Abstract
The chronicle of the study of the most important aspects of the history of the New Economic Policy (NEP) over the century that has elapsed since the beginning of the NEP reforms is analyzed. Three definite periods can be distinguished in the NEP historiography: the Soviet stage, the Perestroika period, and the post-Soviet phase. At the same time, each period is characterized by a specific political situation, which left an imprint both on the degree of relevance and the priority of certain subjects in the study of NEP and on the methodological approaches to the study of these subjects. The author believes that, in the future, the most promising NEP studies will focus on the interface of areas: economic history and social history, economic history and the history of state institutions, military history and social history, etc.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The role and significance of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the history of our country are well known. Being in a crisis by the end of 1920, the Soviet economy began sharp and, most importantly, steady growth starting from 1921. By and large, the transition to NEP was of key importance for the preservation of Soviet statehood, and in the realities of those years, this meant the preservation of domestic statehood as such, since it was obvious that only the Bolsheviks were able to ensure the territorial unity and controllability of Russia. It is probably not too much of a mistake to say that the Soviet state overcame an extremely important barrier by choosing a new course that ensured the rapid recovery of the economic sphere.
A century separates us from the beginning of the NEP reforms. Considering the fact that attempts to analyze and comprehend those events historically began almost immediately after the end of NEP, we can talk about a hundred-year period of the historiography of the New Economic Policy. During this time, in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia, a whole area of historical research has developed—nepovedenie (NEP studies)—which has become an important part of historical science. Conferences and symposia on various aspects of it are held regularly, and new scientific papers are published just as often. However, the approaches and main vectors of NEP historiography have repeatedly changed.
NEP rather quickly became the subject of close interest of both historians and political scientists, and often politicians, who sought to justify certain decisions with references to “historical experience” (or to what they considered such). It was appealed to when discussing the economic reforms of the 1950s, it was seen as a way to build “socialism with a human face” during the years of perestroika, and subsequently it began to be mentioned in the controversy about the merits and demerits of socialist and capitalist economic models. Academic studies of the processes and trends of that brief period were sometimes used as illustrations or proofs of one political concept or another, but most often they were simply ignored.
Meanwhile, scientific research began already in the 1930s and has not stopped to this day. True, it should be noted that there are relatively few historiographic works devoted to the history of the study of the NEP period, and, as a rule, they are either devoted to the historiography of certain aspects of that period, and not to the 1920s generally,Footnote 1 or consider mainly the works of post-Soviet researchers, phasing Soviet historiography out.Footnote 2 In addition, such studies and especially reviews are often “a set of reviews of the works of individual authors, without giving … a complete picture.”Footnote 3 Thus, at the moment, the problem of analyzing the NEP historiography has not yet been resolved. This article is devoted to this issue. Of course, such a voluminous subject can be considered in detail only within the framework of a monographic study; thus, it will inevitably have the character of a brief, almost concise review. Nevertheless, it seems that an analysis of the development of the NEP issues in the historiography of the past years will make it possible to understand which issues have been the focus of research and which are still awaiting study.
The historiography of NEP, i.e., the process of writing its history, began almost immediately after the curtailment of this course and the transition to the policy of mass industrialization. Although a number of domestic researchersFootnote 4 believe that the Soviet period of historiography should be conducted from the works of V.I. Lenin, N.I. Bukharin, and L.D. Trotsky, apparently, this is some exaggeration. Historiography is still written by historians, not politicians. In fact, S.A. PokrovskiiFootnote 5 became the first historiographer of the NEP. Then, back in the prewar period, a collective monographFootnote 6 was published, which considered, among other things, the economic innovations of the 1920s. However, by and large, the historiography of NEP from the 1930s–1940s is limited to this.
In the 1950s, the monograph by E.B. GenkinaFootnote 7 saw the light of day, but the real surge of interest came in the 1960s.Footnote 8 It is especially important that, during this period, domestic researchers singled out the most important aspects of the general problems of NEP. A number of works were devoted to the study of the essence of the private capitalist structure of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and its interaction with the socialist economy.Footnote 9 Another leading theme of NEP studies was stories related to the class struggle (now, probably, this topic would be classified as a history of social conflicts).Footnote 10 The issues of the agrarian economy were quite fully covered.Footnote 11 Almost the entire Soviet historiography of NEP, for obvious reasons, fits into the Leninist interpretation of the temporary forced retreat to state capitalism, which was required for tactical reasons, as an intermediate stage in building a socialist society.Footnote 12
During the years of perestroika (1985–1991), NEP was seen mainly as an alternative (in relation to the Stalinist model) way of building a socialist society. Therefore, works published in those yearsFootnote 13 are characterized by active highlighting of the economic successes of the New Economic Policy, the presence of a certain political and, not least, economic pluralism, a rapid cultural renaissance, and other positive trends of those years. Note that NEP in this approach was considered, as a rule, not in itself but in constant juxtaposition and comparison with the practice of the 1930s, primarily as “non-Stalinism.” Back at the end of the existence of the Soviet Union, a monograph was published, which, in this perspective, drew a line under the Soviet period in studying NEP.Footnote 14
The ideological focus during this period was gradually transferred from the theses about the possibility of combining socialism and a market economy, about the advantages of cost accounting and similar issues to emphasizing the fact that the rejection of NEP led to the construction of a totalitarian society, plunged the country into the abyss of the Gulag, etc.Footnote 15 Sometimes this political commitment took on absurd forms, when even NEP was seen as some kind of totalitarian construct that needed a democratic alternative.Footnote 16 This position is most clearly stated in the introductory article by S.S. Volk to the publication of N. Vol’skii’s memoirs: “Rejection of NEP and the transition to a command economy hastened the creation of a totalitarian regime that doomed the people to inhuman suffering and more than once put the country on the brink of disaster.”Footnote 17 Of course, this approach did not contribute to an impartial and academic study of the subjects under consideration. At the same time, it should be noted that, one way or another, such a formulation of the question led to a thorough analysis of both the details and nuances of the circumstances of the curtailment of the NEP course and the underlying causes of this process. By and large, it was precisely the study of “who dismantled NEP and why?” that was the main historiographic achievement of the NEP studies of the perestroika times.
In the early 1990s, Russia entered a period of large-scale modernization of both the political and economic structure of the country. Simultaneously, there was also a certain change in the main direction in the study of the New Economic Policy. The introduction of new, previously unknown sources into scientific circulation and the final rejection of the dogmas and stereotypes accumulated during the Soviet period led to the appearance of monographsFootnote 18 and articlesFootnote 19 covering the history of the 1920s from a new angle. The rejection of the Stalinist model of socialism as the starting point of study and the transition to the study of various aspects of the New Economic Policy without constant references to Stalinist practice made it possible to expand significantly the list of topics that came to the attention of historians and deepen the degree of development of already known and, at first glance, studied subjects. Yet, most importantly, in the post-Soviet period, the study of NEP has begun to be treated from the position of impartial academic knowledge, and not as a “policy overturned into the past.” Although some works of the first half of the 1990s still showed a trend of analysis within the framework of the “totalitarian model,”Footnote 20 this approach has gradually faded away. The publications of NEP scientists in the post-Soviet period are distinguished by “the desire to return the status of a ‘normal’ historical period to early Soviet history.”Footnote 21
It is noteworthy that NEP topics often caused lively discussions and debates at various scientific conferences and symposia (in the years of perestroika such meetings were relatively rare), and the results of these discussions became the basis for collective monographs or specialized collections of articles.Footnote 22 In the 2000s, several collective works devoted to the analysis of various aspects of the New Economic Policy were published.Footnote 23 The main direction of study was, on the one hand, the application of the system principle to the study of subjects of economic history in the 1920sFootnote 24 and, on the other hand, the addition of the problems of economic and political history with subjects related to issues of sociocultural history.Footnote 25 It should be noted that, in the first half of the 1990s, Russian historiography survived the fascination with the use of computer methods in historical research, which was reflected in NEP studies.Footnote 26
Separately, I would like to note the international scientific project Labor Activism in Soviet Russia, 1918–1929. This collective study not only gave domestic researchers valuable experience in practical cooperation with foreign colleagues but also made it possible to turn to the history of the labor movement, pushing aside the patterns and clichés of Soviet historiography. The collection published as a result of this projectFootnote 27 demonstrates that the history of the labor movement is an integral and important subject of social and political history, which needs to be studied in detail, regardless of ideological attitudes.
In addition, the collection set new standards for scientific representation. Along with articles by domestic and foreign historians, it included reviews of documentary collections from a number of federal archives, as well as reports from the Soviet and émigré press on research topics and a chronicle of the strike struggle. The results of this project caused such a wide resonance in scientific circles that in 2002 the editorial board of the journal Otechestvennaya istoriya considered it necessary to hold a special “roundtable” fully devoted to the emergence and evolution of the protest movement among Soviet workers in the 1920s.Footnote 28 In the years that followed, the study of political protest among various strata of the Soviet population continued.Footnote 29 Its development was a set of studies devoted to the issues of labor motivation and incentives to increase labor productivity in the industry of those years.Footnote 30 The authors of these works agreed that the party leadership completely dominated industrial relations, tightly controlling the working masses by both direct and numerous indirect administrative tools. Formally amateur and independent public organizations were gradually transformed into “party transmission belts,” with the help of which the Soviet leadership channeled the social activity of the working class in the desired direction. The nature and dynamics of the derogation of the autonomy and self-government of trade unions, the Komsomol, and other public organizations are considered in most detail in the book by I.N. Il’ina.Footnote 31
An innovative work in the field of social history of the Soviet Union was the monograph by T.M. Smirnova,Footnote 32 which considers a subject that was practically not touched upon in the framework of Soviet historiography—the process of survival of representatives of the propertied estates of tsarist Russia and their “getting used” to NEP society. Thematically, this work is related to the studies of E.V. Demchik devoted to the problems of the history of the social stratum of the “NEPmen” in Siberia,Footnote 33 and a similar case study of LeningradFootnote 34 or the Ural region.Footnote 35 In addition, a number of works touched upon the history of “NEPmanism” on an all-Union scale.Footnote 36
However, seemingly quite well-known subjects were also studied. In the post-Soviet period, such topics began to be considered from a new angle. For example, economic issues were increasingly considered from the point of view of multistructurality, which required special attention of researchers to the model of interaction between private and state industries.Footnote 37 As was already mentioned, this subject was one of the favorites among the NEP scientists of the Soviet period. However, if then it was considered in the format of the unconditional superiority of state socialist property and the gradual squeezing of the “petty owners” to the sidelines of the economy, now this problem has been cleared of ideological attitudes and is being studied as an independent one.
The “archival revolution” gave domestic historians access to archival funds that were previously practically inaccessible to researchers. This, in turn, opened the way to a well-founded study of subjects that were previously considered taboo. One of these “unsealed” topics was the history of the defense industry. Of course, most works on this topic are devoted to the 1930s–1940s; however, the defense industry of the NEP period was not ignored either. Moreover, defense industry researchers quite often consciously sought to cover as long a chronological period as possible to trace the dynamics of processes in the industry as a whole or in its individual segments. It can be said that the history of the defense industry during the NEP years has been considered in Russian historiography in sufficient detail.Footnote 38 However, it is necessary to note a certain influence of foreign historiography: the monograph by L. Samuelson,Footnote 39 published in Russia in 2001, played an important role and organically entered the general series of works on this issue.
The liveliest among the works on the history of the defense industry was the correspondence discussion about the timing and most important features of the formation of the military–industrial complex. Although a unified point of view has never been developed, there is no doubt that only after the publication of these works did the history of the Soviet defense industry begin to rely on a significant source base, which allowed for substantive scientific debate.
Decent coverage in the historiography of the post-Soviet period was given to subjects related to financial policy, for example, a detailed analysis of the activities of financial and credit institutions of the Soviet stateFootnote 40 and the cooperative movement.Footnote 41
The growth of property stratification, the emergence of a layer of NEPmen, and the social tension caused by these factors led to various deformations of the usual strategies of everyday behavior, way of life, and social mentality. The study of these complex subjects with an unobvious source base has resulted in a number of interdisciplinary studies of the sociocultural aspects of everyday life under NEP.Footnote 42 Interest in the history of everyday life, not of state institutions but of society, gave rise to an increase in attention to a subject that is uncharacteristic of Soviet historiography—the history of consumption. In the post-Soviet period, several monographs were published specifically devoted to the supply and domestic trade issues of the 1920s.Footnote 43
Significant progress has been made in the study of demographic history.Footnote 44 Using data from the 1926 census and the latest cliometric tools, researchers managed to reconstruct the time series of the population size for 1917–1926. This, in turn, made it possible to determine accurately the size of human losses during the events of 1917, the Civil War, and the famine of 1920–1921 at 11–15 million people.
Finally, it should be noted that there has been a significant increase in research on the “regional aspect” of the New Economic Policy. Thus, of the 389 dissertations defended in 1992–2010 in Moscow and one way or another dealing with the subject of NEP, almost a quarter (92) were devoted specifically to regional subjects.Footnote 45 Such an approach makes it possible to isolate the main tendencies of this course, to evaluate the nuances, and to get an idea of all its diversity, from aspects characteristic of the entire Soviet Union to shades that mattered only at the local level. As an example, I will cite a set of works devoted to the study of the economic and political everyday life of the 1920s in the UralsFootnote 46 and in the Volga region.Footnote 47
The domestic historiography of NEP is clearly divided into three periods, each of which was characterized by certain trends. Most works of the Soviet period relate to the 1960s–1980s. Working within a rigid ideological framework, Soviet historians managed to lay the foundations for scientific research on many of the most important aspects of the history of NEP. The main achievement of the historiography of the perestroika period was a detailed study of the causes and the actual process of curtailing NEP. In the post-Soviet period, there is a de-ideologization of NEP studies. Now historical studies are not obliged to confirm Lenin’s judgments anew, they should not correspond to one political opinion or another of the supporters of “humane socialism” or detractors of Stalinist totalitarianism. It has become possible simply to do science. A number of subjects that seemed to have been studied in sufficient detail have received a new, not related to the previous patterns, reading, and many works devoted to various subjects of social history have appeared.
On the other hand, recognizing all the above achievements, I would like to note that the history of the NEP has not yet been fully studied. For example, it is a generally accepted fact that the Soviet economy was preparing for a possible war, and this preparation had begun back in the 1920s. However, there are still very few studies on the history of the preparation for mobilization of industry, transport, and agriculture during the NEP period.Footnote 48 This subject was not lucky at all: for economic historians, it remains an element of the country’s military preparation, while for specialists in military history, it is an integral part of economic history. Another subject, also insufficiently covered historiographically, is the history of the Soviet armed forces during the NEP years. While the relationship between military circles and repressive bodies becomes the object of domestic research quite often,Footnote 49 the social aspect of the Red Army as a tool for the formation of a citizen of the Soviet Union, the “Soviet man,” is still awaiting in-depth study.Footnote 50
I can assume that the most promising areas of NEP studies in the coming years will be research at the intersection of areas: for example, the history of the defense industry and the mobilization preparation of the civil industrial sphere, the history of the armed forces and social history, etc.
Overall, NEP studies over the past hundred years have come a long and difficult path, have developed into a vast area of Russian historiography, and themselves, in turn, have begun to be divided into separate areas. NEP scientists have developed many problems and subjects, but, I think, new studies will open for us new facets of the history of that difficult time.
Notes
In this series one can note Vas’ko, A.A. (2009) “NEP and the Problem of Civil Society in Russia: Modern Historiography,” Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Severo-Kavkazskii region, No. 3, 134–138; Karmazin, A.S. (2006) “Historiography of the Social Policy of the Soviet State towards the Working Class in 1921–1941: On the Materials of the Ural Region,” Extended Thesis of the Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Tyumen’; Leikina, S.A. (2000) “The Development of Handicraft Cooperation in Irkutsk Province in the 1920s (Historiographic Review),” in Irkutskii istoriko-ekonomicheskii ezhegodnik: 2000 [Irkutsk Historical and Economic Yearbook: 2000], Irkutsk, pp. 124–130; Chernysheva, A.V. (2004) “Problems of Management of the Soviet Pre-Kolkhoz Village in Modern Historiography,” in Vek XX: Istoriografiya, istochnikovedenie, regional’naya istoriya Rossii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Century 20: Historiography, Source Studies, Regional History of Russia: Collection of Scientific Papers], Nizhny Novgorod, pp. 259–270; Lysenko, Zh.N. (2020) “The Problem of Opposition to Power in the Era of NEP in Modern Historiography,” in Problemy nauchno-prakticheskoi deyatel’nosti. Poisk i vybor innovatsionnykh reshenii [Problems of Scientific and Practical Activity: Search and Selection of Innovative Solutions], Kirov, pp. 87–91; Kilin, A.P. (2020) “Private Entrepreneurship in the Years of NEP: Historiography of the 1990s–2000s,” Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri 27 (2), 62–68.
Bekhtereva, L.N. (2010) “Problems of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s in Modern Russian Historiography,” Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Istoriya i filologiya, No. 1, 57–64; Orlov, I.B. (2014) “Modern Historiography of NEP (on the Issue of Compiling a ‘Research Map’),” Khar’kovskii istoriograficheskii sbornik, No. 13, pp. 85–96; Orlov, I.B. (2013) “NEP: Modern Discussions and Perspectives of Study,” in Possiiskaya gosudarstvennost’: Opyt 1150-letnei istorii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii (Moskva, 4–5 dekabrya 2012 goda) [Russian Statehood: The Experience of 1150 Years of History: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Moscow, December 4–5, 2012)], Moscow, pp. 387–395; Davydov, A.Yu., Skvortsov, V.N., and Tropov, I.A. (2013) “New Economic Policy in the Latest Russian Historiography: On the Issue of Structuring the Problem,” Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina [Herald of the Pushkin Leningrad State University] 4 (4), 27–36; Vorona, A.A. and Khrushchev, E.G. (2019) “Measures of the New Economic Policy in the Sphere of Industry in the 1920s: Historical and Theoretical Analysis,” in Tsennosti i normy pravovoi kul’tury v novoi tsifrovoi real’nosti [Values and Norms of Legal Culture in the New Digital Reality], Kursk, pp. 22–25.
Orlov, I.B., “Modern historiography of NEP…,” p. 86.
Milovidova, N.V. (2014) “The NEP Model of Russian Modernization in the 1920s: An Historiographical Aspect,” Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N.A. Nekrasova, No. 6, p. 104.
Pokrovskii, S. (1930) O NEPe i novom etape [About NEP and the New Stage], Leningrad.
Razvitie sovetskoi ekonomiki [Development of the Soviet Economy] (1940), Moscow.
Genkina, E.B. (1954) Perekhod sovetskogo gosudarstva k novoi ekonomicheskoi politike (1921–1922) [The Transition of the Soviet State to the New Economic Policy (1921–1922)], Moscow.
In this regard, I would like to mention such works as SSSR v period vosstanovleniya narodnogo khozyaistva (1921–1925 gg.) [The USSR during the Period of Restoration of the National Economy (1921–1925)] (1965) Moscow; Bakhtin, M.I. (1961) Soyuz rabochikh i krest’yan v gody vosstanovleniya narodnogo khozyaistva. 1921–1926 гг. [The Union of Workers and Peasants during the Restoration of the National Economy: 1921–1926], Moscow; Voskresenskaya, N.A. (1968) V.I. Lenin–organizator sotsialisticheskogo kontrolya v SSSR [V.I. Lenin As Organizer of Socialist Control in the USSR], Moscow; Ivanov, V.M. and Kanev, S.P. (1961) Na mirnoi osnove [On a Peaceful Basis], Leningrad; Iz istorii rabochego klassa SSSR [From the History of the Working Class of the USSR] (1962), Leningrad.
Berkhin, I.B. (1970) Ekonomicheskaya politika Sovetskogo gosudarstva v pervye gody Sovetskoi vlasti [Economic Policy of the Soviet State in the First Years of Soviet Power], Moscow; Pogorel’skii, V.P. (1960) Politika KPSS v otnoshenii chastnogo kapitala v promyshlennosti i torgovle SSSR. 1917–1927 гг. [The CPSU Policy towards Private Capital in Soviet Industry and Trade, 1917–1927], Moscow; Brin, I.D. (1969) Gosudarsttvennyi kapitalizm v SSSR v perekhodnyi period ot kapitalizma k sotsializmu [State Capitalism in the USSR in the Transition Period from Capitalism to Socialism], Irkutsk; Kas’yanenko, V.I., Morozov, A.F., and Shkarenkov, L.I. (1959) “From the History of the Concession Policy of the Soviet State, Istoriya SSSR, No. 1; Levin, V.Ya. (1967) Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie uklady v SSSR v period perekhoda ot kapitalizma k sotsializmu [Socioeconomic Modes in the USSR during the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism], Moscow.
Trifonov, I.Ya. (1964, 1969) Klassy i klassovaya bor’ba v nachale NEPa (1921–1925 gg.), v 2kh chastyakh [Classes and the Class Struggle in the USSR at the Beginning of the NEP (1921–1925), in two parts], Leningrad; Trifonov, I.Ya. (1969) Podgotovka ekonomicheskogo nastupleniya na novuyu burzhuaziyu [Preparation of an Economic Offensive against the New Bourgeoisie], Leningrad; Matyugin, A.A. (1962) Rabochii klass SSSR v gody vosstanovleniya narodnogo khozyaistva (1921–1925) [The Working Class of the USSR during the Restoration of the National Economy (1921–1925)] (1962), Moscow; Katorgin, I.I. (1971) Istoricheskii opyt KPSS po osushchestvleniyu novoi ekonomicheskoi politiki (1921–1925 gg.) [Historic Experience of the CPSU in Implementing the New Economic Policy (1921–1925)], Moscow.
Polyakov, Yu.A. (1967) Perekhod k NEPu i sovetskoe krest’yanstvo [The Transition to NEP and the Soviet Peasantry], Moscow; Danilov, V.P. (1979) Sovetskaya dokolkhoznaya derevnya: Sotsial’naya struktura, sotsial’nye otnosheniya [The Soviet Pre-Kolkhoz Village: Social Structure, Social Relations], Moscow.
Lenin, V.I. (1970) Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Collection of Works], Vol. 44, Moscow, pp. 205–208.
See, for example, Bokarev, Yu.P. (1989) Sotsialisticheskaya promyshlennost’ i melkoe krest’yanskoe khozyaistvo v SSSR v 20-e gody: Istochniki, metody issledovaniya, etapy vzaimootnoshenii [Socialist Industry and Small Peasant Economy in the USSR in the 1920s: Sources, Research Methods, Stages of Relationships], Moscow; Bakulin, V.I. and Leibovich, O.L. (1990) “Workers, “Specialists,” Party Members (about the Social Origins of the “Great Turning Point”), Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, No. 6, 98–110; Bordyugov, G. and Kozlov, V. (1988) Turn of 1929 and Bukharin’s Alternative, Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 8, pp. 15–33; Selyunin, V. (1988) “Origins,” Novyi mir, No. 5, pp. 162–189; Kozlov, V.A. and Khlevnyuk, O.V. (1988) Nachinaetsya s cheloveka. Chelovecheskii faktor v sotsialisticheskom stroitel’stve: Itogi i uroki 30-kh godov [It Starts with the Human Being: The Human Factor in Socialist Construction: Results and Lessons of the 1930s], Moscow; Gorinov, M.M. (1990) NEP: Poiski putei razvitiya [NEP: Search for Ways to Develop], Moscow; Polyakov, Yu.A. (1989) “1920s: Moods of the Party Avant-garde,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 10, pp. 25–38; “The Soviet Union in the 1920s: ‘Roundtable’ (1988),” Voprosy istorii, No. 9, pp. 3–58; Khanin, G.I. (1989) “Why and When Did NEP Die?, EKO, No. 10, pp. 66–83.
Petrakov, N., Figurovskaya, N., and Fedorenko, N. (1991) NEP i khozraschet [NEP and Cost Accounting], Moscow.
On this topic, see, for example, Goland, Yu. (1991) Krizisy, razrushivshie NEP [Crises That Ruined NEP], Moscow; Ikonnikova, I.P. and Ugrovatov, A.P. (1991) “Stalin’s Rehearsal of the Attack on the Peasantry,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 1, pp. 69–76; Koloskova, T.G. (1989) “On the Ideological and Psychological Prerequisites of Stalinism,” Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 9, pp. 62–70.
Simonov, N.S. (1992) “A Democratic Alternative to Totalitarian NEP,” Istoriya SSSR, No. 1, pp. 41–58.
Valentinov, N. (Vol’skii, N.) (1991) Novaya ekonomicheskaya politika i krizis partii posle smerti Lenina: Gody raboty v VSNKh vo vremya NEP. Vospominaniya [The New Economic Policy and the Crisis of the Party after the Death of Lenin: Years of Work in the Supreme Economic Council during NEP: Memories], Compiled by Volk, S.S., Moscow, p. 7.
Gimpel’son, E.G. (1995) Formirovanie sovetskoi politicheskoi sistemy. 1917–1923 gg. [Formation of the Soviet Political System: 1917–1923], Moscow; Gimpel’son, E.G. (2000) NEP i sovetskaya politicheskaya sistema. 20-e gody [NEP and the Soviet political system: 1920s], Moscow; Davies, R.W., Dmitrenko, V.P., and Mau, V.A. (1994) NEP: Priobreteniya i poteri. Sbornik statei [NEP: Gains and Losses: Digest of Articles], Moscow; NEP. Vzglyad so storony [NEP: A View from the Outside] (1991), Moscow.
Bystrova, I.V. (1993) “The State and the Economy in the 1920s: The Struggle of Ideas and Reality,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 3, 19–34; Gimpel’son, E.G. (1993) “The Political System and the New Economic Policy: The Inadequacy of Reforms,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 2, 29–43; Gloveli, G. (1990) “The Socialist Perspective and Barriers to NEP,” Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 6, pp. 130–135; Dmitrenko, V.P. (1991) “Four dimensions of NEP,” Vopsosy istorii KPSS, No. 3, pp. 16–38.
Mau, V.A. (1993) Reformy i dogmy. 1914–1929: Ocherki istorii stanovleniya khozyaistvennoi sistemy sovetskogo totalitarizma [Reforms and Dogmas, 1914–1929: Essays on the History of the Formation of the Economic System of Soviet Totalitarianism], Moscow; Trukan, G.A. (1994) Put’ k totalitarizmu. 1917–1929 гг. [The Path to Totalitarianism, 1917–1929], Moscow.
Tarasenko, V.N. (2013) NEP Everyday Life in Modern Russian Historiography, Candidate’s (History) Dissertation, Moscow.
Bordyugov, G.A. and Kozlov, V.A. (1992) Istoriya i kon”yunktura: Sub”ektivnye zametki ob istorii sovetskogo obshchestva [History and Conjuncture: Subjective Notes on the History of Soviet Society], Moscow; Chervonnaya, S.M. (1992) “NEP Russia: Politics, Economics, Culture” (Notes from a Scientific Conference), Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 3, 216–221; NEP: Priobreteniya i poteri; NEP: zavershayushchaya stadiya. Sootnoshenie ekonomiki i politiki. Sbornik statei [NEP: Gains and Losses; NEP: The Final Stage: Correlation between Economics and Politics: Digest of Articles] (1998), Moscow.
See, for example: Rossiya nepovskaya [NEP in Russia] (2002), Moscow; NEP: Ekonomicheskie, politicheskie i sotsiokul’turnye aspekty [NEP: Economic, Political, and Sociocultural Aspects] (2006), Moscow.
In this series, I would like to mention such works as Bogomolova, E.V. (1993) Upravlenie sovetskoi ekonomikoi v 20-e gody: Opyt regulirovaniya i samoorganizatsii [Management of the Soviet Economy in the 1920s: The Experience of Regulation and Self-Organization] (1993), Moscow; Ocherki ekonomicheskikh reform [Essays on Economic Reforms] (1993), Moscow; Tsakunov, S.V. (1994) V labirinte doktriny. Iz opyta razrabotki ekonomicheskogo kursa strany v 1920-e gody [In the Labyrinth of Doctrine: From the Experience of Developing the Country’s Economic Course in the 1920s], Moscow; Gimpel’son, E.G. (2004) NEP. Novaya ekonomicheskaya politika Lenina–Stalina: Problemy i uroki (20-e gg. XX v.) [NEP: The New Economic Policy of Lenin–Stalin: Problems and Lessons (1920s)], Moscow.
See, for example, “The Soviet Past: The Search for Understanding: ‘Roundtable,’” Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2000, No. 4, pp. 90–120; Senyavskii, A.S. (2006) “The New Economic Policy: Modern Approaches and Research Perspectives,” in NEP: Ekonomicheskie, politicheskie, i sotsiokel’turnye aspekty [NEP: Economic, Political, and Sociocultural Aspects] (2006), Moscow, pp. 5–25; Buldakov, V.P. (1997) Krasnaya smuta. Priroda i posledstviya revolyutsionnogo nasiliya [Red Confusion: The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence] (1997), Moscow; Buldakov, V.P. (2007) Quo vadis? Krizisy v Rossii: Puti pereosmysleniya [Quo vadis? Crises in Russia: Ways of Rethinking], Moscow; Buldakov, V.P. (2012) Utopiya, agressiya, vlast’. Psikhosotsial’naya dinamika postrevolyutsionnogo vremeni. Rossiya, 1920–1930 gg. [Utopia, Aggression, Power: Psychosocial Dynamics of the Postrevolutionary Time: Russia, 1920–1930], Moscow; Orlov, I.B. (1999) “Modern Russian NEP Historiography: Achievements, Issues, Prospects,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 1, pp. 102–116; Orlov, I.B. (1999) Novaya ekonomicheskaya politika: Istoriya, opyt, problemy [New Economic Policy: History, Experience, Problems], Moscow; Orlov, I.B. (2002) “’The temptations of NEP’ and the political system of the 1920s,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 1, pp. 209–211; Orlov, I.B. and Pakhomov, S.A. (2007) “Ryazhenye kapitalisty” na nepovskom prazdnike zhizni [“Disguised Capitalists” at the NEP Celebration of Life], Moscow; Promyshlennaya politika v strategii rossiiskikh modernizatsii, XVIII–XXI vv. [Industrial Policy in the Strategy of Russian Modernization, 18th–21st Centuries] (2006), Yekaterinburg.
Komissarov, Yu.P. and Slavko, T.I. (1991) Byudzhetnye obsledovaniya rabochikh 20-kh godov kak istoricheskii istochnik [Budget Surveys of Workers in the 1920s As a Historical Source], Sverdlovsk; Slavko, T.I. (1991) Matematicheskie metody v izuchenii istorii sovetskogo rabochego klassa [Mathematical Methods in the Study of the History of the Soviet Working Class], Moscow.
Trudovye konflikty v sovetskoi Rossii. 1918–1929 gg. [Labor Conflicts in Soviet Russia: 1918–1929] (1998), Moscow.
“Labor Activism in Postrevolutionary Russia: ‘Roundtable,’” Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2002, No. 2, pp. 112–123.
See, for example, Iglitakii, A.A. and Raikhtsaum, A.L. (1992) “From the History of the Strike Movement in Russia (1919–1925), in Novye dvizheniya trudyashchikhsya; Opyt Rossii i drugikh stran SNG, Ch. 1 [New Movements of Workers: The Experience of Russia and Other CIS Countries, Part 1], Moscow, pp. 127–135; Gusev, A.V. (1996) “Left Communist Opposition in the USSR in the Late 1920s,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 1, pp. 85–103; Kir’yanov, Yu.I. (1997) “Strikes and Labor Conflicts in Soviet Russia in the 1920s, Rossiya XXI, Nos. 9–10, pp. 80–105; Pavlyuchenkov, S.A. (1997) Voennyi kommunizm v Rossii: Vlast’ i massy [War Communism in Russia: Power and the Masses], Moscow; Piterskie rabochie i “diktatura proletariata.” Oktyabr’ 1917–1929 [Petersburg Workers and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”: October 1917–1929] (2000), St. Petersburg; Kruzhinov, V.M. (2000) Politicheskie konflikty v pervoe desyatiletie sovetskoi vlasti (na materialakh Urala) [Political Conflicts in the First Decade of Soviet Power (A Case Study of the Urals)], Tyumen’; Izhevsko-Votkinskoe vosstanie. 1918 god [The Izhevsk–Votkinsk Uprising: 1918] (2000), Moscow; Churakov, D.O. (2007) Buntuyushchie proletarii: Rabochii protest v Sovetskoi Rossii (1917–1930-е gg.) [Rebellious Proletarians: Workers’ Protest in Soviet Russia (1917–1930s)], Moscow; Yarov, S.V. (1999) Proletarii kak politik: Politicheskaya psikhologiya rabochikh Petrograda v 1917–1923 gg. [The Proletarian as a Politician: The Political Psychology of the Petrograd Workers in 1917–1923], St. Petersburg; Yarov, S.V. (1999) Gorozhanin kak politik: Revolyutaiya, voennyi kommunizm, i NEP glazami petrogradtsev [The Citizen as a Politician: Revolution, War Communism, and NEP through the Eyes of Petrograders], St. Petersburg; Yarov, S.V. (2001) Istochniki po istorii policheskogo protesta v Sovetskoi Rossii v 1918–1923 gg. [Sources on the History of Political Protest in Soviet Russia in 1918–1923], St. Petersburg; Yarov, S.V. (2006) Konformizm v Sovetskoi Rossii: Petrograd 1917–1920-kh godov [Conformism in Soviet Russia: Petrograd 1917–1920s], St. Petersburg.
Here we can highlight the following works: Borodkin, L.I. and Safonova, E.I. (2000) “State Regulation of Labor Relations in the Years of the New Economic Policy: The Formation of a System of Labor Motivation in Industry,” Ekonomicheskaya istoriya. Obozrenie, No. 5, pp. 23–46; Safonova, E.I. (2000) “‘Crime and Punishment’ in Russian Industry in the Early 1920s,” Ekonomicheskaya istoriya. Obozrenie, No. 4, pp. 81–87; Ul’yanova, S.B. (2003) “'Leningrad Initiative’ (Production Meetings in the System of Motivation and Stimulation of Labor in the 1920s),” in Rynok truda v Sankt-Peterburge: Problemy i perspektivy. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [The Labor Market in St. Petersburg: Problems and Prospects: Collection of Scientific Papers], St. Petersburg, pp. 72–83; Ul’yanova, S.B. (2003) “Contradictions of the ‘Austerity Regime’ in Industry in the 1920s,” Voprosy istorii, No. 6, pp. 144–158; Ul’yanova, S.B. (2006) “To na skaku, to na boku”: Massovye khozyaistvenno-politicheskie kampanii v petrogradskoi/leningradskoi promyshlennosti v 1921–1928 gg. [“First at a Gallop, Now on Its Side”: Mass Economic and Political Campaigns in the Petrograd/Leningrad Industry in 1921–1928], St. Petersburg; Danikhno, S.N. (2007) Rabochie Yugo-Vostoka Rossii v gody NEPa: Istoriya generatsii i mnogomernost’ povsednevnoi zhizni sotsial’noi gruppy [Workers of the Southeast of Russia in the Years of NEP: The History of Generation and the Multidimensionality of the Daily Life of a Social Group], Rostov-on-Don; Sokolov, A.K. (2000) “Soviet Policy in the Field of Motivation and Stimulation of Labor (1917–mid-1930s),” Ekonomicheskaya istoriya. Obozrenie, No. 4, pp. 39–80; Sokolov, A.K. (2003) “Prospects for the Study of Labor History in Modern Russia,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 4, pp. 131–142; Miryasov, A.V. (2005) “The Question of Labor Motivation of Russian Workers in the 1920s (a Case Study of Industrial Enterprises of Penza Province),” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 5, pp. 131–140; Borisova, L.V. (2006) Trudovye otnosheniya v Sovetskoi Rossii (1918–1924 гг.) [Labor Relations in Soviet Russia (1918–1924)], Moscow; Borisova, L.V. (2007) “‘Soviet Trade Unionism’: Trade Unions and Strike Struggle during the NEP Years,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 6, pp. 88–97; Shil’nikova, I.V. (2019) “‘Take Measures to Provide Skilled Workers with Land’: Paradoxes of Labor Motivation and Conflicts at the Mining Enterprises of Donbass in the First Half of the 1920s,” Istoricheskii zhurnal: Nauchnye Issledovaniya, No. 3, pp. 118–128.
Il’ina, I.N. (2000) Obshchestvennye organizatsii Rossii v 1920-e gody [Russian Public Organizations in the 1920s], Moscow; Il’ina, I.N., “Public Organizations at the Final Stage of NEP, in NEP: Ekonomicheskie, poliiticheskie, i sotsiokul’turnye aspekty [NEP: Economic, Political, and Sociocultural Aspects], pp. 340–347.
Smirnova, T.M. (2003) Byvshie lyudi Sovetskoi Rossii. Strategii vyzhivaniya i puti integratsii. 1917–1936 gody [Former People of Soviet Russia: Survival Strategies and Ways of Integration, 1917–1936], Moscow; Smirnova, T.M. (2000) “‘Has-beens’: Strokes to the Social Policy of the Soviet Government,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 2, pp. 37–48; Smirnova, T.M (2003) “‘Has-beens’ in the Conditions of NEP: ‘Broad Prospects’ or New Problems,” Cahiers du Monde Russe, No. 44/1, pp. 111–133; Smirnova, T.M. (2003) “‘No One Is to Blame for One’s Origin…’? Problems of Integration of Children of ‘Socially Alien Elements’ into Postrevolutionary Russian Society (1917–1936),” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 4, pp. 28–42.
Demchik, E.V. (1998) Chastnyi kapital v gorodakh Sibiri v 1920-e gody: Ot vozrozhdeniya k likvidatsii [Private Capital in the Cities of Siberia in the 1920s: From Revival to Liquidation], Barnaul; Demchik, E.V. (2005) Chastnyi kapital Sibiri v 20-e gg. XX v. [Private Capital of Siberia in the 1920s], Barnaul.
Zotova, A.V. (2010) Khzyaeva i “khzyaichiki” v Petrograde–Leningrade v gody nepa: Po materialam periodicheskoi pechati 1920-kh gg. [Owners and “Petty Proprietors” in Petrograd–Leningrad during the Years of NEP: Based on Materials from the Periodical Press of the 1920s], St. Petersburg.
“Bubliki dlya respubliki”: Istoricheskii profil’ nepmanov [“Bubliks for the Republic”: The Historical Profile of NEPmen] (2005), Ufa; Khaziev, R.A. (2005) Enterprises of the Ural NEPmen: Historical and Statistical Analysis, Ekonomicheskaya istoriya. Obozrenie, No. 10, pp. 199–203.
See, for example, Orlov, I.B. (2002) The image of the NEPman in the mass consciousness of the 1920s: Myths and reality, Novyi istoricheskii vestnik [New Historical Bulletin], No. 6, pp. 29–41; Pakhomov, S.A. (2007) “Sociocultural Portrait of an Entrepreneur of the NEP Period and Its Reflection in Propaganda and Mass Consciousness,” Candidate’s (History) Dissertation, Moscow; Orlov, I.B. and Pakhomov, S.A. (2007) “Ryazhenye kapitalisty” na NEPovskom prazdnike zhizni [“Disguised Capitalists” at the NEP Celebration of Life], Moscow.
Lyutov, L.N. (1994) Chastnaya promyshlennost’ v gody NEPa (1921–1929) [Private Industry during the NEP Years (1921–1929)], Saratov; Lyutov, L.N. (1996) Gosudarstvennaya promyshlennost’ v gody NEPa (1921–1929) [State-Owned Industry during the NEP Years (1921–1929)], Saratov; Lyutov, L.N. (2000) “Inefficiency of Industry under NEP,” Voprosy istorii, Nos. 4–5, pp. 106–110; Lyutov, L.N. (2002) Obrechennaya reforma: Promyshlennost’ Rossii v epokhu NEPa [Doomed Reform: Russian Industry in the NEP Era], Ulyanovsk; Vinogradov, S.V. (1996) NEP: Opyt sozdaniya mnogoukladnoi ekonomiki [NEP: The Experience of Creating a Mixed Economy], Moscow; Vinogradov, S.V. (1998) “The Revival of the Mixed Economy of the Russian Federation during the Years of NEP, 1921–1927: A Case Study of the Volga Region,” Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Astrakhan’; Suvorova, L.N. (2013) Nepovskaya mnogoukladnaya ekonomika: Mezhdu gosudarstvom i rynkom [The NEP Mixed Economy: Between the State and the Market], Moscow; Kilin, A.P. (2020) “‘Proletarian-Merchant’: Practices of Adaptation of the Workers of the Urals in the NEP Years,” in Reformy v povsednevnoi zhizni naseleniya Rossii: Istoriya i sovremennost’ [Reforms in the Daily Life of the Population of Russia: History and Modernity], St. Petersburg, pp. 69–75.
For this topic, see Alekseev, V.N. (2001) “Formation of the Foundations of the Soviet Military Industry in the 1920s–1930s (a Case Study of Enterprises of the European Part of the RSFSR),” Extended Abstract of Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Moscow; Simonov, N.S. (1996) Voenno-promyshlennyi kompleks SSSR v 1920–1950-е gg.: Tempy ekonomicheskogo rosta, struktura, organizatsiya proizvodstva, i upravlenie [The Military-Industrial Complex of the USSR in the 1920s–1950s: Economic Growth Rates, Structure, Organization of Production, and Management], Moscow; Shcherba, A.N. (1999) Voennaya promyshlennost’ Leningrada v 20–30-e gg. [The Military Industry of Leningrad in the 1920s–1930s], St. Petersburg; Sokolov, A.K. (2012) Ot voenproma k VPK: Sovetskaya voennaya promyshlennost’. 1917–iyun’ 1941 gg. [From the Military Industry to the Military–Industrial Complex: The Soviet Military Industry: 1917–June 1941], Moscow; Sokolov, A.K. (2007) “‘Special tension’: Personnel of the Soviet Military Industry in the Late 1920s–Early 1930s,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 4, pp. 74–94; Mukhin, M.Yu. (1996) “Russian State Archive of Economics: Sets of Documents on the History of the Military Industry in 1921–1941, Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 4, pp. 100–112; Mukhin, M.Yu. (2000) “The Evolution of the Management System of the Soviet Defense Industry in 1921–1941 and the Change in the Priorities of the ‘Military,’” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 3, pp. 3–24; Mukhin, M.Yu. (2006) Aviapromyshlennost’ SSSR v 1921–1941 gg. [The USSR Aviation Industry in 1921–1941], Moscow; Mukhin, M.Yu. (2006) “The Soviet Aircraft Industry during the Years of the New Economic Policy: The ‘Ugly Duckling’ of the Defense Industry, NEP: Ekonomicheskie, politicheskie, i sotsiokul’turnye aspekty, pp. 202–223.
Samuelson, L. (1999) Plans for Stalin’s War Machine: Tukhachevskii and Military-Economic Planning, 1925–1941, London: Macmillan.
Kalmykov, S.V. and Petrov, Yu.A. (2015) “Taxes on Entrepreneurial Activity in Tsarist Russia and during the NEP Period, NEP: Ekonomicheskie, politicheskie, i sotsiokul’turnye aspekty, pp. 154–175; Tupov, B.S. (1994) Istoriya rossiiskoi birzhi (Birzhi perioda nepa i 90-kh gg. XX v. [History of the Russian Stock Exchange (Exchanges of the NEP Period and the 1990s)], Moscow; Novikov, A.N. (1994) “Mutual Credit Societies (from the Experience of Russia during the NEP Period), Bankovskoe delo, No. 2, pp. 32–34; Mekhryakov, V.D. (1995) Istoriya kreditnykh uchrezhdenii i sovremennoe sostoyanie bankovskoi sistemy Rossii [The History of Credit Institutions and the Current State of the Russian Banking System], Moscow; Sokolov, A.S. (1998) Iz istorii stanovleniya i razvitiya finansovoi sistemy Rossii v period novoi ekonomicheskoi politiki [From the History of the Formation and Development of the Financial System of Russia during the Period of the New Economic Policy], Moscow; Sokolov, A.S. (2005) Finansovaya politika Sovetskogo gosudarstva, 1921–1929 gg. [Financial Policy of the Soviet State, 1921–1929], Moscow; Andreev, V.R. and Khrushchev, E.G. (2019) “Lending and Taxation of Agriculture during the NEP Period,” in Tsennosti i normy pravovoi kul’tury v novoi tsifrovoi real’nosti [Values and Norms of Legal Culture in the New Digital Reality], Kursk, pp. 9–12.
Nikolaev, A.A. (2000) Melkaya promyshlennost’ i kustarnye promysly Sibiri v sovetskoi kooperativnoi sisteme (1920–seredina 1930-kh gg.) [Small Industry and Handicrafts in Siberia in the Soviet Cooperative System (1920–mid-1930s)], Novosibirsk; Fain, L.E. (1994) “Soviet Cooperation in the Grip of the Command–Administrative System (1920s),” Voprosy istorii, No. 9, pp. 35–47; Fain, L.E. (2001) “NEP Experiment on Russian Cooperation,” Voprosy istorii, No. 7, pp. 35–55; Fain, L.E. (2002) Rossiiskaya kooperatsiya: Istoriko-teoreticheskii ocherk. 1861–1930 [Russian Cooperation: Historical and Theoretical Essay: 1861–1930], Ivanovo; Rent, Yu.A. (1997) Kooperatsiya i NEP [Cooperation and the NEP], Ryazan’; Grebenichenko, S.F. (2000) Diktatura i promyslovaya kooperatsiya Rossii v 1920-e gody [Dictatorship and Trade Cooperation of Russia in the 1920s], Moscow; Egorov, V.G. (2005) Otechestvennaya kooperatsiya v melkom promyshlennom proizvodstve: Stanovlenie, etapy razvitiya, ogosudarstvlenie (pervaya tret’ XX veka) [Domestic Cooperation in Small-Scale Industrial Production: Formation, Stages of Development, Nationalization (the First Third of the 20th Century)], Kazan’; Yagov, O.V. (2008) Kustarno-promyslovaya kooperatsiya Povolzh’ya v usloviyakh realizatsii novoi ekonomicheskoi politiki [Handicraft and Trade Cooperation of the Volga Region in the Context of the Implementation of the New Economic Policy], Penza; Ivanov, A.V. (2009) “Russian Cooperation in the First Quarter of the 20th Century (Based on Materials from the Siberian and Far Eastern Regions),” Extended Abstract of Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Moscow; Kravchenko, G.V. (2019) “Workers’ Cooperation in the NEP Years: The Process of Transformation of Theory and Practice (on the Materials of the Don, Kuban, and Stavropol Regions),” Manuskript 12 (8), 35–39.
Lebina, N.B. (1994) “Shadow Sides of the Life of the Soviet City in the 1920s–1930s,” Voprosy istorii, No. 2, pp. 30–42; Lebina, N.B. (1999) Povsednevnaya zhizn’ sovetskogo goroda: Normy i anomalii. 1920–1930-е gody [Everyday Life of a Soviet City: Norms and Anomalies: 1920s–1930s], St. Petersburg; Kozlova, N.N. (1996) Gorizonty povsednevnosti sovetskoi epokhi: Golosa iz khora [Soviet Horizons of Everyday Life: Voices from the Choir], Moscow; Rozhkov, A.Yu. (2002) V krugu sverstnikov: Zhiznennyi mir molodogo cheloveka v sovetskoi Rossii 1920-kh godov [Among Peers: The Lifeworld of a Young Man in Soviet Russia in the 1920s], in 2 vols., Krasnodar; Lebina, N.B. and Chistikov, A.N. (2003) Obyvatel’ i reform: Kartiny povsednevnoi zhizni gorozhan v gody nepa i khruchshevskogo desyatiletiya [The Philistine and the Reforms: Pictures of the Everyday Life of Citizens in the Years of the New Economic Policy and the Khrushchev Decade], St. Petersburg; Isaeva, O.A. (2020) “General Characteristics of the Space of Everyday Life during the Formation of the Soviet State (1917–1920s),” Problemy sotsial’nykh i gumanitarnykh nauk, No. 2, pp. 96–100; Blon-skii, L.V. (2019) “The Level and Quality of Life in the Soviet City of the NEP Period (a Case Study of the City of Saratov),” Obshchestvo: Filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura, No. 8, pp. 119–122; Povarov, I.I. (2019) “Everyday Life of the NEP Era in the Mirror of the Soviet Cinema of the 1920s,” in Istoriya mirovykh tsivilizatsii. Sotsial’no-politicheskie protsessy: Napravleniya i metody issledovaniya [History of World Civilizations: Sociopolitical Processes: Areas and Methods of Research], Krasnoyarsk, pp. 138–145.
Osokina, E.A. (1999) Za fasadom “stalinskogo izobiliya”: Raspredelenie i rynok v snabzhenii naseleniya v gody industrializatsii. 1927–1941 [Behind the Facade of “Stalin’s Abundance”: Distribution and the Market in the Supply of the Population during the Years of Industrialization, 1927–1941], Moscow; Danil’chenko, S.L. (2016) Sistema upravleniya vnutrennei torgovlei i sotsial’nym snabzheniem v sovetskoi Rossii v usloviyakh NEPa (1921–1929 gg.) [The System of Management of Internal Trade and Social Supply in Soviet Russia under the NEP (1921–1929)], Ufa.
In this series, I would like to highlight the following works: Zhiromskaya, V.B. (1996) Posle revolyutsionnykh bur’: Naselenie Rossii v pervoi polovine 20-kh godov [After Revolutionary Storms: The Population of Russia in the First Half of the 1920s], Moscow; Polyakov, Yu.A. (Ed.) (1994) Naselenie Rossii v 1920–1950-e gody: Chislennost’, poteri, migratsii. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Population of Russia in the 1920s–1950s: Number, Losses, Migrations: Collection of Scientific Papers], Moscow.
Orlov, I.B., “Modern Russian NEP historiography…,” p. 89.
Kilin, A.P. (1994) Chastnoe torgovoe predprinimatel’stvo na Urale v gody nepa [Private Trade Entrepreneurship in the Urals during the NEP years], Yekaterinburg; Kilin, A.P. (2005) “Credit histories of the Urals,” Izvestiya Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 39, pp. 135–149; Kilin, A.P. (2018) Chastnaya torgovlya i kredit na Urale v gody NEPa: Ekonomicheskie, politicheskie, i sotsial’nye aspekty [Private Trade and Credit in the Urals during the NEP Years: Economic, Political, and Social Aspects], Yekaterinburg; Bakunin, A.V. (1994) “The Main Stages in the Development of Industry in the Urals (the Question of a New Approach in Methodology),” in Sokhranenie industrial’nogo naslediya: Mirovoi opyt i rossiiskie problem. Sbornik statei [Preservation of Industrial Heritage: World Experience and Russian Problems: Digest of Articles], Yekaterinburg, pp. 77–82; Ural v panorama XX veka [The Urals in the Panorama of the 20th Century] (2000), Yekaterinburg; Zaparii, V.V. (2001) Chernaya metallurgiya Urala XVIII–XX vv. [Ferrous Metallurgy of the Urals in the 18th–20th Centuries] (2000), Yekaterinburg; Fel’dman, M.A. (2001) Rabochie krupnoi promyshlennosti Urala v 1914–1941 gg. (chislennost’, sostav, sotsial’nyi oblik) [Workers of Large-Scale Industry in the Urals in 1914–1941 (Number, Composition, Social Makeup)], Yekaterinburg; Fel’dman, M.A. (2003) “The Cultural Level and Political Moods of Workers in Large-Scale Industry in the Urals during the NEP Years,” Otechestvennaya istoriya, No. 5, pp. 20–30; Fel’dman, M.A. (2006) “Incentives for the Labor of Industrial Workers in the Urals in the First Decades of the 20th Century” Ekonomicheskaya istoriya. Obozrenie, No. 12, pp. 36–55; Postnikov, S.P. and Fel’dman, M.A. (2004) Gosudarstvo i professional’naya podgotovka rabochikh kadrov promyshlennosti Urala v 1900–1940 gg. [State and Vocational Training of Industrial Workers in the Urals in 1900–1940], Yekaterinburg; Postnikov, S.P. and Fel’dman, M.A. (2006) Sotsial’nokul’turnyi oblik promyshlennykh rabochikh Urala (1900–1941 gg.) [Sociocultural Image of the Industrial Workers of the Urals (1900–1941)], Yekateriinburg; Nadezhdina, V.A. (2005) “Vse k sotsializmu idu i nikak ne mogu doiti”: Rabochie i krest’yane Yuzhnogo Urala i sotsial’naya politika Sovetskogo gosudarstva v gody nepa [“… I’m Going to Socialism, and I Just Can’t Get There”: Workers and Peasants of the South Urals and the Social Policy of the Soviet State during the NEP Years], Ufa; Shchit i mech Otchizny: Oruzhie Urala s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [Shield and Sword of the Fatherland: Weapons of the Urals from Ancient Times to the Present Day] (2008), Yekarerinburg.
Sutyrina, O.N. (1997) “Socioeconomic Development of the Mari Autonomous Oblast under the New Economic Policy, 1921–1928,” Candidate’s (History) Dissertation, Yoshkar-Ola; Gataullina, I.A. (2009) “The Middle Volga Region in the Years of the New Economic Policy: Socioeconomic Processes and Everyday Life,” Extended Abstract of Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Kazan’; Orlov, V.V. (2009) “Ethnopolitical and Socioeconomic Development of Chuvashia in the 1920s,” Extended Abstract of Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Kazan’; Klisheva, V.A. (2008) Krest’yanskie khozyaistva Udmurtii 1917–1927 gg.: So-tsial’no-ekonomicheskii analiz [Peasant Farms in Udmurtia 1917–1927: A Socioeconomic Analysis], Izhevsk; Bekhterev, S.L. (1995) “The Maximalist Alternative to NEP: An Attempt at Implementation,” in Poliitika i ekonomika Udmurtii sovetskogo perioda [The Politics and Economy of Udmurtia in the Soviet Period], Izhevsk, pp. 102–119; Bekhterev, S.L. (1997) Esero-maksimalistskoe dvizhenie v Udmurtii [The SR-Maximalist Movement in Udmurtia], Izhevsk; Nikonov, Yu.T. (1998) “Formation of Trade Cooperation in Udmurtia (1920–1925),” in Regional’nye aspekty prepodavaniya istorii [Regional Aspects of History Teaching], Izhevsk, pp. 22–27; Nikonov, Yu.T. (2000) “History of Trade Cooperation in Udmurtia (1920–1960),” Extended Abstract of Candidate’s (History) Dissertation, Izhevsk; Lapshina, O.Yu. (2002) “Material and Household Support of Industrial Workers during the Years of the New Economic Poli-cy (a Case Study of Nizhny Novgorod and Vyatka Provinces),” Candidate’s (History) Dissertation, Nizhny Novgorod; Vinogradov, S.V. (2006) “On Some Features of the Implementation of the New Economic Policy in the Volga Region,” Geologiya, Geografiya, i global’naya energiya [Geology, Geography, and Global Energy], No. 12, pp. 144–149; Chukanov, I.A. (2001) Sovetskaya ekonomika v 1920-e gody: Novyi vzglyad (po materialam Srednego Povolzh’ya) [The Soviet Economy in the 1920s: A New Look (Based on Materials from the Middle Volga Region)], Moscow; Chukanov, I.A. (2001) “Financial Policy of Local Authorities of the Middle Volga Region (1917–1929),” Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Kazan’; Samikhova, A.S. (2020) “Social Policy of the Soviet State in the Lower Volga Region during NEP,” in Astrakhanskie Petrovskie chteniya [Astrakhan Peter’s Readings], Astrakhan’, pp. 250–253; Lunochkin, A.V. (2020) “Food Crises in the City of Stalingrad in 1926–1927 and the City Government,” in XXII Ural’skie sotsiologicheskie chteniya [XXII Ural Sociological Readings], Yekaterinburg, pp. 32–36.
This aspect of NEP, at least in general terms, is, in fact, considered only in the following work: Sokolov, A.K. From the Military Industry to the Military–Industrial Complex: The Soviet Military Industry: 1917–June 1941.
See, for example, Zdanovich, A.A. (2008) Organy gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti i Krasnaya armiya. Deyatel’nost’ organov VChK–OGPU po obespecheniyu besopasnosti RKKA (1921–1934) [State Security Agencies and the Red Army: The Activities of the Bodies of the Cheka–OGPU to Ensure the Security of the Red Army (1921–1934)], St. Petersburg; Zenin, R.N. (2018) “Historical Aspects of the Military–Political Training of the Red Army Personnel during the Civil War and the Interwar Period,” Mir obrazovaniya–obrazovanie v mire, No. 3, pp. 22–31; Minakov, S.T. (2006) Voennaya elita 20–30-kh godov XX veka [Military Elite of the 1920–1930s], Moscow; Tarkhova, N.S. (2010) Krasnaya armiya i stalinskaya kollektivizatsiya 1928–1933 gg. [The Red Army and Stalinist Collectivization: 1928–1933], Moscow.
Two monographs on this topic were published back in the Soviet years: Klochkov, A.F. (1984) Krasnaya Armiya–shkola kommunisticheskogo vospitaniya sovetskikh voinov, 1918–1941 [The Red Army As the School of Communist Education of Soviet Soldiers: 1918–1941], Moscow; Lisenkov, M.M. (1977) Kul’turnaya revolyutsiya v SSSR i armiya [Cultural Revolution in the USSR and the Army], Moscow. In the post-Soviet period, on this topic, one can note Klimovich, A.T. (1995) “The Role of the Red Army in the Labor, Sociopolitical, and Cultural Life of the Country: 1921–1941,” Doctoral (History) Dissertation, Moscow; Konorev, V.V. (2015) “Reforming the System of Military Education and Its Influence on the Cultural Makeup of the Red Army Commander in the 1920s,” Trudy Voenno-kosmicheskoi akademii im. A.F. Mozhaiskogo, No. 647, pp. 205–217; Hagen, M. Von (1990) “The Army and Society in the 1920s,” Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, No. 12, pp. 53–59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Translated by B. Alekseev
Mikhail Yur’evich Mukhin, Dr. Sci. (Hist.), is a Professor and Chief Researcher at the RAS Institute of Russian History.
Rights and permissions
Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mukhin, M.Y. A Century of NEP Studies: Time to Take Stock?. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 92 (Suppl 8), S729–S736 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622140088
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331622140088