The Experiment: Georgia's Forgotten Revolution, 1918-1921

[The Idler]

Doubtless some here will already have written this off, but I will try and get a copy of this to review


Another world was possible

For many, the Russian revolution of 1917 was a symbol of hope, and proof that that another world was indeed possible. But Soviet authoritarianism and the horrors of the gulags have since led to the revolution becoming synonymous with oppression, forever tainting socialism in the eyes of its critics.
The experience of Georgia, however, which declared its independence from Russia in 1918, shows there was another way. In this riveting book, historian Eric Lee explores the little-known story of the country's experiment in democratic socialism, detailing the turbulent events of this forgotten chapter in revolutionary history. Along the way, we are introduced to a remarkable cast of characters - among them the men and women who strove for a vision of socialism that featured universal suffrage, a people's militia in place of a standing army, and a civil society grounded in trade unions and cooperatives. Though the Georgian Democratic Republic lasted for just three years before it was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin, it was able to offer, however briefly, a glimpse of a more humane alternative to the Communist nightmare that was to come.
http://www.ericlee.info/theexperiment/

[ckaihatsu]

Wow, this particular blast from the past is decidedly *underwhelming* -- so after rebuffing the Russian Tsar this country decided to go with the German and Ottoman Empires and Eastern Orthodox religion, and then later allowed the British to occupy their land.

Big fucking independence, huh -- ?





Background[edit]

After the February Revolution of 1917 and collapse of the tsarist administration in the Caucasus, most power was held by the Special Transcaucasian Committee (Ozakom, short for Osobyi Zakavkazskii Komitet) of the Russian Provisional Government. All of the soviets in Georgia were firmly controlled by the Georgian Social Democratic Party, who followed the lead of the Petrograd Soviet and supported the Provisional Government. The Bolshevist October Revolution changed the situation drastically. The Caucasian soviets refused to recognize Vladimir Lenin's regime. Threats from the increasingly Bolshevistic deserting soldiers of the former Caucasus army, ethnic clashes and anarchy in the region forced Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani politicians to create a unified regional authority known as the Transcaucasian Commissariat (November 14, 1917) and later a legislature, the Sejm (January 23, 1918). On April 22, 1918, the Sejm – Nikolay Chkheidze[1] was the president – declared the Transcaucasus an independent democratic federation with an executive Transcaucasian government chaired by Evgeni Gegechkori[2] and later by Akaki Chkhenkeli.[3]

Many Georgians, influenced by the ideas of Ilia Chavchavadze and other intellectuals from the late 19th century, insisted on national independence. A cultural national awakening was further strengthened by the restoration of the autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church (12 March 1917) and establishment of a national university in Tbilisi (1918). In contrast, the Georgian Mensheviks regarded independence from Russia as a temporary step against the Bolshevik revolution and considered calls for Georgia's independence chauvinistic and separatist. The union of Transcaucasus was short-lived though. Undermined by increasing internal tensions and by pressure from the German and Ottoman empires, the federation collapsed on May 26, 1918 when Georgia declared independence – Noe Zhordania[4] was the speaker of the Georgian National Council – followed by Armenia and Azerbaijan within the next two days. Noe Ramishvili[5] formed the first government of Democratic Republic of Georgia.

History[edit]

Georgia was immediately recognized by Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The young state had to place itself under German protection and to cede its largely Muslim-inhabited regions (including the cities of Batum, Ardahan, Artvin, Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki) to the Ottoman government (Treaty of Batum, June 4). However, German support enabled the Georgians to repel the Bolshevik threat from Abkhazia. German forces were almost certainly under the command of Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein. Following the German defeat in the First World War, British occupation forces arrived in the country, with the permission of the Georgian government. Relations between the British and the local population were more strained than they had been with the Germans. British-held Batum,remained out of Georgia's control until 1920. On December 25, 1918, a British force was deployed in Tbilisi too.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia#Background





World War I and independence[edit]

Russia entered World War I against Germany in August 1914. The war aroused little enthusiasm from the people in Georgia, who did not see much to be gained from the conflict, although 200,000 Georgians were mobilised to fight in the army. When Turkey joined the war on Germany's side in November, Georgia found itself on the frontline. Most Georgian politicians remained neutral, though pro-German feeling and the sense that independence was within reach began to grow among the population.[46]

In 1917, as the Russian war effort collapsed, the February Revolution broke out in Saint Petersburg. The new Provisional Government established a branch to rule Transcaucasia called Ozakom (Extraordinary Committee for Transcaucasia). There was tension in Tbilisi since the mainly Russian soldiers in the city favoured the Bolsheviks, but as 1917 went on, the soldiers began to desert and head northwards, leaving Georgia virtually free from the Russian army and in the hands of the Mensheviks, who rejected the October Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power in the Russian capital. Transcaucasia was left to fend for itself and, as the Turkish army began to encroach across the border in February 1918, the question of separation from Russia was brought to the fore.

On 22 April 1918, the parliament of Transcaucasia voted for independence, declaring itself to be the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. It was to last for only a month. The new republic was made up of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, each with their different histories, cultures and aspirations. The Armenians were well aware of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, so for them defence against the invading army was paramount, while the Muslim Azeris were sympathetic to the Turks. The Georgians felt that their interests could best be guaranteed by coming to a deal with the Germans rather than the Turks. On 26 May 1918, Georgia declared its independence and a new state was born, the Democratic Republic of Georgia, which would enjoy a brief period of freedom before the Bolsheviks invaded in 1921.[47]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_within_the_Russian_Empire#World_War_I_and_ independence

[The Idler]

Three years of a free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka is better than none.

[ckaihatsu]

You're still not understanding that there was no real alternative to Stalinism, in various forms, throughout Eastern Europe -- at the time it was either the Stalinist expansionist status quo, or else a turn to the imperialist West, which is the direction that Georgia went, like all of the countries that have had 'color' revolutions in more-recent times:





Colour revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Colourful Revolution in the Republic of Macedonia, see 2016 Macedonian protests.

Colour revolution (sometimes called the coloured revolution) or color revolution is a term that was widely used by worldwide media[1] to describe various related movements that developed in several societies in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans during the early 2000s. The term has also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind) have called the events a revolutionary wave, the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines.

Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been intended protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements generally adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative non-violent resistance.

Such movements have had a measure of success, as for example in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000), in Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003), and in Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Some events have been called "color revolutions" but are different from the above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005); and Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005).

Government figures in Russia, such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have stated that colour revolutions are a new form of warfare.[2][3] President Putin said that Russia must prevent colour revolutions, "We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called color revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia."[4]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution





Influencing factors[edit]

Anti-Communist revolutions[edit]

Many have cited the influence of the series of revolutions which occurred in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. A peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University) was attacked by the police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. Yet the roots of the pacifist floral imagery may go even further back to the non-violent Carnation Revolution of Portugal in April 1974, which is associated with the colour carnation because carnations were worn, and the 1986 Yellow Revolution in the Philippines where demonstrators offered peace flowers to military personnel manning armoured tanks.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution#Anti-Communist_revolutions

[The Idler]

A free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka are better for workers. These aren't values particular to the 'West'. As the book description says 'Though the Georgian Democratic Republic lasted for just three years before it was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin, it was able to offer, however briefly, a glimpse of a more humane alternative to the Communist nightmare that was to come.' Workers had this choice in Georgia and they didn't choose the Bolsheviks.

[ckaihatsu]

A free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka are better for workers. These aren't values particular to the 'West'. As the book description says 'Though the Georgian Democratic Republic lasted for just three years before it was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin, it was able to offer, however briefly, a glimpse of a more humane alternative to the Communist nightmare that was to come.' Workers had this choice in Georgia and they didn't choose the Bolsheviks.


I wonder how long those workers *thought* it could last, considering the context of the 'either-or' Russian Revolution and the general need for industrialization. It just doesn't sound like the right move at the right time, given those greater empirical circumstances -- and especially with the geopolitical dealmaking and give-aways they had to do, anyway.

[Antiochus]

Three years of a free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka is better than none.

I am just curious. If according to you, this is "a real Revolution", then why not support the provisional Russian government for example? If we are to be a bit more cynical, why not then support the Friekorps against the disgusting Jewish led-Communists in Germany in 1918-1919? Surely they merit your support, after all, they fought to keep the SDP (largest political party in Germany prior to WW1) in power! And no doubt they supported a free press.

[General Winter]

A free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka ... was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin

On the order of Lenin,by the way.

And in whose hands the property was in this country of brotherhood of the bourgeoisie and the workers ?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

A free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka are better for workers. These aren't values particular to the 'West'. As the book description says 'Though the Georgian Democratic Republic lasted for just three years before it was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin, it was able to offer, however briefly, a glimpse of a more humane alternative to the Communist nightmare that was to come.' Workers had this choice in Georgia and they didn't choose the Bolsheviks.

On the order of Lenin,by the way.

And in whose hands the property was in this country of brotherhood of the bourgeoisie and the workers ?

Nonsense -- The historical record shows that Lenin petitioned Trotsky to side with him in a split with Stalin over the handling of the Georgian affair, and his desire to remove the latter from power was very much tied to this question, but he was unable to work to accomplish this due to his failing health at the time of the split:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm


[Dictated by phone on March 5, 1923 (Lenin suffered a third stroke four days later, on March 9, 1923 and was no longer able to speak after that)]

Top secret
Personal

Dear Comrade Trotsky:

It is my earnest request that you should undertake the defence of the Georgian case in the Party C.C. This case is now under “persecution” by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defence. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign that you do not accept.[3] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45E766)

With best comradely greetings
Lenin[1] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05b.htm#fwV45P607F01)


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm




Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

Lenin
Taken down by L.F.
January 4, 1923

[General Winter]

Nonsense -- The historical record shows that Lenin petitioned Trotsky to side with him in a split with Stalin over the handling of the Georgian affair, and his desire to remove the latter from power was very much tied to this question, but he was unable to work to accomplish this due to his failing health at the time of the split.

Come to your senses,we are talking about the event of 1921,the letters written in 1923 have nothing to do with the talk.

[The Idler]

I wonder how long those workers *thought* it could last, considering the context of the 'either-or' Russian Revolution and the general need for industrialization. It just doesn't sound like the right move at the right time, given those greater empirical circumstances -- and especially with the geopolitical dealmaking and give-aways they had to do, anyway.
The Soviet Union made international treaties too, Brest Litovsk a treaty with **Germany** meant giving away their territory in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine in 1917. Was this before or after the Bolsheviks (not Germany or the 'imperialist West') also crushed a free press, free elections and brought the gulag and Cheka to Georgia?

I am just curious. If according to you, this is "a real Revolution", then why not support the provisional Russian government for example? If we are to be a bit more cynical, why not then support the Friekorps against the disgusting Jewish led-Communists in Germany in 1918-1919? Surely they merit your support, after all, they fought to keep the SDP (largest political party in Germany prior to WW1) in power! And no doubt they supported a free press.
I don't think I've described it as a 'real revolution', because as a revolutionary socialist, I wouldn't lend support to capitalist governments including such as the Provisional Government in Russia. However without free elections, making socialists is somewhat hindered, and free elections are the best basis for socialists to capture the state.
As to the Freikorps, your comments betray a misunderstanding about democracy. Democracy is not just about propping up the biggest party in government, it is about not butchering or otherwise shutting down those that did not win the most support. This is something I suspect the Freikorps might fail to understand.

[ckaihatsu]

The Soviet Union made international treaties too, Brest Litovsk a treaty with **Germany** meant giving away their territory in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine in 1917.


Good point. I'm not a Soviet apologist, so I'm not going to ignore this historical fact or defend it.

What I *will* point out, though, is that there's the factor of *scale* at-work here -- the Bolsheviks were able to effect political and economic integration, and industrialization, over most of Asia, while, in contrast, examining a small country like Georgia, (Population 3,720,400 • 2016 estimate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)), shows that national 'independence' is almost meaningless since a smaller country will have to make external economic linkages, regardless, meaning a de-facto economic orientation towards the larger power, anyway -- like Puerto Rico to the U.S.

I should probably have included this diagram earlier in the thread:


Political Spectrum, Simplified



http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)


---





Was this before or after the Bolsheviks (not Germany or the 'imperialist West') also crushed a free press, free elections and brought the gulag and Cheka to Georgia?


You're stubbornly upholding *bourgeois rights* as the pinnacle of political achievement, while ignoring that the regional 'anchor' economy, that of the USSR, was *quantitatively* more-important than the abstract, idealistic 'rights' of a city-sized population within the separatist country of Georgia.

At this point you should just own-up and admit that Georgia is West-oriented -- by using the terms 'free press' and 'free elections' you're tacitly backing an anti-Russia, market-type political economy.

[The Idler]

While not the pinnacle of political achievement, I would say working-class Georgians might find concern over Western-orientated treaties more abstract idealistic complaints than being hauled off to the Gulag following a middle of the night knock at the door.
There's no excuse for what the Bolsheviks did, it was purely opportunism with no principles at stake.
There's no such thing as 'rights', only a balance of power between the working-class and the bourgeoisie reflected in things like a free press and free elections which, despite what capitalists tell you, are unrelated to a so-called 'free market'.

[ckaihatsu]

While not the pinnacle of political achievement, I would say working-class Georgians might find concern over Western-orientated treaties more abstract idealistic complaints than being hauled off to the Gulag following a middle of the night knock at the door.


You're making it sound as though the Bolsheviks were simply being nightmarish, randomly, for no reason, with nothing at stake.





The Red Terror was a period of political repression and mass killings carried out by Bolsheviks after the beginning of the Russian Civil War in 1918. Soviet historiography describes the Red Terror as having been officially announced in September 1918 by Yakov Sverdlov and ending about October 1918. However, the term was frequently applied to political repression during the whole period of the Civil War (1917–1922).[1][2] The Cheka (the Bolshevik secret police)[3] carried out the repressions.[4] Estimates for the total number of people killed during the Red Terror range from 10,000[5] to over 1.5 million.[6] The majority of the violence's targets were representatives of the Tsarist regime and former Tsarist officers, along with significant numbers of bourgeoisie.[5]

Purpose[edit]

The original Red Terror was a wartime campaign against counter-revolutionaries during the Russian Civil War of 1918–1921, targeting those who sided with the Whites.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror


---





There's no excuse for what the Bolsheviks did, it was purely opportunism with no principles at stake.


That's pure bullshit.

It's how you would *like* to represent that historical action -- wishful thinking, in other words.

Keep in mind that, at that time, the whole country was trying to overcome its disarray due to the counterrevolution, and the resulting famines:





Military[edit]

War communism was largely successful at its primary purpose of aiding the Red Army in halting the advance of the White Army and reclaiming most of the territory of the former Russian Empire thereafter.

Social[edit]

In the cities and surrounding countryside, the population experienced hardships as a result of the war. Peasants refused to co-operate in producing food. Workers began migrating from the cities to the countryside, where the chances to feed themselves were higher, thus further decreasing the possibility of barter of industrial goods for food and worsening the plight of the remaining urban population. Between 1918 and 1920, Petrograd lost 72% of its population, while Moscow lost 53%.[citation needed]

A series of workers' strikes and peasants' rebellions broke out all over the country, such as the Tambov rebellion (1920-1921). A turning point came with the Kronstadt rebellion at the Kronstadt naval base in early March 1921. The rebellion startled Lenin, because Bolsheviks considered Kronstadt sailors the "reddest of the reds". According to David Christian, the Cheka (the state Communist Party secret police) reported 118 peasant uprisings in February 1921.[citation needed]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism#Results


---





There's no such thing as 'rights', only a balance of power between the working-class and the bourgeoisie reflected in things like a free press and free elections which, despite what capitalists tell you, are unrelated to a so-called 'free market'.


Got it. Knew that one already, thanks.

*You're* the one who mentioned 'free elections' as a 'right', initially, in post #5.

I'm going to take an educated guess here and say that you're probably going to erroneously type the Bolsheviks as being 'bourgeois', according to your own political logic.

[The Idler]

A free press, free elections, no gulag and no Cheka are better for workers. These aren't values particular to the 'West'. As the book description says 'Though the Georgian Democratic Republic lasted for just three years before it was brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin, it was able to offer, however briefly, a glimpse of a more humane alternative to the Communist nightmare that was to come.' Workers had this choice in Georgia and they didn't choose the Bolsheviks.

Nope can't see where this says free elections are a 'right'.
If you think the Bolsheviks weren't bourgeois what do you think the Nomenklatura were with all their attendant perks and privileges?
Everyone now knows the Red Terror was merely to consolidate the Bolsheviks own power as a new ruling class.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Everyone now knows the Red Terror was merely to consolidate the Bolsheviks own power as a new ruling class.
Oh ok then, since you claim everyone knows, there's no need to discuss anything, we'll just trust you and this "everyone".

I come to revleft often to read and reread older topics and what a coincidence that just a couple of days ago I came by one topic that fits into this discussion about red terror and the Bolsheviks.
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/193442-I-hate-Leninism A topic in which you participated (little) but as you can see by the discussion it generated, there's clearly no consensus, so don't try to appeal to common sense to hide your lack of arguments. Not only that, Rafiq even debated your point about power for it's own sake (made by PhoenixAsh there).

Can you tell me how you reached such conclusion then?

[ckaihatsu]

Nope can't see where this says free elections are a 'right'.


The point is, you're too enamored of bourgeois-democratic 'rights', like free-press and free-elections -- sure, in our current capitalist-anarchy societal condition such rights *are* actually historically-progressive, because without the U.S.' Bill of Rights (and international counterparts) the social order would just quickly devolve into instant fascist-elitist control.

But to *idealize* these bourgeois-revolution 'rights' is to unwittingly play into the bourgeois paradigm -- what we *really* are for, as revolutionaries, is to introduce our *own* paradigm, that of workers control over the means of mass industrial social production, because that's what *counts* these days, who-gets-what from the advanced-technologies (factories) that now exist in the modern world.





If you think the Bolsheviks weren't bourgeois what do you think the Nomenklatura were with all their attendant perks and privileges?
Everyone now knows the Red Terror was merely to consolidate the Bolsheviks own power as a new ruling class.


Okay, well, you can argue that, and I'll argue that we're in a fundamentally *different* material-historical period -- we could say that the Russian Revolution coincided with the historical era of *industrialization* (for backward countries like Russia), and that maybe it was trying to do too much in a too-short span of time (revolutionize society, *and* do industrialization at the same time), while *today's* world is vastly improved in material-technological terms, for better contemporary chances at revolutionizing society to collectively control much-more-productive implements, worldwide.

[The Idler]

I'm not idealising free press and free elections, just saying they are better (or less undesirable) than the Bolshevik alternative of neither. Workers control over production is what revolutionaries seek, but was something the Bolsheviks actively suppressed from the start.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not idealising free press and free elections,


You practically *are*, given your focus-on and repetition of these two particular bourgeois-type goals.

Regardless, I doubt that such a small 'experiment' would have gone *anywhere* under those particularly restrictive historical conditions (the historical situation was virtually a *predecessor* of the later Cold War). What would have been the best-case-scenario there, really -- ?

The whole societal situation was one of needing to *industrialize* at the time, and you seem to be more concerned with throwback practices to the time and mentality of the 18th century bourgeois revolutions.





just saying they are better (or less undesirable) than the Bolshevik alternative of neither. Workers control over production is what revolutionaries seek, but was something the Bolsheviks actively suppressed from the start.


You're showing yourself to be another one of those who thinks that the larger political and geopolitical environment can just be blithely ignored, so as to myopically fix to your *own* politically-desired trajectories, whether they're realistic and feasible, or not.

In other words you're more concerned with your *ideological objectives* than the surrounding real-world situation:





Policies[edit]

War communism included the following policies:

Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management

State control of foreign trade

Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden

Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes

Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population

Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers

Private enterprise banned

Military-style control of the railways

Because the Bolshevik government implemented all these measures in a time of civil war, they were far less coherent and coordinated in practice than they might appear on paper. Large areas of Russia remained outside Bolshevik control, and poor communications meant that even those regions loyal to the Bolshevik government often had to act on their own, lacking orders or coordination from Moscow. It has long been debated[by whom?] whether "war communism" represented an actual economic policy in the proper sense of the phrase, or merely a set of measures intended to win the civil war.[1]

Aims[edit]

The goals of the Bolsheviks in implementing war communism are a matter of controversy. Some commentators, including a number of Bolsheviks, have argued that its sole purpose was to win the war. Vladimir Lenin, for instance, said that "the confiscation of surpluses from the peasants was a measure with which we were saddled by the imperative conditions of war-time." [2] Other Bolsheviks, such as Yurii Larin, Lev Kritzman, Leonid Krasin and Nikolai Bukharin argued that it was a transitional step towards socialism.[3] Commentators, such as the historian Richard Pipes, the philosopher Michael Polanyi,[4] and the economists such as Paul Craig Roberts [5] or Sheldon L. Richman,[6] have argued that War communism was actually an attempt immediately to eliminate private property, commodity production and market exchange, and in that way to implement communist economics, and that the Bolshevik leaders expected an immediate and large-scale increase in economic output. This view was also held by Nikolai Bukharin, who said that "We conceived War Communism as the universal, so to say 'normal' form of the economic policy of the victorious proletariat and not as being related to the war, that is, conforming to a definite state of the civil war".[7]

Results[edit]

Military[edit]

War communism was largely successful at its primary purpose of aiding the Red Army in halting the advance of the White Army and reclaiming most of the territory of the former Russian Empire thereafter.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism