Can we ever escape Leninism?

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 25 2017 12:09

Zanthorus,
Implying that anyone here has some kind of psychosis is sick and intimidatory. Better manners please. That is, be a little more generous and a little more human. Don't you work in 'health and medicine' from your profile? (And has that profile changed recently?)

Noa, Rodman,
if you have read other stuff I have written you will know that I have a basic anti-intellectualism, though I read many intellectuals. And that my perspectives come mainly from actual involvement in 'struggles'.

But what is really significant about your last post is that you begin by what appears to be an earnest desire to allow me to elaborate my thinking and then you end it with an insulting presumption about me cosying up to some 'highfalutin Theorist'. .

So you are unable to withhold your knee-jerking, even when you really probably try hard not to.

And on the consciousness-raising and Lenininsm - you haven't got that at all, have you? My argument would be that the Christians were the archetype of the consciousness-raising paradigm, Lenininsm is simply our most modern and obvious example.

Come on, think harder, Noa! No more questions, or references to your illustrious online library with your stupendous typing skills, go away and think.

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 25 2017 12:40
Zanthorus wrote:
I'm not a Leninist. But nor am I afraid that my politics might turn out to be a form incipient Leninism, or feel the need to project my fear of Leninism outwards by calling everyone who disagrees with me a Leninist.

Translation:

Quote:
If I end up shooting people in the head after me and my buddies snatch State power from the pockets of the bourgeoisie, I'm ok with that.
Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jul 25 2017 13:18
Tom Henry wrote:
if you have read other stuff I have written you will know that I have a basic anti-intellectualism, though I read many intellectuals. And that my perspectives come mainly from actual involvement in 'struggles'.

But what is really significant about your last post is that you begin by what appears to be an earnest desire to allow me to elaborate my thinking and then you end it with an insulting presumption about me cosying up to some 'highfalutin Theorist'. .

So you are unable to withhold your knee-jerking, even when you really probably try hard not to.

I'm not using 'highfalutin Theorist' as an insult, just putting myself on your anti-intellectual stance and asking how in your actual involvement in today's struggles you would ever concretely identify/face the alleged problem of Marxist "productivism".

Quote:
And on the consciousness-raising and Lenininsm - you haven't got that at all, have you? My argument would be that the Christians were the archetype of the consciousness-raising paradigm, Lenininsm is simply our most modern and obvious example.

That's a cheap amalgamation.

Quote:
Come on, think harder, Noa! No more questions, or references to your illustrious online library with your stupendous typing skills, go away and think.

Only if you present at least a somewhat coherent point to think about.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 26 2017 07:09

No, no, no, Noa, keep up.

Noa responds to:

Quote:
And on the consciousness-raising and Lenininsm - you haven't got that at all, have you? My argument would be that the Christians were the archetype of the consciousness-raising paradigm, Leninism is simply our most modern and obvious example.

With:

Quote:
That's a cheap amalgamation.

Not so, dear Noa, it is absolutely a fundamental and critical comparison. How could you think I was plying cheap shots here, Noa? Have a little respect hahaha. For me to employ such a comparison as some kind of cheap trick would make no sense for my argument.

Non-Leninist Marxism and historical materialism fail to explain, as Marxist philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre notes, “on what basis” people enter into the “community of free individuals” that is the promise of communism.

The deterministic process of historical materialism that, through capitalism, has created a humanity ready for the veil of mysticism to be lifted as well as the means to provide global abundance does not indicate how people will become, through the same determining historical process, so conditioned and so transmuted, that communism will be, for want of a better analogy, their natural impulse – unless one goes full Leninist and factors in the requirement for a transitional state.

Marxists, therefore, and contrary to their scientism, have always had to assemble moralistic appeals to peoples’ supposed better natures that attempt to show how free association might work, and why it would be good for us.

As MacIntyre puts it: “It is unsurprising that abstract moral principle and utility have in fact been the principles of association which Marxists have appealed to, and that, in their practice, Marxists have exemplified precisely the kind of moral attitude which they condemn in others as ideological” (A. MacIntyre, After Virtue).

In another part of the post Noa writes:

Quote:
I'm not using 'highfalutin Theorist' as an insult, just putting myself on your anti-intellectual stance and asking how in your actual involvement in today's struggles you would ever concretely identify/face the alleged problem of Marxist "productivism".

But this is not a clear question at all. What do you mean by this confusing paragraph? But I didn’t mean it! Please don’t try to rephrase it so it makes sense.

Noa refuses the dance of thought if it does not comprise of something to attack:

Quote:
Only [will I think] if you present at least a somewhat coherent point to think about.

You want me.

To become more coherent.

For you.

But this would be like.

Writing poetry backwards.

And translating every second.

Word.

Into another language.

And getting.

A dog to bark the number of syllables.

And.

Still.

Your ears would.

Still.

Hear only.

Treason.

(After Noa Rodman, satirising and complaining about Dave B, and on the closing of a ‘conversation’.)

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jul 26 2017 09:45
Tom Henry wrote:
Non-Leninist Marxism and historical materialism fail to explain, as Marxist philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre notes, “on what basis” people enter into the “community of free individuals” that is the promise of communism.

The deterministic process of historical materialism that, through capitalism, has created a humanity ready for the veil of mysticism to be lifted as well as the means to provide global abundance does not indicate how people will become, through the same determining historical process, so conditioned and so transmuted, that communism will be, for want of a better analogy, their natural impulse – unless one goes full Leninist and factors in the requirement for a transitional state.

Marxists, therefore, and contrary to their scientism, have always had to assemble moralistic appeals to peoples’ supposed better natures that attempt to show how free association might work, and why it would be good for us.

As MacIntyre puts it: “It is unsurprising that abstract moral principle and utility have in fact been the principles of association which Marxists have appealed to, and that, in their practice, Marxists have exemplified precisely the kind of moral attitude which they condemn in others as ideological” (A. MacIntyre, After Virtue).

Don't know why you believe MacIntyre is a Marxist (there is such a thing as right-wing criticism of modernity), and still don't see how Marxists resemble Christians (who believe in original sin, so hardly believe in the moral/natural impulse of mankind), but to address the point;

No, Marxism doesn't explain how people will be conditioned by a historical process to "believe in communism", which is fine. And yes, instead it argues for the need for an organisation that will seek to propagate that it is in the self-interest of workers to fight for communism, which is again fine – it's not an ideological, non-scientific "moralistic appeal". And if showing "how free association might work" is a demand in advance for a concrete outline of what this free association will decide and do, then obviously that's up to the free individuals themselves and it isn't our task to "deterministically" set it in stone.

Quote:
But this is not a clear question at all. What do you mean by this confusing paragraph? But I didn’t mean it! Please don’t try to rephrase it so it makes sense.

You said that your perspectives were partly formed by practical struggles, so I wondered how Marxists' alleged "productivism" would be manifested to you in practice today, though obviously I think you just got it from reading some highfalutin' Theorist (and you confirm that by avoiding my question).

Zanthorus's picture
Zanthorus
Offline
Joined: 3-08-10
Jul 26 2017 12:13
Tom Henry wrote:
Implying that anyone here has some kind of psychosis is sick and intimidatory. Better manners please. That is, be a little more generous and a little more

Do you understand how rhetoric works?

My actual point is this. Your whole argument boils down to - Marxism leads to Leninism. Leninism is bad, ergo, Marxism is bad*. There's no real discussion or critique of value, surplus-value, (self)valorisation, expanded reproduction or any of the other categories of Marx's critique. There's no real discussion of the validity of Marx's analysis of capital as an 'automatic subject'. These categories are bad, because they lead to Leninism, which is bad (No matter that no-one here is actually a Leninist).

You complain about intellectuallism but then bring in a moral philosopher as an authority on Marxism.

Your whole method of argument brings nothing to discussion.

*Hegel says that syllogism is the truly rational logical form, I'm sure he would be proud, although association with Hegel would associate you with the Enlightenment, and with the horrors of progressivism and productivism.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 26 2017 12:44

Aw, Noa.

MacIntyre says he is Marxist. And what the bleedin' 'ell has original sin got to do with consciousness raising??? (For the record, though it will probably confuse you, I am Marxist, also anarchist, also, council/left communist, etc.)

I give you the whole thing based on MacIntyre's observation, and you don't engage with what he has said, or what point I am trying to get across, you just say: "Don't know why you think MacIntyre is a Marxist" - you actually have no idea about how to discuss something. Although you do know how to make yourself feel you have won an argument. And this makes you all about yourself and not at all about a search for what might be truth.

Furthermore, I am not aware in any of your posts where you have talked about anything you have ever actually been involved in.

Please give us a list of all your interesting interventions and all the insights you have gained from them.

Please neglect to mention all the political sect work, or all the endeavours you have made on Internet forums.

On the other hand, just accept that you have beaten me in this laughable discussion (it's all about you remember, don't lose focus), I accept defeat and beg for your mercy, oh great one.

You can primp and preen on the fact that I have supposedly avoided your question. S. Artesian acted in the same way, and his little acolytes piped up for him, as yours do for you. He has called you some bad things in the past too hasn't he? There is no honour amongst thieves.

As I said before the field is yours Noa, savour the immense victory you have secured yourself and the international proletariat.

But give us one last word, Noa, something on the lines of me never having answered the question you thought up in the midst of a discussion you never quite (at all!) understood.

(And it was quite rude of you to make no mention of my poem, inspired by the poetry of Egil Skallagrimson, as well as your good self. It took me nearly a whole two minutes to write.)

All the best, keep smiling.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 26 2017 12:47

Good old Zanthorus! Ten out of ten!

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jul 26 2017 13:44
Tom Henry wrote:
MacIntyre says he is Marxist.

.

Quote:
MacIntyre began his career as a Marxist, but in the late 1950s, he started working to develop a Marxist ethics that could rationally justify the moral condemnation of Stalinism. That project eventually led him to reject Marxism along with every other form of “modern liberal individualism” and to propose Aristotle’s ethics as a more effective way to renew moral agency and practical rationality through small-scale moral formation within communities.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mac-over/

But this was just as an aside, not the main point.

Quote:
And what the bleedin' 'ell has original sin got to do with consciousness raising???

You claimed that Marxists make "moralistic appeals to peoples’ supposed better natures", and I contrasted this what Christianity's doctrine of mankind's original sin (and its inability to save itself, only faith in Jesus can).

Quote:
I give you the whole thing based on MacIntyre's observation, and you don't engage with what he has said, or what point I am trying to get across,

My engagement with it is found in my paragraph starting from "No, Marxism doesn't explain how people will be conditioned by a historical process..."

Quote:
But give us one last word, Noa, something on the lines of me never having answered the question you thought up in the midst of a discussion you never quite (at all!) understood.

Admittedly it's not a productive way to proceed a discussion merely by trying to find a contradiction in someone's argument (I'm sure Hegel said something along those lines), still I thought I also gave you an opportunity to elaborate your thinking. Before I can "beat" your argument, it's necessary to tease you of out your shell a bit more so that you feel confident enough to present one in the first place.

Quote:
And it was quite rude of you to make no mention of my poem, inspired by the poetry of Egil Skallagrimson, as well as your good self.

I try to stay on the actual topics.

Haust
Offline
Joined: 20-05-12
Jul 26 2017 14:21

Noa:

Quote:
Note that there are different traditions/models of CAs (iirc based on English and French history). I'm not sure which one the CA in Russia was modeled on. I think in one tradition the CA also assumes itself legislative powers, besides writing the constitution. And in the other the CA is just a select committee which composes the constitution.

although he mainly discusses the "idea" of a CA, russian historian lev g. protasov provides some insight into this. he hints towards the french tradition being the model for the russian CA, but that it quickly took a specific russian form (emphasis mine):

Quote:
... By 1917, the idea had a past more than a century old in Russia, but it constitute a basis for contemplation rather than for national ambitions. Carried by the winds of the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century into the eastern outskirts of Europe, into a country of autocracy and serfdom, the idea inevitably changed form, becoming a symbiosis of European political culture and Russian historical traditions. The idea of a Constituent Assembly was formed on the historical example of countries where the prerequisites had been created for a civil society and where the Leviathan state was not so omnipotent. In Russia, with its different types of feudalism and capitalism, given the political immobility of its society and its hypertrophic monarchy which maintained itself not only by coercive force but also by an ideology of its providential origins, as well as by its practice of all-embracing state paternalism, throughout the nineteenth century there was no soil to nurture the concept of popular sovereignty.

From this it follows that the idea of the Constituent Assembly in Russia took on a meaning broader and larger than in the West – not only a political meaning but a social-philosophical one. From the second half of the nineteenth century, when the country’s economic modernization intensified the need for appropriate state and social structures, and increasingly close ties with the West cast Russia’s archaic character in even greater relief, this idea was given a new impetus and became a kind of symbol of the country’s radical renovation, the elimination of its historical backwardness, and the solution to all its pressing social problems. Such an enlarged interpretation gave it a rather abstract, semi-legendary character, which was fostered, too, by the complete absence of political rights and liberties in Russia until the early twentieth century.

At the same time, the Constituent Assembly long remained an elitist idea because of the profound gap between the levels and, possibly, the type of political culture of the relatively thin educated stratum of society and the lower orders. The idea became part of the mentality of the Russian liberal-radical intelligentsia, its “bluebird,” a generalize reflection of certain of its qualities such as its “nonbourgeois” character, its hostility to autocratic-bureaucratic and police tyranny ... and its traditional love of the people, which also included its guilt complex before the people. Moreover, various historical models, from the Convention (at the time of the Great French Revolution), which opened the way to power for the Jacobins, to the Constituent Assembly of 1848, which established the moderate regime of the French Second Republic, shaped popular views.

however:

Quote:
After the February Revolution, old analogies to the role played by the Constituent Assembly during the French or American revolutions became irrelevant, because the autocratic colossus fell apart, in a matter of days, under the blows of the rebellious people.Its principal and traditional task had been accomplished – a democratic republic of maximum political legitimacy had been virtually established in Russia. But the elimination of the autocracy as a factor which had served to consolidate the opposition now served to split society, laying bare and exacerbating its glaring social contradictions.

-- "The All-Russian Constituent Assembly and the Democratic Alternative", in Revolutionary Russia. New Approaches (ed. Rex Wade)

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 26 2017 14:20
Zanthorus wrote:
No matter that no-one here is actually a Leninist

Translation:

Quote:
Slow, subtle movements and they might not notice me
petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jul 26 2017 19:52
Zanthorus wrote:
*Hegel says that syllogism is the truly rational logical form

well, then.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Jul 26 2017 19:53

Tom you share your fellow nilcoms (how many are you? I seem to remeber three different ones on libcom?!) roundabout "didactic" approach. Unfortunately most people can feel when you guys are setting a "trap" (sorry about the word, foreign me...) and react to it.

This time however you have actually stated things quite clearly and the slithering OT posts of other posters do make them look like they are hiding something.

From my point of view you are still not explaining the steps and arguments clearly. Explain *better* why communist consciousness requires a period of transition. Why can't ideas take root without a period of transition?

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 26 2017 21:55

To answer Cooked's questions; I don't perceive it as having too much to do with periodization or historiography in terms of this discussion itself. Tom, I think, was asking more about the process than the period in these particular threads.

But, in order to prevent capital from recuperating social revolt, and things going back to usual, the hypothetical complete stoppage of capitalist production on a massive, close to worldwide scale (for periods of weeks, months, years, etc) would present a kind of historical singularity where:

1) consciousness (ideas) becomes the determining factor in the trajectory of history, and,
2) people will notice that even though they're not going to work, and even though everything is closed, things are still getting along as good, if not better, than without capitalism.

And the purpose of these threads seems to me to be what role Marxism-Leninism plays in these hypothetical equations. Maybe Tom doesn't have all the answers. There's nobody paying any of us for our time here, and weeks later so many questions put to this community remain unapproached -- is it because of the dishonesty and distractions on the part of the Marxist orthodoxy and Marxist-Leninists, at least partly? I think so.

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 26 2017 21:49

PS - My question for Tom today is how he would respond to the remonstrance of 'spontaneity fetishism', 'councilism', 'maximalism', etc, in regards to his outlook? Or are these accusations somehow disingenuous by design?

Zanthorus's picture
Zanthorus
Offline
Joined: 3-08-10
Jul 26 2017 23:27

Another note:

Tom Henry wrote:
...they are trapped within the discourse of productivity and capitalism itself. Just as we are.

We started the thread with this thrilling rehash of how Marxism is trapped in the 'discourse of productivity'. Then later we are told of the SPGB that it is:

Quote:
The last group that has an intelligent and knowledgeable response to Leninism.

So the SPGB, the party that believes that the Russian revolution was and could only ever have been a bourgeois revolution, an outlook which is surely swimming in the 'discourse of productivity', is the last group with an intelligent response to Leninism.

If anyone can square this, be my guest.

And now everyone's favourite el psy congroo appear with another gem.

Quote:
the hypothetical complete stoppage of capitalist production on a massive, close to worldwide scale

This is his answer to creeping, incipient Leninism. At some point in the future the workers will all stop working, realise that everything's still fine, and then just keep not working.

You don't need to be a Leninist to realise how far from reality that vision of the end of capitalism is.

P.S. Artesian sends his regards.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jul 26 2017 23:23
zanthorus wrote:
At some point in the future the workers will all stop working, realise that everything's still fine, and then just keep not working.

You see, this is how use-value is abolished, as per current ultra-left haute couture.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 27 2017 00:28
Zanthorus wrote:
P.S. Artesian sends his regards.

Maybe if S.A. didn't voluntarily ban himself he could be sending his regards in person. He forgot to include his outbursts, the deleting of all his comments in "protest" and requesting to be banned (instead of just not using the site?), in this damning "Libcom exposé" of his -- from which Libcom's reputation will surely never recover. If he wants his account back, I'm sure he only has to ask or create a new one; no need to get all fired up on his personal blog and refer to people here in the third person.

Quote:
No exorcism of Lenin, of course, can be complete without casting Lenin as a German agent, bought and paid for with German gold. So we get “Was Lenin a German Agent?”

Yes because one person's thread about Lenin being a German agent is representative of the thoughts of everyone on Libcom.

Quote:
I do know that Bakunin and Proudhon were explicitly anti-semites…. and so why are their works maintained in the Libcom archive?

Maybe because, as stated for the hundredth or so time, their sexism and/or racism, which they were hardly alone in having, play no part in their political contributions or have anything to do when people invoke them today. I mean should we ban the works of Orwell or refrain from reading his account of the Spanish Revolution because he was a homophobe or sold out communists, etc.? As someone stated before, doing away Bakunin from Libcom would be like taking away Marx from Marxists Internet Archive. Do S.A. and co. really not understand this?

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 27 2017 01:54

Holy shit. Aaand here come the calvalry.

'Surf's up!" to quote Lt. Kilgore from Apocalypse Now.

Zanthorus wrote:
At some point in the future the workers will all stop working, realise that everything's still fine, and then just keep not working.
jura wrote:
You see, this is how use-value is abolished, as per current ultra-left haute couture.

Note the part where after you hit the 'quote' button, it gave Zanthorus credit for it because I didn't say that.

What I said was that perhaps once people realize they don't have to continue going to their places of work and purchasing commodities at stores to survive, only then might they open up to the concrete possibility of communism.

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 27 2017 03:30
Zanthorus wrote:
P.S. Artesian sends his regards.

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 27 2017 03:47
Zanthorus wrote:
You don't need to be a Leninist to realise how far from reality that vision of the end of capitalism is.

How do you and your buddies know this? Is there a time machine somewhere we all don't know about? How are you guys able to see into the future and proclaim to us what the end of capitalism will be like?

It is a lot like Christianity. Like the Pope describing his knowledge of Heaven.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 27 2017 08:41
Quote:
What I said was that perhaps once people realize they don't have to continue going to their places of work and purchasing commodities at stores to survive, only then might they open up to the concrete possibility of communism.

Wow. This is profound. I don't know why anyone hasn't ever thought of this before.

mn8
Offline
Joined: 21-06-16
Jul 27 2017 23:18

Thank you for the translations EPC, they were sorely needed.

el psy congroo wrote:
To answer Cooked's questions; I don't perceive it as having too much to do with periodization or historiography in terms of this discussion itself. Tom, I think, was asking more about the process than the period in these particular threads.

But, in order to prevent capital from recuperating social revolt, and things going back to usual, the hypothetical complete stoppage of capitalist production on a massive, close to worldwide scale (for periods of weeks, months, years, etc) would present a kind of historical singularity where:

1) consciousness (ideas) becomes the determining factor in the trajectory of history, and,
2) people will notice that even though they're not going to work, and even though everything is closed, things are still getting along as good, if not better, than without capitalism.

And the purpose of these threads seems to me to be what role Marxism-Leninism plays in these hypothetical equations. Maybe Tom doesn't have all the answers. There's nobody paying any of us for our time here, and weeks later so many questions put to this community remain unapproached -- is it because of the dishonesty and distractions on the part of the Marxist orthodoxy and Marxist-Leninists, at least partly? I think so.

I think that's an interesting way of looking at Marxism-Leninism. Putting it into a perspective of revolutionary tendencies having a favourable position. Slightly related, could you refer to it as that Party which would wish, in the event of a revolutionary situation, to engage in 'politics' and return to a 'normal' situation rather than allowing free rein to revolutionary tendencies? The state would come to function as increasingly bourgeois, because it wishes to re-accommodate the revolutionary trends with the bourgeois world society and previous ideas of 'functioning.' A revolution is a jump into the 'unexpected,' not something we go into with high hopes and the aim of 'politicking.' That is just to crawl our way back.

This could be located in most tendencies that would be uneasy with your point 1). Mechanical Marxists, etc., who seem to oppose you strongly here. So they could be called 'Leninists.' However, is all Marxism Leninist? No, however politically it may be called that. It sets up many ways for the revolution to fail, then tells the people to just be satisfied with the reforms that may occur - after all, the economy matters more than the oppressive 'state.' It tends to merely wash its hands of the state, and try to ignore it. That is an illusion.

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 29 2017 12:35

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 29 2017 12:42

Zanthorus wrote:
...
el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 29 2017 12:52
Zanthorus wrote:
Now I can only speak for myself, but I'm not a Leninist.

Sorry, gig is up my friend. Do you have anything to say regarding your disingenuous behavior in this thread, which I can only now view as an attempt at trolling or disruption?

Clearly, sir, you are a Leninist, or -- to use your own delicate words -- a 'pro-bolshevik' communist.

Zanthorus's picture
Zanthorus
Offline
Joined: 3-08-10
Jul 29 2017 14:24

...

r/ultraleft is a left communist meme sub where people post stupid jokes for fake internet points, not a platform for political debate -.-

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jul 29 2017 21:17
Haust wrote:
although he mainly discusses the "idea" of a CA, russian historian lev g. protasov provides some insight into this. he hints towards the french tradition being the model for the russian CA, but that it quickly took a specific russian form

Yes, they didn't follow the British/American model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Parliament_(1689)

Quote:
The Convention Parliament of 1689 would be imitated in the Thirteen Colonies, and the use of such conventions as an "instrument of transition" became more acceptable and more often used by the Colonies, resulting most notably in the 1787 Constitutional Convention which drew up the United States Constitution.

The Russian CA itself already had legislative power.

wiki wrote:
The Right SRs tried to use the final minutes of the Constituent Assembly to pass socialist measures which they had failed to implement in months of power in the Provisional Government. Chernov responded to the Soviet Decrees on Land and Peace with the SR-drafted "Law on the Land", which proclaimed a radical land reform.
..
See Jonathan D. Smele. Civil War in Siberia: The Anti-Bolshevik Government of Admiral Kolchak, 1918-1920, p.34 on the violent opposition of Siberian landowners to the Constituent Assembly in the wake of this decision

But this doesn't tell us much yet about what constitution that the right SR wanted for Russia, eg parliamentary system or presidential?

In the French tradition of 1848 the presidency created a sort of dual power.Marx (in The Class Struggles in France 1848-50) noted:

Frenchmen, for example Louis Blanc, have construed January 29 as the date of the emergence of a constitutional contradiction, the contradiction between a sovereign, indissoluble National Assembly born of universal suffrage and a President who, to go by the wording, was responsible to the Assembly, but who, to go by reality, was not only similarly sanctioned by universal suffrage and in addition united in his own person all the votes that were split up a hundred times and distributed among the individual members of the National Assembly, but who was also in full possession of the whole executive power, above which the National Assembly hovered as a merely moral force. This interpretation of January 29 confuses the language of the struggle on the platform, through the press, and in the clubs with its real content. Louis Bonaparte as against the Constituent National Assembly – that was not one unilateral constitutional power as against another; that was not the executive power as against the legislative. That was the constituted bourgeois republic itself as against the intrigues and ideological demands of the revolutionary faction of the bourgeoisie that had founded it and was now amazed to find that its constituted republic looked like a restored monarchy, and now desired forcibly to prolong the constituent period with its conditions, its illusions, its language, and its personages and to prevent the mature bourgeois republic from emerging in its complete and peculiar form.

--

Now in the US eg with the passing in both Houses of the Russian sanctions bill, the president still has a right to veto it if he wanted.

mn8
Offline
Joined: 21-06-16
Jul 30 2017 01:06

Is this getting slightly too personal? Still, it's interesting that these posters could be clear Leninists, according to their activity elsewhere...

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jul 30 2017 05:39

perhaps just useful to mention another work by Jonathan Smele (2003) which gives about 6000 references: The Russian Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921: An Annotated Bibliography