Democratic Centralism Revisited

Author

Message

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 04:46 am Post subject: "Democratic centralism" revisited

mikelepore wrote:

One method is what Lenin called "democratic centralism", which the SLP practices, and so do the CP and SWP. This is where the outvoted members are required to pretend publically that they agree with the statement that they disagree with, otherwise, upon speaking pubically, they will be kicked out of the group. The goal there is to have a membership as unanimous as possible on as many modes of thinking as possible, even if that means that the membership must shrink in accordance with that unanimity. So after a hundred years of organizing a national political party, you have a membership all of whom think alike on a long list of topical issues, but you only have a couple hundred members nationwide.

...

I suggest a new model for a socialist movement in which there is actual honesty about differences of opinion. Imagine a socialist newspaper saying: "Our goal and program -- 81 percent of us agree with this statement ... 54 percent of us agree with this statement ... 21 percent of us agree with this statement." In this model, there is no "we want ...", but rather, "those among us who have sign this position paper want ...." Why do this? Because we can see empirically that all of the previous models of organizations are incapable of organizing the working class. And because this is what the actual organization of the working class will ultimately consist of, acknowledging all of the differences. Not concealing the differences, but advertising them.

First of all, you are misrepresenting the original conception of "democratic centralism" in various ways:

1) This public "solidarity" crap is practiced mostly by Trots;
2) Lenin wasn't the creator of "democratic centralism" - Kautsky was.

Second, I do agree with regards to your last paragraph (on the question of gun control, dissenting members can still dissent PUBLICLY, but at least there is discussion beforehand):

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?s=5a770980c78285cf81b638eab9522059&showtopic=59&view=findpost&p=625542

“Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism”: Circumstantial Discussive Unity

In revisiting the question of what is known today as “democratic centralism,” it is best to begin with Lenin’s remarks in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (emphasis in bold):

It is not surprising that Kautsky arrives at the following conclusion: “There is perhaps no other question on which revisionism in all countries, despite its multiplicity of form and hue, is so alike as on the question of organisation.” Kautsky, too, defines the basic tendencies of orthodoxy and revisionism in this sphere with the help of the “dreadful word”: bureaucracy versus democracy. We are told, he says, that to give the Party leadership the right to influence the selection of candidates (for parliament) by the constituencies is “a shameful encroachment on the democratic principle, which demands that all political activity proceed from the bottom upward, by the independent activity of the masses, and not from the top downward, in a bureaucratic way.... But if there is any democratic principle, it is that the majority must have predominance over the minority, and not the other way round....” The election of a member of parliament by any constituency is an important matter for the Party as a whole, which should influence the nomination of candidates, if only through its representatives (Vertrauensmanner). “Whoever considers this too bureaucratic or centralistic let him suggest that candidates be nominated by the direct vote of the Party membership at large [sīmtliche Parteigenossen]. If he thinks this is not practicable, he must not complain of a lack of democracy when this function, like many others that concern the Party as a whole, is exercised by one or several Party bodies.”

It is popular belief amongst Marxists that Lenin was indeed the “creator” of “democratic centralism.” However, the bolded remarks above seem to reveal the real “creator”: none other than the real founder of “Marxism” himself!

Proceeding from such revelation, when he and his most well-known disciple conceptualized and popularized “democratic centralism,” respectively, they had in mind that “democratic centralism” was merely the best means to achieve “unity in action, freedom of discussion and criticism” – discussive unity – within their historical circumstances. More importantly, they also knew that other organizational and equally revolutionary forms were possible in other circumstances!

So what makes the goal “circumstantial? For the purposes of this section, variables will be used.

Let D1 refer to audience access to intra-party discussions. This access can be:

1) "GEN" for general access by the public (live mass-media and/or Net coverage of intra-party discussions);
2) "FCT" for access only by party members, as organized into factions (or, more preferrably, "platforms"); or
3) "RES" for restricted access, as in access only by those involved in the relevant intra-party discussions.

Let UN ("unity") refer to how intra-party decisions should be made. It can be:

1) "DIR" for direct (the party membership as a whole);
2) "REP" for representative; or
3) "ORG" for organic (as conceptualized by one Amadeo Bordiga as an “alternative” to elections).

Let D2 refer to the level of discussions on decisions that have already been made (read: criticism). It can be:

1) "PUB" for publicized (party members may criticize party decisions OUTSIDE party channels);
2) "INT" for internal; or
3) "000" for none.

Kautsky, as quoted by Lenin, implied the "ideal" discussive unity: GEN-DIR-PUB. With future developments in information-communication technology, this ideal may be possible. Nevertheless, since it still probably isn't, no one "must not complain of a lack of democracy."

Historically, Lenin's concept of democratic centralism (as his party's means to achieve circumstantial discussive unity) had a varying set of these features:

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: PUB, INT, or 000

For example, when the "October" decision was made, there was RES-REP-000. The meeting was secret and limited to CC members, the CC voted as the representative of the party, and the decision couldn't be criticized afterwards. Just before this decision, Lenin publicly criticized the CC for accommodating the Provisional Government (RES-REP-PUB). Later on, in the very publicized debates between Lenin and the "Left-Wing Communists," on issues ranging from Brest-Litovsk to state capitalism, there was FCT-REP-PUB. Eventually, just after the ban on factions was made, there was RES-REP-000 once more.

An Italian Communist named Amadeo Bordiga had other ideas, namely that of organic centralism:

The communist parties must achieve an organic centralism which, whilst including maximum possible consultation with the base, ensures a spontaneous elimination of any grouping which aims to differentiate itself. This cannot be achieved with, as Lenin put it, the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy, but through correct revolutionary politics.

The repression of fractionism isn't a fundamental aspect of the evolution of the party, though preventing it is.

The concept of organic centralism had a limited (and thus not very "circumstantial") set of these features:

D1: FCT or RES (no organized factions, but the rank and file could discuss things)
UN: ORG (naturally)
D2: INT

This meant that no public criticism was allowed for party members to make after decisions were made "organically."

A few years later, "Comrade" Stalin and his gang had their own bureaucratic centralism:

D1: RES
UN: ORG (yes, no real representation, so "organic" decision-making was present through the self-perpetuating Politburo)
D2: 000

What separated this from Bordiga's "organic centralism" especially is the absolute lack of criticism of decisions that were made.

In today’s world, the Trotskyists claim to be the true adherents to Lenin’s democratic centralism. Historically, however, their perception of democratic centralism has been and is still reduced to this (and thus reductionist and not very “circumstantial”):

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: INT

This – as if that's the only permutation of democratic centralism possible – has led to numerous splits, because criticism could not be vented out publicly by members of the now-numerous Trotskyist parties, split along Cliffite, Grantite, Mandelite, and other lines.

In building both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor – both mass parties of the working class – the organizational basis should be as close to ideal discussive unity as possible. The particular “centralism” (which as a word now reeks of reductionist organizational fetishism, as opposed to the more basic concept of centrality) that applies to both organizations – publicized discussive unity – should have a varying set of these features:

D1: GEN, FCT, or RES
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG
D2: PUB only

Note the possibility for general access by the public (through live mass-media and/or Internet coverage of intra-party discussions) and the level of discussions on decisions that have already been made (read: publicized criticism). One of the organizational goals for both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor should be political transparency.

Note also the possibilities for “organic” decision-making and direct decision-making by the party membership as a whole. In the case of the former, "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by the modern revolutionary Marxist party based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the short-lived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary. In between the two (or possibly an extension of the former), representative decision-making could be demarchic (instead of electoral), which would, due to the random nature of selections, severely limit intra-party machinations, manipulations, and “celebrity politics” (personality cults by any other name), as well as ensure programmatic diversity (beyond full, knowledgeable agreement with principles, this diversity means knowledgeable acceptance of, but not necessarily knowledgeable agreement with, the organization’s program). In the case of the latter, which is the ideal decision-making, the central party bodies would merely act as referees or “moderators” in the party-wide discussions.

Just as the real founder of “Marxism” remarked in The Class Struggle about the “demands for a free press and the right of assemblage,” as being “the light and air of the labor movement,” a similar remark can be made regarding the goal of ideal discussive unity (which includes political transparency) being the “light and air” of both the revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor, and a more damning remark can be made regarding the opponents of this goal:

Whoever attempts to deny [the goal of ideal discussive unity and the accompanying political transparency], no matter what his pretensions, is to be reckoned among the worst enemies of the working class!

REFERENCES:

The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm]

Democratic centralism vs. Lenin’s slogan [http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centr...0106/index.html]

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/]

Revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism? [http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trot...0170/index.html]

davesearles

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 10:28 am Post subject:

Did Lepore suggest that Lenin CREATED democratic centralism?? Didn't he mention the SLP as a practitioner of it?

And as for PROOF that Kautsky advocated democratic centralism before Lenin (as if that excuses Lenin's) you rely upon a quotation by Lenin on Kautsky? A bit weak, wouldn't you think?

mikelepore

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 03:15 pm Post subject:

Some attention was given to the Communist Party USA's lack of principles at the time of the signing and subsequent discarding of the Hitler-Stalin pact, and the formation of Allies versus the Axis. The organization showed its ability to reverse itself in an instant by simple decree. One day Hitler was the good guy and Roosevelt the bad guy, and the next day Roosevelt was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. Every member of the CPUSA was always expected flip instantly as necessary to defend each and every thing the Soviet Union said and did.

Hearing a number of sudden policy reversals in the speeches of CPUSA representative Wiliam Z. Foster, whenever the Comintern had reversed itself on some something on the previous day, the SLP gave him the nickname Zig-Zag Foster.

I found it comical in the 1970s how the CPUSA's youth club, the Young Workers Liberation League, campaigned alongside the ultraconservatives against having legal tolerance for marijuana smokers. They had to do it, because otherwise there would be an inconsistency with the fact that smoking the weed was illegal in the Soviet Union.

One of the main things that created the Communist Party USA was the Socialist Party's expulsion of people like Louis Fraina. Later one of the main things that created the Socialist Workers Party was when the CP expelled James P. Cannon, because he had said that he agreed with some of Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin. But then some members of the SWP said the wrong thing about some subject or other, so the SWP expelled them, giving us the Workers League (now the Socialist Equality Party). Getting kicked out of some group for saying the wrong thing and then starting your own party became one of the most well-known features of the left.

The revleft forum carries on the censorship tradition. Dedicated revolutionaries have been restricted to the forum's "opposition" category, which they share with the most right-wing pro-capitalists, for committing such trivial and imaginary offenses as saying that the U.S. retaliation against the Taliban regime isn't an example of "imperialism."

The right and left have the same "political correctness" intolerance. Both have their recipes for what people are expected to say. Between the right and the left only the slogans differ. The attitude is the same. On the right you have to wave the flag and sing God Bless America, and on the left you have to say that a fetus isn't alive and that Mumia was framed. Different bumper stickers, same attitudes.

davesearles

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 05:27 pm Post subject:

ML:

Hearing a number of sudden policy reversals in the speeches of CPUSA representative Wiliam Z. Foster, whenever the Comintern had reversed itself on some something on the previous day, the SLP gave him the nickname Zig-Zag Foster.

DAS:

Is there a cite for this Mike? Is that the guy on the rolling papers?

mikelepore

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 05:58 pm Post subject:

There used to be an SLP pamphlet "W.Z. Foster - Renegade or Spy?" by Petersen. I don't have a copy anymore.

this used book store describes it: "Partisan portrait Foster, sometimes known as 'Zig-Zag' Foster because of his agility in navigating abrupt changes in the Party line. Appendices include Petersen's 'Bakuninism is Anarcho-Communism' & pages from the Senate Investigation report of the Steel Strike."

another used book store describes it: "A partisan, political portrait of the man who is sometimes known as "Zig-Zag" Foster because of his agility in navigating abrupt changes in the Party line, written by the leader of the Socialist Labor Party. Petersen's typically subtle and nuanced analysis concludes: "Bluff and bluster, fakes and frauds, Anarchist egotism and yellow cringing and ducking of the renegade, with overwhelming indications of agent provocateurism, these are the high spots in the zig-zag career of William Zebulon Foster - S. P. reformer, Anarcho-Syndicalist, war monger, patriot, ally and friend of Sammy Gompers, Anarcho-Communist, advocate of bonus for reactionary legionnaires, and friend and admirer of the bitterest foes of Soviet Russia, whose leading men, with an obtuseness that passeth all understanding, extend to him recognition as the official American representative of the workers' first Proletarian Republic!'"

Google found these and a total of three pages of matches for "zig-zag foster" (with the quotes required).

Jacob Richter

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 06:24 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

I was under the impression that the SLP practiced it "unconsciously" and after the Russian Revolution.

And yes, I do rely on Kautsky's own words on the matter (which also inspired the MENSHEVIKS to adopt "democratic centralism" for the whole of the RSDLP). The point I am trying to make is to dispell certain myths regarding democratic centralism, as well as to point out that it was/is merely a means to an end.

Both factions were trying to implement the SPD's organizational model within czarist Russia.

davesearles

Posted: 01 Jul 2008 08:17 pm Post subject:

JR:

I was under the impression that the SLP practiced it "unconsciously" and after the Russian Revolution.

DAS:

Oh hell no. DeLeon had his own son kicked out the party and Deleon died in 1914.

JR paraphrasing Kautsky:

Whoever attempts to deny [the goal of ideal discussive unity and the accompanying political transparency], no matter what his pretensions, is to be reckoned among the worst enemies of the working class!

And Kautsky writing for himself:

wherever the working-class has endeavored to improve its economic position it has made political demands, especially demands for a free press and the right of assemblage. These privileges are to the proletariat the prerequisites of life; they are the light and air of the labor movement. Whoever attempts to deny them, no matter what his pretensions, is to be reckoned among the worst enemies of the working-class.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm

Lenin quoting Kautsky:

“Whoever considers this too bureaucratic or centralistic let him suggest that candidates be nominated by the direct vote of the Party membership at large [sīmtliche Parteigenossen]. If he thinks this is not practicable, he must not complain of a lack of democracy when this function, like many others that concern the Party as a whole, is exercised by one or several Party bodies.”

DAS:

However I do not anywhere see the complete text of Kautsky, only Leinin’s limited quotation of Kautsky

What I get from this limited quote is that Kautsky is in favor of candidates being nominated by a direct vote of the party membership. (Hardly centralistic at all.) And he says apparently that those who do not think that nomination by direct vote is practical should not complain about it when some body of the party has to make the nomination instead of the membership as a whole.

How in the hell is this centralistic?

davesearles

Posted: 02 Jul 2008 05:46 pm Post subject:

JR:

Note also the possibilities for “organic” decision-making and direct decision-making by the party membership as a whole. In the case of the former, "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by the modern revolutionary Marxist party based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the short-lived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary.

DAS:

It seems that you get wound up too much in your own terminolgy.

Oganic and organ do not necesarily mean the same thing. A group may utilize a general vote to establish a certain agency as an organ of the group. Here organ means tool. Organic means a constiuent part of. In the case above a tool of the group isn't necesarilty a constiuent part of the group. For example the entire editorial staff of a group's newspaper could be mere paid employees and not group members. The editorial staff would constiute an organ of the group (as in tool) but yet not be an organic (as in constiuent) part of the group.

I work as part of the paid staff of a certain business. During the midnight shift I am the sole employee there. In certain "extremely extraordinary circumstances" under the law of apparent agency I could make agreements with trades people as binding on the owning group as if the owning group itself made them. The various branches of paid staff are tools (organs) of the ownership group but not be constituent (organic) parts of the ownership group.

Jacob Richter

Posted: 03 Jul 2008 01:45 am Post subject:

^^^ Perhaps my brief introduction to left-communist (childish) organization wasn't informative enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_centralism

The problem with this is that the leaders are appointed and not elected, and that decisions are left to them without accountability.

davesearles

Posted: 03 Jul 2008 03:33 am Post subject:

JR:

The problem with this is that the leaders are appointed and not elected, and that decisions are left to them without accountability.

DAS:

The problem with what? I have no idea. But ISTM that in any event "accountabilty" by the officer of any organization depends upon the oversight by the appointer or elector(s), and it entirely depends upon the specifics of the situation as to whether appointment or election results in greater accountability.

Does this make sense or is it too out of line with party organizational theory?

Jacob Richter

Posted: 03 Jul 2008 01:44 pm Post subject:

davesearles wrote:

Yeah, but we're dealing with Bordigist cultists here, whose leaders aren't suppose to be held accountable. ;)

davesearles

Posted: 03 Jul 2008 02:29 pm Post subject:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga

It was Bordiga's idea that

The party must follow a unitary strategy of intransigency, abandoning its argument that the south was a "special case." It was more important to create a small party composed of dedicated militants than to recruit a large one composed of dubious revolutionaries, he said. Those who said the masses were "not ready" were those who had lost their own commitment to revolutionary change. The "one way of salvation" for the south lay in adopting the "ultra-intransigent" tactic. Only then would socialists "awaken the sleeping lion thrusting it against the . . . bourgeoisie which has fed so often on the servility of this unfortunate population."

DAS:

I'm a pragmatist. If Bordiga thought that to be a good idea and it worked in the moment, then fine. That still is not to say that an appointed party officer or body would necessarily not be as responsive as one elected by the rank and file.

The doctrinaire impresses me in favor of it almost always not at all. And in many if not most cases I would say that it impresses me in the negative.