Tsarist rule in the years 1857-1917 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.

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Emma-Louise Hamblin History Coursework

Tsarist rule in the years 1857-1917 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 were the differences.” How far do you agree with this judgment?

The regimes under Tsarist Russia and the Communist USSR were constantly changing, due to the style of leadership taken by the Tsars Alexander II and Nicholas II, and the various leaders of the Communist party. However there are strong continuities between the two separate regimes, such as the difficulties faced for instance the failing agriculture and land mass of Russia. Central control was essential in both regimes to maintain the leaders’ position and to prevent the population from fragmenting. The aim of both regimes was self-preservation, to prevent western intervention and the modernisation of Russia/USSR to increase its strength and power on the world stage. Therefore the problems faced by the two regimes remained the same but the Tsars ruled by autocracy and Stalin ruled using an authoritative regime. Therefore whilst the communists gained central control and grew stronger over time, the Tsars lost more central control over Russia and increasing difficulties arose, their central control was passed to other bodies’ and therefore although both systems were reliant on central control, the Tsarist regime could not maintain it, whilst Stalin built the USSR on the basis of centralisation.

The central structure within the two regimes is possibly one of the main similarities between them. The structure of Government throughout both regimes was not fixed; the style of rule varied and was dependant within the tsarist system on the particular Tsar in power. Tsarist rule was autocratic, and the tsar was given divine status over his subjects, legally he was all powerful, as he had been appointed as God’s representative. The Tsar was supported by a network of elites who gained their positions through patronage of the Tsar and whom the Tsar relied on to secure his position. A system based on loyalty, that passed control to other bodies was open to criticism and an increasing loss of central control.

The tsars’ regime shows a contradiction to his autocratic rule, and shows how the tsar passed some limited control to other bodies. The tsars appointed three advisory bodies, which had no power, and the suggestions that they made were overruled by the tsar. The creation of the domain 1906 questions the degree of central control. The Duma was created in the October manifesto of 1906 and was a Government advisory body; however the fundamental laws removed any power of the Duma on the eve of the first election and re-asserted the autocratic rule of the Tsar. The tsar was head of state and had control of the Army and Secret police similarly to Stalin but did not use them as extensively to control Russia centrally. Evidently, the Tsarist regime displays central control, however the early 20th century showed that the Tsarist regime had less autocracy than there had been.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Russia under Stalin however was a one party dictatorship controlled by Stalin, who had no legal right to the power that he possessed. Stalin was at the top of the power pyramid within the party. Stalin similarly to the tsars was supported by a network of elites, who held their positions through the patronage of the Stalin. However, unlike the tsarist system which was set up by the Tsar, the Communist system was created by the party. Although the Stalinist system was based on loyalty similarly to the tsars, Stalin actually appointed the party elite, apparatchiks, in Communist Russia and therefore gains their support as their positions were owed to Stalin. Having this hold over the party elite ensured Stalin’s’ position where as the Tsar had to rely on the loyalty of the elite. The proof of Stalin’s’ success is in the support of the party elite and the difficulties suffered by Khrushchev during de-Stalinisation , as long as party positions were owed to Stalin, Stalin and the regime were also secure. Democratic centralism was practiced by the Stalinist regime, and it allowed Stalin to decide what was best for the people in order to benefit himself as dictator. Stalin therefore has central power as he inherited a system from Lenin that gives the party leader absolute power and Stalin exploits his position and the party to gain increasing central control. The bureaucracy under Stalin was vast and faceless, and largely governed by self interest, therefore although Stalin had central control over the Communist party and the USSR, the fact that it was run due to self-interest and gains meant that there were difficulties when implementing policies such as collectivisation

In both regimes the local Government was subordinate to the central Government; this ensured a high degree of central control. The Tsarist regime had the Zemstvo, which were local councils, created as way of compensation to the Nobles after the emancipation of the Serfs. Alexander II liberal reforms placed a limitation o the Tsars autocratic rule. The patronage of the nobility meant that AII was forced to compensate the nobility after the emancipation. However, the Tsar and the central government maintained indirect control over areas. A similar relationship existed between Stalin and the Soviets. As central control increased within the Stalinist regime, the Soviets had less of a voice, despite Russia being the USSR.

The ideology of the Tsarist regime was that the Tsar was God’s appointed representative, and so held his position by divine approval, hence the importance of the Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia. This was the justification for the autocratic style of rule employed, and the level of power that the Tsar possessed. Stalin however, used the personality cult to control the USSR. In theory Marxist ideology such as equality should have been use, but ion practice the policies and ideology of the USSR were focused around nationalism, always trying to prove that the USSR was the best. Both regimes used ideology as a high level of control over the Russian population. However, the tsar ruled according to ideology of the regime, where as Stalin used Marxist ideology to control the people but adapted it to accommodate his role as dictatorRussification was part of the ideology of both systems, under the Tsar ethnic minorities had to be ‘extinguished’, as the ideology of the regime required Russians to be Christian under the Orthodox Church, in order for the people to believe in the Tsars divine right to be ruler of all the Russia’s. Similarly, Stalin’s policy of Socialism required people to speak the Russian language as Bolshevik communists originated form the purely Russian part of the USSR. In order to achieve their nationalistic aims both regimes were anti-Semitic and suppressed all ethnic minorities such as the Muslims.

The communist party however is contradicted by Stalin’s self interest. Communist Russia doesn’t follow the ideology of the regime. Communism in theory aimed to create a proletariat state, but Stalin could not rule with authority over an equal state, as his rule would have been undermined. He could only maintain the regime inherited from Lenin where he had absolute control over all subjects and the population. As Communism is based on equality there shouldn’t be a figurehead at the top of the power hierarchy, this contradicts the ideology of Communism, as Stalin needs to control the regime from the top in order to maintain control. Stalin’s personality cult also increased his overall power as leader of the Communist party. The level of power and central control held by Stalin is illustrated in the difficulties faced by Khrushchev during de-Stalinisation, as the party elites, apparatchiks, were motivated by their own self-interest an the benefits that they had accumulated under Stalin in exchange for their loyalty. The difficulties faced by Khrushchev were also due to the level of fear and insecurity installed in the party elite. The 1936 constitution was in theory democratic but in practice was merely a publicity exercise designed to show how great Russia was under Communism.

Law enforcement was employed to maintain high levels of control within both regimes because of paranoia concerning growing opposition. Opposition was always present during the Tsarist regime; however it was constantly oppressed by the system, therefore not always apparent unless there were assassinations such as the assassination of AII in 1881. The use of the secret police, the okhrana was used to support the state and deal with opposition to the Tsar. Nicholas II however allowed legal opposition to the party, and in 1917, the opposition was too strong and he was forced to abdicate. Therefore this may explain the similarity between the levels of oppression used by Stalin and the Tsars, although opposition was allowed during the power struggle with the triumvirate against Trotsky, once Stalin’s power was secure he oppressed opposition to the party. Both regimes used the secret police extensively in all aspects of soviet life to simply control the population as well as those who opposed them. However, although Stalin used the secret police, he also used the purges and the terror period to ensure central control of the Soviet Union was maintained. This is the key difference between the two regimes as terror under the Tsars did not exist to the degree that it did under Stalin. Similarly to the Tsars who used a combination of concession and repression to maintain their position, Stalin oppressed any opposition to the regime; however, generally it was the Russian peasants who were oppressed by the Tsars. Where as Stalin during the period of the purges and the Terror, killed party elites who opposed him or the manner in which the regime was run.

Evidently there are vast similarities between the systems of control within the two regimes as they were both dependant on centralisation in order to maintain power. However, the Stalinist regime was controlled from Moscow, extreme centralisation of the regime was the only way for Stalin to maintain power. In contrast the Tsar relied on the elites and the church to control the population, therefore his power by divine right was passed down to other bodies, decreasing the centralisation of the regime.

Therefore the practices of the system contradicted the theory, because the regime was so centralised. In contrast, the Tsarist practised the theory of an autocratic regime, though the concessions made by AII may have slightly undermined the autocratic style of rule adopted by the Tsars.

Although the economy under the two regimes was managed in two different ways, the Russian economy remained the same. Russia remained an agricultural based country throughout both systems, but suffered poor farming and poor distribution of the small amount of food that was produced.

Under Tsar AII, the economy was centralised, however towards the end of the system control became less centralised as responsibility for the economy passed to ministers such as Sergei Witte. When economic control was passed to Stolypin during the Land Laws, the main aim of the policy was to strengthen the autocratic rule of the Tsars. Despite control passing to other bodies’ economic change in Russia was led from above within the central Government. On occasion the Tsar was compromised to implement policies

The Stalinist regime however, always had centralised control of the economy. Stalin imposed economic policies on the Russian people, and decided what they would be and how they would be carried out, any lack of success was blamed on other bodies such as the peasants for resisting the regime. Policies such as the five year plans are an example of the centralisation of the regime as there were set targets for industry to meet within five years. These policies were brought in to enforce nationalistic ideas which opposed the Marxist ideology of the communist regime. The communist regime employed strict plans and timetables for agriculture and industry, with orders going from Stalin at the centre to the Russian people. The policy of collectivisation was an example of a centrally governed economic issue. There were certain factors that influenced the centralisation of such as the collapse of industry. Stalin believed that he could leave party enthusiasts to implement the policy of collectivisation, but when the policy appeared to be experiencing difficulties, Stalin regained central control and ended it claiming that the enthusiasts had done enough for collectivisation. During the implementation of collectivisation, Stalin gave no direct orders and lacked central control.

In conclusion,

Word Count 2,030