የኢህአዴግ መሠረትና የጀርባ አጥንት የሆነውን ዴሞክራሲ ማዕከላዊነት ለመረዳት ይህንን ፅሑፍ ማንበብ ጠቃሚ ነው።

"እርስ በርስ ተጠራጥረን ነበር" የምትለዋ ሳይቀው ቃል በቃል አለች። ፅሑፉ ረጅም ነው፣ ቢሆንም ማንበብ ጥሩ ነው።
ኢህአዴግ የሚጠቀማቸው ቃላቶች ጠቅላላ እዚህ ውስጥ አሉ። በተለይ አባል ለመሆን እያሰባቹ ያላቹ ብታነቡ መልካም
ነው።

የኦሮሞን ህዝብ ተብትበው የያዙት በዚህ ባዕድ ባህል ነው። ኦህዴድ 27 ዓመታት በሙሉ የዚህ ሰለባ ነበረች። አሁንም
ይሄን ባህል ነው እንደ ጥሩ ነገር የኦሮሞን ህዝብ ለማጥመቅ እያሰበች ያለችው።

=============================

Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Bay Area Socialist Organizing Committee

Confronting Reality/Learning from the History of Our Movement

Democratic Centralism

Democratic centralism is the application of Marxist method to the question of how best to organize to
lead the working class in the revolutionary transformation of society. The principles of democratic
centralism do not provide a standard blueprint for communist organization, but rather an approach to
the process of collective decision making and collective action that can take a variety of forms,
corresponding to the development of the organization and the changing demands of the class struggle.

Unfortunately, the development of democratic centralist theory and practice has been neglected by the
communist movement. In our own country, for example, the New Communist Movement of the 1970s
contented itself with imitating the organizational forms of the Comintern parties of the 1920s and
1930s, parties that were more highly developed and operating under vastly different circumstances. This
mimicry eventually produced grotesque parodies of communist parties, complete with central
committees that had nothing to centralize and mass lines that had no mass base. But not only the
imitators were at fault–the models themselves were flawed.

The “anti-revisionist/anti-dogmatist” movement today is a response to two failures: the degeneration of

most Comintern parties into revisionism, and the persistent ultra-leftism of most of the anti-revisionist
movement. It is essential that we address the errors in theoretical practice and political line that marked
these failures. But we must also examine the connection between these parties’ deviations on
organizational line and their inability to maintain a revolutionary political line on other questions.

Our task today is to recover democratic centralist theory from dogmatist distortions, and to develop that
theory further, based on a critical appraisal of the experience of the communist movement. This task is
in turn an integral part of the struggle to develop a general line for the U.S. communist movement, a line
that must inevitably address the issue of communist organization.

The Principles of Democratic Centralism

Democratic centralism is a method of organization that embodies two elements, democracy and
centralism, in an ever-changing dialectical relationship of struggle and unity. Thus, there is no formula
for the “correct” proportions of democracy and centralism. Instead, communists must determine the
synthesis of the two that enables their organizations to provide coherent and decisive leadership to the
working class.

The democratic aspect of democratic centralism ensures effective decision making. It includes thorough
discussion of political questions, full airing of minority viewpoints, collective decision making or periodic
review of delegated decisions, reports from the members on their work and analyses, provisions for
initiatives from members, and criticism of all aspects of political, organizational, and theoretical practice.
The democratic practice of the organization rests on the principle that collective decisions made by
majority vote after a full, informed, and frank discussion are more likely to reflect the interests of the
working class than decisions made without such a discussion.

Centralism is necessary to ensure unity of action in carrying out the organization’s decisions, to provide
strategic and tactical flexibility in dealing with the highly centralized bourgeois state, and to create the
basis in social practice for evaluating the organization’s line. Centralism includes leadership at all levels
summing up the ideas and experience of the membership, drawing up proposals for the organization to
consider, presenting political arguments for the positions it recommends, implementing policy, and
responding decisively to guide the organization and the working class through the twists and turns of
the struggle.

However, it is the unity of democracy and centralism that guides us, and it is essential to understand the
interdependence of democracy and centralism. Without democracy, the leadership lacks accurate
information about the actual unfolding of the class struggle, and especially about the needs and
capabilities of the masses. Instead, it must develop strategy and tactics by applying Marxist theory to its
own partial view of the political situation. But, as Lenin put it, “The actual unfolding of the class struggle
is infinitely richer than the most advanced theory.” Democracy means tapping the creativity and
experience of many people to make sure that the organization’s line corresponds to the real
development of the class struggle in a scientific way.

On the other hand, without centralism the experiences of the party’s members and of the masses would
remain scattered. The organization would be unable to translate its knowledge and experience into a
material force. Thus, there can be no democracy without centralism, and no centralism without
democracy.

But while democracy and centralism support each other, there is always a tension between them as
well. Does everyone need to discuss every decision? When has discussion gone on long enough and
become unproductive? How should leaders encourage and respond to criticism from members? How
can minority views be respected? When is it appropriate to reevaluate a decision? When should the
organization change its structure or practices in response to internal or external changes? These kinds of
questions are faced constantly by revolutionary political groups at all stages of development.
From this basic analysis we can draw a number of conclusions about what a communist organization
requires to/make democratic centralism work:

• Political Unity. Only overall political unity can stimulate individuals to make the commitment necessary
to participate in a communist organization, or motivate a minority to subordinate itself to carry out the
proposals of the majority. The degree of unity required for communist organization depends on the
development of the communists and the nature of their political tasks: there is no one “correct” level of
unity. As we argue further in our paper on party building, attempts to enforce organizational
consolidation in the absence of political unity on basic tasks can only lead to splits and the proliferation
of sterile sects.

• Cadre Development. Democratic centralism requires that members have a firm, critical, and individual
grasp of Marxist theory and practice. If too many members lack these abilities, the party will lack that
dialogue between members and leaders, base and center, party and masses, that is essential to
democratic centralist decision making, practice, and evaluation.

• Political Leadership. Communist leadership has the responsibility of guiding the organization’s work
through the process of theory-plan-practice-summation. Important at all times, the role of leadership
takes on particular importance in periods of revolutionary crisis or repression. Its work therefore
requires a high degree of theoretical and practical experience and mature political judgment. It requires
further an ability to lead, not simply command, the organization, and through it, the masses. Also
important is the educational role of leadership in helping to develop new leaders from among the
members, and increasing the theoretical and practical capabilities of the membership in general.

• Criticism and Self-Criticism. Changing conditions, incorrect political line, and mistakes in implementing
line or in style of work are all inevitable and require regular summation and reevaluation of work.
Mistakes will be more or less serious, more or less harmful to the movement–but the failure to examine
and correct errors is even more serious and harmful. To make democratic centralism work, criticism and
self-criticism must be practiced throughout the organization. Leaders and members must learn to assess
honestly the strengths and weaknesses of both individuals and the organization as a whole. Equally
important, this dialogue of criticism and self-criticism must be practiced not only within the
organization, but between the organization and the masses. Attempts to place the party above the
criticism of the masses have taken several forms. Some have claimed that “the party is always right
because Marxism-Leninism is a science.” Others have tried to deny that their organization has changed
its line, or have refused to explain its reasons for doing so. Such attempts to mystify communist work
deceive no one, and have no place in serious Marxist practice. The party and the working class can only
win by transforming themselves in the process of transforming society. Neither aspect of the revolution
can succeed without the practice of serious criticism and self-criticism.

Problems of Democratic Centralism

In the decades since the founding of the Bolshevik Party and of the Comintern, the communist
movement has gained enormous experience in applying democratic centralism. However, this practice
has been little examined; errors have been persisted in, and even extolled, and problems have been
ignored or explained away. This section examines some of the mistakes and problems that have
appeared in the efforts of communists to practice democratic centralism.

Monolithic Unity

We argued above that overall political unity was essential to the practice of democratic centralism. But
“political unity” has often been interpreted in the communist movement to mean ’unanimity.’ The key
error in communist organizations has been an insistence on monolithic unity of thought throughout the
organization: many other errors either flow from this view, or are closely connected to it.

Both communist and bourgeois observers agree that the Bolshevik Party under Lenin’s leadership was a
lively organization, marked by both sharp political struggle and by a disciplined commitment to united
action. However, during the 1920s it became more and more the norm to insist that unity of action
required unity of thought. This trend was a response by the CPSU to the dangers of civil war, foreign
intervention, and sharp class struggle; it was generalized throughout the world communist movement
through the CPSU’s leadership of the Communist International.

This emphasis on uniformity of thought is wrong for several reasons. It runs counter to the basic view of
dialectical materialism on the universality of contradiction by suggesting that contradiction exists
everywhere–except within communist parties. A more accurate summation is that of Mao Zedong:
“Where there is no disagreement, there is no life.” Struggle over the formulation of theory and the
evaluation of practice is essential to the development of any science, in particular Marxism-Leninism.
Without this democratic debate–the clash of differing experiences and opinions–serious evaluation of
political line or work on either the organizational or individual level becomes impossible. Few people
would claim that a perfect communist party is possible–yet many have implicitly made this claim by
arguing that communist parties can do without the powerful corrective practice of criticism and debate,
or have paid only lip service to that need. “It will damage party unity,” they protest. But the unity of a
party that is incapable of correcting its errors is worth very little to the working class; sooner or later its
errors will overwhelm it, no matter how promising its beginning.

The insistence on unity of thought thus stifles the organization’s life. Who will admit to disagreements
with leadership’s policies or make serious criticisms or self-criticisms when frankness might invite
disciplinary action or expulsion? Those who suppress their objections or deny their own perceptions of
political reality are forced to adopt a sort of dogmatism in order to be able to function at all. Many of
the most capable people–those most able to find their political bearings independently–eventually leave
the organization. The “revolving door” memberships of many anti-revisionist groups result at least in
part from this sort of practice.

This emphasis on unity of thought seems to rest on two points. First, people fear that frank debate will
inevitably turn into factionalism, thus destroying the organization’s unity. This question is a complicated
one, which we discuss separately below. The second reason runs something like this: Unity of action is
more important than being right; better that the organization is wrong than that the leadership
representing that unity is questioned. This reasoning makes unity of action an end in itself, divorced
from the idea of scientific mass practice; the organization itself, and not its political tasks and goals have
become primary. This position represents bourgeois concepts of centralism, taken over from our
experience within bourgeois society, for example in industry and the military. These bourgeois positions
must not be confused with the proletarian concept of centralism.

Commandism

The discouragement of independent thinking and discussion in the party leads to an overdependence on
leadership. We have noted the crucial role of organizational leadership. Yet if only officially sanctioned
ideas have a place in the party, it can quickly develop a bureaucratic spirit: leaders command, members
become “employees.” (“Don’t ask me to take any responsibility; I just work here.”) Commandist parties
quickly tend toward dogmatism because the cadres will not or cannot take responsibility to apply the
organization’s line in an intelligent way to the specific circumstances they face. Even though the
members of the organization may discuss how to apply the line, their discussions cannot get very far–
because applying a political line in a concrete situation requires dynamic understanding rather than
dogmatic memorization. In this atmosphere members avoid reporting problems or failures for fear of
being thought disloyal or defeatist. Ironically, then, commandism subverts the very effectiveness that it
verbally exalts, for if the membership is passive the leadership can neither correctly apply the line nor
evaluate it.

In our movement, commandism has often reflected the leadership’s mistrust of the members (not to
mention their mistrust of the masses) because of the members’ low level of political development. Yet
commandism is not a cure for uneven political development; it is a prescription for continuing it.
Commandism can never result in members gaining that critical grasp of Marxism-Leninism necessary to
develop communist leaders and cadre.

Is Idol Worship the Answer?

In its extreme form, this error can lead to the development of personality cults. Marxists have always
criticized the “great man” theory of history–but have sometimes acted as if they thought it were true.
Readers may remember seeing articles or works of art attributing all successes to Stalin or Mao,
comparing them with the sun rising in the east, and so forth. Such cults are a long way from the Marxist
position that “the masses make history.”

Typically, cults have been promoted to gain mass support for policies–correct or not–that might not be
forthcoming due to lack of political development or disagreements. As such, personality cults are a sign
of political weakness, not strength.

Lack of Leadership Accountability

From ultra-centralism flow a number of errors based on the lack of leadership accountability. For
example, substantive political discussion in many parties takes place only at the party’s highest levels.
While disagreements may exist in top leadership bodies, they remain unknown to the membership since
the minority is forbidden to take its case to the members. As a corollary to this, party congresses, which
should be forums for consideration of minority reports, become instead dull, rubber-stamp affairs
without political significance. The party congress becomes effectively subordinated to the leadership,
even though in democratic centralist theory it should be the highest party authority, the means through
which leaders can be held accountable by the members. This lack of accountability may also explain, in
part, why many communist leaders have retained their posts long after they have lost their
effectiveness, often becoming isolated from the membership and from the masses.

Ultra-democracy

The tendency to correct the problems of over-centralism through ultra-democracy is a secondary one in
our movement, but worth mentioning. Ultra-democracy responds to uneven development by negating
the role of leadership, and tries to prevent arbitrary decision making by attempting to arrive at
consensus on every issue. (In its insistence on unanimity, ultra-democracy shares a basic assumption
with the proponents of monolithic unity.) Ultra-democracy fails on several counts. Democracy is not
primarily a forum for free speech, but a decisionmaking process. Ultra-democratic organizations often
find it difficult to make any decisions at all, thus actually frustrating the majority rule they are supposed
to uphold. In other cases, they move so slowly that they are unable to test their decisions in practice.
Finally, when leadership is not openly acknowledged, it operates unofficially and informally, so that the
members have no effective way to hold it responsible. For the most part, ultra-democratic organizations
turn out to be neither effective nor democratic.

The Question of Tendencies and Factions

The principles of democratic centralism imply the right of minorities to raise their views in a constructive
manner. This means that members with minority views should have the chance to meet together or
communicate with each other in developing those views to present to the organization. Without this
foundation of organizational democracy, leadership would have a monopoly on presenting information,
proposals, and evaluations to the organization. The absence of serious alternatives would cripple the
organization’s ability to evaluate political line, rectify errors, or hold leadership accountable. There can,
of course, be no permanent special interest of a tendency separate from the purpose of the Marxist-
Leninist organization itself, because the party reflects the interests of the class as a whole. But
contradictions within the working class are necessarily reflected in the party–and this is both legitimate
and inevitable.

We apply the term tendency to those formations that seek to struggle within the organization for a
change in political line, practice, or leadership. Although tendencies must be able to organize to be able
to carry on their side of the debate within the party, their members continue to work under the
discipline of the organization and have overall unity with it.

Similarly, there may at times be a need for separate caucuses of racial and national minority members,
women, and gay people. These formations may be needed for two reasons. They allow the specially
oppressed members to struggle more effectively against pressures from bourgeois society that might
lead the organization to drop or soft pedal their special demands, demands that are crucial to the long-
term project of uniting the working class. Second, these caucuses can further the fight against the
persistent reassertion of racist, sexist, or heterosexist ideology within the organization.
On the other hand, factions are groupings that have fundamental differences with an organization’s
political line, and which have their own organizational discipline apart from and above that of the
organization as a whole. Clearly, the continued existence of such a parallel leading center undermines
the organization’s unity of action and degrades its decision-making process. In such a case, the
organization’s leadership must take the initiative to address the issues dividing the organization, striving
to resolve the differences and preserve the unity of the organization, or to split the organization in as
principled a manner as is possible.

It will be difficult in practice to judge when a tendency is strengthening the organization and when it is
becoming a permanent, competing center or special interest group. Since these formations will often be
critical of leadership, leaders may react defensively and see them as annoying and destructive. The key
to the correct conclusion of these struggles will be a leadership able to act on behalf of the whole
organization and informed and independent cadre who are not afraid to listen to criticism of leadership
and who are able to judge whether criticisms are right or wrong.

Debates between tendencies must be based on a desire to build the entire organization and with a
commitment to united action once a decision has been made. It is this attitude that distinguishes a
healthy struggle that helps the organization develop from a destructive one that descends into factional
intrigue, whether on the part of a minority or on the part of leadership operating as a faction. A
sectarian attitude of “smashing the opposition” through distortion or bureaucratic manipulation
prevents objective examination of different political lines and makes united action more difficult to
achieve.

Democratic Centralism in Today’s Movement

In any period, the synthesis of democracy and centralism depends on several factors: the level of
development of the communists, the nature of their tasks and their relationship to the masses, set in
the context of the state of the class struggle, the development of the mass movements, their level of
class consciousness, etc. Since all these elements can change rapidly, communists must be able to
quickly alter not only their organization’s strategy and tactics, but organizational forms and practices.

The communist movement has usually endorsed this concept, but in practice, communist organizations
have often been structurally static, as though there were some abstract model of communist
organization that was always appropriate. For ultra-left groups, this organizational model has often been
a highly centralized, semi-military one, based on their fantasy that revolution is always “just around the
corner.” A highly bureaucratic, centralized form also suits revisionist organizations, because it gives the
leadership ample means to stifle militant pressures from the base. Part of our own movement has
attempted to imitate its favorite periods of Bolshevik or CPUSA history. Others have made What Is To Be
Done? their organizational bible, isolating it in time and space to universalize it–thus making a dogma of
Lenin’s thought at one moment in its development.

How different this is from Lenin’s practice! In 1902, in What Is To Be Done? Lenin argued that only a
tightly knit party of professional revolutionaries led by a semi-secret leadership could evade the Tsarist
police and organize among the working class. Yet a few years later, during the Revolution of 1905, Lenin
argued for opening up the party to the influence of the masses: the party machinery, created for survival
and for the slow task of bringing revolutionary consciousness and organization to the workers from
“outside” was too conservative and slow to react in times of mass revolutionary upsurge. Different
circumstances called for a different practice of democratic centralism.

How should we apply democratic centralism today? We think these factors are central: The communist
movement/lacks political unity; it instead consists of scattered organizations, study groups, and
individuals. The main task of the movement is therefore to develop a general line that can unite it and
guide it toward greater political effectiveness among the masses. This general line will be the result of
political struggle based on serious theoretical and mass work. We face many problems in accomplishing
this task, however. Both members and leaders of our movement are at a relatively low level of political
development. The movement itself is quite small, even within a relatively small revolutionary Left. The
movement is thus isolated from the vast majority of working people, and lacks influence on what
workers say, do, and think. The political situation in the United States today is relatively stable;
bourgeois political democracy is the dominant political form.

In light of these factors, we think that for the forseeable future our primary emphasis should be on the
democratic aspects of democratic centralism. Unity of action and organizational efficiency should be
developed within the context of the primacy of democracy – freedom of discussion, frequent
reevaluation, and full circulation of information. This method of organizational practice will give our
movement the maximum opportunity to develop its politics further. Substantially increasing the degree
of centralization and the authority of leadership can only stunt our political growth unless it is based on
a solid foundation in unity around a scientific general line.

Instead of rushing to centralize the movement, we must work to build the basis for a healthy centralism.
Our movement must consciously develop its leadership and cadre; we must recognize that leadership
abilities do not come from playing roles or from assuming organizational titles. The theoretical and
practical leadership that we need must grow through struggle as men and women develop their political
abilities and become respected for their work. Further, leaders must play an active educational role. To
do this, they must lead by example, by fostering criticism and self-criticism at all levels, and by instituting
organization-wide programs for political development and for learning practical skills. In addition, since
young and inexperienced organizations are bound to make many mistakes, the ability of leaders to take
responsibility for them openly and learn from them is particularly important in this period