 The End of NEPAlec Nove
Chapter 6 in Studies in Economics and Russia, 1990, pp 80-89 from Palgrave Macmillan Abstract: Abstract ‘That which Lenin introduced “seriously and for a long time” did not last at all long. Stalin liquidated NEP, while pretending to be following Lenin’s precepts.’ This is how Anatoli Rybakov summarizes a view also widely held by Western scholars.2 There is another view, also widely held, that, on the contrary, NEP was seen all along as a temporary manoeuvre, and that Stalin, in ending it, was continuing Lenin’s work. Then there is what could be called the ‘Bukharinistalternative’ school, which speculates on what could have happened if there were a Bukharin-Rykov leadership, which would have pursued a (slower tempo) industrialization strategy on the basis of a continuing NEP. One must also look to Trotsky and the ‘Left Opposition’: did they have an alternative policy, and is it correct to see Stalin, in 1928, stealing their clothes? Finally, there is what could be called the pragmatic view: that Stalin was driven into ending NEP by a series of unforeseen crises, which rendered its continuance increasingly difficult. This last view approximates to that of E. H. Carr. Keywords: Price Policy; Private Activity; Pragmatic View; Rail Freight; Industrialization Strategy (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-1-349-10991-3_6 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-10991-3_6 Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.