The economic policy of white and red during the Civil War

During the Civil War, white and red by anyways sought to achieve power and complete destruction of the enemy. The confrontation was not only on the fronts, but in many other aspects, including in the economic sector. Before the economic policy of whites and reds during the Civil War is analyzed, it is necessary to study the main differences between the two ideologies, the confrontation of which led to a fratricidal war.

The main aspects of the economy of red

The Reds did not recognize private property,defended the conviction that all people should be equal both in legal and social terms. For the Reds, the king was not the authority, they despised wealth and the intelligentsia, but the working class, in their opinion, was to become the leading structure of the state. Religion Red considered opium for the people. The churches were destroyed, the believers were mercilessly exterminated, the atheists were held in high esteem.

White Beliefs

For white sir-father, of course, wasauthority, imperial power - the basis of the rule of law in the state. They not only recognized private property, but also considered it a major milestone in the country's welfare. Intellectuals, science and education were held in high esteem.

Whites did not imagine Russia without faith. Orthodoxy - the foundation. The culture, self-consciousness and prosperity of the nation were based on it.

Visual comparison of ideologies

The polar policy of the Reds and Whites could not but lead to opposition. The table clearly demonstrates the main differences:

The social, cultural and economic policies of whites and reds had their supporters and ardent enemies. The country is divided. Half supported red, the other - white.

White politics during the Civil War

Denikin dreamed of the day when Russia againwill be great and indivisible. The general believed that the Bolsheviks must be fought to the end and eventually completely destroyed. When it was adopted, the "Declaration", which retained the right to land for the owners, and also provided for the interests of the working people. Denikin reversed the decree of the Provisional Government on the grain monopoly, and also developed a plan for the "Land Law", according to which a peasant could buy land from the landowner.

Priority in the economicKolchak's policy was the allotment of land to small peasants and those peasants who did not have land at all. Kolchak believed that the seizure of red property - is the arbitrariness and looting. All the loot must be returned to the owners - the factory owners and landowners.

Wrangell created political reform, according towhich limited large landowner land tenure, increased land plots for middle peasants, and also provided for the provision of industrial goods to peasants.

And Denikin, and Wrangell, and Kolchak canceledBolshevik "Decree on the land", but, as history shows, could not come up with a decent alternative. The inefficiency of the economic reforms of the white regimes was the fragility of these governments. If it were not for the economic and military assistance of the Entente, the white regimes would have fallen much earlier.

Reds policy during the Civil War

The Reds during the Civil War tookThe “Decree on Land”, which abolished the right to private ownership of land, which, to put it mildly, landlords did not like, but became good news for the common people. Naturally, for landless peasants and workers, neither the reform of Denikin nor the innovations of Wrangel and Kolchak were as desirable and promising as the Bolsheviks' decree.

The Bolsheviks actively pursued a policy of "militaryCommunism, ”according to which the Soviet government took the course for the full nationalization of the economy. Nationalization is the transition of the economy from private to public. A monopoly on foreign trade was also introduced. The fleet was nationalized. Partnerships, large entrepreneurs overnight lost property. The Bolsheviks sought to maximize the centralization of the management of the national economy of Russia.

Many innovations did not like the simpleto the people. One of such unpleasant innovations was the forced introduction of labor service, according to which unauthorized transition to a new job, as well as absenteeism, was prohibited. Subbotniki and Sunday were introduced - the system of unpaid work, mandatory for all.

Food dictatorship of the Bolsheviks

The Bolsheviks brought to life a monopoly on breadwhich in due time was proposed by the Provisional Government. Control was introduced by the Soviet government over the rural bourgeoisie, which sheltered grain stocks. Many historians emphasize that this was a necessary temporary measure, because after the revolution the country lay in ruins, and such a redistribution could help survive the famine years. However, serious excesses on the ground caused a massive expropriation of all food supplies in the countryside, which led to a severe famine and extremely high mortality.

Thus, a serious contradiction was the economic policy of whites and reds. A comparison of the main aspects is given in the table:

As can be seen from the table, the economic policy of whites and reds was just the opposite.

Cons of both directions

The policy of whites and reds in the Civil War was radically different. However, none of them was 100% effective. Each strategic direction had its drawbacks.

"War Communism" even criticizedthe communists. After the adoption of this policy, the Bolsheviks were expecting unprecedented economic growth, but in fact everything turned out differently. All decisions were economically illiterate, as a result, labor productivity declined, people starved, and many peasants saw no incentive to recycle. Industrial output has decreased, there has been a decline in agriculture. In the financial sector, hyperinflation was created, which was not even with the king and the Provisional Government. People mowed down hunger.

The big minus of the white regimes was theirinability to conduct a sensible land policy. Neither Wrangel, nor Denikin, nor Kolchak have yet developed a law that would be supported by the masses in the person of the workers and peasants. In addition, the fragility of white power did not allow them to fully implement their plans for the development of the state’s economy.