AS History: “How far was the failure of the NEP the main cause of collectivisation?”

Any feedback on this essay I wrote would be very much appreciated

“How far was the failure of the NEP the main cause of collectivisation?”

The failure of the New Economic Policy marked the beginning of a new era for Soviet Russia. Collectivisation, a policy designed to transform small farms into larger, state-owned collective farms, replaced the economic doctrine because of an amalgamation of factors, including but not exclusive to: economic, ideological and political factors. The failure of the NEP was undoubtedly linked to many of these factors in an intricate way.

The autumn of 1926 saw a record grain harvest for Soviet Russia. The grain harvest for the subsequent years of 1927, 1928 and 1929, however, were much poorer. By 1928, the USSR was 20 million tons of grain short to feed the towns. This sudden scarcity in grain led to an increase in the price of agricultural products. Subsequently, the increase in the prices led to a decline in the standard of living amongst urban workers. The economic difficulties faced in this period extended also to the Soviet government: the decrease in grain surpluses had meant that they could not sell excess grain abroad in order to acquire foreign currency. This meant that there was less money for the industrialisation plans of Stalin and the Communist Party. The obvious economic difficulties-that stemmed from the NEP-that faced both the people and government of the Soviet Union led to the need for a new, more efficient policy. Thus, it can be asserted that the failure of the NEP in providing a stable economic environment served as a catalyst for change.

1.The fundamental capitalistic nature of the NEP was condemned by many of the Communist Party members. It was thought that collectivisation would be able to challenge the norms that had been created by the NEP. Under the NEP, the kulaks (richer peasants) and 2.the Nepmen (capitalist peasants who had benefited from the NEP) produced goods for themselves and for their own profits as opposed to for the good of the community. Communists, especially those on the leftwing of the Party, believed that collectivisation was essential if there were to be a fundamental transformation in the way capitalist peasants embraced socialism. 3. Thus, it can be asserted that the ideological shortcomings of the NEP and the conventions that came about because of the doctrine’s existence, led to a need for a new ideology that valued community and unity over profit.

Political factors played a substantial role in the failure of the NEP, and thus the establishment of collectivisation as an economic policy. Collectivisation was motivated by the struggle of Stalin against Bukharin (the prime advocate of the NEP) and the rightwing (Bukharin’s allies) Collective farming appealed to the leftwing because of the element of extremism that underpinned the economic system. The NEP‘s failure to appeal to the traditional, communist Party member had meant that many members denounced the policy as being akin to a system they despised: communism. Thus, the underlying nature of the NEP, for instance, the way the NEP encouraged profit (Nepmen), meant that the system was deemed as being inconsistent with Communism and thus in conflict with the aims of the Communist Party of the USSR.

The failure NEP triggered collectivisation via a mixture of factors, the most important being political. It can be argued, however, that despite the NEP being the main reason and catalyst for collectivisation, the failure of the NEP didn’t lead to collectivisation being introduced per se, rather the underlying nature of the system and its obvious political shortcomings. Collectivisation was not least an economic phenomena designed to modernize Soviet agriculture, 4.but it was also a means to establish Stalin's power a political leader. The NEP failed to enable Stalin to have the political stronghold which he desired.