From: dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 13:33:58 +0000
Subject: M-I: democent


Louis,
Yes I'm in favour of public discussion of all political differences, 
within the limits set by Lenin in 1906 i.e. the limits of the 
principles of progamme, except where this interferes with the unity 
of action required by a vanguard party to act in a disciplined way. You 
seem to equate `centralism' with the illegality of  a particular 
period in Russia, and don't see that it is one fundamental side of 
democratic centralism as practiced by Lenin. The unity in action side 
of democent puts the democratic debate/decision into practice.  So 
there can be no revolutionary practice if members of the party do not 
unite in action.( Lets leave the question of membership open for 
now.)
 
A good example of how the Bolsheviks practiced democent in 1907 was 
the way they dealt with the  Menshevik split over the elections to the
 2nd Duma.  The Mensheviks split because they were in a minority 
after a very protracted and  democratic discussion about whether the 
S-D's would bloc with the Cadets or not.  The difference on this 
issue went to the heart of the programmatic difference.  The 
Bolsheviks argued that a bloc with the Cadets was tying workers to a 
reactionary bourgeoisie. The Mensheviks argued that it was necessary 
to align with the Cadets [who they saw as the  `revolutionary'  bourgeoisie] 
to stop the "black 100's",  Tsarist reactionaries, from winning control of 
the Duma.  
This tactical difference, though a major one, was actually allowed 
for  in the resolutions of earlier congresses so it wasnt a matter of principle.  
However, in each party constituency, the majority vote decided which tactic 
to adopt. In the St Petersburg constituency the Bolshevik delegates were in 
the majority so the Bolshevik tactic of opposition to an electoral bloc with 
the Cadets, and support for a bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasant parties, 
was adopted.
Anyway, the Mensheviks split and broke the agreed principle of "unity in 
action".   The Bolsheviks launched an ideological attack on the splitters. 
Lenin was dragged before a party tribunal charged with "having made a
 statement (in the press) impermissible in a Party member". (CW,12,421)  
Basically Lenin was accused of attacking party members in public on the eve 
of the election, creating confusion, suspicion, and providing ammunition for 
party enemies etc. Lenin in turn   accused the tribunal of dishonesty 
in charging him for attacking party members who had SPLIT already, 
and who had made a secret agreement to bloc with the Cadets.  
"It is wrong to write about Party comrades in a language that systematically 
spreads among the working masses hatred, aversion, contempt etc., for those 
who hold other opinions. But ONE MAY AND MUST WRITE in that 
strain about an organisation that has seceded...Because whan a split has 
taken place it is one's duty to WREST the masses from the leadership of the 
seceding section". (425)
This example shows that for Lenin:
(1) democent allows very wide latitude over programme which can be 
fought for like crazy, even in public, up until a majority decision is acted on;  
(2)  when an unprincipled split destroys the "unity in action",  
party members are obliged to attack the splitters ruthlessly in an 
attempt to destroy their hold over workers. 
I know you agree with  (1) Louis. Do you also agree with (2)? 

Dave.


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---