State Planned Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1948-1955 State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1955-1957 State Planned Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on Prospective Planning of the National Economy of the USSR
1957-1963 State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1963-1965 State Planning Committee of the USSR of the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR
1965-1991 State Planning Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers of the USSR
1991-1991 Ministry of Economy and Forecasting of the USSR
The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the USSR economy, drawing up the country's development plans for various times.
In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the V All-Russian Congress of the Council on July 10, 1918, to the subject of the management of the All-Russian Congress of the Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Council: "K) the establishment of the foundations and general plans of the entire national economy and its individual industries on the territory of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic. "
In accordance with Article 1 of the USSR Constitution, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of the USSR Councils on January 31, 1924, the management of the Supreme Authorities of the USSR: "C) The establishment of the foundations and general plans of the entire national economy of the Union, the definition of industries and individual industrial enterprises that have the Union-Union, Conclusion of concession contracts such as union and union republics. "
Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of the Councils of the SSR Union on December 5, 1936 provided that in the field of the USSR, in the person of its highest authorities and government bodies, it is: "K) the establishment of the USSR national economic plans", and Article 70 attributed to Gamla USSR to the authorities State Administration, the Chairman of the USSR, the USSR, was part of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
Article 16 of the USSR Constitution, adopted by the USSR Supreme Council on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of "the economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account the industry and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and enterprises, associations and other enterprises organizations. " To maintain the USSR, in the person of his senior authorities and management include: "5) carrying out a single socio-economic policy, the leadership of the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for the rational use and protection of natural resources; Development and approval of state plans for economic and social development of the USSR, approval of reports on their implementation ", the control of government plans and tasks are carried out by public control bodies formed by the Councils of People's Deputies (Article 92). The approval of state plans of the economic and social development of the USSR is carried out by the Supreme Council of the USSR (Article 108). Council of Ministers of the USSR: "2) develops and introduces current and promising state plans for the USSR to the USSR Supreme Council, the USSR state budget; takes measures to implement state plans and budget; Represents the Supreme Council of the USSR reports on the implementation of plans and budget execution "(Article 131). Mention of Murnan of the USSR in this constitution is absent.
The Law of the USSR of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI of Lamin USSR from the Union-Union transformed into the Union-Republican authority. The same act determined that the Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee is part of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).
The main task of Murnan of the USSR since the end of the 60s before the liquidation in 1991 was: Development in accordance with the CPSU program, directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of State National Economic Plans, which ensure the proportional development of the USSR national economy, continuous growth and improving the efficiency of social production in goals for creating a material and technical base of communism, steady increase in the standard of living of the people and strengthening the country's defense capability.
"The state plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR should be optimal, based on the economic laws of socialism, on the modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results of scientific research of economic and social problems of communist construction, comprehensive study of social needs, on the right combination of industry and territorial planning. , as well as centralized planning with economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on the USSR State University, approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on September 9, 1968 No. 719) "
The work of the Namurnan of the USSR on the planning of the national economy was coordinated with the central statistical offices (CSB), the drug addict (later by the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (HSSR HSSR), and later with the GKST USSR, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Bank.
Since 1928, the USSR Since 1928 began to draw up five-year plans and control their observance.
Period of implementation Part Number Document Name Approved
1928-1932 I Five-Year Plan of Directive to compile a five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the XV Congress of WCP (b) in 1927; Adopted by V All-Union Congress of Soviets in 1929
1933-1937 II Five-year plan resolution "On the second five-year plan of development of the national economy of the USSR" XVII Congress of the WCP (b) in 1934
1938-1942 III Five-year-old plan - Runted by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War resolution of the XVIII CVP Congress (b) on the report of Tov. Molotova XVIII Congress VKP (b) in 1939
1946-1950 IV Five-Year Plan Act on the Five-Year Plan for Restoration and Development of the National Economy (1946-1950) of the first session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR18 March 1946
1951-1955 V five-year plan of directive on the five-year plan of development of the national economy of the USSR XIX Congress of the CPSU in 1952
1956-1960 VI five-year plan - instead of her from 1959- 1965 there was a seven-year directive on the five-year plan of development of the national economy of the USSR XX Congress of the CPSU in 1956
1959-1965 VII five-year plan (seven-year) directives for the seven-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR XXI Congress of the CPSU in 1959
1966-1970 VIII five-year plan of directive on the five-year plan of development of the national economy of the USSR XXIII Congress of the CPSU in 1966
1971-1975 ix five-year plan of directive on the five-year plan of development of the national economy of the USSR XXIV Congress of the CPSU in 1971
1976-1980 x Five-year plan The main directions of development of the national economy of the USSR for 1976-1980. XXV Congress CPSU in 1976
1981-1985 XI five-year plan The main directions of the economic and social development of the USSR for 1981-1985. And for the period until 1990. XXVI Congress CPSU in 1981
1986-1990 XII five-year plan The main directions of the economic and social development of the USSR for 1986-1990 and for the future until 2000 XXVII Congress CPSU in 1986
1991-1995 XIII The five-year plan was not implemented in connection with the collapse of the USSR.
Our plans are not forecasting plans, not plans guesses, but directive plans that are mandatory for governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future throughout the country.
- I. V. Stalin - December 3, 1927
Administrative structure
The apparatus of the USSR, in the 1980s, consisted of sectoral departments (by industry, in agriculture, transport, trade, foreign trade, culture and education, health, housing and communal economy, public service, etc.) and consolidated departments ( The consolidated department of the national economic plan, the department of territorial planning and placement of productive forces, the consolidated department of capital investments, the consolidated department of material balances and distribution plans, the department, department of finance and cost, etc.
Gamin USSR, within its competence, issued orders, mandatory for all ministries, departments, and other organizations. He was given the right to involve the USSR Academy of Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and design institutions, design and other organizations and institutions, as well as individual scientists, and other organizations, as well as individual scientists, specialists, and institutions, as well as individual scientists, specialists and editorialists production.
Structural units
1930-1931 - Economic and Statistical Sector (ESS)
1931-1931 - Sector of People's Economic Accounting
Energy and electrification department
Subsidium of nuclear power plants (1972)
Department of automotive, tractor and agricultural engineering
Department of Activities of the Soviet Union of Standing Commissions SEV
Department of the fuel industry
Department of Construction and Construction Industry
Consolidated department of the agro-industrial complex
Command Department of the People's Plan
First department
Commissions for the State University of the USSR
Special Commission of the Council of Labor and Defense under the USSR State Planned Commission to consider Trest Charters (1923-1925)
State Expert Commission (GEK Murnna USSR)
Meeting Commission on Economic Reform (formed 1965 -?)
Concession Committee of the State Committee of the USSR
Council of Technical and Economic Examination of Murnan USSR
Commission on workforce for the national economy (responsible secretary 1969-1990. Major General Malafeev S. P.)
Chairmen of the USSR
The chairmen of the USSR of the USSR were deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
Surname, name and patronymic period of work years of life Notes
Krzhizhanovsky, Gleb Maksimilianovich 1921-1923 1872-1959 1921 Goello
Zureupa, Alexander Dmitrievich 1923-1925 1870-1928
Krzhizhanovsky, Gleb Maksimilianovich 1925-1930 1872-1959 1928 1st five-year plan
Kuibyshev, Valerian Vladimirovich 1930-1934 1888-1935
Interlak, Valery Ivanovich 1934-1937 1893-1938
Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich 1937-1937 1903-1938 February - October
Interlak, Valery Ivanovich 1937-1937 1893-1938 October - December
Voznesensky, Nikolay Alekseevich 1938-1941 1903-1950
Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich 1941-1942 1900-1977 from March 10, 1941 to December 1942
Voznesensky, Nikolay Alekseevich 1942-1949 1903-1950
Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich 1949-1953 1900-1977
Kosyachchenko, Grigory Petrovich 1953-1953 1901-1983 March - June
Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich 1953-1955 1900-1977
Baybakov, Nikolai Konstantinovich 1955-1957 1911-2008 1957 Khrushchev reform
Kuzmin, Joseph Josephovich 1957-1959 1910-1996
Kosygin, Alexey Nikolaevich 1959-1960 1904-1980
Novikov, Vladimir Nikolaevich 1960-1962 1907-2000
Dymshitz, Veniamin Emmanuilovich 1962-1962 1910-1993 July - November
Lomako, Peter Faddeevich 1962-1965 1904-1990
Baybakov, Nikolai Konstantinovich 1965-1985 1911-2008 Economic reform of 1965
Talyzin, Nikolai Vladimirovich 1985-1988 1929-1991 1987-88 A disassembly of the planned economy was carried out (laws "about state enterprise" and "On cooperation")
Maslukov, Yuri Dmitrievich 1988-1991 1937-2010
Deputy Chairman
1921-1929-osdischy, Petr Semenovich - First Deputy Chairman (1866-1943)
1921-1938-Stunilin, Stanislav Gustavovich - Deputy Chairman (1877-1974)
1923-1927-Pyatakov, Georgy Leonidovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1937)
1925-1926-Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman (1892-1938)
1926-1930 - Vashkov N.N. - Deputy Chairman, Chairman of the Electrification Section of the USSR (1874-1953)
1926-1928-Sokolnikov, Grigory Yakovlevich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1939)
1926-1927-Vladimirsky, Mikhail Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1874-1951)
1927-1931-Kiring, Emmanuel Ionovich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1937)
1928-1929-Grinco, Grigory Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1938)
1929-1934-Milyutin, Vladimir Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1884-1937)
1930-1934-Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman - Head of Consumer Planning Department (1892-1938)
1930-1937-Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1938)
1931-1935-Interlaak, Valery Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman (1893-1938)
1931-1933-Oppokov, Georgy Ippolitovich (Lomov A.) - Deputy Chairman (1888-1938)
1932-1934-Gaister, Aron Israelich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938)
1932-1935-Obolensky, Valerian Valerianovich - Deputy Chairman (1887-1937)
1933-1933-Trojanovsky, Alexander Antonovich - Deputy Chairman (1882-1955)
1934-1937-Kiring, Emmanuel Ionovich - First Deputy Chairman (1888-1937)
1935-1937-Kraval, Ivan Adamovich - Deputy Chairman (1897-1938)
1936-1937-Gurevich, Alexander Iosifovich - Deputy Chairman (1896-1937)
1937-1937-Virrimets, Ivan Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938)
1938-1940-Sautin, Ivan Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1939-1940-Kravtshev, Georgy Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1908-1941)
1940-1940-Kosyachchenko, Grigory Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1940-1948-Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1940-1941-Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1940-1943-Kuznetsov, Vasily Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1990)
1940-1946-Panov, Andrei Dmitreyevich - Deputy Chairman (1904-1963)
1940-1949-bricks Peter Ivanovich-Deputy Chairman (1903-1980)
1941-1944-Kosyachchenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1941-1945-Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1941-1948-Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1942-1946-Mitra, Ivan Lukich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1995)
1944-1946-Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1945-1955-Borisov, Nikolai Andreevich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1955)
1946-1947-Saburov, Maksim Zakharovich - Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1946-1950-Panov, Andrei Dmitreevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1963)
1948-1957-Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1979)
1949-1953-Kosyachchenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1951-1953 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1952-1953 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1953-1953 - Pronin, Vasily Prokhorovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1993)
1955-1957 - Zhenyin, Dmitry Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1906-1995)
1955-1957 - Yakovlev, Mikhail Danilovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1999)
1955-1957 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1955-1957 - Kalamkarov, Vartan Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1906-1992)
1955-1957 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1961)
1956-1957 - Kosygin, Alexey Nikolaevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1980)
1956-1957 - Malyshev, Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1902-1957)
1957-1959 - Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1979)
1957-1962 - Zotov, Vasily Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1977)
1957-1961 - Matskevich, Vladimir Vladimirovich - Deputy Chairman (1909-1998)
1957-1961 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1961)
1958-1958 - Zasadko, Alexander Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1963)
1958-1958 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1958-1960 - Leskeko, Mikhail Avksentievich - First Deputy Chairman (1909-1984)
1960-1962-Orlov, Georgy Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1903-1991)
1960-1966-Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1961-1961-Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1961-1962-Dymshitz, Veniamin Emmanuilovich - First Deputy Chairman (1910-1993)
1961-1965-Lobanov, Pavel Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1902-1984)
1963-1965-Stepanov, Sergey Aleksandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1976)
1963-1965-klyobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1963-1973-Goreglyad, Alexey Adamovich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1986)
1963-1965-Tikhonov, Nikolay Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1997)
1965-1973-Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1917-1978)
1965-1974-Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1966-1973-Mistican, Mikhail Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1913-1998)
1973-1978-Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1917-1978)
1974-1983-Slyunkov, Nikolai Nikitovich - Deputy Chairman
1976-1988-Paskar, Peter Andreevich - First Deputy Chairman
1979-1982-Ryzhkov, Nikolai Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman
1979-1983-Ryabov, Yakov Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman
1980-1988-Voronin, Lev Alekseevich - First Deputy Chairman (1928-2008)
1982-1985-Masyukov, Yuri Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1937-2010)
1983-1989-Sitaryan, Stepan Armaisovich - First Deputy Chairman (1930-2009)
1983-1991-Lukashov, Anatoly Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1936-2014)
1988-1990-Paskar, Peter Andreevich - Deputy Chairman, Head of the Consolidated Department of the Agro-Industrial Complex
1988-1991-Anisimov, Pavel Petrovich - Deputy Chairman
1988-1991-Trophin, Alexander Nikolaevich - Deputy Chairman
1988-1991-Serov, Valery Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman
1989-1991-Durassov, Vladimir Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman
1988-1989-Khomenko, Yuri Pavlovich - First Deputy Chairman
Institutes of M Lamin USSR
Name of the organization Period of operation
Research Economic Institute 1955-1991
Council for the study of the productive forces 1960-1991
Institute of Complex Transport Problems 1954-1991
All-Union Research Institute of Complex Fuel and Energy Problems 1974-1991
Scientific Research Institute for Planning and Standards 1960-1991
Institute of Economic Research (IEI) 1929-1938
Central Institute of Technical Information of the Coal Industry (Cytics of Coal Industry) Cytiya Murnan USSR 1957-1959
Institute for Designing non-ferrous metallurgy enterprises "Giprotsvetmet" 1957-1960
GRANS USSR has published from 1923 a monthly sectoral magazine "Planned economy", awarded the Order of the Labor Red Banner.
The building was built on the spot of Paraskev's Church (Friday) Reverend in Okhotny Row (1686-1928).
The main building is located on the street Okhotny row, house 1. It was built in 1934-1938 on the project of the architect A. Ya. Langman for the placement of the Council of Labor and Defense, then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and, finally, Murnna USSR. The building has a typical imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.
The second building of the USSR of the USSR was a building overlooking the Georgievsky lane, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely consists of glass and concrete.
Between itself, the buildings are connected by the transition.
According to some data, the building of the USSR of the USSR was mined in 1941, and was clear only in 1981. By the lucky random, the builders were found wires, "Going nowhere."
Currently, these buildings are located the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.
Also, for the USSR state name in 1936, on the project of an outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on the aircrafttener in Moscow, currently known as the Garage of the State Mourner and is a monument of history and culture.
V.L. Nekrasov
Chairmen of the USSR (1955-1964): political status, domineering potential, career trajectories
The study of the reforms of the USSR of the USSR of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. It is impossible without a special analysis of the activities, personal and business qualities of the leadership of this scheduled body. To refer to the study of the leaders of the State of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. Forces a number of significant circumstances. Most of the heads of the planned organs of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s were "Stalin's People's Commissars" - a group of household executives nominated for senior positions in the late 1930s - the first half of the 1940s. Their career growth contributed to the extreme conditions of this period - political repression 1937-1938. And the Great Patriotic War. After the end of the war, they amounted to the core of the ministerial corps, performing in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the personnel reserve for leading posts in the planned bodies. In fact, the All Chairmen of the State University - N.K. Baybakov, I.I. Kuzmin, A.N. Kosygin, V.N. Novikov, P.F. Lomako - were nominated on the personal initiative of Khrushchev. Thus, they turned out to be inextricably linked with the process of forming Khrushchev as a political leader and its policies on the arrangement of their nominations on key posts in the state and party leadership. These circumstances suggest that the chairmen of the State of the Second Half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. Represented a group with common social and political characteristics.
In the modern Russian historiography, there are no special studies on the analysis of the management of the planned authorities as one of the groups of the highest nomenclature and influence groups in the political leadership. In historiography, the work of the bibliographic genre was established, dedicated to individual statesmen who managed in the "Khrushchev period" by the planned authorities. Meanwhile, Khrushchev, planning should be considered as one of the influence groups in the highest political leadership. Moreover, the analysis of this group of influence must be carried out in connection with the reforms of Mamurn in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s.
In the Soviet Economic System, Glav was one of the key state authorities that was responsible for the preparation of state national economic plans, which coordinated the activities of various departments, controlling and defending the "national interests" in the fight against "departmental egoism".
The second half of the 1950s is the first half of the 1960s. It turned out to be the richest on the ruling and decisions that broke the old system of operational management and planning by national economy. The factors of continuous organizational changes were, first of all, the need to reorganize Mamla as a carrier of the inertia of the "Stalinist model of the management model", and secondly, the desire to subjugate the Mirgin to the CPSU Central Committee. In Khrushchev period, a complex system of operational management and planning of the national economy has fun and functioned. It included special organs that carried out separately current and promising planning, management of logistics, statistics and accounting for the development of the national economy. The main organizational transformations in operational management and planning are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
Reorganization of the USSR State University (1955-1963)
|
Reorganization date |
The nature of reorganization |
|
|
Separation of Murnage of the USSR for the State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on promising planning of the national economy (GRAND USSR) and the State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the current planning of the national economy (State Commission of the USSR). |
||
|
December 1956 |
Laying on the State Commission of the USSR of the functions of the operational solution of current issues related to the implementation of the State Plan, and the responsibility for ensuring the plans for the material and technical supply of the national economy. |
|
|
The liquidation of the USSR State Commission and the transformation of the State Commission on Perspective Planning to the State Planning Committee of the USSR (GRAND USSR). Allocation from the USSR of the USSR Central Statistical Department of the USSR, the introduction of the head of the USSR CSSA in the Council of Ministers of the USSR. |
||
|
April 1960 |
Allocation from the USSR of the USSR of the functions of long-term planning and the creation of the State Scientific and Economic Council (USSR State Council). |
|
|
November 1962 |
Association of the USSR State Council and the USSR State Processing Committee in the State Planning Committee of the USSR (GRAND USSR). The transfer of the guidelines for the implementation of national economic plans and logistical supply of the national economy to the Council of the USSR national economy (SNX USSR). |
|
|
March 1963 |
Rearrangement of the USSR of the USSR and the SNS of the USSR to the Higher Council of the USSR national economy. The creation of industry committees under the USSR states. |
Together with the reorganization of Murnan, the status of his leader in the system of higher political power was transformed. The Chairman of the State Administration held a high position in the Soviet party and state hierarchy. In latexalinsky period, the Chairman of the State Administrative Committee necessarily served as Deputy (First Deputy) chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, he entered the candidate or a full-fledged composition of the Politburo (Presidium) of the CPSU Central Committee. It should be noted that members of the CC's presidium carefully followed the one who was appointed to the post of Chairman of the State District and were very zealous to this post a person was appointed bypassing more honored and influential party and government leaders. Khrushchev changed this practice, believing that "many temptations arises, and the departmental interests sometimes take over public." After the reorganization of the management system in May 1957 and the resignation of MG Pervukhina The leaders of the planned authorities will never be part of the Presidium of the Central Committee on the Rights of Full Members, and sometimes even in the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee (I.I. Kuzmin, V.N. Novikov, A.F. Zasyadko). Thus, in the prevailing, configuration of Khrushchev's political institutions, limited the powers of the Chairman of the State District, actually having deprived of its political mechanisms of influence.
The position of the Chairman of the State Dummy turned out to be less stable, there was a continuous rotation of the management of the planned authorities. So, during 1955-1963. Eight leaders were changed in the USSR planned bodies - two in the State Commission (1955-1957), six in M \u200b\u200bLamines (1955-1963), three in the State Council (1959-1962). While in the 1940 - the first half of the 1950s. - Three leaders, and in the second half of the 1960s - the first half of the 1980s. - two.
In the highest echelons, the authorities existed its own hierarchy of managers, based on the experience, merit, latitude and strength of business and friendly relations with members of the highest political leadership, proximity to the political leader. This circumstance must be taken into account when evaluating the provisions of the Chairman of the State District in the Higher Political Guide. Relying on these criteria for all managers of planned authorities can be divided into four groups. The first group was MG. Prevukhin, M.Z. Saburov, claimed certain independence from Khrushchev. They were obliged by I.V. Stalin, and not Khrushchev his promotion through the career ladder. These state leaders were introduced into the Presidium of the Central Committee and the Bureau of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the rights of full members of Stalin. In addition, they possessed unique, especially initial, experience in solving strategic tasks.
The second group of the Chairmen of the State District form A.N. Kosygin and V.N. Novikov, who were experienced administrator workers, and with overwherm trust and friendly connections in the highest leadership. Kosygin, in 1950-1957. "Political outsider", but, first, he was an experienced administrator, and, secondly, supported confidence relations with the closest associates of Khrushchev F.R. Kozlov and E.A. Furtseva, as well as with friends of the military years, "steep defense ministers" V.A. Malyshev, M.V. Khrunichev Novikov, from the military worked and friends with D.F. Ustinov, with experience, influence and position in the military-industrial circles, which Khrushchev was considered, and besides, I was Prothege F.R. Kozlova.
The third group included N.K. Baybakov, pf Lomako, whose positions were determined by their reputation of talented business and administrators, since they did not possess other statuses, merits and capabilities.
The weakest position occupied I.I. Kuzmin and A.F. Zasyadko, demonstrating the complete loyalty of Khrushchev. Kuzmin, possessing energy, did not have the experience of governing administrative work, and any broad and sustainable trust in the highest political leadership and party-state apparatus. Zasalyko - "A large business executive", but alcoholism, "led him to headquarters and subchalimacy" in relations with Khrushchev.
Khrushchev sought to influence the personal composition of the leadership of Mamurn, even when he had not yet gained the full power of personal power. This desire is clearly visible in the reform of the USSR USSR of 1955 on the issue of the Chairpersons of the State District and the State Commission.
The reform of the State University of 1955 is closely related to permutations in the highest political leadership. Resignation in January 1955 g. Malenkov from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the appointment by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR N.A. Bulganin, with which Khrushchev had a trusting relationship, strengthened the position of the latter, and gave him the opportunity to more resolutely act in the reorganization of public administration and the placement of its deposits in the state apparatus. According to the testimony of D.T. Shepilova, "Khrushchev, without much constraint, said that it was necessary to remove" Malenkov people "and arrange" their footage "everywhere.
The Minister of Oil Industry of the USSR N.K. was appointed Chairman of the State Planning Commission on Prospective Planning Baybakov. The State Economic Commission for Current Planning was headed by M.Z. Saburov who led Mamurn in 1953-1955. Valuable certificates of these appointments provide S.N. Khrushchev.
According to his testimony in 1955-1956. Saburov "was listed among the most active supporters" Khrushchev, supporting his political, and economic initiatives. The "Gosplansky" experience of saburov was needed to keep the "battles" with industry ministers. The fact that confidence relations existed between Khrushchev and Saburov, indicates that the fact that in 1955-1956. Saburov (and MG Pervukhina) were charged with duties to chair the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the USSR during the absence of N.A. Bulganin.
The appointment of Baybakova answered the plan of Khrushchev that Mamurn "should lead a man extraordinary, not stortless, not mired in Routine ... The choice fell on ... Baybakov, a man who did not burden the" experience "of infinite balancing and who provided himself during the war to nontrivial actions " At the same time, it is impossible to exclude that Baybakov was nominated by the Council of L.M. Kaganovich, who knew Baybakov well since working in the People's Commissariat of the Oil Industry. But Khrushchev considered Baybakov not as a major independent political identity, but as a "technical" Chairman of the State Administration - experienced, without ambitions, a managerial managerial, the developer of the six-year-old plan, and the performer of its ideas on modernization and the reform of the economy.
This confirms the view current existing in historiography that Khrushchev in the struggle for power, sought to redistribute the forces in the Council of Ministers of the USSR in its favor. This policy was associated with the weakening of the ISSR Council of Ministers, Khrushchev (M. Malenkov, V.M. Molotov) by strengthening the "young" members of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers (M.G. Pervukhina, M.Z. . Saburov) and the promotion of their candidates in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I.I. Kuzmin), Goslav (N.K. Baybakov) and the State Commission (A.N. Kosygin). Although, as the events of the first half of 1957 showed, this policy had its natural limits. Despite the sequence and systematicness of the personnel policy by Khrushchev in relation to Murnan and the State Commission, it did not give results. A stumbling block between Khrushchev and planners was the reform of the management of industry and construction of 1957. Discussion of the 1957 management reform was extremely difficult, moreover, the discussion around the reform was the catalyst for the confrontation in the highest political leadership. The management reform, which Khrushchev conceived in December 1956 - January 1957, provided for the decentralization of the management of industry and the construction complex, the breakdown of departmental barriers, increasing the role of the party and Soviet authorities in the leadership of the national economy. For this, Khrushchev offered to move from control through industry ministries to control over the Council. The management reform of 1957, accumulating socio-economic expectations and contradictions, was considered by its initiators and developers as an effective tool for eliminating the basic vices of the centralized economy.
However, the Chairman of the State Publisha Baybakov, and the Chairman of the State Commission Commission, Namukhin did not hide and openly expressed Khrushchev's concerns about the reform conceived by him. A comparative analysis of the argumentation of Baybakov and Pervukhin suggests that they did not deny the fundamental principles of reform, but insisted on the gradual implementation of the reform and maintaining centralized management for a number of industries. Centralized management should have been carried out either through ministries that will be obliged to "relieve a number of major departments to the place of production", or through the Supreme Council of the National Economy of Heavy Industry. The feature of the rhetoric of this group of planners was the opinion that the liquidation of ministries would lead to loss of managing sectors, the sustainability of the economy, a single technical policy. In other words, they were characterized by technocratic, devoid of political motives, the approach, which consisted in the feasibility of preservation, as far as possible, industry mechanisms in the new system of industry and construction. However, in the conditions of 1957, the preservation of centralized management of the sectors of the heavy industry was beyond the scope of the option proposed by Khrushchev reform. Its realization could lead to the preservation of the "management of industry and construction on the industry principle." In fact, these proposals were a conservative version of the implementation of the reform in which its basic idea was modified in favor of maintaining the sectoral principle of governance, the implementation time increased, and in general, the risks of implementing it into life were increasing.
However, in the deployed battle for the power of Khrushchev, like-minded people were required in the leadership of the planned authorities, and not opponents. As a result, in May 1957, Baybakov and Premukhin were liberated from their duties. Baybakov was appointed Chairman of the State District RSFSR. The appointment of Baybakov for the post of Chairman of the State District of the State District RSFSR fully complied with the new political and economic realities, after the elimination of ministries and the creation of Sovnarchoz, the practice of appointing former ministers, its competencies as a managerial businessman. And among the candidates for the post of Chairman of the State Administration in May 1957, Baybakov had a minimal chance, since he did not possess political influence, and confidence in Hrushchev was weakened. First, taking into account his status of a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and the First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Experience of Steering Work, could take the position of the Chairman of the State District, but was appointed Minister of Middle Machinery. The Kosygin, which occupied in December 1956, 1957, in December 1956, could speak a possible candidate for the post of Chairman of the State Mamurn. Position of the First Deputy State Commission, and loyally related to Khrushchev. However, the appointment of Pervukhina or Kosygin was not destined to be implemented, and one of the reasons could serve their skeptical attitude towards the creation of joints. As a result, Kosygin remained in the Khrushchev team, and the initial "replenished the ranks of potential opponents" Khrushchev. The Chairman of the State University, on the initiative of Khrushchev, the head of the department of mechanical engineering of the Central Committee of the CPSU I.I. is approved Kuzmin, who won the confidence of Khrushchev, supporting his idea of \u200b\u200breforming the management of industry and construction. It is obvious that in the conditions of the "root restructuring of the management of industry", and the struggle for the political leadership of Khrushchev sought to put control of the "brainstorm" of the country's economic life.
However, in general, when appointed the Chairman of the State Chairman of Mamurn Khrushchev, assessed primarily the experience and professionalism of the applicant. Most of the leaders of Murnan, at the time of the appointment, possessed unique economic and administrative experience, including the leadership of the RSFSR national economy, the sectors of the heavy and light industry, finance, countertercockers, strategic projects and construction projects, including abroad. An exception in this group was I.I. Kuzmin is a representative of the party apparatus whose extension was conjuncturally.
Career trajectories of managers of the planned authorities in 1955-1964. Presented in Table 2.
table 2
Career trajectories of managerial planners
|
Planned authority |
Lead period |
Previous post |
Subsequent position |
||
|
N.K. Baybakov |
GRAND USSR |
Minister of Oil Industry of the USSR |
Chairman of the State University of State RSFSR |
||
|
I.I. Kuzmin |
GRAND USSR |
Head of the Engineering Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU |
Chairman of the USSR State Administration |
||
|
A.N. Kosygin |
GRAND USSR |
||||
|
V.N. Novikov |
GRAND USSR |
Chairman of the State University of State RSFSR |
Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR |
||
|
V.E. Dymshits |
GRAND USSR |
July - November 1962 |
First Deputy Chairman of the USSR |
Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Chairman of the Council of National Economy of the USSR |
|
|
PF Lomakov |
State Council Security Council |
July-November 1962 |
Deputy Chairman of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the RSFSR |
Minister of non-ferrous metallurgy of the USSR |
|
|
GRAND USSR |
|||||
|
M.Z. Saburov |
State Commission of the USSR |
first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Chairman of the USSR |
first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR |
||
|
MG Primuhin |
State Commission of the USSR |
January-May 1957 |
first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR |
first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Minister of Middle Mechanical Engineering of the USSR |
|
|
A.F. Zasyadko |
State Council Security Council |
Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR |
Pensioner |
At the same time, it should be said about the institutional differences between the leaders of the planned authorities appointed in 1955-1956, 1957-1959. and 1960-1964 In 1955-1956 The leaders of the planned authorities were representatives of the Higher Bureaucracy, - M.Z. Saburov and MG Prevukhin - members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. The Chairman of the State Administrative Baybanks, possessing extensive experience of administrative and economic work, was only a "ordinary" member of the CPSU Central Committee, and thereby deprived of the opportunity to provide political influence on many issues of the development of the national economy, especially if they formally went beyond the competence of Murnan. In 1957-1959 The situation changes dramatically, and the main destination criterion is the personal devotion, loyalty and unquesting fulfillment of the tasks of the new political leader. It was, this factor, as already noted, led to the appointment of I.I. Kuzmina, A.F. Zasyadko, as well as, although, in several lesser degrees A.N. Kosygin. In 1960-1964 Technocrats who did not have a political weight come to the leadership of Murnan, but with the experience of economic work in both the "old" sectoral and in the "new" territorial economy. V.N. Novikov, in 1957-1958 He headed the Leningrad Sovnarhoz, in 1958-1960. - Chairman of the State District RSFSR. PF Lomako, from 1957 to 1961. He led the Krasnoyarsk Council, in 1961-1962. - Deputy Chairman of the Bureau of the CPSU Central Committee on the RSFSR, in July-November 1962 - Chairman of the State Council.
It is advisable to appeal to such a problem as the "image of planners" put by P. Gregory, with the study of the history of the State of the first five-year plans. In the history of the State University of the 1930s. P. Gregory allocated two images of the planning, - "badly educated party bureaucrat" V.V. Kuibyshev (1930-1934) and the image of the "Professional Planners" V.I. Interlak (1934-1937). In his opinion, these formations of the planning symbolize two poles of the M Laman itself, two alternatives to its development: Glavov could become an organization developing plans in accordance with the formal rules, or to turn into an organization, blindly executing party directives, and even in cases where they Contradict economic logic. With respect to the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. We can definitely talk about the three "images of planning". The first image is large state figures that have a multifaceted experience of leadership and management of the national economy - A.N. Kosygin, MG Prevukhin, M.Z. Saburov. The second is the promoters of Khrushchev, devotees, who endorsed his ideas and unquestionedly fulfilled his orders party and government functionaries, such as A.F. Zasalyko, I.I. Kuzmin. The third image is experienced, but without political ambitions, managers-managers, sectoral ministers put forward by Khrushchev to implement their initiatives - N.K. Baybakov, V.N. Novikov, V.E. Dymshits, pf Lomako.
The decrease in political status, the restriction of the powerful potential of the Chairman of the State Dummy, the strengthening of party institutions in appointing the head of the planned authority reflected the process of eliminating the independence of state institutions from the CPSU Central Committee. The situation around Mamar's second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. It is possible to consider in a number of transformation of other state institutions and changes in the status of their managers, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, headed by L.P. Beria, Council of Ministers of the USSR headed by G.M. Malenkov and N.A. Bulganin, Armed Forces - G.K. Zhukov, which, according to the expression of the R.G. Pichoy, "were consistently defeated by the CPSU Central Committee."
Vakser A.Z. Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin // Clio. 2008. No. 3. P. 116-123; Nimestsky V.L. Dmitry Georgievich Zemeric. The life given to the energy. M., 2006; Zasostyanov A.A. A.N. Kosygin. Biographical essay. M., 2002; Kudshin A.S. Party and state activities A. N. Kosyigina 1939-1980: DISS. K.I.N. M., 2005; Podolsky S.I. Reformer "Khrushchevsky" period - V.N. Novikov // Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin. Series "History". 2011. No. 1. P. 63-73; Nekrasov V.L. N.K. Baybakov: Personal factor during the years of the N.S. management Khrushchev (1955-1957) // Actual problems of historical research: the look of young scientists: a collection of materials I of the All-Russian youth scientific conference. Novosibirsk, 2011. P. 229-236; Slavkin M.V. Baybakov. M.: Parallel, 2010; Sushkov A.V. Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU: Personality and Power. Ekaterinburg, 2009.
State power of the USSR. Higher authorities and management and their leaders ... pp. 211, 297, 313, 363, 375, 393, 442, 466, 509; RGAE. F. 739 OP. 1 D. 174 L. 18-19.
