|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are going to try to expand on MIM's baseline articles on democratic centralism. Briefly, most people understand that democratic centralism centers on voting and then carrying out majority-rule as one disciplined unit. Our Liberal critics harp endlessly on centralism as just being "obedience."
In other organizations, obedience is indeed stressed. In MIM, we prefer a conscious practice of unity in the fog, which some may nonetheless call obedience. It may be more accurate to refer to it as the frustration of a metaphorical fog of war.
One may not know why the majority voted for what it did: in fact, we are obliged to theorize from our dialectical method, that that happens all the time. Misunderstandings result from an uneven development of political consciousness. So when we disagree with or do not understand the majority or a particular minister, the reason could be lack of political consciousness or error by ourselves, the majority or the minister.
Further than that we have to theorize about what extent centralist unity is possible in the given conditions we live in. What extent is it inevitable that people are going to become frustrated with each other? How much can centralism develop? MIM answered that the limits we face in imperialist countries at this time dictate our strategy of cells. Even on this question, we must spread some yeast.
The relationship of "one divides into two" to the united front
MIM is known for its "one divides into two" spirit. A few years ago, a social-democrat criticized another social-democrat in print with MIM as the reference point: "you are more sectarian than MIM!" The critic went on to show what MIM would do that a social-democrat would not. What the critic meant through misuse of the word "sectarian" was that MIM practices "one divides into two" without regard to popularity, while the two social-democrats were talking about how to advance within electoral constraints.
We must in fact practice "one divides into two" as a matter of scientific advance--the leg of theory. It may be best to think of the other leg as the united front and not the party's internal unity or agitation when it comes to some matters. "One divides into two" makes the party unpopular, but united front for anti-militarist, pro-environment etc. goals is still united front.
MIM shows up at anti-militarist rallies and builds for them in advance without necessarily formally endorsing them. The best way to do this is to report on them in detail without withholding any criticism. So for example, in April, 2006, MIM was building for the April 29th rally with a special focus on criticizing one of the initiators, NOW (National Organization for Women). We build that rally with what we have to say and we would not bother endorsing a rally with so many obvious links to the Democrats and nor would we write an article simply to give props to such a rally. We want to be there, but we want our line to prevail within the anti-militarist movement.
If we did not practice "one divides into two" in theory production, no one would be able to tell the difference between us and NOW on April 29th. Discussion of April 29th also would not be very interesting for that matter.
Many people afraid to practice "one divides into two" do so because they have confused the party with the united front. The party has the job of yeast and if it does not carry out "one divides into two" in the necessary scientific fashion, no one will.
MIM is subject to criticism from people. Our stated goals are to build anti-militarist, anti-imperialist and environmentalist movements. If we make "ultraleft" errors, we are not building a movement simply because we do not dominate it. When Mao started out liberating China, his eventual united front partner Chiang Kai-shek had many more troops and much more money; nonetheless, Mao allied with Chiang. We cannot always be the dominant partner on paper, but we should always possess the line leading to the future--crucially by practicing the dialectics of "one divides into two."
When we make "rightist" errors, that is a result of not applying the party's theory in practice, including criticism of our united front partners. In some very tight situations, it could also be an "ultraleft" error to so much as criticize our united front partners in public. If unity with our united front partners is very high, the possibility of ultra-left error has to be considered. Most errors on the "united front" are "rightist" errors which amount to saying we do not need a party or that we should just tag along with or pimp off of our partners. It is only having independent media that makes it possible to build a united front with numerically and financially superior partners such as NOW.
Not dividing into oblivion
MIM would say it has not made the error of dividing into oblivion. The most obvious divisions that we have ruled out are Liberal ones. By attacking lifestylist pre-politics, MIM has made it clear that we are not going to practice "one divides into two" with the vegetarians, recyclers etc. Such Liberal division is actually popular but it is also a way to divide people along lifestyle lines, while we at MIM find it troublesome enough to divide along class, nation and gender lines. 2x2x2=8, which means that "one divides into two" with just two groups in each of class, nation and gender means there are already eight possible ways of looking at things--quite a bit of trouble already. There are eight basic groups in the world that we are looking at and that makes for a lot of theoretical possibilities.
1. Exploiter, oppressor nation, oppressor gender
2. Exploiter, oppressor nation, oppressed gender
3. Exploiter, oppressed nation, oppressor gender
4. Exploiter, oppressed nation, oppressed gender
5. Exploited, oppressor nation, oppressor gender
6. Exploited, oppressor nation, oppressed gender
7. Exploited, oppressed nation, oppressor gender
8. Exploited, oppressed nation, oppressed gender
In practice right now, groups 7 and 8 are 80% of the world and MIM minimizes the importance or distinctiveness of groups 2, 5 and 6 for most theoretical purposes. Thus MIM does consider eight social groups, but we tend to take it back to two for most purposes--via the "principal contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism."
We could receive credit for not dividing on lifestyle questions in the party, but some may wonder if we are still dividing ourselves into oblivion. To this we answer that we must divide on nation, class and gender sufficiently to achieve communist goals. Most of our energy goes into dividing from the bourgeoisie on the nation and class intersection called imperialism.
Fear of dividing into oblivion along theory lines regarding the eight social groups is absolutely wrong. We need not worry about these groups if there is no party. It's like Stalin said that even without the party at all, the proletariat would "row the boat to shore," just after a much longer period of time. So theoretical division over the eight great social groups is the much lesser evil than "combining two into one" which is what Mao worried about and what MIM hears even from organizations such as ILPS, that one might think are similar to MIM.
Accountability
There are various historical reasons that in many countries, the psychology of the authoritarian ruler is especially appealing. Where the industrial bourgeoisie or finance capital has ruled a long time, in theory, we should have the least of that problem. Even Hitler and Mussolini appeared in countries where there was not a long time of dominance by the industrial bourgeoisie. MIM has studied this question both in existing academic works and MIM's own practice in multiple countries involving intensive examination of thousands of people. We find that even in imperialist countries there is still a strong authoritarian minority.
Nonetheless, MIM is trying to break up the past and move to a future of more advanced and scientific citizens with a better approach to leadership and organizations. This makes us big fans of the Internet's impersynal nature.
No labor aristocracy politics to foul up the works
To have accountability within the party, we need a smaller gap between leaders and led. Ironically, MIM's line on parasitism accomplishes this goal. If someone considers herself "working-class" in the imperialist countries when she is not, MIM is not going to recruit her, simple as that.
One of the old communists of the CP in the early 1930s said in Monthly Review's book on the CP-USA that one thing that shocked him about SDS was to hear work work preparing mailing or other routine tasks and the like to be called "shit work."(1) For so-called working-class people, not to do "shit work" is the goal of life's political activities and therefore, with added Christian flair, it is "hypocrisy" to do it said SDS people and also many petty-bourgeois people today. To hell with these people with the so-called working-class outlook then!
Much to be preferred to the comrade hating "shit work" is the "heroic entrepreneur" who claims to slave away from nothing to build a multi-million dollar fortune. Maybe we can get these entrepreneurs to staple the leaflets and f* the so-called working-class. The CP of the early 1930s had a much better claim to being working-class than SDS, predominantly centered at privileged colleges at a time when admissions policies were much more class-restrictive than today. Probably one benefit the CP of the 1930s had was an artificially created class solidarity whereby everyone could become a labor bureaucrat of a trade union by "working hard enough."
Those who consider themselves working-class when they are more likely some kind of professional parasite are nothing but trouble for proletarian parties in the imperialist countries. It is the bourgeoisie laughing at us. The people of Nepal have to dodge bullets at this moment for revolution, but the f*ing petty-bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries won't staple leaflets and does it in the name of some vague class discontent or out of preference for the bourgeois diversions of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
No matter how honest a leader is, if the followers are too far back or of different mindframe, there can be no accountability in a party. Without conscious effort, whatever leader emerges will be carrying out tasks and undertaking tactical struggles that others simply cannot understand. No sentimentality of egalitarianism can make up for that problem. Such a difficulty is also a limitation on how high democratic centralism can go.
This brings us back to the function of the united front and the party. The party is the scientific yeast in the imperialist countries. Trying to unite with every petty-bourgeois who thinks he is a worker in a party is just not possible. What we can do is show up at the same demonstrations--united front.
People who think MIM does not do enough to contribute to unity of the proletarian camp should criticize MIM for lack of united front work or ultra-left deviation on united front work. It does no one any good to attack MIM for "one divides into two" on theory questions.
Leaders
That is looking at the problem from the side of people called "followers." There is the other side too. It is not actually possible to lead without "one divides into two" applied all the way with the eight social groups. A leader may have to talk about a great variety of subjects, but on the eight social groups, there should be a sharp-as-a-knife stand worked out. Otherwise, there is no accountability yet. No one saying two things at the same time can be accountable. No one who has yet to take the series of stands necessary for a complete picture of the eight social groups is accountable either. With just these two points, MIM has made itself more accountable than 90% of our critics.
On the surface, anarchists and ultra-democrats are going to be criticizing MIM for going with Lenin on the vanguard party. However, uniting a class is a huge task that requires impersynal unity. Despite rhetoric we should consider accountability in practice. If an ultrademocratic newspaper has a PO Box in Los Angeles and MIM does, the comrade in Topeka, Kansas can send in his $100 to either. When the comrade sends $100 to MIM, she knows where MIM stands on the eight social groups in detail and she also knows the party pays the price in popularity for those stands. If for example, the Sandinistas were running the other newspaper, the comrade would have no idea where the Sandinistas stand on the eight social groups. The same goes for the Committees of Correspondence. These organizations are mushier and the important point is, that because they are mushier, they are necessarily less accountable. You do not really know what you are buying when you decide to line up and support the Committees of Correspondence. In fact, it's more like deciding you can't decide.
Periodically, ultra-mushy organizations arise in an attempt to gain numbers by stifling certain questions as supposedly unimportant. The Monthly Review book on the Communist Party USA titled New Studies in the Politics and Culture of U.,S. Communism is a case in point with most of the authors arguing for a mushier party and this being a big fault of the Stalin-era party. What the numbers-obsessed Amerikans do not understand is that there is a price paid for popularity and egalitarian democratic dogmas. The more popularity and the greater pretense at equal membership rights for anyone who claims to be vaguely socialist or communist, the less accountability an organization has.
Trotsky's followers may not know it, but according to his own essays, he in fact testified against the Soviet Union in front of the U.S. House and disclosed Soviet spying techniques and inside information on Japan. Simultaneously with Hitler, he called for independence of the Ukraine. In the name of a mushy unity, people published by Monthly Review tolerating Trotskyism(2) are asking for Trotsky's House Committee socialism to be accepted again. What we really need instead is to use Trotsky as an example of what we will not accept in the future. One can say that Stalin executed too many people as traitors, but one cannot doubt that traitors have been executed in any social revolution and that a line has to be drawn somewhere. A communist cannot come to any defense for Trotsky's crawling to U.S. House Committees or Hitler. That is principled Liberalism.
Social-democrats are not concerned with this problem. They care not about theory or surpassing capitalist organization. They simply seek to find 50% + 1 voter to defeat the other parties in elections. Whatever the hell the social-democrats do after the election--increasing investment in apartheid South Africa like Mitterand in France for example--it did not matter as much as winning the election.
Now voters may accept that they have placed a mushy party in power and do not exactly know what it is going to do once in power, but those same voting-oriented activists should not be telling MIM that it is less democratic than they are. Quite the contrary, there is no democracy without accountability. Speaking out of both sides of one's mouth is not accountability. Therefore people should know they cannot have everything. Popularity in petty-bourgeois populations means a lack of accountability.
In a situation where the members of a party have such varying views, it is actually more accountable to have a bigger gap between leaders and led. The fewer leaders with more concentrated power, the more it is possible to get a definitive view of what the party is doing and stands for. On the other hand, as I said already, a gap between leaders and led creates a different accountability problem, so the better solution, the only solution to advance beyond bourgeois pluralism is not to be a popular party in a petty-bourgeois population of extremely diverse views out of line with communist goals or any goal at all.
Lately, we stress that one can have the picture of the leader one likes; one can know what caps are cool to wear and one can read the biography of a leader and one can love that leader without having a bit of proletarian centralism. The mafia boss and the corrupt ward boss have all the obedient followers, but their form of organization is supposed to be more backward than ours. Part of why we are going to be victorious is that we have a more scientific conception of organization than the bourgeoisie or pre-capitalist ruling classes.
MIM's take on the most advanced form of organization differs from that of anarchists, democrats and pedagogical theorists like Paulo Freire and Joreen. These may all agree that without distribution of information, the organization cannot hold the leader accountable. Immediately, if anything underground has to happen there is going to be a problem. The democratic theorists are going to say the underground has a possibility of corruption, while authoritarians have to argue for "trust."
MIM seeks to cut down on this gap by adding another prerequisite for organization, at least the party organization, not the network called the united front. The additional prerequisite for accountability is capability of the rank-and-file. Democratic and implicitly egalitarian citizenship hopes should be saved for the united front and the future. For now, the party should be elitist. Detailed stands on the eight social groups mentioned above will tend to create an elitist party, like it or not.
Notes:
1. Annette T. Rubinstein, "The Cultural World of the Communist Party: An Historical
Overview," in New Studies in the Politics and Culture of U.S. Communism,
(NY: Monthly Review Press, 1993), p. 246.
2. Mark Naison, "Remaking America: Communists and Liberals in the Popular Front," in New Studies in the Politics and Culture of U.S. Communism, (NY: Monthly Review Press, 1993),p. 67.