Democratic Centralism

[Led Zeppelin]

The debate is Led Zeppelin versus GeneCosta on Democratic Centralism, LZ in favor, GC opposed.

This thread will close in one week, unless of course someone has to make an important point or reply, then the opportunity is given to round up the debate.

No one besides the debaters is allowed to post here. If you do your post will be removed.

The first member in the thread title is the member in favor of the proposition, the second the member opposed, this will be the same for other threads so that it is easier to identify the positions by the titles.

GO!

[Led Zeppelin]

So I am in favor of the proposition, let me explain why.

First it must be understood what is meant by Democratic Centralism, not in its perverted usage, but as it was intended at its inception as a concept and was used in practice before the degeneration of it.

There is a balance which must be kept between centralism and democracy; "Too much democracy in action leads to disorganisation and confusion, and usually defeat; too much centralism in discussion leads to bureaucratism, bad decisions and a loss of commmitment amongst members."

When that balance is upset, you get the Stalinist degenerated version of "Democratic Centralism", which is more Centralism than Democratic, if it can be called Democratic at all.

The only argument you can have against Democratic Centralism is probably its inevitable degeneration.

I would like you to pove how the degeneration of a concept is inevitable. Is it "human nature" which causes it? If so, then communism is doomed. Is it the concept itself that makes it inherently susceptible to degeneration? If so, I would like to know how this is possible when democracy itself is inherent within that concept.

The "degeneration" of Democratic Centralism is not its degeneration, it is it's transformation to something else entirely: Dictatorial Centralism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'll ignore the Stalinist incarnation entirely and instead concentrate on the positions held by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and indeed even some Mensheviks. Before we begin I have to ask a very significant question: do you support monopolizing force with a communist party? I uphold a stern belief that it would be treacherous to support the censorship of other political parties, and probably counterproductive. I realize such a policy isn't directly related to democratic centralism, but it is a stark reality of past attempts involving a Leninist model.

Now then. Trotsky wrote in a letter entitled "On Democratic Centralism and the Regime" that "democracy and centralism do not at all find themselves in an invariable ratio to one another." On this point I agree. However, what is remarkable about this short 'essay' Trotsky penned down is the fact he was having to answer for charges of inefficiency by American comrades even far back.

I see three core problems with organizing a political party around democratic centralism, namely:

- "Unity in action" makes heterodox ideologies and opinions almost exclusively subservient to majority rule. It can also lead to the expulsion of very friendly and necessary comrades from the party - as we saw in Russia. In contemporary society we see most major political parties organized around models where individuals can simply voice an opinion that differs from the majority consensus. The only exception I'm aware of is the Libertarian Party, which requires candidates to announce where they disagree with the party's official doctrine and then explain why. I believe something like this would be a much better approach, albeit not entirely necessary. I realize Trotsky wrote much about introducing new members into the party, but democratic centralism stresses very uppity membership standards, and I believe the party will simply stick in a conservative model by not allowing complete openness all the time.

- Membership standards are open for abuse; assuming other political parties won't be banned, it is also a disappointing way of actually expressing and acquiring force. Communist parties should foremost be a medium for workers to express their opinions. The niggard standards employed by the Russian Communist Party actively pitted the intelligentsia on top - for obvious reasons. Intellectuals were most likely to accept Marxism in Russia due to the limited availability of knowledge, their sizable portion in existing society, and a lack of class consciousness. We see a similar situation today where many leading scholars (Noam Chomsky) have Leftist sympathies. Membership standards, I believe, inevitably lead to a nomenklatura. This is counterproductive. The people we field should (mostly) be workers. I realize we could argue over the point of having membership standards in 1918 Russia, but I'm interested in future battles - specifically, in the developed world.

- Lastly, I reject emphasis on a coordinated body at the top. Even though I ascribe to the title of libertarian socialist, I do not reject centralism and indeed as many can attest to - I have gone out of my way to defend Lenin, Mao, Castro, and even in some remote instances Stalin against frivolous criticism. However, I emphasize centralism only when it's necessary, and more specifically in political organization. I believe a better, more democratic approach would follow the Green Party's historic route, ie as a grassroots organization. The GP has done a marvelous job internalizing relations while becoming the fastest growing third party in the United States. I would say the best approach is a federalist one, with responsibilities and abilities delegated specifically to each tier.

[Led Zeppelin]

Before we begin I have to ask a very significant question: do you support monopolizing force with a communist party? I uphold a stern belief that it would be treacherous to support the censorship of other political parties, and probably counterproductive. I realize such a policy isn't directly related to democratic centralism, but it is a stark reality of past attempts involving a Leninist model.

No, I don't support that, unless of course it is temporarily required for the defense of the workers' state, as was the case in the USSR.

Trotsky and Lenin didn't support that either:


As far as the prohibition of other Soviet parties is concerned, it did not flow from any “theory” of Bolshevism but was a measure of defence of the dictatorship on a backward and devastated country, surrounded by enemies on all sides. For the Bolsheviks it was clear from the beginning that this measure, later completed by the prohibition of factions inside the governing party itself, signalised a tremendous danger. However, the root of the danger lay not in the doctrine or the tactics but in the material weakness of the dictatorship, ion the difficulties of its internal and international situation. If the revolution had triumphed, even if only in Germany, the need of prohibiting the other Soviet parties would have immediately fallen away. It is absolutely indisputable that the domination of a single party served as the juridical point of departure for the Stalinist totalitarian regime. The reason for this development lies neither in Bolshevism nor in the prohibition of other parties as a temporary war measure, but in the number of defeats of the proletariat in Europe and Asia.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm)


Soviet organization cannot achieve miracles but must simply reflect the will of the people. With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.

The American soviets will be full-blooded and vigorous, without need or opportunity for such measures as circumstances imposed upon Russia. Your unregenerate capitalists will, of course, find no place for themselves in the new setup. It is hard to imagine Henry Ford as the head of the Detroit Soviet.

[...]

Thus the management and policy of publications would be decided not by individual checkbooks but by group ideas. This may take little account of numerically small but important groups, but it simply means that each new idea will be compelled, as throughout history, to prove its right to existence.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm)


- "Unity in action" makes heterodox ideologies and opinions almost exclusively subservient to majority rule. It can also lead to the expulsion of very friendly and necessary comrades from the party - as we saw in Russia. In contemporary society we see most major political parties organized around models where individuals can simply voice an opinion that differs from the majority consensus. The only exception I'm aware of is the Libertarian Party, which requires candidates to announce where they disagree with the party's official doctrine and then explain why. I believe something like this would be a much better approach, albeit not entirely necessary. I realize Trotsky wrote much about introducing new members into the party, but democratic centralism stresses very uppity membership standards, and I believe the party will simply stick in a conservative model by not allowing complete openness all the time.

You are mistaken about the rights of party members, actually. The phrase "unity in action" is essential for maximum efficiency not just for a workers' party, but for any political party or organization.

However, that does not necessarily mean that individuals do not have rights to express their dissatisfaction with the formal majority. If this was the case, then Lenin himself would have been forced to concede on several essential points just because the majority was against him. Even the resolution brought to the party giving the go-ahead for the October insurrection would have been rejected, or rather, could not have even been proposed!

No, the chance was given to any faction or individuals to put forth their views to the party as a whole, in fact, it was their right as party members to do so. This right was temporarily suspended when during the Civil War several factions were spreading ideas supporting the Whites - if not due to actual intent - they were in practice.

Under regular conditions of stability, that right should of course be guaranteed to every party member.


- Membership standards are open for abuse; assuming other political parties won't be banned, it is also a disappointing way of actually expressing and acquiring force. Communist parties should foremost be a medium for workers to express their opinions. The niggard standards employed by the Russian Communist Party actively pitted the intelligentsia on top - for obvious reasons. Intellectuals were most likely to accept Marxism in Russia due to the limited availability of knowledge, their sizable portion in existing society, and a lack of class consciousness. We see a similar situation today where many leading scholars (Noam Chomsky) have Leftist sympathies. Membership standards, I believe, inevitably lead to a nomenklatura. This is counterproductive. The people we field should (mostly) be workers. I realize we could argue over the point of having membership standards in 1918 Russia, but I'm interested in future battles - specifically, in the developed world.

Since I don't support a monopoly of a single monolithic Communist Party, your argument does not really apply to my support of Democratic Centralism.

However, I disagree with you about membership standards. In Russia it was actually the problem that too many people joined the party for careerist purposes. After the revolution, when the party was opened up, the party membership rose significantly. Most workers were already members of the party pre-revolution, or supported the party during the revolution, so their loyalty was unquestionable.

However, the elements of the "middle-class", the petty-bourgeois intellectuals which you described, and other such elements which in the time of the Tsar were among the priviliged classes and strata, joined to abuse the party for their own personal gain.

The only thing to be done in such a case is to uphold high membership standards. And by this I do not mean an "entry-exam" to prove the "theoretical level" of the person wishing to join. No, by this I mean a class based background and history check.

This way you keep out those corrupting elements, while ensuring that the genuine revolutionary elements can flow into the party.

It must be kept in mind that the historical situation of the Bolsheviks was very different from the historical conditions which we face today. The proletariat is the majority class in most nations today, the corrupting elements would not be able to gain a very influential position when the overwhelming majority of party-members are by default proletarians, unless of course you don't have certain standards to limit the flow of those elements...


- Lastly, I reject emphasis on a coordinated body at the top. Even though I ascribe to the title of libertarian socialist, I do not reject centralism and indeed as many can attest to - I have gone out of my way to defend Lenin, Mao, Castro, and even in some remote instances Stalin against frivolous criticism. However, I emphasize centralism only when it's necessary, and more specifically in political organization. I believe a better, more democratic approach would follow the Green Party's historic route, ie as a grassroots organization. The GP has done a marvelous job internalizing relations while becoming the fastest growing third party in the United States. I would say the best approach is a federalist one, with responsibilities and abilities delegated specifically to each tier.

I don't disagree with this necessarily. With a larger party comes more centralization to uphold standards of efficiency, obviously, but the centralization level of some parties who only have a few members is rather sad and pointless, and actually only serves to alienate other members from activity.

When you have a larger party however, such as the Bolsheviks - who had the double misfortune of having to work underground - centralization levels are higher to ensure an efficient and smooth-running of the organization.

I believe that the Bolsheviks have proven that their method was correct, at least up to the revolution, so I don't believe there can be any disagreement about that.

I do agree though that in conditions of legality the centralization of the party can be much lower, but you must be prepared for when those conditions change, as they inevitably will when a pre-revolutionary situation arises.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No, I don't support that, unless of course it is temporarily required for the defense of the workers' state, as was the case in the USSR.I'm relieved by the first half of this sentence, but I'm also very skeptical about the necessity of banning political parties outright. Those parties involved in illegal activities should be reprimanded, but rarely should abolishment be brought to the table, and certainly not in wide scale capacity. If a capitalist party forms with the mere intention of reverting backwards, I see no reason - under any circumstance - to lend credibility and martyrdom to their collective cause. Conservative parties in the 18th and 19th century lost fairly due to the success of republicanism and liberalism. I believe we can do the same.


Since I don't support a monopoly of a single monolithic Communist PartyIn most instances, you said. Remember, arguing about reasonable circumstances is always done when people try to invite in statism. George Bush argues that the War on Terrorism means certain "rights" need to be sidestepped.


You are mistaken about the rights of party members, actually. The phrase "unity in action" is essential for maximum efficiency not just for a workers' party, but for any political party or organization.I interpret "unity in action" to also mean that the party, independent from the State, will look to solve internal problems before addressing policy issues in (say) parliament or Congress. This would mean that, amongst the party members, 60% could favor the extension of voting rights to 16 year olds, while the other 40% could abstain or vote the other way. "Unity in action" would equate to that other 40% having to vote according to the party's doctrine at the risk of being expelled. Most political parties do not follow this structure, as we would see Dennis Kucinich and other left-liberals culled out from the Democratic Party.

This framework would also marginalize any unity amongst Leftists to the point where we could see a rift in the party (and consequently, a weakened movement). There are some issues where individuals simply can't compel themselves to vote against their conscious mind. For example, I would not vote in favor of censoring the swastika because I believe censoring images and expressions only provides (unfair) credibility to the opposition. I am not willing to take that risk with my vote.


In Russia it was actually the problem that too many people joined the party for careerist purposes.An interesting sentiment.


However, the elements of the "middle-class", the petty-bourgeois intellectuals which you described, and other such elements which in the time of the Tsar were among the priviliged classes and strata, joined to abuse the party for their own personal gain.Rising through the ranks of the party is different than simply subscribing to the party. I realize Russia and past revolutions stand as examples where peasantry outnumbered the proletariat, but - assuming a revolution occurs in a a develop(ing) nation (as I believe it should), the working class will constitute as the majority of the population, and naturally the party. I don't think it's wise to exclude all middle class individuals from the party when some will likely be in tune with revolutionary fever. Indeed many past theorists and activists like Engels didn't belong to the working class.

The problem was, of course, exacerbated by the lack of political opposition in Russia. Your quotes from Trotsky say as much.


t must be kept in mind that the historical situation of the Bolsheviks was very different from the historical conditions which we face today.As I realize. Indeed the crux of my debate leans on developed nations constructing socialism and not 1917 Russia. Perhaps democratic centralism is a sensible technique for parties dealing with an aggressive bourgeoisie and small numbers of identifiable workers, but I think it would be disastrous for most of the world.


The only thing to be done in such a case is to uphold high membership standards. And by this I do not mean an "entry-exam" to prove the "theoretical level" of the person wishing to join. No, by this I mean a class based background and history check.I illustrated above why exclusionary tactics like class background checks could actually be counterproductive, but there's also the matter of deciding on who belongs to the proletariat and who doesn't. Obviously for most professions we can reach a reasonable agreement, but some comrades have disagreements over particular functions like supervisor. Others think of the some members to the lumpen-proletariat as our allies. So long as the officials at top are recallable, I don't see a problem with opening up membership. There is no feasible way a party of working class individuals, in a country of working class individuals, will have a majority of anti-socialist constituents - unless, of course, the revolution isn't ripe.


I don't disagree with this necessarily. With a larger party comes more centralization to uphold standards of efficiency, obviously, but the centralization level of some parties who only have a few members is rather sad and pointless, and actually only serves to alienate other members from activity.I don't see how you can uphold "democratic centralism" and then accept the Green Party's federalist approach without delving into absurdity.


I do agree though that in conditions of legality the centralization of the party can be much lower, but you must be prepared for when those conditions change, as they inevitably will when a pre-revolutionary situation arises.
I don't believe any party will play a vital role in the revolution, other than to serve as a medium for the workers. If the proletariat in Texas and New York both demand socialism with small disagreements, so be it. Having a centralized party at such a time would be counterproductive, if you ask me. We don't need southern comrades breaking away because most of the party membership demands for the abolition of the death penalty.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm relieved by the first half of this sentence, but I'm also very skeptical about the necessity of banning political parties outright. Those parties involved in illegal activities should be reprimanded, but rarely should abolishment be brought to the table, and certainly not in wide scale capacity. If a capitalist party forms with the mere intention of reverting backwards, I see no reason - under any circumstance - to lend credibility and martyrdom to their collective cause. Conservative parties in the 18th and 19th century lost fairly due to the success of republicanism and liberalism. I believe we can do the same.

Sure, but you are arguing against a position I never endorsed.

As I said, in reference to the right of party-members to dissent: "Under regular conditions of stability, that right should of course be guaranteed to every party member."

The same applies to other parties, but it must be kept in mind that after a successful revolution the capitalist class will be expropriated, and therefore will lose its capability to organize a significant fight against the new social order:

"Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal’s guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them."

This is why socialism is different from capitalism in its social structure. For the first time in history the majority class in society will rule over a minority who still have a bourgeois consciousness left-over from their previous class-domination over the proletariat.

In time they will die out, and they will become an irrelevancy, just as feudalists are now an irrelevancy within the current system.

I believe that, given the material development of society, there will be no place for capitalists inside the new system, simply because they won't get any representation within the democracy. But what about the capitalists who are funded by a bourgeoisie abroad? What about capitalists who, given the material development of society, are not yet fully expropriated?

They will be granted no place within the new social order. You bring forward the example of feudalist conservative parties. Were they not wiped out by the bourgeoisie? The Jacobins cut off their heads for exactly the same reason why we must cut off the proverbial heads of the bourgeoisie if they dare rise up or fight against the new social order.

We don't expect them to rise up, we don't expect them to fight, but we must not stop at anything to safeguard the revolution once it has culminated and a new social order has been established. The bourgeoisie learned to be ruthless against its political adversaries, and that is how they came to power and have kept if for so long. We luckily don't have to be as ruthless as they were, for we have the majority of society on our side, but being ruthless against a few reactionaries can be just as necessary for us as it was for the bourgeoisie to be ruthless against many reactionaries (from their perspective.)

So if a revolution happens in, let's say, Germany, and the bourgeoisie of all the world starts sending arms and finances to the reactionary opposition (similar to what happened in Russia), causing a civil war, I would most certainly support a ban on those capitalist parties, I would also support having them wiped out from the face of the earth. We can't afford to lose again; the "White Terror" which comes after failed proletarian revolutions is much more bloody than the "Red Terror" can ever be, the former is directed against a majority, the latter against a minority.

War is not a game, either you are determined to fight to the end or you lose, and humanity simply can't afford for us to lose again.


In most instances, you said. Remember, arguing about reasonable circumstances is always done when people try to invite in statism. George Bush argues that the War on Terrorism means certain "rights" need to be sidestepped.

The difference is of course that George Bush's "War on Terrorism" is fictional, while the invasion of the country by the Entente and the arming and funding of the White armies by them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War), was not.

It is only in situations like those, which are real, that I would support the banning of opposing parties taking part in fighting against the new social order.


I interpret "unity in action" to also mean that the party, independent from the State, will look to solve internal problems before addressing policy issues in (say) parliament or Congress. This would mean that, amongst the party members, 60% could favor the extension of voting rights to 16 year olds, while the other 40% could abstain or vote the other way. "Unity in action" would equate to that other 40% having to vote according to the party's doctrine at the risk of being expelled. Most political parties do not follow this structure, as we would see Dennis Kucinich and other left-liberals culled out from the Democratic Party.

You are taking things out of context. The phrase "Unity in Action" serves only as a means to stay united whenever a certain route is chosen to be followed by the majority, and it only applies to broad practical activity and theory questions, rather than minor disagreements.

There were many instances inside the Bolshevik party that put some members at odds with the majority (Lenin himself was many times), that doesn't mean that they were expelled though. As long as it did not significantly effect the working of the party in a negative way, it was not a problem.

To take your analogy, and change it a bit, if the resolution to support the October inserruction was put to the party and 20% of them voted against it, they would not be expelled, unless they refused to carry out the will of the party, i.e., the majority. In this respect the phrase "Unity in Action" is essential to any party.

If the Democratic Party decided to do something, and Kucinich votes against it, that won't matter much unless he starts doing something which goes against what the Party decided (in terms of practical activity, not in terms of proposing other bills), then he will most likely be expelled.

Having said that, there were many bills and proposals put forth to the party which were not supported by 100%, the people who opposed it were not expelled, that would be ridiculous. "Action" has a different meaning in a post-revolutionary society, because it involves making government policy instead of just building an organization. Disagreements over the former are much more widespread and less harmful to the movement than disagreements over the latter.

Pre-revolutionary activity requires maximum unity.

If in a post-revolution society a proposal was put forth by someone to revert back to capitalism, and they started actively fighting against the revolution, they would obviously be expelled because it harms the movement. If however someone wants to decrease the age of voting to 16 while the majority of the party doesn't, they won't be expelled and they'll have the right to argue their case to the party as a whole, while also being able to vote for the proposal in a Parliament, Congress or Soviet, because it doesn't harm the movement.

We must be sensible, there is no clear-cut rule saying "all disagreement with the majority means expulsion", that would be ridiculous, Lenin himself would have been expelled on many occasions.

Having said that, your argument doesn't make much sense, it is the same argument which is used against formal democracy whenever it suits the bourgeoisie: "Yes, but the minority should not be subjected to the tyranny of the majority!".

You are arguing against the basis of democracy.


This framework would also marginalize any unity amongst Leftists to the point where we could see a rift in the party (and consequently, a weakened movement). There are some issues where individuals simply can't compel themselves to vote against their conscious mind. For example, I would not vote in favor of censoring the swastika because I believe censoring images and expressions only provides (unfair) credibility to the opposition. I am not willing to take that risk with my vote.

That is not something you would be expelled for, that would be ridiculous.

If people were to be expelled for the most minor disagreements then there wouldn't be a party in the first place.

Expulsions are for extreme cases only, when there is a disagreement over the fundamentals of the party programme, or if you refuse to carry out something which the majority voted for, or at least not actively work against it, like for example an insurrection.

But again, this has to do mostly with the difference between the party pre and post-revolution, it can be reduced to this dictum: If you do anything which fundamentally harms the movement, you will be expelled.

Opposition to banning the swastika or wanting to lower the age of voting to 16 does not harm the movement.


An interesting sentiment.

Why?

Do you like it when a lot of careerists join the party for personal gain?


Rising through the ranks of the party is different than simply subscribing to the party. I realize Russia and past revolutions stand as examples where peasantry outnumbered the proletariat, but - assuming a revolution occurs in a a develop(ing) nation (as I believe it should), the working class will constitute as the majority of the population, and naturally the party. I don't think it's wise to exclude all middle class individuals from the party when some will likely be in tune with revolutionary fever. Indeed many past theorists and activists like Engels didn't belong to the working class.


The problem was, of course, exacerbated by the lack of political opposition in Russia. Your quotes from Trotsky say as much.


I was specifically referring to elements of the middle-class, petty-bourgeois etc. who joined the party for careerist purposes post-revolution.

Obviously people like Engels do not belong to that category, and obviously not all formerly middle-class or petty-bourgeois individuals will be either.

It is important to make a distinction between pre and post-revolution, once again. Because people who join the party pre-revolution did so out of conviction (disregarding provocateurs, but in general lines), they are already "safe" in that regard. It is different for people who join the party post-revolution en masse, and even that difference is related to conditions such as the level of development (advanced capitalist nations probably would already have the mass of the working-class inside the revolutionary party by the time the revolution occurs, which would mean a significant proportion of the population).

I was referring to a specific context, where you have a party that "opens up" post-revolution, and therefore needs a certain policy to keep unwanted elements out, in that context it is logical to perform a class-background check, because proletarians are most likely to be genuine in their conviction, while former owners of a corporation are not.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they should be excluded.

And yes, the problem was indeed exacerbated by the lack of any alternatives, and of course the backward nature of the society, which caused the working-class to be a minority.


As I realize. Indeed the crux of my debate leans on developed nations constructing socialism and not 1917 Russia. Perhaps democratic centralism is a sensible technique for parties dealing with an aggressive bourgeoisie and small numbers of identifiable workers, but I think it would be disastrous for most of the world.

Most of the world's nations are not "developed", and most of them have to deal with an "aggressive bourgeoisie", even in some developed nations.

That is beside the point, in a pre-revolutionary situation the now "passive bourgeoisie" will become aggressive, what would you do then? Be destroyed like the Second International?



I illustrated above why exclusionary tactics like class background checks could actually be counterproductive, but there's also the matter of deciding on who belongs to the proletariat and who doesn't. Obviously for most professions we can reach a reasonable agreement, but some comrades have disagreements over particular functions like supervisor. Others think of the some members to the lumpen-proletariat as our allies. So long as the officials at top are recallable, I don't see a problem with opening up membership. There is no feasible way a party of working class individuals, in a country of working class individuals, will have a majority of anti-socialist constituents - unless, of course, the revolution isn't ripe.

You are speaking of "constituents", "Parliaments" and "Congresses", what exactly is your view of a post-revolutionary society? Would it run in the same fashion as a bourgeois-democracy?

If officials at the top were recallable right now, do you think there would be no anti-socialist constituents in the government? After all, most people in the US are working-class, right?

You don't seem to understand that there are varying degrees of consciousness, even within the working-class itself. If you just "open up membership" to anyone, then those workers who used to be members of the KKK would be more than happy to join and set up a branch of the socialist party in their town, and there would be nothing to stop them, because after all, the party is open to anyone.

Why would you have a socialist party at all when anyone can join?


I don't see how you can uphold "democratic centralism" and then accept the Green Party's federalist approach without delving into absurdity.

That is because you don't understand changes in society, and how they impact social movements and parties.

The "mass-party" line can work well in some historical conditions, sure, but that doesn't mean that those historical conditions won'tchange, requiring a change in how the party works.

A revolutionary party must be flexible, it must be able to change its structure and general line according to the changing conditions they have to face. Right now, when relative stability reigns in bourgeois-society, it seems wise to follow the "mass-party" line, but if you don't have at least some level of centralism you would not be able to change that line when the conditions change.

You will be wiped out if you can't, if there is anything the mass-parties of the Second International taught us it is this.


I don't believe any party will play a vital role in the revolution, other than to serve as a medium for the workers. If the proletariat in Texas and New York both demand socialism with small disagreements, so be it. Having a centralized party at such a time would be counterproductive, if you ask me. We don't need southern comrades breaking away because most of the party membership demands for the abolition of the death penalty.

If there is no party to play a "vital role", there will be no revolution, it is as simple as that. If there is a situation where the proletariat of Texas disagrees about something with the proletariat of New York, and there is no organization to mediate between the two, like a party, then there is a high chance that they would break away from each other and fight in isolation.

However, if there is a centralized party able to bridge those disagreements, which they have the abilitiy to do because they have no interest in one over the other (which would be different in a federalist party), they will be united in their fight.

Without centralized leadership able to unite the interests of at least a majority of workers socialist revolutions don't work, history has shown this time and time again.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't have much time at the moment, but nonetheless:


So if a revolution happens in, let's say, Germany, and the bourgeoisie of all the world starts sending arms and finances to the reactionary opposition (similar to what happened in Russia), causing a civil war, I would most certainly support a ban on those capitalist parties, I would also support having them wiped out from the face of the earth. We can't afford to lose again; the "White Terror" which comes after failed proletarian revolutions is much more bloody than the "Red Terror" can ever be, the former is directed against a majority, the latter against a minority.

Unfortunately, you're understating what the Bolsheviks did under Lenin's leadership in 1921. All parties were blocked from entering the process, including any competing socialist parties. As I indicated in my previous post, I have no problem with rooting out organizations which unlawfully pursue the destruction of the proletariat dictatorship; I would expect as much from the bourgeoisie state in its dealing with a popular uprising, after all.

We must always be sensible with giving the opposition a voice, or else it gets sympathy.


In time they will die out, and they will become an irrelevancy, just as feudalists are now an irrelevancy within the current system.

I agree, but only if their system is defeated by greater progress and their theories by greater thinking.


The difference is of course that George Bush's "War on Terrorism" is fictional, while the invasion of the country by the Entente and the arming and funding of the White armies by them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War), was not.

Are you then stating there's instances where George Bush and his adopted child, the Patriot Act, could be - conceivably - just? I disagree with that stance.



You are taking things out of context. The phrase "Unity in Action" serves only as a means to stay united whenever a certain route is chosen to be followed by the majority, and it only applies to broad practical activity and theory questions, rather than minor disagreements.

There were many instances inside the Bolshevik party that put some members at odds with the majority (Lenin himself was many times), that doesn't mean that they were expelled though. As long as it did not significantly effect the working of the party in a negative way, it was not a problem.

To take your analogy, and change it a bit, if the resolution to support the October inserruction was put to the party and 20% of them voted against it, they would not be expelled, unless they refused to carry out the will of the party, i.e., the majority. In this respect the phrase "Unity in Action" is essential to any party.

You're restating my interpretation of the phrase. As I said, there are certain matters individuals simply can't participate in due to their personal beliefs. We see this in every major party around the globe; I, for instance, would vote against censoring Nazi speeches and refuse to pursue the destruction of Nazi pamphlets, regardless of where my party voted. Instead of having me expelled, it would be better to keep me united through a more personalized approach. That why I don't break off with 5 other comrades and forum an adjacent political party. Too many political parties weaken a movement, even if there is an alliance of sorts. A lot of the authentic socialist and communist parties in Western Europe fragmented with disastrous results.


If the Democratic Party decided to do something, and Kucinich votes against it, that won't matter much unless he starts doing something which goes against what the Party decided (in terms of practical activity, not in terms of proposing other bills), then he will most likely be expelled.


That's not the case. When Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, almost every person in the Democratic party lectured him on why it would be a bad move - politically. Nancy Pelosi had flatly stated impeachment was off the table only a few months prior. However, for all of this, Kucinich is still a Democrat.


Pre-revolutionary activity requires maximum unity.

Maximum unity would entail filling in every detail, which is an impossible task. There are scores of intelligent socialists who oppose the market, and others who support utilizing it; some who propose gradually removing family businesses, and others who want to see every bit of hierarchal property relations destroyed immediately. If a political party does develop, I think one of the last things it should be is centralist.


We must be sensible, there is no clear-cut rule saying "all disagreement with the majority means expulsion", that would be ridiculous, Lenin himself would have been expelled on many occasions.

We are of course assuming the leadership of our respected party is a benign group.


You are arguing against the basis of democracy.

I uphold the technocratic maxim, "rule over things, not people." As many have attested to in separate forums, my ideology is a strange blend of Marxism, social democracy (traditional), and anarchism. Although I don't see myself calling for an additional revolution to change anything heterodox from my own beliefs, I don't have any ounce of initiative in my body to regulate people's actions unless they negatively affect another's liberty.


Opposition to banning the swastika or wanting to lower the age of voting to 16 does not harm the movement.

Nor did I say anything which would disagree with such a statement.


Expulsions are for extreme cases only, when there is a disagreement over the fundamentals of the party programme, or if you refuse to carry out something which the majority voted for, or at least not actively work against it, like for example an insurrection.

A few points.

1.) You are taking a rational, non-aggressive approach. We would have to hope the party leadership isn't so rash. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case in any proclaimed socialist country. Do you believe all self-declared Marxist-Leninst parties are/were "Stalinist" at some point?

2.) If someone doesn't carry out their duties, why not just appoint someone else to the job instead of culling them out?


Do you like it when a lot of careerists join the party for personal gain?

I suspect most people who join politics wish to achieve something personal from their physical and mental expenditures. It seemed to be the case even in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik party.


I was specifically referring to elements of the middle-class, petty-bourgeois etc. who joined the party for careerist purposes post-revolution.

However, you stated there would be class standards, which inevitably means Engels-types would be left out - possibly even disenfranchised. You and I both know what happens when there's a strong workers' movement and the petit-bourgeoisie get upset and/or scared.


I was referring to a specific context, where you have a party that "opens up" post-revolution, and therefore needs a certain policy to keep unwanted elements out, in that context it is logical to perform a class-background check, because proletarians are most likely to be genuine in their conviction, while former owners of a corporation are not.

Democrats and Republicans don't exclude others from participating within their own party; the thread should be minimal, as I said, if there is a strong proletariat showing in the country. The only problems I'm aware of for contemporary American parties occurs around primary time, but - again - that's a minimal concern due to sheer numbers. We are both assuming a proletariat revolution will start when a strong majority/plurality have radicalized, right?


Without centralized leadership able to unite the interests of at least a majority of workers socialist revolutions don't work, history has shown this time and time again.

Movements with similar goals usually unite against a popular enemy regardless. I don't see the need for centralism; I guess you could call my approach voluntaryism, although I refrain from using the word since it carries over an anarcho-capitalism context.

[Led Zeppelin]

IUnfortunately, you're understating what the Bolsheviks did under Lenin's leadership in 1921. All parties were blocked from entering the process, including any competing socialist parties. As I indicated in my previous post, I have no problem with rooting out organizations which unlawfully pursue the destruction of the proletariat dictatorship; I would expect as much from the bourgeoisie state in its dealing with a popular uprising, after all.

We must always be sensible with giving the opposition a voice, or else it gets sympathy.

I don't mean to be rude but it only seems like I'm understating what the Bolsheviks did because you don't know your history. Both the Mensheviks and SR's supported the White counter-revolution:


White Army

Counter-revolutionary forces that invaded Russia following the October Revolution, creating the Civil War of 1918-20. The White Armies were made up of soldiers from the French, British, Japanese, and US armies and their Russian conscripts. The Russian section of the White Army was led by former czarist officers, and members of the right-wing Mensheviks, and right-wing Socialist revolutionaries.

And in case you're wondering, the "left-wing" of those parties joined the Bolsheviks.


I agree, but only if their system is defeated by greater progress and their theories by greater thinking.

Naturally.


Are you then stating there's instances where George Bush and his adopted child, the Patriot Act, could be - conceivably - just? I disagree with that stance.

Erm, no?

Do I really have to explain why too?

The Bolsheviks represented proletarian power, they had led a socialist revolution...Bush represents the bourgeois class, so any curtailing of rights initiated by him only reinforces the class he represents.

Your previous argument therefore doesn't make sense, because firstly I never argued that certain rights should be temporarily suspended when there is no real threat (as Bush has done, which you cited as an example), and secondly because when there is a real threat it should only be done when the party or organization of proletariat is forced to do it to defend itself and the new workers' state.

You went from arguing that the proletarian party should not be allowed to temporarily suspend certain rights because it can decide to do so by inventing threats which do not exist (such a party or organization does not represent the proletariat to begin with, so I wouldn't support such a party by definition) to arguing that the proletarian party is justified to suspend certain rights when there is a real threat, but that the bourgeoisie would be justified to do the same as well...

You created a false dichotomy.


You're restating my interpretation of the phrase. As I said, there are certain matters individuals simply can't participate in due to their personal beliefs. We see this in every major party around the globe; I, for instance, would vote against censoring Nazi speeches and refuse to pursue the destruction of Nazi pamphlets, regardless of where my party voted. Instead of having me expelled, it would be better to keep me united through a more personalized approach. That why I don't break off with 5 other comrades and forum an adjacent political party. Too many political parties weaken a movement, even if there is an alliance of sorts. A lot of the authentic socialist and communist parties in Western Europe fragmented with disastrous results.

As I said, no one would force you to vote a certain way if the matter is so important to you, while not being that important in general.

A good example is Lunacharsky refusing to support the revolution because "historical sites were being torched" and he couldn't stand the "destruction of culture".

He wasn't expelled for that even, he voted against it, and then resigned himself.


That's not the case. When Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, almost every person in the Democratic party lectured him on why it would be a bad move - politically. Nancy Pelosi had flatly stated impeachment was off the table only a few months prior. However, for all of this, Kucinich is still a Democrat.

That may be true, but you are arguing against something I never claimed, as I said:


If the Democratic Party decided to do something, and Kucinich votes against it, that won't matter much unless he starts doing something which goes against what the Party decided (in terms of practical activity, not in terms of proposing other bills), then he will most likely be expelled.

You also disregarded what I said about opposing fundamentals of the party programme.

Proposing to impeach Cheney does not go against any fundamentals of the Democratic Party, even if it does go against the will of the majority.

There are even some issues which go against the fundamentals and are still not used to expel members (at least by some parties), as the example I cited about supporting the insurrection.


Maximum unity would entail filling in every detail, which is an impossible task. There are scores of intelligent socialists who oppose the market, and others who support utilizing it; some who propose gradually removing family businesses, and others who want to see every bit of hierarchal property relations destroyed immediately. If a political party does develop, I think one of the last things it should be is centralist.

Those "scores of intelligent socialists who support utilizing the market" are not socialists at all, at least not in the Marxist sense.

I find it odd that you even brought them up. I was specifically referring to maximum unity between real socialists, Marxists, communists, not reformist socialists.

Of course there can't be any unity with them.


We are of course assuming the leadership of our respected party is a benign group.

Yes, I am talking about parties that are genuinely Marxist and are not dominated by a small clique or bureaucracy.

I won't defend the despotism of those parties.


I uphold the technocratic maxim, "rule over things, not people." As many have attested to in separate forums, my ideology is a strange blend of Marxism, social democracy (traditional), and anarchism. Although I don't see myself calling for an additional revolution to change anything heterodox from my own beliefs, I don't have any ounce of initiative in my body to regulate people's actions unless they negatively affect another's liberty.

The maxim you uphold is quite absurd. You want to "rule over things, not people," while you are being ruled over by "people" using "things".

Those people being the bourgeoisie, and those things being the state-machinery, media, police-force etc.

You can't break this cycle if you reject the use of rule by people over people with the use of "things" such as a state, how else can the exploited expropriate the exploiters?

I find your last sentence to be...odd, simply because it's open to broad interpretation.

Define "negatively affecting someone's liberty", for example.

Ask 5 people and you will get 5 different answers.


Nor did I say anything which would disagree with such a statement.

Well, you were quite worried about being expelled from a party for it.


1.) You are taking a rational, non-aggressive approach. We would have to hope the party leadership isn't so rash. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case in any proclaimed socialist country. Do you believe all self-declared Marxist-Leninst parties are/were "Stalinist" at some point?

I am taking the Marxist approach, and I am using the example of the most succesful Marxist party in history to support my view.

I don't know about all self-declared Marxist-Leninist parties being "Stalinist". The term "Marxist-Leninist" is not just reserved for Stalinists, and all such parties are certainly not run along the same lines.

As for any "proclaimed socialist country", those countries were never socialist.

I wouldn't even say that the USSR was ever "socialist", if the term is used as designating the historical stage. Socialism requires material conditions higher than the most advanced capitalist nation today has, it is a system that is above capitalism. This does not mean that such nations could not start building socialism, but reaching the level of socialism itself would require a global effort.

So it is not surprising that those self-proclaimed socialist nations were never socialist to begin with, let alone in the process of building it.


2.) If someone doesn't carry out their duties, why not just appoint someone else to the job instead of culling them out?

When I said "in extreme cases" I meant just that. A person not doing their duties should not necessarily be expelled, unless they did it on purpose and deliberately hid it so as to cause damage.

People consciously working to damage the organization should be expelled, and by damaging I mean real physical damage, or the espousing of beliefs which contradict the party's fundamentals and the party programme, such beliefs such as capitalism or Nazism.


I suspect most people who join politics wish to achieve something personal from their physical and mental expenditures. It seemed to be the case even in the upper echelons of the Bolshevik party.

They may want to achieve something personal but their motivations for wanting to achieve that vary.

One person gets satisfaction from working for the greater good, while the other gets satisfaction from abusing his position for material or "legal" (such as more authority) self-gain.

The latter is reffered to by the term "careerist".


However, you stated there would be class standards, which inevitably means Engels-types would be left out - possibly even disenfranchised. You and I both know what happens when there's a strong workers' movement and the petit-bourgeoisie get upset and/or scared.

"Engels-types" were revolutionaries pre-revolution. They didn't get drawn in the movement when it had already won, they were fighting for it before it was even a viable alternative.

They won't be left out or disenfranchised because they are already part of the movement.

Besides, Engels was not petit-bourgeois when he was most active for the movement, he broke with his past class relations.

But that is irrelevant, I never said that people from a different class-background should be refused entry, I just said that they should be screened before they are allowed to join, post-revolution, because there are likely to be many careerist elements among them.

As for how that "screening-process" will work, I have already offered several possibilities, but I can also cite the process the Bolsheviks used for this.

Any person who support the counter-revolution after the Bolsheviks had won power, the officer caste and other elements of the petty-bourgeois/bourgeoisie, were enemies of the revolution, while the people who supported them were its allies.


Democrats and Republicans don't exclude others from participating within their own party; the thread should be minimal, as I said, if there is a strong proletariat showing in the country. The only problems I'm aware of for contemporary American parties occurs around primary time, but - again - that's a minimal concern due to sheer numbers. We are both assuming a proletariat revolution will start when a strong majority/plurality have radicalized, right?

To answer your question, yes, but not necessarily a "strong majority".

As for your reference to the Democrats and Republicans, they are not revolutionary parties, their entire dynamic is different. They exist to get votes from duped people, that is their only aim. Of course they don't want to "exclude" anyone from voting for them.

I have no idea why you are citing bourgeois parties as evidence for your claims.

Why don't you cite the German Social-Democratic Party or the other Social-Democratic "mass-parties" of the Second International which were smashed to pieces when the revolutionary wave hit them?


Movements with similar goals usually unite against a popular enemy regardless. I don't see the need for centralism; I guess you could call my approach voluntaryism, although I refrain from using the word since it carries over an anarcho-capitalism context.

Movements with similar goals can't unite if there is nothing to unite them.

Capitalism created competition amongst the working-class, and not just on an economic basis either. Racism, sexism, sexual orientation, wage-differences etc. are all used to divide the working-class and cut up their interests.

If you left it up to each of these opposing sections to "voluntarily unite" you would be waiting forever.

[Led Zeppelin]

The debate has been open for over a week.

The thread will be closed tomorrow and then a winner will be chosen by a poll.

Any last comments?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes.

Fecal matter.

Concluded. ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

Haha, ok.

Poll to determine winner started here: Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vote-winner-debate-t79931/index.html?p=1157460)

I'll close this for now, and open it up and move it to the general forum after the poll is done.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since the preliminate debate is over, RevLefters may wish to consider this argument against the Kautsky-conceptualized democratic centralism and both its Trotskyist and "Marxist-Leninist" caricatures:



“Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism”: Circumstantial Discussive Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html)



In revisiting the question of what is known today as “democratic centralism,” it is best to begin with Lenin’s remarks in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (emphasis in bold):

It is not surprising that Kautsky arrives at the following conclusion: “There is perhaps no other question on which revisionism in all countries, despite its multiplicity of form and hue, is so alike as on the question of organisation.” Kautsky, too, defines the basic tendencies of orthodoxy and revisionism in this sphere with the help of the “dreadful word”: bureaucracy versus democracy. We are told, he says, that to give the Party leadership the right to influence the selection of candidates (for parliament) by the constituencies is “a shameful encroachment on the democratic principle, which demands that all political activity proceed from the bottom upward, by the independent activity of the masses, and not from the top downward, in a bureaucratic way.... But if there is any democratic principle, it is that the majority must have predominance over the minority, and not the other way round....” The election of a member of parliament by any constituency is an important matter for the Party as a whole, which should influence the nomination of candidates, if only through its representatives (Vertrauensmanner). “Whoever considers this too bureaucratic or centralistic let him suggest that candidates be nominated by the direct vote of the Party membership at large [sīmtliche Parteigenossen]. If he thinks this is not practicable, he must not complain of a lack of democracy when this function, like many others that concern the Party as a whole, is exercised by one or several Party bodies.”

It is popular belief amongst Marxists that Lenin was indeed the “creator” of “democratic centralism.” However, the bolded remarks above reveal the real “creator”: none other than the “renegade” Karl Kautsky himself!

When Kautsky and his then-disciple Lenin conceptualized and popularized “democratic centralism,” respectively, they had in mind that “democratic centralism” was merely the best means to achieve “unity in action, freedom of discussion and criticism” – discussive unity – within their historical circumstances. More importantly, they also knew that other organizational and equally revolutionary forms were possible in other circumstances!

So what makes the goal “circumstantial? For the purposes of this section, variables will be used.

Let D1 refer to audience access to intra-party discussions. This access can be:

1) "GEN" for general access by the public (live mass-media and/or Net coverage of intra-party discussions);
2) "FCT" for access only by party members, as organized into factions (or, more preferrably, "platforms"); or
3) "RES" for restricted access, as in access only by those involved in the relevant intra-party discussions.

Let UN ("unity") refer to how intra-party decisions should be made. It can be:

1) "DIR" for direct (the party membership as a whole);
2) "REP" for representative; or
3) "ORG" for organic (as conceptualized by one Amadeo Bordiga as an “alternative” to elections).

Let D2 refer to the level of discussions on decisions that have already been made (read: criticism). It can be:

1) "PUB" for public (party members may criticize party decisions OUTSIDE party channels);
2) "INT" for internal; or
3) "000" for none.

Kautsky, as quoted by Lenin, implied the "ideal" discussive unity: GEN-DIR-PUB. With future developments in information-communication technology, this ideal may be possible. Nevertheless, since it still probably isn't, no one "must not complain of a lack of democracy."

Historically, Lenin's concept of democratic centralism (as his party's means to achieve circumstantial discussive unity) had a varying set of these features:

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: PUB, INT, or 000

For example, when the "October" decision was made, there was RES-REP-000. The meeting was secret and limited to CC members, the CC voted as the representative of the party, and the decision couldn't be criticized afterwards. Just before this decision, Lenin criticized the CC for accommodating the Provisional Government (RES-REP-PUB). Later on, in the very public debates between Lenin and the "Left-Wing Communists," on issues ranging from Brest-Litovsk to state capitalism, there was FCT-REP-PUB. Eventually, just after the ban on factions was made, there was RES-REP-000 once more.

An Italian Communist named Amadeo Bordiga had other ideas, namely that of organic centralism:

The communist parties must achieve an organic centralism which, whilst including maximum possible consultation with the base, ensures a spontaneous elimination of any grouping which aims to differentiate itself. This cannot be achieved with, as Lenin put it, the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy, but through correct revolutionary politics.

The repression of fractionism isn't a fundamental aspect of the evolution of the party, though preventing it is.

The concept of organic centralism had a limited (and thus not very "circumstantial") set of these features:

D1: FCT or RES (no organized factions, but the rank and file could discuss things)
UN: ORG (naturally)
D2: INT

This meant that no public criticism was allowed for party members to make after decisions were made "organically."

A few years later, "Comrade" Stalin and his gang had their own bureaucratic centralism:

D1: RES
UN: ORG (yes, no real representation, so "organic" decision-making was present through the self-perpetuating Politburo)
D2: 000

What separated this from Bordiga's "organic centralism" especially is the absolute lack of criticism of decisions that were made.

In today’s world, the Trotskyists claim to be the true adherents to Lenin’s democratic centralism. Historically, however, their perception of democratic centralism has been and is still reduced to this (and thus reductionist and not very “circumstantial”):

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: INT

This – as if that's the only permutation of democratic centralism possible – has led to numerous splits, because criticism could not be vented out publicly by members of the now-numerous Trotskyist parties, split along Cliffite, Grantite, Mandelite, and other lines.

In building both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor – both mass parties of the working class – the organizational basis should be as close to ideal discussive unity as possible. The particular “centralism” (which as a word now reeks of reductionist organizational fetishism, as opposed to the more basic concept of centrality) that applies to both organizations – public discussive unity – should have a varying set of these features:

D1: GEN, FCT, or RES
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG
D2: PUB only

Note the possibility for general access by the public (through live mass-media and/or Internet coverage of intra-party discussions) and the level of discussions on decisions that have already been made (read: public criticism). One of the organizational goals for both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor should be political transparency.

Note also the possibilities for “organic” decision-making and direct decision-making by the party membership as a whole. In the case of the former, "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by the modern revolutionary Marxist party based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the short-lived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary. In between the two (or possibly an extension of the former), representative decision-making could be demarchic (instead of electoral), which would, due to the random nature of selections, severely limit intra-party machinations, manipulations, and “celebrity politics” (personality cults by any other name), as well as ensure programmatic diversity (beyond agreement with principles, this diversity means acceptance of, but not necessarily agreement with, the organization’s program). In the case of the latter, which is the ideal decision-making, the central party bodies would merely act as referees or “moderators” in the party-wide discussions.

Just as Kautsky remarked in The Class Struggle about the “demands for a free press and the right of assemblage,” as being “the light and air of the labor movement,” a similar remark can be made regarding the goal of ideal discussive unity (which includes political transparency) being the “light and air” of both the revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor, and a more damning remark can be made regarding the opponents of this goal:

Whoever attempts to deny [the goal of ideal discussive unity and the accompanying political transparency], no matter what his pretensions, is to be reckoned among the worst enemies of the working class!



REFERENCES:

The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm]

Democratic centralism vs. Lenin’s slogan [http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centralism-vs-t70106/index.html]

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/]

The Lyons Theses by Amadeo Bordiga [http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm]

Revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism? [http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html]