Democratic Centralism?

[Grayson Walker]

I feel I have an elementary understanding of this concept so I'd like to expand. What's a simple explanation, and it's pros and cons?

[consuming negativity]

Democratic centralism is just a style of decision making among groups of people. First, everyone argues for and against something. Then, when the majority has ruled, all members are expected to honor the decision of the group.

[The Idler]

'Democratic centralism' expects members to carry out decisions of majorities even if they disagree with them.
Democracy does not.

[motion denied]

'Democratic centralism' expects members to carry out decisions of majorities even if they disagree with them.

The horror. :scared:

[The Idler]

The horror. :scared:
The Terror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror) would be more appropriate.

[Creative Destruction]

The horror. :scared:

It is a pretty problematic idea, though, not protecting minority opinion.

[consuming negativity]

It is a pretty problematic idea, though, not protecting minority opinion.

Problematic compared to what? You don't want "tyranny of the majority" so instead we have tyranny of the minority? Because the truth is, tyranny of the majority is an oxymoron. Where the majority rule, there is proletarian dictatorship. Where the minority rule, we have capitalism.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Democratic centralism, at least in its original sense, simply means exhaustive discussion and diversity in debate, and unity in carrying out the action and/or program that has been voted on.

Democratic centralism isn't exactly something that Lenin invented. The essential underlying concept has been around forever. Labor unions, the First International, the Paris Commune and most revolutionary organizations before and after Marx and Lenin have operated in a similar fashion. All revolutionary organizations operate like this when under fire. Lenin more or less just codified it.

If you want a very simple idea of how democratic centralism works in an ideal situation, you need only look at pirate ships during the Golden Age of Piracy. Pirate ships, particularly the ones captained by the likes of Black Beard of Bartholomew Roberts, operated on a principle of universal suffrage for the crew. Everything from course correction, to missions, to dividing up the treasure, to the election of captains were all decided by majority vote. The Captain could even be called up for a vote of no confidence at any time. This was the 'Democratic' part of Democratic Centralism.

But there was one exception to this rule. During the heat of battle, when the ship was under fire or the crew was in the process of capturing a ship, all authority was transferred over to the captain. His word was law. If you defied it, you suffered the consequences (because one pig-headed idiot could get everyone killed). This was the Centralism part of Democratic Centralism.

That's the other part about Democratic Centralism people often misunderstand. The Centralism part comes in purely out of necessity. When conditions are harsh and bullets are flying, a degree of centralism is a matter of simply staying alive.

[The Idler]

Problematic compared to what? You don't want "tyranny of the majority" so instead we have tyranny of the minority? Because the truth is, tyranny of the majority is an oxymoron. Where the majority rule, there is proletarian dictatorship. Where the minority rule, we have capitalism.
It's not a simply binary decision though is it. You can have more than two ways of organising.

Democratic centralism, at least in its original sense, simply means exhaustive discussion and diversity in debate, and unity in carrying out the action and/or program that has been voted on.
See the 'unity in carrying out an action you voted against' is where you have a problem. You don't have to go all autonomist to disagree with organising in this way.

Democratic centralism isn't exactly something that Lenin invented. The essential underlying concept has been around forever. Labor unions, the First International, the Paris Commune and most revolutionary organizations before and after Marx and Lenin have operated in a similar fashion. All revolutionary organizations operate like this when under fire. Lenin more or less just codified it. I'm pretty sure that is not the case or the way the socialist movement in Marx's time was strictly organised. It was much more democratic and much less 'centralist.'


If you want a very simple idea of how democratic centralism works in an ideal situation, you need only look at pirate ships during the Golden Age of Piracy. Pirate ships, particularly the ones captained by the likes of Black Beard of Bartholomew Roberts, operated on a principle of universal suffrage for the crew. Everything from course correction, to missions, to dividing up the treasure, to the election of captains were all decided by majority vote. The Captain could even be called up for a vote of no confidence at any time. This was the 'Democratic' part of Democratic Centralism.

But there was one exception to this rule. During the heat of battle, when the ship was under fire or the crew was in the process of capturing a ship, all authority was transferred over to the captain. His word was law. If you defied it, you suffered the consequences (because one pig-headed idiot could get everyone killed). This was the Centralism part of Democratic Centralism.

That's the other part about Democratic Centralism people often misunderstand. The Centralism part comes in purely out of necessity. When conditions are harsh and bullets are flying, a degree of centralism is a matter of simply staying alive.
Centralism is not necessary or simply a matter of staying alive as the Russian Civil war demonstrated.

[Blake's Baby]

If you have taken part in the debate, and lost, I don't see why you have a right to ignore the result. Perhaps the Idler would like to explain why democratic group decisions shouldn't be binding on those who disagree with them.

[Zoroaster]

'Democratic centralism' expects members to carry out decisions of majorities even if they disagree with them.
Democracy does not.

Agreed. I prefer the system of demarchy that Redstar2000 talks about in this article: http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory4b32.html?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

[Orange Juche]

Agreed. I prefer the system of demarchy that Redstar2000 talks about in this article: http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory4b32.html?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

I miss Redstar.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I advocate a more federalist approach, given that the material conditions of the world vary from place to place, and as such, leaving decision-making to a centralised body is potentially hazardous for regions which might not fit the blueprints that the centralised body has ruled in favour of. This is true under capitalism (look at Britain and the north/south divide, and London-centricsm, for example) so why wouldn't it be true under capitalism? What is democratic about centralism, other than the voting process? Socioeconomic power is concentrated and centralised under capitalism - a basic principle of socialism is to distribute it more equally.

[helot]

Here's a question.... if democratic centralism is defined as abiding by collective agreements even if you didn't really like them that much why's it got that name? Where does 'centralism' come into it?

[Blake's Baby]

The centrality is the body that makes the decision. The sections propose and debate and delegate; the central organ decides and the sections, being bound by their participation in the process, are expected to do what has been agreed.

The point is that sections can't do whatever they like. Involvement in the process means accepting that sometimes you won't get your own way, and agreeing that when that happens, you'll still act on a policy you argued against.

[helot]

The centrality is the body that makes the decision. The sections propose and debate and delegate; the central organ decides and the sections, being bound by their participation in the process, are expected to do what has been agreed. What do you mean 'centrality' and 'sections'?

So the central organ decides and the sections obey? Why cant the sections decide?





Involvement in the process means accepting that sometimes you won't get your own way, and agreeing that when that happens, you'll still act on a policy you argued against.
Which is so vague that it also applies to anarchist federalism. No one wants someone in their organisation that throws their dummy out when something doesn't go exactly their way,.

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean 'centrality' and 'sections'?

So the central organ decides and the sections obey? Why cant the sections decide? ...

OK - say Local 1 decides that we want a blue flag. Locals 2, 3 4 and 5 decide we want a red flag.

Democratic centralism is supposed to work on the principle that the Locals delegate to the 'centre' - the delegate from Local 1 goes to the central meeting saying 'we want a blue flag', the other delegates all go saying 'we want a red flag'. The centre - composed of the delegates from the Locals - decides to adopt a red flag (on a 4:1 vote). Democratic centralism says 'the centre debated and came to the decision that a red flag will be adopted'. Local 1 is now expected to abide by that decision.




...
Which is so vague that it also applies to anarchist federalism. No one wants someone in their organisation that throws their dummy out when something doesn't go exactly their way,.

What do you mean? I thought you wanted the sections to decide. So Local 1 can have its blue flag and the other Locals have a red flag.

[helot]

OK - say Local 1 decides that we want a blue flag. Locals 2, 3 4 and 5 decide we want a red flag.

Democratic centralism is supposed to work on the principle that the Locals delegate to the 'centre' - the delegate from Local 1 goes to the central meeting saying 'we want a blue flag', the other delegates all go saying 'we want a red flag'. The centre - composed of the delegates from the Locals - decides to adopt a red flag (on a 4:1 vote). Democratic centralism says 'the centre debated and came to the decision that a red flag will be adopted'. Local 1 is now expected to abide by that decision.

Is "supposed to" the key here? What you're describing sounds like federalism with different words. I've not come across a party claiming democratic centralism that has a federal structure as i know it.





What do you mean? I thought you wanted the sections to decide. So Local 1 can have its blue flag and the other Locals have a red flag.

I mean that that line i quoted pretty much applies to all forms of organisation.

The notion that democratic centralism is internal debate, unity of action and crafting positions from that activity is so broad it is meaningless. In fact, i think there is a fundamental contradiction going on here in that democratic centralism is being divorced from itself as a living theory within the history of class struggle and some vague, abstract form that can be used to claim anything is democratic centralism is used in its stead.

[Ritzy Cat]

Democratic Centralism means decisions are democratically made, but after they are made, the decision is the law, if you know what I mean.

Lenin practiced democratic centralism before the introduction of the NEP, as far as I'm aware.

[Five Year Plan]

It is a pretty problematic idea, though, not protecting minority opinion.

If the majority decides to protect minority opinion, it will be protected and that protection is binding on all members to honor. You seem to be mistaking democratic centralism with a one-size-fits-all mode of handling distinctly different questions. On some questions, it might make sense to protect minority disagreement. On others, it might be suicide. The majority decides this democratically.

[Blake's Baby]

...

The notion that democratic centralism is internal debate, unity of action and crafting positions from that activity is so broad it is meaningless...

Why? The members of organisations need to know that if the organisation debates and decides, that members of the organisation that don't agree with the decision that was taken are still going to go through with the policy. Why is that meaningless?

[helot]

Why? The members of organisations need to know that if the organisation debates and decides, that members of the organisation that don't agree with the decision that was taken are still going to go through with the policy. Why is that meaningless?


I'm saying the supposed definition is too broad to be meaningful not that unity of action etc is meaningless.

[The Idler]

If you have taken part in the debate, and lost, I don't see why you have a right to ignore the result. Perhaps the Idler would like to explain why democratic group decisions shouldn't be binding on those who disagree with them.
Cause you don't have to have to consist only of cadre to be a membership organisation. Almost all successful parties are not cadre organisations.
You don't even have to be federalist to respect minority arguments in a party being openly expressed.
In the analogy you use, what's wrong with Local 1 not using a red flag and continuing to argue all the locals should use a blue flag? What would happen to them under democratic centralism?

[Blake's Baby]

What's wrong with it is that official election literature, and in the media, two different flags are used by the organisation, causing some confusion in the populace at large and some harsh words between members, as I believe is exactly what happened in the SPGB election campaign a month or so ago over the question of whether you had an 'official' logo and what that meant when seemingly different branches can just ignore what's official party policy.

What's the point of taking decisions if parts of the organisation can just say 'you know what, we're not going to do it anyway'?

My understanding of democratic centralism is such that, were the members of Local 1 to consistently refuse to put in place policy, they could be suspended and indeed thrown out the organisation.

As to two-tier membership, the Bolshevik/Menshevik split was on precisely that issue if I recall, and the SPGB has the same view as the Bolsheviks on that score, at least as far as I understand it.

[The Idler]

What's wrong with it is that official election literature, and in the media, two different flags are used by the organisation, causing some confusion in the populace at large and some harsh words between members, as I believe is exactly what happened in the SPGB election campaign a month or so ago over the question of whether you had an 'official' logo and what that meant when seemingly different branches can just ignore what's official party policy.

What's the point of taking decisions if parts of the organisation can just say 'you know what, we're not going to do it anyway'?

My understanding of democratic centralism is such that, were the members of Local 1 to consistently refuse to put in place policy, they could be suspended and indeed thrown out the organisation.

As to two-tier membership, the Bolshevik/Menshevik split was on precisely that issue if I recall, and the SPGB has the same view as the Bolsheviks on that score, at least as far as I understand it.
Nope, two different flags would not be used. One democratically agreed flag would be used, but members in Local 1 who disagreed would be unlikely to be marching carrying a red flag. Forcing members to do something some of them disagree with is divisive.

[Blake's Baby]

OK; so, in the hypothetical case of the SPGB in an election, are you saying that if branches didn't like the official logo they wouldn't have to distribute the election material?

EDIT: or, I suppose, if they'd argued something different should go in the election material, should they not have to distribute material they'd voted against?

[The Idler]

OK; so, in the hypothetical case of the SPGB in an election, are you saying that if branches didn't like the official logo they wouldn't have to distribute the election material?

EDIT: or, I suppose, if they'd argued something different should go in the election material, should they not have to distribute material they'd voted against?
The SPGB is not federalist, branches are subordinate to conference. Conference votes for a democratically agreed decision as per the majority of members. Members might disagree and wouldn't be expected to carry out activity. If a branch formally contradicted conference-agreed decisions, conference would dissolve the branch as happened in 1991 over use of the full name by two branches in North London.

[Blake's Baby]

So, are you saying "members and branches don't have to carry out decisions they disagree with", or are you saying "members and branches are expected to carry out decisions they disagree with"?

Because at the moment, you seem to be saying both.

[The Idler]

So, are you saying "members and branches don't have to carry out decisions they disagree with", or are you saying "members and branches are expected to carry out decisions they disagree with"?

Because at the moment, you seem to be saying both.
Branches do, individual members don't.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, if the branch has to carry out the decisions of conference, what if every member of the branch disagrees? Does the 'branch' (in so far as it still exists) 'have to' carry out the conference decision, with no-one to do it?

[Left Voice]

Even modern day political parties essentially operate with something akin to democratic centralism, though they'd never refer to it as that.

[The Idler]

OK, if the branch has to carry out the decisions of conference, what if every member of the branch disagrees? Does the 'branch' (in so far as it still exists) 'have to' carry out the conference decision, with no-one to do it?
Well in 1906 Islington branch tried this and was dissolved, then as stated before - in 1991, Camden and North West London branches tried this and were dissolved. Unless trying to constitute themselves as a branch, individual members wouldn't be expelled as was the case with Systematic Ideology in the 1940s-1960s and the Where We Stand document and Libertarian Communism in the 1970s. They never tried to constitute themselves as branches so no-one was expelled.
I'm not sure why a ordinary democratic non-cadre but also non-federalist party is so hard to understand. Democratic conference decisions of the whole party are enforced but without suppressing or penalising minority opinions. Again, same as in the big successful political parties. I can't imagine the Labour party operating as a cadre party, but they would shut down branches if necessary as happened in Liverpool in the 1980s.
Can you tell us if the ICC is a cadre party operating more strictly than the described operations above?

[Blake's Baby]

OK; on the first part of what you're saying... if Conference adopted a policy, and all the members of a branch refused to carry it out, then the branch would be dissolved but the members wouldn't be forced to leave the organisation. Would they have to join other branches? Or is there a two-tier membership structure, where some people are members of a branch which is part of the organisation, and some people are 'direct' members of the organisation without a branch?

As to the ICC, as you know I'm not a member of the ICC so I can't say I'm all that familiar with their internal workings but what I believe to be the case is 1 - you have to be a member of a Section (equal to branch), if you live in a country where there is a section; 2 - if you don't, or if there aren't enough people to form a properly-constituted Section, you are classed as a 'nucleus' (though in practice it seems that some Sections have dropped below official Section size because of splits, deaths, people leaving the organisation); and 3 - you are expected to carry out Congress (equal to Conference) decisions.

However, binding Congress decisions are not taken on matters of secondary importance: it's not necessary (for example) to defend Luxermburgist economics in the ICC, despite the fact that it's 'officially' the line of the organisation; there are ICCers I know who have a minority position on the causes of capitalism's crises, and they aren't sanctioned in any way over this and are not expected to argue for a Luxemburgist interpretation of economics at meetings. The causes of the crisis are not a matter of 'class lines' and therefore (unlike, say, support for national liberation movements) are not a question that will get you expelled from the organisation.

That's my understanding anyway. Perhaps it might be better to get answers on the functioning of the ICC from Devrim or Leo.

[The Idler]

Yep, if Conference adopted a policy, and all the members of a branch refused to carry it out, then the branch would be dissolved but the members wouldn't be forced to leave the organisation.
The members who were in the dissolved branch would likely be transferred to their nearest existing branch or 'Central branch'.
Here they could continue to openly argue for their position.
Your mentioning of binding conference decisions on matters of secondary importance is interesting.
The decision on using the abbreviated name was taken and many members openly argued against it (this was how it was reversed in 2008), many of these members wouldn't have been involved in activity using the abbreviated name. However, Camden and North West London branches openly flouted conference and used the long form of the name.
A cadre organisation as I understand it would pursue all the members openly arguing for the long-form of the name and try and expel them and the decision would never have been reversed.
The SPGB merely dissolved the two branches.
I actually think it would have been better not to have done so, and rather that enforcing the short-form of the name is a matter is of secondary importance.
However, I am equally sure a cadre organisation would not have been the right approach to dealing with open expression of different opinions.
Can anyone defend the approach of a cadre organisation in these circumstances?

[Blake's Baby]

...
The decision on using the abbreviated name was taken and many members openly argued against it ... many of these members wouldn't have been involved in activity using the abbreviated name...
A cadre organisation as I understand it would pursue all the members openly arguing for the long-form of the name and try and expel them and the decision would never have been reversed...

1 - it's my view that if you are a member of an organisation that, after a debate in which all are allowed to air their views, you find yourself in a minority, the politically responsible thing to do is to continue to state your case while you are able (without being a wrecker, eg at every meeting opening up the debate again even though it's been decided). If you aren't able to continue the debate you have to decide if a) it's a point of principle or b) it's a point of secondary importance.

If it's a) then you should leave. An organisation compromising its principles is a sign that the organisation has succumbed to bourgeois ideology and is in the process of disintegration (or integration into the bourgeoisie). For example, if the SPGB suddenly decided that it was OK to support national-liberation movements in South Asia, for example.

If it's b) you should lump it. Changing from The Socialist Party of Great Britain to The Socialist Party (or back) is not a matter of principle. In the scheme of things, so what? If the organisation is otherwise healthy it's still going to make mistakes. Stay and try and put things on the right course.

That doesn't seem that complicated to me, to be honest.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you have taken part in the debate, and lost, I don't see why you have a right to ignore the result. Perhaps the Idler would like to explain why democratic group decisions shouldn't be binding on those who disagree with them.

This is fair enough if you are running a small, tight-knit group of professional revolutionaries who are largely ideologically homogeneous and this situation operates in a vacuum.

However, surely you can see that having a party run like this running a wider society that contains diverse people, that needs to confront a variety of issues not always related, that contains people with different mindsets and different opinions on all manner of issues, has a strong tendency towards uniformity and dogmatism (and, as we have seen, towards centralisation of political power in the hands of a vote-winning minority)?

[Red Star Rising]

Problematic compared to what? You don't want "tyranny of the majority" so instead we have tyranny of the minority? Because the truth is, tyranny of the majority is an oxymoron. Where the majority rule, there is proletarian dictatorship. Where the minority rule, we have capitalism.

Well given that the majority are currently Capitalists, protecting minority opinion is probably in our interests.

[The Idler]

1 - it's my view that if you are a member of an organisation that, after a debate in which all are allowed to air their views, you find yourself in a minority, the politically responsible thing to do is to continue to state your case while you are able (without being a wrecker, eg at every meeting opening up the debate again even though it's been decided). If you aren't able to continue the debate you have to decide if a) it's a point of principle or b) it's a point of secondary importance.

If it's a) then you should leave. An organisation compromising its principles is a sign that the organisation has succumbed to bourgeois ideology and is in the process of disintegration (or integration into the bourgeoisie). For example, if the SPGB suddenly decided that it was OK to support national-liberation movements in South Asia, for example.

If it's b) you should lump it. Changing from The Socialist Party of Great Britain to The Socialist Party (or back) is not a matter of principle. In the scheme of things, so what? If the organisation is otherwise healthy it's still going to make mistakes. Stay and try and put things on the right course.

That doesn't seem that complicated to me, to be honest.
If you were told that in order to deliver a talk on the economic crisis, one had to put the falling rate of profit theory (for example) as the principled position of the group and the disequilibrium theory was only a minority position within your group, what would you do? Leave or lump it?

[DOOM]

Even modern day political parties essentially operate with something akin to democratic centralism, though they'd never refer to it as that.

Indeed, this was my first thought when I read about democratic centralism for the first time.
Someone care to explain the differences? I mean, it's probably not the same, is it?

[The Idler]

Indeed, this was my first thought when I read about democratic centralism for the first time.
Someone care to explain the differences? I mean, it's probably not the same, is it?
Nope it's not. In modern political parties, the views you express as an active member don't affect your ability to participate in the party decision making. In democratic centralist cadre parties you don't have the same rights in the decision making process if you find yourself in a position found after a decision to be the minority.

[Blake's Baby]

This is fair enough if you are running a small, tight-knit group of professional revolutionaries who are largely ideologically homogeneous and this situation operates in a vacuum.

However, surely you can see that having a party run like this running a wider society that contains diverse people, that needs to confront a variety of issues not always related, that contains people with different mindsets and different opinions on all manner of issues, has a strong tendency towards uniformity and dogmatism (and, as we have seen, towards centralisation of political power in the hands of a vote-winning minority)?

I don't even know what 'a vote-winning minority' is. If the organisation debates then those individuals or sections, who were unsuccessful in getting their position adopted, have a responsibility to accept the decisions of the party's decision-making body. If no-one has to accept a decision one disagrees with, what is the point of decision-making at all? Why have a congress if it has no power? Why call a vote if 50%-1 of the members can ignore the result?





If you were told that in order to deliver a talk on the economic crisis, one had to put the falling rate of profit theory (for example) as the principled position of the group and the disequilibrium theory was only a minority position within your group, what would you do? Leave or lump it?

Neither.

No political group that I'd join would make me defend a non-essential position if I held a minority position on the issue. If a group wanted to enforce economic orthodoxy (to make acceptance of a particular line on the cause of the crisis of capitalism a criterion of membership), and I didn't accept what was made into a criterion of membership, then I'd probably cause a stink and be expelled, trying as I did so to persuade anyone with a brain left in the organisation to come with me.

If it was an essential position that I was suddenly tasked with defending (eg peasant war will establish communism first in Nepal, then the rest of the world) then I'd be out of the door faster than a rat up a drainpipe.

[consuming negativity]

Well given that the majority are currently Capitalists, protecting minority opinion is probably in our interests.

The capitalist class is a small minority, and I guarantee that the majority of people around the world or even in most Western countries would not identify themselves as "capitalists". I've seen poll numbers with like 35% of Americans saying that they have a positive view of capitalism. Rule by anything other than the majority is inherently undemocratic and tyrannical, because the only other option is giving a greater weight to minority opinions than the support they actually enjoy, and thereby giving some people more equal of a say than others. In its most extreme form, this is the colloquial use of "dictatorship", or the ultimate protection of one minority opinion over that of the rest of the population.

[Red Star Rising]

The capitalist class is a small minority, and I guarantee that the majority of people around the world or even in most Western countries would not identify themselves as "capitalists". I've seen poll numbers with like 35% of Americans saying that they have a positive view of capitalism. Rule by anything other than the majority is inherently undemocratic and tyrannical, because the only other option is giving a greater weight to minority opinions than the support they actually enjoy, and thereby giving some people more equal of a say than others. In its most extreme form, this is the colloquial use of "dictatorship", or the ultimate protection of one minority opinion over that of the rest of the population.
That may be so , but i doubt that the other 65% would identify themselves as supportive of Communism.

[consuming negativity]

That may be so , but i doubt that the other 65% would identify themselves as supportive of Communism.

....and?

[Thirsty Crow]

Problematic compared to what? You don't want "tyranny of the majority" so instead we have tyranny of the minority? Because the truth is, tyranny of the majority is an oxymoron. Where the majority rule, there is proletarian dictatorship. Where the minority rule, we have capitalism.
It's problematic when compared to this possible reworking of the issue:

a) when it comes to basic political issues and orientations, of course that if a person or a sub-group want to continue to act as part of an organization they will abide by majority decision; someone who doesn't at all accept and act on the basis of the minimum political points of agreement (e.g. communism as opposed to reformism, opposition to homophobia and sexism and so on) yet still wants to remain in the organization is to be expelled obviously

b) when it comes to complex disagreement in relation to political tactics and strategy, an organization could very well have a rule of thimb stating that after free discussion and deliberation (this is in actual fact a mere verbal ornament for socialist organizations who harp on and on about democratic centralism), the majority decision becomes basis for action but at the same time the org's minority is free not to pursue action, but is obligated not to hamper it* (for instance, by open and public attack in local press, whereas the fight for the minority viewpoint can be waged inside the organization)

* Of course, everything depends on how a group of people thinka about actions which do indeed hamper the execution of the majority view.

This isn't to say that this doesn't bring problems of its own; for instance, one possible problem would be uneven activity across a single country if there is significant disagreement about, say, concrete tactics of supporting workers' struggles and engaging in social movements.

It's also worthwhile to note that the term is applied to how an oprganization of communists functions.

[The Idler]

I don't even know what 'a vote-winning minority' is. If the organisation debates then those individuals or sections, who were unsuccessful in getting their position adopted, have a responsibility to accept the decisions of the party's decision-making body. If no-one has to accept a decision one disagrees with, what is the point of decision-making at all? Why have a congress if it has no power? Why call a vote if 50%-1 of the members can ignore the result?
They cannot ignore the result, this is a mischaracterisation of democratic (in the normal sense) parties, but they can continue to argue against it with the decision limiting their participation in the most minimal way possible.






Neither.

No political group that I'd join would make me defend a non-essential position if I held a minority position on the issue. If a group wanted to enforce economic orthodoxy (to make acceptance of a particular line on the cause of the crisis of capitalism a criterion of membership), and I didn't accept what was made into a criterion of membership, then I'd probably cause a stink and be expelled, trying as I did so to persuade anyone with a brain left in the organisation to come with me.

If it was an essential position that I was suddenly tasked with defending (eg peasant war will establish communism first in Nepal, then the rest of the world) then I'd be out of the door faster than a rat up a drainpipe.
Democratic centralist organisations would expect all members to defend positions agreed by majorities. Their criterion of membership is enforcing majority decisions to be defended by all members, with minority opinions expected to lump it or even not to argue against it ie. "like it"

It's not a choice between tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority, you can choose not to run a tyrannical decision making process.

[Blake's Baby]

Well I've been arguing all along that there are essential and non-essential positions. An essential position would be that capitalism is irreformable and needs to be overthrown by the working class. A non-essential position would be that capitalism is irreformable because of the falling rate of profit, or because of overproduction, or because of underconsumption, or because of systemic disequilibrium... etc.

If an organisation changed its essential positions (if the SPGB suddenly decided y'all had to go out and wage a peasant war let's say) then that's time to leave. If it makes a secondary position into a core principle, so that (for example) it bans discussion of alternative explanations of capitalist crisis and insists on an economic orthodoxy in the organisation, I think that's a bad sign and I'd fight it until I was either successful in getting the situation reversed, or expelled. If it was a non-essential position I wouldn't expect the organisation to force me to defend it (eg getting me to argue an economic explanation for capitalist crisis which I thought was wrong).

[Deep Sea]

What is a "federalist" party? A party that supports federalism as a concept for a government? A party where everyone has to dress up as James Madison?

[The Idler]

As far as I know minority non-essential positions are not allowed under democratic centralism. I don't think even Lars Lih's generous reading of Bolshevism argues minority positions didn't somehow restrict participation of those holding a minority position even a 'non-essential' or tactical one.

[The Idler]

What is a "federalist" party? A party that supports federalism as a concept for a government? A party where everyone has to dress up as James Madison?
A federalist party is one where sections, locales or branches while belonging to the party as a whole can formulate their own differing policy from the whole or other sections, locales or branches. Solidarity Federation (UK) is one such organisation.

[Deep Sea]

A federalist party is one where sections, locales or branches while belonging to the party as a whole can formulate their own differing policy from the whole or other sections, locales or branches.

So one section can rob banks and send the money to overseas organizations, and another section can do street protests with the local unions?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I feel I have an elementary understanding of this concept so I'd like to expand. What's a simple explanation, and it's pros and cons?

It's like ok say you and some pals are hangingout, you want to go to see some blockbuster and the other wants to go find some dope. Everyone else votes to go find some dope; therefore, you all go find some dope. Boom, democratic centralism.

[Blake's Baby]

You can leave of course, and go and see the movie while your friends smoke dope. What you can't do is go with them to score some dope and not smoke and spend your entire time whining about the movie you missed, because then your friends think you're a jackass.

[The Idler]

You can leave of course, and go and see the movie while your friends smoke dope. What you can't do is go with them to score some dope and not smoke and spend your entire time whining about the movie you missed, because then your friends think you're a jackass.Democratic centralist friends might make it a condition of their friendship if you went to the movie.
Democratic friends might be able to handle a minority of the group going off to see the movie, without it affecting their common friendship.

[The Idler]

So one section can rob banks and send the money to overseas organizations, and another section can do street protests with the local unions?A member of a federalist organisation might be in a better position to answer but usually there are minimum points of agreement.

[Deep Sea]

A member of a federalist organisation might be in a better position to answer but usually there are minimum points of agreement.

How are these "minimum points of agreement" established?

[The Idler]

How are these "minimum points of agreement" established?
As far as I know they are agreed at party formation and then, on joining.

[Deep Sea]

As far as I know they are agreed at party formation and then, on joining.

So you can't hold a different view, join, and argue for it internally?

[The Idler]

The minimum points of agreement in a federalist party would probably be less than in a non-federalist party.

[GanzEgal]

Looks like my view on ideal decision-making process is somewhere in the direction of where Idler stands. More or less.

A basic objective of politics should be to make the population happy. If not, then we raise some other objective than people's happiness as the great Purpose of life. The result easily is that unhappy people unhappily follow the unhappy Purpose, until they realise the insanity of the setting and revolt against the Purpose.

So I declare that maximal happiness of the population is the main purpose and main objective of politics. Majority rule voting _seems_ to guarantee that at least 51% of population will be happy with the winning solution, which will be legally binding for everyone. But in reality, the winning solution can actually be the first preference of as few as 30% or 25% of population. This happens if several different solutions are each supported by 25%, 20%, 15%, 10% and so on, of the population.

A radically more effective method for maximizing happiness of the population is to allow people to get their preferred solution, no matter how popular or unpopular it is. (As long as simultaneous peaceful coexistence of the different solutions is practically possible.) Thus the democratic voting process would decide the budget of each competing solution, rather than decide which of the competing solutions becomes the only implemented solution. If 40% of people vote for project X, and 35% vote for project Y, and 25% vote for project Z, then we would avoid the mindless majority rule decision to give 100% of national budget to project X, and instead we would give 40% of the national budget to project X, 35% to project Y, and 25% to project Z. Such a decision-making culture would give a significantly higher percentage of the population a reason to be happy than majority rule politics gives.