First, I shall lay out our working definitions for this discußion question, and then I will frame the specific question. In closing, I shall provide some (all very short) resources so that citizens may best prepare with the basics.
Vanguardism/Vangard Party:
A 'party of the new type', highly centralised and consisting of a disciplined professional core of revolutionaries. Parties heavily favour underground, secretive organising principles, with a restricted knowledge system based upon one's status/rank within the Party. Usually institutes a Politburo, and/or Central Committee, but leß usually larger structures such as National Congreßes, Conventions, or Aßemblies, as the leading top of the Party.
Democratic Centralism:
functioning principle of how Party decisions are reached. Party hears all arguments, then takes vote. After official proclamation of the vote's outcome, all Party members become obligated to carry out the will of the Party majority until the next vote on that particular matter is held. Inter-Party factionalising is not allowed.
The Basic Questions are: are these two things inter-connected, or can a maß, open party adhere to the tenets of democratic centralism, and a Vanguard Party not utilise democratic centralism for its decision-making? Further, what determines which of these a Party adopts, and what are the strengths and weakneßes of both? (Personally, I think Vanguard Parties, at least in the West, are rife with egotism, and the factionalism borne from it, and due to the nature of a vanguard party, it is much easier for these faction leaders to get persons in the common membership of the party that they dislike expulsed from it {exempli gratia the Party of Communists USA}. I also consider vanguard-style party structtures to be inappropriate for the conditions of the modern West {at this time, at least}).
Resources:
Finnish Bolshevik: The Leninist Theory of the Party
For those who would rather watch a video, this Finnish Bolshevik video covers the structure of a Vanguard Party, what democratic centralism is, and why (in FinnBol's view) they are intrinsically connected.
Draft Programme for the Party rules of the RSDLP
These are the more relaxed, 'open, overt party' rules of the Party proposed by Julius Martov (future leader of the Mensheviks)
Lenin's Second Speech on the Party Rules
In this, Lenin lays out his criticisms of Martov's non-Vanguard 'open Party' proposal.
Severely Abridged Section of Lenin's Letter to a Comrade on Organisational Tasks,
where he formulates the idea of the Vanguard Party led by an 'executive group' (Politburo).
... Specifically, I wholly agree with you that special stress should be laid on the tasks connected with the work on an all-Russian scale and with the work of the Party as a whole; in your draft this is expressed in Clause One, which reads: “The newspaper Iskra, which has permanent correspondents among the workers and close contact with the work within the organisation, is the leading centre of the Party (and not only of a committee or a district).” I should merely like to remark that the newspaper can and should be the ideological leader of the Party, evolving theoretical truths, tactical principles, general organisational ideas, and the general tasks of the whole Party at any given moment. But only a special central group (let us call it the Central Committee, say) can be the direct practical leader of the movement, maintaining personal connections with all the committees, embracing all the best revolutionary forces among the Russian Social-Democrats, and managing all the general affairs of the Party, such as the distribution of literature, the issuing of leaflets, the allocation of forces, the appointment of individuals and groups to take charge of special undertakings, the preparation of demonstrations and an uprising on an all-Russian scale, etc. Since the strictest secrecy of organisation and preservation of continuity of the movement is essential, our Party can and should have two leading centres: a C.O. (Central Organ) and a C. C. (Central Committee). The former should be responsible for ideological leader ship, and the latter—for direct and practical leadership. Unity of action and the necessary solidarity between these groups should be ensured, not only by a single Party programme, but also by the composition of the two groups (both groups, the C.O. and the C.C., should be made up of people who are in complete harmony with one another), and by the institution of regular and systematic joint conferences. Only then will the C.O., on the one hand, be placed beyond the reach of the Russian gendarmes and assured of consistency and continuity, while, on the other hand, the C.C. will always be at one with the C.O. on all essential matters and have sufficient freedom to take direct charge of all the practical aspects of the movement.
For this reason it would be desirable that Clause One of the Rules (according to your draft) should not only indicate which Party organ is recognised as the leading organ (that, of course, is necessary), but should also state that the given local organisation sets itself the task of working actively for the creation, support, and consolidation of those central institutions without which our Party cannot exist as a party.
Further, in Clause Two, you say that the committee should “direct the local organisation” (perhaps it would be better to say: “all local work and all the local organisations of the Party”; but I shall not dwell on details of formulation), and that it should consist of both workers and intellectuals, for to divide them into two committees is harmful. This is absolutely and indubitably correct. There should be only one committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, and it should consist of fully convinced Social-Democrats who devote themselves entirely to Social-Democratic activities. We should particularly see to it that as many workers as possible become fully class-conscious and professional revolutionaries and members of the committee. Once there is a single and not a dual committee, the matter of the committee members personally knowing many workers is of particular importance. In order to take the lead in whatever goes on in the workers’ midst, it is necessary to be able to have access to all quarters, to know very many workers, to have all sorts of channels, etc., etc. The committee should, therefore, include, as far as possible, all the principal leaders of the working-class movement from among the workers themselves; it should direct all aspects of the local movement and take charge of all local institutions, forces and means of the Party. You do not say how the committee should be set up—most likely, here too we shall agree with you that it is scarcely necessary to have special regulations about this; how to set up the committee is a matter for the Social-Democrats on the spot to decide. However, it should perhaps be pointed out that new members should be added to the committee by decision of a majority (or two-thirds, etc.) of its members, and that the committee should see to it that its list of contacts is placed in hands that are reliable (from the revolutionary standpoint) and safe (in the political sense), and that it prepares candidate-members in advance. When we have the C.O. and the new committees should be set up only with their co-operation and their consent. As far as possible, the committees should not have very many members (so that they consist of well-educated people, each well versed in the technique of his particular branch of revolutionary activity), but at the same time they should include a sufficient number to take charge of all aspects of the work, and to ensure full representation and binding decisions. Should it hap pen that the number of members is fairly large and that it is hazardous for them to meet frequently, it might then be necessary to select from the committee a special and very small executive group (consisting of, say, five, or even fewer persons), which should without fail include the secretary and those most capable of giving practical guidance to the work as a whole. It is particularly important that candidate-members be provided for this group so that the work should not have to stop in case of arrests. The activities of the executive group, its membership, etc., should be subject to approval by a general meeting of the committee...
Comments