Russian Protectionism: Problems of Institutional Heritage

2012 ◽  
pp. 96-114
Author(s):  
L. Tsedilin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
The State ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
State Monopoly ◽  
The Times ◽  
Soviet Experience

The article analyzes the pre-revolutionary and the Soviet experience of the protectionist policies. Special attention is paid to the external economic policy during the times of NEP (New Economic Policy), socialist industrialization and the years of 1970-1980s. The results of the state monopoly on foreign trade and currency transactions in the Soviet Union are summarized; the economic integration in the frames of Comecon is assessed.

Foreign analysts on the state of the industry of the USSR in the late 1970s - the first half of the 1980s

2021 ◽  
pp. 265-278
Author(s):  
Maksim Nazarenko
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Industrial Production ◽  
Industrial Sector ◽  
The State ◽  
Soviet Leadership ◽  
Production Development ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Fixed Assets

The article considers the industry estimates of the USSR of the late socialist period contained in the works of foreign economists. Particular attention is paid to the sovietological interpretations of the state of the USSR industrial sector as well as the economic policy of Soviet leadership in generating growth of industrial production, development of the Eastern regions of the country, innovation and modernization of fixed assets. The author concludes that the studies conducted by foreign scientists make it possible to clarify the assessment of the industrial sector of the Soviet Union before Perestroika and to adjust the estimates of economic development of the USSR of the “Brezhnev Era”.

A Postwar Perestroika? Toward a History of Private Enterprise in the USSR

Slavic Review ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Hessler
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Private Enterprise ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Business ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
Prison Camp

One of the firmest popular conceptions of the Soviet Union in the United States is of a system diat categorically banned private enterprise. Embraced by specialists and the general public alike, this conception reflects the official Soviet stance diat the private sector was eradicated during losif Stalin's “great break” of 1929-30. Indeed, over the course of diose two years, individual peasants were compelled to collectivize, private stores forcibly shut, private manufactures socialized, and even doctors and dentists pressured to cooperate or to close shop. The concept of an interdiction against all private economic activity found support in the words of the dictator–Stalin's assertions that the Soviet Union was a society “without capitalists, small or big,” that socialist, not capitalist, property was the “foundation of revolutionary legality,” and many other statements of a similar ilk. Stalin proved his commitment to this model by his readiness to resort to coercion against its violators: at his instigation, repressive laws threatened entrepreneurs with five to ten years in prison camp for profitable private business. Such developments appeared as unequivocal as they proved lasting; when commentators discussed perestroika in the late 1980s, the only historical precedent they could identify was Lenin's New Economic Policy six decades before.

The Phantom of the Soviet Thermidor

2019 ◽  
pp. 234-273
Author(s):  
Jay Bergman
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The French Revolution

Chapter 8 describes the origins of the debate over Thermidor—the phase in the French Revolution following the Jacobin Terror—in the New Economic Policy Lenin initiated in 1921. It also shows the role the concept played in the struggle for power to succeed Lenin. The debate over what its realization in the Soviet Union would entail reflected the very real fear among the Bolsheviks that their revolution might end before the construction of socialism had even begun. To them, Thermidor was virtually a synonym for counter-revolution. For mostly political purposes—but also because their fear of it was real—Stalin and Bukharin, in the mid-1920s, argued that to evoke the danger of a Soviet Thermidor was tantamount to advocating it. Trotsky, who always considered analogies with French revolutions instructive, in the 1920s defined Thermidor as a form of counter-revolution. But since, in his opinion, it had not yet occurred in the Soviet Union, there was reason to believe it could be avoided altogether.

scholarly journals Retrospective analysis of the USSR sea trade ports operation in conditions of new economic policy (1921-1928).

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90
Author(s):  
Marina Vladislavovna Sabaydash
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Water Transport ◽  
Management System ◽  
The State ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
Inland Water ◽  
Sea Ports ◽  
Inland Water Transport

The article highlights the specific features of implementing the new economic policy in the seaports of the USSR. The general laws of economic development of the commercial sea ports during the NEP period have been formulated. Statistical data on port capacity from the UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the USA, and France were used for the first time, and an assessment of the economic development of domestic sea ports was made in comparison with the above countries. It was stated that the drop in cargo turnover of the Soviet ports in relation to 1913 was the most significant, and the post-war restoration was slower in comparison with European ports, with the railway and inland water transport of the USSR. It was proved that the decrease in port turnover in the USSR was a consequence of a decrease in the foreign trade volume and short sea shipping. Maintaining the state monopoly of foreign trade, which in the NEP period transformed into the state capitalism, negatively affected outward and inward trade. The intensity of coastal shipping service grew slowly due to the low specialization of the regions. The seaport management system was studied; its centralization and similarity with the port management system of the Russian Empire were stated. There have been presented the study results of property relations in seaports. It was determined that the landowners in the ports were state departments represented by central ministries (people's commissariats), the owners of other property were state and sectorial governmental bodies, joint-stock companies with a predominance of state ownership. Sea trade ports were funded from the budget of the People's Commissariat of Communication Means. Port financing was ten times less than financing of railways and several times less than inland water transport financing

China's “New Economic Policy”—Transition or Beginning

1964 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 65-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Schurmann
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
Economic Relationships ◽  
Great Leap ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Voluntary Response ◽  
Great Leap Forward ◽  
Traditional Patterns ◽  
The Great Leap Forward

Until a short time ago, it appeared that much of what was going on in China could be characterised by the cynical aphorism plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. Many things became manifest in the country that were reminiscent of themes centuries old. China had gone through two radical phases, one during the First Five-Year Plan period when the Chinese Communists tried to repeat the Soviet experience of industrialisation, and the second during the Great Leap Forward when they used their own mobilisational means to try to achieve economic break-through. The ninth Plenum in January 1961 called a dramatic halt to the extreme policies of the Great Leap Forward, and launched a period that bears strong similarities to the N.E.P. (New Economic Policy) period of the early 1920s in the Soviet Union. Many traditional patterns that were effaced during the years of radicalism began to reappear. There was talk of the need “to study very well traditional economic relationships.” It seemed that for a while the leadership had decided that only a truly voluntary response from below, and not coercion of any sort, could rescue China from the morass in which it found itself. But as of the time of the writing of this article, there are ominous signs that China may be approaching another “1928.” The Party drums are rolling once again, and the themes are not those of the N.E.P., but more like those which preceded the great Soviet collectivisation drive of 1928. During the last few years, the leadership made no attempt to hide the facts of China's poverty and isolation. But now a new note of defiance, of toughness has crept out. Where it will lead is hard to say.

Lenin and the Question of Private Trade in Soviet Russia

Slavic Review ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-412
Author(s):  
Alan Ball
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Intervention ◽  
Economic Collapse ◽  
Soviet Russia

Few official changes of course in the Soviet Union have been as dramatic as the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921. Supplanting what had come to be called War Communism (1918-1920)—a boiling mixture of revolutionary euphoria, bitter civil war, foreign intervention, economic collapse, and growing peasant unrest—NEP represented a new departure in many areas of Soviet life. First and foremost, eyewitnesses were struck by the legalization of a considerable amount of private economic activity, in contrast to the harsh measures adopted by the Bolsheviks against the private sector during War Communism.While this change seemed an improvement to most foreigners on the scene (and undoubtedly to most Russians), revolutionaries of diverse hues regarded the legalization of private trade in 1921 as a clear signal that the Bolsheviks had jettisoned the ideals of the Revolution.

scholarly journals The Anarchist Movement in Ukraine at the Height of the New Economic Policy (1924-25)

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Viktor Savchenko
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New Economic Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Police Agencies ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Unemployed ◽  
Southern Ukraine ◽  
Unknown Period

This paper examines a virtually unknown period of the development of the anarchist movement in Ukraine, ignored by both Soviet and post-Soviet historians, for whom the history of anarchism in the Soviet Union ended in 1921. The author,basing his information on archival materials,including the archives of the Soviet secret police agencies (ChK, GPU, OGPU), extends the life of the anarchist movement through the mid-1920s. This was a period of revitalization of the movement, especially among students, young workers, and the unemployed in the cities of Eastern and Southern Ukraine (Kharkiv, Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk, and Poltava). Despite repression by the government, the anarchist movement in the USSR in the 1920s was able to sustain itself by going underground.

Condition of the Armenian Apostolic Church at the Time of Coming to Authority N. S. Khrushchev

2020 ◽  
pp. 245-265
Author(s):  
Арсен Артурович Григорян
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
National Archive ◽  
The State ◽  
State Archive ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Apostolic Church

Цель данной статьи - описать условия, в которых Армянская Апостольская Церковь вступила в эпоху правления Н. С. Хрущёва, начавшуюся в 1953 г. По содержанию статью можно поделить на две части: в первой даются сведения о количестве приходов на территории Советского Союза и за его пределами, а также о составе армянского духовенства в СССР; во второй излагаются проблемы, существовавшие внутри Армянской Церкви, и рассматриваются их причины. Методы исследования - описание и анализ. Ценность исследования заключается в использовании ранее неопубликованных документов Государственного архива Российской Федерации и Национального архива Армении. По итогам изучения фактического материала выделяются основные проблемы Армянской Апостольской Церкви на 1953 г.: финансовый дефицит, конфликт армянских католикосатов и стремление враждующих СССР и США использовать церковь в своих политических целях. The purpose of this article is to describe the conditions in which the Armenian Apostolic Church entered the epoch of the reign of N. S. Khrushchev, which began in 1953. The article can be divided into two parts: first one gives information about the number of parishes in the territory of the Soviet Union and beyond, and about the structure of the Armenian clergy in the USSR; the second one sets out the problems that existed in the Armenian Church and discusses their causes. Research methods - description and analysis. The value of the study lies in the use of previously unpublished documents of the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the National Archive of Armenia. Based on the results of studying the materials, the main problems of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1953 are: financial deficit, the conflict of Armenian Catholicosates and the eagerness of USSR and the USA, that feuded with each other, to use the Сhurch for their political purposes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document