Talk:Soviet democracy

Poor sourcing
Anything sourced to www.marxists.org or similar websites should be removed from this article. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (courtesy ): This article is in horrible shape from top to bottom, sourcing, bias, OR, conflation, and lack of focus. WP:TNT is an option, but probably needs an RfC to clarify consensus. Some are trying to turn this into an academic article lay readers will not understand, others are trying to turn it into a propaganda piece lay readers will be mislead by. One thing is certain, readers are not going come here expecting theory or philosophy, they are going to come here looking for an article about an aspect of government in the Soviet Union. There are two articles here that are fighting with each other, one Democracy in the Soviet Union, the other Democracy in Council Communism  // Timothy ::  talk  21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
For sources I propose that the participants in the split/rewrite agree that:
 * 1) Create two new articles: Democracy in the Soviet Union and Democracy in Council Communism (or whatever names seem best).
 * 2) Turn this article title into a DAB that briefly differentiates each.
 * Primary sources are not used, except sparingly in quotes to support secodary sources. When primary sources are used, those with academic English language sources are preferred when possible, otherwise the original language version should be used. This will help with OR/SYNTH.
 * Secondary sources should be from mainstream peer reviewed academic journals and books published by academic presses, preferably post World War II unless an earlier source is more beneficial, and independent of the subject. This will help with IS RS.
 * Create an article Bibliography of Communism containing English language books and journal articles where the criteria for inclusion is specifically that the items are post World War II mainstream IS RS based on the above. I think this will be a valuable resource for editors in other articles. It can include a selection of important primary sources. I already have been working on this off wiki already.
 * Obviously the above would be simply a gentleperson's agreement and could be waived in special circumstances based on consensus.


 * The goal would be two feature articles and one featured list.
 * A moderator to resolve disputes would be helpful and keep everyone at their best, I think would be a good choice.
 * There are plenty of reasons why this may not work, but there are a lot of reasons why it could. I'm completely open to suggestions on alternatives.

 // Timothy ::  talk  21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page is actually misleading and do not object to any significant reworking, even such splitting with renaming. I also agree that readers are going to come here looking for an article about an aspect of government in the Soviet Union. Speaking of which, as Robert Conquest said, this government represented "a set of phantom institutions and arrangements which put a human face on the hideous realities: a model constitution adopted in a worst period of terror and guaranteeing human rights, elections in which there was only one candidate, and in which 99 percent voted; a parliament at which no hand was ever raised in opposition or abstention." This is probably one of the most precise summaries I have seen. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to oppose this proposal on the grounds that separating the theory of a workers democracy from the history of how that system was implemented makes no sense. There are already way too many overlapping articles about workers' councils and soviets and the ideas surrounding them. The proposed *democracy in council communism* would have to include historical information about the Soviet Union anyway, due to the power that workers' councils had in the Russian revolution. Both articles would have no real scope. Flameoguy (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * , I understand that you really like Conquest but he is not the be-all and end-all. In addition, the work you mentioned is not really about Soviet democracy but how evil the French Revolution, Khmer Rouge, communism, fascism, Bolshevism and Nazism really are/were. We need academic books and peer-reviewed articles whose main topic is soviet democracy. We need much more than just a quote or a passing mention in a book, whose main topic is not really this one. Davide King (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no, this is an academic book by probably the most famous historian of the Soviet Union. Are you saying you disagree with his summary? My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is another book. It tells the same, just uses more simple language. It tells the first genuine democratization (not even a democracy) in the USSR had happen under Gorbachev. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That one would also be great, but the content is mostly inaccessible. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree but we need books and peer-reviewed journals whose main topic is soviet democracy. What is the expertness of Bullock and Coleman? I get results from a Dr. Bullock and from the football player Coleman. The first one would be better served at Soviet Empire since that is the main topic while the other can be used here. Google Scholar can help us find books specifically about Soviet democracy. Apparently, Arendt advocated council democracy (see "Hannah Arendt's Argument for Council Democracy" and "Hannah Arendt's Argument for Council Democracy" in Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays), so we must clearly distinguish between the two. Davide King (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , these are very good proposal and very fair solutions, thank you. Other possible names could be Council democracy (the theory) and Soviet democracy (as practised in the Soviet Union), which the current article seems to conflate or treat as the same thing. Other solutions could be Soviet democracy (the theory) and Soviet democracy (form of government) or Soviet democracy (political system) (as practised in the Soviet Union), or even Democracy in the Soviet Union, where we discuss the form of goverment/political system and its democratic lack thereof. Davide King (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note also that we have page People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism). But the page is incorrect saying this is only a theoretical concept. Actually, the term was applied to Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe . My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have also page Demokratizatsiya (Soviet Union). Basically, there was no any democracy in the USSR in the normal sense, i.e. as a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their government and legislators. This started happening only during the end of perestroika. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reponse: I think these are positive responses, so I will go ahead and tag the page for a split and point to this discussion.
 * I am going to publish a Bibliography of Communism article with a limited number of entries and we can propose additions on the talk page, as well as discuss the lead and format. The more sources we can bring to the table for agreement on, the less fuss about IS RS will happen down the road. Since the Bibliography will be built from an open group discussion/consensus, it will be a resource for the community and especially AN/RS. Some authors we may just be able to add in as a whole, such as Conquest and Fitzpatrick, same with some journals. I think we all agree Oxford journals would be an IS RS.
 * I think should facilitate the rewriting of an article on Democracy in Council Communism or (some form of this name). Personally I would avoid the word Soviet in the title (it can be explained and included in the article) for clarity per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but I will defer to you and others.
 * I think should facilitate the rewriting of an article on Democracy in the Soviet Union (or some form of that name, but making it clear that it is about the Soviet Union per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). Democracy during the Russian Revolution would be a good companion.
 * I think Demokratizatsiya (Soviet Union) /should be /will be an important part of Democracy in the Soviet Union and will become redundant and should be redirected at the right time. I don't think any of the content is worth saving, it too OR/SYNTH, reads like a baseball game pregame and play by play, and isunsourced, the Democracy in the Soviet Union will be much better.
 * I think People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism) can wait but should eventually be deleted. The AT is very disputable. On a historical level, it combines too much, obsures important individual detail. On a theory level it is just a partially written mess. I think we should have an articles for each nation and about the theory, maybe People's democracy (communism) and Government of the Polish People's Republic (etc). Our experience with this article and the Bibliography we develop will help with this.
 * Thanks again for the positive feedback, please give more. I don't want to seem like I'm controling the conversation, just want to facilitate it, so stop/slow/redirect me as you wish. I look forward to your replies. I geninuely hope we get 3 FA/L articles, maybe more.  // Timothy ::  talk  04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would be happy to write Democracy during the Russian Revolution Article, as this is an area I've read a lot on, although that ought to go up to the first soviet union, and essentially will end where Democracy in the Soviet Union picks up, suggesting that they should really be two halves of the same article under two major headings, either way I the earlier area is one I've studied in quiet some depth. Z.Dearg (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Definition
Under the definition topic, there is no definition given, unlike in the introduction. It deals with the political system of the post-WWII USSR, which wasn't a Soviet democracy according to the introduction, since it didn't know a recall system, nor an imperative mandate, nor the basic organisation of voters. With the 1936 constitution, any remaining elements (de facto already abolished via the monopoly of power of the party and the GPU) got abolished, and replaced by a caricature of Western parliaments (to paraphrase Trotsky). The content of the chapter also seems biased and uncritical, since just not getting shot for expressing criticism is not per se democracy, the party leaders in many Eastern bloc countries loved to see themselves as the good leaders who care about their people. That's however not a Soviet democracy as outlined in the article, but what 19th century monarchs did. Socius sociologicus (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think this article could benefit from having more information about more authentic examples such as Makhnovshchina. Charles Essie (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Unclear terms
Definition section lacks clarity as to when it is referring to the general concept of soviet democracy vs. when it is referring to the specific implementation of that concept within the former USSR. 24.25.214.58 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this article should discuss both in detail as well as other cases such as the Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Makhnovshchina. Charles Essie (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Involvement of the British in the incident in Baku
The following sentence seems to be partially at odds with the "26 Baku Commissars" article: "In one incident in Baku, the British military, once invited in, proceeded to execute members of the Bolshevik Party who had peacefully stood down from the Soviet when they failed to win the elections."

Unless I overlooked or misread something, the "26 Baku Commissars" article gives me the impression that the British military likely had a less direct role in the executions than the quoted sentence states. ZFT (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is also present in several other Wikipedia articles. ZFT (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)