How far did Lenin adhere to his ideological aims during his consolidation of power, 1917-1924?

Following the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917, It can be debated to what extent Lenin stuck to his original ideological aims for Russia during his attempt to stabilise the country. On the one hand, it can be said that he followed his original political and economic ideologies through his pursuit of democratic voluntarism and rigid authoritarianism, his first decrees and that his economic policies of War Communism and NEP, whilst starkly different, were each justified in their own right. Furthermore, Lenin’s social and cultural reforms fitted with his ideology, as he used propaganda, denounced the church, and reformed the role of women. On the other hand, it can be said that Lenin strayed from his initial political and economic aims due to the contradictions within his first decrees and the use of War Communism because of economic desperation, rather than ideological allegiance. Furthermore, it can be shown that NEP economically contradicted Lenin’s ideological aims. Lenin’s social and cultural moves also can be seen to have been tempered by his social conservatism.
Firstly, it is necessary to define Lenin’s ideological aims. It is evident that Lenin subscribed to Marxism, with the ultimate aim of achieving a Communist society. This can be seen by his promotion of definitive Marxist principles such as through his April Theses in 1917. However, it is also clear that Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism was shaped by his exposure to the Russian revolutionary tradition, as his idolisation of works by Nechaev, Tkachev and most importantly, Chernyshevsky’s ‘What is to be done’ inspired his doctrine. This can be seen through his belief in a disciplined revolutionary vanguard, his defence of Jacobin methods of dictatorship and his contempt for liberals and democrats. Therefore, it can be said that Lenin adapted Marxism to fit Russian conditions. This can further be demonstrated by Lenin’s deviance from some original Marxist principles to suit the Russian climate, with Figes arguing that Lenin used Russian revolutionary tradition ‘to inject a distinctly Russian dose of conspiratorial politics into a Marxist dialect’. An example of this is the fact that Marxist dialect suggests that one should remain passive and wait for revolution to mature through the development of objective conditions, whilst Leninist ideology encourages revolution to be brought about through political action. Furthermore, historians such as Robert Service have mentioned that Lenin followed an ‘amoralist’ point of view, perhaps inspired by his reading of Nechaev’s ‘Catechism of a revolutionary’. This perspective declared that a revolutionary ought to be dedicated and ruthless, and must do anything for the sake of the revolution.
It can be said that Lenin followed his economic and political ideological aims during his consolidation of power. An example of this his first decrees issued in 1917, including the ‘Decree on Land’, which allowed peasants to take over the estates of the gentry without compensation and abolished private property. This agreed with his ideological aims as laid out in his slogan ‘Land, bread and peace’. Furthermore, Lenin’s ‘Decree on Peace’ also agreed with the ideological aims he had stated previously, as his withdrawal from the war with no indemnities or annexations reflected the fact that he viewed the Great War as a result of imperialism, labelling it ‘the highest stage of capitalism’. Therefore, it can be said that Lenin’s actions upon first coming into power agreed with his ideological beliefs. He continued to pursue his belief that the war was the fault of the bourgeoisie by agreeing to the Treaty of Brest-Livotsk in March 1918. Despite being an economic setback, as Russia lost 27% of its arable land, the treaty was ideologically coherent. This was primarily because it enabled Lenin to escape the capitalist war but also because it meant that the Bolsheviks could focus on overcoming their internal enemies, with Lenin saying that ‘the bourgeoisie has to be throttled, and for that, we need both hands free’. This shows the treaty allowed the Bolsheviks to focus on revolution. Lenin also stuck to his ideology in relation to his pursuit of democratic voluntarism and rigid authoritarianism. It can be argued that Lenin’s use of rigid authoritarianism was a result of ideological allegiance, rather than occurring out of political necessity. This is because examples of authoritarianism predate the civil war, for instance the setting up of Cheka (‘The All Russian Extraordinary Commission for Fighting Counter-Revolution, Sabotage and Speculation’) in December 1917 and the banning of opposition press in October 1917. Furthermore, it can be argued that organisations such as Cheka were ideologically coherent as the use of rigid authoritarianism fitted with the idea of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, a period of strict control outlined in Marxist theory as necessary to deal with the counter-revolution, to then transition to Communism.
Lenin also adhered to his ideological aims in terms of his economic strategies of War Communism and NEP, contrasting though they were. Firstly, it can be argued that War Communism, in which economic control was centralised, was a predetermined way to achieve a new social order, rather than a policy that occurred out of economic necessity. This is because the introduction of state control over the economy through policies such as rationing and grain requisitioning can be seen as an extension of the ‘class-warfare’ encouraged by Lenin previously as a way to squeeze out counter-revolutionary forces, often labelled the ‘internal front’, such as old bourgeois attitudes or any lingering bourgeois power. This also fits with idea of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ being necessary to achieve Communism, therefore it can be said that War Communism was an ideologically sound policy used to further develop socialism. Furthermore, War Communism can be viewed as adhering to Lenin’s ideological aims as it was believed that it would allow Russia to achieve Communism more rapidly, with Bukharin writing that ‘proletarian compulsion… is the way to create communist humanity’. Secondly, it can also be said that whilst the New Economic Policy set out to achieve the opposite of War Communism, conflicting with Lenin’s main set of ideologies, it still adhered to Lenin’s ideological belief of amoralism. Following Nechaev’s idea in ‘Catechism of the Revolutionary’, Lenin believed that a revolutionary should be totally dedicated to Communism as a goal, and that any means necessary should be used to preserve the revolution, to reach Communism. Therefore, it can be said that NEP was a policy made to make it more likely that the Bolsheviks remained in power, therefore Russia would achieve Communism.
It can also be seen that Lenin adhered to his ideological aims through his social and cultural reforms during his consolidation of power. Firstly, Lenin’s setting up of widespread Proletkult artistic and sporting organisations with the aim of attacking and destroying reactionary prejudices of pre-revolutionary Russia was ideologically coherent. This is because it fitted with Lenin’s belief that ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ should involve the eradication of any old bourgeois attitudes. Secondly, Lenin’s reforms to ensure that the presence of the Church within the state was almost non-existent ideologically adhered to his Marxist principles, as Marx called religion ‘the opium of the people’ implying that it was numbing, and what people turned to in times of pain and conflict. Lenin’s war against the church can be seen through his actions, such as ‘the Decree on Separation of Church and State’, which aimed to break the control of the clergy and undermine the religious faith of the peasants. Additionally, Lenin stuck to his ideology by introducing more militant forms of action against Church worship, for example the formation of ‘the Union of Militant Godless.’ The results of Lenin’s ideological dedication can be seen by the fact that by 1924, over 300 bishops had been executed and 10,000 priests had been imprisoned or exiled. Thirdly, Lenin adhered to Bolshevik ideological aims to improve the status of women, fitting with the Marxist belief that women were abused under the Capitalist system. This can be seen through various measures undertaken by Alexandra Kollontai, Commissar for Social Welfare, such as the legalisation of abortion in 1920. Furthermore, Lenin allowed the attempted deconstruction of the family unit under his rule, showing that he adhered to his social ideology as the traditional family unit was considered bourgeois. Fourthly, Lenin adhered to his cultural aims by pushing forward the use of propaganda through art and cinema, fitting with his belief that propaganda and cultural development were central to the building of the Socialist state, but people had to be moulded in order to follow this. This can be shown by Lenin’s introduction of ‘agitprop’ trains in 1918, as well as propaganda films.
However, it be argued that Lenin deviated from his original political ideological aims. It can be said that Lenin’s initial decrees were not ideologically coherent, for example the ‘Decree on Land’ proposed the socialisation of land, but according to his previous ideology, it should have been nationalised. Furthermore, Lenin’s ‘Decree on the Rights of the People of Russia’, which allowed self-determination to national minorities in the former Russian empire contradicted with Bolshevik actions in the Civil War, as the Bolsheviks attempted to overthrow breakaway regions that had been set up during the War, for example the Baltic separatists during 1918-19. Furthermore, it can be argued that Lenin strayed from his original ideological aims by pursuing the policy of War Communism out of economic necessity, as in May 1918, Russia was in a state of economic collapse. There was an acute shortage of raw materials, leading to less industrial output, soaring price inflation, food shortages and riots. The terrible state of the economy can be seen by the fact that urban workers were spending three-quarters of their income on food due to its rocketing prices. Therefore, the economic disaster Russia was facing forced Lenin to take out the emergency measure of War Communism. It is obvious that some aspects of this policy disagreed with Leninist ideology, for example the removal of workers control. It can be argued Lenin attempted to ideologically justify it by saying it was part of ‘class-warfare’. Furthermore, it can be argued that NEP completely sacrificed Lenin’s ideological aims, and was put in place as a result of economic, social and diplomatic conditions that forced the Bolshevik leadership to change direction in 1921. Firstly, the economic crisis by the end of the civil war meant that a policy U-turn was needed, as the output of large scale industry by 1921 stood at only 14% of the 1913 level. Secondly, social discontent forced the Bolsheviks to rethink their policy of War Communism. An example of this is the rebellion in Kronstadt in 1921, with people protesting the Communist monopoly of power. The stark contrast in the attitude of those at Kronstadt is significant in showing how far the Bolsheviks had ideologically strayed, as in 1917 it was the Kronstadt rising which had established the power of the Soviet. Subsequently, it can be said that growing anger at the authoritarian nature of Lenin’s regime forced Lenin to put forward the policy of NEP at the 10th party congress. Thirdly, NEP had to be put in place after the Bolsheviks realised that their hopes for a worldwide revolution would not be realised. Lenin also turned Marxist ideology on its head, as the policy was an economic superstructure controlling a political substructure. It can be said that Lenin was attempting to follow his idea that ‘Communism should equal soviet power and the electrification of the Soviet Union’ by introducing NEP, aiming to put in place the economic pre-conditions that should have existed before the revolution occurred to stay in power. Moreover, NEP completely contradicted with Lenin’s initial ideologies, showing that he did not adhere to them during his consolidation of power. Lenin allowed ‘smychka’, also known as the peasant proletarian alliance, under NEP. This meant that private enterprise was allowed in agricultural and industrial sectors. Furthermore, NEP permitted the privatisation of small and medium sized businesses. This seemed to be attempting to revert the Russian economy back to a Capitalist one, betraying Marxist principles. In addition, NEP allowed for the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie, often called the ‘nepmen’ running counter to Lenin’s initial aims to eliminate the middle-classes. Lenin’s awareness of how ideologically incoherent this policy was can be shown by the fact that NEP went hand in hand with the ban on factions and the emergence of the one party state, showing how he was attempting to stop the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie as a result of this economic policy
It can also be shown that Lenin did not adhere to his social and cultural ideological aims, as his reforms were tempered by his social conservatism. This can be demonstrated through his liberal policies on women, for example the fact that he was willing to recognise legal divorce if either partner requested it. Furthermore, the fact that Lenin brought Protelkult under the Commissariat of the Enlightenment’s control because he was worried it was becoming an independent organisation disagrees with his ideological beliefs. This is because in theory, it was meant to be a spontaneous creation by workers of a new Russian culture, rather than state controlled.
To conclude, Lenin did not fully adhere to his ideological aims during his consolidation of power. In terms of politics and economics, Lenin’s decrees were not actually carried out in line with his ideology, and the policy of War Communism was only introduced out of economic necessity. Furthermore, the policy of NEP was completely against his ideology, as it promoted private enterprise and allowed for the re-emergence of the bourgeoisie. In addition, in terms of social and cultural reforms, Lenin strayed from his aims as his reforms were tempered by his social conservatism and his desire for the Bolsheviks to remain in control.