A question about the 1936 Soviet Constitution

[The Man]

After the 1936 Constitution was made and put in to law, did Stalin then start opposing it? Because I've read that he didn't really like it afterwards and started going against it.

Is this true?

[Red_Struggle]

The 1936 Constitution was originally meant to include multi-candidate, contested elections to the soviets, but this was scrapped as the adoption of the constitution coincided with Yezhovchina, aka the Great Purge. Stalin didn't oppose the constitution per se, but it would have been erroneous to put every piece of the constitution into practice given the conditions facing the USSR at that time, both external and internal. Still, the Constitution was a step forward from the previously adopted one and it did manage to gather popular support and workers and farmers were encouraged to make provisions:

Letter from kolkhoznik P. I. Voronov to Krest'ianskaia Gazeta proposing revisions to Constitution, 1936
RGASPI, f. 17, op. 120, d. 232, ll.74-75. Typewritten copy.

"The farmers of our kolkhoz welcome Stalin's Constitution with
great joy. The kolkhoz farmers listened to me and approved this Constitution. Altogether twenty five people took part in the meeting, but none of them could express themselves, and then I, kolkhoz farmer Voronov, suggested adding a few more clauses, and they started asking me to write these clauses and send them in. So with the consent of all the kolkhoz farmers, I wrote them down, and when I read everyone what I wrote, the entire meeting sang the Internationale and resolved:


1. That we kolkhoz farmers enjoy no lesser rights than city workers, that we kolkhoz workers work for money rather than work-days
2. That we kolkhoz farmers all be made trade-union members and have trade-union booklets, so that we can have full rights like city workers.
3. That lumber distribution for the kolkhoz be free of charge for all kolkhoz needs, at least a certain percentage for kolkhoz needs should be issued free of charge.
4. That there be an uninterrupted supply of goods for sale in our villages, especially flour, because we get flour very seldom here, and for bread kolkhoz farmers have to travel thirty kilometers to get baked bread to feed their family, a number of other goods are never available at the cooperatives, and as for leather footwear we never see anything like it anywhere around here.
5. We also ask that the work be set up at our kolkhozes so that we do not work all together but each person works on his own attached plot, which would be attached to us for the whole summer, and that entries be made in our labor books every ten days and they be given to us so that every kolkhoz farmer can know, otherwise we work all summer and don't know who earned how much.


We tell the brigade leader to give it to us every month and every ten days. He says, I don't have time, I have too much work, but what does he do? He doesn't do anything on our kolkhoz. We have a chairman and an accounts clerk and a brigade leader, but we don't see anything getting done. The chairman gallivants around, so does the brigade leader, and the accounts clerk we don't see anywhere. They gave him 225 work-days--he doesn't do anything and we ask for help and getting rid of all the shortcomings on our kolkhozes. We have just twenty workers on our kolkhoz. The kolkhoz chairman and the brigade leader set themselves up nicely when there are just twenty workers on the whole kolkhoz, but as for us nobody gives any help to straighten things out; the village librarian lives on our kolkhoz, but even she doesn't take any part--these problems, of course, exist all over Soligalich Raion."

Letter of appreciation from F. M. Postnikov to Krest'ianskaia Gazeta, 1936
RGASPI, f. 17, op. 120, d. 232, ll. 58-59. Typewritten copy.

It's a pity that I am seventy years old, the young people are lucky to have such a free life and to have such a leader as Comrade Stalin. But still I did have some good life during Soviet rule. After all, it is awful to remember how I lived in the old days under the tsar. I was born to a poor family, my father led a very hard life, he didn't have much land, he was illiterate and didn't teach me. From the time I was very little I had to work as a farmhand and for no less than fifteen years I worked as a shepherd. There was nothing to live on at home, I had one son, who died for Soviet rule, he was killed at the front in the ranks of the Red Army. He left a wife and child, and his wife died too, so my granddaughter remained in my care, and I brought her up and freely taught her and now she is a student, she even helps the old woman and me. And even as an old man I am still making a living. In 1934 I produced 200 work-days, and in 1935 I had 150 work-days, and I also caulked a school and the village soviet and earned quite a bit. I get two or three bonuses for my honest labor on the kolkhoz, and this year my life has gotten even better, I got a piglet as a bonus, which I've never had before. Then I take part in olympics [Competitions of amateur artists, orchestras, choirs, dance ensembles and theatrical troupes, often on a national basis]. I take part in the singers' chorus, I perform alone and when they put me on in our village of Morozovka, the culture people liked it and they took me to the raion together with all of our performers. Our chorus and our performance in the raion won first prize. As for me, they gave the old man a prize of twenty five rubles for my separate song "Cheryomushka [Little Bird Cherry Tree]," and they promise to take me to the krai besides.
So that is where a happy life is, comrades. If I was young, I would definitely study to be a fine performer and singer, but I am already on in years. But if I go to Arkhangel'sk, I will take a good look at those cars, which I have never seen, and all that building. Thanks to Comrade Stalin, although I am an old man, I still managed to get myself a bit of a happy life and I suggest the Constitution not forget about us old people."

[Kléber]

The 1936 Constitution was originally meant to include multi-candidate, contested elections to the soviets, but this was scrapped as the adoption of the constitution coincided with Yezhovchina, aka the Great Purge. Stalin didn't oppose the constitution per se, but it would have been erroneous to put every piece of the constitution into practice given the conditions facing the USSR at that time, both external and internal.
Sure, it isn't like you could allow free elections without first mass-murdering anyone who might actually vote against you. Cue Pravda quotes about thankful peasants worshiping and remonstrating to Stalin.

Really, nothing in the 1936 sham Constitution challenged the power of the Party elite nor the ruling clique. "Multi-candidate" doesn't mean multi-party, and "contested" doesn't mean any real issues are at stake other than a personal feud between two people for a political position. The bureaucracy did not want real Soviet democracy, but only a veneer of parliamentarism to appease the Western imperialists it was courting with the Popular Front.

And the "secret ballot" provided by that "Constitution?" What a joke. Everyone who voted against Stalin at the 17th Congress got shot.

[Red_Struggle]

Sure, it isn't like you could allow free elections without first mass-murdering anyone who might actually vote against you. Cue Pravda quotes about thankful peasants worshiping and remonstrating to Stalin.

Oh wow, workers and peasants giving respects to Stalin. They must be brainwashed goons. I'm sure if it was Trotsky, you'd have no problem with it.

There really isn't anything worth refuting in the rest of your strawman post. If you wanna keep reading Tony Cliff and making ass out of yourself, be my guest.

[Kléber]

I'm not a Cliffite, you're the one who believes the USSR was "state capitalist."

[ComradeOm]

Reading too much into Soviet constitutions is a waste of time. The realities of political power in the USSR rarely matched the theory. For example, by the mid-1930s the real source of power in the USSR, and the centre of state administration, was not the Supreme Soviet, not Sovnarkom and not the Politburo. Rather it was a close and informal clique centred on Stalin's office who decided all major affairs of state

[Robespierre Richard]

Reading too much into Soviet constitutions is a waste of time. The realities of political power in the USSR rarely matched the theory. For example, by the mid-1930s the real source of power in the USSR, and the centre of state administration, was not the Supreme Soviet, not Sovnarkom and not the Politburo. Rather it was a close and informal clique centred on Stalin's office who decided all major affairs of state

That's about how state power usually works, in any country.

[The Man]

Reading too much into Soviet constitutions is a waste of time. The realities of political power in the USSR rarely matched the theory. For example, by the mid-1930s the real source of power in the USSR, and the centre of state administration, was not the Supreme Soviet, not Sovnarkom and not the Politburo. Rather it was a close and informal clique centred on Stalin's office who decided all major affairs of state

In wasn't a big thing, but it still proved that Stalin wasn't some power-hungry totalitarian dictator.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really, nothing in the 1936 sham Constitution challenged the power of the Party elite nor the ruling clique. "Multi-candidate" doesn't mean multi-party, and "contested" doesn't mean any real issues are at stake other than a personal feud between two people for a political position.

If it's a genuine worker-class mass party-movement, then I see no problem mentioning it as having the leading role.

Like others said, the constitution was released during the purges, and was a hypocritical statement about the role of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

[ComradeOm]

That's about how state power usually works, in any country.Nope. Take the US Constitution for example. Obviously it does not sketch out every aspect of day-to-day government business but it does provide a rough sketch of the structure of the US government. In particular, it makes clear that there are major power nexuses outside of the Oval Office. An alien landing on Earth tomorrow could glean at least a rough understanding as to the structure of the US state apparatus by reading its constitution

This is in sharp contrast to the USSR. Not only were Stalin and a handful of confident (literally a handful) able to formulate major policy decisions without any real oversight from external bodies, but this arrangement is entirely lacking from the constitution. In fact the latter contains a number of complete fabrications that bear no resemblance to reality. This is to the point where an alien reading the constitution in 1936 would not realise that the USSR was ruled by Stalin!

Which is one reason, to address The Man's point, that I am exceptionally sceptical of any claim that Stalin, who was a major architect of both the constitution and the state itself, actually planned any significant introduction of free multi-party elections

[Jose Gracchus]

If it's a genuine worker-class mass party-movement, then I see no problem mentioning it as having the leading role.

Like others said, the constitution was released during the purges, and was a hypocritical statement about the role of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).

Its been pointed out before, but you're devestatingly naive if you think a political party can simultaneously be popular, vigorous, and democratic, and been constitutionally entrenched as ruling. For one, you have an excessive administrative conception of political science. Parties accmuluate the former qualities in hope of reaching power. The latter guarantees it to them regardless of whether they possess the former. There is no incentive for the apparatus to maintain popular support and involvement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Its been pointed out before, but you're devestatingly naive if you think a political party can simultaneously be popular, vigorous, and democratic, and been constitutionally entrenched as ruling. For one, you have an excessive administrative conception of political science. Parties accmuluate the former qualities in hope of reaching power. The latter guarantees it to them regardless of whether they possess the former. There is no incentive for the apparatus to maintain popular support and involvement.

Mass citizenship and vigorous tendency organization? Neither a constitutional entrenchment nor a ban on faction-ism (Eurocom style) would inhibit mass citizenship or vigorous tendency organization. Mobilize popular support? Encourage tendency-based recruitment.

The tendencies can collectively form a continuous, politicized opposition to the state "party" and those in its nomenclatures if they get out of hand.

[Jose Gracchus]

I suppose the "tendencies" would amount to the political-competitive functions we currently associate with "parties". I don't see any virtue in suppressing their ability to say openly their opposition, though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's not what I meant by faction-ism at all, if you recall (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150581/index.html) (as in "secret factions" and such, lack of transparency, lack of professional behaviour towards other tendencies, bullying from a minority position, etc.).

The tendencies could indeed amount to something like "electoral machines" (even in a demarchic situation without elections), but I don't think they'd organize separate membership dues funds, let alone separate alternative cultures or separate militias.

Everyone comes out a winner in my organizational proposal except sectarians and class enemies: popular, vigorous, radical-democratic campaigning combined with a job slots, nomenclature, etc. system ripped away from special privileges, entitlements, etc. [You can't have a public job slot, nomenclature, etc. system at all without legal entrenchment like before 1936 or constitutional entrenchment afterwards.]