Lenin and the Soviets

[papaspace]

This question is mostly for anti-Leninists.

Many anti-Leninists claim that the Bolsheviks had circumvented the soviets already in Lenin's
lifetime, and that they emptied them of any truly democratic content. What is the historical
basis for those allegations? Please point to facts or articles who deal with facts instead of
mere statements.

Thanks,

papaspace

[Savage]

Well I think that you should note that whilst most 'anti-leninists' do believe the soviets to have been defunct years before Lenin's death, not all of these people hold the position that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were entirely to blame for this, most would argue that they were at least somewhat to blame whilst understanding the various other material conditions contributing to the failure of the proletarian revolution.

As for some good historical basis for these allegations, I'll leave that to the Inform Candidate.

[Jose Gracchus]

Any basic study of modern work on the Russian Revolution will show that the soviets lost any nation-wide convincing content as the political and social will of the working-class, by the end of 1918. The working class and radical peasantry did attempt to reinvigorate the radical democratic polity in 1921, with rebellions, attempts to form political groups, strikes, and petitions. They met severe repression. Anything by the former poster here, ComradeOm, is a valuable tool. As for other reading, I recommend Rex Wade's The Russian Revolution, 1917, Israel Getzler's Kronstadt 1917-1921: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy, and The Russian Revolution in Retreat 1920-24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite by Simon Pirani.

You can always PM me or ask more follow up questions on the soviets if you're curious.

[The Idler]

The Bolsheviks and workers' control: the state and counter ... (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)

by Maurice Brinton demolishes this myth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I caution the OP that none of the sources cited in the above posts, or even works that describe more explicitly what happened to numerous soviets in 1918, use the provocative but accurate term to describe those events. :(

[Jose Gracchus]

That's because the coups d'état of 1919 were not the most important or only such events to occur during the slide toward (state) capitalist restoration, under the party, in 1921.

[Kiev Communard]

Well, actually the most important "coup d'etat" made by Bolsheviks was the appropriation of legislative functions of the soviets by Sovnarkom in four days after the October Revolution, effectively sidelining the Central Executive Committee and the Congress of Soviets As Neil Harding remarks, "this was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ". (Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253).

[Jose Gracchus]

How exactly did they do that? Pass a decree? Have the CEC and COS confirm their right to rule by decree? Heh, the more you look into them, the more the Lenin-Trotsky ultra-vanguardists feel like the Robespierreian Jacobins.

Of important note is the fact that the Sovnarkom was qualified as a "provisional workers' and soldiers' government" until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, and that its usurpation is especially egregious when one considers that the Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies did not incorporate direct representation of the peasantry - a mere 80-85% of the population -, which was until the (purely formalistic) Soviet Constitution of 1918, constituted in a fully separate Congress of Peasants' Deputies. Sovnarkom was not responsible to this body, though the Left SR majority was sufficient to oblige the Bolsheviks under Lenin to allow them as minority coalition partners.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's because the coups d'état of 1919 were not the most important or only such events to occur during the slide toward (state) capitalist restoration, under the party, in 1921.

Sure they were. Without what happened in 1918 there would have been less likelihood of 1921 occurring the way it did.


Well, actually the most important "coup d'etat" made by Bolsheviks was the appropriation of legislative functions of the soviets by Sovnarkom in four days after the October Revolution, effectively sidelining the Central Executive Committee and the Congress of Soviets. As Neil Harding remarks, "this was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ". (Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253).


How exactly did they do that? Pass a decree? Have the CEC and COS confirm their right to rule by decree? Heh, the more you look into them, the more the Lenin-Trotsky ultra-vanguardists feel like the Robespierreian Jacobins.

Of important note is the fact that the Sovnarkom was qualified as a "provisional workers' and soldiers' government" until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, and that its usurpation is especially egregious when one considers that the Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies did not incorporate direct representation of the peasantry - a mere 80-85% of the population -, which was until the (purely formalistic) Soviet Constitution of 1918, constituted in a fully separate Congress of Peasants' Deputies. Sovnarkom was not responsible to this body, though the Left SR majority was sufficient to oblige the Bolsheviks under Lenin to allow them as minority coalition partners.

I get the feeling here you two are disagreeing with each other on the relationship between the CEC and Sovnarkom. :confused:

Precisely because the Congress had no representation of the peasantry, the CEC was not a legitimate organ for a provisional government. Sovnarkom, OTOH, had peasant representation, and in practice wasn't "accountable" to the CEC.

Honestly, the Second Congress should have been replaced by a grander Congress of Soviets of Workers, Soldiers, and Peasants Deputies. There would then have been no excuse for any sort of Sovnarkom beyond dividing the CEC into sub-committees corresponding mainly to the ministries of the czarist Council of Ministers and of the Lvov-Kerensky Provisional Government (and later on perhaps including the industrial ministries from Stalin's time onwards).

[Jose Gracchus]

I basically agree, but I do think the workers should maintained an independent soviet structure, even if it was entitled to representation in the national government body.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I forgot about that part. My bad.

[Zederbaum]

How exactly did they do that? Pass a decree? Have the CEC and COS confirm their right to rule by decree?
Instead of the CEC debating and passing revolutionary legislation, the Sovnarkom issued decrees under its own name with the CEC being merely allowed the power of review and the power to remove commissars. This effectively meant the legislative functioned passed to the Sovnarkom.

A CEC meeting on the 4th November 1917 issued the following resolution:
“The Soviet parliament (i.e. the CEC) cannot deny the Council of People's Commissars (i.e. Sovnarkom) the right to issue, without prior discussion by the Central Executive Committee, urgent decrees within the framework of the general programme of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets”

I guess there was an inherent ambiguity about the roles of the CEC and Sovnarkom. Both were conceived as executive committees (Lenin liked to point to the Paris Commune's rejection of the separation of powers).

There is an inherent tendency for a smaller committee which meets more regularly to usurp the power of an ostensibly more authoritative body. In the case of the Bolshevik dominated soviet system of late 1917 to mid-1918, this tendency was significantly boosted by the overlapping remits they had.

The Left SRs objected to this arrangement in their protracted negotiations with the Bolsheviks but it was never changed. In fact they lost a critical vote in the CEC during the 4th November debate in the CEC on the line of responsibility of the Sovnarkom and the CEC.

They proposed something akin to a separation of powers: legislative functions to the CEC; executive functions to the Sovnarkom. This never happened as the Sovnarkom continued to issue legislation under its own remit.

In effect it meant the CEC became a rubber stamp and over time – certainly by mid 1918 – life had drained out of the CEC. This in turn had consequences for the fate of the multi-party leftist dominated democracy and significantly set the conditions for the emergence and consolidation of the one-party state.

[KC]

Well, actually the most important "coup d'etat" made by Bolsheviks was the appropriation of legislative functions of the soviets by Sovnarkom in four days after the October Revolution, effectively sidelining the Central Executive Committee and the Congress of Soviets As Neil Harding remarks, "this was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ". (Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253).

What was the argument made in support of this? I guess I'm looking for a more indepth source without having to read a book.

[Dave B]

How could the soviets have any ‘truly democratic content’ when for instance the profession of Menshevism within them resulted in the Bolshevik courts passing a death sentence on them?

V. I. Lenin Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.) March 27-April 2, 1922


………we say in reply, “For the public manifestations of Menshevism our revolutionary courts must pass the death sentence, otherwise they are not our courts, but God knows what.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm


There is an alternative translation of that in Haimson’s book The Mensheviks pg 261.

Where it says Lenin declared;



For public profession of Menshevism our courts must order execution, otherwise they will not be our courts but heaven knows what.

The Mensheviks were banned from the Soviets and had been for sometime.

[Dave B]

This in turn had consequences for the fate of the multi-party leftist dominated democracy and significantly set the conditions for the emergence and consolidation of the one-party state.


The one party state was annonced in 1919;


V. I. Lenin Speech At The First All-Russia Congress Of Workers In Education and Socialist Culture July 31, 1919



When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and, as you have heard, a united socialist front is proposed, we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position because it is the party that has won, in the course of decades, the position of vanguard of the entire factory and industrial proletariat.


http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works//1919/aug/05.htm

..

[Die Neue Zeit]

Instead of the CEC debating and passing revolutionary legislation, the Sovnarkom issued decrees under its own name with the CEC being merely allowed the power of review and the power to remove commissars. This effectively meant the legislative functioned passed to the Sovnarkom.

A CEC meeting on the 4th November 1917 issued the following resolution: “The Soviet parliament (i.e. the CEC) cannot deny the Council of People's Commissars (i.e. Sovnarkom) the right to issue, without prior discussion by the Central Executive Committee, urgent decrees within the framework of the general programme of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets”

I guess there was an inherent ambiguity about the roles of the CEC and Sovnarkom. Both were conceived as executive committees (Lenin liked to point to the Paris Commune's rejection of the separation of powers).

There is an inherent tendency for a smaller committee which meets more regularly to usurp the power of an ostensibly more authoritative body. In the case of the Bolshevik dominated soviet system of late 1917 to mid-1918, this tendency was significantly boosted by the overlapping remits they had.

The Left SRs objected to this arrangement in their protracted negotiations with the Bolsheviks but it was never changed. In fact they lost a critical vote in the CEC during the 4th November debate in the CEC on the line of responsibility of the Sovnarkom and the CEC.

They proposed something akin to a separation of powers: legislative functions to the CEC; executive functions to the Sovnarkom. This never happened as the Sovnarkom continued to issue legislation under its own remit.

In effect it meant the CEC became a rubber stamp and over time – certainly by mid 1918 – life had drained out of the CEC. This in turn had consequences for the fate of the multi-party leftist dominated democracy and significantly set the conditions for the emergence and consolidation of the one-party state.

So what about the Presidium of the CEC? What about the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet later on, which was smaller in size compared to the Council of Ministers? [In the latter case, the Presidium met once every two months or so, while the Sovmin met quarterly, though Sovmin had its own Presidium too.]

[Jose Gracchus]

Its stuff like this that keeps me out of the Marxist tradition per se, where not even the leftcoms can put forth the courage to criticize this Leninist thuggery. Always out to protect the noble revolutionary and his bona fides, lest we "demoralize the working class."

[The Idler]

Marxists in the World Socialist Movement and its parties have consistently criticised Lenin since before October 1917.