Conversely, the Duma, created in the October Manifesto of 1906, and its treatment by the Tsar, displayed the fact that Tsar Nicholas II still believed very strongly in his right to rule the Russia in the way he saw fit. For example, the fundamental laws removed any power previously held by the Duma on the eve of the first election, whilst at the same time re-asserting the Tsar’s autocratic rule. Despite these actions, Tsarist rule in the early twentieth century was undoubtedly less autocratic and depended less on the central power of the state than was the case in 1857 under Alexander II. Russian under Stalin however was unashamedly a one party state controlled wholly by Stalin himself.
Despite the fact both regimes made use of ‘elites’ to aid them in their efforts to rule Russia, there are differences regarding how this was done. The Tsarist elite were wealthy and consisted of members of the Russian aristocracy. The Soviet elite however were fundamentally reliable, loyal communists. Unlike the Tsarist elite, they had no hereditary right to their position of power, but were chosen by the Soviets; displaying the similarly total authority the ruler of the communist party could exercise. The Tsarist elite were always Russian, demonstrating a more nationalistic approach than Stalin (Marxism was an international movement anyway). However, the Soviets displayed a conscious attempt at integration by making non-Russians elites – Stalin himself was Georgian. The way in which the Soviet elite owed their position to Stalin meant Stalin and the regime were effectively secure. The Tsar was more hopefully reliant on the support of the elite. Difficulties encountered by Khrushchev during de-Stalinization demonstrated the loyal nature of the system established by Stalin. Stalin’s security within the party owed a lot to his own self-interest and measures taken guaranteeing his position. Therefore, although Communist rule involved a high degree of central control, it is questionable whether or not the regime “depended” on this control. This argument could be made of Lenin whilst establishing the one party state, but not after this period. Stalin, as a result of his self interest and also the cast nature of Russian bureaucracy, held central control within the Communist Party as well as The USSR. However, due to his motivation for the degree of central control and power, many of his policies were still challenged, collectivisation for example.
After emancipation in 1861, and the ensuing loss of power for the nobles, the Zemstvos acted as a kind of compensation. The ‘Great Reforms’ implemented by Alexander II during the 1960s diluted the total nature of the Tsar’s autocratic rule, and slightly de-centralised his power. The Zemstvos were local councils, but were ultimately still controlled by the Tsar and the centralized government, and had very little power or authority. A similar relationship between the Soviets and Stalin existed, but as Stalin increased the degree of central control as the years progressed, the Soviets had less influence on decisions. Despite the similarities between how local authorities were used and ignored by both regimes, there are differences as to why this was the case. Stalin was much more generally involved than any of the Tsars, and took an active interest and role in all aspects of change in the USSR personally. This certainly does not explain the irrelevance of the Soviets during his reign, but his attitude varies with the Tsar, who probably simply resented handing any of his God-given power to other authorities. The fact that Stalin personally signed every order of execution issued during the purges outlines the level of his involvement. It should also be remembered that despite the reforms and slight de-centralisation of power that can be seen under Alexander II, 1882 84 saw counter – reforms, and after his assassination in 1881, temporary regulations gave the police extra power to crush revolutionary activity – displaying similar attitudes to Communism – that ultimately the people needed to be repressed, not encouraged in order to ensure compliance. This is seen in Stalin’s reaction to the peasant’s stubbornness in response to Collectivisation, for example.
The Orthodox Church was undoubtedly very important for the Tsar. It almost helped legitimize his claim that the Tsar possessed a God-given right to rule the country, and justified the autocratic nature of Tsarist rule. Particularly by the peasants, the Tsar was seen as a “father figure.” However, by the early twentieth century, the overall opinion of the Russian people, now becoming increasingly educated, was that this claim was no longer as legitimate as it had once been considered. In a similar manner, Stalin used the cult of personality to control Russia. This way of enforcing centralized state rule and control contradicted Marxist theory; perhaps outlining how Stalinism was indeed different to actual Communism. Ideology and propaganda were key tools used by both regimes in maintaining their control over the population. The Tsar promoted Russian nationalism and a strong sense of patriotism, whilst Stalin stated his belief that Marxism was a scientific theory which needed imposing – impossible without the total compliance of the Russian people. In contrast to Tsarist rule, the legitimacy of communism within Russia was becoming more and more entrenched into society.
Both systems deferred to Russification. The Tsar relied on Russians being Russian Orthodox Christians, for the people to accept his divine-right to be Tsar. Ethnic minorities had to be removed in an attempt to create a pure Russia. Similarly, Stalinism suppressed ethnic minorities, and both regimes were anti-Semitic.
Within both regimes, law enforcement and state oppression and cohesion were constantly and unashamedly used to full effect. This was the case as a result of the high level of opposition to both Tsarist rule and in particular Stalin’s ‘enemies’ and the peasants. Under the Tsar between 1883 - 1903, there were 1500 uprisings, all of which were crushed by the army or the Okhrana. The assassination of Alexander II in 1881 served as a warning to the Russians of authority that the high degree of central control maintained for hundreds of years under previous Tsars and temporarily relaxed under Alexander II was actually necessary, and the response can be seen in the counter reforms of 1882-1884 under Alexander III. In a similar way, Nicholas II erroneously allowed legal opposition, and this ultimately led to his abdication and the rise of communism. However, although state oppression worked for years under previous Tsars, the atmosphere in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was different. University educated younger people were questioning the Tsars legitimacy and the reasons for Russia’s backwardness in contrast to the developing West. The massacres administered by the army, in particular Bloody Sunday in 1905 would have massively demoralized both the army charged with the task, and the whole Russian population. Therefore, it can be said that Tsarist rule between 1856 and 1917 did indeed extensively rely on high degrees of central power and control by the state.
Although opposition was allowed during the power struggle with Trotsky, this arguably only served to precipitate his paranoia once he had secured power, and ultimately led to the purges and Terror. Once in power, opposition was oppressed. This can be attributed to both Stalin’s personal and often irrational fear, and perhaps the recognition that communism would not be tolerated by the population if this was not the case. Both regimes made extensive use of the Secret Police – Stalin also using it to ‘secure’ his own central position within the Party. The Cheka, the OGPU and then the NKVD were used by Stalin as almost a personal weapon; he could eventually arrest and detain suspects almost at will. The use of terror is a key difference between the Tsarist and Soviet regimes. The Tsars ‘terrorized’ the people only in response to uprisings and strikes, whereas Stalin used the purges and the terror period to almost serve as a warning to any potential enemy or opponent. The Tsars oppressed opponents in an attempt to maintain the Russian tradition, and generally keep society the same. It could be argued that the communist violence was more understandable due to the fact the Soviets were trying to enforce a radical change on society. Apart from Stalin’s purges, Soviet violence was concerned with enforcing collectivization, forcing out the Kulaks and other changes necessary for a complete revolution. Despite this argument, it is undeniable that the Tsarist regimes killed tens of thousands of people, in comparison to the millions of people killed under the Soviets (not including the great famine).
Despite the fact the economy was managed by tow different regimes using entirely contrasting methods and ideology, the net result was the same. Russia suffered poor distribution of food and poor farming. Stalin always had centralized control of the economy, he often violently imposed his agricultural policies, and lack of success was attributed to non-compliance and resistance of the peasants. The set targets for the Five year plan suggest a centralized regime, Stalin’s orders perhaps unsatisfactorily uncompromising in that they applied to agriculture and industry in general, not depending on region for example. Under Alexander II, responsibility regarding the economy and policy was given to Sergei Witte. However, the policies implemented by both Stolypin and Witte were both highly centralized in that they came directly from the state, and were probably better in principle than they were in practice
In conclusion, Tsarist rule between the time period mentioned and Communist rule, specifically under Stalin, were indeed highly centralized by the state. The use of press censorship, the military and general oppression by both regimes are strikingly similar, despite different motives. Neither the Soviets, nor the Zemstvos had any sort of power or influence, and the fact that the regimes were running such a massive country from either Moscow or St. Petersburg itself suggests a central state control. Both the Tsar, as a result of his divine right, and Stalin, due to self interest and paranoia, totally ruled everything in Russia, and any power designated elsewhere was never a significant amount. Although Stalin ensured that the following was not the case, the role of the leader was not integral to the ideology of Marxism, unlike in Tsarism. After the fall of Khrushchev, there was collective leadership, suggesting the central control exercised by Stalin within the Communist Party was indeed a part of his cult of personality.
It can also be said that overwhelmingly the similarities between the two forms of government do outweigh the differences. Differences are often subtle or arise due to a variation of motivation. However, the question focuses on the degree of dependence of central control and power by the state, thus any other differences focusing on other subjects have not been examined, and so a response to the second part of this statement can only be based on the subjects referred to in the question.
Words - 2181
