“Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism”: Circum. Discussive Uni

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is the first section that I've completed in Chapter 4 ("One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and Building the Mass Party of the Working Class") of The Class Struggle Revisited. Since it is over two pages long, and will probably be the longest section in the chapter, I thought it deserving of a separate submission.



“Unity in Action, Freedom of Discussion and Criticism”: Circumstantial Discussive Unity

In revisiting the question of what is known today as “democratic centralism,” it is best to begin with Lenin’s remarks in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (emphasis in bold):

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.”

It is popular belief amongst Marxists that Lenin was indeed the “creator” of “democratic centralism.” However, the bolded remarks above seem to reveal the real “creator”: none other than the real founder of “Marxism” himself!

Proceeding from such revelation, when he and his most well-known disciple conceptualized and popularized “democratic centralism,” respectively, they had in mind that “democratic centralism” was merely the best means to achieve “unity in action, freedom of discussion and criticism” – discussive unity – within their historical circumstances. More importantly, they also knew that other organizational and equally revolutionary forms were possible in other circumstances!

So what makes the goal “circumstantial? For the purposes of this section, variables will be used.

Let D1 refer 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 preferably, "platforms"); or
3) "RES" for restricted access, as in access only by those involved in the relevant intra-party discussions.

Let UN ("unity") refer to how intra-party decisions should be made. It can be:

1) "DIR" for direct (the party membership as a whole);
2) "REP" for representative; or
3) "ORG" for organic (as conceptualized by one Amadeo Bordiga as an “alternative” to elections).

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

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

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."

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 publicly criticized the CC for accommodating the Provisional Government (RES-REP-PUB). Later on, in the very publicized debates between Lenin and the "Left-Wing Communists," on issues ranging from Brest-Litovsk to state capitalism, there was FCT-REP-PUB. Eventually, just after the ban on factions was made, there was RES-REP-000 once more.

An Italian Communist named Amadeo 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.

The concept of organic centralism had a limited (and thus 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 meant that no public criticism was allowed for party members to make after decisions were made "organically."

A few years later, "Comrade" Stalin and his gang had their own bureaucratic centralism:

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

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

In today’s world, the Trotskyists claim to be the true adherents to Lenin’s democratic centralism. Historically, however, their perception of democratic centralism has been and is still reduced to this (and thus reductionist and not very “circumstantial”):

D1: FCT or RES
UN: REP
D2: INT

This – as if that's the only permutation of democratic centralism possible – has led to numerous splits, because criticism could not be vented out publicly by members of the now-numerous Trotskyist parties, split along Cliffite, Grantite, Mandelite, and other lines.

In building both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor – both mass parties of the working class – the organizational basis should be as close to ideal discussive unity as possible. The particular “centralism” (which as a word now reeks of reductionist organizational fetishism, as opposed to the more basic concept of centrality) that applies to both organizations – publicized discussive unity – should have a varying set of these features:

D1: GEN, FCT, or RES
UN: DIR, REP, or ORG
D2: PUB only

Note the possibility for general access by the public (through live mass-media and/or Internet coverage of intra-party discussions) and the level of discussions on decisions that have already been made (read: publicized criticism). One of the organizational goals for both the modern revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor should be political transparency.

Note also the possibilities for “organic” decision-making and direct decision-making by the party membership as a whole. In the case of the former, "correct revolutionary politics" is needed by the modern revolutionary Marxist party based on material conditions, and that, under extremely extraordinary circumstances, appointed (not elected) "organs" (hence "organic") like the short-lived 1917 Political Bureau may be necessary. In between the two (or possibly an extension of the former), representative decision-making could be demarchic (instead of electoral), which would, due to the random nature of selections, severely limit intra-party machinations, manipulations, and “celebrity politics” (personality cults by any other name), as well as ensure programmatic diversity (beyond full, knowledgeable agreement with principles, this diversity means knowledgeable acceptance of, but not necessarily knowledgeable agreement with, the organization’s program). In the case of the latter, which is the ideal decision-making, the central party bodies would merely act as referees or “moderators” in the party-wide discussions.

Just as the real founder of “Marxism” remarked in The Class Struggle about the “demands for a free press and the right of assemblage,” as being “the light and air of the labor movement,” a similar remark can be made regarding the goal of ideal discussive unity (which includes political transparency) being the “light and air” of both the revolutionary Marxist party and its precursor, and a more damning remark can be made regarding the opponents of this goal:

Whoever attempts to deny [the goal of ideal discussive unity and the accompanying political transparency], no matter what his pretensions, is to be reckoned among the worst enemies of the working class!



REFERENCES:

The Class Struggle by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...rfurt/ch05.htm]

Democratic centralism vs. Lenin’s slogan [http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic-centr...0106/index.html]

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni.../1904/onestep/]

Revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism? [http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trot...0170/index.html]

[chegitz guevara]

Well argued. I agree, although, as I am not a student of Bordiga, I'm not sure what is meant by organic decision making.

[DrFreeman09]

Indeed. This is one of the better articles I've read by you, Jacob.

Once again, I think it should be made clear that the "unity" part is only applicable in a genuine revolutionary party that has already emerged from a process of open struggle similar to how the Bolsheviks emerged from the RSDLP.

However, I assume this will be made clear when you put this into context with the other sections of your work.

As for the nature of "organic" decision making, I believe that refers to the appointed (not elected) people who have the "correct" understanding of Marxist theory and who make the decisions. Bordiga vehemently opposed democracy both within the party and during "workers' rule." He claimed that "communists" operate on the basis of "programmatic" principles, not on the "will of the masses."

This position assumes, of course, that there is one "correct" set of principles that of course Bordiga had magically stumbled upon, that Marxist theory cannot be misinterpreted, and that power doesn't need to be checked by the masses. There's a reason why Marx said that the working class must come to power by revolution and that the working class must rule, and the only way for the class to do that is for the class to have democratic rights, both within the revolutionary party before the revolution, and of course after the revolution.

I believe there is a set of correct principles in the sense that they will be the ones capable of capturing the attention of the masses and aiding them in victory, but these principles will be reached in a materialist way, i.e. by open struggle between people of differing views combined with the experience of class struggle, all within the context of a mass organization. This mass organization will serve as a platform for all of the various trends to stand upon so that the masses can see the contradictions and work to resolve them.

Anyway, we can't exclude any possibility, as we can't predict the future. Organic decision making may come in handy in rare instances. But we should understand why Bordiga was wrong to propose this as the main form of decision making and work to understand what is the right form of decision making.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was actually wondering about your opinion on my blatantly positive mention of Karl Kautsky (yes, I know he was a sellout and had quite a number of reductionist and revisionist problems beforehand, and his grandson is worse), and furthermore on my "blasphemous" attribution of the concept of "democratic centralism" to him and not his "disciple" Lenin.

[RNK]

In short, as explained to me by someone I can't seem to remember, organic centralism is where party membership is exclusive to those questioned and accepted by the party, so that ideological conformity is maintained, as opposed to democratic centralism, which allows anyone to join and partake in democratic decisions, which allegedly can create friction and fracture in the party as those with different ideological and/or other beliefs clash with one another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I do agree that there WILL be a need for questioning prospects, mainly on the question of their class background. The Chapter 4 section "'United Social Labour': The Merger of Political Socialism and the Workers’ Labour Movement" will say that the pre-party mass organization of the working class will have to have an exclusively working-class membership (and by that I do NOT equate them with just factory workers, miners, farm workers, etc.).

I distinctively remember an Engels quote in CdL's PoWR website regarding this, especially after having read Hal Draper's The Myth of Lenin’s "Concept of the Party" late last night (till just after midnight, actually).

[That reading came just after I completed the section "Problems with 'Social Democracy'" - which you should read and review in my RevMarx thread on the Bolshevik participation in the Duma.]

[chegitz guevara]

I'm forwarding this to some comrades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I've updated the Chapter 4 section above to mention the possibility of using demarchy within the "party"/organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy

Could this demarchy concept be the answer to Bordiga's "organic" problem with "the democratic principle", especially since "random selection" could be based on diverse but still correct set of principles?

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, could you summarize for us the essence of the organic critique? (sorry, it is late on a work night and I only made it through the first wikipedia article...)

Demarchy is an interesting idea but it does have the serious problem, however unlikely, of putting a handful of fascist nutballs in charge of what happens. Moreover, people's expressed preferences are often quite different from their realized ones, so how would any selection scheme take account of these?