[DanaC]

Russia in the 19th century was a leader in social reform. Debtor's prison was abolished and debts forgiven. Tax arrears for the poor were cancelled. In 1857, on Alexander II's birthday, he wished to release prisoners from prison, and there were no prisoners found in the fortress of Peter and Paul.

True enough, but didn't Alexander III turn the clock back on a lot of those reforms?

They were tied to the land, not to the owner. This doesn't justify the practice, but it was far less oppressive in Russia than in European countries.

Tied to land still meant that they could be bought and sold with the land surely? Also, unless I am mixing up the condition of russian serfs with earlier european models, didn't the lord have rights of permission when it came to marriages?

As to European countries, I have been guilty of a wide sweep in my earlier post. Most of western europe had ended serfdom by then I think. Certainly most of the major players had reformed it away.

I certainly wouldn't say that Russia was more oppressive than european nations, merely that it was more totalitarian, given that most of the major monarchies had by then moved to a 'mixed monarchy' system rather than divine right absolutism.

When Russia changed to a communist state it didn't go from 'freedom' as we wold understand it in the modern era, to dictatorship. It moved from one form of highly centralised control to another and exchanged one form of oppression for another (admittedly more violent) form of oppression.

What is utterly tragic, is that at the point that the revolutionaries actually made their move, they did so against a Tsar who was genuinely motivated towards reform and had they been able to see ahead to what was going to happen in the other industrialising nations over the next hundred years they'd have seen that there was another way to achieve many of their goals.

The arguments against absolute monarchy run the same way. In theory, with a wise, just, compassionate monarch who chooses wise advisors, it would be a great system. In practice we've seen what happens when you add human nature to the equation. So, have we never seen an example of 'true' absolute monarchy?

What we haven't seen is a monarch who was truly God's appointed which was what they claimed to be. In practice, actually, very few 'absolute' monarchs were indeed absolute. They relied on the compliance and support of their aristocracy and the acceptance of the populace.

I still contend that Communism does not require totalitarianism, in fact totalitarianism runs entirely contrary to the spirit and form of the communist ideal. Unfortunately, after the Russian revolution, other countries took the Russian system as the base model for communism. Consequently most other attempts at bringing about a communist state have followed similar patterns. But that wasn't inherent in the idea of communism.