Study

How far was Lenin a ‘Red Tsar’ Written by that_ginger_kid

The February and subsequent October revolutions in 1917 saw the end of the 305 year dynasty of the Romanov Tsars, some of the tyrannical and autocratic rulers in Russian History since Ivan the Terrible in the early Middle Ages, initiating massacres and executions when they saw no other way out to keep themselves in control and limiting all responsibility of the working, average Russian as possible. The result of the revolutions removed the Tsars and, their very similar replacement, the Provisional Government, and instead hoisted Lenin, the Leader of the Bolsheviks, into the post of the head of the First Communist Nation the world had ever seen. The extreme right wing regime had finally fallen to the will of the socialists; the workers had finally claimed the chance to improve their lives with the help of the man in charge.

However, Lenin was to become known as a Red Tsar, with his socialist, communist policies being taken to the extremes, becoming so left wing they can be easily compared to the policies of the extreme right wing, with a centralised government, with one man rule, one mind rule. Lenin also was a heavy user of his personal secret police, the Cheka, to find information on those he didn’t trust. They shared an ideology, similar to Russification that was to strengthen the Russian culture and nation, to modernize Russia by unification of the people. But, the major, underlying similarity between the two regimes being the repressive nature of their rule.

The last 3 Tsars and Lenin did use, quite oppressively, their respective secret police, with differing levels of aggression. Alexander the II, tsar liberator, was the most liberal and socialist of the Tsars and he shied away from using the state police as an oppressive force, and rather for infiltration and reconnaissance on his opposition forces within Russia and Petrograd. If any Tsar was to be similar to Lenin, the workers of 1917 would have most likely expected him to emulate Alexander II as he was heavily focused on the modernisation of Russia through reformations and the improvement of the standard of life. Lenin was a socialist Marxist, a man who believed in the order of power always falling to the working class through reforms and revolts. Violent revolution’s and assassination. By viewing upon the past experience that Alexander II had with liberal reforms, his predecessor, the imaginatively titled Alexander III, was raised to be a typical Tsar, and his use of the State Police, The Okhrana, to spread fear and oppression, and was so fearful of any terrorist groups operating in Russia that he specifically ordered the Okhrana to track down, infiltrale and destroy any groups or opposition to the tsar. This is a very similar policy that Lenin had adopted by late 1919 in order to safe guard his position of Communist Leader. Even up until 1921 and the introduction of the NEP Lenin was still in a fragile position over a political volcano, that could erupt at any moment and see Lenin dethroned from power by another political group. He had already seen his country torn apart by a bloody civil war and feared any further ‘White’ parties from trying to take him down again. Lenin was also using his secret police to put down and repress any uprisings, such as the naval uprising at Kronstadt in 1921 where he personally ordered the ring leaders to be publically executed without trial. This is very similar to the events in 1905, where a peaceful protest by the Winter Palace ended in bloodshed when the Coassack guards, so used to being used as violent deterrent, opened fire on the marchers. The events of Bloody Sunday gained Alexander the 3^rd the name of ‘Bloody Alex’ and spawned the beginning of the end for the Romanovs, yet Lenin, the Marxist ‘man of the people’ was allowing massacres to go on because he feared any take over. His centralised government required fear in the people to stay down and got get the confidence to be able to rise up. Lenin was too busy worried about internal coups than any external presence, again, like the Tsars.

The reign of Lenin also saw, much like Nicholas II, a removal of power from the elected governing body so that he could rule more supremely. In 1915 Nicholas II disbanded the Duma, a facade of democracy that the Tsar could bypass already, due to the fact that he didn’t agree with the antiauthoritarian grumblings that were getting louder. It wasn’t until heavy protest and stubbornness won through that the Duma was reformed just months later, with an even heavier anti-Tsar sentiment. But it was in fact Lenin who dissolved the last vestibule of democracy in Russia in 1921 because he disagreed with the election result. After the bloody civil war, Lenin held an election to show to his people that he was the one they wanted to lead Russia out of the dark ages and into the modern world. When the Bolsheviks did not gain a majority in the new government Lenin simply removed the government from the equation and focussed more on becoming a one man government. This is very similar to the mind sets of all the Tsars, with the possible exception of Alexander II, as they were all autocratic, authoritarian dictators. The first, even remotely democratic Russian government was formed in 1905 under the pressure of Sergei Witte and the October Manifesto and was never supported by the Tsar, who saw it as unnecessary red tape between the Tsar and decision making. However, even though Nicholas II begrudgingly accepted the Duma, he still accepted the Duma, and when those who could vote did, the government that was formed stayed for a minimum of a year. The third Duma lasted from 1907-1912 which was hailed as a major victory for democracy in Russia, yet this would never have happened in Lenin’s Russia, as he would have had qualms with the notion of sharing power with an elected body, despite his ideology ruling him to be a representative of the people, for the people. Lenin was fast becoming a Tsar in all but name with the dissolution of the elected government, going against the will of the people and the workers he had fought so hard for in 1917.

However, although the means may have been similar, for Lenin and the Tsars, the ends were completely different and this was purely to do with a contrast in ideologies.  The Romanov’s were imperialists, capitalists with wealth incalculable that had been earned, stolen and hoarded for over 600 hundred years. They were very happy if the wallets of themselves and their friends were forever getting larger, even if it came at the expense of the workers lifestyle. The hedonistic lifestyle of the aristocrats came with simple ideologies. For Alexander III and Nicholas II the ideological path was simple; Russification and the expansion of Russia’s wealth and power.  To expand meant to engage in war which would mean good money for the businesses supplying for ammo and goods, which meant more money inflowing to those already laboured wallets. Ultimately, all Tsars and a large majority of their subjects believed they had a divine right to rule, the chosen few, appointed by God to rule over Russia and the land beyond. They could do as the pleased because they were God’s representatives on Earth and so any action or decision they made was God’s will acting through them. During the Romanov Dynasty, God was feeling very happy to allow the rich get richer and the poor to die. However, in stark, blazing contrast to this was the ideology of the Marxist Lenin. Lenin believed in the teachings on Karl Marx in that the workers will gain the power, ultimately, through revolutions and through the natural order of society. Karl had noticed that throughout history the working classes had been given more and more power and so made the educated assumption that this would carry through to it’s obvious climax of a worker rule, the long oppressed and exploited Proletariat ring up and bring down the over bloated, oppressive Bourgeois. Lenin had been the cultural spearhead of the revolts and had seen his theory of a workers revolution come true. But Marxism cannot exist in a nation of capitalism and religion, as both drive workers against one and other with opposite views, a complete polar to the tsars who embraced religion in order to justify their power, Lenin and the Bolsheviks denounced all religions as a way of manipulating and oppressing the uneducated masses.

Also, economically, Lenin was a modernist, a reformist, realising that great changes needed to be made in order to recover from the damage caused by the First World War and to bring Russia steaming into the 20^th century. The Tsars however, were keen to keep the status quo, and regained a very 17^th century style of economy, mostly agricultural based with a small percentage of people owning a vast majority of the land, growing food through the use of under paid workers or serfs. This backward economic plan was a severe problem for Russia yet the Tsars, traditionalists as they were, could not see how to solve them. Lenin, in stark contrast, initiated two major reforms to the economy in the few short years he was in power. In 1918 he introduced war communism, the plan that was to fuel the Bolsheviks throughout the civil war and was going to funds there misadventures and battles. However, after seeing the economy of Russia fall even further from the pre-WWI levels, Lenin realised he needed to reform, again, to make Russia stronger and more Stable, as a weak economy creates a hotbed of civil unrest and political upheaval. The introduction of the NEP (new economic policy) in 1921 saw the socialist values that Lenin held dear pegged back, with the ban on small private enterprise and personal trade lifted for the first time. This meant that people could buy and sell goods as they need it, villages were trading grain and food if they were on the edge of a famine and the economy, along with people lifestyle, slowly increased although never reaching the levels of the pre-war era.

In conclusion, the tsarist traditions that had held a firm grip over Russia for 300 years were definitely laxed under the influence of Lenin.  With reformation a common theme for the middle aging Bolshevik, Lenin was carving his own brand of socialism onto the face of Russia. But the similarities to the tsarist era are very similar and many, with their use of power, fear and violence to achieve their goals and the removal of any opposition in the elected governing body, Lenin can be said to be a Red Tsar up to a point. He will be remembered for his reforms of a weak Russia rather than his links to the dead regime of the Tsars.