How far do you agree with the judgement that Tsarist rule and Communist rule were more similar than different

Heleina Aston

‘Tsarist Rule in the years 1856-1917 and Communist Rule from the death of Lenin to the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much greater than their were differences.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?

Both Tsarist and Soviet rule under Stalin depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. However it can be argued that the differences between the governments were greater than there were similarities thus disagreeing with part of the judgement.

Firstly by examining the nature of rule in the two governments we can learn that they both relied on control by the state. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia since 1613; this imposed an autocratic rule where there was no parliament, the Tsar had total power which was exercised through the army, police and the bureaucracy, this resulted in a high degree of central power. Communist rule operated under the Marxist theory that wanted power belonged to the working class. Communist rule developed into centralisation like Tsarist Russia, initially “Lenin’s organisational principle was democratic centralism” this quickly vanished as he crushed the first constitutional assembly in 1918.

The historian Richard Pipes has argued that Lenin’s “highly authoritarian structure, led inexorably to Stalinism” meaning that that Lenin set a path for Stalin to extend for him to become the ultimate dictator. However discontinuity historians believe that Lenin applied democratic theories and that Stalin “destroyed the essence of Lenin” as more than a “million party members including all the old elite party members were swept away in the purges of 1936-39”. These two beliefs still draw to the same conclusion that Stalin must have had great central powers to be able to achieve the authority he did, and also that the Soviet rule at the start may not have depended on central power and control by the state completely but in Stalin’s rule it certainly did similar to that of Tsarism.

Still the two forms of rule were highly different as the Tsarist government was a royal family whereas Soviet rule was dominated by the internal workings of the communist party. Unlike the Tsarist system the Communist party had a group of 15 ministers called the Politburo to be in this it was necessary that you were a party member and then a deputy. The Politburo was who appointed the party secretary. This disagrees with the judgement, as this clearly is a major difference between the parties.

Relating to the nature of rule the ideology of the two governments ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Relating to the nature of rule the ideology of the two governments were completely different. The Tsars basis of authority was directed at the Orthodox Church the Russian people were taught “it was their duty to be totally obedient to the tsar as Gods anointed”. However when the Soviets ruled the church was replaced by the communist party, the Soviets feared that the Orthodox church would be the centre of resistance to communism so power and the wealth of the church was destroyed. This shows that both governments did have a base of authority but were very different from each other that disagree with part of the judgement.

There was definitely change in central power within the two periods. From the extent of this change, it can be said that control by the state played a role in both rules, but Soviet rule under Stalin appeared to have more central power. After the emancipation of the serfs, Tsarism undertook a change in central power that curved away from autocracy as the establishment of the ‘Zemstvos’ (rural district assemblies) was made, these bodies were allowed to raise their own revenue and was responsible for decisions on health and schools etc thus taking away authority from the Tsar. However control by the state was increased after 1861 due to the assassination of Alexander II; the Okhrana secret police was created. The Okhrana arrested and exiled members of suspect groups that posed a threat to the Tsar; by 1917 “security sections” of the Okhrana had offices in all major cities. Control by the state got to the point where major post offices had dark rooms where mail was read.

A similar change came for the Soviet Union in the 1930’s where it became a totalitarian state where a single party had power. Anyone that posed a threat to Stalin were imprisoned or killed by the newly reorganised secret police the NKVD. Stalin’s terror was much more severe than that of the Tsar, purges began after the assassination of Kirov the party secretary in 1934, the death penalty was introduced for all terrorist acts. The main targets were part members “of the 1996 delegates who attended the 1934 congress, 1108 were executed in the next three years”. Centralism was maintained largely by terror in 1936 the purges spread to Communist party leaders in a series of show trials evidence against the accused was often ridiculous, but it was a way that Stalin could keep total control over the state. This suggests that the Tsarist regime and Soviet rule did depend on high degrees of central power and control by the state but the ways that they went to achieve this were very different.

The 1905 revolution is an important date for the change of centralisation in the Tsarist government. The events of Bloody Sunday on 22 January had triggered the 1905 revolution. “The railways were on strike, almost all traffic in the streets had stopped, and lighting was no more” The Revolution showed that the Tsars government was losing control. The revolution was directed from the working class and their poor support and organisation meant that they could not overthrow the Tsar most of the army remained loyal and riots were crushed, showing that the tsar did have central power to a certain extent. But after a decline of control over the state was apparent strikes increased, by 1913 the total number of strikes in that year was 2404.

The First World war of 1914 was yet another turning point that will help measure the degree of central power and control by the state. At first the war was popular as the national emergency gave great authority to the Tsar and nobody resisted his policies as his people wanted to fight for their country. Soon this popularity plummeted “It is difficult to expect selflessness and enthusiasm from men sent into battle without weapons”, the casualties of the war ran into millions. To attempt to defeat the Germans the Tsar took command of the army and left the government in the hands of the Tsarina, these factors gave a sharp loss of confidence in the regime by 1916 that suggests that central power was declining.

Similarly World War II was a turning point for the Soviets, but this time it helped Stalin have complete central power, that highly depended on terror. The war gave Stalin the opportunity to extend his authority; his ability to achieve a huge arms production when there were shortages of materials and manpower is an outstanding example of his total leadership. The Armaments production sawed from 140 units in 1941 to 251 by 1944. However sent entire national groups such as the Crimean Tartars to remote parts of the USSR in case they allied with the Germans, he also took the opportunity to remove groups who might cause trouble in the future. This level of control compared to that of the Tsars in emergency shows that they certainly had different ways of operating even though they aimed for the same dictatorship.

Collectivisation under Stalin can be examined to distinguish the level of which Soviet rule depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. Stalin knew that it was essential to catch up with Western Europe industrially if he were to be a successful dictator, the solution of rapid industrialisation required Russian agriculture to produce more food for the workers. Therefore he ‘encouraged’ peasants to join collective farms, where peasants gave up the right to own land in return for sharing the produce of the collective. Control by the state played a huge part, as many peasants did not want to lose their land. “We must smash the kulaks” as a result many kulak families were deported to distant regions. The result of control by the state collectivisation was a success as by “1932 61.5% of peasants were living on collectives”. Stalin also used propaganda to promote collectivisation he identified the Kulaks as “holding back the workers, who monopolised the best land and employed cheap peasant labour” making them unpopular with both the workers and peasants. Propaganda here was a means to get more control over a wider range of people, in conjunction with his terror it played an important role in control by the state.

In conclusion both Tsarist and Soviet rule under Stalin depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. However it can be said that the differences between the governments were greater than there were similarities thus disagreeing with part of the judgement. This is because the nature of the two rules were completely different, and also by looking at the extent to central power and control by the state changed within the two governments, it is clear to see that Stalin achieved a much higher degree of central power and control by the state to that of the Tsar. This suggests that they both aimed for centralisation and complete power but used different methods to achieve it thus resulting in different outcomes.