Help with Lenin's Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder

[communard resolution]

I don't quite grasp some passages in the second chapter. Maybe someone can help me?

Please be constructive - I want to understand what the author meant when he wrote this, so I'm not necessarily interested in comments such as 'Lenin was bad' or 'this book is shit'. Thank you.


The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Who does Lenin mean by "non-proletarian masses of the working people" as opposed to the proletariat? I though in Marxist class analysis there was only proletariat, bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie?



I repeat: the experience of the victorious dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia has clearly shown even to those who are incapable of thinking or have had no occasion to give thought to the matter that absolute centralisation and rigorous discipline of the proletariat are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie.What does Lenin mean by "absolute centralisation" - does he mean geographical centralisation of administration, or political centralisation, i.e. an 'authoritarian leadership' whose decisions are not questioned by the masses?


I don't follow the logic of this entire paragraph:


The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrasemongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.I tried to work through this backward in order to follow cause and effect, but somehow it didn't seem to make sense: Through the practical activity of a revolutionary movement there arises a correct revolutionary theory - so far, so good. The condidions for absolute discipline of the party (class consciousness of the vanguard, its devotion to revolution, its ability to link up to the masses, correct strategy and tactics) are faciliated by that theory, but these can only be won by experience and... huh?

Maybe somebody can reiterate what Lenin is trying to get across here.

And finally:


The dictatorship of the proletariat means a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in a single country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production. Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. What exactly is meant by small-scale production, and why is it such a powerful bulwark of capitalism?


I might come back with more questions, but this should be enough for now.

[Led Zeppelin]

Who does Lenin mean by "non-proletarian masses of the working people" as opposed to the proletariat? I though in Marxist class analysis there was only proletariat, bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie?

He's referring to the non-proletarian peasant elements there (also the intelligentsia). In other places he refers to them as "semi-proletarian" and divides the peasantry in three sections; the majority of "semi-proletarians", poor peasants. The middle section of peasants, and the upper section of rich peasants, or Kulaks, who are the smallest percentage:


Then follow the tens of millions of peasants, who are divided into three main groups: the most numerous and the one standing closest to the proletariat is that of the semi-proletarians or poor peasants; then come the middle peasants, and lastly the numerically very small group of kulaks or rural bourgeoisie.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/19.htm)

As for why he doesn't brandish the entire peasant mass "petty-bourgeois":


As long as it is possible to trade in grain and to make profit out of famine, the peasant will remain (and this will for some time be inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat) a semi-working man, a semi-profiteer. As a profiteer he is hostile to us, hostile to the proletarian state; he is inclined to agree with the bourgeoisie and their faithful lackeys, up to and including the Menshevik Sher or the Socialist-Revolutionary B. Chernenkov, who stand for freedom to trade in grain. But as a working man, the peasant is a friend of the proletarian state, a most loyal ally of the worker in the struggle against the landowner and against the capitalist. As working men, the peasants, the vast mass of them, the peasant millions, support the state "machine" which is headed by the one or two hundred thousand Communists of the proletarian vanguard, and which consists of millions of organised proletarians.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/19.htm)

This analysis is of course nothing unique to Lenin. Marx and Engels were the first to bring up the alliance between the proletariat and poor peasantry, "working peasants", or "agricultural proletariat", as they were also called by them.


What does Lenin mean by "absolute centralisation" - does he mean geographical centralisation of administration, or political centralisation, i.e. an 'authoritarian leadership' whose decisions are not questioned by the masses?

He means both, but you shouldn't take it out of context. An army in the heat of battle needs a centralized leadership for maximum efficiency. You can talk about democracy, "questioning the leaders" etc. all you want, but either you stand for discipline and centralization, or you lose and waste a lot of time, efficiency and lives. And ultimately, the struggle.

So yes, the context is the initial stage of the revolution, the "heat of the battle" so to speak. But don't forget the "bending the stick" element of what he is saying. He wrote this in 1920 when it was discipline and centralization that were sorely lacking in the international movement.


I don't follow the logic of this entire paragraph:

I tried to work through this backward in order to follow cause and effect, but somehow it didn't seem to make sense: Through the practical activity of a revolutionary movement there arises a correct revolutionary theory - so far, so good. The condidions for absolute discipline of the party (class consciousness of the vanguard, its devotion to revolution, its ability to link up to the masses, correct strategy and tactics) are faciliated by that theory, but these can only be won by experience and... huh?

Maybe somebody can reiterate what Lenin is trying to get across here.

Well, the question he poses is: How is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced?

I'm sure you know what he means by that. He then goes on to answer:

First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism.

So how can discipline in the party be maintained, tested and reinforced? By the class-consciousness of the vanguard and its devotion to the revolution, it's tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. What he is saying is that the tenacity, self-sacrifice, class-consciousness etc. of the vanguard, i.e., the most advanced section of the working-class organized in the party, tests, maintains and reinforces the discipline of the party.

That is the first condition. He then goes on:

Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people.

I believe this was explained above. He's saying here that the party needs to have the ability to maintain the closest contact with the broadest masses of the working people etc.

That is the second condition. Then goes on:

Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct.

The correctness of the political leadership and strategy exercised by the vanguard, provided the broad masses see that they are correct. Just one example; when the Bolsheviks said that the bourgeois-democratic government would not stop the war after the February revolution, they were correct. The broad masses saw it from their own experience, and therefore it reinforced the party.

As for the last part:

Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrasemongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

Well, I think you know what that means? Without those conditions the discipline in the party really capable of being the party of the proletariat, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform society, cannot be achieved.

And without those conditions any attempt to establish discipline will fall flat.

On the other hand, those conditions cannot emerge at once, they are created by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. And their creation is facilitated by holding a correct revolutionary theory which in its turn is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

I'm just repeating what it says here but I'm not sure which part of that you're having trouble with.


And finally:

What exactly is meant by small-scale production, and why is it such a powerful bulwark of capitalism?

Large-scale production grows out of small-scale production. The latter is the bulwark of capitalism because capitalism arises out of it economically. This is why Lenin said that the main enemy post-revolution was the petty-bourgeoisie, because they were the bourgeoisie class in embryo, in development, while the already existing bourgeoisie was successfully overthrown and expropriated.

Hope that helps.

[ComradeOm]

Who does Lenin mean by "non-proletarian masses of the working people" as opposed to the proletariat? I though in Marxist class analysis there was only proletariat, bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie?In short - the proletarians are the wage slaves. They live by selling their labour. This is not always synonymous with 'the working class' which may comprise elements of the petite-bourgeoisie (who are also exploited by the grand-bourgeoisie), artisans, and poorer peasants (the latter still very much an active class in Europe at that time). So while, according to Marx, society is increasingly being divided into two broad classes* actual class analysis involves a lot more nuance

*As a simple comparison of the classes active today and those a century ago makes very clear. A host of traditional feudal classes have disappeared while new ones may well have emerged


What does Lenin mean by "absolute centralisation" - does he mean geographical centralisation of administration, or political centralisation, i.e. an 'authoritarian leadership' whose decisions are not questioned by the masses?The idea that federalism equals liberty is an anarchist one and not accepted by Marxists. That is, we do not believe that "geographical centralisation of administration, or political centralisation", etc, automatically leads to "'authoritarian leadership' whose decisions are not questioned by the masses". So that's a false argument

Its also worth noting that the "iron discipline" that Lenin repeatedly refers to is a slightly misleading term. Certainly the Bolshevik party of 1917 could not be said to have any rigorous discipline or firm and unquestionable chain of command. The many divisions within the Central Committee were echoed throughout the party's many organisations and there was a great deal of interplay between these different levels. What Lenin is referring to here is a more elementary form of discipline - the wedding of Bolsheviks at all levels to the socialist agenda. It was this shared vision that made the Bolsheviks unique in being the one socialist political party/organisation that did not splinter under the strain of 1917. That is the sort of centralism and discipline that Lenin was advocating


I tried to work through this backward in order to follow cause and effect, but somehow it didn't seem to make sense: Through the practical activity of a revolutionary movement there arises a correct revolutionary theory - so far, so good. The condidions for absolute discipline of the party (class consciousness of the vanguard, its devotion to revolution, its ability to link up to the masses, correct strategy and tactics) are faciliated by that theory, but these can only be won by experience and... huh?

Maybe somebody can reiterate what Lenin is trying to get across hereThat's because its not simple cause and effect but a dialectical process. Not in the fancy philosophical sense but in that theory and practice are constantly evolving and impacting each other. Hence the emphasis that revolutionary theory cannot be dogma, which is by definition unchanging, but something that only reaches its full potential when wedded to a mass revolutionary movement


What exactly is meant by small-scale production, and why is it such a powerful bulwark of capitalism?In a nutshell, putting-out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putting-out_system). Essentially decentralised cottage industry that existed prior to (or in the early stages of) the industrial revolution in Western Europe. Its actually both a hindrance and a help to capitalism in that it is not capitalism in its most developed form (which would be mass centralised industry) but at the same time that fact renders it less open to socialist subversion and provides a host of small producers to defend the bourgeois state

Of course given that this was 1920 its perfectly possible that Lenin was instead referring to the peasantry...

Hopefully that answers a few of your questions. Although I see that I've been beaten to it by LZ :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I apologize for being off-topic, but since I have to go to work soon, I must say this (since this is the only thread in a while dealing with that pamphlet):

What Lenin should have said in the chapter on the German situation is that the ultra-left KPD liquidate back into the USPD:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/uspd-vs-kpd-t103415/index.html

[communard resolution]

He means both, but you shouldn't take it out of context. An army in the heat of battle needs a centralized leadership for maximum efficiency. You can talk about democracy, "questioning the leaders" etc. all you want, but either you stand for discipline and centralization, or you lose and waste a lot of time, efficiency and lives. And ultimately, the struggle.

So yes, the context is the initial stage of the revolution, the "heat of the battle" so to speak.Trouble is, decentralisation of power never occurred. Not 10, not 30, not 70 years after the initial stage of the revolution - not in the Soviet Union nor in any other country where socialism was attempted, regardless of context. Save the first few years of the Russian Revolution, all socialist regimes have been undemocratic in nature, with workers having little to no control over their lives despite formal public ownership of the MOP. Based on these historic experiences, does it then stand to reason that, once implemented, a strongly centralised government is unlikely to ever wither away?

ComeradeOm says


The idea that federalism equals liberty is an anarchist one and not accepted by Marxists. That is, we do not believe that "geographical centralisation of administration, or political centralisation", etc, automatically leads to "'authoritarian leadership' whose decisions are not questioned by the masses".Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the word centralisation - what is your definition of it? What are some of the differences between an authoritarian leadership and a centralised government? And why is centralisation of power beyond the 'heat of the battle' in the first stages of the revolution that Led Zeppelin referred to desirable?

Lenin writes in the same book that


It would also be erroneous to lose sight of the fact that, soon after the victory of the proletarian revolution in at least one of the advanced countries, a sharp change will probably come about: Russia will cease to be the model and will once again become a backward country (in the "Soviet" and the socialist sense). In what ways would socialist revolutions in advanced capitalist countries differ from those that occurred in war-torn or backward countries, especially with regards to the points I mentioned above?

[communard resolution]

Led Zeppelin wrote


So how can discipline in the party be maintained, tested and reinforced? By the class-consciousness of the vanguard and its devotion to the revolution, it's tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism etc.

Thanks, it does make more sense now - the original passage seemed to be jumping back and forth rather than evolve in a linear fashion. ComeradeOm refers to it as dialectical, which I appreciate, but I found the logic difficult to follow without drawing a diagram.

[Devrim]

I think that to understand Lenin's " Left wing communism...", you have to place it in it's context, which is the arguments of the centre against the left at the Second Congress of the Communist International. I don't think a box which is basically a polemic against certain tendencies can be understood without at least having s vague idea of what these tendencies were.

Herman Gorter's 'Open letter to comrade Lenin' lays out the basis of the German left's arguments. It can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair wrote about this context back in 2003:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communism-and-t94758/index.html?p=1304513

And now the context is best appreciated in the new book Revolutionary Strategy: Marxism and the Challenge of Left Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32).

[Dave B]

When it comes to the issue of Lenin’s proletarians, real proletarians, and non proletarian factory workers etc. I think anyone who follows orthodox Marxist theory is likely to be confused.

The reason being that according to Lenin ‘Marx did not write about Russia’ and hence a whole new economic theory and historical materialism is required.

Lenin made the position ‘clearer’ I think below;


V. I. Lenin, Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.), March 27-April 2, 1922





There we have to deal with workers. Very often the word "workers" is taken to mean the factory proletariat. But it does not mean that at all. During the war people who were by no means proletarians went into the factories; they went into the factories to dodge the war. Are the social and economic conditions in our country today such as to induce real proletarians to go into the factories?


No. It would be true according to Marx; but Marx did not write about Russia; he wrote about capitalism as a whole, beginning with the fifteenth century. It held true over a period of six hundred years, but it is not true for present-day Russia. Very often those who go into the factories are not proletarians; they are casual elements of every description.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm)

Only a cynic would suspect that ‘factory workers aren’t proletarians’ was nascent Orwellian double speak like ‘freedom is slavery’ etc. Or that only the members of the Bolshevik party were the real proletarians even if they were the ‘bourgeois intelligentsia’ and didn’t work in factories. The rest who did work in factories, like myself, being in a ‘new class’ of casual elements.

There was also the issue of the peasants, and it could be argued that many of the ‘workers’ in Russia at the time had a cultural or ‘petty bourgeois’ ideological mindset of the ‘peasant’.

That requires I suppose a understanding of what in Marxist terms, and what to some extent Lenin drew on, is meant by the ‘petty bourgeois’ peasant.

I am not a great fan of the idea by the way, so I am not about to plug it but just explain it in simple terms as I understand it.

The idea was that your average peasant perhaps emerging out of feudalism had somewhat anti communist and latent bourgeois aspirations.

All they wanted and looked forward to was owning their own little piece of land and working it for themselves. Producing a product and selling it to the highest bidder on the open market. They basically wanted to own their own business and felt that they could live happily surviving in the dog eat dog competitive framework of a capitalist environment, even if perhaps they didn’t quite see it that clearly.

You see it today with workers who want to set up their own little businesses so they can be their own bosses, and they don’t make the greatest communists.

Marxism says that these people are doomed as they will eventually be swallowed up and go to the wall as a result of the efficiencies of large scale production and the concentration of ownership of capital eg land, in corporate bodies etc. And that these small independent producers will be driven to the wall and become bankrupt and will thus become wage-slaves, which was the contemptible condition they were trying to escape.


But in the mean time they are gits with the belief that if I work hard for myself and screw everyone else I will be alright.


Capitalism however with industrial production ‘re- introduces’ the idea of socialised or collective production. Where despite the fact that the capitalist class control everything the labourers under capitalism, in the process of production, are albeit forced work together in a more co-ordinated and co-operative fashion.


Thus it sort of potentially trains them or gets them used to the idea of mutual independence and collective and co-operative inter dependent production as opposed to the go it alone ‘petty bourgeois’ one man business thing.


Karl in his early days recognised this as a problem and I think at one point advocated the nationalisation and state capitalisation of feudal land in order to transform these potential little ‘capitalists’ straight into wage workers and therefore side stepping or avoiding mass peasant support for the general bourgeois ideology.


These ‘little capitalists’ whilst remaining ‘little capitalists’, and it includes small farmers as well as artisans, can of course begin to wonder whether or not they are not just ‘de facto’ employees of big capitalism often as not merchant capitalists or Wallmarts;


Capital Vol. III Part IV, Conversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital) Chapter 20. Historical Facts about Merchant's Capital


The buyers are the owners of furniture stores. On Saturdays the master visits them and sells his product, the transaction being closed with as much haggling as in a pawnshop over a loan. The masters depend on this weekly sale, if for no other reason than to be able to buy raw materials for the following week and to pay out wages. Under these circumstances, they are really only middlemen between the merchant and their own labourers. The merchant is the actual capitalist who pockets the lion's share of the surplus-value

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch20.htm)


The pamphlet by Lenin has some other history I suspect;



I was conscious of the disapproving looks directed at me when, out of my turn, I was requested to follow the attendant to the private office of the Secretary of the Communist International. Radek received me very cordially, inquired about my health, and thanked me for so promptly responding to his call. Then, handing me a thick manuscript, he said:
"Ilyitch (Lenin) has just finished this work and he is anxious to have you render it into English for the British Mission. You will do us a great service."

It was the manuscript of "The Infantile Sickness of Leftism." I had already heard about the forthcoming work and knew it to be an attack on the Left revolutionary tendencies critical of Leninism. I turned over some pages, with their profusely underscored lines corrected in Lenin's small but legible handwriting. "Petty bourgeois ideology of Anarchism," I read; "the infantile stupidity of Leftism," "the ultrarevolutionists suffocating in the fervor of their childish enthuslasm."
The pale faces of the Butirki hunger strikers rose before me. I saw their burning eyes peering accusingly at me through the iron bars. "Have you forsaken us?" I heard them whisper.

"We are in a great hurry about this translation." Radek was saying, and I felt impatience in his voice. "We want it done within three days."
"It will require at least a week," I replied. "Besides, I have other work on hand, already promised."

"I know, Losovsky's," he remarked with a disparaging tilt of the head; "that's all right. Lenin's takes precedence. You can drop everything else, on my responsibility."
"I will undertake it if I may add a preface."

"This is no joking matter, Berkman." Radek was frankly displeased.

"I speak seriously. This pamphlet misrepresents and besmirches all my ideals. I cannot agree to translate it without adding a few words in defense."
"Otherwise you decline?"
"I do."



http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmch19.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmch19.html)

[communard resolution]

Another quick thought (perhaps also to remind you that this thread still exists and my follow-up questions re centralisation remain unanswerered):

the gradual centralisation of power in the hands of the party and Lenin's refusal to accept that there is a difference between a 'party of leaders' and a 'mass party' (Chapter 5: 'Left wing' Communism in Germany) are the results of his holding on do to the revolution in the most difficult and adverse circumstances. Would the pre-1917 Lenin have spoken like this? And while his actions and the gradual switch towards a dictatorship of the party are understandable and can be defended given the civil war and such - should such emergency solutions be made principle and held on to in the present day?

Likewise, the very idea of a tight Leninist Party without factions is arguably a result of the adverse circumstances of the time, but not necessarily in tune with Lenin's original idea of a Marxist Party. Should we then not seek to build a Marxist Party rather than a Leninist one or a multitude of confessional sects (Trotskyist, Stalinist, Left, etc) today?

[ComradeOm]

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of the word centralisation - what is your definition of it? What are some of the differences between an authoritarian leadership and a centralised government? And why is centralisation of power beyond the 'heat of the battle' in the first stages of the revolution that Led Zeppelin referred to desirable?I think the error that you are making here, and is very common amongst anarchists, is assuming that "centralisation" is inherently anti-democratic and that dictatorship is similarly intrgral to hierarchical organisations. Marxists reject both. It is perfectly possible to construct a relatively centralised organisation, with accompanying chain of command, that is democratic in nature

The revolutionary state produced in 1917 did not degenerate because it was overly centralised but because its social base had evaporated. Similarly the pre-Revolution Bolshevik party was relatively centralised by the standards of the day (although nowhere near as monolithic or as rigid as its detractors assert) but nonetheless thoroughly democratic with its leadership entirely responsible to the party's base

So what does Lenin actually mean by centralisation? In the specific context of party organisation, he means that there exists a clear and robust party structure in which a centre is in the position to influence (if not always dictate terms) to the various party apparatus. That is, that there exists a body capable of coordinating the party activities. Again, it has to be stressed that this centre is entirely responsible to the party base and that decisions are reached in a democratic manner. Once arrived at however the party is able to act in a unified manner

Remember as well that the context for this particular polemic was the disastrous lack of organisation in Germany where the ultra-left KAPD had disavowed many basic organisational tenets and adopted a strategy of ultra-sectarianism. Lenin is spelling out the ideal party (which doesn't always correspond to the Bolsheviks in reality) and the necessity of having these party structures present in order to coordinate the struggle. As events in Germany demonstrated all to clearly


In what ways would socialist revolutions in advanced capitalist countries differ from those that occurred in war-torn or backward countries, especially with regards to the points I mentioned above?Different national conditions give rise to different revolutions. Lenin limited himself to nothing the international aspects of the Russian Revolution (ie, the ones that applied universally) but its to be expected that a revolution in France or Germany, for example, would take on a somewhat different form/colour to that of backwards Russia. Lenin didn't speculate, and its probably useless for us to do so, but there were hints as to what this would look like in the failed German Revolution


Likewise, the very idea of a tight Leninist Party without factions is arguably a result of the adverse circumstances of the time, but not necessarily in tune with Lenin's original idea of a Marxist Party. Should we then not seek to build a Marxist Party rather than a Leninist one or a multitude of confessional sects (Trotskyist, Stalinist, Left, etc) today?What Lenin said has been mutilated a countless number of times by those defending and attacking him. What is reality however is that the Bolshevik party of 1917 was a revolutionary party with a mass membership and thoroughly democratic structures. It was precisely because of the latter that it proved able to attract and retain the support of the revolutionary proletariat. As far as I'm concerned that is Lenin's legacy - very different to everything that had come before or since

[blake 3:17]

I think Left Communism is important to put in context. Possibilities of socialist revolutions did exist in Western and Central Europe. It's a strong polemic in certain senses in favour of the Left Communist or anarcho-syndicalists to not cut themselves off from the primary organizations of the various national working classes. These groupings were the real basis of authentically revolutionary movements as long as they didn't cut themselves off from the class as a whole.

I think Lenin really did believe in a very centralized party, and the Bolsheviks were very effective.

The whole thing is premised on socialist revolution sweeping the globe fairly soon after. Fascism kinda fucked that up.

The other problem is the relative conservatism of many of the more "advanced" or organized working classes. Practical nationalism tends to win out over a more principled internationalism.

Edited to add: It's worth taking a look at the link Dave B posted above. Some very interesting stuff from Alexander Berkman, betterly known as Emma Goldman's husband. No need to be sectarian about it. An interesting documentary.

[communard resolution]

I think the error that you are making here, and is very common amongst anarchists, is assuming that "centralisation" is inherently anti-democratic and that dictatorship is similarly intrgral to hierarchical organisations. Marxists reject both.

I can see where you are coming from, ComradeOm, but I'm not entirely happy with this paragraph. I ask: what is centralism, why is it desirable, and is it not undemocratic? You say: Only anarchists ask these questions, Marxists don't.

Please forget about anarchists and Marxists for a second. Imagine I'm the proverbial man on the street asking you this, one that is not bothered whether his question is anarchist, Marxist, or anything else; and all I want to know is why centralisation of power is necessary, and what the checks and balances are to ensure that it doesn't lead to the much-feared dictatorship of the few.

So when you say


It is perfectly possible to construct a relatively centralised organisation, with accompanying chain of command, that is democratic in natureI want to know: how is this possible, what does the structure of such an organisation look like, and how can an organisation be hierarchical and democratic both at the same time?

A typical text on democratic centralism states that


Formally, the centralist aspect was asserted via the subordination of all lower bodies to the decisions taken by higher ones.Is this accurate, and if so, how is this model democratic and why is it desirable?


In theory at least, although Party members were bound to carry out a policy once it had been adopted, there was room for democratic input in the pre-congress discussion and elections. In practice, criticism of Party leaders under any circumstances was considered disloyal and grounds for expulsion.Accurate?


You say:


So what does Lenin actually mean by centralisation? In the specific context of party organisation, he means that there exists a clear and robust party structure in which a centre is in the position to influence (if not always dictate terms) to the various party apparatus.Is the centre in a position from which it could eliminate internal democracy and and dictate terms to the various apparatuses if it decided to do so, though?



What Lenin said has been mutilated a countless number of times by those defending and attacking him. What is reality however is that the Bolshevik party of 1917 was a revolutionary party with a mass membership and thoroughly democratic structures.I see, but I was referring to the party post-1917. When Lenin wrote 'Left-Wing' Communism in 1920, he had already undertaken certain emergency measures, all of which are understandable and perhaps even necessary given the adverse circumstances of the time (war and such), but shouldn't necessarily be made model and principle for all Communist organisations to follow.

I understand the Communist Party had factions in 1917, but not by 1920, by which time it had become a 'Leninist' rather than a communist party. Again, this is understandable given the context, but the problem is that communists began to theorise these emergency retreats and made them principle for all times to come - today, this can be seen in Trotskyist and Stalinist groups alike.

So, all I'm suggesting is that the Lenin of 1902 did not envision a tight, homegenous ideological sect like we have them today, but a united Marxist party. Perhaps this is the model we should aim for today, rather than Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist outfits.

[Led Zeppelin]

I understand the Communist Party had factions in 1917, but not by 1920, by which time it had become a 'Leninist' rather than a communist party. Again, this is understandable given the context, but the problem is that communists began to theorise these emergency retreats and made them principle for all times to come - today, this can be seen in Trotskyist and Stalinist groups alike.

Actually it's not true that Lenin and Trotsky turned those temporary measures into "principles for all times to come". In fact they both stressed their temporary character (and Trotsky criticized that they had become principles under the rule of Stalinists).

As Trotsky later said, it was one of the main concessions they had to make, but it was one out of pure necessity:


During the Civil War the militarization of the Soviets and the Party was almost inevitable. But even during the Civil War I myself tried in the army – even in the army on the field – to give a full possibility to the Communists to discuss all the military measures. I discussed these measures even with the soldiers and, as I explained in my autobiography, even with the deserters. After the Civil War was finished, we hoped that the possibility for democracy would be greater. But two factors, two different but connected factors, hindered the development of Soviet democracy. The first general factor was the backwardness and misery of the country. From that basis emanated the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy did not wish to be abolished, to be annihilated. The bureaucracy became an independent factor. Then the fight became to a certain degree a struggle of classes. That was the beginning of the Opposition. For a certain time the question was an internal question in the Central Committee. We discussed by what means we should begin the fight on the degeneration and the bureaucratization of the state. Then it became not a question of discussions in the Central Committee, but a question of the fight, the struggle between the Opposition and the bureaucracy.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session02.htm)

And:


To be sure, during the first period of the Soviet era the Bolshevik party also exercised a monopoly. But to identify these two phenomena would be to take appearance for reality. The prohibition of opposition parties was a temporary measure dictated by conditions of civil war, blockade, intervention and famine. The ruling party, representing in that period a genuine organization of the proletarian vanguard, was living a full-blooded inner life. A struggle of groups and factions to a certain degree replaced the struggle of parties. At present, when socialism has conquered “finally and irrevocably,” the formation of factions is punished with concentration camp or firing squad. The prohibition of other parties, from being a temporary evil, has been erected into a principle.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch10.htm)


Lenin said the same thing:


“... disenfranchisement and any restrictions whatsoever upon liberty are necessary solely as temporary measures of struggle against the attempts of the exploiters to maintain or to restore their privileges. In proportion as the objective possibility for the exploitation of man by man disappears, all necessity for these temporary measures will likewise disappear, and the party will strive to narrow them down, and to completely abolish them”
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/ussrconst.htm)


So, all I'm suggesting is that the Lenin of 1902 did not envision a tight, homegenous ideological sect like we have them today, but a united Marxist party. Perhaps this is the model we should aim for today, rather than Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist outfits.

Well as I showed you above, the Lenin of 1902 was the exact same Lenin of 1923. The only difference was that the latter Lenin lived in another time-period and in other conditions than the former, and he adapted to them as any Marxist should be able to do.

This does not mean that he abandoned Marxist principles (as is seen in the quote above). Neither did Trotsky.

There were and are, however, people who did and still do.

Besides, "Leninism" and "Trotskyism" are not based on those things you mention (which bore a temporary character to both of them), they are based on other things like Lenin's contribution to the theory of Imperialism, on his works regarding political organization etc., and Trotsky's works on permanent revolution and his criticisms of exactly the things you mentioned (temporary concessions being turned into holy principles).

EDIT: I have to add though that your conception of Lenin as one who always stood for some united mass Marxist party embracing all tendencies is not accurate. Check this work for more on Lenin's opinions regarding the party: The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party” (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

[ComradeOm]

Please forget about anarchists and Marxists for a second. Imagine I'm the proverbial man on the street asking you this, one that is not bothered whether his question is anarchist, Marxist, or anything else; and all I want to know is why centralisation of power is necessary, and what the checks and balances are to ensure that it doesn't lead to the much-feared dictatorship of the fewLet me put it this way, if a man on the street asked me why increased centralisation is inherently anti-democratic, I would ask him to explain the line of reasoning that led him to this conclusion. If he asked why it was necessary I would explain that centralisation greatly increases the efficiency of the involved bodies by giving them a coherence and direction that would otherwise be lacking. I would further point out that there is no reason why a hierarchical organisation cannot be democratic in nature

You're asking why a body cannot be "be hierarchical and democratic both at the same time" but that question just doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I'm concerned you might as well as why something can't be 'round' and 'blue' at the same time; ie, these are not mutually exclusive attributes. Unless of course you subscribe to a particular logic that dictates they are. Now I can question/criticise this logic but I can hardly argue in favour of the inverse. You understand?


I want to know: how is this possible, what does the structure of such an organisation look like, and how can an organisation be hierarchical and democratic both at the same time?With regards what this structure looks like, I'm sure there's far too many variations or models on which to elaborate here. Unless you want me to discuss a specific historical example (such as the Bolshevik party or Soviet state?). And I've already made clear that I see no reason why a body cannot be "be hierarchical and democratic both at the same time"


Is this accurate, and if so, how is this model democratic and why is it desirable?Accurate in a historical sense... depends. While the Bolshevik CC was nominally 'above' other party committees, it was by no means a rigid chain of command. That is, one in which data is passed up and decisions come down from on high. On the contrary the supposedly "subordinate" committees possessed a great deal of influence and independence. In the first case the mere fact that the party's central organ was democratically elected ensured that it was responsible to the party's grassroots. Decisions were therefore not being taken in isolation. Secondly, the Bolsheviks always maintained the principle of independent fractions; that is, that the various Bolshevik committees and groups within the soviets (or other bodies) could vote on whether to adopt CC resolutions. So there was a formal hierarchy but it was democratic at every level


Accurate?Absolutely and categorically false. I'm reminded of Smilga's sharp and succinct admonishment when an enraged Lenin talked about the expulsion of Kamenev and Zionviev from the Central Committee (not the party) following the publishing of their public letter on the eve of revolution. "Comrade Lenin", Smilga said, "That is not how things work in the Bolshevik party"*

The reality is that the Bolshevik party was continually divided on a host of issues but held together by the basic organisational unity and elementary discipline that I've outlined before. There was continuous and healthy debate at all levels. This environment continued right through to the late twenties amongst the party's leadership; even if it did suffer somewhat with the deterioration of the party's wider membership during the Civil War. It was not until the advent of Stalinism that blindly following orders became a trait of the Communists

*Paraphrasing slightly as I, frustratingly, can't track down the exact quote


Is the centre in a position from which it could eliminate internal democracy and and dictate terms to the various apparatuses if it decided to do so, though?Well no, how can that be the case when the centre itself is responsible to and relies on the wider party base? Internal democracy can be lost, clearly, but not through directives from above. Only a collapse in the party's grassroots could facilitate such a degeneration - a healthy party base would never accept anti-democratic measures that would curtail their rights and input into the decision making process


I understand the Communist Party had factions in 1917, but not by 1920, by which time it had become a 'Leninist' rather than a communist partyThe 'factionalism' continued right through the 1920s. Its very, very easy to overstate the degree to which the Bolshevik (even Communist) party was a monolithic entity


So, all I'm suggesting is that the Lenin of 1902 did not envision a tight, homegenous ideological sect like we have them today, but a united Marxist party. Perhaps this is the model we should aim for today, rather than Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist outfits.Lenin never used the term "Leninist" but then nor did he ever imagine a "united Marxist party". Lenin's conception of the party was a clean break from the previous Social Democratic model (very relevant to discussions of Germany in 1920) which had sought to gather various tendencies under a single organisation

Which is not for a second to deny that the scattered parties that today constitute 'the left' are pretty much worthless

[communard resolution]

Actually it's not true that Lenin and Trotsky turned those temporary measures into "principles for all times to come".

I should have been clearer. Not Trostky or Lenin turned the emergency retreats into principles for all times to come, but many Leninist and Trotskyist groups did later - and still do. One outstanding example of this is the Socialist Workers Party, whose members do not realise that despite being Trotskyists, the faction-less, top-down structure of their organisation is actually more akin to a Stalinist party - or the factionless 'emergency version' of the Bolshevik party if you will.


Well as I showed you above, the Lenin of 1902 was the exact same Lenin of 1923. The only difference was that the latter Lenin lived in another time-period and in other conditions than the former, and he adapted to them as any Marxist should be able to do.His insisting that there is absolutely no difference between a 'mass party' and a 'leader party' in Chapter 5 of Left-Wing Communism makes me shudder and strikes me as doublespeak. I also dislike his overuse of unobjective terms ("childish", "nonsense", "insanity" etc) in place of arguments in this chapter. But I will go into this in more detail in another post.


EDIT: I have to add though that your conception of Lenin as one who always stood for some united mass Marxist party embracing all tendencies is not accurate. Check this work for more on Lenin's opinions regarding the party: The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party” (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)At first and second glance, I cannot find anything that would confirm this when I scroll down to 'Concept of a Party'. Would you mind citing a relevant quote from that text? I apologise if this is lazy on my behalf, but there are only so many hours in the day, so I'd rather have all relevant information in this thread.

What objections do you personally have against the formation of a united Marxist mass party that embraces several tendencies instead of tight confessional sects?

[Led Zeppelin]

I should have been clearer. Not Trostky or Lenin turned the emergency retreats into principles for all times to come, but many Leninist and Trotskyist groups did later - and still do. One outstanding example of this is the Socialist Workers Party, whose members do not realise that despite being Trotskyists, the faction-less, top-down structure of their organisation is actually more akin to a Stalinist party - or the factionless 'emergency version' of the Bolshevik party if you will.

I don't know, is it really true that the SWP functions like that? Can any SWP members confirm this?

If it is so, then certainly it's something I would be opposed to. CDL posted a good quote by Lenin on this recently, incidentally from the same work we're discussing, Left-wing Communism:


A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification -- that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses.
Link (https://www.marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm)

Now what is the best way for a party to learn from its mistakes in that manner? Certainly not by expelling members who point them out! But the Bolsheviks never functioned like this. Not even after the formal ban on factions was enacted. It took a few years before the rot took a firm hold.


His insisting that there is absolutely no difference between a 'mass party' and a 'leader party' in Chapter 5 of Left-Wing Communism makes me shudder and strikes me as doublespeak. I also dislike his overuse of unobjective terms ("childish", "nonsense", "insanity" etc) in place of arguments in this chapter. But I will go into this in more detail in another post.

Well, the thing to keep in mind with Lenin is that he sometimes exaggerates things when it is necessary. So when you read him, you must make sure to know the historical context of what he is saying.

Draper explained this as such:


For example, over a decade before, he had had to raise a great hue and cry in order to bring together the atomized Russian social-democratic groups and circles into a modern centralized party with a central organ; that at the time was the great next step which had to be taken, it was “what is to be done”. It was the key; it had to be pounded home into the consciousness of every militant; everything had to be subordinated to emphasizing it. How do you emphasize it? By repeating it a thousand times, in every conceivable way? Yes. By explaining it patiently over and over? Yes. By piling up argument after argument, seizing every fact, every problem, and converting it into, turning it toward, a lesson on centralization? Yes. But that is not all. The problem is greater centralization, as compared with the present looseness. Then put “Centralization!” on a banner, on a pedestal, emphasize it by raising it to a principle. But the opponents of this elementary need cover their political objections demagogically by yelling “Bureaucratism!” “Lenin wants more bureaucratism, while we are for democracy!” – How does Lenin react? Yes, he replies: “Bureaucratism versus democracy” – that is what we need now. He makes perfectly clear what he means, but that is how he seeks to underline, with heavy, thick strokes, the task of the day, by exaggerating in every way that side of the problem which points in the direction it is necessary to move now. Tomorrow he will recapture the balance, but today that is the way he puts the weight on the side which needs it.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)

This quality is what made him a great political thinker and activist. This quality is what enabled him to successfully argue against his opponents and win over them on many occasions (but certainly not all). But this quality also causes a lot of confusions with people who do not know this about him. As Draper says elsewhere:


It is a common enough resort by people of all political complexions, and only asks for understanding. In Lenin’s case it is a fact that demands understanding, especially when he specifically explained the pattern in so many words, as he did often enough. And any Leninologist who refuses to understand it is bound to write a great deal of nonsense.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)



At first and second glance, I cannot find anything that would confirm this when I scroll down to 'Concept of a Party'. Would you mind citing a relevant quote from that text? I apologise if this is lazy on my behalf, but there are only so many hours in the day, so I'd rather have all relevant information in this thread.

Sure, no problem.

I'll quote some parts that show that Lenin's concept of the party was not a fixed one, but one that was determined by the conditions on the ground.

On the need for a broad workers' party as opposed to a party of "intellectuals":


It is claimed that Lenin says nothing about any conflicting trends, but categorically affirms that the working-class movement invariably “tends” to succumb to bourgeois ideology. Is that so? Have I not said that the working-class movement is drawn towards the bourgeois outlook with the benevolent assistance of the Schulze-Delitzsches and others like them? And who is meant here by “others like them”? None other than the “Economists” ...

Lenin takes no account whatever of the fact that the workers, too, have a share in the formation of an ideology. Is that so? Have I not said time and again that the shortage of fully class-conscious workers, worker-leaders, and worker-revolutionaries is, in fact, the greatest deficiency in our movement? Have I not said there that the training of such worker-revolutionaries must be our immediate task? Is there no mention there of the importance of developing a trade-union movement and creating a special trade-union literature?

[...]

To conclude. We all know that the “Economists” have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other direction, and that is what I have done.
Link (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section3)

Notice at the end there where he himself mentions the "bending-the-stick" and exaggeration aspect of his writing.

Here's another quote on the need for a broad party, encompassing all political forms within it:


It should not be imagined that Party organizations must consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diverse organizations of all types, ranks and shades, beginning with extremely limited and secret [ones] and ending with very broad, free, lose Organisationen [loose organizations].
Link (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section3)

On the claim that Lenin wanted a highly centralized CC-dominated party:


Comrade Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent centralism.” Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend one system of organization against another. But actually that is not so. From the first to the last page of my book, I defend the elementary principles of any conceivable system of party organization

[...]

Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organize all the local Party committees.” Actually that is not so ... Comrade Luxemburg says that in my view “the Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the Party.” Actually that is not so. I have never advocated any such view ... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says ... that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralization. Actually that is not so. ... our controversy has principally been over whether the Central Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend of the majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should not. About this “ultra-centralist” and “purely Blanquist” demand the worthy comrade says not a word, she prefers to declaim against mechanical subordination of the part to the whole, against slavish submission, blind obedience, and other such bogeys. ... Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a large and extremely centralized workers’ party. Again an error of fact ...
Link (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section3)

Now the conditions changed radically. 1905 happened, and the party could finally come out of the underground. What was Lenin's reaction to this? To keep a rigid, highly centralized, dictatorial concept of the party (which was non-existent to begin) in force?

Well, no:


In November 1905 he stressed in an article that the socialist worker “knows there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. He therefore strives to achieve democratism completely and consistently in order to attain the ultimate goal – socialism.” The same month he published an important essay, titled The Reorganization of the Party. In it he called for a new party congress in order to put the whole organization “on a new basis.”

This article went to the main point directly: “The conditions in which our Party is functioning are changing radically. Freedom of assembly, of association and the press has been captured.” [17] What followed? Lenin answered: “organize in a new way” ... “new methods” ... “a new line.”

[I]We, the representatives of revolutionary Social-Democracy, the supporters of the “Majority” [Bolsheviks], have repeatedly said that complete democratization of the Party was impossible in conditions of secret work, and that in such conditions the “elective principle” was a mere phrase. And experience has confirmed our words. ... But we Bolsheviks have always recognized that in new conditions, when political liberties were acquired, it would be essential to adopt the elective principle.

It must be kept in mind that the impracticality of open election of local leading committees under conspiratorial conditions was not a Bolshevik peculiarity; the secret police had made it as difficult for Mensheviks or S-Rs.

Our party [wrote Lenin] has stagnated while working underground ... The “underground” is breaking up. Forward, then, ... extend your bases, rally all the worker Social-Democrats round yourselves, incorporate them in the ranks of the Party organizations by hundreds and thousands.

These were “new methods” only in Russia, of course; this was what bourgeois democratic regimes had possible in Western Europe before this. Lenin had always viewed the German Social-Democracy as a model of organization; now the Russian Social-Democrats could emulate it.

The decision of the Central Committee ... is a decisive step towards the full application of the democratic principle in Party organization.

All comrades, he enjoined, must “devise new forms of organization” to take in an influx of workers, new forms that were “definitely much broader” than the old, “less rigid. more ‘free,’ more ‘loose.’” “With complete freedom of association and civil liberties for the people, we should, of course, have to found Social-Democratic unions ...” “Each union, organization or group will immediately elect its bureau, or board, or directing committee ...” Furthermore, he recommended, it was now possible to bring about party unity, Bolsheviks with Mensheviks, on the basis of a broad democratic vote of the rank and file, since this could not be organized under the new conditions.

All of this sea-change had to be explained to Russian workers who had never faced such conditions before. We must not be afraid, Lenin argued, of “a sudden influx of large numbers of non-Social-Democrats into the Party.”

Note this remark made almost in passing: “The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness.” It looks as if Lenin had forgotten even the existence of the Kautsky theory he had copied out and quoted in 1902!

The initiative of the workers themselves will now display itself on a scale that we, the underground and circle workers of yesterday, did not even dare dream of.

He seized on the new conditions especially to advocate that mass recruitment of workers (possible for the first time) should swamp over the influence of intellectuals in the party work:

At the Third Congress of the Party I suggested that there be about eight workers to every two intellectuals in the Party committees. How obsolete that suggestion seems now! Now we must wish for the new Party organizations to have one Social-Democratic intellectual to several hundred Social-Democratic workers.

The article concluded this way, with a typical Lenin reaction:

“We have ‘theorized’ for so long (sometimes – why not admit it? – to no use) in the unhealthy atmosphere of political exile, that it will really not be amiss if we now ‘bend the bow’ slightly, a little, just a little, ‘the other way’ and put practice a little more in the forefront.”

So now the bow bent the other way – “slightly.”
Link (http://www.marx.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#section3)

This part is very important. The SWP which you mentioned before exists in such free conditions, not under underground conditions. So if they indeed ban factions and curb freedom and democracy in the party, that is not very "Leninist" of them.


What objections do you personally have against the formation of a united Marxist mass party that embraces several tendencies instead of tight confessional sects?

Actually I don't have anything against that at all. Actually, that is my preferred type of organization under current conditions. I don't believe though that a Marxist party embracing several tendencies can become a mass-party at its inception. But the best chance for a party to become one is if it encompasses several tendencies within one. However, one big condition is laid on that. I do not believe that a multi-tendency organization can exist between diametrically opposed tendencies. A Maoist-Trotskyist-Hoxhaist party cannot exist. You can try to set one up, but it will fail sooner or later.

However, a united Trotskyist (which I believe is Marxism) party certainly can exist. Embracing the "state-capitalist", "Mandelist", "degenerated workers' states" and "entryism" tendencies within it. Why do I believe such a party can exist? Because the differences are not major. They are not diametrically opposed to each other. The Bolsheviks existed as a party with factions that had positions which were much more antagonistic than these, yet they managed to flourish.

[Devrim]

However, a united Trotskyist (which I believe is Marxism) party certainly can exist. Embracing the "state-capitalist", "Mandelist", "degenerated workers' states" and "entryism" tendencies within it. Why do I believe such a party can exist? Because the differences are not major. They are not diametrically opposed to each other. The Bolsheviks existed as a party with factions that had positions which were much more antagonistic than these, yet they managed to flourish.

do you really think that there can be a party in which people who think that the social democratic parties are essentially workers parties of whatever nature can co-exist with people who think that these parties are not workers parties.

To me this seems like s fundemental question, not that the other points you mention aren't either.

You can't create a party on the basis of unity itself. The foundations of a party must be created around unity on a programatical basis.

It is not the desire for 'left unity' that will create a class party, but this class struggle itself. These are not academic arguments that can be brushed away in the name of some mythical 'unity'.

The intensification of the crisis will bring an intesification of the class struggle. Within this all organisaton that claim to stand for working class politics will be tested. Many of them will be found wanting.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

do you really think that there can be a party in which people who think that the social democratic parties are essentially workers parties of whatever nature can co-exist with people who think that these parties are not workers parties.

To me this seems like s fundemental question, not that the other points you mention aren't either.

If they are willing to submit to the majority, then yes. But that requires discipline, which so far those organizations have shown to lack.

In the Bolshevik party there were people who wanted an alliance with the Cadets for the Duma elections. Lenin said about this:


There are two platforms before the Party. One—supported by 18 conference delegates, the Mensheviks and the Bundists; the other—supported by 14 delegates, the Bolsheviks, the Poles and the Letts. The competent bodies of the local organisations are free to choose either of these platforms, to alter and supplement them, or substitute new ones. After the competent bodies have decided, all of us, as members of the Party, must act as one man. A Bolshevik in Odessa must cast into the ballot box a ballot paper bearing a Cadet’s name even if it sickens him. And a Menshevik in Moscow must cast into the ballot box a ballot paper bearing only the names of Social-Democrats, even if his soul is yearning for the Cadets.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/nov/23d.htm)

There were of course many other issues they disagreed on, which were of a more antagonistic nature than the question of the USSR being state-capitalist or not. In such cases you must agree to disagree, and adhere to the will of the majority and unite in action. This is a key aspect of democratic centralism, but it requires discipline.

On a related note, why did the IBRP split from the ICC (or vice versa)? Do you not agree that a principles unity is possible between the various left-communist tendencies? If so, why do you believe the organizations are opposed to it? What can change their minds (intesification in class-struggle?)?


You can't create a party on the basis of unity itself. The foundations of a party must be created around unity on a programatical basis.

It is not the desire for 'left unity' that will create a class party, but this class struggle itself. These are not academic arguments that can be brushed away in the name of some mythical 'unity'.

The intensification of the crisis will bring an intesification of the class struggle. Within this all organisaton that claim to stand for working class politics will be tested. Many of them will be found wanting.

I never said that unity was possible on the basis of unity itself. I didn't go into great detail on the issue, but obviously unity must be based on a programme and on principles. I believe that these tendencies can agree to one, and will agree to one with a change in conditions, i.e., intensification of class-struggle. In a similar fashion to how RSDLP grew closer and re-united after and during 1905.

The latest steps of the SWP are in this direction, for this very reason (they cite the economic crisis, rise of the BNP, etc. as reasons for their intiative).

[Devrim]

I never said that unity was possible on the basis of unity itself. I didn't go into great detail on the issue, but obviously unity must be based on a programme and on principles. I believe that these tendencies can agree to one, and will agree to one with a change in conditions, i.e., intensification of class-struggle. In a similar fashion to how RSDLP grew closer and re-united after and during 1905.

But what are you suggesting that unity should be based on, the fact that these organisations refer to themselves as Trotskyists. I think that the range of Trotskyism is so great that if you built a programme upon it it would say virtually nothing at all.


In the Bolshevik party there were people who wanted an alliance with the Cadets for the Duma elections. Lenin said about this:


There are two platforms before the Party. One—supported by 18 conference delegates, the Mensheviks and the Bundists; the other—supported by 14 delegates, the Bolsheviks, the Poles and the Letts. The competent bodies of the local organisations are free to choose either of these platforms, to alter and supplement them, or substitute new ones. After the competent bodies have decided, all of us, as members of the Party, must act as one man. A Bolshevik in Odessa must cast into the ballot box a ballot paper bearing a Cadet’s name even if it sickens him. And a Menshevik in Moscow must cast into the ballot box a ballot paper bearing only the names of Social-Democrats, even if his soul is yearning for the Cadets.

I think that Lenin is completly wrong here. What he is advocating is not unity and centralism but federalism.


There were of course many other issues they disagreed on, which were of a more antagonistic nature than the question of the USSR being state-capitalist or not. In such cases you must agree to disagree, and adhere to the will of the majority and unite in action. This is a key aspect of democratic centralism, but it requires discipline.

Surely though some diferences are more important than others. The analysis of the nature of the Soviet Union doesn't seem that massivly important today, but back in the day the idea of 'defence of the Soviet Union' or it being a state capitalist system could be the dividing line in supporting or opposing what we would view as an imperialist war, and for us a class line.

There can be some disagreements within an organisation, but some neccesitate a seperation.


On a related note, why did the IBRP split from the ICC (or vice versa)? Do you not agree that a principles unity is possible between the various left-communist tendencies? If so, why do you believe the organizations are opposed to it? What can change their minds (intesification in class-struggle?)?

Actually, we didn't. We never managed to regroup with them. We believe in the long term that regroupment is neccesary, but we appeared and evolved seperately. There was never an organisational split here.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

But what are you suggesting that unity should be based on, the fact that these organisations refer to themselves as Trotskyists. I think that the range of Trotskyism is so great that if you built a programme upon it it would say virtually nothing at all.

Actually the range of Trotskyism isn't that great at all. There's as much of a range between the various Left-Communist tendencies as there is between the various (though not all) Trotskyist tendencies.

Besides, the range between the various tendencies obviously has to be shortened in order for a principled unity to work, which is why I said: "I believe that these tendencies can agree to one [programme and principles of unity], and will agree to one with a change in conditions, i.e., intensification of class-struggle."


I think that Lenin is completly wrong here. What he is advocating is not unity and centralism but federalism.

I think that Lenin is completely right here, because what he is advocating is a unified party based on democratic centralism as opposed to splitting over a minor issue (in comparison to that of, say, supporting the October insurrection) which would have only harmed the party and the movement in the long-run.

The reason Lenin argued in this manner is because he was convinced that given time and given changes in the objective situation, his side, the revolutionary socialist side, would win out over the other.

As it happens he was proven to be right. The Bolshevik didn't end up voting for the Cadet.

If Lenin had called for a split based on even one tenth of the issues that others disagreed with him on, the Bolsheviks would have become and remained an insignificant sect throughout its existence. A split should be used as a last resort, not a first or intermediary one.


Surely though some diferences are more important than others. The analysis of the nature of the Soviet Union doesn't seem that massivly important today, but back in the day the idea of 'defence of the Soviet Union' or it being a state capitalist system could be the dividing line in supporting or opposing what we would view as an imperialist war, and for us a class line.

There can be some disagreements within an organisation, but some neccesitate a seperation.

Back in the day a split based on the nature of the USSR was perhaps somewhat justified, yes. But as you yourself said, it is no longer so today. Of course the difficulty here is that the raison d'etre of those parties cannot be let go of easily, even when it's no longer relevant.

But given time and intensification in class-struggle it can be overcome. Again, the latest hints at this by the SWP in the UK are important to note.


Actually, we didn't. We never managed to regroup with them. We believe in the long term that regroupment is neccesary, but we appeared and evolved seperately. There was never an organisational split here.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You say you never managed to re-group with them but then say that you appeared and evolved separately. Were you part of the same group originally?

Anyway, I agree with what you are saying here (in the context of various Trotskyist tendencies), I'm just not sure why you believe a regroupment is necessary in the long-term as opposed to the short-term. Is it because you don't believe it is possible at present given the differences between both organizations, and that those difference can be reconciled with a change in the objective situation (intensification of class-struggle etc.)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

His insisting that there is absolutely no difference between a 'mass party' and a 'leader party' in Chapter 5 of Left-Wing Communism makes me shudder and strikes me as doublespeak. I also dislike his overuse of unobjective terms ("childish", "nonsense", "insanity" etc) in place of arguments in this chapter. But I will go into this in more detail in another post.

When Lenin said "merge, if you will," it is clear from the context that his perception of the Marx-Engels-Kautsky merger formula (the party as the merger of revolutionary socialism and the worker-class movement) was corrupted by this point, no matter what "historians" like Hal Draper like to believe.

In fact, look at most Trots and other communists today. They see "the party" and "the movement" as being separate.

[KC]

In fact, look at most Trots and other communists today. They see "the party" and "the movement" as being separate.I demand proof that this is true, and I demand it in the form of a CPGB article authored by comrade Mike MacNair and some links to your other posts with other articles by comrade Mike MacNair.

EDIT: LOL @ the idea that a whole social movement can be contained in a single party regardless of the stage of development said party is in, and even regardless of that.

[BobKKKindle$]

One outstanding example of this is the Socialist Workers Party, whose members do not realise that despite being Trotskyists, the faction-less, top-down structure of their organisation is actually more akin to a Stalinist party - or the factionless 'emergency version' of the Bolshevik party if you will.What nonsense, honestly. I don't know what the Weekly Worker has been telling you or what you might have gleaned from conversations with members of the CPGB but there is nothing in my experience as a member of the SWP that confirms this allegation. The SWP does allow factions to be created within the party organization - the creation of formal fractions (i.e. fractions which constitute themselves officially and intend to introduce changes to the party constitution or advocate a major shift in our political orientation during a national conference) is allowed in the pre-conference period, but in addition to this, party members are freely permitted to offer criticisms and arguments at any point in time (the recent letter calling for changes to the editorial board of Socialist Worker and pointing out flaws in the way the paper is organized and written is an obvious example of this - the people who write and signed that letter were not told to by any full-time member of the party, but did so of their own accord, and were not disciplined as a result of their actions) and, as a democratic organization, both the central committee and the national committee are elected at each conference. At a local level we have regular discussions about what the party is doing, and, more recently, we have also discussed the activities of the democracy commission, which was established precisely to encourage an atmosphere of debate and accountability. In my experience, my local branch has never been told to do anything by the party center, and operates autonomously, with decisions being arrived at through consensus and debate.

It strikes me as incredibly patronizing to suggest that all of the members of the SWP are under the delusion that they're in a democratic party when the party is actually a Stalinist organization. If you don't have any evidence to back up your allegations, retract them.

[Devrim]

Actually the range of Trotskyism isn't that great at all. There's as much of a range between the various Left-Communist tendencies as there is between the various (though not all) Trotskyist tendencies.

I think that there is more of a difference between the CWI and the IMT than there are between the main left communist tendencies. There are of course differences, but not on basic political positions. Maybe that makes our seperation worse.


I think that Lenin is completely right here, because what he is advocating is a unified party based on democratic centralism as opposed to splitting over a minor issue (in comparison to that of, say, supporting the October insurrection) which would have only harmed the party and the movement in the long-run.

I don't think he is arguing for centralism here, but for federalism. The centralist position would have been that the organisation as a whole decided, not each local area decided for themselves.



If Lenin had called for a split based on even one tenth of the issues that others disagreed with him on, the Bolsheviks would have become and remained an insignificant sect throughout its existence. A split should be used as a last resort, not a first or intermediary one.

I absolutely agree.


Back in the day a split based on the nature of the USSR was perhaps somewhat justified, yes. But as you yourself said, it is no longer so today. Of course the difficulty here is that the raison d'etre of those parties cannot be let go of easily, even when it's no longer relevant.

It isn't as important as it once was certainly. The thing is that these positions generally come from part of a more wholistic analysis, and are not just isolated ideas.

The disagreement between the CWI and IMT on the social democratic parties does have more practical implications though.


Again, the latest hints at this by the SWP in the UK are important to note.

My personal opinion is that there is little significance to these moves, and also that the SWP are the least capable of the Trotskyist organisations to withstand an increase in the class struggle. I believe it will leave them behind whereas other Trotskyist organisations will benefit.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. You say you never managed to re-group with them but then say that you appeared and evolved separately. Were you part of the same group originally?

No, it was 'regroupment' in a historic sense of regrouping revolutionary forces after the confusion caused by the Stalinist counter-revolution. I can see how I might have seemed unclear though.


I'm just not sure why you believe a regroupment is necessary in the long-term as opposed to the short-term. Is it because you don't believe it is possible at present given the differences between both organizations, and that those difference can be reconciled with a change in the objective situation (intensification of class-struggle etc.)?

Basically, yes.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

I don't know what the Weekly Worker has been telling you or what you might have gleaned from conversations with members of the CPGB

Funnily enough, I'm basing my claims on conversations I had with two members of the SWP - friends of mine. The lack of internal democracy in the SWP is a problem that is acknowledged as such by rank and file SWP members a little less partisan than yourself. I understand some SWP comrades have put this problem forward and have initiated something resembling an internal debate about it - this is good.

Of course, the Weekly Worker had one or two pieces about this matter too (as you preemptively assumed). Need a link?


The SWP does allow factions to be created within the party organization - the creation of formal fractions (i.e. fractions which constitute themselves officially and intend to introduce changes to the party constitution or advocate a major shift in our political orientation during a national conference) is allowed in the pre-conference period,As you say yourself, factions in the SWP are banned except for the three-months period before the conference. This is not the 1920s, and we are not under siege or in the midst of a civil war. Why are factions and internal discussion only permitted in a limited period of 3 months?

You left me negative rep and this comment:


no evidence? then shut up.

This is rather rude of you, my dear Bobkindles. I can see how you would want to shut people up about certain things, but I will open my mouth whenever I please, thank you. I sincerely hope your comment is not typical of how comrades are addressed in the ranks of the SWP.

It also begs the question: what counter-evidence have you got to offer?


there is nothing in my experience as a member of the SWP (...) In my experience etc.

This is called anecdotal evidence - it's no better than mine. I have no reason to believe you more than I believe my friends since I know them as honest people while I know you as a die-hard SWP apologist on revleft.

Anyway, this is a Left-Wing Communism/Lenin thread - there are enough threads on the machinations of the SWP already.


It strikes me as incredibly patronizing to suggest that all of the members of the SWP are under the delusion that they're in a democratic party when the party is actually a Stalinist organizationWell, luckily not all of them. I'm hoping there are many more people like my friends in the SWP, and any move towards internal democracy (as well as openness to other groups) is a positive step that I wholeheartedly support.

Would you prefer 'stalinoid' as a descriptive term?

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that there is more of a difference between the CWI and the IMT than there are between the main left communist tendencies. There are of course differences, but not on basic political positions. Maybe that makes our seperation worse.

The main difference between the CWI and IMT is tactical in nature. In this case as well I believe that a further change in conditions will convince the IMT to change its tactics. Difficulty is however that the raison d'etre of the IMT cannot be let go of easily, even when it's no longer relevant.

It's important not to over-estimate the differences though. Just as important as not to under-estimate them.


I don't think he is arguing for centralism here, but for federalism. The centralist position would have been that the organisation as a whole decided, not each local area decided for themselves.

Actually if he had argued that he would have been arguing for federalism, because if the organization working inside Russia had been run along those lines it would have to go through a multitude of splits between all the localities.

Unlimited federalism is just as troublesome as unlimited centralism. Taking unlimited centralism on principle is just as troublesome as taking federalism on principle, both of them infect and destroy parties.

I think a balance needs to be struck, one in which the democratic centralism of the unified party is maintained by means of a limited autonomy (limited within reasonable bounds) of the various localities. It is a fact that Mensheviks dominated some localities in Russia while Bolsheviks dominated others. They could either continue to work together and maintain a degree of democratic centralism, or split and attain full centralism while at the same time getting rid of the democratic centralism of the unified party.


It isn't as important as it once was certainly. The thing is that these positions generally come from part of a more wholistic analysis, and are not just isolated ideas.

The disagreement between the CWI and IMT on the social democratic parties does have more practical implications though.

Things that start out as holistic analyses end up becoming doctrine, learned by rote. I think that at this point that is what has happened to the various "original ideas" of some of the tendencies, whether it is the CWI, IMT or SWP.

Take for example the ridiculous turn to focoism by the American SWP. Any serious political leader and person would realize that this strategy failed by the end of the 70's or 80's at the least, but still they cling to it, even though it has lost all meaning.

This goes again to the raison d'etre of these tendencies. You have to be able to justify your existence by counterposing yours with that of others, otherwise you are a nothingness. That is what keeps some sects that have fewer than a dozen members alive for decades on end.

New generations of revolutionaries joining these tendencies bring with them new ideas, however. This combined with a change in conditions can, I believe, change the old doctrines or alter them in favor of a new set, one that is based on current conditions as opposed to 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's or 70's conditions.

Even if it does not change them entirely, some of them can still be contained within a single party as long as the membership adheres to democratic centralism; freedom of criticism, unity in action.


My personal opinion is that there is little significance to these moves, and also that the SWP are the least capable of the Trotskyist organisations to withstand an increase in the class struggle. I believe it will leave them behind whereas other Trotskyist organisations will benefit.

Well, that is because we come to the analysis from different political and ideological angles, at least partly that seems to be the case. Historically the UK SWP has grown during intensifications of class-struggle. They still are the largest political party in the UK if I recall correctly, and one of the largest Trotskyist Internationals. Sure, it may happen that at times they shrink and some other group grows, but that has happened the other way around as well.

I don't think that at this the ideological roots of the various tendencies matter much, if at all. Most people don't support or join these parties based on the question of the USSR's nature, or whether or not entryism is a tactics or a principle.

Most people join or support these parties based on what they do. Are they active in the unions? Are they active in the anti-war movement? Are they active in the worker's movement in general? And if so, how are they active?

When you take those as the criteria for what these parties stand for, then you can say that the SWP, IMT and CWI (and perhaps also the Fourth International tendency) are pretty closely connected. Not as close as of yet to unite on a principled basis, definitely, but still close enough to make that a possibility.

But yes, I think the latest steps by the SWP were very important, and it harms both the SWP and the CWI and other parties to have rejected it outright. Even disregarding the question of unity, a closer relationship between the parties would have benefited them all, or rather, it would have benefited the class-struggle.


Basically, yes.

Ok, so you are a conciliator as well regarding those Left-Communist parties, only you look at it from a long-term perspective.

That is good. Don't make enemies on issues where friends are needed. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I demand proof that this is true, and I demand it in the form of a CPGB article authored by comrade Mike MacNair and some links to your other posts with other articles by comrade Mike MacNair.

EDIT: LOL @ the idea that a whole social movement can be contained in a single party regardless of the stage of development said party is in, and even regardless of that.

Yes it can be contained, so long as the party (as opposed to mere electoral machines today or ideological sects) provides an "alternative culture" network for its membership and for workers at large: unemployment insurance (which the Bolsheviks had); sports clubs, cultural societies (back to the "total organization" SPD model); etc.

You just can't appreciate the level of bureaucracy this would necessarily entail. Hey, at least the RSDLP ultra-activists / praktiki of Lenin's day licked their chops at the hope of emulating the SPD. Contrast that with the ideological sect-of-a-neighbour SDKPiL in Poland and Lithuania.

[Devrim]

Actually if he had argued that he would have been arguing for federalism, because if the organization working inside Russia had been run along those lines it would have to go through a multitude of splits between all the localities.

Unlimited federalism is just as troublesome as unlimited centralism. Taking unlimited centralism on principle is just as troublesome as taking federalism on principle, both of them infect and destroy parties.

I think a balance needs to be struck, one in which the democratic centralism of the unified party is maintained by means of a limited autonomy (limited within reasonable bounds) of the various localities. It is a fact that Mensheviks dominated some localities in Russia while Bolsheviks dominated others. They could either continue to work together and maintain a degree of democratic centralism, or split and attain full centralism while at the same time getting rid of the democratic centralism of the unified party.

You can argue what you like on this, but I don't think that you will convince anybody that federalism is actually centralism democratic or otherwise. You can argue that Lenin was right to take a federal approach by all means, but you can not argue in any seriousness that letting the local organisations decide is democratic centralism.


Well, that is because we come to the analysis from different political and ideological angles, at least partly that seems to be the case. Historically the UK SWP has grown during intensifications of class-struggle. They still are the largest political party in the UK if I recall correctly, and one of the largest Trotskyist Internationals. Sure, it may happen that at times they shrink and some other group grows, but that has happened the other way around as well.
...
But yes, I think the latest steps by the SWP were very important, and it harms both the SWP and the CWI and other parties to have rejected it outright. Even disregarding the question of unity, a closer relationship between the parties would have benefited them all, or rather, it would have benefited the class-struggle.I don't think that it is at all a question of different political angles. I don't think that any of the Trotskyist parties have anything to offer the working class. Despite this I actually expect to see an upsurge in Trotskyism particulary in the 'third world'.

The reasons that I don't think anything will come of what the SWP are proposing is because I don't think there is much substance to it.

The reason that I believe that they are the least capable of reacting to the changes is that they have been recruiting on all sorts of 'liberal' issues and I don't think that their membership will comprehend it when they start to talk about the working class again. Yes, they will grow but all groups who talk about socialism will grow with increased class struggle. I think they will become eclipsed though.

The worst example of this that I saw was a member of the Polish section who completely failed to understand why we were giving out leaflets at a car factory in the Czech Republic just before a strike there. She just didn't understand what the working class had to do with socialism. This of course is an extreme example, but I think it ilustrates the point.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

(...) but you can not argue in any seriousness that letting the local organisations decide is democratic centralism.
Why should the concept of democratic centralism exclude federalism? Democratic centralism is supposed to represent unity through open discussion (= centralism as collaboration); not necessarily a high level of control over the different parts that make up a party (= centralism as a degree of control). Forms of federalism, or more accurately: a very low degree of central(ized) control, existed within the Bolshevik party between 1903-1917. This did not mean that democratic centralism didn't work. However, federalism probably ceased to exist during the early 20's when the Bolsheviks militarized the party.

[Devrim]

Why should the concept of democratic centralism exclude federalism?

Firstly I am not arguing for 'democratic centralism'. I am arguing for centralism. I don't see how what can even ask that question though. Centralism is diametrically oppossed to fedralism. It is a bit like asking why the concept of night excludes day.


Democratic centralism is supposed to represent unity through open discussion (= centralism as collaboration);

But the example proposed was nothing to do with unity. It was each local area doing what they want. That isn't centralism. It is fedralism and localism.


not necessarily a high level of control over the different parts that make up a party (= centralism as a degree of control).

Centralism is about a way of functioning, not the control of the centre.


Forms of federalism, or more accurately: a very low degree of central(ized) control, existed within the Bolshevik party between 1903-1917. This did not mean that democratic centralism didn't work. However, federalism probably ceased to exist during the early 20's when the Bolsheviks militarized the party.

This seems like an almost anarchist idea of what centralism is.

Our view of centralism is explained in this text:http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

But the example proposed was nothing to do with unity. It was each local area doing what they want. That isn't centralism. It is fedralism and localism.
They couldn't simply do what they "want". In accordance with the goals of the programme the Central Committee decided which choices were left for the factions and local sections to choose:

The absence of factional divisions in the voting on this resolution is an important guarantee of the unity and fighting efficiency of the workers’ party. Here is the text of this resolution:

“The conference expresses it,s conviction that within the framework of a single organisation all its members are obliged to carry out all decisions concerning the election campaign adopted by the competent bodies of the local organisations, within the limits of the general directives of the Central Committee; the Central Committee may forbid local organisations to put forward lists that are not purely Social-Democratic, but it must not compel them to put forward lists that are not purely Social-Democratic.”
[...] All the Social-Democrats, irrespective of faction, declared at the time that, after all, blocs with the Cadets are not very seemly, for we all authorised the Central Committee to forbid them, but we did not authorise it to prescribe them.

Firstly I am not arguing for 'democratic centralism'. I am arguing for centralism.
You did mention democratic centralism though:

[...] but you can not argue in any seriousness that letting the local organisations decide is democratic centralism.

[Devrim]

They couldn't simply do what they "want". In accordance with the goals of the programme the Central Committee decided which choices were left for the factions and local sections to choose:;)

i.e. The local sections were allowed to decide what they wanted to do locally and there was no central policy.



You did mention democratic centralism though:

I did in referring to what another poster claimed. I didn't advocate it though.

Devrim