> 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.
>
>
>
OK. But remember that the effect of that success was that they won the
civil war and were able to lead Russia away from eternal 3'd world
Capitalist vassalage and toward an industrialized, educated nation whose
expectations were much higher than those of their grandparents in 1910.
That's not shabby. What would have been the alternative if the Whites
had won the civil war? There would still have been a Hitler, hungry for
slav(e)s.
The great irony of the U.S. 80's "defeat of Communism" is how it set the stage for its own decline, retaining almost nothing of itself except a perpetual war machine with a thin veneer of Walmarts. Some victory! Not really curious that America sees itself as Sparta (300). Athens would have been too pansy for us. Too much art.
I've actually sat in on Trostskyst party meetings focused on "democratic centralism." The gist of it is that in a crisis you don't have time to discuss, you must act, and your political allies must support you in that action if possible. The problem of course is when a "permanent crisis" is declared and it is always treason to question the party leadership. We are living through such times now in the United States. The principle and its misuse is probably common to any political organization.
Joanna
Joanna