As to whether or not the NEP was a humiliating reversal policy for Lenin solely depends on Lenin’s intentions for the economy after seizing power in October 1917. One of the main arguments that come across is that war communism was only implemented due to the current situation of civil war and so it wasn’t the intended policy at all but rather a short-term solution to fix the problems that they were facing. This is supported by Figes with “The introduction of War Communism was essentially a political response to the urban crisis of 1918” Figes is clearly referencing the civil war that was occurring during this period, with the Bolsheviks fighting against the white’s and any other enemies. This evidence is supported by the fact that the Bolsheviks
…show more content…
However this argument from Figes could be disputed as the government continued to take grain far beyond that of what was needed as between the years 1918 and 1921 requisition squads systematically terrorised the countryside for grain and any agriculture that they could find. As well as this, the government persisted in a brutal treatment of the kulaks; this is shown by Lenin in a letter of 1920, who gave instructions for 100 kulaks to be hanged in public in order to terrify the population. This suggests that if war communism was just a short-term measure then both Lenin and the government took it far beyond what was necessary and so this brings into question Figes’s statement. This evidence is supported by historian Vladimir Brovkin who suggests that the “NEP was never conceived of as a path to socialism but as a detour, as a temporary obstacle to overcome”. This does fit in with the Bolshevik ideology of going from state capitalism to the eventual objective of …show more content…
‘It was this kind of temporary retreat that Lenin affected by the New Economic Policy. ," and so it was necessary to make a temporary retreat to a secure rear”
This view then disagrees with Figes’s idea that NEP wasn’t a temporary retreat, instead opting for the opinion that War communism was the intended plan and that the country just wasn’t ready for it and so the NEP was a concession to help boost the economy so that once it had recovered from the effects of the civil war, a form of war communism could be implemented again. This view does come from the history of Soviet Union and so they are far more likely to give an opinion based on their own party’s viewpoint and ideology than suggesting that Lenin who was a key figure for the
However this argument from Figes could be disputed as the government continued to take grain far beyond that of what was needed as between the years 1918 and 1921 requisition squads systematically terrorised the countryside for grain and any agriculture that they could find. As well as this, the government persisted in a brutal treatment of the kulaks; this is shown by Lenin in a letter of 1920, who gave instructions for 100 kulaks to be hanged in public in order to terrify the population. This suggests that if war communism was just a short-term measure then both Lenin and the government took it far beyond what was necessary and so this brings into question Figes’s statement. This evidence is supported by historian Vladimir Brovkin who suggests that the “NEP was never conceived of as a path to socialism but as a detour, as a temporary obstacle to overcome”. This does fit in with the Bolshevik ideology of going from state capitalism to the eventual objective of …show more content…
‘It was this kind of temporary retreat that Lenin affected by the New Economic Policy. ," and so it was necessary to make a temporary retreat to a secure rear”
This view then disagrees with Figes’s idea that NEP wasn’t a temporary retreat, instead opting for the opinion that War communism was the intended plan and that the country just wasn’t ready for it and so the NEP was a concession to help boost the economy so that once it had recovered from the effects of the civil war, a form of war communism could be implemented again. This view does come from the history of Soviet Union and so they are far more likely to give an opinion based on their own party’s viewpoint and ideology than suggesting that Lenin who was a key figure for the