‘Economic motives were the most important factor in the decision to abandon the New
Economic policy.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The New Economic Policy, created by Lenin in 1921, was a ‘temporary’ retreat to Capitalism in an
attempt to resolve the economic issues in Russia with some early success until 1928. The abandoning
of the policy lead to the ‘Great Turn’. As R.W. Davies claimed, the NEP saved the economy from
disaster in the beginning but had to be changed by the late 1920s because it could not provide the
framework for large-scale industrialisation. Although the declining economy was a serious factor,
Stalin had other significant motives including the consolidation of power, achieving stability for
Russia and gaining support from Marxists.
The poor economic state of the USSR was, to a moderate extent, an important factor in the
abandonment of Lenin’s ‘temporary measure’. This was because Stalin wanted to modernise Russia
by ending the reliance on the backward agriculture system in hope to increase grain supplies and
industrial output. Moreover, the downfall of the NEP can be seen by the smaller level of grain output
in 1927 than 1913 and in the late 1920s, exports dropped by a third of pre-1914 levels which hindered
the economy. Despite these obvious signs, Stalin did not introduce his Five-Year Plans as an
immediate response to the crisis, and this suggests that economic motives were a secondary factor in
his decision to abandon the New Economic Policy. Nevertheless, it is clear by Stalin’s slogan in his
1931 speech, ‘we are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries, we must make good this
distance in ten years’, that he believed the survival of Soviet Russia depended on the nation’s ability
to turn itself into a modern industrial country in the shortest time possible. This evidently implies that
Stalin had a desire to; catch up with the West’ especially after the NEP inhibited industrialisation.
However, this may be accentuated with Stalin’s fear of a foreseeable war and he knew that in order to
win a modern war, he would require a well-developed industrial base to manufacture weaponry and
ammunitions. Moreover, there were a number of factors that led to the Stalin’s fear of war in the late
1920s including the fractious relations with Britain after the Zinoviev letter culminated in the end of
diplomatic relations following a 1927 British police raid on a Soviet trade delegation and relations
with France and Poland deteriorated, and Russia feared Japanese intentions. This fear of invasion
evidently forms the main basis of Stalin’s motivation to abandon the malfunctioning economic policy,
because by improving the economy Russia would be more prepared for war and this would also
strengthen Stalin’s political authority.
Another significant factor in Stalin’s decision to abandon the New Economic Policy was his
underlying political motives. This is exemplified by Stalin’s role in the leadership battle in 1918 when
he coincidentally also decided to abandon the NEP and as this was the best way of confirming his
authority over the party and the government. Although, it was more likely that the policy was a result
of forced circumstances due to the grain procurement crisis in the winter of 1927 to 1928, where the
amount of grain purchased by the government was 25% less than the previous year. Therefore,
Stalin’s motives were more accurately accentuated with economical motives because of the decline in
output. Moreover, Stalin’s move towards more radical policies were the result of his power security
which clearly implies that Stalin’s motives were economical, and he saw this as more alarming than
fighting in a monopolised leadership battle. Furthermore, by 1928, the triumvirate and duumvirate had
disintegrated, giving Stalin full control and he had minimised Trotsky’s threat rather effortlessly as
Trotsky made no real opposition. This indicates that gaining further political power was not a
significantly important motive for Stalin’s decision to abandon the New Economic Policy. Regardless,
when Stalin introduced his radical economic changes, he claimed that they marked a significant stage
in Soviet communism as had Lenin’s fatal decision to sanction the October uprising in 1917. This
comparison was obviously intended to enhance his own status as a revolutionary leader following in
the footsteps of Lenin, however, it may not have been entirely political and may have been used to