Democratic centralism vs. Lenin's slogan

Crisis of political theory: "Freedom of discussion, unity in action," and the Relationship with Democratic Centralism

Rescuing Lenin from the Leninists

Did we all get it wrong? We must have. Lenin’s party had no where near the sectarian splitting, maneuvering, and expulsions that all the parties that bear his name have had. Lenin never practiced Leninism as we know it. He frequently attacked the Bolsheviks in the party press when he thought they’d made a mistake or got things wrong, or even in other papers if the party press wouldn’t publish his articles (imagine Revolution refusing to publish a piece by Avakian!). What Leninist group would allow that? The Bolsheviks only expelled one person, Bogdanov. And why? He stole money from the party for his workers school in Capri. Groups *joined* the Bolsheviks, they didn’t split away, Trotsky’s group, the Independent Mensheviks, etc. While this understanding and feeling to me seem to be widespread, an actual political articulation of it is not.

The New Iskra: Opportunism In Questions Of Organisation (One Step Forward, Two Steps Back)

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.”

Centralism in the Service of Democracy

I want to return to this because, if we want to understand why Lenin was in favor of a centralized organization, we have to consider his actual arguments and the circumstances that existed at the time. Otherwise we could end up making a fetish of centralism, as is not uncommon amongst some groups on the left.

...

Lenin proposed a centralized party in conditions where many-to-many communication between Marxist activists was not only difficult from the point of view of technology--but was illegal and grounds for prison. In these circumstances, it was generally not possible for a Marxist activist in one local area to have any influence at all over what took place in another area. Both communication and democracy was limited by geography.

...

But what I would like to draw attention to for now is the part at the end, where Kautsky talks about "the direct vote of the Party membership at large". What both Kautsky and Lenin are saying here--is that if it had been possible to consult the entire party membership about Gohre's candidacy--then the local section of the party could have been overruled by *the party as a whole* instead of being overruled by the party center acting as *the representative* of the will of the party as a whole.

...

This passage by Lenin helps us to see the possibilities which are only now opening up to us--courtesy of the coming revolution in communications. We are very rapidly approaching a stage where consultation with the entire membership (even of a very large party, like the German party, of a million members) over such a question as the nomination of Gohre--would be very easy.

...

Again, this is not the same as saying that proletarian parties will not require centralism at all. Any time a large party must be capable of sustained, coordinated activity characterized by bold, decisive actions in a war (whether a political war or a military war) of quick decision--there will be a need for a high degree of centralization. In this respect, centralization is like closing one's fingers into a fist. Making one's fingers into a fist--so that one may strike rapid, powerful blows at an opponent--is often necessary for a workers' party preparing itself to overthrow bourgeois rule.

But just as no one can successfully go thru all of life with their fists closed (because, for example, an open hand is required to use tools) no party in the modern world can perform all of its functions in a centralized manner. This last point is particularly important. Much of a party's work, including theoretical and intellectual work, can only be centralized to a certain extent. Some sectarian trends make a fetish of centralization and, using the struggle against reformism or bourgeois ideology as an excuse, attempt to use "information isolation" (and other fetishistic forms of centralism) to shield their supporters from *coming into contact with ideas* which would expose and destroy the guiding mythology that glues the group together and justifies its peculiar practices. *This* kind of centralism, in the period of the coming revolution in communications, is going to face rapid extinction.

A public debate in the Australian DSP

The other thing I remember vividly was the need to keep “internal documents” out of the hands of non-party members. It was explained to me that this was part of the norms of “democratic centralism” that had been handed down since 1903 or so, like your grandfather’s antique pocket watch. The party had free-wheeling debate and discussion in the months leading up to the convention, where delegates would finally vote on the resolutions and counter-resolutions. Once that vote was taken, the new “party line” would become the official position of the party and henceforth its public face.

We understood that it was necessary to keep our debates a secret from the outside world, because the outside world was a transmitter of “alien class influences.” It was only within the party that a germ-free, sterile environment could be maintained. After the party had decided on its new positions at the convention, it could henceforth go out into the world and defend them before the masses. This, we understood, was how the Bolsheviks operated.

...

But first I want to deal with the question of how Lenin’s party carried out debates, which ironically turns out to be not that different from the bourgeois parties, even under conditions of Czarist repression. It turns out that not only did the Bolsheviks carry out their debates in public; they also did not wait for conventions to do so. If I could have been expelled for denouncing party positions in public back in 1967, then surely the Bolsheviks were remiss in not following suit with Lenin himself who wrote a stinging attack on his party in an article titled “Heroes of Fraud and the Mistakes of the Bolsheviks” in September, 1917. It is commonly understood that Lenin was to the left of his central committee on the question of seizing power in Russia, but it is not so commonly understood that he took his differences with them to the public.

...

Some day Marxists in Britain and Australia will find a way to unite around a common understanding of the immediate tasks facing the working class without any of the excess baggage associated with “democratic centralism” and “the Russian questions”. Let’s hope that the comrades in the British SWP and the Australian DSP have the good sense to join with them.

The "crisis of theory" point that I'm trying to get at here is that, while democratic centralism is "freedom of discussion, unity in action," the reverse isn't logically true, encompassing democratic centralism and other organizational and equally revolutionary forms.

Thoughts?

The need for democratic centralism is for the strengthening of defense against opponents. For the Bolsheviks, it was necessary in this regard and also because of the given circumstances, as Jacob Richter mentioned- without such centralization, it would have been impossible.

Democracy was limited to the bourgeoisie, organization of marxists and distribution of marxist work, text was illegal. It was very easy for revolutionaries to be imprisoned.

Nevertheless, centralization allowed for successful overthrow of the provisional government- and the establishment of the soviet state, and it also allowed for the elimination of counterrevolutionary threats which could have weakened the proletarian state.

It is important, as Lenin understood, for there to be freedom of discussion within the movement. Remember, Lenin himself openly disagreed with many comrades on many issues, but he did not use it as grounds for their elimination or expulsion from the party - nevertheless, he did not turn personal disagreements into political issues.

However, it is also, on the same basis, important to understand that this "freedom of discussion" cannot be used as a means of organizing oppositional movement - fracturing the unity and carrying out acts against the proletarian state, against fellow comrades- attempting to commit acts of sabotage against the very foundational structure - on the basis of "freedom in action". That can not be tolerated - and it is important to understand the distinction. Without unity there is conflict and the development of oppositional threats as a result of that conflict which fractures the revolutionary movement and eliminates all progressive force. The such must be crushed before it has the opportunity to crush revolutionary progression.

^^^ Ah, yes, the "freedom of action" in regards to the "need" for circles...

[Sorry for being sarcastic here, but I am stating my thinly veiled criticism towards the modern circles. Guess who those circles happen to be? ]

Anywhere, I noted in the "How should we be led?" thread (in my conversation with DrFreeman09) modern challenges facing the practical application of "unity in action" (namely the Internet).

^^^ Ah, yes, the "freedom of action" in regards to the "need" for circles...

[Sorry for being sarcastic here, but I am stating my thinly veiled criticism towards the modern circles. Guess who those circles happen to be? ]

Anywhere, I noted in the "How should we be led?" thread (in my conversation with DrFreeman09) modern challenges facing the practical application of "unity in action" (namely the Internet).

There are tendencies existent today that endorse a certain form of politics which is incompatible with marxism. They fail as true revolutionary organizations for one reason: they have a clear misunderstanding of revolutionary marxist theory.

It is very common to, i.e. confuse freedom of discussion, that which occurs within a revolutionary organization - with freedom of action - often taken to the level of action externally of the revolutionary organization. It is very easy to confuse, i.e. the necessity for discussion within the organizational structure [freedom of discussion between comrades, while keeping unity intact] with the necessity for action to be taken on an individual basis, without unity [i.e. freedom of action, apart from the revolutionary movement, where one OR a few members choose to carry out activity which threatens the security of the movement - actions carrying a high risk; that of sabotage, efforts to organize with counterrevolutionary movement, other acts which put other comrades at risk, etc.].

It is in that situation when comrades equate freedom of discussion with freedom of action when the organization is reduced to reactionary tendency [and no longer remains compatible with revolutionary marxism]. The reverse is incorrect and what you end up with is equal to that of liberalism. It is a disease which will cause the whole movement to decay. It becomes an issue of individual rights NOT proletarian revolution - taking away from the purpose, the intention, in the first place. Let us not be subject to such reactionary disease, as to mistake one for the other. Unity within the revolutionary organization must remain intact and comrades must not become so blinded that they become more concerned with individual privilege over that of the revolutionary proletarian movement.

That aside, when a revolutionary movement takes the role of attempting to satisfy those in favor of following the law of the bourgeois state, there can be no revolution and therefore it is not revolutionary marxism, but reactionary politics. An organization can go as far as calling itself Trotskyist, but it does not make it revolutionary without the features of revolutionary movement.

But just as no one can successfully go thru all of life with their fists closed (because, for example, an open hand is required to use tools) no party in the modern world can perform all of its functions in a centralized manner.

That seems vague. When do you think it appropriate and when not?

Personally I think the Bolshevik example in this case is not the best basis to follow. The party in 1917 was in the process of switching from a private party of professional revolutionaries to an open mass party. The July Days is the best example of this disconnection between the central body and the Bolshevik masses, though I'm sure others existed up through 1918.

This seems like an obvious accidental release of your metaphorical fist, and I'm curious if you had meant to imply a more purposeful release.

It is commonly understood that Lenin was to the left of his central committee on the question of seizing power in Russia, but it is not so commonly understood that he took his differences with them to the public.

And they took their problems with Lenin to the public too, sometime with consequences. Were Kam/Zin voted out of the CC when they openly criticized Lenin's April Theses in their paper, or did they resign? I don't recall and wikipedia isn't offering me up an answer.

CN: good post!

chimx, the answer to your first question: I really don't know. CN didn't make any comments regarding the Internet.

In any event, the Ben Seattle article you quoted was talking about keeping one's hands open most of the time, closing it only when necessary.

As for those dolts Zinoviev and Kamenev (later on I'll have an article on "Stalin the Zinovievite-Kamenevite," since that's what most Stalinist parties are in their accommodationist BS, today), they did worse.

Right after the July Days, they pursued an accommodationist stance, and between Lenin's return and "October," Lenin called for their outright expulsion (because they continuously censored Lenin's letters).

Alas, those two actually resigned from the CC because of Brest-Litovsk, but Lenin insisted on their return to the CC. Later on, they, more than Stalin, invented "Marxism-Leninism."

Today's main "communist" parties owe more to the politics of Zinoviev and Kamenev than they do to "Uncle Joe."

I could have sworn that zin/kam were briefly removed sometime between july and october. Maybe I'm just mixing my chronology up.

Comrades, feel free to pose critiques at the following remarks and suggestion (but I coughed the suggestion up just moments ago while tending to personal matters).

PRC-UTE posed a fundamental question in the "Internal challenges" thread:

Another aspect of reductionism is "traditional schematism." A most notable logical fallacy that leads to this is the erroneous equation (or, rather, reduction) of the entire "freedom of discussion, unity in action" to mere democratic centralism, as if the latter is the only possible expression of the former. Other aspects of "traditional schematism" include over-emphasis on traditional organizations of post-revolutionary society (as if the party has to be materially merged with the state, or as if only an absolute plurality of workers' parties can prevent "bureaucratization").

What do you offer in place of democratic centralism?

To which I said:

I don't know if democratic/organic centralism can be replaced at this moment. If it is to be replaced, I don't know what can replace it, but whatever replaces it MUST be another form of "freedom of discussion, unity in action" [...]

Since I have issues with Bordiga's notion of organic centralism (which can quite easily stifle freedom of discussion when such stifling is unnecessary) as an alternative to democratic centralism ("the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy"), and given the Kautsky quote above that was quoted by Lenin himself (on the possibility of intra-party direct democracy), I offer up this suggestion: circumstantial discussive unity.

This term is notable in that it isn't bound by any particular "-ism." That it is "circumstantial" indicates flexibility and a lack of "traditional schematism." That it is "discussive" states the explicit objective of maximizing intra-party "freedom of discussion" within the material circumstances. I'll actually go one step further on this: "discussive" also implies the obligation upon the party to maximize as many discussive inputs to decision-making as circumstantially possible (since merely voting for representatives to higher party bodies isn't conducive towards "freedom of discussion"). That it is "unity" instead of "centralism" indicates that intra-party "unity of action" - including the strict subordination of the minority to the majority - can be achieved in a representative-yet-hierarchical ("democratic"), strictly hierarchical ("organic"), or some other fashion in accordance with the circumstances.

Thoughts?

The issue, which seems important to address, considering it often leads to much confusion among comrades.

While it important for there to be "freedom of discussion", it must also be recognized that in many situations, where there is great risk and certain measures are necessary to combat it- which even the smallest act or decision could cause the the given development, i.e. during the civil war, it was necessary to exclude the mensheviks and SRs on the basis that they posed a threat to party unity and the many acts of sabotage that threatened the destruction of the soviet state. If they were not excluded, much worse could have developed, especially as in that regard it would have allowed counterrevolutionary movement means of organizing and sabotaging the proletarian state from the inside. Such a situation is very dangerous.

While, it may benefit in certain situations if there is more input, it may weaken its ability in regard to its own defense- i.e. if there is to be a certain amount of input for any act to be carried out. It can cause major problems.

While Lenin did not argue to exclude the mensheviks and SRs from the beginning, it was a response which came out of the advancement of counterrevolutionary movement which could not have been avoided. Where I am going with this is that in certain situations, it can not simply be "waited out" to get an ideal response from a large number, that could cost everything- the destruction of the proletarian state. At that point, it is like playing with the demise of the working people, comrades, soldiers, and that of yourself - along with the future of the proletarian state.

In regard to my above statement, I would be reluctant to argue for replacement of democratic centralism with another form of such, considering the way it could significantly decrease progression, i.e. in action, in the immediate sense, which is much needed in difficult times post-revolution.

^^^ CN, that is the whole purpose behind the word "circumstantial" in circumstantial discussive unity. A particular set of circumstances that is more conducive to an extraordinary number of discussive inputs (at least extraordinary by "traditional" standards), using means of many-to-many communication, is different from a particular set of circumstances that inhibits this. Likewise, on the unity side of things, representative democracy was suggested by both Kautsky and Lenin because "direct vote of the Party membership at large" was "not practicable." Taken to extreme circumstances, sometimes decision-making power for the party at large may have to rest exclusively with an unrenewed central committee (per the Bordigists and CDL's new Party of World Revolution).

To me, circumstantial discussive unity encompasses the logical subsets of democratic centralism, organic centralism, and so much more - and can flexibly assume the form of one of those subsets for a particular set of circumstances before assuming another form.

On the exclusion of Mensheviks and SRs, I think you are confusing "democratic centralism" within the Soviet government (which Lenin never even talked about in his theoretical writings) with democratic centralism within the RKP(B). I never thought for a moment that there was an influx of former Mensheviks and peasant-oriented SRs into the Bolshevik party.

Thanks for promoting my article, btw.

^^^ Oh crap! That is your article!

JR wants me to report this here.

Democratic centralism was not a tactic, but a principle. We must, however, be clear on what Lenin meant by the term, which has been greatly distorted.

Let me expand on this. I personally believe that democratic centralism is a redundant term. What I mean by this is that that if an organization is to be democratic, it necessarily must be centralized. If it is not centralized, if the organization has no means by which to enforce decisions arrived at democratically, then it is not democratic, but anarchic. Of course, an organization can be centralized and non-democratic as well. I'm sure most of us have experienced this.

Through Lenin's party work and his writings, we can see that he upheld democracy as the most important principle in party organization. When the vote went against him, he went long with the decision of the majority. When the Mensheviks demanded to run the RSDLP after they'd lost at the convention, Lenin wrote that even if it cost a split, democracy, majority rule, is more important. This is what is meant by "no unity for unity's sake."

I don't consider democracy to be a tactic or a strategy, but the key principle in organizing our own groups.

^^^ Ah, but I have representative connotations of the word "democracy," though.

[I'm aware of the "circles" that existed during the time of One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Otherwise, I wouldn't have applied them to modern Trot groups. ]

I quoted the TRUE "creator" of democratic centralism (and, more importantly, of "circumstantial discussive unity") above. The "renegade's" implied point was that, the more discussive input there was from the party's rank and file, the more direct and less representative the party's organizational structure becomes.

Likewise, the more party-wide decision-making there was from the party's rank and file with regards to policy and organization, the more likely it is that the central committee serves merely as a facilitator/moderator/referee of said discussion. The party unity is less representative and more direct, but it is there.

[Mind you, I agree about the redundancy of the term. I just said the same thing in two paragraphs. ]

What is circumstantial discussive unity?

Hopefully this post will clear a lot of dirt from the air regarding the new term I've introduced.

As you are aware, "discussive unity" is the term for "unity in action, freedom of discussion and criticism."



However, what makes the goal (as opposed to the means by which that goal can be achieved, like democratic or organic centralism) "circumstantive" is this (sorry for being mathematical here ):

D1 refers 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.

UN ("unity") refers to how intra-party decisions should be made. They can be:

1) "DIR" for direct (the party membership as a whole);
2) "REP" for representative; or
3) "ORG" for organic (Bordiga and especially the "scary," non-electoral Bordigists).

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

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



Ideal discussive unity

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."

Democratic centralism

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).

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.

Now, just after the ban on factions was made, there was RES-REP-000 once more.

Organic centralism

A guy named 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."

Historically, Bordiga's concept of organic centralism had a limited (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 means that no public criticism was allowed for party members to make after decisions have been made "organically." [This method of organization is similar to that to CdL's PoWR.]

Bureaucratic centralism

For "Comrade" Stalin and his gang:

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

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

"Sectarian centralism" (Trotskyists)

The problem with "Comrade" Trotsky and his followers is that their perception of democratic centralism is limited to this (not very "circumstantial"):

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: INT

As if that's the only permutation of democratic centralism possible

[This, in turn, leads to splits, because the air can't be vented out publicly.]



Personal recommendation

My personal recommended means to achieve circumstantial discussive unity within a modern revolutionary Marxist party, which I will call "proletocratic centralism" (to address Bordiga's criticism of "democracy"), is a varying set of these features:

D1: GEN, FCT, or RES (note the addition of "GEN" for general access by the public)
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG (if it's ever DIR, the central party bodies would merely act as referees/moderators in the party-wide discussions)
D2: PUB only

I only include "ORG" because "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by modern revolutionary Marxist parties based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the shortlived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary.

That's actually a fairly good explanation of the various forms of "democratic centralism."

But once again, even the use of the word "centralism" is questionable.

However, I'll leave that for another time.

The broader point is that the structure of how things are done should be as close to ideal discussive unity as possible. While situations are not always "ideal," our goal should be political transparency.

But this whole discussion is about a stage in party development when a genuinely revolutionary party has already emerged out of a larger mass organization. I think it's important to make that clear, because "discussive unity" is really not necessary or applicable to a developing mass party like the early RSDLP. The point in having this larger organization is that it serves as stage for various trends to compete, until open struggle combined with the experience of class struggle reveal the principles capable of guiding the masses to victory. "Unity" doesn't have any place until a revolutionary organization has emerged out of this larger organization.