Do You Support Democratic Centralism?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades,

I have been reading the other threads and comments around revleft discussing a one-party state, and I've noticed that a fair number of people do support one.

I'd like to take the question one step further: in a vanguard party or the ruling political party in a post-capitalist society, do you think that it should be run in accordance with Lenin's top-down democratic centralism?

If not, how do you think it should be structured and why?

[Leftsolidarity]

Yes, I don't know exactly what is needed after a revolution but I agree with the practice of democratic centralism. It's not just for post-capitalist society but how we operate until then.

[Manic Impressive]

in a post-capitalist society, do you think that it should be run in accordance with Lenin's top-down democratic centralism?
In a post capitalist society there will be no parties.

edit: Sorry I should explain what I mean by this. A party is the tool of the working class to achieve the abolition of capitalism. Once it has achieved this goal it serves no purpose.

If not, how do you think it should be structured and why?
how about democratically

[jookyle]

Democratic Centralism allows for the party to work as a whole. I'm not really sure how democratic centralism refers to what you call "top-down" as democratic centralism has to do with inner party politics.

[RedSonRising]

I think designing a suitable model for post-revolutionary society is a pitfall many of us may tend to fall into, because one forgets the revolution is an organic process that depends on the context under which it finds itself. Not all capitalist hierarchies function under the same political situations, and not all working classes respond similarly to certain kinds of motivation for decent. I personally think Democratic Centralism is a useful tool for organizing and networking on the ground, and even for a political party, but it becomes problematic to uphold it as a necessary principle within the context of a one-party vanguard if, say, a proliferation of state parties, or a model of decentralized worker councils, or a model of municipal leadership may arise as more popular/feasible alternatives in the post-revolutionary period.


Democratic Centralism allows for the party to work as a whole. I'm not really sure how democratic centralism refers to what you call "top-down" as democratic centralism has to do with inner party politics.

I agree, in fact, I think non-socialist parties often practice the method out of efficiency quite often; state your position, and when the party decides on the whole, respect the decision and put your efforts towards meeting that objective, whether you initially agreed or disagreed.

[Welshy]

I agree, in fact, I think non-socialist parties often practice the method out of efficiency quite often; state your position, and when the party decides on the whole, respect the decision and put your efforts towards meeting that objective, whether you initially agreed or disagreed.

Though minority opinions should be allowed to become majority opinions to be able to debate actions as long as it doesn't undermined the parties ability to function as a whole.

[Delenda Carthago]

DC is not "top-down". That is the revisionist idea we have on it that has nothing to do with a revolutionary party.

[Q]

Yes. Although I hold a different definition to it than the OP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I support Socialist Democracy above Democratic Centralism. There's nothing democratic about centralism, it subsumes the wider class into the party, ergo it subsumes - eventually - the interests of the wider working class into the bureaucratic, pro-state interests of the party. I don't know how many more examples we need of the historical failure of Democratic Centralism. Intelligent and competent organisers as Lenin, Stalin et al. have failed, and if you look at the likes of the SWP in the UK you can see just what a failure Democratic Centralism is (intra-party) if it is administers by incompetent leaders.

[Caj]

I support organic centralism. Although I accept that democratic centralism can, at times, be practical, I don't think we should elevate the "democratic" aspect of it to an absolute principle, divergence from which is tantamount to a renunciation of Marxism. Instead, the mechanism of decision-making implemented within the Party should flow organically from material reality and the needs of the revolutionary movement. Accepting that the democratic mechanism is sometimes a practical one, we should not hesitate to reject it in situations when it is not.

[JPSartre12]

I support Socialist Democracy above Democratic Centralism. There's nothing democratic about centralism, it subsumes the wider class into the party, ergo it subsumes - eventually - the interests of the wider working class into the bureaucratic, pro-state interests of the party. I don't know how many more examples we need of the historical failure of Democratic Centralism. Intelligent and competent organisers as Lenin, Stalin et al. have failed, and if you look at the likes of the SWP in the UK you can see just what a failure Democratic Centralism is (intra-party) if it is administers by incompetent leaders.

^^ This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, yes.

The whole concept of the party debating its position and (once there is a majority vote to approve it) adhering to it implies (to me, but then again, I'm not particularly well-read on DC as a whole) a non-democratic character. What if you are in the minority and you disagree with the party position? What about those who dissent? What about those who believe that the position of the party is counter-productive towards socialism?

When I say "top-down", I'm referring to that sort of party-dictated position.

[Tim Cornelis]

Democratic centralism is actually well suited for military warfare by workers' armies. But beyond that, I see no use for it.

[Rafiq]

Democratic centralism is actually well suited for military warfare by workers' armies. But beyond that, I see no use for it.

Well don't you at the least agree that unanimous action is necessary should something be agreed upon by a withstanding majority?

[JPSartre12]

Well don't you at the least agree that unanimous action is necessary should something be agreed upon by a withstanding majority?

Not necessarily. I think that the party should have a general idea of what to do based upon democratic decision-making, yes, but that decision shouldn't be binding on the members.

If there are members who want to dissent and pursue other paths, I think that that should be allowed.

[jookyle]

Not necessarily. I think that the party should have a general idea of what to do based upon democratic decision-making, yes, but that decision shouldn't be binding on the members.

If there are members who want to dissent and pursue other paths, I think that that should be allowed.

So the party can split up, becomes full of factions, and spend their time fighting over control of the party? I don't think so.

[JPSartre12]

So the party can split up, becomes full of factions, and spend their time fighting over control of the party? I don't think so.

Well not "fighting over control". I don't think that anyone should "control" the party. But factions, yes. I think that there should be healthy debate, bottom-up democratic decision-making, and the leadership of the party should be the proletariat itself ... not a series of élite members that direct the party and make its decisions, you know?

I'm probably articulating this very poorly :rolleyes:

[Leftsolidarity]

Not necessarily. I think that the party should have a general idea of what to do based upon democratic decision-making, yes, but that decision shouldn't be binding on the members.

If there are members who want to dissent and pursue other paths, I think that that should be allowed.

Then what is the point of the whole process in the first place?




When I say "top-down", I'm referring to that sort of party-dictated position.

It's democratically decided within the party so it's not really "top-down". If the party gets together and votes on something and it becomes the party's position then it is the view of the majority of the party. So it's not really "dictated" to anyone. If another party member doesn't agree with it they need to do more work to try to convince the other party members internally while still upholding a unified party by not denouncing the position externally. If they can't seem to do it then perhaps they are the ones with the incorrect position because just because they are dissenting doesn't make them correct.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I'm unsure. Generally I assume a position more in favour of federalism given that societies are too complex to be completely controlled by a central body and that the plurality of needs in relation to different social contexts needs to be addressed when concerning the organizational structure of society. In the context of the USSR this would equate to allowing the Soviets to have more power and autonomy. I don't think that some form of centralism can be escaped fully though, I just think that the autonomy of certain sections of society (whether geographic or cultural) should be respected. The point is to get rid of class society and as we know, the hegemonic state is one of the fundamental institutions in which the power of the ruling class is protected. With this in mind, we have to think about deconstructing the functions of class-society and a single, central authority has been one of those fundamental functions, whether under capitalism or what the Soviet Union became.

The point for me is that we should curb any scenario in which a group could become dominant over the wider population. Democratic centralism didn't manage to curb this. I don't think it was democratic centralism itself that led to this but it certainly was a factor.

Having said this however, I do also agree with one of the posters who talked about a socio-economic context determining the organizational outcome of a revolution - I'm always being asked by opponents 'what would this society look like?' and I can't answer because I refuse to be a mystic who can see into the future and tell others how society will work. We look at things rationally and as such, it is irrational to cling onto any particular blueprint as if it was carved onto stone by god himself.

[Peoples' War]

Only if members of the CC are subject to recall.

I'd prefer something along the lines of total party democracy. Where the whole party decides on organizational matters.

[JPSartre12]

Then what is the point of the whole process in the first place?

It's democratically decided within the party so it's not really "top-down". If the party gets together and votes on something and it becomes the party's position then it is the view of the majority of the party. So it's not really "dictated" to anyone. If another party member doesn't agree with it they need to do more work to try to convince the other party members internally while still upholding a unified party by not denouncing the position externally. If they can't seem to do it then perhaps they are the ones with the incorrect position because just because they are dissenting doesn't make them correct.

Hmm, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for that :)

What would you think that the dissenting party members should do in a situation wherein their opinion is not (or maybe even against) the party's collective decision?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I support organic centralism. Although I accept that democratic centralism can, at times, be practical, I don't think we should elevate the "democratic" aspect of it to an absolute principle, divergence from which is tantamount to a renunciation of Marxism. Instead, the mechanism of decision-making implemented within the Party should flow organically from material reality and the needs of the revolutionary movement. Accepting that the democratic mechanism is sometimes a practical one, we should not hesitate to reject it in situations when it is not.

well, as materialists isn't this how we believe the organisation of parties "ebb and flow", so to speak, with the material conditions? But if that is all there is to "organic centralism" (which, to be honest, I haven't heard of before :unsure:), it doesn't really say much -- or anything, really? -- on how to organise the party.

[Leftsolidarity]

Hmm, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for that :)

What would you think that the dissenting party members should do in a situation wherein their opinion is not (or maybe even against) the party's collective decision?

Internal debate and discussion. If it is a healthy and functional party then it is a key part of democratic centralism. If it is dysfunctional, though, just as with any other organization, the members should do as much as they could to fix it and if that seems to be impossible; leave the party.

[Caj]

well, as materialists isn't this how we believe the organisation of parties "ebb and flow", so to speak, with the material conditions?

Well, that is the materialist perspective and the perspective that I think should be adopted by revolutionary parties.

The question of "Do you support democratic centralism?" isn't really answerable from the materialist perspective, as it is posed independently of material conditions. Yes, in some situations, democratic centralism may be a practical organizational structure for the Party, but in others, it may not be so practical. To propose a definite, "yes-or-no" answer to such a question, applicable at all times in all situations, is completely non-materialist.


I haven't heard of before :unsure:)

It's associated with Bordigism and the Italian Communist Left.


it doesn't really say much -- or anything, really? -- on how to organise the party.

Yeah, but that's because how the Party is organized should be based on material conditions not on absolute principles such as "democracy," which are maintained to be applicable in all situations.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The question of "Do you support democratic centralism?" isn't really answerable from the materialist perspective, as it is posed independently of material conditions. Yes, in some situations, democratic centralism may be a practical organizational structure for the Party, but in others, it may not be so practical. To propose a definite, "yes-or-no" answer to such a question, applicable at all times in all situations, is completely non-materialist.

Yeah, but that's because how the Party is organized should be based on material conditions not on absolute principles such as "democracy," which are maintained to be applicable in all situations.

I agree, I'm not much of a fan of principles or ultimate ideals. But how do you -- or any theory or theorist(s) you adhere to -- picture the organisation of the party to be today? More concretely, how would a party best reflect the material conditions today? Because if we, as communists, don't have an answer to that besides "let the material conditions decide!" (as a manner of speaking), I don't really see the point in the organic materialism-stance either.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes, I do - but not in the manner in which you (the OP) have described it. It is necessary, insofar as it fosters criticism and self-criticism: "more politics, more theory." It provides a necessary backdrop against which freedom of discourse necessarily flows into "unity of action."

[jookyle]

Well not "fighting over control". I don't think that anyone should "control" the party. But factions, yes. I think that there should be healthy debate, bottom-up democratic decision-making, and the leadership of the party should be the proletariat itself ... not a series of élite members that direct the party and make its decisions, you know?

I'm probably articulating this very poorly :rolleyes:

But that basically is democratic centralism. The party debates an issue, there's a vote taken, and the majority is made clear then the party acts as a whole. Instead of the minority who did not like the idea and voted against it just walking away and working against the party. Strength in unity.

I think you're getting to hung up on the word "centralism" instead of grasping what the concept actually means.

[Caj]

I agree, I'm not much of a fan of principles or ultimate ideals. But how do you -- or any theory or theorist(s) you adhere to -- picture the organisation of the party to be today? More concretely, how would a party best reflect the material conditions today? Because if we, as communists, don't have an answer to that besides "let the material conditions decide!" (as a manner of speaking), I don't really see the point in the organic materialism-stance either.

Honestly, I don't know, and I'm really not knowledgeable enough to propose any answers to such a question. The question of the organizational structure for the class party today is something that should be thoroughly researched, investigated, and debated among revolutionaries, as it is a question the answer of which will have serious ramifications for the revolutionary movement as a whole.

The reason I call myself an organic centralist is because I think whatever answers to this question proposed by revolutionaries should be based on material reality and the most pertinent needs of the revolutionary movement not on dogmatic adherence to absolute principles such as "democracy."

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's associated with Bordigism and the Italian Communist Left.

I agree with Caj's posts, but I wanted to expand on some points without repeating what Caj has already said (hopefully without derailing the thread). Organic centralism is not just a Bordigist concept but something other Left Communists can agree with as well (though not all). Historically, organic centralism was upheld during a time when the Bolsheviks were using democratic centralism to separate the party into two sections, one section to carry out scholarly work, organize protests, etc. while the other section only carried out "ground work" (attend protests, etc.) Organic centralism came as a response to this, saying that all party members should be involved in both aspects of party work.

[Leftsolidarity]

Honestly, I don't know, and I'm really not knowledgeable enough to propose any answers to such a question. The question of the organizational structure for the class party today is something that should be thoroughly researched, investigated, and debated among revolutionaries, as it is a question the answer of which will have serious ramifications for the revolutionary movement as a whole.

The reason I call myself an organic centralist is because I think whatever answers to this question proposed by revolutionaries should be based on material reality and the most pertinent needs of the revolutionary movement not on dogmatic adherence to absolute principles such as "democracy."

While none of what you've said in this thread has been incorrect. It has all basically been non-answers. lol

[JPSartre12]

But that basically is democratic centralism. The party debates an issue, there's a vote taken, and the majority is made clear then the party acts as a whole. Instead of the minority who did not like the idea and voted against it just walking away and working against the party. Strength in unity.

I think you're getting to hung up on the word "centralism" instead of grasping what the concept actually means.

Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks, comrade :cool:
I feel as if DC has a tendency to alienate those who dissent and do not agree with the party's majority opinion, though.


I support organic centralism. Although I accept that democratic centralism can, at times, be practical, I don't think we should elevate the "democratic" aspect of it to an absolute principle, divergence from which is tantamount to a renunciation of Marxism. Instead, the mechanism of decision-making implemented within the Party should flow organically from material reality and the needs of the revolutionary movement. Accepting that the democratic mechanism is sometimes a practical one, we should not hesitate to reject it in situations when it is not.

Thanks Caj. I just googled "organic centralism" to get a better gist of it, and from what I can tell it seems like a pretty good idea :thumbup1:

[Zukunftsmusik]

Honestly, I don't know, and I'm really not knowledgeable enough to propose any answers to such a question. The question of the organizational structure for the class party today is something that should be thoroughly researched, investigated, and debated among revolutionaries, as it is a question the answer of which will have serious ramifications for the revolutionary movement as a whole.

The reason I call myself an organic centralist is because I think whatever answers to this question proposed by revolutionaries should be based on material reality and the most pertinent needs of the revolutionary movement not on dogmatic adherence to absolute principles such as "democracy."

Well if you had the answer you would probably be the wonderboy of present communism, as the greatest problem for the working class right now seems to be exactly how to organise in an efficient (in lack of a better word) way.

I think I need to take some self-criticism on the rest of the post also, as I first reject principles yet dismiss the only alternative -- to constantly weigh the material conditions at hand. This, as you point out, seems as a difficult and complex task, though.

[jookyle]

Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks, comrade :cool:
I feel as if DC has a tendency to alienate those who dissent and do not agree with the party's majority opinion, though.

It should not alienate those who were opposed to the motion, proposal,etc unless they defect from and/or work against the rest of the party. If every one kept to the idea of democratic centralism then there's no reason for alienation; it wouldn't matter who disagreed with something because the party would be working as whole on the decision made.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Just to give a quote to back up my earlier post on the subject...


At the time that Party and Class was written, Bordiga regarded the Bolsheviks, and the Third International as real communist parties. He was later to oppose the policy of Bolshevization, which ordered a mechanical unity, enforced by the “top executives”, preferring an “organic centralism” in which all members were to participate actively.

From Bordiga Versus Pannekoek by Antagonism Press (http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek) (a left communist perspective neither Bordigist nor Dutch/German position).


It would be a fatal error to consider the party as dividable into two groups, one of which is dedicated to the study and the other to action; such a distinction is deadly for the body of the party, as well as for the individual militant.

From Consideration On The Party's Organic Activity When the General Situation is Historically Unfavorable (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm) by Amadeo Bordiga

[Leftsolidarity]

It should not alienate those who were opposed to the motion, proposal,etc unless they defect from and/or work against the rest of the party. If every one kept to the idea of democratic centralism then there's no reason for alienation; it wouldn't matter who disagreed with something because the party would be working as whole on the decision made.

This, my party might adapt a certain position or make a statement that I don't exactly agree with but I understand that is part of belonging to a party. I would never go out and publically criticize those stances/statements because that is not a disciplined course of action.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yes. Although I hold a different definition to it than the OP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

I think everyone should read this before they post in this thread. Just saying.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Democratic centralism is a vital means by which a vanguard party can lead the proletariat to overthrow capitalism. It should not be "top down" but simply calls for the minority to abide by and carry out the program of the majority of the party. The minority is free to win over the majority of the party to their position, whereby former majorityites will need to carry out the change in program. It also calls for keeping disagreements within the party. It is a tool -- there is nothing magical about it, and after the revolution, when the risk of counterrevolution has diminished, it need not continue.

[Sendo]

Democratic Centralism is necessary for any organization to function in the face of hardship whether that hardship comes out the nature of the mission or out of antagonism.

If you worked in a co-operative group of building/repairs contractors and on a certain project 4 out of you agree that for the bathroom renovation at the library you should all use grout X but you think grout Y is better, should you do your 20% of the bathrooms in a non-matching grout? How will this affect the outcome? The working environment? The client's attitude?

How about working together and if grout X turns out crap tell your mates "I told you so" (or more politely) and hopefully the others will vote in your favour for the next job.

Theory->Vote->Unified Action->Analysis->Theory->Vote->Unified Action...

Even a book club might decide what the book of the month will be and all members read it and discuss it. Another club may have different factions read different things and present about the work and recommend it or not.

So do we aspire to be like the contractors (and the former book club) or like the latter book club? I think the resistance many have to Democratic Centralism is very telling of their conception of the revolutionary movement. There's a reason we use "book club" as a slur to deride those leftists we find to do only theory without action, those who are antiquarians, and those who are just participate only in their cause celebre (ie pet projects) or are seen at each new cause of the week.

Lenin was not discussing federalism or constitutionally delegated and separated powers or levels of regional or national autonomy. Like others pointed out, don't muck it up with "centralization". "Democratic Centralism" has its own meaning. "Antisemitism" has a definition separate from "hating Semites"; it means "hating Jews" not necessarily the various other Semitic groups.

[Rafiq]

Well not "fighting over control". I don't think that anyone should "control" the party. But factions, yes. I think that there should be healthy debate, bottom-up democratic decision-making, and the leadership of the party should be the proletariat itself ... not a series of élite members that direct the party and make its decisions, you know?

I'm probably articulating this very poorly :rolleyes:

It's pretty self explanatory, the fact that decisions are made based on the collective interests of majority of party members..