The case for War Communism as inspired by ideology is also insufficient. Certainly, the Bolsheviks were all united by a fundamental belief in the possibility of using state coercion to effect the transition to socialism in a backward peasant country such as Russia. This was the essence of their ideology. They also shared a deeply ingrained mistrust of the market which could be defined as ideological. Foreign socialists were shocked by the violence of the Bolsheviks’ hatred of free trade. The Bolsheviks did not just want to regulate the market — as did the socialists and most of the wartime governments of Europe — they wanted to abolish it. ‘The more market the less socialism, the more socialism the less market’ — that was their credo. This crude political economy was no doubt the result of the Bolsheviks’ own life experience. Most of the party’s rank and file were peasant sons and workers, young men like Kanatchikov, who had suffered from the worst of both rural and urban poverty. Marx had taught them that all this was the result of ‘capitalism’. They saw the workings of the market as a simple expression of capitalist exploitation. Even the primitive trade of the bagmen would lead in their view, if unchecked, to the resurrection of the capitalist system. Although the overwhelming majority of the bagmen were trading for consumption rather than profit, the Bolsheviks depicted them as ‘speculators’, ‘profiteers’ and ‘parasites’. All the social evils of the postwar world, from unemployment to prostitution, were blamed by them on the workings of the market.
It could not be said, however, that this dirigiste and militantly anti-market ideology had been expressed in a clear economic strategy before the introduction of War Communism. Indeed, the Bolsheviks were sharply divided over economic policy during 1918. Whereas the Left Communists wanted to move immediately towards the abolition of the capitalist system, Lenin talked of using capitalist methods for the revolutionary reconstruction of the economy. These divisions resurfaced repeatedly throughout the years of the civil war — especially over fiscal policy and the use of ‘bourgeois’ managers — so that the policies of War Communism had to be chopped and changed in the interests of party unity. Hence, whereas rightwing historians may think of War Communism as a monolithic programme integral to Bolshevik ideology, much of it was in fact improvised.
The introduction of War Communism was essentially a political response to the urban crisis of 1918. During that spring the Bolsheviks were obsessed by the example of the Paris Commune. They constantly compared their own position to that of the Parisian revolutionaries of 1871, and debated their own policies by the light of historical analogy, trying to work out whether they might have saved the French revolutionaries from their defeat. The Bolsheviks were all too conscious of the fact that their power base, like that of the Communards, was confined to the major cities, and that they were facing defeat because they were surrounded by a hostile peasantry with whom they had no goods to trade for food. They had convinced themselves that, unless they extended their power to the countryside and launched a crusade against the ‘grain-hoarding’ peasants, their urban revolution, like that of the Commune, would be destroyed by starvation. The flight of the workers from the cities and their strikes and protests against food shortages were seen as the first signs of this collapse. It was essential, as the Bolsheviks saw it, to seize the peasantry’s grain by force, to stem the chaos of the bag-trade and to get a firm grip on industry, if they were to avoid certain defeat.
*
When Trotsky defended the introduction of the grain monopoly at a Soviet assembly on 4 June, he was heckled from the floor. The Left SRs accused him of ‘waging a civil war against the peasantry’. On 9 May the Bolsheviks had indeed declared that all the peasants’ surplus grain would henceforth become the property of the state. They were now despatching armed brigades to requisition the grain from the peasantry by force; and their propaganda made it clear that this was to be seen as a ‘battle for grain’. Trotsky himself told the meeting on 4 June: ‘Our Party is for civil war! Civil war has to be waged for grain. We the Soviets are going into battle!’ At this point a delegate had shouted: ‘Long live civil war!’ No doubt he had meant it as a joke. But Trotsky turned on him and replied with deadly seriousness: ‘Yes, long live civil war! Civil war for the sake of the children, the elderly, the workers and the Red Army, civil war in the name of direct and ruthless struggle against counter-revolution.’45
For Lenin and most of his followers, civil war was a vital phase in any social revolution. ‘Civil war is the same as class war,’ declared one of the Bolshevik leaders in Baku. ‘We are supporters of civil war, not because we thirst for blood, but because without a struggle the oppressors will not give up their privileges to the people.’46 As the Bolsheviks saw it, a civil war was no more than a violent form of class struggle. There was no real distinction in their view between the military conflict and the social conflict in every town and village.
As such, in Lenin’s view, the civil war was to be welcomed as a necessary phase of the revolution. He had always argued that the civil war had been started by the forces of the Right during the summer of 1917, and that the Bolshevik seizure of power should be seen as the joining of the armed struggle by the proletarian side; the class conflicts of the revolution were unresolvable by political means. Russia was split into two hostile camps — the ‘military dictatorship’ and the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ — and it was a question of which side would prevail. All Lenin’s policies, from the October seizure of power to the closure of the Constituent Assembly and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, could be seen (and were seen by the opposition) as a deliberate incitement to civil war. Lenin himself was doubtless convinced that his party’s best hope of building up its own tiny power base was to fight a civil war. Indeed he often stressed that the reason why the Paris Commune had been defeated was that it had failed to launch a civil war. The effects of such a conflict were predictable — the polarization of the country into ‘revolutionary’ and ‘counter-revolutionary’ forces, the extension of the state’s military and political power, and the use of terror to suppress dissent — and were all deemed by Lenin to be necessary for the consolidation of the dictatorship. Of course Lenin could not have foreseen the full extent of the civil war that would unfold from the following autumn — in April 1918 he had even declared that the civil war was already won — and, if he had, he might have thought again about using civil war to build up his regime. But even so, it is surely true that the Bolsheviks were psychologically prepared for a civil war in a way that could not be said of their opponents. One might compare it to the Spanish civil war: Franco’s side was ready — and eager — for a civil war; the same could hardly be said of the Republicans.