Is 'Democratic Centralism' a practical way to organize a revolutionary organization?

[Let's Get Free]

Here's an objective definition of what Lenin meant by 'democratic centralism'

"By ‘democratic’ Lenin understood that decisions should be resolved according to majority vote of the central committee (of the executive) of the Party and that all Party members had the right to participate in general Party policy-making. The Party Congress was to be supreme over policy. There were to be periodic elections of the leading officers of the Party . . .
“By ‘centralism’, Lenin meant that once general policy was agreed, the day-to-day operation of the Party had to be decided centrally, where all information and the Party leadership are located, and the decisions of central bodies were absolutely binding on lower bodies. In Lenin’s view, democratic centralism was a synthesis between democracy and central control: it gave members the right to participation an it gave a creative role for the leadership”

For me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to organize a revolutionary organization the same way you would a bourgeois state, and, while being centralized, will not be very democratic. In fact, the level of democracy would reflect that in a capitalist republic rather than a socialist society. I also find the idea of applying an organizational model that had been developed in the semi-feudal conditions of Tsarist Russia to every country, regardless of its level of development, to be questionable.

However, up until now, this has been the organizational method used by "vanguard" political parties and guerrilla groups. In the case of the vanguard party, the cells have some degree of autonomy but in the end are regulated or legitimized by some central committee. In the case of a guerrilla group, the cells have a greater degree of autonomy but at some point must relate to a military and political center. Both vehicles are essentially organizations for combat. The revolutionary tradition has yet to find a satisfactory form that is both ready and fit for resistance and which is an alternative to the existing order in a radical sense. Such groups would be highly task force oriented with a high degree of mutual aid coupled with social relevance, are much needed. The last few years have seen a few affinity groups, collectives, and communes, both rural and urban, established by movements that refuse to be centralized.

[ind_com]

It has been more successful than all other forms of organization tried out so far.

[Blake's Baby]

...
For me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to organize a revolutionary organization the same way you would a bourgeois state, and, while being centralized, will not be very democratic. In fact, the level of democracy would reflect that in a capitalist republic rather than a socialist society. I also find the idea of applying an organizational model that had been developed in the semi-feudal conditions of Tsarist Russia to every country, regardless of its level of development, to be questionable...

What does the organisation of the party in a pre-revolutionary situation have to do with 'the state' (if there is one) after the revolution?

[Let's Get Free]

It has been more successful than all other forms of organization tried out so far.

I don't disagree that it has been extremely efficient and successful at certain things, most notably reproducing hierarchy and bourgeois values into so-called "revolutionary" organizations and movements.

[Let's Get Free]

What does the organisation of the party in a pre-revolutionary situation have to do with 'the state' (if there is one) after the revolution?

As Murray Bookchin put it, the party organized in such a manner molds "society in its own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralization and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state - and a party to 'guard' it."

[Blake's Baby]

As Murray Bookchin put it, the party organized in such a manner molds "society in its own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralization and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state - and a party to 'guard' it."

Well, that's your problem then, the party moulding the state, not the form the party takes. Any party moulding a state is a problem, even a fluffy one (there can't be a fluffy state).

[TheIrrationalist]

It has been more successful than all other forms of organization tried out so far.

I think that is the main fault of democratic centralism, it isn't 1917 anymore. What relevance does a hundred year old organisational method have in the 21st century? Material conditions today are vastly different than they were in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century, that requires radically different methods of organisation.

[CyM]

Every strike is based on a basic form of democratic centralism. When deciding on the strike every member has the right to raise arguments for and against the strike. Once the decision is made however, either no one goes on strike, or everyone goes on strike depending on the decision made, even those who voted in the minority.

If you voted against the strike, and you cross the picketline, your autonomy as an individual is destroying the democracy of the union. Hence no real democracy is possible without a certain suspension of the autonomy of the individual. Hence the balance between democracy and centralism.

Can we organize as separate cells without electing a responsible leadership that can coordinate the work at a national and international level? We could, but it would only be a sign of our primitiveness and our lack of cohesion as a whole. Hence why even the most successful anarchist organizations had leading bodies above the individual cells, like the CNT-FAI.

[Let's Get Free]

Every strike is based on a basic form of democratic centralism. When deciding on the strike every member has the right to raise arguments for and against the strike. Once the decision is made however, either no one goes on strike, or everyone goes on strike depending on the decision made, even those who voted in the minority.

If you voted against the strike, and you cross the picketline, your autonomy as an individual is destroying the democracy of the union. Hence no real democracy is possible without a certain suspension of the autonomy of the individual. Hence the balance between democracy and centralism.

Can we organize as separate cells without electing a responsible leadership that can coordinate the work at a national and international level? We could, but it would only be a sign of our primitiveness and our lack of cohesion as a whole. Hence why even the most successful anarchist organizations had leading bodies above the individual cells, like the CNT-FAI.

Democratic centralism is perhaps only useful when an organization has to act and has to act fast.

[Art Vandelay]

Democratic centralism is perhaps only useful when an organization has to act and has to act fast.

Which will be entirely necessary during any revolutionary upsurge.

[Lokomotive293]

Democratic centralism is perhaps only useful when an organization has to act and has to act fast.

What's the point of an organization if it doesn't "act", and how can you "act fast" if you didn't think about what to do in a situation where you have to act fast before that situation comes about?

I have never yet seen a viable alternative to democratic centralism. The great advantage of democratic centralism is that it combines unity of action with democratic discussion and decision-making. Neither are decisions made by a small board of party-leaders and simply passed down to the local groups, nor do we have an organization where no binding decisions are made on any level other than local groups (and a lot of the time not even there), and everyone basically does what they want.

Of course, the big flaw, or better difficulty, of democratic centralism, if you want, is that it depends on the active participation of the base as well as the integrity and responsibility of the functionaries.

[Art Vandelay]

What's the point of an organization if it doesn't "act", and how can you "act fast" if you didn't think about what to do in a situation where you have to act fast before that situation comes about?

I have never yet seen a viable alternative to democratic centralism. The great advantage of democratic centralism is that it combines unity of action with democratic discussion and decision-making. Neither are decisions made by a small board of party-leaders and simply passed down to the local groups, nor do we have an organization where no binding decisions are made on any level other than local groups (and a lot of the time not even there), and everyone basically does what they want.

Of course, the big flaw, or better difficulty, of democratic centralism, if you want, is that it depends on the active participation of the base as well as the integrity and responsibility of the functionaries.

Precisely, but since the user you quoted upholds the liberal conviction of 'power corrupts' your point is a moot one.

[Blake's Baby]

Moot.

Mute = silent. Moot = abstract/of no practical relevance (from a 'moot' ie meeting, of trainee lawyers to discuss points of law in hypothetical cases).

[Art Vandelay]

Moot.

Mute = silent. Moot = abstract/of no practical relevance.

I have fixed my spelling.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Note that democratic centralism implies freedom of discussion as much as it does unity of action - it should not be confused with an authoritarian or bureaucratic style in Party administration. And democratic centralism seems necessary in any proletarian organisation - obviously there ought to be democratic discussion of policies, and obviously factionalism, individual stubbornness etc. etc. can not be allowed to undermine collective action.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

As Murray Bookchin put it, the party organized in such a manner molds "society in its own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralization and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state - and a party to 'guard' it."
Book Chin makes a specious argument here. And you, comrade, are confusing a tool for revolution with the society that will come after the revolution. Democratic centralism is not a principle. It just happens to be the best organization for a party fighting to overthrow capitalism. It is not the way to organize society after the revolution. In fact, after the revolution, it becomes superfluous.

[vanukar]

Which will be entirely necessary during any revolutionary upsurge.

I don't see why. Pro-revolutionary organizations can't really keep up with class struggle, since they are fundamentally disconnected from it. "Democratic Centralism" is basically a way of making elitist organizations look like they're doing something that isn't highly questionable.

[Lokomotive293]

Pro-revolutionary organizations can't really keep up with class struggle, since they are fundamentally disconnected from it.

I don't see how that is the fault of democratic centralism, if what you say is true for an organization it should more likely be the fault of either a wrong political orientation, a lack of (political) presence in unions and workplaces, or most likely both.

[Let's Get Free]

Which will be entirely necessary during any revolutionary upsurge.

Well, we see Bolshevik party in 1917 violating its own organizational principles. Faced with a real revolution and an influx of more radical new members, the party had to practice ideas of autonomy, local initiative and the ignoring of central orders which had no bearing to reality on the ground. When the party did try to apply the top-down and hierarchical principles of "democratic centralism" it failed to adjust to the needs of the moment. When these principles were actually applied they helped ensure the degeneration of the revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't see how that is the fault of democratic centralism, if what you say is true for an organization it should more likely be the fault of either a wrong political orientation, a lack of (political) presence in unions and workplaces, or most likely both.

Such parties are often the last to recognize, let alone understand, the initial stirrings of important social movements and events. It is only once these movements have exploded in the streets that the democratic centralist organizations notice them and decide they require the party's leadership.

[Let's Get Free]

Note that democratic centralism implies freedom of discussion as much as it does unity of action- it should not be confused with an authoritarian or bureaucratic style in Party administration.

The many disgruntled expelled ex-members of 'democratic centralist' parties would disagree.


And democratic centralism seems necessary in any proletarian organisation - obviously there ought to be democratic discussion of policies, and obviously factionalism, individual stubbornness etc. etc. can not be allowed to undermine collective action.

it isn't necessary for a proletarian organization, in fact it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with an apparatus and a cadre whose function it is to seize power, not dissolve power.

[Brutus]

Democratic centrism ensures freedom of speech and debate, effectiveness and democracy. Members are free to argue all they want, but must follow the course thought best by the majority of the party.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The many disgruntled expelled ex-members of 'democratic centralist' parties would disagree.

Some of them might. But if they were expelled for trying to initiate discussion in a regular manner, their expulsion violates the principles of democratic centralism. But if they behaved in an obstructive manner and refused to carry out policies that were the result of a democratic process, they don't get the privilege of whining about authoritarianism. They are behaving in an autocratic manner, by trying to subordinate democratic coordination to their personal whims.


it isn't necessary for a proletarian organization, in fact it is a bourgeois organism, a miniature state, with an apparatus and a cadre whose function it is to seize power, not dissolve power.

So how did the Bolshevik section of Russian internationalists manage to, to a large extent, smash the bourgeois state apparatus, and win state power for the proletariat and the peasantry?

[Le Socialiste]

Such parties are often the last to recognize, let alone understand, the initial stirrings of important social movements and events. It is only once these movements have exploded in the streets that the democratic centralist organizations notice them and decide they require the party's leadership.

I remember when I used to think that, thankfully I moved past it.

Are some organizations like this? Unfortunately, yes. But that's not the damning evidence you think it is. All you do is repeat yourself about how party structures are inherently bourgeois and impediments to revolutionary change. These qualities are not inherent, contrary to what you've asserted here (and it's a rather weak assertion). But I feel like myself and others have covered these bases with you before so I'll save myself the headache of going over it again...


When the party did try to apply the top-down and hierarchical principles of "democratic centralism" it failed to adjust to the needs of the moment. When these principles were actually applied they helped ensure the degeneration of the revolution.

Yeah, those 14 invading foreign armies, economic ruin, and civil war were all just pesky coincidences that had nothing to do with it...:rolleyes:

Ideas, and the principles that partially arise from them, do not transcend and supplant the formative influence of historical materialism.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, we see Bolshevik party in 1917 violating its own organizational principles. Faced with a real revolution and an influx of more radical new members, the party had to practice ideas of autonomy, local initiative and the ignoring of central orders which had no bearing to reality on the ground. When the party did try to apply the top-down and hierarchical principles of "democratic centralism" it failed to adjust to the needs of the moment. When these principles were actually applied they helped ensure the degeneration of the revolution.

So you put forth the premise that democratic centralism is only effective when an organization has to act fast and then I point out how that is exactly what is necessary. Rather then concede the point, you go on to attempt to refute your own premise.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

As Murray Bookchin put it, the party organized in such a manner molds "society in its own hierarchical image if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralization and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state - and a party to 'guard' it."

I think he brings up a good point here. The conception of the party by some tendencies (Hoxhaists and Borgidists for one) does seem to fit this model and I fail to see how this is exactly liberatory. In my humble opinion, the party simply represents a nessecary evil that roots from the fact that there are multiple layers of the working class and only certain layers constitute as the vanguard while the labor aristocracy won't ever do anything of worth that can really be considered revolutionary, and yet if things are left to "spontenity" then the labor aristocracy will naturally take the lead due to it's hegomonic relationship with the bourgeois. So while the vanguard does need to lead the rest of the working class and separate it's self from the bourgeois, and while it is necessary for it to organize as a party in the form of democratic centralism for the reasons outlined in the rest of this thread, the tendency to glorify the organizational form as a defining charctheristic of ideology, is, quite frankly an absurd disorder in the left. The organizational form taken should be based off of what best achieves the tasks that it intends to carry out. The British Trotskyists and the Boridgists take this to the most absurd conclusions, making up absurd schemes for what constitutes a revolutionary party, building internationals that only serve as a sort of social imperialism as seen with the SWP making the Egyptian Trotskyist movement vote for the Muslim brotherhood, and acting as if infidelity to party line is the equivalent to infidelity to Marxist ideology (as seen in the recent SWP rape scandal). At the end of the day, we ought to abandon the idea that there needs to be "Leninist", "Trotskyist", or any other ideological conceptions of the party and we just need to do what makes the most sense. The "party" is nothing more than a means to the end and should be thought of as thus.

"The Purpose of the Communish Party is to abolish the Communist Party"
~Mao Zedong, On Contradiction

(Fixed the quote for accuracy)

[Let's Get Free]

So you put forth the premise that democratic centralism is only effective when an organization has to act fast and then I point out how that is exactly what is necessary. Rather then concede the point, you go on to attempt to refute your own premise.

I didn't say democratic centralism was the only organizational method useful in such circumstances. I simply claimed that if the entire organizational structure could ever be considered practical it would be at a time when quick action was required.





Yeah, those 14 invading foreign armies, economic ruin, and civil war were all just pesky coincidences that had nothing to do with it...:rolleyes:

Ideas, and the principles that partially arise from them, do not transcend and supplant the formative influence of historical materialism.

The objective circumstances (civil war, economic collapse, and so on) cannot fully explain the failure of the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks, from the beginning, repressed working class protests and strikes along with opposition groups and parties. As such, it is difficult to blame something which had not started yet for causing Bolshevik policies.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think he brings up a good point here. The conception of the party by some tendencies (Hoxhaists and Borgidists for one) does seem to fit this model

You really don't know what you are talking about here.

Bordiga, while placing great importance on the party (basically saying it was the most important organ of proletarian class rule before the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship), said that after the revolution the soviets were the main organ of proletarian power. Whether you agree with this point or not doesn't matter, Bordiga didn't advocate a fusion of the party and the state nearly as intense as Stalinists (such as Hoxha).

[Blake's Baby]

I didn't say democratic centralism was the only organizational method useful in such circumstances ...

And 9mm didn't say you did. But you did criticise 'democratic centralism' for being able to do something that you admit is necessary.



...

The objective circumstances (civil war, economic collapse, and so on) cannot fully explain the failure of the Russian Revolution...

No, the isolation of the revolution 'fully' explains the failure of the revolution, because socialism in one country is impossible, so any isolated territory must inevitably degenerate and return to some kind of capitalist status quo, to believe otherwise would mean that socialism in one country is possible - or maybe, as the Trotskyists do, that there can be some mythical 'workers' limbo' where failed revolutions wait for decades in an unchanging state of suspended animation. Or are there other options, do you think? If you do, I'd like to hear them.


... The Bolsheviks, from the beginning, repressed working class protests and strikes along with opposition groups and parties...

No, they didn't, they worked with (some of) the Anarchists, and the Left-SRs; in the latter case, they broke with the Left SRs when the Left SRs began a campaign to re-start the war with Germany through the assassination of the German ambassador. In the former case... the Bolsheviks were in my opinion definitely at fault and Trotsky especially must be held to account.


... As such, it is difficult to blame something which had not started yet for causing Bolshevik policies.

But that isn't the point. If you believe that the revolution failed because of a failure to pursue the correct 'policies' then you believe, like the Stalinists, that there was a correct 'policy' to pursue. Your disagreement with stalinism then is merely a matter of picking which 'policy' is best.

You don't seem to consider that there was no correct policy. No matter what the Bolsheviks did, the revolution was inevitably going to end in disaster, much as a man who has fallen of a cliff is inevitably going to die on the rocks below - even if he decides to change his shoes half way down. It's not the shoes that kill him, it's the falling onto the rocks that does that. The shoes are pretty much irrelevant.

The policies of the Bolsheviks - or the Left SRs, the Makhnovists, the Anarcho-syndicalists or even the entire united working class of the former Russian Empire - could not have 'saved' the revolution in Russia. No force on earth or outside it could save the revolution in Russia. Because the revolution is not a national event. It is a world revolution, against world capitalism, and in one country it dies. The Bolsheviks just picked the suit the corpse was displayed in. If not them, someone else; or everybody else. Socialism in one country is impossible. Revolutions in one country die.

[Let's Get Free]

No, the isolation of the revolution 'fully' explains the failure of the revolution, because socialism in one country is impossible, so any isolated territory must inevitably degenerate and return to some kind of capitalist status quo, to believe otherwise would mean that socialism in one country is possible - or maybe, as the Trotskyists do, that there can be some mythical 'workers' limbo' where failed revolutions wait for decades in an unchanging state of suspended animation. Or are there other options, do you think? If you do, I'd like to hear them.



No, they didn't, they worked with (some of) the Anarchists, and the Left-SRs; in the latter case, they broke with the Left SRs when the Left SRs began a campaign to re-start the war with Germany through the assassination of the German ambassador. In the former case... the Bolsheviks were in my opinion definitely at fault and Trotsky especially must be held to account.



But that isn't the point. If you believe that the revolution failed because of a failure to pursue the correct 'policies' then you believe, like the Stalinists, that there was a correct 'policy' to pursue. Your disagreement with stalinism then is merely a matter of picking which 'policy' is best.

You don't seem to consider that there was no correct policy. No matter what the Bolsheviks did, the revolution was inevitably going to end in disaster, much as a man who has fallen of a cliff is inevitably going to die on the rocks below - even if he decides to change his shoes half way down. It's not the shoes that kill him, it's the falling onto the rocks that does that. The shoes are pretty much irrelevant.

The policies of the Bolsheviks - or the Left SRs, the Makhnovists, the Anarcho-syndicalists or even the entire united working class of the former Russian Empire - could not have 'saved' the revolution in Russia. No force on earth or outside it could save the revolution in Russia. Because the revolution is not a national event. It is a world revolution, against world capitalism, and in one country it dies. The Bolsheviks just picked the suit the corpse was displayed in. If not them, someone else; or everybody else. Socialism in one country is impossible. Revolutions in one country die.

It's true that Lenin thought the Bolshevik seizure of state power would spark a worldwide revolution. The problem is the minority having taken over the administration of capitalism are necessarily going to be drawn into pursuing the imperatives involved in running a capitalist system. Trotsky proclaimed that workers can "dismiss that government and appoint another." Yet, when they tried the Bolsheviks gerrymandered soviets and disbanded any elected with non-Bolshevik majorities, denying the Left SRs their rightful majority. Needlesss to say, they repressed the strikes and protests that broke out in response to this.
So within a year the Bolsheviks had become a de facto dictatorship of one party and the soviets were fig leaf for party power.

The Bolshevik also began by forcibly closing the offices of libertarian organizations, and forbidding the anarchists from taking part in any propaganda or activity. In Moscow on the night of April 12, 1918, detachments of Red Guards, armed to the teeth, took over by surprise twenty-five houses occupied by the anarchists. All this happened before the civil war began to heat up. So you cannot blame the civil war FOR Bolshevik policy. The policies pursued in the civil war started before it. Soviets where being side-lined by the party from the start, one-man management was raised in April 1918, soviets were being gerrymandered and disbanded by force long before May 1918. I suppose some degree of degeneration was inevitable, as there was simply no possibility of a worldwide workers socialist revolution at the time. However, I believe that this does not explains everything that happened. What you end up with will be related to what you seek and how you fight for it. It was precisely the party structures of Bolshevism that led to the bureaucratization and death of the genuine liberatory revolution.

But anyway i didn't start this thread to discuss the history of the Russian revolution, rather, the practicality of democratic centralism as an organizational method.

[La Guaneña]

I've found it to be very practial in a daily basis, especially when organizing with large amounts of people. Defining a political strategy is something that requires a large amount of study and brainstorming, and is the most important factor in the struggle.

Putting together that strategy is something very difficult that must be discussed and especially followed by the whole organization.

While not being dogmatic, a strategy is more rigid than the tactics, who I see very fit to be discussed in the cells, according to their places of insertion, and even more by the Youth organization.

Giving the "outer" parts of the party the possibility to discuss, define and evaluate their own praxis keeps the party a flexible organization, and also inserts and gives practice to young or simply new cadres, keeping a sense of responsability and importance in the organization.

[Lucretia]

I think the better question is, "Is there an effective way to organize a revolutionary political organization besides democratic centralism?"

[Lucretia]

So you put forth the premise that democratic centralism is only effective when an organization has to act fast and then I point out how that is exactly what is necessary. Rather then concede the point, you go on to attempt to refute your own premise.

What's funny is that the whole purpose of a revolutionary organization is to lead, or at least to help to precipitate, a revolution. And that is precisely the time when rapid decision-making is essential. The premise of the criticism of democratic centralism actually shows that it is the only effective pathway to a successful revolution.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Book Chin makes a specious argument here. And you, comrade, are confusing a tool for revolution with the society that will come after the revolution. Democratic centralism is not a principle. It just happens to be the best organization for a party fighting to overthrow capitalism. It is not the way to organize society after the revolution. In fact, after the revolution, it becomes superfluous.
the question is where and when does a revolution 'end?' The revolution in the fSU did not just end with state power, it continued until its very demise. If the party is not active in class struggle in a world where class exists then the party will 'lose its way' or become decrepit and superfluous. It didnt happen by accident in the fSU though. There was a logical thought process that lead to the conclusions party members and leadership made, though they may have been incorrect, were the result of their experiences in their time.

That being said, DemCen is very much useful so long as the party exists. And so long as the party exists for class struggle.

[MarxArchist]

Democratic centrism ensures freedom of speech and debate, effectiveness and democracy. Members are free to argue all they want, but must follow the course thought best by the majority of the party.
Hello Democratic Centralism meet Felix Dzerzhinsky. Shake hands. Be friends. Good day.

[Lucretia]

Book Chin makes a specious argument here. And you, comrade, are confusing a tool for revolution with the society that will come after the revolution. Democratic centralism is not a principle. It just happens to be the best organization for a party fighting to overthrow capitalism. It is not the way to organize society after the revolution. In fact, after the revolution, it becomes superfluous.

Democratic centralism is adopted as a principle of revolutionary organization because it is a useful tool, so I don't see how you can counterpose these qualities. I also disagree that the principle will vanish the day after the revolution. Certainly it should be distinguished from a transitional society. (Who would want to confuse a society with a principle of political organization?) It can also, and I think should, serve as the basis for politically organizing, i.e., through workers' councils/soviets, the new workers' state apparatus following the acquisition of state power. The primary reason, as Rusty Shackleford notes above, is that the class struggle doesn't end until the abolition of value and classes--the onset of socialism. There are, of course, other reasons.

Lenin mentions the principle of democratic centralism as laying the basis for the organization of the workers' state in his State and Revolution:


Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organize themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism.

Bernstein simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all philistines, Bernstein pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique. There's also a lengthy passage in chapter four, in which Lenin discusses Engels' writings on a proletarian state, but it's so lengthy that I shan't quote it here.

[Blake's Baby]

It's true that Lenin thought the Bolshevik seizure of state power would spark a worldwide revolution. The problem is the minority having taken over the administration of capitalism are necessarily going to be drawn into pursuing the imperatives involved in running a capitalist system. Trotsky proclaimed that workers can "dismiss that government and appoint another." Yet, when they tried the Bolsheviks gerrymandered soviets and disbanded any elected with non-Bolshevik majorities, denying the Left SRs their rightful majority. Needlesss to say, they repressed the strikes and protests that broke out in response to this.
So within a year the Bolsheviks had become a de facto dictatorship of one party and the soviets were fig leaf for party power...

You're rather ignoring the fact that the Left SRs had within nine months begun a campaign of political assassination in an attempt to re-ignite the war. Now, you may not support the Bolsheviks' opposition to the war; you may think the war was a good idea; you may think killing German politicians is fine, and Russian and German proletarians killing each other is a necessary price to pay for world revolution; but if you think that the Bolsheviks turned on the SRs because the Bolsheviks were substitutionist, how does that square with the Left SR terror campaign?



...
The Bolshevik also began by forcibly closing the offices of libertarian organizations, and forbidding the anarchists from taking part in any propaganda or activity. In Moscow on the night of April 12, 1918, detachments of Red Guards, armed to the teeth, took over by surprise twenty-five houses occupied by the anarchists. All this happened before the civil war began to heat up. So you cannot blame the civil war FOR Bolshevik policy...

I'm not aware that I did. I blamed the isolation of the revolution for the degeneration of the revolution. That degeneration would happen whatever the Left SRs or the Bolsheviks or the Anarcho-syndicalists or the Anarchist-Communists or the Menshevik Internationalists or the united Russian working class did.

The shape of the degeneration can be laid at the door of the Bolsheviks; but the fact can't be.

And, I already said that I think the suppression of the Anarchist organisations was a huge mistake. Counter-revolutionary, I'd say. Even if (and I don't think it's been reasonably demonstrated) the charges against the Anarchist circles were true (you know, that some of them were just bandits and that French nd British intelligence were working with them) there would have been better ways of sorting things out than that.



... The policies pursued in the civil war started before it. Soviets where being side-lined by the party from the start, one-man management was raised in April 1918, soviets were being gerrymandered and disbanded by force long before May 1918...

I agree, too, that this is really important. The revolution is the task of the working class, not the party, and the soviets were the vehicle of the revolution. But the revolution started to degenerate from day 1. There were two dynamics going on - one was 'retrograde' and one was 'revolutionary', and these two dynamics were in competition. The question is not 'could the revolutionary one have beaten the retrograde one?' (because the answer is obviously 'no'); it's not even 'at what point did the retrograde one overtake the revolutionary one?' (because we'll all have different answers based on the importance we give to other questions) but 'why did the revolution fail?' and failed not becuse the Bolsheviks were nasty or stupid or substiutionist or infected with the original sin of Marxism, but because the revolution failed in Germany. If you want to know the roots of authoritarianism in Russia, look at the bloodbath that took place when the proto-fascist Freikorps, acting for the 'socialist' government of Germany, murdered the German workers in the streets in Berlin and Munich.



... I suppose some degree of degeneration was inevitable, as there was simply no possibility of a worldwide workers socialist revolution at the time. However, I believe that this does not explains everything that happened. What you end up with will be related to what you seek and how you fight for it. It was precisely the party structures of Bolshevism that led to the bureaucratization and death of the genuine liberatory revolution...

No, it was precisely the failure of the revolution in Germany that led to the death of the revolution. What the Bolsheviks did wasn't unimportant but it wasn't deciding factor. If Lenin hd been made of cream and kittens, Martov from tiramisu and Maximov from the distilled essence of the wisest of all the owls, the revolution would still have degenerated in Russia.


...But anyway i didn't start this thread to discuss the history of the Russian revolution, rather, the practicality of democratic centralism as an organizational method.

What, you started it, therefore we're not allowed to critique your mistaken notions? All threads are about the revolution in Russia, it's the single biggest example the working clss has of how, and how not, to organise for the overthrow of capitalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Let me open with saying this. Your post was quite enjoyable to read. A sound critique of the revolution that had no essence of rabid anti-bolshevism.

Plus, on the situation in germany and the inevitable failure of the russian revolution due to the failure of other revolutions was quite on point.

though we may have disagreements on when it failed and have different standards on what makes socialism socialism, i liked it none the less.

yes, this is pretty kiss-assy but i gotta hand it to ya.


What, you started it, therefore we're not allowed to critique your mistaken notions? All threads are about the revolution in Russia, it's the single biggest example the working class has of how, and how not, to organise for the overthrow of capitalism.


This though, is where i'd draw the line. (no, im not about to tear into you with the fury of a thousand furious and scary whatevers)

theres a point when focusing on the russian revolution becomes dwelling.

1917-1922 was not the only period in which the working class has attempted(or succeeded) to overthrow capitalism.

Some other key points would be China, and May 68 France. Some other methods would be looking at Allende or Chavez today.

Looking at how and why the Red Army won in china is an important factor in shaping modern outlook.

Scrutinizing the forces of the rebellion in France is important. (like the complete and utter failure of the PCF from much earlier, in 68, and today, and the trade unions)

A first shot at electoral socialism in Chile and a current ongoing process in Venezuela (which still has not established socialism, this is indisputable. but, is the movement and forces it is creating capable of doing so?)


As for Democratic Centralism. It has proven, with flying colors, its worth with vietnam and cuba as well (though both party-military affairs like china).

Is it possible to compare, though, the russian revolution with a potential american revolution? there is no way to distil it into some perfect formula (to paraphrase an author on the subject of fetishizing the russian revolution). Yes there are major lessons to be learned from it. But it cannot be the only subject with which all discussion can be measured against!

[Blake's Baby]

...


This though, is where i'd draw the line. (no, im not about to tear into you with the fury of a thousand furious and scary whatevers)

theres a point when focusing on the russian revolution becomes dwelling.

1917-1922 was not the only period in which the working class has attempted(or succeeded) to overthrow capitalism...

Well, obviously I can't agree, because capitalism is still with us so the working class has never overthrown capitalism.

However, I didn't say that Russia or the period 1917-27 was the only revolutionary offensive the working class had ever made, just that it was the best example (both positively and negatively).


...Some other key points would be China, and May 68 France. Some other methods would be looking at Allende or Chavez today.

Looking at how and why the Red Army won in china is an important factor in shaping modern outlook.

Scrutinizing the forces of the rebellion in France is important. (like the complete and utter failure of the PCF from much earlier, in 68, and today, and the trade unions)

A first shot at electoral socialism in Chile and a current ongoing process in Venezuela (which still has not established socialism, this is indisputable. but, is the movement and forces it is creating capable of doing so?)


As for Democratic Centralism. It has proven, with flying colors, its worth with vietnam and cuba as well (though both party-military affairs like china).

Is it possible to compare, though, the russian revolution with a potential american revolution? there is no way to distil it into some perfect formula (to paraphrase an author on the subject of fetishizing the russian revolution). Yes there are major lessons to be learned from it. But it cannot be the only subject with which all discussion can be measured against!

Are we only talking about revolution in America, an 'American revolution'? There is no 'American revolution' (or rather, that already happened in slow-mo between 1776 and 1865 or thereabouts). I no longer refer to 'the Russian revolution' because I don't think it's real - I talk about 'the revolution in Russia', because the world revolutionary wave of 1917-27 is much bigger than Russia. But Russia is the place that the world revolution went furthest: that's what makes it the best example for drawing possitive and negative lessons, that's why it's the most important case-study we have for the organisation of the proletariat, what we must keep cming back to to understand how the world proletariat can organise to challenge and ultimately overthrow global capitalism.

[lemushyman]

Is there anything more democratic than this system? The only other option is pluralism and sectarianism, which restricts people to a limited number of groups or parties. Just settle everything by mass vote, i mean isnt marxism about MAJORITY rule?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I was a member of a democratic centralist organization once.
My section was expelled/split.

Ha.

No, really though, I think "democratic centralism" deals with all the wrong questions (democracy as opposed to autonomy, centralism as opposed to coordination, etc.), and consequently, it's IRL manifestations tend to be something less than an answer to the needs of contemporary revolutionary organizing. Witness the recent SWP (UK) crisis for an example of what I mean.
At the same time, I do think free discussion and unity in action are valuable. I do think that what a lot of Marxist(-Leninists) want out of democratic centralism is worth having in an organization. I also think that usually they don't get it, and that warrants some consideration.

[Ostrinski]

A more important question than how parties are organized I think is whether or not the party should take part in the seizure of power, and even more importantly, whether it should become an administrative organ of the state.

[l'Enfermé]

A more important question than how parties are organized I think is whether or not the party should take part in the seizure of power, and even more importantly, whether it should become an administrative organ of the state.
An even more important question should be, why isn't anyone proposing that the state become an organ of the party, instead of the opposite?

[Skyhilist]

Well, this is going to be unpopular in this thread, but I think the Anarchist FAQ does a good job of refuting a lot of the point made about democratic centralism in this thread (it certainly does a far better job than I could a least).

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionH

[Ostrinski]

An even more important question should be, why isn't anyone proposing that the state become an organ of the party, instead of the opposite?That's not a very important question.

[Let's Get Free]

I think the main objective should be to build a grassroots leadership, and build a movement based on the material conditions of today, not the past. What is needed is autonomous campaigns for grassroots community power. The old ways of organizing based on the the early 20th century conditions of Tsarist Russia are outdated and clearly not viable in this period due to outdated dogma and the advanced corporate power of the capitalist class in this period.

[Brutus]

Is he party subbortinate to the state or vice versa?

[Blake's Baby]

Is your right hand subordinate to your left, or vice versa?

[Lokomotive293]

I think the main objective should be to build a grassroots leadership, and build a movement based on the material conditions of today, not the past. What is needed is autonomous campaigns for grassroots community power. The old ways of organizing based on the the early 20th century conditions of Tsarist Russia are outdated and clearly not viable in this period due to outdated dogma and the advanced corporate power of the capitalist class in this period.

I think what has been the mistake of the discussion in this thread so far is that we were talking about wether we believe democratic centralism is an effective method for organization, without ever talking about what kind of organization we actually have in mind, and what purpose that organization should serve. I believe there are very different conceptions of what a revolutionary organization should do, what the role of a revolutionary organization is, and depending on what conception we follow, our methods of organization and with that our opinions on democratic centralism will be different.

Let me give it a try: You talk about the "advanced corporate power of the capitalist class in this period", but isn't the strength of capital exactly the reason why we need a strong organization?
I think grassroots movements are amazing, but there is a difference between what they do and what the Communist Party has to do. The job of grassroots movements is to get people active in fighting for their rights, which is very important. The job of the Communist Party specifically, though, is qualitatively different from that, it is to spread class consciousness, to connect the different struggles of the working class with each other, to escalate and politicize them as much as possible, to be the most conscious and most active part of the working class and as such take its lead, so that, in a revolutionary situation, the revolution will succeed. No grassroots movements can do that, to fulfill this task we need an organization that is highly centralized and disciplined, without being undynamic. So, democratic centralism was developed as an answer to how all of this can be fulfilled.

And, a short note at the end: Just because an idea is old, that doesn't mean it is wrong.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A more important question than how parties are organized I think is whether or not the party should take part in the seizure of power, and even more importantly, whether it should become an administrative organ of the state.


An even more important question should be, why isn't anyone proposing that the state become an organ of the party, instead of the opposite?

Just a comradely correction to both of you: Why isn't anyone proposing that the polity's organs of authority become an internal organ of the party-movement?

1) Historically, states are constructs to protect the rule of minority classes. Every state is a polity, but not every polity is a state.
2) Authority and administration are two distinct functional areas. Becoming embroiled in administration risks the party-movement losing its political, public policy-making character.
3) Party-movement veterans could and should take charge of administration, but the word "veteran" usually implies past service in some organization. Guess which organization these veterans would be former voting members of?
4) To suggest that the party not take power puts into question the characteristics of a political party (purpose, size of support, etc.) in the first place.

[CyM]

Just a comradely correction to both of you: Why isn't anyone proposing that the polity's organs of authority become an internal organ of the party-movement?

1) Historically, states are constructs to protect the rule of minority classes. Every state is a polity, but not every polity is a state.
2) Authority and administration are two distinct functional areas. Becoming embroiled in administration risks the party-movement losing its political, public policy-making character.
3) Party-movement veterans could and should take charge of administration, but the word "veteran" usually implies past service in some organization. Guess which organization these veterans would be former voting members of?
4) To suggest that the party not take power puts into question the characteristics of a political party (purpose, size of support, etc.) in the first place.

Do you have an encyclopedia for the terms you have invented in this paragraph? I'm having difficult deciphering what you mean. Maybe you could rewrite it in the terms that would actually make a conversation possible? I feel like there is this disease which exists, that if I write as obscurely as possible, people assume I must be smart because they didn't understand a word of what I said.

The task of a Marxist is the opposite, it is to make accessible the ideas which are complex, not complexify simple ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I invented only one term there, and even then only a few years ago.

"Authority" and "administration" are distinct in old Soviet constitutional law. Polity is not a new word; look it up.

Party-movement is something you won't understand unless you ditch your Trotskyist lenses and delve into worker history in Europe before WWI: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1217

[CyM]

That doesn't answer my question. What exactly are you saying?

Are you saying the revolutionary party (see ho simple that is?) should not be involved in the state? (See how I don't need to use latin or greek to obscure what I am saying?)