It rubs me the wrong way, but then perhaps that's because I'm a lucky debating society kind of guy. Perhaps it's necessary in guerilla warfare, but I think it's wrong in a large political party, in general, because it enables insiders to have too much power.
What little I know of it now comes from the Wikipedia entry and the links contained in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism
I find it interesting that Trotsky denounced it in his 1904 book "Our Political Tasks", which pretty much predicted the rise of a dictator like Stalin as it happened, but then Trotsky renounced that position when he joined the Bolsheviks in 1917.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/
In later work he seems to be suggesting it's a matter of proportion, with no magic formula.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/xx/democent.htm
I'm no expert on this sort of thing, and I was hoping some of you who are more experienced with Marxism could help me out.
It seems to me a bad kind of democratic centralism has arisen in the very ineffective Texas Democratic Party (TDP). In the 2004 TDP State Convention, a "loyalty oath" was added to the bylaws which requires candidates in the primary swear to support the eventual nominee. According to a friend of mine who was there, this came down from the party "leadership", not from the floor, but it was approved by the floor. The party leadership has quite a bit of influence by setting the schedule, etc., in matters like this. I was there too, and I didn't even remember this. I was busy trying to educate my neighbors about other authoritarian moves by the party leadership.
This is now biting Kucinich, who crossed out the loyalty oath on his application to be on the Texas primary ballot, saying it was illegal. A federal court judge disagreed last week, saying the TDP can make rules like this if they want to. Kucinich is appealing that decision this week. Depending on outcome, it's quite possible that Kucinich will not appear on the ballot in Texas. As far as I know, this is the only state where this sort of oath was being required.
I side with Kucinich on this one. But it does make one think about what happened in 2006 when Lieberman decided to run as an Independent after he lost the Democratic primary to an antiwar candidate. Like many, I was very angry at Lieberman.
When I suggested to my friend that the TDP leadership is acting like Bolsheviks, he quickly corrected me. If they were acting like Bolsheviks, they'd be successful. No, he added, they're acting like Putz's.
I won't disagree with that.
A centrist liberal, he nevertheless seems to have a lot more respect for Bolsheviks than I do, and calls the Mensheviks a completely useless debating society. I tend to think the Bolsheviks sold the soul of the revolution for "success," and Democratic Centralism was part of that.
Charles Peterson San Antonio, TX
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs