As you’d expect following the imposition of a radically different system of governance, a lot happened in the decade following the Bolsheviks’ ascendancy to power in November 1917. By the very nature of the world’s first communist state, it was undoubtedly experimental. However, the ‘brilliance’ part of that statement is debatable, and I’d like to know what general argument or points the quote refers to before making that assessment. It’s been a while since I’ve studied interwar Russia, but I’ll give this my best effort by distinguishing between a few successes and failures of the first decade of Russian communism.
Successes:
-Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918): The First World War was a major factor in the mass resentment felt towards the Tsar and in his downfall as it had caused food shortages, transportation issues and death. As the war wasn’t going well for the Russians and there was rock bottom morale among the soldiers, Lenin and the Bolsheviks capitalised on this to build their support by using simple phrases (such as ‘peace, land, bread’) to win over the common man and the military. As popular and military support played a key role in their victory in the October Revolution, they now had to deliver on their slogans and promises and did so through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918. This agreed their departure from the war with the Central Powers in exchange for vast swathes of land (Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, etc.). This allowed the Bolsheviks to consolidate their power and focus on their internal threats (Tsarists, other revolutionaries) and was annulled by the Treaty of Versailles so the land which they had ceded was returned to them anyway.
-Victory in the Civil War (1919-1921): After Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power of the Duma and granted vast swathes of land to Germany in the ToBL, their opponents (Tsarists, republicans, liberals, other socialists, right-wing groups) formed the White Armies. These were a series of distinct fighting forces which sought to topple to Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, in command of the bulk of Russian industry, supplies, and transport and communication networks and with a large, well-drilled, fanatical, ideologically-driven fighting force commanded by Leon Trotsky at their disposal picked the divided White Armies off one by one. With their strongest internal enemies defeated, the Bolsheviks consolidated their power further and this was therefore a success.
-New Economic Policy (1921-1927): The successor to War Communism (mentioned below), this returned small businesses to private hands, halted grain requisition and continued private land ownership (state control was continued for heavy industry). This alleviated the discontent felt by peasants and industrial workers towards the Bolsheviks because of War Communism and led to an economic upswing, fuelled by increased agricultural output, which further consolidated Bolshevik power. Though capitalist in many ways (and criticised by Lenin because of this), it lifted the strain that War Communism had placed on the Party and was therefore successful.
Failures:
-War Communism (1918-1921): Despite achieving victory in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks had adopted a policy of War Communism (nationalisation of industry, requisition of food from farmers (prodrazvyorstka), no private businesses, limited worker rights) in order to ensure that the Red Army was consistently well-supplied. Though it was successful in this regard, its impact on the civilian population was horrifying. As produce was requisitioned without compensation, peasants stopped producing more than what they and their families needed to survive because there was no incentive or motivation to put in the effort to do otherwise. This led to widespread famine in the countryside which in turn led to increased urban migration, something which worsened the already dire social situation in urban areas (think unemployment, poor conditions, Petrograd losing 73% of its population). Though the peasants had been some of the Bolsheviks’ most ardent supporters, hundreds of peasant rebellions occurred during this time (most notably, the Tambov Rising in Ukraine). Further, Kronstadt sailors who had been pivotal in the Bolshevik success of October 1917 mutinied in 1921. This convinced the Bolsheviks that War Communism had to be abandoned, and it was replaced by the New Economic Policy (NEP).
-Squabbles in the Party after Lenin’s death (1924-1929): After Lenin died, it was presumed that Trotsky (as leader of the Red Army and Lenin’s right-hand man) would take over. Further, Lenin had said in his last will and testament that Stalin shouldn’t become leader in any situation. Despite this, Stalin’s departure was not called for and, after several years of playing the factions within the Politburo off against each other, Stalin seized power. Though a masterstroke of political manoeuvring, the Party was shown to be disunited and ineffective during this period and little rapid change was achieved economically or agriculturally during this period as a result (in comparison to 1918-1924 and 1929-1939 anyway).
In contrast to what you’d expect from ‘experimental brilliance’, the Bolsheviks’ record in government during their first decade was hardly all sunshine and roses. The author’s point would be strengthened in my opinion by extending its timeframe to the first 15 years and not the first ten. By this point, Stalin had seized and consolidated his power as leader of the Party in superb fashion (his outmanoeuvring of the Politburo was masterstroke after masterstroke and makes for fascinating reading), rapid industrialisation through the first Five Year Plan was underway and collectivisation of agriculture had begun. Though these were not always successful and did cause problems (collectivisation in particular - the man-made Holomodor famine in Ukraine, 1932-33) they were inherently socialist and strengthened the USSR to a point which would allow the nation to resist German invasion in World War Two.
So, in contrast to his/her view, I believe that the first decade was one of experimental consolidation (not brilliance) which was built on by industrialisation, victory in WWII, emergence as a world superpower, the establishment of the Iron Curtain and scientific development in the 60s. Of course it ultimately fell apart, but it’s not like the Soviets limped from one disaster to another after magnificent success after magnificent success between 1917 and 1927.
Sources:
Lynch, Michael, Russia 1894-1941 (Hodder Education, 2015)
Mawdsley, Evan, The Russian Civil War (Birlinn, 2008)
Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (Harvill, 1994)
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/1978_cc_postprint.pdf