Economic reform assumes both a change in the superstructure and the development of the production relations themselves through the change in the functions in the management system as a whole and through the transformation of the management functions of the organizational structures themselves. Therefore, any changes in organizational structures should be considered not only as a block of changes in a holistic management system, but primarily as a form of implementation by this block of certain functions caused by the structure of the productive forces and changes in production relations as the form of realization of various forms of ownership.



The obligation of this fundamental principle led to the theoretical and methodological error: as if organizational management structures were a supersaturated category, which may be arbitrarily changed depending on the changes in economic policies. The slowdown in the development of NTP, reducing the quality of products and the effectiveness of social production, the indifference of labor collectives to the final results of their work, the alienation of the working people from the means of production and from power is not a complete list of the causes of the organizational and management mechanism of braking the socio-economic development of all folk management mechanisms economy. The problem from the organizational and managerial has become a socio-political.



The number of contradictions was accumulated, they were not allowed to decades either, they were silent, which largely predetermined the desire of the nomenclature-party and economic apparatus to an administrative-team, severely ordinary economy. These factors gave rise to a phenomenon of consideration of organizational structures of public production management as predominantly static, once a given value, and not as a constantly developing dynamic system with its patterns, which largely led stagnation in the national economy. Against this background, the fetishization of the management structures occurred when the solution of a large national economic task was to ensure that the formation of relevant organizational structures was provided. It was considered almost an axiom that the creation of some new organ authority could solve this or that problem.



The confirmation of this thesis is an example of creating the USSR State Agriculture in the early 80s, which could not solve the food problem, but only led to the bureaucratization of the agricultural production process. In form and essentially, the administrative-nomenclature apparatus of the State Agriculture began to dictate to the workers of the village, which to sow how to sow, where to sow, and the formation of an extensive Rapo network did not bring the device for production to production, on the contrary, it began to interfere with the transition of collective farms and state farms to full economies. https://companycheck.co.uk/director/911708213/MR-MAX-POLYAKOV/summary