Was the Bolshevik dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly legal?

Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#11
Revolution is seldom legal.
Michail Voslensky in his work Nomenclature showed that the October Revolution in St. Petersburg as a result of which the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia was in fact not a revolution, but a counter-revolution.



This became clear after a while. The Bolsheviks eliminated the achievements of the February democratic revolution and imposed a crude military dictatorship on Russia. And they turned the Russian peasants into state serfs - kolkhozniki. Voslensky convincingly showed that in its political and social formation, Bolshevik Russia most resembled ... the medieval bureaucratic Chinese empire.

You will laugh - but when publishing many works of Marx and Engels, the Russians carefully extinct from them the mention of the Middle Ages Chinese method of production. Too many parallels with their Soviet state arose.
 
Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#12
The Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly arguing that the registered lists were outdated and the Soviets were the legal government.
The Constituent Assembly was elected during the all-Russian vote which took place in the former Russian Empire in November-December 1917 after the election date was postponed more than once.
This Assembly was to elect a new, permanent government of Russia instead of the Temporary government.

The Bolsheviks lost the election - the Socialist-Revolutionaries received 51.7%, the Bolsheviks-24.5%, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries-5.6%, the Cadets-2.4%, the Mensheviks-2.1%

And after the Constituent Assembly held its first meeting, they dispersed it and soon established the dictatorship of one party in Russia. At the same time, the Constituent Assembly managed to proclaime Russia as a federal democratic state, into which the national (non-Russian) territories of the former Russian Empire were to enter as broad autonomy. The proclaimed state was to have a broad social and national basis.

When the delegates again came to the Tavricesky Palace in Petrograd where the first meeting was held, they were met at the entrance by the Red Army with machine guns and two guns. It was January 19, 1918 (January 6, according to the Russian old style).
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,880
#13
Politics at the point of a sword has different rules than what the laws may otherwise suggest. In its way, it is legal, but fighting against the motion takes something more literal than an intellectual argument.

Moscow was the third Rome, was it not?

 
Likes: sparky
Nov 2015
1,916
Kyiv
#14
There's a very good book from the late 1980s (or mid perhaps) called Red Victory, I believe the author's last name is Lincoln. My recollection from reading Red Victory (more than 25 years ago) was that the fracturing of the Socialist Revolutionary party was considered to be a fateful event in Lincoln's account. I'd like to find that book at the used book store. (pretty sure I sold my copy to the used book store...)

Yes, the Left SRs were for a period of perhaps two or two and a half years rather important to the Bolsheviks' ability to influence life outside of the cities. Or so my recollection of reading Lincoln goes.
According to Stalin (1918), the territories of Central Russia became the real stronghold of Bolshevism. Or rather, the territory of former Moscow tzardom in its early version, that is the cradle of the Russian people. It was the territory which gave Bolshevism all necessary support. And it flooded the Red Army with bayonets. There are corresponding citations in the Complete Works of Stalin for that year.

There he called the counter-revolutionary - that is, anti-Bolshevik - the national ( = non-Russian) outskirts (окраины) of the former Russian Empire

Stalin I.V.
To the situation in the South
September 21, 1918
...
B) The periphery position of the counter-revolution.

Even at the beginning of the October revolution, there was a certain geographical demarcation between the revolution and counter-revolution (that is, Bolshevism and anti-Bolshevism - Dir). In the course of the further development of the civil war, the areas of revolution and counter-revolution were finally determined.

Inner Russia, with its industrial, cultural and political centers - Moscow and Petrograd, with a population nationally homogeneous, mostly Russian, has become the basis of the revolution.

The outskirts of Russia, mainly the southern and eastern outskirts, without important industrial, cultural and political centers, with a population highly nationally diverse, consisting of privileged colonial Cossacks, on the one hand, and incomplete Tatars, Bashkirs, Kyrgyz (in in the east), Ukrainians, Chechens, Ingush and other Muslim peoples, on the other hand, turned into a base of counter-revolution.

It is easy to understand that in such a geographical distribution of the fighting forces of Russia there is nothing unnatural. ... Is it not clear that no other “geographical distribution” could exist?

In contrast to the outskirts, inland Russia reveals a completely different picture ... nationally, it is united and soldered, for nine tenths of its population consists of Great Russians.


Сталин И.В. К военному положению на Юге (in Russian)

Before this, in an interview with an employee of the Izvestia newspaper Stalin said:

... As for the condition of the enemy units opposing us, 90% of them consist of the so-called nonresident, mostly Ukrainians and volunteer officers. (Russian - Dir) Cossacks are no more than 10%. ... "

Сталин И.В. На Южном фронте: Беседа с сотрудником газеты “Известия”
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,791
Sydney
#15
Any revolution is an anticipated legality if successful , high treason if it doesn't
Theodoric thanks for the clip
 
Jun 2016
1,784
Russia
#18
Some people just forget to translate the word "Soviet". It means "councils". The Soviets were just counsils, starting with street councils until the all-Russian council. It was much more legitime power than all that stuff invented by "liberals". No wonder that no one of dozens may be hundreds governments and "governments" during Civil war ever objected that this foolish assembly was dissolved.