Dissolution of the Russian Constituent Assembly, 19 January 1918 - Essay Example

Dissolution Of The Russian Constituent Assembly, 19 January 1918 Introduction In the mid 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian regime battled many challenges. Most of the country’s problems emanated from poor governance that made it lose in the 1900s war with Japan. After the political resolution with the Right Socialist Revolutionaries, the regime was confronted with an election decision requiring the formation of a Constituent Assembly whose composition would be dissimilar to that of the Soviet (Adorno 2004). The formation of the Constituent Assembly was regarded as the main pillar for Bolshevism, after the nationalization of land and the eight-hour work period. The Bolsheviks were simultaneously fighting for supremacy for the Soviets as well as the set up of the Constituent Assembly. Lenin reiterated that there was a single way towards implementing the political agenda, which was by strengthening the Soviets, and by coordinating and giving arms to the working-class population. Bukharin used examples from English and French account, and projected that after convoking the Constituent Assembly, the Cadets would be excluded from it, and the Assembly would be declared a radical convention. Bolshevik Movement The Bolsheviks were apparent that the upcoming leadership of Russia would be the Soviets; the radical organizations of the masses and the peasantry. Conflict with the Soviet was inevitable; if not, then it was the provisional government opposing both the Soviets and the Constituent Assembly. Despite proposing for the postponement of elections, Lenin’s suggestion did not survive the political wave. Instead, the politician was left drumming up support for the Constituent Assembly singlehandedly (Shiach 2004). Election Results The Socialist Revolutionaries attained an apparent majority, both of the popular and the seats slots in the Assembly. While the Bolshevik vote was about a 15 percent of the total, they preponderated in some key areas like the in two capitals. Lenin’s side, the Bolsheviks dominated the Western Front whereas the Socialist Revolutionaries dominated the Rumanian Front. The Bolsheviks had gripped the axis of the country - the major cities, the industrialized towns, and the defense force of the rear; they controlled the strategic sections of the navy with reference to Moscow and Petrograd. In addition, the Bolsheviks commanded a massive following among the central peasants, the White Russian, and the Northwestern regions (Marx, 2005). The Socialist Revolutionaries controlled the black-earth zone, the Volga Valley, and Siberia; generally, they were still the peasants’ party, despite serious defections. Separatist movements gained strength in the Ukraine, the Baltic, the Transcaucasus, and between the Urals and the Volga. The most robust movement thrived in the Ukrainian nationalism; the Menshevisrn faction dominated the remaining parts, except in the Transcaucasus, where it was entangled with Georgian nationalism. Much to the disarray of Bolshevik anticipation, the Right Socialist Revolutionaries ended up dominating the Constituent Assembly; Lenin was quick to defend this – the ASR benefited from the obsolete law that granted excessive weight to their political opponents (Conrad 2006). The Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries epitomized the vast majority of the urban working class, the peasantry in the locality of the industrial centers, and the armies in the north and northwest. The Constituent Assembly dissolved after a day of existence; Lenin’s proposal suffered a massive blow when over half of the voters rejected it. The proposal had a specific theme aimed at addressing the rights of the working and the subjugated people. The Civil War Ever since the Revolution of 1917, the Social Democracy has recurrently argued that, the republic of Soviet was a stronger form of democracy than the other republic with a Constituent Assembly. However, Lenin reiterated that the election returns were not commensurate with the concrete will of the people. The revolution swayed the masses to the left, which did not significantly affect the Assembly. Ultimately, the civil war had climaxed the power struggle, and destroyed the likelihood of reconciling in a formally democratic way, the very severe tribulations that history had threatened the people of Russia (Adorno, 2007). Lenin recapped that in their times, there was not a single issue which could be decided by the ballots instead bullets prevailed. The politician was fully aware of the dictatorial power of the RSR in the Constituent Assembly, but at the same time was conscious of the superiority of the urban political power. In terms of ballot vote, the countryside overshadowed the towns, but in actual social, and political power, the towns retained the superiority. The theory gave the Bolsheviks a massive salient power (Marx 2005). An overpowering dominance of forces at the influential point at the decisive moment was equivalent to the decree of political success, especially in the ferocious, livid class war called the revolution. The political dictatorship was a mechanism for winning the masses from the bourgeoisie and the petty parties. Between March and September 1848, the feudal-bureaucratic faction supported the liberals to facilitate holding down the radical masses. Marx elaborated that from the initial moment of triumph, and after it, the mistrust of the workforce must not be directed any longer against the subjugated intransigent party, but against the preceding collaborator, the petty bourgeois partisans, who yearn to abuse the ordinary victory just for themselves (Swingewood 2007). The Russian civil war (1918–1920), the jingle of the Constituent Assembly served as a panel for the repression of the landowners and the industrialists. The Peasantry in the 20th Century The Emancipation Edict drafted in 1861 had not granted the peasantry their freedom; therefore, they had to compensate for it (Adorno 2007). Millions of the peasantry was still indebted to the previous lords; the Emancipation reallocated the land, the lord retained the common land and, in response, gave the community council the infertile land. Land distribution was in the hands of the lords, and hence the peasants were not motivated to develop the land. The peasants were displeased with the harsh taxation, which was to fund industrialization in the country. The peasants formed political organizations under the sunshade of the Narodnaya Volya (Peoples Will) placard. The Narodniks had rebellious intentions of ending the abuse of the peasantry; Lenins brother, Alexander Ulianov, was affiliated to one such groups upon arrest, and was hanged for assassination attempt of the Tsar. In 1901 the Narodnaya Volya organization created a peasant-based communist party - the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs). The party’s objective was to propel a peasant-based revolution that would grant the land to the peasants, and to establish a non-Marxist, collectivist, regime. The party used terror to propagate their idealisms (Williams 2004). After a party split, two factions were formed: the Right SRs making the Provisional Government, and the Left SRs that were linked to the Bolsheviks throughout the October Revolution. After the February Revolution, most peasants acquired land from their proprietors, some mobbed, and their mansions scorched. The peasants assumed the running of all facets of village life. After the October Revolution, several peasants, discontented with the Bolshevik conquest, created anti-Bolshevik armies (the Greens), which fought with diminutive success. War Communism Policy Under the new administration, the peasants were treated very unsympathetically. There was a raging civil war and the cities were famished. The situation compelled the authorities to mobilize troops take grain from the peasants at gunpoint, in order to feed the starving cities. The New Economic Policy formed after the Civil War permitted the peasants to lease labor, purchase land, and trade surpluses for an income. Some farmers became prosperous. Stalin required the land to be nationalized, and to smash the peasants as a political power - so he established Collectivization. The policy implied that all the farms, livestock, and machinery were managed by the state; the peasants were remunerated a pay so that they could turn into rural proletariat. Stalins aims succeeded, and that terminated the peasant threat to the regime again (Shiach 2007). World War 1 The Soviet leaders rather reluctantly supported a protective war, but were more steadfast to an impractical program of ending the war, through a common peace devoid of indemnities or annexations, a method that neither the Allies nor the Germany would oblige to (Conrad 2006). With this background, the war minister, hoped to bolster Russias dispensation with a new offensive on the Eastern Front. The tactic was marred by the reluctance of the officers to mobilize their forces due to the shattered hopes of social transformation and an end to the war that the February Revolution had let loose in the trenches. The summer offensive was a massive failure; the peasant soldiers desolated en masse to join the revolt, and fraternization with the adversary became frequent. After assuming power, the Bolsheviks promised to restore the rights to the fraught people of Russia. In 1917, Lenin, calling upon all belligerents to end the slaughter of World War 1, created the Decree on Peace. Lenin’s hope was to transform the war into a global civil war, after realizing that the imperialist powers had rapacious ambitions besides ceasing fighting (Adorno 2004). Nonetheless, the Red Armys triumph over The Three Campaigns in the Civil War that cost ten million lives, assumed a deified position in Soviet and Russian record. The success helped build post-tsarist Russias personality as a strong country that had resisted to the bullying of the west, and that set at the core of the Cold War. Some of the future leaders like Gorbachev were accustomed to declaring it; and it cannot be distant from President Putins intellect as proceedings unfold in the Middle East. Bibliography Adorno T.W 2004, The Political Dynamics of Post Revolution Russia in H. Newcomb (ed.), The Critical View, pp.104-258. Adorno, T.W. & Horkheimer, M 2007, The Politics of Communism in Modern Soviet Union in J.Curran et al. (eds), The Stalinist Soviet Approach, excerpts pp.126-324. Conrad, P 2006, The Lessons from Russian Revolution, London: Routledge & Kogan Page, excerpts pp.1-87. Marx, K 2005, The Materialist Conception of History in T.B. Bottomore & M. Rubel (eds), Karl Marx : Selected writings in Sociology & social philosophy, Excerpts pp.67-80. Shiach, M 2007, The Intrigues of Revolution in a Communist System in Discourse on Socialist culture, Oxford: policy, excerpts pp.168-231. Swingewood, A 2007, The Theory of Socialist Society, in the Myth of Socialist Culture, London: Macmillan excerpts pp.8-52. Williams, R 2004, Towards a Sociology of culture, in culture, Glasgow: Fontana excerpts pp.27- 64. Read More