However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t much of a good ruler for Russia; he ignored the fact that Russia wasn’t doing so good and overlooked the industrialization and nationalism that was occurring throughout Russia. Nicholas II disregarded the troubles the Russians were facing and seemed to only care about himself and him staying in power. This caused people to revolt as they needed a good strong leader to help Russia survive. The main leader who started China’s revolution was Sun Yat-sen who believed China should adopt a democratic government if it were to survive. The revolutions led by him eventually led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty in China.
Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms after the 1905 Revolution. After the 1905 Revolution, the Tsar still had to face the above problems. In order to prolong his rule, he was forced to reform Russia. At first, he agreed to set up parliament, Duma. It made Russia became a constitution country like Britain.
However in reality this was not the case, as because Lenin believed he was speeding up the dialectical phase of Marxism he adopted the ideology of ‘dictatorship’ rather than ‘communism’ due to his belief that he was the only one capable of leading the country to communism. The adjustment of ideology meant that there was little difference between his ideology and the ideology of ‘autocracy’ on which the preceding Tsars had based their rule. This meant that both the Tsars and the Communists believed in absolute rule, (good evaluation in this para)which in turn affected the nature of the government in many ways. Firstly, it affected the structure, resulting in both Tsarist and communist government sharing a ‘top down’ structure, in which the leader at the time had absolute control, as shown by Alexander III use of Land captains to increase state control, Nicholas II overruling the decisions of the
In order to prevent the NEP tearing his Bolshevik party apart, however, Lenin introduced a “ban on factionalism”, and this stifled criticism of the NEP. I do not believe that the divisions over the NEP were the most important factor for the outcome of Stalin emerging victorious from the power struggle, as I believe that Stalin’s power base within the party, due to his power of patronage, was the most important factor in the outcome of the power struggle. I also believe that the ban on factionalism was a very important factor in the power struggle, along with Stalin’s character and introduction of the Five Year Plan (FYP). There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the divisions created within the CPSU over the issue of the NEP are the most important factor in the outcome of the power struggle between 1924-29 which eventually saw Stalin emerge as Lenin’s successor, as the policy allowed Stalin to weaken the reputation of his opponents, due to the fact that any attack from the left upon the NEP was seen as an attack upon Lenin. After Lenin’s death, it could be said that he was seen as a “God” within the CPSU, therefore, any attack upon the policy was seen as a “betrayal” to the party.
A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows. This point is further emphasized by Alexander III’s belief that change was a risk and not necessary, as he argued by criticizing his father and also practically demonstrated by reducing the powers of the Zemstva. Repression was increased substantially to deal with opposition and apart from Nicholas II under whom it was briefly paused, this set the basis for Russian rule in the rest of the period. Despite Khrushchev’s easing of repression, the damage had been done under his predecessors Lenin and Stalin in removing any threat posed by opposition and ensuring that their rule remained untouched, in a further demonstration of their opposition to change.
After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically to allow it to maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring. The answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar, who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial, making little change in particular to the Russian political system. Any law that the Lower House (the elected body) wanted to pass had to be agreed by the Upper House and then the Tsar, this meant that although it is giving the illusion that the people are picking their way of life and the rules in which they abide by, the Tsar still has complete control over them and therefore the extent to which they had undergone reforms was less than what it seemed to the naked eye. While the peasants began to see higher wages in the cities seeming positive it meant that many people moved causing an over-crowding in cities and 4/5 people were still peasants despite the wage increase.
During the revolution, members of the imperial parliament gained control of the country.The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. It is argued that the social and economic factors were the most important catalyst and the main cause of the revolution. Others may argue that the military factors were the downfall and breaking point of the country. Although the military factors were important and did play a huge role, the social and economic factors were perhaps the more important reason. The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home.
It can be seen that, even after Poltava, Russian industry was still instrumental in Peter’s absolutism, as the stable economy prevented the revolt of important members of society such as merchants, who could now trade effectively with other countries. However, there were some reforms that were unconnected with foreigners, and others which were Western in origin but not designed to strengthen his rule. The abolition of the position of Patriarch was a move prompted not by any Western influence but by Peter’s desire to remove opposition, and hence maintain his absolutism. The actual date (1700) was determined by the convenient death of Patriarch Adrian, and Peter chose not to appoint a successor as the war was going badly and he was unpopular, and the Patriarch would have been a focus for disillusioned Russians. The assemblies which were held from December 1718 in St Petersburg and included the compulsory presence of women, were a complete break with the Muscovite tradition but owed more to Peter’s desire to show the extent of his Westernisation, rather than any advance in royal
Brutal Force Throughout the many years and before the start of the Russian Revolution, violence, coercion, terror and compromise played a big role in enforcing the government and in making the people and revolutionaries in Russia happy so there would be no overthrow of leading government officials. As we see in the October Manifesto, the tsar was compelled to sign the document to compromise with the people only so he would not be overthrown or executed, also in the Constitution of 1918 and 1924 which were written to establish the new state of Russia and to help keep the new state in tact. We also see acts of violence to help keep rule and enforce government through Bloody Sunday and State and Revolution written by Lenin. The use of compromise