[TW: Bordigism] what is organic centralism

[Tim Cornelis]

I still don't get 'organic centralism'. It sounds like mysticism. Admittedly, I haven't read that much about it, just short overviews. Can some Bordigist explain it to me in plain language.

[Remus Bleys]

A good start on centralism is actually the bit about proletarian dictatorship in Russia in the section on unions in Infantile Disorder.
Then http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cote/cotesdacie.html
then http://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/22TeRome.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm
then "party and class", "towards the establishment of worker councils in Italy", "the Democratic principle", "proletarian dictatorship and class struggle", and finally http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1965/consider.htm
In a bit I might write a bit but I got to go. Best thing to do is honestly read.
edit: Forgot camatte's "Democratic mystification" and "origin and function of the party form."

[Devrim]

I think that to get a real view on what it is and especially how it works in practice you would need to speaking to a 'real' Bordigist i.e. Someone in one of the ICP's and we don't have any on here.

Devrim

Edit: ICP not ICO

[Thirsty Crow]

Remus, Tim asked for an explanation in plain words, not a suggested reading list. This way you actually give off an impression that you either don't have a clear understanding of the concept or that you're unable/unwilling to do this work of explanation for us who're befuddled by it.

[Remus Bleys]

I think that to get a real view on what it is and especially how it works in practice you would need to speaking to a 'real' Bordigist i.e. Someone in one of the ICO's and we don't have any on here.

Devrim

Its my understanding that even groups like the ICC claim to be organic centralist, though they deny that voting mechanism needs to be done away with. Because the entire point of "organic centralism" wasnt something contrary to Democratic centralism, but rather that all groups must have an "organic connection" whereby their "collective being" is more than a collection of individuals but centered around a program, that a party uses the form that can most easily allow the program to flourish. Because all these groups have to have a fundamental agreement with each other in order to coherently function, that there is a certain set of things that aren't subject to democracy, simply because of the fact that it is a "fundamental" (like imagine a reformist in a left communist organization).
Even the bourgeoisie have an organic unity, insofar as they all have a vested interest in the continuation and enforcement of capitalism.
edit: links, Tim asked for a broad overview of organic centralism without saying what he wasnt getting. I think this post is a decent explanation, but seriously, the "reading list" is also in plain English. If you really want to get something you have to do more than read a thread on a forum.

[Thirsty Crow]

saying what he wasnt getting. I think this post is a decent explanation, but seriously, the "reading list" is also in plain English. If you really want to get something you have to do more than read a thread on a forum.
Oh I wasn't aware that I'd have to read stuff other than a couple of sentences here.

So, presumably one idea found here is that voting procedures need to be done away with.
Obviously, there's a real difference between completely eliminating any voting procedure - which can only result in consensus and/or charismatic leadership domination - or eliminating it in specific fields so to speak.

So it would seem that this procedures need to be eliminated in the case of the program which is the most important factor (at least I gather that it is from the idea of using forms which enable the program to flourish). This would mean that the communist program in its fundamentals cannot ever be changed by the membership of the organization; it is enshrined as an everlasting basis. This in itself is connected to the views on the so called democratic principle and the assessment that democracy (as in democracy within the party) can also serve to cripple the program. Am I right in this?

So it would seem that the entire point of a seemingly mystical new principle of organization is to ensure that once the program is set in stone (which would be 1848 for Bordigists; sorry for being cynical, can't help it really) it cannot be diluted.

Of course, the question of what exactly constitutes program - which cannot and must not be changed - and what constitutes seemingly programmatic points but which can be discussed and altered remains.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't see how invariance is "mysticism" and I don't really see how the Manifesto is absurd thing to have continuity with ("the Manifesto contains the embryo of the communist program"), and this certainly doesnt mean that the demands are invariant. Invariance doesn't mean that the program is always correct, it is correct only in capitalism. Furthermore, if it proves itself to be false or incorrect doctrine, then the whole of marxism would be scrapped and a new revolutionary theory would have to be "discovered."
if you want "plain English" then this is a good explanation of it (found in the Democratic principle):
"The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organization and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organizational formula known as "democratic centralism" to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organization must be unity of structure and action. The term*centralism*is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organization on "organic centralism". While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses."
I don't think this should be controversial or debatable. What can be debatable is if voting mechanism has a place in the party or not, but again, one can claim organic centralism yet still claim democracy has its uses in the party structure and elsewhere (a view that I mostly disagree with, but again, that's neither here nor there).

[Remus Bleys]

I think idea that it mystifies itself results from not getting organic centralism isn't seen as some quick fix that can completely prevent opportunism and "reneging." It can't, that may be facilitated by a form, but that results from the activity and content of an organization (in conjunction with the greater class movement, etc). Lenin once said that deviations from the program ("zig zags") were an inevitability. The point however is to try to get back on this correct "path," to not abandon the program. No one says that it's a "quick fix" that "solves every problem."

[Thirsty Crow]

It is controversial and debatable of course since it is entirely unclear what kind of an organization - or better yet, what basis for entry of new members and conditions of discipline are we dealing with here.

So, in the case of an organization of communists, functioning on a communist platform - which simply entails mechanisms aimed against the rise of opportunism and entry of non-communist members - then "democracy" can and should be a principle if centralism over the party/organization, with all its defects, is to be avoided.

The quote provided in fact seems to me to contain a recognition of this, but at the same time showing a pig headed rejection on mere rhetorical grounds:


While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term "democracy", which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses.

Which is fine by me since I agree with that saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...yeah, guess what it is then.

Also, can you elaborate on that curious idea of eliminating voting procedures?

[Remus Bleys]

So, in the case of an organization of communists, functioning on a communist platform - which simply entails mechanisms aimed against the rise of opportunism and entry of non-communist members - then "democracy" can and should be a principle if centralism over the party/organization, with all its defects, is to be avoided.*
I don't think this follows at all. A communist party is defined by its historical task in relation to the class and its program as the accumulative whole experience in regards to both theory and praxis.

But anyway, take a national liberation campaign. Do you just woopty doo vote on it or do you research the situation, determining the effects of said National liberation and from that deduce if support or (this is more probable) rejection of this National liberation is correct. What defines correctness? Well, the simple question "will this help or hinder class action." And after deducing which one benefits the class the most, this is the decision that is taken - why would there need to be a vote on this?

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think this follows at all. A communist party is defined by its historical task in relation to the class and its program as the accumulative whole experience in regards to both theory and praxis.How what you wrote here specifically relates to what I claim - that if an organization is formed on a specific basis, then democratic intra-organization practices are a principle - I have no idea. Actually, it doesn't relate to it at all.


...why would there need to be a vote on this?
Why is it so hard to actually deal with the problem at hand in a straight forward way (the problem of eliminating voting procedures)?

In that hypothetical scenario, the existence of opposed analyses and the way the resolution is reached is tantamount to voting; you're naive if you think that, especially in cases of serious crises and conflict, there wouldn't be opposing views with the opposing political implications. So, for instance, you could go down the route of prohibiting the expression of minority views altogether; or you could have them expressed openly. But the point is that voting is an indispensable mechanism for a revolutionary organization which is based on the initiative of the communist base, and not on a particular clique within the executive and central organs.

Of course, this doesn't mean that it will be necessary for there to be a vote on anything and everything. But to reiterate it all yet again, what alternative do you as a proponent of organic centralism propose for situations where there is a clear and open conflict of positions on matters important for both the class and the organization?

[Remus Bleys]

Actually it does address what you said: the implication that democracy should be a principle implies that the party is just a mere collection of individuals - when it's not, it's an "organ" that exists for the sole purpose of "pushing" the class struggle to violent insurrection to proletarian dictatorship to the eventual withering away of the state.
Nor did I overt this question and my example explicitly addresses your question, nor did I naively ignore that their will perhaps be a group that opposes said National liberation. The point is to ensure, on all tactics, which have historically proved themselves to be "good" for the class and which are "bad" for the class. Nor do I think that the Majority will always be the winner (the April Theses come to mind), but I am operating under the impression that the party will be composed of people who understand that ultimately the correct tactic (the one which demonstrates the most historical validity, taking into account the "fotm" capital takes, other circumstances, etc) is more important for the party to go with then their personal views. Why you want to call this study of both the current situation and the past movement a voting mechanism is beyond me.
The political currents which may oppose the interpretation have to demonstrate why they are correct, and the others have to show why that opposition is wrong, then the "why" to their opposition has to be discovered and fixed, and I can't really discuss how as this is a more case by case thing.
The formula "freedom of discussion, unity of action" is valid. I have never argued otherwise, and it is essential for any healthy centralization.

[Rurkel]

The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organization and the formulation of our party statutes...

Does "incidental" here mean "to keep it is no gain, to abolish it is no loss"? Because that's the meaning I associate with the word.

Isn't there a quote from Bordiga on the necessity of eliminating any and all kinds of voting mechanism?

[Thirsty Crow]

Actually it does address what you said: the implication that democracy should be a principle implies that the party is just a mere collection of individuals - when it's not, it's an "organ" that exists for the sole purpose of "pushing" the class struggle to violent insurrection to proletarian dictatorship to the eventual withering away of the state.
Lay off this mystical and false dichotomy between a "mere" collection of individuals and the embodiment of the historic tasks of proletarians; it leads absolutely nowhere.
It's a matter of fact that there were, are and will be very important disagreements and that the organization or the party will have to decide which course to take. It's also a matter of fact that the party is formed by individuals - as we can't expect any kind of mystical depersonalization. It seems that you view the function of the party - the party being an organ for pushing the class in a particular direction - somehow means that it's not formed by individuals. Again, that's a false dichotomy.

So, to once again pose the question - what particular mechanisms are there for those cases of important disagreement when voting is scrapped? I'm asking it again since you're continuously evading that simple and straightforward question.

If organic centralism is based on eliminating voting procedure (you also never did address whether any and all voting is eliminated or if change in fundamental programmatic points by voting is to be eliminated), then it only stands to reason that another way of dealing with issues previously dealt by voting must be put forward. It is also clear that this other way is a distinguishing mark of organic centralism. There's no answer; you didn't even bother to point to some historical texts which provide some sort of an answer. But I don't doubt that not any such text provides a clear answer for the simple reason. Eliminating voting is a pipe dream and nothing more.


...but I am operating under the impression that the party will be composed of people who understand that ultimately the correct tactic (the one which demonstrates the most historical validity, taking into account the "fotm" capital takes, other circumstances, etc) is more important for the party to go with then their personal views.

You're seemingly assuming that any serious disagreement can only arise due to "personal views"; that's not the case at all. Considering the fact that when it comes to political practice and tactics, at best there are only analytical approximations which are the basis of practice. This means that there could very well be some sort of support for mutually exclusive conclusions with their own consequences on political practice.

How to resolve this, what course to take? When this becomes a practicalo task for an organization - you simply cannot escape the necessity of some form of decision making, and voting is such a form.


Why you want to call this study of both the current situation and the past movement a voting mechanism is beyond me. I'm not talking about the study; I'm talking about the stage past the study and open debate, when there simply is no consensus between opposed positions.

[Remus Bleys]

Does "incidental" here mean "to keep it is no gain, to abolish it is no loss"? Because that's the meaning I associate with the word.

Isn't there a quote from Bordiga on the necessity of eliminating any and all kinds of voting mechanism?yes on both accounts. Quote is in Considerations on the Party's Organic activity when the situation is historically unfavorable.


Lay off this mystical and false dichotomy between a "mere" collection of individuals and the embodiment of the historic tasks of proletarians; it leads absolutely nowhere.
It's a matter of fact that there were, are and will be very important disagreements and that the organization or the party will have to decide which course to take. It's also a matter of fact that the party is formed by individuals - as we can't expect any kind of mystical depersonalization. It seems that you view the function of the party - the party being an organ for pushing the class in a particular direction - somehow means that it's not formed by individuals. Again, that's a false dichotomy. This isn't an argument I put forth and it isn't a dichotomy I uphold.i never said the party wasnt a collection of individuals, I said it isn't a mere connection of individuals. It's not, and of course the party is a collection of individuals, but that it is more. The usefulness of the party does not rest on the individuals but on its total theoretical doctrine which allow class action to be facilitated. I'm not going to repeat myself again, and I'm certainly not going to bother replying if you keep insisting that I believe in that false dichotomy that would suggest the party can be active without being "peopled." My supposed mysticism is just you playing a game of semantics whereby I deny that the party is a collection of individuals - when I explicitly stated that, yes, it is that, but more.


So, to once again pose the question - what particular mechanisms are there for those cases of important disagreement when voting is scrapped? I'm asking it again since you're continuously evading that simple and straightforward question. Links, every time we discuss this you pose this question and I reply with "doctrinal study of all past movements, coupled with the analysis of today, used to figure out the correct tactical approach." This to me is a valid answer, it directly addresses what replaces the voting mechanism. Do you want me to make up norms and precise rules of regulation?


If organic centralism is based on eliminating voting procedure (you also never did address whether any and all voting is eliminated or if change in fundamental programmatic points by voting is to be eliminated),
The altering of the fundamental program could never be pursued, by voting or any other method, unless it was shown to be incorrect - in which case the entire thing would have to be scrapped and the "the struggles necessary for the discovery of revolutionary doctrine" (if one would even exist) would have to be started all over again. Anyway I did address this: "What can be debatable is if voting mechanism has a place in the party or not, but again, one can claim organic centralism yet still claim democracy has its uses in the party structure and elsewhere (a view that I mostly disagree with, but again, that's neither here nor there)." Organic centralism does not inherently do away with democracy, and I have said to you many times that organic centralism uses the form most beneficial to the party at a particular time. It is undeniable that at a certain point in time, the parties could only be democratic - and since this would be the best possible form for the party, organic centralism would accept that. In fact, some still hold to organic centralism and retain democratic functions. However, I would argue that organic centralism would actually be hindered by the Democratic form, that the "dawning organism" must do away with the errors of the past.


then it only stands to reason that another way of dealing with issues previously dealt by voting must be put forward. It is also clear that this other way is a distinguishing mark of organic centralism. There's no answer; you didn't even bother to point to some historical texts which provide some sort of an answer. But I don't doubt that not any such text provides a clear answer for the simple reason. Eliminating voting is a pipe dream and nothing more.
The bordigists (in addition to translation issues) have countless organizational problems, but this was evident from before they eliminated the voting mechanism in the 60s, so they really aren't my "ideal" and suffer many of the same defects that they did before because of problems with their organizational content (example: il partito denies the universe is a closed system, but this is because they are loons, not because they have rejected democracy). But the fact is that they eliminated voting - yes they split but so did the various trot groups. They aren't "good" at organic centralism, but that's because of the fact that many simply abandoned the program - no matter how hard they say that hadn't.
But it's irrelevant because organic centralism's distinguishing characteristic is not anti democracy but the ability to use the form which best allows the program to dominate. A description of this is contained throughout all of the texts I provided, in the Historical Invariance of Marxism, in the fundamentals of revolutionary communism, (these two texts I didn't link to), but also "Considerations" and "Origin and Function."


You're seemingly assuming that any serious disagreement can only arise due to "personal views"; that's not the case at all. Considering the fact that when it comes to political practice and tactics, at best there are only analytical approximations which are the basis of practice. This means that there could very well be some sort of support for mutually exclusive conclusions with their own consequences on political practice.

How to resolve this, what course to take? When this becomes a practicalo task for an organization - you simply cannot escape the necessity of some form of decision making, and voting is such a form.

I'm not talking about the study; I'm talking about the stage past the study and open debate, when there simply is no consensus between opposed positions.
I'm not assuming anything about "personal views." Even the most class conscious individual will have views that are in contradiction to Marxism: this is undeniable. The point is, is that when doing "party work" the militant must submit philosophically (a regrettable term, as Marxism is a kind of anti philosophy, so think of this in the mindset of "Marxist theory of knowledge") to the methodology of Marxism, their principles the fundamentals of the party. When "submitting" to the program (Marx noted that communism "possessed" the intellect, later saying that theory had to grip the heart mind and soul of the masses), then all in the party will have the same "historical perspective." The issue of the whole total available knowledge on tactics is actually discussed in the Rome Theses, the way each tactic is purposed is well defined. You speak if deadlocks, in the situation of a consensus still not being reached by these members, but this is an inferior way because, as we all know, the majority is not always right. The only way to ensure the correctness of this is to cast aside all opportunist elements who merely want their tactic to be used, and contain only those who can admit they will from time to time create a scientific error. Then any error in either the methodology or facts leading up to a tactic must be found. if it's a big enough matter, then a split might even occur - but a split is not inherently a bad thing. If a decision needs to be made quickly, there will be party organs designed specifically for different party acts, and perhaps maybe even the sole decision made by the central committee. The scenario that you are describing is a party composed of those unable to submit to the communist program, to Marxism, unable to admit when it has made errors, and unable to truly apply the Marxist analysis. It is thus a party that not only would have to retain the democratic form (to retain artificial unity), but also a party that is of little use to the proletariat in today's world.

"All this should be treated much more broadly, but it is still possible to achieve a conclusion about the party’s organisational structure in such a difficult transition. It would be a fatal error to consider the party as dividable into two groups, one of which is dedicated to the study and the other to action; such a distinction is deadly for the body of the party, as well as for the individual militant. The meaning of unitarism and of organic centralism is that the party develops inside itself the organs suited to the various functions, which we call propaganda, proselytism, proletarian organisation, union work, etc., up to tomorrow, the armed organisation; but nothing can be inferred from the number of comrades destined for such functions, as on principle no comrade must be left out of any of them." (Considerations)

I'm not going to repeat myself, put if you are going to continue use the same argument (to which I can only repeat myself against), then I don't see much point in continuing. So please, don't come up with banal strawmen.

[Thirsty Crow]

As a brief reply, no I don't intend to make you draw up detailed statues. I'm merely trying to show you that the idea you could possibly eliminate voting mechanisms altogether and have a functioning communist organization is fundamentally incoherent.

You're simply invoking the detailed study of the past. This isn't sufficient. I can't see any attempt even to refute the point that one should no doubt expect serious disagreement, even in the case of problems which can be dealt with by studying the past. Even this alone begs the question of how the organization will deal with disagreement (which is all then more important since it poses political implications). This is why you can't completely scrap voting.
Or rather, you can but at a great cost. That coast being the domination of a charismatic and entrenched leadership. Or in other words, a quasi-religious clique of custodians of Marxist doctrine.

Mind you, I'm not even presenting you with the dilemma of a hugely problematic political-social situation where it is necessary to act swiftly, thus leaving no room for painstaking doctrinal and historical study. I could ask you what then if there's obvious disagreement.

This is what I claim in a nutshell.

And as a side note, I haven't come across any advocacy of totally doing away with any voting in historical texts (pre-WWII); the criticism of the so called democratic principle, along with the views on fractions and discipline I'm familiar with to an extent. But that is simply not what I'm talking about here.

[Tim Cornelis]

"doctrinal study of all past movements, coupled with the analysis of today, used to figure out the correct tactical approach."

This can at times produce different incompatible conclusions. What then?


Then any error in either the methodology or facts leading up to a tactic must be found. if it's a big enough matter, then a split might even occur - but a split is not inherently a bad thing. If a decision needs to be made quickly, there will be party organs designed specifically for different party acts, and perhaps maybe even the sole decision made by the central committee. The scenario that you are describing is a party composed of those unable to submit to the communist program, to Marxism, unable to admit when it has made errors, and unable to truly apply the Marxist analysis. It is thus a party that not only would have to retain the democratic form (to retain artificial unity), but also a party that is of little use to the proletariat in today's world.

Party organs designed specifically for different party acts < who decides which party organs to be created for what act? Who and how is it decided what their scope of authority is?

Decision made by the central committee < how does the cc come to a decision? By voting surely?

[Devrim]

Party organs designed specifically for different party acts < who decides which party organs to be created for what act? Who and how is it decided what their scope of authority is?

Decision made by the central committee < how does the cc come to a decision? By voting surely?

Or indeed how is the CC chosen? That's why I think that it is difficult to have a discussion on this without an ICP member to tell us how it works in practice.


Its my understanding that even groups like the ICC claim to be organic centralist, though they deny that voting mechanism needs to be done away with.

The ICC certainly doesn't claim to be 'organic centralist' at all. Indeed they have rather long and tedious sections in their statues explaining exactly who ca vote on things, and exactly what type of majorities are needed.

I remember reading some document on it when I was a member, but it must have been an internal text as I can't find it on their site. Basically though they think it is a way of working that Bordiga brought into the PCInt at the end of the 1940s because there were lots of new members coming in who didn't really understand their politics. They don't think it was a good solution to this problem.


But anyway, take a national liberation campaign. Do you just woopty doo vote on it or do you research the situation, determining the effects of said National liberation and from that deduce if support or (this is more probable) rejection of this National liberation is correct. What defines correctness? Well, the simple question "will this help or hinder class action." And after deducing which one benefits the class the most, this is the decision that is taken - why would there need to be a vote on this?

It is strange that you chose this example as this is the issue that they split over back in 1982. When the ICP's Algerian section started supporting Palestinian nationalism, the ICC said:


The grand speeches on ‘organic centralism' hid a federalism of the worst kind where each part of the organization ended up only doing what it decided to do, a flabby structure open to all the influ*ences of bourgeois ideology, a true nursery of irresponsible people, of apprentice bureaucrats and future rec*ruiting sergeants for imperialist massacres, as has already happened for the Middle East.

The fact that the ICP split over it though shows that people have different views on whether this "will this help or hinder class action". Therefor the question arises of how we decide.

Also Remus Bleys, could you please use more paragraphing. It would make you much easier to read.

Devrim

[synthesis]

General question: Why is invariance a useful concept? (I ask this with completely neutral, non-antagonistic intentions.)

[Tim Cornelis]

But anyway, take a national liberation campaign. Do you just woopty doo vote on it or do you research the situation, determining the effects of said National liberation and from that deduce if support or (this is more probable) rejection of this National liberation is correct. What defines correctness? Well, the simple question "will this help or hinder class action." And after deducing which one benefits the class the most, this is the decision that is taken - why would there need to be a vote on this?

Which presumes that everyone will agree. You seem to assume, also, that these questions are easily answerable as mathematics with only one possible correct answer. It's not a question of voting without deliberation, but voting after deliberation.

[Remus Bleys]

Or indeed how is the CC chosen? That's why I think that it is difficult to have a discussion on this without an ICP member to tell us how it works in practice.



The ICC certainly doesn't claim to be 'organic centralist' at all. Indeed they have rather long and tedious sections in their statues explaining exactly who ca vote on things, and exactly what type of majorities are needed.

I remember reading some document on it when I was a member, but it must have been an internal text as I can't find it on their site. Basically though they think it is a way of working that Bordiga brought into the PCInt at the end of the 1940s because there were lots of new members coming in who didn't really understand their politics. They don't think it was a good solution to this problem.

Huh. I got that impression after talking to Leo about it, where he said the icc embodied bordiga's concept of organic centralism (pre ww2) version better than the ICPs ever could. And I remember in an icc article I read a while ago that they rejected democracy as a principle but claimed that democracy was the most coherent way to organize. It was in that sense I used "organic centralism."

As an aside, some Italian non-bordigist lefts referred to Democratic centralism as an "awkward formula," stated that the program shouldn't be Democratically decided, but rather tactics should be (not because democracy was a principle, but because they saw it as the "most effective" form). Even Damen, in the obituary of amadeo bordiga, makes the usual statements of it being a twisted and bureaucratic formula, does give sympathy to its original usage (calling it dialectical centralism), not to mention that most of the Italian lefts (those who retained the democratic form) uphold the Rome Theses, which very first instance says that despite its democratic shell, the party was fundamentally an organic organization.

I don't think the various ICP's version of what constitutes organic centralism is correct either, but again I'll reiterate that's because of a failure in organizational content (such as, for many of them, their incorrect view of national liberation).


It is strange that you chose this example as this is the issue that they split over back in 1982. When the ICP's Algerian section started supporting Palestinian nationalism, the ICC said:


The fact that the ICP split over it though shows that people have different views on whether this "will this help or hinder class action". Therefor the question arises of how we decide.
I certainly think that the party would be better off without those who support Palestinian nationalism, as it shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the world today and a misunderstanding of pretty basic principles in regards to the bourgeois revolution and when such tactics are applicable at all. I couldn't see myself being in an organization that supports National liberation in today's context.

Also Remus Bleys, could you please use more paragraphing. It would make you much easier to read.

Devrim sorry bad habit

[Remus Bleys]

Which presumes that everyone will agree. You seem to assume, also, that these questions are easily answerable as mathematics with only one possible correct answer. It's not a question of voting without deliberation, but voting after deliberation.

Why do you keep going on about it being consensus based. Like everyone is going to need to agree. The central committee or whatever organ established for x purpose, have to develop the correct theoretical line in conjunction with the entirity of the party when it comes to x issue, which is then reimposed on the entirity of the party. Not everyone has to be convinced, just the specific organs that deal with subject x or the central committee. This doesnt mean, of course, that only the individuals in the central committee or party organ x can "enter into the debate."

[Five Year Plan]

Remus, I am not grasping how "organic centralism" is any different than the "democratic centralism" adopted by the first congresses of the Communist International. Could you clarify briefly what the difference is?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do you keep going on about it being consensus based. Like everyone is going to need to agree. The central committee or whatever organ established for x purpose, have to develop the correct theoretical line in conjunction with the entirity of the party when it comes to x issue, which is then reimposed on the entirity of the party. Not everyone has to be convinced, just the specific organs that deal with subject x or the central committee. This doesnt mean, of course, that only the individuals in the central committee or party organ x can "enter into the debate."
Suppose that an organ tasked with deciding (not presenting a proposal for the organization's conference) on some concrete issues consists of 7 people. How on earth will they be able to decide on anything as that particular organ if they don't ultimately see how many organ officials are in favor of A and how many in favor of B (or C, or D and so on and so on). This is voting. No need to raise hands; it's the same damn thing.

Yeah, it's that simple. And that very practical necessity comes into play whenever there's disagreement; and precisely this is the reason we conclude that your idea of eliminating voting entirely presupposes either

a) endless attempts at reaching consensus (thus paralyzing the organization)

or

b) a charismatic clique firmly entrenched as the center of the org and only source of initiative and decisions which merely proclaims freedome of debate where there is no such effective debate (and effective debate necessitates a person or a group actually being able to influence the outcome; opposed to a symbolic or consultative "say" in the matter at hand).

[Thirsty Crow]

EDIT: double post, sorry

[Remus Bleys]

Remus, I am not grasping how "organic centralism" is any different than the "democratic centralism" adopted by the first congresses of the Communist International. Could you clarify briefly what the difference is?
Organic centralism isn't a "new thing," but rather arose out of democratic centralism. It should really be no surprise at all, as it takes the centralism of Democratic centralism (all decisions of the top binding on the latter, the center's creation of subordinate bodies and party organs) but tries to move a step forward from it, learn from its errors and create a new "organism" which is stronger than the old in that it has fortified itself against its errors. This is necessarily a step away from democracy. Both for the preservation of the program but also for the ability to establish a better relationship of top, middle and base. Organicism makes all a ruler not of the top or bottom but of the program, and as such the top are not submitted to a vote by the base (which would in fact make the base and top appear external to one another). Likewise what has been seen by the Center turning its back or using the state to permanently silence dissent is also shattered by the organic and harmonious connection of the top and bottom and the fact that the top can't abandon the program.

The idea that the top theoretically leads and the base are the militants is the result of the mechanicist view that may appear to be iron discipline is in fact just bureaucracy. This mechanicist view finds itself in the idea that the lower groups involvement is voting for the higher (thus legitimizing the superior groups), then the center will command all those at the bottom and inform them what to do because the bureauc- center, I mean, says yes. It doesn't take much to realize how unhealthy this is for an organization. Links, when you claimed this is the result of organic centralism, did you forget that stalinism was born in Democratic centralism?

Organic centralism, on the other hand, has at its "roots" the total system. The best way to think about this is to remember that when Lenin was asked whether Russia was a top down dictatorship or a bottom up dictatorship, he responded simply with that is "like discussing whether a man’s left leg or right arm is of greater use to him." The individuals who make up the center are appointed simply by virtue of if they are fit for their job. The Center establishes organs deemed necessary by the party, and these organs can create their own sub groups, and so on; with the "superior" organ's decisions binding on the lower ones that fall in their domain. However, this is where the centralization is even healthier. Since their is no "root" of activity nor theory (only the despotic rule of the program), each party member must be both a militant and theoretically capable. Each of the individual organs draw upon, based on their theoretical and programmatic guidance, will from time to time organize with one another and from their activity, draw upon a report and possible tactics, in which they will outline each of the theoretical points and issue of tactics. At this level, all methodologies that run contrary to the program and all arguments with false evidence can be spontaneously eliminated. They will Draft all of this into a report, sending it to their immediately superior organ. The superior organ will: 1. Use the other reports they received for a broader picture in order to better see which tactic is more correct, and make the resulting decision binding on the lower organ, thusly unifying all of their activity 2. They will themselves compile all the reports, including their own activity and create it into a report, sending it into its own superior organ. These two steps continue until it finally reaches the center. The center will study both their activity in the party, and will see the total sum activity of the entire party. It takes the activity of the entire party, studies it and then, taking into account the total theoretical report of the current situation and all past doctrine, coordinates the activity of the party, finalizing its tactics and seeing a unity of action. It is this that is meant by the fact that the power of the top emanates from the bottom, which can then coherently improve the power of the bottom. It is in this sense that the party is more conscious than any of its members, because by allowing their party work to be dominated by past doctrine and the fact that only the best of the theoretical views of the bottom is imposed (by the center) on the entire party organization.

A rough analogy could be the comparison with say, the human body (again, only an analogy, which quickly falls apart when reminded that a party militant may be moved from one organ to the next, that they could change what it is they work on - not to mention the extreme simplification of the human body). Various organs will send senses to the brain - but immediately narrows down just what type of stimulation is being detected. The brain will then gather together all the various things sent to it, and when factoring the things about it, will calculate how to react to it, imposing that reaction on the entire body. Imagine if this lacked the brain - there would be nothing centralizing total experience and activity, thus all reactions to the stimulation would be varied and limited. What if their was no force relaying information? Then the body would just be found what the brain guesses is correct, that had no information at all, and thus completely separate from real activity, resulting in a bureaucracy. For obvious reasons these both need to be rejected.

Voting mechanisms have shown themselves to be completely useless, and thus need to be rejected as they aren't actually beneficial. Like I said, perhaps at some points a party needed to have democracy but that was only due to oddities resulted, and I don't want to discuss this because I'm still not well read enough on the subject. However, as voting demonstrates itself to be superfluous and not a principle, getting rid of it should simply only matter insofar that that is beneficial to the preservation of the program and its organizational structure. One reason that voting needs to be gotten rid of is that it has historically substituted for actual connection between the center and bottom. This alone isn't enough, but we can see in history a certain something telling us that it has obstructed the program. And this certain something was stalinism, a charismatic, sneaky little gang that pretended to foster debate but in reality didn't. Which is why it's so confusing to me that Links says that a charismatic leader will take over. By its very rejection of democracy, any chance of some gang gaining power because they are well liked is eliminated. This is not true in regards to democracy, for any gang can potentially seduce its voters. This is partially what we saw. And even though we acknowledge the counter revolution would've happened regardless, we oppose its facilitation, right Links?

How a rejection of things being in the majority means that everyone has to accept it is beyond me. Tim's implication is that everyone has to agree? Is this true? Is this honest? Because, say at the lowest part, the correct tactic is in the minority. But, still, because it is correct or can't be determined to be outside the program and thus its a part of the report. The higher organs all eliminate the incorrect tactics when they take in all total experience, thus the correct tactic is found to be correct and imposed on the entirity of the party. Thus the entire party's tactic is only "really" upheld by a minority, but through communist centralism and discipline is enforced and acted out by all of the party.

Links at least gives a slightly better argument. How is it determined by an organ if a tactic is correct or not? Well, as I said, doctrinal analysis. If no decision is made then it goes up, most likely the higher up organs will eliminate many of the incorrect tactics. Say it makes it to the central committee and still find a debate and is in deadlock. I find it extremely difficult to fathom that when one has strict doctrinal analysis on top of the total report of the life of the party this situation will occur, but what if it does? Then it would perhaps be sent back to the bottom, to other members with the command to study these*. What if it was a more immediate and pressing matter or still wasn't resolved? Then, and only then, will I concede that perhaps democracy must be temporarily reverted to, and then a study** be done in order to figure out what disease infects the party so harshly so as to require that reversion (again, anti democracy is not a principle, if it becomes necessary then it becomes necessary - not much to do about that). I will say this though, I find such a situation completely and totally improbable with a party that actually follows the doctrines of organic centralism, and that if in a situation like that, then perhaps the organic centralist may discover a new form in which to deal with these situations.


There, is this a good explanation of organic centralism?

*Again, I would think it acceptable for members not directly related to an issue to give their two cents before this stage.
**Periodically, a study should be done on dissent to eliminate dissent, not by means of expulsion, but by means of discovering why the doctrinal error occurred in the first place, in the hopes of eliminating the cause so that no member will make the scientific error again. Additionally, from time to time, it should be researched if a specific party tactic or move was correct at all. Finally, a study to ensure the program is still valid, so as to ensure the party isn't wasting its time with an ideology they needs to be gotten rid of.

edit: historical pre ww2 texts. Communist organization and Discipline says "Precisely because we*are*antidemocratic, we believe that a minority may have views that correspond better to the interests of the revolutionary process than those of the majority. Certainly this only happens in exceptional cases and it is extremely serious when such a disciplinary inversion occurs, as happened in the old International and which we sincerely hope will not occur within our ranks again.*" (http://www.international-communist-party.org/English/Texts/24ComOrg.htm). Can't believe I forgot about this one. It gives a good outline also about why democracy was unfortunately necessary in the third international and the various parties, as well as the bit on discipline counters any idea that its a "perfect bureaucracy."

[Five Year Plan]

Holy smokes. I think you skipped over the word "briefly" in my question :) A lot of this is difficult to follow, but I think I get the gist. My problem with how you are presenting here is that it seems to be a theory of party organization that doesn't mention the central role of workers' agency in a revolutionary party. The reason there is a "democratic" in democratic centralism is that the workers in the party, the rank and file, are supposed to have control over that party.

And the "centralism" aspect is synonymous with harmony. Though often misconstrued as monolithism, what harmony really means is solidarity with other party members exhibited in carrying out the democratically arrived at decisions, following a debate, even if you disagree with it. When the party goes through the experience of implementing the decision and seeing its consequences, a new debate can be had. The party program is considered non-negotiable because it was arrived at through a careful and systematic study of countless workers' struggles, and of history more broadly. They are also considered the starting points for providing any kind of ability to cohere as a fighting formation in the first place, and of having the kinds of debates to arrive at decisions democratically while still achieving the required level of solidarity. Opening up basic questions about the nature of class society would be the equivalent of opening up questions about whether evolution occurs, and in any event would prevent the party from functioning democratically.

To sum up, both aspects of centralism relate to the centrality of workers' experiences in their struggle against capitalism, but the concept or "organic centralism" seems to want to place formal procedures or organizational structures at the center, with the expectation that all the right answers will follow from it, independent of the struggle.

[Remus Bleys]

Holy smokes. I think you skipped over the word "briefly" in my question :) A lot of this is difficult to follow, but I think I get the gist. My problem with how you are presenting here is that it seems to be a theory of party organization that doesn't mention the central role of workers' agency in a revolutionary party. The reason there is a "democratic" in democratic centralism is that the workers in the party, the rank and file, are supposed to have control over that party.

And the "centralism" aspect is synonymous with harmony. Though often misconstrued as monolithism, what harmony really means is solidarity with other party members exhibited in carrying out the democratically arrived at decisions, following a debate, even if you disagree with it. When the party goes through the experience of implementing the decision and seeing its consequences, a new debate can be had. The party program is considered non-negotiable because it was arrived at through a careful and systematic study of countless workers' struggles, and of history more broadly. They are also considered the starting points for providing any kind of ability to cohere as a fighting formation in the first place, and of having the kinds of debates to arrive at decisions democratically while still achieving the required level of solidarity. Opening up basic questions about the nature of class society would be the equivalent of opening up questions about whether evolution occurs, and in any event would prevent the party from functioning democratically.

To sum up, both aspects of centralism relate to the centrality of workers' experiences in their struggle against capitalism, but the concept or "organic centralism" seems to want to place formal procedures or organizational structures at the center, with the expectation that all the right answers will follow from it, independent of the struggle.
I don't really see how a lot of your posts differs from mine, though. I think that the "top" organically arises from the collective actions from the party, and that the entirety of the party's actions have to be made with the struggle of the class, that the doctrine was discovered by the class's own action.

Marx said that communists "develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to." Engels affirmed this when he said "the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter."

These principles, the showing of what the struggle are is the essence of the party, it is the essence for the very purpose of the vanguard: to guide and help the class along to its path of proletarian dictatorship. Revolutionary theory comes from the class's action coupled with the methodology provided by Marxism. This is why I said that organicism means that the Center's power emanates from the Bottom (this is covered in the start of the Rome Theses).

And if I have over emphasized the importance of organic centralism, the that is my fault and I apologize. When I said that Stalinism would've occurred from Organic Centralism I meant it, just as Stalinism would've occurred had their been no party in Russia. Revolution is not a matter of mere forms, but of content. That is how the bolsheviks, despite being limited by democratic centralism, were able to succeed in October: their content was revolutionary. I am just saying that it would be a better form to abandon democracy. The change in the form will not make or break things, but it can ease or obstruct in regards to how well it allows an organization's content to flourish.

Theory can't come about by applying it to nothing and just thinking up some utopia's or logical deduction. Obviously, during a counter-revolutionary period, it is difficult to determine just what theory ended up being correct, because theory is only speculative. It is still theory, for Marxism is not the doctrine of how to act in the case of a revolution, but in the case of a counter-revolution, on how to react to the counter revolution to either keep the revolution alive or relight it once more. So, whilst the theory their is not as "verifiable" as it is in the Revolutionary period, it is still valid, so long as it is a study of actual events.
I don't think that absent working class action that their will be any large consciousness and there's not much that the party can do about this, be it centralist, localist, bureaucratic, democratic or organic - any revolutionary party would have to necessarily small, not by choice, but because of external fact (that should still be combated).

[Five Year Plan]

Remus, the quote function isn't working in this thread for me for some reason. I just wanted to say that I agree with what you right above, but then I would ask: out of what experiences did the "organic" innovation from democratic centralism occur? That is where I am more than a little puzzled.

[Remus Bleys]

Organic Centralism I think was always present at a certain level within the proletarian party. The Rome Theses state "4. The proclamation of these programmatic declarations, like the designation of the men to whom the various levels of the party organizations are entrusted, take place formally with a democratic form of consultation of representative assemblies of the party. But in reality they must be understood as a product of the real process which accumulates elements of experience and carries out the preparation and selection of leaders, thus giving form to both the programmatic content and the hierarchical constitution of the party." (source (http://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/22TeRome.htm))
Organic Centralism I think is just a basic recognition of the way a communist party works. The rejection of democracy is the result of the Italian Left's early days (something about a revolutionary situation not being seized because of a majority vote) and a reflection on Third International Opportunism, but what completely solidified this was the invariance of marxism, which wasn't really discovered by a movement*, but something eluded to by Lenin on numerous occasions and something that Bordiga had brought on himself to elaborate on - due to the many people who wanted to update marxism who really did nothing but damper its revolutionary potential.
edit: * rather a result of a struggle against opportunism and infantilism.

[Five Year Plan]

I want to hone in on this statement, because I think it is important:


The rejection of democracy is the result of the Italian Left's early days (something about a revolutionary situation not being seized because of a majority vote) and a reflection on Third International Opportunism,

If a party rejects "democracy," then the party is neither proletarian nor democratic-centralist. It is bureaucratic centralist and, as a result of this form, is petty bourgeois in nature. While the formal trappings of democracy might be filled with a bourgeois content, the democratic form is a prerequisite to proletarian power. It implies mutual dependence, solidarity, and of course equality, all of which are necessary to a proletarian community in revolutionary struggle against capital.

This is different than the question of how "democratically" the party should relate to non-party elements, proletarian or otherwise, which is a matter of analysis of the concrete political situation.

This is where, I think, I am seeing more of a difference between "democratic centralism" and "organic centralism" than the one you described a couple of posts ago.

If a large chunk of people in the party have an irreconcilable difference over a fundamental issue, it is appropriate to split. As I said, these kinds of disagreements make the democratic functioning of the party impossible.

[Tim Cornelis]

There, is this a good explanation of organic centralism?

Yes.


The individuals who make up the center are appointed simply by virtue of if they are fit for their job.

Who appoints them based on what criteria, and are these criteria detailed in the program? It would seem to me that this program would need 'all-encompassing' to evade the issue of voting.



How a rejection of things being in the majority means that everyone has to accept it is beyond me. Tim's implication is that everyone has to agree? Is this true? Is this honest? Because, say at the lowest part, the correct tactic is in the minority. But, still, because it is correct or can't be determined to be outside the party and thus its a part of the report. The higher organs all eliminate the incorrect tactics when they take in all total experience, thus the correct tactic is found to be correct and imposed on the entirity of the party. Thus the entire party's tactic is only "really" upheld by a minority, but through communist centralism and discipline is enforced and acted out by all of the party.

Well, the tactic that is deemed correct and in accordance with the program by the centre. It does not necessarily follow that it's therefore actually correct.

Still, organic centralism strikes me as Weberian ideal-typical bureaucracy applied to a political party. And like the Weberian bureaucracy has never functioned ideal-typically, I doubt organic centralism will. Also, the ICC's criticism instinctively makes sense to me, but I can't really make explicit why.



If a party rejects "democracy," then the party is neither proletarian nor democratic-centralist. It is bureaucratic centralist and, as a result of this form, is petty bourgeois in nature.

Why? That seems like a major non-sequitur.

[Five Year Plan]

Why? That seems like a major non-sequitur.

Because a proletarian party must be democratic for the purpose of allowing workers to generalize at a political and theoretical level from their experiences in the anti-capitalist struggle. As I explained in the previous post, this process of having debates and disagreements within the confines of a shared set of programmatic goals also allows for unity within the party. This becomes impossible if democracy within the party is hindered. Instead, what you're left with a professional party bureaucrats imposing unity from the top, in the same way that the petty bourgeoisie as a class has a political interest in attempting to unify the proletariat and bourgeoisie through reformist solutions.

[Sinister Intents]

Based on what I've learned about organic centralism from this thread, and what little Bordiga I've read: I highly disagree! It comes across across as very authoritarian. As something that would further a bureaucracy.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Based on what I've learned about organic centralism from this thread, and what little Bordiga I've read: I highly disagree! It comes across across as very authoritarian. As something that would further a bureaucracy.

That was a very useful post, indeed. But you don't know what you mean by "furthering a bureaucracy", do you? No. Half-formed thoughts turned into posts. But you're here just to make some passive-aggressive points against whatever Remus says, aren't you? And then you just thank whatever imbecilic disagreement you spot. Sigh.

[Sinister Intents]

That was a very useful post, indeed. But you don't know what you mean by "furthering a bureaucracy", do you? No. Half-formed thoughts turned into posts. But you're here just to make some passive-aggressive points against whatever Remus says, aren't you? And then you just thank whatever imbecilic disagreement you spot. Sigh.

Actually I'm at work and plan on expanding on the thought later when I can. Assuming I remember.

[Devrim]

Huh. I got that impression after talking to Leo about it, where he said the icc embodied bordiga's concept of organic centralism (pre ww2) version better than the ICPs ever could. And I remember in an icc article I read a while ago that they rejected democracy as a principle but claimed that democracy was the most coherent way to organize. It was in that sense I used "organic centralism."

Well yes, I think that this is a pretty fair assessment if you can ignore Leo's 'party patriotism' about the ICC doing everything better.

I suppose it depends how you stress it though. The clear thing is that they do use democratic methods to reach decisions.

Also they say something along the lines of liking the term but not using it because it has been discredited by how it has turned out in practice. As I recall they also say something similar about democratic centralism.

I think that there are problems with the ICC's form of internal organisation. I'd imagine that there are problems with the Bordigists form too though I don't have first hand experience.

Perhaps the key is to establish functioning practical ways to make decisions without fetishising whatever organisational form. The ICC makes an abstract fetish of centralism. It ends up micromanaging stuff. There are some things that must be done on a local level.

The important thing I think is to find a system that works which gives the members control over the organisation.

Devrim