ideology:The nature of government

Question 1

what is autocracy

Answer 1

Autocracy is government through one individual with absolute authority. Tsarism was the form that autocracy took in Russia from the Middle Ages through to 1917. The Russian autocrat was the tsar (sometimes spelled czar or csar) – essentially, a Russian equivalent of a king. Russia had been ruled by tsars for centuries. From 1613 onwards, all the tsars who ruled belonged to a single dynasty (royal family), the Romanovs.

Question 2

importance of the three pillars

Answer 2

Since Nicholas I’s Fundamental Laws of 1832, the ideology underpinning Tsarism was known as the Three Pillars – Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. The purpose of these principles was to legitimise and unique ‘changeless’ nature of the Russian system of Tsarism, believing this would preserve Russian greatness. Tsars and their supporters genuinely believed these three principals were for the benefit of Russia for a number of reasons outlined below, and they all sought [sometimes in differing ways] to uphold the Three Pillars.

– justified autocracy

Question 3

what are the 3 pillars

Answer 3

1. orthodoxy
2. autocracy
3. nationality

Question 4

what is orthodoxy

3 pillars

Answer 4

Orthodoxy is a form of Christianity that became distinct in around 988AD. The church had some very traditional practices and was very popular in most of Russia.

Orthodoxy legitimised the ‘changeless’ nature of Russia. At its simplest it meant a firm faith in God, as traditional Russia had always had – in opposition to other ideologies. Orthodoxy represented the following values:
* Tsar as defender of the faith; church as defender of the Tsar
* To spread the message of divine will – the Tsar was anointed by God and so their authority could not be challenged. Russia had been blessed by God with the Tsarist system and so the Russian people must obey their Tsar. This garnered the impression of Russian uniqueness.
* Protection of Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy also brought responsibilities with it: namely, the importance of protecting practicing Orthodox Christians, especially those who lived under foreign powers such as the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

Question 5

what is autocracy

3 pillars

Answer 5

Autocracy refers to rule by one person [contrasted to democracy, rule by the people, and aristocracy, rule by elites] – the Tsar [meaning emperor]. The principle of autocracy was that if God appoints the Tsar, the Tsar requires absolute power and the total submission of his people. The Tsars had absolute powers with no legal limits on their authority. This was justified as beneficial for the following reasons:
* Paternalism. Supporters of the regime and propagandists noted this came with responsibility. The Tsar would not just act as a self-interested autocrat, but a ‘little father’ of his people. The Tsar was supposed to act in a paternalistic manner whereby he made decisions for the benefit of his people. The Tsar was often referred to as the ‘little father’ of his people. The analogy of a father-child relationship is a useful one to understand this aspect of Tsarism. The Tsar was supposed to act as the ‘father’ of his people, making the best decisions on their behalf. Whilst his ‘children’ – the Russian people – were supposed to be loyal, obedient, and wholly unable to make the right decisions on their own.
* Opposition to political change. In the light of Western liberalism and revolution, Tsarism stood in stark contrast to the political developments going on in Western Europe. Supporters of Tsarism argues that developments in Western Europe would lead to chaos and political instability. In particular, Russia stood in contrast to constitutional monarchy [rules limiting monarch’s powers], as established in Britain since the early 1700s; republicanism [a system of government with no monarchy] as established in France after the French revolution of 1789. Russians looked on these political changes as things that caused chaos.
* Practicalities. The Russian Empire was so vast and diverse that it required one individual to rule with an iron fist. If power was divided it would lead to chaos and inefficiency.

Question 6

what is nationality

3 pillars

Answer 6

Nationality meant Russianism. Russia, according to this philosophy was unique. This was partly a consequence of Orthodoxy, but also a product of their geography and history. The basics of this idea were true: Russia occupied a unique position geographically which stretched from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, politically Russia had followed a distinctive path from the West and, as evidenced by 1812, it seems to have been successful. For Russia to continue to be a great power, Russianism must be promoted throughout the empire.

Yet the principle was exaggerated and simply wrong. The majority of people within the Russian empire were of other ethnicity groups. This philosophy had implications in terms of how Russia treated these – attempts to ‘Russify’ were common.

Question 7

infulence of Pobedonostev

Answer 7

Konstantin Pobedonostsev was a great influence on the last two Tsars, Alexander III and Nicholas II in his role as their tutor. In the 1880s he became he had senior ministerial roles and acted as the Chief of the Orthodox Church. Pobedonostsev’s role was to teach Alexander and Nicholas of the importance of autocracy. In a book called Reflections of a Russian Statesman [1898] made a wholehearted defence of autocracy

Question 8

outlines from podedonostsev

Answer 8

• • Human nature is both lazy and selfish. Without a strong state and repression, individuals will only do things that benefit themselves.
• • Individuals were inherently unequal. There was an ‘aristocracy of intellect’ whereby only a small group of people were clever enough to make informed, rational decisions.
• • Democracy is the ‘biggest lie of our time’ and a ‘dictatorship of a vulgar crowd’. This rationale here was that democracy would lead to mob rule and the ‘mob’ would be made up of unthinking, illiterate, unintelligent peasants.
• • He believed that in order to prevent democracy spreading to Russia the state had a duty to repress rebellions and to restrict liberties

Question 9

3 examples of tsars implementing polices that DIDN’T weaken their authority

autocracy in practice

Answer 9

• • Alexander II introduced a variety of reforms that introduced wholesale changes to Russia’s system. **Emancipation freed the serfs, legal reforms gave people more rights, education reforms gave people more access to ideas. Yet, none of Alexander II’s proposals limited the authority of the Tsar**.
• • Alexander III’s Manifesto on Unshakeable Autocracy, 1881. The Manifesto, published shortly after Alexander II’s assassination **pledged that Alexander III would uphold the Three Pillars and would not introduce reforms. **
• Nicholas II suffered a crisis in 1905 with the effects of the Russo-Japanese War and the popular spontaneous revolution that broke out. After he had regained control, Nicholas decided to introduce the Fundamental Laws of 1906 establishing that the Tsar continued to have ultimate authority, despite the introduction of the Duma [Parliament].

Question 10

overview of autocracy in principle

Answer 10

In adhering to these principles, the Tsars sought to be changeless, and prevent change from occurring. This was their fundamental mistake: in a world that was changing rapidly in terms of economy, society, politically, and ideas, the Tsars chose not to guide change but restrict it – a philosophy that in the end would mark their downfall.

Question 11

key features of marxism [explained]

Answer 11

• * Anti-Capitalism. Marx believed that the working class [sometimes called proletariat] never received their just rewards in a capitalist system. Because of ownership and profit incentives, the capitalist classes tried to maximise their returns by keeping wages low. As a result, the working class were exploited.
• *** Economic determinism. **Economic determinism refers to the relationship between the economy and the political/social structure of a society. Essentially, it maintains that the economy of a society determines the social/political structure of a society.
  * * Superstructure. The notion that everything in society is determined by a ruling elite – in this case the capitalist classes. According to Marxists, capitalists control our ideas through various institutions. For instance, religion acts as the ‘opium of the masses’; laws protect private property; the political system ensures capitalists keep power.
  * False class consciousness. The consequence of the superstructure is that the working class develop false class consciousness – the notion that they are not aware of the exploitation they are suffering. Workers’ sense of their own exploitation is dulled by the superstructure.
  * Importance of Revolution. Since the economic base determines the superstructure, real change could not be brought about by reform. Only revolution could bring about change by transforming the economic base.
  * Marx’s theory of History / the inevitability of Communism. Karl Marx believed the History of all human societies in the History of class conflict. As the economy of a society changes, a new class is created and eventually that class demands political power. Likewise, Marx believed Capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. The inherent inequalities built into a capitalist system, according to Marx, would inevitably lead to a class-conscious working class which unites and overthrows the capitalist classes.

Question 12

key features of marxism [not! explained]

Answer 12

1. anti-capitalism
2. economic determinism
3. superstructure
4. false class consciousness
5. importnace of revolution
6. marx’s theory of history

Question 13

overview of what is marxist-leninism

Answer 13

Lenin was a firm believer in Marxist theories, but he made a valuable contribution to the development of the ideas in his own right. Lenin’s main contribution to Marxism was an analysis of how it could be implemented in practice and how Marxist groups could establish achieve a revolution, specifically in Russia.

Lenin believed that a post-revolutionary state must be ruthless in order to achieve the aims of Marxism. He believed that policies enacted by a post-revolutionary government were merely a means to an end.

Question 14

key features of marxist-leninism [not explained]

Answer 14

1. vanguard party
2. weakest link
3. Proletarian revolution and the Bourgeois Revolution could be combined.

Question 15

key features of marxist-leninism [explained]

Answer 15

• Vanguard Party. The Revolution would be led by the vanguard party who would be made up of a small group of intellectuals. They would prepare and stage a revolution and take control of the post-revolutionary state. The vanguard party was a shift away from Marx’s belief in the organic and spontaneous uprising of the working classes towards a belief that the workers [and others] needed to be guided by a smaller elite. This idea inevitable led to the centralisation of power. Decision would be made centrally within the party and power would be held by a small group. This was Lenin’s interpretation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin emphasised the need for a strong powerful dictatorship to prevent a ‘counter-revolution’. The post-revolutionary state (in the socialist phase above) would need to ‘suppress the oppressors’ of the previous regime – ‘class enemies’ such as the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. He knew that Bolshevik rule would result in a Civil War and was correct to think this.
• Weakest Link. Lenin believed that a revolution could only happen in a country that was just beginning to industrialise and become a capitalist economy. This contrasted with Marx’s view that only where the workers were a majority of the population was a revolution likely. The implication of Lenin’s ideas is that it made Russia the best hope for Marxist revolutionaries.

The weakest link theory proposed that a revolution would begin in a country beginning to industrialise, but yet to establish a powerful state to protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. That revolution would then spread to countries where capitalism was more strongly established.

• Proletarian revolution and the Bourgeois Revolution could be combined.

These distinct set of ideas lead to a split in the Russian Communist movement – the RSDLP in 1903, creating the Bolshevik [Marxist-Leninist], and Menshevik [Marxist] factions. Eventually, the Bolsheviks would seize power in 1917.

Question 16

difference between bolsheviks and mensheviks

Answer 16

bolsheviks – marxist-leninism
mensheviks- marxist

Question 17

bolsheviks view on future revolution [in 1903]

Answer 17

Russia was at the point where a revolution was most likely to succeed

Question 18

menshevik view on future revolution [in 1903]

Answer 18

Russia was not ready for a revolution in 1903 because the proletariat were too small

Question 19

bolsheviks view on their memberhsip

Answer 19

The Party should be led by dedicated revolutionaries

Question 20

menshevik view on their memberhsip

Answer 20

party should be open to all workers

Question 21

bolshevik view on decision making

Answer 21

Decisions should be made by party leaders, all members should accept them

Question 22

menshevik view on decision making

Answer 22

decisions should be made by all members

Question 23

bolshevik view on the role of the party

Answer 23

The party’s role was to plan the revolution

Question 24

menshevik view on the role of the party

Answer 24

The party’s role was to educate workers

Question 25

overview of marxist-leninism in practice

Answer 25

Ideology was the most significant factor influencing all of Lenin’s policies. As with the Tsars it would be misleading to view Lenin as acting out of pure self-interest and seeking power for its own sake. Lenin believed that only a Communist revolution would bring about real change for society and improve society for the better. And the best way of achieving this was to have a highly centralised party controlled by elite revolutionaries – after all the workers experienced false-class consciousness and did not recognise what was in their best interest.

Question 26

examples of marxist-leninism in practice

Answer 26

• Establishing a one-party dictatorship.
• In** January 1918 a democratically elected Constituent Assembly sat** [elections had been arranged by the Provisional Government, and over 40 million people voted, the largest ever election in Russia up to this point]. When results were returned, the SRs won around 40%, whilst the Bolsheviks achieved just 24% of the vote. Lenin did not believe the results were as historically significant as the October Revolution of 1917 which took him to power. In Lenin’s view, his government was more legitimate because:
  o ‘Soviets [represent] a higher form of democracy’ than the Constituent Assembly. This is because the Soviets represented the interests of the workers, not yet a dominant class in Russia.
  o The effects of the revolution had not yet been felt, and therefore people voted under the influence of a false-class consciousness.

Question 27

examples of lenin going against marxist-leninism

Answer 27

Yet, Lenin was willing to introduce practical measures which appeared to go against the philosophy of Marxism. For instance, in 1921 Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, a policy which **re-introduced aspects of a capitalist economy which had been banned three years **prior as part of War Communism. This illustrates that Lenin was willing to adapt policies to preserve the power of the party-state.

Question 28

ideology during the power struggle 1924-28

Answer 28

Following Lenin’s death, debates erupted within the party over the future direction of the Soviet Union. During the period 1917-1923, communist revolutions occurred frequently throughout Europe in countries such as Germany, Hungary, Russia, Italy, appearing to suggest an international revolution was likely. Yet, by 1924 [the year Lenin died], those revolution, with the exception of Russia, had failed. The question being asked was how can Communism be achieved?

Traditional Marxists [such as Leon Trotsky] argued that a revolution in Russia alone was doomed to fail – it was surrounded by Capitalist enemies who, as seen in the Civil War, would try to crush Communism if they had the chance. Trotsky argued that Communism could only be achieved if there was a policy of permanent revolution. This involved both the transformation of Russia through the removal of class distinctions, but, more importantly, the spread of the revolution internationally. Russia should focus its efforts on promoting revolution abroad, particularly in the Western European nations with the largest working class and strongest economies.

On the other hand, Stalin [and Bukharin] put forward the idea of ‘Socialism in one Country’. This was the notion that Socialism could be developed within Russia alone, so long as the economic base of the country was transformed and Russia could defend itself militarily. Therefore, Russia should focus its energy inwards and build a socialist state in the USSR without help from the outside. Proponents argued this did not contradict the Marxist notion of an international proletariat or a world revolution since, Russia should become a worker’s paradise as an example to the world – at which point other countries would look at the example of Russia and follow its lead.

Question 29

what is marxist-leninism-stalinism

Answer 29

• Motivated by an attempt t**o achieve Socialism in one country. **
  This philosophy of achieving ‘socialism in one country’ fed into two other distinct features of Stalinism:
• Adaptation in the relationship between the superstructure and the base. Marx traditionally believed in economic determinism, the notion that the economy shapes everything else about how a society is organised. **Stalin sought to change the relationship between the superstructure and the base **by emphasising that now a dictatorship of the proletariat has been achieved, the superstructure can use the power of the state to shape the economy. This resulted in:
  o Command Economy. To achieve Socialism in once country, the economic base needed to be transformed. This would be instigated by the state in a top-down manner through Five-Year Plans and Collectivisation [more on these later!].
  * Cult of Personality. Stalin took political centralisation to new heights by creating, using propaganda, a positive image of Stalin, thereby demanding total obedience.
• Aggressive repression. Those deemed not to accept these policies were branded as counter-revolutionaries or bourgeois and repressed.
• Some argue Stalinism represented a shift toward a totalitarian form of government. Totalitarianism refers to a state with total control over it’s citizens lives. Whilst Lenin had established a dictatorship where the party had total political control, a totalitarian system was one which had both social and economic control whilst also having a significant impact on everyday life.

Question 30

continuities in lenin and stalin ideology

Answer 30

* Both were willing to prioritise domestic affairs over foreign affairs, unlike Trotsky.
There is a clear similarity between Stalin’s policy of ‘Socialism in one country’ and Lenin’s Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Treaty was a pragmatic one which dismantled the Russian Empire and turned most of Eastern Europe into German puppet states in March 1918. Lenin chose to sign it because he prioritised consolidating Bolshevik power within Russia rather than spreading a revolution to other regions. Likewise, Stalin’s Socialism in One Country focused internally on developing Russia at the expense of other powers. This contrasted with Trotsky’s belief that communist revolution could be achieved only with Western countries onside.
* Both Believed in the centralisation of power into the Bolshevik party. The idea of the vanguard party – whereby a small group of elite would lead the revolution and control policy after the revolution – was a philosophy that Stalin adhered to. In this sense, Stalin represented a natural progression from Marxist-Leninism
* Both believed in the importance of repression

Question 31

differences in ideology between stalin and lenin

Answer 31

• Stalin’s authority was more personalised – as shown by the cult of personality
• Whilst both Lenin and Stalin used repression, Stalin was more willing to use repression against his personal enemies, not just enemies of the party. Indeed, Lenin never used repression against CPSU members, whilst Stalin ruthlessly went about targeting leading CPSU members.
• Crucially, Marxist-Leninism was based on the notion that after socialism had been achieved the state would ‘wither away’. According to Marxist theories, the role of the state is to keep the ruling class in power and subordinate the other class, whether that was peasants or workers. Once classlessness was achieved, therefore, there would be no need for a state. Yet, Stalin did anything but adopt this idea. If anything, Stalin did the complete opposite. All of Stalin’s policies in one way or another expand the role of the state – whether through collectivisation, economic planning, or repression. Therefore,** Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism is sometimes referred to as a totalitarian ideology, one which demanded a totalitarian form of government,** one which differed from Lenin’s.

Question 32

what was de-stalinisation

Answer 32

In 1956, three years after Stalin died, Khrushchev had secured enough authority within the party to be considered the leader of the Soviet Union. In the Twentieth Party Congress of that same year he decided to deliver a speech – now known as the Secret Speech – to the party. The speech was intended to be a secretive, but it was soon leaked and became public knowledge. The speech and its consequences represent the largest change in ideology when compared to the previous ruler that we see over this period.

Question 33

khrushchev’s 3 major criticisms of stalin

Answer 33

* Stalin’s personality. Khrushchev uses a quote from Lenin’s testament where Lenin called for the removal of Stalin prior to his death.
* Stalin’s role in the terror. Khrushchev admitted the scale of terror and the scale of innocent victims – blaming Stalin personally. Khrushchev said Stalin was a perversion of the revolutionary spirit and his killing of party members was unjustified [however he does not say too much about non-Party members!]
* Stalin at war. The cult of personality portrayed Stalin as a genius who won the War for the Soviet people. However, ***Khrushchev described Stalin’s leadership as incompetent and distant.
*

Question 34

some changes under de-stalinisation

Answer 34

• The release of approximately** 6 million political prisoners from gulags. **
• The destruction of the ‘cult of personality’. Statues of Stalin were torn down, cities with Stalin’s name were adapted [e.g. Stalingrad became Volgograd].

Question 35

ideological similarities in khrushchev

Answer 35

it is important not to overstate the extent of ideological change here. The core components of Marxist-Leninism remain the same through this period. Khrushchev even **acknowledged this in the Secret Speech **when calling for a return to Leninist principles. Khrushchev, like Alexander II, did not intend to move far from the core tenants of the ideology, even if they both reformed. There was no criticism of the essential correctness of Marxism-Leninism or the Soviet system of government which allowed Stalin to commit the crimes Khrushchev outlined.

Question 36

continuitoes under ideology overall

Answer 36

• absolute control of political power. The Tsarist regime justified complete autocratic control, the Communist regime justified absolute CPSU control.
• Use of repression to maintain control – and believe that it is essential to maintain the system – i.e. it is justified. Autocracy is justified in crushing rebellion because they believe other systems would not work in Russia. The Communists justify repression to challenge counter-revolutionaries.
• the use of an elaborate bureaucracy. Although autocracy could be seen as being at odds with a bureaucracy, since inevitable it results in a dilution of power. Similarly, a bureaucracy could be seen as being at odds with Marxist-Leninism, particularly when the philosophy promotes both the abolition of class distinction and the withering away of the state. Yet in both cases the bureaucrats helped to ensure complete political power and so they were a core part of both systems.
• Aversion to an open society or power-sharing. Both imposed their legitimacy without seeking approval for it.
• resistant to meaningful reform.
• Personification of power.
• Both consistently maintain their ideology throughout the regimes.
• Stalinist cult of Personality could be seen as similar to Tsarist autocracy insofar as authority and power was centralised in an individual

Question 37

changes under ideology overall

Answer 37

• differing views of history and change. Pobedonostsev viewed history as an organic development of an authoritarian tradition justifying a narrow elite with a Tsar. One the other hand, Marx and Engels viewed history as based on class conflict.
• They differed in their justification of authoritarian rule. For Tsarist autocracy what was important was God; for the Soviets the nature of the historical inevitability and the dictatorship of the proletariat
• their view of human nature. Tsarist autocracy was predicated on the notion that people were selfish and ignorant, incapable of making their own decisions. Marxist-Leninism viewed people as being determined by their social class [and the economy!]
• their view of Parliamentary democracy. They both dislike it but they differ on the reasons why. Tsarist autocracy viewed it as unworkable due to it being a dilution of power and the masses as ignorance; Soviets viewed it as a means for the Bourgeois to maintain control.
• Tsars viewed reform as dangerous; communists viewed reform as a way of perpetuating an unequal system – i.e. not adequate, a revolution is required!
• main difference is their analysis of society: Tsars saw it as positive status quo; Communists saw it as exploitative and sought to change it.
• Tsars believe in a rigid class hierarchy where lower social classes are deferential to the Tsar. The Communists, on the other hand, believe that there should be a push towards a classless system.