I don’t think that we ought to stereotype the Russian state and people as being somehow naturally predisposed to authoritarianism. After all there were libertarian movements in Russia proper, and considering that other countries like Spain and Portugal also remained under authoritarian dictatorships for a significant period of time in the 20th century, we shouldn’t make generalizations.

Rather we ought to examine the socioeconomic and political factors that led to the rise of said authoritarianism in the first place.

What most people in the West call communism is better known as Marxism-Leninism.This system arose from a specific interpretation of Marxist work (by Lenin) that emphasizes a “dictatorship of the proletariat” to safeguard the socialist revolution against reactionary and counter revolutionary elements, and prevent the resurgence of capitalism that would lead to the exploitation of the working class again. In doing so a revolutionary vanguard party must be established, filled with individuals with fully committed ideals towards the goals of a classless, stateless society. The eventual end goal would be a slow “withering away of the state” as workers increasingly enter a post on scarcity society, the Party was less and less needed, the economy was increasingly democratized, and leading eventually to full communism.

However there was a problem. It was initially assumed that in many other developed countries socialist revolutions would also occur as the working class threw off the chains of capitalism. This didn’t happen of course. There was now a real threat of other nations invading and threatening the development of socialism in theUSSR. so the Soviet state had to first focus on building “socialism in one country” as Stalin once said.

This meant that power had to be concentrated in the hands of the Communist Party.

After the Russian Civil War, During Lenin’s time he actually allowed a measure of autonomy for the peasants with the New Economic Policy, giving them opportunity to work their own land and trade goods in towns, basically indulging in capitalism. In his eyes this wasn’t contradictory to his ideals since by the lens of historical materialism, Soviet society had first to undergo transition form feudalism to capitalism then socialism then finally communism. During Stalin’s time however he assumed that the phase of capitalism had fulfilled its required task and hence the Soviet state mobilized towards a centralized command economy, uprooting capital and focusing on state control of almost every major industry.

it is arguable in these Soviet policies that the mass repression occurs. The Party was determined at any cost to keep the Revolution going. Dissidents were suppressed and arrested, sent to GULAGS, sometimes outright executed. Lives were uprooted and forever changed by collectivization drives. But at the same time other demographics (like the urban working class) benefitted greatly from these encompassing policies, providing new means of social mobility and chance to gain recognition for their effort.

Overall I would argue for a more nuanced view of the Soviet Union, as it has had undergone numerous transitions and changes in policies over its long period of history.

Soviet Policy was focused on making the New Soviet Man, and in order to do so they had to inculcate revolutionary values and workers spirits among everyone. So they worked on using propaganda to affect every part of Soviet citizens lives, and censor and control any nefarious information that would induce counterrevolutioary behaviour. Leaders like Stalin in particular were paranoid of saboteurs and foreign spies and counter revolutionaries and hence turned to drastic measures. It is no coincidence that the most notorious elements of the Soviet Union in popular consciousness comes from the Stalinist era (mass executions, forced labour in the GULAGS, huge famines as a result of the forced collectivisation of agriculture).

But surprisingly you would find that many people have fond memories of the time. there was a sense of international unity, that the nations were working towards a better future, as opposed to the instability and economic shock of the post Soviet world.

In regards to the Czarist Times, Imperial Russia was autocratic and repressive, but in different ways than the USSR. There wasn’t an emphasis on influencing or controlling every aspect of ordinary Russians lives (totalitarianism), but Russia as a whole remained relatively poor in comparison to rapidly industrializing nations like Britain and Germany. The stereotype of Imperial Russia being backwards and feudal thanks to the oppressive rule of the Czars and boyars isn’t necessarily true either. Russia was also industrializing and gaining on other European countries, albeit at a relatively slow pace. It was during the Stalinist five year plans, through the use of forcible industrialization that allowed the rapid development of the Soviet economy. It was also WW2 that caused the USSR to enter the world stage as a superpower (which is a story for entirely another time)

It is also noteworthy that anti-democratic schools of thought were surprisingly prevalent during those times and not just in the USSR. Democracy was oftentimes seen as weak and ineffectual (essentially mob rule), and you need a strong state with strong leaders to take decisive measures for the nations own good.

Overall I would say this: the USSRs authoritarian behaviour is due to the planning and implementation of a specific political system at a specific period of time. Communism actually manifests in different ways depending on the nation involved, from the anarcho-communism of revolutionary Spain to Castro’s Cuba.

Overall though Marxism-Leninism trends towards authoritarian rule and unfortunately, killings in the attempts of forging a workers state and providing better living standards towards marginalized groups.

But this is just my interpretation, and I have given a rather cliffnotes version of events that occurred. Others can probably give a better summary.