Assessing the Failure of War Communism
TITLE
To what extent was War Communism a failure?
ESSAY
To assess the extent to which War Communism was a failure, it is essential to consider both its failures and successes in shaping the economic and political landscape of Soviet Russia.
One of the primary arguments for considering War Communism a failure lies in its inability to effectively manage the economy and address the needs of the population. The policy of grain requisition led to a steep decline in agricultural production as peasants lacked the incentive to produce surplus when they were not allowed to make profits. This, in turn, fueled famine and anti-Bolshevik uprisings, such as the Kronstadt rebellion, which threatened Party control and ultimately led to the policy's abandonment. Furthermore, the substitution of money with bartering under War Communism resulted in inflation and a decline in revenue collection, further straining the economy.
Moreover, the large-scale migration of urban workers to the countryside under War Communism due to food shortages highlighted the policy's failure to sustain industrial productivity. With the productivity rate dropping significantly, it became evident that the economic restructuring under War Communism was unsustainable and detrimental to the workforce.
However, proponents of War Communism argue that the policy played a crucial role in ensuring the Red Army's success during the civil war, thereby securing Bolshevik control in Russia. Furthermore, the establishment of nationalisation and centralised control principles under War Communism laid the foundation for the Party's control over key sectors of the economy, a legacy that persisted through the NEP and into the late 20th century.
Additionally, the internal opposition to the NEP within the Party indicates a recognition of War Communism as a successful model for organizing a communist economy. Lenin's insistence on the temporary nature of the NEP further underscores the significance of War Communism in shaping the Party's economic policies.
In conclusion, while War Communism exhibited significant shortcomings in managing the economy and addressing the needs of the population, its role in securing Bolshevik control and establishing key principles of nationalisation and centralised control cannot be overlooked. The extent to which War Communism was a failure ultimately depends on the perspective from which it is examined, with both arguments for and against its efficacy holding merit in the historical analysis of Soviet Russia.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
AS LEVEL
NOTES
To what extent was War Communism a failure?
Arguments to support the statement could be as follows. The failure of War Communism (WC) is evidenced by the fact that it was replaced by the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921. This showed that the Party could not restructure Russia’s economy on ideological lines. The WC policy of grain requisition was seen as effectively one of theft. This alienated peasant support and led to a decline in production because there was no incentive to produce a surplus when no profit was allowed to be made. Famine was created which led to widespread anti-Bolshevik uprisings in 1920‒21. Because one such uprising occurred among the previously staunchly loyal sailors of the Kronstadt Naval Base, Lenin decided to abolish WC and introduce the NEP. If these sailors could rebel because they thought WC was too severe, it posed a serious threat to Party control. WC eliminated money as a form of exchange and replaced it with bartering. This resulted in inflation, and the Party were unable to raise revenue because most taxes had been abolished. Due to the decline in food production under WC, workers in cities saw moving to the countryside to grow their own food as their only hope to avoid starvation. The number of people working dropped by 50%, and by 1920, the average worker’s productivity rate had dropped to 44%, lower than in 1913.
The view can be challenged. WC ensured that the Red Army was fed and supplied to be victorious in the civil war. This victory ensured that the Bolsheviks remained in control and could shape Russia in the image they wanted. WC established the principle of nationalisation and centralised control. Under NEP, the Party still controlled what Lenin called ‘the commanding heights of the economy’ (large-scale industry, banking and foreign trade) and it was not lost until the late 20th century. The fact that the NEP was met with widespread opposition within the Party suggests that there was a widespread belief that WC had successfully established the template for how a communist economy should be organised. Lenin was clear that the NEP was only ever to be a temporary policy. Accept any other valid responses.