New economic policy - economic policy pursued in Soviet Russia and the USSR in the 1920s. It was adopted on March 15, 1921 by the X Congress of the RCP (b), replacing the policy of "war communism", which was carried out during the Civil War. The new economic policy was aimed at restoring National economy and the subsequent transition to socialism. The main content of the NEP is the replacement of the surplus appropriation tax in the countryside (up to 70% of grain was confiscated during the surplus appropriation tax, about 30% with the food tax), the use of the market and various forms of ownership, the attraction of foreign capital in the form of concessions, the implementation of the monetary reform (1922-1924), in as a result of which the ruble became a convertible currency.
After the end of the civil war, the country found itself in a difficult situation, faced a deep economic and political crisis. As a result of almost seven years of war, Russia has lost more than a quarter of its national wealth. The industry has been especially hard hit. The volume of its gross output decreased by 7 times. Stocks of raw materials and materials by 1920 were basically exhausted. Compared with 1913, the gross output of large-scale industry has decreased by almost 13%, and that of small-scale industry by more than 44%.
Huge destruction was inflicted on transport. In 1920, the volume of railway traffic was 20% compared to the pre-war level. The situation in agriculture worsened. The area under crops, productivity, gross harvest of grain, production of livestock products have decreased. Agriculture has become more and more consumerist, its marketability has fallen by 2.5 times. There was a sharp drop in the standard of living and labor of workers. As a result of the closure of many enterprises, the process of declassing the proletariat continued. Huge hardships led to the fact that from the autumn of 1920, discontent began to increase among the working class. The situation was complicated by the beginning of the demobilization of the Red Army. As the fronts of the civil war retreated to the borders of the country, the peasantry began to more and more actively oppose the surplus appropriation, which was implemented by violent methods with the help of food detachments.
The policy of "war communism" led to the destruction of commodity-money relations. The sale of food and industrial goods was limited, they were distributed by the state in the form of wages in kind. An equalizing system of wages among workers was introduced. This gave them the illusion of social equality. The failure of this policy was manifested in the formation of a "black market" and the flourishing of speculation. In the social sphere, the policy of “war communism” was based on the principle of “ Who does not work shall not eat". In 1918, labor service was introduced for representatives of the former exploiting classes, and in 1920 - universal labor service. Forced mobilization labor resources was carried out with the help of labor armies sent to restore transport, construction works etc. The naturalization of wages led to the free provision of housing, utilities, transport, postal and telegraph services. During the period of “war communism”, the undivided dictatorship of the RCP (b) was established in the political sphere, which also later was one of the reasons for the transition to the NEP. The Bolshevik Party ceased to be a purely political organization; its apparatus gradually merged with state structures. It determined the political, ideological, economic and cultural situation in the country, even personal life citizens. In essence, it was about the crisis of the policy of "war communism".
Devastation and famine, strikes of workers, uprisings of peasants and sailors - all testified that a deep economic and social crisis had ripened in the country. In addition, by the spring of 1921, the hope for an early world revolution and the material and technical assistance of the European proletariat had been exhausted. Therefore, V. I. Lenin revised his internal political course and recognized that only the satisfaction of the demands of the peasantry could save the power of the Bolsheviks.
The essence of the NEP was not clear to everyone. Disbelief in the NEP, its socialist orientation gave rise to disputes about the ways of developing the country's economy, about the possibility of building socialism. With the most varied understanding of the NEP, many party leaders agreed that at the end of the civil war in Soviet Russia, two main classes of the population remained: workers and peasants, and in the early 20 years after the NEP was introduced, a new bourgeoisie appeared, the bearer of restoration tendencies. A wide field of activity for the Nepman bourgeoisie was made up of industries serving the main and most important consumer interests of the city and countryside. V. I. Lenin understood the inevitable contradictions, the dangers of development on the path of the NEP. He considered it necessary to strengthen the Soviet state in order to ensure victory over capitalism.
In general, the NEP economy was a complex and unstable market-administrative structure. Moreover, the introduction of market elements into it was of a forced nature, while the preservation of administrative-command elements was fundamental and strategic. Without abandoning the ultimate goal (creation of a non-market economic system) of the NEP, the Bolsheviks resorted to the use of commodity-money relations while maintaining in the hands of the state "commanding heights": nationalized land and mineral resources, large and most of the medium industry, transport, banking, monopoly foreign trade. A relatively long coexistence of the socialist and non-socialist (state-capitalist, private capitalist, small-scale, patriarchal) structures was assumed with the gradual displacement of the latter from the economic life of the country, relying on "commanding heights" and using the levers of economic and administrative influence on large and small owners (taxes, loans , ce new policy, legislation, etc.).
From the point of view of V. I. Lenin, the essence of the NEP maneuver consisted in laying an economic foundation for the “alliance of the working class and the working peasantry”, in other words, granting a certain freedom of economic management that prevailed in the country among small commodity producers in order to remove their acute dissatisfaction with the authorities and ensure political stability in society. As the Bolshevik leader emphasized more than once, the NEP was a roundabout, indirect way to socialism, the only possible one after the failure of the attempt to directly and quickly break down all market structures. However, he did not reject the direct path to socialism in principle: Lenin recognized it as quite suitable for the developed capitalist states after the victory of the proletarian revolution there.
The resolution of the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) on replacing the apportionment with the tax in kind, which marked the beginning of the new economic policy, was legally formalized by a decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in March 1921. The size of the tax was almost halved compared to the surplus, and its main burden fell on wealthy rural peasants. The decree limited the freedom of trade in the products remaining with the peasants after paying the tax "within the limits of local economic turnover." By 1922, there was a noticeable increase Agriculture. The country was fed. In 1925 the sown area reached the pre-war level. The peasants sowed almost the same area as in pre-war 1913. The gross grain harvest amounted to 82% compared with 1913. The number of livestock exceeded the pre-war level. 13 million peasant farms were members of agricultural cooperatives. There were about 22,000 collective farms in the country. The implementation of grandiose industrialization required a radical restructuring of the agricultural sector. In Western countries, the agrarian revolution, i.e. the system of improving agricultural production preceded revolutionary industry, and therefore, on the whole, it was easier to supply the urban population with food. In the USSR, both of these processes had to be carried out simultaneously. At the same time, the village was considered not only as a source of food, but also as the most important replenishment channel. financial resources for the needs of industrialization.
Radical transformations also took place in industry. Glavkas were abolished, and instead of them trusts were created - associations of homogeneous or interconnected enterprises that received full economic and financial independence, up to the right to issue long-term bonded loans. By the end of 1922, about 90% industrial enterprises were merged into 421 trusts, 40% of them were centralized, and 60% were local subordination. The trusts themselves decided what to produce and where to sell their products. The enterprises that were part of the trust were removed from the state supply and switched to purchasing resources on the market. The law provided that "the state treasury is not responsible for the debts of trusts."
The Supreme Council of National Economy, having lost the right to interfere in the current activities of enterprises and trusts, turned into a coordinating center. His apparatus was drastically reduced. It was at that time that economic accounting appeared, in which the enterprise (after mandatory fixed contributions to the state budget) has the right to manage the income from the sale of products, is itself responsible for the results of its economic activity, independently uses profits and covers losses. Under the NEP, Lenin wrote, "state enterprises are transferred to the so-called economic accounting, that is, in fact, to a large extent on commercial and capitalist principles."
The Soviet government tried to combine two principles in the activities of trusts - market and planning. Encouraging the former, the state strove, with the help of trusts, to borrow technology and methods of work from the market economy. At the same time, the principle of planning in the activities of trusts was strengthened. The state encouraged the spheres of activity of trusts and the creation of a system of concerns by joining trusts with enterprises producing raw materials and finished products. The concerns were to serve as centers for the planned management of the economy. For these reasons, in 1925, the motivation for “profit” as the purpose of their activities was removed from the provision on trusts and only the mention of “commercial calculation” was left. So, the trust as a form of management combined planned and market elements, which the state tried to use to build a socialist planned economy. This was the complexity and inconsistency of the situation.
Almost simultaneously, syndicates began to be created - associations of trusts for the wholesale sale of products, lending and regulation of trade operations in the market. By the end of 1922, the syndicates controlled 80% of the industry covered by the trusts. In practice, there are three types of syndicates:
Thus, syndicates as a form of management also had a dual character: on the one hand, they combined elements of the market, as they were focused on improving the commercial activities of the trusts that were part of them, on the other hand, they were monopoly organizations in this industry, regulated by higher government bodies(VSNKh and people's commissariats).
The transition to the NEP required the development of a new financial policy. Experienced pre-revolutionary financiers took part in the reform of the financial and monetary system: N. Kutler, V. Tarnovsky, professors L. Yurovsky, P. Genzel, A. Sokolov, Z. Katsenelenbaum, S. Volkner, N. Shaposhnikov, N. Nekrasov, A. Manuilov, former assistant minister A. Khrushchev. Great organizational work was carried out by People's Commissar for Finance G. Sokolnikov, member of the board of the People's Commissariat of Finance V. Vladimirov, Chairman of the Board of the State Bank A. Sheiman. The main directions of the reform were identified: the cessation of money emission, the establishment of a deficit-free budget, the restoration banking system and savings banks, the introduction of a single monetary system, the creation of a stable currency, the development of an appropriate tax systems s.
By a decree of the Soviet government dated October 4, 1921, the State Bank was formed as part of the Narkomfin, savings and loan offices were opened, payment for transport, cash and telegraph services was introduced. The system of direct and indirect taxes was restored. To strengthen the budget, they sharply reduced all expenses that did not correspond to state revenues. Further normalization of the financial and banking system required the strengthening of the Soviet ruble.
|
In accordance with the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, from November 1922, the issuance of a parallel Soviet currency, the "Chervonets", began. It was equated to 1 spool - 78.24 shares or 7.74234 g of pure gold, i.e. the amount that was contained in the pre-revolutionary golden ten. It was forbidden to pay off the budget deficit with chervonets. They were meant to serve credit operations State Bank, industry, wholesale trade.
To maintain the stability of the chervonets, the special part (SP) of the currency department of Narkomfin bought or sold gold, foreign currency and chervonets. Despite the fact that this measure was in the interests of the state, such commercial activity The OC was regarded by the OGPU as a speculation, therefore, in May 1926, the arrests and executions of the leaders and employees of the OC began (L. Volin, A.M. Chepelevsky and others, who were rehabilitated only in 1996).
The high nominal value of chervonets (10, 25, 50 and 100 rubles) created difficulties with their exchange. In February 1924, a decision was made to issue state treasury notes in denominations of 1, 3, and 5 rubles. gold, as well as small changeable silver and copper coins.
In 1923 and 1924 two devaluations of the soviet mark (the former settlement banknote) were carried out. This gave the monetary reform a confiscatory character. On March 7, 1924, a decision was made to issue state marks by the State Bank. For every 500 million rubles handed over to the state. sample 1923, their owner received 1 kopeck. So the system of two parallel currencies was liquidated.
In general, the state has achieved some success in carrying out monetary reform. Chervonets began to be produced by stock exchanges in Constantinople, the Baltic countries (Riga, Revel), Rome, some Eastern countries. The course of the chervonets was equal to 5 dollars. 14 US cents.
The strengthening of the country's financial system was facilitated by the revival of the credit and tax systems, the creation of exchanges and a network of joint-stock banks, the spread of commercial credit, and the development of foreign trade.
However, the financial system created on the basis of the NEP began to destabilize in the second half of the 1920s. due to several reasons. The state strengthened the planning principles in the economy. The control figures for the financial year 1925-26 affirmed the idea of maintaining money circulation by increasing emission. By December 1925, the money supply had increased by 1.5 times compared to 1924. This led to an imbalance between the volume of trade and money supply. Since the State Bank constantly introduced gold and foreign currency into circulation in order to withdraw cash surpluses and maintain the exchange rate of the gold coin, the state's foreign exchange reserves were soon depleted. The fight against inflation was lost. From July 1926, it was forbidden to export chervonets abroad and the purchase of chervonets on the foreign market was stopped. Chervonets from a convertible currency has become the internal currency of the USSR.
Thus, the monetary reform of 1922-1924. was a comprehensive reform of the sphere of circulation. monetary system rebuilt simultaneously with the establishment of wholesale and retail trade, the elimination of the budget deficit, the revision of prices. All these measures helped restore and streamline monetary circulation, overcome emission, and ensure the formation of a solid budget. At the same time, financial and economic reform helped streamline taxation. A hard currency and a solid state budget were the most important achievements of the financial policy of the Soviet state in those years. In general, the monetary reform and financial recovery contributed to the restructuring of the mechanism of operation of the entire national economy on the basis of the NEP.
During the NEP period, the private sector played a major role in restoring the light and food industries - it produced up to 20% of all industrial output (1923) and dominated wholesale (15%) and retail (83%) trade.
Private industry took the form of handicraft, rental, joint-stock and cooperative enterprises. Private entrepreneurship has become notable in the food, clothing, and leather industries, as well as in the oil-pressing, flour-grinding, and shag industries. About 70% of private enterprises were located on the territory of the RSFSR. In total in 1924-1925. in the USSR there were 325 thousand private enterprises. They employed about 12% of the entire workforce, with an average of 2-3 employees per enterprise. Private enterprises produced about 5% of all industrial output (1923). the state constantly restricted the activities of private entrepreneurs by using the tax press, depriving entrepreneurs of voting rights, etc.
At the end of the 20s. in connection with the curtailment of the NEP, the policy of restricting the private sector was replaced by a course towards its elimination.
In the second half of the 1920s, the first attempts to curtail the NEP began. Syndicates in industry were liquidated, from which private capital was administratively ousted, and a rigid centralized system of economic management (economic people's commissariats) was created.
In October 1928, the implementation of the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy began, the country's leadership set a course for accelerated industrialization and collectivization. Although no one officially canceled the NEP, by that time it had already been actually curtailed.
Legally, the NEP was terminated only on October 11, 1931, when a resolution was adopted on the complete ban on private trade in the USSR.
The undoubted success of the NEP was the restoration of the destroyed economy, and, given that after the revolution, Russia lost highly qualified personnel (economists, managers, production workers), the success of the new government becomes a "victory over devastation." At the same time, the lack of those same highly qualified personnel has become the cause of miscalculations and errors.
Significant economic growth rates, however, were achieved only due to the return to operation of pre-war capacities, because Russia reached the economic indicators of the pre-war years only by 1926-1927. The potential for further economic growth turned out to be extremely low. The private sector was not allowed to "command heights in the economy", foreign investment were not welcomed, and investors themselves were not particularly in a hurry to go to Russia because of the ongoing instability and the threat of nationalization of capital. The state, on the other hand, was unable to make long-term capital-intensive investments only from its own funds.
The situation in the countryside was also contradictory, where the "kulaks" were clearly oppressed.
Add to bookmarks
Add commentsFrom the moment of the October Revolution until the end of the 1920s, two models were tested in Soviet Russia economic development. The first was called the military com...
From the moment of the October Revolution until the end of the 1920s, two models of economic development were tested in Soviet Russia. The first was called war communism, the second - NEP (new economic policy). In the first years of the development of the socialist state, two directly opposite phenomena collided. How is this possible, and what was the NEP in the years of the USSR? Let's try to understand this issue.
November 1920 marked the end of the civil war in Russia. The transition to the peaceful construction of statehood has begun. This was not easy to accomplish: during the years of unrest, the population of the country decreased by 20 million people, and the total damage amounted to about 39 billion gold rubles. Were undermined productive forces. Industry in 1920 was only 14% of the pre-war level. Agricultural production was reduced by a third, most of the transport routes were destroyed. Peasant uprisings raged everywhere, and in some places the white interventionists did not calm down.
The reason for the discontent was the system of war communism introduced by the Soviet government in 1918. This policy was to prepare the country for a new, communist society. Industry and agriculture were nationalized. Labor acquired a militarized character: the focus was mainly on military products. The people were dissatisfied with the total equalization, which was manifested in the introduction of food distribution. Bread was simply confiscated from the starving population.
The Soviet government was tired of fighting the growing number of riots. The last straw was the Kronstadt rebellion. Its participants previously helped the Bolsheviks in seizing power. Lenin was one of the first to guess that it is not good to fight against one's own people. In 1920, he spoke at the 10th Party Congress and proposed new economic principles.
The country during the years of the NEP was completely transformed. Extremely liberal principles and norms were introduced, which caused concern among hardened revolutionaries and educated Marxists. A Bolshevik opposition appeared, dissatisfied with the bourgeois bias of the leadership. What were the Marxists afraid of? It needs to be sorted out.
The main goal of the NEP policy during the years of the USSR was the revival of the country's economic sector. A system of measures aimed at eliminating the food crisis was developed. It was possible to realize the goals set by raising agriculture. It was necessary to liberate the manufacturer, provide him with incentives for the development of production.
The years of the NEP were marked, in fact, by the strongest liberalization economic sphere. Of course, the market was out of the question, but in comparison with war communism, the new system was a significant step forward.
So, the reasons for the transition to the NEP policy in the years after the revolution were the following phenomena:
The years of the NEP were marked by the gradual elimination of the military mobilization economic model and the restoration of the national economy, destroyed during the war.
The main political goal during the years of the NEP was the removal of social tensions. It was necessary to strengthen the social base in the form of an alliance of workers and peasants. economic purpose was to prevent further aggravation of devastation, overcome the crisis and restore the economy. The social task was to provide favorable conditions for the formation of a socialist society without a world revolution.
There were also foreign policy goals during the NEP years. The relatively liberal elite of the Soviet government insisted on overcoming international isolation. One of the reasons for this decision lay in the economic changes. For example, the concession, a procedure used during the years of the New Economic Policy, became widespread. The commissioning of various enterprises or lands to foreign entrepreneurs has gained remarkable popularity. This procedure helped quickly "pull out" many enterprises and lands, although the conservative part of the Bolsheviks was still suspicious of the concession.
Were the set goals achieved? There are separate indicators, for example, the growth of the national income, the improvement in the material situation of workers, etc. The years of the New Economic Policy really led to the optimization of the state situation. But was the new policy a real economic revolution, or did the Soviet government overestimate its own plans? To answer this question, we need to turn to the main methods and mechanisms used during the years of the NEP.
The first and main measure of the new economic policy was the elimination of food distribution. From now on, bread was not seized in unlimited quantities. A clear food tax limit was set - 20% of the net peasant product. The surplus demanded almost twice as much. The peasants could use the products remaining after the tax was paid for their own needs. You could use it yourself, transfer it to the state, or even sell it on the free market.
Radical changes also affected the industrial sector. The main committees were abolished - the so-called head offices. Instead, trusts appear - associations of interconnected or homogeneous enterprises. They receive complete financial and economic independence, up to the right to produce long-term bonds.
By the end of 1922, about 90% of the enterprises were merged into 421 trusts. 60% of them were local subordination and only 40% were centralized. The trusts resolved questions about the production and state implementation products. The enterprises themselves did not receive state support and were guided only by the purchase of resources on the market.
No less popular were syndicates - voluntary associations of several trusts. They were engaged in supply, marketing, lending and various foreign trade functions. A wide network of fairs, trade enterprises and exchanges arose.
The aggressive policy of war communism assumed the complete abolition of finance and payment. But the years of the New Economic Policy in Russia revived commodity-money relations. Wage rates have been introduced, restrictions have been lifted to increase earnings and to change jobs, and universal labor service has been abolished. The principle of material incentives was taken as a basis. It replaced the non-economic coercion of war communism.
A little more detail should be told about each economic sector that has undergone changes during the years of the NEP. The state with its entire population breathed a sigh of relief when it became known about the abolition of food distribution. At the X Congress of the RSDLP, held from March 8 to March 16, 1921, it was decided to introduce a special tax that would replace the forcible seizure of property. By the way, the question of in what year the transition to the NEP was officially confirmed by the authorities should be considered precisely within the framework of the X Congress. At it, Lenin proposed a program of new social economic principles, which was supported by 732,000 party members.
The essence of the tax in kind is simple: from now on, the peasants annually hand over to the state a firmly formed norm of bread. The forcible seizure of almost half of the total production is a thing of the past. The tax has been halved. The authorities considered that such a move would create an incentive to increase grain production. By 1922, measures to help the peasants were even strengthened: the tax in kind was reduced by 10%. Farmers were freed from the choice of forms of agricultural use. Even the hiring of labor and the lease of land were allowed.
All measures taken were the most liberal. The commercial and financial side of the NEP concerned the free sale of rural products. At the 10th Congress, the beginning of the exchange of products between the countryside and the city was announced. The advantage was given not to the market, but to cooperatives. Initially, the Bolsheviks planned to be based on barter - free exchange without money. For example, 1 pound of rye could be exchanged for 1 box of nails. Naturally, nothing came of this venture. The pseudo-socialist exchange of products was quickly replaced by the usual buying and selling with money.
The transition to the use of market mechanisms was completed in the autumn of 1921. This prompted the leadership of the RCP(b) to urgently carry out reforms in the industrial field. Most state-owned enterprises had to switch to the principles of cost accounting. Public finances, on the other hand, had to be reformed in equal measure - by replacing taxes in kind with money taxes, forming a new budget, establishing control over money emission, etc.
The question of the creation of state capitalism in the form of concessions and lease relations was formed. The domineering-capitalist form of management included industrial, rural and consumer cooperation.
The main task of the Bolshevik leadership was to strengthen the socialist sector through the creation of a large state industry. It was necessary to ensure its interaction with other structures. Didn't such a step contradict the basic principles of the New Economic Policy? The issue needs to be sorted out.
The public sector included the largest and most efficient enterprises, which were provided with fuel, raw materials and other products. All major economic entities were subordinate to the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh). The rest of the enterprises were immediately rented out. The industrial management system was reformed. Only 16 of the fifty former branch centers and central departments of the Supreme Council of National Economy remained. Accordingly, the number of employees was reduced from 300 thousand to 91 thousand people.
The surrender of domestic industry to foreign entrepreneurs, which was used during the NEP years, was called a concession. In fact, production attracted foreign capital. This saved many unprofitable enterprises during the years of the NEP.
Despite the development of market mechanisms, the Soviet authorities still despised the bourgeois development of society. “Capitalism must be well-trained in our country,” Lenin once said. What could he mean? Most likely, Vladimir Ilyich was going to improve the country in a matter of months with the help of the market and liberal reforms, and then return to the path of socialist development again. Capitalism in Russia will not develop fully, but only at the "school" level. After that, he will be liquidated, "schooled out."
A significant step forward was the revival of private capital in the trade sector. Merchants, like small producers, were forced to buy up patents and pay a progressive tax. Merchants were divided into five categories depending on the nature of trade relations being implemented. These are sellers from hands, in shops, in kiosks and stalls, at retail and wholesale, as well as hired workers.
Closer to 1925, the state implemented a shift towards stationary trading. Used by the authorities and widely used during the years of the New Economic Policy, private traders were placed in shops that formed into a wide network of retail trade. Wherein wholesale market still remained in the hands of the authorities. Cooperative and large state enterprises prevailed here.
Since 1921, exchanges began to revive - points of circulation of mass products. Such instances were abolished during the years of war communism, but the new economic policy changed everything.
During the years of the NEP, the number of different exchanges reached the pre-war number. By the end of 1925, about 90 joint-stock companies were registered. All of them were a combination of predominantly cooperative, state or mixed capital. The turnover of trading companies exceeded 1.5 billion rubles. Fast development got different forms cooperation. This was especially true of consumer cooperative institutions, which were closely connected with the countryside.
As already mentioned, a foreign element appeared in trade - concessions. This is the lease used during the years of the NEP to foreign tenants and small entrepreneurs of various firms and organizations. Already in 1926, 117 active concession agreements were counted. They covered enterprises that employed about 20 thousand people. This is 1% of the total number of products manufactured in Russia.
Concessions were not the only form of interaction with foreign enterprises. A stream of emigrant workers from all over the world went to the Soviet Union. A newly formed country with an unusual way of life, a utopian ideology and a complex form of government attracted foreigners. So, in 1922, the Russian-American Industrial Corporation (RAIK) was created, which included six clothing factories in Petrograd and four in Moscow. The credit system was revived. Until 1925, a number of specialized banks, joint-stock companies, syndicates, cooperatives, etc. appeared.
The situation, I must say, was amazing. The socialists who came to power were simply carried away by bourgeois governance, which is why they were criticized by the conservative part of the revolutionaries. However, the policy pursued was simply necessary. The devastation in the country required rapid changes, and they could only be ensured by proven, capitalist methods. But is it possible to say that a real market has been formed in the country? Let's try to figure it out further.
A pure market economy in the form in which we know it was absent in the USSR during the years of the NEP. This is an obvious fact, despite all the mechanisms and tricks that the Bolshevik government so often resorted to. The market cannot be built in a matter of days from scratch. And the country's economy was really "empty". The authorities achieved this phenomenon by aggressively imposing war communism. No matter how actively and effectively all those methods that marked the new years of the NEP were applied, a normal market was still not possible in the country.
In the late 1910s, monetary relations were abolished in the USSR. The majority of goods and services began to be dispensed free of charge. The Soviet government considered this decision painful, but correct. Radical measures supposedly will bring the soonest happy future, the flourishing of socialism will come. However, there was no happiness. The confusion with accumulated money and unsecured exchange only caused a wave of discontent. The state made concessions, and in order to improve the economy, a monetary reform was carried out - the first market mechanism.
In the early 1920s, gold coins were introduced in the country. It was equal to 5 US dollars and was backed by Russia's gold reserves. Appeared a little later National Bank, created on the principles of cost accounting and interested in receiving income from lending to industry, trade and agriculture.
The transition to the NEP meant the rejection of revolutionary, radical methods of economic management. The Soviet authorities realized the inefficiency of the reactionary policy and did not begin to torture their fellow citizens. However, there is no need to talk about the market either. The surrender of revolutionary powers, which was used during the years of the NEP, does not mean an active and desired transition to capitalism. On the contrary, the authorities were reluctant to introduce new liberal elements. The same concession could not do without strict supervision by the Soviet authorities.
Most historians argue that the introduction of new economic principles significantly changed the social structure and lifestyle of Soviet citizens. Colorful figures of the Soviet bourgeoisie appeared - the so-called Sovburs, Nepmen. These are the faces that define the specifics of that era. They seemed to be outside of society. Deprived of voting rights and membership in trade unions, while far from being poor, the Nepmen became a real reflection of the times of the 1920s.
Entrepreneurs felt the fragility and temporality of their position. Leaving the country was difficult and pointless. It would simply not work to manage an enterprise from a distance. The Soviet Union itself was a state with an unusual ideology: every person here should be equal, all the rich are despised. More recently, landowners and merchants were killed or expelled from the country. The Nepmen knew this, and therefore feared for their lives.
Fashion in the years of the NEP differed little from the American era of Prohibition. The photo below clearly demonstrates this.
How long can you hit the jackpot and earn on adventures? Where to put the spent savings and is it worth it at all? These questions were asked by every Soviet entrepreneur who made at least small forecasts in his head.
However, the emergence of entrepreneurs in the country most unadapted to this was not the only contradiction during the NEP years. The applied support for small lands, as well as the reduction of prosperous farms and the "mediumization" of the countryside, presented another interesting problem.
It all started with the policy of taxes - a kind of deterrent. Wealthy production stopped growing. Support for small farms has been especially developed. The so-called middle farming began - when each owner gets not a little and not a lot, but average. It was the middle peasants who became staunch adherents of power and traditional culture.
The policy was carried out by Lenin. He hoped for total peasant cooperation, while he was not too lazy to once again mention the voluntary nature of land divisions. What is the contradiction here? On the one hand, the state had a socialist orientation. It was supposed to force everyone to equalize. But the policy of the NEP, marked by bourgeois principles, did not allow this to be done. As a result, a very strange picture turned out: supposedly voluntary "average" with incomprehensible goals, which did not lead to anything at all. A little later, the Soviet authorities will abandon private property and announce the creation of collective farms.
The last contradiction of the NEP is the creation of an exorbitant bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has grown to incredible proportions due to the active intervention of the authorities in the industrial and production spheres. Already in 1921, about 2.5 million officials worked in state institutions. For comparison: in tsarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the number of civil servants hardly reached 180 thousand people. There is only one question: why does the state, whose ideology is aimed at the absence of any power, need such an extensive and cumbersome state apparatus? It is difficult to answer this question.
The question of in what year the NEP was officially abolished remains relevant to this day. Some talk about 1927, when there was a disruption in the state grain procurement. At that time, a huge amount of food stocks were confiscated from the kulaks. Other historians put forward a point of view about 1928, when the policy of a five-year development of the national economy was launched. The country's leadership then took a course towards collectivization and forced industrialization.
The NEP was not officially cancelled. It should be remembered that the principles of the New Economic Policy were shaped by Vladimir Lenin, who died in 1924. His rules worked even after death. Only on October 11, 1931, an official decree was adopted on the complete ban on private trade in the territory of the USSR.
What was the main success of the policy? Firstly, this is a partial restoration of the economy, destroyed during the two revolutions and the civil war. War communism was not able to "cure" the country, but it did so in part through the application of capitalist methods. Economic indicators doubled between 1913 and 1926. The country received capital-intensive, long-term investments. The situation remained contradictory only in the countryside, where pressure was exerted on the kulaks - wealthy peasants.
The undoubted successes of the New Economic Policy did not, however, solve all state problems. The sales crisis remained in force, the price scissors increased (the discrepancy between the cost of goods), and finally, the shortage of goods did not disappear.
The authorities had different views on solving the problem. The left, led by Trotsky, insisted on a dictatorship of industry. The tasks can be solved only by the efforts of the proletariat with minimal interference from the authorities. There were also rightists headed by Bukharin. They advocated the creation of cooperatives, the support of the peasantry and the development market economy. Bukharin's famous quote:
Get rich, accumulate, develop your economy! The socialism of the poor is lousy socialism.
Trotsky was defeated quite easily - at the January 1924 party conference, his project was removed from discussion. Bukharin, in turn, became friends with Stalin. In the late 1920s, he fell into disgrace due to contradictions with the current government - his arguments against collectivization and industrialization were simply not accepted.
Kievyan street, 16 0016 Armenia, Yerevan +374 11 233 255
Acceptance on X Congress of the RCP (b) the decision to replace the surplus with the tax in kind is the starting point in the transition from the policy of “war communism” to new system management, to the NEP.
V. I. Lenin and K. E. Voroshilov among the delegates of the X Congress of the RCP (b). 1921It is quite obvious that the introduction of a tax in kind is not the only characteristic of the NEP, which has become a definite feature for the Soviet country. system of political and economic measures carried out for nearly a decade. But these were the first steps, and taken very carefully. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of March 29, 1921 No. Was installed grain tax in the amount of 240 million poods (with an average harvest) instead of 423 million poods when apportioned in 1920.
Peasants were able to sell their surplus products on the market.
For V.I. For Lenin, as for all Bolsheviks, this entailed a profound revision of his own ideas about the incompatibility of socialism and private trade. Already in May 1921, 2 months after the Tenth Congress, the Tenth Extraordinary Party Conference was convened to discuss a new course. There could no longer be any doubts - the course, as Lenin clarified, was taken "in earnest and for a long time." This was " reformist” method of action, the rejection of the revolutionary Red Guard attack on capital, this was the “admission” to socialism of the elements of the capitalist economy.
For the formation of a market and the establishment of commodity exchange, it was necessary to revive the industry, to increase the output of its products. There have been radical changes in the management of industry. Trusts were created - associations of homogeneous or interconnected enterprises that received complete economic and financial independence, up to the right to issue long-term bonded loans. By the end of 1922, about 90% of industrial enterprises were united in trusts.
S.L. Frank, L.P. Karsavin; historians A.A. Kizevetter, S.P. Melgunov, A.V. Florovsky; economist B.D. Brutskus and others.
Particular emphasis is placed on the elimination Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties, in 1922 arrests became massive. By this time RCP (b) remained the only legal political party in the country.
The New Economic Policy combined two contradictory trends from the very beginning: one is to liberalize the economy, the other is to preserve the communist party's monopoly on power. These contradictions could not but see V.I. Lenin and other party leaders.
Established in the 20s. the NEP system, therefore, was supposed to contribute restoration and development of the national economy, which collapsed during the years of the imperialist and civil wars, but at the same time, this system initially contained internal inconsistency which inevitably led to deep crises directly arising from the nature and essence of NEP.
The first steps in the liberalization of the economy, the introduction of market relations contributed to the solution of the problem restoration of the national economy country devastated by civil war. A clear rise was indicated by the beginning of 1922. The implementation of the plan began GOELRO.
V.I.Lenin at the GOELRO map. VIII All-Russian Congress of Soviets. December 1920 Hood. L. Shmatko. 1957
From the state of devastation began to emerge railway transport, the movement of trains was restored throughout the country. By 1925, large-scale industry reached the level of 1913. The Nizhegorodskaya, Shaturskaya, Yaroslavskaya, and Volkhovskaya hydroelectric power stations were put into operation.
Start of the 1st stage of the Kashirskaya GRES. 1922
The Putilov machine-building plant in Petrograd, and then the Kharkov and Kolomna plants began to produce tractors, the Moscow AMO plant - trucks.
For the period 1921 - 1924. the gross output of large-scale state industry more than doubled.
Rising in agriculture. In 1921 - 1922. the state received 233 million poods of grain, in 1922-1923 - 429.6 million, in 1923-1924 - 397, in 1925-1926 - 496 million poods. State procurement of butter increased 3.1 times, eggs - 6 times.
The transition to a tax in kind improved the socio-political situation in the countryside. In the information reports of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), relating to the summer of 1921, it was reported: “Peasants everywhere increase the area of sowing, armed uprisings have subsided, the attitude of the peasants is changing in favor of the Soviet regime.”
But the first successes were prevented by extreme disasters that hit the main grain regions of the country. 25 provinces of the Volga, Don, North Caucasus and Ukraine were hit by a severe drought, which, in the conditions of the post-war food crisis, led to a famine that claimed about 6% of the population. The fight against hunger was conducted as a broad state campaign with the involvement of enterprises, organizations, the Red Army, international organizations (ARA, Mezhrabpom).
In the famine-stricken areas, martial law was maintained, introduced there during the years of the civil war, there was a real threat of revolts, and banditry intensified.
On the first plan a new problem emerges. The peasantry showed its dissatisfaction with the tax rate which turned out to be unbearable.
In the reports of the GPU for 1922 “On the political state of the Russian countryside”, the extremely negative impact of the tax in kind on financial situation peasants. The local authorities took drastic measures against the debtors up to and including reprisals. In some provinces, an inventory of property, arrests and trials were carried out. Such measures met with active resistance from the peasants. So, for example, the inhabitants of one of the villages of the Tver province shot a detachment of Red Army soldiers who arrived to levy a tax.
According to the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars "On a single tax in kind on agricultural products for 1922 - 1923." dated March 17, 1922, instead of a whole host of product taxes, single tax in kind, which assumed the unity of the salary sheet, pay periods and a common unit of calculation - a pood of rye.
AT May 1922 All-Russian Central Executive Committee accepted Basic Law on Labor Land Use, the content of which later, almost unchanged, formed the basis of the Land Code of the RSFSR, approved on October 30 and entered into force on December 1 of the same year. Within the framework of state ownership of land, confirmed by the code, the peasants were given the freedom to choose forms of land use, up to the organization of individual farms.
The development of individual farms in the countryside led to strengthening class stratification. As a result, small farms found themselves in a difficult situation. In 1922, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) began to receive information about the spread of the system of enslaving transactions in the countryside. This meant that the poor, in order to get a loan or inventory from the kulaks, were forced to pawn their crops “on the vine” for next to nothing. These phenomena are also the face of NEP in the countryside.
In general, the first years of NEP became a serious test of the new course, since the difficulties that arose were due not only to the consequences of a poor harvest in 1921, but also to the complexity of restructuring the entire system. economic relations in the country.
Spring 1922 erupted financial crisis directly related to the introduction of capitalist forms of economy.
Decrees of the Council of People's Commissars of 1921 on freedom of trade, on the denationalization of enterprises marked the rejection of the policy of "communist" distribution. So come back to life banknotes as an integral part of free enterprise and trade. As M. Bulgakov wrote, at the end of 1921, “trillionaires” appeared in Moscow, i.e. people who had trillions of rubles. Astronomical figures became a reality because it became possible to buy goods with them, but this opportunity was limited by the constant depreciation of the ruble, which naturally narrowed the possibilities of free trade and the market.
At this time, a new Nepman entrepreneur, the “Soviet capitalist”, also showed himself, who, in the conditions of a commodity shortage, inevitably became an ordinary dealer and speculator.
Strastnaya (now Pushkinskaya) Square. 1920s
IN AND. Lenin, evaluating the speculation, said that "the car breaks out of the hands, it does not go quite the way the one who sits at the helm of this car imagines."
The communists recognized that the old world had burst in with buying and selling, clerks, speculators - with what they had recently fought against. Problems were added with the state industry, which was removed from the state supply and, in fact, left without working capital. As a result, workers either replenished the army of the unemployed, or did not receive wages for several months.
The situation in the industry has seriously deteriorated. in 1923 - early 1924. when there was a sharp decline in growth industrial production which led, in turn, to the mass closure of enterprises, an increase in unemployment, the emergence of a strike movement that swept the whole country.
The reasons for the crisis that struck the country's economy in 1923 became the subject of discussion at XII Congress of the RCP (b) held in April 1923. “Price scissors crisis”- so they began to call him according to the famous diagram, which L.D. Trotsky, who spoke about that phenomenon, showed it to the congress delegates. The crisis was associated with a divergence in prices for industrial and agricultural goods (this was called “price scissors”). This happened because during the recovery period, the village was ahead in terms of the scale and pace of recovery. Handicraft and private production grew faster than large-scale industry. By the middle of 1923, agriculture was restored in relation to the pre-war level by 70%, and large-scale industry - by only 39%.
Discussion on the issue scissors” took place on October Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) in 1923, a decision was made to lower the prices of manufactured goods, which, of course, prevented the deepening of the crisis, which posed a serious threat of a social explosion in the country.
The entire socio-political crisis that hit the USSR in 1923 cannot be limited only by the narrow framework of the “price scissors” problem. Unfortunately, the problem was even more serious than it might seem at first glance. Serious conflict between government and people, who was dissatisfied with the policy of power, the policy of the Communist Party. Both the working class and the peasantry expressed their protest both in the form of passive resistance and active actions against the Soviet regime.
AT 1923. many provinces of the country were covered strike movements. In the reports of the OGPU “On the political state of the USSR”, a whole range of reasons were singled out: these are long-term delays in wages, low level, increasing production standards, downsizing, mass layoffs. The most acute disturbances took place at the textile enterprises of Moscow, at the metallurgical enterprises of the Urals, Primorye, Petrograd, at railway and water transport.
The year 1923 was also difficult for the peasantry. The defining moment in the mood of the peasantry was dissatisfaction with the excessively high level of the single tax and the "price scissors". In some areas of the Primorsky and Trans-Baikal provinces, in the Mountainous Republic (Northern Caucasus), the peasants generally refused to pay taxes. Many peasants were forced to sell their livestock and even implements in order to pay the tax. There was a threat of famine. In the Murmansk, Pskov, Arkhangelsk provinces, surrogates have already begun to be eaten: moss, fish bones, straw. Banditry has become a real threat (in Siberia, Transbaikalia, the North Caucasus, Ukraine).
The socio-economic and political crisis could not but affect the position of the party.
On October 8, 1923, Trotsky outlined his point of view on the causes of the crisis and ways out of it. Trotsky's conviction that "chaos comes from above," that the crisis is based on subjective causes, was shared by many heads of economic departments and organizations.
This position of Trotsky was condemned by the majority of the members of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), and then he turned to the masses of the party. December 11, 1923 in " Pravda Trotsky's "Letter to Party Conferences" was published, where he accused the party of bureaucratic transformation. For a whole month from mid-December 1923 to mid-January 1924, 2-3 pages of Pravda were filled with debatable articles and materials.
The difficulties that arose as NEP developed and deepened in the first half of the 1920s inevitably led to internal party disputes. The emerging “ left direction”, defended by Trotsky and his supporters, actually reflected disbelief of a certain part of the communists in the prospects for NEP in the country.
At the VIII All-Union Party Conference, the results of the discussion were summed up and a detailed resolution was adopted condemning Trotsky and his supporters for their petty-bourgeois deviation. The accusations of factionalism, anti-Bolshevism, revisions of Leninism shook his authority, became the beginning of the collapse of his political career.
AT 1923 in connection with Lenin's illness, there is a gradual process of concentration of power in the hands of the main " triplets” Central Committee: Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev. In order to rule out opposition within the Party in the future, the seventh point of the resolution "On the Unity of the Party", adopted at the Tenth Congress and until that time kept secret, was promulgated at the conference.
Farewell to V.I. Lenin. January 1924 Hood. S.Boim. 1952
While Lenin actually led the party, his authority in it was indisputable. Therefore, the struggle for power between representatives of the political currents that were emerging in connection with the transition to NEP could only have the character of hidden rivalry.
FROM 1922. when I.V. Stalin took office General Secretary of the RCP(b), he gradually placed his supporters in key positions in the party apparatus.
At the XIII Congress of the RCP (b) on May 23-31, 1924, two trends in the development of Soviet society were clearly noted: “one is capitalist, when capital accumulates at one pole, wage labor and poverty at the other; the other - through the most understandable, accessible forms of cooperation - to socialism.
FROM late 1924. the course starts facing the village”, elected by the party as a result of the increased dissatisfaction of the peasantry with the policy pursued, the emergence of mass demands for the creation of a peasant party (the so-called Peasant Union), which, unlike the RCP (b), would protect the interests of the peasants, resolve tax issues, and contribute to the deepening and expansion of private property in the countryside.
The developer and ideologist of the “village NEP” was N.I. Bukharin, who believed that it was necessary to move from a policy of tactical concessions to the peasantry to a stable course economic reforms because, as he said, "we have a NEP in the city, we have a NEP in relations between the city and the countryside, but we do not have a NEP in the countryside itself."
With the rationale for a new turn in economic policy in the village, Bukharin spoke April 17, 1925. at a meeting of the Moscow party activists, a week later this report in the form of an article was published in Pravda. It was in this report that Bukharin uttered the famous phrase, addressing the entire peasantry with an appeal: “ Get rich!”.
This course was put into practice at the April 1925 Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which stated that “together with the development of market relations in the countryside, as well as the strengthening of trade relations with the city and the external market, the strengthening of the bulk of the middle peasant farms with simultaneous growth (at least for the next few years) on one side of the prosperous strata of the countryside with the separation of capitalist elements (merchants) and on the other, farm laborers and the rural poor.
And in December 1925. took place XIV congress where the course was officially approved for the victory of socialism in the USSR.
The workers' delegations of Moscow and Donbass welcome the XIV Party Congress. Hood. Yu.Tsyganov
The congress called this “the main task of our Party” and emphasized that “there is an economic offensive of the proletariat on the basis of the New Economic Policy and the advance of the economy of the USSR towards socialism, and the state socialist industry is increasingly becoming the vanguard of the national economy”, therefore, “it is necessary to set the task of the victory of socialist economic forms over private capital.
In this way, XIV Congress of the RCP (b) became a kind frontier in the reorientation of the party's policy towards the strengthening of socialist principles in the economy.
Nevertheless, the beginning of the second half of the 1920s still took place under the sign of the preservation and development of NEP principles. But the grain procurement crisis in the winter of 1927-1928 created a real threat to plans for industrial construction, complicating the overall economic situation in the country.
In determining the fate of the NEP in the established economic conditions two groups of the country's political leadership clashed. The first - Bukharin, Rykov, Pyatakov, Tomsky, Smilga and other supporters of the active growth of agriculture, the deepening of the NEP in the countryside, lost the ideological battle to the other - Stalin and his supporters (Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, etc.), who by that time had achieved a majority in the political leadership of the country.
In January 1928, Stalin proposed to expand the construction of collective farms and state farms in order to stabilize grain procurements. Stalin's speech in July 1928, published only a few years later, emphasized that politics NEP has reached an impasse that the bitterness of the class struggle is due to the ever more desperate resistance of the capitalist elements, that the peasantry will have to spend money on the needs of industrialization.
Bukharin, in his own words, "was horrified" by the General Secretary's conclusions and tried to organize a controversy by publishing "Notes of an Economist" in Pravda on September 30, 1928, where he outlined economic program opposition (Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky constituted the so-called "right opposition"). The author of the article explained the crisis by errors in planning, pricing, unpreparedness of agricultural cooperation and advocated a return to economic and financial measures to influence the market under the NEP.
AT November 1928. The Plenum of the Central Committee unanimously condemned right bias”, and Bukharin, and Rykov, and Tomsky dissociated themselves from him, who were guided by the desire to preserve the unity of the party. In the same month, the party and state bodies decide on forcing collectivization processes.
In 1929, emergency measures were legalized in the Ukraine and the RSFSR to restrict the free sale of grain, the priority sale of grain under state obligations was established, and the policy of expropriating the merchant class as a class began to be implemented. The country is entering the first five-year plan, the plans of which provide for accelerated rates of industrialization and collectivization of the country. And in these plans already There is no place.
In the many years of struggle between socialist and market principles, victory was directed from above, the party leadership of the country, who made his final choice in favor of socialism.
However, attaching decisive importance to the subjective factor - the volitional actions of Stalin and his entourage, oriented towards accelerated socialist industrialization, cannot be the only explanation for the "death of NEP" in the USSR.
The actual practice of implementing this policy throughout the 20s. identifies and objective factor— i.e. those contradictions and crises that were inherent in the very nature of NEP. The interweaving of market and administrative command principles of management, maneuvering between the market and the directive economy led to a “turn” 1929. This year has become the end of the new economic policy carried out by the party and the government during the recovery period. There were undoubted successes at that time, and losses, and phenomena of stabilization, and internal crises. But the positive, constructive transformations of the 20s. undoubtedly connected with the more flexible strategy and tactics of the NEP compared to the policy of the total regime of the subsequent “Stalinist” decades.
transfer of state property (industrial and transport enterprises, shares, etc.) resulting from nationalization into private ownership. In June–July 1918, Komuch and Vr. Sib. pr-in, spreading influence on the department. districts U., 19 Aug. a similar declaration was made by Bp. region pr-in U. True, in otd. In cases where the interests of the state demanded it, the government retained the right to declare enterprises nat. property. Held 18-22 Oct. 1st Lv. trade-industrial The congress developed a program for the restoration of the capitalist order in industry. and bargaining., adopted a resolution on their D. After the White Guard coup in Omsk (11/18/1918), the allegiance to the previously put forward idea of D. was documented by Vseros. Produced by Admiral A.V. Kolchak. In the min-ve trade and prom. and other departments, work began on the preparation of legal documents substantiating the holding of D. In February. 1919 at the All-Russian. Admiral A.V. Kolchak’s pr-ve established the post of authorized representative for the D. of U. enterprises with a staff of employees. The implementation of D. in practice was, according to Ur. prom. to-ta, a very difficult task. Among the reasons that made it difficult for D. were the following: the absence of owners and members on the ground. boards large enterprises ; the need for large mat. expenses on the part of entrepreneurs restored in property rights to bring factories and factories into working condition; unresolved financial relations of the state. authorities and entrepreneurs, etc. Considering the existing difficulties, Ur. prom. To-t spoke in favor of the temporary preservation of enterprises in state jurisdiction through the authorized persons for the management of plants. According to Ch. Chief Ur. edge of S.S. Postnikov (April 1919), "D., even preparatory calculations, have not yet begun." There were only otd. the facts of the return of enterprises (mainly of little importance to the state) to their former owners. Naib. lat. the dimensions in the region of D. took on river transport. By May 20, 1919 in Perm. 81% of steam and 97% of non-steam ships were returned to private ownership in the district, in the Ufimsky district 36% and 46.5%, respectively. The slowness in resolving the issue of D. sometimes led to unauthorized actions by the former owners to restore their property rights. After the retreat of the Kolchak army. and restoration of owls. In the fall of 1919, the denationalized enterprises passed back into the hands of the state. However, the transition to the New Economic Policy in 1921 led to a new stage in D. Na ter. U. (together with Bashk.) was transferred into the hands of private entrepreneurs on a lease of approx. 200 enterprises, mainly cf. and small industrial With the adoption of the NEP owls. Authorities in the U. also allowed the lease of a number of heavy industry enterprises (Bilimbaevsky, Staroutkinsky, Nyazepetrovsky, Sysertsky, Ilyinsky plants, an iron foundry at Khrompik station, a mechanical workshop of the Kyshtymsky plant, a number of workshops of the Nizhny Tagil and Visimo- Utkinsky plant, etc.). A number of objects in the form of concessions were received by foreign capitalists. In 1921, A. Hammer's American concession for the extraction and processing of asbestos in the Alapaevsky District was organized as the first in Ukraine and in the country. An English gold industry emerged. concession "Lena Golfields Limited", Latvian concession of Strukovich for marble extraction in Polevskiy district. In total, 12 concession enterprises were operating in Ukraine in 1927. Cooperative private capitalist and concession sector in the factory-factory industry. W. in 1926-27 households. covered 22.2% in the main. small enterprises and gave only 7.3% of production. Number of workers they accounted for 5.2%, the volume of gross output - 10.5%. Thus, the U.D. during the period of the NEP was limited, and the private sector in the industry. has not been developed. Already in the spring of 1922, under the pretext of "manufacturing necessity", the Bilimbaevsky plant was taken from the tenants. Soon the same fate befell other leased enterprises in heavy industry, as well as concessions. In connection with the collapse of the NEP at the end of the 20s, the private sector was also liquidated in cf. and small industrial Introduced by willful way, the public sector became dominant in the industry. U.
Lit.: Bakunin A.V. Ural as a single industrial and economic region. Sverdlovsk, 1991; Feldman V.V. Restoration of the industry of the Urals (1921-1926). Sverdlovsk, 1989; Dmitriev N.I. A new approach to the problem of denationalization by the White Guard authorities of industry and transport in the East of Russia // Historical experience of the development of the eastern regions of Russia. Book 3. Vladivostok, 1993.
Bakunin A.V., Dmitriev N.I.
Encyclopedia of technology
Encyclopedia of Sociology
Glossary of legal terms
Reference commercial dictionary
Big Law Dictionary
Political science. Dictionary.
Glossary of business terms
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Modern Encyclopedia
Big encyclopedic dictionary
Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language
Dictionary Ozhegov
Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov
Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova
The rise of industry While in Moscow, I met with Tevosyan almost every day, who shared with me not only industrial and technical considerations, but also political ones. The pages of the newspapers were filled with reports of industrial successes. These
The Rise of Industry While in Moscow, I met with Tevosyan almost every day, who shared with me not only industrial and technical considerations, but also political ones. The pages of the newspapers were filled with reports of industrial successes. These
The Split of Industry At the heart of the plan of the Great Reforms lay the idea that their result would be the formation of conditions that would favor private initiative, push production, and stimulate the development of its branches. The reform focused on
Losses in industry The authors of the military literature of the victorious countries seek to justify the devastating air raids on Berlin by military necessity. Allegedly, the purpose of such strikes was to disable military enterprises located in the city.
§ 1. DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY INDUSTRIALIZATION: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONTRADICTIONS. By the end of the XIX century. Russia ranked fifth in the world in terms of industrial production. On average, in the second half of the 90s. more than 150 enterprises arose annually in the country. Industrialization
Transformations in industry The victory of the army would not have been possible without changes in the economy and industry. Before the war, iron was brought either from Sweden or from small factories in the Tula district built by the Dutch. But with the outbreak of the war, it was clearly not enough. To
The development of industry For some reason, the idea that the USSR was engaged in the mass export of equipment from German enterprises dominates in wide use. Some even agree to the assertion that almost all of the
The development of industry England XVI century. differed from other European countries in that the disintegration of feudal relations and the emergence of capitalist production took place in it more intensively, and not only in the city, but also in the countryside. This was the beginning of that process
The situation in the industry.
1.2. nationalization of industry Workers' control as the first step towards nationalization Spontaneous nationalization began on a large scale in the spring of 1918.
Denationalization of industry The resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) on May 14, 1921 provided for the permission of private initiative. But already the resolution of the X All-Russian
1.3. Reforms in Industry "Industrial" reformism was even more limited than "agrarian" reformism. Fearing possible unrest, the authorities abolished in the mid-1950s. a number of anti-worker measures, in particular, the attachment of workers to enterprises and severe penalties for being late for
Denationalization. Desovietization. Defederalization And now, at the moment of confusion and demoralization of people, the messiah appears, the apostle of the new deity of Russia Friedman - Professor Gavriil Kharitonovich Popov. Following Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky and Vladimir Ilyich
One of the problems in the history of the NEP, which is invariably in the field of view of domestic and foreign authors, is the question of its chronological boundaries. The conclusions reached by economists and historians on this issue are far from unambiguous.
Almost all domestic and foreign experts associate the beginning of the NEP with the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b), held in March 1921. Recently, however, attempts can be found to clarify the initial boundary of the NEP. In particular, it is proposed to consider that “Lenin's speech in March 1921 was a tactical step in order to get bread and bring down the heat of the insurgent war. This policy will become new only with the beginning of the introduction of cost accounting in industry, and especially after the full legalization of trade. Therefore, “the frontier of the NEP was not the 10th Party Congress, as traditionally stated in historiography, but reforms in the commercial and industrial sector. In the village, previously unrealized ... ideas were implemented, only refined in March 1921.
During the Soviet period, Russian historiography and economic literature postulated that the New Economic Policy continued until the complete victory of socialism. This point of view was formulated by I.V. Stalin. The "History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" stated that "the new economic policy was designed for the complete victory of the socialist forms of economy", and "the USSR entered a new period of development, the period of completion of the construction of a socialist society and a gradual transition to a communist society" with adoption of the Constitution of the USSR in 1936. Such an interpretation of the chronological boundaries of the NEP was also reflected in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which, in full accordance with the "Short Course" stated that the new economic policy "ended in the 2nd half of the 30s. victory of socialism in the USSR. This problem was treated similarly by Soviet political economists.
In the second half of the 1980s. conditions have arisen in our country for a comprehensive discussion of this problem and clarification of the chronological boundaries of the NEP. Some Russian researchers drew attention to the fact that the NEP was not a frozen economic policy, that it evolved and went through a number of stages in its development, characterized by important features and at the same time retaining common essential features.
So, V.P. Dmitrenko identifies the following as stages of the NEP:
1) spring of 1921 - spring of 1922 (transition to the NEP); 2) 1922-1923 (“ensuring close interaction of NEP methods of management” as a result of the monetary reform to overcome the “price scissors”); 3) 1924-1925 (expansion and streamlining of market relations while strengthening the planning principle in the management of state enterprises); 4) 1926-1928 (“ensuring the intensive expansion of the socialist sector and its complete victory over capitalism within the country”); 5) 1929-1932 (the final stage of the NEP, when the tasks of building the economic foundation of socialism were solved in the historically shortest possible time). M.P. Kim also adheres to the point of view according to which "the NEP exhausts itself ... in the early 30s - 1932-1933" . G.G. Bogomazov and V.M. Shav-shukov believe that the attack on the capitalist elements in the late 1920s. "did not cancel the new economic policy, on the contrary, it was carried out within the framework of the latter." From their point of view, 1928-1936. - “the second stage of the NEP”, “the stage of the expanded construction of socialism”.
This point of view has certain grounds, especially since J. V. Stalin at the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1930) said: still remain, “free” trade circulation still remains, but we will certainly cancel the initial stage of the NEP, deploying its subsequent stage, the current stage of the NEP, which is the last stage of the NEP.
Many Western, and now a number of Russian researchers adhere to the point of view, originally formed in foreign historiography, according to which the NEP lasted only until the first five-year plan, and was canceled with the onset of industrialization and collectivization.
So, in the early 1960s. the American Sovietologist N. Yasny, referring to the opinion of the Polish economist O. Lange, connected the end of the NEP with the XV Congress of the CPSU (b) (December 1927).
N. Werth states that the grain procurement crisis of 1927/28 prompted I.V. Stalin "to shift the emphasis from cooperation ... to the creation of "pillars of socialism" in the countryside - giant collective farms and machine and tractor stations (MTS)". According to this historian, "in the summer of 1928, Stalin no longer believed in the NEP, but he had not yet finally arrived at the idea of general collectivization." However, the November (1929) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which supported the postulate of I.V. Stalin about a radical change in the attitude of the peasantry towards the collective farms and approved the course for the accelerated development of industry, meant, according to N. Werth, "the end of the NEP".
R. Manting also writes that “in April 1929 the party formally approved the first five-year plan, which ... was carried out from October 1928. The plan meant the real end of the NEP; the market has been replaced. J. Boffa refers the process of "convulsive extinction" of the NEP to 1928-1929. The same conclusion is made in the works of A. Ball (USA), R.V. Davis (Great Britain), M. Mirsky, M. Harrison (Great Britain) and other authors.
Russian historians tend to a similar point of view in the works of recent decades. So, according to V.P. Danilov, the "breakdown" of the NEP took place in 1928-1929. E.G. Gimpelson states that "By the end of 1929, the NEP was over." V.A. Shestakov, one of the authors of a course on the history of Russia recently published by the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, also states that “a departure from the NEP began already in the mid-1920s,” and “the choice of forced industrialization meant the end of the NEP ...” .
Russian economists also agree with this position. So, O.R. Latsis believes that the economic policy towards the peasantry, which was based on Leninist principles, was pursued "until the end of 1927". V.E. Manevich also comes to the conclusion that “the credit reform of 1930 (together with the reorganization of industry management, tax reform) meant the final liquidation of the NEP, including its credit system, which was the core of economic regulation in the 20s. Of course, the NEP was not liquidated overnight, it was dismantled gradually in 1926-1929.” . According to G.G. Bogomazov and I.A. Blagikh, “curtailment and abandonment of the new economic policy” refers to the late 1920s - early 1930s, when a set of economic reforms was carried out that ensured the formation of an administrative-command system of management.
Obviously, the problem of periodization of the NEP continues to be debatable. But it is already clear that the conclusion of Western researchers about the "abolition" of the NEP in the late 1920s. with the transition to five-year planning and the collectivization of the peasantry is not without foundation.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that planning itself is not the antithesis of NEP. The State Planning Commission, as you know, was created in 1921. In the "classic" period of the NEP, our country carried out the first long-term plan - the GOELRO plan, and since 1925 unified national economic plans (control figures) were developed.
It should not be forgotten that even in 1932 the collective farms covered only 61.5% of the peasant farms. This means that the problem of the economic bond between the working class and the non-cooperative peasantry, ensured through the market, has still retained its relevance. However, in relations between city and countryside, as, indeed, in other spheres economic life, in the early 1930s. more and more influenced by the administrative-command system.
