Democratic centralism?

[Uppercut]

I know Lenin, as well as many communists were/are supporters of democratic centralism, where the leading party is allowed for open debate. However, wouldn't this lead to almost no participation on behalf of the masses? Any kind of centralism will innevitably end up as a one-party dictatorship, where all rights rest within the party and only the party. To me, this sounds a lot like what the central bankers are going for in their New World Order. Also, shouldn't workers have more direct control of the work-place through direct democracy and workers' councils? I know for sure that the soviet union didn't allow for much direct participation.

Discuss and debate!

[redarmyfaction38]

I know Lenin, as well as many communists were/are supporters of democratic centralism, where the leading party is allowed for open debate. However, wouldn't this lead to almost no participation on behalf of the masses? Any kind of centralism will innevitably end up as a one-party dictatorship, where all rights rest within the party and only the party. To me, this sounds a lot like what the central bankers are going for in their New World Order. Also, shouldn't workers have more direct control of the work-place through direct democracy and workers' councils? I know for sure that the soviet union didn't allow for much direct participation.

Discuss and debate!

the way i understand it, the central committee is executive/administrative as in place merely to enable/enact the democratic decisions of the regional committees that carry forward the wishes of the local committees having agreed regional priorities etc and so on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No there was not direct participation in the USSR. A Bolshevik party is not supposed to be the state, it is a model for a revolutionary party - therefore it is democratic by having internal discussions and debates and excluding nonmembers.

The Bolsheviks gained popularity for calling for rule through the worker councils "All power to the Soviets" not by advocating that their party should become the state.

I think the Bolshevik model is a good one for parties but not for a state - workers can decide what form of representation and model of democracy they need as the revolution unfolds.

[( R )evolution]

Democratic centralism was suppose to work along the lines where everyone is allowed to speak and debate the ideas of the party, in which everyone's opinion matters and no one is above anyone else in the decision making process. But once a decision was made by majority rule then everyone in the party should follow. As Gravedigger said, it was a model for the a party not for the organization of the state. But sadly democratic centralism under Stalin turned into centralism with no democracy. Where all power was in the hands of the centralist state, or in other words, 'Stalin'.

[Q]

Democratic-centralism according to MIA (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm#democratic-centralism).

[Revy]

How does democratic centralism deal with the question of factions?
Surely, if a decision by the party is wrong, then members would not be within reason of protesting it. Could this be why there have been so many Leninist splits?

I'm not trolling or trying to incite a flamewar. This is just something I have wondered.

[ev]

Democratic centralism creates a bureaucratic class elite, I favour a decentralized democracy.

[Uppercut]

Democratic centralism creates a bureaucratic class elite, I favour a decentralized democracy.

I hear ya, comrade. I give Lenin credit for lifting spirits and whatnot, but I don't agree with many of his ideas. I don't really see how you can abolish the state by setting up a replacement institutional government. This is why I'm a left/council communist.

[BOZG]

Democratic centralism creates a bureaucratic class elite, I favour a decentralized democracy.

What about in trade unions? Should we argue that minority trade unionists who are opposed to a strike should be able to subvert it by crossing picket lines?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I hear ya, comrade. I give Lenin credit for lifting spirits and whatnot, but I don't agree with many of his ideas. I don't really see how you can abolish the state by setting up a replacement institutional government. This is why I'm a left/council communist.

Read my post above. The revolutionary party was not intended to become the model for a state - it is only later after the Russian Revolution failed that revolutionaries began following the one-party "party becomes the state" model.

I want to see democracy based in worker and community and school councils - but I think a revolutionary party along the lines of the Bolsheviks will be necessary to help influence a successful revolution.

It's a question of organization - the capitalists are way organized and it is done through anti-democratic means like the military and police (top-down hierarchy). We have to be just as organized, but how do you organize a mass party and have it be democratic? I think democratic-centralism is a good model for this: debate, vote, and then you have to follow that vote publicly.

If you have a minority view, you will have to follow the vote, but then you can still hold that view and organize your faction for another vote. Yes there tend to be lots of splits, but I think that has a lot to do with being in a non-revolutionary time (well until recently maybe) and so there is no way for many factions to prove or disprove their perspective in action.

[Q]

How does democratic centralism deal with the question of factions?
Surely, if a decision by the party is wrong, then members would not be within reason of protesting it. Could this be why there have been so many Leninist splits?

I'm not trolling or trying to incite a flamewar. This is just something I have wondered.
Factions and tendencies are fully supported, or should be, within a democratic-centralistic framework. If there is a minority that still disagrees with a given decision of the majority, then it has all the right to remain to convince the majority of its opinion. This includes open debate as a rather vital part of preventing a bureaucracy ceasing any discussion by force, ensure a free development of ideas and to be frank and honest to the wider working class.

In other words, unity in action doesn't exclude freedom of discussion. If freedom of discussion is ceased, the "democratic" part becomes effectively meaningless and the slippery road towards bureaucratic-centralism has begun.

[cyu]

What about in trade unions? Should we argue that minority trade unionists who are opposed to a strike should be able to subvert it by crossing picket lines?
This scenario implies there are 2 sides, but in fact there are more:

1. Employees that want to stand up for themselves.

2. Employees with a slave mentality.

3. The capitalist / exploiter.

4. The government.

So how is #1 going to get #2 to follow majority vote? By using #4? You do realize #4 is in the pocket of #3, right?

What #1 has to do is destroy the slave mentality of those in #2 - eliminate their fear. In a world without #3, obviously the concept of "crossing picket lines" wouldn't even exist. Maybe #1 can eliminate fear by changing #4, or maybe they can do it by gathering enough support that #4 can be ignored altogether.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This scenario implies there are 2 sides, but in fact there are more:

1. Employees that want to stand up for themselves.

2. Employees with a slave mentality.

3. The capitalist / exploiter.

4. The government.

So how is #1 going to get #2 to follow majority vote? By using #4? You do realize #4 is in the pocket of #3, right?

What #1 has to do is destroy the slave mentality of those in #2 - eliminate their fear. In a world without #3, obviously the concept of "crossing picket lines" wouldn't even exist. Maybe #1 can eliminate fear by changing #4, or maybe they can do it by gathering enough support that #4 can be ignored altogether.

I'm sorry but I do not understand your response. I believe the comrade you were responding to made a point that in theory, a union voting for a strike (democracy) and keeping rank and file discipline by upholding the strike and not crossing the picket line (centralism) is democratic centralism in practice. Unfortunately many unions today have little rank and file democracy. Are you saying that a better strategy for a union would be to ignore the government? Again, sorry I didn't get the point you were making.

[Uppercut]

As I understand it, some leninists argue for a council based society, but stress the need for a vanguard party. I can understand the use for a vanguard party as long as it doesn't turn into a one-party system dictatorship like the USSR did under Lenin.

[Q]

As I understand it, some leninists argue for a council based society, but stress the need for a vanguard party. I can understand the use for a vanguard party as long as it doesn't turn into a one-party system dictatorship like the USSR did under Lenin.
An activist party doesn't lead to a dictatorship. Material circumstances preventing the revolution from moving forwards do.

[Q]

Are we going to have a quotewar now?

[cyu]

a union voting for a strike (democracy) and keeping rank and file discipline by upholding the strike and not crossing the picket line (centralism) is democratic centralism in practice


What I was asking is, how are they going to enforce the vote? Are they relying on the government to do it?

What if the union votes not to strike? Or if the elected leader of the union decides not to strike? That too would be democratic centralism too.

What if some members want to strike, others want to occupy, and still more want to simply take over the company? Would you discourage diversity of tactics?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Democratis Centralism was a very good concept, and it did work very well.
It wasn't untill Kruschev started to dissolve this system that the USSR began to die.

[redflag32]

This scenario implies there are 2 sides, but in fact there are more:

1. Employees that want to stand up for themselves.

2. Employees with a slave mentality.

3. The capitalist / exploiter.

4. The government.

So how is #1 going to get #2 to follow majority vote? By using #4? You do realize #4 is in the pocket of #3, right?

What #1 has to do is destroy the slave mentality of those in #2 - eliminate their fear. In a world without #3, obviously the concept of "crossing picket lines" wouldn't even exist. Maybe #1 can eliminate fear by changing #4, or maybe they can do it by gathering enough support that #4 can be ignored altogether.

Thats a load of #2 if you ask me:laugh:

Sorry, i had to.

[BOZG]

What I was asking is, how are they going to enforce the vote? Are they relying on the government to do it?

What if the union votes not to strike? Or if the elected leader of the union decides not to strike? That too would be democratic centralism too.

What if some members want to strike, others want to occupy, and still more want to simply take over the company? Would you discourage diversity of tactics?

By enforcing the picket line and refusing to allow scabs to cross picket lines. Strikes demand a centralised response, that enforces authority. It demands unity in action, regardless of minority opposition. Decentralised democracy on a picket line is a basically an argument against pickets, unless they have 100% support.

If the union votes not to strike, well then union activists need to discuss why and what they can do to change opinions and what they can do to push for strike action. This is of course in a situation where strike action is a progressive thing. An elected leader of a union is not democratic centralism. Democratic centralism calls for elected officials, the right to recall and that elected officials enjoy the same perks and privileges (none) that members do. This is something that doesn't exist in the vast majority of unions. Workers should challenge the bureaucracy, elected or not, when they seek to block the workers movement from taking action.

If there is a difference of opinion, well then activists should fight for their ideas and try and win the vast majority of workers over to their side and opinion, whether it's for a strike, occupation or takeover, depending on the circumstances and what conditions exist. It's impossible to offer a concrete blueprint on what activists should do because conditions and consciousness determine the response. Even when a majority votes for strike action, it isn't necessarily the tactically correct thing to strike, if that majority is very slim but when a decision is taken, trade unionists should accept that decision while arguing for their own positions.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Without democratic centralism, you don't have unity in a political party or worker's movement; therefore it is a necessary and favorable tactic (or it should be) amongst leftists and workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I was asking is, how are they going to enforce the vote? Are they relying on the government to do it?What's to ensure that a union or party member pays dues? Internal party discipline: by becoming a member of the party and accepting that they operate through Democratic-Socialism - if you disagree, find a party that has the decision making process that you do agree with.

Why would the state enforce the rules of a revolutionary party? Oh, you still think Democratic Centralism of a party is the model for a socialist state... read the earlier posts to dispel that mischaracterization.


What if the union votes not to strike? Or if the elected leader of the union decides not to strike? That too would be democratic centralism too.Well the problem with the union example is that many unions are not run democratically, just centrally. But if there was a union with rank and file democracy that debated and then voted no on a strike, and you disagree, then you have to suck it up and go with it - then within the union you can still organize and fight for another vote.

Then next time the issue comes up you can use the experience of the first vote to bolster your position: "Last time we voted not to strike and look what happened, the union got weaker and had to give up concessions - if we vote the same again, then we'll get the same results".

This is what Lenin and other Bolsheviks did constantly in the years leading up to the Revolution - Lenin or whoever would be on the loosing side of a decision and then he would release a flood of polemics showing how the decision had been wrong and arguing for a differnet way forward the nest time.

Essentially this is how a group learns collectively - if you vote and everyone does whatever they wanted to do in the first place, the group will never lear from it's mistakes or successes. It's like having a scientific experiment with too many variables - you don't use pond water to test how water effects something, you use distilled water!


What if some members want to strike, others want to occupy, and still more want to simply take over the company? Would you discourage diversity of tactics?There's nothing wrong with a diversity of tactics - you just have to vote to have a diversity of tactics. Sometimes a diversity of tactics is a better way to go, other times a show of unity is better and if you are a part of a democratic centralist group, you will have to argue which way is better for which occasion. You don't want to have people split up if you want to confront the cops, you don't want people split up if you are trying to hold a picket line - in these cases it is probably better to have everyone united on a single tactic. If you are at a huge demo with tons of other people, then a diversity of tactics is probably better becuase you can have a wider impact.

[Tower of Bebel]

Democracy means the freedom of ideas and the freedom of discussion while centralism - or discipline - is something an organization or leadership must earn through open debates.

In the case of the Bolshevik party from the pre-1917 pêriod this means that even though many restrictions were enforced by the tsarist bureaucratic state (no freedom of press; no freedom of opinion; poor living standards; persecution; etc.) the whole party was used to ensure the best possible conditions for open debates; a diversified eduction of new leaders; the permanent challenging of the current leadership (something which today's left hates); etc. In the case of 1917 this practice, together with the general praxis (the correctness of their ideas in relation with the class struggle), this resulted in having a party with much spontanious activities of the masses and a leadership having earned its position as vanguard of the class they represented.

[cyu]

What's to ensure that a union or party member pays dues? Internal party discipline: by becoming a member of the party and accepting that they operate through Democratic-Socialism - if you disagree, find a party that has the decision making process that you do agree with.

It's kind of a chicken and egg problem here. In joining the union, they have to agree to obey all the decisions of the majority. If they reserve the right to disobey the majority, is there another way you can convince them to join the union - or would you just give up on them as a lost cause?



There's nothing wrong with a diversity of tactics - you just have to vote to have a diversity of tactics.


So anarchists would vote for a diversity of tactics. Then again, some anarchists may engage in a diversity of tactics, regardless of the outcome of the vote. If they do this, how much energy would you devote to persecuting them instead of fighting capitalists?