Talk:Russian Constituent Assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Russian Constituent Assembly is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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

Please do not use a Marxist website as a reference. See Richard Pipes The Russian Revolution 1899-1919. For example, the Mensheviks and the SRs declared the Second Congress illegal and unrepresentative. For example, the Bolsheviks allowed one Soviet with 1500 members that supported them to send 5 delegates, which was more than Kiev. p 475-6. Ultramarine 21:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not? It contains primary documents and a vast encycolpedia. Its not a 'party political' website and is purley for research. Does Pipes mention the population who elected the Kiev Soviet and elected the 'mysterious' other Soviet? Was this 'mysterious' Soviet an urban or rural soviet? (actually I should take out 'fair' from my suggested change, a rural Soviet was allowed 1 delegate per 125,000 voters, an urban soviet was allowed 1 delegate per 25,000 voters). Does Pipes provide any evidence that 2 urban (or 2 rural, like with like) Soviets that had the same voting populations sent a different amount of delegates? If so does he provide evidence this was widespread? If not, and I'm not saying Pipe's isn't a valid resources, you cant include his material. The Mensheviks and SRs declaring the Second Congress illegal would be good to put in, but it would be useful if you could add a reason. Though to make it balance I would then have to put in why the Bolsheviks and Left SR regarding the Assemnly as unrepresentitive.

Regards TheInquisitor 12:20, 1 Oct 2005

Marxists.org is partial, biased site. It has, for example, no mention of the many documented statements by Lenin where he demands terror and hangings. The only source it has regarding this matter is Trotsky who is obviously biased. Pipes lists numerous sources for his statements. His sources for this is Izvestiia. Ultramarine 12:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Marxists.org is not partial or biased. While I am sure the list is not complete (due to finding correct translations, factual texts etc) they have virtually everything Lenin wrote and/or said. These include many speeches were he calls for the use of terror and such. Regardless. I see we disagree over point 4. What do you think of Points 1, 2 and 3?

On Point 4. Trotsky is not their source for that info, its just a comment they've put in. One dubious example of one Soviet sending one more delegate than another un-named Soviet is no proof they Bolsheviks 'gave' themsevles and their allies 90% of the seats. Lets try to reach a compromise;

A. Does Pipes (or another source you have) say the Bolsheviks and their allies got over 90% of the seats?

B. Does Pipes (or another source) say the Bolseviks 'gave' themsevles and their allies the seats?

If not we have to take those sections out. Of course this does not mean my proposed edit should replace them.

So we have 3 options, 1. Provide sources for the 90% and 'gave' bits 2. Take these bits out if no evidence can be produced 3. Take these bits out and replace them.

ps. that would be Richard Pipes the famed anti-soviet and anti-communist crusader?. Not sure how that makes his sources valid and Marxists.org not?

Regards TheInquisitor 13:30, 1 Oct 2005

1. I disagree since the motion did not say that.

It did say that but I wont labout the point. The original while not perfect will suffice.

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

According to Marcel Lieberman (Leninism under Lenin), p55 the only demonstration was a pro-assembly demonstration after it was closed down.

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

thats misunderstanding the Soviet system, the 2nd Congrees (from October) had already formed a Soviet government. They Bolsheviks and their allies returned to this. I cannot accept they 'gave' themselves anything without proof. That Pipes said it is not proof. I redirect you to my earlier comments about urgan/rural soviets etc. I understand you disputing Marxists.org so I found the same info in Lieberman's book (p98-100). This confirms the 390 Bolshevik delegation but not exact data on the SR, it says 160 delegates were SR but no breakdown between Right SR and Left SR.

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)

Many would say Pipes is biased, but of course I would never use Trotsky as a source. He's not the source of the article. Having read his book mentioned in the article it does not include any data about the size of the Soviet delegations.

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)

Pipes doesn't seem to have bothered to find out why the Soviets and Assembly had different compositions. 'Leninism under Lenin' is a valid source which covers this area in some detail, and at your insistance I am happy to solely use this as my reference. Now unless Pipes has any evidence that the infomation in Leninism under Lenin is wrong I dont see what your problem is?

TheInquisitor 15:53, 1 Oct 2005

Pipes is a respected scholar who has written an extensive book with thousands of references. It is more reliable than an old book from 1975. Again, read the Wikpedia policies that I linked. Ultramarine 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have read those links and am not disputing Pipes as a source generally (personaly I wouldn't trust a word the guys says but thats just me). I have not done original research. The quote from Pipes (which is your source) shows exactly why he cannot be used on this subject. Marcel Lieberman is a respected author too.

You should show an external source that invalidates Pipes book, written by another respected scholar. Until then, Pipes work is more recent and written after the achieves opened. Therefore, more reliable. Ultramarine 15:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have, Marcel Liebermans book goes into detail about the Soviet elections and how the Soviets operated. It invalidates Pipes section which purely states "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". Pipes does not give the dates of the election, the size of delegations and clearley does not know how the 2 institutions operate. TheInquisitor 17:03 1 Oct 2005

Your are doing original research. Again, find an external source by a respected scholar that invalidates Pipes. Also, you are ignoring Pipes source. You may also be interested in Orlando Figes A People's Tragedy, another recent book. He states the same thing. Look in the index to find the page. Ultramarine 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How am I? I have simply provided an external source with detailed information (Marcel Lieberman - Leninism under Lenin) which is superior to the rather vague, and easily proved false, information provided by Pipes.

No, for this you need to access the original source that Pipes refer to. Then you publish it outside Wikipedia. Then come back. Two well-known recent books about the Russian revolution, published after the achieves opened, state the same thing. Ultramarine 16:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Even so we have Pipes on one side and Marcel on the other. I accept you supporting Pipes but I equally can support Lieberman. The only neutral way out of this would be for us to remove the offending material "They gave themselves and their allies over 90% of the seats". My orignal suggestion would cover what we can both agree on;

"The Bolsheviks and their allies then walked out and later the same day declared the Constitution Assembly dissolved." This keeps the definite facts, removes disputed facts&figures and then the reader can look further into the issue to decide who is right. TheInquisitor

Again, Liberman is an inferior source. I have presented two recent ones by respected scholars. And your statement above is factually incorrect, it was dissolved the next day, on January 6. Ultramarine 16:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

And again its not your place to judge which source is more valid. Lets change it to;

"The Bolsheviks and their allies then walked out and the next day declared the Constitution Assembly dissolved."

You can put your version in with your reference. I will put in my version with my two references and explain the difference. Please also read Wikipedia:POV pushing. Ultramarine 16:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not take kindly to saying I am pushing a POV. I have simply tried to make the article more accurate and am more than happy to accept your opinions and references. I will make the agreed changes and then you can add your bit. Last point, the source on the article is listed as http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1d.htm. This is biased and silly site. Make sure you change the reference to Pipes and not that site. Thankyou TheInquisitor

You cant say the Soviet elections were not democratic. TheInquisitor

That is what the books state. Ultramarine 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I was solely going from the quote, will just clarify it and add Marcels info into my section 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 will take out the webpage, but not the referenced material. Note that the webpage cite sources, Pipes book. Ultramarine 17:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou, anyone reading that site will think Pipes is a lunatic. However we cant have "Pipes says this, Lieberman says that". Its making the article ridiclous.TheInquisitor

This is an encyclopedia and referenced facts are encouraged. Read Wikipedia: verifiability. Ultramarine 18:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

We cant have 2 versions of the same events. Either one is right or one is wrong. Since you wont accept Lieberman version and I wont accept Pipes version the only fair thing to do is to take out the dispute material. TheInquisitor

This is not how Wikipedia works. Read Wikipedia:NPOV. Views should not be hidden. Ultramarine 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case we must change the material to state they are views of the author and not facts.

I see no problems with the current version that says "state". Ultramarine 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I do, espesially as yours is worded like its more accurate when theres no way we can judge that. I think it would be best if we had a sub-section outlining the dispute between our references. In essence just moveing the said material down under a sub heading and leaving the main article with just the undispute material TheInquisitor

I'll show you what I mean TheInquisitor

[edit] Historical Duisputes

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)

[edit] Use of Lettish and Chinese troops to disperse the Assembly

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 would put the question differently. Are there any scholarly sources which have studied and discussed the use of force during this period, to disperse the Constituent Assembly?

Do such sources consider the ethnic composition of such forces? Whether they were Lettish, and/or, Chinese? --Ludvikus 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can people say the soviet elections were democratic?

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,