Was the Soviet Union a Legacy of the Russian Imperial System

Exchanging one tyranny for another

February 1917 and the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II saw the end of the Romanov dynasty in Russia that had ruled for over 300 years. The Empire now had an opportunity to move to a new style of government. The adoption of the communist model and the creation of a Soviet state could be seen as a complete deviation from or a continuation of the former imperial system. This essay will explore what similarities may have existed between the two different regimes. In doing so, I will look at how the broader population benefited of suffered between the two regimes and if the Tsarist autocracy was simply replaced by another form of autocracy disguised as a communist dictatorship. To do this, the period looked at will be between 1900 and the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 as this period saw upheaval in the empire in 1905, abdication and the Bolsheviks coming to power in 1917 and the long reign of Stalin.

If we are to compare between the Russian imperial system and whether the communist era can be deemed a Soviet Empire, we first need to define empire. In its simplest form, an empire must be a great power. They are organized in a radial fashion with the center mediating relations between all entities and controlling the overarching ideology. These values, and the culture that goes with them, must also exist of a historical period. Empires are intended to assist in keeping a national idea alive and ensure the state at the center, can legitimize political authority over those under its control. Where once the word empire was seen as representing strength and power as nations looked to exploit the resources of others and look for markets for their trade, in the modern world, the term has taken on a negative aspect. World War One brought to an end some of the major empires and fueled the belief of some, Vladimir Lenin for one, that the imperialist and capitalist regimes where destined to fall at some point.

Although the Romanov Empire was one of autocracy, it began to concede power following the Russian Revolution of 1905 with the creation of the Duma and the writing of a constitution. Some degree of civil liberties was handed back to the people as was instructed by the writing of the October Manifesto. This new political structure saw an increase in the control of elements of the population through the use of terror, particularly by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin. The onset of World War One and the struggles that remained for the population of Russia, led to the February Revolution in 1917 followed quickly by the Tsars abdication. The Bolsheviks seized power in October of that year, and this heralded in the beginning of the communist regimes of Lenin and Stalin. The rapid collapse of the empire has been attributed to a lack of nationalism and the failure of the population to support the former regime. This nationalism argument is also attributed to the further failure of communist Russia seventy years later.

Did the change from imperialism to communism result in exchanging one form of authoritarianism for another? First, we must look at whether the USSR was in fact a Soviet Empire and whether it met the definition above. Soviet people were told that they were part of an equal community of free people and that, according to the doctrine of Lenin, the USSR was an anti-imperialist camp. For it to be labelled an empire would have meant that it was ultimately doomed to failure, as espoused by Lenin himself. Furthermore, communist ideology ultimately viewed empire as the highest form of capitalism and could therefore not tolerate being referred to as a Soviet Empire.

The ideologies of the two regimes were vastly different. Communism under Stalin was defined as all members share a common language, territory and economic conditions. This differs from the Tsarist rule that had an elite and ruling class. The Soviets drove the development of the nation from one of agrarian based to industrialization. This allowed the Soviets to over time, achieve some upward mobility as job status increased, all of which help contribute to the Soviet system enjoying some stability. The variation that existed in other empires can also assist in understanding what type of empire the USSR was. For example, the British and French Empires exported cultural values to the nations under their control whereas the Ottoman Empire was more open to secularism and annexing tribal societies. Tsarist Russia certainly mimicked the British and French models. However, the Soviets, still allowed cultural autonomy for many of the republics under its control, a trait that was in line with the Ottomans. There are also some who claim that the influence of Moscow on the whole country was so great that instead of a Soviet Empire it was more akin to a Moscow Empire.

If we look deeper still at the Soviet era and the definitions of empire, there is further evidence that the legacy of Tsarist Russia is still echoed in the developing USSR. Expansionism is key to empire. As without it there is, by definition, no empire. Following World War Two, there was a rise to power of communism in Yugoslavia and expanding sphere of influence by Russia within the region. Many of these countries had previously been members of former empires. Russia moved progressively further west as it looked to insulate its borders from European powers and in so doing created a communist Bloc. This expansion of Soviet imperialism was modeled on the premise that these new allies emulate the Russian political economy, they operated as political and military hegemony and that they become dependent on the Soviet Union for economic and political resources. By doing this, they managed to maintain a core and periphery model, an action that fits the definition of empire. However, the issue that arose for the Soviet leaders from this expansion and yet allowing nations to exist in their previous forms, was a lack of nationalism. There is a major difference that arises from this post World War Two activity that differentiated a Russian Empire from that of a Soviet Empire. The influence of the Soviet Empire on a global scale as it became a world superpower was something the Tsarist Empire neither could or did achieve. Both controlled vast territories of land, the Soviets ability to exploit the resources and population meant that they were not just a continuation of the Tsarist Empire but a distinct Soviet Empire in their own right.

Turning to look inwards at the Soviet Empire and whether the replacement of a communist dictatorship was any better or worse for the people of Russia. At the start of the 20th century, Russia saw an increase in radical political parties as the increase in the urban bourgeoisie and working class took hold. This led to a more dynamic atmosphere in which political thought could be further developed. The granting of basic civil liberties in 1905 also led to further political and economic reforms. This was somewhat tempered though due to level of separation from society by the Tsar and the bureaucracy. Never the less, Russian citizens would have hoped that post the 1917 revolutions their rights and freedoms would be further enhanced through greater liberties. Under the Tsar, the Russian population had enjoyed a level of stability and freedom from epidemics that had destroyed large portions of the native Australian and American populations. The communist party coming to power however, set a new limit for crime being perpetrated on its own people under Stalin. Being a large agrarian based empire under the Tsars, mush of Russian cultural values and identity was held in the peasant classes and the Orthodox Church. The Soviet Empire largely destroyed much of this. Under Stalin, Russia was ruled as a dictatorship. The hope for a further increase of civil liberties was crushed as Stalin and the communist party led with a reign of terror that resulted in approximately 680,000 deaths in 1937–1938. The total death count under Stalin’s reign is open to much speculation and variation. The brutality of the Stalin regime only ended with his death in 1953. Even other Russian leaders who followed, and where citizens of his regime, noted the abuse of power that Stalin wielded against individuals who had committed no crime against the Communist Party as well as actual enemies. This command and control over the many different societies within Russia that was well beyond that of the Tsarist empire.

For all its negative aspects and the terror that persisted for many years, there were parts of the Soviet Empire that were distinctive and that benefitted the population. Huge investment in the nation gave rise to great leaps forward in scientific research, the space race, military development and a growing academic class. Although the latter was closely moderated by the state. State ownership of planning and production assisted in this rapid transformation. The Soviets also were more successful than the Tsars at recruiting ethnic factions from the periphery of its huge empire.

Was the Soviet Empire a legacy of the Russian Empire? From an ideological and political point of view, no. The ruling Romanov dynasty was vastly different from that of the Communist Party. Even though there was a late attempt under the Tsar Nicholas II to improve the political system, there was some difficulty in getting this to work and saw an increase in control under Stolypin. Even though communist doctrine under Lenin refuted empires and capitalism, there was a tacit acknowledgement of the previous imperialist regimes and at no stage did they consider breaking up the old empire. It can be argued that the Russian people simply exchanged a form of repression under the Tsars to one of fear and compliance under the Soviets, particularly Stalin. Where legacies do exist is in the expansion policies that were undertaken after 1945. In the absence of exploiting resources as many traditional empires have done, the Soviet expansion was used to insulate their borders as they increasingly clashed ideologically with other European nations. It was also a way of exporting their communist ideology. As has been defined above, empires must have great power and influence a periphery from a core. There is no mistake that the Soviet Empire does this. I therefore conclude this essay by stating that although the Soviet regime was indeed a legacy by its actions it was not one that was a result of a direct legacy from the Russian Empire.