Many institutions peddle confusion about the contradictions of democratic centralism. Sharp divisive self-criticism is called for. At the same time, unity is necessary. How can these coexist? Lenin reconciles them in definite action.
If an institution doesn’t call for specific actions with measurable impacts, then its ideas should be discussed openly. If it calls for actions, we should judge their effectiveness instead. One way or another the Party is being tested: either in ideas or in actions.
The tell-tale of lumbering, useless “communist” institutions is that they repress any kind of discussion while accomplishing nothing specific to speak about whatsoever. The Western communist left has lots institutions of this kind, which cautiously refrain from calling for any definite actions (marches without measurable policy goals are not definite actions), while at the same time also repressing critique of their ideas and leadership.
The poor outcomes associated with this common and incorrect implementation of democratic centralism are measurable and well-known.
— R. D.
Context: On May 11(24), 1906, 300 Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (R.S.D.L.P.) members of the Moskovsky district in St. Petersburg held a meeting to discuss the results of the Unity Congress. The reports were made by Lenin (no record of his report has been preserved) and the Menshevik Dan. Towards the close of the meeting a controversy broke out between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks over whether it was permissible to criticize decisions of the Unity Congress in the press and at public meetings. The Mensheviks, who were doing their utmost to limit the ideological struggle over the Congress decisions, considered criticism permissible only at Party meetings, and proposed a resolution to that effect. Lenin moved an amendment saying that all the Congress decisions should be discussed not only at Party meetings, but also in the Social-Democratic press and at public meetings. The resolution, including Lenin’s amendment, was carried against 39 votes (Volna, No. 15, May 12, 1906). In reply to Lenin’s amendment the Central Committee, most of whose members were Mensheviks, adopted the resolution which Lenin criticizes in his article. (Progress Publishers, 1965)
The editors have received the following communication, signed by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.:
“In view of the fact that several Party organizations have raised the question of the limits within which the decisions of Party congresses may be criticized, the Central Committee, bearing in mind that the interests of the Russian proletariat have always demanded the greatest possible unity in the tactics of the R.S.D.L.P., and that this unity in the political activities of the various sections of our Party is now more necessary than ever, is of the opinion:
- that in the Party press and at Party meetings, everybody must be allowed full freedom to express his personal opinions and to advocate his individual views;
- that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions;
- that no Party member should at such meetings call for action that runs counter to congress decisions, or propose resolutions that are out of harmony with congress decisions.” (All italics ours.)
In examining the substance of this resolution, we see a number of queer points. The resolution says that “at Party meetings” “full freedom” is to be allowed for the expression of personal opinions and for criticism (§1), but at “public meetings” (§2) “no Party member should call for action that runs counter to congress decisions.” But see what comes of this: at Party meetings, members of the Party have the right to call for action that runs counter to congress decisions; but at public meetings they are not “allowed” full freedom to “express personal opinions”!!
Those who drafted the resolution have a totally wrong conception of the relationship between freedom to criticize within the Party and the Party’s unity of action. Criticism within the limits of the principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.), [1] not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable from agitation) cannot be prohibited. The Party’s political action must be united. No “calls” that violate the unity of definite actions can be tolerated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party press.
Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticize inaccurately and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.
Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party anywhere has any right whatsoever to call upon the people to abstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision to take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact jeopardize success in the election campaign. Before elections have been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right to criticize the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an impossible situation.
The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organizations implies universal and full freedom to criticize, so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.
We think that the Central Committee has made a big mistake by publishing a resolution on this important question without first having it discussed in the Party press and by Party organizations; such a discussion would have helped it to avoid the mistakes we have indicated.
We call upon all Party organizations to discuss this resolution of the Central Committee now, and to express a definite opinion on it.
[1] “Members of our Party are obliged to accept its programme. This does not mean, of course, that a programme, once adopted, cannot be criticised. We have recognised, do recognise, and will continue to recognise, freedom of criticism. But whoever wishes to remain a member of our Party must remain, even in his criticism, on the terrain of the programme.” — G. V. Plekhanov, “Twenty-first Session of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.” (1903). [web] — M. G. A.