Democratic Centralism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism


The Sixth Party Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party) held at Petrograd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg) between July 26 and August 3, 1917 defined democratic centralism as follows:


That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected;
That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations;
That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism#cite_note-2)



Is this accurate? Could someone further explain what the bolded parts mean?

[Sea]

from top to bottomAll officials must be elected, no matter where they (are striving to) stand in the party's power structure.


subordination of the minority to the majorityThat's what democracy is.


strict Party disciplineTo stray those decisions arrived at democratically would be to act undemocratically, and is thus not permitted.


all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.The democracy is "weighted", and those bodies which higher weighted positions for their vote are decisive, if that makes any since. Hence the centralism in democratic centralism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Thank you. :)

[Hit The North]

all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.

This also ensures that the party is geared toward unified action and purpose rather than becoming a mere debating society.

[Brutus]

Freedom of discussion, unity in action.

[Lucretia]

It should also be noted that higher bodies are to be elected by the lower. This might clarify that "from top to bottom" does not mean that authority is ultimately to be derived from top party bureaucrats rather than rank and file party members. Such was obviously inverted in practice under Stalinism, when higher bodies tightly controlled candidates to the lower bodies who would then be responsible for rubber stamping the re-elections of the higher politicians who chose them.

[Lucretia]

Duplicate post.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It should also be noted that higher bodies are to be elected by the lower. This might clarify that "from top to bottom" does not mean that authority is ultimately to be derived from top party bureaucrats rather than rank and file party members. Such was obviously inverted in practice under Stalinism, when higher bodies tightly controlled candidates to the lower bodies who would then be responsible for rubber stamping the re-elections of the higher politicians who chose them.

Did it become like that after Stalin was in power or while Lenin was still around? How did it become that?

[Rural Comrade]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought democratic centralism worked like this:

The people elect local officials
The local officials elect provincial officials
The provincial officials elect the national officials
The national officials elect the heads of state and government

As socialism moves towards communism the people would take total control of the levels of government starting with local and moving up as said above.

[Lucretia]

Did it become like that after Stalin was in power or while Lenin was still around? How did it become that?

There were pretty serious bureaucratic distortions in the democratic-centralist functioning of the party and the state before 1924. But unlike the mid-1930s onward, these distortions were not fully systematized into an alien class force, and were frequently (though not always) a response to a situation in which the alternative to violating democratic centralism was actually worse.

[Fourth Internationalist]

There were pretty serious bureaucratic distortions in the democratic-centralist functioning of the party and the state before 1924. But unlike the mid-1930s onward, these distortions were not fully systematized into an alien class force, and were frequently (though not always) a response to a situation in which the alternative to violating democratic centralism was actually worse.

What do you mean by the last sentence?

[Lucretia]

What do you mean by the last sentence?

The workers' state, which in a transition period is to function in a democratic-centralist way, sometimes suppressed democratic procedural norms in situations where there were legitimate fears that workers, in response to years of military siege and material scarcity, would in a context where political power was only tenuously held make political decisions that would be tantamount to empowering the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution. That is the "worse alternative" I was referring to. As I said, these violations of democratic procedures were not always warranted, but this is a far cry from complaints I frequently hear about how they reveal a hidden agenda of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to take power only for themselves and to screw over the non-Bolshevik working class.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think a distinction should be made between democracy in the party and democracy in the state - the latter is certainly something that should not be fetishised, though it is in general the highest form of class rule, but the former is, I think, absolutely necessary if the party is to avoid becoming a bureaucratic sect.

[Lucretia]

I think a distinction should be made between democracy in the party and democracy in the state - the latter is certainly something that should not be fetishised, though it is in general the highest form of class rule, but the former is, I think, absolutely necessary if the party is to avoid becoming a bureaucratic sect.

Of course democracy in the state shouldn't be fetishized, but I don't think anybody was doing that. We were discussing the principles of democratic centralism functioning in the state after the working class has taken power through a revolutionary Leninist working-class party. Lenin was clear that such principles are applicable not just to a vanguard party in a period before a revolution, but to the state itself in the process following a revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course democracy in the state shouldn't be fetishized, but I don't think anybody was doing that. We were discussing the principles of democratic centralism functioning in the state after the working class has taken power through a revolutionary Leninist working-class party. Lenin was clear that such principles are applicable not just to a vanguard party in a period before a revolution, but to the state itself in the process following a revolution.

Of course - my point was not that democratic centralism on the level of the workers' state is something to be easily discarded, but that, while expedience might dictate that state democratic centralism be violated from time to time, democratic centralism in the party (both before and during the revolution) should not.

[Lucretia]

Of course - my point was not that democratic centralism on the level of the workers' state is something to be easily discarded, but that, while expedience might dictate that state democratic centralism be violated from time to time, democratic centralism in the party (both before and during the revolution) should not.

But of course, sadly, they were...

[The Idler]

Freedom of discussion, unity in action.
What if members don't want to act on a decision they disagree with?

[Nevsky]

What if members don't want to act on a decision they disagree with?

Not even the liberal parliamentary parties act exclusively if every single member agrees with whatever action they are taking. You can have freedom of discussion, freedom of opinion etc. but you can't expect that your personal opinion will always be respected in democratic society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What if members don't want to act on a decision they disagree with?

Then they should be disciplined until they stop acting like kindergarten-age children.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What if members don't want to act on a decision they disagree with?

Then they can leave the party.

[Le Socialiste]

What if members don't want to act on a decision they disagree with?

In addition to what Semendyaev said, I would add that if opposing members disagree with a particular decision they are free to raise said concerns during an evaluation or assessment of the work voted on by the organization. If the decision approved by the majority proves flawed in practice, detractors could put forward an argument that exposes these shortcomings and make the case for altering or scrapping the decision altogether. This would, of course, have to be argued and debated out before being eventually voted on by a majority. This does not mean that dissenting members are free to throw up obstacles or otherwise work against a decision that the majority has approved of; indeed, anyone who does this should be instructed on the necessity of disciplined adherence to party or organizational decisions or, failing to agree with or understand that, be faced with penalties.

[The Idler]

Even if a member agrees not to work contrary to a decision, but just wishes to take no part in carrying out a decision they disagree with? Most other parties respect this member freedom.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Even if a member agrees not to work contrary to a decision, but just wishes to take no part in carrying out a decision they disagree with? Most other parties respect this member freedom.

I think that would be fine.

[ComradeOm]

That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;
That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members
Worth noting that both of these clauses were almost entirely disregarded in 1917. Central Committee members, including Lenin, could and did break ranks and canvass wider opinion (edit: both within and outside the Party) to bolster their minority position. None were subject to "strict Party discipline"

[Lucretia]

Worth noting that both of these clauses were almost entirely disregarded in 1917. Central Committee members, including Lenin, could and did break ranks and canvass wider opinion (edit: both within and outside the Party) to bolster their minority position. None were subject to "strict Party discipline"

You have to understand the way the party functions in terms of the disciplinary and procedural conventions designed to maintain ideological homogeneity and solidarity among comrades changes as the context changes. This is why Lenin, in times of revolutionary ferment and intense class struggle, favored swinging the doors to party membership open for the radicalized workers. The idea is that "party program" is not just some written list -- it's a practical guide to struggle manifest in practice. To the degree that workers were mirroring Bolshevik practice in generalizing class struggle to the political level, the Lenin favored merging party and class as much as possible.

It is also, by the way, the rationale behind things like entryism into a workers' party that is, in terms of written program, non-revolutionary but whose members may be manifesting a praxis that is increasingly revolutionary in nature.

Lenin's understanding of a revolutionary party is that it's a process, not a static "organization" with rules binding for all time. Having said that, it's still rubbish to claim that Lenin favored anything resembling the Kautskyist party of the whole class. And while it's true that party guidelines were (temporarily) relaxed in relation to the new members that joined the party in revolutionary situations, decisions were very much still binding on the more advanced members of the party, particularly those in the higher circles of the party. Lenin attempted to have Kamenev expelled, for instance, for publicly disagreeing with the democratically arrived at decision to seize power. As Lenin said, "A workers' party, which the course of events is confronting more and more frequently with the need for an insurrection, is unable to accomplish that difficult task if, after their adoption, unpublished decisions of the centre are disputed in the non-Party press, and vacillation and confusion are brought into the ranks of the fighters."

[Sotionov]

Elective olygarchy, same as today's capitalist "democracy".

[Lucretia]

Elective olygarchy, same as today's capitalist "democracy".

Gee, this adds so much to the thread. Thanks! :rolleyes: