How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following the revolutions of 1917, the Russian people simply exchanged one form of autocracy for another?

The next major feature of the Tsarist autocracy was the control of the people. The Tsar extensively used the Russian Orthodox Church in order to support the idea of himself as the ‘Little Father’ of Russia – with ideology of the Tsar appointed by God, and the Fundamental Laws underpinning the autocracy; this ideology coupled with the Orthodox Church helped to control the beliefs of the people. Although under Lenin and the ‘Great Terror’ Religion was despised, gradually under Stalin he himself became almost worshipped as the saviour of the Soviet Union, the man at the helm steering the boat. Treated almost as a Religion, Stalinism was underpinned by Marxism-Leninism which became an orthodoxy used by Stalin to justify his actions. Russians later were to grow to accept their role was to be good Communists and spread their beliefs throughout the world by encouraging world revolution. Whereas the Tsars used internal passports, residence permits and visas to control the movement of the population, Stalin used internal passports but on the urban workers instead of peasants. A large proportion of population movement under Stalin also included to the Gulag, which will be covered later. However, the key si8milarity in these aspects of the regimes is the control of population movement in itself – in both cases this was key in ensuring power of the leader on the fate of each and every individual. A further aspect of control used by the Tsars was Alexander II’s ‘revolution from above’ with the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. In comparison Stalin also mounted the ‘revolution from above’ when he decided to enforce change on the peasantry and opt for rapid industrialisation through the command economy – Gosplan. Although there were attempts to modernise industry under Nicholas II in the 1890s with French investment, and Witte’s Great Spurt, nothing compared to the scale of industrialisation under Stalin, which arguably changed the Soviet Union ultimately into a great power, something the Tsars never achieved. Though the scale and priority differed measurably, the fact that there were attempts at industrialisation under the Tsars illustrates the similarity in the two systems.

The third major feature of autocracy under the Tsars was repression of political opponents. It featured internal and external exile, and a Secret Police – the Third Section under Alexander II, succeeded by the Okhrana which was established by the Statute of State Security under Alexander III, killing 14,000 opponents in its existence. Repression under the Bolsheviks shared many of the same characteristics: the secret Police (Cheka 1917-22, OGPU 1922-34 and NKVD 1934-1954), and similar exile processes. However, under the Tsars repression was largely only political; however Lenin and Stalin developed this theme with Religious repression with the Great Terror, continued until the re-opening of the Churches in the Great Patriotic War, and purges of the party and army under Stalin. The scale of repression under the Bolsheviks was far greater than anything under the Tsars. For instance, whereas the Okhrana killed 14,000 from 1881 to 1917, the Cheka killed 140,000 from 1917 to 1922, furthermore under Stalin the figure could be anything from the admitted 681,692 deaths to Robert Conquest’s estimate of 20 million. A major feature of repression under Stalin was the Gulag – the need to complete projects in the arctic was perhaps a catalyst for its such widespread use, constituting 10-15% of the GNP during his reign. Rigby argues it was fed by Stalin’s desire to turn from an oligarchy to a dictatorship, and to maintain the huge amount of progress made under him so far. Although the Tsars mainly focused on political opposition, to Stalin the party were the political opposition - this can be demonstrated by 1,108 of the 1,966 delegates of the 1934 Party Congress being executed by 1939; of the 139 members elected, 98 were later shot. Moreover, Stalin saw the army purges as essential in securing his loyalty – he didn’t want to end up like Nicholas II who the army turned their backs on. By 1938 with 8 senior admirals and 75 out of 80 members on the Supreme Military Council executed, to go with 35,000 officers (half the entire officer corps) executed or imprisoned, Stalin had achieved this but at a terrible cost. It can also be argued that ideological opposition was rooted out with the collectivisation of the Kulaks, who were seen by Stalin as a threat to his power. Overall, despite the differences in scale of the Bolsheviks and Tsars, it is obvious the same basic structure is evident in both, with the exception of the purges. Therefore it can be concluded that Lenin and Stalin shared the same features of repression as the Tsars; they just elaborated on it in terms of the scale of repression. Another feature of repression in the autocracy was lack of free speech, political freedom (with the exception of the years 1906-18) and censorship of the press, with the exception of Alexander II who relaxed censorship laws but this was reversed. In comparison with Lenin and Stalin, it is very similar right from the point Lenin closed the Constituent Assembly as early as January 1918. Furthermore, under Stalin propaganda was rife to supplement him and Lenin’s cult of personality. Another similar feature of both types of government was a strong emphasis on Russian nationalism and patriotism. Russification in the autocracy looked to export the Russian way of life to other parts of the Empire – Tsars were constantly looking for ways to expand the empire and become a dominant power in European affairs: Stalin arguably was the only man who really became a dominant figure however, but on the other hand the theme of Russification stood throughout the time period, for example Stalin’s Communist invasion of Georgia in 1922 was part of a crushing of alternative cultures, and of revering great Russian Tsars like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. Overall Russification was a key similarity in both regimes as it demonstrated the focus, no matter who was in power, of Russia being the central figure, the most important thing of all.

The final main feature of the autocracy under the Tsars was the use of the nobility to control the regions. Though obviously the Bolsheviks had no support of the nobility, the respective roles of the nobility and party can be seen to have many similarities. Firstly, the nobility were the elite whose prime role was to serve and support the Tsar. The Tsar held their patronage in positions of influence like the government, armed forces and civil service. As for the Bolsheviks, party status was desired by all. The hierarchy meant everybody wanted to be one of the ‘Nomenklatura’ – the named ones, whose patronage was held by Stalin, for example the 1925 army promotion of Voroshilov. However, being one of the named ones increased the risk of being destroyed, differing from under the Tsars where if you were appointed a position you were unlikely to be troubled by the Tsar. In 1889 Land Captains were introduced – local governors who replaced the Zemstva, they were all members of the nobility, trusted and in need of compensation for 1861. From the years 1850 to 1900, the civil service grew from 100,000 to 500,000 – again this was virtually all members of the nobility. Similarly, under the Bolsheviks there grew to be a generally trusted force of regional party leaders – partly down to the purges: it can be argued Stalin did not have control of all the Soviet Union’s local regions, so needed the purges to happen to add to his control of the population centres. The nobility under the autocracy also had a well-developed system of ranks and privileges. Likewise, under Lenin and Stalin there was substantial inequality throughout society: both within and outside the party there existed a hierarchy of ranks, with accompanying benefits but as previously mentioned were at a higher risk of being attacked to show a lesson to others; and the system of privileges utilised the desire within the party to become one of the Nomenklatura, this ultimately kept everybody loyal to the leader. Overall it can be seen that although the Tsars and Bolsheviks were given support of different elite bodies, they served very familiar roles, so in that way they are similar.

Finally, it can be easily seen that throughout the major features of the autocracy under the Tsars, there are stark similarities with the major features of the ‘autocracy’ under Lenin and Stalin. The concept that Stalin was a ‘Red Tsar’ can be thoroughly supported in terms of the amount of power they ultimately held, methods used to control the population for their individual means, ruthless repression of opponents and use of an elite to support their regime. The only real evidence to suggest there is nothing other than similarities between the two autocracies of the Tsars and Bolsheviks is the scale of their operations, particularly repression – however it is clear that the two systems share the same basis for repression, such as the existence of a Secret Police and exile. Lenin shares slightly fewer similarities with the Tsars, however ultimately his policies, too, were largely Capitalist for instance NEP.