"It was almost forbidden in the Soviet Union to study the New Economic Policy"

Anatoly Chubais's statement, "It was almost forbidden in the Soviet Union to study the New Economic Policy", speaks volumes about the intellectual and ideological restraints of the Soviet era. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was a series of economic reforms introduced by Lenin in the 1920s targeted at reviving the Soviet economy by relaxing some communist policies and enabling more capitalist-like practices. The NEP was a pragmatic reaction to the economic challenges and decreases that followed the Russian Civil War, intended to stabilize the nation and encourage recovery. Nevertheless, it was constantly framed as a short-term measure, a strategic retreat from the strict policies of War Communism.

Chubais's observation highlights the sensitive nature of the NEP in Soviet historiography. By the time Stalin pertained to power, the NEP was phased out, supplanted by the First Five-Year Plan and policies of rapid industrialization and collectivization. Stalin's program promoted a rigid interpretation of Marxism-Leninism and was eager to minimize any policies that appeared to oppose the rigorous communist doctrine, such as those embodied by the NEP.

Studying the NEP was "practically prohibited" because it stood in contradiction to the ideologically pure, highly centralized economic designs that Stalin's federal government sought to promote. By allowing elements of commercialism, the NEP challenged the credibility and inevitability of a simply socialist economy resulting in communism. It might have also precariously recommended that versatile or hybrid approaches, rather than rigid adherence to communist orthodoxy, could be beneficial-- an idea that was anathema under Stalinist doctrine.

This suppression of NEP studies is a sign of the wider pattern of managing historical story and education within the Soviet Union. The federal government maintained rigid oversight over what concepts were accessible, often rewriting or leaving out parts of history that did not serve the prevailing ideological objectives. Chubais's remark underscores the limitations on intellectual flexibility and historic query in the Soviet Union, showcasing how ideologically inconvenient chapters of history were typically marginalized or disregarded.