Communists and Tsars both saw repression as an integral factor of Government, for differing reasons. Alexander III wanted to force through the reversal of his father’s reforms, and similarly Stalin and Lenin heavily used repression to wipe out opponents and solidify their position in power. Nicholas II attempted to do the same but had a much weaker than the other rulers. Despite some undoubted successes such as Lena Goldfields, the actions of Nicholas II show that the communists and tsars both ruled Russia in the same way with regards to repression.
There is also considerable continuity in the use of the secret police throughout the period, as the 3rd section under Alexander II right up to the KGB under Khrushchev shows. Similarly to Alexander II easing censorship, Khrushchev relaxed many aspects of Stalinist repression, briefly abolishing the death penalty and treating opponents more leniently. There is also considerable continuity in how other rulers from both communist and tsarist Governments were similar in their attitudes towards repression as Alexander III and Stalin in particular saw it as a vital tool of Government. Stalin, believing ‘’death is the solution to all problems’’, sought to remove opponents and implement his version of communism, he removed his opponents in the Politburo one by one in much the same way as Alexander III had sought to reverse the reforms of his father by driving opponents underground.
One can also point out that communists and tsars ruled Russia in the same way through the continual use of propaganda. Whereas this was mostly done through the arts and churches under Tsarist Rule, there is also evidence of change as the communists heavily intensified propaganda. Rising literacy rates under Lenin meant that the media could increasingly be used in addition to the continual use of the arts, everywhere in Russia there were statues and photographs of Stalin and Lenin was repeatedly photographed in symbolic clothing much like the Tsars before him. The use of the church returned too, Stalin allowed for the return of the churches during the Great Patriotic War in an attempt to boost patriotic spirit.
The army was continually used by both communist and tsars too. The Polish Revolt in 1863 was easily crushed by the Russian military, and in 1956 the Hungary Rebellion faced the same level of brute force. This showed how the importance of the army to the Russian state, evident in 1855, had remained the case in 1964. Military force was frequently deployed throughout the period against all sources of opposition. Lenin used it in the Civil War against the Green armies of the peasantry and Stalin used a similar style of brute force during the collectivisation process, albeit on a much grander scale. Tsars had also used military force in containing the peasantry, with Stolypin’s necktie under Nicholas II and Alexander II continually employing military force prior to the Emancipation Act. The army was very important to the state, as their loyalty in the 1905 revolution demonstrated, and their continuing deployment further validates the claim that communists and tsars ruled Russia in the same way.
Considerable continuity is also evident in how communist and tsarist regimes viewed reform of the Russian state. Reforms were often met with restrictions throughout the 1855-1964 period. As Lenin dissolved the Constituent Assembly, Nicholas II was similarly quick to the first two Duma’s. Stolypin’s electoral system changes and the Fundamental Laws reduced the effect of the Duma as the Mir and land captains had reduced the effect of emancipation. Nicholas II had only introduced the Duma as the October Manifesto was forced upon him, Lenin’s abandonment war communism for NEP and Alexander II reluctantly implementing the Emancipation Act show that this was a continual theme throughout the period. Stalin’s hand had also been forced, as the driving force behind Russia’s vast industrialisation process was his fear of Germany, as opposed to benefitting the Russian state.
The view that communists and tsars ruled Russia in the same way is somewhat challenged through the fact that some rulers did seem to have intention to reform. Khrushchev had the best of intentions in his social housing and Virgin Lands schemes much as Alexander II had placed importance on the Russian masses in implementing reforms. In contrast, Stalin, Alexander III and Nicholas II prior to 1905 did not place the same degree of emphasis on the people, which indicates that communists and tsars did not rule in the same way. However, despite signs of intent, Khrushchev’s heavy Cold War spending and Alexander II’s refusal to implement reforms that threatened his power reinforce the view that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way because both were reluctant reformers, only reforming out of necessity rather than choice.
In conclusion, ultimately it becomes clear that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way in the 1855-1964 period. Despite change being evident through ideological differences and implementation of policy, the same outcome would usually occur. Reforms were met with restrictions and there is considerable continuity throughout in the structure of Government as both communist and tsarist rulers sought to maintain their autocracy. The view that communists and tsars ruled Russia in the same way is an accurate view of the 1855-1964 period.
