Russian Constituent Assembly

[boxinghefner]

I know the Russian Constituent Assembly has been mentioned many times in reference to other topics - and I searched some of those. But I wanted to discuss this topic alone. How can we characterise the Constituent Assembly? On what basis can its dissolution be considered valid considering that it's clear that Lenin initally had a dual conception of soviet and constituent assembly power?

Any thoughts are welcomed.
I apologise if there has been a thread devoted to this topic alone - in which case point me that way, search function is down/limited.

[boxinghefner]

in the process of discussion online, i've sketched the following outline




let's trace the history of the consitutent assembly; originally found in expression in the vasiliations of Kerensky - it's clear to see within the consitutent assembly a bridge to an invisioned bourgeois parlimentary public within which Comprimisors hoped to be in a majority to capitulate to the imperialists, however this was not to be.

The closure of the Constituent assembly and the failure of negotiations. It has been said that within the Consitutent Assembly "the bourgeois had appealed to Kornilov, and the Bolsheviks to the Congress of soviets" - the consitutent assembly shows how developments in revolutionary struggle sweep aside formalistic democracy when they no longer serve aims that could be considered progressive to the interests of the proleteriat and peasentry. (Expressions of the apparent need to sweep aside the objections of the Compromisers litter Russian history during this period - that the Social Revolutionary condementation of land seizures before the calling of the Assembly did little to halt the agrarian movement is one example). The bolshevik made clear their intentions with no hint of confusion to the workers: "We must without waiting for the Consitituent Assembly, sweep out the mionarchic and feudal rubbish to the last corner" [4]. To assign this role to the consitutent assembly would have involved a dangerious derilication.

Lenin originally formulated a dual position within which the soviets would work in tandium with the assembly but if this position meant a refusal to transfer the power to the soviets than this position would of course have been a disaster. The soviets were the fighting organisations of the oppressed classes, who had consciously or half-consciously united to transform the bases of social structure [4]. On the other side of this divide "monarchists and black hundred men registered love for the consitutent assembly ..and agreed to play their best roles on the stage of a theatre. What prevented them was the soldiers, the workers, the peasents". To invest totalizing hopes in an assembly at this period would have been an abandonment of the view that the working class could indeed seize power - and an abandonment of the revolutionary potential of the workers government, expressed at this time within the soviets.



Some critics of the revolution, such as Emma Goldman shed crocodile tears for the lack of freedom afforded to Social Revolutionaries to attack the fragile embroyonic government. We can return to this if necessary.


thoughts/additions/etc welcome

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think it is important to analyse lenin's motives for the closure of the CA.

After universal suffrage elections were held, the SRs held a huge majority. But the SRs were divided, and the left wing of the SRs walked out with the bolshies after the defeat on the bill of rights. So it could be argued that the closure of the assembley was just the 'representatives of the workers' exercising their powers.

Or, it could be that lenin knew that he would be unable to keep his grip on power if the CA was allowed to sit for more than one session. It had more of a mandate than the Petrograd Soviet, and had been the stated aim of all parties except the bolsheviks.

In the end, really, it comes down to whether you believe that the october change of power was a legitimate proletarian revolution or a bolshevik coup. If the former, lenin's rationale that there is no need for a bourgeios parliament is valid. If the latter, its closure was just a power-keeping measure by lenin.

[boxinghefner]

In the end, really, it comes down to whether you believe that the october change of power was a legitimate proletarian revolution or a bolshevik coup.
I agree that this is one of the key debates - though it also relates to the conception of the role of the Soviets of course. Trotsky lays out a conception of 'dual power sharing' that was at play for example - and so could the workers represtative body in the form of the soviet superseed the Consitutent Assembly? That raises some questions about the internal democracy of the soviets...Lenin wrote about this issue :http://marxists.nigilist.ru/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/11a.htm

let me get this straight - the bolsheviks disolved the Consitutent assembly and turned to the second congress of the soviets, at which the mensheviks now tried to play a role? Despite spurning the soviets previously. So essencially they rejected the soviet as a form of government, only to then participate it - after the bolshevik disolution of the assembly.



After universal suffrage elections were held, the SRs held a huge majority. But the SRs were divided, and the left wing of the SRs walked out with the bolshies after the defeat on the bill of rights. So it could be argued that the closure of the assembley was just the 'representatives of the workers' exercising their powers.

I'll have to explore that later, if you have particular source material in mind, lemme know.

thanks for your input

[chimx]

I find the theses you cite by Lenin to be interesting. Particularly, thesis #5 which states, "5. Firstly, proportional representation results in a faithful expression of the will of the people only when the party lists correspond to the real division of the people according to the party groupings reflected in those lists. In our case, however, as is well known, the party which from May to October had the largest number of followers among the people, and especially among the peasants—the Socialist-Revolutionary Party—came out with united election lists for the Constituent Assembly in the middle of October 1917, but split in November 1917, after the elections and before the Assembly met."

While it is true that the SRs split, isn't it somewhat ironic the content found in thesis #8: "It began with the victory of October 24-25 in the capital, when the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, the vanguard of the proletarians and of the most politically active section of the peasants, gave a majority to the Bo!shevik Party and put it in power." He ignores the fact that the real majority boycotted the 2nd congress and was anything but a faithful expression of the will of the people. The hypocrisy is laughable, but in his defense, I wouldn't be surprised it it was written in haste.

I think there is little argument that the abolition of the constituent assembly was undemocratic. What makes it easy to apologize, was that there wasn't much in the way of protest to its dissolution. Bolshevik concessions appeased those groups who would have otherwise been hostile to its dissolution.

I will note, however, that I am somewhat confused by Lenin's theses. The SRs had split into SRs and Left SRs, but Left SRs and SRs were both elected to the assembly. Even with the split SRs maintained a majority, but I can't understand his argument for the undemocratic consequences of the party's split.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:40 am
I will note, however, that I am somewhat confused by Lenin's theses. The SRs had split into SRs and Left SRs, but Left SRs and SRs were both elected to the assembly. Even with the split SRs maintained a majority, but I can't understand his argument for the undemocratic consequences of the party's split.
The split in the SR's was not accounted for during the elections to the CA as there was no time to amend ballot papers. Furthermore the split would not be complete until mid 1919 by which time the Left SR's had successfully wrested control of almost all of party's regional apparatus and structures.

[chimx]

Most of the voting statistics I've read for the CA have made clear a distinction between SR and Left SR, including (but not limited to) the wiki article. If the ballots weren't amended, is this the work of historians who looked back to see why individuals of the SR turned out to be left SRs?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:35 pm
How can we characterise the Constituent Assembly?
As a bourgeois-democratic parliamentary body. It made support it over less democratic forms of bourgeois rule - but not against workers power, when the question was how to build safeguard workers' power and build workers' democracy.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:18 am
If the ballots weren't amended, is this the work of historians who looked back to see why individuals of the SR turned out to be left SRs?
Pretty much. Counting the number of Left SR's who were elected - and keep in mind that the split had occurred less than two weeks prior to the elections and long after the party lists had been made - is very different from people being elected on a Left SR platform.


I think there is little argument that the abolition of the constituent assembly was undemocratic. What makes it easy to apologize, was that there wasn't much in the way of protest to its dissolution. Bolshevik concessions appeased those groups who would have otherwise been hostile to its dissolution.Undemocratic? That's an odd sentiment coming from an anarchist pondering the abolishment of a parliamentarian body. There were plenty of Bolshevik actions during those months that could be described as undemocratic but the CA is not amongst them.

Lenin was perfectly correct in his theses (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/11a.htm) when he stated that the worker soviets were far more democratic and representative than the CA. Really, from a communist perspective this can not be doubted. Unless of course you are overly concerned with the voting rights of the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore the CA was clearly a counter-revolutionary organisation. It was the last refuge of the Mensheviks, Right SR's, Kadets and other parties that had comprised the Provisional Government and actively opposed the soviets. Even on the opening of the CA they refused to pass the Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DRWP18.html) or approve the land and social reforms enacted during the Revolution.

Lenin's declaration (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jan/05.htm) that was read while the Bolsheviks walked out is pretty accurate.

[chimx]

ComradeOm: What would you say to my points on the contradictions within the theses? Also, there is a continual trend to categorize Mensheviks, SRs, Left SRs, etc. as bourgeois, which I certainly don't understand. The Bolshevik and (right) SR land reforms were identical.

If you mean bourgeois in the sense that they were willing to work with the bourgeois provisional government, than every socialist party in the world today that participates in parliamentary elections is bourgeois. That sounds more like an anarchist line than anything else. :D

Socialists boycotted the 2nd Congress of Soviets, but maintained that it was a faithful democratic representation of the people's will. That just strikes me as illogical.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:58 pm
ComradeOm: What would you say to my points on the contradictions within the theses?
Your contradiction being these 8 which asserts that the 2nd Congress gave the Bolsheviks a majority? Aside from the fact that this is a fact (Bolsheviks comprised 390 out of 649 (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm#october-1917) delegates) Lenin can hardly be held responsible for the decision of the Mensheviks to walk out and commit political suicide. If the Congress was not an accurate representation of the "people's will" then it was not the fault of the Bolsheviks.

But the simple fact is that the Soviets were the most democratic organ in Russia and that they gave the Bolsheviks a majority at the Congress. This represents the sweeping gains that the Bolsheviks had been making at grassroots level during the late summer months. For example, the Petrograd Soviet that elected a Bolshevik majority at the end of August.


Also, there is a continual trend to categorize Mensheviks, SRs, Left SRs, etc. as bourgeois, which I certainly don't understand.I don't believe that anyone has characterised the Left SR's as bourgeois. With regards the rest, it is something of a lazy label but not entirely an inaccurate one.

While the Mensheviks were not bourgeois in the strictest sense of the term, that is their members were not drawn from the capitalist class, by November they had irrevocably aligned themselves with the liberal ruling class. Indeed let us not forget that Kerensky was one of these "socialists".


The Bolshevik and (right) SR land reforms were identical.
The difference is that implementing the Land Reform measures was the first action of the Bolsheviks. The other socialist parties had refused to act for six months.

Even as Chernov tried belatedly to table the issue during the brief session of the CA, the measures had already been proclaimed and enacted throughout the country by the Bolsheviks and Left SRs. That's the story of the "socialists" – intellectuals unable to use the power that they'd been given.

[chimx]

If the Congress was not an accurate representation of the "people's will" then it was not the fault of the Bolsheviks.

Maybe true, but it strikes me as duplicitous of Lenin to denounce the CA as undemocratic while elevating the 2nd congress at the same time. It wasn't his fault, but that didn't stop him to manipulating the event to his party's advantage.


With regards the rest, it is something of a lazy label but not entirely an inaccurate one.
I disagree. The SRs and Menshies were trying to work within a framework of a two power government, having the soviets oversee the work of the duma so as the russian bourgeoisie would not go to far to the right. Kerensky was initially just the exception and tried to play both sides, mainly because he supported a popular front government.


The difference is that implementing the Land Reform measures was the first action of the Bolsheviks. The other socialist parties had refused to act for six months.

Yes, because they were waiting for the calling of a constituent assembly to make any reforms legal.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:36 pm
Maybe true, but it strikes me as duplicitous of Lenin to denounce the CA as undemocratic while elevating the 2nd congress at the same time. It wasn't his fault, but that didn't stop him to manipulating the event to his party's advantage.
*Shrugs*

Really what can you expect? Especially in politics. Lenin took full advantage of events but did not conspire to machine them. I really see nothing wrong with that.


I disagree. The SRs and Menshies were trying to work within a framework of a two power government, having the soviets oversee the work of the duma so as the russian bourgeoisie would not go to far to the right.Well this is an interesting point. There's a great deal of discussion that could be had about the Mensheviks and their intentions but from our, communist, point of view I think most of the discussion is irrelevant. What those six months boils down to is this - the Mensheviks and SRs did not want to take power on their own, preferring the safety of coalition with the bourgeoisie. That cannot be condoned from any communist perspective.

Right from the very first unrest in February the Mensheviks had a golden opportunity to take power. Already power was essentially in their hands. Almost literally. But they blinked and they shied back from the responsibility. Instead Russia got six months of dithering and coalition with the bourgeoisie. Time and time again the Mensheviks and SRs proved incapable of assuming power... even when the workers took to the streets to demand that they do so. Their insistence on "dual power", a structure that existed solely on paper, was the result of fear and it doomed them.

The Mensheviks were nothing more than accomplices to first the Kadets and then the Dictator Kerensky. This being despite the fact that they held all the cards. So determined were they that a bourgeois revolution must precede a proletarian one that they devoted their energies to aiding the capitalists. Well done.


Yes, because they were waiting for the calling of a constituent assembly to make any reforms legal.Listen to yourself. That's the argument of a liberal. What does an anarchist care for the parliamentary seal of approval?

The Bolsheviks came out on top in 1917 for one reason - they were willing to enact the measures that the other socialists refused to contemplate. Time and time again the Mensheviks and SRs bowed to the wishes of the Kadets and Right SRs. This is despite the anger of the workers and the peasants at grassroots level.

How could a body in which the landowners and bourgeoisie were represented ever have passed the measures demanded by the soviets? The "socialists" squandered their chance and so history passed them by.

[chimx]

Right from the very first unrest in February the Mensheviks had a golden opportunity to take power. Already power was essentially in their hands. Almost literally. But they blinked and they shied back from the responsibility. Instead Russia got six months of dithering and coalition with the bourgeoisie. Time and time again the Mensheviks and SRs proved incapable of assuming power... even when the workers took to the streets to demand that they do so. Their insistence on "dual power", a structure that existed solely on paper, was the result of fear and it doomed them.

Everyone bemoans the backward "material conditions in Russia" that Lenin had to deal with, but stops short of doing the same thing with the menshies and SRs. They were in the middle of a extremely hated war with Germany that had already cost the Czar his power. They were trying to ensure their February revolution last and appease the left, while dealing with a very vocal reactionary military command. Prior to Kornilov's putsch, it wasn't really understood that the upper echelons of the Russia military were all talk with little bite and there was reason to fear a rightist coup. Regardless of my opinions as an anarchist, I can at least understand the SR and Menshie hesitation to move forward too quickly. To simply throw them into the same dustbin as one does the Kadets and Octoberists doesn't seem historically fair, let alone consistent with most Bolshevik analysis.


Listen to yourself. That's the argument of a liberal. What does an anarchist care for the parliamentary seal of approval?
Again, my views are irrelevant. We are discussing history. There was a fear that there needed to be some legal concessions granted or else Russia would unravel. Given the bloody history of the Russian Civil War, the resulting de-sovietization of War Communism, and the subsequent required turn to the NEP, I think there is, at the very least, room for understanding the fears of the other socialist parties in Russia.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:49 pm
Everyone bemoans the backward "material conditions in Russia" that Lenin had to deal with, but stops short of doing the same thing with the menshies and SRs.
Oh. So is reformism correct in backward material circumstances? No.

No thoroughgoing social transformation - not even a bougeois-democratic one - could be done through coalition with the bourgeoisie.

The capitalists are no longer a revolutionary class. This could be seen even in the 1848 revolutions - the liberal capitalists preferred a compromise with the feudal/monarchist reaction to an alliance with the workers and peasants to carry out a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

The only way to carry out even a bourgeois-democratic revolution was "all power to the Soviets". The Bolsheviks understood this. The Mensheviks and SRs rejected it.

They wanted to keep the discredited and hated bourgeois parties in power - so they'd have an excuse to avoid keeping their campaign promises! Yes, we want to give you peace, yes, we want to give you land and the 8-hour day, we're truly the friends of the people, honest - it's just that we have to preserve our coalition with the liberals!

That's why they never held the Constituent Assembly elections the whole time they were in office - they kept postponing them - because they knew the liberals would be snowed under and they'd lose their excuses!


They were trying to ensure their February revolution last and appease the left, while dealing with a very vocal reactionary military command. Prior to Kornilov's putsch, it wasn't really understood that the upper echelons of the Russia military were all talk with little bite and there was reason to fear a rightist coup.

What? It was the Bolsheviks who understood the very real danger of a rightist coup, and organized to deal with it. Kerensky conspired with Kornilov; the other reformists fiddled and hesitated.

The only way to end that danger was to make a revolution and take the army out of the hands of the generals. If you don't do that, you end up like Allende, Arbenz, Mossadegh, the Indonesian Communist Party, the Spanish Republic and too many others to list. If the Mensheviks and SRs hadn't been overthrown from the left, they woulda been overthrown from the right, just like their counterparts everywhere else.

The army command may be in a weak situation, but if you refuse to finish them off they will find a way to come back. If you leave the capitalists in control of the means of production, of economic power. Etc. Working people will lost patience; the most radical element will surge forward and the reformist/liberal government will have to suppress them. The rest will become disappointed, disillusioned, drop out of politics - the reformists will help by constantly preaching patience and moderation at them. In order to conduct the war, it'll be necessary to help the generals get back in control of the army.

Then, when the generals and the capitalists are at last in a position to strike - the reformists will call on the masses to save them - and the disillusioned, demobilized, partly suppressed masses will not respond.

Of course everyone knows the reformists were conducting a difficult balancing act. The problem is, it's an impossible balancing act. Why is this a reason to sympathize with them - that they were trying to do the impossible and leading working people into a Sukarno-style bloodbath?

Scratch an ultraleft, find a reformist: can't say I'm surprised to see this oh-so-radical anarchist taking up for the Mensheviks.

[chimx]

Scratch an ultraleft, find a reformist: can't say I'm surprised to see this oh-so-radical anarchist taking up for the Mensheviks.

I never said "sympathize", i said "understand", quite purposefully in fact. This forum is for the discussion of history, not the manipulation of history to suit your own ideological beliefs.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:49 pm
Everyone bemoans the backward "material conditions in Russia" that Lenin had to deal with, but stops short of doing the same thing with the menshies and SRs.
The Mensheviks knew about the backwards conditions - hence their support for the bourgeoisie ;)

It was that ideologically blinkered view, more than any fear, that drove the Mensheviks into the arms of the Kadets. Can fear of the military explain the decision to continue with the war or to refuse land reforms? What of Order No.1 - the greatest single source of anger amongst the officer class and the first act of the Soviet?

No. The reason that the Mensheviks failed was two fold. First you have their insistence that the bourgeois revolution be completed. Secondly there is the simple fact that they lacked the will to take power. This is where fear enters the equation - the Mensheviks and SRs, with the odd exception like Kerensky, were terrified of the responsibility of power. Call it a result of years of opposition or the reserve of intellectuals... it all adds up to the same thing. It was the socialists that gave power to the Provisional Government and it was them that watched it burn from the sidelines.


We are discussing history. There was a fear that there needed to be some legal concessions granted or else Russia would unravel.No. You are making the same mistake as the Mensheviks - confusing political reform with social reform. The former interested only the Mensheviks, SRs and Kadets. The workers and peasants of Russia didn't give a flying f*ck about the CA or having the correct legal procedures. They wanted change, real change on all levels, and they wanted it immediately. While the socialists and Kadets took their time with legal niceties the peasants and workers simply took matters into their own hands - witness the land seizures and factory committees respectively.

The need for the CA to make sure that everything was above board existed solely in the minds of the liberals and socialists. Its the same intellectual dithering that marked the rest of their tenure. In the end they did nothing and so history has judged them failures.

[chimx]

The workers and peasants of Russia didn't give a flying f*ck about the CA or having the correct legal procedures.

Then please answer me these questions: 1) Why did nearly 42 million Russians turn out to cast votes for representatives?

2) Why was it that on November 5, after the 2nd congress, Lenin was more than happy to refer to the soviet government as an interim government, "pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly,"(1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/05b.htm)) but after the votes were tallied for the CA he changed his mind? This wasn't just public peasantry concessions, but discussed within the Central Committee, albeit with a more hardened stance: "Nor can we 'wait' for the Constituent Assembly, for by surrendering Petrograd Kerensky and Co. can always frustrate its convocation. Our Party alone, on taking power, can secure the Constituent Assembly’s convocation; it will then accuse the other parties of procrastination and will be able to substantiate its accusations." (2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/05b.htm))

The Bolsheviks were supporters of the CA after the October events. They only came to hate it after they realized they couldn't dominate it.

[ComradeOm]

1) Why did nearly 42 million Russians turn out to cast votes for representatives?Probably because they could. It wasn't as if they were losing anything.


2) Why was it that on November 5, after the 2nd congress, Lenin was more than happy to refer to the soviet government as an interim government, "pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly,"(1) but after the votes were tallied for the CA he changed his mind?The obvious answer is that the Bolsheviks did not expect the composition of the CA to be as skewed to the right as it was. For this the SR split can be blamed. It was only after the CA refused to condone the assumption of power by the Soviets and the following land reforms that it was closed down.

Its also perfectly possible that Lenin simply lied. He was unwilling to wait for the 2nd Congress so I very much doubt that he would have eagerly embraced the CA.

But if you are contending that I am wrong and that the workers & peasants actually cared about the CA… well then I ask how do you explain the crushing wave of indifference with which its demise was met with?

The few SRs that ran to Samara in an attempt to recreate the CA as a legitimate contender to the Soviets were forced to rely on the Czech Legion and White officers for support. It had approximately zero popular support. The reality is that only the intellectuals that took part in the elections actually cared about the CA. The rest of the population, in particular the peasants, were far more eager to support a Soviet government that granted their demands for both land reform and local government.

[chimx]

The obvious answer is that the Bolsheviks did not expect the composition of the CA to be as skewed to the right as it was. For this the SR split can be blamed.

Could you elaborate on that? In the end, people that turned out to be Left-SRs were an extreme minority. Less than the Mensheviks if remember correctly. Even without the Left-SRs, the regular SRs still held a majority.


Its also perfectly possible that Lenin simply lied. He was unwilling to wait for the 2nd Congress so I very much doubt that he would have eagerly embraced the CA.

I don't know if I think Lenin lied over the issue. The internal central committee letters written by Lenin which I linked above, before the october events, still show him wanting to use the CA as a way of discrediting the february government/parties. When it came back that the Bolsheviks would only make up 30% or so of the CA, Lenin realized he had to switch tactics to discredit the other socialist parties.


ut if you are contending that I am wrong and that the workers & peasants actually cared about the CA… well then I ask how do you explain the crushing wave of indifference with which its demise was met with?

This is something I mentioned above which is certainly a valid criticism of the CA. In the end, I think this is a fault of the Russia population generally. The urban proletariat was a class minority, out weighed by the Agrarian sector (and as has been discussed before, the urban proletariat had a closer cultural connection to agrarian culture than an urban culture). Russian peasants, on the other hand, while undergoing a social revolution in the countryside, remained less overtly politicized. They voted primarily on single-issues and were generally indifferent to parties. SRs got their vote because they liked their reforms and were already familiar to them. The fact that the Bolsheviks had a nearly identical program but still lacked peasant votes shows this partially.

But what also shows this, is like you said, peasant indifference following the dissolution of the CA. The Bolsheviks passed much of the necessary land reforms the peasants were asking for: specifically, legalizing the seizure of land. Since this was accomplished, politics, democracy, party accountability, etc. became irrelevant to single-issue apolitical peasantry.

In the end, I agree with what you said on a slightly different topic: "Really what can you expect? Especially in politics."

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:28 pm
Could you elaborate on that? In the end, people that turned out to be Left-SRs were an extreme minority. Less than the Mensheviks if remember correctly. Even without the Left-SRs, the regular SRs still held a majority.
See my above posts on the ramifications of the SR split.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the Right SRs represented the bulk of the peasantry. Indeed in the next year the Left SRs would systematically win over almost the entirety of the party's grassroots apparatus. The failure to account for this split amongst the SRs was a serious flaw in the CA.


When it came back that the Bolsheviks would only make up 30% or so of the CA, Lenin realized he had to switch tactics to discredit the other socialist parties.Keep in mind that the CA gave the Bolsheviks almost a complete majority in urban centres and those villages with close links to towns and cities. Their primary competition in the Mensheviks were left with a handful of seats. Perhaps Lenin expected the Bolsheviks to do better amongst the peasantry but then the SR split complicated that issue.

If the Bolsheviks were alarmed by the CA votes then I suspect this was primarily due to the strong showing of the Kadets. Effectively sidelined since the July Days, and finally frozen out of government at the end of summer, the CA marked a major return to the political foreground for the liberals as the third largest party.


But what also shows this, is like you said, peasant indifference following the dissolution of the CA. The Bolsheviks passed much of the necessary land reforms the peasants were asking for: specifically, legalizing the seizure of land. Since this was accomplished, politics, democracy, party accountability, etc. became irrelevant to single-issue apolitical peasantry.Exactly. What did the peasants care about parliamentary issues when their social revolution was already well underway. It was the same for the workers with their soviets. Only the Russian intelligentsia, who were concerned solely with political revolution, paid any real attention to the CA and lamented its demise.

[chimx]

If the Bolsheviks were alarmed by the CA votes then I suspect this was primarily due to the strong showing of the Kadets.

Well that's certainly possible too, but the kadets still brought in less than 5% of the total vote. Various national parties provided the bulk of the votes after the SRs and Bolsheviks. The likely hood of a 5% kadet representation significantly affecting the direction of the CA seems unlikely. I would still blame the SR success for why Lenin & co. shifted their stance on supporting the CA to advocating its dissolution in 2 weeks time.


Exactly. What did the peasants care about parliamentary issues when their social revolution was already well underway.

Such is the problem when carrying out revolution in a country where the vast majority of the population is not politicized. It led to indifference to the long term ramifications of Bolshevik policy, which became difficult to oppose due to their successful consolidation of power.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:40 pm
Well that's certainly possible too, but the kadets still brought in less than 5% of the total vote.
Again you have to view this from the perspective of the Bolsheviks. They were convinced that the revolution had been begun and that their immediate task was now to "construct the socialist state", ie institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this scenario the reemergence of the Kadets as a political force would have been something as a shock, and certainly been anathema, to the Bolsheviks. According to their plans the Kadet Party should be destroyed as soon as possible, not given a role in governance.

But, as with most history, its perfectly possible that both the SR issue and return of the Kadets, plus other less obvious factors, influenced Lenin's stance.

[chimx]

I agree, and it is impossible to know unless someone would like to direct us to some incriminating letters written by Lenin. Otherwise we are left to speculate on the motivations.