How different socially and economically was Tsarist Russia from Communist Russia from 1855

1964 [60]

Across the period, there were marked similarities and differences in the social and economic
policies of the Tsars and the communist. Economic policy refers to policies and aims that affected
the use of land, labour and capital in order to industrialise Russia, and social policy concentrates on
the interaction of the differing groups in society with the ruling class.

Economically, both ruling classes were similar in their aim to industrialise and catch up with the
West. However, there were differences in which both the Tsars and the Communists industrialised,
and also policies that were introduced according to their political standpoint.
Nicholas IIs Great Spurt, that had been engineered under Witte, doubled coal, iron and
steel production and the number of exports also increased five-fold overtaking France in Russias
output per year. The cause of this great spurt can be linked back to Alexander IIs economic reforms
under Reutern, who emphasised the employment of foreign expertise to improve infrastructure.
The likes of men such as Ludwick Loop from Manchester provided expertise in areas such as textile
manufacturing, and many of these industry experts were highly encouraged to Russia to help
improve the economy. As a result of these reforms, Alexander III saw an 8% increase in GDP per
year as a result of his fathers economic policies.

There is continuity of these pro growth policies under the Communists, however the rate of growth
was much more aggressive than under the Tsars. This was because of the way in which they ruled
the economy. Communists because of their ideologies had a great emphasis on complete command
economies, for example under Lenin, Khrushchev and Stalin, private enterprise was as a whole
banned, and the communist economic ideals can be seen by the policies that were introduced such
as State Capitalism in 1917 under Lenin, collectivisation under Stalin in 1929, and the continuation
of stalinesque industrial plans under Khrushchev.
Stolypins introduction of Land Reforms under Nicholas II was a step towards
encouraging wealthier peasants to produce bigger commercial surpluses, and get them selling more
grain onto the common market. Stolypin named it his wager on the strong which can be
interpreted as helping those who work hard in society. Practically the same type of policy was
pursued by Lenin, with the introduction of the New Economic Policy. This ended the requisitioning
of grain, and meant that peasants could sell surplus grain onto the free market. As a result of the
introduction of these policies, it introduced the Kulak class under Nicholas II and the NEPmen
under Lenin. Furthermore Khrushchev demonstrates his move away from the iron fist ruling of
Stalin with his introduction of the Virgin Land scheme in the early 1950s. This was an attempt to
cultivate unused land and allow peasants to sell their excess grain very similar to Stolypins wager
on the strong and Lenins NEP. These policies were introduced under very different ideologies, and
yet they promoted the same thing but, it is important to note that Lenin introduced NEP not as an
intentional means like Stolypin did to boost the economy but rather to let the peasants have
their bit of capitalism as long as we keep the power.
However, under Stalin, there was a huge move away from the policies of NEP and
wager on the strong, with over 8 million kulaks being sent to force labour camps, and enterprise
being banned throughout the period of his rule. Stalin was able to stick to the communist ideology
better than Lenin through his use of terror, and because he was better established.
Stalins Stakhanov movement achieved much the same results as the Nicholas IIs
Great Spurt under Witte, with coal production doubling and increasing fivefold respectively.
Alongside this we can draw the comparison between Stalin and Alexander III who were also both
fixated on industrialisation. This is made clear by Alexander IIIs achievement of 8% growth per
annum and Stalins heavy focus on industry.


Due to distinctive ideologies however, inevitably there were differences in economic policy,
particularly to do with the promotion of enterprise and free market policies. In 1861 Alexander II
declared the Emancipation Edict which set all serfs that were bound to land across Russia free,
with the exception of the state peasants. This was mainly caused by the extremely bad defeat that
Russia had suffered in the Crimean War. It was aimed at freeing up the labour force (the serfs made
up 70% of the Russian population at the time, and 90% of the army) and getting them to become
more productive on land that they could now buy off their owners.
60 years later however, under Stalin this policy seems although it was basically
reversed and changed with his policy of complete collectivisation of agriculture in 1929, and the
destruction of the Kulak class. Peasants were no longer allowed to own or cultivate their own land
as they had been able to under the Tsarist regimes, instead they were bound to collective farms
that farmed for food for the urban proletariat.


I think that it is clear that although there were disparities in the way in which economic policies
were carried out between the Tsarists and communists, economically, both ruling classes had the
same economic aims as the other. In particular was the innate desire to industrialise as quickly as
possible to catch up with the west.


Socially, the Tsars and the Communists were similar in many ways, but also drastically different, and
I think this is down to the complete differences in ideologies.
A key theme that is prevalent between both ruling classes is the Russification of all people and
subjects within Russia. Under Alexander III, non ethnic Russians were forced to speak Russian and
pledge their allegiance to the Tsar. All schools were required to speak and teach in Russian, which
was demonstrated by Alexanders policy of imposing Russian as the primary language in Germany,
Poland and the Crimea in 1885. Virtually mirroring these policies was Stalin. In 1938 he introduced a
law forcing every school in the Soviet Union to teach in Russian, and this was to strengthen the
nationalism between all nationalities in Russia. However, Stalin appears to take this social ruling a
step further by introducing the purges of non-Russian leadership from the party during the 1930s.
This was characterised as a whole by the execution of Veli Ibrahimov in 1929 because he was a
Ukrainian politician within the politburo.

Under the Tsarist autocracy, education was either heavily controlled, or even banned, to stop liberal
ideas entering the minds of those who were not in favour of the way the Tsars ruled Russia. Under
Alexander III, lower class children were banned from school which effectively removed any threat of
the lower class being educated so that they could rise up against Alexander. However in contrast
with his father, and very similar to the communist rulers was the introduction of universal
education for all across Russia by Nicholas II. This appears to be the start of a policy which is then
continued by Lenin, whose government had a drive for literacy, and also Stalin, who made primary
school education compulsory for 7 years in 1930.

There were also differences amongst the Communist rulers themselves. Lenins introduction of
permitting divorce and abortion under the protection of mothers and childrens act meant that
women in the workforce rose from 3 million in 1929 to 13 million in 1940, however when Stalin
came to power, he reversed all of these policies as part of his Great Retreat programme. This set
about to restore the family unit and banned divorce and abortion. Incentives were also introduced
to have children 2000 roubles for 5 or more children. Stalins death marked the reversion by
Khrushchev to a more liberal society where women were allowed abortions, and were encouraged
to take more independent lives, with abortion being legalised soon after he took power in 1953 and
divorce also being legalised. This was undoubtedly part of Khrushchevs deStalinisation plan.

Overall, it is clear that economically, the Communists and the Tsars were very similar. Both ruling
classes had the primary aim of trying to stimulate economic growth for Russia in order to catch up
with the West. The most obvious comparison is the NEP, Virgin Land Scheme and Wager on the
Strong policies, all of which were virtually the same policies, just continued under different
leadership. Socially, there was much more of a disparity between the Tsars and Communists.
Understandably, the Tsars did not want people educated unless they were pro Tsar supporters,
however this policy was completely reversed under the communists who believed that all people
should be educated. However perhaps why the communists were much more willing to educate
was because of the knowledge of the fact that they were able to maintain a tight grip over all
opposition, whilst also being able to educate. I think that the Tsars and the communists were
different from eachother, because although economically they were the same, socially they were
completely different, and social policies almost always affect economic policies in the long run.