Накануне распада СССР: история одной дискуссии.

Abstract

Introduction. An analysis of the materials of the proposed meeting makes it possible to replenish knowledge about such an important and difficult period in the history of the USSR in the late 1980s and in the subsequent period of development of statehood. Undoubtedly, in one way or another, the participants in the meeting referred to the situation and its assessments at that time. In their speeches, there was an attempt to understand the complex socio-political situation, to give an objective assessment of the transformations that took place in many spheres of the life of the state, its economy, culture, the state of society as a whole, relations between peoples in the state. The authors of the article attach particular importance to this historical moment. Aiming to partially reflect the situation in the state, relying on the presented materials of the meeting of directors of branches of one of the leading centers of Marxism-Leninism (IML), which operated under the Central Committee of the CPSU until November 1991. Research methods. On the basis of well-known methods of historical research, analysis of sources, scientific works of predecessors on the history of the Soviet state, measures of the party and social movements [1-18], materials of speeches by the participants of the meeting (a group of public and political figures) in the named time frame (April 1989), it became possible to reconstruct and supplement historical knowledge of the events and difficulties of the late 1980s. Society experienced them during the period under review in the Soviet Union. Results. The convocation of a meeting at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in April 1989 also made it possible, on the fresh trail, to assess the complex socio-political situation in the USSR, associated with the difficulties of the economic development of the state. The participants of the meeting considered the principles of the emerging contradictions on ethnic grounds, exacerbation of interethnic relations. The participants in the meeting analyzed the reasons for the contradictions that arose and the aggravation of the national policy. The authors also analyzed the shortcomings of methods of managing national processes in society, the emergence of the possibility of transition to the principle of regulating this aspect of society's life, to the creation of new social technologies for arranging the life of the peoples of the country, and democratization of social relations. The solution of these tasks fell on the subsequent period of development of statehood – the 1990–2000s. Conclusions. The content of the speeches by the participants in the conference – representatives of the party and political movements who were developing the theory of building a multinational state based on the principles of broad democracy – testifies to how difficult the situation with the political component of society was. An analysis of various aspects of this process allows us to reveal the imperfection of many forms and methods of work to consolidate the multinational community, its mobilization for progressive development. The materials of the meeting are at the same time a meaningful source for studying the history of this period of Soviet statehood. The conclusion was suggested by the participants themselves. “All of us – both politicians and scientists – should take into account that national movements do not remain the province of history, that is, do not remain in the past. They exist today, and perhaps they will exist for a long time, and we must learn to treat them calmly, patiently and delicately” (G.R. Simonyan). “It is necessary to create a special research institute that would study interethnic relations and their problems” (D.G. Sturua).