1917 is the core year of change within 19th and
20th century Russia which saw the dissolve of the Tsarist regime and
the establishment of a Communist functioning Russia. The two main revolutions
in Russia made a pathway for Bolshevik party to overthrow the Provisional
government and then declare dictatorship over the proletariat based on prior
distaste of the fragile policy of the last Tsar Nicholas II. It is important to
understand what change is and how it can affect the dynamics of a country and
how it is to be governed based on principles and priorities of the different
leaders. On assessment of the situation before and after 1917, it is evident
that more change happened after 1917 under the communist rulers of Russia in
the 20th century in comparison to the Tsarist rulers. This covers
the various different aspects of Russia including; social, economic and
political change within the empire. Social change can capture the treatment of
the different rulers on peasants and how different classes within society were
affected by these reforms, their approach to the inherited financial problems
and also political administration and necessary changes that need to be
implemented. There are both similarities and differences between changes under
the Tsarist rulers in comparison to the Communist leaders in Russia and when
one considers change it is important to assess the extent and extremes of
change and how it various from before and after 1917.
After the revolution of 1917, there was evident change
within the structure of Russia. By 1921, peasants refused to plant more produce
than what would feed them over fear of confiscation, Petrograd’s population had
already fallen by one-third and change was needed as it was estimated 5 million
would die of famine by 1922. The failure of War communism prompted change to be
brought around by Lenin and consequently we witness the introduction of the
NEP. The poor conditions of Russia post 1917 revolution are contrary to the
economic position of Russia before 1914. Nicholas II had economic growth up by
5% from 1984 – 1900 and by 9% from 1900-1914. The strongest we had seen Russia
in relation to economy under the tsarist regime. In relation to economy this
shows that there was change after 1917 that impacted Russia greater than that
of pre-1917 as the economic growth was stuck by the aggressive persona of War
communism whereas the years before 1917 the economy was beginning to flourish
influenced by the work of inspirational figures such as that of Bunge, Stolypin
and Witte who had helped build railways, attract foreign investment and also
make landholding reforms. More change which was more positive than that of War
communism was introduced by Lenin through the NEP. The NEP was made to
revitalise and save the Bolshevik regime. It consisted of Lenin exchanging
regression for peasant produce for ‘tax in kind.’ Peasants were also allowed to
sell their own produce once and sell it in the free market which aggravated
members of the communist party as it is a feature of capitalism. This
demonstrates more change after 1917 as there were economic successes within
Russia unparalleled to any within the Tsarist regime as grain production had
increased from 37.6 million tonnes to 51 million tonnes by 1924 upon Lenin’s
death. This change and superior production of commissar economics in comparison
to imperial Russia is exaggerated by Stalin where collectivisation cultivated a
massive increase in grain production with levels peaking at 100 million tonnes
produced in 1937. This shows change in economy between the Tsars and
commissars. In contrary, economy was strained under Tsars at times during the imperial
regime. Alexander II ascended to the throne in 1855 to a weak economy exploited
by war and industrial backwardness. The emancipation proclamation momentarily
relieved the economy of strain where grain production increased and
consequently hired labour and available machinery for the farms increased.
However, this major change to the economy through the emancipation of the serfs
does not compare to the Russian revolution under Stalin that made large scale
industry to grow quickly enough that it necessitated the seizure of grain.
Overall, in relation to the economy, it appears that there was greater change
after 1917 under the commissars in contrary to the Tsars.
There was greater change on society in Russia after 1917
where lives of the peasants, the newly focused proletariat and the effect new
reforms and policy had on these different groups. There was change for peasants
before 1917, the major source of change during the reign of Alexander II was
the emancipation of the serfs. Although peasants were ‘freed’ from serfdom and
were given citizenship and licence to own their own land, they were crippled by
49 years of redemption payments paid to previous landlords. Peasant life was
harder than ever and they would often experience famine such as 1891 under
Alexander III and productivity and investment were at an all-time low. A major
factor contributing to this was the desire to industrialise Russia under
different ministers such as Witte through processes such as “The Great Spurt.” This
was change as before emancipation the economy was severely backward and not
much changed after the emancipation in relation to peasant life and it can be
argued that life got harder for peasants. However, what is seen post 1917 that
has no equivalence to any repression under Alexander II, Alexander III or
Nicholas the II is the extent to which the commissar leaders repressed the
peasantry of Russia in the pursuit of communism and the execution of Bolshevik
policy. Collectivisation was distasteful to Kulaks and by the late 1920’s when
they were still challenging the policy and system, they were killed in their
masses. It is estimated that 6 million
kulak peasants were killed in their masses and by 1929 90% of peasants lived on
collectivised farms and out of the production they produced they were only
allowed to keep 10% where the state confiscated 90% of what they produced. Although
both repressive leaders, change is evident post 1917 with the commissar leaders
based on the fact that the extent of which Stalin repressed the people within
the state dwarf’s the repression of Alexander the III estimating that 14,000
were killed under Alexander III. The economy has a big impact on social life
within Russia, the emphasis placed on industrialisation and development of
heavy goods affects the people in a variety of different ways. The continuous
development of the railways throughout the Tsarist regimes worked as an
epicentre for industry. They provided more jobs for peasants and the working
class, and also allowed heavy industry such as iron, coal and steel to progress.
This is evident of positive change within Tsarist Russia as it helped the
people and Russia as a whole to move in a modern direction, despite how minimal
affect this had. After 1917, the oppressive system of war communism following
the civil war and the crippled economy consequence of World War 1, life in
Russia was hard for the peasantry and they were subjected to famine and land
confiscated by the state for industrialisation. This imbued into the reign of
Stalin where collectivisation fed into industry and held little regard for the
hard laboured peasants who worked to meet quotas and if they failed they would be
sent to gulags. This leaves one to conclude that change was more evident post
1917 where there was greater oppression of the peasantry and harder social
conditions to live in.
When assessing the political position of the country, it is
capable to identify the different changes made to the political face of Russia
both before and after 1917. Alexander II’s introduction of the Zemstvas meant
that there was a greater political outlet for the people in Russia. This
political development can be mirrored throughout the different regimes of the
rulers of Russian rulers. Nicholas II’s introduction of the October manifesto
after the 1905 revolution with the promise of the Duma has a similar outlet as
the Zemstvas based on the fact that it allowed for the people to gain a
political hope and have more say within the state. However, both promises were
diminished by the introduction and lack of introduction of policy to further
these reforms. Alexander II much like the other Tsars were rooted within autocracy
and this restrained him from making further reforms to give a greater voice to
the people of Russia until the Zemstvas powers were limited by the repressive
policy of Alexander III. This is very similar to the fundamental laws
introduced by Nicholas II in 1906 where people had hopes of a more democratic
parliament but these laws made the October manifesto and the Dumas redundant and
the people hopes were diminished. This can be corroborated by Khrushchev’s
policy of the Secret Speech, denouncing Stalin’s actions and giving promise of
a fairer state. This was not met and the political face of Russia was still
extremely backward. There was change after 1917 through Lenin’s democratic
centralisation where he dismissed the constituent assembly as they did not
support the Bolshevik party and created a single party state. As much as there
was change seen from this in comparison to the Tsarist rulers as the methods of
Lenin and his aims were different, there are also some unavoidable similarities
between the political positions of the Tsarist leaders. A single party state
where the Bolsheviks represent the people and there is a drive for the
proletariat dictatorship has outstanding relationships with the importance of
autocracy to the Tsars and notions such as The Divine Right of Kings. This is
corroborated by ideology that Lenin created through theories such as Karl Marx
where History placed him within that position of power. Where there is greater
change within politics after 1917 is Stalin’s use of excessive repression of
the people in positions of power within politics. Again like the economy and
repression of the peasants, Stalin’s repression of the people within politics are
unparalleled to any of the Tsarist rulers of Russia. Stalin eliminated “enemies”
of his power which included his top ministers Bukharin and Trotsky. At the 17th
party congress in the mid-1930s, a minister who was gaining support for ending collectivisation
and a fairer treatment of the peasants was swiftly eliminated by Stalin’s elite
and he was able to frame others for his death. This shows the extent to which
Stalin controlled politics within his state. This is different from the
opposition faced by the Tsars and is suggestive that the commissars approached
the political angle of Russia with a particular urge to secure and centralise
power. This means that in relation to the political position of Russia after
1917, there was greater change as the level of control and centralisation
within politics was to a higher extent than the Tsarist leaders of pre-1917.
Overall, evidence from the period of 1855 – 1964 shows that
there was greater change after 1917 and the introduction of communist ideology
and rule. Although there were big industrial changes within the state between
1855 – 1914, these changes are unparalleled to the extent of change within Russia
post 1917. Alexander III’s repression does not match up with the extent of
repression by Stalin and even Lenin when considering processes such as War
communism and collectivisation. Tsarist repression was rather passive whereas commissar
repression in contrary was direct. The effect of change on the people is
greater seen after 1917 than before. Alexander II introduction of the Zemstva
affected the people and gave them hope of political change and a voice of the
people. These types of reforms are not seen to the same degree post 1917 where
democratic centralisation and the relationship between Lenin’s political and
economic aims gave the people, especially the peasants, little hope of change
despite the strive for socialism within the state. Policy such as the NEP and
Collectivisation portray an aim to modernise Russia which can be seen before
1917 where Alexander II introduced ideas to develop the economy which were
carried on by Witte under Alexander III and Nicholas II. This shows that both
Tsar and commissar leaders had similar aims to modernise the state although
change is embedded within the methods used to execute these aims. The extent to
which the commissars went to fulfil their aims despite the success of these
methods undermines the Tsarist pursuit and execution of goals for Russia and
would leave one to conclude that there was greater change after 1917 than what
was seen before 1917.
