The Research Of Soviet Union's National Economic Reform From 1953 To 1964

The establishment of socialism in the Soviet Union opened a new path for the development of mankind,and its historical significance could never be underestimated.With the change of time as well as social and historical conditions,the Soviet Union socialism reformed itself,which was in full compliance with the requirements of Marxism and the development of socialism.This period of history seems to be forgotten,but in fact,as long as there is the existence and development of socialism in the world,its own meaning will not disappear.Since its birth,socialism has been the opposite and replacement for capitalism,which is not only the theoretical requirements,but also an inevitable reality.In theory,after resolving the contradiction between capitalist private ownership and socialization of production,socialismstill has to deal with the contradiction between production relations and productivity,economic base and superstructure.Because this is the basic contradiction of human society as well as the driving force for development.Therefore,only through regular reforms which constantly adjust the inappropriateness between the two contradictions,can socialism stabilize its development and promote the progress of human history.From the perspective of the nature of contradictions and the logic of reform,the contradiction of capitalist production is embodied in the restriction of productive relations to productive forces,that is,low-level production relations suppress the development of high-level productive forces,which is irreconcilable.But socialism is the opposite,namely,there is inappropriateness between high-level production relations and productivity that needs to be improved urgently,and this inappropriateness is adjustable.It determines that the logical starting point and central task of socialist reform is to develop productive forces.In practice,after the establishment of the Soviet Union,socialist system had promoted the Soviet Union to makea series of great achievements with unparalleled efficiency.But after decades of development,the Soviet Union also accumulated some problems in economy and other aspects of society,and new contradictions had appeared as well.How to adjust the improper relationship between production relations and productive forces in the new situation was the problem that needed to be faced and solved by post-Stalin successors.From 1953 to 1964,under the auspices of Khrushchev,the Soviet Communist Party launched a series of reforms.In terms of their sizes and influence,the reforms drew all socialist countries' attention.However,due to the "catch-up" slogan and the unscientific nature of the guiding ideologythat promoted the "full-scale communist construction",as well as the stalemate and confusion between the two and reform activities,chaotic situations began to show up,in which reform activities had both advantages and disadvantages,and even in many specific aspects,there was more harm than benefit.The Soviet Union's agricultural reform was carried out in two units:the productive reform and the management system reform.In the aspect of agricultural production,the main form of reform wasto cultivate wasteland,plant a wide range of corn and increase the output of animal husbandry;the main contentand focusof production relations reformwas to reform tractor stations and adjust the agricultural product acquisition system.In terms of its results,land reclamation and the reform of agricultural products acquisition system soon had a positive impact on the Soviet Union,leading to a large increase in grain production in a number of years,as well as the stimulation forfarmers5 production enthusiasm.However,for the nature and prospects of land reclamation,its features were temporary,so land reclamation could not rise to the level of developing productivity,but only playing a supporting role.The reform of tractor stationsbroke the original management mechanism,but it did not design a scientific management mode in the range of theorganic connection between superstructure and productive forces,thus bringing new constraints to the Soviet Union's agricultural management and development.This showed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union(CPSU)had no scientific understanding of the dialectical relationship between superstructure,production relations,and productive forces.Due to a lack of reasonable planning and strategic layouts,as well as neglecting the climate characteristicsof the Soveit Union,planting a wide range of corn to a large extent eliminated the benefit brought by the reform in the later stages,restricting the Soviet Union's agricultural development.For the Industrial reform,the Soviet Union stressed to reorganize the management systembased on the principle of production.Briefly speaking,the central power would be delegated to the local authorities,including production planning rights and even some legislative power.From the perspective of theory and purpose,it was to improve themanagement efficiency to ensure a smoother implementation of production plans.But in fact,overly rapid decentralization of power,imperfect administrative mechanisms and preventive measures led to the fact that the management efficiency of Soviet industries was not improved at all,but there was serious localism,bringing manycontradictions for industrial production and a great waste in resources.At the same time,party committeeleading departments were set up in different industries,making themanagement efficiency between agriculture and industry to be further lowered and organizational structure and management staff more crowded.In general,the logic of the CPSU's reform at this stage was mainly to reform superstructure to adjust the contradiction between productivity and production relations.However,due to the lack of thorough theoretical support,as well as the scientific awareness of the dialectical relationship betweensuperstructure,production relations and productive forces,the Soviet Union only adjusted the superstructure solely and blindly;atthe same time,there was noreasonable strategic planningin the reform process,but there were some mistakes in the specific reform target selection and positioning,coupled with unreasonable form for the reform.As a result,contradictions werereflected everywhere in the reform itself,and ultimately the situation of more harm than good showed.Even so,it is necessary to look at this reform with a dialectical attitude,summarize mistakes,and learn lessons from the reflection,so that experience from the reform would be applied better in China's deepening reform.