30 ms·
He did in fact have lots of qualms. The history of the various Communist Internationals are all about left/right wing conflict within the party. Even during t
by kylestlb 5y ago
He did in fact have lots of qualms. The history of the various Communist Internationals are all about left/right wing conflict within the party. Even during the revolution there was constant dissent and debate, which some might regard as healthy - until the right-wing of the party (Stalin & friends) laid waste to democratic processes.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoI meant to say that he didn't have any qualms with the 'counter revolutionaries', party internal discussions were a different thing altogather. Also you can't just label these discussions as 'democratic processes', this was a Leninist party 'of the new type'; everyone was supposed to stick to the party line without questions, once a decission was made.
- kylestlb 5y agoYou are referring to democratic centralism, which is a form of democracy.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoDemocratic centralism is a form of democracy, that only gives a voice to a very limited number of cadres, which is the exact opposite of a democracy. It excludes anyone who is not a communist party member by its definition, even in it's most inclusive form. This is motivated by the 'vanguard' role of the party - you see that it is a very insincere form of democracy, as such. The inevitable result of this this form of democracy, as you call it, is the concentration of all power in a very select cirlce of leaders. In other words, the result is a stalinist nightmare, and it doesn't matter who is in charge of the show, the end result is always the same.
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoi think that this story should really be taken as a warning to everyone: if you start to curtail democracy by limiting its domain, then you really end up with the exact opposite of it.