Your original statement - "compelled to by democratic forces" - was implying (maybe accidentally), that those forces have at least partial power in the government. It sounded similar to the social democratic idea of "The workers have a say in the government, so they vote for things they desire".

Your newer statement - "become a threat to your power" - is then paralleled with "success in class conflict". Both imply there's a strong workers' movement making demands. What I want to point out is that it is not necessarily the case, as there are often other pressures at play which don't directly involve the labor movement.

USSR had both a need for a compliant workforce to simplify the execution of economic plans and a great threat of external hostile forces leveraging internal strife, both of which made it a very appealing option to keep the working class as non-threatening as possible.

[Proofs and indicators] do not at all [serve similar goal rhetorically]

You don't need to explain to me how formal proofs work. However, I was talking about rhetoric, not logic.

When you are talking to a person or a group of people and say things like:

"The use of word 'degeneracy' implies fascist beliefs"
"The desire for class collaboration is a proof of fascism"
"The obsession with a plotting Other suggest fascist ideology"

All of these serve the same goal in your speech. It tells people around:

"Because of X you should believe that person is a fascist".

My point is that it doesn't matter whether you used "proof" or "indication", that either of them would be there to have a person read about the USSR's welfare policies and go "Hm, I guess USSR was actually democratic".

Your original sarcastic comment had other possible interpretations: "democracy is a meaningless term", or "democracy is secondary to well-being of the populace", but these are even more reactionary than the welfare-democracy one, and your following response suggested that was the one you intended.

So far, you have yet to explain how exactly the USSR under Stalin was not democratic

I've been waiting for you to explain the contrary, as your only point to that so far was the welfare one. You also haven't yet explained what meaning of "democracy" you subscribe to, as you have suggested you don't believe the welfare explanation. It would be a waste of time for me to present a refutal, only for you to not believe in its core, thus rendering all the work futile.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Your original statement - “compelled to by democratic forces” - was implying (maybe accidentally), that those forces have at least partial power in the government. It sounded similar to the social democratic idea of “The workers have a say in the government, so they vote for things they desire”.

In the case of the USSR, it was almost entirely workers. Workers (and non-working lower class folk) who voted in representatives for their local soviets, the local soviets who then voted in representatives for higher soviets and so on. The soviet structure, which existed for the workplace as well, although higher level government bodies still had some say in how the workplace was run (necessary to ensure coherence in the economic plan). It was common for people to personally write letters to Stalin or other officials, who would then be required to respond to their requests. I have even heard stories from non-communist eastern europeans who say things like "my grandmother once wrote to Stalin to ask him to transfer her to a new unit because she thought the commander was hot. And that's how my father was born". This level of extreme intermingling between the citizenry and the leadership is surely a strong mechanism of democracy. Another democratic mechanism existed in the USSR whereby the 1936 constitution was crafted with suggestions from the populace and had to be approved by a vote from the population. It is in the context of these democratic mechanisms that my comments about welfare become "proof" for the USSR being democratic. If it wasn't democratic and all of the mechanism I listed above are lies, how would that square with the USSR working to abolish surplus value or having income distributions orders of magnitudes more equal than countries with comparable levels of industrialisation. It wouldn't.

Your original sarcastic comment had other possible interpretations: “democracy is a meaningless term”, or “democracy is secondary to well-being of the populace”, but these are even more reactionary than the welfare-democracy one, and your following response suggested that was the one you intended.

No it didn't. It went "In the despotic east, the people are forced to ..., in the democratic west, the people choose to starve in the streets". The idea that in a democracy, a population would choose to impoverish and immiserate itself is the whole joke to begin with. When I was writing that comment, I was operating under the assumption that you were the type who would defend western "democracies".

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Fucking hell, the editor did not save my message again.

TL;DR

Having a referendum to ratify constitutional changes is a thing in a large number of countries. It's not out of the ordinary.

The Congress of Soviets was removed with the 1936 constitution. Supreme Soviet took its place. Supreme Soviet was elected directly, but all ballots had only a single candidate. You can try to look up a picture of a ballot - they all have a single name on them. There is one picture of a ballot template with 3 names, but that's it.

The candidates in the ballots would be nominated on meetings of industrial plant and factory staff. Meetings are not elections. Meetings is when you sit and listen to the management read out their decisions.

There Supreme Soviet would convene a few times per year for a week or less. All other time there would be ~40 guys from the Presidium who would take on its duties.

There are stenograms of sessions available in Russian.. I can read Russian. What I'm reading is:

The single-candidate ballots seem to be a norm, as one of the sessions mentions ~7000 ballots "with crossed out candidate names" out of ~1 million votes. Crossing out is how you vote on those ballots, it's written above the right column, and you have to cross all but one name. If there are only 0.7% of crossed out ballots, that means all of the ballots had only 1 name on them.
All of the decisions I read through have been accepted, ratified, voted on completely unanimously. No "nays", no abstentions. This whole thing is just a glorified green stamp.
A lot of time is spent on speeches. None of those speeches show any dissent. E.g. when Molotov is talking about friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy in 1940, there's zero dissent.

Supreme Soviet was officially the highest legislative authority in the country. It was an undemocratic sham.

No it didn’t [have those other interpretations].

It did, but I don't want to argue about that. It's all semantics and sophistry and we're past that anyway.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Having a referendum to ratify constitutional changes is a thing in a large number of countries. It’s not out of the ordinary.

Does a mechanism need to be out of the ordinary to be democratic?

The Congress of Soviets was removed with the 1936 constitution. Supreme Soviet took its place. Supreme Soviet was elected directly

Apologies, I had gotten confused since that period of soviet history saw many restructurings in the government. But this only means that all along, you knew a little about how the soviet government worked, and yet you still have many comments wasting everyone's and your own time with nonsense and tangents.

but all ballots had only a single candidate. You can try to look up a picture of a ballot - they all have a single name on them.

I know this

The candidates in the ballots would be nominated on meetings of industrial plant and factory staff. Meetings are not elections.

Yes, that is the point. The bolsheviks explicitly abandoned liberal parliamentarianism. Despite calling other people liberals and saying that I had liberal ideas about democracy, are you now going to turn around and say that elections, the most liberal of liberal ideas about democracy are the way to go? Anyone who is not a liberal can easily recognize that electoral systems are undemocratic. Even the best of electoral "democracies" have elected representatives that are deeply unrepresentative of their constituents. I would not say that the system of meetings was the best choice exactly, but it was both the result of the democratic centralist philosophy (evolved partly as a result of the needs of the civil war) and of seeing electoral systems utterly fail both in liberalised Russia and the other parliamentary countries.

Meetings is when you sit and listen to the management read out their decisions.

Yeah ... totally. All of the gains in the worker's rights and living standards happened despite the workers having no input. By some miracle, the democratic mechanism which was just for show produced one of the most equal and highly industrialized societies of all time. By arguing that the USSR wasn't democratic, the only thing you are arguing for is the idea that democracy is not necessary to achieve equality and standards of living. No matter how much you deride welfare as an indicator of democracy, your whole narrative doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense how the Russian working class, which had very recently launched a revolution could be disarmed so easily, or at all.

There Supreme Soviet would convene a few times per year for a week or less. All other time there would be ~40 guys from the Presidium who would take on its duties.

As opposed to doing what? Representatives cannot manage the day to day affairs of the government. No government on earth does that.

There are stenograms of sessions available in Russian.. I can read Russian. What I’m reading is:

And I cannot comment on whether or not you are cherry picking or misrepresenting anything from the reports.

All of the decisions I read through have been accepted, ratified, voted on completely unanimously. No “nays”, no abstentions. This whole thing is just a glorified green stamp.

Can't comment on this, even though I smell bs.

A lot of time is spent on speeches

This is a problem because?

None of those speeches show any dissent.

I neither trust that you have actually read and remember the contents of that many speeches, or that you understand the all of the contexts or nuances of those speeches. Furthermore, during conditions of wartime or near wartime (as your only example is in), there naturally tends to be less disagreement. You can see how quickly factions unite under external threats.

E.g. when Molotov is talking about friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy in 1940, there’s zero dissent.

What is this supposed to mean? I assume you bring this particular point up specifically to play on the "USSR collaborated with nazis" trope (straining your credibility), but what does "talking about" mean exactly? For example, if he mentions that the government has stabilized the situation (stating facts), why would that generate dissent (unless he was factually incorrect)?

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Have you been to meetings with management? I used to work at a government-run place in Belarus. The meetings were precisely as what I described them. I had a longer explanation typed out, but then lost it; I might redo it at a later date.

you still have many comments wasting... ...time

I wanted to know the reason behind you thinking it was democratic. The first reason you gave was the welfare. I've provided several reasons which were true for USSR at the time for why they would want to keep the proletariat pacified and disarmed. Speaking of which, the proletariat was literally disarmed in 1924.

The second reason you gave is the electoral system. So now we're talking about the electoral system.

As opposed to doing what? Representatives cannot manage the day to day affairs of the government. No government on earth does that.

US House and Senate are in session approximately 150(+/-20) days a year, for most weeks there's at least one day they're in session. There's also not a separate group which makes decisions for the rest of the parliament in the meantime.

And I cannot comment on whether or not you are cherry picking or misrepresenting anything from the reports.

You have the link now. You can always ask someone else to look through them for you to verify if I'm right or wrong. You can also ask me - pick out any session of any convocation out there and I will get you a translation of at least the key points, the votes, stuff like that.

This is a problem because?

Ok, I think I was vague here. There are reports, there are congratulations, there are suggestions. I don't see any discussions, nor appeals, nor debates. I don't see disagreement. What I see is a lot of self-congratulation. Even if I can't prove it by giving you an authoritative translation here and now, you will remember this characterization and it will sit there in your head when you'll hear similar things in the future.

I [don't] trust that you have actually read and remember the contents of that many speeches

You would be right to do so, as what I meant and keep meaning when I talk here was only the speeches I looked through, which is only like 5 or 6, picked randomly from random sessions of the 1st convocation (I think we're both would be mostly interested in the 1st convocation, as that is the one which lasted from 1937 to 1945). One of the sessions I clicked was the 7th session, which had the Molotov's speech - I stumbled upon it mostly by chance. Being friendly with the Nazi state would be an obviously contentious topic among leftists, so it piqued my interest to see the Soviet's reaction to the report. Which is also why I mentioned it to you - it's much easier to disregard absence of dissent on a matter of industrial or agricultural administration than on this topic.

but what does “talking about [friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy]” mean exactly?

I will try to summarize the part of the speech which pertains to the Nazis here. You're free to disregard it as me bs-ing you.

Italy has joined the war
France was quickly defeated and capitulated
- France signed a ceasefire and is under occupation
- Reasons for France's defeat
  - Poor military readiness
  - French leadership, unlike Germany, underestimated USSR's role in Europe
  - French leadership was afraid of its people, known for its revolutionary potential
- France now has to lick its wounds and rebuild
England is still at war with USA's support
Germany achieved great successes, but it wants to end the war on the terms it desires.
German reichschancellor offered peace to England on July 19th
Despite that, England decided to continue the war.
- It even cut ties with France
- That is because England doesn't want to lose its colonies and lose this war for war domination.
- It does this even though the Italy's participation and France's defeat make it harder for England
The war is far from the end
USSR holds to peace and neutrality
- The agreement has prevented any potential tensions with Germany, and gave it confidence about its eastern borders.
- Voices from England want to scare USSR with potential disagreements with Germany, with Germany becoming too powerful
The relationships between USSR and Germany are neighborly and friendly.
- That is not due to situation-specific factors, but because of the core interests of both states.

This is only a part of the larger report on foreign policy, but I would still expect there to be some voices of concern regarding the shit Nazis were doing, or the fact that the report puts the blame for the war and its continuation on primarily UK and USA and their "imperialist ambitions". The "peace or destruction" threat from Hitler's July 19th speech is framed as a humble peace offer, which the greedy Britain has unreasonable refused. The cutting ties with the Nazi puppet Vichy is framed as Britain abandoning its former ally. No mention of persecution of Jews by the Nazis. Also neither terms "Nazi", "National Socialist", nor Hitler's name appear in the report - he's referred to as "the reichschancellor".

Not all of these things I would expect from Molotov's report itself - but I would be appalled if there was no other delegates to point at least one of the things I've outlined.

Instead, the report was accepted unanimously and without any debate.

The stenogram link for that place precisely

Those who are in favor of accepting this proposal, please raise your hands... Please lower them. Who's against it? No. Who abstains? No. The proposal is accepted.

This phrase is everywhere in those stenograms. No against, no abstentions, accepted.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago

Forgive me if I seem overly pedantic in this reply, but you seem to know quite a bit, so I would like to extract as much information as possible.

Have you been to meetings with management? I used to work at a government-run place in Belarus. The meetings were precisely as what I described them.

Did you go to a government run place when the soviet union existed? I mean, it seems strange to me that you specify "government-run" for a workplace that existed during the soviet times. And even if you were there, I imagine that the late soviet union worked differently from the early soviet union. I cannot say if this applies to the meetings themselves.

Those who are in favor of accepting this proposal, please raise your hands… Please lower them. Who’s against it? No. Who abstains? No. The proposal is accepted.

That doesn't sound any different from what one would say for voting as it is done in other situations. Who votes, who is against, who abstains is common. Do the "no" parts mean that no-one abstained in Russian? Because in English it doesn't make sense. Did you mean to wrote "no one abstained"?

1rst convocation

Part of this maybe that during these years, the soviet government was heavily focused on war aims. 1937 incidentally is the year when the soviet government switched to focusing on preparing for war. Another part of it maybe the small sample size (maybe you just looked at the wrong section). And another part maybe that the stwnographix reports aren't capturing all of the discussions. From whay I know about the us government, most of the discussion for policies happens outside the official convening times. Legislators negotiate with each other, they discuss bills in committees before even presenting them for a vote, etc.

Not all of these things I would expect from Molotov’s report itself - but I would be appalled if there was no other delegates to point at least one of the things I’ve outlined.

I can imagine nobody in the supereme soviet taking objection to such statements. They had relatively recently been subject to a brutal war of aggression from these states. Certainly their opinion of Britain and the United States would be very low enough that they would blame everything on them (especially since these were actively genocidal empires at the time). On the other hand, I believe attempts were made to form an alliance against Hitler previously, which the British and French rejected. It was also a widespread belief at the time that the treaty of versailles was responsible for the rise of Hitler. Certainly, the French could be blamed for their occupation of the rhineland and rural valley.