To Secure this Beachhead of Worker's Power: A Soviet Union Quest.

Can we please cease the infighting and stop slandering one of our comrades who has always been a great supporter of the revolution? :(
 
[X]Let's All Be Reasonable
[X]Let's give them a reason to trust us
[X]Demand Estonia
[X]Get the Red Army in
[X]Subordinate the Engineers to the Soviets
[X]Rural Food Security Act
[X]Red Army Reform Investigation
 
[X]Sverdlov's Ploy Succeeds
[X]Let's give them a reason to trust us
[X]Demand Estonia
[X]Get the Red Army in
[X]Subordinate the Engineers to the Soviets

I trust Zimmerwald's judgement in these affairs, so I'm voting for the same options he did. He knows more about the party and revolution than I do, so why not.
 
[X]Sverdlov's Ploy Succeeds
[X]Let's give them a reason to trust us
[X]Demand Estonia
[X]Get the Red Army in
[X]Subordinate the Engineers to the Soviets
 
Yeah, the big area of dispute seems to be the matter of "Empower the Trade Unions." What's the argument for that, again? Gonna dig back to when people were talking about that.
 
We absolutely need to promote worker's power through the trade unions and prevent the formation of executive bureaucracy. To do otherwise would be an utter betrayal of socialism.
 
Last edited:
I kinda want to change my vote from (Let's Be Reasonable) too (Sverdlov's Plot Suceeds) But have no idea how to find my comment with the vote. 😐
You can use the forum's search function to search your posts within the thread. Or you can go back manually through each page and ctrl+f your username until you find your post. Or you can post a second voting slate, which will override your first.
 
We absolutely need to promote worker's power through the trade unions and prevent the formation or executive bureaucracy. To do otherwise would be an utter betrayal of socialism.
Empowering the trade unions is exactly the sort of thing that will promote an executive bureaucracy. How exactly do you think the trade unions are run? If you want administration by the people, subordinate the engineers to the soviets.
 
Empowering the trade unions is exactly the sort of thing that will promote an executive bureaucracy. How exactly do you think the trade unions are run? If you want administration by the people, subordinate the engineers to the soviets.
I mean, having the executive committee run the department also seems like executive bureaucracy to me. And one that is an extra step removed from the elections of individual councils due to the Soviet structure.
 

So, I recognize this is a joke. But to respond to the underlying point: I think viewing Stalin as the primary threat to our government structure is understandable but misguided. He is an opportunist and apt at consolidating political power, but he is one among many right now. His rise to being one of the primary figures in the Soviet system is still 3-4 years or so in the future, something that might very well be avoided if we don't steer the Soviets into becoming a single party state. His historic rise to power was predicated on assuming party control after all, something that might be harder to do if ITTL Soviets don't shut all other partiers out of the political system and ban internal factions. Regardless if he is able to assume much more power in the future, in the here and now there are plenty of other power hungry political opportunists in the soviet leadership. Right now, the question of Lenin's succession isn't even being asked, who knows who might shove thrust themselves in the upper positions due to timeline divergences.
I would recommend maintaining a general distrust against every executive committee member that tries to obtain substantially more power, rather than being overly paranoid about a single one. (Ironically, this overly strong focus on a singular leader lead to Stalin's rise to power as people feared Trotsky becoming a dictator, taking the wrong historical lesson from Bonaparte.) There are plenty of tigers in this cage, we should keep our wits with us.
 
But it isn't? The soviet executive is composed of soviet members, unlike a Sovnarkom department or trade union which are staffed by employees.
I don't think being a member of parliament precludes you from being part of the executive bureaucracy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your definitions, but the executive committee is a permanently convening body elected by the general council of soviets to take oversee the affairs of the state while they are not gathered. This seems like the people on top of the state's bureaucratic apparatus to me.
 
I don't think being a member of parliament precludes you from being part of the executive bureaucracy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your definitions, but the executive committee is a permanently convening body elected by the general council of soviets to take oversee the affairs of the state while they are not gathered. This seems like the people on top of the state's bureaucratic apparatus to me.
The difference is in the lack of separate powers, and where responsibility lies. The soviet is both a deliberative and working body possessed of both legislative and executive powers, and thus of executive committees, not merely a parliament. Executive committee members are responsible to the soviet and to their electors. To the extent executive committee members employ staff, they stand and fall by their members are not permanent fixtures. The Sovnarkom is a separate executive body which might or might not actually be responsible to the soviet, but its employees are responsible to it alone. The trade unions are corporate bodies responsible to their members, their reach is limited to where they have members (and any given union might not have the majority of members in any given workplace), and their employees are responsible to their respective leaderships chosen according to their respective bylaws. The Sovnarkom is the fount of a separate bureaucracy; the trade unions are an impossible hodge-podge.
 
Call me crazy, but I think that that making industries directly responsible to their workers is much preferable than subordinating them to some allegedly representative "committee".
 
Call me crazy, but I think that that making industries directly responsible to their workers is much preferable than subordinating them to some allegedly representative "committee".
"The trade unions" are not "the workers," a given trade union probably organizes a minority of workers at any given workplace. And corporate-interest competition is better resolved through political negotiation in the soviet than through on-the-ground union turf wars.
 
Later, could we add an agenda item to reform the voting rules? Looking at the vote talley there seems to be 50 incorrect agenda items (Edited: Revised down from 54 due to correcting a misunderstanding about rule 3). Also, it seems to be that adding an agenda item is different from the normal vote. There is a space as compared to the requirement for the rest of the non-agenda votes to have no space after the bracket. And also it is a lowercase x.
To vote for someone's agenda item to be included in Sovnarkom, simply write

[x] (Agenda Item)
 
Last edited:
Just an example from the vote tally. All of these votes are going to be voided (replaced X with Cs as to not actually vote).
7 people have voted
-[C]Let's All Be Reasonable
7 people have voted
[C] We've made our bed with the Germans now
7 people have voted
[C] Keep the Department in Sovnarkom
6 people have voted
-[C]Narva is Ours
6 people have voted
-[C]Keep the Department in Sovnarkom
6 people have voted
-[C] Let's give them a reason to trust us
6 people have voted
-[C] Get the Red Army in
 
Last edited:
Back
Top