Soviet Democracy

by Pat Sloan

"A very great deal is being Said and written nowadays about democracy and dictatorship. We repeatedly hear it said that democracy must be defended; and as an example of the kind of dictatorship of which we must beware the Soviet Union is often quoted. And yet, at the same time as this Soviet Union is described as a dictatorship, well-known people of different political views make statements which suggest that, in the Soviet Union to-day, there exists a system of government which possesses all the essential features of democracy."

Genres: History, Politics, Soviet Union, Nonfiction, Theory, Soviet History, Russia

305 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1937

Reviews

[papafawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sloan gives an in-depth, first-hand account of the ways that people who lived in the Soviet Union in the 1930's had more opportunities and liberties than their capitalist counterparts in Western Europe (England in particular.) Given how much changed over the course of the Bolshevik Revolution, this book can't speak for all the details; Soviet Democracy does serve as an excellent snapshot of a very powerful time in Communist history.

[MorningSun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some manageable printing errors across the text aside, this book is among the best I've read on the topic of the USSR. It covers almost every topic you could imagine from the Lenin-Stalin period, from the structure of the Soviet state to the role of the trade unions to daily life in the country.
The best part, at least for me, is that Sloan is very clearly not just a "neutral" outside observer. Be it a result of his time spent living in the USSR or otherwise, his writing carries a revolutionary zeal throughout; it's clear that Sloan was a revolutionary who understood Marxism-Leninism, at least to some degree. The truly excellent final chapter in particular drives this message home.
Overall, this book is a great reminder that Soviet democracy as a system, although it no longer exists today, absolutely warrants study; it is also quite useful as a firsthand debunking of a myriad of lies frequently told about the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union.

[Tadici · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read to get a snapshot of the Soviet Union of the 1930s. Sloan spent 5/6 years working in it before writing this book. It is simultaneously a first-hand account of an admittedly sympathetic foreigner actually living there and an introduction into the structure of the the country and many of its institutions. This is not an "objective" look of an outsider but of someone who explicitly takes a Marxist stand on class struggle. All in all, it is definitely worth a read.

[Adam Lantz · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a book! Truly the work of an independent observer. It may be old, but it remains remarkably accessible. It really drives home the point that in every democracy, elements of dictatorship persist, whether through shareholders and employers exercising power over workers, or workers exerting pressure over the state.

It’s also extremely useful in debunking the enormous number of myths and misconceptions that are so often repeated about the Lenin–Stalin era of the Soviet Union.

I am blown away. And I wish I read this book years ago.

[Elizabeth Northcote-Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found this quite hard to not lose track in parts but I think that's the gaps in my own understanding. Really interesting and very topical points still stand for "democracy" in the UK. Thanks JNS for the heavy historical reading recommendations as per usual

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan provides a unique and nuanced perspective on the Soviet Union's political system during the 1930s. As a primary source document, it challenges many Western conceptions of Soviet governance, often labeled as a dictatorship. Sloan, however, presents an argument for the presence of democracy within the Soviet system, albeit in a form different from Western liberal democracies.

Initially, like many, I held the view that the Soviet Union's governance was purely dictatorial, marked by oppression and lack of freedoms. Sloan's book has provided a more complex picture, highlighting how the Soviet system blended elements of democracy and dictatorship. He argues that the Soviet Union aimed to establish a form of governance that was "of the people, by the people, for the people," a concept traditionally associated with democracy. This perspective is supported by Sidney and Beatrice Webb's description of the USSR as a government where "all the adult inhabitants, organised in a varied array of collectives," participate in governance​​.

Sloan delves into the Soviet Constitution of 1918, which laid the groundwork for a system described as the "dictatorship of the urban and rural workers, combined with the poorer peasantry." This "dictatorship" was, in reality, a form of majority rule where the vast majority of the population—those who worked—had control, while a small minority of property owners did not have electoral rights​. This redefined my understanding of democracy in the Soviet context, illustrating it as a system where democracy for the working majority coexisted with a dictatorship over the capitalist minority.

Sloan also sheds light on the Soviet penal system, which he suggests was less about punishment and more about re-education for citizenship. He contrasts the justice system for comrades, which focused on rehabilitation, with the harsh treatment of those deemed enemies of the state, such as spies and saboteurs. This distinction, drawn between internal justice among citizens and the treatment of external threats, reflects the ongoing security concerns in the USSR, particularly given the external Fascist threats during that era.

The concluding sections emphasize the complexity of the Soviet system, where democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive but coexist in a structured relationship. Sloan argues that the Soviet model was fundamentally democratic for the working class while exercising control over those who could potentially undermine this system. This dual nature was seen as necessary to protect the revolution's achievements and ensure that the state remained under the control of the working populace.

All in all, this work is an eye-opening work that challenges simplistic views of Soviet governance. It argues for a re-examination of the Soviet Union as a complex state where democracy, as understood in the context of the working majority, coexisted with authoritarian control over a small, potentially disruptive capitalist class. This perspective significantly alters the conventional Western narrative of the USSR as a monolithic dictatorship, providing a more nuanced understanding of its political system.

[James Hoad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing, completely view altering not only on the equality and democracy the USSR was able to achieve in only 20 years when this was written, but on what democracy actually means, not just the ability to choose between 2 bourgeois parties! Absolute must read for anyone interested in the USSR or what democracy really means.


“in capitalist countries the idea of a government with the whole people behind it seems so strange that people are inclined to believe such a thing is impossible”

“it is difficult for me to imagine what ‘personal liberty’ is enjoyed by an unemployed person who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. Real liberty can exist only where exploration has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home, and if bread, only in such a society is real, and not on paper, personal and every other liberty possible” - Stalin

“we are very much inclined to discuss questions of democracy as if they only concerned the running of the State, without referring to the very important activities in which the overwhelming majority of the people spend the greater part of their lives … in economic life of Britain there is not the slightest pretence of democracy”

“any real democracy would have to give to the people the right to run all those organisations in which they spend their time and earn their living”

“to the great property owners the ideal state would be one in which the political rights of the workers were no more than their economic rights when working in the factory … the interests of the great property owners are always bound up with the curtailment of democratic rights and with a tendency towards Fascism”

[Nick Girvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

For years, I’ve studied the workings of democratic structures inside of communist nations, especially since visiting Cuba last spring. However, this is the first time I had it all in one place specifically around the USSR. Pat Sloan was a British citizen who traveled to the USSR to work and teach for 5 years through the 1930s, and Soviet Democracy is not but a firsthand account of his time there, but a compilation of different democratic practices in the USSR compared to Great Britain, with the occasional anecdote. Thus, Soviet Democracy works as a firsthand account that isn’t simply backed by anecdotal evidence; rather, you can cross-reference the information here all you want and it will check out.

The book starts with the lowest levels of democracy which are stressed in the schools to give students an idea of how the workplace stresses the expression of ideas and participation. It then breaks down the structures themselves, and how soviets (lowercase S, workers councils) allow an equal opportunity of voice for all who work or who til land, once reaching the age of 18, regardless of sex or race (something pretty unheard of anywhere else at this time). The workers councils (soviets) as well as trade unions are where the expressions of opinion on working hours, conditions, and other complaints or praises of the worker state get passed up through electors (number of them based on city or town size), which use a bottom-up approach to voice change all the way to the central committee. That then commands law downward with more party membership per population than any other country at the time. Along with this general layout we’re also given specific classes who don’t have a voice, namely large landowners, employers of others’ labor, clergymen, and threats to worker power who’s class interests are monetary over people. Granted, it’s pointed out how this changed from the Lenin era to the Stalin era as unemployment was eliminated, co-ops became the norm, and the need for war communist tactics went away (this was written during the Stalin era, after his 1936 new constitution. This book references both depending on the time period being addressed).

Speaking of which, it does touch on the roles of the state, and addresses the concerns of dictatorship, as Sloan makes clear that dictatorship and democracy are not mutually exclusive. In the UK at the time, one could only enter government and form a party though large sums of money and stock ownership, where as the USSR gave everyone a voice within the party who’s interests were working class. The use of parties (as we see in the USA) is nothing but a divisive tool that keeps workers divided as they always fall in line with whatever one party says or does. In the one-party worker state however, the ideals can be expressed, as one wouldn’t need parties within a trade union, or a co-op, as your opinion simply was heard and considered in a majority sense. Sloan even brought up the example of abortion, as one who agreed with the law around working hours could disagree with the law on abortion and still voice that, without tying to a party line. In other words, workers voted on what AND who, not just simply whoever’s campaign was best funded and suited the line of one’s party choice.

This also addressed certain qualms that came about in capitalist society around the USSR, such as praise for Stalin and the use of labor camps. Without getting too deep, the use of such a term as “dear comrade Stalin” isn’t an act of worship, but simply how people greeted each other in the Russian language, no different than you may use to address a friend or family member. Similarly, this stressed the use of labor camps as the purpose for work, and how exile and speech repression were only used for the security of the state (no different than what happened in 1950s America for the red scare, or hell, suppression of some protestors we see today, it’s just easy to ignore those). The point being, protest and open expression was fine as long as it didn’t see the goal of the capitalist class overthrowing the working class dictatorship (like it eventually did, especially with all sorts of hostile pressure from abroad). I could go on and on about how the Soviet state defined property and the need to tackle corruption and self-interest, but I’m already getting way too deep in detail.

The reason Soviet Democracy gets 4 stars instead of 5 is for two reasons. 1) there are way too many printing errors in this, and it would do someone good to clean this up and republish it more professionally. Spelling and double printing errors are annoying and not a good look. 2) I do think this was a little lenient on the problems that accompanied democracy in the USSR, which I’ve read plenty about too. It did end on the note around the state not being the final one and how progression needed to be made, but as a whole you can’t hide the bias in this. Regardless, the information was tremendous and touched basically every facet of voting, democracy, the state, property, expression of opinion, trade unions, government and people relationship, and many other important topics. I touched just a few of them, but to learn about more of them, I highly recommend this.

[Chet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pat Sloan was a British journalist and educator who spent several years living and working in USSR in the 30s. Mind-opening stuff right here.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dictatorship and democracy can coexist. Dictatorship is the temporary safeguard against threats to nascent democracy, which will wither as democracy is able to extend itself ever further. Such is the familiar central thesis of this book.

As an historical insider's view, and an insight into at least ostensible and likely in many ways actual functionality of early (20s-30s) Soviet civil society, it is provocative and genuinely inspiring. "All Soviet citizens are, in a sense, civil servants." (p. 29)

Limitations of constitutionalism aside, and with cringeworthy caveats that it excuses Thermidorian misogyny in the reintroduced restrictions on abortion, the sweeping and dramatic historic change in popular practices represent something worthwhile. If in the Soviet classroom there was political tension and shortfalls of resources, there was (it is claimed) abolition of corporal punishment (p. 35) and encouragement of cooperation. In society writ large, there was genuine civic engagement through youth and civic organizations in the more quotidian aspects (i., maintenance) where there weren't such before with so broad a popular base.

Notwithstanding historical hindsight claiming Potemkin elections, show trials and other such closely-managed spectacles, and the fact that being an insider may not always enhance but rather limit one's perspective, it is worth understanding why one might be so enamoured with such displays. We hear next to nothing about the author other than that he was British-born and taught English in Moscow in the early 30s, and wrote this work in 1937 in the midst of the heat of the Spanish Civil War (he was never in Spain to my knowledge, but made several references to the embattled and sadly doomed republic). More importantly for this book's context, he was writing on the heels of the 1936 "Stalin constitution" and contends ironically that its less-savoury elements such as the return of restrictions on abortion were as much evidence of genuine democratic dialogue as was flowery aspirational language about freedom of speech and the press, and the right to leisure. Perhaps Sloan can be forgiven for not at all addressing any claims about cynical opportunism.

Mostly, though, he wrote as an ostensible sort of civil servant himself, witness to a school system that in many ways acted as an introductory microcosm to labour in Soviet socialism (individual shock work, socialist competition, wall newspapers [about which he makes much, whether in schools, workplaces, gulags, or elsewhere]).

He offers impassioned and I would say valid arguments with regard to the role of parties in democracy (it is not the number of parties that matters, but their functionality and representativeness that determines if they are democratic). The logic is valid, if the conclusions are sweeping (could you *really* say anything short of calling for the system's overthrow, and was it just a happy coincidence of people being so generally enamoured that they didn't want to criticize too harshly anyway?). It's of course difficult to test many of his claims about the actual degree of consensus, but while he does admit to disagreements there are still points where based on his writing alone there is a boldly painted picture of a high degree of agreement among not just party leaders, but rank-and-file workers and/or peasants.

There's little not widely noted since in his fairly brief description of the 1932-1933 famine, but between the lines it would be more agreeable to those who see that famine as a result of heavy-handed or overly optimistic policy about productivity than as a deliberately-engineered punishment of peoples on national grounds.

Descriptions of educational and career advancement based solely on merit could leave one scratching one's head and asking "Whence Lysenkoism?" However, it is undoubtedly true that many women and national minorities were enabled opportunities which Czarism would have denied them. For all the blunt force of Stakhanovism, rapid industrialization tends to challenge old feudal social hierarchies and customary stuffy restrictiveness.

It is true that any self-declared democracy was not allowed to develop organically, as wartime and propagandizing against saboteurs tends to chill the climate. It is true that, as Sloan argues, in some sense analogous limitations on expression were put in place by unions, on their members, in contemporaneous labour struggles in the West. Yet the narrative of pragmatism extends and caves to excess as much as did the claims of industrial advances in agricultural production drives. Of course this is much easier to critique in hindsight, and even with that benefit we may want to believe. That's the power, at least, of the vision put forth.

[Xavier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book on the whole. While you must use a somewhat critical eye (and an eye that can read through printing mistakes), it offers an interesting insider’s perspective into the early Soviet Union and its form of governance, contrasted with contemporary British and Spanish examples (from the mid to late 1930s. On the whole, this book feels incredibly important given the current context we’re in.

[Claudio Rocha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Buen libro para quien busca un primer acercamiento a cómo funcionaba la URSS. Me pareció interesante que fue publicado en la víspera de la segunda guerra mundial, en 1937. Claramente un trabajo propagandista.

[Sem C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Understanding the mechanics of Soviet democracy has long been a goal of mine. When I first began reading about the subject at 18 or 19, I found the system complex—or rather, not so much complex as profoundly different from Western models. Now, a few years later, I returned to the topic with Sloan’s book as my guide—and it proved to be the perfect companion.

As a British economist who not only observed but actively participated in Soviet democracy, Sloan brings a unique perspective. His background makes him an especially relatable figure for Western readers. Having experienced capitalism firsthand, he anticipates the skepticism and questions that workers in capitalist societies might have about the USSR, particularly given the pervasive anti-communist propaganda of his time (and ours). He tackles these doubts head-on, addressing the very concerns many of us once had.

What makes Sloan’s work particularly valuable is his ability to dissect the structure of the Soviet state while also posing deeper questions: What truly defines democracy? What does freedom mean in practice?

I highly recommend Soviet Democracy to anyone curious about the USSR, political systems, or alternative conceptions of governance. Sloan’s firsthand account bridges the gap between Western assumptions and Soviet reality—making it an essential read for those willing to look beyond the propaganda of the era.

[TolaatSfarim · Rating 1 out of 5]

WOW! They had local elections? This is truly the authentic proletarian democracy Marx prophesied!