It is by taking Democratic Centralism as a unity of opposites between democracy and centralization that we can have a truly proletarian democratic approach to centralized organizations. Democratic Centralism is a fundamental organizational principle to understand and apply for revolutionaries-in-formation. From the historical and present Communist Parties all the way to the certain mass organizations, this principle is essential to a healthy and functioning organizational life within our movement.
What is Democratic Centralism? It is an organizational principle that describes how to manage the contradiction between centralization and democracy such that a group can maintain collective discipline and unity while providing for democratic processes and freedom of discussion on questions of policy and political line.
At all organizational levels, there is room for expression of different positions and courses of action, and for democratic debate, all while grounded in a common set of principles and political unities derived from these principles. Similarly, once a definite course of action is decided upon by the majority or elected higher leadership, those in the minority who disagree with it must still act in unity with the collective to carry it out.
In any organization practicing Democratic Centralism, the highest decision making body must be the full membership itself. This ensures that all members are able to express their views and debate positions that will be decided on and carried out by an organization. These members are then tasked with electing representatives and leaders at all levels to centrally carry out their democratic will. Thus, leading bodies can be established within an organization, with leading members elected by the whole organization’s majority vote, and with recall by the organization’s will. Consequently, the leading body can be tasked with carrying out resolutions and actions, and ensuring the organization functions as it intends to, which is what Lenin called “unity of action” as well as “freedom of discussion.”
This framework is applied at each respective level of a given organization, such as an organization with many higher and lower bodies. At each level of the organization (committee, chapter, city, state, region), the highest decision making body is the corresponding general membership. For example, in a socialist mass organization with many chapters in various localities, a national leading organ can be elected at a national convention. This national leading organ is thus tasked, by the democratic vote of the national convention, to take up leadership and decision-making tasks until the next convention. At the same time, each local chapter and regional committees would have its own leading organ elected by its general membership. At a sufficiently large size, it would be reasonable to expect a variety of higher and lower organs, perhaps based on political work in different regions, cities, workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, etc. Through these democratic elections, the will and desire of the broad masses of members are fully expressed: those who are recognized as capable leaders in class struggle and two-line struggles are given the position of leadership, while those who are incapable and have degenerated are removed from leadership. In this way, Democratic Centralism ensures that the organization remains healthy.
While some would boil Democratic Centralism down into simply “the minority submits to the majority,” the practicalities of a large organization operating in a whole country necessarily imply a more developed application of collective leadership with a wide set of committees or leading groups at a variety of organizational levels. Thus the decisions of a national leading group would supersede the decisions of a local leading group, even if that local organization did not necessarily agree with the national decisions, while the whole organization would still be bound by democratic majority will.
Errors in Democratic Centralism are extremely common in organizations dominated by a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois class stand, viewpoint, and method. They promote the reactionary conceptions of democracy that are dominant in our imperialist society. In particular, Democratic Centralism is counterposed to the domination of individuals, either through ultra-democratic frameworks that privilege the right of minority over the majority, or reactionary frameworks which allow for the rule of unaccountable petty tyrants masquerading as leaders. For example, if democracy is held as universally more important than centralism, then there will be no unity in carrying out decisions and actions. This is the way anarchists organize, with a universal consensus required to take any collective action. In any collective of large enough size, this will cause either a split or a paralysis when inevitably the collective cannot unilaterally unite. Ultrademocracy of this nature reflects a petty-bourgeois class outlook, with each individual being more important than the collective.
On the opposite end, if centralism is held as universally more important than democracy in a one-sided way, then there will be no room for criticism and discussion. This is a recreation of the type of bourgeois bureaucratic organizational structure that we find in corporations, governments, and bourgeois political parties. Centralism without any internal democracy leads to the centralization of power within the hands of the few in leadership positions. This is a very old problem that was discussed by Lenin. The fear of criticism and differences of view, from other comrades or from the masses generally, is a very common error. The solution to this is not to cave into one-sided centralism but to uphold the correct application of Democratic Centralism in all work. As the leading organs are reflective of the democratic aspiration and will of the membership, and especially in times of heightened class struggle such as with a Communist Party leading People’s War, centralism is often primary over democracy within the dialectical relationship. However, at various times, democracy can become the primary aspect. This application will inevitably entail receiving criticism, and it is through this practice in real two-line struggle that revolutionaries-in-formation will hone their political skills and become better at upholding the left line in any struggle. It is important to use the methods of theory combined with practice, closest possible links to the masses, as well as criticism and self-criticism to constantly analyze the changing situation and correctly apply Democratic Centralism.
Those organizations, or individuals within organizations, who insist upon full unity of ideas as a prerequisite to unity in action and collective discipline fundamentally liquidate this basic organizational principle. There would be no basis for two-line struggle in an organization where there is no difference of views. Beyond criteria for membership in an organization outlined in a set of statutes around revolutionary principles, not all members need to be in agreement with decisions, programs, and directives at every moment, but they must nevertheless be willing to carry out the will of higher bodies who are empowered by the democratic majority will. Such an organization (and those who promote that approach) push for replacing dialectics with metaphysics. All political lines divide into two under the law of contradiction, and there will always be an emerging left and right line around some particularity or another. Rejecting dialectics, and hoping that all others in one’s organization unite in full before the organization can take any action, fundamentally amounts to stripping organizations’ capacity to effectively organize for the seizure of political power.
This also speaks to the necessity of an organization having an appropriate criteria for membership. For example, in a Party organization the criteria for membership will inevitably be very high and require more ideological unity. A mass organization will require less strict criteria. What is most important, regardless of the strictness of criteria, is that Democratic Centralism is practiced correctly.
For example, Democratic Centralism is incompatible with the existence of organized factions within a revolutionary organization. While differences of view can and should exist, the organizing of formalized groups by those with competing views within the same organization is a recipe for splits and internal disunity. Factions are a tool for numerical minorities to organize their will parallel to and in spite of the majority, and thus undermine an organization’s internal democracy, collective discipline, and leadership by higher bodies. They are in contrast to the open and aboveboard way of conducting two line struggle, based on open positions and internal democracy, and instead cause intrigue and back-door dealing to spread within an organization. Due to their bourgeois or petty-bourgeois world outlook, many activists and trends attempt to have both Democratic Centralism and factionalism. As Mao said of those who try and “have their Marxism and have their liberalism too,” these confused ideas only lead to problems on a political or organizational level.
Similarly, under Democratic Centralism, the broad membership and the highest leadership of an organization are dialectically interrelated and should never be antagonistic with each other. Leaders should not form cliques that are unaccountable to or ideologically-politically distant from lower levels, and rank-and-file members have a responsibility to make their positions heard and use the democratic processes of the organization to conduct struggle, rather than attempt to unilaterally split from or overthrow leadership through factions of their own. Both leadership and membership should be frank with each other, and combine the methods provided to us like Democratic Centralism, two-line struggle, and criticism/self-criticism to resolve contradictions among the people.
In the past, there has been a trend to discount Democratic Centralism, treating it as merely a formality for self-appointed or “selected” leaders who “emerged” with the subjective criteria of an individual or a small faction. There are also those who formalize factionalism, using ultra-democracy to justify the lack of collective, programmatic action. At times, these two trends of absolute democracy and absolute centralism appear together to serve the agenda of the opportunists. Revolutionaries-in-formation must be constantly vigilant against these class enemies hidden within our ranks, through upholding, defending and applying Democratic Centralism as a powerful organizational principle of our class.
Through a correct application of Democratic Centralism, collective leadership can be practiced through the establishment of democratically-elected leading committees at a variety of levels from local to national. Through sufficient and thorough internal two-line struggle, democracy can exist in a unity of opposites with centralized unity of action. Democratic Centralism is a key organizational principle that serves as the keystone in the arch holding up the capacity of our movement to actually organize. Without it, we will get nowhere.
For further reading, The Partisan suggests:
- Lenin, Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action
- Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, Chapter 7
- CPP, Activist Study, Chapter 4
- CPC, A Basic Understanding of the Communist Party of China, Chapter 7
- CPC, Training Successors for the Revolution is the Party’s Strategic Task
