In 1920, the civil war was coming to an end, the Red Army was victorious on the fronts of its opponents. But it was too early for the Bolsheviks to rejoice, as a severe economic and political crisis erupted in the country.

The national economy of the country was completely destroyed. The level of production fell to 14% of the pre-war level (1913). And in some sectors (textile) it fell to the level of 1859. In 1920, the country produced 3% of the pre-war sugar production, 5-6% of cotton fabrics, and 2% of iron. In 1919 almost all blast furnaces went out. The production of metal ceased, and the country lived on old stocks, which inevitably affected all industries. Due to the lack of fuel and raw materials, most factories and factories were closed. Donbass, the Urals, Siberia, and the Baku oil region were especially affected. The sore point of the economy is transport. By 1920, 58% of the locomotive fleet was out of order. Loss of Donbass mines and Baku oil, depreciation of rolling stock railways caused a fuel and transport crisis. He bound cities and towns with frost and famine. Trains ran rarely, slowly, without a schedule. Huge crowds of hungry and half-dressed people accumulated at the stations. All this intensified the food crisis, gave rise to massive epidemics of typhus, cholera, smallpox, dysentery, and so on. The infant mortality rate was especially high. Accurate statistics on human losses during the years of the civil war do not exist. According to many scientists, the death rate during the years of the civil war was 5-6 million people from starvation alone, and about 3 million people from various diseases. Since 1914, about 20 million people have died in Russia, while on the fronts of the civil war, losses on both sides totaled 3 million people.

To overcome the crisis, the authorities tried to carry out emergency measures. Among them was the allocation of "shock groups" of factories supplied with raw materials and fuel in the first place, continuous labor mobilization of the population, the creation of labor armies and the militarization of labor, and an increase in rations for workers. But these measures did not give a great effect, since it was impossible to eliminate the causes of the crisis through organizational measures. They lay in the very policy of war communism, the continuation of which after the end of hostilities caused discontent among the majority of the population, especially the peasantry.

As already noted, in the conditions of the civil war, the peasantry, not wanting the return of the previous order, supported the Reds, agreeing with the surplus appraisal. It is also impossible to speak about the complete coincidence of the views of the Bolsheviks and the peasants on the future prospects for the development of the country. Some researchers even believe that during the years of the Civil War, the peasants helped the Reds to destroy the Whites in order to deal with the Reds later. The preservation of the surplus appraisal in peacetime deprived the peasants of their material interest in expanding production. Peasant farming acquired an increasingly natural character: it produced only the most necessary things for a given peasant and his family. This led to a sharp reduction in sown areas, a decrease in the number of livestock, and the cessation of sowing industrial crops, i.e. to degradation Agriculture. Compared with 1913, the gross agricultural output has decreased by more than a third, and the sown area has decreased by 40%. Surplus appropriation plan for 1920-1921. was only half completed. The peasants preferred to hide their bread rather than give it to the state for free. This caused the toughening of the activities of the procurement bodies and food detachments, on the one hand, and the armed resistance of the peasantry, on the other.

It is noteworthy that along with the peasants, representatives of the working class also took part in the rebellions, in whose composition significant changes took place during the years of the civil war. First, its numbers were reduced, since countless mobilizations to the front were carried out primarily among the workers. Secondly, many workers, fleeing hunger and cold, went to the villages and settled permanently. Thirdly, a large number of the most active and conscious workers "from the machine" were sent to state institutions, the Red Army, the police, the Cheka, etc. They have lost contact with the working class, they have ceased to live by its needs. But even those proletarians who remained in the few operating enterprises, in essence, also ceased to be workers, living off by odd jobs, handicrafts, "sacking", etc. The professional structure of the working class deteriorated, it was dominated by low-skilled strata, women and youth. Many yesterday's workers turned into lumpens, joining the ranks of beggars, thieves, and even fell into criminal gangs. Disappointment and apathy reigned among the workers, and discontent grew. The Bolsheviks understood that they were idealizing the proletariat, speaking of its messianic exclusivity. Under the conditions of war communism, he not only did not show high consciousness and revolutionary initiative, but, as already noted, he took part in anti-Soviet peasant uprisings. The main slogans of these speeches are "Freedom of trade!" and "Soviets without communists!".

The bureaucratic management system that had developed over the years of war communism also turned out to be ineffective. It was impossible to manage and regulate from the center in such a huge country as Russia. There were no funds and experience to establish accounting and control. The central leadership had a vague idea of ​​what was being done locally. The activities of the Soviets were increasingly replaced by the activities of the executive committees and various emergency bodies (revolutionary committees, revolutionary troikas, fives, etc.) under the control of the party apparatus. Elections to the Soviets were held formally with low participation of the population. Although since February 1919 the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks took part in the work of the local Soviets along with the Bolsheviks, nevertheless, under the conditions of war communism, the political monopoly belonged, as is known, to the Bolsheviks. The growing crisis in the country was associated with the erroneous policy of the Bolsheviks, which led to a fall in the authority of the party among the people and an increase in discontent among all segments of the population. The apogee of this discontent is usually considered the Kronstadt mutiny (February - March 1921), in which even the sailors of the Baltic Fleet, who were previously the most reliable stronghold of Soviet power, came out against the Bolsheviks. The rebellion was put down with great difficulty and considerable bloodshed. He demonstrated the danger of maintaining the policy of war communism.

The erosion of moral criteria in society, which is natural for situations in which the system collapses, also represented a threat to the Soviet government. moral values. Religion was declared a relic of the old world. The death of a huge number of people devalued human life, the state was unable to guarantee the safety of the individual. Increasingly, the ideas of equalization and class priorities were reduced to a simple slogan "steal the loot." A wave of crime has swept over Russia. All this, as well as the disintegration of the family (the new authorities declared the family a relic of bourgeois society, introduced the institution of civil marriage and greatly simplified divorce proceedings), family ties caused an unprecedented increase in child homelessness. By 1922, the number of homeless children reached 7 million people, so even a special commission was created under the Cheka, headed by F. E. Dzerzhinsky, to combat homelessness.

By the end of the civil war, the Bolsheviks had to endure the collapse of another illusion: the hopes for a world revolution had finally collapsed. This was evidenced by the defeat of the socialist uprising in Hungary, the fall of the Bavarian Republic, and the unsuccessful attempt in Poland, with the help of the Red Army, to "drive mankind to happiness." It was not possible to take the "fortress of world capitalism" by storm. It was necessary to proceed to its long siege. This required the abandonment of the policy of war communism and the transition to the search for compromises with the world bourgeoisie both within the country and in the international arena.

In 1920, a serious crisis hit the RCP(b) as well. Having become the ruling party, it grows very rapidly in numbers, which could not but affect its qualitative composition. If in February 1917 there were about 24 thousand people in its ranks, then in March 1920 - 640 thousand people, and a year later, in March 1921 - 730 thousand people. Not only conscious fighters for social justice rushed into it, but also careerists, rogues, whose interests were far from the needs of the working people. Gradually, the living conditions of the party apparatus begin to differ significantly from those of ordinary communists.

At the IX Conference of the RCP(b), in September 1920, there was talk of a crisis within the party itself. It manifested itself, firstly, in the separation between the "tops" and "bottoms", which caused great discontent of the latter. A special commission was even created to study the privileges of the highest party apparatus. Secondly, in the emergence of an intra-party discussion about the ways and methods of building socialism, which came to be called the discussion about trade unions. It dealt with the role of the masses in the building of socialism, the forms of state administration and methods of interaction between communists and non-party people, as well as the principles of the activity of the party itself. The participants split into five platforms and fiercely argued among themselves.

The results of the discussion were summed up by the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b) in March 1921. Most of the participants agreed that in a crisis in the country it is an unaffordable luxury and leads to a weakening of the party's authority. At the suggestion of V. I. Lenin, the congress adopted a resolution "On the Unity of the Party", which, under pain of expulsion, contained a ban on participation in factions and groupings.

Thus, the crisis of the end of 1920 had a systemic character and became main reason which prompted the Bolsheviks to abandon the policy of war communism.

The goal of the October Revolution was nothing less than the building of an ideal state. A country in which everyone is equal, where there are no rich and poor, where there is no money, and everyone does only what they love, at the call of the soul, and not for a salary. That's just the reality did not want to turn into a happy fairy tale, the economy was rolling down, food riots began in the country. Then it was decided to move to the NEP.

A country that survived two wars and a revolution

By the 20s of the last century, Russia from a huge rich power turned into ruins. World War I, coup of '17, Civil War- it's not just words.

Millions of dead, destroyed factories and cities, deserted villages. The country's economy was practically destroyed. These were the reasons for the transition to the NEP. Briefly, they can be described as an attempt to return the country to a peaceful track.

The First World War not only depleted the economic and social resources of the country. It also created the ground for deepening the crisis. After the end of the war, millions of soldiers returned home. But there were no jobs for them. The revolutionary years were marked by a monstrous increase in crime, and the reason was not only temporary anarchy and confusion in the country. The young republic was suddenly flooded with people with weapons, people who had lost the habit of peaceful life, and they survived as their experience suggested. The transition to the NEP made it possible to increase the number of jobs in a short time.

Economic disaster

The Russian economy at the beginning of the twentieth century practically collapsed. Production has decreased several times. Large factories were left without management, the thesis "Factories for workers" turned out to be good on paper, but not in life. Small and medium businesses were practically destroyed. Craftsmen and merchants, owners of small manufactories were the first victims of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. A huge number of specialists and entrepreneurs fled to Europe. And if at first it seemed absolutely normal - an element alien to communist ideals was leaving the country, then it turned out that there were not enough workers for the effective functioning of industry. The transition to the NEP made it possible to revive small and medium-sized businesses, thereby ensuring the growth of gross output and the creation of new jobs.

Crisis of agriculture

The situation with agriculture was just as bad. The cities were starving, a system of wages in kind was introduced. The workers were paid in rations, but they were too small.

To solve the problem of food, a surplus appraisal was introduced. At the same time, up to 70% of the harvested grain was confiscated from the peasants. A paradoxical situation has arisen. Workers fled from the cities to the countryside to feed themselves on the land, but here, too, hunger awaited them, even more severe than before.

The labor of the peasants became meaningless. Work for a whole year, then give everything to the state and starve? Of course, this could not but affect the productivity of agriculture. Under such conditions, the only way to change the situation was to move to the NEP. The date of the adoption of the new economic course was a turning point in the revival of dying agriculture. Only this could stop the wave of riots that swept across the country.

The collapse of the financial system

The prerequisites for the transition to the NEP were not only social. Monstrous inflation devalued the ruble, and products were not so much sold as exchanged.

However, if we recall that the state ideology assumed a complete rejection of money in favor of payment in kind, everything seemed to be normal. But it turned out that it was impossible to provide everyone and everyone with food, clothes, shoes, just like that, according to the list. The state machine is not adapted to perform such small and precise tasks.

The only way that war communism could offer to solve this problem was surplus appropriation. But then it turned out that if the inhabitants of the cities work for food, then the peasants work generally for free. Their grain is taken away without giving anything in return. It turned out that it is almost impossible to establish a commodity exchange without the participation of a monetary equivalent. The only way out in this situation was the transition to the NEP. Briefly describing this situation, we can say that the state was forced to return to the previously rejected market relations, postponing for a while the construction of an ideal state.

Brief essence of the NEP

The reasons for the transition to the NEP were not clear to everyone. Many considered such a policy a huge step back, a return to the petty-bourgeois past, to the cult of enrichment. The ruling party was forced to explain to the population that this was a forced measure of a temporary nature.

Free trade and private enterprise were again revived in the country.

And if earlier there were only two classes: workers and peasants, and the intelligentsia was just a stratum, now the so-called NEPmen have appeared in the country - merchants, manufacturers, small producers. It was they who ensured the effective satisfaction of consumer demand in cities and villages. This is what the transition to the NEP looked like in Russia. The date 03/15/1921 went down in history as the day when the RCP(b) abandoned the tough policy of war communism, once again legitimizing private property and monetary and market relations.

The dual nature of the NEP

Of course, such reforms did not at all mean a full-fledged return to the free market. Large factories and plants, banks still belonged to the state. Only it had the right to dispose of the country's natural resources and conclude foreign economic transactions. The logic of administrative and economic management of market processes was of a fundamental nature. The elements of free trade rather resembled thin shoots of ivy, braiding the granite rock of a rigid state economy.

At the same time, there were a huge number of changes that the transition to the NEP caused. Briefly, they can be described as providing a certain freedom to small producers and traders - but only for a while, to relieve social tensions. And although in the future the state was supposed to return to the old ideological doctrines, such a neighborhood of the command and market economy was planned for quite a long time, sufficient to create a reliable economic base that would make the transition to socialism painless for the country.

NEP in agriculture

One of the first steps towards the modernization of the former economic policy was the abolition of the surplus appraisal. The transition to the NEP provided for a food tax of 30%, handed over to the state not free of charge, but at fixed prices. Even though the cost of grain was small, it was still an obvious progress.

The remaining 70% of the production, the peasants could dispose of independently, albeit within the boundaries of local farms.

Such measures not only stopped the famine, but also gave impetus to the development of the agricultural sector. The hunger has receded. Already by 1925, the gross agricultural product approached pre-war volumes. It was precisely the transition to the NEP that ensured this effect. The year when the surplus appraisal was canceled was the beginning of the rise of agriculture in the country. An agrarian revolution began, collective farms and agricultural cooperatives were massively created in the country, and a technical base was organized.

NEP in industry

The decision to move to the NEP led to significant changes in the management of the country's industry. Although large enterprises were subordinate only to the state, small ones were relieved of the need to obey the central administrations. They could create trusts, independently determining what and how much to produce. Such enterprises independently purchased the necessary materials and independently sold the products, managing their income minus the amount of taxes. The state did not control this process and was not responsible for the financial obligations of the trusts. The transition to the NEP brought back the already forgotten term "bankruptcy" to the country.

At the same time, the state did not forget that the reforms were temporary, and gradually planted the principle of planning in industry. The trusts gradually merged into concerns, uniting enterprises supplying raw materials and manufacturing products into one logical chain. In the future, it was precisely such production segments that were to become the basis of a planned economy.

Financial reforms

Since the reasons for the transition to the NEP were largely economic in nature, an urgent monetary reform was required. There were no specialists of the proper level in the new republic, so the state attracted financiers who had significant experience in the days of tsarist Russia.

As a result economic reforms the banking system was restored, direct and indirect taxation was introduced, payment for some services that were previously provided free of charge. All expenses that did not correspond to the income of the republic were ruthlessly abolished.

A monetary reform was carried out, the first state securities, the country's currency became convertible.

For some time, the government managed to fight inflation by keeping the value of the national currency at a sufficient high level. But then a combination of incongruous - planned and market economies - destroyed this fragile balance. As a result of significant inflation, the chervonets, which were in use at that time, lost the status of a convertible currency. After 1926, it was impossible to travel abroad with this money.

Completion and results of the NEP

In the second half of the 1920s, the country's leadership decided to move to a planned economy. The country reached the pre-revolutionary level of production, and in fact, in achieving this goal, there were reasons for the transition to the NEP. Briefly, the consequences of applying the new economic approach can be described as very successful.

It should be noted that the country did not have much sense to continue the course towards a market economy. After all, in fact, such a high result was achieved only due to the fact that the production facilities that were inherited from the previous regime were launched. Private entrepreneurs were completely deprived of the opportunity to influence economic decisions; representatives of the revived business did not take part in the government of the country.

Attraction of foreign investments in the country was not welcomed. However, there were not so many who wanted to risk their finances by investing in Bolshevik enterprises. At the same time, there were simply no own funds for long-term investment in capital-intensive industries.

It can be said that by the beginning of the 1930s the NEP had exhausted itself, and this economic doctrine was to be replaced by another one, one that would allow the country to start moving forward.

With the end of the civil war, the policy of "war communism" reached a dead end. It was not possible to overcome the devastation generated by 4 years of Russia's participation in the First World War and aggravated by 3 years of the Civil War. The threat of the restoration of pre-revolutionary agrarian relations disappeared, so the peasantry no longer wanted to put up with the policy of surplus appropriation.

There was no organized tax and financial system in the country. There was a sharp drop in labor productivity and the real wages of workers (even when taking into account not only the monetary part of it, but also supplies at fixed prices and free distributions).

The peasants were forced to hand over all the surpluses, and most often even part of the most necessary things, to the state without any equivalent, because. there were almost no industrial goods. Products were confiscated by force. Because of this, mass demonstrations of peasants began in the country.

Since August 1920, in the Tambov and Voronezh provinces, the “kulak” rebellion continued, led by the Socialist-Revolutionary A.S. Antonov; a large number of peasant formations operated in Ukraine (Petliurists, Makhnovists, etc.); insurgent centers arose in the Middle Volga region, on the Don and Kuban. The West Siberian "rebels", led by the Social Revolutionaries and former officers, in February-March 1921 created armed formations of several thousand people, captured almost the entire territory of the Tyumen province, the cities of Petropavlovsk, Kokchetav, etc., interrupting the railway communication between Siberia and the center of the country for three weeks.

Surplus appropriation was avoided by concealing grain, transferring grain to moonshine, and in other ways. Small-scale agriculture had no incentive to maintain production at the current level, much less to expand. The lack of traction, labor, depreciation of inventory led to a reduction in production. The absolute number of the rural population remained almost unchanged from 1913 to 1920, but the percentage of the able-bodied in connection with the mobilizations and the results of the war dropped noticeably from 45% to about 36%. The area of ​​arable land decreased in 1913-1916. by 7%, and for 1916-1920. - by 20.3%. Production was limited only by their own needs, the desire to provide themselves with everything necessary. In Central Asia, the cultivation of cotton practically ceased, instead they began to sow bread. Sugar beet crops have been sharply reduced in Ukraine. This led to a decrease in the marketability and productivity of agriculture, because. beets and cotton are high-value crops. Agriculture became organic. It was necessary first of all to interest the peasantry economically in restoring the economy and expanding production. To do this, it was necessary to limit its obligations to the state within certain limits and give the right to freely dispose of the rest of the products. The exchange of agricultural products for essential industrial goods was supposed to strengthen the ties between the city and the countryside, to promote the development light industry. On the basis of this, then it was possible to create savings, organize a financial economy, in order to then raise heavy industry.

To implement this plan, freedom of circulation and trade was necessary. These goals were pursued by the resolution of the 10th Congress of the RCP (b) and the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of March 21, 1921 “On the replacement of food and raw material appropriation with a tax in kind.” He limited the natural obligations of the peasantry to strictly established norms and allowed the sale of agricultural surpluses in the form of barter in local markets. This made it possible to resume local turnover and product exchange, as well as, within narrow limits, private trade. In the future, the need arose very quickly to restore complete freedom of trade throughout the country, and not in the form of natural product exchange, but in the form of money trade. During 1921, obstacles and restrictions on the development of trade were spontaneously broken down and abolished by law. Trade unfolded more and more widely, being in this period the main lever for the restoration of the national economy.

Later, due to limited funds, the state abandoned the direct management of small and partially medium-sized industrial enterprises. They were transferred to the jurisdiction of local authorities or leased to private individuals. A small part of the enterprises was handed over to foreign capital in the form of concessions. The public sector was made up of large and medium enterprises, which formed the core of socialist industry. Along with this, the state abandoned the centralized supply and marketing of products, giving enterprises the right to resort to market services for the purchase necessary materials and for the sale of products. The beginnings of cost accounting began to be actively introduced into the activities of enterprises. The national economy from a strictly regulated subsistence economy of the period of "war communism" gradually moved to the path of a commodity-money economy. In it, along with a significant sector of state enterprises, enterprises of the private capitalist and state capitalist type also appeared.

The Decree on the Tax in Kind was the beginning of the liquidation of the economic methods of "war communism" and the turning point for the New Economic Policy. The development of the ideas underlying this decree was the basis of the NEP. However, the transition to the NEP was not seen as a restoration of capitalism. It was believed that, having strengthened in the main positions, the Soviet state would be able to expand the socialist sector in the future, ousting the capitalist elements.

An important moment in the transition from direct product exchange to a monetary economy was the decree of August 5, 1921 on the restoration of the mandatory collection of fees for goods sold by state bodies to individuals and organizations, incl. cooperative. For the first time, wholesale prices began to form, which had previously been absent due to the planned supply of enterprises. The Price Committee was in charge of setting wholesale, retail, procurement prices and charges on the prices of monopoly goods.

Thus, until 1921, the economic and political life of the country proceeded in accordance with the policy of "war communism", a policy of complete rejection of private property, market relations, absolute control and management by the state. Management was centralized, local enterprises and institutions did not have any independence. But all these cardinal changes in the country's economy were introduced spontaneously, were not planned and viable. Such a tough policy only exacerbated the devastation in the country. It was a time of fuel, transport and other crises, the fall of industry and agriculture, the lack of bread and the rationing of products. There was chaos in the country, there were constant strikes and demonstrations. In 1918 martial law was introduced in the country. In order to get out of the plight created in the country after the wars and revolutions, it was necessary to make cardinal socio-economic changes.

NEP - " new economic policy» Soviet Russia was an economic liberalization under strict political control of the authorities. NEP has replaced war communism» (« old economic policy"- SEP) and had the main task: to overcome the political and economic crises spring of 1921. The main idea of ​​the NEP was the restoration of the national economy for the subsequent transition to socialist construction.

By 1921, the Civil War on the territory of the former Russian Empire generally ended. There were still battles with the unfinished White Guards and Japanese invaders in the Far East (in the Far East), and in the RSFSR they were already assessing the losses caused by military revolutionary upheavals:

Loss of territory- Poland, Finland, the Baltic countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Western Belarus and Ukraine, Bessarabia and the Kars region of Armenia turned out to be outside Soviet Russia and its allied socialist state entities.

Population loss as a result of wars, emigration, epidemics and a drop in the birth rate, it amounted to approximately 25 million people. Experts calculated that no more than 135 million people lived in the Soviet territories at that time.

Were thoroughly destroyed and fell into disrepair industrial areas: Donbass, Ural and Baku oil complex. There was a catastrophic shortage of raw materials and fuel for somehow working plants and factories.

The volume of industrial production decreased by about 5 times (metal smelting fell to the level of the beginning of the 18th century).

The volume of agricultural production has decreased by about 40%.

Inflation crossed all reasonable limits.

There was a growing shortage of consumer goods.

The intellectual potential of society has degraded. Many scientists, technicians and cultural figures emigrated, some were subjected to repression, up to physical destruction.

The peasants, outraged by the surplus appropriation and the atrocities of the food detachments, not only sabotaged the delivery of bread, but also everywhere raised armed rebellions. The farmers of the Tambov region, Don, Kuban, Ukraine, the Volga region and Siberia revolted. The rebels, often led by ideological SRs, put forward economic (the abolition of the surplus) and political demands:

1. Changes in the agrarian policy of the Soviet authorities.
2. Cancel the one-party dictate of the RCP(b).
3. Elect and convene a Constituent Assembly.

Units and even formations of the Red Army were thrown to suppress the uprisings, but the wave of protests did not subside. In the Red Army, anti-Bolshevik sentiments also matured, which resulted on March 1, 1921 in the large-scale Kronstadt uprising. In the RCP(b) itself and the Supreme Council of National Economy, already since 1920, the voices of individual leaders (Trotsky, Rykov) were heard, calling for the abandonment of the surplus appraisal. The issue of changing the socio-economic course of the Soviet government is ripe.

Factors that influenced the adoption of the new economic policy

The introduction of the NEP in the Soviet state was not someone's whim, on the contrary, the NEP was due to a number of factors:

Political, economic, social and even ideological. The concept of the New Economic Policy was in general terms formulated by V. I. Lenin at the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b). The leader called for this stage change the way the country is run.

The concept that the driving force of the socialist revolution is the proletariat is unshakable. But the working peasantry is its ally, and the Soviet government must learn to "get along" with it.

The country should have a built-in system with a unified ideology suppressing any opposition to the existing government.

Only in such a situation could the NEP provide a solution to the economic problems that wars and revolutions confronted the young Soviet state.

General characteristics of the NEP

The NEP in the Soviet country is an ambiguous phenomenon, since it directly contradicted Marxist theory. When the policy of "war communism" failed, the "new economic policy" played the role of an unplanned detour on the road to building socialism. V. I. Lenin constantly emphasized the thesis: "NEP is a temporary phenomenon." Based on this, the NEP can be broadly characterized by the main parameters:

The Soviet state allowed private capitalist relations in trade, small-scale and even in some enterprises of medium industry. At the same time, large-scale industry, transport and the financial system were regulated by the state. In relation to private capital, the NEP allowed the application of a formula of three elements: admission, containment and crowding out. What and at what moment to use the Soviet and party organs based on the emerging political expediency.

Chronological framework of the NEP

The New Economic Policy fell within the time frame from 1921 to 1931.

In general, the NEP quickly restored and made the economic system of the Soviet Union relatively viable.

Pros and cons of the NEP

One of the most important negative aspects of the new economic policy, according to many analysts, was that during this period the industry (heavy industry) did not develop. This circumstance could have catastrophic consequences in this period of history for a country like the USSR. But besides this, in the NEP, not everything was assessed with the sign “plus”, there were also significant disadvantages.

The reasons for many economic troubles that led to crises were the low competence of personnel and the inconsistency of the policy of the party and state structures.

Inevitable Crises

From the very beginning, the NEP showed the unstable economic growth characteristic of capitalist relations, which resulted in three crises:

The marketing crisis of 1923, as a result of the discrepancy between low prices for agricultural products and high prices for industrial consumer goods ("scissors" of prices).

The crisis of grain procurements in 1925, expressed in the preservation of mandatory state purchases at fixed prices, with a decrease in the volume of grain exports.

The acute crisis of grain procurements in 1927-1928, overcome with the help of administrative and legal measures. Closing of the New Economic Policy project.

Reasons for abandoning the NEP

The collapse of the NEP in the Soviet Union had a number of justifications:

1. The New Economic Policy did not have a clear vision of the prospects for the development of the USSR.
2. The instability of economic growth.
3. Socio-economic flaws (property stratification, unemployment, specific crime, theft and drug addiction).
4. The isolation of the Soviet economy from the world economy.
5. Dissatisfaction with the NEP by a significant part of the proletariat.
6. Disbelief in the success of the NEP by a significant part of the communists.
7. The CPSU(b) risked losing its monopoly on power.
8. The predominance of administrative methods of managing the national economy and non-economic coercion.
9. Aggravation of the danger of military aggression against the USSR.

Results of the New Economic Policy

The New Economic Policy and was not up to the end understood and accepted as a given by the authorities and the people of the country. To some extent, the NEP measures justified themselves, but there were still more negative aspects of the process. The main outcome was fast recovery economic system to the level of readiness for the next stage in the construction of socialism - a large-scale industrialization.