Democratic Centralism

posted to www.marxmail.org on October 30, 2003

The best discussion of democratic centralism I've ever seen is in chapter seven of Paul
LeBlanc's "Lenin and the Revolutionary Party". He explains that the term predates Lenin by
many years and was first used in 1865 by J.B. Schweitzer, a Lassallean.
Furthermore, in Russia it was first used by the Mensheviks at a November 1905 conference.
In a resolution "On the Organization of the Party" adopted there, they agree that "The RSDLP
must be organized according to the principle of democratic centralism." A month later the
Bolsheviks embraced the term at their own conference. A resolution titled "On Party
Organization" states: "Recognizing as indisputable the principle of democratic centralism, the
Conference considers the broad implementation of the elective principle necessary; and,
while granting elected centers full powers in matters of ideological and practical leadership,
they are at the same time subject to recall, their actions are given broad publicity, and they are
to be strictly accountable for these activities."
There is virtually no difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks about the need
for democratic centralism or its meaning. So claims that the two factions differed over this
"Leninist" organizational breakthrough are simply mistaken. Moreover, the two groups had
resolved many outstanding differences following the 1905 revolution. Menshevik
leader Pavel Axelrod stated that "on the whole, the Menshevik tactics have hardly differed
from the Bolshevik. I am not even sure that they differed from them at all." Lenin concurred:
"The tactics adopted in the period of the 'whirlwind' did not further estrange the two wings of
the Social Democratic Party, but brought them closer togetherThe upsurge of the
revolutionary tide pushed aside disagreements, compelling the Social Democrats to adopt
militant tactics."
In any case, whatever differences would resurface in the period leading up to 1917,
"democratic centralism" was not one of them. At a unity conference held in 1906, the
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks voted for a resolution that stated: "All party organizations are
built on the principles of democratic centralism".
The report on the commission that adopted this resolution was given by a
Menshevik, Zagorsky-Kokhmal, who stated that "we accepted the formula for membership
unanimously". In other words, there was no objection to what some would characterize as
"Leninist" norms. The reason for this is simple. Democratic centralism was never an issue.
Since Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's 1904 "One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards"
revolves around the charge that he was susceptible to "centralism", you might get the
impression that these differences revolved around the need for democratic centralism. In fact,
this term does not appear in her critique which is online at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm
For example, Luxemburg writes, "Lenins thesis is that the party Central Committee should
have the privilege of naming all the local committees of the party." Whatever else might say
about this, it is not what we think of ordinarily when we hear the term democratic centralism.
It is instead a reference to a specific practice rooted in the exigencies of the Russian class
struggle, forced to operate under repressive and clandestine conditions. For example, I don't

recall James P. Cannon ever favoring this practice, despite being committed to the sort of
democratic centralism that evolved under Zinoviev's authority.
Not that Luxemburg is opposed to centralism itself. She is not a Foucauldian. When it takes
shape from the self-activity of the working class, it is a good thing. "Centralism in the
socialist sense is not an absolute thing applicable to any phase whatsoever of the labor
movement. It is a tendency, which becomes real in proportion to the development and
political training acquired by the working masses in the course of their struggle."
Of course, the democratic centralism that defines "Leninist" organizations today had little to
do with Lenin's call for "freedom to criticize, but unity in action". Somewhere along the line
it became a formula for ideological homogeneity. It states that the "freedom to criticize" is
permissible during preconvention discussion, a period that tolerates atypical behavior every
couple of years or so, more or less like Spock undergoing "Pon farr", the Vulcan version of
mating season.
Those who have experienced this version of "freedom to criticize" understand that it is no
such thing. Instead it is mainly an opportunity for the secondary leadership of the party to
salute the central leadership for the brilliance of the line resolutions presented to the
convention. Those who reach the conclusion that the line resolutions are full of baloney are
ultimately viewed as scratches that are in danger of turning into gangrene. In such
organizations, however, the main danger from the standpoint of medical analogies is
hardening of the arteries.