Why I no longer support democratic centralism and Trotskyism in general

I was once a signed up proud Socialist party member with a good grounding in Trotskyism. This was a while ago now and I do look back and cringe at some of the posts I used to post up on here on this blog. I have since left the socialist party and began the long task of revaluating my politics and my idea of democracy. Starting with Trotskyism which I was always a little uneasy with from the start with the democratic nature of the whole thing a little under played I felt. Many socialists follow the ideas of Lenin and, in particular, his ideas on vanguard parties. These ideas were expounded by Lenin in his (in)famous work What is to be Done? which is considered as one of the important books in the development of Bolshevism. The core of these ideas is the concept of "vanguardism," or the "vanguard party." According to this perspective, socialists need to organise together in a party, based on the principles of "democratic centralism," which aims to gain a decisive influence in the class struggle. The ultimate aim of such a party is revolution and its seizure of power. Its short term aim is to gather into it all "class conscious" workers into a "efficient" and "effective" party, alongside members of other classes who consider themselves as revolutionary Marxists. The party would be strictly centralised, with all members expected to submit to party decisions, speak in one voice and act in one way. Without this "vanguard," injecting its politics into the working class (who, it is asserted, can only reach trade union consciousness by its own efforts), a revolution is impossible. Lenin laid the foundation of this kind of party in his book What is to be Done? and the vision of the "vanguard" party was explicitly formalised in the Communist International. As Lenin put it, "Bolshevism has created the ideological and tactical foundations of a Third International . . . Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all." [Collected Works, vol. 28, pp. 292-3] Using the Russian Communist Party as its model, Bolshevik ideas on party organisation were raised as a model for revolutionaries across the world. Since then, the various followers of Leninism and its offshoots like Trotskyism have organised themselves in this manner (with varying success). I once did support the idea of democratic centralism as I felt it was working it most certainly is not now and if it ever did I am not sure. Seeing how a Trotskyist party works up close scared me in all honesty the subservience to the leadership of the delegates at two congresses’ I attended was alarm bell ringing level. The way all branch’s and groups agreed wit the EC – executive council was deeply troubling and did I’m honest seed an element of doubt in my mind at how much are the leadership of this party held to account. I have now seen the party and especially its leadership for what it is thankfully and broken with that undemocratic tradition I was being sucked into. To observe this is not always easy and I do think my deep thinking mind caught this well thankfully otherwise I’d still be a member putting out drone type tweets and trotting out the party line which although powerful in that a number would put out same message lets be honest very few workers in the class we were looking to win over gave us a second look. One of the major points which I do now fully accept is the question of organisational structure. Vanguard parties are based on the principle of "democratic centralism". Anarchists argue that such parties, while centralised, are not, in fact, democratic nor can they be. As such, the "revolutionary" or "socialist" party is no such thing as it reflects the structure of the capitalist system it claims to oppose. Which indeed it does if you have a hierarchical structure which has the tag democratic creating hierarchy in your own organisation and hoping to put an end to capitalist form of hierarchy is just silly as you’re literally trying to replace like with like regardless of how good your intentions are. I don’t for a moment suggest Leninist and trotskyist followers are not sincere and are good people deep down I just now feel they are misguided and wrong in their overall theory of how a revolutionary organisation should function and its role and purpose . So how is a "vanguard" party organised? To quote the Communist International's 1920 resolution on the role of the Communist Party in the revolution, the party must have a "centralised political apparatus" and "must be organised on the basis of iron proletarian centralism." This, of course, suggests a top-down structure internally, which the resolution explicitly calls for. In its words, "Communist cells of every kind must be subordinate to one another as precisely as possible in a strict hierarchy." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 193, p. 198 and p. 199] Therefore, the vanguard party is organised in a centralised, top-down way. However, this is not all, as well as being "centralised," the party is also meant to be democratic, hence the expression "democratic centralism." On this the resolution states: "The Communist Party must be organised on the basis of democratic centralism. The most important principle of democratic centralism is election of the higher party organs by the lowest, the fact that all instructions by a superior body are unconditionally and necessarily binding on lower ones, and existence of a strong central party leadership whose authority over all leading party comrades in the period between one party congress and the next is universally accepted." [Op. Cit., p. 198] For Lenin, speaking in the same year, democratic centralism meant "only that representatives from the localities meet and elect a responsible body which must then govern . . . Democratic centralism consists in the Congress checking on the Central Committee, removing it and electing a new one." [quoted by Robert Service, The Bolshevik Party in Revolution, p. 131] Thus, "democratic centralism" is inherently top-down, although the "higher" party organs are, in principle, elected by the "lower." However, the key point is that the central committee is the active element, the one whose decisions are implemented and so the focus of the structure is in the "centralism" rather than the "democratic" part of the formula. All this has clear parallels with Lenin's What is to be done?, where he argued for "a powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all the threads of secret activities, an organisation which of necessity must be a centralised organisation." This call for centralisation is not totally dependent on secrecy, though. As he noted, "specialisation necessarily presupposes centralisation, and in its turn imperatively calls for it." Such a centralised organisation would need leaders and Lenin argued that "no movement can be durable without a stable organisation of leaders to maintain continuity." As such, "the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession." Thus, we have a centralised organisation which is managed by specialists, by "professional revolutionaries." This does not mean that these all come from the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie. According to Lenin a "workingman agitator who is at all talented and 'promising' must not be left to work eleven hours a day in a factory. We must arrange that he be maintained by the Party, that he may in due time go underground." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 158, p. 153, p. 147, p. 148 and p. 155] Thus the full time professional revolutionaries are drawn from all classes into the party apparatus. However, in practice the majority of such full-timers were/are middle class. Trotsky noted that "just as in the Bolshevik committees, so at the [1905] Congress itself, there were almost no workingmen. The intellectuals predominated." [Stalin, vol. 1, p. 101] This did not change, even after the influx of working class members in 1917 the "incidence of middle-class activists increases at the highest echelons of the hierarchy of executive committees." [Robert Service, Op. Cit., p. 47] An ex-worker was a rare sight in the Bolshevik Central Committee, an actual worker non-existent. However, regardless of their original class background what unites the full-timers is not their origin but rather their current relationship with the working class, one of separation and hierarchy. The idea of bottom up workers control and self management are however alien and opposite to what Trotskyists stand for if you look at it as I have done. The two while seemingly want the same thing a class less society both have very different aims and ways of going about this which for me mark the two trends of socialism thought apart. In summary, we have a model of a "revolutionary" party which is based on full-time "professional revolutionaries" in which the concept of direct democracy is replaced by a system of, at best, representative democracy. It is highly centralised, as befitting a specialised organisation. the "organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy" was "to proceed from the top downward" rather than "from the bottom upward." [Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 396-7] Rather than being only applicable in Tsarist Russia, Lenin drew on examples from advanced, democratic capitalist countries to justify his model in 1902 and in 1920 he advocated a similar hierarchical and top-down organisation with a dual secret and public organisation in the Communist International. The continuity of ideas is clear. Is it any wonder then that Stalinism found itself a fertile base to grow, cement ideas and in fact take the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky to their unfortunate conclusion of a bureaucratic and centralised state confusing workers power with one party power. So I haven’t just been brainwashed if anything I’ve cleansed my thoughts and ideology and come to my sense’s in some ways. All of this has been through experience of going through a vanguardist party I don’t think I’m the first and almost certainly wont be the last to be churned up and spat out of a democratic centralist party claiming itself to be something its not. People will learn and make up their own minds I’m confident of that much.

Statement by some Irish Socialist party members who’ve resigned this year

I am no longer a socialist party member for better or worse and frankly I’m glad I’m out of it all. I am re-examining my own politics and the left as a result. Below I republish a fantastic statement from several ex members of the CWI Socialist party in Ireland who have come to some similar conclusions to myself and had to leave. I do not agree with all of their statement but I can relate too much of what they state. This is not meant as an attack on theCWI or the Socialist party and my former comrades but it is important to publish to let others know that things are not as hunky dory in the SP as the leadership and leading figures like to make out. The group of 11 who are fighting the leadership over economic issues have my support and the likes of Bruce Wallace and Steve Dobbs are genuine people and I feel deserve our support in trying to change a very rigid and dogmatic leadership who think they are always right on everything. This is the statement from 6 Irish SP members below I thank them all for this and lend my solidarity to them and whatever they go on to try next. “This statement has been drawn up by the following recently resigned members of the Socialist Party: Andrew Phelan, Megan in Ghabhlain, Richard O’Hara, Pamela Rochford, Stephanie O’Shea and Jimmy Dignam. Notes: Tragically, Rob Ryan passed away before this statement was completed but he played an important role in the debates that took place around the process of its writing. He repeatedly expressed agreement with the key issues contained within this statement and we feel it is vital that we acknowledge his contribution. We have included links to articles that elaborate further on some arguments made within this document as many of the topics described have been written on extensively before. After our recent resignations it became clear to us that whilst differing on some issues there were some core reasons behind all our resignations. We hope that this document can be a contribution to the debates currently taking place around what kind of mass Party is needed to rebuild the workers’ movement and play a crucial role in overthrowing Capitalism. While not claiming to have the answer to this question we feel it is important for us to offer our criticisms not just of the Socialist Party or the Committee for a Workers International but Trotskyism1 as an ideology. We are aware that the political movement that has been defined as Trotskyism has a wide and varied history, however for the purposes of this statement we will discuss mainly Trotskyism as practised by the dominant Trotskyist parties in contemporary polity and especially the version of Trotskyism dominant in the Irish and British left; that is the Committee for a Workers’ International, the Internatonal Socialists and the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. These parties and international groupings share tendencies discussed below that we believe point to serious issues with the ideology of contemporary British and Irish Trotskyism itself. The reality is that none of us can stand over calling ourselves Trotskyists. Furthermore we feel that Trotskyism by its nature can in many instances act as an obstacle to the development of a truly mass and democratic workers’ party. This is not to malign the contribution of many individual Socialists who are members of Trotskyist parties but to recognise the inherent sectarian nature of these parties and the damage they can do to the wider movement. In this statement we would like to raise tactical differences that emerged between ourselves and the SP but more importantly criticisms of Trotskyism that seem to permeate such organisations to varying degrees. Democratic Deficit and Dogmatic Approach It is an open question whether the anti-democratic nature of the SP and other Trotskyist organisations are a direct result of the dogmatic approach that they implement or if it is the other way around. Regardless, one cannot exist without the other and it is important that we clarify what we mean by both. What do we mean by dogmatic? It is the assertive and uncompromising belief that the methods and programme adopted by the Party are the “one and only true way”; that the party’s tried and tested methods and its doctrine are truly revolutionary and any deviation poses a risk to the Party by watering down its political programme. This will generally be reflected in an authoritarian and emphatic manner by the Party leadership. If any questions are raised around democracy they will be dismissed as being unrelated and irrelevant to the broader class struggle. This is not to diminish the importance of leadership within Socialist organisations, but merely highlight that when a leadership is not open to critique and that this closed leadership is accompanied by a political culture that discourages critical thought it is, in the long run, detrimental to the organisation as a whole. In our experience this culture allows little room for genuine debate in relation to important political questions. Our collective experience as members of the Socialist Party (CWI) points to many instances of this political culture and structure. In the Socialist Party, for example, if a member raises differences they will generally be invited to attend a meeting with a party full-timer where the party line will be vigorously and unyieldingly explained to them. As a result, agreement to the Party’s overall doctrine is an integral part of one’s membership and acceptance within the organization. This makes it very difficult to exist within the organization whilst holding differences of opinion on certain matters. This dogmatic and undialectical approach is used across many other organisational and political practices across the SP. This culture exists partly because the wider membership is not involved in important decision making in any critical matter. This is further contributed to by a certain ‘funnelling downwards of theory’ whereby important ideas are dissected by the leadership and members are given the ‘correct’ analysis. There is little emphasis put on members developing themselves theoretically and in a genuine critical manner2. Another important aspect to this inhibiting atmosphere is the time constraints placed on members by the frenetic activity expected of them. In many circumstances this activity can be ‘manufactured’ and can bear little relevance to the overall goal of Socialism. There is no reflection as to the purpose and usefulness of this constant and frenetic activity. This leads to the Party’s inability to be able to adapt to changes in mood. A division of labour also exists within the SP between the leadership and membership. The leadership makes the critical decisions on policy, theory and direction whilst the membership for the main part is expected to sell the paper door-to-door, pursue new contacts and look after day-to-day organisational tasks. For any organisation looking to be able to be an influencing factor in society but also to be capable of incremently growing in size, it cannot adhere to such dogmatic and intransigent approaches. The SP and other Trotskyist organisations maintain a very high turnover of membership. In many instances Comrades will drift away from the party, without formally resigning, and crucially will not be politically active again or for quite some time. This can perhaps be attributed to ‘burnout’ that many experience due to the aforementioned high levels of activity but also due to an atmosphere which is politcally inhibiting and discourages these Comrades from beginning to critically evaluate politics and the party around them. As a result their new found enthusiasm for Socialist ideas may be extinguished after a short period of time. Democratic structures are not irrelevant The SP styles itself as a Bolshevik Party and thus claims to model its democratic structures on those of that party. However, their structures are inherently undemocratic and bear no resemblance to the structure of the Bolshevik Party that they espouse. It is argued that the organisational method commonly known as ‘democratic centralism’ was used by the Bolshevik Party and therefore these practices must be strictly adhered to and replicated. However this argument is ahistorical as the Bolshevik Party rarely even used the term, nor did it often use anything resembling this method before the October Revolution3. Whilst it may seem somewhat abstract to catalogue what ‘democratic centralism’ within the SP looks like, we feel that this it is important to paint a broader picture of the structures that prop up the dogmatic culture of the Party. There are three main decision-making bodies of the Party; the National Conference, the National Committee (NC) and the National Executive Committee (NEC). The NEC is made up entirely of full-time party workers. The National Conference is the highest decision making body of the party and meets on an annual basis, while the NC assumes the authority of the Conference between conferences and the NEC assumes the authority of the NC between NC meetings. As the SP is divided into two regions across Ireland, these structures are replicated at regional level too. In practice, at the annual conference of the Party the outgoing NEC recommends a slate of members for election to the NC. These members are then voted in by a show of hands of conference delegates. These delegates will have been proposed at a branch meeting and in most instances the Branch Committee (BC) will have put forward a suggested slate of delegates that will have been influenced by the full-timer appointed to that branch. These delegates are not answerable to their branch. This is important as it means that in practice that the leadership often recommends and effectively chooses the delegates who in turn will elect the leadership; such a circular mode of electoral practice has obvious implications for democracy within the party. As there are no minutes or voting records kept of NC or NEC meetings, delegates have nothing to base their voting decision on. The leadership generally will counteract this argument by stating that as they are the only ones that have an overview of the Party, they therefore are best placed in selecting members to leadership positions. Notwithstanding the obvious difficulties in putting forward an alternative slate to that of the party’s leadership, there are clearly much broader systemic problems that an alternative slate simply cannot address. It must be noted too that the slate system was introduced when Lenin was looking to “temporarily minimise dissent” within the Bolshevik Party4 adopted this method and historically it has been a hallmark of Stalinist parties. Moreover essentially annual conference is the only time when the opinion or voice of a member who is not on any decision-making committee will be formally recognised. We say this as there is no capacity for members to have their voice heard throughout the year. For example, it is not possible for a member to put motions forward to the National Committee. In other words a member can only formally propose motions to the party once a year at regional or national conference and at no other time. Top-down decision making process Ultimately then, power in the Socialist Party lies with a handful of National Executive members and unelected full-timers, themselves appointed to their position by the same National Executive, (occasionally other full-timers will be co-opted on to the NEC after the initial election). This circular structure has the obvious danger of being open to abuse. Decisions on matters of importance will always find their origin in NEC meetings. When a decision is to be made on strategy or tactics it will be mooted first at a meeting of the NEC or REC (Regional Executive Committee). The internal full-timers who oversee the running of the branches will then filter the proposed position down the ranks often through individual discussions with NC members and ‘leading’ Branch Committee (BC) members. These members will then filter the prospective position down to branch level through individual discussions and branch meetings. The vast bulk of the National Committee membership, picked due to its adherence to the leadership’s politics, are now more likely to be onside for whatever decision or turn the leadership has decided upon, and will ratify it if necessary at the NC meeting. Meanwhile the rank and file branch members will be notified at their weekly meeting that the party is likely to take a decision on an issue before it happens and after the decision has been taken they will be notified of this. This will usually be the sum total of the involvement of the ordinary member, unless they seriously dissent on the issue, in which case they will be invited to an individual discussion with a full-timer or very occasionally invited to a NC meeting to air their grievance. The party will use these individual discussions or NC invites to give the impression of a vigorously democratic internal regime, where members with concerns about issues are met with and patiently listened to. However this gives a false image of a party where every meeting is stage-managed and where the communication is very much one-way – the dissenting individuals are there purely to be persuaded that they are wrong and not to be listened to. These are not academic points, they have a real impact on how a Party is built, how it can grow numerically and can most importantly develop a critically thinking membership. The structure of the Bolshevik Party in the lead-up to the October Revolution revolved around a dynamic internal atmosphere that prided itself on debate through the publications of the Party and at its meetings, at all times public. Differences on re-building the Workers’ Movement Whilst every Party makes mistakes the Socialist Party possesses limited ability for self-reflection and critique. Furthermore, the belief that the Party’s small organisation is potentially the nucleus of a revolutionary Party and that every strategy or tactic implemented is in the best interests of the workers movement as a whole is flawed, in particular if those decisions are taken without the participation of working class people outside the SP. Our resignations were premised on stark differences with the leadership on recently taken decisions. The following quote is taken from the ‘Battle Against The Bin Tax’ document mainly written by Kevin McLoughlin the de-facto leader of the Socialist Party: The Socialist Party’s view regarding the bin tax and the local elections was that the issue needed to be looked at concretely in the run in to the election period. Any serious electoral challenge could only be based on well built, fighting campaigns with a base in the areas. Weak or phantom campaigns standing candidates would be likely to get small votes. Kevin McLoughlin, Battle Against The Bin Tax Whilst noting that the current context is markedly different to that of 10 years ago, the underlying premise of Kevin’s quote still stands. Rather than engage in a process of evaluation as to why the workers’ movement has not developed since the beginning of the crisis and how the Left can gradually begin a process of building and influencing consciousness, the Party has chosen to dedicate itself to yet another election. Whilst being in favour of standing anti-austerity candidates, we feel that in some areas where CAPTA/AAA is standing, the number of candidates being run and the balance between SP and independent candidates raises serious question marks over the genuine nature of these campaigns. We also share concerns in relation to the level of input and influence non-SP members may have within the alliance. Furthermore we believe that ‘dealing a blow to the establishment’ by getting some anti-austerity candidates elected is problematic without genuine discussion around its purpose and where this initiative is leading ultimately. Lack of Trade Union work Another significant disagreement centres on the SP’s trade union work. Any radical organisation must strive to have a significant base or at least be influential within the trade union movement and work places generally. Given that the SP is supposed to be a party of workers there are a worryingly small percentage of members actively involved in trade unions. This is in no small part due to the fact that the SP has placed minimal emphasis on the importance of trade unions as an important area of struggle. In fact in more recent times union members were told explicitly that the trade union movement would not be a key arena for struggle and the SP leadership repeatedly urged its trade union members to severely curtail their activity within the trade union movement and instead focus their entire energy on the struggles against the property and household taxes. This is all in backdrop to the trade union movement being in the middle of historical battles around the Croke Park agreement and savage attacks on workers. Despite many of its trade union activists being strongly advised that the mood seemed to be favouring rejection of Croke Park 2, it came as a surprise to the SP leadership. Even though certain individuals within the party felt strongly about organising a genuine fightback within their unions we feel the SP leaderships’ emphasis was not on building resistance but more on recruitment. This approach was clearly evident when immediately after the rejection of Croke Park 2 the Party organised a meeting which cut across a teachers grassroots initiative which included individual socialist party trade unionists56 when genuine trade unionists need to concentrate on rebuilding their movement, we feel this can only be achieved by adopting a long-term and committed strategy towards this area of work. ROSA Sectarianism The setting-up of the ‘for Reproductive rights, against Oppression, Sexism and Austerity (ROSA) campaign is another stark example of the Party’s sectarianism. The formation of ROSA occurred with little or no consultation with branch members and those in whose name it was to be set-up. It seems the party leadership felt they needed to capitalise on the growing strength of feeling around abortion rights and wanted a banner to attract people politicised by the death of Savita Halappanavar towards the SP. True to form ROSA was presented to the branches as a fait accompli; the party line decided by the NEC and the party full timers without any discussion as to why the SP was essentially preparing to operate primarily outside the Choice movement. In practice what that meant was that members, especially the small number of active female Comrades, were to curtail their efforts within ARC and its affiliates and focus on ROSA activity. The development of choice campaigns into an integrated, broader and more politicised gender based campaigning group was, of course, far more desirable. If the SP wanted to further politicize ARC and other Choice campaigns it should have concentrated itself solely on this task even if the SP did not have as large a role or influence as is it had wished. Role of Publications Another area of disagreement we have is around the role and nature of party publications. The Socialist is a further example of the Party’s dogmatic attitude to activism and critical thinking. The paper does not currently have an editorial board and members possess virtually no say in the direction and content of the paper. Essentially the paper represents a ‘sum-up’ of the previous months main stories within the media. Furthermore it must be highlighted that the final paragraph of many of the paper’s articles, which states that the solution to the problems of the piece is ‘workers control and management’ falls far short of what is required to popularise Socialist ideas. The myth of Leninist papers “holding the revolutionary ideas” is a crude deviation from reality and of the original historical significance of this idea. Moreover the oft cited (by the SP leadership) Leninist tactic of using the paper as a ‘scaffold’ for the party is certainly not practiced in any way or form, nor is any other SP media7. There is a serious need for debate around the purpose of publications in re-invigorating and creating a platform of Socialist ideas. Publications should partly serve to stimulate discussion and debate on various issues and must move away from just showcasing the Party and being seen as a tool for recruitment. In Conclusion… At this current stage when the workers’ movement is at such a low ebb the Left should be discussing how we rebuild and generally popularise Marxist ideas. The SP’s dogmatic approach towards programmatic agreement and activity means that it will always be hampered in its ability to grow. When the SP says it is in favour of a ‘new mass workers’ Party’, it is imperative that we discuss how such a Party could develop. This document does not represent a political attack on any member of the SP and we reiterate that it should be seen as a contribution to the current and wider debate on structures and programme. We do not have any difficulties working alongside the SP within campaigns, trade unions and most crucially the building of a new mass workers party. Whilst the last 6 years of austerity have provided a so far limited fight-back against these policies, we firmly believe that this situation will and can move in a positive direction. We feel it is imperative that debate, discussion and analysis take place over the current state of the Left as a matter of urgency. 1. This is meant as organisations also commonly referred to as Leninist and that claim to trace their origins back to the Fourth International ▲ 2. Michael Flynn, A Call to Educate ▲ 3. Lars Lih, Democratic Centralism: Fortunes of a Formula ▲ 4. Pat Byrne, The Origin of the Slate System ▲ 5. https://www.facebook.com/events/287103281425873/ ▲ 6. http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/no2crokepark2-trade-union-rally-saturdaymay-25th-liberty-hall-2-00-pm/ ▲ 7. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm ▲ with thanks to http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement