From the May 2023 Paper 3 IBDP HL History exam
Markscheme:
The question requires that candidates give a considered and balanced review of the importance of NEP to the survival of the Bolshevik regime. To agree with the statement, there may be discussion of the unpopularity of the Bolsheviks by the end of 1920. There was anger about the impact of War Communism, grain requisitioning and forced conscription into the Red Army. There were peasant revolts in many areas including the Tambov and Volga regions, strikes and unrest in Moscow and Petrograd and the Kronstadt Mutiny in February 1921. These events convinced Lenin that a change of direction was necessary even if only temporarily. NEP was a compromise ending grain requisitioning, allowing some private enterprise in industry and agriculture while the state retained control of the “commanding heights” of the economy. By the mid-1920s the economy had stabilised. Some may argue that the NEP reduced criticism to some extent but that it was the Cheka’s repression of other political parties (Mensheviks and SRs) and the establishment of the one-party state that ensured Bolshevik survival. Candidates’ opinions and conclusions will be clearly stated and supported by appropriate evidence.
I am most grateful to a former student who generously provided me with her actual exam which she paid the IBO to have returned to her. She received 7/15 for this essay; note that NOWHERE does the examiner write any comment other than 'seen' to justify either the grade or the amount of money paid to the IBO by students.
Student example written under exam conditions (click to enlarge):
In the maelstrom of post-Revolution Russia, the Bolshevik Party under Lenin's leadership found itself grappling with a constellation of economic, political, and social challenges. The New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921 marked a strategic retreat from War Communism, the implementation of which had left the country’s economy in shambles. Richard Pipes postulates that this policy shift, seen by many as an ideological compromise, was a calculated move on the part of the Bolsheviks to consolidate power, while waiting for the spark of international revolution.
The context in which the NEP was implemented is crucial for understanding its role in the survival of the Bolshevik regime. The Civil War had brought the economy to the brink of collapse, with industrial output falling to a meagre 20% of the pre-war levels, and a widespread famine decimating the rural population. As a response to these acute crises, the Bolsheviks sought to alleviate the burdens of War Communism through the introduction of the NEP. This policy, while allowing a degree of private enterprise and replacing the grain requisitioning system with a tax in kind, was aimed primarily at the recovery of agriculture and industry. By 1926, the NEP had spurred a significant recovery in the agricultural sector, with grain production reaching 92.2% of its pre-war levels. Pipes argues that the NEP, despite being contrary to Bolshevik ideology, was a necessity for ensuring the survival of the regime. The rationale behind this perspective is that the NEP successfully staved off potential peasant uprisings, thus providing the much-needed social stability. However, Robert Service takes a more nuanced view, suggesting that while the NEP contributed to economic recovery, it also represented "a de facto acceptance of class inequality" within the ostensibly classless socialist society. This re-emergence of social stratification laid the groundwork for future political challenges that the Bolsheviks would have to confront.
Whilst the economic rationale behind the NEP is quite apparent, its political implications are equally significant. By introducing the NEP, the Bolsheviks demonstrated a willingness to adapt their policies in response to changing circumstances. This flexibility was instrumental in ensuring their survival in the highly volatile post-war period. Sheila Fitzpatrick acknowledges that the NEP allowed the Bolsheviks to regroup and rebuild their political base after the extensive damage caused during the civil war. The policy shift resonated with the populace, who were eager for respite from the harsh measures of War Communism.
However, Fitzpatrick also notes the emergence of new social groups such as the Nepmen and the Kulaks, who posed a substantial threat to the Bolsheviks' socialist project. Alec Nove, on the other hand, contends that the benefits of the NEP were largely transient and that it engendered a number of long-term economic problems. He criticises the NEP for its lack of clear policy direction and for leading to a series of economic imbalances, setting the stage for the crises of the late 1920s. Nove's argument thus raises questions about whether the NEP did indeed ensure the long-term survival of the Bolshevik regime, or merely postponed an inevitable crisis.
Finally, one must consider that while the NEP played a significant role, it was not the sole factor that ensured the survival of the Bolshevik regime. The Leninist model of party leadership, the systematic suppression of opposition, the centralisation of power, and the effective deployment of propaganda all played a part in consolidating Bolshevik power. According to Orlando Figes, the Bolshevik regime survived not just due to the NEP, but due to the ruthless efficiency with which it clamped down on dissent and centralised power. As such, the NEP should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a larger strategy employed by the Bolsheviks to ensure their survival.
In conclusion, the introduction of the New Economic Policy undoubtedly contributed to the survival of the Bolshevik regime. It served as a pragmatic response to the economic crisis and played a key role in the political consolidation of Bolshevik power. However, while the NEP aided short-term survival, it inadvertently created conditions for long-term economic instability. Furthermore, it was not the only factor contributing to the durability of Bolshevik power; a host of other factors also played a crucial role. As such, while the NEP was important, it is equally important to contextualise it within the wider political, economic, and social strategies employed by the Bolsheviks during this period.
