Do you support the NEP under Lenin ?

[red cat]

Discuss all aspects, including the possibility of the emergence of a new bourgeoisie and the actual achievements of the NEP.

No trolling please.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I see the NEP as a necessary transition a sort of mix between going frome a feudal/capitalist society into a kind of socialdemocracy, to bring in some capital in preparation for building socialism.

[thriller]

Short response: I see it as a necessary step. I believe after the revolution Lenin realized that capitalism is the only way to create an exploited working class. The NEP was a good idea by Lenin, but I think it was too short lived in order to have a lasting effect (which is just one reason why I don't see the USSR as communist).

[thesadmafioso]

Given the difficult economic state which Lenin was faced with at the time, such a policy was perfectly justified. It is a well understood concept in Marxism that capitalism needs to develop to a certain point for it to allow for the most sustainable and effective application of socialism. The transitional period which was ushered in by this policy was perfectly acceptable along most any lines, ideological or practical.

[red cat]

Any statistics regarding its achievements ?

[ComradeOm]

Sure. What are you particularly interested in? I suppose the 'headline figures' are probably industrial production and grain harvests. I'll quickly draw these up. For industry I'm just taking the 'Factory production (million roubles in 1926-27 prices)' from Alec Nove's Economic History of the USSR. There's a whole host of related stats but this one conveys the general trend well enough:

Industrial/Factory Production

1913 - 10,251
1920 - 1,410
1921 - 2,004
1922 - 2,619
1923 - 4,005
1924 - 4,660
1925 - 7,739
1926 - 11,083

This illustrates the basic narrative of the NEP years in almost every sector - a massive collapse (in this case the crisis of 1917 plus War Communism) followed by a slow decade-long recovery. Most indicators - such as living standards, rail traffic, etc - follow this broad patten. By the end of the NEP (around 1928) industrial output had reached or just exceeded pre-war levels. There is a legitimate question though as to whether this was merely due to the underutilisation of capacity (which had been constructed prior to 1917). Hence, it was argued, maybe correctly, that change was needed if the economy was to truly push beyond these pre-revolution barriers

Grain production is more controversial. I'll give you Nove's figures, in million tonnes

Grain Harvest

1913 - 80.1*
1920 - 46.1
1921 - 37.6
1922 - 50.3
1923 - 56.6
1924 - 51.4
1925 - 72.5
1926 - 76.8
1927 - 73.3
1928 - 71.7

*Note: "This was an extremely favourable year"

Again, the same key trend towards recovery is apparent, albeit more affected by weather and sowing conditions. 1913 is not a particularly good benchmark because it was an exceptional harvest that year. How much of this grain was actually reaching the cities is a more difficult question. The harvests in 1927-28 were not bad but procurements for the cities fell considerably. The key problem here is that the amount of grain sold by the peasants was dependent on government pricing policies. So while much is made of the 1928 'grain crisis', which proved the spark for the development of the Stalinist economy, its often neglected that the state procurement agencies had actually reduced the price of grain by 20-25% in 1926. So this more a failure of specific policy, and those that advocated them, than the NEP per se


-----

As for the original question, with the exception of Bukharin - who argued that an enriched peasantry could become an engine of economic growth - nobody really 'supported' the NEP as such. It was at best a grudging concession to the peasantry after the failures of War Communism. Even Lenin admitted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm) that it was a 'turn back'. As such its often an ignored period, only really featuring as an ignominious end to revolutionary years and as a backdrop to the creation of the Stalinist economy of the 1930s. Which in some ways is a pity because the NEP wasn't just another state capitalist* regime and some of its features - such as the role of the unions and state bodies - are quite interesting in their own right

*A label that fits the 1920s far better than the 1930s

[Gustav HK]

Were workers allowed to strike under the NEP?

[red cat]

Thanks. What exactly were the incentives given to the private sectors in the cities and villages ? How was the mode of production in the factories different in the NEP from what was introduced immediately after the revolution ?

[ComradeOm]

Were workers allowed to strike under the NEP?Yes, although they were relatively rare. During the early years of the NEP this was primarily due to the operation of state agencies and the relative power of the unions. The most important of the former was the Rates Conflict Commission (RKK) which was a state-wide body involved in settling disputes between labour and management. It handled a huge volume of work and generally ruled in favour of the workers. Other than this employees could also put their grievances forward through the factory committee, party cell, union apparatus or even the local soviet. So it was rare, but far from unheard of, for conflicts with management to escalate to the point of work stoppages


What exactly were the incentives given to the private sectors in the cities and villages ?Essentially manufactured goods and hard cash. The two were related - cash payments were far more attractive to the peasantry when there were manufactured goods available for purchase. Getting prices right was always a balancing act in the USSR but was of particular importance during the NEP period. If the prices of industrial goods were too high then the peasantry couldn't buy anything and would withdraw from the market; this is the infamous 'scissors crisis' of the early NEP. But if prices of industrial goods were too low, as occurred in the late NEP, then the supply of them would be exhausted before they could be transported into the countryside... and the peasantry would withdraw from the market


How was the mode of production in the factories different in the NEP from what was introduced immediately after the revolution ?That's a very complex question; or rather a simple question with a complex answer. Workers still worked for a wage under management but there were a host of bodies, as noted above, to buttress workers' rights and involve them in the management of the plant. Its probably best described, to use EH Carr's term, as an 'uneasy compromise' between the workers and the state, both of which were still exhausted from the Civil War. The former did not control the state but neither were they in opposition to it. It wasn't until the 'productivist' drive of 1925-26 that this began to change, and particularly so with the introduction of the Stalinist coercive economy

Kevin Murphy's Revolution and Counter-revolution gives a very good account, from the factory level, of this process. Its too large/complex a topic to cover in brief here

[Tommy4ever]

NEP really was necessary in the aftermath of the Civil War. However as much as I sympathise with Bukharin (the brilliant Bolshevik who was Lenin's favourite and was the chief supporter of the NEP) by the late 20s it was pretty obvious that NEP wasn't working.

Growth was too slow, there was a lot of unemployment, living conditions were terrible and there was a growing threat of war (initially with the Western powers of France, Britain and Poland and then later with Germany). I think Trotsky and Stalin were right on this point. By the late 1920s NEP really had to be abandoned and the Five Year Plans had to happen if the Soviet Union meant to survive.

At the same time at the end of the Civil War the Soviet Union needed some stability and the NEP provided that.

[Crimson Commissar]

Not necessary at all. We're not fucking social democrats, we're socialists.

[Tommy4ever]

Not necessary at all. We're not fucking social democrats, we're socialists.

The problem with being idealistic like that is when leaders are actually faced with a situation where what they might want to do is impossible you will feel betrayed. No one wanted to have to abandon their principles and adopt NEP. But they had to.

[Chris]

I view it as a necessary evil. I do think that if it had continued for much longer, it would have created a permanent bourgeoisie. Bukharin would have caused a death-blow to socialism in the USSR if he had won over Stalin, Trotsky or anyone opposed to continuation of the NEP really.

[Rusty Shackleford]

a developed capitalist economy is the general pretext for socialism.

without capitalism, there is no proletariat.

in the Soviet Union, a closely watched capitalism was necessary to develop industry and infrastructure. Deng Xiaopeng and is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is the NEP on steroids and a huge misdirection.

As for the industrialized regions of the world like Japan, Taiwan, the US, Europe, FSU today, parts of Africa, parts of Latin America, it is absolutely NOT necessary.

I feel the NEP was a solution that only fit the post-war communism period of the soviet union. only.

had the Sino-Soviet split not happened, the Chinese economy would have grown without the need of SWCC.

[BIG BROTHER]

I second the thought that it was a necessary evil. Keep in mind that the backwards Russian economy was further destroyed by the civil war.

The NEP also provided the stability that the Soviet regime needed to keep the peasants happy(althought it created the rich peasants too =/ )