Proriv has its own regular critics. We find it to be very helpful. A certain Kurmeev is noted for his special diligence in this field. The content of his articles convinces us that the party-building principles issue raised by our journal is both relevant and important. It also convinces us that the «treatment» of dogmatism supporters will be difficult and lengthy. Over the past two years, not one issue of our journal has escaped his abusive attention. But what is surprising is that Kurmeev insistently demands to be given a word on the pages of Proriv he criticized. We suggest Mr. Kurmeev publish his own journal in order to avoid problems with publications, e.g. Decist [short for «democratic centralist»] or Economist. Mr. Kumreev has been delaying such a step so far, although he could have made an effort for the sake of victory over a willful «idealist» and «revisionist». However, most of our opponents are only good at showing their emotions.
When one reads Kurmeevs (the best of the CPSU typical representatives) writings, one sees more clearly why Gorbachev’s party lost to such wretched demagogues as Novodvorskaya, Gaidar, Sobchak, Solzhenitsyn and the like. It is not an overstatement to say that all the CPSU members have forgotten how to conduct a theoretical struggle, to CONVINCE, to prove something. It is the same with Kurmeev. He did not betray Marxism, no, he just did not understand the main thing about it: Marxism is a science and requires to be treated as such. But Kurmeev wrongly believed that quotes would transform the mind all on their own. So when it was time to defend Marxism, he simply started to speak quotes, demonstrating his undying loyalty but complete incompetence in applying diamatical [«diamatics» is short for «dialectical materialism»] and even dialectical methods to the study of the specific social-practice cases. And in politics, naivety is worse than plagiarism.
Intending to defend the idea of decism, Kurmeev merely cites some excerpts where the phrase «democratic centralism» occurs and exclaims, «Aha! Get this!», without ever realizing that in dialectics the truth is always concrete and that many classics quotes are only true within their historical objective context. And today there is no Stalin at the head of the party; and the party has neither the authority nor the numbers; and there is no discipline in it (apart from the moment of collecting signatures, and even that is usually a disaster); and the party newspaper comes out rarely and is distributed at gunpoint. So none of Lenin’s and Stalin’s speeches on the affairs in the victorious Bolshevik Party is applicable to the RKRP [Russian Communist Workers’ Party].
Lenin once urged to overthrow the tsarist monarchy and to drop the slogan «All power to the Soviets» in Russia, but it would be absurd to use these theses today as a guideline just because Lenin once used them.
Kurmeev did not understand that democratic centralism in the party dominated by the full-fledged Leninists in its essence differs from democratic centralism in the party dominated by the Mensheviks, just as the design of a nuclear power plant differs from the design of an atomic bomb (not to mention the consequences of their use). The Leninist majority in the Central Committee was leading to the dictatorship of the working class. The opportunist majority in the CPSU Central Committee has led to the capitalist restoration in the USSR. With all due respect to Tyulkin, it is quite obvious that the party that elects Stalin and the party that elects Tyulkin are two very different things.
Trying to prove the immutability of the democratic centralism principle Kumreev cites a large excerpt from Engels’ work, as always, without ever understanding it.
«The great basic thought», writes Engels about Hegels merit, «that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in the end this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted.»
Therefore the principle of democratic centralism cannot be applied indefinitely and irreproachably under all circumstances. Like all things in nature and society, the idea and practice of democratic centralism once emerges, achieves its optimum in the hands of a genius and then becomes anachronistic and forced to obey the law of the negation of the negation, turning into its own opposite, especially when it falls into the hands of tail-enders.
Anticipating the difficulties confronting Kurmeev, Engels writes:
«But to acknowledge this fundamental thought [the universal dialectic of variability, development, — V.P.] in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired.»
How else could one interpret this passage but an invitation by the classic to creatively explore new solutions, especially having suffered crushing defeats?
Lenins genius is proven by the fact that, during his lifetime, he never allowed reactionaries and opportunists to defeat himself on any strategic front, since he, first of all, thoroughly analyzed objective changes, determined their causes and creatively devised NEW policies, strategies and organizational solutions, up to compromises and retreats… for a subsequent planned victory.
The CPSU Central Committee, with its collective mind, born out of Khruschevs democratic centralism, almost led the world communist movement to a complete defeat. Today the situation is fundamentally different than at the time when the First International or the RSDRP was created. Today the world communist movement operates after many of its detachments have suffered the unprecedented DEFEAT. The reason why the Cuban, Korean, and Vietnamese communist parties are still holding out is that they timely separated the wisdom of the Lenin-Stalin period in the USSR history from the Khrushchev-Andropov period, that is, they did not absolutize the principle of democratic centralism, but deliberately fought for the quality of party cadres, being guided primarily by the objective laws of class struggle and, among other things, the practice of party purges.
The current tragic situation calls once again for a creative approach. To deny this is to treat dialectics as nothing more than a buzzword while completely missing the point of it.
Therefore, I would like to remind all those who intend to be published in Proriv that the editorial board accepts material for publication only if it is written by a conscientious author who is able to assess scientificity, relevance and diamaticity of their work on their own, before sending it to the journal; by an author who is able to make THEIR OWN arguments and resort to using quotes only occasionally in order to support his own original conclusions, not to parasite on the classics authority. The editorial board requires material to be perfect from a scientific point of view.
One could say that many materials in Proriv are incorrect. «I wonder who the judges are!» If someone did better, it would be the best critique of Proriv. But we have not seen a single critical article that at least in some way met the criteria of scientific approach yet, only a continuous stream of insulting labels interspersed with quotes out of place. Bankers get less punches from such a leftist press than Proriv.
There are plenty of journals and newspapers today whose motto is «I make it up as I go along, and apologize for stupidity later», including the modern electronic version of the RKRPs belated-news-paper Rabochaya Pravda [Workers truth]. But we ourselves are interested in such materials that reveal a scientific, i.e. competent, conscientious and creative approach to studying relevant, important and still unresolved problems regardless of their literary form.
What do the majority of both left-wing and democratic authors write about? Mainly about «Stalinist» repressions and breaking «news», i.e. about democratic assassinations, celebrity breakups, atrocities committed by democratic market power structures, trade-union fuss, Khimki forest protection and «political prisoners». And when they raise an important theoretical issue, it is only because it has been already raised… by Proriv. Although in doing so they warn readers in advance: they will write at a crush course level. And they do write
At this point, when individual workers, narrow specialists with no previous experience in literary work in the field of social issues, especially with a diamatic bias, are gradually being drawn into the theoretical form of the class struggle, Prorivs editors do not pay much attention to the grammatical and stylistic imperfection of our articles and do not bother to proofread, being sure that a thoughtful reader will not miss the forest for the trees and will pay attention to the main point, not to minor mistakes and typos.
If one is dismayed by grammatical errors, one should read the bourgeois press the grammar police have gathered there. We are interested solely in the scientific quality of our materials, not in philology. Therefore, we will remain merciless only towards tail-enders and decists, be they old-timers or newcomers.
Kurmeev, who claims to be an objectivist, along with our other opponents, is concerned about the subjectivist question: WHO gave the editorial board the right to determine the degree of opportunism in a material? Why do we not allow them to speak freely on the pages of Proriv? Do the editorial board hold meetings and votes when evaluating the quality of articles? Kurmeev, apparently, is not able to imagine the beauty of an organization with no scientific and theoretical minorities, and where, consequently, the authors have no need to spend their time and effort on internecine fights anymore.
Lenin, as we know, highly appreciated a brilliant «booklet» co-written by Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Is it possible to imagine that Marx and Engels came to a consensus on the wording with a vote? The advocates for dogmatic attitude towards the idea of democratic centralism should be upset by the fact that Marx and Engels did not adhere to any democratic procedures, and yet created an imperishable scientific work. That wont do. If one is looking for an organizational ideal, it should surely be the joint work of Marx and Engels on The Communist Manifesto, the best example of informal work in the name of worldwide historical efficiency.
There is not the slightest reason to believe that we could bring ourselves at least a micron closer to the truth by improving the voting mechanisms and the accuracy of vote count. Of course, one could argue that Marx and Engels were geniuses and therefore they were able to create a brilliant work without ever resorting to a democratic vote, and, since there are no geniuses today, everything needs to be put to a vote.
And what if, indeed, we were to substitute thorough theoretical work with democratic procedures? Would this allow one to write something brilliant without an effort by any chance? One could, for instance, arrange annual elections for the post of a genius, with re-election every next year. Thus, in a short historical period, every member of the group, being formally elected by majority, would eventually end up in a toga of a genius and write something.. although, it would be most likely something grievous.
Having materialistically evaluated the historical reasons for the existence of the democratic centralism principle and the extent to which it could be applied in the communist organization, our editorial board do not make any reports and re-elections by a vote anymore. The editorial board, keeping its head out of the clouds, organizes work according to the specific scientific potential of its comrades, time and time again being convinced of their utmost scientific integrity. Although initially such suggestions were made: to develop an overall work plan for the editorial board without taking into account today’s actual creative capabilities of the authors. Sure, it is useful to have some kind of ideal program for the editors to navigate by, but we have to keep our feet on the ground.
In the future, as the number of scientifically trained people in the organization increases, the editorial board will bring the planning level to its optimum. But we are not going to put the organizational cart before the ideological horse and will strictly follow Lenins idea that ideology predominates over organizational work. Although, at the same time, we must avoid bringing this idea to the point of absurdity, as the RKRP once did when its lectures and seminars were nothing more than idle chatter that had no connection whatsoever with organizational party work among working masses.
In modern, communist in name, parties, all organizational work revolves around a democratically elected Central Committee, parliamentary staff turnover or around the complete ideological void of Zyuganov’s Autocracy and Nationality, whilst they do not want and cannot establish even Marxist study groups, let alone organize publishing work.
The members of Prorivs editorial board study and discuss objective strategic problems of social practice (as well as articles sent on this topic) all the time, voluntarily and conscientiously, until these issues are fully conceptualized. Articles by members of the editorial board, at the request of the authors themselves, are also studied and discussed by all other members and by a wider circle of activists. But often enough such articles are published without prior discussion, under their authors full responsibility.
A newcomers material, if it is considered to be interesting enough, may be returned to its author with commentary and recommendations. At times, an author may ignore our suggestions, in which case our cooperation on a given material ceases. If one of the editors considers a submitted material to be anti-scientific, it is usually rejected without further discussion. This principle has not failed us thus far.
Over many years of working together in various periodicals (Rabochaya Pravda, Sovetsky Soyuz, Proriv), i.e. over almost 15 years of intensive self-study of THEORY, all current members of the editorial board have reached the required scientific level and have repeatedly proved it by engaging in propaganda, agitation, literary work and REAL struggle against opportunism within and outside the RKRP in PRACTICE. This struggle, naturally, had been conducted with varying success and turned out to be an excellent school for everyone in Proriv, which allowed the journal’s team to last for a relatively long period of time. In other words, we do not need democracy in the editorial board in the form in which it exists today, for instance, in the Communist Party or the RKRP where, thanks to democratic centralism, opportunists have been holding the majority for a long time now.
Naturally, while advocating scientific centralism, we ourselves have not yet surpassed the best examples of military discipline (all in good time), but a socio-political organization that does not strive for this is simply lying when it claims its goal is to establish the dictatorship of the working class. That is, a discipline should surpass that of the military in terms of accuracy and commitment, not in terms of blunt soldiering. The latter was already typical during the Khrushchev-Gorbachev period for the party and the Soviet army alike, when party members cynically attended party meetings or when grass was painted green in order to please the generals.
From the bitter experience of the CPSU and the RKRP an important conclusion should be made: an increase in the party members level of education cannot occur separately from the ACTUAL problems of the theoretical form of class struggle, both within and outside the editorial board and the party. Having decisively separated with opportunists our focus in the theoretical form of class struggle shifted to strengthening the PRACTICAL training of the members of the organization; and when and if a polemic on a certain issue ends, it ends not by a vote but by developing a scientifically valid position.
Within the organizations objective experience, both victories and defeats in the theoretical form of the class struggle constitute those real opposites whose unity is absolutely essential for becoming a competent, skillful propagandist, agitator and organizer. And what is meant by defeat is, first of all, a failure at convincing an.. opportunist. Because in some cases our opponent is definitely well-read (seems to be no fool), yet does not want to arm their conscience with diamatics and as a result constantly tries, at the very least, to join some trade union, register with the Justice Ministry or get into the Duma. Due to still insufficient propaganda quality and the amount of work done, the editorial board puts the lion’s share of the blame for such a course of events on itself too.
For a propagandist, to make a wandering bull (i.e. a fanatical opportunist) change his mind is to prove his scientific expertise. From a pedagogical perspective this is the most difficult task: to convince a profoundly erring, but psychophysiologically healthy and even intelligent opportunist. Lenin at times succeeded in this with some of his ideological opponents. For example, Chicherin, Krasin, Lunacharsky and some other Social Democrats, who once were confused in theoretical matters, owe Lenin their ideological recovery. In other words, the ability to convince those who went astray, to return them to the path of a scientific worldview is the highest practical confirmation of the propagandists scientific competence. Of course, to discredit a particular opportunist in the eyes of readers is not a bad result in itself. But the ultimate measure of a propagandist’s scientific maturity is still the ability to convince an ideological opponent, to destroy misconceptions in his mind. Oftentimes, Porivists set themselves this task as well.
Educating people who have not yet been corrupted by opportunism is a simpler problem, and therefore a more relaxing one. It gives rise to the syndrome of ideological shapkozakidatelstvo [unfounded confidence], formalism and uncritical dogmatism, i.e. all that which affected the system of higher humanitarian education in the CPSU. Intimidated by exams and drunk on the thought of a future career, students of party schools were a soil ready to be «fertilized» by all sorts of Volkogonovs, Likhachevs, Arbatovs, Gaidars in their empty meaningless lectures.
A person not yet blinkered by opportunism and philistinism does not need to be persuaded. What they need is to be competently educated, while understanding, however, that in political education a 100% result is impossible as long as classes (hence vice, temptations and the centuries-old market tradition of venality) exist. A strict, concrete and substantive personnel policy is needed, and democratic centralism, as the history of the once great communist parties collapse has proved, is completely unsuitable for this purpose.
Such an approach is no invention of Proriv. We simply have once again found confirmation of Lenins genius in our own experience. Lenin had been patiently and skillfully convincing many of his misguided contemporaries and had taught us, the descendants, that no curriculum could add anything to the educational process.
To a certain extent, out of all tasks facing a teacher and party pedagogy, developing curriculums is the most simple one. Marxism demands a communist to show their PERSONAL intellectual diligence, to master all the treasures of knowledge created by mankind PERSONALLY. In addition, it is necessary to systematically test your competence in the practice of personal struggle against opportunism and in the personal experience of teaching sympathizers. After all, it is clear that neither Marx nor Engels was officially taught diamatics. They had been learning everything by themselves, rummaging through thå intellectual heritage of the world, exposing the opportunists of their time and creating diamatics in the process. History proves that there are always those in society whose self-education process is interrupted only by death. Such was, for example, late A.B. Kallistov, the author of many articles in Proriv.
Kurmeev could add a hundred sections on dialectics to the party curriculum, but such an exuberance is worthless unless Kurmeev shows a personal example, unless he himself studies at least the preface to Hegels Science of Logic and personally processes the entire book in a materialistic way.
Lenin taught that the ideological and political content of the organization is entirely determined by its lecturing personnel. For those who are now actively working in Proriv the primary lecturers, so to speak, were Aristotle, Smith, Ricardo, Spinoza, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Frunze, Makarenko. That is, we had treated Lenin’s instructions not as a quote but as a mandatory guide to action. The economist Popov, the Trotskyist Novikov, the opportunists Zyuganov, Podberezkin, Kara-Murza and even Pugachev and Ferberov were never among our lecturers, although, while overcoming disgust and sometimes choking with laughter, we had to read their writings.
Many of our opponents are convinced that only the classics had the right to eccentrically waste their time meticulously studying the works of Aristotle and Petty, Quesnay and Boisguilbert, Hegel and Feuerbach, and on the part of the elected ideologists of the RKRP to do the same would be childish. There’s no time. The main objective is to develop a proper election strategy. You need to know how to march with banners and fish out of the CPSUs textbooks of the stagnation period ready-made quotes of the classics. For the same reason, i.e. due to the glaring marxist non-erudition, almost the entire academic staff of the CPSU now peacefully works in bourgeois universities and does not even think of writing for the left-wing press. «Marxism» adopted by these professors only in the form of scattered quotes for career reasons has preserved their petty-bourgeois worldview in its pristine, i.e. monkey form.
Polemicizing with the quotes-truncators and struggling against the economists, tail-enders, labourites within the RKRP, Proriv has acquired scientific-theoretical and -practical skills that would be impossible to acquire through lectures and seminars alone. As Marx taught, the best education is self-education, the best learning is self-learning. Having ensured the unity of theoretical and practical training through the struggle, the editorial board has come to a point when the opinion of any member of our team is sufficient for making a decision to refuse publication in our journal to an author. Moreover, it is not about blind trust in each other or fear of starting or losing a discussion, it is about years of confirming everyones scientific maturity and conscientiousness in practice, and this fact especially irritates our opponents.
It is not difficult for the members of our editorial board to UNMISTAKABLY identify an opportunist now. Some authors, having figured out our methods of selecting materials, tried to lull our vigilance by following tactics: they would propose us one or two articles in which they managed to adhere to Marxism-Leninism and, for example, in the third article, somewhere in the middle of the text, they would put some opportunistic nonsense. Such articles, naturally, had not been published, and cooperation with these «cunning» authors was ceased.
The matter is greatly facilitated by the fact that modern opportunists write their articles exclusively at a dictionary or crush course level, as they themselves admit. And they do it not for the purposes of making the intellectual work easier for the proletarians (which notion is deeply erroneous in itself), but because the authors of these country-style works can no longer rise above the level of the Gorbachev CPSU. If not for the large array of incorrectly cut and erroneously commented quotes from the classics, there would be nothing left to read in these articles at all.
Some of the rejected by the editorial board authors still do not understand that their position is an opportunistic one not because they set out to write opportunistic articles, but because they CANNOT yet write communist articles and, no matter what topic they try to research, they inevitably end up with a sorry sight.
Some modern opportunists, including Kurmeev, are honest guys who are ready to give their lives on a battlefield fighting for socialism if, somehow, a million proletarians spontaneously would end up there. But they themselves are not able to take this million to the streets today. «We ourselves cannot not do it, but we will try to keep others from doing it as well.»
Their problem is that they had studied the works of the classics in the truncated form in which they migrated from one stagnant CPSU textbook to another, an even more stagnant one, and they led the party along the path of increasing deviation from Bolshevism. For example, during the Gorbachev-Ligachev period this «Lenins» quote was migrating from one textbook to another: «And the system of civilized cooperators is the system of socialism.» And everyone in the CPSU believed that this was the quote. Although, in fact, Lenin wrote, «… And the system of civilized cooperators with public ownership of the means of production, with the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie this is the system of socialism.» As they say, feel the difference.
A fairly dynamic alignment of the theoretical training levels between our comrades was achieved due to serious attitude from all members of the editorial board to learning and mastering diamatics, and therefore the editorial board does not feel the slightest need today for any formal structuring of our team, in establishing any formal hierarchical levels and subordination. We are, above all, comrades who are confident in each other and who do not accept an unabashed dumping of one’s work, especially any donkey work, onto someone else. Everyone does everything they can and should, without urging or voting, sometimes at the limit of their capabilities, overcoming everyday difficulties. And that is the only reason why our journal, although at low speed, has been working for more than ten years, producing materials that do not leave readers apathetic.
This style of work proved too much for some of our former activists. They have moved into the category of sympathizers doing their best to help the editorial office in technical matters. Others, who had previously been «just» the authors, agreed to become the members of the editorial board. This procedure required only their own consent, not a meeting with a vote.
Almost all the issues our journal faces are solved through the mobilization, by each and every activist, of their own party CONSCIENCE, given that the word conscience in its scientific sense means diamatics applied to the assessment of ones own actions and motives which guide an individual on a case-by-case basis. The conscience of a person who has mastered diamatic thinking is more productive than any other forms of self-assessment and self-management.
Within the editorial board, scientific centralism has also been tested in the sense that when one of the members suggests any material for general discussion, everyone studies it and then shares their assessments and judgments, while SCIENCE remains the main criterion for making a decision. And we have no one to blame for the fact that, on all issues raised, the editors and most journals regular authors find themselves on the same side, especially when it comes to the opportunists and their articles. Science does not imply pluralism of opinions. This is what constitutes our scientific centralism in the first place.
When a certain group leans toward democratic centralism it is a litmus test showing that the majority in this organization has no scientific training. Hence all the multicolored stupidity and the need to find out whose and what stupidity is quantitatively prevailing today. Naturally, in such a case history has nothing else to offer but the shot in the dark method, i.e. democratic voting. But then the party members are likened to a simple-minded and perpetually deceived demos, not the party of a scientific worldview.
When Kurmeev is outraged by our categorical attitude towards his opportunistic articles, it simply means that Kurmeev, an expert in quotations from marxist textbooks, admits his inability to determine the degree of scientific validity of the material. How can we talk about the theoretical form of class struggle when the editorial staff is unable to distinguish an opportunistic material from a scientific one? Does the reader determine the degree of scientific validity of the material then? Whatever they say goes? And if most readers say Kurmeyev is right, does it mean it is true?
The Prorivs team does not mind its articles being reprinted by any other periodical, but it never begs other editors permission to place its materials in their publications. Firstly because, within a market economy, it is impossible to find a marketable periodical committed to a conscientious (i.e. a scientific) point of view, there is simply no such thing in Nature. It is absolutely impossible to assume that a private publication owned by an oligarch would be conscientious and conduct a scientific point of view on a market economy, stock exchange fraud, corruption, etc. And secondly because there is no need for this under the circumstances. The journal’s team is able not only to tap the keys, but also to carry out all the necessary publication activities.
The analysis of Kurmeev’s letters has repeatedly convinced the members of the editorial board that he and, for example, Ligachev are not in fact bad people, but they are no-good Marxists. They belong to the exact cohort of party members who blindly believed their institute lecturers, never following the Marxist principle «Doubt everything, especially your own thoughts». Such «activists» have always allowed anyone to take them, so to speak, for a ride: Khrushchev, Andropov, Gorbachev, Yakovlev
To prove Kurmeevs theoretical negligence, let us take a look at his final words from one of his recent letters to the editors:
«Think about it, comrade. Who is right: the democratic centralists Lenin and Stalin or the scientific centralist Podguzov?»
Think about it, comrade. Were Lenin and Stalin the democratic centralists or were they the communists, in the true sense of this word? Let us recall, comrades, by what criteria did Lenin determine to what extent a person was a communist? By their attitude towards the dictatorship of the working class or by their attitude towards democratic centralism? Lenin and Stalin were so much superior as the communists, they were carrying out the SCIENTIFICALLY based concept of the dictatorship of the working class in such an uncompromising manner that, unfortunately, none of the party members has been able to stand on a par with them in the eyes of the working people for a long time.
Why do modern workers not join the Communist Party or the RKRP? Well, because neither Zyuganov nor Tyulkin is considered by anybody to be a father of a scientific approach to modern politics. Both of them hold leading posts in their respective Central Committees only thanks to the formal will of the majority (i.e. democratic centralism) which itself is detached from science.
According to The Communist Manifesto, what distinguishes the communist from any other workers party member?
Is it a reverent attitude towards the principle of democratic centralism or is it the highest exactingness towards ones own scientific expertise in order to perform a function of the vanguard of the working class?
No matter how many times I read the Marxist classics, I always find there care for, above all, the uncompromising conduction of the SCIENTIFIC principle in the personnel policy of the communist party building; that any other principle, including the principle of democratic centralism, not only does not play a positive role, but in general turns into a complete nonsense without applying the SCIENTIFIC principle, without bringing party members and party work to an absolutely NECESSARY quality level.
The Communist Party is not the party of democratic centralism but the party where the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of its leadership holds a SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW, otherwise it is not a communist party at all, no matter how democratically its leadership is elected and how obligatory the implementation of its unscientific decisions is.
It is ridiculous to think that a party devoid of people knowing diamatics in its central organs, but otherwise full of democratic centralism believers, who systematically re-elect each other to leadership positions and obey any decision of the majority with no regard to its content, could be a communist one.
V. Podguzov, 2013
Proriv Experience: Scientific Centralism at Work: 3 комментария
It’s shocking how I’ve found myself having similar issues with people that I’ve tried to teach or argue with on the question of democracy in particular. I guess opportunists will always be opportunists regardless of borders…. Thank you for the article comrade!
It’s shocking how I’ve found myself having similar issues with people that I’ve tried to teach or argue with on the question of democracy in particular. I guess opportunists will always be opportunists regardless of borders…. Thank you for the article comrade!
Эллиот, спасибо вам за твердость вашей позиции в вопросах соединения рабочего движения с наукой.