I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did". Then again, since you have skipped my arguments for other possible reasons for the "banning", you have apparently recognized their validity.Originally Posted by joysof
No I am not. I first explained the legality. Then, because you said that the law was immoral, I explained the historical and psychological background that might justify the law. But you ignore that and keep on saying "oh how illegal oh how immoral". I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.You're confusing legality with morality.
Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.[/quote:6xk02nt9][quote:6xk02nt9]How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?
You don't see a logical incompatibility of the two statements of yours?
I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.[/quote:6xk02nt9][quote:6xk02nt9]According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.
"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.