Talk:New Economic Policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Russia | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Soviet Union | (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Economic Policy article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] "further reading"
why does this article contain two obvious propaganda books in the "further reading" section by a "Golitsyn, Anatoliy" ... "The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation"? even stranger, the other one seems to be about Perestroika, which hardly happened during the NEP era. I don't think books like these qualify for a supposedly neutral Wikipedia article?
-
- - Shok 45
Nobody has responded, and these books indeed are unrelated and have a clear anti-communist slant. Given that, I think it is fair to remove the two books now.
Spartan2600 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Second NEP
There was a second timespan when USSR again used NEP, and it again helped the economy. I don't know the exact years by memory and will be very busy for the next few weeks, too busy to look it up, but maybe someone out there already knows the dates or can look them up? This one should be simple to add (or at least link to) in the article. --Jeff
Hello --Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.117.24 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] silly sovietophobic bias
"Howeveytdsyatryetu vb u 3oov7 t wvuv iluavui lhfr... restored only to the 1913 level" Those deprecating pis me off. It was a hrough devastating WWI, Rusty Revolution, Civil War914-1922). Total chaos. And all recovered in only 6 years! ("only to 1909 level").
A related thing, an urban legend that bolsheviks destroyed Russia. Yes, they screwed it up, but later. In the beginning it was Tsar, who by entering WWI disrupted the economy immensely:
-
- removed frn for several years
- neveretheless had to be fed
- The economy turned into was gears, i.e., useless for population.
Food riots started without any bolshevik help. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC ů Èω
[edit] Response to "Silly Sovietophobic Bias"
It would be nice if you could find sources to backup your claims. It would be even nicer for you to spell words more correctly too. AWDRacer 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "...tried to regain alliances with foreign countries."
I have not found this as one of the motives in any of my research. I am not saying this is untrue, I just wish to know if anyone has a source for this.
[edit] Heavy Stalin-centric Bias
"[the NEP] highly unpopular with the strong Marxists in the Bolshevik"
Blatentlyy untrue. Even the left of the party supported the new economic policy. Even Preobrezhenskii's law of primitive socialist accumulation was based around the free market of the NEP, the same law which Stalin later plagerized and exaggerated when he spoke of demanding "tribute" from peasants because Russia had not any colonies.
"We are taking one step backward to later take two steps forward", suggesting that Stalin's five year plan was a fulfillment of Lenin's testament."
This completely ignores the body of work in Lenin's later years that stressed the fundimental importance of the smychka (on which the NEP was based) between the peasantry and the non-rural sector.
I took the liberty of removing the emphasis on the Stalinist myth of the nepmen as an explanation of the grain shortage.
Glaucon 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What about the Great Depression?
Did the Great Depression outside the Soviet Union force central planning from the inside. Former Soviet dissident Boris Kagarlitsky had this to say:
"Then in 1928-29, around the time when the great depression was starting, something happened that was not really noticed by historians for quite some time. In both Russian and western writing of history it was very difficult to consider that the fact that these two things were happening simultaneously was not simply an accident. They were not. I spent quite a lot of time studying the archives of the Soviet economy, which is now referred to as the Russian Government Archives of Economy (previously the People’s Economy Archives).
I discovered that the great depression was a huge setback for the whole Soviet industrialisation project, which was based on exporting grain and importing technologies in order to develop. This plan was destroyed by the great depression.
Secondly, the global crisis rapidly brought to the surface the many contradictions that were built into NEP, including the price gap between industrial and agricultural products. In this new situation, peasants simply stopped producing products that were least profitable within this price gap. For example, they started shifting from corn to potatoes, because corn was being sold on the international market and, although its price collapsed, the Bolshevik government was trying to get as much corn at the cheapest price possible as a way of compensating for the loss of the global market. The peasants simply shifted to potatoes which were not being sold internationally and this led to the famous ‘crisis of bread supply’, which saw not only insufficient bread production for export, but also for domestic consumption.
Reading the archives, it is clear how afraid the Soviet leadership was of the whole system falling apart. There was a real possibility of a complete decomposition of the Soviet state in the period of the great depression."
(http://www.aglob.ru/en/analysis/?id=596) Darth Sidious 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Left and Right?
My understanding of this topic is that it was the "right" faction (bukharin, etc) that championed the NEP, and it was the 'left' faction (Trotsky) who favored an immediate and rapid industrialization ("militarization of the working class" in the words of trotsky) and the realization of socialism. My suspicions are further raised by the lack of citations. If anyone else shares my understanding of this or has a different insight, clarificaton/joint research efforts would be appreciated. --Detruncate 06:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes the right of the party favoured the NEP whilst Trotsky and the Left Opposition wanted collectivisation and despised the capitalistic elements of the NEP. Wikipedia articles on Trotsky and the other principle actors explain this well. The article seems to have gotton its right and left wings of the Bolsheviks confused, and would make perfect sense as is by replacing "Right-wing" with "Left Opposition", which I will do. No good citations yet, the easiest way would be to raid the citations of the Trotsky and other Bolshevik history articles, which all seem to have good citations to online Marxist collections. 58.173.51.73 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Irrelevant material?
I have no access to the book but this sentence seemed entirely jarring and out of place. I've removed it in the hope that someone else knows whether it's conspiracist guff or factual. I'm challenging "Some people in the top echelons" if it was only an insignificant number or less than "top echelon".
Quoted removed material: "Some people in the top echelons of government were Buddhists or involved with spiritual organizations such as the Masons and Rosicrucians."[1]
JohnHarris (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
the more I read this article, the more I got an ominous feeling that there was some strategic politicizing being done, especially in the "Policies of NEP" section. Sure enough, I look down and find three Mises.org (via the "The Journal of Libertarian Studies") citations, hardly a neutral source. I think any reliance on Mises.org needs to be removed wholesale. Mises.org has a clear anti-marxist, anti-communist agenda.
Two especially bad sections;
"Under the NEP, the state moved away from Communist ideals and embraced a more liberal approach to modernizing the economy. The Soviet state abandoned the idea of nationalizing particular industries. The Soviet government reformed the private sector under the NEP and severely cut the central government budget. The Soviet Union under the NEP welcomed foreign investment, notably from Western nations, in order to fund industrial and developmental projects."
"The Bolsheviks’ view towards village life was dismal. The old way of village life was reminiscent of the Tsarist Russia that had been thrown out with the October Revolution. With the NEP, which sought to repudiate the “old ways,” methods were set in placed which promoted peasants to pursue their self-interests. However, the state only allowed private landholdings because the idea of collectivized farming was met with much opposition."
The absolute worst is "The Bolsheviks’ view towards village life was dismal." That is not a statement of fact, it is a value judgment. It doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia unless it is a quote from a relevant individual in a relevant article.
Much of this article has been written with some sort of American-Libertarian/Capitalist bias. I'm not an expert on the NEP, but the un-academic and biased nature of this article is obvious. Spartan2600 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reading more I found this outrageous bit, the last part is the most ridiculous.
"The New Economic Policy essentially embodied a move away from the true ideals of communism. The fact that it was tainted by capitalistic principles angered many Soviet statesmen. More importantly, the leaders’ problems with the new system reflected a daunting belief that maybe true communism could never exist and that maybe, capitalism was the only economic system that could work effectively." Spartan2600 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan2600 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
