Democratic Centralism.

[Dumb]

I myself haven't had much chance to engage first-hand in a leftist political organisation espousing the principal of democratic centralism. My contacts active in such parties, however, tell me that this principal is perhaps the most difficult principal to put into proper practice: let up too little, and small factions get too much power; over-compensate by excessive centralisation, though, and party members start "voting with their feet" and leaving altogether.

Can anybody here explain to me in greater detail - and perhaps from an alternate perspective - how to get democratic centralism to work properly?

[unfriendly]

My best friend of a year's sister was in the RCP and explained democratic centralism to me as the idea that everyone adheres to the party line, which is allegedly decided after tons of democratic debate between all the members as equals.

In practice I'm willing to bet it works rather differently, although even in theory it involves a lot of lying to everyone who isn't in the RCP.

[Dumb]

I'm also curious to know if democratic centralism has any applicability outside of Leninism.

[Jose Gracchus]

No, it doesn't. Though one imagines any organization capable of getting anything done will have to have some matters which it considers not appropriate tactics or expressions of internal debate, or solidaritious behaviors.

[Olentzero]

I'm also curious to know if democratic centralism has any applicability outside of Leninism.Absolutely - in workers' councils themselves. It's not just a principle of party organization.

Boil it down to its essence, democratic centralism can be summed up thus: freedom of discussion, unity in action. Decisions to be made should be discussed thoroughly by everyone affected thereby, and then once the decision is made everyone abides by it. This does not rule out further discussion; it may be that the decision has effects and consequences that were either unforeseen or not properly considered, and those involved in the debate should be allowed to bring those factors up in subsequent discussions and analysis. Decisions are never set in stone once they are reached, and groups should always be prepared to admit the decision was wrong if proven so and change tactics accordingly. This applies to pretty much everything from organizing a paper sale to deciding how to best produce for global human need.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Building an active movement and revolutionary party is the hard part, Democratic Centralism isn't much of a trick if you have the first. Democratic-centralism is a question of how can revolutionaries organize themselves to have as much of a concerted effect as our class opposition. The ruling class has massive centralized forces at their disposal and they use coercion and hierarchy to enforce their ideology and rule. To topple this, revolutionary workers need to also be just as united but we can not have some dictator or small group telling us what to do (first because why listen, and second our strength is in numbers and the whole range of bottom-up creativity.

Unlike a popular or representative body like a workers council or something, a revolutionary group can organize around specific and agreed upon sets of tactics or politics without becoming a "tyranny". It would be a disaster to run a society this way, but it would also not be very effective to build a revolutionary group without both full internal debate which can then be resolved and tested in united practice. Top-down groups that are centralized will fail and stagnate and groups that have democratic decision making but no follow-through will end up with a passive membership who just ignore votes they don't agree with.

What is a strike but democratic centralism - if the union votes to support the strike and you go to work, you simply can not be in that union anymore, you are a scab. If members vote for a strike but no one show up to picket, then the strike can not succeed. If the labor leaders called a strike without democratic debate and agreement of the majority, then it will be a weal or loosing strike. Strikes work this way regardless if the strike is a bottom up strike or a wildcat or if it is top-down.

Democratic-centralism has been misused by many CPs of the past and I think that's why many people are rightfully wary of it. But this misuse, IMO doesn't stem from organizing in this way it has more to do with theses groups taking on increasingly top-down decision making as the USSR and the Comintern became organized around defending Russia than promoting working class movements and revolution. They essentially dropped the democratic part of the equation.

[The Idler]

Have ever members overruled a central committee decision? And I suppose the same question could be asked of bourgeois parties for comparison.