‘The Brezhnev era was a period of stagnation and dissent, despite appearances to the contrary.’ Assess the validity of this view (45 marks)

Introduction: Delineate economic stagnation and social dissent, but quality with varying degrees (i.e. economic stagnation was greater than social dissent, then identify a correlation between the two); Counter-argument; 18-year regime suggests no significant dissent; economy showed certain signs of rejuvenation; Historiography: majority in favour of this argument; even Soviet economist Khanin’s statistics are damning; Overall result: Gorbachev is left with a rotten inheritance (leading to collapse);

Paragraph One - Economic Stagnation - Lack of Reform and Missed Opportunities and Gerontocracy

Top bun: Lack of reform meant little change to command economy; thematic flaws across Khrushchev and Stalin constant; Argument: Kosygin’s reforms for a greater emphasis on supply & demand; focus on consumer over industrial goods - rejected - chance to improve living standards therefore compromised; Bottom bun: Lack of reform is akin to stagnation; ideological stubbornness to a defunct system shows lack of innovation and little imagination - thus clear economic stagnation;

Paragraph Two - Economic Stagnation - Failure to improve living standards

Top bun: Lack of reform tied in with a failure to improve living standards; Khrushchev had identified it as an issue - remains unsolved - not befitting of a superpower; Argument: Stats on various consumer goods - focus on quantity over quality, particularly in comparison with the West; Bottom bun: Living standards did not decline - but elements of it remained the same (i.e. living standards were similar in 1964 to 1982 - which is stagnation, particularly by Capitalist standards);

Paragraph Three - Social Dissent

Top bun: Growing dissent across all classes, particularly among intellegentsia; slowly becoming significant; Argument: Examples of propaganda not working, emphasise inconsistent Party response, allowing for some opposition, whilst the need to respond is also reflective of significant dissent; Bottom bun: Dissent growing, not opposition as it was not organised, but poor economic growth correlated with social dissent;

Paragraph Four - Economic stability, not stagnation

Top bun: Soviet sympathetic view would suggest that a lack of growth is not stagnation (definition issue); furthermore, how does one measure stability? - Soviet Union did not collapse; economy did grow in objective terms; Argument: Stats to show stability and moderate, if not overly impressive growth; contrast that with Khrushchev’s management of economy; Bottom bun: Compare with previous leaders, suggest that Soviet citizens wanted stability over erratic growth as observed under previous leaders;