This is a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of the Soviets. All workers, regardless of position, could be part of Soviets, they formed the basic unit of government in general, similar to unions.

Secondly, you are writing in direct contrast to historical evidence provided by Pat Sloan, as he writes in Soviet Democracy:

"I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship is no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organization was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?"

Finally, banning factions was critical for the Soviet Union's survival. There was freedom of discussion, but wreckers and infiltrators stood serious threats of collapsing the new Socialist State. Would you have had them take the idealist route and collapse in 1923? This is an idealist, anti-Marxist view of Socialist practice.

He then eliminated opposition with the Cheka.

Yes, the Soviet Union was at war with invading Capitalist, Tsarist, and Fascist invaders and infiltrators.

Even before that the Communists acted under "war communism", which meant killing anybody not 100% in line.

No, War Communism was a specific economic structure practiced by the Soviet Union in times of war. Where are you getting these wild misunderstandings of basic terminology? Your ass?

That very much included Machnos work in setting up a Soviet Democracy in Ukraine, due to them being Anarchists.

Makhno was no hero, nor was he attacked for "soviet democracy in Ukraine." Makhno was a rapist, an anti-semite, and deliberately stood against the USSR. It was not a case of a random group of innocents being attacked by the big scary commies.

Stalin then abolished the Soviets in 1936.

No, Stalin did not abolish the Soviets in 1936. The Soviets remained until the dissolution of the USSR. This is just false, and we know it to be so based on historical record. Where did you pull this again? Your ass?

The Soviet Union had a bit of it, in the very beginning, but it failed and turned into a statist dictatorship.

Even the CIA said the USSR wasn't a dictatorship.

That is why Stalin ordered the Anarchists to be killed in Spain as well

The USSR supported the Republicans, and did so by providing weaponry.

the Prague Spring got crushed due to moving into a more democratic direction as well as many other movements of worker uprisings.

The Prague Spring was a Liberal counter-revolution that sought to reinstate Capitalism.

"Years later, one of the protagonists of the “Prague Spring”, the Czech economist Ota Sik [3], admitted the real aim of the 1968 reforms. Sik, a supporter of the so-called “Third Way”, cynically admitted that the reforms were nothing but a deceptive maneuver and that, back then, he was “convinced that the only solution was pure capitalism” [4]."

What you have done here is send a Firehose of Falsehood, the majority of your claims were wrong, and the ones that weren't sided with Capitalists and Fascists. You do not know what you are talking about either with respect to Marxism or to the history of the USSR.

Again, I repeat, I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It's great for debunking popular Red Scare myths about Communism, and even includes a section for supposed "left" anticommunism. It's clear, easy to read, and doesn't require understanding any Marxist theory to enjoy, though I can also point out some good beginner texts if you want those too.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Soviets were de-facto abolished after 1936 (not due to the constitution itself, rather "by tradition"). While there technically were elections, in almost all cases there was only one candidate. The three of my grandparents that I grew up with (all proudly working-class - teacher, engineer and doctor, born in 1930s), never participated in elections with more than one candidate until Perestroyka (at which point the communist project was on its deathbed).

Note that I'm not even anti-USSR, it's still markedly better than the bullshit capitalist systems. There actually was plenty of workspace democracy, and some local democracy, but I don't think we should glorify it as some bastion of democracy. There still unfortunately was a kind of ruling class - the Party and MGB/KGB (but I should note that it was much easier for a working-class person to join their ranks than it is in capitalist "democracies"). Rather, learn from what it got right, and fix what it got wrong.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Soviets were de-facto abolished after 1936 (not due to the constitution itself, rather "by tradition"). While there technically were elections, in almost all cases there was only one candidate. The three of my grandparents that I grew up with (all proudly working-class - teacher, engineer and doctor, born in 1930s), never participated in elections with more than one candidate until Perestroyka (at which point the communist project was on its deathbed).

My understanding is that the Congress of Soviets was replaced with the Supreme Soviet, the democratic structure was changed but the Soviets remained, just shifted in form, and could still be used democratically, just not in all cases. A good analogy is that most local governments in the US run uncontested.

Note that I'm not even anti-USSR, it's still markedly better than the bullshit capitalist systems. There actually was plenty of workspace democracy, and some local democracy, but I don't think we should glorify it as some bastion of democracy. There still unfortunately was a kind of ruling class - the Party and MGB/KGB (but I should note that it was much easier for a working-class person to join their ranks than it is in liberal democracies). Rather, learn from what it got right, and fix what it got wrong.

I absolutely agree! The USSR was not perfect, but lots of it worked right as you said, and it was Socialist. I am primarily trying to combat blatant anticommunist mythology, not make a claim that nothing ever went wrong ever, which would be equally absurd. That's why I stressed reading Blackshirts and Reds, which dispels the mythology and takes a critical, nuances look at the USSR.

Thanks for sharing!

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that the Congress of Soviets was replaced with the Supreme Soviet, the democratic structure was changed but the Soviets remained, just shifted in form, and could still be used democratically, just not in all cases.

I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn't feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.

A good analogy is that most local governments in the US run uncontested.

I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation (especially given the two-party system where neither represents the working class). However, aren't there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party "runs" for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).

That’s why I stressed reading Blackshirts and Reds, which dispels the mythology and takes a critical, nuances look at the USSR.

Thanks for the recommendation! I've started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I'll have to pick it up again.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn't feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.

That's a fair critique. The point I was trying to drive home, however, is that it was fundamentally Socialist, which I believe retained after 1936 as well.

I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation, but aren't there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party "runs" for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).

Not necessarily. There is an illusion of choice, in reality it's largely run by the DNC and GOP. There are rare, minor upsets, but the ones that pose legitimate chance to shake things up are either heavily out-financed during the election, or are shunned by the party upon reaching some semblance of power. The electoral system of the US is a filter.

Thanks for the recommendation! I've started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I'll have to pick it up again.

No problem! Thanks for your input, much more reasonable than the other commenter, and not just because we agree on almost everything.