Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:58:21 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: Neo-conservatism and workers


Hi People
Though he is not one of them bill go again for hair
splitting.

Bill Bartlett wrote:

> Ilan Shalif wrote:
>
> >George Pennefather wrote:
> >
> >> I am not a stalinist nor a Leninist nor a trotskyist. For me these were
> >> left-counter revolutionaries. However I am a revolutionary communist
> >> who is convinced that a revolutionary communist party is needed if there
> >> is to be a successful communist revolution.
> >
> >Any one who support the above principle is only discerned from
> >the others by "split hair" technique.
> >
> >Ideologically - they are all of the same authoritarian spectrum.
>
> I'm not so sure. Depends what is meant by the term "Democratic Centralism".

The term "Democratic Centralism" has long history.
If some one use it - it is on hir to prove it is less than the
whole of the old trash.

> It is a practical question, some social issues need to be settled by
> society as a whole, because they concern society as a whole. If that is
> what is meant by democratic centralism then it seems quite appropriate.

As if Bill do not crow the organizational platform of
the anarcho-communists.

The world commune of communities communes will use the
direct democracy of recallable delegates to any organizational
need and for facilitation of the decision making by the people
the specific decision is relevant to.

> On the other hand of course there are many decisions best left to local
> processes. The general principle to be followed is that all decisions are
> best left to those who are affected by those decisions. If that is
> everyone, then everyone should be consulted. If it is only a few, then only
> those few should make the decision.

This is the old idea of more than 100 years of the
anarcho-communists

> As for your implied assertion that all left political parties must
> necessarily be authoritarian and Leninist, I would be interested to hear
> why that is so in your opinion.

In English the word 'party' have two main meanings:
One is having fun together with people,
the other is a political structure.  For sure you can
use any word the way you want, but the hierarchical structure
of political party is contrasted to the political federation
which is based on direct democracy of recallable delegates.

> [...]
>
> >For the working class the centralism needed is zero.
>
> So how are decisions effecting everyone to be made?

By the direct democracy of recallable delegates of the various
levels - including the world-comity which will have to facilitate
the decision making regarding the whole world and to
be responsible to implement them.

> Having local
> organisations of workers make decisions that effect millions of other
> people who have no say in the decisions is just another form of
> dictatorship it seems to me.

Who proposed "organisations of workers" that will decide
for others? Not the anarcho-communists.
Ilan
Tel-Aviv



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---