Talk:Democratic centralism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Democratic centralism is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Liberal and Marxist versions? Marxist or Leninist?

Is 'democratic centralism' really used as a political term in liberal discourse? Certainly there are liberal states that are both democratic and centralised, such as those cited (Ireland, France, etc), but I don;t think I've ever come across the term 'democratic centralism' as referring to anything other than the Leninist principle of party organisation. And I'm fairly well acquainted with Irish politics and indeed Irish political analysis. Unless someone can come up with sources for its use as a political term relating to centralised liberal-democratic states, I think that section of the article should be at least severely lopped.

Secondly, it was Lenin, not Marx, who thought up democratic centralism, and it is really a defining feature of Marxism-Leninism. Should the presentation of it in the article not emphasise its being a Leninist concept rather than just a Marxist one? Palmiro 20:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


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]

Sorry, I meant a concept thought up by Lenin and not by Marx.

In any case, as there's no support cited for the use of 'democratic centralism' as a concept to describe anything other than the Leninist organisational model, I have removed the content dealing with what was described as a democratic unitary state to a new article under that heading. Democratic centralism is a well-established political term with a specific meaning (the Leninist one) and other possible but unattested meanings might be appropriate to a dictionary but not really to an encyclopedia article on that term.Palmiro 12:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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]
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!)

[edit] 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)

The article makes Democratic Centralism more democratic than it really was. The top held all the power. If your opinion didn't match the ruling hierarchy, you could be thrown out of the party or disciplined in other ways. The party membership was kept small and only those who agreed with the party's general direction were allowed to be members. The reality was that all decisions were made from the top and went down to the rank and file. Any voting was pretty much for show with the results already decided. With the Politburo making the decision, the rank and file were -- under the principles of Democratic Centralism -- bound to follow and could offer no dissent. 8.11.253.195 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem? If you are thrown away and you know you are right, ho ahead and make your own party. "Any voting was pretty much for show": it is not a problem of demo cent: it is a problem of cattle-like behavior. If you behave like cattle, you deserve to be treated like cattle. `'Míkka 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about democratic centralism, not democratic centralism in the USSR under Stalin. --Duncan 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition

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


[edit] Link

Something isn't working so I couldn't do it myself, but the link to On Democratic Centralism and the Regime by Trotsky is: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/xx/democent.htm

The link is wrong in the article --jenlight 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)