|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MC17 & MC11
Published MIM Notes 51, April 1991
"It is, I think, almost universally realized at present that the Bolsheviks
could not have retained power for two and a half months, let alone two and
a half years, without the most rigorous and truly iron discipline in our
Party..." - V.I. Lenin(1)
Democratic centralism is a principle of organization that can be used (or
abused) by any functioning group. The democratic part of the term defines
the equal participation and voice expected from all members of the organization.
The centralism refers to the mandate that all members uphold all decisions
made by the democratic processes of the organization.
In practical terms this translates into real participatory democracy within,
but with strict discipline expected from all members. Even if one member
disagrees with a decision, s/he is expected to uphold the decision externally
while working from within to convince other members that they are wrong.
This method of organization is based on the assumption that eventually the
majority of the members of a group, presented with conflicting views, will
be able to arrive at the best possible decision. This may be a prolonged
process, and mistakes may be made, but the democratic element ensures that
debate can go on until all members are satisfied.
First, the question of why people organizing for a socialist revolution
should adopt structures at all needs to be addressed. To answer this we
need to look at groups that exist without structure, in relative anarchy.
These organizations can never be truly democratic because they inevitably
lead to the formation of informal cliques that translate into power for
those more experienced or more connected people - and powerlessness for
other members. This is seen in single-issue organizations which almost always
have a regular practice of informal decision making that only involves some
of the members - usually the more experienced ones. Ironically it is people
in these groups who most often oppose democratic centralism, deeming it
undemocratic by comparing it to their own practice.
This is not to say that cliques will not exist in a party. The difference
between groups that don't follow democratic centralist principles and a
party is that the party has the structure and therefore the potential to
enact policies that keep individuals or groups from usurping power, allowing
true democratic participation from all members. Structurally, democratic
centralism disperses power to all the members. This possibility does not
exist in supposedly unstructured organizations.
If you accept the need for some kind of organized structure, the next question
that inevitably arises (for those who support democracy) is why the discipline
of centralism. This can be answered in part by looking at the history of
the Black Panther Party (BPP). As an organization that only loosely enforced
anything resembling centralism, particularly in the early years, the BPP
suffered much infiltration and destruction at the hands of the FBI, CIA
and police. It is much easier for these agents of the state to split and
wreck a group which is not under centralist discipline. State spies had
no problem discovering which BPP members disagreed with which others. They
used this knowledge to play one off the other, by sending forged messages
to people, and by agitating with those not entirely satisfied with a policy
or rule. Rather than fostering healthy debate, the lack of centralism served
to stifle it, allowing dishonest elements into destructively powerful and
knowledgeable roles within their party. If all members of a party uphold
the party line to the general public it will be much more difficult for
agents of the state to create false conflict from the outside. This reduces
one potentially destructive force on the party. They may still pursue this
destruction from within, and this is where the structure of centralism becomes
necessary to fight against the formation of cliques that are aimed at undermining
democratic processes.
Of course, party members are not immune from the pressures the dominant
capitalist ideology and culture exert on everyone's analysis and behavior.
Even without state agents consciously trying to subvert the party, cadres
are susceptible to spontaneous actions and incorrect ideas. Democratic centralism
protects the party from being discredited by individual cadres following
their spontaneous whims - which cannot help but be influenced by bourgeois
forces and ideology. Recognizing individualism as a danger, centralism mandates
that political lines and the practice that they dictate be discussed and
voted on by the membership before the party authorizes an action or statement
in its name. Either way, from within or without, centralism provides a structure
that enables the party to exist in the face of the powerful and destructive
forces of the state.
In any group, a lack of discipline on the part of members of an organization
can be destructive to that organization. People need to be counted on in
order for work to run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. In an organization
whose goal is to seize power from the bourgeoisie, discipline and unity
are essential if it is to have any chance of success. The bourgeoisie is
itself very organized and disciplined.
Although Marx's material analysis of history proved that socialism is inevitable,
bourgeois ownership of the means of production and control over the production
of culture clearly puts the ruling class at a huge tactical advantage over
those attempting to overthrow the capitalist system. The capitalists can
succeed in putting off revolution indefinitely if no organized group arises
to overthrow this system. Undisciplined groups have no chance of wresting
state power from the current ruling class.
The truly successful revolutions of history were led by revolutionary parties
operating under the principle of democratic centralism. There are no examples
of success to point to that did not use such a structure. People are dying
daily at the hands of capitalism, and to refuse a structure that has been
proven to advance the revolutionary cause is to accept more deaths by postponing
revolution.
Recognizing that everyone's personal lives have repercussions for the organization
as a whole, the discipline of centralism allows the party to make rules
to minimize the potential damage to the party. Members regulate their personal
activities for the sake of the organization, but working from the assumption
of the importance of the organization. This is merely one facet of their
devotion to their work. All rules controlling behavior are made by the members
and are always up for debate and change internally. If one presumes that
the majority of the members will arrive at policies effective in achieving
the greatest good for the organization, working for the people of the world,
they should be willing to carry out these rules in the interest of the party's
success.
People sometimes complain about the freedoms they are giving up for the
sake of the party. But these people fail to question what freedom is under
capitalism. Certainly MIM does not have the freedom to oppose exploitation
and oppression. Black, Latino and First Nation peoples in this country are
not free to pursue "the Amerikan dream." People in Amerika's Third
World colonies are not free to eat, have medical care or go to school. The
freedoms that people in this country are afraid of giving up are privileges.
If people really believe they deserve these "freedoms" they should
not be fighting for a revolution and do not belong in a revolutionary party
in the first place.
Democratic centralism is the only structure of organization proven to advance
the revolutionary cause. It is a structure of discipline that enables a
revolutionary party to wage the most effective fight against the capitalist
system.
Note: "Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder, Selected Works.
New York: International Publishers, 1971, p.516.