The early 20th century in Russia history was one of the most revolutionary times the world has ever experienced. It saw the complete revolution of a political system, many revolutionary movements in art, and an overhauling of a deeply rooted economic system. The revolutions were conscious of themselves, in that they had a specific agenda and understanding of how revolution should take place. According to them the concept of revolution would be actualized in a specific pre-determined practice. The concept of political and economic revolution in Russia during the early 20th century, however, differed from the practice.
Socialism, as a political theory, includes in its dogma a specific way revolution should be brought about in theory. Lenin's brand of socialism advances the proletariat as the driving force, but in practice the bourgeoisie Intelligentsia was the ultimate source of revolution. Socialism started in the minds of the Russian intelligentsia and eventually swept the nation in the form of complete political change. Led by Lenin, the Revolution of 1917 was a complete revolution that began as the ideas of an elite group. Aware of their own role in the dynamic struggle between oppressor and the oppressed, the Bolsheviks charged themselves with circulating the idea of revolution to the whole population. In Lenin's What is to be Done the program for revolution is spelled out. According to Lenin, complete revolution is something that the working class cannot achieve if it is left to their own devices. They lack the consciousness of the underlying struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, and therefore cannot see past superficial trade-unionist struggles. Yet Socialism as it is known today, claims Lenin, is a function of science and progress, both of which are products of the bourgeois intelligentsia. Consequently, a proletariat revolution, which would lack these fundamental tools, could never reach the dynamic level that is required for a socialist revolution. As such, the bourgeoisie intelligentsia must "communicate it(socialism) to the more intellectually developed proletarians, who in their turn, introduce it into the Proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done". According to Lenin, the revolution, while influenced by the elite, remains essentially a revolution from the bottom up; the proletariat performs the act of revolution. In contrast to Lenin's theory of revolution however, it was Lenin's party rather than the proletariat drove what really took place. They violated the theory's found in Socialism in October of 1917 when the Bolsheviks took it upon themselves to dissolve the Constituent assembly elected by the Russian people. What finally established the proletariat dictatorship was not a revolt by the workers, but rather the actions of the Bolshevik party. When the Bolsheviks took it upon themselves to help the workers by getting rid of the last remnants of Capitalism, the Constituent Assembly, they failed to act as their own socialist dogma prescribed; instead of allowing the workers to cause revolution, they themselves did.
The Revolution saw the overturn of Capitalism, the downfall of czarism, and the emergence of Communism. Communism as a political and economic system has very strict rules for implementation. Lenin had achieved the overthrow of the old system of government and economics, and now if he was going to stay true to his theories, he had to dissolve the Bourgeois system in its entirety. As per the communist's agenda, private property had to be abolished, ownership of factories had to be given over to the workers, and no one would ever work for the profit of another again. Communist economic policy demands a lot from its adherents, the "ABC of Communism" by Bukharin outlines this in detail. According to the article, after a communist revolution "we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged for one another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply in communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them." The article goes on to describe how the state will no longer exist after a communist revolution; since there is no longer class warfare, it claims, there is no longer a need for people to be "held in restraint". Communism frees the proletariat from working the same job for the whole of one's life; instead it implements a complex organization of production that moves workers from position to position throughout their lives. People no longer have need for money, as everything they need is there for them to take at warehouses. People no longer have a need to earn wages, nor get hired at jobs, instead the economic machine tells them where to work and when. According to this article, the economic system after a Communist revolution becomes a well-organized, though complex machine, where everyone is provided for equally, and no one exploits anyone else.
Given the economic theory of communism, one is surprised just how much Lenin’s NEP broke from his ideology perscribed. Not only did the subsequent years after the initial revolution miss out on the dissolution of the state, but Lenin tightened control to a repressive extreme. He seemed to do the exact opposite of what his theory suggested. Lenin’s Economic policy differed from his ideology even more so than the act of revolution did. Lenin, facing the economic collapse of the country and the revolts of angry peasants, implemented the New Economic Policy that hardly resembles Communism. Lenin’s NEP allowed peasants to amass wealth to at least some degree. It opened up markets for trade, and gave people the right to employ others. Contrary to what was delineated in the “ABC of Communism”, Lenin’s NEP was capitalistic and created class warfare once again. It gave Russia the Nepmen and the Kulaks, whom capitalized on the introduction of Capitalistic elements and generated economic success for themselves, thus creating economic classes. The concept of Lenin’s revolution once again differed from his practice, this time in a most fundamental way.
On the social side of the equation, the policies enacted by Lenin and more specifically Stalin creates a distinct dichotomy between practice and concept. Communism demands that the state is dissolved, and that political power ceases to exist. In Communism, the power belongs to the former proletariat class, and they are freed from bourgeoisie politics. Lenin describes the new system as a “proletarian dictatorship”. In Tchernavin’s I Speak For the Silent a picture of social oppression is painted that differs greatly from the Communist Ideal. Tchernavin, a professor and director of a Russian fishing trust, recants his experience in the Stalinist soviet system where he is tortured and sent to die under the authority of an oppressive state. He speaks of “lice cells” and “The Conveyer” which are means of torture that are designed to break the prisoner down into confessing or handing over one’s wealth to the soviet state. He recants that after being tortured he is shipped off to a massive labor camp that “extended approximately 1500 kilometer”, and was undoubtedly filled with millions of imprisoned Russians. The Soviet State under the rule of Stalin was not geared toward a “proletarian dictatorship”, and it did not free them from Bourgeoisie politics. Instead it oppressed in the name of bourgeois ideas, in the name of political affiliation and the need for political scapegoats. Faced with a scarcity of food, caused by collectivization, Stalin implicated Tchernavin among others as saboteurs to avoid political blame. In addition to violating the social theory of Communism, the Labor Camps under Stalin also violated economic ideology. It created a type of black market whereby the cost of production in the labor camps is so low that the goods produced could be should for high profits. According to Tchernavin, labor in the camps generated “a mark-up of 100 to 150 per cent of cost” for those in control, most of which is profits the workers weren’t paid. Thus, a few people are profiting at the expense of workers who don’t control the products they make, which is a direct contradiction of Marxist ideology.
Under the rule of Brezhnev, Russia’s practice didn’t resemble Communist Concepts anymore than they did under Lenin or Stalin. In Burlatsky’s “Viewpoints from the Soviet Press”, the picture of Brezhnevian Stagnation is painted. According to the article, six main ideas were outlined at the “anti-Stalinist 20th Party Congress” to further the Communist Agenda. These ideas included, the development and acquisition of new technologies, economic reform, and the “development of self-management”. All are ideas that go hand in hand with Communism, and Brezhnev according to the article, accepted none of them, opting for a middle of the road approach instead. This article while not giving specifics of Brezhnev’s policy does present Brezhnev as a conservative man that was content with stagnation. Not furthering the cause of the proletariat, but. content to keep the power in the hands of a aging few, Brezhnev rejected economic reform that is demanded by Communist ideology. Perhaps most contradictory was an elite group called the Nomencklatura… The Nomenklatura, an Aristocracy, grew to have participation in the millions and enjoyed privileges akin to those enjoyed by the wealthy in Capitalism. Members of the privileged administration, the Nomenklatura, obtained special economic favor at the hands of the Party, they side stepped waiting lists of much needed automobiles, and shopped at exclusive stores. As such, the Nomenklatura propagated classism, and they violated fundamental tenets of Communism. Namely that class should no longer exist, that the proletariat should rule, and that the state should be dissolved.
In theory many concepts seem like a good idea. Communism is no exception to this as Lenin and the Russians knew. Some concepts, however, have the problem of being impractical. This is something the Russian people found out the hard way, when Lenin came into power. A communist revolution in theory was a good idea, but when it was practiced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks it became something else altogether. Instead of setting up socialism and giving the power to the proletariat, they ultimately adopted a capitalistic economy and an oppressive government