Democratic Centeralism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What was this concept again...? How did it function and what was it's relation to other concepts of a similer nature?

[graymouser]

Democratic centralism, as classically defined, is "complete freedom of discussion" combined with "complete unity in action." Essentially the idea is that a democratic centralist grouping has a thorough discussion, then a vote, and after the vote everybody in the group is obliged to carry through with the group's decision. This was undermined in Stalinism in what might be called "bureaucratic centralism" where any opposition, even one that abided by the party's majority decision, was hounded out for its views.

[6SR]

Does discussion last until all people are OK with it or is it just you can say what you want but the majority won't change a little to make all people OK with it? That means the discussion is just a big fight if it's just a regular old majority vote like where people try to convince the majority instead of all the people trying to make a decision that all people are OK with. I hope that made sense? I can't remember what it's called when you try to make a decision that all the people are OK with. There's a word for it.

[Queercommie Girl]

Discussion/Debate never stops. But empirically not everyone's views would be reflected in actual action.

[Luisrah]

Does discussion last until all people are OK with it or is it just you can say what you want but the majority won't change a little to make all people OK with it? That means the discussion is just a big fight if it's just a regular old majority vote like where people try to convince the majority instead of all the people trying to make a decision that all people are OK with. I hope that made sense? I can't remember what it's called when you try to make a decision that all the people are OK with. There's a word for it.

You are talking about consensus I believe.

From what I understand, in the discussion, everyone gets a chance to prove their point and try to convince whoever doesn't agree with them, and then they vote, and everyone must accept the majority opinion and work towards acomplishing whatever goals it has.
This avoids un-democratic things like what happened in Ireland (I believe) about the last thingy of the European Union. They made a referendum which the ''No'' won. Sometime later they did another and it got a ''Yes''.

Basically, when it's decided, it's decided, so get used to it. Of course we shouldn't take it to the extreme, but if it's too light, minorities will be calling constant votes and discussions until things are done their way, and in the meantime there is no work being done.

[6SR]

Consensus! That's the word thanks Luisrah. I think I prefer consensus because that means we keep talking and changing the proposal until all people are OK with it. I know ALL PEOPLE is impossible but I want as many as possible to be OK with it. If it's barely a majority too many people are unhappy and you get splits and no work gets done that way either.

[graymouser]

Consensus! That's the word thanks Luisrah. I think I prefer consensus because that means we keep talking and changing the proposal until all people are OK with it. I know ALL PEOPLE is impossible but I want as many as possible to be OK with it. If it's barely a majority too many people are unhappy and you get splits and no work gets done that way either.
Consensus is a good thing when you can get it, but groups that make it their goal tend to be dramatically less effective than those that use some kind of democratic centralism.

Take a strike: if 75% of workers in a job site are willing to strike, should they wait until the other 25% are ready (and give the bosses and the state time to prepare) or should they have a vote, win it and form a solid picket line so that 100% go out on strike? Democratic centralism works on essentially that principle.

[RedTrackWorker]

Take a strike: if 75% of workers in a job site are willing to strike, should they wait until the other 25% are ready (and give the bosses and the state time to prepare) or should they have a vote, win it and form a solid picket line so that 100% go out on strike? Democratic centralism works on essentially that principle.

Just to build on this to answer the original poster's question: organizational form follows from political content--the nature of its tasks. Democratic centralism is an expression of working-class modes of struggle (like graymouser's example of a strike vote). One may ask then, why would this apply to a group like the LRP, which is a "fighting propaganda group," not a party that is able to initiate mass struggles requiring centralized action? It applies because we are combatting the reformist leaders for leadership of our class--in the transit union for example, we are not just spreading propaganda, but engaged in struggle to win workers to building the revolutionary party and to support that concretely by supporting that leadership over the reformist leaders of the union (which is currently backed by the social-democratic group Solidarity). If we are serious about offering an alternative leadership to our class, saying "Do this, not that," how could we not be disciplined in action?