Talk:Politics of the Soviet Union

The text, written by User:Fred Bauder, was retired from Soviet Union, where it did not fit into the structure of the article. It was apparently structured to make the case that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime. I favor replacing this entirely with an article adapted from the public domain LOC handbook on the Soviet Union. Chapter 7 on the Communist Party [1], Chapter 8 on government structure and its functions [2], and chapter 9 on mass media and the arts [3] are particularly useful. 172 13:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather say it is written from the POV that "western democracy" is good, and if somethings does not match it, then it should be bad. An example of this attitude is the phrase "The Supreme Court, the highest judicial body, had little power, lacking authority to determine constitutionality of laws, to interpret laws, or to strike laws down". I.e., it is erroneously assumed that the Soviet Supreme Court should have the same functions as in the US of A.

It's ironic you would put it this way. As you can recall from the early days of the legal system of USA, the Founding Fathers originally did not intend the SCOTUS to have much powers, especially regarding striking down unconstitutional laws. The position as equal among the Three Branches was "usurped" by SCOTUS only in Marbury v. Madison. Digwuren 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I approve of placing the Soviet Union's explanation of itself in the article, provided the source is clearly and prominantly identified, but independent information should form the bulk of the article. Fred Bauder 23:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

You are again politicizing and POVizing the issue. "Independent information" is a game play with the word "information". Encyclopedia must contain facts, not "information", if you know what I mean. The bulk of the article must be facts and neutral summaries of facts. mikka (t) 15:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

_______________________

Did the USSR have elections? If so, how did they work, and who got to vote? Brutannica 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there were elections. However, it didn't matter who voted; what mattered was who got to count the votes. (See Stalin.)

There's an article Soviet democracy that explains a bit of the ostensible theory behind the system. Reality was quite different, though, starting from the part where there was only one Party. (This is a common point of misunderstanding by Western people trying to make sense of Soviet politics. In context of Soviet system, if you wanted to do any politics at all, you *had* to be a Party member. Hence, people who were politically active "back then" are, even now, sometimes referred to as "former Communists", even if their political views were not really Communist, and if their aspirations were in administration or clerical work.) Digwuren 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism

An article about the Soviet Union that doesn't contain substantial reference to Stalinism is re-writing an ugly chapter in history to place a pretty facade over totalitarinism and the ignorance that provided popular support to the elimination of human rights and dignity. The Marxist mob got the government that it deserved. The tone of this article gives the reader the false impression that the rise of the Soviet Union occurred through civil discourse, a representative body and parlimentary approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.153.39 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not do the same for Western bourgeois democracy, then? your argument is based on the assumption of bourgeois democratic values and moralism of the least NPOV sort

Relationship of the Executive Organs of State

Can it be made more clear either on this article or the various other articles dealing with the organs of state of the former Soviet Union how each related to one another? For instance, in the executive branch section of this article, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet is mentioned in passing only three times, despite it's chairman being seen as the nominal head of state of the Soviet Union. The Presidium also appears to have had quite a bit of formal power including the power to dissolve the Supreme Soviet, removing the chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, repealing decrees by the chairman of the Council of Ministers, etc.

While both the Chairmen of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of the Presidium in practice had less practical power than the First or General Secretary of the party, it seems a bit of an omission in the "Executive branch" section of this article to mention the Premier (head of government) and not mention that the Chairman of the Presidium (head of state) was also part of the executive organ of state of the Soviet Union. In the modern context of the Russian Federation, it'd be like mentioning the Prime Minister but not mentioning the President. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)