Democratic Centralism

Okay, this is one of the topics where I think we can have a productive discussion. (See my intro.)

I've traditionally been in favor of democratic centralism, more or less as per Lenin, but have recently been re-thinking the matter. I was discussing the topic of party organization with a fellow comrade yesterday and we jointly arrived at some new conclusions. Now, as stated in my intro (you did click on the link and read it, right? ), I'm coming at this from a perspective vaguely similar to that of Maoism. My emerging view here is ultimately rooted in some of Mao's thinking on the possibility of new bourgeois elements arising out of the remaining unevenness left over from the old society under socialism. Historically, we've seen it consistently be the case that, despite the formality of democratic centralism, factions do emerge within the party corresponding to various class interests. Hence I've recently come to be of the view that democratic centralism is, for all practical purposes, little or nothing more than superficial suppression and/or denial. It's seeming to me that it would be more useful to simply recognize organized factions within the party. That way at least revisionist tendencies could be more easily identified, since they'd be out in the open rather than underground.

Now, as I understand it, there are varying views on the 'communist left' on the topic of democratic centralism, with some favoring it and others opposing it. I'd like to find out more of the particulars. From what perspective and for what reasons do you support or oppose (as applicable) democratic centralism?

If by "democratic centralism" you're referring to the whole ban on factions thing, which is what your post seems to suggest, then I don't think Lenin was in favour of that either. At least not originally. It wasn't how the Bolshevik party operated prior to 1921. It certainly wasn't how the Bolshevik party operated in 1917.

I also think it's a bit mechanical to ascribe factional differences to class interests. Once in a while people do just disagree on things.

The only problem with factions is if they start acting in a way contrary to the party line. If you're going to have different groups doing their own thing then there isn't really much point having everyone under one umbrella.

Now, as I understand it, there are varying views on the 'communist left' on the topic of democratic centralism, with some favoring it and others opposing it. I'd like to find out more of the particulars. From what perspective and for what reasons do you support or oppose (as applicable) democratic centralism?

I actually don't think there is much debate on the question of democratic centralism within the communist left. More or less all parts of the tradition, actually reject the concept. The positions within the communist left, nevertheless vary.

Historically, both the Dutch/German communist left and the Italian communist left has been in favor of centralism. The Dutch/German left, while they did not use the term democratic to describe centralism as well, haven't made an in-depth study of the question to my knowledge (their initial understanding of the question in their documents is very interesting and close to that of the Italian left). The councilist current coming out of the Dutch/German left, under the immense demoralization caused by the counter-revolution in the 30ies and afterwards, eventually ended up abandoning not only the idea of the need for a revolutionary party. Consequently the question of centralism became rather irrelevant to them. In any case, if interested in the early position of the Dutch/German communist left, you can check this article: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/04...ses-Party-1921

The Italian communist left from the beginning made a serious study of the question. Bordiga's piece on this question is worth a reading both for its theoretical as well as historical value: http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comp...iqemcicee.html The Italian left rejected the "democratic" bit of democratic centralism. The concept put forward instead was 'organic centralism': "The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organisation and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organisational formula known as «democratic centralism» to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organisation must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organisation on «organic centralism». While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term «democracy», which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses." The concept of organic centralism is still defended by the faction of the Italian communist left later identified as the Bordigists.

Criticisms of this concept also has been made, on the other hand. The ICT, also coming from the tradition of the Italian left, does not defend the concept of "organic centralism". Here's a text explaining the ICT traditions criticism of the concept, and also dealing with the positions in the time of the split within the major organization of the Italian left at the time, the Internationalist Communist Party of Italy: http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2...r-the-party-no The crux of the point they are making is this: "Any revolutionary party which is not a mere abstraction has to address the problems of the class struggle in a historical climate in which violence and unchallenged authority dominates. In order to increasingly become a living instrument of combat it can only be organised around the most iron unity. Its ranks therefore have to be closed against the general thrust of the counter-revolution. The revolutionary party does not ape bourgeois parties, but obeys the need to adapt its organisational structure to the objective condition of the revolutionary struggle. The elementary tactical principle of the revolutionary party in action, is that it must take into account the characteristics of the terrain on which it works and that its members are adequately prepared for their tasks. We do not believe there needs to be disagreements on the question of centralism. These only begin when we talk in “democratic” or “organic” terms. The use, or worse, the abuse, of the term “organic” can lead to forms of authoritarian degeneration which break the dialectical relationship that must exist between the leadership and the members. The experience of Lenin is still valid, and it is vital to be able to fuse together, in a single vision, the seeming contradiction between “democratic” and “organic” centralism." As can be seen by the recent republication of this article on their website, these comrades also still uphold this position on the question.

The ICC, which organically comes from the Italian left but also critically upholds the tradition of the Dutch/German left, similar to the Damen tendency, rejects defining centralism as either organic or democratic. However, the ICC's approach does not really consist of fusing "together, in a single vision, the seeming contradiction between “democratic” and “organic” centralism" like that of the ICT. The ICC's critique of the term democratic centralism, is in fact not that far from the positions put forward by Bordiga in the Democratic Principle, but the point made, rather than suggesting a new term like organic centralism, is that centralism by itself is sufficient. Although admitting that the term 'organic' is actually better than 'democratic' in describing the necessary centralism, the ICC argues that the term organic was diluted by the ill organizational practices of the Bordigists. A detailed summary of the ICC's position can be found here: http://en.internationalism.org/speci...unctioning.htm One of the unique aspects of the ICC's take on the question is the strong emphasis made on the necessity that centralism be international as the ICC argues for "organic and programmatic unity on an international scale".

Thanks for the info Leo!

As regards this "organic centralism" definition, I think we have to be honest and admit that 'organic' can only justly define a relationship lacking a chain of command. As in perhaps the free association of all people that characterizes not socialist society but a communist world. But until such time as we have that kind of order, democracy is, I think, a more correct term by which to define revolutionary political structures, even as we seek to get beyond that narrow horizon; the horizon of things like 'democratic rights', etc. If anything, I was kind of more suggesting in the OP that communist parties should be less, not more, heavily centralized than they have been since before the October Revolution; that we need a party of a new type. And I was seeking to fish out some examples of alternatives of that nature leftist communists might have to offer, to my as yet dismay.

So those are my thoughts so far.

As regards this "organic centralism" definition, I think we have to be honest and admit that 'organic' can only justly define a relationship lacking a chain of command.

I don't think that was how it was like in the Bordigist practice, unfortunately actually.

As regards this "organic centralism" definition, I think we have to be honest and admit that 'organic' can only justly define a relationship lacking a chain of command. As in perhaps the free association of all people that characterizes not socialist society but a communist world. But until such time as we have that kind of order, democracy is, I think, a more correct term by which to define revolutionary political structures, even as we seek to get beyond that narrow horizon; the horizon of things like 'democratic rights', etc. If anything, I was kind of more suggesting in the OP that communist parties should be less, not more, heavily centralized than they have been since before the October Revolution; that we need a party of a new type. And I was seeking to fish out some examples of alternatives of that nature leftist communists might have to offer, to my as yet dismay.

I think perhaps at the heart of your issue on this is an identification of the term centralism with that of a "chain of command". This certainly is not how we see it - quite the contrary. Fundamentally, I think, all contemporary left communist organizations agree on the basic formula put forward by Lenin: Freedom of discussion, unity of action. While not telling much, I think this formula, and the lessons we draw from the Bolshevik/Menshevik split, are very significant in our understanding of the question. Now, despite the reputation of the Bolsheviks as being an organization of a tight chain of command, and despite Lenin's own mistakes on hierarchical and militaristic organization expressed above all in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, the idea of an organization with a chain of command is much closer to the Menshevik conception than to the Bolshevik one. An organization with an active and deterministic leadership, and a passive base-members, following, at most democratically nodding (ie passively voting for) the decisions of the leadership. The Bolshevik concept expressed by the statement freedom of discussion, unity of action, on the other hand, requires a much different structure: it requires active militants capable of independent and critical thought, militants who will rigorously defend their positions freely in the meetings of the organization, militants who can dare to criticize the positions of every other militant, regardless of their reputation - in short militants actively involved in the decision making of the organization. The unity of action which follows, is the unity based on the collective will of the militants of the organization, the collective decision of the organization - not on the position of a tiny leadership, and organization within the organization. The idea of a chain of command is hence quite contradictory with the freedom of discussion, unity of action formula. This of course, can not be a mass party filled with new recruits who don't understand the positions, who are liberals etc. but can only be a party or organization of serious, committed, active revolutionaries, even when it is the class party, the party of the vanguard of the working class, a minority-party, a tight party of cadres, so to speak.

I have to admit that that was an interesting read! I think at this point for us to progress further with this discussion, I'm going to have to divulge some more info on where I'm coming from.

I'm loosely affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (i.e. I distribute Revolution newspaper, discuss and criticize the party's official line independently, etc.). The RCP seeks to promote much of what you're talking about with regard to "militants who will rigorously defend their positions freely in the meetings of the organization, militants who can dare to criticize the positions of every other militant, regardless of their reputation" and that sort of thing, but, at present, still within the framework of more classical democratic centralism than the variation you're proposing. For example, there are bodies within the RCP with more authority than others, a Central Committee, a Chairman, etc., and the formation of factions is not allowed. (Toleration of factions is officially viewed as liberal, making for disunity of action.) However, from its founding, the RCP has recognized the need to get to a new and more open form of party organization, which is concentrated in their stated goal of developing "a party of a new type", and also the need to do this in a way that enriches the party line, not in a way that disrupts its development or stunts its application. The RCP Chairman Bob Avakian has formulated this new, as yet theoretical, type of organization in a different way than Lenin: "solid core with a lot of elasticity".

So that's where my thinking on opening up to recognizing factions comes in. This thinking of mine stems from the recognition that factions have consistently been formed within communist parties throughout their history of existence, whether they were recognized or not. By recognizing them, you can promote more open debate and, at the same time, more easily recognize revisionist elements because they'll have a greater tendency to be organized out in the open.

From what you're sharing though, I think the 'communist left' has, for the most part, taken the sort of principle described above (that of a more open party characterized by a solid, committed vanguard) to an entirely different level that doesn't adequately reflect the uneven way in which ideas (along with everything else) develop in the context of a class society. I mean, when you have a society and world characterized by a lot of unevenness in wealth and level of education and so on, it follows that not everyone is going to have the same level of genuine class consciousness. Here I think it's important to take the law of uneven development into consideration when thinking about how the communist party should be structured. You want to promote the most advanced thinking available in particular, even while not excessively sidelining the contributions of less advanced elements that will inevitably exist even within the party regardless of how "tight" you try to make it.

well that's a fundamental difference between Western Maoism and the Left Communist tradition. We see so called "Communist" parties (and even ironically enough the "Revolutionary Communist" parties as hardly left of capital, most of them substitutionist and in most cases dominated/controlled by bourgeois academics to be frank but anyways...

the point is that as the basic positions of the ICC say:

All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.

this is because:

The revolutionary political organisation constitutes the vanguard of the working class and is an active factor in the generalisation of class consciousness within the proletariat. Its role is neither to ‘organise the working class’ nor to ‘take power’ in its name, but to participate actively in the movement towards the unification of struggles, towards workers taking control of them for themselves, and at the same time to draw out the revolutionary political goals of the proletariat’s combat.

and the "so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) [that] constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus" don't meet those conditions mentioned above.

and that of course is from an International position, that's the story of most of the so-called "revolutionary parties" that we've seen in North & Central America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia...pretty much everywhere.

There are only a select few times were the workers have achieved political power and challenged the state government economically and otherwise.