To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his rule in the context of Russian government from 1855- 1964?

The fear that Stalin implemented was reinforced by his use of use of ideology, which was reminiscent of the religious attitudes under the Tsars, as his use of glorification kept a tight reign on the Russian people. This use of ideology led to his unquestionable rule like that experience under the Tsars, but Stalin emphasized separation of the state from the Church, unlike The Tsarist autocratic rule was strengthened by the support from the Russian Orthodox Church. The Tsars and the Church supported each other for mutual interest, and the teachings of the Church favoured autocracy, since the majority of the population was religious, opposition to the government was seen as a direct challenge to God and the ‘Divine Right’ of the Tsar, this made any opposition unpopular. Although this makes Stalin different from the Tsars, it does not make him like the other communist leaders, as Stalin embraced a marginal increase in religious tolerance, and did not campaign against religion nor advocate atheism like Lenin or Khrushchev.

Stalin’s repressive methods align him with the Tsars, particularly Alexander III, whose rule was known as “The Reaction”, he favoured modernisation and the belief that education was dangerous. Like Stalin, Alexander III believed that education should be strict and formal, whereas Marxist-Leninism which showed less regard for formal education.  Even though Lenin and Stalin were very similar in some of their beliefs such as the belief in a monopolistic party, a strong state, the need for dramatic transformations within society to make Russia a socialist state. However unlike Lenin, Stalin did not believe that the communist movement should spread into the West outside the USSR. Despite this Stalin did export communism during the Cold War, encouraging the spread of communism to the East in countries like China and Korea. This also continued into Khrushchev’s rule, when he showed support for the development of communism in Cuba. But at first Stalin’s policy of ‘Socialism in one country’ set him aside from the majority of communists and showed a complete betrayal of Marxist beliefs. As Marxism was a international movement empowering all the workers of the world, and a movement which denounced nationalism. But Stalin’s “nationalism in form, socialist in content”, harkened back to the “Great Russian Empire” under rulers such as Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible, this nationalism forced the Russian population into patriotism, like that experienced under the Tsars, which was never experienced to the same extent under Lenin or Khrushchev. This is an explanation for Stain’s belief that non-Russians should be moulded into ‘Russians’. Whereas Marxist-Leninism stated that non-Russians should remain in Russia un-disturbed, Lenin enforced this through his Decree of Nationalities in 1917. Therefore Stalin’s nationalism aligns him with the Tsars policy of ‘Russification’, which forced all those nationalities living in Russia to speak Russian. Despite Stalin’s nationalist beliefs, Stalinism was still derived from Leninism, and they had some similarities such as distrust of bureaucracy, the belief the achievement of a utopian Russia and both having had “a hatred of adulation at close quarters”  .

Although Lenin and Stalin had some similar values, as their core beliefs were derived from the teachings of Marx. However Lenin never attempted to build a cult of personality and disliked the term ‘Leninism’, as he thought of himself as a “Marxist” unlike Stalin, who wanted to develop the personalities of the population under his own glorification. Therefore McCauley argues that Stalin “manipulated Marxism and Leninism for his own means” as  McCauley believes Stalin was not a true communist as he did not properly embrace the ideology. Moreover his focus on “traditional” beliefs such as family values, the importance of marriage, and the implementation of policies such as making divorce difficult and outlawing abortion. These beliefs made Stalin more traditional in his values than Khrushchev and Lenin who both believed conventions such as marriage were outdated in society. While the style and ceremonies of “High Stalinism” in 1930s seemed less Leninist and more a reversion to the past, as Stalin’s semi-religious imagery, crude nationalism and parables with the great state of building Tsars like Ivan the terrible make him seemingly Tsariest. Therefore although Stalin may have shared some ideologies in common with the communists, many of his key values made him very different, as although Marxism initiated most of their beliefs Stalin had many traditional beliefs that neither Lenin nor Khrushchev held.

Stalin’s outright brutality, not only surpassed the Tsars but also his communist comrades, as E.H Carr claims Stalin “revived and outdid the brutalities of earlier Tsars”, showing a difference between Stalin’s methods of repression and the methods used by the Tsars. Consequently some historians claim that Stalin’s brutalities must have stemmed from a source, as Simon Hartfree claims that “High Stalinism appears as the logical and inevitable outcome of Leninism” as he argues that Lenin’s actions such as the use of Terror and purges, paved the way for the brutalities of Stalinism. This is reinforced by R Medevev, who argues that although there was little continuity between Lenin and Stalin, as Stalin abolished the NEP, forced collectivisation, employed mass-terror and administrative rather than economic methods for industrialisation, Stalin saw himself as a disciple of Lenin. Stalin implemented much of Lenin’s domestic and foreign policy, as he rid the party of factions, removed the intelligentsia, collectivised agriculture and created a Red Army. All these were all Leninist policies; however the implementation of these polices may have not been to Lenin’s taste. This shows that Stalinism was built on the foundations of the Leninist state, although it may have taken a shape Lenin would not have approved of. However historians such as Robert Service argue that “the passage from Leninism to the worse horrors of Stalinism was neither smooth nor inevitable”. Although Service claims that Lenin was more ruthless than originally percieved, particularly as he crushed his enemies, waged class warfare and had unpleasant attitudes towards peasants and the Church. However Service also claims that Lenin ultimately wanted to abolish the secret police, the army and eventually the whole state. Therefore Lenin’s oppressive methods are dwarfed by the “High Stalinism” of the 1930’s, when Stalin implemented methods of totalitarianism.

Stalin used a regime of Terror to stay in power much like the Tsars, but his creation of a highly centralised state means that historians such as Schapiro hold Stalin personally responsible for high levels of human suffering during his rule. Furthermore Robert Conquest claims that “the Great terror emanated from the top”, he claims that “Stalin planned the purges, directed the NKVD and organised the apparatus of terror, to control his own party as much as the country”. Whereas J. Arch Getty claims “the Cold War distorted the western view of the Soviet Union” and we “must distance Stalin from sole responsibility” for the horrors of the Great Terror. Getty claims that Stalin had no plans the Terror experienced in the Soviet Union at this time, and despite his position of power his personality faults do not help to explain what happened, in fact Stalin may have not even known what was going on. Getty also claims that officers in the NKVD acted on their own will, due to chaos of the Soviet Union and fear of Stalin’s temper. Getty claims that the randomness of attacks and irrational fear within the population, shows that there was a lack of tight central control. Getty’s view is extreme, because although the scale of the terror, thoroughness of targeting and executions can be partly put down to a tumult within the Soviet Union at this time, Stalin must still be regarded as a deeply suspicious character, who saw enemies everywhere, therefore he must be more than partially responsible. Consequently the most convincing view is that Stalin was not solely responsible for the Terror experienced, but that his position within the country meant he knew the majority of what was happening and exercised significant power over the NKVD. The atrocities experienced did not happen without a great deal of central orchestration because the sheer scale, cannot simply be put down to civil unrest.

The repressive methods of Stalin’s regime such as show trials, secret police and labour camps can seem out of character in context of this 100 year period, but these methods were used during the rule of the Tsars and were used under both Lenin and Khrushchev. However George Leggett claims these methods were never used to the same extent by other rulers, although Lenin, and Khrushchev seem similar concerning their repression of opposition. However Stalin was set aside from other communist leaders by the killing of his own communist comrades, as Lenin would have never have that gone as far, Khrushchev denounced this shortly after Stalin’s death in his “de-Stalinisation” speech. Leggett’s view is particularly convincing as Stalin’s brutalities can not be compared to anybody in Russian history. Moreover the sheer scale of Stalin’s terror particularly during the Purges of 1928 to 1934 and show trials used throughout his rule surpass Lenin and Khrushchev and his brutality demonstrates his ‘Red Tsar’ nature.

Stalin’s killing of Lenin’s élite, his brutal secret police (NKVD) and the rise in fascism led to High Stalinism, where Stalin resorted to “extraordinary measures” to control his party and the population. Although some of these methods continued under Khrushchev, they were comparatively less horrific. Even though grain seizures were common to all communist leaders, it is important to recognise that all communist leaders were against the forced collectivisation experienced under Stalin, which led to widespread famine in Russia. Although it is unfair to say there was no famine was suffered under Lenin or Khurschev, especially as millions died during the Civil War. Around 20 million Russians died during Stalin’s rule, 1.5 million executed, 2 million died in camps, and 7 million died in famine. This sheer scale of death came from use of terror methods such as slave labour camps in which at least 30 million may have served in. These huge totals surpass any under both Lenin and Khrushchev, even despite Lenin’s harsh treatment of opposition. Lenin also lacked the understanding of “political pluralism” and a multi-party system, which led to his banning of factions in 1921 and his latter use of purges. However Lenin did not have the same distrust of members of his own party as Stalin did, as Stalin executed 98/139 members of the Seventeenth Party Congress, whilst 1,100 out 1,966 party delegates were arrested. Although there is much evidence of violence under the Tsars, such as the repression of opposition after the assassination of Alexander II, Stalin is not like a Red Tsar, as Stalin’s brutalities surpass and dwarf any under the Tsars. However the truly autocratic natures of the Tsars, particularly Alexander III allow some similarities between Stalin and the Tsars. For example both Stalin and Alexander III had a distrust of giving others power, thus they both made the function of local government very difficult. Both also of increased censorship and government control over universities. Stalin also enforced totalitarianism in all areas of life such as “education, youth movements, culture, media, information, armed forced, government and administration”. This lead to a period known as Socialist Realism, an artistic style depicting happy workers, which was “reminiscent of old Russian exclusiveness” experienced under the Tsars. This was a highly censored period, in which the image of Stalin and the party was carefully arranged to show the country and the leader in their best light. Although both Lenin and Stalin had elements of vanity, Stalin’s image appeared everywhere portraying him as a heroic saviour and towering leader. This idea of exclusiveness was rejected by Marxism and Leninism, meaning Stalin’s portrayal of himself through the censored media allows basis to claims of him being a Red Tsar. The original literary and artistic freedom allowed by the Provisional Government following the revolution, came to a bitter end under Stalin, but had a limited revival under Khrushchev. This censorship extended to education, as the whole system became dominated by industrialisation, meaning foreign influence was limited, whilst strict government attitude towards workers meant social benefits were cut and education fee’s increased. Also history books were re-written to suit Stalin’s taste, meaning that Stalin’s people may have been better educated than under the Tsars, but they naively regarded Stalin as their knight in shining armour, holding like an icon in their homes, much like the old Tsars, allowing Stalin to appear a ‘Red Tsar’.

Moreover Stalin waged war on the Kulaks; a class of wealthy peasants created by Lenin and Stolypin in a hope that at some point in the future social class would be eradicated. However Stalin sought to eliminate this class by waging class warfare and controlling discontent through purges of the population, the Kulaks were denounced and wiped out by Stalin. As anger in the provinces over wages, working conditions, long hours, forced collectivisation and the brutality of the NKVD, led to distress, Stalin crushed any unrest and able farmers, ruling strata and old intelligentsia were also removed. Although this distrust of the “masses” and strict government control was reminiscent of the Tsars, Stalin out-did their autocratic control and his forced industrialisation led to a decline in living standards, which then rose after his death. This shows his Red Tsar nature, as both the Tsars and Stalin maintained a poor standard of living throughout their ruling.

Stalin’s central control of the economy during his reign was based on traditional Marxist principals, making him unlike a Red Tsar as the planning he enforced was unlike any of the Tsars. However economically during this 100 year period Russia made dramatic progress. The key economic comparison is between the rulers, is the ‘Great Spurt’ under Sergi Witte during Alexander III reign, versus the ‘Great Turn’ under Stalin. Stalin’s ‘Great Turn’ brought many changes both economically, politically and culturally, and his “forced industrialisation” and focus on heavy industry was driven by the need to catch up with the rest of the world, particularly the West and America. This need was also a feature of Tsarist rule, in particular Alexander III who favoured modernisation and industrialisation to make Russia a world power. However the core ideologies of the Tsars were different to Stalin’s, as his communist beliefs favoured rapid industrialisation which appealed to Marxists as it showed a commitment to modernisation. In particular for Lenin who employed the NEP, and Stalin and Khrushchev who supported “a socialist planned economy”, as the idea of planned improvement was a key part of Marxist ideology, therefore commitment to modernisation was a theme across the whole period but for different motives. Stalin’s command economy makes him unlike a Red Tsar, as it was more state lead than the economy under the Tsars. Moreover Lenin’s refusal to pay any foreign debts, meant that Stalin’s economy had to survive without any foreign loans, expertise and investment, which during the Great Spurt allowed the Tsars to make “tremendous economic progress”.

The creation of the Soviet Union as a world power was both important to Stalin, and the Tsars such as Nicholas II, who believed economic modernisation would strengthen Russia’s position in the world. The “deliberate modernisation” experienced under these leaders was an attempt to reform Russia’s backward economy, although it still remained just as  “insufficient and wasteful” under Stalin’s rule. Stalin’s centralised economy was concentrated on his ‘5 year plans’, although economic planning was important in all soviet economies these plans were a “landmark in soviet history”. However these plans were harsh on the peasants, and like many economic policies of the Tsars. Stalin and the Tsars exploited the peasants for their own economic gain, the seizure of grain and limited rights put the rulers at an economic advantage, while both Lenin and Khrushchev refrained from exploiting the peasants to the extent which Stalin did and Lenin in particular believed that peasants should not be forced into collective farms.

Therefore in theory Stalin’s planning aligns him with both Lenin and Khrushchev, but his practices such as the recognition for the need of wage differentials and exploitation of the peasants show a betrayal of Marxism, although there is some exploitation of the peasants under during NEP, but not as extreme. As a result, in practice Stalin may have appeared economically a ‘Red Tsar’, but in theory and policy he is similar to the other communist leaders.

To conclude, whilst on the surface many of Stalin’s similarities with the other communist leaders appear only to be ideological, it is important to note that Lenin laid the foundations for the development of Stalinism through his use of purges and class warfare. It must be clearly recognised that features such as economic planning, reliance on élites and grain requisitioning were common to all three of the communist leaders in this period. However despite this, Stalin’s image as a Red Tsar is particularly apt with relation to due to his traditional beliefs, his creation of a cult of personality and harsh treatment of  peasants. Although there was an atmosphere of fear within the population of ‘Little People’ under both Stalin and the Tsars, it is unreasonable to compare the brutalities of Stalin’s regime to those committed by the Tsars. Therefore whilst Stalin has many elements to show how similar he was to the Tsars, Lenin’s state allowed for these to form, distancing Stalin from his title of ‘Red Tsar’. Hence concluding that autocracy was inevitable in Russia during this period due to the situation in Russia and that Stalinism was effectively a fusion of communism and Tsarism.

3, 736

---