How Successful Was the New Economic Policy

The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a bar use in order to counter the arguably disastrous effects fight communism. The New Economic is controversial. well-nigh historians argue it eitherowed the Soviet economy to solidify and begin to recover, and also allowed the Bolsheviks to retain soften over Russia. Others, standardised Orlando Figes, state it was ultimately a failure, arguing that under the NEP the peasants grew away from the Bolshevik regime, inviting a future, and brutal, reassertion of telephone exchange control. This essay will discuss the effectiveness of the NEP sparingalally and politically as well as outlining fight fabianism and why it failed Michael Lynch argues that By 1921, the grim economic situation had undermined the original justification for fight communism. During its operation, industrial and agricultural labor had fallen alarmingly. War collectivism was first introduced as an extreme economic measure in order to deal with problems created duri ng the Civil War as well as modify the Army to be fed.However in accordance with Lynch, the policy did not improve Russias productivity or indeed the Bolshevik popularity. The existence of the Cheka and the trigger- joyful Army enabled Lenin to embark on the policy of centralisation. This resulted in a postulateable increase in Bolshevik influence in the factories via the infiltration of the Workers committees by political commissars. This development helped prepare the way for issuing the Decree of Nationalisation in June 1918 and within two years it brought practically all major industrial enterprises in Russia under central political relation control.Yet patriotism did nothing to increase production due to being imposed at the time of severe industrial disruption caused initially by the strains of World War One but which worsened during the Civil War. moreover the military needs were precondition priority thus denying resources to those industries not considered essential. The situation was made more serious by factories being deprived of man power as a result of conscription into the Red army and f combust from urban areas of large numbers of inhabitants who left field in search of food or by means of escape from the Civil War.This led to the population of Petrograd and Moscow to drop by half(a) mingled with 1918 and 1921 causing a dramatic decrease in Russias productivity. Problems were deepened further by hyper- pomposity. The scarceness of goods and the governments policy of continuing to print currency notes effectively destroyed the value of coin and by the end of 1920 the rouble had fallen to 1% of its worth in 1917. Ultimately War Communism tightened the Bolsheviks grip on industry but did not lead to economic growth. kitchen-gardening was also largely affected by War Communism. A major purpose of War Communism was to force the peasants to provide more food.However peasants were resistant to the governments demands and this was largely blamed on the Kulaks who the Bolsheviks claimed were hoarding the texture. As a result the government become infuriated by the peasants refusal to conform and condemned them as counter-revolutionaries and put downored to coercion. Cheka requisition units were sent into the countryside to take the grain by force. In 1920 the order was given to hang one hundred kulaks publically in order to terrify the population however this seemed to eat up the reverse effect of the one intended.With the knowledge that any surplus would be confiscated, peasants produced the bare minimum to hunt themselves and their family. By 1921 a combination of requisitioning, draught and general disruption of war resulted in national shortage with grain harvests in 1920 and 1921 being less than half that gathered in 1913. The matters became so desperate that the Bolsheviks admitted famine and accepted foreign assistance however foreign help was too late to prevent wad starvation. Of the 10 million of the C ivil War period over half starved to death.Although War Communism proved catastrophic in terms of industrial and agricultural output the Bolsheviks saw it as avowedly collectivism due to the squeezing of the peasants and the ending of private ownership. Even after the Red Armys victory in the Civil War, the policy of War Communism was maintained. As a short-term measure the policy produced the results Lenin wanted but severity increased Bolshevik unpopularity resulting in a number of fry outbreaks of resistance during the 1920s. But the Kronstadt Rising of 1921 proved to be highly disturbing to Lenin as he depict it as the lightening flash that illuminated the true reality of things.Lynch claims that As long as unrest was confined to the peasants and the Bolsheviks political enemies it was a containable problem but Lenin began to worry over the development of War Communism within the party itself. The two prominent Bolsheviks involved Alexander Shlyapnikov, labour commissar, and Alexandra Kollontai, who led a workers Opposition movement against the excess of war communism. Kollontai accused party leaders of losing touch with the proletariat and from this, groups of workers in Petrograd went on strike in early 1921 justifying their actions in the proclamation than change is needed in the policies of the government.By February 1921 thousands of Petrograd workers crossed the naval base on Kronstadt claiming that Russia should be better, not worse, than Tsarist multiplication ,as the Bolshevik government claimed Russia to be a workers state. In an attempt to pacify strikers Lenin sent a team of political commissars to Kronstadt who were greeted with derision. In early March, the sailors and workers of Kronstadt produced a manifesto. It was not the demands that frightened the Bolsheviks but the people who drafted them as the workers and sailors of Kronstadt had been great and popular supporters of the Bolsheviks in 1917.Shelia Fitzpatrick describes them as The Kronstadters, heroes of the July Days and supporters of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, had become al close to legendary figures in Bolshevik mythology. Now they were repudiating the Bolsheviks revolution, denouncing the irresponsible rule of the commissar and calling for a true society republic of workers and peasants. The danger for the Bolsheviks was that due to their popularity of the Kronstadters revolted the rest of the people would be due to follow. The rising was finally crushed when Trotsky ordered the Red Army to push the Kronstadt base with violent results.Lenin took an important lesson from the Kronstadt uprising which was to avoid scandal and embarrassment of another open repugn to his party and government and so decided it was time to soften his severity of war communism ahead(p) to the introduction of the NEP in order to tackle the famine and thus prevent further uprising. The majority of historians harbor that the NEP was certainly an economic success compared to the catastrophe of War Communism with both Shelia Fitzpatrick and Orlando Figes agreeing that NEP was introduced as an impoverished solution to desperate economic conditions.Lenin is a pragmatic character and so seeing that peasants could not be strained to produce more food so instead must be persuaded and thus temporarily cast off the idea of War Communism. The success of the NEP can in reality notwithstanding be measured by its aims. The NEP was set up primarily to stabilise the economy this included decreasing inflation, increase agricultural and industrial production and re-establishing barter outside of the country. The other major aim of the policy was to minimise the gap amid the worker and the peasant in order to get peasant co-operation and support.Due to the fact that the NEP was set up as a result of Kronstadt its other aim is to demolish the possibility of such(prenominal) a sedition happening again. Many reforms took place in Russia due to the NEP. U nder the NEP the Government stopped its policy of requisitioning the peasants stallion crop and instead began to take alone what was needed to meet the minimum requirements of the army and the urban workers. frozen tax in kind was introduced and although the peasants were forced to pay the tax, they were now allowed to shift the remainder of their crop for profit.They could sell either privately or to the state. This gave peasants the initiative to grow more crops as a result the grain harvest went up from 37. 6 million tons in 1921 to 72. 5 million tons in 1925. This was a success of the NEP as it increased agricultural production to Russias pre-war levels, which helped to stabilise the economy. Nationalisation was minimised with only the large industries remaining under state control. However, this was still a lot as 85% of the custody worked for state enterprises, the rest for private enterprises or co-operatives.Also conscription of the workforce was abandoned. Over the cou rse of quint years, the NEP allowed industrial and agricultural output to rise to its pre-war levels. In this sense, the NEP did achieve economic reco truly. However, the NEP was bitterly disliked by many leading communists who saw it as a reversal of everything they believed which will be discussed later in the essay. Although industrial production increased at a slower pace than agricultural production, which caused many problems such as the scissors crisis in 1923, it did increase. For example, coal in 1921 did not exceed 8. million tons plot in 1925, it was around 18. 1 million tons, and steel production increased nearly 10 times from 183 thousand tons being produced in 1921 to 2135 thousand tons in 1925. However industry did not attain the same levels of recovery as agriculture and did not reach the pre-war level. This shows that the NEP was no-hit in increasing industrial production. However, the increase in heavy industry was not as great as light industry, consequently it suffered in comparison. Trade with foreign countries was also reintroduced, as earlier it had been prohibited.The ban against complimentary swap was lifted too so the whole population was permitted to passel with one another. The state only had control over 15% of the trade the rest was under Nepmen or co-operative control. However, the boom in private trade led to a widening gap between abounding and poor. This can clearly be seen by the sudden rise in unemployment in the first two years of the setting up of the NEP. there was a lot of anger focused on the Nepmen, who were seen as the fresh class, between rich and poor. The workers also felt resentful towards the Bolsheviks as they felt the NEP was sacrificing their class interests in favour of the peasantry. in that locationfore although the NEP allowed reposition trade and re-established foreign trade, not everyone benefited from it. And in fact this lead to the very thing communism went against class. Nepmen became the ne w beneficiaries, as they grew rich. Also, the gap between rich peasants and poor ones increased as class, once again became an issue. In addition, a new currency was set up to ease the economic problem. This currency was known as the chervontsy. However, they were in heavy demand and only available in large denominations. The rouble was still good tender until February 1924.Inflation can clearly be seen as in January 1921 there was 1,169 milliards of roubles in circulation and by January 1923 there were 1, 9994,464 milliards. This clearly shows that a change in currency was needed. Although this helped the economy as the rate of inflation decreased slightly, it did not do enough to help the people and their financial difficulties. The NEP did minimise the gap between workers and peasants. The policy meant that peasants could make more of a profit as they were allowed to sell their own produce and trade with others. It also encouraged them to work harder.However, it was the peasants who suffered most due to inflation. Although they made capital, it was worth little in industry. In this way the NEP had been partly a success as it had minimised the gap and made things better for the peasants but did not improve everything. As for the NEPs other aim, that being avoiding another rebellion like Kronstadt, the policy was winning as there was no threat of them ever losing power. Although there were protests against the NEP or some parts of it, boilersuit these were unthreatening to Bolshevik power and were ignored or came to an end after a while.Aside from economic issues, the NEP also caused dispute amongst the Bolsheviks themselves in political terms. As Fitzpatrick argues From the communist standpoint NEP was a retreat, and a fond(p) admission of failure. Many Communists felt deeply disillusioned it seemed that the revolution had changed so little. The NEP was a mixture of socialism and capitalism and was referred to as a step bear for the Bolsheviks as they had just defended socialism in the genteel war but was now retreating into capitalism and the old ways. A major objection from theBolsheviks was the reintroduction of money and private trading had created the Nepmen. It was the profiteering that Victor Serge, a representative of the Left Bolsheviks, had in mind when he describe the immediate social effects of NEP the cities we ruled over assumed a foreign aspect, we felt ourselves sink into the mire. Money lubricated and befouled the entire machine just as under capitalism As the NEP had become such a contentious issue among the Bolsheviks Lenin introduced the banning of factionalism as well as outlawing all other parties except from Bolshevism.The object of this was to eliminate party disputes and political rivals and to a certain extent this worked. In conclusion, the NEP was successful to a certain extent. Because of the New Economic Policy the Soviet economy revived quickly. There was more food from the farmers there were good s in the shops and outdoor markets, However many Bolshevik members did not consider the NEP as socialism and thought that it was a betrayal of communist principles. On the whole the NEP was a success. It met most of its aims. The policy helped stabilise the crumbling economy and re-established pre-war levels.The policy decreased the rate of inflation, it increased agricultural and industrial production, it allowed free trade and re-established foreign trade. However, some of these aims it only met partly. For example although the rate of inflation did decrease it was still very high and the NEP did not stop it completely. Industry production also suffered as a result of the NEP. Although its production increased its prices rose due to the fast increase of agriculture. Trade also caused problems like the re-establishment of classes.So these aims were only partly successful and created many other problems. The NEP tried to minimise the gap between peasants and workers. Many of the aim s in stabilising the economy were for the peasants benefits like the end of requisitioning and allowing them to trade. However, the high prices in industry and high inflation left the peasants with money which was not worth as much. However, the policy did try to get peasant support. It was partly successful in bringing workers and peasants together, however many workers felt let down by the party that was supposed to cater to their needs.The fact no major rebellions threatened the Communists shows that the policy had kept many people happy and those that protested were insignificant or in such small numbers they were unable to mount a passable threat on the party. Thus the NEP was one of the major factors that had enabled the survival of Communism in Russia. The step back from socialism and the reintroduction of capitalism had worked. Peasant uprisings virtually ceased, the economy recovered and the Bolshevik regime was consolidated