From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:09:02 +0200
Subject: M-I: Re: centrism


Barkley R asks, with others:
>
>>      I have asked several times before to no response.
>> What is a "centrist"?

and Jerry L replies:

>You might recall that there was some discussion a while back about the
>possibility of a "cyberseminar" on centrism. The rationale for such an
>effort is that to be able to understand a simple term like "centrism" or
>"fascism", etc., these terms need to be put in a historical context,
>explained, and developed rather than simply and quickly defined. For
>instance, a discussion of "centrism", I believe, is related to a
>discussion of "popular frontism", "reformism", "social democracy" etc.
>
>However, at the risk of being assertive, let me suggest that a centrist
>formation in the workers' movement is a group or party whose defining
>characteristic is that it is an unprincipled combination (coalition) of
>tendencies with significant and profound political differences in which
>these differences are surpressed and ignored in an effort to maintain that
>illusory "unity". That is, centrist leaders, which could be said to be a
>petty-bourgeois layer in the workers movement, attempt to maintain "unity"
>by creating and maintaining an organization in which these differences are
>glossed over and surpressed rather than confronted and discussed (since a
>discussion of those differences, which are often fundamental in nature,
>would show that there really is no principled basis for unity). Since
>within a centrist formation there is no principled basis for unity,
>"unity" is often maintained through the vehicle of a clique in the
>leadership. I.e. personal allegiances rather than political perspectives
>often form the basis for "unity."


Now I would tend to call the kind of setup Jerry describes "opportunist" or
in extreme cases "Bonapartist" leaderships, if not just straightforward
"unprincipled". However, the use of "centrism" to indicate a leadership or
line being pulled two ways at once is exactly the point.

Lenin used the term to describe leaderships wavering between principled
revolutionary positions and outright opportunist ones, as in the period
leading up to World War I.

Nowadays it can be used of groups or tendencies that are independent of the
counter-revolutionary Social-Democrat or Stalinist machines, but still
reluctant to commit themselves to a revolutionary internationalist
Bolshevik position. A mass party of this kind was the early PT in Brazil,
before it committed itself to class-collaboration policies nationally and
in its local government practice. Obviously centrism is shifting ground by
its very definition, but it's handy to distinguish between right centrism
and left centrism. Right centrists (as I would characterize many of the
metropolitan crowd on the list most of the time) are very close to
opportunism and to unprincipled blocking with Stalinism and chauvinism.
Left centrists on the other hand are very close to Bolshevik positions and
would probably adopt them given a stronger Bolshevik presence in the class
struggle. I see Zeynep and Vladimir as typical and admirable
representatives of this kind of position.

This brings out a difference in approach between Dave B and myself. Dave
prefers to characterize many of the tendencies pushing weak or bad policies
as Menshevik, which emphasizes the counter-revolutionary implications of
these policies. I prefer to see an opening for change by characterizing
such policies as the expression of a temporarily wavering leadership that
might, with the right pressure, move to revolutionary positions.

Maybe someone could dig out a couple of examples of Lenin's use of the term
and see how it fits in with today's situation.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Cheers,

Hugh








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