Criticisms of democratic centralism?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

What are the criticisms of centralism?

Why do some people say that centralism can't be democratic?

How can a solid organization exist without having some centrality? Like, couldn't a bunch of entryists join into a decentralized organization and discredit it by promoting reactionary views? Would there be no authority to say, "No, that's not what this organization is about." ?

[gorillafuck]

I think it really depends on how rigid the centralism is. I would disagree with doing something such as expelling members for just questioning a certain policy or standpoint if they still have the same aims and general ideology that the party adheres to, though if a member is slandering the ideology or has irreconcilable differences with the party then they should be expelled. It also depends on what the circumstances are (such as if there is a revolution going on).

I think that most people who criticize centralism are more criticizing very rigid centralism.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think that most people who criticize centralism are more criticizing very rigid centralism.

This is probably true. I think it is helpful to the left, however, to keep in mind that even "very rigid centralism" is based on a legitimate concern, namely :


Like, couldn't a bunch of entryists join into a decentralized organization and discredit it by promoting reactionary views? Would there be no authority to say, "No, that's not what this organization is about." ?

Why does there need to be any authority to say that? WHy can't the b basic message be coherent and compelling enough that they the vast majority of the membership already agree to it?Entryist tactics only work because the status quo is woefully unsatisfactory, and the organization has failed to make its case.

Such forms of "centrism" only serve to advance the interests of the established elite, not the rank and file.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Why does there need to be any authority to say that? WHy can't the b basic message be coherent and compelling enough that they the vast majority of the membership already agree to it?Entryist tactics only work because the status quo is woefully unsatisfactory, and the organization has failed to make its case.

If there's no authority to say what the organization stands for, what happens when a reactionary joins the organization and says, "Hey, this organization should be more reactionary, I'm going recruit more reactionaries, and publish reactionary statements and attribute them to this organization." ? The other members shouldn't have to quit the organization and form a new one because it's now reactionary; they should just kick out the moron. And how does an organization work around internal disputes about action without coming to a deadlock or splitting over every dispute?

I am mainly wondering about Luxembourgist groups, because I've heard from them about this but I haven't really understood why.


Such forms of "centrism" only serve to advance the interests of the established elite, not the rank and file.

That is definitely something to be avoided.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

That's not much of an argument for democratic centralism.

Let's say you and I (along with several others) belong to a group that is united around a set of principles. If a member violates those principles one of us can call them out. A discussion can be held by the membership at large, and then, if we decide so, a vote can be held on what to do with that member (censure, expel, etc.).

That is basically how I would expect an organization to work. But are you saying that that differs from centralism? The members, deciding policy and maintaining integrity of the organization, are the "central authority."

[MarxSchmarx]

That is basically how I would expect an organization to work. But are you saying that that differs from centralism? The members, deciding policy and maintaining integrity of the organization, are the "central authority."


I suppose one could consider that to be some form of "central authority", but "centrism" as traditionally understood by Leninist parties is something quite different. It generally consists of (1) a hierarchy and (2) thorough (at least outward) support for the party's decisions. So in a situation like the one you described:


If there's no authority to say what the organization stands for, what happens when a reactionary joins the organization and says, "Hey, this organization should be more reactionary, I'm going recruit more reactionaries, and publish reactionary statements and attribute them to this organization." ? The other members shouldn't have to quit the organization and form a new one because it's now reactionary; they should just kick out the moron. And how does an organization work around internal disputes about action without coming to a deadlock or splitting over every dispute?


It would be "centrism" for example if subsequent criticisms of expulsions were discouraged or if the upper cadres decided by themselves on expulsion or both.

[KC]

Democratic Centralism isn't an organizational structure so much as it is an organizational form. The premise behind democratic centralism is that an organization should be structured based on the conditions in which it exists, balancing democracy and centralism accordingly.

Thus, for example, the Bolsheviks were in the Iskra days a highly centralized organization, as they were working in incredibly hostile underground conditions with arrests and exiles perpetually threatening their very existence. However, as conditions in which they worked changed, their party structure changed accordingly to become a much more open and democratic organization.

The largest criticism of democratic centralism that I can see is not a criticism of the idea itself but rather the incredibly poor implementation of it by many revolutionary parties (or rather, sects). It is commonly mistaken that these sects are operating under democratic centralism, and that this is a reason to oppose it. In reality, the vast majority of the time these sects are not operating under democratic centralism and are rather operating in conditions which favor the party bureaucracy the most and assist in maintaining their positions within the party. The problem in situations like this is not democratic centralism but bureaucratism and, more specifically, sectism. This, I think, is what MarxSchmarx was addressing when he said "'centrism' as traditionally understood by Leninist parties [being] something quite different."

[Q]

Democratic centralism works under a few basic premises. Unity of action is only one aspect, often too much emphasised. The other aspect I would summarise as transparency of disagreement. As (I think it was) Rosa Luxemburg already put it quite well: democracy is not about those who agree, but about those who disagree.

Many organisations don't practice this form of transparency. These organisations emphasise the unity aspect in the sense that there is a "unity in ideas" that everyone has to uphold in public. They only allow, formally, disagreements to develop inside the organisation. However, this is just a paper reality as disagreements don't get published in the party press or discussed among broader layers of the membership. There is no air for disagreements to grow. The result is that disagreements don't develop, the organisation gets dogmatised and splits occur or many people just leave the scene. As KC pointed out, this is the sickness of the sect.

Public factions and tendencies and allowing the party press as a platform for conflicting views is essential for any healthy organisation. Not only to educate the membership and to develop the organisation, but also to educate the working class movement (or at least the layer that follows the said organisation) in tactics and strategy. This mechanism is what makes communists the political leadership of the working class, as opposed to a sect imposing their view on the movement.

[MarxSchmarx]

It is commonly mistaken that these sects are operating under democratic centralism, and that this is a reason to oppose it. In reality, the vast majority of the time these sects are not operating under democratic centralism and are rather operating in conditions which favor the party bureaucracy the most and assist in maintaining their positions within the party. The problem in situations like this is not democratic centralism but bureaucratism and, more specifically, sectism.

This is a very valid point. However, one must ask why "Democratic centralism" has a tendency to lead to such bureaucratism, and, as you correctly note, in their extreme perversion, some form of "sectism". I am far from being able to diagnose the problem.

However, certainly other ideologies, also tend to exaggerate this problem. My guess is that it has to do with the "centrism" part of the equation. As Q notes, centrism is too often emphasized at the expense of "democratic" and transparent presentation of ideas.

Perhaps it displays a deeper contradiction that centralization is fundamentally incompatible with democratization. I remain agnostic on this point, but it is a very real question within the praxis at least of democratic centrism.

[chegitz guevara]

It should be pointed out that democratic centralism, is, in fact, redundant. You cannot have democracy without centralism. What would it mean to have democratic decentralism? Everyone could vote on rules no one has to obey? What's the point? Democracy can only be meaningful if it has rules to which people must submit.

That's the big problem, especially in the U.S., where people equate democracy with being able to do whatever you want with no one telling you what to do. That's not democracy, that's anarchy. As an organizational method, I think anarchy's kinda pointless. What's the use of being in a group with no rules? It's also completely unable to deal with highly centralized organizations. There's a reason why no attempt to create an anarchist society has succeeded. They simply cannot beat a centralized opponent. It may be a desirable end goal, but it won't overthrow capitalism.

What KC says is correct. Let me quote him again.


The largest criticism of democratic centralism that I can see is not a criticism of the idea itself but rather the incredibly poor implementation of it by many revolutionary parties (or rather, sects). It is commonly mistaken that these sects are operating under democratic centralism, and that this is a reason to oppose it. In reality, the vast majority of the time these sects are not operating under democratic centralism and are rather operating in conditions which favor the party bureaucracy the most and assist in maintaining their positions within the party. The problem in situations like this is not democratic centralism but bureaucratism and, more specifically, sectism.

I would further point out that when Lenin used the term "democratic centralism" it was in his book, The State and Revolution, and he was talking about a national government, that rather than a confederation or even a federation, a unified national democracy was needed.

Democratic centralism as a methodology for organizing revolutionary parties seems to originate with Zinoviev giving theoretical weight in the CPSU's effort to crush factions (specifically Trotsky and his faction) in 1924 on behalf of Stalin and the bureaucracy (who later repaid the favor by killing Zinoviev and his family). Unfortunately, this false democratic centralism is the central tenet of party organization in all Leninist parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Such forms of "centrism" only serve to advance the interests of the established elite, not the rank and file.

Comrade, it's good to see you use quotation marks around the c-word. ;)

Wait a minute - I thought you were referring to vulgar "centrism" in pre-WWI social democracy. Never mind. :(

On topic, the term emerged only when various Mensheviks tried to leap ahead of their Bolshevik peers and introduce more SPD features.

[MarxSchmarx]

On topic, the term emerged only when various Mensheviks tried to leap ahead of their Bolshevik peers and introduce more SPD features.

I always thought it originated with Lenin in his "What is to be done"?

[chegitz guevara]

Nope.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some obscure German social-democrat suggested "democratic centralization" before Engels criticized him:

http://books.google.com/books?id=q4QwNP_K1pYC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=engels+%22democratic+centralization%22&source=bl&ots=WEr2BPDGbL&sig=KjAj16l54umW4aWG4OC8RewF3RA&hl=en&ei=ZmGbSuzPM4nuswPe74GbDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=engels%20%22democratic%20centralization%22&f=false

Someone took the liberty to clarify things on the wikis for democratic centralism and Jean Baptista von Schweitzer.