TO WHAT EXTENT WAS REPRESSION AN INTEGRAL FEATURE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE PERIOD 1881 TO 1984?

Name of student

Name of tutor

Course

Name of institution

Date

Introduction

Russia, formerly known as the United Social Soviet Republic, is one country whose features have not lacked the characteristic of repression, suppression and dictatorship. Many presidents that took leadership in the nation applied tactics that in one way, or the other, led to the suppression and oppression of the people. The difference between the leadership styles was the extent to which they exercised their repressive rules. For example, Lenin is known of having said: “Whoever talks about the freedom of the press goes backwards” (Service 2003). The leadership of the Tsars was characterized with repressive rules that saw the poor peasants bow down with pleas for pity from the part of the nobles. The system of serfdoms did not do well with the citizens. Suppressive rules brought torment and suffering. Similarly, the leadership of President Lenin was no different. Then came the world renowned dictator, Joseph Stalin. Some of the traces these dictators left were perpetuated by their predecessors like Nikita Kruschev. Revolutions like the one of 1905 left many people dead and others living very miserable lives. Leadership style that does not consider all the people equal was characteristic of their leadership. This paper seeks to discuss the extent to which repression was an integral feature of the Russian government in the period 1881 to 1984.

Extent of repression by the Tsars

The period of the rule of Tsar Alexander III, which started in the year 1881 lasting through to the year 1889, was witnessed by a number of repressive policies, and undertakings in different sectors. Taxation to the locals and the foreigners was high to the extent of exerting perpetual torment and suffering to the peoples. Etty (2008 P 3) asserts that taxation on foreign goods was thirty three percent by the year 1981. This was very painful to bear to both the exports and the locals who had entered the business of importing goods. The rule referred to as Vyshnegradysky’s policies stated that: “we must go hungry, but export” (Etty 2008 P 4). This policy brought about a form of repression in the form of high taxation that weakened the economy of Russia to a great deal. Weakening of the economy had far reaching impacts in repression of the peasants. To make sure that this policy was achieved, the Russian government under Tsar Alexander III backdated traders’ taxes. The traders thus had no option but to sell goods to the authorities at very low prices.

The farmers that relied in agriculture for a daily bread had a big bite of the Tsar Alexander’s Vyshnegradysky’s policies. The new policy affected their agriculture to a great deal (Lee 2006). A good example was the Volga region that experienced a great famine in the period between 1891 to the year 1892. It is approximated that close to two million people died (Etty 2008 P .4). Apart from the people who died, more than twenty million people in the most productive provinces of Russia were affected. This further aroused repression of the citizens from the government, because of the rising liberal oppression by the people, and the interest that foreign countries had started showing over Russia. To make the worst acme of the oppressive rule, the government would seize goods or animals for people who were unable to pay taxes.

The religious circles were not spared by the repression of the rule of Alexander III. A good example is the Orthodox Church (Etty 2008 p.5; Lee 2006). The repression and the oppression of the people came through the government’s policy of Russinification. The Orthodox Church by then was under the rule of Pobedonostsev’s. This church leader brought massive changes in the church including enhancing the training of the clergy, education and morals development. However, as Etty (2008) notes, the changes’ impact could not be realized in the repressive rulership of Tsar Alexander III. On the same account, Lee (2006) argues that people were being force to Russianize their names, besides being forced to write and rad in Russian language. The sending of more than 500 civil servants to the capital city of Germany, Berlin, had a hidden agenda of perpetuating the repressive autocratic power (Lee 2006). The government intended to use the experience these people would gain to extend the repressive policies among the people.

The Russification policy, extending even to Poland, brought about an increase in opposition and unrest, in the country at around 1885. Etty (2006) explains that everything was to be done in the Russian language in Poland, except for little use of the polish language, and the exercise of the catholic faith. To continue repression policies further, the government of Alexander III deployed a delegation of more than one hundred thousand Russian troops in Poland (Lee 2006). This was in a move to ensure brutal suppression of any attempted protest by the locals. The emergence of an anti-Semitic persecution was at the highest of the oppressive policies. This led to deaths of people, wounding of people and destruction of shops and houses.

Another great feature of repression under the rulership of Tsar Alexander III was on the peasants. This was very evident after the death of Pobedonostsev’s and the failure of the policy of Russification. The ideas of Pobedonostsev’s were used by the government of Alexander III to continue the policies of repression (Lee 2006). A new repressive policy came in the form of retaining traditional peasantry. All these policies were aimed at making sure that the peasants were more loyal to the government. This was necessitated by the failure of similar policies to bribe the loyalty of the peasants in the 1860s. The Tsar’s government considered the loyalty of the peasants as one of the best ways to maintain stability of the nation. Further repression of the peasants was realized in the years of early 1800s when the power of the commune leaders were increased, making it difficult for the peasants to depart from their mirs. It even became worse by the year 1893 when a complete ban on leaving was imposed on the peasants.

The nobility were also used to control peasants through the oppressive rules of the Tsars. The government had realized that to make the nation stable; they had to control both the peasants and the nobles. Etty (2008) connotes that land captains, who were nobles, were empowered to an extent of revering decisions made by the courts of the peasants. A good example is the 1882 setting up of the Gentry land bank. Through this clause, the nobles were awarded loans to buy land. This expanded the autocratic principles of governance, because it empowered the nobles to arrest and even administer corporal punishment to the peasants. It was very repressive to appear a return of serfdom.

Repressive rules were also evident in Russian government in the way state powers were exercised. The repression was very radical to the extent that even the conservatives in Russia lived a frightened life. Etty (2006) connotes that; the reduction in the powers of the Zemstva was a milestone in the implementation of the oppressive rules by the government. To make the matters even worse, a reduction was instituted in the voter’s register to reduce the numbers of voters. Lee (2006) asserts that by the year 1892, in Moscow, only a mere percentage of 0.7 was allowed to vote. This was facilitated by the repressive reform of the dumas.

Lenin’s extent of Repression

The repression of the people of Russia during the reign or Lenin came through the way in which he made people to idolize him, as the revolutionary leader. Nina (1983 P.2) notes that Lenin was idolized as the “revolution’s author and guiding force”. The process of revolution that Lenin purported to bring to the people of Russia was one that was characterized by mounting a kind of anarchy to the people. It breaks logic to claim to liberate the people, hence force self-generated ideas into them, rather than empowering them to be independent thinkers. The rise and the development of Leninism and Lenin-Marxism show a very good side of repression of the people by Lenin, as a leader of the revolution. It seems that Lenin was fighting for his own self-development interests, with a pretense of liberating the people. The process by which Lenin led the party and made all the people to believe in him, to the extent of Leninism developing as a cult, shows a very high degree of repression of the people.

The attack of Bogdanov by Lenin and his forces just because he was not identifying with Leninism was a representation of the repression of the people. Nina (1983 p 20) notes that Bogdanov was attacked just because of his Epistemology. He says thus: “The fight between Lenin and Bogdanov was political as well”. It is very disheartening to learn that Lenin, who claimed to fight for the freedom of the people, could extend a hand for the assassination of an innocent citizen just because the citizen was against him I terms of ideas. Nina (1983) terms the attack on Bogdanov as having the basis of politics of interests. Further, it was evident from his letters that Lenin attacked Bogdanov because of his religious stand as the stances were dictated by God-building issues.

The opposition by of the policies of the Orthodox Church by Lenin during the years of 1917, and the efforts of Lenin to promote Leninism, is a sign of the oppression of the people by him. Anna (2000) observes that the antireligious campaigns that took place in the year 1917 had a great feature of the backing by Leninism. This is a very bad form of anti-religious repression that was spearheaded by Lenin in an attempt to promote the spread of Leninism. This is evidenced by church closures that happened in Russia during the campaigns that were led by Lenin and his political shenanigans. Church closure in favour of Leninism was aimed at promoting the beliefs that were viewed as secularism. For example in the period between 1917 and 1918, many church buildings were demolished. The lands that belonged to churches too was confiscated with no indication or promise of compensation.

Further repression by Lenin is seen in the way he ordered for slave labour, ordering and commanding executions and hostages, directing propaganda in Russia, waging class wars and even acknowledging the reception of funds from Germany. Like the Tsars, repression during the time of Lenin through inflicting terror for people to obey was evident. Lenin used the communist party to extend his repressive policies and rules.

The method by which Lenin, the revolutionist, handled revolution in Russia can only be equated to the repressive rule of Stalin. Service (2003) connotes that Lenin was a great believer in political and economic reforms. He believed that, in fighting for reforms, the end would only be justified by the means. He handled workers by applying the theory of Marxism, even though he believed that this was repressive to the workers. However, Lars (P.5) argues that Lenin was a “Russian social democrat”. Treason for calling Lenin a social democrat, as Lars argues, is because his ambition for revolution was to realize the revolution of workers, as well as, to ensure their liberation. He was also determined in forming and spearheading party that was to realize democracy in Western Europe. The revolution by this great leader is evident of the extent to which repression for the common citizens was exercised by the successive governments in Russia. Also, the determination by the people he inspired points to the degree of repression as extended to the people by the government.

The 1914 Lena goldfield strike is a very important pointer to oppression in Russia. The many strikes that the workers fronted are a pointer to the repressive rule by the government. Further still, the repression caused the workers more suffering. Service (2003) notes that; during the strike, the employers used the police to control people. The police responded by shooting people even without prosecution.

Extent of Repression by Stalin

The leadership of Stalin was characterized by a style that lacked compromise and that contained a high-spirited radicalism. The reign of Stalin had features of the use of state power to suppress any opposition that would be suspected from the people. He denounced democratic elections by saying that: “elections are decided by the people who count the votes” (Service 2003). Decisions about the leadership were effected and made only by Stalin or the people who were at his closest circles. Repression was extended to the people in the form of exiles, harsh prisons, and penal colonies. The people of Russia during the leadership of Stalin lived a life of fear and stress. For example, between the year 1959 and 1962, more than five thousand people had been taken to court on baseless mistakes being considered criminals (Service 2003). In the period nearing 1921, the country was characterized by many civil wars that were followed by mass executions, imprisonments and political torture. Due to civil war, famine presented as a new form of repression of the people. Right and left political opposition in the party in 1933 witnessed large-scale purging of the members, with large-scale expulsions from the party. Service (2003) notes that; in this year alone, more than four hundred thousand people were expelled from the party. Problems did not end even in 1934 with the assassination of Kirov, to do away with opposition in the party. Kirov was known as a major opponent of Stalin in the way he dealt with the five year plans.

Another way in which Stalin caused oppression of the people of Russia was through collectivization. Through this system, all the land was grabbed by the state. The state was to provide food and fuel to the peasants. The system was not very welcome by the people. When the peasants resisted, Stalin sent his soldiers to enforce the law of collectivization. As a result, the country was attacked by famine in the year 1932 (Service 2003 P. 302). The government continued taking land from the kulaks, and many of the kulaks were sent to detention camps. Propaganda was used by Stalin to make sure that workers remained in the factories and the industries working. Slogans, posters and radio broadcasts were used to frighten the people in order to keep them working in the industries. Repression also came in the manner of fining workers who could not meet their targets in the fields. The use of slave labour was employed in the form of political opponents, kulaks, and even Jews. To the extreme end, food was rationed by committees. Food was given to the people through ration cards, which was done by party loyalists. To make matters worse, food was very short in supply in order to control the workers. The workers who were viewed as not doing their duties well had their food rations cut. This was the worst form of oppression to the people.

The use of propaganda by Stalin was in itself a way of repression to the people of Russia. For Stalin, he relied on the use of propaganda to make electorate believe that he was a very close friend of Stalin that he really was. To control people during his reign, he used propaganda. He filled people with fear by his actions and formed a terror state. Through this means, he established a cult of personality (Service 2003). He held up all the political power in his hands. This was very evident in the manner in which he made laws without consulting the other members of the government or even the people. Political repression further continued through his banning all the political parties in the Soviet, and imprisoning or killing political opponents. He is quoted of saying thus: “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic”. Further, he exaggerated his achievement and forced journalists and writers to portray him as a darling of the people. He tried to persuade and force people to worship him. His portrait was contained in all places in Russia. The education system was controlled. Marxism and Leninism were made compulsory to make people loyal to the regime. Discipline was inflicted in any teacher or student who was anti-Stalin. Any person who was not loyal to the regime, regardless of their position in the society were purged or taken to prison.

The reign of Stalin in the USSR was characterized by repression and oppression of the peoples. Mass operations, dekulukization, and nationwide operations with a characteristic repression of the people were instituted under the very instructions by Stalin. The Dekulakization policy was in the period 1930 to 1932. Forced industrialization and collectivization were announced by Stalin as the two major pillars in the “Year of the great Break” (Service 2005). Stalin was able to triumph over his daunting opponents and collectivization was enforced. The Kulaks’ destruction alongside some other people considered as rural enemies was a form of repression. The harsh treatment of people through d=concentration camps as executed by Stalin was a very harsh form of repression. Wendy (2007) connotes that, in the year 1930, more than approximately one hundred plus fifty thousand people were deported into concentration camps.

The repressive rules by Stalin in the manner in which he handled collectivization, “without the slightest delay”, led to the emergence of a civil war in the countryside. OGPU Special Forces were mobilized by the Bolsheviks leading to their winning of the war. Service (2005) notes that as a result of this incident, one hundred, and forty incidences of terror were witnessed. Prison terms and executions of innocent people were witnessed due to through the implementation of the policy of dekulukization. Although the government termed this a way of making sure that the economy achieved its goal, it was majorly a method of removing peasants from the areas that were meant for “continuous collectivization” (Service 2005 p.120). Resettlements and deportations alone accounted for more than half a million people. This was a very harsh way of repression of innocent people. Through this, Stalin was able to trim his constituency.

Mass operations between the period 1937 and 1938 were the other very worst form of repression of the people. Solidification of authority by Stalin in this period was enabled by the claimed victory of the “Break period” (Paul and Phillip 2007 p. 7). The year 1934, for example, saw the assassination of Sergei Kirov, who was by then, the Leningrad party leader. The Moscow show trials which happened in the years of 1935 to 1937 necessitated the elimination of the remaining enemies of Stalin. According to Paul and Phillip (2007 P.7), Stalin lifted himself to be referred to as “The master of the house”. At this time, formal meetings were not being done by Politburo, and all the decisions were left to be done by Stalin. To facilitate his oppressive rules, Stalin could appoint his sycophants to assist him in making of decisions. The period 1937 to 1938 witnessed the very worst forms of inhumanness by Stalin. It was referred to as “The year of the great terror” (Paul and Phillip 2007). The month of July 1937 saw people labeled as “returnees”. Service (2005) reports that top secret telegrams revealed messages requiring all returnees be arrested immediately and shot as per the master’s directives. This was to be reported to Stalin himself in a period that did not exceed five days. The 1937 directive referred to the returning kulaks as “criminals” (Service 2005). Through NKVD, directives to shoot and kill were issued by Stalin himself. The treatment was so harsh that even people of old age who were completely harmless could be killed. The directive had been to shoot and kill anyone who had the ability to stand. This was a very bad form of oppression of innocent people. It is even paining that the directives had limits of the number of people who were to be shot. For one time in the year 1938, Stalin failed to complete a vacation in the south, with a view to monitoring the executions he had issued to shoot and kill.

Finances were a great problem to the peasants. The repressive rules of taxation saw the peasants get left with very few to spend after paying taxes to the government. Even when they had little, they didn’t have an option rather than to pay because the officials of the government would confiscate their goods and animals if they refused to pay. The greatest period of financial repression was in the leadership of Stalin, in which peasants were pushed to the wall, in order to finance industrialization.

National operations were another form of repressive policies by Stalin. These were operations that were aimed at peoples who were referred to as “socially dangerous” nationalities (Phillip and Paul 2007 P. 8). Some of these were German personalities that were considered enemies to the Stalin regime. People from Poland were affected much by the directives that were included in the national operations. For example, the operational order that was numbered 00485 demanded the execution of polish prisoners of war, anti-Soviet nationalists, and the polish political immigrants. This was executed mercilessly by the loyalists of Stalin and they could not question him. Stalin had a secret police that he used to perform his operations, especially those that included influential people in the government.

The working class of Russia, towards the years of Stalin suffered repression to a great deal. Service (2003) connotes that, the industrial workers were viewed as the Vanguard of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. This is because these factory workers were the backbone of the red army in the civil war. The literature, art, music, and the cinema of this period show clearly that the Proletarian values were seen as of the working class. The repression for the workers was heightened during Stalin’s five year plans. They workers received very poor pay, and they worked under very appalling conditions for very long hours (Lee 2006). It was very evil for the country to try to industrialize by taking advantage of the sweat of its people. Although after some time an increase to the salaries was made, the skilled workers received very poor pay at the beginning. The five year plans emphasized production of industry goods for export. As a result, there were very few consumer goods. This led to repression of the workers in the form of very poor living standards. However, it is important to appreciate that even Stalin himself took note of the advantage of education for the peasants. As a result, he could allow a little education for them, though not to a beneficial extent.

Extent of Repression in Post-Stalinism Era

The people of Russia experienced some relief after the death of Stalin, when Khrushchev took over power. Reports by Encyclopedia Britannica (2014) portray Krushchev as a leader who did not follow the very repressive policies of Stalin. For example, in the secret speech, Krushchev condemned to a great deal the evils that were engineered and executed by Stalin. When he made a trip to Yugoslavia, Krushchev apologized for the treatment that the Yugoslavian communist party had gotten from Stalin. This shows a different face in the leadership of Russia. Encyclopedia Britannica (2014) notes that; Krushchev sold a trademark of diplomacy when he travelled to other countries like India, Afghanistan and Geneva.

Although Krushchev was considered a bit different from Stalin, he didn’t lack the characteristic oppressive nature of Stalin. For example, after the death of Stalin, Krushchev engineered the execution of Lavrenty Beria, who was b then the chief security officer of the state. Another form of repression by Krushchev was the way he handled religion. Anderson (1994 P.2) notes that the reign of Kruschev brought with itself new ideas on retrogressing the religious groups. From the year 1953, the religious issue had very few reforms. The resolutions of the central committee and legislation after Stalin’s death had little to offer about religion. However, Anderson (1994 P. 3) notes that at one time during the leadership of Krushchev, religion was attacked harshly.

Although some repressive policies were identified in the post-Stalinist leadership of Russia, the people of Russia breathed some peace in the post-Stalinist period. Encyclopedia Britannica (2014) agrees with this view in that the youth and the elites of Russia expressed having experienced unimaginable peace after the death of Stalin. Krushchev preached a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors, as concept he laid out very clearly in the 20th congress of the party. His enhancing international relations went even into the highs of visiting America in 1959. He argued that Russia’s competition with the capitalist countries should be a peaceful one. However, in the later years he fell out with the US.

Cooption and political repression was a characteristic of the leadership of Russia even many years after the rule of Stalin. Dmitriy and Grossman (1999 p. 7) argue that in the post-Stalinist Russia, the ruling class and the party membership by the name of Nomenklatura continued to live lavish lives at the expense of the poor. Allocation of resources in the communist system saw the class belonging to the Nomenklatura get the highest share in any resource that was being allocated. An example is given as modest monies and the high class apartments that the nemenklatura lived.

Conclusion

Russia experienced a series of dictatorial governments that extended the repression of the people from regime to another. The repression and oppression was contributed by dividing the people into classes, with the classes of the nobility and the peasants being the dominant classes. Some of the regimes were considered some relief for the poor while others perpetuated evils against the poor. The regime by the Tsars was characterized with great oppression of the peasants through land ownership, finances, and poor working conditions. The reign of Stalin was characterized with the worst form of political oppression with assassinations that were executed without reason. Post-Stalin period witnessed a relief from open repression, even though the peasants continued to suffer.

REFERENCES

Anna, D. 2000. Quantifying religious oppression: Russian Orthodox Church closures and repressions of priests 1917 to 1941. Religion, State & Society, Vol 28, no. 4 pp: 327-335

Anderson, J. 1994. Religion, state, and politics in the Soviet Union and successor states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dmitriy, G & Grossman, I.H. 1999. Cooption and repression in the Soviet Union. The Independent Institute.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2014. Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev. Retrieved online from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/316972

Etty, J. 2008. Alexander III, Tsar of Russia: 1881 to 1889. History Today, Vol 29 no. 16 pp: 1-7.

Lars, T.L. 2005. Lenin rediscovered: what is to be done? In context. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Lee, J.S. 2006. Russia and the USSR 1855 TO 1991: Autocracy and dictatorship. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Nina, T. 1983. Lenin lives: the Lenin cult in Soviet Russia. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Paul, R.G & Phillip, H.J. 2007. Dictators, repression and the median citizen: An “elimination’s model” of Stalin terror. Moscow: NKVD Archives.

Service, R. 2003. A history of modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Putin. London, UK: Penguin Group.

Service, R. 2005. Stalin: A biography. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Wendy, Z.G. 2007. Terror and democracy in the age of Stalin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.