Organization of a Party

[Vendetta]

Should a (vanguard or not) party be organized along centralized or decentralized lines?

I think, practically-speaking (in America at least), it should be decentralized like organizations such as the SDS.

[Black Sheep]

Explain the mode of organization of the party if you can.

[Dros]

Everyone should read WITBD. The method of organization of a Communist party is Democratic Centralism.

[Vendetta]

Everyone should read WITBD. The method of organization of a Communist party is Democratic Centralism.

And what would that entail?

[Lamanov]

Democratic Centralism would simply imitate bourgeois parliamentarism. It means electing party leadership (central committee) for a given mandate. Party leadership has executive authority, and all members are bound by it's decisions, and conditioned under "party discipline". (WitBD is a terrible work.)

Every revolutionary organisation, class struggle ("factory organisation") or ideological, should be organised by direct demoncracy, under certain principles and goals. Everything else is just reduced to loyal opposition withing the system, because otherwise it subscibes to its organisational philosophy.

[Black Sheep]

NOTE:We are on the learning section...
WitBD = What is to be done , by Lenin


It means electing party leadership (central committee) for a given mandate. Party leadership has executive authority, and all members are bound by it's decisions, and conditioned under "party discipline".
The cc's decision can always be challenged and if your opposition is backed up by solid arguments it can be called to vote.

[Lamanov]

The cc's decision can always be challenged and if your opposition is backed up by solid arguments it can be called to vote.

Give us one historic example of when something important happened in this way.

[Black Sheep]

The cc's decision can always be challenged and if your opposition is backed up by solid arguments it can be called to vote.


Hm, i cannot. I guess my country's communist party doesn't count eh?
Anyway,that is how it works theoretically, it is up to the members to be active and informed about the stuff going on on the organization run by a democratic centralist system in which they belong to, keeping the central committee in check.
If that is the case,how can the central committee get authoritarian?

[Q]

Give us one historic example of when something important happened in this way.

All of the CWI major decisions that sprouted discussion.

[Vendetta]

What IS democratic centralism?

It sounds like 'we'll pretend to be democratic as long as you don't disagree.'

[Lamanov]

RSOA, I explained that above.


All of the CWI major decisions that sprouted discussion.

I said important. What was so important in the history of CWI that CC's decisions were challenged by rank and file, and then overturned?

[mikelepore]

So-called "democratic centralism" has been a disaster. A working class party should report publicly and honestly that 71 percent or 82 percent, or whatever the actual number is, of its membership have voted in favor of this or that resolution or policy, and that the resolution represents those who have voted for it. The practice of requiring all members to pretend that they unanimously agree with everything has only led to the result of organizations expelling many or most of their members for disobeying the pretense rule.

[Q]

What IS democratic centralism?

It sounds like 'we'll pretend to be democratic as long as you don't disagree.'

Here is some background (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm#democratic-centralism).

[Tower of Bebel]

Democratic Centralism as a principle has an interesting history. There are "Kautskyan", "Leninist", "Trotskyist", "stalinist" and other existing variations of it. It is important not to interpret this principle as something abstract. I have never found a satisfying definition or description. I found this article (http://links.org.au/node/217) an interesting starter.

The concrete execution of the formula as exercised in the past depends on certain circumstances. The Bolshevik party gave it another character in 1920 or the 4th congress of the 3rd International than it did in 1904 or during the split of 1912.


Give us one historic example of when something important happened in this way.I think that the discussion on ending the war with Germany kept on going because of democratic, yet also centralist, character of the Bolshevik party. Also an example are Lenin's April Theses. I think.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Recall in my work, comrade, that my criticism of the actual democratic centralism practiced by Lenin himself was the flexibility afforded in terms of post-decision public discussions being made one moment and having them gagged the next.

[Of course, there's that democratic centralism, and then there's the caricature "democratic centralism."]

[chegitz guevara]

A party should be run on democratic principles. Therefore, a party must be organized along centralist principles as well, as there is no such thin as a decentralized democracy. Decentralized democracy is just another word for anarchism or confederacy, and in both cases, the majority have no way of making and enforcing a decision. Since the majority cannot rule, it is inherently antidemocratic.

[Tower of Bebel]

my criticism of the actual democratic centralism practiced by Lenin himself was the flexibility afforded in terms of post-decision public discussions being made one moment and having them gagged the next.
I'm not "empirically" familiar with democratic centralism as practiced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but hadn't this "gagging" anything to do with enforcing party discipline (like for instance with the case of Kamenev and Zinoviev during the preparations of the October Uprising)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm referring to the ban on factions, actually (as commented upon heavily, among other "bureaucratic centralist" issues, by CPGB comrade Mike Macnair). If the Bolsheviks had said "By banning factions, we have expressed a need to drop democratic centralism on a temporary basis" - especially to the Comintern - then one could still defend using the term. Unfortunately, they didn't say such. :(

[chegitz guevara]

The ban on factions occurred after the revolution, in the period just following the civil war, as an attempt to show the world that the USSR was strong and united, when in fact it was teetering on the brink of collapse, in the hopes of bluffing the imperialists into ending their support for Wrangel. It worked. It has nothing to do with democratic centralism.

[mikelepore]

I think it began with Marx making the decision that it would be better to destroy the International than to have followers of Bakunin be a part of it. Ever since then most socialist organizations have considered only these outcomes -- it has to be either purity or the poison-pill.

[Dros]

What IS democratic centralism?

It sounds like 'we'll pretend to be democratic as long as you don't disagree.'

DC is the Leninist principle of organization. It has nothing to do with "bourgeois parliamentarism".

DC has to main parts:

1.) Democracy! The party apparatus makes decisions democratically by electing a central committee and voting on major issues of line and tactics. Members of the party may (and in fact are encouraged to) discuss and disagree on points and to criticize themselves, others, and the party as a whole. This is how line is produced.
2.) Centralism! Party members agree to carryout the line and method democratically chosen by the party and to defend it publicly to the best of their ability.

This method has several advantagies on both the strategic level and on the level of theory. Please PM if you have any more questions about this!

Also, I suggest you read "What is to Be Done?" by VI Lenin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The ban on factions occurred after the revolution, in the period just following the civil war, as an attempt to show the world that the USSR was strong and united, when in fact it was teetering on the brink of collapse, in the hopes of bluffing the imperialists into ending their support for Wrangel. It worked. It has nothing to do with democratic centralism.

It did in Comintern affairs, though (and Lenin, while incapacitated, did not criticize this, which is why I prefer to use the term "publicized discussive unity").

There was a Comintern statement somewhere about individual national parties deciding on the level of free discussions after decisions that have been made, and even on factionalism.