I don't have any opinion on the TDP, and don't think of myself as a Marxist. But my two cents' worth is that democratic centralism is archaic, born in and designed to deal with conditions in pre-WWI Russia, and probably has little relevance to early 21st- century Texas.
--- Charles Peterson <charlesppeterson at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is "democratic centralism" a good idea? Under some
> or
> all circumstances?
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ