• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the view that Russias communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve the lives of the working class in the period 1855-1964.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assess the view that Russia's communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve the lives of the working class in the period 1855-1964. When the revolution of 1917 brought down the Romanov dynasty and signalled the end of the Tsarist regime, Marxist theory, along with Bolshevik claims of a 'peoples democracy' dictated that a better quality of life lay ahead for the proletariat following years of repression and poor treatment under Tsarist rule. However, the communist leaders did indeed do less to improve the lives of the working class, in particular through the brutal repression seen under Stalin. For the majority of the period, living conditions for the average worker remained uniformly bleak. Prior to 1917, accommodation was often of a low standard as demand outstripped supply following an influx to the cities, such poor living conditions had a detrimental effect on their quality of life which was also evident under the communists, where living conditions remained in an equally bad, if not worse state compared to the Tsars. Despite Khrushchev continuing Stalin's efforts to build more social housing and improve the situation, these were often of poor quality and hastily built. Much like his successors building poor quality homes, Lenin also let short term fixes dominate his policy, in particular the Land Decree of 1918 acknowledging land seizures. ...read more.

Middle

Quality of life was still poor for the urban workers, however in terms of living conditions it was the communists who made the biggest efforts to improve it, despite many of their reforms often being short sighted and temporary. Another common theme throughout the period is the inadequate working conditions the urban workers faced. For all the positive effects of Witte's great spurt, wages remained low and conditions were harsh. Little regard was given towards employee health and safety, and this did not change under the communists. The factories were ruled in an autocratic style similar to the Russian state, and the workers had no rights throughout the tsarist period, as strikes were illegal and trade unions were banned. Despite Nicholas II making concessions and allowing trade unions in 1905, they were once again banned under Lenin in 1920, so the urban workers only benefited from this for a short time. In Tsarist Russia, the workers had to endure 11 hour days, this was initially reduced under the communists. However war communism destroyed much of the initial benefits by imposing military discipline on the workers, and most of the NEP benefits were seen by the peasantry which affected quality of life for the urban workers in much the same way that Stalin's repression in the workplace would later have. ...read more.

Conclusion

This was in order to increase patriotic spirit as the Nazis rapidly closed in on Moscow, not to benefit the urban workers. Civil rights in Russia rarely improved throughout the period, despite occasional breakthroughs such as the October Manifesto, however they took lesser importance to living and working conditions, as it is more important for the urban workers to earn a decent wage and put food on the table, neither of which they were sufficiently able to do under Tsarist or communist rule. On balance, neither Tsarist nor communist regimes had any real effect on improving the quality of life for the urban workers. Individual rulers such as Stalin had a bigger impact than any differences between the two regimes, and despite some improvements such as a better healthcare system, the communists did less than the Tsars to improve the lives of the working class, despite Khrushchev's best efforts towards destalinisation and reform. Such reforms were often ineffective, which is a consistent feature throughout the period. Unlike the Tsarist regime, which ruled under a strong belief in autocracy, the intention of Marxist theory is to prioritise the workers. Given that the urban workers suffered a reduced quality of life under communist rule compared to Tsarist rule, this is a notable failure on the part of the communist governments. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve ...

    4 star(s)

    officials, had been eliminated, in a similar method to the heavy persecution of the intelligenzi as seen under Alexander III. In terms of living and working conditions the peasants were never truly well off, despite Khrushchev's sympathy with the farmers the improvements in standard of living were not down to him.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the ...

    4 star(s)

    Many people disliked the Tsar because of the way he ruled Russia as an autocracy. However, the First World War, again, pushed the people over the edge. The Tsar was blamed for all the defeats in the war and when he went to the war front, he left Russia in

  1. Assess the reasons why opposition to Russian Governments was rarely successful in the period ...

    Opposition from the peasantry had shaped policies of several rulers, war communism was badly affected as the peasants battled requisition squads for supplies and collectivisation was also met with initial resistance. However the eventual outcomes differed as Lenin abandoned war communism for NEP, whilst the self-inflicted famine of 1932 helped speed up the collectivisation process.

  2. 'Communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way.' How far do you agree ...

    Other differences were clear to see too, in accordance with Marxist theory, the urban workers received a greater priority in contrast to the Tsars who preferred to focus on the peasantry. The two regimes were equally authoritarian, as one form of autocracy was simply exchanged for another.

  1. How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following ...

    This can be demonstrated by the emergence of the Politburo after 1919 - this worked as a kind of 'inner cabinet'; formerly the central Committee with 30-40 members was the most influential body in the party, and despite the fact that the Politburo was to be accountable to the Central Committee, it was soon established that this meant little.

  2. To what extent did Russia simply exchange one authoritarian regime for another in the ...

    to his vision of Russia no matter what the cost as the Tsars had previously been devoted to maintaining autocratic rule. However in terms of ideology, the Bolshevik seizure of power in the October Revolution lead to a shift from one diametrically opposed ideology to another.

  1. Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful ...

    This was not the case under the communists which allowed their regimes to eliminate potential threats quick and painlessly. Opponents to the crown succeeded because Nicholas II had lost the support of the army, whereas Lenin was able to defend his revolution in the Civil War because the army remained loyal to him.

  2. How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning ...

    so effectively that it guaranteed the very survival of the Soviet Union?[10] showing that without Stalin and his Plan, Russia would not have been capable of surviving World War two. This argument is given weight by another British historian, Oxford University tutor Robert Service who, regarding the second Five Year Plan, wrote ?gross industrial output in 1937 ...

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work