You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
By the spring of 1921 the Bolsheviks had won the civil war and lost the country. The economy lay in ruins, a catastrophic famine was gathering in the Volga, peasant revolts blazed across the countryside, and the mutiny at Kronstadt had shown that even the regime's own base had turned against it. Out of this comprehensive crisis came the great pivot of the early Soviet period: the abandonment of War Communism and the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP), Lenin's "strategic retreat" toward a state-supervised mixed economy. These same years saw the formal creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the tightening of party discipline through the ban on factions, and — as Lenin's health collapsed in a sequence of strokes — his anxious final writings and his death in January 1924, which opened the struggle for the succession.
This lesson yokes together the economics of the NEP and the making of the new state, and behind both lies the deepest interpretive question of the whole course: 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 raw materials of the continuity-versus-discontinuity debate, and they make this an ideal lesson for training the AO2 source-evaluation skill alongside the habit of weighing historians.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 2, Option 2C.2 (Route C depth study): "Russia in revolution, 1894–1924." A depth study rewards close, granular analysis, so command of the precise detail — the features and results of the NEP, the Scissors Crisis, the resolution "On Party Unity," the formation of the USSR, and the actual judgements of Lenin's Testament — is essential. Within our own teaching sequence this lesson is the hinge on which the whole course turns toward its close: the NEP frames the economic argument of the 1920s, while Lenin's death and Testament set the terms of the succession that the story of the revolution ultimately runs into.
Because this is a depth study, examiners reward detail used to sustain argument. For the exact assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.
By early 1921 the Soviet regime faced a comprehensive crisis that threatened its very survival.
| Problem | Detail |
|---|---|
| Economic collapse | Industrial output had fallen to roughly a fifth of 1913 levels; agricultural production was around 60 per cent |
| Famine | The famine of 1921–22, worst in the Volga region, killed an estimated five million people; only large-scale American relief (the American Relief Administration under Hoover) prevented an even greater catastrophe |
| Peasant revolts | The Tambov rising (1920–21) under Antonov, and countless other uprisings, tied down tens of thousands of Red Army troops and expressed peasant fury at requisitioning |
| Worker unrest | Even the urban working class — the regime's supposed base — was striking, and workers were fleeing the famished cities for the countryside |
| Kronstadt | The rebellion of March 1921, by sailors who had helped make October, was the ultimate warning that the regime's core support had cracked |
Lenin drew the conclusion that War Communism, far from being a deliberate march to communism, had become an emergency improvisation that was now driving the regime toward destruction. At the Tenth Party Congress in March 1921 — the same congress that crushed Kronstadt and banned factions — he introduced the NEP as a strategic retreat, characterised in his own phrase as taking "one step back in order to take two steps forward." 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 (the smychka) had to be repaired or the regime would fall.
The NEP replaced the coercion of War Communism with a controlled use of market mechanisms, while keeping the levers of power in state hands.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Tax in kind | Grain requisitioning was replaced by the prodnalog, a fixed proportional tax; peasants could sell their surplus on the open market, and from 1924 the tax was levied in money |
| Private trade legalised | Small-scale private trade and enterprise were permitted; the private retailers known as Nepmen came to dominate much consumer trade |
| Small businesses | Private enterprises employing fewer than 20 workers were allowed |
| The "commanding heights" | The state retained large-scale industry, banking, transport and foreign trade — Lenin insisted the regime kept the levers that mattered |
| A stable currency | The gold-backed chervonets was introduced in 1922, taming the hyperinflation of the civil-war years |
| Foreign concessions | Limited foreign investment was encouraged, though in practice these concessions remained small |
The results were a mixed but largely positive recovery. The peasant economy, freed from requisitioning, revived quickly; the recovery of large-scale industry was slower, because ruined heavy industry could not simply be willed back into life.
Successes. Agricultural production recovered to roughly pre-war levels by 1926, and industry reached approximately 1913 levels by 1926–27. The famine ended and the cities were fed again. Consumer goods reappeared in the shops, and a class of prosperous peasants and traders emerged. Social stability returned, and — most important of all to the leadership — the regime's survival was secured.
Problems. The recovery had serious limits and generated serious tensions:
The political and psychological costs mattered as much as the economics. The NEP was never a settled policy but a permanent argument, because the question of how long it should last, and how fast industrialisation should proceed, became the central battleground of the succession struggle — between a Left that wanted to squeeze the peasantry to fund industry and a Right that wanted to preserve the smychka and let the NEP mature. Whoever won that argument would reshape the Soviet economy.
This is why the debate over the NEP's viability is so central to the whole course. If the NEP could have continued successfully, then the forced industrialisation and collectivisation that followed appear as an unnecessary catastrophe, a road the regime chose rather than one it was compelled to take. If, on the other hand, the NEP was inherently unsustainable — locked into a structural contradiction between an inefficient planned industry and a market-driven peasantry — then some form of radical change was already on the agenda, and the only real question was how brutal it would be. Within the years to 1924 the tension was still latent rather than acute: the "restoration" boom was under way, output was climbing back toward pre-war levels, and the leadership was broadly united behind the retreat. But the fault-lines were already visible in the Scissors Crisis, and they would harden into the decisive political division of the later 1920s. The strongest answers hold both possibilities in view rather than assuming the NEP was doomed or that it could have lasted indefinitely.
The economic retreat of 1921 was matched, at the very same congress, by a tightening of political control. Two developments of these years gave the Soviet state its enduring shape.
Alongside the NEP, the Tenth Party Congress passed the resolution "On Party Unity," which prohibited the formation of organised groups with separate platforms inside the party.
E. H. Carr characterised the ban as 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 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 inner-party dissent illegitimate, it removed the one arena in which a future leader's power might have been checked through open opposition. For the continuity debate it is perhaps the single strongest piece of evidence that Lenin built the cage in which his successors would be trapped.
The civil war had left the Bolsheviks ruling a patchwork of nominally independent soviet republics — the Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Transcaucasian. In December 1922 these were bound together by treaty into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, given formal constitutional shape in the Soviet constitution ratified in 1924, shortly after Lenin's death.
The gap between the federal constitution's promise of national equality and the reality of centralised party control is itself a key analytical theme, and a standing example of how Soviet institutions combined a liberal-looking form with an authoritarian substance.
Lenin's last two years were a race between his failing body and his growing alarm at the state he had created. A first stroke in May 1922 was followed by a second in December 1922 and a third in March 1923 that robbed him of speech; he died on 21 January 1924. His incapacity from 1922 meant that the contest for the succession began while he was still alive but increasingly unable to control it. In his lucid intervals he dictated a series of notes and articles — warnings about bureaucracy, about "Great Russian chauvinism," and above all about Stalin — that amount to a partial recantation of the system he had built.
The most important of these was the so-called Testament (dictated December 1922 – January 1923), in which Lenin assessed the leading Bolsheviks and warned against a split between Trotsky and Stalin.
| Leader | Lenin's assessment (paraphrased) |
|---|---|
| Stalin | Had concentrated enormous power in his hands as General Secretary, and Lenin doubted he would always use it with sufficient caution |
| Trotsky | The most able man in the Central Committee, but marked by excessive self-confidence and an over-administrative cast of mind |
| Zinoviev and Kamenev | Their opposition to the October Revolution "was not accidental" — a pointed reminder of their wavering in 1917 |
| Bukharin | The party's most valuable theoretician, but with views whose fully Marxist character Lenin thought open to doubt |
In a crucial postscript of January 1923, prompted partly by Stalin's rudeness to Lenin's wife Krupskaya and by the Georgian affair, Lenin went further and explicitly proposed that the comrades find a way of removing Stalin from the post of General Secretary, on the ground that he was too rude for so powerful an office.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.