Categorising Heroes: Literacy, the Soviet Union, and Differentiation in the Modern Classroom

The Khirgiz, once part of the Soviet Union, are still renowned for practising the ancient art of Eagle-hunting

A key part of early literacy for children is the development of a schema or model for understanding the world around them. We construct meaning by ordering new experiences and words into our own self-constructed epistemologies, and we can decode the unfamiliar with increasing confidence as a result. In simpler terms, a child's extending of vocabulary is made possible through their ability to classify words into self-determined categories based on what they already know. 

This now-commonly accepted theoretical underpinning of literacy was supported by the groundbreaking work of the Soviet neuropsychologist Alexander Luria in the 1930s.

(What follows is an explanation of the way that thinking is tied to literacy. Skip to the end if you just want the 'Heroes'-based Stage 4 resource, but read on for some interesting stuff on how literacy works!)

Luria hypothesised that some cultures understood the world differently if they were non-literate, and thus used the Soviet-controlled Central Asian states of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to support his work. The research that the Soviet socio-scientist conducted in these places revealed very strong links between literacy and the ability to think abstractly. 

Luria, circa the 1940s.

Context

As Luria's fieldwork was conducted in the 1930s, when Stalin's hold over the Soviet Union was at it's most stifling, this meant that several factors contributed to him being in the right place at the right time. The country was undergoing a process known as Collectivisation, in which farms and other peasant holdings were grouped together to allow for easier control by the state. Joseph Stalin was undeniably one of the most brutal and totalitarian dictators to ever walk the Earth but one upswing of his regime was a historically-unparalleled rise in literacy. Luria's studies in remote Uzbek and Khirgiz societies were therefore quite serendipitous as they came at a point in Russian history that allowed for observation of completely non-literate communities prior to rapidly-increased literacy. 

It would probably be most accurate to identify Luria's work as something firmly grounded in a Marxist context reliant on class distinctions rather than cultural ones. This is most clear in the way that the neuropsychologist delineates between the literate and the non-literate on the basis of the 'old' non-literate peasantry vs. the newly-educated and unified Stalinist proletariat (working class). 

(I should note here that Luria's writing on this matter is very much a product of its time in terms of the attitudes portrayed therein - he often uses the word 'we' to refer to mainstream Russian society and marginalises minority groups such as the Uzbek and Khirgiz in the process. He also, problematically and Eurocentrically, uses the word 'primitive' to describe non-literate societies). 

The Research

Luria examined five different groups in his field study, roughly half of whom were completely non-literate. I use the term 'non-literate' here rather than illiterate as 'illiterate' implies the option of literacy; these societies were non-literate in the sense that they had not even been exposed to writing (as opposed to illiterate members of Western societies). 

Luria conducted extensive interviews in the native languages of these groups, concentrating on three central questions:

• How do people linguistically code basic categories of experience as colour and shape?
• How do they manage classification and abstraction?
• And then, what about verbal problem-solving and self-analysis?

Results

The Soviet researcher found that the non-literate groups were able to classify drawn shapes only by referring to them as objects from their everyday life (EG. A circle was a 'plate', a triangle was a 'tent'). They did not have abstract terms for these shapes that could be used to classify all circular or all triangular objects. If pressed to arrange two shapes together, they did not classify them through shared shapes but by shared use (EG. Two objects might appear to be tools and classified as similar in this way despite being different shapes). 

This appears to reveal that a lack of written language means that the non-literate groups lacked the language skills/tools for abstraction. The written alphabet is, after all, a series of symbols and therefore an abstract concept. By learning how to work with the abstract concept of written language, literate societies are able to develop a greater level of abstraction in their thought, and can therefore categorise ideas in more complex ways. 

For the Khirgiz and Uzbek groups, colour was even more problematic than shapes. Instead of assigning a name to things that literate groups might classify as 'green', they would instead describe certain things as 'the colour of grass in the spring'. When challenged, they lacked the ability to group colours in any way whatsoever.

When forced to group objects together, the subjects always needed to theorise a shared situation that had a practical use. For example, a log and some tools would go together because they could be used together to build a house. It seemed impossible for the subject to separate one of these things from the other because they could only think in practical terms.

Developing Taxonomies in the Classroom

In Stage 4 English the teacher will often still come across students who struggle with abstraction and this is almost always tied to the students' lower literacy levels. In order to deal with this in English the teacher can combine symbolism with categorisation so students can begin to experiment with building their own taxonomies for better understanding.

The activity here is in connection to a visual literacy unit on Heroes and Villains. Before starting, get students to brainstorm as many different fictional and real life heroes as possible. This should be done independently.

Click here for the Categorising Heroes activity.

In the activity, students use the symbols attached to categorise the list they've created and then assign themselves a 'diversity' score using the criteria. This can then be used to prompt discussion about things such as:

• Representation of heroes in the media.
• Who can be a hero?
• What makes a hero?
• How aware are we of the kinds of heroes in our world?

A while back I wrote about using an Assessment for Learning task in connection to this same Heroes and Villains topic. This diagnostic assessment can be used to differentiate students into streams of ability. The activity above can be targeted towards the 'mainstream' portion of the class, whereas students identified as more gifted can be targeted with an 'extension' version of the activity.

Click here for the Extension version.

In this version it's left up to students to create their own symbols/categories, and their own criteria to judge them against. This requires more independence, imagination, and willingness to take risks in one's learning.

Alternatively, here is the Adjusted version for the students with typically lower levels of achievement.

In this version the students are given a higher level of scaffolding; an array of heroes are provided in case these students have been unable to put a diverse-enough list together. This works well for students with low literacy as they can then monitor and interact with the lesson without having to write.

For more on Luria's research on literacy, see the chapter 'Cultural Differences in Thinking' from his book The Making of Mind.

Significant Figures: China 1966-1989

Mao's cult in full force

To Western eyes, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (and China itself) is not as clearly defined as the heads of state in our own countries. When teaching Change in the Modern World, Option B: Cultural Revolution to Tiananmen Square 1966-1989 to Modern History students we need to be mindful that they may make certain assumptions based on their own inherent sociocultural biases. Yes, Mao Zedong was Chairman of China from 1945 to 1976, but his most famous successor, Deng Xiaoping, did not occupy this position at all. It would be easy, as a citizen of a country with a Western-styled government, to assume that Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong occupied the same positions as overall leaders of China. This is not, however, the case.

The informal term for political leader of the Chinese government is 'Paramount Leader'. It is accurate to say that Communist China had 4 clear paramount leaders between 1966 and 1989, the time period of the study.

They are:

Mao Zedong: Chairman of various posts until 1976.

Hua Guofeng: Chairman of the Central Military Committee until 1981, but only considered leader of the nation until 1978 (when he lost his position as Chairman of the Central Committee).

Deng Xiaoping: Although Deng did not take over directly from any of Hua Guofeng's positions, he did start leading the Consultative Conference National Committee from 1978, signalling his movement into a higher point of influence at that time. He took over from Hua as Chairman of the Central Military Committee in 1981.

Jiang Zemin: Jiang ascended to the role of General Secretary of the Central Committee in 1989, which placed him as the new paramount leader after the Tiananmen Square incident on June 4th.

You'll notice what seem like a few discrepancies in the above information. We all know Mao Zedong as the 'Chairman' of China, however, this is actually a simplification of his full role within the Communist Party of China. At various points, Mao occupied up to 6 positions as Chairman of different branches within the Party and the government. Most of these he rescinded by the end of the 1950s, keeping only the positions of Chairman of the Central Committee and Chairman of the Central Military Committee, which were almost honorary titles by the time of his death (he kept these titles whilst day-to-day power transferred to other roles within the party, which goes some way towards explaining how the most powerful person in the Party could occupy completely different political positions to their predecessors).

"Follow Hua!"

Hua Guofeng was Premier of the State Council, but it was his succession of Mao as the Chairman of the Military Committee (meaning he had control of the People's Liberation Army) that saw him elevated to paramount leader above his peers. This is where things get tricky though, as Deng Xiaoping was undoubtedly the leader of China from 1978 to 1989, despite not occupying any of the key positions of power in the Party of government during that time. Deng was not General Secretary, Premier, or even President of the Party/government. Nor did he become Chairman of the Central Military Committee or Chairman of the Central Committee at any point. Instead, Deng consolidated power through his command of the Central Military Commission, the Consultative Conference Committee, Central Advisor Committee, and as Vice Premier of the State Council.

Deng's successor, Jiang Zemin, held a more traditional bastion of power as General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Committee, and this is how the following paramount leaders have established their power since this time.

Pretty dry stuff.

The point for our students to take away from this is that, in the context of a single party political system, the lineage of power does not transfer through a voting system or structured hierarchy. Power is accumulated through the prior paramount leader unofficially 'handing the reigns over' to the new leader through increased association and endorsement, and also by brokering the support of large factions within the Party who hope that the new leader will support their agendas.

Something else to consider is the unofficial designation of 'Party Elders', retired members of the Communist Party who retain a significant degree of influence through largely tokenistic positions (an example is Deng Xiaoping, who still exerted a lot of power well into his 90s despite only occupying a position as Honorary Chairman of the China Bridge Association ['Bridge', as in the card game Bridge]). After Deng's exit, the occupation of leadership became more structured with all three subsequent leaders concurrently occupying the three positions of General Secretary, President, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission.

Other Factors in Understanding Significant Figures

The side story to these four leaders is the narrative of those who also attempted to broker power between 1966 and 1989. The ones that are relevant to the syllabus dot points are:

• Liu Shaoqi
• Lin Biao
• Jiang Qing (AKA 'Madame Mao') and her supporters (together known as the 'Gang of Four').

Liu Shaoqi was designated by Mao as his successor as early as 1960, however, ideological tensions arose between the two figures after the Great Leap Forward, leading Mao to denounce his political protege. A large part of the Cultural Revolution consisted of the resulting power struggle between Mao and Liu, with Liu removed from all political positions and placed under house arrest by 1967. He died in mysterious circumstances in 1969, from alleged pneumonia.

Lin Biao rose in the wake of Liu through his loyal support of Mao's ideology during the Cultural Revolution. In 1969 he was acknowledged as Mao's new successor as the next paramount leader but this favouring was short-lived. Lin's control of the People's Liberation Army grew during the Cultural Revolution to a point that threatened Mao's sense of security. Tensions arrived at a point that saw Lin actively avoid coming to Beijing for Party meetings, and Mao removed him from the Party altogether by 1971. Lin attempted to flee China with his family by plane and died when it crashed in Mongolia. The official line is that Lin attempted to orchestrate an assassination attempt on Mao, had failed, and was now fleeing to the Soviet Union for safety. Another perspective is that the alleged assassination attempt was invented by Mao and his cronies to support the disposal of Lin.

Jiang Qing became the scapegoat of the Cultural Revolution as the de facto head of the 'Gang of Four'. As the most radical faction within the Party, and vehement opponents of China's westernisation and/or modernisation, the Gang of Four were blamed by Hua, Deng, and other Party members for all the ills and crimes of Mao's reign after his death, conveniently allowing for Mao's legacy to remain largely untarnished while Jiang (his wife) became the scapegoat. 

Propaganda depicting children "smashing" the Gang of Four

Two other Chinese political figures of importance to the Option B syllabus are:

• Zhou Enlai (mentioned in the dot points)
• Zhao Ziyang (not mentioned in the dot points but instrumental to our understanding of the protests that led into the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989).

Zhou is best understood as the loyal Party member responsible for launching the 'Four Modernisations' that characterised Deng's reign, and for building peaceful ties between China and the rest of the world during a very turbulent time for the nation. He was very popular with the Chinese people, and his struggles against the Gang of Four helped turn public opinion against Jiang Qing, especially after his death at the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Zhao was also a later Party member who was also popular with the Chinese people. In the 1980s, he supported the increased privatisation and westernisation of the Chinese economy, which culminated in his public support of the Tiananmen Square protestors in 1989. Zhao opposed the Party's decision to declare martial law in order to quell the protests in Beijing, on the grounds that making such a decision without an internal vote was constitutionally illegal. Zhao found himself expelled from the Party by Deng and placed under house arrest for the next 15 years.

Students will need to also have tertiary / passing understanding of Soviet leadership as the historical narratives of the USSR and China intersect at several points in relation to the syllabus dot points for Option B. These leaders are:

• Joseph Stalin
• Nikita Krushchev
• Mikhail Gorbachev

Without getting too much into irrelevant information, these three figures relate to China's story in the following ways:

Joseph Stalin: Stalin's Cult of Personality has some clear and relevant parallels to Mao's own cultivation of a godlike status in China, and helps establish some context for the tensions that arose in the 1950s and '60s both between China and Russia, and within the Chinese Communist Party itself. The CCP's amendments to the Chinese constitution took out all references to Mao, mirroring Russia's own process of de-Stalinisation during the mid-1950s, which only served to antagonise This political decision (in both countries) was designed to deconstruct the phenomenon of the 'cult of personality' that had arisen in China and the USSR respectively.

The split in Sino-Soviet relations also has some origins in Stalin's lack of support for China following Mao's establishment of CCP leadership in 1950.

Nikita Krushchev: Krushchev's relaxation of Russia's more Stalinist elements of communism in the 1950s was interpreted by Mao as a threat to the Marxist concept of permanent revolution. This led, in some part, to the increased adherence of the CCP to Maoism as a clear alternative to what Mao interpreted as dangerous revisionism on the Soviet Union's part.

Krushchev's actions during the Cold War were also interpreted as 'soft' and revisionist by the Chinese. 

Mikhail Gorbachev: Gorbachev's part in our story comes much later when he visited China in 1989, prompting, in some part, the Tiananmen Square incident. It will be necessary for students to understand what Gorbachev came to symbolise for those in the Chinese pro-democracy movement. As the Russian leader of the Communist world, Gorbachev was making moves towards the dismantling of socialism (and the Soviet Union) through his introduction of glasnost and perestroika, policies of 'openness' that would lead to the increasing westernisation of the USSR. His visit to China in 1989 was to involve a tour of Tiananmen Square, hence the choice of this location as ground zero for the Chinese protestors.

Resource - Key Figures Timeline

Sino-Soviet Split and Anti-Revisionism in the 1950s and 1960s

Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev, 1958

In order to gain a full understanding of how Mao Zedong developed his own distinct brand of communism, otherwise known as 'Maoism' or 'Mao Zedong Thought', it will be useful for students to see what led to the split between the world's two largest communist nations. This historical narrative of cause and effect can be traced back to the 1920s, when Lenin consolidated the Bolshevik governance of Russia and established the world's first socialist state. 

A good place to start with orientating students in regards to this is to have them look over the following text and create a mindmap of reasons for the Sino-Soviet split.

Sino-Soviet Split and Anti-Revisionism

From its formation in 1921, the Chinese Communist Party had relied on Soviet political and financial support. Both countries aimed for 'permanent revolution' - an ongoing class struggle that would eventually transform the world into a single, unified communist society without national borders.

The first cracks in the Sino-Soviet alliance began to show in the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949 when the CCP were battling the Nationalists (the Kuomintang) for control of China. Stalin advised the CCP to stop after taking the north of China as he did not have faith in the their ability to transform all of China into a communist state, and he held back any real support from the CCP during this time because he preferred China to be divided and weakened; a less-threatening neighbour for the USSR to deal with. He even condescendingly referred to the Chinese as 'cabbage communists', viewing them as incapable of true Marxism in comparison to the Soviet Union.

China and the Soviet Union also disputed access and ownership of the Xinjiang region that sat between them, with both wanting its rich mineral resources. Mongolia was similarly disputed, with China only able to claim 'Inner Mongolia'. The rest of Mongolia became a satellite republic under the influence of the Soviet Union. During WWII, when Japan invaded China, the Soviet Union only offered China assistance very late in the war, and even plundered northern Chinese factories for their own gain. 

Towards the end of the 1950s, the Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev gave a speech in which he outlined his wish for a peaceful coexistence between the East and the West. Mao was unimpressed as he saw this as contradicting the theory of permanent revolution, and China had been treated badly by the West in the recent past. Khrushchev's criticism of the previous Soviet leader, Stalin, also threatened Mao's own image (as he had styled himself as a similar kind of leader - worshipped by the masses). In 1957, Mao visited Moscow and encouraged the Soviet Union to assist other countries in their own revolutions, which the Russians ignored. He outlined his own plan to 'liberate' Taiwan, which frightened Khrushchev, who thought such warmongering would lead to worldwide nuclear warfare. The Chinese saw this fear as weakness and a betrayal of the permanent revolution.

In 1958, China began to attack Taiwanese forces. Khrushchev travelled to Beijing to try to intervene, and offered to place Soviet missiles on Chinese soil as a compromise (but would not share atomic technology). Mao refused, offended by the Soviet Union's attempts to dictate what China should do. When Khrushchev visited Russia's Cold War enemy (the United States of America) in 1959, Mao saw it as a further weakening of Soviet supremacy, and began to question Khrushchev's understanding of Marxism. Mao was angered further when Russia sided against Mao over China border disputes with India. 

In 1960, Russia withdrew all diplomats from China and cancelled 300 industrial and economic contracts. The Soviets offered economic aid to India, and China began to characterise the USSR and USA (enemies of each other in the Cold War) as one and the same: hypocrite revisionists and capitalist enemies. Things dropped to an all-time low in 1968, when China and Russia clashed over control of an island in the Ussari River near their border, with up to 200 soldiers killed. Around this time, Mao began to label enemies of the Chinese state as 'revisionists' and 'Chinese Khrushchevs'.

Chinese soldier photographed during the Ussuri River conflict, 1969. This incident lasted for 7 months and is most commonly known as the 'Sino-Soviet border conflict' or, in China, as the Zenbao Island Incident.

Reasons/Evidence
Students should be able to pull the following causes out of the above text:

1. Stalin discouraged Mao from taking all of China during the Chinese Civil War.
2. Stalin did not lend any real financial or military support to the Chinese communists during the Civil War.
3. Both the USSR and China were in dispute over control of the Xinjiang region for its minerals/resources.
4. The USSR kept hold of Mongolia as a 'buffer zone' between themselves and China.
5. The USSR lent very little assistance to China when Japan invaded in 1937.
6. The USSR used WWII as an excuse to plunder Chinese factories in the north.
7. Nikita Khrushchev criticised Stalin and his 'cult of personality', which did not sit well with Mao, who had his own cult of personality.
8. Khrushchev also began to build a relationship with the West, which Mao saw as a contradiction of Marxist ideals.
9. The Soviet Union was disinterested in assisting other smaller nations with their own Marxist revolutions.
10. The USSR discouraged China from pursuing war with Taiwan, and would not lend atomic technology to Mao.
11. Khrushchev feared that Mao would provoke nuclear war and tried to directly intervene by visiting Beijing.
12. Mao saw Khrushchev's visit to the USA as a sign of weakness.
13. The Soviet Union sent assistance to India when China and India entered into a border dispute.
14. The USSR withdrew all diplomats and contractors from China in 1960.
15. The USSR and China battled each other for control of an island in the Ussari River.

Extension/Consolidation:

Tie the above understanding to the ideology dot points in the syllabus by asking students to consider the following essay-style question. Students are encouraged to use the above to establish some apparent key differences in Soviet Marxism and Maoist Marxism.

To what extent is the Sino-Soviet split a result of competing versions of Marxism?

Building the Field: China 1966-1989

Red Guards read from Mao's 'Little Red Book' during the Cultural Revolution

A key aspect of increased capacity for engaging with knowledge is better literacy. If we want to be able to express our thoughts on a specific subject then we need to be equipped with the vocabulary that will allow for full interaction with the topic at hand. In other words, in order to find the nuance in meaning that permits for increasingly sophisticated discussion of an idea the responder needs to have advanced literacy skills.

It's easy to think of grammar as commas, full stops, and capital letters, but grammar goes well beyond this in terms of structuring our understanding of language. Our command and understanding of grammar is a significant building block for our cognitive ability; it's our ability to organise information into a taxonomy of terms demonstrating relationships between words and concepts that increases the individual's capability for dealing with new concepts and content. 

Getting more specific, there are three extralinguistic features that contribute to our understanding of a context surrounding a new text when we read it. These are:

• Field: What is being talked about or written about (the content)
• Mode: The nature of the text and the role language plays within it (how the content is being delivered - spontaneously? planned? written? televised?).
• Tenor: The relationship between the speaker/listener or reader/writer (does the composer treat the reader as a novice, an equal or an expert? What kind of language is being used to achieve this?)

When we have students engaging with a previously unfamiliar area of knowledge, such as the new Modern History HSC syllabus China option for Change in the Modern World, the students will need to 'build the field'. Arriving at a point where students can communicate sophisticated historical ideas is dependent on their understanding of the history in question. They will need to build a specialised lexicon that includes all the new terms that they will be coming into contact with, and creating this new vocabulary bank will be the base from which they can draw upon when formulating their responses.

There are several ways that the field can be built. One tried-and-true way is a glossary, which I've included below, but reading new words and their definitions isn't a particularly effective way to learn something. The research tends to suggest that students will have a better time with new terms if they put them into practice immediately. This means that new words should be introduced gradually, with students trying them out in sentences of their own construction. 

Another effective method is giving the reader a piece of text that includes several unfamiliar terms and having them monitor the piece with the highlighter. Students locate and highlight the new terms and decode them one by one, with the teacher's assistance, in order to increase their knowledge of the context around the text.

Anyway, here's an overview of the vocabulary a student should become familiar with during the course of their study of Change in the Modern World, Option B. As mentioned, it's best to introduce these gradually and in context.

Anti-Revisionism: The maintenance of communist ideals in China. Those who sought to compromise Marxist ideology were accused of 'revisionism', and anti-revisionism referred to the need for Chinese communists to fight against this.

Bourgeoisie: The middle class. In Marxist theory, the 'bourgeoisie' are the capitalist class who seek to get rich off the labour of the workers. Marxists aimed to remove the bourgeoisie element from society.

Capitalism: A system of government, or society, in which the goal of the individual is to accumulate wealth for themselves. Trade is controlled by the private sector, rather than by the government.

Capitalist Roader: A synonym for 'revisionist'. Those in communist Chinese society seen as taking the easy 'capitalist road' were derogatorily labelled 'capitalist roaders'.

Cold War: The international tension (1947-1991) between the communist East (led by the Soviet Union) and the capitalist West (headed by the United States of America). Although communist, China did not fit neatly into the Soviet Union's side of the conflict as the two neighbouring Marxist countries had their own unresolved tensions during this time.

Counterrevolutionary: Internal enemies of the Chinese communist state were labelled as 'counterrevolutionary' as their actions were interpreted as running contrary to the spirit of the Chinese communist revolution.

This propaganda poster literally depicts Chairman Mao as the sun that lights all of China

Cult of Personality: This occurs when a person in a position of authority (such as Mao Zedong) creates a political atmosphere in which they are worshipped as a godlike figure by the general population. See any of the many artworks produced between 1950 and 1976 that depict Chairman Mao as a benevolent father-figure to the Chinese people (such as that above).

Cultural Revolution: A movement that occurred between 1966 and 1976, in which Mao Zedong encouraged students and workers to rise up and rid China of revisionist and counterrevolutionary elements.

Dazibao: Chinese for 'Big Character Poster'. These are large handwritten posters used to protest, communicate propaganda, and express ideas. These were popular during both the Cultural Revolution and in the late 1970s Democracy Movement.

De-Stalinisation: In 1956 the new Russian Chairman, Nikita Khrushchev, began a process of deconstructing the cult of personality that had surrounded the previous Chairman, Joseph Stalin.

Feudalism: A medieval form of government in which landowners controlled the state, with peasants or serfs working the land in exchange for being allowed to live on said land. Much of China was still a feudal state by the mid-20th century.

Four Olds: Mao Zedong ordered the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution to destroy the 'four olds' so that China could be rebuilt anew. These were: old thought, old culture, old customs, old habits. This resulted in much of China's ancient heritage being destroyed to make way for a new and modern communist China.

Four Modernisations: A program launched by Zhou Enlai in 1975 to assist with China's progress towards increased industrialisation. These modernisations were: Agriculture, Industry, National Defense, and Science/Technology.

Fifth Modernisation: A dazibao in 1978 that called upon the Chinese Communist Party to add 'Democracy' as a fifth aspect of the Four Modernisations.

The Gang of Four were blamed for all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution

Gang of Four: A radical faction within the Chinese Communist Party headed by Jiang Qing (Mao Zedong's wife). The Gang of Four opposed efforts to modernise China as they saw it as the 'poisonous road to capitalist restoration'. After Mao's death, the Gang of Four attempted to seize power but instead found themselves denounced and arrested as enemies of the state. 

Gerontocracy: A government ruled by the elderly. Protestors against the Chinese government in the 1980s derogatorily labelled Deng Xiaoping and other senior members of the Chinese Communist Party as a 'gerontocracy'.

Glasnost: A policy promoted by the Soviet Chairman, Mikhail Gorbachev, in the 1980s. This policy loosely translates as 'openness' and was characterised by the loosening of strictness in communist Russian society. 

Industrialisation: Widespread development of modern industries in a country.

Leftism: Political views or policies of the 'left' (those who identify with communism, Marxism, and socialism).

Liberalisation: The process of allowing increased freedom in Chinese society. Many members of the Chinese Communist Party in the 1980s feared that liberalisation would interfere with socialist progress.

Liberalism: The idea of a society founded on freedom, particular in regards to equality, free trade, and freedom to pursue personal wealth.

Marxism: A political system based on the teachings of Karl Marx, the philosopher who invented the theory of communism.

Maoism / Mao Zedong Thought: Chairman Mao's own interpretation of Marxism could be found in his Little Red Book, and featured several key differences in comparison to the Soviet/Marxist version of communism. One main difference was that Maoism focused on role of the peasants in the maintenance of a communist society.

Modernisation: The process in which countries develop from a traditional or feudal state into something industrialised and up-to-date.

People's Liberation Army: The Chinese army, who assisted Mao in winning the Civil War that led to the creation of communist China in 1949.

Perestroika: Translates as 'restructuring'. Perestroika were the reforms that the Soviet Union underwent in the 1980s before transitioning away from communism.

Permanent Revolution: The idea that communist revolution was an ongoing struggle between the social classes, and would continue until the entire world had become communist. Also links to the idea that Marxist societies, such as China, had to continue revisiting Marxist ideals in order to ensure that they stayed true to the spirit of communism.

Plenum: A political meeting in which all controlling members of the Chinese Communist Party had to be present.

Proletariat: The working / peasant class of a society.

Millions of Red Guards made the pilgrimage to Beijing to see Chairman Mao during the Cultural Revolution

Red Guards: The students encouraged by Chairman Mao to spearhead the Cultural Revolution were dubbed the 'Red Guards'. These students numbered in the millions and became fanatical devotees of Chairman Mao and his Little Red Book, vowing to fight those who wanted to bring capitalism to China. 

Rehabilitation: Enemies of the Cultural Revolution were sentenced to 'rehabilitation'. This often consisted of several years of forced labour that would teach capitalist roaders and revisionists how to be communist again.

Revisionism: Those who wanted to 'revise' communist society in China and allow increased freedom, or accumulation of personal power. These elements of Chinese society were criticised as 'revisionists'.

Rightist: Political views or policies of the 'right' (those who identify with nationalist and conservative ideologies).

Stalinism: The ideology of Marxism as practised by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Stalinism was extremely totalitarian in its control of Russian society.

Struggle Session: Those identified as enemies of the Cultural Revolution was made to undertake 'struggle sessions', in which they had to denounce and criticise themselves for hours at a time so that they could start afresh as true communists. These sessions also meant humiliation and torture at the hands of the Red Guards and, sometimes, death.

Westernisation: The increased adoption of Western (American/European) and capitalist culture in China.

Political and Social Conditions in China

The Cultural Revolution is arguably one of the most volatile and problematic areas of modern history that we could ask our students to engage with, not necessarily in terms of ideology but in terms of nailing down the reasons for why things happened the way they did. This makes it perfect for teaching historical concepts such as Significance, Cause and Effect, Continuity and Change, Perspective, and Contestability.

Well, it's March 2017 and the new Stage 6 NSW History syllabuses have been released upon the world. I don't want to focus on what's been lost, and which options have shifted in outlook, or the ways in which the new structure of the courses may cause friction. As a pedagogical optimist I'd like to instead look at one of the new options that are available and the room it gives us as History teachers to help our students grow engage with the continuum of skills relating to the historical understanding. 

The new module for the HSC Modern History syllabus 'Change in the Modern World' features some great options for our Year 12 students. Option D: The Cultural Revolution to the Tiananmen Square 1966-1989 builds on a previous Year 11 Case Study and works as a possible follow-on for the current Year 12 National Study based around the rise of China in the earlier half of the 20th century. I've heard some teachers refer to this new Change in the Modern World China option as a transported version of the Year 11 topic and, while there are similarities, it's worth remembering that The Cultural Revolution to the Tiananmen Square 1966-1989 contains content points not previously addressed by the earlier syllabus - making the option an entirely new study of a very complex area of modern history.

Option D starts with the 'survey' dot point; the area of the syllabus in which students are given necessary context before investigating the overall case study. Knowing what to include here can be challenging for the teacher as the background for an event like the Cultural Revolution can be incredibly complicated and contestable. As a result, I've done my best here to boil things down to a manageable overview. In addition to this it's worth doing a couple of things before looking at the historical overview below.

1. Have students mark out key areas on a map of Asia (China's border, Beijing, Taiwan, key provinces in the Cultural Revolution such as Guangxi and Inner Mongolia, and significant neighbours such as the U.S.S.R., Vietnam, India, and Korea) to build a field of geo-political knowledge to work from.
2. Cover some key terms that will be coming up during the background/survey part of the study:

• Bourgeoisie
• Capitalism
• Cold War
• Cult of Personality
• Feudalism
• Great Leap Forward
• Industrialisation
• Marxism
• Maoism / Mao Zedong Thought
• People's Liberation Army
• Proletariat
• Revisonism
• Stalinism

Anyway, here's the overview. The information below pertains to overall survey section of Option D: Political and Social Conditions in China. 

Picture from the Chinese Civil War

Legacy of the 1949 revolution

In 1949 China had just won a civil war against the Nationalists, who fled to Taiwan. This group, the Guomindang, were conservative and largely traditionalist. In contrast, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wanted to introduce reforms based on fairness, land distribution, and liberation of women. The CCP's establishment in 1949 was the first time China had ruled itself without war or colonial influence for 50 years.

Mao said, "We will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up".

This new China wanted to change, and to use communism to reach this goal. There was a sense that China was not developed enough yet to shake off its feudal and colonial past; it had to organise itself.

Mao's first plan was to introduce Soviet-styled Five Year Plans, but he abandoned this in favour of the Great Leap Forward in 1958-1960. This failed and China's attempts to modernise in the early 1960s reflected the ideological struggle between Mao's ideas and the Soviet model of communism. The Soviet ideas that appealed to Mao included the collectivisation of farms, a cult of personality that would elevate him to godlike status in the eyes of the people, redistribution of lands and private property, and total control of the lives of the people. However, the Soviet leader Stalin would not offer financial assistance to Mao when asked, leading China to become increasingly independent and anti-Soviet.

Mao was able to get the Chinese people to 'buy in' to his brave new world by encouraging them to take land off the rich and murder those who stood in their way. Nearly 2 million were killed in 1952, and China had collectively stained itself with the blood of the old regime - united in an act of brutal justice, this would not be the first time the Chinese people were asked to become instruments of state-sanctioned murder.

Tensions between the CCP and Mao Zedong that led to the Cultural Revolution

In 1955, the new Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev criticised the personality cult that had grown around the previous Russian leader, Stalin, and this led to some in the CCP recognising that Mao had similarly used power to cultivate worship amongst the masses. In 1956, some members of the Party changed the Chinese constitution to remove all references to Mao Zedong by name.

Annoyed, Mao began to test the loyalty of other members of the CCP as early as 1957, and his own writings on Marxism identified problems in the continuing emergence of elites in Chinese communist society. He warned his colleagues against corruption, and resented those who did not fall in line with his policies. Mao initially pointed the finger at rich landlords who he claimed persisted despite the famine that had wiped out so many in 1959 and 1960, but by 1965 he asserted that Chinese communism was under threat of those in the Party who wanted to 'revise' it (revisionists).

In 1964, fellow Party member Deng Xiaoping advised Mao not to attend a Party meeting, prompting Mao to remark, "Someone is shitting on my head". Mao grew angry at Party members resisting his attempts to target revisionists and 'capitalist roaders' (those taking the capitalist road by enjoying Western-styled privileges and material possessions), and he believed that China was beginning to become a series of 'independent kingdoms' where Party members in different regions had gathered power for themselves. The Party tried to target the education system as the way to address Mao's claims, but Mao put the focus back on them - he wanted to go after what he called the 'big shots'.

Social Conditions in China in 1966

China had undergone drastic change in the years between 1949 and 1966. 2-3% of the population were now members of the CCP, and more than 30% of all Chinese land had been redistributed more fairly. Mao instigated several new laws designed to make women more equal - the 1950 Marriage Law made it illegal for men to marry children, purchase brides, have multiple wives, or force marriages. Primary school attendance also increased by 200%, and university graduation by 100%.

The Great Famine that had arrived due to the Great Leap Forward led to millions dying of starvation. People had to steal or die, and the Chinese black market emerged to make survival possible. Corruption became commonplace. 

Sources for above information:

• People's China by Craig Dietrich, 1986, Oxford University Press.
• The Cultural Revolution by Frank Dikotter, 2016, Bloomsbury.
• A Short History of China by Gordon Kerr, 2013, Pocket Essentials.
• Mao's China and After (3rd Edition) by Maurice Meisner, 1999, The Free Press.
• Deng Xiaoping by Alexander V. Pantsov and Steven I. Levine, 2015, Oxford University Press.
• Red Star Over China by Edgar Snow, 1968, Grover Press.

Questions/Activities based on the above:

1. Why did things begin to become strained between China and their fellow communist neighbour, the Soviet Union? 
2. How did Mao encourage the Chinese people to commit to his ideology?
3. Why do you think the other Party members took Mao's name out of the Chinese constitution?
4. What was a 'revisionist'? 
5. What do you think Mao meant by 'big shots'?
6. Why did corruption become the norm in China by 1966? 
7. Construct a timeline based on the dates featured in the above information.
8. Which event do you think had the most significant impact on China and why?

Resource: Click here for a PDF containing the above information.

Metropolis: Context

New York, circa 1924, when Fritz Lang saw it.

Teaching context is one of my favourite things. I know I have a lot of favourite things but I'd like to think that having several favourite things helps to make me a reasonably well-rounded individual. Hopefully that gives you some context to this blog post. 

See what I did there?

As I've mentioned several times before, the most difficult thing about teaching context is knowing where to start and where to end. As any decent student of history should know, the points where a historical narrative begins and finishes are often up to interpretation. Did WWI start with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand? Or was it the so-called 'blank cheque' that Germany had given to Austria, meaning that they would support their ally in war no matter the circumstances? Or was the rampant tendency towards imperialism that infected many European nations in the latter half of the 19th century to blame for the War to End All Wars? You can backtrack through the chain of cause and effect forever.

The same is true of English texts. How much detail do we need in order to understand the situation that birthed a text? Is it enough to know what the composer went through, and what they intended? Should we also look at the culture that created this individual? The larger events that were shaping the world at the time of the text's construction also bear examination too. An English teacher can get lost in trying to get to the bottom of where a text truly comes from. 

In coming at Metropolis, I put together a PowerPoint presentation that would help students situate their understanding within a three-tiered model examining the world context, German context, and Fritz Lang's context (in that order).

The presentation below encourages students to pick the three most significant ideas out of each slide. Discuss as a class as you move through the PPT, and then - once you get to the end - have the students consolidate their understanding into the Context Organiser sheet.

Fritz Lang is almost always pictured wearing the monocle, which helped to contribute to the stereotype of a tyrannical German director that others found hard to work with.

Significant factors to consider during discussion while getting students to formulate connections between context and text:

Slide 2: World Context

• World War I took place 1914 and 1918, wreaking the most war-related devastation that the world had ever seen up until this point.
• The nature of WWI - with its strategy of attrition and the use of shocking new technologies such as gas and tanks - had quite an affect on the lowest strata of Europe's social hierarchy (the workers) as they were the ones who were conscripted and enlisted to fight on the frontlines.
• The old order of governance in Europe, the monarchies, were collapsing after facing increasing pressure from 'below' (the soldiers and workers).
• England and America became increasingly industrialised during this period, giving rise to capitalism and liberal trade as the bourgeoisie gained power in Western societies.

Slide 3: World Context

• The workers of Europe were inspired during the early 20th century by Marxist ideology, which promised equal distribution of land and wealth.
• The first Marxist state was born in Russia in 1917 through a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', with the aim being that the workers would control the state.
• The key figures of the Russian Revolution in 1917 had been Lenin and Trotsky, both politicians and activists who fought to put the workers in power. By 1927, at the time of Metropolis' release, the leader of the new Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a bureaucrat who would rise as a godlike dictator.

Slide 4: Germany

• The German people felt humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles that as it laid all of the blame of WWI at their feet. They, in turn, blamed their own government and Kaiser - leading to the deconstruction of the German aristocracy and the rise of the Weimar Republic.
• Berlin was wrecked by the rioting lower classes in 1919, and Germany faced crippling poverty after WWI. 

Slide 5: Germany

• Early capitalists such as Hugo Stinnes took advantage of the situation in Germany to gain control of Germany's economy. By 1922, he owned and operated more than 60 German newspapers, and had so much influence that he introduced the idea of the 8 hour work day to increase productivity. Think Joh Fredersen in Metropolis.
• Workers' unions in Germany began to form to represent the interests of the downtrodden workers, and tensions emerged between the classes in response to poor working conditions.
• German culture saw a renaissance of sorts in the 1920s, with German cinema in particular adopting the moody style of expressionism to reflect the economic depression that had followed WWI.

Slide 6: Fritz Lang

• Born as a Jew, Lang was brought up as a Catholic by his mother (she converted through marriage).
• Lang trained in civil engineering and art, both of which are reflected in his concepts for the city in Metropolis. He also fought in WWI alongside the workers.
• Lang co-wrote all of his films in the 1920s with his wife, who eventually developed Nazi sympathies. They would later divorce.
• Lang fled Germany in the early 1930s due to the rise of the Nazi Party.

Slide 7: Fritz Lang

• Lang visited New York in 1924 and was awed by its size and industrial nature.
• Lang's concept for the city in Metropolis was also influenced by the gangster and prostitute-riddled Chicago, the 'city of sin'.
• Both New York and Chicago were symbols of capitalism; representing the best and worst that it could offer.
• The idea of liberalism encouraged industrialists and capitalists to accumulate as much power and wealth as possible (as a means to promote economic growth).  

Slide 8: Fritz Lang (Catholic influence)

• The Garden of Eden = The Eternal Garden.
• The Tower of Babel = alluded to the film through both Maria's sermon and Joh Fredersen's towering office.
• John the Baptist = Maria.

Slide 9: Fritz Lang (Catholic influence)

• Christ the Redeemer = Freder.
• The Whore of Babylon = Robot-Maria and her incitement of the bourgeoisie.
• The Seven Deadly Sins = the symbolism seen in Freder's hallucinations.

Resource: Metropolis Context PPT
Resource: Context Organiser sheet

All Power to the Soviet

"The French Revolution had guillotined its enemies; the proletarian revolution would compel them to work for it" - E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution Volume 2, 1952

When I started teaching the HSC National Study 'Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-1941' (otherwise known by the equally uninteresting name of 'Option G') there was one thing that really bothered me. I understood that Lenin and Trotsky had wrestled power from the Provisional Government to create the world's first communist state, and I understood how they had achieved this by appealing to the masses and using the Kornilov Affair to their advantage. But what I didn't understand was how they physically changed Russia from a burgeoning capitalist Euro-state into something completely new and different. 

How was it done? Russia is a big place, how exactly do you suddenly convert all those factories and businesses into socialist organs of the state? Russia had just been through the crippling autocratic reign of the Tsar, two revolutions, and a horrendous war with Germany - Lenin was not exactly flush with the resources or manpower to achieve his communist dream. So how on Earth did he actually make it happen?

I picked up the above book by Carr in a secondhand bookstore. It's brown and smells like decay in that way that all old, unloved books smell, but it's also by E. H. Carr, who factors quite significantly into the History Extension course (which I also teach) so I figured I could kill two birds with one stone by reading it. It's a fairly dry text in every sense of the word but the content also went a long way in explaining how the Russian economy worked, and how it bent to the will to historical forces and people. 

Just what I was after!

Carr grapples with the problem of which came first (the big events of Russian history or the economic conditions?) and manages to illuminate this conundrum as much as possible by refusing to pick an order of cause and effect. Instead he alternates back and forth between the two, arguing that the economy both informed the big events and was also shaped by them. He believes that they're inextricably tied together. 

As I read Carr's treatise on this subject I quickly became conscious of the fact that there would be very little in this book that I could explicitly use with my Year 12 Modern History class. It's just too complex, and the last thing I want to do is bore or confuse them.

However, I have no qualms at all about boring or confusing YOU, the internet reader and possible fellow teacher. So here's a bit of context about Marxism before I talk about Russia, c. 1917:

Karl Marx = not Santa Claus

A Crash Course in Marxism

• Karl Marx and his good ol' buddy Engels believed that society would always organise itself in a way that would make the best use of resources. There's a belief out there that communism is something that exists as an alternative to capitalism, but that isn't strictly what Marx was suggesting when he formulated his theory. Marx believed that communism was the future in the most literal sense. He saw capitalism as a necessary step towards communism; and capitalism was merely the stage of a society's development that took place after feudalism.

• Here's a better way of thinking about it. First, a society organises itself into a feudal state so that the land-owning aristocracy can make the best possible use of a country's resources. Then, a middle class emerges - the bourgeoisie - and their amassing of capital wealth (as opposed to land wealth) gives them the means to take power from the aristocracy. This changes the society from a feudal one into a capitalist one. The bourgeoisie then better organise resources by using their extensive capital wealth to motivate the lower class - the proletariat - in going to work for them. Eventually the proletariat will realise that the real power resides with them, and the resources of the society can be spread more equitably by the ousting of the bourgeoisie class. This changes the society from a capitalist one into a socialist one. The next, and final stage, is the removal of the instruments of government - a conversion from a working class-run capitalist society into a communist society. A society that essentially runs itself through the equitable allocation of its resources.

• Or; Feudalism (aristocracy, bourgeoisie, proletariat) becomes > Capitalism (bourgeoisie, proletariat) becomes > Communism (proletariat). 

•  Marx had several rules that would help the proletariat in manifesting their power - common sense things like the abolition of child labour, free education for everyone, equal obligation to work, abolition of inheritance... then there were the harder to sell ideas of abolition of private property, state ownership of factories, and state-controlled media/communication channels.

• Once the theoretical Marxist society had re-organised itself accordingly, the perfectly functioning economy that would result from all this equitable re-distribution of wealth would render the concept of a 'state' useless. No more government. No more nations. No more borders. So that's what John Lennon was on about!

I placed this image in the centre, but maybe it should've been placed to the left.

The 1917 Revolution

Back to Russia 1917; the new Russian middle class had teamed up with the proletariat to depose their 19th century tyrant, the oddly mild-mannered but wholly ineffectual Nicholas Romanov II. This in itself wasn't that unusual. A rather 'soft' industrial revolution had moved the British middle class into co-power with their aristocracy in the 1850s, and the French had formed a democratic republic before that with more than a few dropped blades. However, what was different with Russia was that the working class and peasantry had Marxist-educated representatives who were eager to skip the capitalist stage as quickly as possible now that their Tsar had been de-throned.

Lenin spake, "We want the peasantry to go further than the bourgeoisie and seize the land from the land-owners".

What's worth noting is that there were essentially two revolutions happening in Russia at the same time. The peasants had revolted against the land-owning aristocracy, whilst the workers (and socialists) were rallying against a bourgeoisie/capitalist paradigm. The two had become bedfellows in the face of the Tsar's corrupt autocracy, but their views weren't always compatible.

In relation to this, a curious situation had arisen in post-Tsarist Russia. Two governments were in operation. The official one was the Provisional Government - a democratic and largely bourgeoisie organ that had developed from the Duma, the Tsar's previous and thoroughly unpopular attempts at reasonable governance. The other government was the Petrograd Soviet, which was a loose conglomeration of socialist groups and workers' unions. An uneasy alliance had developed between the two out of necessity but neither was in any fit state to run the country on their own. In fact, even whilst working together they weren't doing that great a job of it.

Then Lenin arrived on the scene, fresh from exile and political imprisonment, and Trotsky came back in from the wilderness to put aside his problems with the factionalism that had previously been occurring within the Russian Socialist party. Together they bloodlessly removed the Provisional Government (a fascinating story for another day) and set up a Bolshevik Government in its place.

One of the many problems of the Provisional Government was that they had no ideological motivation to re-organise Russia's resources in order to feed the starving Russian people. The factories in the Russian cities were still too closely tied to the bourgeoisie, so the Provisional Government was not willing to shake things up too much by forcibly moving resources away from the 'haves' to the 'have nots'. Instead, Kerensky's government suggested that the peasants come to a 'voluntary agreement with their landlords' in regards to food and land.

A voluntary agreement?! "Can we please have some food for free?" When has that ever worked?

The Bolsheviks were the only group to give their blessing to the peasants in regards to seizing land for themselves. Lenin put out word that all private property in land was to be abolished and placed at the disposal of the peasants (the only group he considered off-limits were the Cossacks, he said they could keep their land - a  shrewd political move that kept their muscle on his side). A further caveat was that every man was only entitled to as much land as he could work, and as much as could feed his family.

Articles 3 of Lenin's new laws; "The right to use the land belongs to him who cultivates it with his own labour".

Alongside this was a call for the workers to take control of the factories, a necessity that would draw resources and money into the control of the state.

Making Things Happen

But how did he enforce this? Much has been said of Lenin having very little power to actually make this happen... all he could do is suggest it and give the new Bolshevik Government's blessing, and hope that the peasants and workers would do the rest.

Well, one thing that Carr's book sheds light on is the role of the trade unions. They assisted in keeping order during this messy and chaotic transition process. The Soviets were more powerful than the trade unions because they had soldiers, but an alliance was still needed in order to organise the factories and the workers As you could imagine there were a lot of problems during this stage, and here are some examples:

• A series of button factories were sabotaged by the former manager who had been kicked out by the workers (he was sent to a labour camp for his troubles). 
• Some workers, once they had control of their factories, sold off all the equipment and stock for their own financial gain (I guess it had yet to be impressed upon them that capitalism in Russia was soon to be over).
• Some workers kicked out their managers and then later had to beg them to come back in order to help run the factories (this is communism in action - Marx postulated that the bourgeoisie and proletariat would eventually merge into one larger proletariat class under the new socialist model of society). 

Some communists (both at the time and in hindsight) argued that this chaos was necessary, that destroying the economy was actually part of the communist process. The workers were (unknowingly) 'smashing the economic machine' and therefore allowing for the state to be rebuilt as a socialist utopia.

Of course, as you and I know, there would never be any such utopia for Russia. Lenin's early death, Trotsky's exile from Russia, the rise of Stalin... any number of factors could be blamed, but the point remains that Russia's sheer size, string of historical tragedies, and dearth of social happiness perhaps made it impossible for such a communist paradise to ever be achieved.

Lenin felt that a state-run form of capitalism would easily supersede the form of capitalism that had arisen towards the end of the Tsar's reign. This would provide a transition phase before moving towards collectivisation; the process in which huge communal farms would become the building block for a socialist Russia.

This more 'fair dinkum' version of communism never happened during Lenin's lifetime, but Stalin would eventually have his own crack at collectivisation after disposing of nearly every other revolutionary in the 1920s communist government.

It could therefore be argued that communist Russia never really materialised under Lenin. Many have pointed to the New Economic Policy that emerged in the early 1920s as a step backwards towards capitalism, but Lenin knew he had to generate some wealth in order to nurse Russia back to health after all the damage wreaked by the Tsar, World War I, the 1917 Revolution, and the Russian Civil War. This would also buy him more time to continue the extensive reforms that were rapidly transforming the country's economy.

A New Vision for Russia

The shift from a feudal state through a capitalist one into a communist nation in just the space of a few years is incredible and astounding, especially in a country as huge as Russia. So, here is how Carr says that Lenin managed to achieve this:

1. Nationalisation of all of Russia's banks into one state-run bank. The banks responded to this by refusing to open, or to only open their doors for a few hours a day, and to give no credit. The Bolsheviks threatened imprisonment and sent soldiers to the banks, but the banks called their bluff and the boycott continued. Eventually, Lenin confiscated all their gold and bullion. After the Civil War then came and went, the banks were in so much disarray that it was quite easy for a centralised money-lending institution to be installed. 
2. Nationalisation of trade syndicates. Lenin took control of the country's big resources - sugar, iron, coal, oil - things like that. The syndicates were evidently less bourgeois than the banks as they rolled over a lot more easily.
3. Establishment of state monopolies in place of capitalist ones. This was easy once Lenin had control of the banks and all their cash.
4. Forced unification of smaller enterprises. A step towards collectivisation that sounded easier to achieve than the great melding of the farms. I'm not sure if this one was all that successful either but perhaps there was a trickle-down effect from Lenin's seizure of the trade syndicates.
5. Abolition of commercial secrecy. A nice thought.
6. Nationalisation of the factories. Fun fact: when Lenin and his Soviets sent out representatives to nationalise industry in rural areas like Turkestan, they found that it had already been done by the workers and peasants. Approximately half of all Russia nationalised on its own without direct intervention. How's that for the power of an idea?
7. Regulation of consumption. This was achieved through rationing. Once the Civil War started this was facilitated by special rural soviets of 25 peasants each, who would requisition grain from farms on behalf of the state. Prior to this, the Bolshevik government attempted to scapegoat 'bagmen' - semi-mythical capitalist pigs who exploited the countryside by buying up food and reselling it at an exorbitant price - and issued a decree that any such criminals would be shot. There is limited evidence that such men ever existed during the famine. 

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had seen a lot of Russia's more lucrative industry ceded to Germany. This prompted a lot of German interest in Russia's commercial branches, and, after large slabs of the Ukraine had been absorbed by Germany, the Kaiser's businessmen began buying up more Russian factories on a large scale. There was a lot of worry in Russia that Germany's influence would make possible an economic invasion far more devastating than the war had been, so this prompted much quicker nationalisation of industry then would normally have been possible. It also didn't help that Russia was now also being blockaded by the Allies for making peace with Germany, so (as a result) by 1918 nearly all industries had been declared property of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic - with very little resistance.

The next step in Lenin's state-run economy was for equal distribution of wages. In Lenin's words, "he that does not work, neither shall he eat". Under socialist policy this meant equal wages to all. The salary of commissars was limited, so in this system even Lenin earned a wage that was just comparable to a skilled factory worker. It soon became apparent, however, that this idea was very hard to put into practice as a fixed rate of productivity was needed in order to guarantee everybody the same wage. And how do you regulate an industry that was, in the words of some, being 'smashed' for the benefit of tearing down the old order?

So, as you can see, the Bolshevik Government did manage to enact some kind of widespread economic change in the years that immediately followed the 1917 Revolution. Different elements were either exacerbated or lubricated by the brutal chaos of the Civil War that ravaged Russia between 1918 and 1921, and nearly all of it had been radically changed by the time of Lenin's death in 1924. 

Where things went from here were entirely up to one seemingly innocuous Georgian pen-pusher, Josef Stalin...