dem. cent. & Venezuela by Devine, James 16 April 2002 18:33 UTC Thread Index > > >
[was: RE: [PEN-L:24983] Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)] I wrote: >>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. < It's from Lenin, but much of what's been written on "democratic centralism" comes from his epigones (Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.), who are within the broad tradition of Marxism. A lot of it also came from Kautsky, from whom Lenin learned his stuff (see WHAT IS TO BE DONE?) ^^^^^^^^ CB: Epigones are ? Are followers of Hal Draper his epigones ? ^^^^^ The phrase "Leninist theory" is quite ambiguous since it is a contested theory (even more than Marxist theory), with Lenin's epigones fighting over it. Even Lenin himself did not follow a consistent theory all through his career (see, for example, Tony Cliff's multi-volume book on Lenin). It's unclear that such a dynamically changing vision can or should be distilled into an "ism." ^^^^^^^^ CB: It wasn't so ambiguous to Lenin that it prevented him from taking definite and effective action. This is a key principle of both Marx and Lenin: not to get caught up in academic style "ambiguities" so as to fail to unite theory with action. Actually, compared with most other theories in this area, Lenin's is relatively unambiguous. And certainly in the spirit of Leninism, it would be out of character to emphasize any ambiguities so as to reach the conclusion that there is just too much uncertainty about Lenin's ideas and theory that it cannot serve as a guide to our action. The development in Lenin's thinking might be your overlooking that he is very concrete, so as things develop , he develops. ^^^^^^^^ In retrospect, it was a major mistake by 20th century revolutionary leftists to attach too much prestige to any single individual, including Lenin. (It was probably a mistake to do this to Marx, too. The poor old guy must roll in his grave every time his name is invoked.) ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I don't see any proof put forth here to support the proposition that Lenin shouldn't have the prestige he has. I very much doubt that Marx would be upset that he has had so much influence after his death if he could know it. He certainly spent a lot of time developing a very distinct point of view, and he was very picky about criticizing pretty much everybody else except Engels. So, the modesty you suggest doesn't immediately square with much of his style and personality. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ CB: >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.< "Democratic centralism" has always referred to a mode of party organization, not to a mode of analysis. You can stretch the meaning of this phrase if you want to (as academics so often do), but it makes it incoherent to me and to most other people. ^^^^^^^^ CB: A key thing about the Party and party democracy ( the "democratic" in democratic centralism) is that it be closely connected with the masses. You can't be democratic if you are not connected to the masses. The "democratic" in democratic centralism must be the extensive connections between the masses and its leaders in the Party. It's incoherent to you because you have an idea that practictioners of it have not been connected to the masses. If you don't get the emphasis on connection between the party and the masses, then you don't understand the "democratic" in democratic centralist theory. ^^^^^^^^ >>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.< I didn't say "politically unconcious." In fact, I put the word "spontaneity" in quotes for a reason, because "spontaneity" is a vague and confusing concept. Rather, what I was saying was that much of the opposition to the coup came _from below_ (based on the short- and long-term class and national interests of those participating) rather than being orchestrated by the Bolivarist or any other organization. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: You assume the Party is "above" the masses. If the Party is with the masses then it participates in the movement from "below". However, the point on consciousness is that the events of April 13 most likely did not happen without preparation of the consciousness of the masses by its political leaders in the Bolivarian movement. This is precisely conscious revolt and not spontaneous in the senses that Lenin discusses the issue in _What is to be done ?_ We already have prior information about this issue of raising mass consciousness in Venezuela from the repeated landslide election victories of the Bolivarian movement. The brilliant actions of the masses in reversing the coup were the result of this ongoing process of consciousness raising, no doubt, probably very unspontaneous. The whole situation bespeaks a very democratic centralist relationship between massses and leaders. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB:>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.< ^^^^^^^ It's important to remember that the Bolivarist movement did not spring full-blown from the head of Chavez. ^^^^^^^^ CB: How could we forget this ? Who has said that it did ? ^^^^^ It also is part of the movement _from below_ mentioned above and discussed below. io (as academics so often do), but it m ^^^^^^^^ CB: We don't have to have such a sharp opposition between "above" and "below", because in this case there is very good evidence of a democratic centralist relationship between masses and leaders. The Bolivarian movement is the masses and their leaders, not just the leaders like Chavez. There seems to be a lot of evidence that Chavez is a regular guy and is very close to regular people. That's why the "middle class" can't stand him. He's from "below". ^^^^^^^ It did do a lot of organizing work. But we should also remember that most Latin American countries have not undergone the kind of sometimes-deliberate atomization that the U.S. African-American community has. (Here in L.A., it seems that wherever there was a prosperous middle-class black neighborhood, a freeway would be built or there'd be "urban renewal" of some other sort.) That is, there were strong kinship, religious, and community networks that existed before the Bolivarists came along. >> 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. < it is also an accurate description of the vast majority of so-called Leninist (Stalinist and Trotskyist) party organizations _in practice_ -- and also applies to social democratic and a lot of other types of political groups. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I'd say it is an inaccurate description to say most Communist parties are not democratic, especially as a flat absolute statement. It is overstatement and failure to recognize that Communist parties have represented majority opinion and interests on many, many issues both while in state power and in opposition. I say your failure to recognize this is related to your failure to understand that the "democratic" in democratic centralism is the crucial issues of the relationship of the masses to its leaders, not the masses of the party to the leaders of the party, as I discusses earlier. There has been overcentralism and democratic failure in Communist Parties, but it is a common place error to focus only on the failures and ignore the successes of democracy, in the manner of the main anti-communist line. Shall we say the record on democracy is more "ambiguous" than you allow. ^^^^^^^^^^ No I don't have any stats. How 'bout this: is there anyone on pen-l who has had experience with a self-styled "democratic centralist" organization in which the leadership remained democratically subordinate to the members? ^^^^^^^^ CB: The "democratic" in democratic centralism must be thought of in terms of connections to the masses or else it is a "democracy" of a small minority, elite.
