TastesGoodBut
Member
Write a pragraph on why the NEP failed and get others to comment!
Revision - the failure of the NEP (Russia/Sovet Union) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TastesGoodBut
- Start date
Nick
foregone conclusion
The NEP failed??? oh shit.. i need to study
didnt Stalin just phase it out during the power struggle.. wen he turned against the rightists, like Rykon, Bukharin etc..
it didnt fail, he just turned against it to eliminate his right wing opponents (former allies) by saying they needed mega industrialisation to compete with teh rest of the world
didnt Stalin just phase it out during the power struggle.. wen he turned against the rightists, like Rykon, Bukharin etc..
it didnt fail, he just turned against it to eliminate his right wing opponents (former allies) by saying they needed mega industrialisation to compete with teh rest of the world
TastesGoodBut
Member
well - it failed in the sense that after it had rebuilt the economy to prewar levels the economy needed industrialisation/modernisation and there was always a feeling from most of the party that it could be continued indefinately almost...
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
I don't do this topic, but I'd presume that it's role in power struggles would be quite vital, seeing it was phased out into the grandiose industralisation of the 'Five-Year Plans', and the collectivisation of the early 1930's..
TastesGoodBut
Member
you would be quite right in making that assessment!
Nick
foregone conclusion
sure thats valid.. but that doesnt mean the policy failed?
some historians could argue that it failed cos it diverted the Bolsheviks from the true hardline of Marxism.. which is why the leftists opposed it (Trotsky)
Other historians think it is the true policy of the Bolsheviks though..
either way, it helped Lenin get support of the peasants, not really a failure.
please tell me if im missing something..
some historians could argue that it failed cos it diverted the Bolsheviks from the true hardline of Marxism.. which is why the leftists opposed it (Trotsky)
Other historians think it is the true policy of the Bolsheviks though..
either way, it helped Lenin get support of the peasants, not really a failure.
please tell me if im missing something..
Gregor Samsa
That Guy
Perhaps it's 'failure' is more in terms of it's eventually being 'superseded' by other policies, a perception within the party. I don't know enough about the topic to cover it.
TastesGoodBut
Member
well it is described as david christian as being a failure... "The failure of the NEP and rise of the stalinist machine" is a chapter in his book i think...
his book is good and simple.. i think Ulam goes off on afew too many sidetracks a bit and so do some of the others...
his book is good and simple.. i think Ulam goes off on afew too many sidetracks a bit and so do some of the others...
stemmo
New Member
It 'failed' mainly because of something called the 'scissors crisis' that Trotsky was concerned about. I can't remember exactly wha it was, but it went something like food/grain prices going down, and industrial/manufactured prices going up (kind of like a pair of scissors, hence the name). Also while it stabilised the economy it never really enabled it to grow, eg. industrialisation and modernisation. I suppose you could also take the view that it was a backward step from socialism.
There you go, that's a paragraph sort of
Here's a link if you want to read more:
http://vcehistory.info/pdf/rempel-NEP.pdf
There you go, that's a paragraph sort of
Here's a link if you want to read more:
http://vcehistory.info/pdf/rempel-NEP.pdf
nah NEP didn't fail
infact it rapidly industrialised Russia and fixed its economy somewhat back to pre-1914 levels, by 1928, some key areas such as coal production approached 1913 levels. However, let us evaluate the initial aims of the NEP:
Primary goal- rapidly industrialise Russia which involves increasing Russian industrial power to and beyond pre 1913 levels, whilst maintaing the civil order and popularity.
Why Stalin change the plan?
Firstly, with the lefts outta the way, he needa to clear the rights, and how could u clear the rights if u were still with the rights? Hence, u move onto the left which allows u to eliminate the right-bukaharin and co.
Stalin's vision of economy policy was left based- on Trotsky's model, a return to war communism like conditions and policy but with more organisation, co-ordination and long term plans.
Leftists- use of Trotsky's harsh war communism styled industrialisation and agricultural policy which was manifested in
1- collectivisation
2- Five year plans
In addition, NEP allowed social and economic structure to change, for a new class of kulaks and NEPmen developed, which hindered Stalin's consolidation of power, those class's considered capitalist in nature and with a very extensive network of terror in place, Stalin feared not any uprisings and resistance, nor was he commited to the peasant-proletariat alliance Lenin had created. So down goes the lot
So FYP and collectivsation
1- removed capitalist tendancy's, vestiges and threats from Soviet society
2- rapidly industrialised and modernised Russia's economy by providing Russia with vital heavy industries
3- Collectivisation increased the technological ability, potential in addition to improvements in productivity whilst most importantly, the food supply to cities and soldiers had been solved once and for all.
yeah i just felt guilty for not doing work so i had to spam all tat out to make it look like i did a bit of work today
infact it rapidly industrialised Russia and fixed its economy somewhat back to pre-1914 levels, by 1928, some key areas such as coal production approached 1913 levels. However, let us evaluate the initial aims of the NEP:
Primary goal- rapidly industrialise Russia which involves increasing Russian industrial power to and beyond pre 1913 levels, whilst maintaing the civil order and popularity.
Why Stalin change the plan?
Firstly, with the lefts outta the way, he needa to clear the rights, and how could u clear the rights if u were still with the rights? Hence, u move onto the left which allows u to eliminate the right-bukaharin and co.
Stalin's vision of economy policy was left based- on Trotsky's model, a return to war communism like conditions and policy but with more organisation, co-ordination and long term plans.
Leftists- use of Trotsky's harsh war communism styled industrialisation and agricultural policy which was manifested in
1- collectivisation
2- Five year plans
In addition, NEP allowed social and economic structure to change, for a new class of kulaks and NEPmen developed, which hindered Stalin's consolidation of power, those class's considered capitalist in nature and with a very extensive network of terror in place, Stalin feared not any uprisings and resistance, nor was he commited to the peasant-proletariat alliance Lenin had created. So down goes the lot
So FYP and collectivsation
1- removed capitalist tendancy's, vestiges and threats from Soviet society
2- rapidly industrialised and modernised Russia's economy by providing Russia with vital heavy industries
3- Collectivisation increased the technological ability, potential in addition to improvements in productivity whilst most importantly, the food supply to cities and soldiers had been solved once and for all.
yeah i just felt guilty for not doing work so i had to spam all tat out to make it look like i did a bit of work today
This is part of a study guide i did on it:
The Scissors Crisis:
This was the widening gap between agricultural and industrial prices. As farm production rose, prices fell; but as industry was much slower in re-establishing , the shortage of manufactured goods drove their prices up. The fear was that peasants would not be able to afford consumer goods and would blame the govt. and attack it. Or would simply stop improving agricultural output.
NEPmen and Kulaks:
With the encouragement of small-scale capitalism under NEP, thousands of small traders began buying and selling for private profit. Many grew rich quickly and the very public success of greed, exploitation, independence and self-interest could be very damaging to Communism. Communist leadership, especially the Left, were very concerned that NEPmen would grow strong and corrupt Russias future. Among the peasants, Kulaks was a term for those whose luck, skill and /or business sense mde them profitable farmers. By the mid 1920s some Kulaks were buying more land and even employing the landless. Rich farmers were unlikely to be supportive of the Communists.
Commanding Heights:
Throughout NEP, heavy industry, transport, communication and all large-scale enterprises were in govt. hands.
Problems by the mid 1920s:
The dispute within the Communist leadership wasnt about whether NEP would end, rather about when. They could all see national security, economic and ideological reasons for ending NEP. There was also the realisation that NEP couldnt give Russia the rapid industrialisation it needed to modernise the nation, build a Socialist society and be safe against the capitalist powers.
Reasons for Stalins mdernisation of the Russian economy:
1. Some Party members believed that without the modernisation of the Russian economy, Russia could never be a Socialist state.
2. Peasants who were prosperous posed a greater ideological threat than poorer peasants. It was NEP that made these peasants, kulaks, rich. Therefore, it was NEP that had to be replaced.
3. The industrial production of pre-war times had almost been reached, and it was realised that a continuance of NEP would not bring further increases.
4. By 1927, there was a genuine fear that a weak Russia would be a likely target for several countries Britain, and later Germany and Japan.
Hope that helps.
The Scissors Crisis:
This was the widening gap between agricultural and industrial prices. As farm production rose, prices fell; but as industry was much slower in re-establishing , the shortage of manufactured goods drove their prices up. The fear was that peasants would not be able to afford consumer goods and would blame the govt. and attack it. Or would simply stop improving agricultural output.
NEPmen and Kulaks:
With the encouragement of small-scale capitalism under NEP, thousands of small traders began buying and selling for private profit. Many grew rich quickly and the very public success of greed, exploitation, independence and self-interest could be very damaging to Communism. Communist leadership, especially the Left, were very concerned that NEPmen would grow strong and corrupt Russias future. Among the peasants, Kulaks was a term for those whose luck, skill and /or business sense mde them profitable farmers. By the mid 1920s some Kulaks were buying more land and even employing the landless. Rich farmers were unlikely to be supportive of the Communists.
Commanding Heights:
Throughout NEP, heavy industry, transport, communication and all large-scale enterprises were in govt. hands.
Problems by the mid 1920s:
The dispute within the Communist leadership wasnt about whether NEP would end, rather about when. They could all see national security, economic and ideological reasons for ending NEP. There was also the realisation that NEP couldnt give Russia the rapid industrialisation it needed to modernise the nation, build a Socialist society and be safe against the capitalist powers.
Reasons for Stalins mdernisation of the Russian economy:
1. Some Party members believed that without the modernisation of the Russian economy, Russia could never be a Socialist state.
2. Peasants who were prosperous posed a greater ideological threat than poorer peasants. It was NEP that made these peasants, kulaks, rich. Therefore, it was NEP that had to be replaced.
3. The industrial production of pre-war times had almost been reached, and it was realised that a continuance of NEP would not bring further increases.
4. By 1927, there was a genuine fear that a weak Russia would be a likely target for several countries Britain, and later Germany and Japan.
Hope that helps.
stemmo
New Member
Whether the NEP 'failed' or not depends on your interpretation, or that of the historian(s) you are reading. As a political maneuvre it probably was a failure because it meant that Lenin had to revert to a period of 'mixed capitalism', even though he had argued that the socialist revolution could bypass a capitalist phase. Socially it could be considered a success because living standards and wages increased markedly, and there was better social mobility. But economically, it didn't industrialise Russia anywhere near 'rapidly' for several reasons, and this led to the introduction of collectivisation and Five Year Plans to facilitate closer centralised control of the economy (Russia was simply too large to do this any other way). The NEP is seen by conservative/liberal/capitalist historians as a sign that socialism is flawed and that the socialist revolution had to 'go back' to capitalism to protect their own authority, however it's more likely that Russia itself just wasn't ready to progress to socialism.
Steve
scarecrow_of_oz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 412
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2003
this is a very subjective topic- politically it can be seen to have succeeded in a way as it was seen (probably quite rightly) as a means of allowing the bolshevik party to survive. if u talk about its success/failure consider it in the context of what it replaced- considering growing overt opposition to war communism, it was seen as a temporary political necessesity (never intended by lenin or trotsky as a permanent economic policy) and can therefore be seen to have achieved its aims (the survival of the party against immediate threats of the time)
The main reason it failed was ideologically, not economically. NEP wasn't really doing too badly, really. It got russia back to it's pre WW1 levels in economic growth and output, and in some areas it doubled them. Aand all of this without squeezing the peasants dry as they had during the civil war (and that's why NEP was introduced in the first place).
But the problem was that it was a capitalist fiscal retreat in a communist state, and it just didn't sit well with the Trotskyites and others on an ideological basis. As well as this, it was creating new classes (NEPmen, Kulaks) in what was supposed to be a classless society.
NEP probably could have continued for a further decade if Lenin had lived and had a say in it (eventually the scissors crisises would have got on top of it), but hindsight is always 20/20. When Stalin grabbed power it wasn't industralising Russia fast enough for his liking, so he got rid of it. In the process he gave himself and the Russian people an excuse for genociding millions of Kulaks or peasants with "Kulak tendencies" (ie, just about everyone in the country).
But the problem was that it was a capitalist fiscal retreat in a communist state, and it just didn't sit well with the Trotskyites and others on an ideological basis. As well as this, it was creating new classes (NEPmen, Kulaks) in what was supposed to be a classless society.
NEP probably could have continued for a further decade if Lenin had lived and had a say in it (eventually the scissors crisises would have got on top of it), but hindsight is always 20/20. When Stalin grabbed power it wasn't industralising Russia fast enough for his liking, so he got rid of it. In the process he gave himself and the Russian people an excuse for genociding millions of Kulaks or peasants with "Kulak tendencies" (ie, just about everyone in the country).
Last edited:
cadsy48
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 35
OMG the NEP did not fail!!,
in fact like mentioned above it brought the economy and production levels back to prewar. it gave the proletariat and the rest of the peasants happiness as it actually let them live. Lenin only brought it in because it was a pragmatic decision to keep the bolshevik party going. The kronstadt mutiny proved to lenin and trotsky that even their own supporters were becomgin discontent with war communism therefore the only way to survive was to give the people what they wanted and the economy what it needed, even if it did go against true bolshevik cvommunism. Stalin only phased it out in favour of leftsist economic policies such as the modernisation
in fact like mentioned above it brought the economy and production levels back to prewar. it gave the proletariat and the rest of the peasants happiness as it actually let them live. Lenin only brought it in because it was a pragmatic decision to keep the bolshevik party going. The kronstadt mutiny proved to lenin and trotsky that even their own supporters were becomgin discontent with war communism therefore the only way to survive was to give the people what they wanted and the economy what it needed, even if it did go against true bolshevik cvommunism. Stalin only phased it out in favour of leftsist economic policies such as the modernisation
Nick
foregone conclusion
modernisation was never a leftinst economics policy, it was pretty much the central element in the ideology and politics of the CPSU... the NEP was a temporary reversion to aspects of capitalism, and it failed to produce the booming economy or modernisation that the Bolsheviks needed for the revolution to be successful, to defend "socialism in one country." Sure it made the peasants happy, but ull notice that once they got in power and Russia became a one party state, they really didnt give a shit about hte peasants. The Proletariat were sposed to be the base of the revolution, and modernisation was what would bring more people from the countryside into the towns, and create a more advanced proletariat, which Marx says is far more revolutionary.
this is better than writing out notes..
this is better than writing out notes..