Communist Not How Far Do You Agree Essay Example

into the Cheka to the NKVD and then finally the KGB, the secret police were far more ruthless in suppressing opposition. Following the assassination attempt on Lenin by Dora Kaplin on august 30th, great measures were taken to maintain a one-party state.

Beginning with the Red Terror in the summer of 1918, with the Cheka, led by Dzerzhinsky, killing off any opposition to the Bolsheviks including Nicholas II and his family amongst "class enemies" during the Civil War of 1918-1921, Lenin effectively wiped out opposition to govern as an autocrat. This method of repression repeated itself to a far greater scale under control of Stalin with the purges, triggered by the murder of Kirov in 1934 whereby 26 million disappeared or were executed in show trials, including Stalin's former leading colleagues, Kamenev and Zinoviev by the NKVD which depicts his effective methods for ruling as an absolute ruler. With 37 000 Red Army officers executed or sent to Gulags, and 14 out of 16 commanders concurrently purged. Along with the statistic noting that the party congress was one third smaller by 1938, compared with the mere 25 000 killed by the Okrhana it would be fair to postulate that Communist rulers, more so Stalin, were far more effective autocrats than the Tsars, suppressing opposition and maintaining absolute power up until 1955.Furthermore, the Communists were also far more successful in imposing their will upon the people than the Tsars, although there were times whereby the Tsars managed to do so with qualified success. Such as Count Witte's "Great Spurt" which succeeded in improving communications with the Trans-Siberian railway by exploiting the peasant class in an attempt

to create a new urban working class. It was again Stalin who took this exploitation to a new level with the Five Year Plans (1928-1940) which forced peasants to become "peasant workers" in the factories to fulfil his vision of Russia as a genuinely great power. "We are fifty to 100 years behind the west.

We must close this gap in 10 or they crush us." In Wittes but particularly Stalin's factories, hours were long and conditions were poor. Where Wittes efforts only succeeded in expanding industry by 8 % a year during the 1890's, Stalin's ruthless imposition of his will by inspiring workers with the figurehead Stakanov whom produced 14 times his target in one 6 hour shift, caused the production of armaments to treble and by 1940 and the USSR overtook Britain in Iron and Steel production.With a consequential rise in the population in industrial towns from 18%-33% and furthermore with Methods of collectivising 12 million square km of farms into state controlled Kolkhoz farms, Stalin made Russia one of two super powers. Meanwhile the Tsarist efforts left Russia still lagging far behind the west suggesting they were far less successful in achieving their goals, which for the Communists was a materialistic goal of modernisation and therefore far less affective autocrats than the Communists, particularly Stalin. The success of modernisation can also be assessed on wars. The Communists managed to win a war through their vigorous industrialisation, The Great Patriotic war of 1941-1945, something the Tsars never managed to achieve to their embarrassment. Therefore the Communists were more able to impose their will and achieve their goals and therefore more successful autocrats.

Not only

that, the way in which the Communists used propaganda to gain support in order to maintain a successful totalitarian state was far more effective than the way in which the Tsarists had done. There was rigid censorship under both regimes, although relaxed temporarily under Alexander II in his reforms in an effort to gain support. However, whilst the Tsars used divine right and the Orthodox Church to indoctrinate people to gain support, Stalin took things to another level when the church was removed and Stalinisation was imposed. However this comparison is to be made as Stalin against every other ruler between the years 1856-1928. Lenin arguably politically wasn't a lot more effective in terms of establishing ultimate control than the tsars. Although he managed to sweep away the Constituent assembly of 1918 after he did not receive the highest amount of votes (which in itself highlights his inefficiencies), he still used the Politburo to gain consensus and there were periodic elections.Furthermore, Nicholas II was forced to introduce Dumas through the October Manifesto following the 1905 revolution to give peasants a parliamentary voice. However this failed which suggests they had a huge weakness politically and therefore the Tsar whom was eventually forced to resign following the 1917 February revolution was not an effective autocrat.

Meanwhile Stalin largely rid of the politburo and turned Communism into a religion of National development through his cult of personality. Through the use of films and pictures he became a God-like figure able to influence people in an effective, powerful, absolute manner in a way no other ruler had previously done so, Communist or Tsarist suggesting that the statement is mostly

true.