To what extent did the New Economic Policy (NEP) compromise the Communist Party’s ideology?
New Economic Policy undoubtedly compromised the Communist Party's ideology, as espoused by Lenin in 1917. However, it did was not necessarily contradict the principles of Marxism, as Lenin acknowledged towards the end of his life.
· Marx argued that capitalism would be overthrown by a workers’ revolution, once industrialisation was complete. It would be replaced by socialism.
· When they came to power, the Bolsheviks had no idea how to achieve socialism. Hence, they were forced to make decisions which compromised their ideology.
· When civil war broke out in 1918, Lenin introduced War Communism, but this only succeeded in ruining the economy. By 1921, he retreated to a hybrid system known as New Economic Policy (NEP).
· NEP combined elements of socialism with capitalism. The state retained the largest enterprises (and ran them according to market principles), but the rest were either privatised or leased out.
· The main thrust of NEP was to raise agricultural production, so peasants were given incentives to produce. They had to give 10 percent of their output to the government, but could sell the rest on the market.
· NEP did represent a retreat from Bolshevik ideology. However, it was also quite compatible with Marxist theory, since Russia had not completed its capitalist stage.
· In 1917, Lenin believed Russia was still ripe for Marxist-style revolution, and could complete its industrialisation once a socialist system was in place, but the experiences of War Communism convinced him that this was not so. Some vestiges of capitalism would have to be restored, if the economy was to revive.
· Initially, Lenin saw NEP as a temporary measure while the Bolsheviks developed long term plans to achieve socialism. However, by the end of his life, he had begun to see it as a valid route to socialism – something which might take decades to achieve.
Hence, it can be seen that while NEP did indeed contradict the socialist principles Lenin and his colleagues espoused, it was not necessarily the wrong path for a Marxist party to pursue in Russia at that nation’s stage of development.