This is one of the articles included in our first volume of Avant!, “Reflections on the Student Movement”. As we finish up the volume feel free to read and enjoy the work we’ve already written!

1. Introduction

Organizational structures, and their competing effectiveness, have been among the primary conversations of debate surrounding the Communist left for several decades. Following the fall of the New Communist Movement these discussions slid back into irrelevance, and Democratic Centralism has solidified itself in what little Communist movement exists in America. The 21st Century represents a stagnation in Communist ideology. Individual Communists act little more than historians of their favorite epoch, and cannot fathom acts outside their prescribed formulas written over a century ago. 

Historical Materialism gives us the tools to effectively examine the mechanisms of history, and in this evaluation we can ascertain that as society shifts the methods of class struggle also adapt. We do not expect to use the same tactics and strategies of the European Peasant Revolts or those of the French Revolution, so why do so many “Communists” relentlessly mimic century old organizational strategies? As with many other issues, a healthy dose of idealism and a misunderstanding of history are to blame.

Lenin’s work stands as a sort of Gospel for many on the Left. Instead of critically examining works such as What is to Be Done? and State and Revolution, and understanding their role in the material conditions of a still highly feudalistic empire over 100 years ago, many treat these as “how-to guides”. That these seminal texts represent a blueprint for struggle, and not as a representation of class struggle in a specific time and place. This is not to deride or deny Lenin’s contributions, but rather to understand them in relation to the totality of history.

One specific demographic of struggle that is significantly stunted ideologically is the youth, and accompanying student, movement. Once the bastion of new, revolutionary ideas with the  youth being lively with debate; the contemporary movement has been thoroughly centralized around the organizational principle of democratic centralism and Leninism. We will come to argue that the principle of democratic centralism is an inefficient model, if not outright hostile, for the current class struggle, at least as it relates to the youth and their organizing. [1]

Youth organizing has a special connotation. While the youth are not inherently revolutionary, as many on the Marxist left proclaim, they do serve as a useful microcosm of wider bourgeois society. Any ideological hypotheses we have can be thoroughly experimented on with the youth. Youth organizing lacks a sense of permanence that other facets often have, mainly due to the transitory nature of young people (specifically students).[2]  With this in mind, we can begin to analyze the effectiveness of different organizational strategies, namely those of democratic versus organic centralism.

2. What is Centralism?

Democratic Centralism is the organizing principle that nearly all Marxists abide by, but what even is it? Democratic Centralism is the method of structuring an organization in such a way that prioritizes operational unity. Lenin formulates Democratic Centralism in What is to Be Done?, and would later be evolved to stress the fundamental importance of “Unity of Action”, rather than outright freedom to criticize. 

“The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise, 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.” [3]

It would not be long until the Democratic Centralist principle became law in the party, as by 1917 the Party had firmly adopted that line. 

“The Sixth Congress adopted new Party Rules. These rules provided that all Party organizations shall be built on the principle of democratic centralism.
    This meant:
    1) That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected;
    2) That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations;
    3) That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;
    4) That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.
    The Party Rules provided that admission of new members to the Party shall be through local Party organizations on the recommendation of two Party members and on the sanction of a general membership meeting of the local organization.” [4]

When codified into the Party Platform and Program, Democratic Centralism shifted from an organizational strategy to a principle of governance. A policy that negates the historical conditions that led to the creation of Democratic Centralism in the first place. Its codification led to the establishment of a Party Bureaucracy that stifled freedom of expression and allowed for the conservative Stalinist clique to take root and plant itself firmly in the party’s leadership. 

As time went on, various flavors of the International Communist Movement became disillusioned with the Soviet model and posited their own alternatives. While Maoist and Trotskyist cliques criticized the function of the Soviet bureaucracy, they failed to adequately critique the organizational form that assisted the Soviet degeneration. Only the various sections of the “Ultra-Left”: the anarchists, German-Dutch Current, and the Italian left, tackled the topic of organization, among those namely the Italian left (who is the topic of this essay).

By the mid 20th century, Democratic Centralism had proven itself to be an idealist and, at times, reactionary organizing principle. Instead of uplifting debate and conversation it shut it down. Instead of advancing the Party it closed it off and neutered its development. The battle cries of “Unity of Action” had fermented and degenerated into a “Unity of Leadership”. 

“The danger of bourgeois influences acting on the class party doesn’t appear historically as the organisation of fractions, but rather as a shrewd penetration stoking up unitary demagoguery and operating as a dictatorship from above, and immobilising initiatives by the proletarian vanguard.

This defeatist factor cannot be identified and eliminated by posing the question of discipline in order to prevent fractionist initiatives, but rather by successfully managing to orientate the party and the proletariat against such a peril at the moment when it manifests itself not just as a doctrinal revision, but as an express proposal for an important political manoeuvre with anti classist consequences.” [5]

Opposed to Democratic Centralism and its degenerative tendencies, the Italian Left raised the banner of “Organic Centralism” in its stead. Unlike Democratic Centralism, Organic Centralism can be harder to pin down as an ideology and principle. 

“All this should be treated much more broadly, but it is still possible to achieve a conclusion about the party’s organisational structure in such a difficult transition. It would be a fatal error to consider the party as dividable into two groups, one of which is dedicated to the study and the other to action; such a distinction is deadly for the body of the party, as well as for the individual militant. The meaning of unitarism and of organic centralism is that the party develops inside itself the organs suited to the various functions, which we call propaganda, proselytism, proletarian organisation, union work, etc., up to tomorrow, the armed organisation; but nothing can be inferred from the number of comrades destined for such functions, as on principle no comrade must be left out of any of them.” [6]

Organic Centralism can be summed up as the notion that factionalism is not an inherently negative behavior that must be combatted and shut down, and that internal factions of the Party, or any organization, are actually beneficial to its developments. These principles can be seen in the historical tradition of the Communist Movement, and even in the Leninist annals of history. Marx himself was a factionalist in the 1st International when he struggled against the lines of Bakunin and Proudhon. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were factionalists when they broke with the Mensheviks of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. In each of these situations, the organic development of the proletariat and its organs was spurred on by factional splits in the existing movement against bourgeois reaction. 

Organic Centralism does not posit that there should be infinite splits until the “Invariant” line is held supreme, but rather that unity of action necessarily cannot be arrived at from strict ideological unity. In fact, adherence to strict and remorseless ideological unity was one of the deciding factors that led to the murder of the Bolshevik movement in its infancy.

“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” [7]

We are currently in the farce stage of ideological and historical development. Questions of centralism and its role are of the most pressing matter to our current movement, both proletarian and youth. Even though the 21st century remains one of the most ideologically free and liberating epochs of the historical movement, it is going through its own period of “Bolshevization”. [8] “Unity of Action” has again become the rally cry of the left. A “Unity” which necessitates the ideological dictatorship of methods that have proven themselves to fail time and time again. If we are to preserve any semblance of authentic struggle in our movement we must ruthless critique and struggle against these idealist measures. 

3. Idealism and Organization in the Youth and Student Movement

What one must understand about the Youth movement is that it is dominated primarily by students. Students on their own serve as a problematic demographic to build a revolutionary base off of, but that is not the topic of this essay. [9] Of the many concerns present the primary is the organizational strategy of the youth movement. Whether consciously aware of it or not, the prevailing principle of the day is Democratic Centralism. Leninists and Crypto-Leninists currently have a monopoly on the student “movement”, which itself is the majority of contemporary youth organizing. Leninist cliques, such as Students for Democratic Society (SDS) and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) are heavily tied to the “established” Communist Parties in the US, with SDS being the unofficial student wing of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and PYM being closely linked to the Party for “Socialism” and Liberation (PSL). Other smaller parties influence separate student unions, and even unaffiliated and independent student groups fall into the wider Leninist ecosystem. Leninist principles of vanguardism are copy and pasted onto the student and youth experience, and these mass organizations either are operated as micro parties or themselves become an organ of said party. In both instances, idealism prevails as the basis for organization.

Many aspiring young Leninists and Revolutionaries will join local organizations and parties. In fact, they might even create their own organization. In any case, the rigid cycle of Leninism and Democratic Centralism begins with the poor youth unwillingly thrust into it. Let us, for example, look at a pre-existing social organization and its effects. Take the Students for a Democratic Society. SDS is a nominally left-wing student movement that is built around the theme of international solidarity and espouses an anti-war message. This is all fine except for the fact that SDS is a direct funnel organization to the wider national party of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Gullible and impressionable young teens join the SDS looking to make a positive impact on their community, both local and international, but from the very minute they join they are ideologically groomed into accepting FRSO’s line. I’m not saying that it is necessarily wrong for an organization to have a specific ideological slant, but what I am saying is that this is kept under wraps and key and is not made clear from the start. 

Let’s rejoin our aspiring young radical. Now a semester has passed and they have become fully ingrained into the SDS, or any other youth group’s, culture. They attend protests and rallies. They might lead chants or give speeches. After a certain amount of time they get approached by a more senior member of the group and are informed about this exciting new opportunity to join a national movement. Most young people would be ecstatic to hear this news. Their sense of self worth is inflated and they can now call themselves a Communist. When joining this nationally oriented party, they are introduced to the works of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. They are taught this in a closed environment where the gospel in these texts is already pre supposed to be accurate and true. It is here that Democratic Centralism strikes its first blow. 

Following the premise of adherence to organizational unity, it is a logical conclusion to extend this out to a strict unity of ideological matters. After all, ideology is just the rhetorical form of physical organization. When parties and organizations are formed it is often in mind that it subscribes to a specific strand of Marxism, such as a Marxist-Leninist Student Group, a Maoist Party, or a Trotskyist Reading Group. Under this principle an objective truth is already decided upon and anyone who joins must be ordained in these Communist ecclesiastes. Democratic Centralism in this manner is not an organizing principle, but is a tool to enforce a rigid ideological hierarchy. Prospective cadres and members are exposed to Communism through the lens of the equation already being solved long ago and that we just need to apply the correct historical formula. Since the youth is shackled by the principles of Democratic Centralism they are not able to criticize elements of the ideological or organizational base without risk of expulsion or re-education. Such that Democratic Centralism has fully ceased to be democratic in any meaningful capacity and has devolved into vulgar centralism. Or rather than a de-evolution it is the logical conclusion. It has deviated from its idealized conception of democratic debate and instead replaced it with the reality of its implementation: that the minority must be harshly combatted.

Returning to our stand in Communist, they have now fully joined the ranks of the Party and are a committed and faithful cadre in the ideological service of Marxism-Leninism (or Trotskyism, or Maoism. It really doesn’t matter, the function of centralism doesn’t change in its relation as a way to bind the youth to the Party). Since their ideological base is merely adopted and not critically examined they have ceased to be a Communist and are instead a vector of organizing for whatever social club they decided to join. In essence, the Communist becomes a living, breathing automaton designed to regurgitate whatever party propaganda was fed to them, and is all too willing and happy to do so. This all operates under the principle of Democratic Centralism, and this system is kept in motion via its reproduction with new cadre. 

Now is where we diverge in our analysis, as the young Communist has two pathways they can take. They either submit themselves willingly to the Party and allow their local youth organizing to become just another organ of the Party, or they engage in the creation of the micro party. Let us examine the former first, since it lines up neatly with the narrative of the youth we have crafted. Picking up where we left off, this young aspirational revolutionary has joined a national party and is now a faithful leader of its student and youth wing in their local area. Being such a faithful soldier of the Party, they are sure to implement all of the ideological and organizational directives that are set upon them, no matter the cost. Across the country, perhaps the world, this process repeats itself ad nauseum.  Thousands of well-to-do young Communists fall to the trap of nationally led organizations. In order to please their superiors and to fall in line with the centralization of the Party, local organizing is subordinated to the realm of obscurity and national campaigns reign supreme.

In the organic development of revolutionary theory and praxis it is certain that as locations change so do the strategic, tactical, organizational, and even ideological considerations. While it is possible to prescribe a national strategy in some cases, in most others regional differences are often far too profound that a qualitative change in tactics must be considered. For example, across the United States there exists a great variance in class consciousness, economic development, and other class considerations. It would not make sense to use the same tactics in the radical city of Chicago and the rural, less conscious South. However, parties take their nationally coordinated campaign and offer it as a panacea to the afflictions of Capital. 

When national organizing interests trump local and regional interests it only ends up splintering the efforts of those at the local level. Under threat of not following the party line, local activists and organizers are coerced into abiding by national action. For example let’s look at a local case of the relationship between a nationally led organization and how it interacts with local organizing. Coalitions are the lifeblood of any local organizing scene, uniting both competing sects of the Communist movement and single-issue or identity groups. These grand alliances can only work if all those present are willing to come together and run events communally, however due to the presence of nationally led groups this dynamic can often sour. Let’s say that a local coalition has an event planned for next Friday. It takes a large amount of effort to coordinate several groups and their respective membership as well as promote it to the unaffiliated masses. Now, in this example, one group has been given the memo that next Wednesday is set to be the host of a “National Day of Action” and their local chapter is expected, sometimes required, to schedule an event. Often these national events and local events are being organized around similar, if not the same, topic, but the national Party cannot exercise control over the local coalition in the same manner it can its local branch. This presents an odd situation for all parties involved. Locally, the coalition has already expended a large amount of effort and manpower to get the event up and running; the regional branch itself has obligations to both the local coalition and the Party. Given that the Party necessarily trumps the locals, if not then why else would it exist, the branch is fundamentally coerced into abiding by Democratic Centralism and following the will of the Party, as nationally coordinated actions would have been decided upon democratically. Following this, the branch coordinates its own event that competes with the local coalition and this causes confusion amongst the workers who are not up to date with party politics, and causes strife and antagonism among the local activist scene. In this equation no one wins and everyone loses, and it all boils back down to the backwards organizing principles that have been forced onto everyone involved. As far as the regional branch is concerned, it has ceased to have all autonomy and is turned into an organ under the direct control of the Party. Under the direct control of the Party, the branch slowly becomes completely alienated from all forms of local organizing as its base for existing is constructed inorganically and is hostile to the rest of the locality. This is not just an organizational coincidence, but is a long standing tactic of many groups, and is something we have much experience dealing with. Locally this strategy has only led to branches that act in this manner to be looked at with derision and they have been fully relegated into ideological poverty, obscurity, and both rhetorically and materially meaningless, “protests”, “rallies”, and “marches”.

The branch can continue down its current path of self isolation from the wider “movement” in favor of appeasing Party bureaucrats, or it can take a second road. In any given organization that is tied to another it is bound to have, at some point, an antagonistic relationship with its parent. Youth wings tend to break in some way or fashion from the Party proper, and while still being tied to it begin to form their own micro-party. Adhering to Leninist principles, many of the youth will take democratic centralism and apply it to their wider based mass organization, in practice turning it into a “micro-party”. Due to the previous conditions laid out in the relationship between the branch and the Party, the branch’s efforts in local organizing can be strained, or at worse they can be politically isolated. If the branch seeks to remain politically and ideologically relevant it necessitates a split or division away from the parent Party. In this struggle, the division’s cause is seen as a tactical difference in strategy and the ideological component is left unthought of and thus the same ideals that caused tensions to ferment and cause the split are still firmly in control. In order to protect itself materially and ideologically the leadership of the local branch keeps Democratic Centralism as a central principle. Democratic Centralism acts as a shield for the branch, now in all intents and purposes the “micro-party”, to wield in the struggle against the parent Party and elements in the branch that would remain loyal to it. Centralism again serves as a tool to solve practical differences in the short term while doing nothing to solve the long term implications of its enactment. While a split certainly helps with the validity of the new micro-party in the eyes of the local community, it does nothing to fundamentally, or even meaningfully, change the social relations present in the organization. Leadership has only nominally been replaced with a centralist and faux democratic chain of command. It is the perfect analogy to the conception many Leninists have of revolution, that if only we rearrange the managers of society we could flourish. 

Solutions lay not with discarding national strategy, nor with the adoption of localist and regionalist attitudes, but with instead with a radical shift the social relations that are present in political organization and how leadership and participation exists. These shifts come under the analysis that there are specific strategic and tactical considerations to keep in mind, as well as ideological obligations. In our own personal experience, we took the route of tactical decentralization. All official positions that previously existed and their associated privileges, as well as the very notion of the micro party were all immediately abolished. In its place we pushed for the organic development and organization of our members, and while there were some growing pains we adjusted well and the membership is more active and we have more meaningful campaigns. However, this is just one example. In your area or organization it is possible that a tactical centralization could be the more effective development. As long as the ideological component remains consistent, matters of tactics and strategy do not need to be universalized.

 Democratic Centralism utterly fails to achieve any of its ideological or practical goals of unity or anti-factionalism, in fact it is the very reason why factionalism and disunity come about in the first place. Had there not been a rigid hierarchy in the social organization of the relationship between the Party and its branch, there would be no factional struggle launched by the localists since they would be free to pursue campaigns at their own discretion. Historically, these principles have not succeeded in their goals and have only existed to cement whatever leadership body exists, whether that be the Stalinist Clique that betrayed the Russian Revolutionaries, the Khruschevite Bloc that summarily betrayed the Stalinist Clique, or in a more apt example the German SDP and its expulsion of its youth wing that got too radical for its own good in the 60s. Throughout history we can see that Democratic Centralism has only ever been used as a tool for the ruling circle to defend its leadership under the guise of party unity. Unlike the Trotskyist sections of the movement, we do not claim fault to lay with the personal failings of those in leadership, but with the very principles of Democratic Centralism that embolden leadership to alienate the general membership and secure their own political legacies. The ultimate tragedy is that the current groups ruling over their national parties are only ruling over micro sects of the movement and will have little to no legacy to speak of. If fault lies with Democratic Centralism and the way it manages social relations, then what is the way forward for the Communist Movement? And how should we approach inner social organization?

4. The Way Forward

Central to the Communist thesis is the abolition of current social relations and its replacement with a new social order. Following this understanding we must also realize that our current inter-Communist social organization must continually work against the current order and inside our own spheres we can begin the process of developing new social relations. Democratic Centralism has shown itself to be little more than a series of principles that do nothing to degrade Capital, but instead reinforces it through rigid hierarchy. The question still remains, how we can begin to shift our relations while still living under the dictatorship of Capital, and the solution presents itself as adopting a new and different structure. I believe that the solution lies in discarding Democratic Centralism and adopting Organic Centralism as our sole principle.

Democracy as an ideal itself is harmful to communism and contemporary communization of social systems. Organizational structures are inherently tied to their matching modes of production and the overwhelming consensus among Capitalists is that democracy is the preferred social model. Democracy is so intrinsically tied up with Liberalism that the two cannot be separated and thus the calls from Communists that it is actually communism that will bring about “true democracy” often ring hollow. Not only are they incorrect in their assertion that liberal democracy is “not real democracy”, but that our structure under communism will be inherently anti-democratic. Instead of vague platitudes of equality we must uphold the authentic character of Communism that is the organic self organization and development of the proletariat in abolishing itself, and it is Organic Centralism that can lead us down that path.

Organic Centralism holds the keys to the self abolition of existing social relations in that it prioritizes the development of the proletariat first and foremost. Many often take “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in purely economical terms, such that a Communist society is one that merely distributes and reallocates resources in a more efficient manner, however this also applies to the social relations. In the Communist Party, each member will act according to their ability, meaning that they will organize in a manner that is best for their conditions and that they will receive what support and guidance is needed. Unlike some others on the Ultra-Left, it is not my position that the Party should be the arbiter of all action and ideological matters, and nor is it my position that localism and regionalism should reign supreme; that the very notion of the Party should be scorned. It is my position that the Party should be an existing outlet of Communism in practice, that it directly begins to break down social relations in its immediacy and provides as an example to the proletariat of what communist society can look like. 

Back to its application to the youth movement, Organic Centralism can be very neatly applied to it because many in the movement already practice Organic Centralism. Inside many youth organizations, structure is guided by the principle “those that can, do”. Democratic Centralism often presents itself in a manner such that it is employed in strictly ideological matters and used as a defensive tool to protect the legitimacy of leadership. However, inter organizational structures are often merit based and revolve around several factions and cliques that take up different segments of work. Rather than being directed to fulfill their expectations, the individual finds one, or more, segment of organizing that they find fulfilling and they act on it. Whether it be mutual aid, education, etc, there are often several inter-organizational factions that form for the advancement of the groups practical efforts, and these factions work in tandem for the betterment of the entire organization such that there is a free association of organizers.

The principle goal of Communism lies not in its program but in its content and character. We simply cannot expect to usher in a classless society when we operate off the Liberal and Capitalist framework of social relations. In our everyday lives and political work we must tirelessly effort to hasten the communization of our communities, not in the hopes of constructing political capital to wield, but with the goal of destroying both Capital and politics in one fell swoop.

References / Notes

[1] Youth organizing is the only experience in organizing and taking part in the class struggle that I personally have. I do not want to attempt to universalize the monolith that is the struggle against Capital, however many overlaps between youth and traditional organizing may exist.

[2] Young people often lack ties to an area that older proletarians have, such as children, a partner, or a consistent home. It is not uncommon for younger people to move away from their hometown permanently or for a short period of time. This is exacerbated with students who themselves are often disconnected from the traditional social relations of the community they live in and are not expected to live in the same area that they obtained their education (Many graduates may end up having to move for employment if they have a specialized degree or skill set).

[3] Vladimir Lenin. Freedom to Criticize and Unity of Action.

[4] History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Page 198

[5] Amadeo Bordiga. Section 5 of the Lyons Theses.

[6]  Amadeo Bordiga. Considerations on the party’s organic activity when the general situation is historically unfavourable.

[7] Karl Marx. 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.

[8]  “Ideologically free” in the sense of comparing our situation to the pre-WW2 era with the mass level of Bolshevization and centralization of the party lines around the sect of “Marxism-Leninism” following the power struggle in the USSR.

[9] This topic is covered much more in depth in the following piece The Student Psyche in Crisis, which is also found in this journal.