Democratic Centralism – A Marxist
View
Suresh Srivastava
In June 2009, after the electorate decided not to buoy the left-ship,
the left intellectual which was basking on the deck of the left in the glory of
UPA1 did not take a wink to desert the sinking ship. One can understand the desertion
of the vexed deprived but panic of the self-styled Marxist navigators is beyond
comprehension. The flag bearer for a proletarian revolution in India
The CPI(M) sees problem of communalism as political & social praxis
of authoritarian and conservative forces of an ethnic group asserting
superiority of their religious and social praxis over and against other ethnic
groups, that is as social relation only between ethnic groups apart from
production relations and not as a strategy of bourgeoisie to fragment the unity
of working class and quell the class struggle. As a consequence in 2004 it
propped up Congress to ascend to power replacing NDA. In spite of CMP, UPA
continued with same policy of liberalization which Congress started in its
Narsimhawtar and NDA followed religiously. Left was happy with the lollypop of
NREGS and allowed Congress to complete the process of Agreement 123 before
withdrawing support. Because of its wrong understanding of communalism, the
Left could not present, during 2009 also, before the electorate, an alternative
for the bourgeois parties led by Congress on one side and by BJP on the other
and as a consequence got the drubbing in 2009 election.
When CPI(M) was creating hype about communalism, as a prelude to
support Congress post forthcoming election of 2004, in February 2004, through a
published article I had warned that considering communalism apart from
imperialism and supporting Congress will be suicidal for the Left. In September
2007 through a letter to Com. Prakash and a published pamphlet I had warned the
Left not to proceed on Agreement-123. In January 2008, before 19th
Party Congress of CPI(M), through a letter to Prakash and a published pamphlet
I had suggested that all left parties who claim to be Marxist, must sit
together to decide a common minimum programme and structure a Third Front to
present an alternative to Congress and BJP and as the largest party CPI(M) must
take the initiative.
Because of its mindset the Party fails to comprehend what many, like
I, outside the party are able to.
In Jan-Mar 2010 issue of The Marxist, Prakash has written an article
‘On Democratic Centralism’ responding to criticism from Prabhat Patnaik,
Javeed Alam and Prabir Purkayastha. Prakash in these three articles sees a
criticism of his party’s praxis of democratic centralism and hence has focused
on defending democratic centralism, but again in a metaphysical manner,
focusing on trees at the cost of neglecting the woods, I mean the ideology. I
see in the three articles not the criticism of democratic centralism per se but
the demand for a different kind of socialism, different from what was practiced
in USSR and is being
practiced in Peoples Republic of China Soviet State
Enamoured, with the concept of bourgeois democracy deeply ingrained,
their whole exercise is to arrive at the conclusion that the genesis of the
failure of socialism is the control regime and the panacea is praxis of
democracy, apropos bourgeois democracy, both by the party as well by the state.
Having their intellect glued to bourgeois democracy, all the three authors fail
to envision the immanent misconception about scope of Marxism.
Prakash, his party not yet controlling the Indian state, just needed
to defend the functioning of his party on the principle of democratic
centralism which he does well and exempts state from this principle. The cause
of any failure, if there is one, is attributed to few structural problems here
or there and more to factionalism.
Let us deal chronologically with the postulations of the four
accomplished masters of Marxism.
Prabhat starts with call for ‘Re-envisioning Socialism’ (
Economic & Political Weekly, November 3, 2007) and through his discourse he
tries to lead the reader to believe what he already believes, that while
capitalism objectifies people, socialism frees people and hence people’s
political praxis is the core characteristic of socialism. He concludes that ‘the
vision of October revolution was a state that unleashed the political praxis of
the working class but the actual political institution that came into being was
a highly centralised dictatorship of the party, which eventually brought about
a depoliticisation not only of the working class but also of the party itself’
(ibid, p-45), hence today socialism must be based on different foundation. And
what is that different foundation; nothing but people’s political praxis. But will
that not be a bourgeois democracy. Even after a proletarian revolution society
continues to be class society for many decades, in deeds as well as in thoughts
of the people. In a class society where vast masses are still poor and
uneducated, people’s political praxis is praxis ‘OF’, ‘BY’ and ‘FOR’ the
bourgeoisie and that is nothing but bourgeois democracy. And a revolutionary
party which is capable to successfully lead a proletarian revolution will not
and must never agree for people’s political praxis a la bourgeois democracy. So
to resuscitate his metaphysical concept Prabhat resorts to the oxygen of
scientific discussion. ‘Free scientific discussion is like oxygen for a
revolutionary party; without such discussion it cannot survive.’ Paradoxically
scientific temper and outlook is not what is required for such discussion, ‘but
such free discussion in turn requires not just complete intellectual freedom,
but also the existence of a multiplicity of opinions (which in turn entails a
multiplicity of political parties)’ (ibid, p-46). And now with multiplicity
of political parties, he stands, completely exposed, in support of bourgeois
democracy.
Javeed is already convinced that democratic centralism is negation
of democracy, still starts with the premise ‘Can Democratic Centralism be Conducive
to Democracy’ (EPW, September 19, 2009) and uses all kinds of examples and claims
to build up a case to prove what he is already convinced, a completely
metaphysical approach. He sees the absence of democracy in erstwhile socialist
states, as universal phenomena and then to find the cause he singles out
democratic centralism for critical look. He does not hide that he is already
convinced about what he is trying to prove even though his arguments may not be
very convincing. ‘Democratic centralism (DC) being the generally accepted
principle of the internal organisation of the CPs needs to be singled out for a
critical look. By now it seems to me quite clear, that DC, in the way it
stands, provides one such structural condition for the throttling of democracy
inside the CPs’ (ibid, p-37). Javeed follows in the footsteps of Prabhat by
considering the laid down regulations in a communist party as the essence of
centralism. He sees only what he wants to see and knows only what he wants to
know. He does not know ‘if Lenin did or would have recommended DC as a
necessary and universal principle’ (ibid, p-38). but Lenin knew and every
Marxist would know that organizing a communist party on the principle of
democratic centralism is based on the scientific understanding that any highly
developed organic structure like a communist party can function and sustain
only with democratic centralism.
Prabir
tries to describe in detail different problems afflicting the left movements in
different parts of the world and at different levels – national, state and
municipal - converging on the problem afflicting his mind, i.e. ‘And
finally, what is the left vision of a new socialist state’ (The Journal,
Vol. 1, Aug 15, 2009, p-29), exposing his mindset that scientific socialism as
envisioned by Marx and Engels and explained by Lenin, Stalin and Mao through
practice is wrong and a new concept of socialism is needed. His need for a new
kind of socialism arises out of what he sees superficially and not as a natural
consequence of development of relations of production. Prabir wishes that left
forces unite, but by giving up principle of democratic centralism and not by
ironing out ideological differences. ‘if a reunification of the left is to
take place, as many have argued and some of the parties abroad have carried
out, the problem is that different parties here have different operational
structures. (ibid, p-32).
Contention of the three authors is that socialism needs to be
redefined and new kind of socialism can be defined and practiced only by giving
up the principle of democratic centralism.
Prakash as general secretary of CPI(M) has to take up cudgels to
defend democratic centralism because that is what his party is supposed to
practice. He does this with utmost zeal but he resorts to the same metaphysical
approach with which the detractors have tried to dismiss the principle of
democratic centralism – looking at the form only and overlooking the content.
His characterization that the ‘party organisation has to be one
which is equipped to wage the political, ideological and organisational
struggle against the powerful State and the dominant ruling classes’ and
hence ‘the key issue would be whether the party is equipped to organize and
lead the working class and the revolutionary mass movement?’ (The Marxist,
XXVI 1, Jan-Mar 2010, p-5) reveals that he is totally engrossed with the
exterior. And in the process he commits the grave error in defining the
internal structure by ‘recruiting the advanced sections of the working class
into the Party who can be made politically conscious and hence constitute the
vanguard’ (ibid). To play its historical role as vanguard of the
revolution, a communist party, for recruitment of its cadre, must restrict
recruitment to highly motivated and politically conscious individuals well
equipped with scientific outlook because that is the basic requirement for
efficient functioning of an organization committed to the principle of
democratic centralism. And, because of his metaphysical approach he fails to
identify the element which, in democratic centralism, causes ‘minority to
abide by the majority decision’. Bourgeois democracy also requires the
minority to abide by the majority but fails to cause that happen.
When the detractors harp that democratic centralism was evolved for
Russian revolution and is applicable to that kind of situation only, Prakash,
out of his misconception about the foundation of democratic centralism, starts
dancing to their tune. ‘While it is true that democratic centralism was evolved
by the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party …………. It is not the Russian party
alone which faced attack and it was not the Russian revolution alone which was
sought to be suppressed by foreign intervention. Every revolution in the 20th
century underwent the same process of repression, counterrevolution/civil war
and foreign intervention.’ (ibid, p-7). Q.E.D.
After filling pages of examples and arguments, Prakash shows that a
communist party is all the time under attack physically and ideologically,
whether it is a revolutionary class struggle or a parliamentary democratic
struggle, and hence for a communist party democratic centralism, which was
evolved during Russian revolution, is a must. He has not elaborated on the
principle of democratic centralism except his claim that ‘Democratic
centralism promotes collective decision making and collective activity; it
allows for freedom of thought and unity in action’ (ibid, p-5). But that is
what the bourgeois democratic parties also claim about their democratic
functioning. Congress also allows complete freedom of thought even to the
extent of brick batting, ‘chappal’ throwing and fisticuffs during discussions
and shows total unity in action taken by the high command. So where is the
difference?
Authors seem to have wrong concept
about a communist party. They see a communist party as just a group of people,
motivated in various different ways who have joined hands together to create a
classless society. ‘in the Salkia Plenum, the CPI (M) called
for the development of a mass revolutionary party. This has to be built up on
the basis of the principles of democratic centralism. Without democratic
centralism, only a mass party can exist.’ (ibid,
p-17). Knowing very well
that a ‘mass party’ can not function with democratic centralism, the plenum
called for development of a ‘mass revolutionary party’. A mass party can not be
a revolutionary party and a revolutionary party can not be a mass party. What a
fallacy to have a ‘mass revolutionary party’. Even
after a proletarian revolution, for many decades, masses in general neither
participate in politics nor qualify to be member of a communist party.
It is highly unfortunate for the
Indian proletariat and also for masses in general that the general secretary of
their vanguard party knows very well that ‘the proper exercise of democratic
centralism depends crucially on the political-ideological level of the party
members’ and that ‘paucity in this level can result in limiting
democratic involvement in discussions and policy making’ (ibid, p-19). yet ‘for
the CPI (M), the choice is stark: no mass revolutionary party without
democratic centralism.’ (ibid, p-20).
According to Marxists ideology and also as shown in practice by Lenin,
Stalin and Mao, Communist Party is a highly developed living organic entity
whose elements themselves are highly conscious and motivated individuals who
are intertwined together into an arrangement by way of cohesion of scientific
world outlook known as Marxism, and is the vanguard to usher in a revolutionary
political-economic-social order for emancipation of humanity. Like any other
highly developed living organism a communist party must have its own rules for
function within and rules for interaction with exterior including permeance for
sustenance and growth.
Let us understand the foundation and function of democratic
centralism.
As an organic entity Communist party must have its own thought
process to generate ideas which will be conducive for its efficient functioning
and will guide its various organs to function in complete animated
coordination. It must have a very efficient communication process for exchange
of information and ideas between its various organs and elements within and
without and for this it must have a functional system capable of taking care of
any pollution, distortion and attenuation of information and ideas. Lastly but
not the least it must have equally efficient system to put strategies, which
are developed ideas, into practice through its various organs and units and to
receive feedback about the outcome of its actions so that proper course
correction could be done to keep it on track towards its goal. The modus
operandi for a communist party, an organism, at the highest level of
consciousness, has to be unique to meet the unique requirements of this
organism. Let us see the unique requirements before we can understand the modus
operandi.
The organism has to work in a complex environment, very friendly on
one end to very hostile on the other extreme; very friendly willing to
amalgamate, the hostiles fighting to annihilate and the intermediaries
vacillate. The goal, ‘to usher in a revolutionary political-economic-social order
for emancipation of humanity’ can not be achieved in one quantum jump. The long
tortuous path must be covered inch-by-inch making great strides achieving new
goalposts one by one. Hurdles getting bigger and bigger, the organism must
acquire ever increasing strength through string of successes. All this requires
a panoptic and microscopic perspective and intellect of highest order to evolve
clear strategies (set of developed ideas) for all occasions which must be
pursued with single mind by the agile dexterous mammoth that is what a
communist party is.
How the party can meet its internal and external requirements? By
modus operandi which will ensure that its monad constituents singularly and
collectively meet the requirements. Now as the constituents themselves are
intelligent living individuals with independent physical and mental functions,
they ought to be aware about their subjective and objective role and must
consciously all the time subjugate their personal interest and thinking to the
collective interest and thinking of the organization and must integrate with
collective functioning. Metaphysical views coalesce into non-scientific tempers
which give rise to bourgeois tendencies and factionalism in the organization.
Factionalism can not be controlled by bourgeois democratic methods compelling
the minority to abide by the majority decision. It can be rooted out by regular
discussions about various aspects of Marxism as scientific philosophy and purge
of metaphysical views.
Marxism is a scientific philosophy and as Marx said that important
is not to interpret the world around but important is to change it and so he
laid down the guideline to affect the desired change. Lenin’s greatest contribution
is that he not only understood the guideline correctly but created the organism
which is required to affect the change that Marx had in mind. And also that he created
this organism in an environment that was highly non-conducive for creation of
such an organism i.e. in a feudal society with rudimentary stage of capitalism,
whetted its finesse and led it to strike the winning blow to the massive feudal
bourgeois state. For this he laid down the principle of the modus operandi for
such organism so that others could emulate. That principle is what ‘Democratic
Centralism’ is. And Mao proved the efficacy of the principle by producing
required organism in an even more primitive society and demolishing the feudal
imperialist colossus following the principle of ‘Democratic Centralism’
Fundamentals of ‘Democratic Centralism’ are,
1.
Guiding philosophy of the party
is Marxism and every member must have scientific temper so that he could
understand the dynamic nature of Marxism and use it in real life situation.
2.
Members must be highly
motivated so that they could subjugate their personal interests and likes and
dislikes to the larger interest of the organization.
3.
Members must freely express
their views and opinions during the process of discussion to evolve views, ideas
and strategy of the organization and at the same time ought to be conscious
that evolved views, ideas and strategy are of the organisation and there is
nothing like minority or majority view.
4.
Every member must be
responsible jointly and severally to ensure implementation of decisions taken
by the organization at different levels and if a member feels that he held a
view which is not congruent with the view of the organisaton, it is his
responsibility to ensure that his practice does not adversely affect the
implementation of the decision.
5.
It must be continuous endeavour
of every member to develop unanimity in every matter so that organisation could
function with single mind.
If CPI(M) wants to be the vanguard
of proletarian revolution in India
Suresh
Srivastava
June 2010
+91-9810128813
(Author is
President of Society for SCIENCE and publishes Hindi quarterly magazine मार्क्स दर्शन)
No comments:
Post a Comment