Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) by Devine, James 15 April 2002 21:33 UTC
In leftist theory, "democratic centralism" refers to the organization of the revolutionary political party. The theory says that when a party's membership decides on a policy (a line, a program) it is binding on members of that party, including its leadership. Though they may disagree with it at party forums, they should not do so openly, when non-party people are around. ^^^^^ CB: By and large, we can be more specific than "leftist theory" , and attribute "democratic centralism" to Leninist theory. On the other hand, Lenin's theory of democratic centralism can be generalized beyond the specific Bolshevik situation as a way of analyzing and organizing the relationship between the working class masses and its leadership whereever the class struggle is hot, as in Venezuela. ^^^^^^^^ Though there are likely organizations in Venezuela that are organized in a "democratic centralist" way, the mass demonstrations in favor of Chavez don't fit that description unless they are simply as part of a party. It looks to me instead that there's a lot of "spontaneity" going on. That is, people were demonstrating in favor of Chavez because they liked him, not because they belonged to a party-type organization. The Bolivarist organization did not simply orchestrate the anti-coup movements. (Of course, if my facts are wrong, I'd like to be told.) ^^^^^^^^ CB: It is highly unlikely that the response of the overwhelming numbers of workers and of the soldiers who remained loyal to Chavez was essentially spontaneous. It evidenced a high level of consciousness. The organization of the Bolivarists in the poor neighborhoods has been reported for years before these events. This is most likely precisely an example of CONSCIOUS , emergency struggle by masses led by a party as Lenin discusses it in _What is to be done ?_, as opposed to spontaneous struggles such as rebellions/riots in U.S. cities over the last 40 years, and the consciousness demonstrated by the workers and soldiers is most likely the result of prior party work and democratic centralist methods. BTW, in practice, most "democratic centralist" organizations end up not being democratic. The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather than active, democratic, participants. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Most ? Do you have stats on this ?This is a standard anti-democratic centralist claim and opinion. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
