Democratic Centralism

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Democratic centralism, yes or no?
It's a fairly simple question and i'm sorry I can't elaborate, but I'd like to read all of your opinions and reasons for oposing or agreeing with democratic centralism.
thanks, comardes

[apathy maybe]

It depends on how democratic the system was.

You need instant recall of the government and officials.
Things that only effect (affect?) a small group of people don't need to be centralized.
There is an idea called demarchy which could be used for somethings.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92kio.html _/
http://www.globalideasbank.org/showidea.php?idea=3052
http://vof.cat.org.au/visions/points.htm
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy _/

[redstar2000]

No.

This thread explores part of the problem...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=8&t=16696&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=16696&st=0)

The "appeal" of "democratic centralism" is in its alleged "efficiency".

Like an army, the "revolutionary" party attacks, retreats, maneuvers "as a single unit".

This is supposed to be "necessary" for a victorious proletarian revolution.

But what if the "commander-in-chief" blunders? Or worse, what if he's a fuck-up?

Think, for a moment, "what it takes" to advance a career in the military. Courage? No. Intelligence? No. Initiative? No.

Unquestioning obedience to orders? YES!

The individual who makes it all the way to the top of an army has shown his ability to obey his superiors without regard to his own thoughts or even the objective conditions of battle. Now that he is "commander-in-chief", what sort of orders will he give? What kind of campaign will he wage? How likely is it, really, that he will think for himself now, exercise intelligence and initiative, etc.?

Like almost all of history's generals, he will be a time-serving, overly-conservative bumbler and a far greater danger to his own soldiers than the enemy.

So it is in the "democratic centralist" party.

If you could spend a couple of years compiling the records of all the "general secretaries" of all the Leninist parties of the 20th century...you'd have an enormous collection of mediocrities, blunderers, and at least a few crooks.

The ones who got anything right are like needles in haystacks--Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, and who else???

And, the most successful socialist country of the 20th century--Cuba--did not need a "democratic centralist" party to make its revolution. The "party" was set up after the revolution according to Russian instructions. What will happen there when Fidel Castro is no longer around has been a subject of much worry on this board...and for good reason. His successor is most likely to be another "democratic centralist" mediocrity...that Washington will eat for breakfast.

If you are a real communist and genuinely want to help make a proletarian revolution and a communist society, just about the worst thing you can do is become involved in a "democratic centralist" party.

It stands for everything you hate.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Here is an absolutely stunning critique of "democratic centralism" that I came across just a few minutes ago...

http://web1.mtd.com/csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vo...itical_left.htm (http://web1.mtd.com/csj.org/pub_csj/csj_vol15_no1_98/political_left.htm)

Though focused on a Trotskyist group, it clearly applies to all Leninist formations.

All it needs to be perfect is a class analysis of the leaders and victims of Leninist cults. That's not likely to be something these folks would be interested in...but keep in mind that Lenin himself was the son of a minor nobleman. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[革命者]

No.

Those two words don`t mix!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

any arguments in favor of democratic centralism?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Why democratic centralism is not only necessary but is also invaluable (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html)

[the SovieT]

Democratic Centralism is the one and only democracy..

only with the direct and mutual participation of the vanguard on state afairs can one country evolve to socialism..

Socialism cannot be built with petty bourgeois systems..

or what system would you prefer Redstar?
fucking anarchy?
the current system?

[redstar2000]

Very well, let's have a look at the Progressive Labor Party's version of "democratic centralism"...they seem to be clearer than some about exactly what they have in mind.

We want a system where every worker is actively pushed to become involved in running society, where everyone is trained to act for the common good, where putting individual self-interest above the social good is punished.

The first of the three doesn't sound too bad...it all depends on exactly what is meant by "actively pushed". Are people to be endlessly nagged to attend meetings that serve no purpose?

The second is more dubious: how is this "training" to be accomplished? What would it consist of? Who decides what is "the common good"?

And the third is downright frightening: who decides what is "self-interest" and what is "the social good"?

The Party is organized on the basis of democratic centralism. The Party is divided into cells, or clubs, which meet regularly to evaluate members' work and to make suggestions about how to improve it, and to evaluate the Party's positions and make suggestions for change. These suggestions are taken by the club leader to section meetings (made up of the club leaders and other leading comrades in an area, and by section leaders to the Central Committee. Based on the collective experience of the Party, the leadership decides on new positions (a new line) which all Party members are then bound to put into practice. Only if all of us put the same line into practice can we find out if the line works; if each of us goes our own way, we will never have the common strength of a united Party.--emphasis added.

And there's your answer..."the leadership decides"!

Democratic centralism is communist democracy. After the revolution we will run all of society along democratic centralist lines.

The leadership decides for everyone!

The Party's goal must be to recruit every worker into the Party, to involve every worker in the democratic centralist process. The correct way to resolve the problem of the Party's relation to non-Party workers is to recruit all workers to the Party.

If every worker is "involved in the democratic centralist process", that means the leadership decides for every worker who is consequently "bound to put into practice" the leadership's decision.

Democratic centralism forces everyone to speak up. At club meetings, each person must express their opinions, including openly voicing their disagreements.

But to what purpose? You "voice your disagreement" and the local leader then explains to the group why you are a "self-serving" piece of bourgeois shit. You must agree with this--it's called "self-criticism"--or you will be "punished" for putting "individual self-interest" above the "common good".

Our goal is to replace this dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with a dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat will be based on communist democracy among the workers and ruthless dictatorship by the workers over the capitalist.

A noble aim indeed...but what kind of "communist democracy" is it where everything is decided by the leadership and nothing is decided by the working class?

It was, as I understand it, common practice in the Soviet Union in the 1920s to call the workers in a given workplace to a meeting (on their own time, of course). The party boss would read out a statement of the "new line" on some question. Several of his lackeys would speak in support of the "new line". Then they'd take a "vote"--"all in favor?" It was not thought necessary to even ask if any were opposed.

Does it matter how correct your criticisms of bourgeois democracy are if this kind of shit is all you have to offer as an "alternative"???

How does it improve matters to replace a disguised despotism with an open despotism?

Make no mistake about it; "democratic centralism" is nothing but the reactionary myth of the "good king" outfitted with scraps and tatters of Marxist terminology! It is actually pre-capitalist in origin, which may explain its limited appeal in the modern world...most workers don't believe in the myth of the "good king" any longer.

But as a cult, "democratic centralism" competes effectively with nutball religious sects, flying saucer wackos, "great leader" lunatics, etc. These kinds of crap always proliferate in an era of social decay...some people tend to seek "certainty" in an increasingly uncertain world.

That's all the more reason for real communists to insist that the fundamental criterion for a revolutionary movement is ALL POWER TO THE WORKING CLASS!

The only "certainty" that makes sense is real decision-making power directly and exclusively in the hands of the entire working class.

Anything less is worthless!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas