The SPEW and SWP: democratic centralism?

I found two interesting articles on the net while searching for Lenin's concept of democratic centralism:

(1) The SWP vs. Lenin: Bureaucratic centralism or democratic centralism?
(2) For democratic centralism

Both have important similarities and emphasize the concept of democratic centralism which circulates within both the SPEW and the SWP. They're written in the early 90's by (ex-)members of both parties.

Here are the conclusions of both articles:

It is our argument that the political culture of the SWP is based on a bureaucratic distortion of Leninism. It should also be clear that the anti-democratic norms of the SWP are no historical accident, but the logical progression of a theory of organisation held by the leadership and unchallenged by the membership. In recent years the shrillness of the SWP leadership's attacks on any criticism of its methods - from both inside and outside the organisation - has increased, and the cadre of the party has consequently been almost entirely extinguished or demoralised. This is not to suggest that the SWP is on the verge of collapse - it is still a large organisation, capable of interventions in the class struggle that have genuine short-term success. It is, however, to suggest that the SWP is incapable of building or maintaining a cadre; and that, therefore, it is incapable of leading the revolution its members are fighting for.

I anticipate fierce opposition to many of the ideas contained in this document from the leadership of our organisation. Indeed, I look forward to the fight.

I think in raising these questions now - in a period when much of the revolutionary left is in programmatic and/or organisational crisis of one sort or another - we are discharging our duty to socialism and the working class. The key question facing the workers' movement is that of party. How will we be able to construct a viable organisation of our class, capable of uniting within itself the many differences of opinion that inevitably will divide us in the course of our revolutionary work, but at the same time capable of taking decisive action?

We need to reclaim the healthy traditions of our socialist movement for today's generation. 'Parties' organised on the basis of agreement with one or another precise historical interpretation of the USSR or set of political perspectives are simply no longer viable.

Sects are dead, dead, dead. If the healthy debate I hope will now develop in our ranks at least has the side-effect of banging another nail into their collective coffin, the sooner we get down to it the better.

What do you think?

I think that if I am thinking about an issue that I want a stimulating point of view on, I immediately turn to the CPGB and their stellar review, the Weekly Worker.

Yikes, the weird wide world of the CPGB.

It should be clear that it is not the issue of the Soviet Union's character which is the key basis for any splits or lack unity. Certainly perspectives on the FSU are critical, but decisive roles came about on the issue of the UK and Scottish Labour Party and as an issue of tactical questions arising from the SWP's methods of organizing and as posted above their approach to democratic centralism.

If it were truly a matter of simply the interpretation of this or that, we would already have a split about China in the CWI. Instead, we have continued this discussion for years in a democratic fashion.

Here is an old document by the SP on the subject:
http://www.marxist.net/ireland/anti-swp/index.html

We also have a new book on it which I do not think is available online yet. I look forward to reading it.
http://socialistparty.org.uk/books/t...e.htm?bkno=342

I don't care about the Weekly Worker. I just found them on google and I thought may it could be an interesting discussion. Both were written around the same time (the awful nineties), and both may originate from members that are fed up with what they think are problems with the "internal regime", i.e. democratic centralism as it is in both parties.

If it were truly a matter of simply the interpretation of this or that, we would already have a split about China in the CWI. Instead, we have continued this discussion for years in a democratic fashion.

I don't think that in the second article it's "a matter of simply the interpretation of this or that". The writer of the article (at that time a member of the SPEW?) wants to criticize the concept of democratic centralism as an internal affair.
I know that recently there were several articles about China on Socialistworld.net, and some of them clearly showed that there is some discussion about China. That's good, and also the recent summer schools have shown that there is discussion on the subject. But how is/was (this) discussion organized?

R:

It is our argument that the political culture of the SWP is based on a bureaucratic distortion of Leninism. It should also be clear that the anti-democratic norms of the SWP are no historical accident, but the logical progression of a theory of organisation held by the leadership and unchallenged by the membership. In recent years the shrillness of the SWP leadership's attacks on any criticism of its methods - from both inside and outside the organisation - has increased, and the cadre of the party has consequently been almost entirely extinguished or demoralised. This is not to suggest that the SWP is on the verge of collapse - it is still a large organisation, capable of interventions in the class struggle that have genuine short-term success. It is, however, to suggest that the SWP is incapable of building or maintaining a cadre; and that, therefore, it is incapable of leading the revolution its members are fighting for.

This is long on assertion, short on evidence. It certainly does not agree with my experinece of the SWP when I was a member.

I went to party conferences when i was an SWP Member, on every occasion i expected us to be debating the politics and perspectives for the coming year.

And on every occasion i found myself listening to people talk about how many papers they had sold, whilst the central commitee laid down the law, i dont remember a single debate over an issue, nor a single dissenting voice, in the party branch their was barely a mention that the conference was going to be taking place, and getting your hands on one of the internal bulletins was like getting a payrise out of mr burns.

The CC in the SWP answers to no one, their is no congress, and the conferences are meaningless pep rallies.

The lack of democracy, and elitism of the organisation is mainly why it fails to organise beyond a few thousand comrades, it can brook no dissenting voice, you can not question the party in any kind of conistent manner without being expelled by a kangaroo court, the whole organisation may be trotskyist in politics, but its thouroughly stalinist in organisation.