Download The Idiots Guide to Bolshevik Economic Policy Or Bolshevik

The Idiots Guide to Bolshevik Economic Policy
Or
Bolshevik Economics for Bluffers
Or
Advance Your Career in Bolshevik Economic Policy: ‘We will show you how in several easy stages’
a. Pre- 1914: hhhmmmm?
Oh dear not much coherent thought it has to be said. Bolshevik policy [in line with Marx with a bit of Leninist
adaptation] really about HOW to get into power rather than what to do when power is assumed. Probably reflects the
fact that Bolsheviks before 1914 saw little real hope of achieving power in their lifetime.
Before 1914 Bolshevik thinking went something like this:

Phase One: Capitalism would continue to develop in Russia with tasks becoming ever simpler through the
division of labour. Capitalism in agriculture would continue to develop with the emergence of a kulak class
forcing poorer peasants off the land into cities.

Phase Two: Revolution would start first in the advanced Western economies, where capitalism was highly
developed so that the transition from dictatorship of the proletariat [where the workers continue to use
bourgeois specialists under state control- i.e. socialism] to communism [where workers operate on their own
and the state withers away] would be relatively straightforward.

Phase Three: Russia’s more painful transition, due to the
high numbers of peasants and small unit/workshop
industry, would be helped by her communist allies.
Bolshevik party essential in guiding revolution and
preventing a working class compromise with the
industrialists [trade unionism or economism]
Much of this was macro-economic thinking [and not even much
of that]- i.e. big picture/general trend stuff not really micro[‘nitty-gritty’] economics.
b. 1914-1917 and the First World War
Lenin’s thought somewhat transformed by the war. In 1916 he postulated that Russia would now be first in the
revolution process [the weakest link from Imperialism the Highest Form of Capitalism] but would still be helped by
Western states whose revolutions would be triggered by Russia’s. [This thinking determined Lenin’s argument that
Russia accept the treaty of Brest-Litovsk]
c. 1917 the Year of Revolution
Three essential nuggets give examples of Lenin’s changing and opportunistic thought:
1. April Theses: Again largely taken up with how to gain power but Lenin did reiterate that communism would
be preceded by a period of dictatorship by the workers during which bourgeois capitalism would continue to
develop to a point at which communism could take over [quite how this was to be achieved was never really
explained]. Lenin did urge nationalisation of land- probably because Russian agriculture was deemed a relic of
feudal life and the peasants needed prodding; Lenin of course had famously welcomed the 1891 famine as a
way of ‘pitchforking’ [to use an irate peasant facing some downed Luftwaffe pilot metaphor] destitute peasants
into industry.
2. State and Revolution [Summer 1917]: Carried away by the events of 1917 Lenin now postulated the wildly
optimistic view that the transitional phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be short and that
communism and a ‘withered’ state would be rapidly achieved. Money would disappear and the wealth shared
equally. Crazy man!
3. Slogans: Here Lenin attempted to gain power with wild and silly promises he knew he would not keep,
according to the Western school. [Or did he? Some revisionists believe that Lenin got so carried away he actually
believed what he was peddling! This is the Service argument that Lenin was a dualist- flipping, like an MPs home,
between bouts of dictatorial frenzy and democratic populism]
All Power to the Soviets: A political slogan but part of Lenin’s strategy of gaining
popularity for the vanguard party.
Workers control of Factories: Mass participation strategy in line with State and
Revolution’s view that the transition to communism would be rapid.
Peace bread and Land: Lenin goes back on the April theses and in an attempt to
buy peasant loyalty agrees to peasant land seizures.
d. 1917-early 1918: The Commune Model and Mass Participation
Oh dear events seem to have overtaken Bolshevik economic planning- they find themselves in power with no coherent
micro-economic strategy. They simply hand power to the workers and peasants, while hastily nationalising the
commanding heights of the economy- railways/steel/armaments/banks etc. This policy was part based on:

the wild optimism of State and Revolution, [though talk of a dictatorship of the proletariat less pronounced],

the promises of the 1917 slogans

seat-of-your-pants opportunism cluelessness.
Russia by now was already in a state of economic collapse- spiralling inflation, urban de-population, strikes, factory
closure and food shortages. This was like handing power for the asylum to the lunatics! The Bolsheviks were still hopeful
for a bale out by western communist states.
e. March 1918: State Capitalism or ‘Diet War Communism’
March 1918 Bolsheviks now announce State Capitalism- i.e. more
central control of the economy as it continues to collapse.
Nationalisation increased and more talk of a dictatorship. Labour
discipline introduced in an effort to come to grips with anarchism
of factory committees. Bolsheviks agree that workers now not
sufficiently class conscious- in effect Bolshevik policy returning to
pre 1917 belief in a dictatorship model.
But really talk of State Control of major industry hijacked by onset
of full blown civil war…
f.
March 1918-March 1921: Communism or War Communism [depending on whether you are a 1918 Bolshevik
or a post 1921 Soviet historian]
Creeping, incremental state control [hence not really pure communism]. Introduced in an ad hoc/crisis management
sort of way to counter the threat of war [Soviet view keen to explain away WC’s abandonment in 1921] and not a
coherent thought-out strategy, but still elements of ideology [Bolshevik view at the time and supported by Western view
about Bolshevism as dictatorship]:

Grain requisitioning
Feed cities or eliminate the peasant class?

Nationalisation
Equip the Red Army or advance proletarian control?

Labour discipline
Boost war production or create ‘conscious’ workers?

Ban on private trade
End speculation or ban bourgeois trading?

Rationing-
Feed workers or create class antagonism against burzhui?

Elimination of money
Response to inflation/food shortages or eliminate trade?

To some extent a response to civil war [Soviet and revisionist],

To some extent an attempt to recover from chaos of earlier
Bolshevik policies [Commune model]

To some extent justified as the socialist phase of the transition
to full blown communism. [Hence crazy obsession with
nationalising one man units such as windmills in 1921]
Confusingly termed communism at the time- does this suggest that the
Bolsheviks had given up on any notion of a moneyless, barter,
‘withered state’ economy?
[Revisionists argue that in 1917 Bolshevik intentions were good but
events turned them in to the dictatorial toads they became.]
Better to call it War Socialism?
e. March 1921-1924: New Economic Policy
Return to a mixed economy:

Peasants to trade surplus grain and pay a fixed tax in kind and then [in 1923] in money.

Small economic units employing less than 20 men, although there were many breaches of this policy [80% of
total business units]

Allowance of middle men traders [NEPmen]- reality was that during War Communism illegal ‘bagmen’
performed much the same function.

But ‘commanding heights’- large scale industry still in state hands [80% of total production]
Policy was part influenced by the idea [supported by Bukharin] that agriculture provide the wealth for Russia i.e.
increasing peasant incomes could be taxed and money spent on industrial investment.
Hence with some justification Lenin could claim [at 10th Conference in March 1921 when he outlined the NEP] it was a
return to policies of State Capitalism in early 1918. But no doubt NEP forced on Lenin due to dismal results of War
Communism [now termed War Communism!] and bitterly resented by many Bolsheviks for betraying party principles by
allowing private trade, and fostering peasant bourgeois attitudes.
Advance to communism?
Possibly some justification in argument that had Lenin lived he
may have driven through collectivisation/industrial
nationalisation [and hence ditch Bukharin idea in favour of
view that agriculture restricted communist development] as
Stalin did in the 1930s and return therefore to policies of War
Communism [something Western historians would are keen to
point out- part of their view that War Communism was
ideological and also to suggest Lenin the equal of Stalin in the
‘evil bastard’ stakes.]
Conclusions
Certainly a large amount of ‘make it up as you go along policy’.
Were the communists committed to a commune model?
Possibly in 1917 but by 1924 probably less confident that the
economy could ever progress beyond state controlled socialist
model.
Would Lenin have ditched NEP? Maybe not if it continued to
generate prosperity but one suspects from his ‘Hang the kulak’
attitude that he might have ditched the policy at some stage.