Berthel, Kyle

English

DigitalCommons@C.O.D.

ESSAIVolume 7 Article 94-1-2010Economic Transition: A Movement of the Peopleor the Leader?Kyle BerthelCollege of DuPageKyle BerthelFollow this and additional works at: http://dc.cod.edu/essaiThis Selection is brought to you for free and open access by the College Publications at DigitalCommons@C.O.D.. It has been accepted for inclusion inESSAI by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@C.O.D.. For more information, please contact koteles@cod.edu.Recommended CitationBerthel, Kyle and Berthel, Kyle (2009) "Economic Transition: A Movement of the People or the Leader?," ESSAI: Vol. 7, Article 9.Available at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/910Economic Transition: A Movement of the People or the Leader?by Kyle Berthel(History 2225)s the Bolshevik faction transitioned from revolutionary group to state power their greatesttest came not in their solidifying of political authority but in their handling of the complexRussian economic situation.  The new Bolshevik government was confronted with theimmense task of restructuring the entire framework of the economic system while still maintainingthe delicate equilibrium that kept Russia from collapsing into famine and chaos.  In analyzingLenin’s documents in which he addresses Russia’s economic transition, a clear distinction can bemade between his initial perceived unanimity with the Russian proletariat in a struggle to create aneconomic system void of the social costs of capitalist actions, and his later realizations thatdemanded a more realistic economic approach.  Lenin’s notion of a concurrent ideological thoughtprocess with the Russian proletariat was eventually revealed as fictitious, forcing him, against hiswill, to abandon his firm ideological stance for more pragmatic solutions.From the beginning of his public career Lenin was heralded as an economic thinker.  Hisassessment of Russia’s economic development, which he detailed in his first book The Developmentof Capitalism in Russia reflected his disdain for the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poorin the economic system.  Lenin’s outright opposition to the social injustices endured by the lowerclass fueled his desire to reconfigure the Russian economy into a Soviet system.  Despite his firmideological belief in Marxist communist society, Lenin disregarded the need for a capitalist era asprescribed by Marx in his writings on the socioeconomic stages of development.  Rather, heenvisioned a movement from the base of society, driven and strengthened by the will of theproletariat that would rise up and uproot the current economic imbalance.  As reflected in his earlywritings, Lenin’s apparent belief in the power of the proletariat’s resolve infused in him theobligation to act as a vessel through which the proletariat’s voice could be heard.  Despite beingraised in a higher class environment, Lenin claimed his authority to represent the uneasy proletariatwas rooted in the sporadic working class revolts which he described as a comprehensive movementin its “embryonic form” (p 41).1  As he explains in his essay “What Is To Be Done,” “there can be notalk of independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of theirmovement, the only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology” (p 41).  Lenin later claimed inan interview amidst recent revolts that “the worker and peasant masses have been rallying ever closerand more solidly around the Communist-Bolshevik Party, the authentic spokesperson of the will ofthe masses” (p 71).  Lenin sensed a strong unity between the will of the people and the objectives ofthe Bolshevik movement.  Thus Lenin assumed the position of facilitator of an uprising bornamongst the proletariat’s scorn for the current economic environment.The extent of Lenin’s perceived ideological connections with the proletariat movementbecome evident in his subsequent writings.  In response to tsar Nicholas II’s loosening of standardsimposed on the press Lenin emphatically condemned the role of literature as an “individualundertaking, independent of the common cause of the proletariat” (p 43).  The proletariat, in Lenin’sview, clearly needed an established state and leader to promote their voice; the Bolshevik movementto Lenin ran parallel with the desires of the proletariat thus putting him in the position to fulfill thisrole of spokesperson.  Lenin’s allusions to the proletariat’s voice enforce his notion of singularity ofthought between his ideology and that of the peasant proletariat.  In his speech to Bolshevikpropagandists after their rise to power Lenin confidently declared “we know that every worker andA1Berthel and Berthel: Economic Transition: A Movement of the People or the Leader?Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 200911peasant earning his own livelihood feels, deep down in his heart, that there is no salvation fromfamine and ruin but in Soviet power… every peasant will help you in this difficult task” (p 68).Lenin’s seemingly concurrent ideological economic beliefs with the proletariat would later bequestioned by the impending economic hardships soon to be faced.Lenin saw capitalism as the worldwide economic scourge which facilitated the discontent ofthe proletariat and the oppression of individuals worldwide.  The foundation of Lenin’s economicideology rested on the notion of decimating the existence of a class of people without access tomeans of production and capital, such as the proletariat, through the extermination of capitalism.Lenin condemned the creation of monopolies by capitalist powers, emphatically stating that “themore capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt” (p 45).  Leninlaid out in his essay “The State and Revolution,” his plan for the acquisition of “large scaleproduction on the basis of what capitalism had created” – a complete reorganization of roles withinthe economic structure (p 47).  Regardless of the method, Lenin clearly wished to emancipate theRussian economy from the grips of a free market capitalist system, transforming it into a Sovietsystem in line with the supposed proletariat will.As Lenin began laying out his economic plan of a proletariat take over he reaffirmed his faithin the proletariat to function through the transition.  In his letter to the delegates of the all-RussianCongress Lenin explicitly opens with “[a]ll the land must belong to the people.  All the landed estatesmust be turned over to the peasants without compensation” (p 54).  Lenin’s plan expressed great faithin the proletariat as he entrusts them to “take over the land without delay and to do it in as organizeda way as possible, under no circumstances allowing damage to the property and exerting every effortto increase the production of grain and meat since the troops at the front are in dire straits” (p 54).Lenin further underlines the necessity in collaboration between the urban and rural proletariat inorder to vanquish the influence of capitalist powers (p 55).  In an article published soon before theBolshevik take over Lenin proclaims that the proletariat “through their own experience, would soonlearn how to distribute the land, products, and grains properly” (p 60).  Lenin would soon learn thathis confidence in the proficiency of the proletariat, though most compatible with his vision ofeconomic turnover in Russia, was excessively idealistic.As economic pressures threatened to collapse the Russian state after the Bolshevikacquisition of power, the realization of the naivety of a smooth transition through proletariat actionsbegins to surface in Lenin’s altered tone and actions.  The Bolsheviks were forced to impose forcedseizures of grain in order to equally distribute the food supply between urban and rural centers.Lenin’s desired state of collaborative effort between urban and rural proletariat had not come tofruition, partially due to the Soviet’s crushing of the emerging black market.  In the face of uprisingsLenin proclaimed his fear of a capitalist re-emergence stating “the more acute the food crisis, themore the capitalist intensify their struggle against Soviet power” (p 76).  Lenin’s defense of thepeasant’s ability to support the economy remained, but Lenin’s tone shifted to a defensive stance asevidenced in his letter to Maxim Gorky where he writes, “the intellectual forces of the worker andpeasants are growing and gaining strength in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and itshenchmen, the intellectual lackeys of capital, who imagine they are the brains of the nation.Actually, they are not the brains, but shit” (p 79).  His sharp tone reflects his increasing realizationthat the proletariat people were not as competent as he initially expected and it would take timebefore they were capable of sustaining the economy.  In his Resolution on War and Peace Lenindisplays the extent of his realization that the peasantry were inept, stating it would take “the adoptionof the most energetic, ruthlessly determined and Draconian measures to improve the self-disciplineof the workers and peasants of Russia” (p 82).Increased pressure from the Whites intensified the Civil War and furthered Lenin’srealization that the Soviet economy was unsafe in the peasant’s hands.  The continued suppression ofwar communism led to anti-Bolshevik uprisings as well as reinstatement of free market practice,2ESSAI, Vol. 7 [2009], Art. 9http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/912facilitated by the Kolchak.  Lenin’s disgust in regards to the peasants actions led to his writing aLetter to the Workers and Peasants Apropos of the Victory in which he declares “rogues andprofiteers and very ignorant peasants argue in this way – better sell my grain at the open marketprice, I will get far more for it than the fixed paid by the state” (p 85).  This attitude of the peasantsundermined both Lenin’s fervent belief in the power of the peasants as well as the backbone of afunctioning Soviet system.  Initially convinced that the power of the peasants could rid themselves ofcapitalism, Lenin was now reduced to chiding them for reinstating the use of a free market system.As the peasants began retreating back to free market practices, Lenin was forced to reconsider thepracticality of his initial ideological notion of a harmonious urban and rural peasant run economy.Lenin’s documents during the transition from War Communism to the installation of the NewEconomic Policy (NEP) show his evolving mindset towards the roles played by the state and thepeasants in the attempt to establish the Soviet system.  Lenin willingly admits that “the peasantry isdissatisfied with the form of [the states] relations…only agreement with the peasants can save thesocialist revolution” (p 116) and thus begins to compromise his ideological economic framework foran alternative program to rescue the struggling economy.  The new system proposed by Lenin was ahybrid of free trade capitalist enterprise and dominant state authority.  In his proposition of thislimited capitalism under state control Lenin admits “we overdid the nationalization of industry andtrade, clamping down on local exchange of commodities.  Was that a mistake?  It certainly was.” (p119)  While discoursing on the functions of the NEP Lenin states “it is impossible to establish acorrect relationship between the proletariat and the peasantry, or an altogether stable form ofeconomic alliance between these two classes in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism,without regular commodity exchange or the exchange of products between industry and agriculture.”(p 120)  In his report on the progress of the NEP Lenin writes “the customary operation of capitalisteconomy and capitalist exchange…is essential for the people” (p 127).  Statements such as thesestarkly contrast Lenin’s initial ideological scorn of even the notion of capitalism, yet the reality of theproletariat’s nature forced him to compromise.Amidst the intellectual and ideological debate surrounding the NEP, Lenin shows a strongdesire to re-administer and adhere to his initial ideological inclinations of a Soviet economy in thehands of the people, void of any hint of capitalism. This perception is reinforced by Lenin’s constantreferencing of limited capitalism in the Soviet system as a retreat (p 128-129).  The idea of limitedcapitalism controlled by the state is admittedly not addressed by Marx, and Lenin is forced tostruggle with how this system fits into his original ideological beliefs.  When addressing theCongress he prods them to “show by [their] practical efforts that [they could] work no less efficientlythan the capitalist” avowing that if they “beat capitalism and create a link with peasant farming [they]shall become an absolutely invincible power” (p 129).  Although Lenin out of necessity re-introducedlimited forms of capitalism, it is clear that he would still prefer to instill the ideological superiority ofcommunism.  Lenin concludes his address to Congress with an interesting statement that displays hisaltered view of the peasants, stating that if they succeed without capitalism then “the rank-and-filepeasants will see that we are helping them and they will follow our lead” (p 129).  Lenin no longerconceived of the peasants at the forefront of the surge for economic change, but now viewed them asincompetent followers willing only to follow those who could promise material success.Ultimately the convoluted economic system that emerged from the desires of Soviet structureand the necessity for free market trade left Lenin in an inconclusive state regarding the direction ofthe economy and the role of the peasants throughout the course of transition.  In his “Report to theFourth Congress of the Communist International” Lenin outlines the road Russia had taken to arriveat its current economic state, admitting the naivety of the government at times in its hastyimplementation of dominant state control.  In this document Lenin presents contradictory statementsas to the role of the peasants throughout the economic transition, first admitting that “feeling ranagainst us among large masses of peasants” yet later noting that because of their extreme hatred3Berthel and Berthel: Economic Transition: A Movement of the People or the Leader?Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 200913towards landowners “the peasantry supported us with all their enthusiasm and loyalty” (p 133).While the support of the peasants was indeed volatile, largely dependant on their economic wellbeing, it is clear that even in Lenin’s mind the prominence of their role in facilitating the economicrevolution had become elusive.  What Lenin had learned was that the state would have to solve thecomplex issue of Soviet integration – it would not be solved purely by the peasant’s disgust incapitalism.Lenin’s unfaltering ideological distaste for capitalism, though compromised later in hisleadership through the introduction of state capitalism, remained a firm standard for Lenin.  Hisintroduction of the NEP was a necessary action to reconcile his misplaced trust in the desire of thelower class.  The unyielding reliance Lenin initially placed in the peasantry to establish the Sovietsystem was revealed to be excessive as the peasants ultimately retreated to free market practices.Though eventually having to support policies that reinstated limited capitalist endeavors Lenin wasresolute in his position that the Soviet system when functioning through the support of the peoplewas superior.  Thus the decisions adopted in the NEP arose merely from a necessity to counteract thedeficiencies of the peasantry in which Lenin had over trusted to carry the Soviet mission.   In hisaddress to the Congress of International Communist Lenin concludes that “[the Soviet state] shallhave to learn much, and we have realized that we still have much to learn” (p 133).  Lenin’s ideologywas initially nothing more than that – an untested ideology that placed its faith in the power of thepeople.  Five years later that ideology had been transformed into a vast functioning system, anddespite the necessity of sacrificing some ideological positions for pragmatic purposes Leninremained determined to learn from his past mistakes to bring to fruition his dream of a functioningSoviet state.Note1 All Lenin’s essay titles and page numbers referred to in this paper come from the book in the WorkCited lising.Work CitedBrooks, Jeffrey, and Georgiy Chernyavskiy (eds). Lenin and the Making of the Soviet State:  A BriefHistory with Documents.  Boston:  Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.4ESSAI, Vol. 7 [2009], Art. 9http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/9

Economic Transition: A Movement of the People or the Leader?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

[email protected].