Some leading cadres simply said that after the implementation of the New Economic Policy, there were no socialist elements left in the Soviet economy. Their concern was not how to make the NEP develop, but how to end it early. It is a small number of people represented by Bukharin who conduct in-depth research and publicity on the new economic policy within the party. However, in that fanatical era when the cultural level of the whole party and the whole society was low and passion was advocated, their scientific theories were often not understood by others. Instead, they were accused and criticized as "right-leaning". In intra-party debates in the 1920s, the theories often cited by both sides of the debate were Marx's classical theories and ideas before Lenin's New Economic Policy. The concept of socialism as "one big and two public" holds a dominant position. They oppose the New Economic Policy to the pursuit of socialism. They believe that the New Economic Policy is not the road to socialism but may lead to the restoration of capitalism. Stalin, Trotsky and others were eager to build pure socialism and engage in large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture. They believed that small production had no vitality and no future, and the sooner socialism was implemented, the better. After 1926, Stalin and others said on the one hand that the socialist economic power was strong enough to launch an attack on capitalism; on the other hand, they said that the development of capitalism had caused serious obstacles to the cause of socialism, so they were eager to eliminate "capitalism". ism". They did not truly realize that it was the New Economic Policy that restored and developed the Soviet economy. Instead, they regarded some practices in economic policies that were not capitalist as capitalism, or regarded limited capitalist factors that were conducive to the development of productive forces. Exaggerate. They use traditional standards, the perspective of class struggle, and the abstract concept of "social" or "capital" to understand the problems in the new economic policy and find a way out. Although they are obviously policies that are conducive to the development of productive forces, such as farmers' individual production and operation, the development of commodity economy, leasing land and means of production, etc., they think it is capitalism and a manifestation of class struggle, and they are worried about the restoration of capitalism. Issues such as farmers, commodity market relations, and individual economy that Lenin had already solved have not received due attention. They still regard them as capitalist things. After some problems occurred in the development of the New Economic Policy, instead of firming up the direction and improving the policy, they believed that capitalism was causing damage and ended the New Economic Policy on the pretext of attacking capitalism.

2. Catch-up mentality eager to speed up development

Historically, Russia’s tsarist rulers have regarded extraordinary development and seeking world power status as their dreams. After the October Revolution, the whole country was still affected by this dream of a powerful country, and because of the victory of the revolution, leaders and the masses developed a quick-win mentality that was eager to accelerate development. Everyone hopes to use the new regime to create a development speed higher than that of capitalist countries as soon as possible, consolidate the socialist system, and get rid of the backward hat. In the 1920s, despite their differences on some theoretical issues and specific economic policies, party leaders all agreed to speed up the development of large-scale industry and regarded this as the key to exerting the superiority of socialism and safeguarding national independence. Trotsky proposed "hyper-industrialization", and Stalin pursued it at an even faster speed, a speed at which the Bolsheviks were invincible and invincible. It will take him 10 years to complete the development process that took capitalist countries 50 to 100 years. At that time, the Soviet Union was still a country of farmers. The ideology of farmers and the eagerness for success of small producers had a great impact on the entire country and society. The more backward a country is, the more eager it is to change the status quo as quickly as possible, and it is easy to breed subjectivism and voluntarism, regardless of objective economic laws.

The international environment of the Soviet Union's socialist construction at that time also gave the party and the people a sense of urgency and even a sense of crisis to speed up development. The world revolution that had been hoped for for many years has not come. The Soviet Union is surrounded by capitalism and is engaged in construction. There is always a sense of pressure that if it falls behind, it will be beaten. The sense of responsibility and mission to defend national independence makes people regard the speed of development as a matter of vital importance to the country's life and death. In the late 1920s, Stalin repeatedly proposed that we should either perish or speed up our own development. From this height, he emphasized the importance of development speed. The overly severe judgment of the international situation has intensified this sense of urgency.

4. The profound influence of historical and traditional forces

In the struggle between Stalin and Bukhalin over the New Economic Policy, the direct reason for Stalin’s victory was that the political system at that time had major shortcomings. , he has organizational advantages. But it must be noted that he finally won the support of the majority of leaders at the Central Plenary Session. This shows that there is a social basis behind his victory. Such a social basis is not conducive to the implementation of new economic policies, but conducive to the establishment of the Stalin model. In addition to the influence of international and domestic conditions in the 1920s, this is also closely related to the influence of Russian historical traditions.

One of the focuses of the struggle between Stalin and Bukharin was agriculture and rural issues. Bukharin insisted on continuing to implement the New Economic Policy in the countryside and opposed hasty comprehensive collectivization. It should be said that he represented and safeguarded the interests of the farmers. However, he not only received no support from the central government, but also received no support from the farmers. The comprehensive collectivization movement launched by Stalin quickly unfolded in the countryside and was almost completed in a short period of time. Although farmers also staged partial and sporadic resistance during this period, they still accepted the fact of collectivization, and the collective farm system took root in the Soviet countryside from then on. Rooted. Although the collectivization movement was carried out with the help of class struggle and even violence, its comprehensive promotion was also intrinsically linked to the village community tradition in Russian history. In Russia, the tradition of village communes has a long history, and the populist trend of thought advocating the spirit of village communes has a profound social foundation. To a large extent, it can be said that the collective farm system is the farewell to the village community system under new historical conditions and is a mixture of historical tradition and Marxist theory. The village community had existed for hundreds of years before the October Revolution. It was violently impacted during Stolypin's reforms in 1906. However, after the October Revolution, especially during the wartime communism period, it gained miraculous success. of regeneration. During the New Economic Policy period of the 1920s, village community land ownership accounted for more than 95% of all farmers' land. The power of village communities was a resistance to the development of individual economy and commercial market relations in rural areas. Under the patriarchal village community system, land is collectively owned and distributed to farmers on a regular basis. Farmers work collectively, consume collectively, and live an egalitarian life. The spirit of collectivism is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. This deep-rooted tradition is a major obstacle to the implementation of new economic policies. Until the mid-1920s, populism still had considerable influence within the party, and many leaders believed that public ownership and equal distribution of land in village communities could inhibit the growth of the rich economy and capitalist factors. Farmers with a long-standing tradition of village communes hope to develop production and make money based on their own personal interests, but they are worried that the development of the market economy will cause polarization, or they will be deprived as rich farmers, so they are not used to independent production and management. The collective farm system has strong material and financial support from the state. It implements collective labor and equal distribution, which seems to be familiar and easy for farmers to accept. The collectivist spirit cultivated and embodied by village communities has laid the foundation for the socialist collective farm system. . Comprehensive collectivization made the village community organizations withdraw from the stage of history, but it allowed the egalitarian ideas, organizational structure and social functions of the village community to continue. The New Economic Policy faced many obstacles in rural development, but ended neatly. The influence of populism is a reason that cannot be ignored.

Political absolutism corresponding to the economic tradition of village communes also has a history of hundreds of years in Russia. This is an important social and historical reason for the formation of a highly centralized socialist political system. Under the autocratic system, the people are ignorant and backward, have no culture, and have no political and democratic ideology. They rely on the collective, worship authority, submit to administrative orders, hope for a good tsar, and pin their destiny on a good emperor. Although the socialist revolution overthrew the feudal autocratic regime, the economic foundation of society and the people's ideological culture could not change quickly. After the revolution, the worship of the czar transformed into the worship of the revolutionary leader of the proletarian party. On the eve of Lenin's death, he became an idol worshiped by cadres and the masses inside and outside the party. Lenin's death caused a huge shock in people's hearts. This mentality of leader worship turned into worship of the "living Lenin" after Lenin's death. Whoever can appear as a "living Lenin" can become the leader of the people.

In the intra-party struggles of the 1920s, Stalin showed superb organizational skills and iron will. He often appeared in front of the entire party as Lenin's student and successor, and also brought Trotsky and Zinovi to the party. Husband, Bukharin and others accused them of opposing Leninism and socialism and putting them in the position of enemies. Moreover, he has always shown that he represents the interests of the party and the people and has the party spirit of impartiality and selflessness. In this way, he became an ideal leader in people's minds and won the support of the entire party and people. Bukharin showed more of the qualities of a theoretician, with a gentle temperament and an approachable nature. He himself did not fight for power and gain, and others did not regard him as a reliable leader. Although he was the one who truly upheld and developed Leninism, people did not consider him to be Lenin's successor. This is an important reason why Bukharin’s new economic policy propositions are not supported.

The tradition of political autocratic rule has also had a great impact on the party-building model of the proletarian party. Lenin's proletarian party thought emphasized the need for strict organization and iron discipline, and the vanguard role of party members and cadres. After Lenin's death, the party's leadership style and methods did not make corresponding changes, and intra-party democracy was not improved. The cultural level and ideological awareness of the majority of party members and cadres and the people are not high, their democratic concepts are not strong, and they are too deeply affected by peasant consciousness. It is difficult for them to understand the importance of strengthening party building from the perspective of socialist democracy. A large number of cadres who were demobilized from the army and transferred to various construction projects were accustomed to the administrative order method and had a love for wartime communist policies. After the Thirteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the quality of party members hastily recruited into the party was low in all aspects, serious in bureaucratic habits, and dependent on the centralized political system. All these institutional, organizational and cadre reasons were favorable conditions for Stalin to consolidate his political rule and end the New Economic Policy.

References

[1] The Complete Works of Lenin (Volume 36-43) [M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1984-1987.

[2] Selected Works of Bukharin (Part 1, 2) [M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1981-1983.

[3] The Complete Works of Stalin (Volume 7-13) [M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1954-1958.

[4]G. Zinoviev. Leninism[M]. Beijing: Oriental Publishing House, 1989.

[5]Trotsky’s remarks. (Volume 1 and 2) [M]. Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 1979.

[6] Outline of the History of the Soviet Union (Volume 1 and 2) [M]. Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1991.

[7]Zheng Yifan. Bukharin's essay[M]. Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 1997