The 1977 Soviet Constitution

[Unicorn]

Do you find it a good model for a socialist society?

The text here:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html

[Dros]

Constitution of 1936 is better.

The USSR was no longer socialist by 1977.

[Unicorn]

Constitution of 1936 is better.
Could you tell me what exactly was wrong with the 1977 constitution? It is better in many respects giving more fundamental rights to the Soviet people.
For example, the 1977 constitution guaranteed the right to housing and the right to health care better.



The USSR was no longer socialist by 1977.
Stalinist crap. The USSR was far more socialist in 1977 than in 1936 when the country suffered from Stalin's cult of personality.

[Dros]

Could you tell me what exactly was wrong with the 1977 constitution? It is better in many respects giving more fundamental rights to the Soviet people.
For example, the 1977 constitution guaranteed the right to housing and the right to health care better.

All of which are meaningless under capitalism.



Stalinist crap. The USSR was far more socialist in 1977 than in 1936 when the country suffered from Stalin's cult of personality.

Give up. Do you uphold Khrushchev? Tell me that the USSR was Marxist-Leninist in 1977.

Khrushchevites...

[Unicorn]

All of which are meaningless under capitalism.
The Soviet Union in 1977 was not capitalist. If you claim so you understand nothing about communism.



Give up. Do you uphold Khrushchev?
His understanding of Marxism was too humanist and he managed the agriculture inefficiently. I agree with Brezhnev's criticism.



Tell me that the USSR was Marxist-Leninist in 1977.
Yes, it was.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The 1977 constitution was too wordy. Yes, it guaranteed more rights, but one thing about the Stalin constitution that I liked best is that most of the articles consisted of just one sentence (albeit some of them long ones).

Something like a hybrid (1918, 1936, and 1977) would be good, actually:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-revolution-constitutional-t67479/index.html



Unicorn, I see you're a tankie (I have a soft spot for Andropov). You BOTH should read this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html

[Dimentio]

A constitution is meaningless unless it is actually followed. No country is perfect in upholding its constitution, but the Soviet Union, with its distaste for factionalism, made all divisions of powers unnecessary.

[jacobin1949]

The 1936 Constitution was by far the best in writing. But its open to question which Soviet constitution was best implemented.

The Chinese constitution today is around 60 pages, under the Cultural Revolution it was about 4 pages

[Dros]

The Soviet Union in 1977 was not capitalist. If you claim so you understand nothing about communism.


His understanding of Marxism was too humanist and he managed the agriculture inefficiently. I agree with Brezhnev's criticism.


Yes, it was.

Ahhh...

So you're the Brezhnevite tankie I remember...

Well then in that case I will remember not to take anythink you say seriously in the future.

Especially when you accuse me of not understanding communism.

If you accept the "theory of peaceful coexistance", the "peaceful transition" theory, and the "party of the entire people" theory, there is no way that you have even a cursory understanding of Marxism-Leninism. This also explains your silly defence of the state-capitalist, social-imperialist Soviet Union.

You should know that if I had my way you would be restricted and get to hang out with the rest of the capitalists on this board.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Care to elaborate on the "party of the people" stuff?

[Asoka89]

Party of the people was the idea in the post-Stalin Soviet Union that the Communist Party was a party of the people of the USSR and not the proletariat.

One of only points that I agree with the Stalinists on was that this was a mistake. I dont put as much significance on it as them

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Funny, comrade, how pre-renegade Kautsky made eerily similar remarks:

As rapidly as the wage-earners become the leaders of the people, the labor party becomes a people’s party. When an independent craftsman feels like a proletarian, when he recognizes that he, or at any rate his children, will sooner or later be thrust into the proletariat, that there is no salvation for him except through the liberation of the proletariat – from that moment on he will see in the Socialist Party the natural representative of his interests. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1114492&postcount=7)

[Unicorn]

Party of the people was the idea in the post-Stalin Soviet Union that the Communist Party was a party of the people of the USSR and not the proletariat.

One of only points that I agree with the Stalinists on was that this was a mistake. I dont put as much significance on it as them
The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress the exploiting classes but as they were liquidated in the 1930s by Stalin class struggle in the Soviet Union ceased. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat withered away and the Communist Party became the party of the entire people.

This is a natural phase of history and will happen in every socialist state. The theory is 100% correct.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Sorry, but post-revolution proletarians cannot coexist peacefully side by side with petit-bourgeois elements (including peasants), coordinator elements (because of full workers' control), etc. The "labor party" should NEVER become a "people's party." :(

The "party of the people" crap was the direct result of "Comrade" Stalin's idiotic formulation of "non-antagonistic classes" (proles, peasants, and "intelligentsia"), which went against his earlier but flawed notion of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html

In the proper socialist mode of production, there will only be one class: the proletariat (as a result of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with / under the transition to socialism). This is the only time wherein the "labor party becomes a people's party" - unless the risk of other classes emerging or re-emerging is high. Thus, the proletariat will be in a position to abolish itself as a class and establish the classless society.

[RHIZOMES]

The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress the exploiting classes but as they were liquidated in the 1930s by Stalin class struggle in the Soviet Union ceased.

Yeah that's why the USSR became an explicitly capitalist country in the late 80s/early 90's right?

[Panda Tse Tung]

This is a natural phase of history and will happen in every socialist state. The theory is 100% correct.

If you understood Marxism-Leninism you would understand that at the point where class-struggle ceases to exist there is no more need for a state. You fail to understand this, thus you fail to understand revisionism and the flaws in this theory.
There was still class-struggle (as can be obviously seen under both Kruschev and Brezhnev), thus the reasons the 'party' implemented such a policy was not because there was no more class-struggle, but more likely another reason. Perhaps, just give it a go to think about it. It is to benefit the interests of the bureaucracy instead of the people?
For 'under Stalin' there we're party purges against bureaucratic elements, but by 'abolishing' class-struggle they (meaning: the bureaucracy) would no longer be targeted. They would just be, so to speak 'a part of the people'.



For example, the 1977 constitution guaranteed the right to housing and the right to health care better.

Ok, lets just take healthcare as the example cause I'm lazy:

1936:
ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

1977:
Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.
This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.

I don't see how the later would be 'more fundamental' in protecting this right. Of course the environment etc... is important, but all of these things had been guaranteed before by separate bills. It merely makes the constitution well... longer.

[Unicorn]

If you understood Marxism-Leninism you would understand that at the point where class-struggle ceases to exist there is no more need for a state. You fail to understand this, thus you fail to understand revisionism and the flaws in this theory.
There was still class-struggle (as can be obviously seen under both Kruschev and Brezhnev), thus the reasons the 'party' implemented such a policy was not because there was no more class-struggle, but more likely another reason. Perhaps, just give it a go to think about it. It is to benefit the interests of the bureaucracy instead of the people?
In the conditions of the victory of the socialist system, of social-political unity in Soviet society, the remnants of class distinctions are overcome not by class struggle but by the further development of the economy, by perfecting social relations, raising the material and cultural level of the whole people.



For 'under Stalin' there we're party purges against bureaucratic elements, but by 'abolishing' class-struggle they (meaning: the bureaucracy) would no longer be targeted. They would just be, so to speak 'a part of the people'.
Why do you defend a discredited theory which was developed by Stalin and Molotov to justify the purges? They destroyed democratic centralism in the party and killed many honest communists of great ability and thus hindered the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union.

[Panda Tse Tung]

In the conditions of the victory of the socialist system, of social-political unity in Soviet society, the remnants of class distinctions are overcome not by class struggle but by the further development of the economy, by perfecting social relations, raising the material and cultural level of the whole people.

Except the former ruling classes and reactionaries get more desperate with the growth of the Socialist system and it's expansion on all levels, thereby intensifying class-struggle. Instead of making it 'a mere economic difference'.



Why do you defend a discredited theory which was developed by Stalin and Molotov to justify the purges?

Who discredited it?
I haven't seen any coherent discredition, you know why? Because the people that tried to discredit it we're the same who we're responsible for the destruction of Socialism.


They destroyed democratic centralism in the party and killed many honest communists of great ability and thus hindered the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union.

I shall quote Molotov:
To stage a purge of the party is very dangerous. The best people are the first purged. Many people who are honest and speak frankly are expelled while those who keep everything in the dark and are eager to curry favor with the party chiefs retain their positions.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1991/remembers-abs.htm

[Unicorn]

Except the former ruling classes and reactionaries get more desperate with the growth of the Socialist system and it's expansion on all levels, thereby intensifying class-struggle. Instead of making it 'a mere economic difference'.
Please name any members of the former ruling class or reactionaries who had influence in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s.



Who discredited it?
The CPSU after Stalin died. Read the 1961 party program.



I haven't seen any coherent discredition, you know why? Because the people that tried to discredit it we're the same who we're responsible for the destruction of Socialism.
Nope. Gorbachev destroyed socialism and the Soviet communists who opposed him usually supported the "party of the entire people" theory.



I shall quote Molotov:
To stage a purge of the party is very dangerous. The best people are the first purged. Many people who are honest and speak frankly are expelled while those who keep everything in the dark and are eager to curry favor with the party chiefs retain their positions.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1991/remembers-abs.htm
Your point? Molotov was expelled from the party and had many crazy opinions. He was opposed to the theory of peaceful co-existence and advocated a nuclear war with the West as a means of waging class struggle in the 1970s.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Please name any members of the former ruling class or reactionaries who had influence in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s.

Reactionaries? Brezhnev, Kruschev.



The CPSU after Stalin died. Read the 1961 party program.

I have a lot of revisionist literature on my book-shells. Though none of them actually seems to well prove their point.


Nope. Gorbachev destroyed socialism and the Soviet communists who opposed him usually supported the "party of the entire people" theory.

Yes, the bureaucrats fearing their position would be lost. Even though a lot of Stalin-supporters we're purged there was still a large group of mostly elderly party-members that opposed revisionism and still upheld Stalin (as a lot of workers at the time, and to this day in Russia still do).


Your point? Molotov was expelled from the party and had many crazy opinions.

Your evading the thing Molotov is saying and merely state that he had a lot of 'crazy opinions'. I have read Molotov Remembers (not just the excerpts) and he sounds like a very intelligent and reasonable man. So instead of just ignoring his 'crazy opinion', why don't you refute it?


He was opposed to the theory of peaceful co-existence and advocated a nuclear war with the West as a means of waging class struggle in the 1970s.

No he said that there shouldn't have been any 'peaceful coexistence' (which is an anti-Marxist theory to say the least) and that if it would come as far as a nuclear war it would be a manifestation of class-war. Quite a logical conclusion.
Never forget, the nuclear bomb is but a paper tiger, the masses are the real heroes!

[Unicorn]

Reactionaries? Brezhnev, Kruschev.
Reactionary != Revisionist. I can understand if you call them revisionists but please don't call them reactionaries. Their life-long commitment to Marxism-Leninism was unquestionable and they accomplished many great things.



Yes, the bureaucrats fearing their position would be lost. Even though a lot of Stalin-supporters we're purged there was still a large group of mostly elderly party-members that opposed revisionism and still upheld Stalin (as a lot of workers at the time, and to this day in Russia still do).
Upholding Stalin does not mean the same thing as being a Stalinist. Brezhnev upheld Stalin but he wasn't a Stalinist. I am sure that the vast majority of workers would prefer to live in Brezhnev's Soviet Union rather than Stalin's Soviet Union.



Your evading the thing Molotov is saying and merely state that he had a lot of 'crazy opinions'. I have read Molotov Remembers (not just the excerpts) and he sounds like a very intelligent and reasonable man. So instead of just ignoring his 'crazy opinion', why don't you refute it?
I didn't get Molotov's point because the quote you provided was too short.



No he said that there shouldn't have been any 'peaceful coexistence' (which is an anti-Marxist theory to say the least) and that if it would come as far as a nuclear war it would be a manifestation of class-war. Quite a logical conclusion.
Never forget, the nuclear bomb is but a paper tiger, the masses are the real heroes!
Peaceful coexistence does not mean stopping class struggle. The Soviet Union supported Marxist and national liberation movements in the developing world much more than China ever did. However, because socialists want to live in a planet that is not nuclear wasteland it would have been very unwise to provoke the capitalists to starting a nuclear war.

[Comrade Rage]

Do you find it a good model for a socialist society?

The text here:
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html
No, it's revisionist bunk.

The 1936 Constitution was better.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Reactionary != Revisionist. I can understand if you call them revisionists but please don't call them reactionaries. Their life-long commitment to Marxism-Leninism was unquestionable and they accomplished many great things.

Thats the point, their commitment is questionable.


Upholding Stalin does not mean the same thing as being a Stalinist. Brezhnev upheld Stalin but he wasn't a Stalinist.

Brezhnev never did anything like that. Brezhnev merely used the facade of being more 'hard-line' in an extremely lame attempt to win back certain segments of the international Communist movement. Now Andropov really did try to uphold Stalin.



I am sure that the vast majority of workers would prefer to live in Brezhnev's Soviet Union rather than Stalin's Soviet Union.

Workers in general, well of course.
Workers that can objectively view the situation in both cases might materially speaking and qua political stability decide to go for the Brezhnev era. But ideologically speaking the Stalin era was by far preferable.


I didn't get Molotov's point because the quote you provided was too short.

It was quite clear but I'll give another.

Dzerzhinksy was a radiant, spotless personality. Yagoda was a filthy nobody who wormed his way into the party and was only caught in 1937. We had to work with reptiles like that, but there were no others. No one! Now you understand why so many mistakes were made. They deceived us, and innocent people were sometimes incriminated. Obviously one or two out of ten were wrongly sentenced, but the rest got their just desserts.


Peaceful coexistence does not mean stopping class struggle. The Soviet Union supported Marxist and national liberation movements in the developing world much more than China ever did.

First off peaceful coexistence means having a passive approach towards the capitalists because you can win 'by elections' thanks to the 'inevitable downfall of the capitalist economic structure'. For example the Cuban Communist Party who was greatly supporting Batista, until the point the guerrilla's took over and decided to make Cuba a Socialist Republic.

[The Author]

The aims of the dictatorship of the proletariat having been fulfilled, the Soviet state has become a state of the whole people. The leading role of the Communist Party, the vanguard of all the people, has grown. In the USSR a developed socialist society has been built. At this stage, when socialism is developing on its own foundations, the creative forces of the new system and the advantages of the socialist way of life are becoming increasingly evident, and the working people are more and more widely enjoying the fruits of their great revolutionary gains.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the particular parts which smack of revisionism, in this supposed "Marxist-Leninist" constitution.

Let's start with the first point, "state of the whole people."

Based on his review of earlier writings by Marx and Engels, Lenin taught us in State and Revolution that once the bourgeois state was overthrown, the state under the hands of the dictatorship of the proletariat, would gradually wither away as the working class approached communism. Regarding the concept of people's state:


The "free people's state" was a programme demand and a widely current slogan of the German Social-Democrats in the seventies. This slogan is devoid of all political content except for the fact that it describes the concept of democracy in the pompous philistine fashion. In so far as it hinted in a legally permissible manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to "justify" its use "for a time" from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist slogan, for it expressed not only an embellishment of bourgeois democracy, but also failure to understand the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favor of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism; but we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a "special force for the suppression" of the oppressed class. Consequently, every state is not "free" and not a "people's state." Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the seventies.

Strange that the "Leninists" who wrote this constitution skipped that paragraph in Lenin's State and Revolution. They were too busy constructing the Lenin Personality Cult in order to tear down the superstructure at some later point, just like they did with Stalin. Just about the majority of members of the CPSU from the revisionist period are now too busy trying to become the very anti-thesis of what they preached in words: capitalists.

Let us take the second point: "vanguard of the whole people."

Again, just like the people's state, you can't have a vanguard of the whole people. It's a vanguard of the oppressed class, seizing power from the oppressors and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. This party does not represent the bourgeoisie, the aristocracy, the slave-owners, the feudal landlords. For they are people, but people of the oppressor class. Terming it as vanguard of the whole people does not denote class character, but blurs the distinction and permits class oppressors into the party. Much like current-day China. You had nationalists, Nazi-sympathizers, opportunists who saw the West and wanted to bring "the American Dream" to the Motherland, etc. who became part of the party, caused extensive corruption (while there were no purges of the party of any kind to stop or prevent this because such actions would be "reminiscent of the time of the Stalin personality cult") and eventually seized power and restored the territories of the former USSR back to the capitalist degeneration that it had been before the revolution.

Now we get to the third point: "developed socialism." There is no such thing as developed socialism for Marxism. Only revisionism preaches developed socialism as it preaches market socialism. Socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and communism, or also known as "Communism, the First Phase" by Marx himself. When socialism (the transition) is completed, you are in communism (or Communism the Second Phase). There is no such thing as the "construction of communism." The people who wrote this garbage were those who experimented with market reforms of the economic base such as the ideas of Evsei Liberman, or the Shchekino Method of 1967, or the Machine and Tractor Station incident. Which takes us to the fourth and final point: "Creative forces." This constitution gave expression to those expressing an interest in the "creative development of Marxism-Leninism," meaning getting the leeway to experiment with changing the base in a way to restore capitalism, but without throwing away the superstructure. Leeway from "Stalinist constraints." In the end, the superstructure was thrown out anyway, along with the base.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now Andropov really did try to uphold Stalin.

Had Andropov lived longer, he would've succeeded where Beria had failed in terms of becoming Russia's Deng Xiaoping. :rolleyes:

[3A CCCP]

Ahhh...
So you're the Brezhnevite tankie I remember...Well then in that case I will remember not to take anythink you say seriously in the future.Especially when you accuse me of not understanding communism.If you accept the "theory of peaceful coexistance", the "peaceful transition" theory, and the "party of the entire people" theory, there is no way that you have even a cursory understanding of Marxism-Leninism. This also explains your silly defence of the state-capitalist, social-imperialist Soviet Union.You should know that if I had my way you would be restricted and get to hang out with the rest of the capitalists on this board.

Comrade:

First of all, let me make clear that I am a supporter of comrade Stalin and would agree that the Soviet Union started down a revisionist course after Khrushchev seized power in 1956. However, there is a huge difference between the words "revisionist" and "capitalist."

Without a doubt the USSR was "revisionist" by 1977, but it was by no stretch of the imagination "capitalist" nor, for that matter, "imperialist."

The Soviet Union was the main bulwark against U.S. imperialism, supported revolutions throughout the world, provided higher education for peoples of oppressed nations, etc. The economic policies of the country strayed off the Marxist-Leninist path, but the Soviet economy could hardly be called "capitalist." It was a Socialist economy, albeit off-course.

The greatest harm that came from Soviet revisionism was that it opened the door to the traitor Gorbachev to take power and subvert the Socialist economy. At first he worked tacitly while invoking the teachings of comrade Lenin. Then once he got a foothold he openly attacked the Soviet Socialist system and brought it down.

3A CCCP!

Mikhail