democratic centralism--what do you think about it?

[danyboy27]

i didnt studied marx and lenin completly,, but from what i understand the soviet union and china where based on democratic centralism.

i personally think the whole thing is great, but the problem is that it require pretty well skilled organizer and politician, otherwise it fail bad.

you can see that in the story of the soviet union, all it took was a breznev to fuck up all that progress that have been achieved during the krutchev era.

that would explain the bad rate of succes of countries trying to achieve communism, beccause democratic centralism require extremely skilled people to operate it.

has far i know, maybe i see thing the bad way but china still use democratic centralism with more free market values, and its still working somehow, they are slowly opening giving more freedom to their peoples while conserving the initial structure.

if i got the whole idea of democratic centralism all wrong, then, dont be shy to tell me what i didnt understand in all that.

[RGacky3]

Democratic centrism is in a few words freedom of discussion, unity in action. I.e. the party democratically decides, but after the desicion is made they are expected to support it.

This theory in practice is one of the major reasons a few in Leninist parties are able to control the majority. Because it demands obedience to the desission, which allows crack down on opponents of that desicion, which allows a monopoly on ideology. What ultimately this leads to is the lower orders in government being accountable to the higher ups in government, not the otherway around, which ultimately kills socialism.


i personally think the whole thing is great, but the problem is that it require pretty well skilled organizer and politician, otherwise it fail bad.

And it would require a 100% selfless saint, something that no one is.


they are slowly opening giving more freedom to their peoples while conserving the initial structure.


They are giving enough freedoms to stop too much unrest while keeping real power for themselves, remember they can always take back the freedoms, which means that its not freedom at all.

[timbaly]

i personally think the whole thing is great, but the problem is that it require pretty well skilled organizer and politician, otherwise it fail bad.

you can see that in the story of the soviet union, all it took was a breznev to fuck up all that progress that have been achieved during the krutchev era.

that would explain the bad rate of succes of countries trying to achieve communism, beccause democratic centralism require extremely skilled people to operate it.

The problem with "democratic-centralism" is that it's too centralized. The people that need to extremely skilled as you point out do not exist. You can not rely on a few party members to create and sustain a revolution. In the USSR and China the societies started out as mostly agriculturist. They did not have the industrial working class populations as their major workforce and this contributed to oligarchical governments being created.

Brehznev was not the one to ruin democratic centralism. One of the previous leaders was Stalin, the system seems to create elitism. The ruling classes of the USSR were elites, they enjoyed much greater economic lives and social than the average Soviet citizen, the same can be said for any government of course. However if these governments truly do work and truly are revolutionary this should not have been the case in so many of the former socialist nations.

So how do you plan on ensuring that the people to run this democratic-centralist government are the best and most highly skilled for the job? It's simply not possible to ensure this, and without it the system is doomed to failure as you've pointed out.


has far i know, maybe i see thing the bad way but china still use democratic centralism with more free market values, and its still working somehow, they are slowly opening giving more freedom to their peoples while conserving the initial structure.

I'm not so sure this is true. Their structure is very different from the days of Mao. Their economic structure bares little resemblence to the structure of the early years. By structure did you just mean politically?

[danyboy27]

I'm not so sure this is true. Their structure is very different from the days of Mao. Their economic structure bares little resemblence to the structure of the early years. By structure did you just mean politically?

yea the political structure.
there is a lot of quote private buisness quote in china, but the communist party still have the last word. the communist party in china control the economy but they somehow understand that they could not control everything, so they keep their eyes on some important stuff and left other stuff go.

i am pretty sure if tomorow the party decided that norinco company will sell ak-47 to sudan for ridiculous price they will do, beccause over money in china there is the decision of the communist party.

but i agree with the problem of democratic centralism, its hardly achievable in a perfect way, and to make it work you have to loose some control.

but i still believe in that.

[timbaly]

yea the political structure.
there is a lot of quote private buisness quote in china, but the communist party still have the last word. the communist party in china control the economy but they somehow understand that they could not control everything, so they keep their eyes on some important stuff and left other stuff go.

The question here is whether or not the communist party has become a state capitalist party or not. Many people on this board will say that China is no longer socialist and is no longer trying to build communism, and I tend to agree with that. At the same time perhaps you can say they are building communism by creating an industrial capitalist society first. Some think they are doing this because they first had socialist government when the society was agriculturalist. Now you might argue that they are trying to build capitalism so eventually they can transition into communism in the long run. I really don't buy this argument and I am willing to bet that China's communist party is far more interested in being the world's most powerful capitalist economy. Being the economically most powerful will eventually lead to being the politically and militarily most powerful nation as well. I really think they just are trying to build global supremacy not communism.

[RGacky3]

At the same time perhaps you can say they are building communism by creating an industrial capitalist society first. Some think they are doing this because they first had socialist government when the society was agriculturalist. Now you might argue that they are trying to build capitalism so eventually they can transition into communism in the long run.

First of all that Marxist-Leninist stuff about needing to be an industrial power to reach socialism is rediculous to say the least. Socialism is based on principles that can be applied to anything.

To suggest that the CCP is going Capitalist to eventaully reach communism, is to say they are amassing wealth and power for themselves so that they eventually can give it all up to the people. Its stupid.

The problem with many Marxists is they pay so much attention to minute theoretical details that they forget common sense.


Being the economically most powerful will eventually lead to being the politically and militarily most powerful nation as well. I really think they just are trying to build global supremacy not communism.

Thats common sense.


but i agree with the problem of democratic centralism, its hardly achievable in a perfect way, and to make it work you have to loose some control.

The problem with democratic centralism is the same problem any power structure has. You cannot have real socialism without real freedom and equality, and you cannot have real freedom and equality when there is someone above you that has the power to take away that freedom.