This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
A few problems with this page;
1 "A motion by the Bolsheviks that should have made the assembly powerless was voted down."
True but the motion was in effect saying the Assembly was subservient to the Soviets. I propose chaning it to
"A motion by the Bolsheviks that would have made the Assembly subservient to the Soviets was voted down."
2. "A peaceful demonstration in support of the assembly was shoot at and dispersed by troops loyal to Bolsheviks."
This happened after the Assembly was close so will just move it down a few lines.
3. "The Bolsheviks then before the next meeting declared the Constitution Assembly dissolved and instead created a counter-assembly"
No, the 'counter-assembly' was the soviets which existed before the Assembly. I think it should just read
"The Bolsheviks and their allies then walked out and later the same day declared the Constitution Assembly dissolved."
4. "They gave themselves and their allies over 90% of the seats, and maintained a coalition government with a fraction from the Socialist-Revolutionary Party"
Reads a bit silly. They did not give themsevles over 90% of the seats. They had won fair and free elections to the Soviets. Also out of the 649 delegates election to the All Russian Congress of Soviet, 390 were Bolshevik, about 100 were Left SR's.(http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm#october-1917). This gives them over 75%. I propose changing the section to.
"The Bolsheviks and their allies proceeded to form a government from the Soviets in which they had already won an overwhelming majority in elections"
Any objections? TheInquisitor 21:11, 30 Sep 2005
Regards TheInquisitor 12:20, 1 Oct 2005
Regards TheInquisitor 13:30, 1 Oct 2005
1. I disagree since the motion did not say that.
2. The demonstration had some 50,000 thousand participants and was shot at before the assembly. Lenin only opened the assembly after news reached him that it had been dispersed. That is why it opened so late. p. 551-552
3. No, the counter-assembly was the "Third Congress of Soviets" who opened two days later, on January 8. They gave themselves and the left SRs 94 % of the seats. p 555
4. Trotsky is the only source I can see in the link you gave and is certainly biased in his attempt to glorify himself. Pipes is more reliable since he lists all his sources. I think you have heard only one side of the story. May I suggest that you read Pipes and return? Ultramarine 13:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
TheInquisitor 15:28, 1 Oct 2005
I found the exact quote from Pipes that gave you the info;
"T]he Bolsheviks opened their counter-Assembly, labeled "Third Congress of Soviets." Here no one could obstruct them because they had reserved for themselves and the Left SRs 94 percent of the seats, more than three times what they were entitled to, judging by the results of the Constituent Assembly"
This could only written by someone who does not know how the Soviets were elected. The reason for the disparity is that the Assembly is elected by one man-one vote while the in practive the Soviets worked at 1 worker-6 votes 1 peasant-1 vote. (1 delegate per 25,000 workers. 1 delegate per 125,000 peasants. Cant use Pipes on this single issue if doesn't know this basic info.
TheInquisitor 15:40, 1 Oct 2005
Leninism under Lenin is an old book from 1975. Much has been revealed since the Soviet achieves was opened. Again, I see no other sources than Trotsky for the linked article. Claims without sources are of little value and thus the same for the article. Compare too Pipes who lists thousands of referenced sources in his book for all his statements and was written with help of the opened achieves. Unfortunately your own opinion does not count in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and wikipedia:No original research Ultramarine 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
TheInquisitor 15:53, 1 Oct 2005
You cant say the Soviet elections were not democratic. TheInquisitor
Actually reading the article its now becoming about what diffrent books say happend completely contradict each other. The whole lot, including my stuff has to go. And we have to take out the disputed material. And you have to remove that POV source. Use Pipes as the source, not that silly website. Cant believe you complained about Marxists.org (a reference site) and continue to put a rabid right-wing rant site up as a source. TheInquisitor
I'll show you what I mean TheInquisitor
Ok, its good to see this Stub getting worked on, however its a getting a bit problematic. As Ultra states its perfectly acceptable and in fact it is encourgaed to have different view points (even contradictory ones).
However that is based on the fact that perception and interpretation of factual events often shifts and people take different views. You cant however have two opposing facts, if a `fact` is disputed or cant be clearly proved them both of you have a responsiblity to `open the field`, put down what is known for sure, and then on anything which isnt clear cut;
-Put the varying `facts`/views on the talk board, cite sources and either see if the `fact` can be proven/uproven by others/yourselves.
The Bolsheviks and Left-SR (post split) either got 94% of the Third Congress seats or they didnt.
-If it cant be then youll have to simply put the various views/facts (and holes there in) in the articles and let readers make up their own minds.
The Bolsheviks `gave themselves` the seats is clearly going to be more subjective (were the elctions free, were rules fair...after all the Bolsheviks help set up the Soviets and it is rather curious that they happen to be stronger in Soviets which have more delegates to the All Russian Soviet).
Good hunting chaps.
--Mazzarin 21:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Note to Inquisitor; always write an edit summary, stating what you have done in your edit (grammar, removed `blah blah` and why, added `section` etc etc).
Its so users can skip `clean up` edits, see the major changes and see whos doing what.
--Mazzarin 21:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War, we have been discussing the charge made by both White Russians and socialists of the Second International that the Bolsheviks used Lettish and Chinese troops to disperse the Assembly. Can anyone comment on whether this charge is true or not? --Richard 04:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this person can argue that the soviet elections were democratic, when a peasant had 1/10th the vote of a worker. He just blips right over that, and then blithely goes on to argue that Pipes is wrong. I have no great love of CIA man Richard Pipes, but facts are facts, and Pipes seems to have them at his fingertips. Democracy is one vote per person, period. this is the way Marx, Engels, and Luxemburg defined the term. And if the Assembly didn't have a recall feature in its operations, why not just have insisted that they put one in?! Lenin and the Bolsheviks were far closer to Karl Schapper's position within the Communist League in 1850: just our worker party will take power in Germany: in a country with a peasant majority. Marx thought that was "idealist" and "nationalistic" The Bolsheviks played fast and loose with the definitions, and with "democracy" itself. The Left--even the Trotskyist Left--has to get over it. And by the way, it's Liebman, not liebermann.
We don't need Richard Pipes for serious doubts and scholarship about Lenin's alleged commitment to "democracy" after the revolution. Neil Harding is very good on Lenin's strengths as a revolutionary leader, as well as his weaknesses. He's also written "Lenin's Political Thought" and most recently a work on Leninism as Philosophy.
This passage from his work, Leninism, (see below) reminded me very much of the following from Marx's own life: his conflict with Karl Schapper, whose ideas resembled that of Blanqui, in the Central Committee of the Communist League:
From the Communist League London Central Authority, Meeting Minutes, dated September 15, 1850 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/revelations/ch01.htm,
Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne by Karl Marx 1853
In support of his motion calling for separation, Marx said inter alia the following which is given here verbatim:
“The point of view of the minority is dogmatic instead of critical, idealistic instead of materialistic. They regard not the real conditions but a mere effort of will as the driving force of the revolution. Whereas we say to the workers: ‘You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles not only to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves, and prepare yourselves for the exercise of political power’, you say on the contrary: ‘Either we seize power at once, or else we might as well just take to our beds.’ Whereas we are at pains to show the German workers in particular how rudimentary the development of the German proletariat is, you appeal to the patriotic feelings and the class prejudice of the German artisans, flattering them in the grossest way possible, and this is a more popular method, of course. Just as the word ‘people’ has been given an aura of sanctity by the democrats, so you have done the same for the word ‘proletariat’. Like the democrats you substitute the catchword of revolution for revolutionary development,” etc., etc.
Herr [Karl] Schapper’s verbatim reply was as follows:
“I have voiced the opinion attacked here because I am in general an enthusiast in this matter. The question at issue is whether we ourselves chop off a few heads right at the start or whether it is our own heads that will fall.” (Schapper even promised to lose his own head in a year, i.e. on September 15, 1851) “In France the workers will come to power and thereby we in Germany too. Were this not the case I would indeed take to my bed; in that event I would he able to enjoy a different material position. If we come to power we can take such measures as are necessary to ensure the rule of the proletariat. I am a fanatical supporter of this view but the Central Authority favours the very opposite,” etc., etc.
From Neil Harding [British socialist, intellectual biographer of Lenin and Leninism], LENINISM, p. 253:
[While the suppression, rather than the further democratization (insisting upon recall, frequent elections, and devolution of power to local universally elected assemblies), of the Constituent Assembly and assembly system was defended on the basis of the soviets being a "higher form of democracy"] Lenin's words at the end of September [1917, were as follows] "even tomorrow events may put us in power and then we will not let it go."
On 30 October, Sovnarkum unilaterally arrogated to itself legislative powers simply by promulgating a decree to this effect. This was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and executive organs. Increasingly, the Bolsheviks reled upon the appointment from above of commissars with plenipotentiary powers and they split and reconstituted fractious Soviets and intimidated political opponents. Within six weeks of the October revolution, Gorky's paper NOVAYA ZHIZN lamented the rapidity with which life had run out of the Soviet movement. "The slogan "All power to the soviets",' it concluded, 'had actually been transformed into the slogan "All power to the few Bolsheviks". . . The Soviets decay, became enervted, and from day to day lose more of their prestige in the ranks of democracy." The initial heroic stage--the stage of mass involvement and unsullied dreams--was already over.
It was unambiguously Lenin who (with Trotsky now as his most strident supporter) rejected coalition, rejected power-sharing and rejected the democratic road. His ruthlessness with political opponents, his refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of their alternative formulations of public policy, and his destruction of the public forums in which they might be expressed was, undoubtedly, one of the precipitants of the civil war. The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was viewed by many as the first blow struck in this war--the Bolshevik declaration of the commencement of hostilities against the Russian people. It was of course, out of civil war that the brutalization of public life spread, infected the party and the state apparatuses and created a milieu, a style of work and an attitude of mind in which Stalinism could live and thrive.------Tom December 9, 2007 12:29 p,
The statements that "The final election law written by the government after the second dissolution on June 3, 1907 favoured poor and the working classes" and "The Duma was therefore widely seen as representative of the lower working classes, and the demands for a Constituent Assembly that would be elected on the basis of wealthy class universal suffrage continued unabated. " are blatant lies. The electoral laws were, conversely, heavily biased in favour of wealthy classes, with a single vote of a landowner being equal to 2 votes of bourgeoisie, 15 votes of peasants, and 45 votes of workers. 217.67.117.64 (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This massive mistake has been in this article for more than two years. Can we please get someone to change it? --86.142.116.107 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I read the various online references mentioning the election resultats, nowhere did I read that the 550,000 "nationalist - Jewish" votes went to the Bund, the same error appears on the German wikipedia article, but definitely not in the references. I'd rather think these votes were for the whole array of Jewish parties. --Pylambert (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Should we rename this page to All Russian Constituent Assembly? --BiH (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The current article has separate lists for the Socialist Revolutionaries and Left Socialist Revolutionaries. However, the Right and Left Socialist Revolutionaries had not yet split into separate parties, and usually ran on the same slate, so it is misleading to split these figures and give only a small proportion to the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)