Thread: Democratic Centralism

Results 21 to 26 of 26

  1. #21
    Join Date Nov 2010
    Location California
    Posts 760
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism & Liberation
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    The PSL is not in a position to practice democratic centralism. No party in the US is.
    They are and they do. In terms of internal decisions and then carrying out those decisions even if you don't agree.
    Economic Left/Right: -9.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" - Albert Einstein
  2. #22
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 8,052
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    They are and they do. In terms of internal decisions and then carrying out those decisions even if you don't agree.
    No they don't. If you think that is the case then you do not know what democratic centralism is.
  3. #23
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    No they don't. If you think that is the case then you do not know what democratic centralism is.
    Instead of being a condescending prick about it, you might want to explain the issue. You of all people must be aware that there is a huge amount of confusion about these basic subjects on the left.

    Ⓐ☭property_is_robbery☭Ⓐ: The PSL is not democratic-centralist, at least the impression I get from it from the other side of the pond is that the PSL is yet another clone of what has been "common sense" for Leninist organisation for much too long now.

    Democratic centralism is a phrase that originates from Russia as far as I'm aware, but the practice is older and we can already see its traces in the German workers movement which the Bolsheviks searched to emulate.

    Rosa Luxemburg already hit the nail on the head when she said that democracy is irrelevant for those who agree, but absolutely essential for anyone who disagrees. Put in reverse: Any organisations that do not nurture a climate of disagreement are not democratic.

    I can already hear someone speaking up at this point: "wow, you're arguing for disagreement per se? That will only cause splits!". This is both true and untrue.

    First the in the abstract: Our politics are about the collective of the working class, we seek to empower the working class to be able to organise, emancipate and liberate itself from capitalism. In other words: Communists seek for the working class to become the new ruling class.

    However, put in simple terms, I know nothing about our collective. You know nothing about the collective. We might know a very little bit. The bigger the group grows, the higher our understanding of our class and of knowledge in general. (As an aside: I think KC is talking about the PSL being too small to be really able to represent working class politics as a collective of politics, when he says that the PSL (or any group on the left) can't be democratic-centralist).

    However, there is inevitably going to be disagreement. On a personal level we are talking about life experiences, the fact that you're a man of woman, black or white, the education you got, the papers you read, the friends you have, the work you do... is inevitably going to have a reflection on the political ideas you have. On a macro-level there are many currents in the working class movement, some revolutionary, others not, that form the vanguard of the working class. With "vanguard" I mean the most politically aware and militant workers, the actual leaders-on-the-ground that matter.

    So, how do we solve the issue of building our class movement with so many different ideas and currents of thought and experiences? The answer is obvious: Democratically!

    It needs to be explained here that democracy is meant to be a dialectical process (in b4 trolling Rosa): Opposites conflict and, tried and tested, form a new insight that the collective learns.

    An example to make the point: Say a big company closes to ship off to Asia. This means 10 000 redundancies + another 15 000 in supply jobs, etc. How do we react? Say, in our hypothetical class party, we have two camps emerging on this issue. One side, with a trade union bureaucratic background, argues we need to negotiate, the other - left - camp argues we need to strike. The first however wins the argument and the class organisation seeks to negotiate.

    Negotiations fail however completely and the debate goes on. This time a majority is found for a strike and occupation. This time there is success. The company stays where it is and 25k jobs are saved.

    Now, this particular instance is not very relevant, what is relevant is the lesson that the collective takes. The collective learns that strikes apparently help. They learnt this not because some group forced their will onto the masses, but because they had a say in the debate (or at least a possibility to) and, as a consequence, they are the "owners" of the results of the debate and experiences.

    However, this result won't last. A new company comes up wanting to ship off to some low wage country and this time when a strike is organised, it fails. What now? The debate wages on...

    This is the basic idea of democratic-centralism, which Lenin so famously captured in his phrase "freedom of discussion, unity in action". You could alternatively capture it by saying there is "unity in disagreement".

    However, the "common sense" on the left does not see it this way. For historical reasons and because most leftwing groups have been reduced to irrelevance, a new content has replaced this method by something else. The idea is that we already have all the experiences, ideas and theories due to the accrued history of the working class movement of the last two centuries. The left groups see themselves as a continuation of this tradition (most groups insisting that they have that monopoly, the other groups are just ultra-left/revisionist/sectarian/etc.). All we then logically need to do is: a) recruit the people to these ideas and b) "agitate, agitate, agitate" these ideas into the mass movement. This makes them objectively sectarian as it is not the point to organise the class as a collective, but to institute their group as the leadership over the class, only reaching out to a section (hence sectarian) of the working class vanguard.

    "Oh but wait!" I can hear some, "We are democratic! We have conferences, discussions, etc.". Be that as it may, and most groups do have some sort of democratic process, these are ultimately undemocratic. Why? There is a big difference between formal democracy (conferences, congresses, etc) and dialectical democracy (a debating culture).

    The democracy of the sect is not designed to stimulate critical thinking, official factions and tendencies are often discouraged or outright banned on punishment of expulsion. The democracy of the sect is designed to mildly modify the existing formulas. Dissent is only allowed within the "official structures", eg on branch meetings, regional meetings and national meetings. That this is a crippled way of democracy, in the sense of allowing and stimulating dissent, should be obvious.

    I hope this goes some way out to explain the issue. The PSL may claim it is democratic-centralist, it is however most certainly not.
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


  5. #24
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    "Unity in disagreement"? Hey, I like that!

    Dissent is only allowed within the "official structures", eg on branch meetings, regional meetings and national meetings.
    I think the issue here is transparency within the organization itself. Surely there's got to be dissent expressed outside those physical meetings. OTOH, such dissent must be transparent as well, or else there's the problem of factionalism.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Die Neue Zeit For This Useful Post:

    Q

  7. #25
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 8,052
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Originally Posted by Q
    Instead of being a condescending prick about it, you might want to explain the issue. You of all people must be aware that there is a huge amount of confusion about these basic subjects on the left.
    I would rather not waste my time trying to explain something so simple to someone that refuses to listen.

    (As an aside: I think KC is talking about the PSL being too small to be really able to represent working class politics as a collective of politics, when he says that the PSL (or any group on the left) can't be democratic-centralist).
    This is true. A democratic centralist organization is mutually exclusive from the existing sects, not only because of its isolation from the class struggle but also because of its inherent form of organization (i.e. the sect form is inherently opposed to democratic centralism).

    An example to make the point: Say a big company closes to ship off to Asia. This means 10 000 redundancies + another 15 000 in supply jobs, etc. How do we react? Say, in our hypothetical class party, we have two camps emerging on this issue. One side, with a trade union bureaucratic background, argues we need to negotiate, the other - left - camp argues we need to strike. The first however wins the argument and the class organisation seeks to negotiate.

    Negotiations fail however completely and the debate goes on. This time a majority is found for a strike and occupation. This time there is success. The company stays where it is and 25k jobs are saved.
    I think a more relevant example would be where the negotiators win, the strikers split off and form their own group, and then both dogmatically cling to their positions as essential in their belief structures (i.e. the negotiators promote negotiation in general while the strikers do the same wrt striking).

    At least, that is how the modern day socialist left came to be.
  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KC For This Useful Post:


  9. #26
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    I would rather not waste my time trying to explain something so simple to someone that refuses to listen.
    Maybe the person in question won't (I'm not so sure), but what about all others (including guests) reading this thread?

    I think a more relevant example would be where the negotiators win, the strikers split off and form their own group, and then both dogmatically cling to their positions as essential in their belief structures (i.e. the negotiators promote negotiation in general while the strikers do the same wrt striking).

    At least, that is how the modern day socialist left came to be.
    That is a fair enough point, but reinforces the negative.
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise

Similar Threads

  1. Democratic Centralism
    By King of Frogs in forum Learning
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19th July 2010, 13:01
  2. democratic centralism--what do you think about it?
    By danyboy27 in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20th October 2008, 23:25
  3. A new look of democratic centralism
    By Le People in forum Theory
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 24th July 2005, 02:04
  4. Democratic centralism what is it ?
    By crazy comie in forum Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21st September 2003, 10:17
  5. Democratic Centralism - what is it?
    By El Che in forum Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 16th March 2002, 23:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread