How far was the Communist dictatorship under Lenin different from the Tsarist autocracy in the reign of Alexander the III ? By 1922, Vladimir Lenin's plan to create a Communist revolution based on his own interpretation of Marxism had succeeded through the bloody civil war of 1918-1921, and Russia was firmly in his grasp. However, historians have looked back at this new totalitarian state of the USSR, and drawn a number of similarities between Lenin's dictatorship and the autocratic rule of Tsar Alexander III. In this essay, I will look at how far the rule of the two differs and are similar, and come to a conclusion based on this if Lenin's rule really was the revolution against oppression he claimed it to be, or whether he was simply a “Red Tsar” in disguise. One way in which the Communist dictatorship of Lenin and the Tsarist autocracy in the reign of Alexander the III were similar was in the respect of governmental power.
To begin with, both Lenin and Stalin had some similarities in their ideology. They both followed Marxism theory and they wanted to improve Russia’s wellbeing. They both followed Marxism theory which claimed that all industry which is inside Russia has to belong to the state, for instance banks, fabrics, heavy industry has to be centralized and passed to the state. Also, they both thought that one man can rule the state, and so they did: Lenin led the country for 6 years and Stalin for almost 30 years. On the other hand, these two supreme leaders had ideological differences, which were used during the time, when they were in power.
However, after 1924, the USSR was a clear dictatorship, which meant that the culture was controlled by the élite and is used to portray the elite positively. There is no denying that culture performed a political role in the USSR in this time period, as culture is heavily effected by politics and vice versa, and so in this essay, I will be evaluating the extent to which Soviet culture performed a political role in the USSR in the years 1924-1953. Art performed a highly political role in the USSR in the years 1924-1953. In the early years of the Bolshevik state, experimental and abstract art was allowed under Lenin. This all changed however with the change in leadership after 1929 and the emergence of Stalin as the ‘vozhd’.
A Tale of Two Tsars: Comparisons of the Regimes of Tsars Ivan IV and Peter I Philip Jia Perhaps no two rulers in the history of Russia before the Revolution of 1917 capture the image in one’s mind of the Tsar as completely as Ivan IV (“The Terrible”) and Peter I (“The Great”). Their very mention summons iconic images of the fearsome power and horrific excesses of the Russian monarchy from a Western perspective, while from a Russian perspective they evoke the idea of a “model” for absolutist rule, a mythos carefully fostered by the government during the Soviet period. In particular, the reign of Ivan IV has long been held up, at least in Western memory, as a key example of what is thought to be a long history of abusive Russian absolutism. Yet, while the rule of the former Tsar is often described as one of Russia’s most calamitous and that of the latter thought of as one of its finest, Ivan IV and Peter I had much more in common than is normally thought to be the case. Both Tsars were thoroughly progressive, bringing reform to Russian bureaucracies and institutions that had slowly stagnated.
By the outbreak of world war in 1939 Stalin had fully established a dictatorship in Russia. For this to be a totalitarian regime it needed several things.This included control over over the economy, political and social aspect of life. Stalin, although he does face fair oppositions, seems to have full control over all areas, with little room for diversity. In the case of economy we see a shift from a society largely based on agriculture to a society mainly based on industry. One of the main aims of the communist regime was to industrialise the country, they wanted to change Russia from a ‘backward peasant-based country’ to a modern more industry based society.
Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania all ended up with communist governments and had leaders who looked to Moscow for advice as opposed to the people of the country they governed. Then in September 1947, Stalin set up the Communist Information Bureau or Cominform to co-ordinate the work of the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe. Stalin controlled all the countries and if anybody as thinking about being independent, Stalin replaced them with an obedient person. They only person that was successful of becoming making their country independent was Josip Broz
How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution? The 1905 Revolution was the start of political change in Russia, unlike other major European powers of the time, Russia was being ruled by an autocratic government and any effective reforms would have had to been by ‘change from above’. However, the Tsar Alexander III and his son, Nicholas II were firm conservatives and this ideal route would not have happened. Resentment to the lack of change created the growth of reformist governments and caused a Revolution which catalysed the much needed change in Russia. There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution.
This power caused principles in Jacksonian Democracy including Manifest Destiny. The idea of Manifest Destiny basically is the belief that America has the power to expand its borders to the western land and all of America from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. This is destiny that was given to America from God supposedly and Jacksonian Democracy completely defends it. Also, Jackson believed in a limited federal government even though he wasn’t satisfied on the idea of a strong state government. Jacksonian’s agree with a “hands-on” approach to the economy meaning that the government to strong control over the countries economy.
By 1914 revolution was in the making, and Tsar Nicholas II sealed his fate by inadvertently leading Russia into what would become WWI. ‘What leads most frequently to misunderstandings of the relationship between an ideology and its historical function is the failure to distinguish its objective from its subjective function. The concepts of a dictatorship derive directly from the economic
The late twenties and early thirties were perhaps the most transformative period in Soviet history. It was during this period Stalin consolidated his grip on power and was allowed to rule with impunity, instituting his “revolution from above” on the Soviet people. He actively transformed the culture of the time, giving birth to a new Russian nationalism, rejecting the earlier Bolshevik conviction that the family was a bourgeois institution, and even forcing artists and writers to embrace “socialist realism.” These cultural changes were, however, minor adjustments when compared to the vast changes his economic policies brought to the everyday lives of the Russian people. Through the brutal process of collectivization he destroyed the autonomy the Russian peasant had enjoyed since the revolution, and he led an industrialization drive that has had few historic parallels. The human costs of both these initiatives were monstrous.