For the power of the Soviets!

The memory of the events of October 3-4, 1993 is offensive to the ruling classes of Russia. It recalls the murder of hundreds of people by a regime that until then hypocritically proclaimed that “no idea is worth the tear of one child.” This memory points to the illegality and illegitimacy of the current system, which challenges the liberal government, which boasts of demonstrative admiration for the law.

Finally, the events of the tragic October 1993 remind us that it is the working people of Russia who are the most consistent fighters for freedom and democracy. What a striking contrast – our upper classes, who for centuries groveled before the Tatar khans and tyrant kings; the initiators of serfdom, the compilers of “Vekhi”, praying for blessed bayonets to protect them from the people’s wrath; dreamers dreaming of dictatorship and “good grandfather Pinochet.” On the other hand, the people who created the military democracy of the Cossacks, who rose to fight under the banners of Razin, Bulavin, Pugachev, who went beyond the Stone Belt and into the Wild Field to preserve freedom of conscience, who made the greatest revolution of the twentieth century, who rose to defend democracy in October 1993 .

It was the working people of Russia who created the Soviets - a body of power exercised by the working people in the name of the interests of the working people. It was not an artificial, “book” structure. The councils were the fruit of self-organization of workers to solve the current problems of the strike struggle. General strikes affected all aspects of city life - food supply to strikers, foreign relations, strike financing, and security measures. The workers' councils of Alapaevsk, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, and St. Petersburg solved these problems, and thus replaced the official government institutions. Working people have proven in practice that they can take the reins of government in modern society and implement it on much more democratic principles than bourgeois institutions.

How do Soviets differ from the representative institutions of the bourgeoisie? First of all, they are formed on a production basis - from enterprises. Modern capitalists and their servants, very concerned about the fight against “parasites” and “freeloaders,” need not worry: under the Soviet system, power is exercised precisely by those who work. And please don't worry about parasites.

Secondly, Soviet deputies are directly responsible to their voters. Orders for them are adopted through direct democracy; voters have the right to early recall a deputy who does not protect their interests.

The councils are structured like a “working corporation.” They are simultaneously the judicial, executive and legislative branches. A typical situation for bourgeois “democracies” is when unelected structures like the Supreme Court or the leadership of Central Banks impose their will on citizens. In the Soviet system such a situation is impossible.

The structure of the Soviets does not produce professional politicians. Their deputies participate in political work without interruption from work. The wages of Soviet officials are strictly regulated and, according to tradition, do not exceed the wages of a worker, which is an anti-corruption factor.

Councils work together with “horizontal” civil associations - women's, housing, and student organizations.

The power, scope and authority of the Soviet movement was so great that in 1905 their de facto legitimacy was recognized even by the authorities of Tsarist Russia. Quite well known is what is stated in the memoirs of A.V. Gerasimov episode about the inspection sent by the Petrograd Soviet to... Security department. The assistant to the head of the department, Colonel Model, led the deputies through the Okhrana premises to make sure that the authorities were complying with the amnesty decree.

Dispersed during the days of reaction, after the defeat of the First Russian Revolution, the Soviets rose like a phoenix in 1917 and became the main political institution of revolutionary Russia. Who created them? Power? Opposition liberals? No, the people are workers and soldiers. They were the real creators and defenders of Russian democracy.

Subsequently, the Soviets went through a long evolution. During the civil war, they ceded their power to the institutions of the Bolshevik Party, which absorbed the vanguard of the radical left forces in Russia. In the USSR, the Soviets retained their extensive powers mainly on paper, although on the ground their role was sometimes quite noticeable. Since the late 1980s, the political renaissance of the Soviets began - but under pressure from pro-bourgeois forces, they began to gradually evolve towards bourgeois parliamentarism. But even taking these trends into account, for the leaders of capitalist restoration the Soviet system remained too democratic - and, therefore, potentially dangerous for the policy of “market reforms at any cost.” In October 1993, the Soviets in Russia were destroyed in a military coup carried out by Boris Yeltsin and his henchmen.

Today, the experience of the Soviets should again be in demand. In today's Russia, it is not the persons who need to be changed, but the system. The slogan of restoring Soviet power must be adopted by the left opposition. It will unite supporters of legitimism, admirers of the USSR, and supporters of democracy. After all, by Soviets we do not mean their pale shadow of the late Soviet era, but the dynamic, flexible democratic organizations that shocked the world in 1917.

The Soviet experience would also be useful to workers in other countries. Today it has become obvious to millions of Europeans that the two-party system that exists in their countries is a farce. Politicians and deputies ignore the interests of voters, but slavishly follow the instructions of banks, international financial institutions, and unelected supranational organizations of the oligarchy. In the USSR, the most terrible crime was the statement that there is no socialism in the Soviet Union. In Europe, the worst crime is the admission that there is no democracy in their countries. But more and more Europeans and Americans are talking about this openly, and police batons and rubber bullets only confirm the truth of these words.

In a number of countries, people form popular assemblies, in which they learn to manage their own lives. However, experience shows that such associations are good as discussion clubs, but not as a political alternative to the system. And here it would be useful to study the Russian experience of self-organization. Although is the experience of the Soviets purely Russian? After all, in 1918-1922. Soviets sprang up all over the continent - in Germany, Hungary, Alsace, Norway, Ireland, etc. The Soviets are our contribution to the world history of democracy, and perhaps we should now re-read some of the pages of this book.