Talk:Democratic centralism

Here's a Marxist definition:

"The Party is organized on the basis of democratic centralism. The Party is divided into cells, or clubs, which meet regularly to evaluate members' work and to make suggestions about how to improve it, and to evaluate the Party's positions and make suggestions for change. These suggestions are taken by the club leader to section meetings (made up of the club leaders and other leading comrades in an area, and by section leaders to the Central Committee. Based on the collective experience of the Party, the leadership decides on new positions (a new line) which all Party members are then bound to put into practice." [1] (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/democent.html)

---

Soulpatch, I thought that even as originally conceived by Lenin, democratic centralism placed all authority at the top of the hierarchy. That despite receiving reports or suggestions from below, each level in the hierarchy had the power to enforce its will on the lower levels. What part of this is wrong? --Ed Poor

---

Wow, this is actually starting to make sense to me now. The use of italics to distinguish the democratic aspect from the centralism really helped me. Thanks, Soulpatch. --Ed Poor

Ed, you're welcome. As Lenin originally conceived of it, there was completely open debate within the party, but once a decision was made everyone had to stick with it. soulpatch

I think the key point is the part you're glossing over with the passive voice... "once the decision was made," fine, but who made the decision in the end, and how was it made? Graft

To clarify that point, I have added the words "by majority vote" soulpatch

---

once the decision by the party was made (by majority vote), all members were expected to follow that decision unquestioningly.

At what point in the hierarchy is there a majority vote? Who gets to vote? Who is bound by the decision? Is it a simple or 2/3 majority, or what?

The way I heard it, in dimly remembered classes from a quarter century ago, is that the higher levels dictated to the lower levels -- this was the "centralism" aspect. I also remember hearing some criticism of the usage of democratic on the grounds that people who did NOT vote on an issue were bound by decisions made by others: a non-democratic aspect better described in terms of totalitarianism and dictatorship.

But since it was too long ago to relay on my memory, I'd like to hear what Soulpatch says before I make any significant alterations to the article. --Ed Poor

It depends on whether you are talking about how Lenin conceived it, or how it was altered under Stalinism. The Progressive Labor Party, by the way, from which you found that quote at the top, is a small, rabidly Stalinist political party, and its conception of it is completely Stalinist, so it isn't surprising what they wrote. Under democratic centralism as it was formulated by Lenin, all party members got to vote and it was determined by majority vote. Under Stalinism, policy is dictated from above by the party rulers. The sentence in the article that you quoted from above ("once the decision by the party was made (by majority vote), all members were expected to follow that decision unquestioningly") refers to the original Leninistic formulation of democratic centralism, not the Stalinist form.

Although in reality it doesn't really pertain to how the Bolsheviks carried out democratic centralism before 1917 to quote from contemporary American Marxist political parties, for what it's worth, I will furnish a quote here, taken from speeches that were given in 1970 by a member of what was at the time a Trotskyist political party (it is no longer Trotskyist, for what it's worth). I think this quote is worthwhile because the definition below is, as far as I can tell, basically the same as Lenin originally formulated it.

"Defined in a broad generalization, democratic centralism constitutes an interrelated process of democracy in deciding party policy, and centralized action in carrying it out.

"While we're stating the basic aspects, let us turn to a second generalization that follows, concerning attacks on democratic centralism. Such attacks stem primarily from false definitions of democracy. Despite the claims of windbags, democracy does not imply endless talk; nor is it a license for undisciplined organizational conduct, as factional hooligans will try to tell you. Democracy is basically a method of reaching a decision. It requires that first all viewpoints be heard in debating a question, then a vote is taken, and then the time has come for action. That is where centralism takes over. Centralism is based on the democratic principle of majority rule. It stems from the concept of making a decision by majority vote. Basically, it is a method of exercising the right of the majority to see that its decision is carried out." [2] (http://www.themilitant.com/1997/612/612_23.html)

soulpatch

---

Thank you for digging up all that information. I'm amazed that a dedicated anti-communist such as myself can have such a congenial discussion with someone who is apparently at least somewhat favorable to Communism. Of course, my perception could be wildly inaccurate ;-) --Ed Poor

---

I have just rewritten the first two paras of the entry. The content of my rewrite will maybe come as a shock to many reared on the myths of Leninism. But if WITBD? is refered to you will find I'm correct in my assertions. A good survey can be found in paul Le Blancs Lenin and the revolutionary party. A bit Zinovievist for my Lukacsian taste but decent on the history of the concept. Jock Haston (a good leninist!)

Democratic? I don't think so

The article ought to reflect the fact that there was little democratic about democratic centralism as practiced in the Soviet. Libertas

Yes, it ought, but not in the way you just did. the proper way would be to explain what is wrong with the term, rather than to throw in opinionated terms "misleading", ironical", etc. This is not the way encyclopedic articles are written. Facts first and foremost. Reverting, sorry. Mikkalai 20:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing particularly misleading. Words tend to have different meanings. The term as it is reflects correctly its meaning. Mikkalai 20:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Also, by the end of the article it clearly says that During Stalin, the "democratic" part was washed out. What else do you want? Mikkalai 20:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, do you genuinely think the USSR was democratic in any form after the death of Stalin? Libertas

Libertas, do you really understand what other people write? Please explain how did you come to this hypothesis about my opinions. The question you wrote calls for conflict, not for its resolution. Please quote the place which have lead to think you so, and we shall talk; this would be a proper way of reaching consensus. Mikkalai 00:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addition

New meaning, in the context of a real democracy. --Humble Guy 13:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)