On The Misunderstanding About The Concept Of Organisation (2)
Prologue
In the 1st part of this article published in the previous issue of FAPP, we tried to discuss whether the opinion of a section who are refuting the necessity of the existence of a communist party, even any political organization of a permanent nature, is at all scientific or historically correct. In trying to do so we brought forward some general truths and those were discussed quite at length.
In this issue our focus is on the idea of that section of new generation of youth who do not deny the necessity of a communist Party altogether but seek answers for the reasons of the defeat of the first offensive of the international communist movement primarily within the "problems" of the structure of the Party organisation. Their thoughts largely are - past experiences reveal that the problem lies within the practice of principle of Democratic Centralism during the functioning of the Party structure; in the name of Democratic Centralism, de-facto the Party functions on centralism. As a result, the Party becomes bureaucratic in nature, leadership-centric, and even autocratic, etc, etc. Accordingly for all practical purpose, the necessity of the Party loses its significance to most of these comrades, even though they may verbally acknowledge its necessity.
It is undeniable that after a certain period in the 20th century, the manner in which most of the communist and the so-called communist reformist-revisionist parties functioned in a number of countries, the problem of bureaucracy was profusely manifested in their organizational lives. Till today throughout the world the legacy of this is being borne by different communist organizations. Hence, for now, in this article we shall only strive to put forth clearly the correct theoretical position regarding the role of democratic centralism in the life of a communist party, so that, through the discussion, at least a preliminary idea can be formed about where exactly these parties deviated on the question of democratic centralism. But why this deviation occurred is a separate question which is not being dealt with within the ambit of this article.
# # #
Theoretically, the term "Democratic Centralism" can imply only one meaning-a particular form of centralism which is actually democratic in nature. In other words, without the proper application of democracy, this centralism cannot be truly implemented. This may sound paradoxical. To understand whether this is indeed self-contradictory or bears a deeper significance, we shall divide our discussion into three main sections. In the first part, the significance of centralism will be dwelt upon; in the second part, we shall try to explain how this centralism is dependent upon democracy. Some preliminary discussion on how in the daily life of the Party, this centralism and democracy should practically function in tandem will be done in the third section.
The Meaning And Significance Of Centralism In The Life Of A Communist Party
We know that the principle of the running of a Communist Party (henceforth, Party) organisation is embodied in 'Democratic Centralism". The question is why is such a policy required to administer the Party? The natural answer that arises is actually the principle of the conducting the Party is determined on the basis of the aims-objectives-policies of the Party. Hence, in order to grasp this principle from a correct perspective, it is necessary first to discuss in brief the aims, policies and objectives of the Party. In it, we shall refer to some basic Marxist postulates without any explanation/analysis, so that we may touch upon the main discourse promptly. Interested readers may look upon the necessary fundamental Marxist literature for better understanding of such postulates.
Modern Capitalism And The Revolutionary Role Of Working Class
Modern capitalism has split the society into two fundamental classes-the capitalist class as the exploiters and the working class as the exploited; the other economic categories present in the society belongs in some way or other as part of these two fundamental classes. Hence, it is only natural that the working class will also fight for its emancipation just like the other oppressed classes had also fought in all the past historical phases. But capitalism itself has objectively created a fundamental difference between the emancipatory struggles of the proletariat with all other previous struggles of the oppressed classes of the past.
We know that the principal contradiction of capitalism is that in it production acquires a social character, whereas, the ownership of means of production and the produced commodities are in private hands. As a result, there is only one inevitable resolution to this conflict - socialisation of ownership system. This implies that the proletariat has the only one path for its emancipation - to establish social ownership over the means of production by abolishing private ownership over the means of production.
So, without the abolition of the right of private ownership over all aspects of production, it is impossible for the proletariat to liberate itself from the yoke of exploitation. The working class is compelled for this struggle because the very production relation that it is tethered to objectively impels it to put an end to this relation, and through it to abolish private property. This is the inevitable unconscious, objective motion of everyday class struggle.
This class struggle is initiated through trade union struggles waged by the workers in different factories against individual capitalists, which in the course of its development, pushes the entire working class to embark, first, in the political struggle against the government who represent the interests of the capitalist class, and then, towards appropriation of political power from the capitalist class. Not only that, this struggle itself spontaneously propels the proletariat to establish a society free from exploitation. Thus the goal of working class is twofold - its immediate goal is to seize political power from the capitalist class and its ultimate goal is the abolition of all relations based on private property and re-organise a new society based on social ownership.
What Is The Principle Instrument Of The Proletariat In This Struggle?
One thing is pretty clear- whatever be the aim of the working class; the capitalist classes have just one aim - to retain this exploitative system by hook and crook. We are familiar with the strength of the weapons they have to fulfil this aim. What are the two most potent weapons? One - state power, and, then - politics and ideology. The capitalist class use these two weapons effectively to keep the working class and the other oppressed classes tied to this system.
Working class has to establish a society free from exploitation by vanquishing this mighty powerful force. But where lies its real strength in this struggle? Definitely not in the Rafale fighter jets or Bofors canons. The working class' real strength lies in its organisation. An organisation that theworking class can wield as the instrument to confront the capitalist class, its politics and ideology and its state power. This organisation is the Communist Party. From here, we arrive at the conclusion that the working class has to form a revolutionary Communist Party as an instrument to achieve its immediate and ultimate aim.
The Role Of The Communist Party And Its Relationship With 'Centralism' In Party
The concept that that Party's task is to create class-struggle is widely prevalent. It is imperative to mention in the very beginning that this conception is utterly wrong and anti-Marxist. The Party cannot create class struggle; it cannot be its aim or task to do so. Due to the inevitable contradiction between labour and capital, the working class itself becomes organized in class struggle; it is the Party's task to provide leadership and direction to this class struggle. Why does the question of providing leadership and direction arise?
It is already been mentioned that the spontaneous class struggle has an objectively inevitable motion, but it is unconscious. Especially, when the capitalist class with their all-pervading ideological efforts tries and is trying today with full force to keep the majority of the working class tied to this system. In such a condition it is quite natural that a vast section of the working class, particularly it's backward section, is bound to remain confined to this system for a long period and will be incapable of grasping this motion of class struggle consciously.
In this condition, for a conscious role to help in advancement of this motion, a section from among the working class is necessary who are aware of this objective motion of class struggle, capable of providing direction, taking cognizance of the actual aims and purposes of these struggles and in that sense is enriched with socialist consciousness. This section is organized in the Party, which as an executive committee of the whole proletariat, being in the forefront of inevitable, unconscious direction of the class struggle should act in such a way so that the working class can advance consciously towards its aim in an organized and rapid manner by overcoming all the obstacles posed by the capitalist class. Herein lies the necessity and ability of the "concrete analysis of every concrete situation" and "to determine what is to be done" - the lifelines of Marxism. This is the meaning of the Party's role of providing conscious leadership. And it is through the Party's political programme, that they reflect the path to be chosen consciously to achieve the proletariat's immediate and ultimate aims.
Let us explain a little more. In order to keep the exploitation intact, modern capitalism has two major weapons - one, is to fetter a section of the working class into the world of capitalist consumerism; and two, confining the workers within the arena of reforms and reliefs through reformist-revisionist politics. In spite of all these, resentment and revolts against this system tries to germinate amongst a section of workers. The capitalist class nudges this section towards ultra- left anarchist politics. One of the principal tasks of the Communist Party is to unite and organise the majority of working class in their actual class struggles by countering all these bourgeoisie-petty bourgeoisie ideologies, and to advance the class struggle towards a revolutionary direction.
Here it is necessary to mention one more aspect. Another potent weapon of the capitalist class to chain the working class within this exploitative system is to keep the majority of the working class inactive and docile in social life. In this situation, while it is true that the Party cannot create class struggles, but at the same time, another major task of the Party is to remain entrenched and integrated within the working class to inspire them, to arouse their latent power, so that even the extremely backward section of the working class can also come forward to take an active and struggling role in the actual class struggles.
If we bear in mind the aims and objectives of the working class, it should not be difficult to realize that the role of Party does not end with the appropriation of political power. Instead, the role of the party becomes much more significant and complicated during post-revolutionary transition period. A significant feature of the role of the Party during this period is to organise the millions of the toiling people in such a way so that they themselves can play more and more active roles in conducting everything - from production to the state; and at the same time, they themselves can quash all possibilities of the bourgeoisie trying to rear its head to obstruct and hinder the first task at every step.
Why does it become necessary to discuss all these in detail? It was necessary to do so to show that, while the inevitable, objective motion of class struggle is to advance towards establishing socialism, similarly, we should also not forget that the capitalist class, with the aid of all its organized, centralized power (power of wealth, state power, support of political powers, predominance of their ideology, etc, all together) keeps on striving every moment to deviate the proletariat from his historical mission and confine them within this system. This is true of the period before appropriation of political power, but more so during the lengthy phase of transition to socialism. Especially, though the bourgeoisie loses political power during this period, the bourgeoisie as a class, bourgeois production relations, and together with it, the domineering influence of their long nurtured ideology exists extensively in the post-revolutionary society for a long period. And they wage relentless struggles to regain their lost power. Remaining steadfastly determined in its aim against this, the proletariat has to continuously wage a firm struggle to establish a classless society. And if the proletariat wavers here, if for any reason it fails to take a correct role in compliance with its long term aim/objective at every complicated turn of class struggles, then it may even suffer a shattering defeat in this struggle. From the defeat of the first journey of the international socialist movement, we now know that this organised, centralised power of the capitalist class is so powerful globally, that it has been successful in deviating even the working class Parties and rotting and corrupting them throughout the world. In countries like Russia and China, the Communist Parties were able to seize power by virtue of adhering to a correct revolutionary direction. Even there, the tremendous power of capitalist class have been ultimately successful in deviating these parties from their aims and objectives and transforming them into lackeys serving their class-interests. The central task of the Party in such circumstances, is to ensure the Party's conscious and leading role (that has been discussed above) in the class struggles by combating all the conspiracies of the capitalist class in the daily class struggles in reality while remaining steadfast in its aims and direction.
And here emerges the question of centralism. Centralism of what? Centralism that can thwart the capitalist class from deviating the working class from its aims and objectives in any manner. The centralism that is necessary to provide leadership to the objective class struggles so that the inevitable, unconscious motion of the class struggles may develop in a conscious manner. It is this centralism that is supposed to be reflected in the Party's structure.
Why This 'Centralism' Is Dependent On 'Democracy'?
We shall commence on this discussion from a completely different angle. This has gained more significance today because a completely distorted, anti-Marxist explanation to this question is widely prevalent nowadays.
Is The Party The Teacher Of The Working Class?
The Party is the leader of the working class-this interpretation has been devolved today to such an extent that working class is highly malleable like clay; it is impossible for them advance on their own accord unless the Party keeps educating them like a child. This notion is completely wrong. Why? If the inevitable objective direction of class struggles is to abolish capital, then it is natural that the working class will manifest, will be compelled to manifest their unconscious, spontaneous class aspirations and historical mission repeatedly through their roles and initiatives in the arena of class struggle. This is not a mere theoretical ranting. We have seen this truth being reflected again and again in the history of Russian Revolution. If the Party is to show the direction to the class struggle, then the first and foremost task of the Party is to garner lessons from these spontaneous, creative roles of the working class. In this respect, the Communist Party the executive committee of the working class, is the pupil of the working class. The Party must constantly be educated and enriched by the assertions and creative role of working class. And again, since the task of the communists is to grasp and understand by their consciousness the class aspirations and historical mission manifested spontaneously in the class struggle and lead it accordingly so that it can advance towards it ultimate aim - the Party is at the same time the teacher of the working class.
Therefore a very significant aspect of the dialectical relationship between the Party and working class is that both of them are at the same time teachers as well as pupils of each other. The pre-condition of reflection of this dialectical relationship in its true sense is that the majority of the Party's membership must come from the working class and at the same time, Party members must be deeply entrenched in and intensively integrated with the working class, so that the Party can understand the ongoing class struggles and imbibe necessary lessons from it.
Consequently, the members who are intensively connected in various ways with the objective struggles of the working class are that lifeline of the Party, through whom this role of the working class in practical struggles will be represented in the Party in flesh and blood. Is it at all possible for a Party to garner lessons from the actual class struggles of the working class and be capable of summing it up unless it stands upon a strong foundation of democracy? Expressing in another way, as long as the Party is the pupil of the working class, the necessity of democracy is the pivot in conducting the Party; and where the Party plays the role as the teacher of the working class, the necessity of centralism is the pivot. And when this dialectical relationship of being a pupil and a teacher at the same time is lost from the life of a Party for any reason whatsoever, the Party is sure to become bureaucratic.
In What Sense The Term 'Democracy' Is Applicable Here?
What exactly is the position in democracy in bourgeoisie society? In thecore of bourgeoisie production process lies the absolute manifestation of division of labour. Not only do the ones who are the real producers do not have any right to express any opinion in the whole process of production, rather they, on the other hand, are deeply chained to very small bits and pieces of the production process. As a whole, the organization of production is fully under the control of the capitalists and their managers. The real producers - the workers are actually completely alienated from the process of organizing production, are nothing but the merely inactive participants as mere appendages to machines forced to dance to the tune of capitalists and their managers. The workers have no democracy here. Consequently, though the people have the "right to express their opinions", it does not entail the freedom to boldly express one's own independent opinion, the right to discuss on it and influence the decision making process. What actually exists is a negligible, very small group of active organizers in all spheres economic, political and social-and following them are the vast majority of inactive masses. On the other hand, democracy in the life of a Communist Party means not just right of the majority to "express their opinion", instead, the principal focus must lie on the development of their ability of active participation, initiative and creativity. Thus the meaning of democracy in the life of a Party implies the entrenchment and integration of each and every Party member with the practical struggles of the working class, active participation in the Party's day to day tasks over there, to try to assimilate the experiences gathered there in one's own way, present those experiences in the Party, and to generate live discourses and debates around those experiences. Contextually, it should be mentioned that there exists division of labour in the life of the Party too. But what is absent here is that the slavery to division of labour. Instead, everyone possesses aspirations and opportunities to take part in all types of work, and complete right to express their views and criticism regarding all these. Thus, the development of the ability of the active participation, initiatives and creativity in the regular activities of the Party is that objective foundation, standing upon which the execution of maximum democracy in the decision making process in the life of the Party is possible. If in reality, it so happens that there is a handful of active member organizers in the Party, and a huge section of inactive members, then the maximum democracy in the decision making process will be reduced merely to the "right to express opinions", and nothing else. In such a circumstance, notwithstanding how much formal democracy prevails in Party life, in reality that democracy will not be anything other than the democracy of a minority. And the seed of bureaucracy is bound to nourish here.
Why This Deliberation On Democracy?
What do we actually understand about the regular activities of the Party in reality? We have already mentioned that in reality, there exists a division of labour in the Party life too. Starting from a role in the trade union movement at industries/factory levels to the movements concerning general economic demands of the entire class; organizing demonstration-agitation against the current socio-political attacks; arousing the working class so that they can move ahead to organise movements for resistance as well as extract political demands; waging a firm struggle against all those thoughts, ideas, notions and ideology that pose a hindrance to the attainment of the greater aims of the working class- all these are a huge partof the regular Party activities. Therefore, to remain entrenched with the workers and to organize them, build revolutionary propaganda and revolutionary core among them, enhance their grievances against the system - all these constitute a big task of the Party. To prepare and publish necessary literary materials like periodicals-leaflets etc for performing aforesaid activities is another important task of the Party. Another equally important task is how to expand and develop socialist consciousness among the workers. These are but examples of some type of activities to be done among the working class. Apart from these, an inseparable part of the activities of the Party is to work among the other toiling masses and revolutionary intelligentsia and to draw them towards the working class. In addition, developing the Party theoretically and ideologically is another important activity of the Party. Are all these activities isolated in nature, or are they different facets of but integrally connected to a singular activity? Undoubtedly the answer is the second one - as each and every activity is different with its own characteristics, but at the same time, they are interrelated and together, as a whole, they constitute 'communist activity'. Now the question is - irrespective of the active participation, initiative and creativity of each and every member, is it possible to perform these activities by mere dictates/instructions from above? Or can these tasks be performed only through the freedom of the "right to express one's opinions"? Or, is it imperative that a particular form of movement needs to be present inside the Party that will enable it to take an effective role in the development of each and every member's active participation, initiative and creativity? The practice of true democracy inside the party life is the only tool/weapon that would enable to develop all those role of each and every member.
How Should The Dialectical Relationship Between Centralism And Democracy Be Manifested In The Party Life?
Application Of Centralism In Party
One manifestation of centralism in the Party is the existence of different levels/tiers of committees determined in accordance to Party structure. It is an established notion that this structure is pyramidal in nature, the necessity of which is questioned widely. So much so that this pyramidal structure is considered by many as the root cause of curbing of democracy in the Party. Is it actually so? If we bear in mind above discussions on the indispensable necessity of democracy in the Party, then hopefully, it should not be difficult to understand that the committees at different tiers within the Party is nothing but that conveyer belt through which the data, experiences and assimilations arising from practical fields of class struggle at every level is supposed to move from the bottom to the top. If this is so, then does not it imply that the experiences and skill in its crystallized form should ascend through these structures from lower to higher levels? If we imagine the Party to be a conveyer belt, then the conveyer belt rises upwards through this process, the highest form of which is the Party congress. It is only through the Party Congress that, keeping in consideration the overall national and international situation at a particular period, the question of deciding central tasks concretely on the basis of all the crystallized experiences assimilated from all levels at that particular situation arises. Therefore, in view of the above discussions on centralism, it should be clear that the Party Congress is that form where the optimization of centralization occurs in the particular time in the life of the Party. Also it is not unknown to us that the Party Congress is that highest form where maximum democracy is applied in the decision-making process.
After this, the conveyer belt starts to move from top to the bottom. That is, to influence and to try to lead the movements at different tiers in the light of the tasks/programmes that has been framed at a national level to direct the ongoing class-struggles. This requirement, moving again from the top to bottom is fulfilled again through the different levels of structure in the Party.
Herein lies the necessity of Party Committees at different level/tiers. And through the example of conveyer belt it is being implied that the relationship between the committees at each level/tier with the higher committee and vice-versa, i.e., relationship between a higher committee with its lower committee is not at all a "one-way traffic", rather it is undoubtedly a "two-way traffic", and in that sense, this relationship is also dialectical. From here, it becomes clear that it is true that the structure of the Party is undoubtedly pyramidal, but at the same time, it is reverse-pyramidal also. How much of this could materialize in reality in the past history, how much it couldn't, and if not, then why it couldn't, is altogether a separate discussion. But, at least one thing can be said unhesitatingly - if the dialectical relationship is absent between these different levels/tiers of committees, then bureaucracy is bound to develop in the Party.
The significance and interrelation of a Party's apparent pyramidal structure, which is again a manifestation of centralism in the Party, has been discussed in brief above. Another aspect of centralism is "lower committee is subordinated to higher committee". We shall discuss about this in brief a little later together with the topic of "autonomy of local Party organization".
Now let us embark upon another side of centralism-the question of "the opinion of the majority is considered as final and binding upon all while taking a decision". We have to remember that the Communist Party is not a debating society, the aim of all discussions is to determine "what is to be done"-so after all discussions and debates, it has to arrive at a resolution, standing upon which the next task / course of action will be decided upon. Now, how can disparate opinions be resolved? Herein lies the question of taking a decision based upon the opinion of the majority. Here, it needs to be clarified that at any point of time and situation, any decision based upon the opinion of majority is taken not because it is the only correct one; but because, majority opines that in the then condition actually existing objective situation can be changed by that decision; basis of decision is nothing but 'collective wisdom'. Whether the decision is correct or wrong in reality, can be tested and verified only by its application in that particular stage of class struggle.
Application Of Democracy In The Party
A fundamental thing about democratic centralism is, excepting the cell committees made up of local Party members at the lowest level, all other committees above it has to be elected; there should be autonomy of the committees regarding practical and ideological struggles within the arena of the activities of that committee; the elected members have to be accountable for their activities to those who have elected them; and above all, existence of the right to recall the elected member/s if he/she/they does/do not perform accordingly.
In this respect, it is necessary to remind that the idea of Democratic Centralism first surfaced in the German Social Democratic movement in 1865. In case of Russia, the issue of Democratic Centralism was first raised in a discussion on "the re-organization of the Party" in a conference of the Menshevik faction in 1905. After that, in a resolution taken on " The Re-organisation of the Party" in December 12-17, 1905 at the conference of the Bolshevik section, it was mentioned that: "Recognizing as indisputable the principle of Democratic Centralism, the Conference considers the broad implementation of the elective principle necessary; and, while granting elected centres full powers in matters of ideological and practical leadership, they are at the same time subject to recall, their actions are to be given broad publicity, and they are to be strictly accountable for these activities..... The conference orders all Party organizations quickly and energetically to reorganize their local organisations on the basis of elective principle;...."[Source: "Resolutions & Decisions of the Communist Party of The Soviet Union", Vol 1, Edited by R C Elwood. p-87]. That Lenin concurred fully with the proposition is amply clear from his writing "The re-organization of the Party", (Vol 10, pp-29-30). Lenin exercised just one caution - the elective principle cannot be followed in the Party's clandestine illegal activities / committees. It is understood that this is not a caution based on principle, rather a completely tactical question.
In that case, what is the extent of this elective principle? Explaining on how to select representatives for the Fourth Party Congress, Lenin, in the same article, wrote: "Committee Members, in form as representatives of fully authorized organizations, in fact as representatives of the Party's continuity, attend the Congress with right to vote. Delegates selected by the entire Party membership, and consequently by the masses of workers belonging to the Party, are invited by the Central Committee, in virtue of its right to do so, to attend the Congress with voice but no vote". (Ibid, p-30. Italics in original). What is striking here is that even that workers representatives belonging to the Party possess the right to be present in large numbers and express their opinion in the Party Congress. From the experience we have of the practice followed by the erstwhile Communist Parties in our country, the rights of the workers to be present exist only for the open sessions of the Party Congress of these Communist Parties; that too, with the precondition that they will be present as a listener and not for expressing their opinions.
It is clear from the first excerpt whereas one aspect was to follow elective principle at all levels / tiers, at the same time another interesting aspect is to grant complete autonomy to the elected bodies at all levels / tiers on the question of the practical and ideological leadership. [An excerpt from Lenin will be presented a little later in a different context where it will be seen that Lenin mentioned the subject of "autonomy of the local Party Committee" as being an inseparable part of Democratic Centralism. (LCW, Vol 10, pp 442-443)]. Other interesting features of the first excerpt are - the elected representatives are obligated to be accountable to those that are electing them and right to recall the elected representatives when necessary. Thus, when the Bolsheviks first presented the idea of Democratic Centralism, all the above aspects were an inherent part of that idea.
And by mentioning the "autonomy of the local Party Committee" here another notable feature of Democratic Centralism has been put forward. Take note that two apparently self-contradictory aspects are manifested here. In one hand, it is being stated that the lower committee are under the subordination of upper committees, but on the other hand, Lenin himself in his writing presented the aspect of "autonomy of local Party Committees" as being under the principle of Democratic Centralism. In fact autonomy is applicable, but only in specified limits of the particular activities of the particular committee, not outside of it. Intervention of upper committee in the decision making process within the limits of the particular activities is not obligatory. The lower committee canseek intervention of the upper committee when they deem it necessary. But how can the "autonomy" be actually implemented? It can be implemented only through the applicability of the utmost democratic procedure in the decision making process. On the other hand, the lower committees are under the subordination of the upper committees with respect to all other matters outside the purview of that particular activity. It is in this manner that Centralism & Democracy are inter-related.
Another very important feature of the proper application of democracy in the life of the Party is the right to criticize. Some observation of Lenin may appear interesting in this context. With respect to the "freedom to criticize" in the resolutions taken after the Fourth Party Congress of the undivided RSDLP in 1906, Lenin stated: "In a revolutionary epoch like the present, all the practical errors and tactical deviations of the Party are most ruthlessly criticised by experience itself, which enlightens and educates the working class with unprecedented rapidity. At such a time, the duty of every Social-Democrat is to strive to ensure that the ideological struggles within the Party on questions of theory and tactics is conducted as openly, widely and freely as possible, but that on no account does it disturb or hamper the unity of revolutionary action of the Social Democratic Proletariat" (Source: LCW, Vol 10, pp 310. Yet, in another section, he mentioned: "Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free ... not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. ... The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party." (Source: LCW, Vol 10, pp 442-43)
Two aspects are distinctly noteworthy here. One - the extent of democracy under Democratic Centralism within the organisation is definitely applicable to a greater extent "in a revolutionary epoch like the present" than in a normal situation. Why so? It is clear from the words of Lenin himself that because practical experiences of class struggle in a revolutionary situation educates and enriches the proletariat with unprecedented rapidity, there prevails the reality for "theoretical errors and tactical deviations" of the Party to be tested and criticized ruthlessly. Therefore, the more the ideological struggle within the Party during this period can be conducted more freely, openly, widely and without any restrictions (note Lenin's words in the quotation), the more the Party would be enriched and developed. Here, one feature of Democratic Centralism, the right to criticize, is that weapon which the Party, as a pupil, utilises to integrate with the process of inducting and developing itself. On the other hand, why does Lenin connect the right to criticism with "as long as it does not disrupt or make difficult the unity of action decided on by the Party"? Because ultimately, the Party is not a debating society, it is a weapon to provide leadership to the class struggle.
Another aspect of the application of Democratic Centralism is that "The decision taken is binding upon all members and they are obligated to apply it in practical areas of work". The resolution taken on the basis of 'collective wisdom' and the 'unity of action' regarding the application of that resolution is another indispensable part of the life of the Party. Since the resolution has been passed to bring about change in the reality and it is the responsibility of all Party members to works towards changing the reality, and since, the success/failure of the task is dependent upon the collective role of all members, so every member is obligated to work unitedly on the basis of the resolution taken. This is the precise meaning of "Centralism in executing the decision". This Centralism does not at all imply that the decision is over and above criticism and reconsideration later on. Since, it is only with the application of the resolution in practical fields can it be proved whether any substantial change can be brought about in the situation based upon that resolution, so every member has the right to criticise the resolution if it is proven incorrect/wrong in the light of practical experiences, and taking lessons from those experiences, progress towards taking decisions on a more advance level in the next step. Actually taking decisions based upon collective wisdom, application with that decision with unity of action, and advance towards a more developed state unitedly by standing upon the reviews/analysis of the experiences of that application - are the principal weapons/tools of the Party to develop continuously as a competent army capable of performing its role in a conscious, organised, disciplined and united manner.
# # #
Based upon whatever little discussions that has been initiated above, this much can be said for now that Democratic Centralism is not an abstract thing like the way it is discussed in international circles, and in that continuity, even within a large section of our country's intelligentsia. It is not even something that "ends in itself". Instead, it is that weapon with the aid of which the Party continuously prepares itself to lead the class struggle in a more conscious, organised, disciplined and united manner.And for this reason, it is primarily determined by the actual conditions of class struggle, and as a whole, Democratic Centralism is truly a dialectical process. And lastly, there are no seeds of bureaucracy concealed within the concept of Democratic Centralism. The seeds of bureaucracy is hidden in the weakness to grasp and apply that dialectical process, about which some discussions have been done above, considering the concrete manifestation of Democratic Centralism.
Comments:
No Comments for View