Bertrand Patenaude's "Peasants into Russians"

Abstract

Bertrand Patenaude's article, Peasants into Russians: The Utopian Essence of Communism, in the October 1995 issue of The Russian Review, is an excellent contribution to the debate about the usefulness of the concept of War Communism.' It is based on a wide range of material that future scholars will have to incorporate into their accounts of the Civil period. Just as important, Patenaude conducts the debate in a civilized, scholarly manner that focuses exclusively on the difficult issues of interpretation confronting us. I am genuinely complimented to be chosen as Patenaude's chief polemical target. Before turning to our differences, I would like to stress our agreement on some important issues. Patenaude notes that by 1920 it was generally realized that a true state grain monopoly-itself only a presocialist measure-was unrealizable in the near future (p. 559); he also brings out the important point that neither in 1920 nor at any earlier time did the Bolsheviks think in terms of coercive collectivization (p. 565). Patenaude likes to portray himself as a defender of orthodoxy, but I think he will find many of the orthodox surprised and even resistant to these facts. But there is a fundamental difference between us in our characterization of the overall outlook of the party elite in 1920. Patenaude claims there was a consensus Larin to Lenin (a nice phrase) that communism was on the immediate agenda in 1920: the party had already won the class struggle and had brought the countryside into the socialist framework (p. 567). If I understand him correctly, he also thinks that by late 1920 the Bolshevik leaders had convinced themselves that the peasants did not mind handing over grain without compensation and that therefore there was no particular need ever to provide exchange items, even after the revival of industry. I believe, on the contrary, that in 1920 there was (1) a general feeling that the most overwhelming problem facing the regime and the country was the razrukha, the terrible economic breakdown; (2) a general feeling that the razrukha and the Civil had not accelerated socialist construction but rather had forced many unpleasant compromises on the party; and (3) a general feeling that socialism and communism were a long way off. Patenaude's main showpiece is N. Osinskii's Pravda articles from September 1920; for those interested in a more representative sample of the party outlook during the same month, I suggest looking at the debate at the Ninth Party Conference about the so-called nizy versus verkhi conflict.2 Rather than make any further claims, I