Constituent Assembly: lessons

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's a rather interesting letter discussing a rather different kind of Bolshevik mistake surrounding the Constituent Assembly (no, not the liberal crap of disbanding it, and not the left-communist suggestion of convening it in the first place):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/764/letters.html

With regard to Jack Conrad’s critique, ‘Dead Russians’, and subsequent feedback, I would like to draw one or two conclusions.

Without a doubt Lenin and Trotsky made mistakes, but I think it is important for comrades critical of them to bear in mind the nature of revolutions.

Revolution is a fundamental change in the social and economic structure of society. Such was the nature of the socialist revolution of Russia in 1917 - a journey into the unknown. Marxism gave the Bolsheviks a general route to follow, but only through practical experience could the road be mapped out in any detail.

Firstly the Bolsheviks failed to make use of the Constituent Assembly. In doing so the Constituent Assembly could have been used as a central focal point to defend the gains of the October revolution, cement the Bolshevik alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and help prevent the slide into civil war. However, in the mists of revolution a decision was taken to call elections in November 1917 (upholding the Provisional Government decision) which gave a totally unrepresentative picture of the true feeling of the country. The subsequent events are well known.

Had the Bolsheviks postponed the elections until early 1918, the split within the Socialist Revolutionaries would have been reflected in those elected (the left SRs having a great deal more support than the right SRs), a greater turnout would have been achieved and an overwhelmingly positive results of the October revolution would have had time to filter throughout the country, reflected in the make-up of the Constituent Assembly.

Second, there was no reason why a NEP-type policy could not have been introduced in 1918. Such a policy could have been ushered in much easier in 1918 than in 1921 and again would have reinforced the Bolshevik/Left Socialist Revolutionary partnership, strengthening the crucial worker-peasant alliance. Much opposition in the countryside would have been neutralised, thus again minimising the disastrous effects of the civil war.

Colin McGhie
Glasgow



Thoughts?

[dez]

I dont think they could afford to postpone elections or thought about implementing NEP in 1918.

[ComradeOm]

In the case of the Constituent Assembly it was probably a political impossiblty for the elections to be postponed. The events of the October Revolution were by no means final and there was immense pressure (most notably from Vikzhel, the rail union) for the rapid assembly of the CA. This was not limited to SRs or Kadets, with many amongst the Bolshevik party itself (particularly centred around Kamenev's faction) in favour of calling the CA without delay. As early as 27 Oct Lenin, obviously against his better judgement, was forced to confirm that the elections would be held on 12-14 Nov as originally scheduled and the Assembly itself would gather as soon as 28 Nov

Of course its hard to see just what good could come from a CA under any circumstances. It was always a rival to Soviet power and formed the basis of Menshevik and SR resistance during this period. The best that could have been expected was that the CA would endorse the Declaration Of The Rights Of The Toiling And Exploited Peoples (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DRWP18.html) and therefore vote itself out of existence. There was no room for such a parliamentary body in Soviet Russia and its not as if its historical demise was particularly damaging to the revolutionary cause


Second, there was no reason why a NEP-type policy could not have been introduced in 1918. Such a policy could have been ushered in much easier in 1918 than in 1921 and again would have reinforced the Bolshevik/Left Socialist Revolutionary partnership, strengthening the crucial worker-peasant alliance. Much opposition in the countryside would have been neutralised, thus again minimising the disastrous effects of the civil war.There's not much to say here except that there are some who would view the NEP to be the mistake. War Communism was far from perfect but it was largely a response to immediate challenges facing the Soviets and was largely driven by events rather than being deliberate policy. NEP could not have been introduced in 1918 because the developing civil war and economic crisis required much more radical measures and, point by point, the Bolsheviks were largely driven to adopt these as the situation worsened

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the case of the Constituent Assembly it was probably a political impossiblty for the elections to be postponed. The events of the October Revolution were by no means final and there was immense pressure (most notably from Vikzhel, the rail union) for the rapid assembly of the CA. This was not limited to SRs or Kadets, with many amongst the Bolshevik party itself (particularly centred around Kamenev's faction) in favour of calling the CA without delay. As early as 27 Oct Lenin, obviously against his better judgement, was forced to confirm that the elections would be held on 12-14 Nov as originally scheduled and the Assembly itself would gather as soon as 28 Nov

Of course its hard to see just what good could come from a CA under any circumstances. It was always a rival to Soviet power and formed the basis of Menshevik and SR resistance during this period.

So how would you take account of how best to reflect the split within the SRs, then?


The best that could have been expected was that the CA would endorse the Declaration Of The Rights Of The Toiling And Exploited Peoples (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DRWP18.html) and therefore vote itself out of existence. There was no room for such a parliamentary body in Soviet Russia and its not as if its historical demise was particularly damaging to the revolutionary cause

I agree, but again consider the potential of strengthening the coalition between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs.


There's not much to say here except that there are some who would view the NEP to be the mistake. War Communism was far from perfect but it was largely a response to immediate challenges facing the Soviets and was largely driven by events rather than being deliberate policy. NEP could not have been introduced in 1918 because the developing civil war and economic crisis required much more radical measures and, point by point, the Bolsheviks were largely driven to adopt these as the situation worsened

I don't agree with the letter writer on the NEP, either. Remember my old thread on Jules Guesde and Orthodox Marxism? In that thread, I mentioned Lars Lih (yes, him again ;) ) talking about the ironically idealistic NEP vs. the emergency War Communism, as opposed to the politically correct notion that "War Communism" was ideologically driven.

Assuming that the letter writer's first scenario unfolded (that the Constituent Assembly reflected the SR split), yes the civil war would've been less devastating, but more importantly the snail's pace of Bolshevik economic administration would've made even the NEP look "ultra-leftist" since, during the brief period before the civil war, industrial nationalizations were only enacted upon mass pressure by workers (and not by Soviet initiative).

[ComradeOm]

So how would you take account of how best to reflect the split within the SRs, then?Don't use a vehicle of parliamentary democracy. It would be months before the split between Left and Right SRs was finalised (the Left SR founding congress wasn't held until the end of Nov) and delaying elections for this long was just not possible. Especially when those groups who were pushing hardest for the CA had no interest in seeing the Left SR share of the vote increase. Bear in mind that as far as the political opposition was concerned, and indeed some Bolsheviks, Russia would be without a legitimate government until the CA met; so there was a great deal of urgency. Especially as the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets had committed the new revolutionary government to calling it


I agree, but again consider the potential of strengthening the coalition between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRsThe CA was the one issue on which there was near complete agreement between the two parties. The Left SRs were Left SRs precisely because they supported the supremacy of soviet power over the competing claims of the CA. The only real disagreements here between the leaderships of both parties was the purely tactical issue of when to walk out. The Left SR leadership fully supported the Declaration Of Rights Of The Toiling And Exploited Peoples and the subsequent abolition of the CA

As for it affecting the progress of the Civil War... as far as I can see the only merit of the CA was keeping the opposition politicians busy with irrelevancies during the last months of 1917. Even then the Civil War had already started with the first of the White Armies gathering under Alekseev in the south. The reality is that both the CA and those that put so much in store by it were irrelevancies by the beginning of 1918


In that thread, I mentioned Lars Lih (yes, him again ;) ) talking about the ironically idealistic NEP vs. the emergency War Communism, as opposed to the politically correct notion that "War Communism" was ideologically drivenMore likely than not it was a mixture of both. Policy was forced on the Bolsheviks by event but this dovetailed nicely with their political programme and the sentiments of its members. "War Communism" was more than mere propaganda