Summary, Comparison, and Analysis of the Russian Constitutions of 1918, 1924, and 1936

I wanted to share a quick summary and comparison of the first three constitutions adopted by the Russian Soviet governments following the historic revolution of October 1917. Specifically, I want to draw attention to the apparent irony -- though, in actual fact, perfectly logical phenomenon -- that there is a direct correspondence between the extent to which the gains of the revolution were being undone by the Stalinist bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the re-crafting of the constitution, on the other, along increasingly "liberal" lines.

So, for instance, the 1936 constitution -- adopted at a time when Stalin's authoritarian reign of terror against the working class in general, and the original leaders and cadres of the 1917 revolution in particular [source], was at its height -- goes further than any previous constitution in reflecting the traditional liberal values often evinced in those of Western bourgeois-democratic republics, such as the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This, of course, accords completely with the modus operandi of constitutional democracy as it has appeared in the traditional capitalist Western countries, which use lofty promises regarding the sanctity of individual rights as a veil to hide the most brutally repressive practices, such as slavery, female disenfranchisement, genocide against indigenous populations, exploitation of labor, repression of political dissidence, oppression of socially non-conforming peoples, etc.

Notes on the state, anarchism, and marxism

Anarchism vs. Marxism
Marx and Engels on Anarchism
Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism | Molyneux
Anarchism | Paul D'Amato
Marxism & Anarchism | Blackledge
Another side of anarchism | Birchall
The relevance of anarchism | Arblaster
Contemporary Anarchism | Kerl
The Makhno Myth | Yanowitz
EMMA GOLDMAN: A life of controversy | Selfa
In defense of Leon Trotsky | Gasper
ANARCHY IN THE UK? | Stack
Trotsky | Hallas
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War | Bailey
Proudhon: Father of anarchism | Hal Draper
Anarchist Libertarianism? | IS Canada
Bakunin's antisemitism and his 'invisible dictatorship'
Bakunin vs. Marx | Diemer
Marx vs. Bakunin | Woods
The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict | Robertson

Trotsky & Lenin on Anarchism
--Trotsky--
My First Exile, My Life
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism, 1909
The July Days, History of the Russian Revolution
The Makhno Movement, 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets, 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised?, 1920
Contradictions Between the Economic Successes of the Ussr and the Bureaucratization of the Regime, 1932
--Lenin--
Anarchism and Socialism, 1901
Guerilla Warfare, 1906
Socialism and War, 1914
State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists, 1917

===

* Alienation, dislocation, precariousness, uncertainty; politics of middle-class alienation; the uncertainty principle; politics of powerlessness; exaggerated/obverse pacifism (fear of violence vs. fear of organized violence, i.e., the state); social groups/class bereft of power/agency

* Anarchists view the state in the same way that pacifists view violence -- as something which inherently corrupts all who use it, and is incapable of being used in any sort of emancipatory way.

* Anarchist/pacifist taboos on the self-created sacrosanct fetishes of power/violence are like the superstitious (and ultimately harmful) fears of the ancient Hebrews regarding blood and female menstruation -- it is a natural phenomenon which is not understood and thus feared; a thing to be shunned and hidden along with the unfortunate woman who has thereby been 'sullied' by its presence.

* Mystical fear of a social phenomenon that is not understood -- it is a cursed object (like prehistoric human burned by fire, sees the devil in it, doesn't understand its origins, purpose, transmutations, how to control, etc)

* Thus far, the state has exclusively been used by ruling classes comprised of a minority of society -- anarchists draw the conclusion that states necessarily produce a minority-bureaucracy ruling over majority

* They assume the state first arose by someone/group creating a state out of thin air, subjecting rest of society to state authority, and only then accruing economic powers/privileges by force of arms

* They believe the state was used by its original wielders to create previously-nonexistent capitalist relations of inequality and exploitation; rather than seeing the state as a creation of the rulers of an already-obtaining economic system of capitalist relations, which itself evolved into being out of the contradictions inherent in the feudal system of economy.

* In other words, the fallacious notion that the state produces inequality, rather than itself being a product of inequality -- i.e., the state is an institution brought into being for the purposes of consolidating, defending, and extending, the already-won socio-economic supremacy of a ruling clique in society.

* First state emerges only after a class of people economically freed from productive labor & supported by the development of a social surplus emerges to carry on social functions (irrigation, trade, religion, etc) -- took centuries for this class to gel into a self-conscious clique and impose its laws & authority upon society 'from above' (i.e., constitute a state).

* State is not universally repressive -- to wit, it is not repressive, viz., the class that wields it -- in fact, it is quite responsive to that class's needs and interests (i.e., the monarchy, viz, the landed nobility; the bourg republic, viz, the capitalists) -- to them, the state is merely an organ to express and enforce their will on the rest of society, which it does quite well. To all other classes in society, the state confronts them only as a repressive, non-representative, corrupted tool, which anarchists identify as universal features of all states, regardless of place, time, content