Democratic Centralism in practice

[Gold Against The Soul]

I've seen it described as having to *accept* a party programme if not *agree* with it. But what does actually mean in practice? Does this mean I could no longer publicly state disagreement with elements of the programme, for example?

Just wondering as I'm tempted to join a particular party that is organised along these lines but have heard some terrible things about it not actually being that democratic at all and open to abuse (ie, the temporary ban on factions in 1921 in that lasted 70 years? etc)

[bezdomni]

If you are a member of a democratic centralist organization, you cannot bring criticism of the party's programme to the masses. You are free and encouraged to disagree within the party...but at the end of the day when it has all been voted on, the majority will carries through.

"Democratic centralism means freedom of discussion, unity of action."

[apathy maybe]

I can't speak for revolutionary organisations, as I have never been involved in such an organisation that has such a policy, and the only "revolutionary" organisation that I've had any real contact with, well it was only a local branch anyway.

But at least for the the Australian Labor Party, what it means is that, yes, you aren't allowed to speak against the policy (at least outside the party). If you ask an ALP member (at least a politician) what their view on (for example) old growth logging, they will most probably regurgitate the ALP position. And if pressed, they might mention something about the fact that they are a "democratic party". At least, that is my experience ...

My advice, don't join any party organised on those lines. Instead, become an anarchist ... :) (Or at least, if you do join such a party, be sure to have a clear understanding of what is meant by "democratic centralism" before hand, and clarify it.)

[More Fire for the People]

Democratic centralism means shut the fuck up when bureaucrats say so, turning in other comrades when the fail to do so.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 19, 2007 08:48 pm
Democratic centralism means shut the fuck up when bureaucrats say so, turning in other comrades when the fail to do so.
Duh. That is why I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I love being passive and ratting out comrades.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I wrote this in the Lenin and the Bolsheviks thread in the History forum about democratic-centralism and the party's relation to encouraging consciousness:

I don't think that we should go as far as denouncing political parties as bourgeois organs, that is simply ultra-leftist and ahistorical poison that would be completely detrimental to the international proletariat movement.

Either way, is the model that worked in a backward, unindustrialized, mostly illiterate backwater not fully integrated into capitalism and stuck in a feudalistic police state that was only effective in revolutionary times applicable the United States today? What has been the history of democratic centralist organizations here in the US in non-revolutionary times? It has been a history of power-trips, personality masquerading as politics, cults, sects, banning of factions, and other shameful accusations. This sad history has derailed growth of working class organization and consciousness and turned people off of revolutionary politics. Especially since the rise of the internet and the facility of non-hierarchical networks, resistance has coalesced and grown better outside of Democratic Centralist organizations. Lenin's assessment that workers can not go farther than 'trade union consciousness', that he wrote about in What Is To Be Done was soon proven incorrect by the Moscow and Petrograd working class. In 1905 they created Soviets to administer the general strikes and pushed them towards dual power confrontations against the Tsarist state. Lenin recognized the Soviets for what they were, and had to argue against the other Bolsheviks who opposed Soviets because they weren't creations of the party. Who was the vanguard again? Was it these hierarchally-structured 'revolutionary' parties, or the workers themselves, who developed consciousness without the hypnotizing trance provided 'from the outside'; the socialist intellectuals that agitated amongst the workers.

I do not wish to discredit Lenin however, and actually reinforce the position that he never explicitly changed, in which he held that the conception of independently pursuing the task of gaining consciousness was something that could only be pursued through actions undertaken by the workers themselves.


Vladimir Lenin Lessons of the Revolution:
At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy — the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realize the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and oppression.


Vladimir Lenin The Reorganization of the Party:
The working class is instinctively, spontaneously Social-Democratic, and more than ten years of work put in by Social-Democracy has done a great deal to transform this spontaneity into consciousness.

I think that, in conclusion, Lenin recognized that the character of the working class was bent towards the independent construction of class consciouss without it's plastering 'from the outside', and that it's own experience in these struggles will assist in the fostering of militancy and inner-organization that they will gradually obtain as a result of a sharper inclination brought forth by reaccuring moments of capitalist crisis. Trotsky asserted that,



Leon Trotsky, Speech given to the CP of Ukraine in Kharkov, 1923:
“… in history’s last analysis the working class would’ve triumphed even if there had been no Marx and no Ulyanov-Lenin.

“The working class would’ve worked out the ideas it needed, the methods that were necessary to it, but more slowly. The circumstance that the working class raised up, at two crests of its historical development, two such figures as Marx and Lenin, has been of colossal advantage to the revolution”

This is where the historic divide between Stalinists and Leninists is reached; whereas proponents of Lenin and Trotsky call for the revolutionary party to be a guiding force, Stalin had proposed that it was the sole leading force; that the labor movement, when left to its own devices, was inclined irrevocably toward opportunism and that only through resigning to strict party discipline, could any results be expected. In my opinion, this is where the excesses of recent Maoist, and even hundreds of Trotskyist sects, floats fluently from.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 19, 2007 08:48 pm
Democratic centralism means shut the fuck up when bureaucrats say so, turning in other comrades when the fail to do so.
Or is that what your prejudices dictates that it mean?

I ask you sincerley here what are your expiriences of working in a democratic centralist organisations? What do you know of democratic centralism in action? I know that my expiriences of democratic centralism havent involved telling people to shut up the fuck up, it's involved discussion and reaching a conscensus, by a vote if nescesesary and the result of this being accepted by the membership of the organisation. What's the point in democracy if the result is not accepted? This seems to be effectivley what you argue for and would be no effective way to run an oragnisation.

[Janus]

Democratic centralism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17437&hl=+democratic++centralism)

Democratic centralism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37865&hl=+democratic++centralism)

[LSD]

What's the point in democracy if the result is not accepted? This seems to be effectivley what you argue for and would be no effective way to run an oragnisation.

That's exactly what it means.


What's the point in democracy if the result is not accepted?

I have a better question, what's the point of democracy if it isn't actually democracy?

Believe me, we all understand the the idea of "democratic centralism", but anyone who believes that it can possibly function in the real world has a remarkably naive view of politics.

After all, in theory, bourgeois "democracy" is also a fully representative participatory method of governance. In reality, however, it is a means to perpetuate class oppression.

"Democratic" centralism is no different. On paper it would allow complete democratic discussion, but by enforcing the authority of the "leadership" and holding centralism as the primary goal, the pratical power of the the "centre" is utterly dominant.

Assemblies can "debate" until they're blue in the face, but the leadershp will always set the line and once that line is set any defiance constitutes "factionalism" and is brutally suppressed.

There's a reason that "Democratic" centralist governments rarely if ever change from the bottom and there's a reason that once in power, Leninist leaders tend to persist.

Look, Leninists are not "evil" or "insidious", most genuinely believe that they are representing the best interests of the class, ...but then Geroge Bush genuinely believes that he is "representing America".

Real democracy cannot be "centralized". By its nature it nescessitates disent.

In Canada, our political cabinet runs on what could be called "democratic centralist" lines; cabinet members are free to dissent in camera, but can be dismissed if they so much as critisize the party line in public.

Meanwhile our Prime Minister has no theoretical executive power whatsover is just another member of Parliament.

Despite all this theory, however, the Canadian Office of the Prime Minister is commonly called "one of the most powerful parts of the government".

Again, when it comes to "centralizing" democracy, theory doesn't matter, centralized power will always perpetuate itself and no matter how many theoretical "checks" are put into place, when the priority is "discipline" and "effectiveness", democracy will always be compromised.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The "perfect" form of democratic centralism expresses in another form the dialectic of spontaneity and organization, IN SPITE OF LUXEMBURG'S CRITICISMS. By all means, criticize and vote your conscience, but once the results are announced, tow the f****** party line and shut up in regards to past criticisms!

[And I personally believe that central committees should only set the party line as the "leadership" in regards to TACTICAL issues.]


Originally posted by Hopscotch
Democratic centralism means shut the fuck up when bureaucrats say so, turning in other comrades when the fail to do so.

How can a left-communist say such drivel? :huh: