What do Marxists think federalism means?

[Tim Cornelis]

I've seen numerous Marxists denounce federalism, sometimes as petty-bourgeois. But their alternative system, which they see as centralised, doesn't appear too different at all. So what do Marxists think federalism means and what do they mean by "centralism"? I've never seen them clarify.

[The Idler]

Autonomist Marxists are quite in favour of federalism. I've always taken it to mean the way SolFed organise. So Liverpool SolFed can make a declaration that doesn't mean Brighton SolFed support it. Centralism just means being able to make statements/decisions for the whole organisation rather than just constituent parts of it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Proudhonian federalism advocates contractual ties between various economic and social entities, conceived of as essentially independent subjects; in the soviet form of proletarian dictatorship (if that is what you are alluding to) various bodies of limited scope are ultimately subordinated to the authority of the centre, of the entire organised proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

I've seen numerous Marxists denounce federalism, sometimes as petty-bourgeois. But their alternative system, which they see as centralised, doesn't appear too different at all. So what do Marxists think federalism means and what do they mean by "centralism"? I've never seen them clarify.

There are different sorts of federation and different sorts of centralism.

What Marxists in general would oppose is the notion that agreement has to be reached by every body. If an organisation, for instance, consisted of 20 sections sending their delegates to a conference, then one example of a federal structure would propose that each section must agree for the organisation as a whole to agree and the conference to accept the view in question. An example of a centralist system would be that the sections agree that conference makes the decision, and therefore 11 sections (50%+1, or 66%+1 or whatever the necessary qualification is) need to agree for the decision to be made.

In essence, are decisions made by the centre considered to be binding on the sections? What is the degree of autonomy that the sections have?

[Tim Cornelis]

There are different sorts of federation and different sorts of centralism.

What Marxists in general would oppose is the notion that agreement has to be reached by every body. If an organisation, for instance, consisted of 20 sections sending their delegates to a conference, then one example of a federal structure would propose that each section must agree for the organisation as a whole to agree and the conference to accept the view in question. An example of a centralist system would be that the sections agree that conference makes the decision, and therefore 11 sections (50%+1, or 66%+1 or whatever the necessary qualification is) need to agree for the decision to be made.

In essence, are decisions made by the centre considered to be binding on the sections? What is the degree of autonomy that the sections have?

That seems more of a question of consensus decision-making versus democratic decision-making.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are different sorts of federation and different sorts of centralism.

What Marxists in general would oppose is the notion that agreement has to be reached by every body. If an organisation, for instance, consisted of 20 sections sending their delegates to a conference, then one example of a federal structure would propose that each section must agree for the organisation as a whole to agree and the conference to accept the view in question. An example of a centralist system would be that the sections agree that conference makes the decision, and therefore 11 sections (50%+1, or 66%+1 or whatever the necessary qualification is) need to agree for the decision to be made.

In essence, are decisions made by the centre considered to be binding on the sections? What is the degree of autonomy that the sections have?

What you said we should oppose is actually a form of confederalism. It's a real shame lots of mainstream American constitutional lawyers, media pundits, et all have distorted the meaning of federalism to inject the notion of "states rights."

It's also ironic, because their northern neighbour, while officially a Confederation, has more centralized power.

I think we should avoid both terms altogether.

[Blake's Baby]

That seems more of a question of consensus decision-making versus democratic decision-making.

I was just providing one example.

There are other ways of looking at federalism v centralism, but the point remains - does the centre (whatever that centralised body is) have the ability to hold the sections to decisions that have been taken?

The definition given by the Anarchist FAQ for instance, which implies that decisions that are arrived at by debate should be binding even on those who disagree, is in my estimation indistinguishable from centralism, and isn't 'federalism' in the way most Anarchists I think understand it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That seems more of a question of consensus decision-making versus democratic decision-making.

Consensus decision making can be democratic as well, and it can be centralist. The difference is clear; suppose that a consensus had been reached at the centre, but a sectional organisation refuses to carry it out. Can the centre force the section to carry out the consensual decision? Then the system is centralist. Or are the prerogatives of the sections inviolable? Then the system is federalist.

[The Idler]

Consensus decision making can be democratic as well, and it can be centralist. The difference is clear; suppose that a consensus had been reached at the centre, but a sectional organisation refuses to carry it out. Can the centre force the section to carry out the consensual decision? Then the system is centralist. Or are the prerogatives of the sections inviolable? Then the system is federalist.
Not quite because this is where centralism transforms from cohesive to getting distorted for the interests leadership. If those outside the centre are being forced into carrying out decisions then this is coercive and an imbalance of power. If the centre are taking political decisions on behalf of the rest then this is undemocratic. Nothing in centralism implies more than administrative functions are centralised.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not quite because this is where centralism transforms from cohesive to getting distorted for the interests leadership. If those outside the centre are being forced into carrying out decisions then this is coercive and an imbalance of power. If the centre are taking political decisions on behalf of the rest then this is undemocratic. Nothing in centralism implies more than administrative functions are centralised.

How is it a distortion of centralism "for the interests of the leadership" if the centre forces a section to carry out a policy that has been agreed upon democratically? That would be in line with democratic centralism.

[The Idler]

Because democracy includes the right not to take part in activity. If the centre are given the power to be enforcers of activity on sections unwilling to act, the centre are a privileged section.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because democracy includes the right not to take part in activity. If the centre are given the power to be enforcers of activity on sections unwilling to act, the centre are a privileged section.

The centre is not a section; however, in any centralist organisation, it will have more authority than the sections. Democracy emphatically does not include the "right" to ignore party or state discipline and to refuse to carry out policies that have been enacted in a democratic manner - what you term "democracy" is something I would call liberalism, individualism and anomy.

[Blake's Baby]

Because democracy includes the right not to take part in activity. If the centre are given the power to be enforcers of activity on sections unwilling to act, the centre are a privileged section.

If sections only take part in decisions they agree with, what is the point of the organisation?

I'm sure the policy of the SPGB is set by some kind of conference. If the Branch in say Birmingham disagrees with the decision of conference, can it refuse to carry it out?

[The Idler]

If sections only take part in decisions they agree with, what is the point of the organisation?

I'm sure the policy of the SPGB is set by some kind of conference. If the Branch in say Birmingham disagrees with the decision of conference, can it refuse to carry it out?
Provided a section does not go out of its way to positively act contrary to a resolution then this is still centralism just in a non-authoritarian and democratic way. Any activity that is voluntarily taken must conform to democratically agreed policy. This distinction (which is not autonomism) is probably one of the, if not the main reason, why socialism/communism has not achieved the popularity of liberalism since the early 20th Century.

[Blake's Baby]

Because democracy includes the right not to take part in activity. If the centre are given the power to be enforcers of activity on sections unwilling to act, the centre are a privileged section.

Provided a section does not go out of its way to positively act contrary to a resolution then this is still centralism just in a non-authoritarian and democratic way. Any activity that is voluntarily taken must conform to democratically agreed policy. This distinction (which is not autonomism) is probably one of the, if not the main reason, why socialism/communism has not achieved the popularity of liberalism since the early 20th Century.

Say the SPGB conference decides that dogs are to be admitted to the Party. Birmingham opposed the motion at conference - fair enough, they thought it was stupid. But the decision was made, because the majority of branches decided to vote for it. Does the Birmingham Branch have the 'democratic' right to refuse to admit dogs to the Branch?

[The Idler]

Same way trade unions work, if a branch started refusing black, female, gay, disabled members, the centre would be able to enforce democratic decisions on a recalcitrant branch.

If the centre started threatening to discipline/penalise members for speaking their mind, not turning up on a picket line or demonstration, the centre wouldn't get very far because the members wouldn't stand for it.

It doesn't mean trade union branches are autonomous, it just means this is democratic tempered by the only sort of centralism acceptable.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm obviously not making myself clear because you're not really answering the question I'm trying to ask.


Because democracy includes the right not to take part in activity. If the centre are given the power to be enforcers of activity on sections unwilling to act, the centre are a privileged section.

So if the Birmingham (or the Trumpton, Ambridge, Walmington, Fulchester... ) Branch has a vote and decides to throw all the women out of the branch, in contravention of conference's (democratically-decided) policy, is that 'democratic'? Seems to me it perfectly falls under 'democracy includes the right not to take part in activity'. However, I can't believe that you actually agree with that.

[The Idler]

Yep, I don't agree with branches refusing/expelling members when to do so means the branch going against democratic decisions made by the organisation as a whole.

Refusing/expelling members counts as activity (not inactivity) so should be in line with the democratic "tyranny of the majority".

To try and extend the definition of "activity" to include NOT turning up on a picket line / demo would mean trade unions are full of activists. In fact you could say they are exclusively composed of activists. I don't believe this to be accurate.