Talk:1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union

message: I think the whole situation can be cleared up by adding an addendum that the Constitution existed in theory, but in practice it was bogus. I have a book of primary source documents from the era and that is specifically how the issue is addressed. The authority of the Party overrode any so-called "rights", whereas in the United States, "all men are created equal" was simply reinterpreted over time. --68.45.21.204 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: possible solution

message: I don't want to revert any more, although I see, that Western POV prevails in the article now, the only quote in the article being not from the Constitution itself, but from the book by a Western writer published in the Cold War times :) I leave the article as is, mainly because generally I avoid political disputes, which are horrible in Wiki IMHO. BTW I've made no changes into the article except an addition of two external links (to the text of the Constitution).
But please, you folks, who didn't lived in the Soviet Union and perhaps even haven't any academic degree in the Soviet history, don't teach me, who lived there and whose parents lived there. Don't teach me and my parents, which rights we were guaranteed and which we weren't. Because my parents, as Soviet citizens, were guaranteed at least the following rights, provided by 1936 Constitution (which remained guaranteed to me by 1977 Constitution):
*right for education, free of charge on all levels (including university level, with grants for students who learned well)
*right to medical treatment free of charge
*right to work - no of my parents and their friends or relatives were unemployed
*right to rest and leisure, with full pay vacations and accomodations to rest homes or sanatorias, supplied by Trade Unions, annually.
Never mind, I avoid getting involved to editwars and political discussions in Wikipedia. Cmapm 01:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No more discussion from Cmapm here

message: The present version has stood up for 12 hours or so. If Cmapm can live with this version, I can too, and am willing to delete the totallydisputed and expert tags.
--Bcrowell 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this version OK?

message: It's one of the rights granted by the constitution. I wonder if such a right was granted by any non-communist constitutions; or are recommended by any international treaties and such?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The right to anti-religious propaganda

message: Stalin’s great moment when he first appeared as leader of the whole Soviet people was when, as Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, he presented the new Constitution of the Socialist State. A commission of thirty-one of the country’s ablest historians, economists, and political scientists had been instructed to create “the world’s most democratic constitution” with the most accurate machinery yet devised for obtaining “the will of the people.” They spent a year and a half in detailed study of every past constitution in the world, not only of governments but of trade unions and voluntary societies. The draft that they prepared was then discussed by the Soviet people for several months in more than half a million meetings attended by 36,500,000 people. The number of suggested amendments that reached the Constitutional Commission from the popular discussions was 154,000. Stalin himself is known to have read tens of thousands of the people’s letters. Two thousand people sat in the great white hall of the Kremlin Palace when Stalin made his report to the Congress of Soviets. Below me, where I sat in the journalists’ box, was the main floor filled with the Congress deputies; around me in the loges sat the foreign diplomatic corps; behind me, in a deep gallery, were citizen-visitors. Outside the hall tens of millions of people listened over the radio, from the southern cotton fields of Central Asia to the scientific stations on the Arctic coast. It was a high point of Soviet history. But Stalin’s words were direct and simple and as informal as if he sat at a fireside talking with a few friends. He explained the significance of the Constitution, took up the suggested amendments, referred a large number of them to various lawmaking bodies and himself discussed the most important. He made it plain that everyone of those 154,000 suggestions had been classified somewhere and would influence something. Among the dozen or more amendments which Stalin personally discussed, he approved of those that facilitated democratic expression and disapproved of those that limited democracy. Some people felt, for instance, that the different constituent republics should not be granted the right to secede from the Soviet Union; Stalin said that, while they probably would not want to secede, their right to do so should be constitutionally guaranteed as an assertion of democracy. A fairly large number of people wanted to refuse political rights to the priests lest they influence politics unduly. “The time has come to introduce universal suffrage without limitations,” said Stalin, arguing that the Soviet people were now mature enough to know their own minds. – Anna Louise Strong, Stalin, The Soviets Expected It, The Dial Press, New York, 1941, pp. 46-64 –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin and the New Constitution of the Socialist State

message: Millions died under the rules of this Constitution. Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every 10 years around 100 million people die of starvation because of capitalistic societies, and every three seconds a child dies of hunger in the world. THAT IS DISGUSTING (and intolerable). The rest is "western" propaganda. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, please. Another apologist for Soviet genocide (I don't consider "democide" a real word) defending it by implying it's more benign than what happens in the world today. BTW, you misspelled disgusting. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I figured "disgusting" means disembowelment. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  190.140.255.103 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Just want to clarify real quick here: This is wikiPEADIA where the goal is to make an "Free Encyclopedia" not to "a knowledge hub for all internet visitors". DarthFlappy (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgusting article