p It was, perhaps, after the October Revolution that Lenin’s insight as a psychologist became more evident. The goals were different then. Before the socialist revolution there could be no question of the comprehensive remoulding of man. It was solely the revolutionary struggle that was changing man’s nature, and to a considerable extent at that. After the revolution the task of expunging the survivals of capitalism from people’s minds became possible, although it was a painstaking and a long process.

p A few days before the October insurrection Lenin unexpectedly came out with the following remark: “The Party could not be guided by the temper of the masses because it was changeable and incalculable; the Party must be guided by an objective analysis and an appraisal of the 64 revolution. The masses had put their trust in the Bolsheviks and demanded deeds from them and not words...”   [64•1  Indeed, on the eve of the seizure of power, Lenin discerned the only important sentiment—the trust of the masses in Bolsheviks, all others seeming insignificant and third-rate. Tomorrow revolution would break out. And that meant that the day after tomorrow all psychological tasks would become fundamentally new, to a certain degree even the opposite of those before the revolution. Lenin foresaw, though, that “a transition from historical somnolence to new historical creativeness”,  [64•2  from enthusiasm, restricted by revolutionary tasks, to enthusiasm, connected will) building a new life, would be a protracted one. And true enough, a new chapter of Leninist social psychology began.

p From then on the main thing was to retain power. Before the Revolution the main feature of the revolutionary psychology of the masses bad been the urge to seize power, while after the Revolution the main striving was to retain power. The workers, peasants and Red Army men, Lenin wrote in 1920, “have suffered more during these three years than the workers did during the early years of capitalist slavery. They have endured cold, hunger and suffering—all this in order to retain power.”   [64•3  At the very beginning of the revolution Lenin predicted that heroism, energy and self-sacrifice of the masses in order to defend the revolutionary gains and overcome all difficulties standing in the way of Soviet power, would 65 be inexhaustible. To use Lenin’s expression of earlier period, it could be said that ‘us’ and ‘them’ became essentially different, ‘us’ being both the revolutionary people and its newly born power. “Victory,” Lenin wrote soon after the Revolution, “will be on the side of the exploited, for on their side is life, numerical strength, the strength of the mass, the strength of the inexhaustible source’s of all that is selfless, dedicated and honest, all that is surging forward and awakening to the building of the new, all the vast reserves of energy and talent latent in the so-called ‘common people’, the workers and peasants. Victory will be theirs.”   [65•1  True, the forces of the counter-revolution became more active. Yet, “no matter how great may be the anger and indignation in some circles, . . .deep among the people a constructive process is taking place, an accumulation of energy and discipline, which will give us the strength to survive all blows...”   [65•2 

p It was the efforts to defend the revolutionary cause that gave powerful impetus to the development of new moral qualities, to the process of moulding a new type of man. Miracles of courage and fortitude of armed workers and peasants at the fronts of the Civil War and heroism of the working people in the rear were followed by a revolution in the depths of consciousness. In 1919 in his immortal work “A Great Beginning” Lenin wrote: “It is the beginning of a revolution that is more difficult, more tangible, more radical and more decisive than the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for it is a victory over our own conservatism, indiscipline, petty-bourgeois egoism, a 66 victory over the habits left as a heritage to the worker and peasant, by accursed capitalism.”   [66•1  Only after the bourgeoisie has been overthrown “the toilers and exploited as a body, can display, for the first time in history, all the initiative and energy of tens of millions of people who have been crushed by capitalism.”   [66•2 

p To retain power some vitally urgent tasks had to be solved, including overcoming the devastation and famine, organising production, and gaining a military victory. In “A Great Beginning” Lenin noted a kind of vicious circle: in order to do away with starvation, productivity of labour had to be raised. “We know,” Lenin continued, “that in practice such contradictions are solved by breaking the vicious circle, by bringing about a radical change in the temper of the people, by the heroic initiative of the individual groups which often plays a decisive role against the background of such a radical change.”  [66•3  Such heroic initiative was displayed by those who took part in the “communist subbotniks” (unpaid voluntary work done by city workers over and above the usual working day and devoted to some public need—Ed.), by workers “in spite of the fact that they are weary, tormented, and exhausted by malnutrition.”   [66•4 

p That movement enhanced the prestige of I lie workers in the countryside, and the respect of non-party workers for the Communists.   [66•5  Long before “A Great Beginning” appeared Lenin had 67 spoken of the necessity to bring about a change in the psychology of labour. Here is what he wrote about the psychology, inherited from the past, of a representative of the exploited mass: “ Naturally, for a certain time, all his attention, all his thoughts, all his spiritual strength, were concentrated on taking a breath, on unbending his back, on straightening his shoulders, on taking the blessings of life that were there for the taking, and that had always been denied him by the now overthrown exploiters. Of course, a certain amount of time is required to enable the ordinary working man not only to see for himself, not only to become convinced, but also to feel that he cannot simply ‘take’, snatch, grab things, that this leads to increased disruption, to ruin... The corresponding change in the conditions of life (and consequently in the psychology) of the ordinary working men is only just beginning.”   [67•1 

p In other words, a psychological change in the masses had to come about both because of the heroism, evoked by the desire not to allow the old autocratic capitalist system ever to return, and because of the feeling that it was impossible to do away with economic disasters oilier than through a new attitude to labour. “Labour discipline, enthusiasm for work, readiness for sell- sacrifice, close alliance between the peasants and the workers this is what will save the working people from the oppression of the landowners and capitalists for ever.”  [67•2  In the above cited “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”, a work replete with observations concerning psychology, 68 Lenin wrote: “In a small-peasant country, which overthrew tsarism only a year ago,... there has naturally remained not a little of spontaneous anarchy, intensified by the brutality and savagery that accompany every protracted and reactionary war, and there has arisen a good deal of despair and aimless bitterness.” Obviously, Lenin continued, prolonged and persistent effort had to be exerted by the advanced workers and peasants “in order to bring about a complete change in the mood of the people and to bring them on to the proper path of steady and disciplined labour.”   [68•1  Further in the same work Lenin wrote: “We must learn to combine the ‘public meeting’ democracy of the working people—turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring flood—with iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work.”   [68•2 

p Lenin warned of the tenacity of the small- proprietor outlook which boiled down to: “I’ll grab all I can for myself; the rest can go hang.” Yet, it was that mass that Lenin called “to rouse... to history-making activity,”   [68•3  to change its morals sullied by private ownership.

p He stressed that “the masses must not only realise, but also feel that the shortening of the period of hunger, cold and poverty depends entirely upon how quickly they fulfil our economic, plans.”   [68•4  Lenin expounded his view on the need to combine enthusiasm (political and, stemming from 69 it, labour enthusiasm) with the prudence of a businessman and labour discipline, based on personal interest. First, Lenin continued, we counted on organising production on the crest of the wave of enthusiasm, but then we realised that personal interest, too, was an impetus to raise production.   [69•1  True, the enthusiasm and heroism will for ever remain a glorious monument, for that enthusiasm played a tremendous role and will be fell in the international working class movement for many years to come.

p To bring scores of millions of people to communism one must build the economy “not directly relying on enthusiasm, but aided by the enthusiasm engendered by the great revolution, and on the basis of personal interest, personal incentive and business principles.”   [69•2 

p The matter, however, was far from being confined to the motives underlying the productivity and the intensity of labour. Deep-going changes in man, and in people were taking place. “We have now reached the supreme moment of our revolution: we have roused the proletarian masses and the masses of poor peasants in the rural areas to give us their conscious support. No revolution has ever done this before.”   [69•3  The entirely new ‘us’, born in the course of the popular revolution, rang with tremendous force in people’s consciousness and manifested itself in a multitude of forms. The two-year history of the Revolution, Lenin wrote in 1919, showed, that it was not only a model, as far as the fulfilment of one’s duty was 70 concerned, but has “also shown examples of the greatest heroism and of revolutionary enthusiasm and devotion such as the world has never before seen.”   [70•1 

p Back in 1917 Lenin saw far ahead. “Only now is the opportunity created for the truly mass display of enterprise, competition and bold initiative”.   [70•2  New tasks gave rise to a new type of man. “What we need is tens of thousands of picked, politically advanced workers, loyal to the cause of socialism, incapable of succumbing to bribery and the temptations of pilfering, and capable of creating an iron force against the kulaks, profiteers, racketeers, bribe-takers and disorganisers.”   [70•3  Very early Lenin foresaw the future evergrowing role of different forms of competition within a new system of social, and in particular, labour relations. He considered competition both a form of initiative and a means for developing new labour discipline.

p Lenin especially noted what, from the point of view of social psychology, was an important aspect of competition—it provided vast opportunities for influencing the people by force of example. In other words, positive examples are always attractive while negative ones are repulsive. In “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” Lenin wrote that socialism for the first time “puts competition on a broad basis”, and explained that accounting and publicity would transform dead bureaucratic accounts “into living examples, some repulsive, others attractive”.  [70•4  Under capitalism 71 the significance of an example in public life is restricted. But after political power has passed to the proletariat the situation radically changes. “Force of example for the first time is able to influence the people.”   [71•1  This is one of the most important means for developing new psychology in general.

p “Naturally, among the people who have only just thrown off an unprecedentedly savage yoke there is deep and widespread seething and ferment; the working out of new principles of labour discipline by the people is a very protracted process, and this process could not even start until complete victory had been achieved over the landowners and the bourgeoisie.”   [71•2  On the contrary, under socialism, according to Lenin’s letter to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky (1920), to solve even such a problem as electrification “both competition and initiative among the masses”   [71•3  should be encouraged.

p Profound indeed are Lenin’s observations on psychology relating to the Civil War and military intervention periods. He reacted very keenly to the changes in the masses’ mood towards war. In February 1918 Lenin wrote: “...yes, at present the masses are not in a state to wage war.” But he predicted with certainty that the time of unheard of hardship would pass, and the people would “recover its strength and find itself capable of resistance.”   [71•4  Lenin was not waiting for a change to come about; he was preparing that change. 72 He explained the reasons for the invitation of the peasants of Pskov, just back from the front, to attend the 7th Congress of Soviets as Follows: “we shall bring them to the Congress of Soviets to relate bow the Germans treat people, so that they can change the mood of the soldier in panic- stricken Flight, and he will begin to recover from his panic and say, ‘This is certainly not the war the Bolsheviks promised to put an end to, this is a new war the Germans are waging against Soviet power.’ Then recovery will come.”   [72•1 

p Later he wrote: “These months have passed, and the turn has come. Gone is the time when we were impotent... a new discipline has been created, and new people are joining the army and laying down their lives by the thousand.”  [72•2 

p During the years of the Civil War Lenin invariably paid attention to the psychology of the masses both at the front and in the rear. On the one hand, he noted even such details as the influence of the autumn cold on morale: “You know that the autumn cold affects the Red Army men, depresses them, creates new difficulties.”   [72•3 

p On the other hand, Lenin also took account of the psychological factor in overcoming all kinds of military difficulties: “The situation is extremely grave. But we do not despair, for we know that every time a difficult situation for the Soviet 73 Republic arises, the workers display miracles of valour and by their example encourage and inspire the troops and lead them on to fresh victories.”   [73•1 

p Lenin displayed cautious, but keen interest in the psychological processes taking place amidst the peasant mass. He noted the big difference between the social and psychological conditions of workers and peasants. Workers all over the world, Lenin stressed, were more or less united. An attempt to change the psychology of a scattered peasantry was an important part of the struggle for socialism. “But hardly anywhere in the world have systematic, supreme and self- sacrificing attempts been made to unite those who are engaged in small-scale agricultural production and, because they live in remote out-of-the- way places and in ignorance, have been stunted by their conditions of life.”   [73•2  Much time was needed to solve that task of socialist construction. If was far from being solved by 1921 when peculiarities of peasant psychology manifested themselves with tremendous force, exerting pressure on the Soviet state to change its economic policy. “This was the first,” Lenin wrote in 1922, “and, I hope, the last time in the history of Soviet Russia that feeling ran against us among large masses of peasants, not consciously but instinctively. . . The reason for it was that in our economic offensive we had run too far ahead, ... that the masses sensed what we ourselves were not then able to formulate consciously...  [73•3 

p Thus, in the years after the Revolution essentially new overtones appeared in Lenin’s observations concerning social psychology. Whereas before lie had been interested in I lie revolutionary forces of society which could be united and merged for the overthrow of the old system, everything had been aimed at making the masses to draw a clear-cut distinction between “us”, the working people, and “them”, the exploiters, backed by the state and the church, then the efforts were directed at fostering quite a different “us”.

p Among other things Lenin paid great attention to the development of a new psychology, a new attitude to state power. “The state,” he wrote, “which for centuries has been an organ for oppression and robbery of the people, has left us a legacy of the people’s supreme hatred and suspicion of everything that is connected with the state.”   [74•1  Under Soviet power that legacy made itself felt with respect to accounting and control. The “them” attitude to the state leaders and the state bodies, as opposed to the “us” attitude, had to be gradually eradicated. The fact that the broad masses treated not only the achievements, but the blunders of the Soviet government and the Party as their own was, according to Lenin, a phenomenon of tremendous progressive significance. “They have tackled this formidable task (laying the foundations of socialism—Ed.) with their own hands and by their own efforts. And they have committed thousands of blunders from each of which they have themselves suffered. But every blunder trained and steeled them...”  [74•2 

p In the years after the Revolution, as well as before it, Lenin’s interest in the processes and phenomena of social psychology was again extremely clear of purpose. All that was important to him not for itself but as an indication of the state of the revolutionary forces and as vital conditions for defending and developing the revolutionary cause. Before the Revolution there had been few stable ways and traditions of value to the science of revolution, and the latter had been in the main concerned with overcoming most of the ways and traditions of the then existing society. After the Revolution the urge for developing a man of an entirely different cast of mind, a different mould and different morals became more pronounced. An ardent fighter against everything stagnant in pre-revolutionary social life, Lenin became equally ardent in his efforts to make the new a habit, a part of life. He wrote that we could only regard as achieved “what has become part and parcel of our culture, of our social life, our habits”.   [75•1 

Thus, for Marxist-Leninist social psychology, psychological turns and make-up can only be relatively different and the importance of one or the other depends on concrete historical conditions.