Democratic Centralism

[Estragon]

Why or why not? It doesn't sound so far different from typical kinds of Democracy, since it's possible to be a dissenter and yet not break with the political structure withing which one is working. However, does Leninism imply that after a decision has been made one must stifle your dissent and never revisit the issue again? I can't say that sounds like a good idea to me.

[evermilion]

Why or why not? It doesn't sound so far different from typical kinds of Democracy, since it's possible to be a dissenter and yet not break with the political structure withing which one is working. However, does Leninism imply that after a decision has been made one must stifle your dissent and never revisit the issue again? I can't say that sounds like a good idea to me.

It's not that you don't get to bring it up ever again. It's just that, once a decision has been reached, dissenting or not, you must respect that decision and accomplish the tasks for which you're responsible. Diversity of opinion; unity in action.

[Q]

As it is presented here there is no value in "democratic centralism" as a concept distinct from democracy in general. The term "democratic centralism" has had a peculiar evolution which you can read about here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula), which makes it perhaps more understandable.

[tuwix]

Why or why not? It doesn't sound so far different from typical kinds of Democracy, since it's possible to be a dissenter and yet not break with the political structure withing which one is working. However, does Leninism imply that after a decision has been made one must stifle your dissent and never revisit the issue again? I can't say that sounds like a good idea to me.

I'll tell you why not. Because it will make a new class of bureaucracy who will own the state and means of production. Workers will be under-class still. And exactly it happened in the Soviet Union and all countries implementing democratic centralism.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

I'll tell you why not. Because it will make a new class of bureaucracy who will own the state and means of production.

Why is that?

[tuwix]

It's just a modus operandi of bureaucracy. They always want to extend themselves. It's just bureaucracy's property to extend itself.
They create a law but it is broken then they create a body to control that law is obeyed. If law or body doesn't work, then they create another law or another body. And the limit is only resource they can get.
And so-called democratic centralism demands a bureaucracy. Someone must count votes, be a chairman, answer mails, etc.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Is that an inevitability though? I believe it's possible, but I'm not convinced it has to happen. Why would a group appointing a chairperson (subject to recall and lacking coercive power) necessarily create a new distinct class?

And what is the alternative to democratic centralism that wouldn't create that new class?

[tuwix]

I don't think so. I don't have any idea how to stop bureaucracy to grow. And the bureaucracy becomes new class owning the state and means of production.

[Theophys]

Democratic Centralism is not only desirable, but necessary, especially during similar conditions as observed in Russia during the early stages of the October Revolution up a few years after the Civil War. Unity is of the utmost necessity, only suicidal philistines would support division during such situations.

Under other circumstances Democratic Centralism would be preferable in order to prevent the degeneration of the party into the destructive anarchy of "free "speech as we find in the American political scene with politicians bashing each other over nothing but mere nonsense rather than attempting to progress and advance their people, nation, government, and humanity as a whole. There is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism which is crucial to the functioning and advancement of a society. Democratic Centralism, if based on such guidelines with free constructive criticism from within the party, would be much more effective, efficient, and uniting compared to the anarchy of "free" speech and "free" democracy.


I'll tell you why not. Because it will make a new class of bureaucracy who will own the state and means of production. Workers will be under-class still. And exactly it happened in the Soviet Union and all countries implementing democratic centralism.

Nonsense. Classes in Marxist theory are determined by their social relations of production, nor by their social status or income levels. There is a reason why the politicians are not considered a class even when nationalized industry exists (no, ruling class is something entirely different). There is no such thing as "under-class". Oh and do tell what "exactly happened in the Soviet Union," the bureaucracy became a new class? Nice one. Read on. The "bureaucracy" and conversely the "state" are not classes, they is an organ of legislation and executive function that act on behalf of the class they represent in order to suppress the opposing class, run, manage, maintain, study, and address the issues of the country.

The bureaucracy taking hold of the state FOR the proletariat is nothing to be scared of nor is it something by any means comparable to the bourgeoisie taking over the means of production. How is this so, you ask? Simple. The bureaucracy, when they appropriate the means of production as determined by the proletariat or its representatives (the Communists), do not act and can by no means act in their own personal and private interests on an open and free market as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy is forced to act for the interests of the proletariat as a class to ensure its continued existence and eventually advancement. When classes are done way with, the bureaucracy acts in the interest of the Socialist nation attempting to ensure its existence against Capitalist nations. The bureaucracy would be acting in the public interest. The bureaucracy can only manage and hold on to the means of production for the proletariat, they can never own them privately nor personally as the bourgeoisie do. Even the "little Stalins", the factory managers of the Soviet apparatus, had to bow down to the demands of the workers at the expense of productivity and efficiency. Workers in the USSR took part in sending letters to the bureaucracy, the party, the state, which in turn took action on behalf of the workers against the managers and others.

Now, the bourgeoisie, when they own the means of production, act in their own personal and private interests. The surplus value that they extract they use not for the good of the people, the running of their government, their nations, etc. but purely for those personal and private interests that they so covet. The bourgeoisie are not accountable for their actions to to the public as they are private entities.

When the bureaucracy extracts surplus value from the workers, it does so not in the interests of greedy self-enrichment at the expense of the workers, it does so in order to the run the country of the workers, feed them, dress them, educate them, shower them, medicate them, and further their own country. The bureaucracy does not own the state nor does it own the means of production. The Communist Party, the proletariat and eventually the rest of the citizens own the state and the means of production but merely placing the bureaucracy to "manage" and "run" that society for them. They have no real power that allows them to be entrenched as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucrats are held accountable and susceptible to recall by the public, the state, and the Party.

This is something crucial that many individuals fail to understand.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a bureaucracy "as is", especially if it acts in the interests of the proletariat. Seriously, stop playing at Freedom Fighters here and instead examine this shit properly.

If you covet direct democracy then remember that the most popular decision isn't always the best decision.

[Le Socialiste]

As it is presented here there is no value in "democratic centralism" as a concept distinct from democracy in general. The term "democratic centralism" has had a peculiar evolution which you can read about here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula), which makes it perhaps more understandable.

Lih makes several important points in that article, but I feel like he overemphasizes the differences between the 'original' definition of the term and its later usage in 1921. Nevertheless, fantastic article (I'd highly recommend Lih's book, Lenin Rediscovered, for the OP, too, where he goes into this in more detail).

[tuwix]

When the bureaucracy extracts surplus value from the workers, it does so not in the interests of greedy self-enrichment at the expense of the workers, it does so in order to the run the country of the workers, feed them, dress them, educate them, shower them, medicate them, and further their own country.

:D
When I look through my window and see large houses of bureaucrats built in time of so-called the People's Republic of Poland and I read such phrases, it just make me laugh.
:D

[Theophys]

:D
When I look through my window and see large houses of bureaucrats built in time of so-called the People's Republic of Poland and I read such phrases, it just make me laugh.
:D
First of all, that in no way is an argument.

Secondly, addressing the desires of a few is much easier than addressing the desires of the many. The bureaucrats can have large houses, they are, after all, running the entire society, they last thing we'd like to see is them accepting bribes. They need to be adequately remunerated.

I really do not care about monetary equality as that is not the point nor goal of Socialism nor Communism. People will receive different incomes depending on their work. People will have larger houses than others. That is not the issue.

Oh and please, the last thing I need is an example of Poland, the nation that was historically anti-Communist and reactionary. It should have never been turned into a People's Republic. No, not because of race, ethnicity, or any of that reactionary nonsense that the right-wing buys into, but due to what they have historically done against the USSR, what they did under Communist rule, and what they now do against Communists. Might as well get an opinion of a Ukrainian nationalist/Nazi.

[tuwix]

The bureaucrats can have large houses, they are, after all, running the entire society, they last thing we'd like to see is them accepting bribes.


And bourgeoisie can have large house too? :D And where is equality advocated in all left-wing movements, when some can have large houses because of power they got and other not?



Oh and please, the last thing I need is an example of Poland, the nation that was historically anti-Communist and reactionary.

:D
And perhaps I am reactionary too only because I'm Pole? :D

But your ignorance doesn't allow you to know that many Poles died in revolutionary actions. And supposedly you don't know what nationality was of Felix Dzerzhinsky....

Besides the large houses for a class bureaucrats aren't Polish phenomenon. You can find it wherever so-called democratic centralism was implemented...

[L1NKS]

It's not that you don't get to bring it up ever again. It's just that, once a decision has been reached, dissenting or not, you must respect that decision and accomplish the tasks for which you're responsible. Diversity of opinion; unity in action.
What if that decision is fundamentally wrong and immoral?

[Tim Cornelis]

Nonsense. Classes in Marxist theory are determined by their social relations of production, nor by their social status or income levels. There is a reason why the politicians are not considered a class even when nationalized industry exists (no, ruling class is something entirely different). There is no such thing as "under-class". Oh and do tell what "exactly happened in the Soviet Union," the bureaucracy became a new class? Nice one. Read on. The "bureaucracy" and conversely the "state" are not classes, they is an organ of legislation and executive function that act on behalf of the class they represent in order to suppress the opposing class, run, manage, maintain, study, and address the issues of the country.

The bureaucracy taking hold of the state FOR the proletariat is nothing to be scared of nor is it something by any means comparable to the bourgeoisie taking over the means of production. How is this so, you ask? Simple. The bureaucracy, when they appropriate the means of production as determined by the proletariat or its representatives (the Communists), do not act and can by no means act in their own personal and private interests on an open and free market as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy is forced to act for the interests of the proletariat as a class to ensure its continued existence and eventually advancement. When classes are done way with, the bureaucracy acts in the interest of the Socialist nation attempting to ensure its existence against Capitalist nations. The bureaucracy would be acting in the public interest. The bureaucracy can only manage and hold on to the means of production for the proletariat, they can never own them privately nor personally as the bourgeoisie do. Even the "little Stalins", the factory managers of the Soviet apparatus, had to bow down to the demands of the workers at the expense of productivity and efficiency. Workers in the USSR took part in sending letters to the bureaucracy, the party, the state, which in turn took action on behalf of the workers against the managers and others.

Now, the bourgeoisie, when they own the means of production, act in their own personal and private interests. The surplus value that they extract they use not for the good of the people, the running of their government, their nations, etc. but purely for those personal and private interests that they so covet. The bourgeoisie are not accountable for their actions to to the public as they are private entities.

When the bureaucracy extracts surplus value from the workers, it does so not in the interests of greedy self-enrichment at the expense of the workers, it does so in order to the run the country of the workers, feed them, dress them, educate them, shower them, medicate them, and further their own country. The bureaucracy does not own the state nor does it own the means of production. The Communist Party, the proletariat and eventually the rest of the citizens own the state and the means of production but merely placing the bureaucracy to "manage" and "run" that society for them. They have no real power that allows them to be entrenched as in the case of the bourgeoisie. The bureaucrats are held accountable and susceptible to recall by the public, the state, and the Party.

This is something crucial that many individuals fail to understand.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a bureaucracy "as is", especially if it acts in the interests of the proletariat. Seriously, stop playing at Freedom Fighters here and instead examine this shit properly.

If you covet direct democracy then remember that the most popular decision isn't always the best decision.

Never have I read such an acknowledgement of "benevolent elitism" by a Marxist-Leninist. Of course, the bureaucracy and Party know what the interests of the proletariat are, so no need for all this workers' democracy and such nonsense. That a proletariat existed in the Soviet Union, as you acknowledge, is already sufficient evidence that a ruling class ruled that proletariat. If not, there can't be a proletariat. Who is this ruling class? Well, again as you acknowledge, it's the Party and their bureaucratic lackeys, that extract surplus value. The notion that the citizens own the means of production when they don't control it, and in fact, legally, don't even own it at all, is beyond absurd.
The Soviet Union was a class society based upon the extraction of surplus value by a bureaucratic elite wherein generalised commodity production and wage-labour were the norm, i.e. state managed capital, i.e. state-capitalism.


What if that decision is fundamentally wrong and immoral?

Then why be in that organisation in the first place?

[evermilion]

What if that decision is fundamentally wrong and immoral?

Then rise up, comrade. What else?

[Deity]

And bourgeoisie can have large house too? :D And where is equality advocated in all left-wing movements, when some can have large houses because of power they got and other not?



:D
And perhaps I am reactionary too only because I'm Pole? :D

But your ignorance doesn't allow you to know that many Poles died in revolutionary actions. And supposedly you don't know what nationality was of Felix Dzerzhinsky....

Besides the large houses for a class bureaucrats aren't Polish phenomenon. You can find it wherever so-called democratic centralism was implemented...

He was pretty clearly referring to the government. You can play the race card here all you want but it doesn't change anything; there having been polish revolutionaries does not make Poland a pro-revolution state.

[Old Bolshie]

I'll tell you why not. Because it will make a new class of bureaucracy who will own the state and means of production. Workers will be under-class still.

Since when democratic centralism itself creates a class of bureaucracy? The class of bureaucracy that you are speaking emerges from the state itself and not from any party organization concept.


And exactly it happened in the Soviet Union and all countries implementing democratic centralism.

Bureaucracy in USSR came from the old tzarist bureaucracy as Lenin correctly put it and the practice of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik Party was abandoned shortly after Lenin died.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

:D
When I look through my window and see large houses of bureaucrats built in time of so-called the People's Republic of Poland and I read such phrases, it just make me laugh.
:D

How could that happen with democratic centralism except by the will of the people? Either Poland was not democratic centralist or the size of the homes was agreed upon by the majority.

[Theophys]

And bourgeoisie can have large house too? :D

What are you trying to imply, that only the bourgeoisie can have houses and thus anyone who has a big house is bourgeois? The most ridiculous false correlation I have ever seen. Do you honestly think the bourgeoisie are defined according to how large their house is? Pathetic, go do me a favor and read up on Marxist class theory then come back.


And where is equality advocated in all left-wing movements, when some can have large houses because of power they got and other not?

That is not the equality that is advocated. The equality that is advocated is equal opportunity, equality in ownership of the means of production, and so on, but not the complete equality of every single individual, not the equality of wages, not the equality in what they receive, and not the equality in what they have (like your houses). If you honestly imagine that people will have those latter examples of equality then your Utopian daydream will never see the light of day.


:D
And perhaps I am reactionary too only because I'm Pole? :D

Individuals are individuals. I was not referring to you, but to the general anti-Communist sentiment in Poland that led to the perversion of Soviet Socialism there.


But your ignorance doesn't allow you to know that many Poles died in revolutionary actions. And supposedly you don't know what nationality was of Felix Dzerzhinsky....

Poland had Communist movements there, until the lovely anti-Communists killed them off, exiled them, and imprisoned them. Let's not forget the hand of Poland in invading the USSR. Anyone who invades the USSR, the first proper proletarian revolution to last thing long, is by every means counter-revolutionary and reactionary.


Besides the large houses for a class bureaucrats aren't Polish phenomenon. You can find it wherever so-called democratic centralism was implemented...

Which I again explain that there is no problem here unless you think Socialism is complete equality in which case I'd tell you to continue daydreaming.


Never have I read such an acknowledgement of "benevolent elitism" by a Marxist-Leninist. Of course, the bureaucracy and Party know what the interests of the proletariat are, so no need for all this workers' democracy and such nonsense.

That is indeed the case.


That a proletariat existed in the Soviet Union, as you acknowledge, is already sufficient evidence that a ruling class ruled that proletariat. If not, there can't be a proletariat. Who is this ruling class? Well, again as you acknowledge, it's the Party and their bureaucratic lackeys, that extract surplus value.

No. That "ruling class", as I have already explained to your friends previously, has nothing to do with the Marxist class theory. Your use of the term "ruling class" is either due to a lack of understanding of Marxist class theory or an Anarchist perversion of the world "class". Either way, the existence of a proletariat does not by any means lead to the conclusion that a "ruling class" existed externally, separate, and opposite to the proletariat. In fact, this is completely a false assertion if we only remember the fact of "who" exactly was in power and which "class" was in power - it was the proletariat and their representatives. A proletariat existed in the Soviet Union in its early stages when classes remained, Marx and Lenin already explained this themselves when they spoke of the continued existence of classes under Socialism which are done away gradually but surely when they spoke of the "birthmarks of the old society".

The Party and the bureaucratic lackeys are acting in the interests of the proletariat, on behalf of the proletariat, for the proletariat, much like the Capitalist politicians do the same for the bourgeoisie and for the extension of their system. They extract surplus value, exactly, but that is not the issue, the issue is "what" happens to the surplus value extracted, "why" is the surplus value extracted, "how" is it extracted, etc. etc. These are crucial questions that need to be answered before we speak of surplus value. Under a Capitalist system, the surplus value is extracted by private bourgeoisie for their own private interests without the worker receiving anything but a petty wage that he has to live off. Under a Socialist system, the surplus value is extracted by a Socialist state, a state acting in the long-term class interests of the proletariat, where it is used purely for the interests of the Socialist nation, the proletariat, through the funding of healthcare, creation of homes, creation of hospitals, creation of factories, creation of public jobs, etc. etc. None of it goes to a factory owner because there is no one that owns the factory and receives the surplus value as his own, as in the case of the bourgeoisie. You, as with many, fail to notice the difference between these two modes of extraction for either reasons of shortsightedness or ignorance I do not know.

Do you honestly then think that the proletariat or the people should own the means of production and then receive the complete value of their labor? Tell me then, how do you so wisely plan on sustaining not only an entire nation but an entire world when everyone keeps what he has? Any form of taxation is the extraction of surplus value. Ask yourself that. A nation cannot function, least of all the world, without the extraction of surplus value OR the creation of Market Socialism where you risk barriers on entry, unemployment, the rise of corporations, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the creation of classes, etc.


The notion that the citizens own the means of production when they don't control it, and in fact, legally, don't even own it at all, is beyond absurd.

Is that it? That is your argument? That it is "beyond absurd"? Seriously. I never said the people "own" the means of production under such a system, but that the state "holds it" for them, runs it for them, manages it for them, plans it for them, etc. all on the people's behalf. But for the sake of argument, yes, the people can very well own the means of production when they do not control it, much like how a state works through indirect representation. Such a system does away with classes as there is no class that owns the means of production, much less extracts any surplus value for their own interests. If you claim the state is the new class that owns the means of production then I would argue that by extension the people own the means of production given the nature of that state and the justifications behind it.


The Soviet Union was a class society based upon the extraction of surplus value by a bureaucratic elite wherein generalised commodity production and wage-labour were the norm, i.e. state managed capital, i.e. state-capitalism.

Oh please stop spouting nonsense you know little abut. The Soviet Union was NOT by ANY means a class society as I have already explained. It is based upon the extraction of surplus value not for private interests but for the interests of those that had their surplus value extracted for them. You need to continue and stop using bullshit superficial slogan throwing, context is everything. A bureaucratic elite? Oh boohoo, they must be evil. No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bureaucratic elite as long as they function according to Socialist and Communist ideals and Democratic Centralism exists. Generalized commodity production? I'd like to see you propose an alternative for a Socialist economy. Go ahead, I'll be waiting, just try to stay on Earth whilst you're daydreaming. Wage-labor will always be the norm as long as money exists, Capitalism exists, and humanity exists. The only instance where wage-labor is no longer necessary if we reach superabundance, and that's never going to happen.

State managed capital is not by any means State Capitalism. State Capitalism would necessitate the existence of "Capitalism" in the first place which is defined by private property, the existence of the bourgeoisie, the existence of financial markets, the existence of competing markets, AND the existence of commodity production for PRIVATE PROFIT, the existence of wage-labor for PRIVATE profit, etc. State Capitalism, when used on the USSR, is nothing more than a "bad word" to use in an attempt to distance one's self from that specific system for ideological reasons. That is nothing short of a cop-out. Whether you will understand it or not, the USSR was by every means Socialist, albeit "State Socialist" or more specifically Soviet Socialist.

All of your "analysis" of wage-labor, classes, commodity production, and bureaucracy in the USSR are nothing but brief nonsense that is only a superficial and ignorant analysis. You need to know the "why", "where", "how", and "when" for them, you need to know the proper context, you need to know the justifications, you need to properly analyze them, you need to stop throwing around labels and instead properly analyze that shit.

[tuwix]

That is not the equality that is advocated.

If you say that left-wing movement doesn't advocate an equality, we have nothing to discuss. Your level of knowledge is just too low.

[evermilion]

If you say that left-wing movement doesn't advocate an equality, we have nothing to discuss. Your level of knowledge is just too low.

A communist doesn't insist that everyone must have the same size house.

[Theophys]

If you say that left-wing movement doesn't advocate an equality, we have nothing to discuss. Your level of knowledge is just too low.
Go play Zeitgeist, leave Communism and the real shit to the rest of us.

But I'll leave this here:
I challenge you to show me where Marx, Engels, or Lenin spoke of complete equality in terms of income levels, housing, rewards, etc.

In fact, this is as if Marx and Lenin were directly talking to you when this was written:

"But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which, like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs)."

And you claim that I'm the one with the low level of knowledge. Ironic.