You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in March 1921 marked a dramatic shift in Bolshevik economic strategy. Lenin himself described it as 'one step back in order to take two steps forward' — a strategic retreat from War Communism designed to save the revolution from internal collapse after the famine, the peasant revolts and the shock of Kronstadt. The NEP period also saw Lenin's declining health, his increasingly anxious reflections on the future of the revolution, and his death on 21 January 1924 — an event that opened the most consequential power struggle in Soviet history.
The lesson therefore yokes two great themes — the mixed economy of the NEP and the succession to Lenin — and behind both lies the deepest interpretive question of the whole Part One: how far was Lenin responsible for what came after him? The institutions he built (the one-party state, the Cheka, the ban on factions) and the writings he left (above all the Testament) are the materials from which the continuity-versus-discontinuity debate is constructed, and they make this an ideal lesson for training the AO2 source-evaluation skill alongside the AO3 habit of weighing historians.
Key Question: Was the NEP a viable long-term path for the Soviet economy or merely a temporary retreat — and was Lenin ultimately responsible for the rise of Stalin and Stalinism?
Key Definition: NEP (New Economic Policy) — Lenin's economic policy of 1921–28, which replaced grain requisitioning with a tax in kind, permitted private trade and small-scale private enterprise, and introduced a stable currency, while keeping large-scale industry, banking, transport and foreign trade ('the commanding heights') under state control. It was a deliberate, partial retreat from the attempt to build communism directly, in favour of a state-supervised mixed economy.
This lesson closes the first half of Component 2N, Part One ('The Russian Revolution and the Rise of Stalin, 1917–1929'), within a Paper 2 DEPTH study. It is the hinge between Lenin's regime and Stalin's: the NEP frames the economic debates of the 1920s, while Lenin's death and Testament set the terms of the succession struggle examined in the next lesson. A depth study rewards granular command of the detail — the features and results of the NEP, the Scissors Crisis, the ban on factions, the strokes and the Testament's actual judgements — deployed to sustain argument.
In Assessment Objective terms, AO1 (knowledge deployed to analyse and judge) carries the greatest weight and dominates Section B, where questions ask how successful the NEP was or how far Lenin was responsible for Stalinism. AO2 — the evaluation of primary sources in context — is the headline skill of Section A, and this period offers superb material: Lenin's Testament, the resolution 'On Party Unity', NEP-era economic data, Pravda polemics. AO3 (historians' interpretations) is examined directly in other components but is a transferable habit, and the continuity debate (Carr, Pipes, Service, Lewin) sharpens the judgement Section B demands. Note that AQA 7042 has no Paper 3: 'Section A' and 'Section B' are the two halves of this Paper 2. Frame your analysis with change and continuity (Lenin to Stalin), causation and the relative significance of factors.
By early 1921, the Soviet regime faced a comprehensive crisis:
| Problem | Detail |
|---|---|
| Economic collapse | Industrial output at 20% of 1913 levels; agricultural production at approximately 60% |
| Famine | The famine of 1921–22 killed an estimated 5 million people, particularly in the Volga region |
| Peasant revolts | The Tambov Rebellion (1920–21) and numerous other uprisings demonstrated peasant fury at grain requisitioning |
| Worker strikes | Even the urban working class — the Bolsheviks' supposed base — was striking against the regime |
| Kronstadt | The rebellion of loyal revolutionary sailors was the ultimate warning signal |
Lenin recognised that War Communism had failed. At the Tenth Party Congress (March 1921), he argued that the survival of the revolution required economic concessions to the peasantry.
The retreat was deeply uncomfortable for a party of revolutionaries: legalising private trade and a prosperous peasantry seemed to reverse the very gains of October. Lenin framed it not as a defeat but as a tactical necessity — the worker–peasant alliance (smychka) had to be repaired or the regime would fall — and he insisted the economic concession would be matched, at the very same Congress, by a tightening of party discipline.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tax in kind | Grain requisitioning was replaced by a fixed proportional tax; peasants could sell their surplus on the open market |
| Private trade | Small-scale private enterprise and trade were legalised |
| Small businesses | Private enterprises employing fewer than 20 workers were permitted |
| State control of 'commanding heights' | Large-scale industry, banking, foreign trade, and transport remained under state ownership |
| Stable currency | The gold-backed chervonets was introduced in 1922, stabilising the monetary system |
| Foreign concessions | Limited foreign investment was encouraged |
Successes:
Problems:
Exam Tip: The NEP raises a fundamental analytical question: was it a viable long-term economic strategy or merely a temporary breathing space? If the NEP could have continued successfully, then Stalin's forced industrialisation was an unnecessary catastrophe. If the NEP was inherently unsustainable, then some form of radical change was inevitable. The strongest answers will engage with both sides of this debate.
The political and psychological costs of the NEP mattered as much as its economic results. For a party that had seized power to abolish capitalism, the spectacle of the Nepmen — private traders, often flamboyantly prosperous — and of grain-hoarding kulaks felt like a humiliating ideological surrender. Idealistic Communists, and especially the rank-and-file who had fought the civil war, asked openly what the revolution had been for if speculators were now to flourish. This unease was not mere sentiment: it fed directly into the politics of the succession, because the question of how long the NEP should last, and how fast industrialisation should proceed, became the central battleground between the Left (which wanted to squeeze the peasantry to fund industry) and the Right (which wanted to preserve the smychka and let the NEP mature). The NEP, in other words, was never a settled policy but a permanent argument — and whoever won the argument would reshape the Soviet economy. It also created social tensions the regime distrusted: a revival of private wealth and a degree of cultural relaxation sat awkwardly with a party committed to proletarian dictatorship, and many Bolsheviks longed to bring the experiment to an end.
The Scissors Crisis was named by Trotsky because the diverging price curves resembled an open pair of scissors:
The crisis was eventually resolved through price controls and improved industrial efficiency, but it demonstrated the fragility of the mixed economy and fuelled the debate between those who wanted to continue the NEP and those who demanded rapid industrialisation.
Alongside the NEP, the Tenth Party Congress also introduced the ban on factions — a decision with enormous long-term consequences:
The historian E.H. Carr argues that the ban on factions was 'the logical culmination of Lenin's conception of the party' — a disciplined vanguard that could not tolerate internal dissent. The deep irony is that a measure Lenin intended as a temporary response to the crisis of 1921 became one of the most durable and consequential features of the Soviet system. By making organised dissent inside the party illegitimate, it removed the only arena in which Stalin's growing power might have been checked through open opposition; any rival who built a platform could now be condemned as a 'factionalist' and expelled. The ban thus connects the NEP directly to the succession: the economic argument of the 1920s had to be fought without the legitimate factional organisation that might have let the losers survive, which is exactly why control of the party apparatus — Stalin's domain as General Secretary — became decisive. It is, for the continuity debate, perhaps the single strongest piece of evidence that Lenin built the cage in which his successors would be trapped.
Lenin's last two years were a race between his failing body and his growing alarm at the state he had created. Incapacitated by a sequence of strokes, he used his lucid intervals to dictate a series of notes and articles that amount to a partial recantation — warnings about bureaucracy, about Great Russian chauvinism, and above all about Stalin. Whether these late writings represent a genuine turn away from the dictatorship he had built, or merely tactical anxiety about who should wield it, is one of the keys to the whole legacy debate.
Lenin suffered a series of strokes:
In dictated notes that became known as his 'Testament', Lenin assessed the party leadership:
| Leader | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Stalin | 'Has concentrated enormous power in his hands, and I am not certain he will always use that power with sufficient caution' |
| Trotsky | 'The most able man in the present Central Committee' but guilty of 'excessive self-confidence' |
| Zinoviev and Kamenev | Their opposition to the October Revolution 'was not accidental' |
| Bukharin | 'The most valuable and biggest theoretician in the party' but 'his theoretical views can only with the very greatest doubt be regarded as fully Marxist' |
In a crucial postscript (January 1923), Lenin explicitly called for Stalin's removal: 'Stalin is too rude, and this defect... becomes intolerable in the office of General Secretary. I therefore propose to the comrades that they find a way of removing Stalin from that post.'
Lenin's final political battle was over Georgia, where Stalin (himself a Georgian) had used brutal methods to incorporate the independent Georgian Soviet Republic into the USSR:
The historian Moshe Lewin argues that the Georgian affair reveals Lenin's growing alarm about 'the danger of Great Russian chauvinism within the party' and his belated recognition that Stalin represented a threat to the revolution's values.
After Lenin's death, his body was embalmed and placed in a mausoleum on Red Square — against the wishes of his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, who wanted a simple burial.
The cult of Lenin was primarily a creation of Stalin, who used it to:
Key Definition: Leninism — the body of political theory attributed to Lenin, as systematised and interpreted primarily by Stalin. It emphasised the role of the vanguard party, democratic centralism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the alliance of workers and peasants. In practice, 'Leninism' became whatever the current party leadership said it was.
Lenin's death opened a power struggle that would determine the future of the Soviet Union. The key dynamics were already in place, and a crucial point of analysis is that the contest was never simply a personality clash: each contender was associated with a policy — above all a position on the future of the NEP and the pace of industrialisation — so the struggle for the succession was simultaneously a struggle over the direction of the Soviet economy and state. The contenders entered the contest with very different resources, and the table below makes clear why Stalin's apparently dull bureaucratic base would prove the most powerful asset of all.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.