Democratic Centralism

[John Paramo <albatrosrojo2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some thoughts:

That some, not all, in the Trotskyst movement made a
joke out of democratic centralism is not news.  That
the Stalinist movement did to democratic centralism a
monstruosity that led many to the gulags and to be
murdered is not secret.  The first expelled and purged
people for political differences or character
differences.  The second used it as weapon to the
perpetuation of a bureacracy in power.

In that sense, we can all learn from the Bolsheviks
and their application of DC.  No doubt about it.

Having leaders openly lobbying and arguing for their
ideas on fundamental issues is not bad, but good for
the party but, more importantly, for the working class
as a whole.  Only in such passionate debates, a policy
can carry the day and count on the enthusiastic and
decisive support from the ranks of the organization
but, more decisively, gave those members the authority
and the cons and pros of such positions to argue for
them convincingly - not as automatons - among workers.

Competitive elections of leaders in the party and the
allowance for members to raise their disagreements in
the organization and even have the right to vote or
oppose policies of the organization that do not
infringe in principple with those of the organization
as a whole and democratically decided is a must.

But it also makes sense, based on general agreements
to follow the general direction of the organization
when intervening in the mass movement or to take
advise by those more involved in a given movement as
to how to decide on tactics, dates or specific
decisions when those who participate more
esporadically sometimes are not into the specifics of
every intervention.  It is, of course, of the nature
of democracy inside any organization that members who
could not reach agreement on specifics can be either
opposing, abstaining or simply not voting on such
issues with those in charge to coordinate for the
organization in such struggles.

The example given by Lou of the antiwar and the SWP
internal practices seems to be a little incompatible
with the discussion on the insurrection among the
Bolsheviks and comapring both is not very useful, in
my view.  On the other hand, the example itself seems
to show some correct policies - as discussing and
organizing the intervention of the organization - with
some excesses like looking over the shoulder to see
how people voted on merely tactical issues at public
coalition meetings.

Making public in the press the political debates,
giving detailed reports of those debates in the
party's press, arriving at independently developed
ideas and positions on "foreign" issues and not simply
limiting themselves to publish whatever comes from
forces int he ground; educating politically the rank
and file not to take for granted political education
and information and encourage theoretical and
political education to level the itnernal discussions;
educating everyone in what constitute a principple,
what a tactic and what an strategy and thus educating
members and yourself in what constitute a cause worth
splitting over and, more importantly, what DOES NOT
constitute a base for split is central.

Full timers could not be appointees for life, nor
every professional revolutionary must be a full timer;
full timers should nto be above the democratically
elected bodies of the organizations and positions such
as that of a General Secretary or General Chairman of
a gorup should be flattly rejected both in form and
content.

Some level of discussion should be ongoing and not
limited to certain periods, yearly conventions at
least and more if necessary could not but help.

The Bolsheviks certainly did nto amke a joke or a tool
of repression of DC.  Lenin's position could be
summarized in "absolute freedom of expression, right
of the organization to exclude individual members when
breaking with principples."

There WAS a discussion about expelling Kamenev and
Zinoviev for debating the date of the insurrection in
the press of an opponent organization.  Lenin called
them "scabs."  Stalin and others supported the
expulsion even though Stalin himself broke democratic
centralism when, before the revolution, he extended
the guerrilla operations and expropriations of money
beyond the indications of the CC.

It was a VOTE on the proposal to expel them and the
vote was inconclusive - if I recall correctly - and
Lenin, afterward took the position that events
superseded the dicussion because once the insurrection
was udner way, both Kamenev and Zinoviev, as did
others opposed to the date, participated of the work
of the insurrection with zeal and effectiveness.

Cases of discipline were dealt on an individual basis,
not in categories spelled out in a document called
"bylaws."  This method will allow two cases, under
different circumstances, of the same "fault" being
judged differently.  Timing, importance of the issue,
political situation, etc were all considered and
balanced-out to take a disciplinary decision.

After the revolution, however, Lenin himself proposed
regular purges of the aprty of the opportunist
elements that joined the victors and were considered
more a dead weight that a really healthy development. 
This was, in my opinion, the first of a definition of
a class of people to be especifically excluded from
the party for their characteristics.

Today, DC would have to be applied much differently
from how the Bolsheviks did apply it.  Technology,
general cultural advances, different pressures than
those existing in Russia, better communications and
publishing mechanisms makes every bit of democracy
inside the party not only necessary but much more
simple and decisions and debates not need the
prolonged period of time that took the Bolsheviks at
the beginning of the last century.

The accent should be on the democratic side of the
equation and centralism should be the tool of
effective work as a RESULT of that democratic
discussion, not its replacement.

 


Ahora podés usar Yahoo! Messenger desde tu celular. Aprendé cómo hacerlo en 
Yahoo! Móvil: http://ar.mobile.yahoo.com/sms.html

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.