The latter had to reduce the profits of trade capital, and the unions – the profits of industrialists.

The latter had to reduce the profits of trade capital, and the unions – the profits of industrialists.

The export of bread was accompanied by requisitions, violence against the peasantry, and terror against the Ukrainian countryside.

The Bolsheviks established control over Ukraine with the help of very attractive slogans: “Factories – workers” “Land – the peasants.” However, a course was soon announced for the “rapid, decisive, and firm realization of the economic dictatorship of the proletariat …” Which provided for the abolition of commodity-money relations and the introduction of direct product exchange. Extensive nationalization of industry, trade, and transport was launched. During 1920, more than 2,000 enterprises were nationalized in Ukraine. It is noteworthy that state-owned enterprises, as a rule, did not operate in conditions of destruction. Hundreds of thousands of workers lost their jobs and were forced to leave for the countryside.

The food policy of the Soviet government was anti-people in nature. At the end of February 1920, the Soviet People’s Commissar of the USSR passed a law on grain distribution, which was to provide the labor centers of Russia and Ukraine, the army, and hundreds of thousands of Soviet employees with food. Special food detachments were created. In order to strengthen them, almost 15,000 workers, including more than 2,000 members of the Bolshevik Party, were mobilized to the pro-detachments. In the summer of 1920, the task of prodrozverstki was assigned to the 1st cavalry army of S. Budyonny, which was transferred to the Soviet-Polish front. However, the peasantry refused to hand over bread, and by July 1920 the general food distribution plan, which to 153 million poods of bread, had been fulfilled by only 10%.

Mass dissatisfaction with Bolshevik policy, especially in the agrarian sphere, where can i write an lab report online erupted in the country, threatening the existence of Soviet power.

New economic policy. The economic and socio-political crisis of 1921 forced the Bolshevik leadership to urgently reconsider economic policy, especially with regard to the peasantry. In the spring of 1921, Lenin succeeded in convincing the party leadership of the need to change economic policy.

The main components of the NEP were:

restoration of trade and commodity-money relations; introduction of a stable currency, giving it convertibility; private trade permit; denationalization of medium and small enterprises, their return to their old owners; introduction of economic calculation at enterprises (the right to sell over-the-counter products); permission of foreign concessions; restoration of material incentives for production, development of cooperation and lease; reduction of state intervention in the economy; replacement of prodrozverstki by the advance tax.

The NEP was to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik regime in conditions of international isolation and mass demonstrations.

In agriculture, the NEP provided for a whole system of measures, the most important of which was the replacement of prodrozverstki by the tax. The size of the advance tax was determined on the eve of sowing and was twice less than the size of the food tax provided for 1921. Peasants were allowed to sell surplus produce on the market, organize into cooperatives, as well as rent land and use hired labor.

In industry, the NEP provided for the return of small and medium enterprises to their owners, the decentralization of industrial management. Enterprises could unite in trusts. Compulsory labor was abolished, and conditions were created for the formation of the labor market. The industry also allowed the use of hired labor and rent. During the new economic policy, foreign capital was attracted through the creation of concessions and joint ventures.

In the field of trade, conditions were created for the development of its three forms: private, state and cooperative, and fairs were organized.

In 1922-1924, a new currency was introduced – the ruble, which was equal to 10 gold rubles, became convertible and contributed to the recovery of the economy as a whole.

A unified system of taxes was introduced, savings banks and the Savings Bank were created. The policy of the NEP was perceived ambiguously in Ukraine. So. It is known that some figures of the Communist Party of Ukraine opposed the replacement of prodrozverstki with a tax.

Despite this, a new economic policy began to be introduced in Ukraine. From 1923, the hard-working Ukrainian peasantry began to rapidly increase labor productivity on their farms. In 1927, Ukraine cultivated more land than in 1913 by 10%, and grain production in 1925 reached pre-war levels.

The NEP contributed to the development of the cooperative movement. A single system of cooperation was formed: consumer, agricultural, credit, production. It contributed to increased productivity, procurement and marketing, effective lending to farms.

In the conditions of the NEP, the branches of light and food industries and the production of consumer goods reached the pre-war level. However, most heavy industries lagged behind, which, like transport and communications, were under state control.

The results and meanings of the NEP are quite contradictory and ambiguous. Thanks to him, the economy was destroyed, destroyed during the war. Industrial and agricultural production increased, trade and trade revived, and social tensions were lifted. But at the same time with positive results, the new economic policy has caused many contradictions. Foreign trade became exclusively a state monopoly. All large enterprises remained state-owned. The discrepancy between the ideology of the Bolsheviks and their practice became increasingly apparent.

In the late 1920s, the NEP was rejected. The reason for this was another grain crisis of 1927-1928. In early 1928, the party and state leadership began to apply “military-communist” administrative measures against the peasantry, who did not want to sell grain to the state at low prices. The NEP was replaced by a command-and-control system.


Western European social democracy: economic theories. Abstract

The origin and essence of revisionism. European Social Democratic Movement and its representatives. Left-wing direction of European social democracy

The emergence of revisionism, the father of which was Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932), is closely connected with the complex processes of formation and development of the monopolistic stage of capitalism. The course of scientific and technological progress under capitalism, generating various tendencies, required an increase in the educational and cultural level of the workers, and dictated the need to find effective forms of stimulating labor. At the end of the XIX century. In the developed countries of Europe there was an opportunity to use civil rights and freedoms, parliamentarism, the press, and others in the interests of the proletariat.

У1899 p. E. Bernstein, an orthodox Marxist in the past, published a book, The Problems of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy, which was a concentrated expression of all the amendments to Marx and the revision of his teachings, that is, revisionism. “The further development and improvement of the Marxist doctrine,” wrote E. Bernstein, “must begin with its critique.” Everything that bourgeois economists put forward against Marxism at that time was gathered into a clear system of views, the core of which was reformism.

E. Bernstein began to revise the methodological foundations of Marx’s teaching with the concept of historical materialism, in which he saw the underestimation and denial of the active role of people’s practical activity. In his opinion, everything that K. Marx and F. Engels achieved was not done thanks to Hegel’s dialectic, but contrary to it. E. Bernstein contrasted the revolutionary movement with evolutionary development aimed at a gradual transition to a new society.

The scientist began the revision of the economic theory of Marxism with the labor theory of value. He argued that Marx’s category of value had lost all concrete significance and had become a mental construction. E. Bernstein put forward the theory of “economic value”, which was a synthesis of labor theory of value and the doctrine of marginal utility.

The dual nature of economic value is determined, on the one hand, by utility (consumption value, demand), and on the other – the cost of production costs (labor cost). It should be noted that E. Bernstein, in contrast to his supporters, defended Marxism from attempts to equate the views of K. Marx and F. Lassalle, as well as K. Marx and D. Ricardo on wages.

E. Bernstein analyzed the actual growth of living standards of a large part of the proletariat in the early twentieth century. and foresaw the onset of a “period of prosperity,” denying both absolute and relative deterioration of the condition of the workers. He contrasted the development of the shareholder form of capital and the increase in the number of small shareholders with Marx’s law of capitalist accumulation, arguing that they were evidence of the decentralization and democratization of capital. These processes led to an increase in the number of owners, an increase in the welfare of the working class and, as a consequence, to the overcoming of class conflicts in bourgeois society.

Fairly noting the tendency to production dependence of large and small business, E. Bernstein argued that large-scale production not only does not ruin small and medium, but also can thrive only with them. He linked the possibility of overcoming the anarchy of production with the creation of trusts and cartels, the widespread use of the credit system, the improvement of communication and information systems, and the expansion of the world market.

The scholar interpreted imperialism as an introduction to a new social phase, which is characterized by a peaceful, gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism. E. Bernstein argued that as a form of historical development in a cultural society, the revolution is ineffective and fruitless. He contrasted it with reformist activities under capitalism.

The aim of the social democratic movement was to liberate trade unions and cooperation from all legal restrictions, to protect labor, social legislation, and to restrict the rights to dispose of capitalist property. E. Bernstein considered the transition to socialism as a broad development of production and consumer societies. The latter had to reduce the profits of trade capital, and the unions – the profits of industrialists.