A critical look at the NEP (New Economic Policy); exposing the fallacy of right deviation.
(Draft) PDF Download
Introduction
Historically and in continuity, almost in every issue -either general or particular- “right” and “left” tendencies bring themselves out to open. The issue of NEP (National- New Economic Policy) seems to be still a current issue inherited form the time of Lenin and Stalin. “The Right” tendency embraces it by disregarding the existing conditions and situations and as it is as a “permanent policy” without even thinking of gradual “transformation”, “the Left” rejects it completely calling it a “betrayal” to socialism. What is typical of both is inaction with illusions. Right considers that sufficient without any further change and prefers to do nothing, left considers that as “internal rebirth” of capitalism yet contents with scholastic criticism without any action. Both tendencies are “passivist” in essence. Both tendencies complement and strengthen each other. In all, they both are the two sides of the same coin.
The purpose of this article is;
while dealing with the issue of Lenin’s NEP, at the same time to expose
the fallacy of the book written by few Vietnamese academicians** in which
it is stated that “Lenin wanted to maintain NEP forever” yet “Stalin
eliminated” it. Inevitably, proceeding with this wrong premise, book reaches to
so many wrong conclusions especially on Stalin and his economic policy. This
approach is not an accident or misunderstanding of the subject and history. It
is the point of view and claim of revisionist and bourgeois liberals who were
and are lasting for the defeat of socialism and restoration of capitalism.
**
"Resolving the relationship between productive forces and productive
relations - Some theoretical and practical problems". The Su that (Truth)
National Political Publishing House, 2021
They obscure the fact that NEP
was a temporary policy as the policy of “war communism” was carried out under
certain conditions. Once the purpose of “policy” is achieved, or become risky,
it is bound to be replaced with another based on the “lessons learned” in
practice. The question of NEP was not any different. It achieved some of the
goals yet had become dangerous to continue with it. It served its purpose and
became risky for building socialism and, in Stalin’s words, “sent to hell”.
Every economic policy is bound to
be revised for the better relative to the changes in both economic and
political conditions. It is a habit of revisionists to isolate the economy from
politics. For Marxist Leninists, Economic Policy is not an isolated policy from
politics. As Lenin points out:
“Politics
is the concentrated expression of economics. Politics cannot but take
precedence over economics. To argue differently means to
forget the ABC of Marxism.” (1).
Just to start with, Lenin
never wanted to maintain NEP forever. And Stalin was not against
NEP, but supporter of NEP together with Lenin. As Zinoviev
summarizes; “NEP is the biggest, most responsible, most decisive strategic
maneuver of the proletarian party… it is a retreat that is of cardinal
importance...for the fate of the Russian revolution.” A retreat
from socialism by itself defines its temporariness, and its being a “controlled”
policy to serve the purpose, in this case providing a possibility for
the economic foundation. Stalin puts it bluntly;
“Lenin does not at all say that NEP gives us ready-made socialism. Lenin only says that NEP provides us with the possibility of building the foundation of a socialist economy. There is a big difference between the possibility of building socialism and actually building it. Do not confuse possibility with reality.” (2)
Especially a controlled
policy such as NEP requires the practical evaluation of
the policy.
“in the last analysis, this test will decide everything: the
fate of NEP and the fate of communist rule in Russia…The competition
and rivalry that we have placed on the order of the day by proclaiming
NEP is a serious business...” (3)
In his “Notes for a Speech” on
March 27, 1922, Lenin was outlining the “main points of this “question- NEP”;
(a) Testing the “link” with the peasant economy, 3. (b)
The test by competition between state and capitalist
enterprises (both commercial and industrial; both Russian and foreign). 4.
((State capitalism. “We” are the state.)) (c) “State capitalism.”
Scholastic versus revolutionary and practical meaning of this term.”
As we can see NEP was a
policy subjected to “tests”, it was a necessary choice under the conditions
of either complete defeat or a retreat to be able to stand
up.
Regarding this strategic move,
Lenin was explaining;
“There is no doubt that we have suffered an
economic defeat on the economic front, and a very severe defeat.. Until we are completely defeated, let's retreat and rebuild everything
anew, but stronger. “(4). “A necessary retreat, a purposeful
retreat, is also a retreat.”
Understandably, only the
reformists, anti-socialists could see a strategic policy of “retreat” as a
permanent policy, a policy to maintain forever. A step back in order to
step forward. “Lenin repeatedly pointed out the enormous mistakes we made
in the era of war communism” writes Zinoviev (5), “But he did not say that war
communism was a complete mistake, but, on the contrary, declared that overall,
it was our "merit" and arose from the whole situation of the
civil war. But the transition to the NEP was not only an amendment to
war communism but was a serious economic retreat. “
Burden with the task of building
first Socialist Country, Bolsheviks, Lenin speaks of “enthusiasms” and the exaggerations
of NEP. (6)
NEP was a test-policy for the
preparation of the economic foundation which required a retreat. Stalin was
explaining this temporariness of NEP as following;
“We
must expose the error of those who understand NEP only as a
retreat. As a matter of fact, even when introducing the New Economic Policy,
Lenin said that the NEP was not exhausted by retreat, that it
also meant preparation for a new decisive offensive against
the capitalist elements in town and country.
We
must expose the mistake of those who think that NEP is needed only for
the connection between town and country. We do not need any connection
between the city and the countryside. We need a link that
ensures the victory of socialism. And if we adhere to NEP, it
is because it serves the cause of socialism. And when it ceases to
serve the cause of socialism, we will cast it to hell.
Lenin said that NEP was introduced in earnest and for a long time. But he
never said that NEP was introduced forever.” (7)
The policy of NEP carried within
not only the risk of strengthening the petty-bourgeois class but
also domination of foreign enterprises in the industry.
“It
is the greatest mistake to think that NEP has put an end to terrorism. We shall
yet return to terrorism, and it will be an economic terrorism. The
foreigners are already buying up our officials with bribes, and “carting
out what there is left of Russia”. They may well succeed.” (8)
As Lenin points out NEP
policy under those conditions were open to abuses and unlike the
expectations of now-defenders of NEP (in socialist oriented
countries) for their concealed reformism, Lenin was not promoting to be “kind” against
the abusers;
“The
papers make noises about the abuse of NEP. These abuses are
innumerable. But where is the noise about model trials of the
scoundrels abusing the New Economic Policy? There is no such noise because
there are no such trials…How many merchants caught abusing NEP have you sentenced
to be shot or to some other no-joke penalty?” (9)
This word of Lenin clarifies the
fact that success of an economic policy depends on the political
policy. It is not a “separate issue” but an integral part of
Political policy. The revisionist approach to NEP is directed against the
dictatorship of proletariat and its political policy to control.
It
was not and
is not an economic policy to have peasants own private lands forever, but
strengthen the agricultural and production, set the foundations
for collective farming.
It was not and
is not an economic policy to have private sector (like that of today’s
McDonalds, Starbucks etc.) all over the country and strengthen the private
sector, but to increase the trade and experience for trade.
It was not and
is not an economic policy to let the foreign enterprises acquire the industry
but set the foundation for the heavy industry for the socialist construction.
It is the “wishful”
thinking of now-NEP supporters in socialist oriented countries to portray
Soviet NEP in such a way to cover up their capitalist orientations. That is the
reason they completely isolate an economic policy from its political
context.
What the now-NEP supporters are
routing for is not the “socialist aspects” of the economic
policy but the privatization, state capitalism aspects of the
policy. What they like is the portion of what Lenin says about NEP “The new
economic policy means a transition to the restoration of capitalism to a large
extent ". (10).
There were no historical examples
of Socialism to draw lessons from for the Bolsheviks. There is no need to refer
to the fact that at that time we “did not know” what socialism actually in
practice was, that even Marx did not know, that Lenin, in his pamphlet On
Cooperation, spoke of the need to reconsider the question of what socialism is.
It is not the same after the Soviet experience, now we do know the fundamentals
of Socialism in practice both in its economic and political aspects.
NEP was a “first time” trial
economic policy under full control of political policy. It went through various
revisions, retreats, and forward steps during its purposeful lifetime. Once it
served its purpose it was replaced with Five Year Economic Plans – each of
which went through revisions based on the changes in the conditions and
situations during their durations.
Marxist Leninists are dialectic
materialists. For them nothing is “stagnant”, everything changes,
to control the changes and direct them for the benefits of laboring people,
Political Policy, and the leadership of Workers Party for that policy has
tantamount importance. As the first experience in history, NEP is a good
example of this. Divorcing NEP from its original (before war
communism) and using only the second phase (after war
communism), to claim that NEP, was and is the only correct economic policy
to follow forever applicable to each and every country without
considering the existing conditions, is nothing but a bourgeois liberal
attempt to hinder the socialist direction of a country and direct to a
capitalist one. It is possible that there may be similar conditions in some
countries to apply NEP, but not without its political context.
Defending NEP divorced from its
political context for the love of “private property”, “private land”, Private
enterprises”, “free trading”, “State capitalism” and “retreat from socialism”
can only be defended by bourgeois liberals, not by socialists.
Let's look at the history of NEP
from its start to end in order to study and support this argument based on the
excerpts from Lenin, Stalin, and related writings of Zinoviev, Sakharov,
and related Bolshevik books like “History of Industrialization” translated from
Russian by comrade S.M.
Index
1)Origins of NEP,
2) Initiation of NEP 1918,
3) War Communism 1918-1921,
4) End of the civil war –
Transition back to NEP,
5) Tasks of NEP,
6) On the Retreat,
7) On State Capitalism,
8) On Alliance with the
peasantry,
9) Implementation of NEP,
10) Success and failure of NEP,
11) Transformation to “Five Year
Economic Plan”,
12) Conclusion
Origins
of NEP
“The origins of the New
Economic Policy, its roots, its main causes lie primarily in the sphere
of relations between the proletariat and the peasantry in our own country.
To consolidate the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, these two
main classes of the revolution, at a new stage after the end of the civil war;
to consolidate this alliance on an unshakable economic basis that satisfies the
vast mass of the peasantry—that is the real task of the New Economic Policy.
The main thing in the New
Economic Policy is the question of the peasantry.”
Sakharov** explains the situation
as follows; “Overcoming the crisis that followed the civil war was first
conceived by the Bolshevik leadership within the framework of the former policy
- the so-called "war communism" - and the already adopted tactics of
restoring the national economy. It was supposed to raise large-scale industry
with the help of withdrawing funds from the countryside, and then begin to
transform agriculture with the help and on the basis of equipment supplied by
industry. Changes had to undergo only methods of management and the system of
management of the national economy. Such views were developed by V.I. Lenin,
for example, in the report of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and
the Council of People's Commissars on foreign and domestic policy at the VIII
All-Russian Congress of Soviets on December 22, 1920. (11) However,
attempts to stimulate the work of the peasants, undertaken on the basis of the
policy of "war communism", did not create an economic
incentive for the development of the peasant economy. The discontent in the
village continued to grow. The Soviet government found itself in the face of
peasant uprisings, which objectively turned into a counter-revolution in
relation to the proletarian socialist revolution.
Lenin, assessing the situation
that had arisen, spoke of a “peasant (petty-bourgeois) counter-revolution”:
“Such
a counter-revolution is already standing against us.”, and the fate of the
socialist revolution in Russia "will be decided by the struggle, which
will take place according to the principle "Who wins?" (12)
To prevent an undesirable
development of events, V.I. Lenin proposed a deep tactical maneuver. On
February 8, 1921, he submitted a proposal to the Politburo to meet the needs of
the working peasantry, for which, firstly, to replace the seizure of bread
according to the apportionment with a tax in kind; secondly, to reduce
the size of the tax in comparison with the apportionment; thirdly, to introduce
incentives for the work of the peasant by lowering the percentage of tax;
fourthly, "to expand the freedom of the farmer to use his surplus
in excess of the tax in the local economic turnover, provided that the tax is
paid promptly and in full". (13) This was supposed to bring down the wave
of counter-revolution, to restore political understanding with the peasantry,
establish cooperation with him in the economic field and create political
conditions for the continuation of the socialist revolution. Here is the
minimum of tasks that were solved by this proposal. The 10th Congress of the
RCP(b) accepted Lenin's proposals.
”The
11th Congress of the RCP(b) supported Lenin and adopted decisions that would
strengthen the position of the party in all spheres of state activity,
including economic management. The principle of the division of labor between
the party and the state proposed by Lenin, which did not detract from the
leading role of the party, was enshrined in the resolutions “According to the
report of the Central Committee” and “On the strengthening and new tasks of the
party”. (14)
NEP can be summarized based on
the explanation of 11th Congress of RCP (B)
NEP was a concession to the peasant, not as a return to capitalism,
but as a specific method of using the methods of capitalism in the interests of
the socialist revolution. NEP Political aspects related to control and determining the measure of concessions to
anti-socialist forces. Policy always recognized the possibility of abandoning
the NEP and returning to product exchange in the event of the outbreak of
revolutions in other countries and the need to abandon it in the event
of war. NEP does not abolish the party program, but only introduces serious
changes in the methods of work. Recognition of NEP as a policy
necessary as a transitional one on the path to the socialist
organization of production. Recognition of the NEP as a tactical maneuver,
etc. (See: Eleventh Congress of the RCP(b). March-April 1922.)
Initiation of NEP 1918
“Does the NEP abolish
the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not! On the contrary, the NEP is
a peculiar expression and instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”(15)
“It is necessary, first
of all,” said Stalin, “to establish that the foundations of NEP were given by
our party not after war communism, as some comrades sometimes assert, but
before it, as early as the beginning of 1918, when we were first able to
start building a new, socialist economy. I could refer to Ilyich's well-known
pamphlet on The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power, published at the beginning of
1918, which outlines the foundations of NEP. Introducing the NEP at the end of
the intervention, the party qualified it as a new economic policy because it,
this very policy, was interrupted by the intervention and we got the
opportunity to carry it out only after the intervention, after war communism,
in comparison with which the NEP was, indeed, new economic policy. In
confirmation of this, I consider it necessary to refer to the well-known
resolution adopted at the 9th Congress of Soviets, where it is said in black
and white that the foundations of the New Economic Policy were laid down
before War Communism. This resolution “On the Preliminary Results of the
New Economic Policy” states the following:
“The
so-called new economic policy, the basic principles of which were precisely
defined during the first respite, in the spring of 1918* , is based on a
strict consideration of the economic forces of Soviet Russia. The
implementation of this policy, interrupted by a combined attack on the
workers' and peasants' state by the counter-revolutionary forces of the Russian
landowners and the bourgeoisie and European imperialism, is possible only after
the military liquidation of attempts at counter-revolution, by the beginning of
1921. (16).
You see, therefore, how
wrong some comrades are who assert that the Party realized the necessity of
building socialism under the conditions of the market and the money economy,
that is, under the conditions of the New Economic Policy, allegedly only after
war communism. And what follows from this? From this it follows, first of all,
that the NEP should not be regarded as merely a retreat. “(17)
Based
on Lenin’s April Thesis, Bolsheviks put forward a demand for the confiscation
of landed estates and the nationalization of all land. The disposal of the
land was given to the local Soviets of Laborers and Peasants' Deputies.
“socialization of the land”,
etc., the party of the proletariat must explain that the system of small-scale
farming with commodity production is not able to save humanity from the poverty
of the masses and their oppression”. (18)
Lenin
formulated ideas that subsequently developed into a whole program for the
organization of large socialist agricultural enterprises. The
nationalization of the land would free landownership and land use in Russia
from all obsolete barriers, reorganize agriculture in accordance with the new
conditions, and would create the greatest opportunity for free class struggle
in the countryside under the conditions of then Russia. In addition, the
nationalization of the land “...is also necessary because it is a
gigantic blow to private ownership of the means of production. To think that
after the abolition of private ownership of land in Russia everything
will remain the same as before is simply absurd.” (19)
Lets
keep this in mind for the NEP before the war communism period.
With
regard to social production and distribution of products, the demand was for a
transition to immediate control by the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, and not
the "introduction" of socialism, as an immediate task.
Noting
the complete bankruptcy of the bourgeoisie and compromising parties in the
elimination of economic collapse, the 6th Congress of the Bolshevik Party
pointed out:
“ the only way out of a critical
situation is the elimination of the war and the organization of production
not for the war, but to restore everything destroyed by it, not in the
interests of a handful of financial oligarchs but in the interests of the
workers and the poorest peasants”. (20)
Such
a solution to the problem was possible, however, only under the condition that
power would pass into the hands of the proletarians and semi-proletarians.
The
congress outlined a number of revolutionary measures to organize the country's
national economy in a new way, in the interests of the working masses. The
planned regulation of production and distribution, the nationalization and
centralization of banks, the nationalization of a number of syndicated
enterprises (for example, oil, coal, sugar, metallurgical, and transport),
the organization through cooperatives and food committees of a correct exchange
between city and countryside were considered expedient.
In
1917 the first
economic apparatus of the proletarian state was organized. The Council of
People's Commissars, headed by Lenin, directly directed the economic
transformation of the country. Supreme Council of the National Economy, created
by a decree of December 14, 1917, was the most important center for managing
the economy. This decree stated that the main task of the Supreme Council
of National Economy is "the organization of the national economy and
public finance.”
In
the spring of 1918, the country began to move on to a new stage of socialist
construction. In order to build the foundation of a socialist economy, it was
necessary to consolidate the victories of the revolution, to organize the
construction of the Soviet national economy, and to organize the country's
administration in a new way. Lenin considered nationwide accounting and
control to be the main task of economic policy.
He
wrote that the implementation of the idea of control and accounting is
necessary for the victory of socialist consciousness over bourgeois-anarchist
spontaneity, that
“... without comprehensive,
state accounting and control over the production and distribution of products,
the power of the working people, the freedom of the working people cannot be
maintained, the return under the yoke of capitalism is inevitable.”
(21)
War Communism 1918-1921
The
plan for socialist construction in 1918, was mainly the development
of large-scale machine industry; “without large-scale capitalist
technology, built according to the latest word in modern science...” wrote
Lenin, “Socialism is unthinkable”. (22)
In
May 1918, with the help of foreign imperialists, the
counter-revolution won in Finland. In the summer of 1918, the situation of a
fierce civil war developed. The imperialist countries, mobilizing internal
counter-revolution, organized an offensive against the Soviet Republic.
That
was the first and most important change in the conditions for NEP to be considered.
Socialism
is the destruction of classes, but in order to destroy classes, as Lenin
pointed out, it is not enough only to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it is
also necessary to destroy the difference between the working class and the
peasantry. This task cannot be solved at once, and it cannot be solved by
violence. The working class, exercising its revolutionary dictatorship,
suppresses the exploiters and uses violence against class enemies.
“Violence against the middle peasantry is the
greatest harm” “The middle peasantry in communist society will be on our side only
when we ease and improve the economic conditions of their life. (23)
The
Eighth Party Congress proposed that the entire Party be guided by the principle
of being able to reach an agreement with the middle peasant, not for a moment
forgetting the fight against the kulak.
In
the context of the outbreak of civil war and intervention, the Soviet
government forced the nationalization of large, medium, and small industry.
This measure was both politically expedient and economically necessary.
Lenin
attacked the bourgeois theoreticians who reproached the communists for
allegedly stopping production by their policy of expropriating the
expropriators and centralizing commanding economic heights in the hands of the
state. Lenin wrote,
“Whoever says this,” “is
either a complete idiot, even if he calls himself three times the leader of
the Berne International, or a traitor to the workers.
In a country that is ruined, the
first task is to save the worker. The first productive force of all mankind
is the worker, the laborer. If he survives, we will save and restore everything.”(23,
p. 298.)
During
the period of the civil war, despite all the hardships and difficulties, the
Soviet government solved the three fundamental economic and political
tasks of the socialist revolution.
1.
By nationalizing the entire industry, the Soviet government deprived the
class enemies of their economic base and thereby deprived the exploiters of
influence on the working masses during the fiercest class struggles.
2.
The dictatorship of the working class, having expropriated capitalist
property, seized the commanding heights of the country's national economy.
In particular, the necessary material and technical base was created for
solving directly military tasks. The concentration of material resources in the
hands of the state facilitated the task of their most expedient use in accordance
with the main tasks of the socialist revolution in the conditions of a civil
war.
3.
Soviet power created the economic apparatus of the dictatorship of the
working class. In the course of the nationalization of industry and the
mastery of its production apparatus, a centralized management system was
created - central offices, centers, the work of which was of great importance.
The foundations of the socialist organization of production were laid.
Thousands of new leaders and organizers from among the people of the working
class were trained on this experience.
Fulfilling
the historical plan of socialist transformations, the Soviet government
casually solved the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the very
first period of its existence. The first period of the dictatorship of the
proletariat lasted from November 1917 until the end of the summer of 1918,
“... from the day Soviet power
was established in Russia until the defeat of German imperialism” (24)
From
January 1, 1919, state enterprises and their business operations were
exempted from taxes, fees, and duties. Any arrears were cancelled. In
particular, the system of enterprises' contributions to the social insurance
fund was abolished; appropriations for this purpose were provided for by
special estimates from public funds.
The
IX Party Congress (March 1920) marked the successful completion of the
nationalization of large-scale industry.
End of the civil war –
Transition back to NEP idea
By
the end of the civil war, the Soviet government had completed the task
of seizing the commanding heights of the country's national economy. Landownership
in land was destroyed forever. The land has become public property.
Industry was nationalized and was the property of the Soviet Republic.
Industrial production was organized in the interests of the whole society. In
agriculture, the organization of labor on a social basis was only just
beginning; state farms, communes, and all sorts of partnerships were
created here for the first time. Peasant farming as a whole remained
small-scale production.
“On
this basis,” Lenin wrote, “capitalism is preserved and revived anew—in the most
bitter struggle against communism. The forms of this struggle are bagging and
speculation against the state procurement of grain (as well as other products),
in general, against the state distribution of products”. (25)
Having
victoriously ended the civil war,
the Soviet country began to move on to peaceful economic work. At the beginning
of 1921, Lenin gave a deep and comprehensive analysis of the country's economy
at that time. He showed that no fundamental changes had taken place in the
Soviet economy since 1918. It was still backward and multiform. It
consisted of five economic structures: patriarchal, i.e., largely
subsistence, peasant economy; small-scale production; private
capitalism; state capitalism and socialism. The leading role
in the entire economy of the country belonged to the socialist structure, which
owned the commanding heights of the economy, but small-scale commodity
production was still predominant. The petty bourgeoisie resisted all state
intervention, state control and accounting. Therefore, the struggle of the
proletarian state was directed mainly against the petty-bourgeois elements,
against speculators and private capitalism. First of all, it was necessary
to put an end to the devastating consequences of the war and restore the
economy.
Late
1920 and early 1921, during the trade union discussion, under the leadership of
Lenin and Stalin, the party, outlined a new approach to economic
construction in peacetime. In the course of the discussion, the fundamental
questions of the policy of the Soviet state were raised - about war communism,
about the attitude towards the peasantry and the non-party mass of workers,
about the approach of the party to the masses, in connection with the new
situation after the end of the civil war.
Growing
dissatisfaction
on the part of the peasantry. Lenin said: “In 1921, we certainly had the
discontent of a huge part of the peasantry”. (26)
The
spring of 1921 was especially difficult. As a result of crop failure, a large
loss of livestock and a strong decline in the peasant economy as a whole, an
extremely tense political situation was created in the country. The
petty-bourgeois element and its vacillations made themselves felt with
particular force in the Kronstadt uprising (March 1921).
The
transition to the New Economic Policy was the only correct way to solve
the historical problems of the working class, this transition was imperiously
dictated by the economic and political situation in the country.
It
was “the necessity of transition from War Communism to the New Economic
Policy (NEP). The Congress adopted historic decisions on the substitution
of a tax in kind for the surplus appropriation system, and the transition to
NEP, which was designed to draw millions of peasants into the organization of
the planned socialist economy.” (27)
In
March 1921 the 10th Party Congress, gave an analysis of the economic and
political situation in the country, and determined the turn in the economic
policy of the working class. At Lenin's suggestion, Congress adopted a plan
for the introduction of a food tax to replace the food apportionment. This derived
entirely from the task of strengthening the bond between the working class
and the peasantry under the new conditions and marked the transition to the
New Economic Policy. Stalin was explaining this at the 13th
Congress, May 1924;
... we were forced to
introduce the so-called new economic policy, that is, we were forced to
declare freedom of trade, freedom of circulation of goods, to allow capitalism,
to mobilize the efforts of millions of people from peasants and small
proprietors in order to create a flow of trade in the country, to develop trade
and then, having mastered the main positions in the field of trade, to
establish a link between industry and the peasant economy through trade.
This is the establishment of a bond in a roundabout way, as Lenin says, not
directly, not by direct exchange of the products of the peasant economy for the
products of industry, but through trade. (28)
Zinoviev
writes: The NEP is a struggle (in appearance, comparatively peaceful) between
the capitalist and socialist elements of our economy - a struggle which the
proletarian state is trying to regulate, but which it does not want and should
not abolish at the given period. "Behind the back" of this
"peaceful and bloodless" struggle of various elements of the economy
of the transitional period, there is an unceasing, direct class struggle…
“The forms of the class struggle of the proletariat, under its dictatorship,
cannot be the same,” Lenin teaches. And he lists:
“Five new (most important) tasks
and...new forms:1. Suppression of the resistance of the exploiters...2.
Civil war...3. "Neutralization" of the petty bourgeoisie,
especially the peasantry...4. "Using" the bourgeoisie...5. Nurturing
a new discipline...(5)
The
class struggle continues under the dictatorship of the proletariat—in
particular, it continues during the NEP period. The class struggle in the
countryside in modern Russia (in the USSR), NEP Russia, which is only still
growing towards socialism, continues. “The central figure of the modern
revolutionary village should be the middle peasant,” Lenin said at the Eighth
Party Congress, when the question of attitude towards the middle peasantry was
first raised, and in his completed works, and in the sketches of the era of
transition to the NEP. Of the "middle peasantry" in general, Lenin,
in the resolution of the Second World Congress, says:
“In the economic sense, the “middle
peasantry” should be understood as small farmers who own, on the
basis of ownership or lease, small plots of land, but still such that,
under capitalism, as a general rule, provide not only a meager maintenance of
the family and household, but and the possibility of obtaining a certain
surplus, which, at least in the best years, can be turned into capital,
and who quite often resort to hiring foreign labor power.” (29)
“When, having overthrown the
bourgeoisie and consolidated its power, the proletariat took up the task of
building a new society from various sides, the question of the middle
peasantry came to the fore... As we approach the tasks of communist
construction, central attention must be concentrated to a certain extent
just on the middle peasantry." (30)
As
a significant difference between the situations, “Forced by the conditions of the civil war”,
says Sakharov**, “the nationalization of industry, railway and water transport
made state capitalism both as a socio-economic structure and as a specific
method of socialist construction unnecessary. But with the transition
to the NEP, state capitalism again gained relevance. At this time, Lenin
was interested, firstly, in his nature, which made it possible to ensure this
socio-economic evolution of the non-proletarian strata of the population, and
secondly, in the practical issues of the development of state-capitalist enterprises
(monopoly of foreign trade, cooperation, concessions, rent, etc. ) and,
finally, thirdly, the problem of their transformation into socialist. Lenin's
concept of state capitalism made it possible to see the prospects for the
growth of the socialist sector under the NEP and to build up the socialist
sector of the economy.”
“Everyone knows Lenin's pamphlet
on "The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power", published at the beginning
of 1918, where Lenin gave the first substantiation of the beginnings of the
new economic policy. True, this policy was temporarily interrupted by the
situation of intervention, and it was necessary to return to it only
three years later, after the liquidation of the war and intervention. But
the fact that the proletarian dictatorship in the USSR had to return to the
principles of the New Economic Policy, proclaimed at the beginning of 1918.
(31)
Tasks of NEP
One
of the most important tasks of the NEP was to create the material basis of
socialism—a powerful advanced machine industry. To do this, the working class
had first of all to overcome the deepest disruption in all branches of the
national economy. The restoration of large-scale industry under these
conditions presented great difficulties.
The
development of the entire national economy, including industry, rested on
agriculture. The rise of agriculture was a prerequisite and a
necessary condition for the industrial revival of the country.
“During the recovery period, the
task was to revive, first of all, agriculture, to obtain raw materials, food
from agriculture and set in motion, to restore industry, to restore existing
plants and factories.” (32)
At
the end of the civil war, industry was extremely poorly loaded. A large number
of enterprises, including a number of powerful factories, did not work and were
mothballed. Operating enterprises, with rare exceptions, worked part-time. The
available labor force was far from being fully utilized.
The
principal task of NEP was to ensure a strong alliance between the
working class and the peasantry, as the highest principle of the dictatorship
of the proletariat and establishing
normal economic ties and starting an exchange of goods between industry and
agriculture.
“The task is to use the efforts
of millions of small farmers to master trade, to take into the hands of
the state and the co-operatives the main lines of supply for the countryside
and town, and thus to organize an inseparable link, an inseparable bond
between industry and peasant economy. (33)
The transition to NEP from war
communism required a restructuring
of economic management.
“Economically
and politically NEP makes it fully possible for us to lay the foundations of
socialist economy. It is “only” a matter of the cultural forces of the
proletariat and of its vanguard.” (34)
“For
Lenin”, says
Sakharov**, “the NEP is a class maneuver, a desire to change the
movement of the revolution in such a way as to take into account both the new
conditions and the accumulated political experience, in order to better rely on
real opportunities, an attempt to draw the peasantry into the channel of the
socialist revolution, gradually transforming its socio-economic nature. Since
the dictatorship of the proletariat failed to adapt the peasant economy to its
requirements, now it is precisely it, as the party more capable of maneuvering
and adapting, that must take the initiative and adapt the state sector of the
economy to the peasant economy in order to later be able to gradually transform
the petty-bourgeois peasant economy into a socialist one.”
“Here
is how, Lenin determined the reasons for the transition from war communism to
the NEP. This is how he defined the socio-economic essence of the NEP.
NEP
is state capitalism in a proletarian state.
“With our lack of culture, we
cannot solve the death of capitalism with a frontal attack. With a
different level of culture, it would be possible to solve the problem more
directly, and perhaps other countries will solve it this way when the time
comes for the construction of their communist republics. But we cannot resolve
the issue in a direct way” (35)
That's what Lenin said at the beginning of the
NEP. (October, 1921)
“The new economic policy means
the replacement of apportionment by tax; it means a transition to the
restoration of capitalism to a large extent ... The peasants make up a
gigantic part of the entire population and the entire economy, and therefore capitalism
cannot but grow on the basis of this free trade. "This is the most
basic economic ABC taught in the rudiments of economics". (36)
The
task is
"to direct capitalism along
the state channel and create a capitalism subordinate to the state and
serving it". (37)
In
order to rebuild the peasant economy, it takes, first, years and years, it is
necessary to implement an electrification program, that is, it is necessary
to raise large-scale industry to an enormous height, it is necessary to
co-operate the peasants without exception, illiteracy must be eradicated, etc.,
etc. Now we have begun to do it successfully, and we will finish it, without
any doubt. But - so far only begun.
After
the proletariat seized power, we all counted on the fact that the
reorganization of peasant economy in a socialist direction, although slowly but
surely, would move forward. We now see that things in this respect are
progressing even more slowly than any of the Bolsheviks imagined in 1917.
Already starting with The Coming Catastrophe and Will the Bolsheviks Retain
State Power, Leninism was preparing a whole series of steps to, after the
proletariat seized power, as energetically as possible, check the capitalist
evolution of agriculture and turn the development of agriculture in our
country onto socialist lines. Both the law on the socialization of the
land, adopted by us after the transfer of power to the proletariat, and the
corresponding point in our party program, adopted at the Eighth Congress of the
Russian Communist Party, speak of the same thing. And the course of events in
reality is such that from 1921 we had to introduce the New Economic Policy,
which, as we saw above, was primarily a concession to the peasantry as a
small producer. And it so happened that in 1925, in the interests of
developing the productive forces of the countryside, we had to make additional
concessions even to the peasant elite (rent of land, the use of hired labor in
agriculture) - and only in a roundabout way, slowly but surely, go to socialist
construction in the village.
That
after the conquest of power by the proletariat, the latter is obliged to do
everything possible to turn agriculture from the path of capitalist
evolution to the path of non-capitalist development, this is absolutely
true. That the proletariat can achieve this under favorable circumstances is
also beyond doubt. But one cannot celebrate the supposed victory of
non-capitalist evolution in agriculture just at a time when we have to make
additional concessions precisely to the capitalist elements of agriculture,
when we are only just beginning to "get around" the rural capitalists
in the rear by measures of economic work in the countryside, when the number of
farm laborers is growing quite rapidly. fast! We must not forget that
capitalism in a country like ours grows primarily out of the peasantry (see
what Lenin said above)! You can't hide from yourself what Lenin said about
the significance of state capitalism in our Soviet country! Through
co-operation, through the upsurge of industry that has begun, we will
undoubtedly remake the countryside and conquer it for socialism. But the
desirable, the future cannot be taken for the existing. In one of his most
remarkable works (The Agrarian Program of the Social-Democrats in the
Russian Revolution of 1905-07), Lenin wrote, arguing against Menshevism:
"He (G. Z. Plekhanov)
confuses populism, the doctrine of the possibility of non-capitalist
evolution, with the Marxist view of the possibility of two types of
capitalist agrarian evolution." (38)
The
two types of capitalist evolution are 1) the liberal-Menshevik program
of a deal with the landowners (buyout, municipalization) and 2) the
Bolshevik program of a plebeian peasant revolution led by the proletariat
(confiscation without ransom, nationalization of the land, carrying through the
bourgeois-democratic revolution). Lenin called populism "the doctrine of
the possibility of non-capitalist evolution."
Zinoviev
states;” For Lenin, a retreat was a tactical maneuver towards a strategic ally.
We
sometimes develop the idea that the NEP was not a retreat at all. Where
and where did we retreat? We are asked and answered: “from the absurdities of
war communism to more rational methods of socialist economy!” Was it not clear
that such a situation, when we registered every needle, when we tried to
nationalize small hairdressers, etc.? Such a formulation of the question is
incorrect and does not correspond to the way Lenin posed the question of the
NEP. The NEP is not simply the destruction of the excesses of "war
communism". By carrying out the NEP, we not only destroyed the extremes
of war communism, no, we did not do that - we radically changed our
entire economic policy. And we retreated not at all from war communism to
socialism, but to a kind of "state capitalism" in a proletarian
state.
That
this retreat was absolutely rational and necessary, that it is the only
one capable of leading us in a number of years to a lasting victory of
socialism, that the NEP is the road to socialism, that necessary "long and
difficult transition" to socialism that Lenin speaks of, is absolutely
indisputable.
Lenin
repeatedly pointed out the enormous mistakes we made in the era of war
communism. But he did not say that war communism was a complete mistake, but,
on the contrary, declared that on the whole it was our "merit" and
arose from the whole situation of the civil war. But the transition to the NEP
was not only an amendment to war communism, but was a serious economic retreat.”
Leading
the revolution forward, Lenin added:
“We must carefully consider
the specific conditions, the situation, we must determine what we can cling
to - a river, a mountain, a swamp, this or that station, because only when
we can to cling to something, it will be possible to go on the offensive.
And don't give in to despondency . "
We have nothing to be afraid of
retreat, we have
won a fairly extensive foothold, “we have won huge positions, and if, starting
from 1917 to 1921, we had not won these positions for ourselves, we would not
have had room for retreat - and in the sense of geography, and in the sense of
economic and political.” (39)
“... It was clear to us that
precisely because we had been advancing so successfully for many years and had
won so many extraordinary victories, and that in a country incredibly ruined,
devoid of material prerequisites, in order to consolidate this offensive, we
absolutely needed, since we have won so much, it was absolutely necessary
to retreat”. (40)
Zinoviev
states that; “The path traversed by the Russian proletariat from war communism
to the NEP is of world-historical significance. “... The revolutions of the
proletariat, which are ripening in all the advanced countries of the world,”
says Lenin, “will not be able to solve their problem without combining the
ability to fight selflessly and advance with the ability to retreat in
revolutionary order. The experience of the second phase of our struggle,
that is, the experience of retreat will probably also be useful in the future
to the workers, at least in some countries, just as our experience of
the first stage of the revolution, the experience of a selflessly bold
offensive, will undoubtedly be useful to the workers of all countries .”
“In Russia, the dictatorship of
the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain features in comparison
with the advanced countries, due to the very great backwardness and
petty-bourgeois character of our country..
"The economy of Russia in
the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a struggle of the first steps
of communists-united - on a single scale of a vast state - labor with
small-scale commodity production and with capitalism that has survived, as
well as being reborn on its basis." (41)
“How
did Lenin explain the very necessity of the transition from war communism to
the NEP? The Third Congress of the Comintern took place in the summer of 1921,
that is, just at the very beginning of the NEP, in the fresh wake of the
implementation of the New Economic Policy, which has just begun, Lenin reads a
report at this Congress of the Comintern on the tactics of the Russian
Communist Party.”
“The task of socialism is to
destroy classes. In the forefront of the class of exploiters are the big
landowners and industrial capitalists. We in Russia accomplished the task
of destroying this exploiting class with ease. “We in Russia expropriated our
exploiters, the big landowners, just as we did the capitalists.” (42)
“But besides this class of exploiters, in almost
all capitalist countries, perhaps with the exception of England, there exists a
class of small commodity producers and small farmers... They cannot be
expropriated or driven away, here the struggle must be waged differently.
The significance of the period that is now beginning in Russia, from an
international point of view, if we consider the international revolution as a
single process, essentially lies in the fact that we must practically resolve
the question of the relation of the proletariat to the last capitalist class in
Russia. Theoretically, all Marxists solved this question well and easily, but
theory and practice are two different things, and resolving this question
practically or theoretically is not the same thing .
The
NEP is most intimately connected with the question of the relationship between
the two main classes that now remain in Russia—the proletariat and the
peasantry.”
“For the first time in history there is a
state where there are only these two classes - only the proletariat and the
peasantry. The peasantry constitutes the vast majority of the population. It
is, of course, very backward. How is the attitude of the proletariat, which
holds power in its hands, towards the peasantry expressed practically in the
development of the revolution?..."We will conclude an alliance with the
peasantry." (43)
Zinoviev
follows; “The second time Lenin explained to the international proletariat the
causes and essence of the NEP was at the Fourth World Congress of the
Comintern in November 1922, when the outlines of the NEP became even
clearer, when the well-known practical experience had accumulated to evaluate
the NEP.
In
this report, which was Lenin's last public speech to the representatives
of the world proletariat and, in general, one of his last speeches before his
fatal illness, Lenin again returns to the history of the emergence of the NEP.
“We conducted a successful civil war, but
“after we had gone through all the most important stages of the civil war, and
had done it with success, we stumbled upon a big—I believe, the biggest—internal
political crisis in Soviet Russia. This internal crisis revealed the
discontent not only of a significant part of the peasantry, but also of the
workers. This was the first and, I hope, the last time in the history of Soviet
Russia, when large masses of the peasantry, not consciously, but instinctively,
were against us in their mood. And
so, again and again, the causes of the emergence of the NEP lead us to the
question of the peasantry, to the question of the relationship between the
working class and the peasantry at a time when the military alliance was to
be replaced by an economic alliance.
If you want to understand the
reasons for the emergence of the NEP, think about the question of the
relationship between the working class and the peasantry - a question that is
fundamental to our entire revolution. The key to understanding the emergence of
the NEP must be sought precisely in the sphere of relations between the
working class and the peasantry.”
“What
caused,” Lenin continues, “this peculiar and, of course, very unpleasant
situation for us?”
And
answers:
“The reason was that we had
advanced too far in our economic offensive without having secured a
sufficient base for ourselves. The masses felt something that we did not
yet know how to consciously formulate, but which we soon, after a few weeks,
recognized, namely: that a direct transition to purely socialist forms, to a
purely socialist distribution exceeds our available forces, and that
if we find ourselves unable to retreat and confine ourselves to easier
tasks, then we are in danger of destruction”.(44)
So,
when we are asked "from what" we retreated by introducing the
NEP, we answer with the words of Lenin:
"We retreated from a
direct transition to purely socialist forms, to purely socialist distribution."
When we are asked "where" we
retreated, we answer with the words of Lenin:
"toward state capitalism in
a proletarian state."
When
we are asked “why” we retreated, we answer with the words of Lenin:
“because the industrial base
in our country is not strong enough”, because the vast majority of the
population in our country consists of peasants and because “without the peasant
masses, without If we were not on good terms with them, we could not exist,”
especially if the world revolution dragged on.
Lenin's
remarkable article "On the Significance of Gold Now and After the Complete
Victory of Socialism" says this:
"We have retreated to state
capitalism. But we backed down. We are now retreating to state regulation of
trade. But we will retreat in moderation”. (45)
“The
NEP is not a retreat to state capitalism” he states, “in the sense
that we are once again retreating back to a chapter already passed. It was
not the case in Russia that we already had state capitalism, we stepped
from it to the socialist system and then returned again to state capitalism.
The point is that in pre-October Russia we had weak elements of state
capitalism alongside the feudal and private capitalist foundations; to
socialism.”
“Speaking
of state capitalism,”
says Zinoviev, “ Lenin always returned to his article of the spring of 1918,
and also recalled that before the conquest of power by the working class under
the Kerensky regime, he posed the question of state capitalism on approximately
the same plane as he put it in 1921.
Even
in The Threatening Catastrophe (September 1917), Lenin writes:
“Socialism is nothing but the
next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or in other words:
socialism is nothing but a state-capitalist monopoly, turned to the benefit
of the whole people and to that extent has ceased to be a capitalist
monopoly .
Let
us recall that in his last work, On Cooperation, Lenin wrote:
“Whenever I wrote about the New Economic
Policy, I quoted my article of 1919 on
state capitalism. This aroused more than once the doubts of some young
comrades. But their doubts were directed primarily towards the abstract
political. It seemed to them that it was impossible to call that system
state capitalism in which the means of production belong to the working
class and the state power belongs to this working class.”
And
Lenin explains that "introducing the reader to the New Economic
Policy," he tried to "establish a succession of ordinary state
capitalism with that unusual, even quite unusual, state capitalism"
that we introduced in the Soviet country. “I was already arguing then,” writes
Lenin, “that state capitalism would be superior to our modern economy.”
So,
from The Threatening Catastrophe (1917) to the last work On Cooperation (1923),
the proposition on state capitalism runs like a red thread in Lenin's writings.
“What
is state capitalism under Soviet power?” Lenin asked in a report on the
immediate tasks of Soviet power (April 1918) and answered:
“To implement state capitalism at the
present time means to put into practice the accounting and control that
the capitalist classes used to exercise. We have a model of state capitalism in
Germany, and we know that it has turned out to be superior to us. And if
you think at least a little about what it would mean in Russia, Soviet Russia,
to provide the foundations of such state capitalism, then anyone who has
not gone mad and has not stuffed his head with scraps of bookish truths would
have to say that in state capitalism is our salvation. If we had it in Russia,
then the transition to full socialism would be easy, it would be in our hands,
because state capitalism is something centralized, calculated,
controlled, and socialized, and this is exactly what we lack. . Let me
remind you that I wrote about state capitalism a few days before the
revolution, when I meant the revolutionary democratic state—the state of
Kerensky, Chernov, Tsereteli, Kishkin, and other brethren... I said then
that state capitalism is a step towards socialism; I wrote this in September
1917 and now, in April 1918, after the proletariat took power in October.”
Lenin's
statements about state capitalism of the 1918 era were considered by the
"left" communists to be a direct betrayal of the proletarian
revolution.
Attacking
the “left” communists, Lenin reproached them for “forgetting that trifle that
in Russia we have a mass of petty bourgeoisie, which, sympathizing with the
destruction of the big bourgeoisie of all countries, does not sympathize with
accounting, socialization and control within itself”. (46)
State
capitalism under Soviet power is a direct step towards socialism, there are
three-quarters of socialism, said Lenin.
"State capitalism under
Kerensky's democracy would be a step towards socialism, and under Soviet power it
would be three-quarters of socialism."
And
he remarked: “
Only the development of state
capitalism, only a thorough organization of accounting and control, only the
strictest organization and labor discipline will lead us to socialism. And
without this there is no socialism .
Lenin
comes to the conclusion that in the Russia that we have inherited, liberated
from capitalist omnipotence, there are elements of not one, but several
economic structures. “What exactly are the elements of various socio-economic
structures that are available in Russia? And this is the crux of the matter,”
writes Lenin.
“In
the given system there are elements, particles, pieces” of both capitalism and
socialism ... Let us list these elements, ”says Lenin. And he lists:
“1) patriarchal, i.e. largely
subsistence, peasant economy;
2) small-scale commodity
production (this includes the majority of peasants who sell grain); 3)
private-economic capitalism;
4) state capitalism;
5) socialism.
“Russia is so large and so diverse that all
these different types of socio-economic structure are intertwined in it. The
originality of the position lies precisely in this.
“The question is, what elements
predominate? It is clear that in a small-peasant country the petty-bourgeois
element prevails and cannot but prevail ... It is not state capitalism that is
fighting socialism here, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private-economic
capitalism are fighting together, at the same time, both against state capitalism
and against socialism". (47)
Lenin
repeats this classification of the elements of the various social and economic
systems, intertwined and one tangle in Soviet Russia, more than once, in
particular in his reports at the congresses of the Comintern;
“Capitalism is an evil in
relation to socialism. Capitalism is a boon in relation to the Middle Ages, in
relation to small-scale production, in relation to the bureaucracy associated
with the dispersion of small producers. Insofar as we are not yet in a
position to make a direct transition from small-scale production to socialism,
capitalism is inevitable to a certain extent, as an elemental product of
small-scale production and exchange, and to that extent we must use capitalism
(especially by directing it into the channel of state capitalism) as an
intermediate link between small-scale production and socialism: as a means,
a way, a technique, a way of increasing the productive forces.” (48)
“The
NEP is the correct (from the point of view of the transition to socialism)
combination of the private interests of small producers with the state
interests of the proletariat ruling the country.
“Now,”
says Lenin, “we have found that degree of combination of private interest,
private trade interest, its verification and control by the state, the
degree of its subordination to the general interests, which previously
constituted a stumbling block for many, many socialists. ” (49)
“We
have now found... what have we found? In the NEP's we found a concrete path
to socialism in a peasant country still in a bourgeois environment.
Our
state capitalism must be distinguished,
firstly, from state capitalism in general (from the state capitalism of
bourgeois countries) and, secondly, from private economic capitalism.
Our state capitalism differs from the former in that it is state capitalism
under the control of the proletarian state. It differs from the latter in
that, in general, state capitalism differs from private capitalism.”(5)
Capitalism
in general (or simply capitalism) is growing in our country primarily from
peasant farming. “The peasantry has remained the owner of its production, and
it gives rise to new capitalist relations. These are the main features
of our economic situation ”—this is what Lenin said even before the
introduction of the New Economic Policy. (50)
Thus,
State capitalism is a station, a stage along the road from private capitalism
to socialism.
“State
capitalism was assigned an important role in the social transformation of the
petty-bourgeois strata (artisans, merchants, peasants), who, unlike the
proletariat, capable of directly passing from capitalism to socialism, pass
from capitalism to socialism through state capitalism, which acts as a means, a
means of curbing the petty-bourgeois elements (grain monopoly, cooperation,
controlled private capital).
Even
at the 11th Party Congress, in the political report of the Central Committee -
this was the last report that Lenin made - Vladimir Ilyich said:
“On the question of state capitalism, our
press and our party in general are making the mistake of falling into
intellectualism, into liberalism, being wise about how to understand state
capitalism, and looking into old books ... Even Marx did not think of
writing a single word on this occasion, and died, without leaving a single
exact quotation and irrefutable indications ... State capitalism ... this is
the capitalism that we will be able to limit, the limits of which we will
be able to establish, this state capitalism is connected with the state, and
the state is - workers, this is the advanced part of the workers, this is
the vanguard, this is us. State capitalism is that capitalism which we must
place within certain limits, and which we still have not been able to place.
That's the whole point . "(51)
Objecting
to Preobrazhensky, Lenin said in his concluding remarks on the same report:
“...First of all, on the question
of state capitalism. “State capitalism is capitalism,” said
Preobrazhensky, “and this is the only way to understand it. I affirm that
this is only scholasticism. Until now, no one could write such a book about
capitalism in the history of mankind, because now only we are experiencing
it for the first time ... State capitalism, this is capitalism unexpected
to such an extent, absolutely not foreseen by anyone, because no one
could foresee what the proletariat will achieve power in a country from the
least developed and will first try to organize large-scale production and
distribution for the peasants, and then, when, according to cultural
conditions, it will not master this task, it will involve capitalism in the
cause ... Concerning state capitalism, you need to know what must become a
slogan for agitation and propaganda, which needs to be explained, achieve
practical understanding. This is that state capitalism in our country is not
the same as the Germans wrote about. This is capitalism allowed by us.”(
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII. part II. pp.58,59,60) .
“The simplest case or example of
how the Soviet government directs the development of capitalism into the
channel of state capitalism, how it “implants” state capitalism, is concessions
... By “implanting” state capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet
government strengthens large-scale production against small, the
advanced versus the backward, the machine versus the manual, increases the
amount of products of large-scale industry in its hands (share deduction),
strengthens state-ordered economic relations as opposed to petty-bourgeois
anarchist ones.” (52)
The
concession acquires, says Lenin (in a report at the Tenth Congress of the RCP
on the tax in kind), "the form of a bloc" with foreign capitalism -
the form of a bloc which in the last analysis is to the advantage of the
proletariat of our country, i.e., beneficial to the world proletarian
revolution. The "left" communists, who at the very beginning declared
war on Lenin for his "criminal" thoughts about state capitalism,
turned the "kind of bloc" into a direct political bloc, into
capitulation to foreign capital. Let us recall how at the beginning of 1918,
when the Meshchersky concession was discussed, the leaders of “left” communism
directly and openly accused Lenin of betraying the revolution of the
proletariat into the hands of big capitalists.” Zinoviev
Thus,
from the point of view of economic relations, concession is state capitalism;
“State capitalism in the form
of concessions is, in comparison with other forms of state capitalism
within the Soviet system, perhaps the simplest, most distinct, clearest, and
precisely outlined...” (53)
As
a second example of state capitalism in the Soviet country, Lenin takes
cooperation.
"Cooperation is also a
form of state capitalism, but less simple, less clearly defined, more
intricate"(54) “Cooperative” capitalism, unlike private capitalism, is,
under Soviet power, a kind of state capitalism ... Cooperative capitalism is
similar to state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control,
supervision, and contractual relations between the state (Soviet in this case) and
a capitalist. Cooperation, as a form of trade, is more profitable and more
useful than private trade, not only for the reasons indicated, but also
because it facilitates the unification, organization of millions of the
population, then the entire population without exception, and this
circumstance, in turn, is a gigantic plus with point of view of the further
transition from state capitalism to socialism.” (55)
“Freedom of trade means
freedom of capitalism, but it means a new form of it ... This is state
capitalism. But state capitalism in a society in which power belongs to
capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different
concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that capitalism is
recognized by the state and controlled by the state for the benefit of the
bourgeoisie and against the proletariat. In a proletarian state, the same thing
is done for the benefit of the working class.” (56)
Stalin
summarizes the NEP and capitalism;
“The question of NEP. I have in
mind Comrade Krupskaya and the speech she delivered on NEP. She says: "In
essence, NEP is capitalism permitted under certain conditions, capitalism that
the proletarian state keeps on a chain. . . ." Is that true? Yes, and no.
That we are keeping capitalism on a chain and will keep it so as long as it
exists, is a fact, that is true. But to say that NEP is capitalism —
that is nonsense, utter nonsense. NEP is a special policy of
the proletarian state aimed at permitting capitalism while the commanding
positions are held by the proletarian state, aimed at a struggle between the
capitalist and socialist elements, aimed at increasing the role of the
socialist elements to the detriment of the capitalist elements, aimed at the
victory of the socialist elements over the capitalist elements, aimed at the
abolition of classes and the building of the foundations of a socialist
economy. Whoever fails to understand this transitional, dual nature of NEP
departs from Leninism. If NEP were capitalism, then NEP Russia that Lenin spoke
about would be capitalist Russia. But is present-day Russia a capitalist
country and not a country that is in transition from capitalism to socialism?
Why then, did Lenin not say simply: "Capitalist Russia will be socialist
Russia," but preferred a different formula: "NEP Russia will become
socialist Russia"? Does the opposition agree with Comrade Krupskaya that
NEP is capitalism, or does it not? I think that not a single member of this
congress will be found who would agree with Comrade Krupskaya's formula.
Comrade Krupskaya (may she forgive me for saying so) talked utter nonsense
about NEP. One cannot come out here in defence of Lenin against Bukharin with
nonsense like that.” (57)
On
Alliance with the peasantry
" Our alliance with the
peasantry has up to now been a military alliance (Red Army, civil war). But
"a military alliance cannot exist without an economic alliance ... Our
alliance with the peasants could in no way have lasted for a long time without
an economic foundation." (58)
If we had not won such a
foundation, we would not have survived the war against the bourgeoisie.
“... The original form of the
union (the military union of the working class and the peasantry) was very
primitive and ... we made a lot of mistakes. But we had to act as soon as
possible, we had to organize the supply of the army at all costs."(59)
After
the civil war, the task is different. Now it is necessary, by all means, to
establish an economic alliance between the working class and the peasantry in a
country where the peasantry predominates.
“If the country had not been
ruined to such an extent as was the case after 7 years of continuous war, then
perhaps an easier transition to a new form of alliance between the proletariat
and the peasantry would have been possible. But the already difficult
conditions in the country were further complicated by crop failure, lack of
fodder, etc. As a result, the deprivations of the peasants became unbearable.
We had to immediately show the broad masses of the peasantry that we were ready
to change our policy in a revolutionary way...
"Thus came a change in our
economic policy." (60)
Since we have made the
countryside middle-peasant in character as a result of the agrarian revolution,
since the middle peasants constitute the majority in the countryside, in spite
of the process of differentiation, and since our work of construction and
Lenin's cooperative plan call for the enlistment of the bulk of the peasant
masses in this work, then the policy of alliance with the middle peasants is,
under NEP conditions, the only correct policy. (61)
“The
proletariat is the leader of the revolution. But that is precisely why we must
understand that "without the peasant masses, without being on good
terms with them, we could not exist."
The
New Economic Policy is dictated by the need to secure "good
relations" with the peasantry at all costs on the basis of the New
Economic Policy. This requires concessions to the peasantry, immediate and
decisive concessions.” (5)
“The vanguard of the working
class has understood this, but there are still people in it, in this vanguard,
who are too tired to understand it. They saw this as a mistake and began to
use the word opportunism... The peasant who exploits us gets, they say,
everything he wants, but the worker is starving. “Is this opportunism? We help
the peasants for the reason that without an alliance with the peasantry the
political power of the proletariat is impossible, it is impossible to
maintain it. It was this motive of expediency that was decisive for us.”
(62)
“Did Lenin know that in the first stages, NEP would be taken advantage of primarily by the capitalists, the merchants, the kulaks? Of course he knew. But did Lenin say that in introducing NEP we were making concessions to the profiteers and capitalist elements and not to the peasantry? No, he did not and could not say that. On the contrary, he always said that, in permitting trade and capitalism, and in changing our policy in the direction of NEP, we were making concessions to the peasantry for the sake of maintaining and strengthening our bond with it; since under the given conditions, the peasantry could not exist without trade, without some revival of capitalism being permitted; since at the given time we could not establish the bond in any way except through trade; since only in that way could we strengthen the bond and build the foundations of a socialist economy. That is how Lenin approached the question of concessions. That is how the question of the concessions made in April 1925 should be approached.” (63)
Implementation
of NEP
On
this basis, the congress instructed the Central Committee to be guided in the
field of economic policy by the following directives:
a)
prioritize the task of ensuring the victory of socialist economic forms over
private capital in every possible way, strengthening the monopoly of foreign
trade, the growth of socialist state-owned industry and the involvement, under
its leadership and with the help of cooperation, of an ever larger mass of
peasant farms in the channel of socialist construction;
b)
to ensure for the USSR economic independence, which protects the USSR from
turning it into an appendage of the capitalist world economy, for which purpose
it is to pursue a course towards the industrialization of the country, the
development of the production of means of production and the formation of
reserves for economic maneuvering;
c)
based on the decisions of the XIV Party Conference, to promote in every
possible way the growth of production and trade in the country;
d)
use all resources, observe the strictest economy in spending public funds,
increase the turnover rate of state industry, trade, and cooperation to
increase the rate of socialist accumulation;
e)
to develop our socialist industry on the basis of a higher technical level, but
in strict accordance with both the market capacity and the financial
capabilities of the state;
f)
to promote in every possible way the development of Soviet local industry
(district, okrug, province, oblast, republic), in every possible way
stimulating local initiative in organizing this industry, calculated to meet
the diverse needs of the population in general, and the peasantry in
particular;
g)
support and push forward the development of agriculture in the direction of
improving agricultural culture, developing industrial crops, improving farming
techniques (tractorization), industrializing agriculture, streamlining land
management, and providing all-round support for various forms of
collectivization of agriculture.
The
congress considers that one of the necessary conditions for solving these
problems is the struggle against disbelief in the building of socialism in our
country and with attempts to view our enterprises, which are enterprises of the
"consistently socialist type" (Lenin), as state capitalist
enterprises. Such ideological currents, making it impossible for the conscious
attitude of the masses to the construction of socialism in general and
socialist industry in particular, can only slow down the growth of the socialist
elements of the economy and facilitate the struggle against them on the part of
private capital. The congress therefore considers it necessary to carry out
extensive educational work to overcome these distortions of Leninism ...” (64)
The
main problem with NEP is summarized by Lenin was that; “economic necessity,
especially under NEP, keeps the productivity of labour of the small and very
small peasants at an extremely low level. Moreover, the international
situation, too, threw Russia back and, by and large, reduced the labour
productivity of the people to a level considerably below pre-war.” (65)
In
1923 Lenin was saying that the” NEP has not yet succeeded in gaining
such respect as to cause any of us to be shocked at the idea somebody may be
caught.” (Lenin, Better Fewer, But Better)
Lenin was saying that “Not
everyone understands that now, since the time of the October revolution and
quite apart from NEP (on the contrary, in this connection we must say—because
of NEP), our cooperative movement has become one of great significance… By
adopting NEP we made a concession to the peasant as a trader, to the principal
of private trade; it is precisely for this reason (contrary to what some people
think) that the cooperative movement is of such immense importance…We went too
far when we reintroduced NEP, but not because we attached too much importance
to the principal of free enterprise and trade — we want too far because we lost
sight of the cooperatives, because we now underrate cooperatives, because we
are already beginning to forget the vast importance of the cooperatives..”(66)
"What
happened?" Lenin asked at the end of 1921, after the experience of the
first half of the NEP. “It turned out ... that the exchange of goods broke
down: it broke in the sense that it resulted in buying and selling. We must
realize that the retreat has proved insufficient, that it is necessary to
make an additional retreat, yet another retreat, when we pass from state
capitalism to the creation of state regulation of purchase and sale and money
circulation. Nothing happened with the exchange of goods, the private market
turned out to be stronger than us, and instead of the exchange of goods,
ordinary buying and selling, trade turned out. Take the trouble to adapt to it,
otherwise the element of buying and selling, of money circulation will
overwhelm you! and to the state regulation of trade and money circulation.
Only in this way, even longer than expected, can we restore economic life.(67)
Partial victory is not what was
hoped for, but there is no reason to absolutize this failure if the
cause of the error is understood and there is a possibility of correcting it.
“There
is no doubt that, say, the stability of our chervonets, as well as the results
of the monetary reform carried out in general, are of gigantic significance for
our revolution and serve as the best indicator of the strength of the
proletarian dictatorship. We are all proud that the Soviet chervonets is quoted
on foreign exchanges. We know that without a hard, really hard currency,
there could be no question of a lasting advance in our economy. But does
the chervonets mean socialism? Doesn't our excellent, firm, Soviet chervonets
serve as an expression precisely of "state capitalism" in a
proletarian state—a state that is building socialism, but has not yet built it?”
(5)
“We, the proletariat of Russia,
are ahead of England and Germany in our political system, in the strength of
the political power of the workers, and at the same time behind the most
backward of the Western European states in the organization of respectable
state capitalism, in the height of culture, in the degree of preparation
for material production "introduction" of socialism". (68)
“In
the same article, Lenin said that “socialism is
unthinkable without large-scale capitalist technology, built
according to the latest word in modern science,” and recalled that history “by
1918 gave birth to two disparate halves of socialism, side by side, like two
future chicken under one shell of international imperialism. Germany and Russia
in 1918 most clearly embodied the material realization of the economic,
production, social and economic conditions, on the one hand, and the political
conditions of socialism, on the other .” (5)
Lenin
himself explained in the article "On Cooperation" in the following
words:
“We went too far in passing to the NEP,
not in the sense that we gave too much space to the principle of free industry
and trade, but we went too far in passing to the NEP in the sense that we
forgot to think about cooperation, that we started forget already the
gigantic significance of co-operation in the two sides of this significance
indicated above”. (69)
As
Sakharov** points out, “In the autumn of 1921 it became clear that the
concession made was insufficient, that the elements of capitalist relations
could not be kept within the framework of state capitalism, and that
economic life was overflowing beyond the limits set for it. It was necessary to
recognize what happened - freedom of trade, the possibility of admitting which
was categorically denied in the spring of 1921. A choice had to be made: to
retreat further or to fight on previously occupied positions. Since Lenin
connected the salvation of the revolution with the relations between the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, this determined his attitude
towards further events: he proposed to retreat further. However, the
prospect of new concessions increased the party's skepticism about the
possibility of the new economic policy to serve the victory of the socialist
revolution. The time has come for a deeper understanding of the entire
experience of the revolution, ideas about the ways and methods of building socialism.”
“Lenin
devoted his most important public speeches of late 1921 and early 1922 to
justifying the need for a new retreat, explaining its political meaning,
and identifying economic opportunities. In them, he reassessed the entire
experience of socialist construction. At the same time, he focused not so much
on the forced devastation of the nature of the NEP, but on the fact that
it manifested a de facto recognition of the fallacy of previous ideas about the
process of development of the socialist revolution.”
“What have been the results of
this struggle?
Firstly. Private capital,
we found, had penetrated not into industry, where the risk is greater
and the turnover of capital slower, but into trade, the very sphere
which, as Lenin said, in our transition period constitutes the basic link in a
chain of processes. And having penetrated into trade, private capital
entrenched itself there to such an extent that it controlled about 80 per
cent of the country’s entire retail trade, and about 50 per cent of all
its wholesale and retail trade. This is due to the fact that our trading
and co-operative organisations were young and not yet properly organised; to
the incorrect policy of our syndicates, which abused their monopoly position
and forced up commodity prices; to the weakness of our Commissariat of Internal
Trade, whose function it is to regulate trade in the interests of the state,
and, lastly, to the instability of the Soviet currency then in circulation,
which hit mainly at the peasant and forced down his purchasing capacity.
Secondly. Rural credit, we
found, was entirely in the hands of the kulak and the usurer. The small
peasant, having no agricultural implements of his own, was forced into bondage
to the usurer, was compelled to pay extortionate interest and to tolerate
the usurer’s domination without a murmur. This is due to the fact that we still
have no local agricultural credit system capable of granting the peasant cheap
credit and ousting the usurer; to the fact that the usurer has this field
entirely to himself.
Thus we see that the merchant and
the usurer have wedged themselves in between the state, on the one hand, and
the peasant economy, on the other, with the result that the bond between
socialist industry and the peasant economy has proved more difficult to
organise, and in fact has not been properly organised. The summer marketing
crisis last year was an expression of this difficulty and lack of proper
organisation.” (70)
During
the recovery period, not only was the restoration of industry within the
former, pre-war framework and on the same technical basis, but during this
period there was also a partial reconstruction of industry, the technical base
of large-scale industry was gradually changing. Electricity quickly penetrated
the industry.
At
the same time, however, the special contradictions of this growth and the
specific dangers and difficulties determined by this growth are developing.
These include: the absolute growth of private capital with a relative decline
in its role, especially private merchant capital, which transfers its
operations to serving the countryside; the growth of kulak farms in the
countryside, together with the growth of differentiation of the latter; the growth
of the new bourgeoisie in the cities, striving for economic integration
with the commercial capitalist and kulak farms in their struggle to
subjugate the bulk of the middle peasant farms.
Transformation
to “Five Year Economic Plan”
When we are asked whether the NEP
achieved its goal, we answer with the words of Lenin (in the same report at the
Fourth Congress of the Comintern on November 13, 1922):
“yes, it did. Peasant uprisings, which
previously, until 1921, so to speak, determined the overall picture of Russia,
have almost completely disappeared ... We believe that this evidence is more
important than any statistical evidence” (69 p. 93) .
And now (in 1925) we can add: yes,
the NEP achieved its goal - because 1) our industry is rapidly moving
towards the pre-war level, 2) transport is also moving, 3) the currency has
strengthened, 4) wages are growing, 5) agriculture is rising 6) the socialist
elements of the economy are growing.
Lenin’s
article “On Cooperation” begins with the following words:
“In our country, it seems to me,
insufficient attention is paid to cooperation. Hardly everyone understands
that now, since the October Revolution and independently of the New Economic
Policy (on the contrary, in this respect one has to say: it is precisely thanks
to the New Economic Policy), co-operatives have acquired absolutely exceptional
significance among us... And now, not all comrades realize what a gigantic,
boundless significance the cooperation of Russia is now acquiring for us
.
We consider two places in this
work on cooperation to be central.
The first of them:
"Now we must realize and
put into practice that at present the social order which we must maintain
above and beyond the usual is a cooperative order" . (71)
Second:
“Essentially speaking, to cooperate widely and
deeply among the Russian population under the rule of the NEP is all that we
need, because now we have found that degree of combination of private interest,
private commercial interest, verification, and control of it by the state, the
degree of its subordination common interests, which used to be a stumbling
block for many, many socialists. In fact, the power of the state over all major
means of production, the power of the state in the hands of the proletariat,
the alliance of this proletariat with many millions of small and tiny peasants,
the provision of leadership for this proletariat in relation to the peasantry,
etc., is not all what is needed so that from cooperation, from cooperation
alone, which we previously treated as commercial, and which, from a certain
point of view, we have the right to treat under the New Economic Policy in the
same way, isn't that all that is necessary for building a complete socialist
society? This is not yet the building of a socialist society, but this
is everything necessary and sufficient for this building.” (72)
By
the "cooperative system" Lenin understands the system that
comes closest to socialism.
“Under private capitalism, cooperative
enterprises differ from capitalist enterprises, just as collective
enterprises differ from private enterprises. Under state capitalism,
cooperative enterprises differ from state-capitalist ones, as private
enterprises, firstly, and collective ones, secondly. Under our existing
system, co-operative enterprises differ from private-capitalist
enterprises, like collective enterprises, but they do not differ from socialist
enterprises if they are based on land, with the means of production
belonging to the state, i.e., working class." (73)
The
article "On Cooperation" says:
"From cooperation, from
cooperation alone," socialism can grow.
The
article “Less is better” says: “In this and only in this” (in the big machine
industry) is our hope.
Speaking
at the VII Moscow Provincial Party Conference on October 29, 1921, Lenin
admitted:
“The trade has broken down: broke in the sense
that it turned into a sale ... the private market turned out to be
stronger than us, and instead of
commodity circulation, ordinary buying and selling, trade was obtained”. (74)
He proposed once again to retreat, this time from state capitalism to state regulation of purchase and sale and money circulation. Lenin considered this path “longer, but more durable, and now the only possible one for us” and, in spite of everything, quite acceptable since it could ensure the possibility of restoring large-scale industry. (75)
“The
need for a new concession to the principle of free trade within the
framework of the NEP raised a number of difficult not only political but also
theoretical questions. It was necessary to find solutions to problems where
they had not been looked for before, to take them into account in new
theoretical concepts and political conclusions. Thus, the NEP stimulated a
new search and led to the creation of a new concept of the socialist
revolution in Russia, based on accumulated experience and taking
into account the specific conditions of Russia more fully than before.”**
Lenin
soon issued an important political statement calling for an end to the”
retreat.”
“In
1921, when we had almost no industry of our own, there was not enough
raw material, and there was no transport, Lenin proposed state capitalism as a
means through which he thought to link the peasant economy with industry. And
it was right. But does this mean that Lenin considered this path desirable
under all circumstances? Conditions? Of course, it doesn't. He went to the
link through state capitalism because we did not have a developed
socialist industry. Well, what about now? Can it be said that we do not now
have a developed state-owned industry? Of course, you can't say that.”(76)
“The
period of relatively liberal economic policy, on which the NEP system grew,
has ended. The USSR switched to total national economic planning. The era
of large-scale economic transformations began. Private enterprise was being
squeezed out. The number of patents granted has been reduced. Lease agreements
were revised. Increasing taxation of entrepreneurs. Industrialization unfolded.
The construction of state farms and collective farms has intensified.” (77)
1925
and on
The
policy of maximum expansion of the NEP was carried out until the beginning of
1927. However, first attempts to curtail the NEP and revisions began since the
mid-1920s.
*The
results of the economic transformations begun in the second half of the 1920s
cannot but be recognized as impressive. If we compare the production of certain
products in the USSR and the leading Western countries, we get the following
picture;
From 1925 to 1931, the production of hard coal in the USSR
increased by 215%, while in France - only by 6%, and in the other leading
Western countries it fell: in Germany - by 11%, in England - by 12%, and in the
USA - by 33%. Pig iron smelting in the USSR over the same period increased by
277%, while in all the leading countries it fell: in France by 4%, in Germany
by 40%, in England by 41%, and in the USA by 49%. The gross harvest of wheat
from 1925 to 1930 tons in the USSR increased by 26%, while among the leading
Western countries only the USA surpassed this figure (28%), in Germany the
growth was 18%, and in England and France there was a decrease in the harvest
by 20% and 30% respectively.
Products of some branches of the
national economy in the USSR and leading Western countries
|
|
|||||
|
Year |
USSR |
USA |
England |
France |
Germany |
|
Coal
mining (million tons) |
|||||
|
1925 |
17,0 |
527,9 |
247,1 |
47,1 |
132,6 |
|
1926 |
26,0 |
596,7 |
128,3 |
51,4 |
145,3 |
|
1927 |
32,3 |
542,4 |
255,3 |
51,8 |
153,6 |
|
1928 |
35,8 |
516,6 |
241,3 |
51,4 |
150.9 |
|
1929 |
41,7 |
546,1 |
260,8 |
53,8 |
163,4 |
|
1930 |
47,1 |
482,1 |
247,7 |
53,9 |
142,7 |
|
1931 |
53,5 |
396,3 |
221,4 |
50,1 |
119,1 |
|
Iron
smelting (million tons) |
|||||
|
1925 |
1,3 |
36,7 |
6,4 |
8,5 |
10,1 |
|
1926 |
2,3 |
39,3 |
2,5 |
9,0 |
10,9 |
|
1927 |
3,1 |
36,4 |
7,4 |
3,4 |
7,9 |
|
1928 |
3,4 |
38,0 |
6,7 |
7,7 |
10,1 |
|
1929 |
4,3 |
43,0 |
7,7 |
10,1 |
9,7 |
|
1930 |
5,0 |
31,9 |
6,3 |
6,0 |
12,8 |
|
1931 |
4,9 |
18,7 |
3,8 |
8,2 |
6,1 |
|
Gross
wheat harvest (million quintals) |
|||||
|
1925 |
213,7 |
181,4 |
14,4 |
90,0 |
32,2 |
|
1926 |
248,9 |
226,2 |
13,9 |
63,2 |
26,0 |
|
1927 |
216,8 |
239,1 |
15,2 |
75,2 |
32,8 |
|
1928 |
219,7 |
249,0 |
13,5 |
76,6 |
38,5 |
|
1929 |
188,8 |
220,2 |
13,5 |
87,1 |
33,5 |
|
1930 |
269,5 |
231,6 |
11,5 |
62,9 |
37,9 |
|
*
National economy of the USSR. Statistical handbook. 1932. M., 1932. S.
607-639. |
|||||
If
we calculate the value of GDP in this way, it turns out that the USSR would
not have benefited from the preservation of the NEP economic system.
Achieved in the second half of the 20s. economic growth could not be achieved.
Moreover, in the late 1920s the country would face a powerful economic crisis
associated with the maximum use of industrial capacity in a growing commodity
shortage. Less large-scale crises would have awaited the country in the 30s.
|
Dynamics
of the gross national product in the USSR in 1921 - 1940 (1921 = 100)* |
||
|
years |
In reality |
By
models |
|
1921 |
100 |
100 |
|
1922 |
147,1 |
147,1 |
|
1923 |
194,1 |
194,1 |
|
1924 |
202,9 |
202,9 |
|
1925 |
208,8 |
208,7 |
|
1926 |
267,6 |
211,8 |
|
1927 |
285,3 |
197,8 |
|
1928 |
308,8 |
165,9 |
|
1929 |
388,2 |
152,5 |
|
1930 |
461,8 |
159,6 |
|
1931 |
500,1 |
165,2 |
|
1932 |
555,9 |
184,2 |
|
1933 |
594,1 |
218,6 |
|
1934 |
685,3 |
237,9 |
|
1935 |
876,5 |
255,2 |
|
1936 |
1058,8 |
287,9 |
|
1937 |
1202,9 |
313,1 |
|
1938 |
1323,5 |
326,3 |
|
1939 |
1470,6 |
359,0 |
|
1940 |
1570,6 |
398,5 |
If we compare the pace of development of the NEP system with the growth dynamics of the capitalist economy, it turns out that in the event of the victory of the supporters of the liberal economic policy, the economic gap of the USSR behind the Western countries would not only be preserved but would also increase over time. It turns out that the planned economy was for the good of the USSR, and the market economy was to the detriment. How to explain it?
The
advantages of a market economy compared to a planned one can be divided into
internal and external. Domestic economic advantages include: a) competition,
which creates favorable conditions for viable enterprises and destroys
inefficient enterprises, b) price self-regulation, which allows increasing the production
of goods in demand and reducing the production of goods that are in excess, c)
the rigidity of financial restrictions, stabilizing monetary economy and making
investments effective, d) the presence of a labor market that allows automatic
redistribution of labor between regions and industries, etc.
Could
the USSR have used them in the second half of the 1920s? Competition was
impossible due to the predominant role in the economy of the state sector, the
strengthening and expansion of which was one of the most important tasks of the
CPSU (b) during the NEP years. Despite the fact that the conditions of cost
accounting and self-sufficiency in which state enterprises found themselves in
the early 1920s could, in principle, promote competition between state
enterprises themselves. However, the unification of the bulk of them into
trusts and syndicates already in 1922 crossed out this possibility. Cost
accounting was carried out at the level of trusts and syndicates, which were
monopolists in their industry. And the state could not allow the activities of
some enterprises belonging to it to lead to the ruin of other enterprises -
this was considered the "cost of capitalism." In 1925, private
buyers procured about 25% of all grain surpluses of peasants (78)
However,
the state immediately intervened in this competition. Private railway cargoes
were relegated to the latter category, which made it impossible for private
traders to take out the harvested grain. Subsequently, more stringent measures,
including administrative and judicial prosecution, began to be applied to
private purveyors and the peasants who sold them bread. It is clear that under
these conditions, competition could not develop.
Price
self-regulation in the twenties was also impossible. The campaign for lowering the
prices of industrial products, which began in 1923, already in 1924 deprived
these prices of any regulatory role and led to a growing shortage of goods. Pricing
was relatively free only in private trade and small-scale peasant production,
although the state did not stop trying to establish tight control here, which
was crowned with success in the mid-20s after the creation of the central,
republican, and local interdepartmental commissions for the supervision of
retail prices.(79)
Any state-owned enterprise not only could receive a preferential
long-term loan from state or joint-stock banks, but also counted on annual
non-refundable subsidies from the state budget. If in the West state aid to
enterprises was negligible, and the bulk of the money the economy received with
the help of a bank loan, then in the USSR budget subsidies amounted to 22% to
43% of all financing of state industry over the years. It is clear that under
these conditions, inefficiently operating enterprises were not threatened with
financial bankruptcy.
|
Credit
and budget subsidies in industry (in million rubles at prices of each year |
|
||
|
|
Budget
subsidies |
Bank
loans |
|
|
1922/23 |
107 |
140 |
|
|
1923/24 |
75 |
260 |
|
|
1924/25 |
354 |
1121 |
|
|
1925/26 |
790 |
1496 |
|
|
1926/27 |
1011 |
2219 |
|
|
*
Economic Bulletin of the Market Institute. 1924-1927. No. 11/12. |
|
||
In connection with the beginning of the rise of agriculture, state procurement
of grain products increased from year to year. Suffice it to point out that in
1925/26 they increased by 133.7% in comparison with 1921/22. The solution of
the food question served as the starting point, in particular, for the solution
of the fuel problem. In 1921/22, 11324 thousand tons of anthracite and coal
were mined, in 1922/23 - 12700 thousand, in 1923/24 - 16328 thousand, in
1924/25 - 16520 thousand and in 1925/26 - 25770 thousand tons.
During
the five years of the recovery period, industrial production increased 5 1/2
times. The rise of large-scale socialist industry was much faster than the
growth of small-scale handicraft industry. In 1920, the industrial output of
large-scale socialist industry exceeded the gross output of handicraft industry
by only 24%, and in 1924/25 by 315%.
Agriculture
in 1925 reached almost pre-war levels. Its gross output in 1925/26 was
estimated at 9,746 million against 10,225 million pre-war rubles in 1913/14.
Grain production in 1925 reached 4.5 billion around the country about 4 billion
poods. From year to year, the sown area grew steadily (with the exception of
1922, after a large crop failure in 1921).
The
marketability of grain crops increased from year to year due to the increase in
the gross grain harvest. This is evidenced by the growth of state procurement
of grain products. In 1921/22 they amounted to 38140.7 thousand centners in the
USSR, and in 1925/26 - 89131.1 thousand centners, that is, 133% more.
Not
a single important internal advantage of the market economy remains, which
could be used by the USSR in the specific political and economic conditions of
the 1920s. The USSR could not take advantage of any of the
advantages of the market economy. On the one hand, this led to a drop
in the effectiveness of the NEP system as the recovery period ended. On
the other hand, this is also associated with a slight rejection of the new
economic policy with the transition to the tasks of the reconstruction
period.
Conclusion
“The
NEP is a "desperately furious struggle," Lenin said more than once.
The NEP is a frenzied struggle between the capitalist and socialist elements
of our economy. So far, we have had a serious growth of the socialist elements
of the economy, with an absolute (though not relative) growth of the capitalist
elements as well. Soon the former will begin to outstrip the latter even much
faster than hitherto. Soon the latter will hopelessly remain behind. The final
outcome will be in favor of socialism. Soon the first stage of work on
electrification will be in time, soon it will be possible to start using the
"trotter" of large industry.” (5)
“The
results of economic development reveal with full clarity that during the period
of the new economic policy, a radical regrouping took place in the relations
between socialized forms of economy (in (first of all, socialist industry),
simple commodity economy and capitalist economy. in the field of commodity
circulation, state and cooperative bodies themselves resorted to private
mediation, and private capital, having all the advantages of rapid turnover,
played a relatively large role, then on the threshold of the transition from
the restoration to the reconstruction period, socialist industry and other
commanding heights are already playing a decisive and leading role in the
entire national economy, state and cooperative trade embraces the overwhelming
part of the country's general trade turnover, the socialized sector of the
national economy determines the general direction of development, displacing
private capital, taking in tow and gradually transforming the economy of simple
commodity producers-peasants
Under
such conditions, despite a certain growth of the private owner in absolute
numbers, the much faster growth of the socialized part of the economy, reducing
many times the danger of private capital growing on a petty-bourgeois basis,
creates solid preconditions for the final victory of socialism. From the
social-class point of view, this means that, despite all the contradictory
nature of the development process, despite the growth of the bourgeoisie in
town and country (kulak, NEP), the proportion of the working class has
increased, its connection with the bulk of the peasantry has increased, the
dictatorship of the proletariat has strengthened.” Ind of soviets
The
experience of planned leadership has proved that planning assumptions more than
once needed more or less significant amendments, that they inevitably had to be
relative and conditional, that a real plan inevitably develops organically to
the extent of the actual growth of the organization of the national economy and
to the extent of the increasing possibilities of accurate accounting and
foresight based on the growing socialization of the country's economy.
Even
after 6 years of the NEP, it took at least three years to crush the
private trader and take over the industry without creating interruptions in
supply.
Stalin in his article "The Year
of the Great Break"
(November 7, 1929 in Pravda) says;
“The problem of light industry
presents no particular difficulties. We already solved it several years ago.
The problem of heavy industry is more difficult and more important. More
important, because without the development of heavy industry we cannot build
any industry, we cannot carry out any industrialization. This is precisely what
the capitalists of all countries proceed from when they refuse us loans and
credits, believing that we will not be able to cope with the problem of
accumulation on our own, we will break loose on the question of the
reconstruction of heavy industry and will be forced to bow to them, into
bondage.
And quotes Lenin's statements:
“Salvation for Russia is not only
a good harvest in the peasant economy—this is still not enough—and not only a
good state of light industry, supplying the peasantry with consumer goods—this
is also not enough—we also need heavy industry. ... Without rescuing heavy
industry, without restoring it, we will not be able to build any
industry, and without it we will perish altogether as an independent
country... Heavy industry needs state subsidies... If we do not find them, then
we, as a civilized state - I no longer speak as socialist - perished"
(vol. XXVII, p. 349). (80)
Lenin
and Stalin understood that the war could not be won without heavy engineering.
Funds for industrialization had to be sought only within the country.
The
great accomplishments of collectivization, industrialization and the cultural
revolution, and the victory in the Great Patriotic War over Fascist Europe was preceded by a very difficult and
responsible period of withdrawal from the NEP. It was necessary to wrest
the means of production from the hands of private traders, and this was
required to be done without the use of weapons, by economic methods. It was
necessary to quickly increase the efficiency of socially significant production
of goods, including defense products. Private producers did not have any obligations to society.
As a conclusion “NEP was the biggest, most
responsible, most decisive strategic maneuver of the proletarian party… it is a
retreat that is of cardinal importance...for the fate of the Russian
revolution.” A retreat from socialism
by itself defines its temporariness, and its being a “controlled” policy to
serve the purpose, in this case providing a possibility for the economic
foundation. NEP served its purpose successfully and after that USSR would not
have benefited from the preservation of the NEP economic system. That’s why the
USSR gradually switched to a new national economic planning for the era of large-scale
economic transformations. Because, as Lenin said “socialism is unthinkable
without large-scale capitalist technology.
Erdogan A
July 2022
Sources
and notes
**Lenin's
political testament: the reality of history and the myths of politics, Sakharov
V.A
The
development of the Soviet Economy,
S. I. Ginzburg, E. G.
Sushanskaya and E. I. Tulubeva.
The History of Industrialization USSR 1926-1928,
Science, Publishing House
NEP:
the final stage. Correlation between economics and politics: Collection of
articles M., 1998
(1)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XXVI, p. 126
(2) Stalin,
On the right danger in the CPSU (b)
(3)
Lenin, Eleventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(4) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Speech at the II All-Russian. Congress of
Political Education, pp. 372-373.
(5)
Leninism and NEP, G. Zinoviev
(6)
Lenin, Letter to A. V. Lunacharsky
(7)
Stalin, On questions of agrarian policy in the USSR
(8)
Lenin, Letter to L. B. Kamenev
(9)
Lenin, Letter to D. I. Kursky
(10)
Lenin, Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Speech at the II All-Russian Congress of
Political Education, p. 374
(11)
Lenin, V.I. Full coll. op. T. 42. S. 148, 150–151, 155–156.
(12)
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 42. S. 148, 150–151, 155–156.
(13)
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 42. S. 148, 150–151, 155–156.
(14)
Eleventh Congress of the RCP (b), CPSU in resolutions and decisions of
congresses, conferences, and plenums of the Central Committee
(15)
Stalin, On industrialization and the grain problem
(16)
“Resolutions of the IX All-Russian Congress of Soviets”
(17)
Stalin, On industrialization and the grain problem
(18)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XX, p. 122.
(19)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XX, p. 122.
(20)
Resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences, and plenums of the
Central Committee”, part I, 1936, p. 262.].
(21)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XXII, p. 450
(22) Lenin,
Soch., vol. XXII, p. 517
(23)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XXIV, p. 167,170.
(24)
Stalin, On the October Revolution, 1932, p. 26.
(25)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XXIV, p. 508.
(26)
Lenin, Soch., vol. XXVII, p. 347.
(27) Lenin,
Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)
(28) Stalin,
On the results of the XIII Congress of the RCP (b)
(29)
Lenin, 2nd Congress of the Comintern"
(30) Lenin.
Sobr. op. vol. XVI. page 160
(31)
Stalin, "Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party
of Bolsheviks
(32)
Stalin, History of the CPSU (b)”. Short course, p. 267
(33)
On the results of the XIII Congress of the RCP (b)
(34)
Lenin, Letter to Molotov for the Plenary Meeting The C.C., R.C.P.(B.)
(35) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Speech at the II All-Russian Congress of
Political Education, p. 380
(36)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Speech at the II All-Russian Congress of
Political Education, p. 374
(37)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Speech at the II All-Russian Congress of
Political Education, p. 375).
(38)Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. IX, p. 537
(39)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II. Speech at a meeting of the Communist
Fraction of the All-Russian Congress of Metal Workers, p. 12
(40)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II, Report at the XI Congress of the
RCP(B.), p. 37
(41)
Lenin. Sobr. op. v. XVI. "Economy and politics in the era of the
dictatorship of the proletariat
(42)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. "Tactics of the Russian Communist
Party", p. 323
(43)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. "Tactics of the Russian Communist
Party", p. 326
(44)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I, p.90
(45)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I, p. 415)”
(46)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XV. Report on the Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power, p.
236)
(47)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XV. "On "Left" Childishness and
Petty-Bourgeoisness", p. 264.)
(48) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII part I, “On tax in kind”, pp. 221-222
(49)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII part II, "On cooperation", pp. 139-140
(50) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVII. Speech at the III All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions,
April 7, 1920, p. 102.)
(51)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII. part II. pp. 34 - 35
(52)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. “On tax in kind”, p. 217.
(53)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. “On tax in kind”, p. 218
(54)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I, p. 218
(55)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I, p. 219
(56)
The pamphlet "On Tax in Kind" (July 5, 1921
(57)
Stalin, The Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.))
(58) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. "Tactics of the Russian Communist
Party", p. 327.
(59)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. "Tactics of the Russian Communist
Party", p. 328
(60)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. "Tactics of the Russian Communist
Party", p. 328.
(61) Stalin,
The Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(62)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. Tactics of the Russian Communist Party,
pp. 330-331
(63)
Stalin, The Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(64)
"The CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and
Plenums of the Central Committee", Part II. M., 1954, pp. 195-197.”
(65)
Lenin, Better Fewer, But Better
(66)
Lenin, On Cooperation
(67) Lenin.
Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part I. From a speech at the Moscow party conference on
October 29, 1921, pp. 398-399.) .
(68)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XV. “On “Left” Childishness and Petty-Bourgeoisness”,
p. 272)
(69)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II, pp. 140
(70)"On
the results of the XIII Congress of the RCP (b)"
(71)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II, pp. 141
(72)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II, pp. 139-140)
(73)
Lenin. Sobr. cit., vol. XVIII, part II, pp. 139-144)
(74)
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 44. S. 207-208, 212
(75)
Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 44. S. 207-208, 212
(76)
Stalin, The Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(77)
NEP: the final stage. Correlation between economics and politics
(78)
Economic Bulletin of the Market Institute. 1926. No. 11/12. P.18
(79)
Bokarev Yu.P. Socialist industry and small peasant economy in the USSR in the
1920s.
(80)
Stalin, "The Year of the Great Break"
.jpg)
No comments