Meaning: The quote "It was almost forbidden in the Soviet Union to study the New Economic Policy" by Anatoly Chubais sheds light on an important aspect of Soviet history and economic policy. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a significant departure from the central planning and state control that characterized the early years of the Soviet Union under Lenin's leadership. Anatoly Chubais, a prominent Russian politician and economist, highlights the taboo nature of studying the NEP in the Soviet Union, suggesting that the policy was not openly discussed or analyzed.

The New Economic Policy was introduced by Lenin in 1921 as a temporary retreat from War Communism, which had led to widespread economic devastation and social unrest. The NEP allowed for a limited return to a market-based economy, with a degree of private enterprise and trade permitted. This period saw the revival of small-scale private businesses, known as "NEPmen," and a relaxation of state control over agriculture and industry. The NEP also facilitated the re-establishment of economic ties with the outside world through foreign trade.

However, the NEP was a contentious issue within the Communist Party and Soviet society. While it brought some economic relief and allowed for a degree of recovery, it also represented a departure from the socialist principles of centralized planning and state ownership of the means of production. The policy was seen as a pragmatic compromise to address the immediate economic challenges facing the country, but it was also viewed by many as a deviation from the path of true socialism.

Anatoly Chubais' assertion that studying the NEP was almost forbidden in the Soviet Union reflects the complex and often contradictory attitudes towards this period of Soviet history. During the era of Joseph Stalin, who came to power after Lenin's death, the NEP was officially denounced as a deviation from Marxist-Leninist ideology. The policy was criticized for allowing the resurgence of capitalist elements and for undermining the building of socialism in the Soviet Union.

As a result, the study and discussion of the NEP were indeed restricted in the Soviet Union. Official historical narratives and academic discourse focused on celebrating the achievements of central planning and industrialization under Stalin, while downplaying or ignoring the complexities and challenges of the NEP era. This limited scholarly exploration of the NEP's impact on the Soviet economy and society, as well as its long-term implications for the country's development.

Chubais, as a politician and economist, likely experienced firsthand the constraints on discussing the NEP and its significance. His statement underscores the lingering sensitivity and political implications of revisiting this contentious period of Soviet history. It also highlights the challenges faced by scholars and intellectuals in engaging with historical topics that deviated from the officially sanctioned narratives of the Soviet regime.

In the post-Soviet era, there has been a resurgence of interest in reevaluating the NEP and its legacy. Scholars and historians have sought to critically assess the economic, social, and political dynamics of this period, acknowledging both its achievements and its shortcomings. This reexamination has contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the NEP and its impact on subsequent developments in the Soviet Union and the broader socialist bloc.

In conclusion, Anatoly Chubais' quote encapsulates the complex historical and ideological dynamics surrounding the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union. The NEP represented a departure from the rigid central planning of the early Soviet years, and its study was restricted in the Soviet Union due to its contentious nature and divergence from official socialist ideology. However, in the post-Soviet era, there has been a growing scholarly interest in reassessing the NEP and its significance, shedding new light on this pivotal period in Soviet history.