What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?
What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?
Could work if you remove the democratic centralism part, which is an effect of one of the main reasons the USSR was undemocratic most of the time
Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.
Just like many things in the USSR, It was perhaps that way in principle, but nefariously twisted in practice, where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks, majority requirements be damned. Like the ancient parable of Yu the Great choosing a successor, a dictating elite are bound to self-perpetuate and stray away from the proletariat, even if that’s what they were once.
citation needed
Excerpts from a book from a reputed US academic institution, which I’m not sure whether you would favor over a book written by one of your comrades. Just give me the biggest example of when the Supreme Soviet voted against the Presidium starting with Stalin and before Gorbachev.
Is this the sort of thing you’re looking for?
-Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 144
This is from an explicitly anti-“Stalinism” book showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
For the record, I do think that historical texts by “comrades,” as you sneer, can be interesting and insightful, but I mostly concern myself with texts by liberals (or otherwise anti-communist ideologies) because I know those are the only ones that won’t be rejected out of hand.
Thanks. The oblique narrative flow of this text is pretty confusing and I don’t think I understood it. The expression in question is “dictatorship of the party”, right? Was the vote inside the Presidium? From what I gather, the expression was in line with what the party elite wanted, meaning the soviet did not vote against the presidium?
My English level is only near-native, sorry. That’s not what I meant. You answered my question directly with a source that I’d trust.
I apologize about the language bit. I rarely get a liberal arguing about this who wouldn’t use such a term as “comrade” derisively.
Anyway, I explained the reason I shared it, which is that it is:
But that’s not precisely what you asked for, I just don’t have a good source on your real question.
Nah, it was democratic, moreso than Capitalist countries. You can read This Soviet World if you want a look at it.
Without a specific page or chapter number, I’m assuming you’re pointing to the only paragraph that mentions “centralism”. It just seems to repeat what I already replied to.
I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything. Then:
I’m referring to the book itself, you have a lot of confused ideas about the USSR itself. Blackshirts and Reds is another great “Myth Debunker.”
Wrong. The lower bodies also decide things among themselves particular to issues specific to them, and elect delegates for the larger area. Imagine a soviet of a single factory, then a soviet of a city composed of delegates from all of the factories, then a regional soviet, etc. Each rung governs their respective areas with matters exclusive to them. These were workers with instant recall elections if needed.
Because the lower bodies vote on matters pertaining to themselves that don’t affect others.
That’s not really accurate. Diverse opinions were held and discussed, what was purged was liberalism and fascism, which were dangerous currents deliberately infiltrating the USSR, as well as wreckers like Trotsky who collaborated with fascists and liberals.
Secondly, Stalin fought against beaurocracy, it wasn’t until WWII where the population was decimated and the USSR needed to be rebuilt that a beaurocratic class of “career politicians” began to take hold.
Again, I suggest reading more on the subject, you seem to be confused on the basic structure itself, causing other confusions to spring forth.
I appreciate that you’re taking the time to politely respond.
Obviously, the lower bodies decide more minutiae and local stuff and can’t go against the upper bodies’ decisions, and that goes for pretty much every democracy, just like you said. I was talking about specifically the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, which could also be abstracted into the presidiums of every soviet. I think that’s the source of our confusion here. I’m looking at principles in making wide-ranging decisions, which are the things that can cause division. Not sure why I said üpper body".
Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?
Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn’t Stalin before Lenin’s death a career politician?
I have to sign off now until tomorrow.
The general line according to Stalin (e.g. in “Foundations of Leninism”) was that there should be thorough and exhaustive debates among those with differing opinions within the Party but that, once a resolution was reached by a vote following the debate, further fighting on the topic as a Party official was essentially a form of wrecking, though of course matters were revisited periodically (for good and for ill). Even if you disagreed, you were then expected to go along with whatever the motion was in the interest of the integrity of the Party as an actor. This was “Diversity of opinion, unity of action” [edit: I got the motto slightly wrong, see cowbee]
I don’t really have a developed opinion on it (I guess I should have left this to cowbee for that reason) but I definitely have sympathy for this approach when I look at it in the context of glory hounds like Trotsky being constantly contrarian for the sake of political brinkmanship instead of, you know, acting in good faith and believing in things besides that he should be top dog. There shouldn’t be tolerance for people like that, and the long-term harm that Trotsky’s opposition bloc did to the SU is hard to fathom.
You added good context to what I’m saying, good comment comrade.
Democratic Centralism can be hard to swallow if analyzed through an Anarchist lense, but ultimately the results and necessity of the matter speak for itself. Diversity in thought, unity in action.
Trotskyism is especially dangerous because it’s essentially wrecker Marxism. Trotsky is often shown in a sympathetic light in western media and narratives, and prevents actual radicalization. New Leftists see a supposed Socialist with similar critiques of the USSR as the US State Department, and that’s a far more comfortable pill to swallow in the west.
There’s a difference between wrecking and having different opinions.
Losurdo’s Stalin: Critique of a Black Legend is a good book going over this. Stalin agreed with Lenin about how the beauracracy could grow, so he actively tried to combat it. He even edited records of meetings to reduce his applause and increase it for others. Stalin was elected, yes, but the beauracracy wasn’t solidified until Kruschev. The necessity of rebuilding infrastructure and a destroyed public led to a rise in opportunism that was completed under Gorbachev, introducing new fixtures of government that stood against the rest, harming the centralized system and resulting in dissolution.
I’d read the books I linked if I were you.
And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?
As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.