Talk:Democratic centralism

Foundation
There needs to be some effort to defend the currently-assumed notion that the concept of "a group/party is bound the decisions of the group/party". I'd like to see that attribution to Lenin defended, as it defies belief that this was a new idea when it clearly has been true for all manner of political organizations for millennia prior to the birth of Lenin. So, please, explain why this article purports the concept belongs to Lenin specifically.

Viewpoint
Most of the information in this article is from Marxist sources. This does not affect its academic quality or call verifiable facts it contains into question, as there are longtime Marxist traditions in historiography. Indeed, much of what we know about Communist history comes from Marxist scholarship. The reader should be aware of the philosophical orientation of the sources, however, and how the selection and presentation of article content may reflect this. .Jessegalebaker (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputing neutrality
Considering that I'm behind the greatfirewall of china their are good reasons not to be to open about stating the following which I'll do anyway WTF!?, this article needs to have the neutrality disputed label[even regardless of the content in this case if it was to be accurate... it seams to be written For party members by party members, I think we can guess what the party stands for..--218.87.69.135 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC) also the current version doesn't seam to speak of any dispute even about weather or not it is democratic.--218.87.69.135 (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does the note at the top of the article regarding its neutrality claim this article has a western-block red-scare bias when the bias is cleary pro-communism and pro-totalitarian? If there is an “argument for” section, why isn’t there an “argument against” section?

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."

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." ''


 * 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!)

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)

People who "act like livestock" do not act in the practice of democratic centralism; they may be victims of well-calculated propaganda and terror.

As a live witness of practical implementation of so called "Democratic centralism" I can confirm, that if you'll vote opposite the rules you'll be prosecuted in same manner as livestock. That the main problem of describing the term "Democratic centralism" in the article. Historical roots of the term was exactly cynical misrepresentation of dictatorship pretending to be a democracy. If you'll take a closer look to fight for power inside the party at that time you'll see that term was coined to fool majority of illiterate ordinary "party members" (mostly workers) and cover brutal slandering competitors who had own opinion.

The Communists typically defined their political order as the definitive example of democracy in contrast to what they considered the 'fraudulent' legislatures of "bourgeois" states in which the capitalist class still held overwhelming power. In practice, the Communists typically contended that the abolition of the power of the capitalist class was itself the definition of "socialist" democracy.

That democratic centralism seems an oxymoron to any non-Communist is little in question outside Communist circles. That a decision once made by the Party is to be held for all time and is binding upon all (including, paradoxically, those who had no role in making the decision) practically ensures that the system becomes rigid and inflexible -- even "conservative".

The use of the word democracy contrary to its conventional meaning in most parlance is hardly limited to communism. Fascists have commonly called their system the definitive example of democracy in contrast to the 'plutocratic' systems elsewhere.Pbrower2a (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

Stalin And
topic is conspicuous by its absence. As I understand it this is not a principle Stalin gave other that lip service to. Needs to have something on how its incompatible with cult of personality oder. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please edit this then delete this entry
"All Communist countries, were either de jure or de facto single-party states, either de jure or de facto." looks like a bad cut-and-paste. I'd change it to "All Communist countries were either de jure or de facto single-party states." but this page is protected. Thankyou. 145.248.195.1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. Thanks for drawing this error to the attention of Wikipedia editors. Objectivesea (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Democratic centralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024421/http://www.marxists.org:80/archive/trotsky/works/1904/1904-pt/ to http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1904/1904-pt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting against a lone candidate?
>>In some countries, those who voted against the lone candidate on the ballot could face serious reprisals.<<

This needs more explanation. If there is only one candidate then surely there IS no ballot (i.e. it is an uncontested election). -- Picapica (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph
There is no objection, and some scholars also recognize the principle of democratic centralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorx (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Biases
There were some biases present within the article such as usage of the term regime, I have corrected some instances of this usage. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bias
When compared to the wiki page for "Democracy", this page is incredibly biased. The " In Practice" page should be retitled "Criticism", the discussion of implementations should be moved out of the initial paragraph (same as the democracy page) etc. Endim8 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What's biased about it? Alssa1 (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing again, the 'in practice' section is actually relatively ok. I'll outline my issues with it below:
 * 'It also had the effect of reducing internal debate within the party, which was permitted only before the vote.'
 * This is unsourced and is worded misleadingly, it suggests that debate is prohibited until immediately before a vote (in the meeting), when in reality debate is encouraged in all forums unless it is being directly acted upon, in which case debate resumes after the campaign ends.
 * 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. - Lenin
 * see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm
 * i'll properly review the other sections at some point, but it's a lot of work. Endim8 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Section explaining non-Leninist uses of democratic centralism
The lede talks about how non-Leninist democratic socialist and social democratic groups have used democratic centralist methods. There is nothing explaining this in the body of article, so it might be interesting to include if somebody has knowledge about this. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)