i want to write a critique of the RCP's approach which insists that DC is both about epistemology and security. And defines it as a "chain of knowledge and chain of command"
These assumptions have been used to define a version of "democratic centralism" we should reject. And so we should grapple with how revolutionary organization SHOULD be built.
In the ASE, ideas and policy flowed from the Districts to the Regions to the 52-strong National Committee. This was democratic centralism in practice. When Lenin was in Britain, in 1902-3, he learnt from our trade unions, especially from the ASE, how to build the Bolshevik Party.
What we do is agree a line, through democratic discussion and decision, and then we put it into practice.
How democratic would it be for a member to then turn round, after the discussion and decision, and say they don't agree with it?
Democratic centralism merely means doing what you have said you will do.
First, discussion, with as wide a spectrum of workers as possible; then agreement by majority vote on what is to be done and how to do it; then, agree to do it; then, do it!
Above all it must be clear transparent to better galvanise the party. This allows the Party to punch above its weight......