What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      12·
      2 days ago

      Excerpts from a book from a reputed US academic institution, which I’m not sure whether you would favor over a book written by one of your comrades. Just give me the biggest example of when the Supreme Soviet voted against the Presidium starting with Stalin and before Gorbachev.

      • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        4·
        2 days ago

        Is this the sort of thing you’re looking for?

        Within a few weeks after the 13th Congress Pravda published Stalin’s report…. Stalin’s report also contained an attack on Zinoviev, though without naming him:

        “It is often said that we have the dictatorship of the party. I recall that in one of our resolutions, even, it seems, a resolution of the 12th Congress, such an expression was allowed to pass, through an oversight of course. Apparently some comrades think that we have a dictatorship of the party and not of the working class. But that is nonsense, comrades.”

        Of course Stalin knew perfectly well that Zinoviev in his political report to the 12th Congress had put forward the concept of the dictatorship of the party and had sought to substantiate it. It was not at all through an oversight that the phrase was included in the unanimously adopted resolution of the Congress.

        Zinoviev and Kamenev, reacting quite sharply to Stalin’s thrust, insisted that a conference of the core leadership of the party be convened. The result was a gathering of 25 Central Committee members, including all members of the Politburo. Stalin’s arguments against the “dictatorship of the party” were rejected by a majority vote, and an article by Zinoviev reaffirming the concept was approved for publication in the Aug. 23, 1924 issue of Pravda as a statement by the editors. At this point Stalin demonstratively offered to resign, but the offer was refused.

        -Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 144

        This is from an explicitly anti-“Stalinism” book showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.

        For the record, I do think that historical texts by “comrades,” as you sneer, can be interesting and insightful, but I mostly concern myself with texts by liberals (or otherwise anti-communist ideologies) because I know those are the only ones that won’t be rejected out of hand.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          1·
          2 days ago

          Thanks. The oblique narrative flow of this text is pretty confusing and I don’t think I understood it. The expression in question is “dictatorship of the party”, right? Was the vote inside the Presidium? From what I gather, the expression was in line with what the party elite wanted, meaning the soviet did not vote against the presidium?

          as you sneer

          My English level is only near-native, sorry. That’s not what I meant. You answered my question directly with a source that I’d trust.

          • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
            3·
            2 days ago

            I apologize about the language bit. I rarely get a liberal arguing about this who wouldn’t use such a term as “comrade” derisively.

            Anyway, I explained the reason I shared it, which is that it is:

            showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.

            But that’s not precisely what you asked for, I just don’t have a good source on your real question.