The continuation of NEP-feasible or not?

[tir1944]

Would the continuation of NEP in 1928 have been a feasible choice for the USSR to take?
Could this have industralized the country better than the 5 year plans did?
Some claim that the NEP was "brought to the end of its lifetime" because it aggravated contradictions in the country (for example i'd take the "scissors crisis" first,IIRC,described by Trotsky) which threatened to develop into a disaster.
But some have different claims...
What are your opinions on this issue?

[Rooster]

Why would a socialist want to continue with capitalism when they don't have to? Besides, the economic growth under the NEP slowed to pre-war levels and the time to move on had come, which was the whole point of the NEP, with most Bolsheviks thinking that the NEP was a retreat (if a tactical one).

Anyway, what's your opinion and why do you think that?

[ComradeOm]

The NEP could have continued longer than it did historically. The 1927 'grain crisis' that was used as the launch pad for the FFYP (First Five Year Plan) was a product of poor pricing policy and a basic inability to understand supply and demand. It could have been averted with relative ease. There was also a question as to what degree economic growth under the NEP had relied on underutilisation of existing infrastructure (and thus be unable to cope with the more capital intensive demands of future expansion) but that was never proven one way or another

So yes, the NEP could have continued. Whether it should have done so is another matter entirely. By the late 1920s there was a rough consensus - Bukharin excepted - that it should be abandoned in favour of a more proactive industrial policy. That need not have taken the form it did historically; there were alternatives to both the NEP and FYPs

[mrmikhail]

Would the continuation of NEP in 1928 have been a feasible choice for the USSR to take?
Could this have industralized the country better than the 5 year plans did?
Some claim that the NEP was "brought to the end of its lifetime" because it aggravated contradictions in the country (for example i'd take the "scissors crisis" first,IIRC,described by Trotsky) which threatened to develop into a disaster.
But some have different claims...
What are your opinions on this issue?

The NEP had run it's course by the time of the scissor theory presented by Trotsky, thus causing he and the left opposition to call for a five year plan to stop/slow the growth of the Kulaks as a class and begin industrialisation, Stalin and his right wing opposed this as foolish, calling them "superindustrialisers" and they supported the tortuous method of moving slowly and not doing anything about the Kulaks, after eliminating the left opposition as "alarmists" Stalin then used the left opposition's methods of the 5 year plans of superindustrialising and collectivising the agriculture, albeit several years too late as the kulaks were already too powerful which lead to the need to crush them, and eventual food crisis on a few occasions.

[Nox]

I highly doubt it could have industrialised the country better than the 5-year plans did.

[mrmikhail]

I highly doubt it could have industrialised the country better than the 5-year plans did.
This is correct, the NEP was basically aimed at stabilising the economy and slowly industrialising, but it was realised (by the left opposition) that this was going to be detrimental because of what it was leading to.

the 5 year plans were directly aimed at rapid industrialisation.