[Sivad]

False.

Soviet democracy is the most democratic system ever devised.

So most people only got a vote for their local council? Do I have that right?

[Rich]

Soviet democracy is the most democratic system ever devised.

Soviet Democracy was a short term form of democracy created ad hoc in 1905 and 1917. It was never intended to be a permanent system of governance. The Soviets were not created by the Bolsheviks. they were destroyed by the Bolsheviks. Lenin made quite clear his contempt for democracy and the opinions of manual workers in "What is to be done". Lenin used the slogan "All power to the Soviets" early in the revolution, dropped it and considered replacing it with the slogan all power to the factory committees". The all Russian Congress of Soviets were never very representative of Russian opinion from the first, but after the October coup were more explicitly gerry mandered to give five votes for every urban worker to one for every peasant.

There was never a Soviet government, the 2nd Congress merely rubber stamped the decisions of the Bolshevik central committee, the creation of the Council of People's Commissars, and the results of their negotiations with the left SRs. The real power lay with the Bolshevik Central Committee and the smaller political Committee aka Politburo, as the left SR's discovered when they refused to support Brest Litosk.

Communists are liars, the Bolsheviks demanded the convocation of the constituent assembly, but once they had grabbed power they never had the slightest intention of giving it up again. The Bolsheviks hummed and hawed what to do with the Constituent Assembly when it produced the wrong result. It was actually dispersed by a local anarchist commander. Most anarchists initially supported the Bolshevik government.

In the Spring and Summer of 1918 the Bolsheviks were voted out in the city Soviet elections in all the major cities of Russia. When the "workers" voted the wrong way the Bolshevik dictators just ignored the results and appointed Bolshevik control. The Bolsheviks got 25% support in the Constituent Assembly elections, but that support collapsed within a matter of months.

Immortal Goon will probably repeat his accusation that I'm an ignorant retard. I don't take this personally. IG of course is knowledgeable enough to be painfully aware that I'm very well informed on Left / Communist history, too well informed. His concern is that less knowledgeable and ideologically committed leftists may pay attention to what I say. Communists discourage new recruits from independently studying Left history until they have been fully indoctrinated. This is similar to how the Catholic Church banned translations of the Bible from Greek and Latin. The Church could only allow a select minority who had been completely indoctrinated to actually read the Bible.

[Decky]

It sounds eminently sensible. I think Marxism attracted me due to its similarities to Catholicism. Catholicism is wonderful and perfect aside from the fact that it is all made up (but less made up than Protestantism of course). Marxism is essentially Catholicism using facts instead of legend. Instead of the the Church one and indivisible you have the party, instead of the Pope you have the general secretary, instead of the cardinals you have the politburo, instead of Latin you have the Marxist jargon.

[The Immortal Goon]

Soviet Democracy was a short term form of democracy created ad hoc in 1905 and 1917. It was never intended to be a permanent system of governance. The Soviets were not created by the Bolsheviks. they were destroyed by the Bolsheviks.

Ill-informed observers, mostly from the middle class Intelligentsia, are fond of remarking that they are in favour of the Soviets, but against the Bolsheviks. This is an absurdity. The Soviets are the most perfect organs of working class representation, it is true, but they are also the weapons of proletarian dictatorship, to which all anti-Bolshevik parties are bitterly opposed. So the measure of the adherence of the people to the policy of proletarian dictatorship is not only measured by the membership of the Bolshevik Party - or, as it is now called, the Communist Party - but also by the growth and activity of local Soviets all over Russia.

Lenin made quite clear his contempt for democracy and the opinions of manual workers in "What is to be done". Lenin used the slogan "All power to the Soviets" early in the revolution, dropped it and considered replacing it with the slogan all power to the factory committees". The all Russian Congress of Soviets were never very representative of Russian opinion from the first, but after the October coup were more explicitly gerry mandered to give five votes for every urban worker to one for every peasant.

Critics of the Soviet Government are just now crowing over Lenin’s April article in Pravda, translated and published here as a pamphlet, “ The Soviets at Work.” In it the Great proletarian statesman tells the Russian workers that they must stop talking, stop striking, stop stealing, maintain rigid discipline and increase production. He praises the Taylor system of scientific management. He points out the inexperience and lack of education of the Russian masses, and analyzes the prevalent anarchy in industry and in agriculture. The proletariat, victorious over the bourgeoisie, must now turn its attention to the problem of “managing Russia,” without which the Revolution, must fail.

What is this, cry the criticsoSocialists among themobut the application of outworn tyranny over the masses by a new set of masters? And see! Lenin himself admits that the Russians are incapable of running the dream-state they have set up....

Not so. The Socialist state is not to be a return to primeval simplicity, but instead a system of society more efficient than the capitalist state. In Russia particularly the immediate task of the workers is to be able to compete with the pressure of foreign capital, as well as to supply Russia with necessities. What is true of Russia, moreover, is true of the workers of all countries. Only in no other country have the workers clear-sighted leaders like Lenin; in no other country are the workers so united and so conscious. And in Russia there are groups of industries, like the Ural mines, like the factories of Vladivostok, where Workers’ Control has actually improved upon capitalist management. And do not forget that industry belongs to the workersois run for the profit of the workers.....

There was never a Soviet government, the 2nd Congress merely rubber stamped the decisions of the Bolshevik central committee, the creation of the Council of People's Commissars, and the results of their negotiations with the left SRs. The real power lay with the Bolshevik Central Committee and the smaller political Committee aka Politburo, as the left SR's discovered when they refused to support Brest Litosk.

The Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies at first had practically no other function except the solution of the land question. It was the failure of the land solution under the coalition government which turned the attention of the great mass of peasants to the social reasons behind this failure o that, coupled with the ceaseless propaganda of the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, and of the Bolsheviki, and the return to the villages of the revolutionary soldiers.

The traditional party of the peasants is the Socialist Revolutionary Party. The great inert mass of peasants whose only interest was in their land, and who had neither fighting stamina nor political initiative, at first refused to have anything to do with the Soviets. Those peasants, however, who did participate in the Soviets soon awoke to the idea of the proletarian dictatorship. And they almost invariably joined the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, and became fighting partisans of the Soviet government.

In the Commissariat of Agriculture in Petrograd hangs a map of Russia, sprinkled with red-headed pins. Each of these red-headed pins represents a Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies. When I first saw the map, hanging in the old headquarters of the Peasants’ Soviets at 6 Fontanka, the red points were sprinkled sparsely over the vast country, nor did the numbers grow. For the first eight months of the revolution there were volosts, uyezds, whole provinces in fact where only one or two large towns would show a Peasants’ Soviet, and perhaps a scattering of villages. After the November Revolution, however, you could see all Russia redder under your eyes, as village after village, county after county, province after province, awoke and formed its Peasant Council.

At the time of the Bolshevik insurrection a Constituent Assembly with an anti-Soviet majority could be elected; one month later it would have been impossible. I saw three All-Russian Peasants Conventions in Petrograd. The delegates arrived o the vast majority of them Right Socialist Revolutionaries They met in session o and very stormy sessions they always were o under the presidency of conservatives of the type of Avksentiev and Peshekhanov. In a few days they would move to the left and be dominated by pseudo-radicals like Tchernov. A few days later the majority would become very radical, and Maria Spiridonova would be elected chairman. Then the conservative minority would split off and set up a rump convention, which in a few days dwindled to nothing. And the main body would send delegates to join the Soviets at Smolny. This happened every time.

I shall never forget the Peasants’ Conference which took place towards the end of November, and how Tchernov fought for control and lost it, and that wonderful procession of grizzled proletarians of the soil who marched to Smolny through the snowy streets, singing, their blood-red banners floating in the bitter wind. It was dark night. On the steps of SmoIny hundreds of working men were waiting to receive their peasant brothers, and in the dim light the two masses moving one down and the other up, rushed together and embraced, and wept, and cheered.....

Communists are liars, the Bolsheviks demanded the convocation of the constituent assembly, but once they had grabbed power they never had the slightest intention of giving it up again. The Bolsheviks hummed and hawed what to do with the Constituent Assembly when it produced the wrong result. It was actually dispersed by a local anarchist commander. Most anarchists initially supported the Bolshevik government. In the Spring and Summer of 1918 the Bolsheviks were voted out in the city Soviet elections in all the major cities of Russia. When the "workers" voted the wrong way the Bolshevik dictators just ignored the results and appointed Bolshevik control. The Bolsheviks got 25% support in the Constituent Assembly elections, but that support collapsed within a matter of months.

No political body more sensitive and responsive to the popular will was ever invented. And this was necessary, for in time of revolution the popular will changes with great rapidity. For example, during the first week of December 1917, there were parades and demonstrations in favour of a Constituent Assembly othat is to say, against the Soviet power. One of these parades was fired on by some irresponsible Red Guards, and several people killed. The reaction to this stupid violence was immediate. Within twelve hours the complexion of the Petrograd Soviet changed. More than a dozen Bolshevik deputies were withdrawn, and replaced by Mensheviki. And it was three weeks before public sentiment subsided before the Mensheviki were retired one by one and the Bolsheviki sent back.

...When the Soviets seized the power, its first action was to promulgate the Decree of the Land. This Land Decree was not a Bolshevik project at all, but the programme of the Right (or moderate) Socialist Revolutionary Party, drawn up on the basis of several hundred peasant memorials. It abolished forever private title to land or to natural resources in Russia, and gave over to the Land Committees the task of apportioning the land among the peasants, until the Constituent Assembly should finally settle the question. After the dissolution of the Constitution Assembly, the Decree was made final.

Immortal Goon will probably repeat his accusation that I'm an ignorant retard. I don't take this personally. IG of course is knowledgeable enough to be painfully aware that I'm very well informed on Left / Communist history, too well informed. His concern is that less knowledgeable and ideologically committed leftists may pay attention to what I say. Communists discourage new recruits from independently studying Left history until they have been fully indoctrinated. This is similar to how the Catholic Church banned translations of the Bible from Greek and Latin. The Church could only allow a select minority who had been completely indoctrinated to actually read the Bible.

I don't know any of that, but I am aware of the irony of a Prod bragging about how well read he is apparently having not read the document in question

[Bleh]

I don't understand. How exactly does this piece refute Rich's points?

[Thomasmariel]

Fascism = the censorship of other people

Liberalism = the non-censorship of other people

[JamesLV]

Fascism = the censorship of other people

Liberalism = the non-censorship of other people

And censorship of other people isn't the worst thing

[Hong Wu]

Let's not forget Liberal Totalitarianism, where you're forced to sign manifestos stating that your position is not secure, you won't work on certain kinds of products, weird babble about uniformity being an anti-pattern... but it's okay because you know it's just talk

So long as you keep silent

Indeed, some people have argued that the entire point of over the top fascist and communist propaganda was not to convince, but to see who would criticize it...

[Thomasmariel]

And censorship of other people isn't the worst thing

Does that mean if people couldn't use PoFo, that would be a good thing?