I'll get round to explaining it for you later Clive, but the nearest thing we have in the west to a soviet would be the American town hall meeting. Anyone can join the soviet and go along and express their views. There was no formal party structures. In some respects an internet chat room like this shares hallmarks of a soviet, albeit we don't vote on a motion at the conclusion
The first soviets were basically public debating chambers without the confines of party whips telling members which we they had to vote. They were left leaning, but that was undoubtedly the zeitgeist of the age (they represented the mood of the country in other words). This only intensified of course post 1914 as workers and soldiers got more and more angry about being sent off to be slaughtered in the name of the tsar.
As Soviets grew in popularity more and more of them were needed to accommodate the peoples participation (unlike the western model that cuts you off and says channel it through your MP). Ultimately they had to embrace a hierarchical structure. A local soviet would meet, debate, formulate its views, but in order to get those heard by a bigger auidence it needed a bigger soviet.
The concept is little different to your own branch conservative party, which has a district level above, a city branch, a regional branch, and national branch. Then you get interest groups definied by things like business, or age, which tags on that structure
So what would happen is your local soviet would elect (democratically on a one person one vote basis) a peoples deputy (someone deputised by the people to represent them). This went up the chain to the Supreme Soviet. In essence it's not dissimilar to a district council, county council, regional assembly, and national government, in the UK. In Russia it was slightly different though in the early part of the 1900's given that the country was vast, and the communication technologies non existant
The Supreme Soviet would then advise the Politbureau accordingly as to what the mood was coming up from the soviet councils
As the first world war fell apart for Russia the role of the Soviets changed. People looked to them as the organised mouthpiece of the people that had the popularity to put an end to their suffering. Throughout this period though the idea of party lines were hazy, albeit they were starting emerge
You had Mensheviks and Bolsheviks as the two main, socialists, social revolutionaries, anarchists, floating voters, but its fair to say that the intensity of debate was becoming more ferocious as the stakes were being raised in line with Russian defeat in the war.
The St Petersburg soviet was the most influential and they tended to be dominated increasingly by individuals who were the most compelling in debate, and those who were able to build up a demonstrable track record of being right. Lenin was of course in exile at this point, but the party structure that you so crave before anything can be considered democratic found itself in a looser association of factions (is a political party not actually a faction anyway?)
Leon Trotsky, would often be cited as one of the dominant personalities of the soviet system (despite being a Menshevik at the time). You see Clive, people could vote across party lines according to what they thought was right (something which your MP rarely does). Similarly, if you weren't happy with the performance of your deputy you could replace them democratically on a confidence vote and send someone else. David Cameron you might recall promised he'd introduce this at the last election for serious wrong doing, or MP's who change sides mid term, but hasn't done. Again, you see the corrupting influence of the political party, which for me is the clincher
Why do you need a political party to frame your thoughts for you?
The soviet system allowed you to vote on issues according to what you wanted to do, and not tick a box against a bundle of policies which you need to balance up and decide which best represents.
When Lenin returned from exile at the Finland station one of the first things he called for (a pseach delivered on the platform) was a mass transfer of power "all power to the soviets". By now they were just about the only functioning body capable of making an informed decision that represented a vast majority of the population, who were either starving or being shot up by German machine guns
The thing about the Soviet structure is you vote for your representative based your perception of their record and performance. n the UK by contrast you get handed a candidate badged with the endorsement of centralised party and although it is possible to refuse a 'selected' candidate or 'deselect' your own, it's pretty unusual. The beauty of the soviet though is that it isn't restricted by the corrupting influences of the party.
Now admittedly as we move into Stalinism things altered, but even then people voted for their soviet deputy.
The idea that you didn't have differences of opinion is one that people who don't get the concept (like yourself) often point to. sadly your understanding is completely corrupted by some false notion that being able to vote blue or red is actually a freedom of choice, It isn't. It's a freedom to conform that leads to believe you have a choice, when in actual fact your choice is framed within an incredibly narrow boundary and completely acceptable to the establishment regardless of which box you tick.
Choices existed in the soviet structure too, it's just that they were framed more by individuals and you'd probably use the word factions to describe them. It's why I suggested that once you understand how a faction emerges, and corrales its sympathisers, they aren't massively different to a political party. You could vote for a Trotskyite, Leninist, Bukharinist etc albeit over time these factions would merge as they matured
Stalinists came later, but that'll do for now
The first thing to realise though, is that a soviet is a debating chamber that passes motions which a deputy then takes as the representative position of that soveit to the next level. Everyone is involved in the democratic process of formulating policy, and not restricted to only endorsing it.
The first soviets were basically public debating chambers without the confines of party whips telling members which we they had to vote. They were left leaning, but that was undoubtedly the zeitgeist of the age (they represented the mood of the country in other words). This only intensified of course post 1914 as workers and soldiers got more and more angry about being sent off to be slaughtered in the name of the tsar.
As Soviets grew in popularity more and more of them were needed to accommodate the peoples participation (unlike the western model that cuts you off and says channel it through your MP). Ultimately they had to embrace a hierarchical structure. A local soviet would meet, debate, formulate its views, but in order to get those heard by a bigger auidence it needed a bigger soviet.
The concept is little different to your own branch conservative party, which has a district level above, a city branch, a regional branch, and national branch. Then you get interest groups definied by things like business, or age, which tags on that structure
So what would happen is your local soviet would elect (democratically on a one person one vote basis) a peoples deputy (someone deputised by the people to represent them). This went up the chain to the Supreme Soviet. In essence it's not dissimilar to a district council, county council, regional assembly, and national government, in the UK. In Russia it was slightly different though in the early part of the 1900's given that the country was vast, and the communication technologies non existant
The Supreme Soviet would then advise the Politbureau accordingly as to what the mood was coming up from the soviet councils
As the first world war fell apart for Russia the role of the Soviets changed. People looked to them as the organised mouthpiece of the people that had the popularity to put an end to their suffering. Throughout this period though the idea of party lines were hazy, albeit they were starting emerge
You had Mensheviks and Bolsheviks as the two main, socialists, social revolutionaries, anarchists, floating voters, but its fair to say that the intensity of debate was becoming more ferocious as the stakes were being raised in line with Russian defeat in the war.
The St Petersburg soviet was the most influential and they tended to be dominated increasingly by individuals who were the most compelling in debate, and those who were able to build up a demonstrable track record of being right. Lenin was of course in exile at this point, but the party structure that you so crave before anything can be considered democratic found itself in a looser association of factions (is a political party not actually a faction anyway?)
Leon Trotsky, would often be cited as one of the dominant personalities of the soviet system (despite being a Menshevik at the time). You see Clive, people could vote across party lines according to what they thought was right (something which your MP rarely does). Similarly, if you weren't happy with the performance of your deputy you could replace them democratically on a confidence vote and send someone else. David Cameron you might recall promised he'd introduce this at the last election for serious wrong doing, or MP's who change sides mid term, but hasn't done. Again, you see the corrupting influence of the political party, which for me is the clincher
Why do you need a political party to frame your thoughts for you?
The soviet system allowed you to vote on issues according to what you wanted to do, and not tick a box against a bundle of policies which you need to balance up and decide which best represents.
When Lenin returned from exile at the Finland station one of the first things he called for (a pseach delivered on the platform) was a mass transfer of power "all power to the soviets". By now they were just about the only functioning body capable of making an informed decision that represented a vast majority of the population, who were either starving or being shot up by German machine guns
The thing about the Soviet structure is you vote for your representative based your perception of their record and performance. n the UK by contrast you get handed a candidate badged with the endorsement of centralised party and although it is possible to refuse a 'selected' candidate or 'deselect' your own, it's pretty unusual. The beauty of the soviet though is that it isn't restricted by the corrupting influences of the party.
Now admittedly as we move into Stalinism things altered, but even then people voted for their soviet deputy.
The idea that you didn't have differences of opinion is one that people who don't get the concept (like yourself) often point to. sadly your understanding is completely corrupted by some false notion that being able to vote blue or red is actually a freedom of choice, It isn't. It's a freedom to conform that leads to believe you have a choice, when in actual fact your choice is framed within an incredibly narrow boundary and completely acceptable to the establishment regardless of which box you tick.
Choices existed in the soviet structure too, it's just that they were framed more by individuals and you'd probably use the word factions to describe them. It's why I suggested that once you understand how a faction emerges, and corrales its sympathisers, they aren't massively different to a political party. You could vote for a Trotskyite, Leninist, Bukharinist etc albeit over time these factions would merge as they matured
Stalinists came later, but that'll do for now
The first thing to realise though, is that a soviet is a debating chamber that passes motions which a deputy then takes as the representative position of that soveit to the next level. Everyone is involved in the democratic process of formulating policy, and not restricted to only endorsing it.
