A rare English translation of an article by Nikolai Krestinsky is this fascinating look at the history of the Russian co-operative movement before, during, and after the Revolution. Along with the history, it gives real insight into the processes and pressures under which the early years of Soviet power operated; how goods were produced and distributed, relations with the peasantry and merchants, relations between political groups, the role of the state, and more. In 1919 Krestinsky, an ‘Old Bolshevik’, was People’s Commissar of Finance and Executive Secretary of the Central Committee. He led the Party’s early relations with the co-operatives, authoring its first positions. Losing his leadership position in the trade union dispute, from 1921 until 1930 he was Soviet representative in Germany, where he was centrally involved in financing the Red Hundreds for the failed ‘German October’ of 1923. From 1923 a supporter of the Left, and later United Opposition, being among the first to capitulate in April, 1928. Throughout most of the 1930s he worked as Deputy Commissar of Foreign Affairs until his arrest in May, 1937. Found guilty in the Third Moscow Trial, Nikolai Krestinsky was executed on March 15, 1938.

‘The Co-operative Movement in Russia’ by Nikolai Krestinsky from Communist International. Vol. 1 No. 6. October, 1919.

I.

THE history of the co-operative movement in Russia must be divided into three distinct periods, namely, Tzarism, bourgeois revolution and Soviet government.

The first appearance in Russia of the co-operative movement began at the end of the sixties, and by the beginning of the war it was an organisation of some considerable force.

The number of co-operative societies in existence was 10,000 on the 1st of January, 1914. There were about 1,400,000 members and the general turnover of the co-operative societies and their branches during 1913 was 250,000,000 roubles.

In spite of the large number of co-operative societies only a very small section of all the inhabitants of Russia (less than one per cent.) were covered by this movement. It was mostly a movement representing the well-to-do classes–town middle-bourgeois and the working class and peasantry.

Owing to the composition of its membership the co-operative movement stood apart from political life. The majority of the leaders of the co-operative movement, however, were antagonistic to the Tzarist regime. The autocracy did not tolerate any free and independent organisation of the Co-operative Societies even though such organisation had nothing revolutionary or socialistic about it. The Tzarist government even succeeded in arousing against it the animosity of the Co-operative Societies, composed almost exclusively of peacefully inclined representatives of the liberal and right socialist groups.

The supporters of the co-operative movement, however, were not and could not be fighters. During the period between the first revolution and the war some “factory co-operative societies” which at first followed the form of the usual factory “shops,” or what was known as “Dependent Co-operative Societies,” and which were in a state of almost entire dependence of the owners of the factories, began to form groups from amongst the more class-conscious and revolutionary inclined workers, but these groups were very few and for this reason their action at the Co-operative Conference was unable to influence the general character of the Co-operative Movement.

The Co-operative Society continued to remain a homogeneous purely bourgeois organisation, the best representatives of which were the intellectuals and liberals.

During the war the membership of the Co-operative Societies considerably increased. The scarcity of goods that prevailed together with the speculative prices imposed by traders induced the population to amalgamate in co-operative societies in order to protect themselves to some extent from the speculation of private trader.

By the end of the war, on the 1st of January, 1918 the number of co-operative societies had reached 25,000, that is to say more than the total number of co-operative societies in all the other countries of the world taken together, or in other words, had increased by 150 per cent. At the same time, the total membership had increased approximately to 9,000,000, whilst the general turnover for 1917 amounted to from six to seven milliards of roubles.

This growth in the co-operative movement was not accompanied by any social changes. As formerly, it remained a bourgeois organisation and the fact that since the revolution the action of the provincial co-operative conferences (there were no All-Russian) became politically more pronounced and radical is due to the discontent that existed amongst the town inhabitants and also to the general position of the petty and middle bourgeoisie during the time of the war. They felt the burdens laid upon them by the Tzarist war very keenly, and as yet they had not perceived their new enemy, the proletariat, which was still concealed underground.

II.

After the February Revolution the position was suddenly changed.

The provisional government set up by the bourgeoisie found itself suddenly confronted with the revolutionary tactics and the communist programme of the proletariat in the shape of the Bolshevik Party.

An irreconcilable struggle began.

In the struggle that followed not one single social organisation was able to remain neutral. Sooner or later every organisation had to take its stand on one or the other side. The Co-operative Society was also obliged to take this course, and for the leaders of the Co-operative Society, considering its membership at that time, the choice was very apparent. They took the side of Kerensky and even formed the most extreme “right” group upon which Kerensky relied.

This made itself evident at the Special All-Russian Conference of Co-operative Societies, which took place on the 11th and 18th of September and the 4th and 6th of October, 1917. The first conference was specially convened prior to the Democratic Assembly, which met in Petrograd during the second half of September, 1917. It united all the bourgeois leaders of the co-operative movement and authorised them to actt at the Democratic Assembly as the relentless opponents of the Proletarian Party, and to take all measures they might deem necessary for the preservation of the coalition anti-Soviet power.

After having succeeded at the Democratic Assembly with the aid of the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries in preserving the power of Kerensky and in forming a preliminary parliament, the leaders of the co-operative movement assembled a second time with the intention of organising the election campaign to the Constituent Assembly. They were in hopes of playing in the Constituent Assembly the same file as that which they had just played in the Democrat Assembly.

It was not only the General Co-operative Society alone which were used as a basis of action against the first conference of the Workers’ Co-operative Society, in August, 1917, also took place under the direction of the Mensheviks, who came forward with the plan for an Independent Co-operative Society as opposed to working class state power in general, including even a possible Soviet power.

III.

The Proletarian Party, against which such a strenuous campaign had been conducted by the leaders of the co-operative movement, found itself placed in power as a result of the October Revolution.

What should have been the relations then? We Communists, whatever our ideas may have been about the organisation of distribution under a well-developed Communist Society, have always understood that socialist construction accepts for its foundation those forms which have been created by the preceding capitalist society.

For instance, in the sphere of production, we do not of course destroy the factories and large industrial centres, but merely convert them into common property and change the form of their management. In exactly the same manner in the sphere of distribution, we were compelled to construct our distribution apparatus on the basis of former private trade, or else to make use of the already well-developed apparatus of the Co-operative Societies.

It is impossible to be guided by sentiment in politics, and for this reason, notwithstanding the hostility between ourselves and the leaders of the co-operative movement, we did not delay to decide the question for ourselves by preferring the co-operative movement to private trading. The leaders of the co-operative movement acted otherwise. They were unwilling to reconcile themselves to the workers’ revolution. They hoped that the victory of the Bolsheviks would not be permanent; they awaited our fall from day to day: as far as was in their power they helped to increase the industrial and food crisis, and declined to enter into negotiations with the Authorities. There remained for us but one thing to do, and that was to arrange our own distributive apparatus on an equal standing with the co-operative and private trade, and to organise the Soviet provision shops. In doing so, however, we did not neglect to keep a vigilant eye upon the leaders of the co-operative movement, waiting to see whether they would reflect and enter into negotiations with us. This eventually happened, the leaders of the co-operative movement had become convinced that the fall of the Soviet power was not a question which could be reckoned in days or even weeks, but at least months.

IV.

This first understanding between the Soviet power and the Co-operative Society took place in April, 1918. It was important for us that the Co-operative Society should cease its existence as a free amalgamation belonging to a comparatively few voluntary members. Our desire was that it should embrace all of the inhabitants of Soviet Russia and at the same time do away with the other unnecessary organs of distribution. The second claim that we laid upon the Co-operative Society consisted in its introducing the fundamental idea of our own food policy. Unfortunately, both these requirements proved to be unacceptable to the Co-operatives. For this reason, the degree of the 12th of April represents to some extent a compromise. Instead of obliging all the inhabitants of a given locality to amalgamate into one single co-operative society, it was decided merely to establish the principle of the Co-operative Society, supplying not only its own members but all the inhabitants. The former division of members, shareholders of the Co-operative, and non-members, was preserved. The decree also introduces certain facilities for joining the Co-operative Society (the membership fee for the poor being reduced to 50 copecks) as well as premiums for those of the Co-operative Societies which should succeed in incorporating all the inhabitants of their district. With a view to aiding the Co-operative Societies in their competition with private trade, a tax of 50 per cent was imposed upon the general turnover of the latter. Further, in view of the fact that the administration of the Co-operative Societies and their branches included not a few traders and confidential clerks of certain private trading undertakings, owing to which the co-operative movement was made to some extent dependent upon the bourgeois party, this decree prohibited the election of such people to the administration of Co-operative Societies.

The decree emphasises that all regulations of the Soviet power in respect to the supply and distribution of articles of first necessity are applicable not only to Soviet organs but also to private trades and co-operative organisations (this is a concession to the authorities on the part of the Co-operative Societies). In return for this, however, the decree gives the Co-operative Society the representation in the national and municipal organs of supply, whereas a similar right to the Soviet organs is not allowed in respect to the Co-operative Societies.

Thus, even after the 12th of April, 1918, the Co-operative Society continues to remain an independent apparatus, existing parallel with but distinct from the state. which has entered only into a temporary agreement with the state. It is extremely characteristic that this agreement, which gives us only a fraction of what we strived for in the co-operative movement, represented the maximum concessions we could secure not only from the general (i.e., purely bourgeois co-operative), but also from the so-called workers’ co-operatives as well.

The Second Special All Russian Conference of the Workers’ Co-operative Movement, which took place at the beginning of April, 1918, definitely expressed this opinion.

The next act of the Soviet government in connection with the co-operative movement was the decree of the 8th of August, 1918, on the interchange of goods.

This decree imposes upon the co-operative movement the task of supplying the peasants with the products of the town industries in exchange for the surplus of their bread delivered to the Soviet government through its food department. At first, of course, the co-operative movement found itself unequal to its task–unequal, partly owing to the greatness of the task imposed upon it, secondly, to a considerable extent because the class principle placed as the basis of the decree on the inter change of goods was alien to the ideas of the co-operative leaders.

The petty bourgeoisie and the leaders of the co-operative movement were unable to accustom themselves to the idea that cloth, iron, matches, etc., should be distributed amongst the peasantry not in proportion with the quantity of bread they had given, but according to their needs of giving more to the poor even though they had given no bread at all and of giving nothing at all to the “kulak,” even though he had given much bread, but had already a sufficient supply of manufactured products hidden away.

Even though the Co-operative Societies did not always adhere strictly to the decree, they delivered the goods to the villages and in distributing them did the work required of them by the Soviet government.

The rank and file of the Co-operative Societies, composed of the masses of the people, brought pressure to bear upon their leaders, thus making them more compliant, and on the 2nd of November it became possible to make a definite step forward towards more friendly relations with the Co-operative Societies.

It is true that the decree does not yet provide for the obligatory inclusion of all the population in co-operative societies, but it obliges every consumer to be registered at one of the distributive points, Soviets or Co-operative, and if we take into consideration the fact that in the vast majority of the rural districts in Russia there were and still are no Soviet stores or provision shops, this means that the vast majority of the inhabitants must necessarily be organised in the Co-operative Societies.

The continued development of the co-operative movement is foreseen in a decree by a number of other points. These are to the effect that the co-operative stores and shops are to be included in the general network of distributive points, that the People’s Commissariat for Food provide such shops and stores with goods and food on the same level as the Soviet shops and that, finally, the co-operative shops and stores are not to be nationalised or municipalised. Those co-operative stores and shops which, contrary to both the letter and spirit of former decrees were municipalised are by the present decree replaced on their former footing.

Notwithstanding the fact that the sphere of the co-operative movement was extended and converted into a large and necessary branch of socialist construction by above-mentioned decrees, the leaders of the co-operative movement were unable to reconcile themselves to the new direction that had been given to the work of the co-operative movement and whilst they preserved an exterior resemblance of loyalty to the Soviet power, they continued to offer passive resistance to the new undertakings. At this moment the Communist Party made an appeal to the workers to set about the task of influencing the co-operative movement from within. A number of active workers took up the work in the co-operative movement. Following the lines of least resistance, they began only with the Workers’ Co-operative Societies, and afterwards succeeded in gaining a majority in the large Workers’ Co-operative centres at the following election, and at the Third Conference of the Workers’ Co-operative (December, 1918), completely defeated the Mensheviks, who up to this time had predominated in the Workers’ Co-operative Movement. The intellectual centre of the Workers’ Co-operative Movement, the All-Russian Soviet of the Workers’ Co-operative Movement became Communist.

Since that time we have been able to reorganise from above the co-operative movement by working upon it from two sides, firstly from above by affiliating the town and rural masses into the co-operative movement by law, and secondly, from within by joining the Loca Workers’ Co-operative societies and the Central Union and carrying out in these organisations the policy marked out by the Soviet of Workers’ Co-operative movement.

The Supreme Council of People’s Economy, which at that time managed the co-operative movement issued a regulation which purged the leading organs of the co-operative movement from all elements which were antagonistic to the workers and poorer peasantry.

Besides the restrictions which were decreed on the 12th of April, a new regulation has been introduced which deprives all those who employ labour for the purpose of profit, those whose main source of income is derived from unearned revenue or property, all former traders who have been trading during the previous three year, provided not less than three years have passed since the liquidation of their affairs, church workers who have not already given proof of their loyalty to the cause of the Workers’ Co-operative Movement, monks, former policemen, etc., from the right of voting in the Co-operative Society.

The next step taken in Soviet Co-operative legislation was the decree of the 20th of March, 1918, on the Co-operative Communes.

The introduction to this decree reads as follows:

“The serious food situation demands that extraordinary measures be taken to secure the strictest economy in natural resources in order to save the country from famine. It is necessary therefore that a uniform distributive apparatus should be created. This is so much more urgent and pressing in view of the fact that the present distributive organs (which can be divided principally into three groups, food provision organs, Workers’ Co-operative Societies and the General Co-operative Societies) receive the larger part of their products from one and the same source, whilst the disputes which arise between these groups have proved in practice to be an insurmountable obstacle to the proper carrying out of the work.

“The amalgamation of the existing distributive organs must be effected so that the principal apparatus for proper mass distribution, namely the Co-operative Society, which is the only apparatus which has been effectively tried and developed by many years of experience under capitalism, should not be abolished and thrown Aside but converted into the basis of the new apparatus by being preserved, developed and perfected.”

It is apparent from this quotation that the reason for hastening the publication of this decree was the acute food crisis which prevailed, as well as the endeavour to introduce a maximum amount of organisation and economy of forces in distribution, so as to be able to make use of a large number of workers for the work of storing and delivering bread.

This decree, however, is only a further development of what was outlined in the first decrees, and is in complete uniformity with the programme statements of our party as finally established in the party programme accepted during the sane months at the Eighth Conference.

The decree places the Cooperative Society as the basis of all the organs of distribution and not the private or Soviet shops.

Not only was the work of distribution transferred to the Co-operative Society, but the shops, stores, and bakeries, which were created by the local Food Commissariats, also were transferred. In order that the leaders of the co-operative movement should not abuse the power that was invested in them against the interests of the Soviet government, and in order that the transfer of the work of distribution might result in the workers and starving peasants of the northern governments being better supplied with provisions, that town goods be properly distributed amongst the workers, and that the cooperative leaders should not attempt to rouse discontent amongst the masses and direct it against the government by organising the work of supply which had been transferred to it, it was necessary at the same time to change the character of the former Co-operative Society. For this purpose the decree provides that all the inhabitants of a given locality, including even the poorest amongst them, shall be included as members of the United Co-operative Society of each town or rural district, and that all kinds of membership fees, which formerly served as an obstacle for joining the societies, shall be abolished. Further, until the elections to the new administrations of the Co-operative Societies representatives of the food organs, whose business it is to control and direct the work of the Co-operative Societies, are to be admitted to the provisional administration of the co-operative organisations with the rights of members. Similar representatives of the Central Soviet government and the United Workers’ Co-operative Society are also introduced into central organs of the co-operative movement of the Central Union.

At the present time preparations are being made all over Russia for the elections to the leading co-operative organs, and in the course of two or two and a half months the re-organisation of the Russian co-operative movement will have been completed.

V.

In Russia, and particularly abroad, our opponents do not cease to accuse Soviet Russia and chiefly us Communists of having destroyed the Co-operative movement. It is possible to find in the Co-operative press statements to the effect that we even persecute the Co-operative movement.

I will quote just a few figures which prove that these Accusations are nothing more than vile calumny which facts refute. It has already been stated above that on the 1st of January, 1918, the number of co-operative societies in existence in Russia reached 25,000; in September, 1919, only half a year later, the number of co-operative societies is existence (according to incomplete information) had reached 50,000. Despite the fact that the decree on the obligatory membership of all inhabitants to the co-operative societies had not yet been published, the number of members reaches a total of 17,000,000 or 18,000,000, in other words, during the existence of the Soviet government the number had doubled.

A still greater expansion is shown in the general turnover done by the Co-operative Societies. At the moment I have no figures at my disposal for 1919, but I will restrict myself to a comparison of the figures for 1917 and 1918. During 1917 the turnover of the Co-operative Societies was six to seven milliards of roubles, whilst in 1917 this figure reached twelve to fifteen milliards of roubles.

The figures which relate to the storage work carried on by the Central Union are still more striking, furthermore these figures are more accurate and complete. During 1917 6,000 wagons of various goods passed through the hands of the Central Union; in 1918 this figure is increased to 32,000 wagons. This increase of more thar five times is explained by the fact that the Central Union is one of the principal agencies.

Instead of persecution and destruction, the Co-operative Society under the Soviet government experienced a period of magnificent progress, unprecedented either under Tzarism or Kerensky.

Of course, however numerous these facts might be, they could not prevent a small section of the cooperative leaders (with the Mensheviks, Right Social Revolutionaries, and still more moderate socialists of the type of Prokopovich and Kuskovoi at their head) from opening a campaign against the decree of the 20th of March. Fortunately, however, their evil designs met with no response amongst the wide masses of the workers.

At present it is not the former privileged member who after paying his share in the Co-operative Society was accustomed to receive from “his” co-operative more products than anybody else, but the mass worker and the mass of the peasantry who began to feel that they were the owners of the Co-operative Society. It was not possible for every worker or peasant to create a privileged position for himself. What he had to think about was not how to get hold of the biggest possible portion for the privileged minority, but of how to improve the position of all.

The guiding spirit of the Soviet policy is both intelligible and clear to this new owner of the Co-operative Society, the Communist proletarian and peasant united in fighting the great internal and external enemy. For this reason the struggle that the former administrators of the Co-operative Societies conducted against the Soviet power met with no response and died out.

In this manner, after having passed through a period of temporary neutrality, the Co-operative Society is being rapidly converted from what was preeminently bourgeois groups of the inhabitants into a Soviet organisation which shares our views, perceives friends and enemies where we perceive them, and jointly carries with us the every day work of construction of a new society.

This was what had to happen, and this is what did happen, because it is impossible for the mass organisation of the workers for any long period to remain outside of the general current of proletarian struggle.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/ci/old_series/v01-n06-1919-CI-grn-goog-r2.pdf