Stolen from r/marxism_memes
1936: The Rights the U.S. Still Won't Guarantee - Lady Izdihar (3 min 51 sex)
Constitution of the Soviet Union - 8th All-Union Congress of Soviets
This Soviet World / (Audiobook) - Anna Louise Strong (1936)
The 1936 USSR Constitution was immediately followed by The Great Purge and only lasted 40 years
The soviet union was indeed in a constant state of turmoil and siege. From aggression by imperialists on the outside, and sabateurs and fascists on the inside that sought to reinstate capitalism, the socialists were forced to take the very real threat of infiltration seriously. In the purges, the large majority of those found guilty were expelled from the party, with executions largely reserved for those guilty of extreme crimes. Even then, excess did occur, and when the Politburo learned that the NKVD was playing it more fast and loose, they were ordered to stop.
Do you believe that there wasn't actually a serious threat of internal espionage and conspiracy? Do you believe that all of the ruling classes that were stripped from their Tsarist privledges simply gave up after the Russian Civil War? How do you suggest the soviets respond to such threats?
As for it only lasting 40 years, the 1977 constitution was more of an expansion on the 1936 constitution than a complete rewrite. It's progressive social guarantees remained intact.
.. and both countries are run by despots.
To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you? Unless you're talking about the Russian Federation, but that's not what I was talking about in this post.
How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.
Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.
Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?
Also, your "meme" is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn't equate that either of them are better than the other. You've selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn't prove your argument in your "meme". It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.
How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.
Democracy means "rule by the majority," not "choose between political parties." Liberal democracy reduces participation in governance to choosing which party represents you, while soviet democracy integrated the public into the democratic process of governance itself. Capitalists, fascists, etc. were oppressed, of course, but this is necessary for maintaining socialism.
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.
This is not reality. The people both had direct participation in the democratic process, and elected representatives that laddered upward. It functioned like so:
(Not affiliated with PCUSA).
For evidence, I'll point you to exactly the comment you responded to:
First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
Did you just brush past this paragraph?
Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?
Yes, kicking fascists and sabateurs out of the communist party was necessary. The USSR was in a state of prolonged class struggle, still grappling with vestiges of the prior tsarist system while also defending itself from imperialist aggression.
Also, your “meme” is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn’t equate that either of them are better than the other. You’ve selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn’t prove your argument in your “meme”. It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.
"My" meme (stolen from r/marxism_memes) is about comparing a democratically constructed constitution with an undemocratically constructed constitution. I didn't equate anything, just pointed out how the soviet constitution was enormously progressive for its time and how the US Empire's still is not even to this day. There's no fallacy here, just a direct comparison, which is totally valid.
You fail to understand that the USSR ceased to exist. What remains is run by a despot, regardless of your feelings or intent.
but that's another country with a different constitution
Yes.
However, the country that OP is discussing ceased to exist and thus its founding documents are pretty much irrelevant.
Do you believe the constitution created the collapse of the USSR? Are you arguing against full employment guarantees, equality of the sexes and ethnicities, etc? What specifically is your point on why the USSR dissolved, do you think the democratic process by which the constitution was drafted caused it to dissolve?
Regardless of how or why it failed, the constitution and the society it represented, failed to secure the continued existence of the country.
A constitution is not the only way to form a country and the two examples you gave both ended up with a despot in charge.
You have not at all connected your claims to the evidence you believe supports them. That's my point.
However, the country that OP is discussing ceased to exist and thus its founding documents are pretty much irrelevant.
Agree, history is completely irrelevant today is the only thing that matter!
I understand that the USSR dissolved. During its time, it was comprehensively democratic in a way that supercedes what capitalism can offer, proven in practice by the sharp decay in democratization with the reinstatement of capitalism. Is your argument that the dissolution of the USSR was unavoidable? That takes a great deal of evidence to prove.
I am attempting to point out that a document that you're holding up as an ideal, together with what it represents and how society surrounding it was structured did not last for more than 55 years, which is less time than I've been on this planet.
While it might represent something that you find appealing or inspiring, it didn't last, or said differently, it failed.
I'd also point out that countries like Australia don't have a constitution at all and they've lasted longer than that.
I think that you need to find a better argument to promote a worker based economy. Perhaps the co-op based system in Italy, which has lasted longer, is a more sustainable way to go.
You haven't explained why socialism was dissolved in the USSR, though, despite gesturing towards your belief that it was an inevitability of the system to do so. This is wrong, though, contemporary analysis shows that the USSR, though slowing down in development, was still positively growing and developing, and was under no real material crisis at the time of its dissolution. It was killed politically. Without understanding the context and underlying causes, you're just hinting that it's related to the socialist system itself.
Why then, have the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos continued their socialist systems? How are they similar, and how are they different? Do you believe their collapse is similarly inevitable as you believe the USSR's dissolution to have been, or is that unique to the USSR's conditions?
As for Italy and the cooperative movement, it's neat, but it isn't socialism, and is in the context of an imperialist state. If Italy had cooperative ownership as the principle aspect of its economy and had given up on its imperialism, we would have an interesting discussion on socialism vs cooperativism, but that's not the case. Australia is a capitalist settler-colony and too depends on imperialism.
Man, I wish I lived in your world where the USSR exists
Man, I do not miss having your vibes-based, nihilistic layabout ideology where liberation is just as "evil" as colonial domination and the only "moral" action is to do nothing.