Marxist-Leninist opionion regarding my idea

Recently i was a part of a discussion which motivated me to write here. We were talking about socialist states and came to discuss council communism and its "contradiction" with ML. Now i have an idea. I really like the state being led by the workers organized in councils but i also consider the vanguard party necessary for leading the state. So i thought that the workers in a Socialist state should be organized in working councils depending what kind of workers they are and each council to have representatives in the great workers council that will lead the party. The representatives in the great council would be chosen by the smaller councils and could be changed anytime if the workers no longer support them. So what i am suggesting is a party which has control over everything in the state but instead of being led by one man it should be led by a great workers council which i mentioned before. So we are still keeping the party as a tool for the workers to destroy any opposition to the revolution and lead them to communism but we are changing the leadership of the party to a great workers council. I think that this kind of leadership will ensure that the party will always work in favor of the working class. So does this go against Marxism-Leninism or its ok with it and can be considered ML.

In my opinion, while it may seem to be a good idea and dosent seem to be anything like Left Communism or Trotskyism, it seems to be revisionist. Any sort of revisonism is contradictory to Marxist Leninist ideology. (This is actually a good debating topic however anyways, as I myself don't really know the mainstream ML opinion towards Council Communism)

I understand that you may be afraid that any kind of revisionism might ruin the revolution and what it stands for ( other than that i don't see any other reason why you would be against it ). But you must understand that everything must be questioned and constantly improved. Not all changes are bad some will contribute to the effectiveness of the revolution. The changes i promote about the leadership of the party will not ruin the revolution they will make it more effective as the workers will truly have the power.

In some ways yes, but a theoretical marxist leninist should stay true to the orginal guiding ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. While yes I agree with you things must be questioned, certain ideolgies like Marxism Leninism should stay true to the orignial ideological theories and not deviate from it too much.

For the safety of the idea i suppose to ensure that it doesn't change in something that doesn't benefit the workers. I just want to know if my idea of a party is possible in ML.

The Party isn't led by "one man." Historically, each Party has a Political Bureau (aka Politburo) which is elected by the Central Committee, which in turn is elected at the conclusion of each Party Congress. Delegates to Congresses are chosen by local Party organizations. The General Secretary (or First Secretary) is also elected by the Central Committee at said Congresses.

I don't see how that's inferior to your proposal, which to be honest just sounds like abstract theorizing. Its practical effect would be to make the Party an appendage of the state.

The party should only be a tool of the working class because it is formed by the working class. The party itself would have control over the state and a larger authority than a single worker but it should be composed of workers in councils. Is a party organized in councils possible and ok with ML?

Maxim...the ideas for a communist party and the way it was to be organized did not come out of thin air.
In the ASE, ideas and policy flowed from the Districts to the Regions to the 52-strong National Committee. This was democratic centralism in practice. When Lenin was in Britain, in 1902-3, he learnt from our trade unions, especially from the ASE, how to build the Bolshevik Party.
What we do is agree a line, through democratic discussion and decision, and then we put it into practice.
How democratic would it be for a member to then turn round, after the discussion and decision, and say they don't agree with it?

Democratic centralism merely means doing what you have said you will do.
First, discussion, with as wide a spectrum of workers as possible; then agreement by majority vote on what is to be done and how to do it; then, agree to do it; then, do it!
Above all it must be clear transparent to better galvanise the party. This allows the Party to punch above its weight......

How we will govern ourselves after seizing power ......will come very naturally to us, I have no doubt. It is of course a hypothetical question. No revolution has succeeded in an advanced capitalist country. We can all dream what it might look like. Knaves or fools might paint a pretty picture indeed. One thing I don't have any doubt about it will be both bloody and protracted.

I see. In the end the situation after the revolution will show what the government should look like. Even if the party is most democratically organized nobody can guarantee it will be truly a good one. In the end its not the organization that matters the most but the people that are part of it. Even if we choose the best organization whatever it is, if we don't have good people to be part of it it will not work.

I see. In the end the situation after the revolution will show what the government should look like. Even if the party is most democratically organized nobody can guarantee it will be truly a good one. In the end its not the organization that matters the most but the people that are part of it. Even if we choose the best organization whatever it is, if we don't have good people to be part of it it will not work.

Yes labelling is no guarantee. Democratic Centralism organized with a 'good' culture in place is the best method. The party is no substitute for people doing their own thinking or kicking for that matter. In a country with a highly literate working class an advanced detachment of workers makes sense. In the workplace pushing matters forward. It is where we spend 8 hrs of our day.We cannot do others thinking for them....it just don't work. I think the term vanguard is insulting to workers somehow. I would never allow any to tell me what to think and what to do. If someone approached me with that attitude(they have) I tell them to fuck off.(please!).