[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?) 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." 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: >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. >>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:>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. It also is part of the movement _from below_ mentioned above and discussed 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. 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? that's enough for today. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
