 |
| Pix credit here |
My colleague Chris Mittelstaedt recently reposted a portion of a 2018 essay on democratic centralism and intra-Party democracy that got me thinking a little more about this core Leninist concept of Party, and through the Party, State and cultural governance working style. The essay, 齐 彪 民主集中制岂容诋毁 [Qi Biao. Slandering Democratic Centralism] was originally published in Qiushi 2018/07.
The issue, at least in 2018, centered on the erosion of democratic centralism as a fundamental principle of the CPC's working style in favor of democracy--defined, indirectly, as Western style democratic political culture. What is missing, of course, is the rise, after the publication of this essay, of what becomes whole process people's democracy. In a democratic system that is built on an interconnected system of consultation among all social actors each embedded in an appropriate mass organization, the fundamental practice of democratic centralism is necessarily built into the process. That was perhaps less clear in 2018.
What was clearer, though, was the alignment of democratic centralism with historical nihilism as it had come to be understood as an expression of political antisocial behaviors. The object is to counter fears of 历史虚无主义 (historical nihilism) which is itself a manifestation, or the expression of the disciplinary role of democratic centralism, at least as it emphasizes the guidance element of democracy under the leadership of the CPC, or within the CPC, under the guidance of the Central Committee. It was tied as well to its manifestation in the disciplinary tropes of patriotic campaigns (among the masses), here performed through the rituals of history (here, and here), which are themselves an invitation to perform democratic centralism as acts of patriotic allegiance.
The article appears below in the original Chinese and in a crude English translation.
How can democratic centralism be slandered?
March 31, 2018 09:00:00 Source: "Seeking Truth" 2018/07 Author: Qi Biao
[Copy full text]
Democratic centralism is the fundamental symbol that distinguishes Marxist parties from other parties. It is the basic system for our party and country. It runs through the history of the party and the history of world socialism like a red line. For a long time, the academic community has conducted many useful discussions on major issues such as its origin. However, it should also be noted that erroneous thoughts such as historical nihilism, while distorting and denying the history of the Communist Party of China and our country's socialist system, are also distorting and denying the fundamental principle and system of democratic centralism. In this regard, we must dare to draw the sword and resolutely resist.
Destroy history and go to the root: deny the fundamental principle and great role
Democratic centralism is a distinctive feature of Marxist parties that distinguishes them from other parties, and it is also a distinctive feature of socialism that distinguishes it from Western capitalism. The principle of democratic centralism, in short, is to adhere to the principle of combining centralization on the basis of democracy with democracy under centralized guidance. Democracy is the premise and foundation of correct centralization, and centralization is the inevitable requirement and destination of democracy. The two complement each other, are inherently unified, and are inseparable. In the long-term practice of revolution, construction, and reform, our party has unremittingly enriched and developed the theory and practice of democratic centralism, relying on and through democratic centralism to concentrate the wisdom and strength of the whole party and continuously move from victory to victory. It is precisely because they see that democratic centralism is the advantage of our country's fundamental political system that hostile forces have spared no effort to stigmatize it in various ways. They seized the mistakes made in socialist countries and described the history of socialist countries, including New China, as a history of "autocracy" and "darkness", discrediting the leaders of socialist countries, attempting to use this as a breakthrough to fundamentally deny the leadership of the Communist Party and the socialist system and lead China to the Western capitalist road.
As the fundamental system of the party and the country, the existence and abolition of democratic centralism and the quality of its implementation are directly related to the future and destiny of the party and the country. Comrade Deng Xiaoping profoundly pointed out: "If democratic centralism is not implemented well, the party can degenerate, the country can degenerate, and socialism can degenerate." It is undeniable that for a period of time, socialist countries did have the situation of "leaving democracy and talking about centralization, and too little democracy" as Comrade Deng Xiaoping said in the process of promoting democratic politics and implementing democratic centralism. However, after experiencing serious twists and turns, and based on summarizing both positive and negative experiences, China, as the mainstream of contemporary world socialism, has shown stronger vitality: from opening up the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics to entering a new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the Chinese nation has ushered in a historic leap from standing up, getting rich to becoming strong, and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has shown an unprecedented bright prospect. China is increasingly approaching the center of the world stage, and scientific socialism has shown great vitality in China in the 21st century. All of these are closely linked to the principle system of democratic centralism. In "China's Megatrends", American scholar John Naisbitt believes that China has not trapped itself in a situation of party struggle in the name of democracy. China will not only change the global economy, but also challenge Western democratic politics with its own model. In recent years, the sharp contrast between the chaos in the West and the governance in China is very telling.
The political premise of upholding democratic centralism is to resolutely safeguard the authority of the Party Central Committee and its centralized and unified leadership, rather than weaken or even undermine such leadership. The two are highly consistent and highly unified. Practice has proved that since the 18th CPC National Congress, it has been a historical period in which democratic centralism has been fully implemented and the Party and government work styles have fundamentally improved, and it has also been a historical period in which the authority of the Party Central Committee and its centralized and unified leadership have been comprehensively strengthened. Upholding democratic centralism is to uphold the fundamental interests of the nation and the country, and to safeguard the country's political security. Our struggle with some people on this issue is essentially about whether to insist on taking our own path or the Western path. There is no completely identical political system model in the world. Political systems cannot be abstractly judged in isolation from specific social and political conditions and historical and cultural traditions, cannot be set in stone, and cannot be mechanically copied from foreign political system models. We need to learn from the beneficial achievements of foreign political civilization, but we must never abandon the fundamentals of China's political system. China has more than 9.6 million square kilometers of land and 56 ethnic groups. Whose model can we follow? If democratic centralism is abandoned and denied, not only will the party and the country change their nature, but the party and the country's organizational system, power structure and institutional norms may also collapse and disintegrate like some countries that have undergone drastic changes. The tragedy of the country being torn apart may be staged again, and national rejuvenation will become an empty talk. We must never allow the denial of democratic centralism under any excuse to cause chaos in the party and the country, and we must never doubt and waver in this principle system because of some noise.
Digging out the roots and cutting off the source: questioning the historical contribution of the revolutionary mentor
The Communist Party of China is a Marxist-Leninist party established and developed in accordance with Lenin's party-building theory, and implements the organizational principle and leadership system of democratic centralism. The source of this principle system is the party-building theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Marx and Engels put forward the basic ideas of democracy and centralization, laying the foundation for the formation of democratic centralism. Lenin further established the principle system of democratic centralism and scientifically answered the major issues of proletarian parties in party building and management. The status of revolutionary mentors such as Marx, Engels and Lenin as the founders of democratic centralism has not only been long respected by our party, but also generally recognized by communist parties around the world.
However, for some time, some people have been trying their best to spread many specious views on the source of this principle system, attempting to fundamentally subvert people's understanding of democratic centralism. Some people claim that Marx and Engels advocated democracy and opposed centralism. This is fundamentally contrary to historical facts. It is undeniable that according to changes in the situation and the needs of the task, Marx and Engels sometimes emphasized democracy more and sometimes emphasized centralization more, which is similar to the revolutionary leaders guiding the development of the cause. In fact, Marx and Engels always emphasized the necessity and importance of "authority". For example, when summarizing the lessons of the failure of the Paris Commune, Engels pointed out: "The Paris Commune was destroyed because of the lack of centralization and authority"; in his article "On Authority", he systematically demonstrated the necessity and importance of "authority" for the proletarian movement from the perspective of the laws of human social development, which are all emphasis on the issue of centralization. As for the claim that the Social Democratic Party, which opposes centralism, is an "orthodox Marxist party" and that the proletarian parties and leaders who have truly adhered to democratic centralism since Lenin are "the biggest revisionists", it is even more unworthy of refutation. Modern Social Democrats pursue a diversified guiding ideology, and they themselves do not admit that they are the heirs of Marxism. There are many factions within the Social Democratic Party, and the organization is lax. Party members can arbitrarily not participate in organizational life, not attend party meetings, and even not vote for their own party in elections. This is completely different from the basic requirements of Marx and Engels' democracy and centralization. How can there be an "orthodox Marxist party"!
Some people also deny Lenin's creative contribution to democratic centralism. Some scholars have verified that before Lenin discussed democratic centralism, someone had used the concept of "democratic centralism". For example, Schweitzer, then chairman of the All-German Workers' Association, used "democratic centralism" in October 1868, and the Mensheviks also used "democratic centralism" at a separate congress in November 1905. The Bolshevik representative conference chaired by Lenin did not "confirm the principle of democratic centralism" until December of the same year. Some people have judged that the pioneering work of "democratic centralism" should belong to the Mensheviks rather than Lenin, and have further denied the important conclusion that Lenin is the founder of the principle system of a new type of working-class party. This does not stand up to scrutiny at all. According to this logic, the word "socialism" was mentioned by many people before Marx and Engels founded scientific socialism. Can this deny the status of Marx and Engels as the founders of scientific socialism? Before Li Dazhao promoted Marxism, some people also introduced Marxist doctrines. Can this deny Li Dazhao's status as a pioneer of Chinese communism?
The concept of democratic centralism cannot be simply equated with the democratic centralism that established the principle system of the working-class party. The "democratic centralism" of the Mensheviks is mainly in the sense of democracy, while Lenin's definition of democratic centralism reflects a distinctive feature different from the past. In What Is to Be Done?, written from 1901 to 1902, In 1904, Lenin, in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, clearly defined the "basic idea of the foundation of the party" as "centralism", believing that it was "the only principled idea that should run through the entire party constitution". In March of the following year, after "confirming the principle of democratic centralism" at the end of 1905, Lenin further elaborated on the five organizational principles for implementing democratic centralism. Obviously, Lenin's status as the founder of democratic centralism, the organizational principle and leadership system of Marxist political parties, is well deserved.
In fact, some people have political intentions in creating confusion at the source of the establishment of democratic centralism. From not admitting that Marx and Engels had the idea of centralization, to praising Mensheviks and devaluing Leninism, using Mensheviks to suppress Leninism, and claiming that the Menshevik version was the real "original creation", their real intention was nothing more than to deny the essence of "centralization" of democratic centralism from the root, misleading people to understand this major issue concerning the fate of the party and the country according to their own ideas. In addition, some people tried their best to advocate "only democratic socialism can save China" and Western democracy. Isn't it obvious that they intended to change the leadership of the Communist Party of my country and the socialist system of our country?
Forgetting one's ancestors: spreading "outdated theory" with the change of the party's historical position
The Communist Party of China has gone through a glorious 97 years. In the magnificent historical process, the historical position of the party has been constantly changing with the changes in the tasks of the party and the country. After the revolution, construction and reform, the Party has changed from a party that led the people to fight for national power to a party that led the people to seize national power and has been in power for a long time; it has changed from a party that led national construction under external blockade and planned economy to a party that led national construction under opening up and socialist market economy. The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China announced that socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era, which is a new historical orientation for my country's development.
It is worth noting that some people claim that the change in the Party's historical orientation means that the nature of the Party has changed, claiming that democratic centralism is a product of the war era and planned economy, and is outdated under the conditions of reform and opening up and market economy, and regards it as "contrary to the common laws of party activities", attempting to dilute or even cancel democratic centralism. In response to this erroneous tendency, our Party has repeatedly emphasized that under the conditions of reform and opening up and the development of socialist market economy, it is completely wrong to think that democratic centralism can be dispensed with, that each party can act independently, and that centralization and unity, as well as organizational discipline, can be ignored in order to implement reform and opening up and establish a socialist market economy system; democratic centralism is the fine tradition and style of our Party, which can only be strengthened, not weakened. However, for a period of time, under the influence of various erroneous thoughts including historical nihilism, the party has gradually become prominent, with democracy being emphasized instead of centralism, the party's leadership being neglected, weakened, and the political life within the party being loose and soft. Some people, under the banner of "democracy", are self-righteous and talk nonsense, engage in nepotism, form gangs, make anonymous accusations, buy people's hearts, make promises, and become too powerful to be eliminated. Some have reached the point of being unscrupulous and reckless, running counter to the principle of democratic centralism. If it is allowed to develop, democracy within the party will deviate from the party's centralized leadership and deteriorate, and our party will fall apart like the Soviet Communist Party.
Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core has resolutely put forward the major political requirements of upholding and improving the Party's leadership, upholding and improving democratic centralism, and strictly enforcing the Party's political discipline and rules, effectively correcting the vague understanding and erroneous ideas that have emerged in upholding the Party's leadership and democratic centralism for a period of time, achieving ideological unity, political unity, and consistent actions of the whole Party, and greatly enhancing the Party's cohesion, combat effectiveness, leadership, and appeal. The Sixth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee pointed out: "Adhering to the collective leadership system and combining collective leadership with individual division of labor and responsibility is an important part of democratic centralism and must be adhered to at all times. No organization or individual is allowed to violate this system for any reason under any circumstances." The 19th CPC National Congress further emphasized that the whole Party must strengthen the "four consciousnesses", uphold the authority of the CPC Central Committee and centralized and unified leadership; require the improvement and implementation of various systems of democratic centralism, adhere to the combination of centralization on the basis of democracy and democracy under centralized guidance, and fully develop democracy while being good at centralization and unity. This is not only a requirement for the whole Party, but also a powerful response to the erroneous views spread by historical nihilism and other erroneous thoughts on the issue of democratic centralism.
(Author's unit: Central Party History and Literature Research Institute)
Editor: Sun Yuhua, Wei Tianshu
民主集中制是马克思主义政党区别于其他性质政党的根本标志，是我们立党立国的基础制度，它像一条红线一样贯穿于党的历史和世界社会主义历史。长期以来，学术界对其源流等重大问题进行过许多有益探讨。但也要看到，历史虚无主义等错误思潮，在歪曲否定中国共产党历史和我国社会主义制度的同时，也在极力歪曲否定民主集中制这一根本原则制度。对此，必须敢于亮剑、坚决抵制。
灭史去本：否定根本原则和巨大作用
民主集中制是马克思主义政党区别于其他性质政党的鲜明特征，也是社会主义区别于西方资本主义的鲜明特征。民主集中制原则，简要地说，就是坚持民主基础上的集中和集中指导下的民主相结合的原则。民主是正确集中的前提和基础，集中是民主的必然要求和归宿，两者相辅相成、内在统一、不可分割。在长期的革命、建设和改革实践中，我们党坚持不懈地丰富发展民主集中制的理论和实践，依靠和通过民主集中制，集中全党的智慧力量，不断从胜利走向胜利。正是看到了民主集中制是我国根本政治制度的优势所在，敌对势力才一直不遗余力地以各种方式对其污名化。他们抓住社会主义国家发生的失误，把包括新中国在内的社会主义国家历史说成是“专制”“黑暗”的历史，抹黑社会主义国家的领导人，企图以此为突破口，从根本上否定共产党领导和社会主义制度，把中国引向西方资本主义道路。
民主集中制作为党和国家的根本制度，其存废及执行的好坏，直接关系党和国家的前途命运。邓小平同志深刻指出：“民主集中制执行得不好，党是可以变质的，国家也是可以变质的，社会主义也是可以变质的”。不可否认，在一段时间内，社会主义国家在推进民主政治进程中、在民主集中制执行上确实存在邓小平同志所说的“离开民主讲集中，民主太少”的情况。但在经历严重曲折后，在总结正反两方面经验的基础上，作为当代世界社会主义主流的中国展现出更加强大的生命力：从开辟中国特色社会主义道路到进入中国特色社会主义新时代，中华民族迎来了从站起来、富起来到强起来的历史性飞跃，中华民族的伟大复兴展现出前所未有的光明前景，中国日益走近世界舞台的中央，科学社会主义在21世纪的中国焕发出强大生机活力，所有这些无一不与民主集中制的原则制度紧密相连。美国学者约翰·奈斯比特在《中国大趋势》中认为，中国没有以民主的名义使自己陷入政党争斗局面，中国不仅将改变全球经济，而且也将以其自身的模式来挑战西方的民主政治。这些年，西方之乱和中国之治的鲜明对比，就很能说明问题。
坚持民主集中制的政治前提，是坚决维护党中央权威和集中统一领导，而不是削弱甚至破坏这种领导，两者是高度一致、高度统一的。实践证明，党的十八大以来，既是全面贯彻民主集中制、党风政风根本好转的历史时期，也是党中央权威和集中统一领导得到全面加强的历史时期。坚持民主集中制，就是坚持国家民族的根本利益，就是维护国家的政治安全。我们同一些人在这一问题上的斗争，实质是坚持走自己的路还是走西方道路。世界上没有完全相同的政治制度模式，政治制度不能脱离特定社会政治条件和历史文化传统来抽象评判，不能定于一尊，不能生搬硬套外国政治制度模式。我们需要借鉴国外政治文明有益成果，但绝不能放弃中国政治制度的根本。中国有960多万平方公里土地、56个民族，我们能照谁的模式办？丢掉和否定了民主集中制，不仅党和国家要变质改性，党和国家的组织体系、权力结构及制度规范等也都可能会像一些发生剧变的国家那样坍塌瓦解，国家四分五裂的悲剧就可能重新上演，民族复兴就成为一句空话。我们决不能允许以任何借口否定民主集中制而乱党祸国，决不能因出现一些杂音噪音而对这一原则制度发生任何怀疑动摇。
挖根断源：质疑革命导师历史性贡献
中国共产党是依照列宁的建党学说建立发展起来的马克思列宁主义政党，实行民主集中制的组织原则和领导制度。这一原则制度的源头根本是马克思、恩格斯和列宁的建党学说。马克思恩格斯提出了民主和集中的基本思想，为民主集中制形成奠定了基础，列宁进一步创立了民主集中制原则制度，科学回答了无产阶级政党建党管党重大课题。马克思恩格斯和列宁等革命导师作为民主集中制创始人的地位，不仅受到了我们党的长期尊崇，也得到了世界范围内共产党的普遍公认。
但一段时间以来，一些人挖空心思在这一原则制度的来源上散布许多似是而非的观点，企图从根本上颠覆人们对民主集中制的认知。有人宣称，马克思恩格斯是主张民主制而反对集中制的。这与历史事实是根本违背的。不可否认，根据形势变化和任务需要，马克思恩格斯有时对民主强调多一点，有时对集中强调多一点，这与革命领袖指导事业发展有异曲同工之处。实际上，马克思恩格斯始终强调“权威”的必要性和重要性。比如，恩格斯在总结巴黎公社失败教训时指出：“巴黎公社遭到灭亡，就是由于缺乏集中和权威”；他在《论权威》一文中，从人类社会发展规律高度系统论证了“权威”对于无产阶级运动的必要性和重要性等，都是对集中问题的强调。至于有人说反对集中制的社会民主党是“正统的马克思主义政党”，自列宁以后真正坚持民主集中制的无产阶级政党及领袖则是“最大的修正主义者”，更不值一驳。现代社会民主党人奉行的是指导思想多元化，他们自己都不承认是马克思主义继承人。社会民主党内派别林立、组织涣散，党员可以随便不参加组织生活，不出席党的会议，甚至在选举中不投本党的票，更是同马克思恩格斯民主与集中思想的基本要求大相径庭，何来“正统的马克思主义政党”一说！
还有人否定列宁对民主集中制的创造性贡献。一些学者考证，在列宁论述民主集中制之前，就有人使用过“民主集中制”概念。如1868年10月当时的全德工人联合会主席施韦泽就使用了“民主集中制”，1905年11月孟什维克派单独召开的代表大会上也使用了“民主集中制”，而列宁主持召开的布尔什维克派代表会议在同年12月才“确认民主集中制原则”。有人据此判断，“民主集中制”的首创之功应属孟什维克派而非列宁，进而否定列宁是新型工人阶级政党原则制度奠基人的重大结论。这根本经不起推敲。照此逻辑，“社会主义”一词，在马克思恩格斯创立科学社会主义之前就有多人提到，能因此否定马克思恩格斯作为科学社会主义创始人的地位吗？在李大钊宣传马克思主义之前，也有人介绍过马克思主义学说，能因此否定李大钊是中国共产主义先驱的地位吗？
提出民主集中制概念与创立工人阶级政党原则制度的民主集中制决不能简单地划等号。孟什维克派的“民主集中制”，主要是民主制意义上的，而列宁对民主集中制的界定则体现了与过往不同的鲜明特色。在1901年至1902年撰写的《怎么办？》中，列宁从俄国实际出发，认为无产阶级政党组织如果采用“广泛民主原则”，只是一种毫无意思而且有害的儿戏；1904年，列宁在《进一步，退两步》中，明确把“建党基础的基本思想”表述为“集中制思想”，认为它“是唯一的原则性思想，应该贯穿在整个党章中”。继1905年年底“确认民主集中制原则”后的翌年3月，列宁进一步论述了实行民主集中制的五项组织原则。显然，列宁作为民主集中制这一马克思主义政党组织原则和领导制度的创始人的地位，是实至名归的。
实际上，一些人在创立民主集中制的源头上制造混乱，是有其政治意图的。从不承认马克思恩格斯有集中的思想，到抬孟（孟什维克）贬列（列宁主义）、以孟压列，扬言孟什维克的版本才是真正的“首创”，其真实意图，无非是从根源上否定民主集中制的“集中”精髓，误导人们按照他们的意思去理解这一事关党和国家命运的重大课题。再联系一些人竭力鼓吹“只有民主社会主义才能救中国”和西方民主制，其改变中国共产党领导和我国社会主义制度的用意不是昭然若揭吗？
数典忘祖：以党的历史方位变化散布“过时论”
中国共产党已经走过97年光辉历程。在波澜壮阔的历史进程中，党所处的历史方位，不断随着党和国家任务的变化而发生重大变化。党历经革命、建设和改革，已经从领导人民为夺取全国政权而奋斗的党，成为领导人民掌握全国政权并长期执政的党；已经从受到外部封锁和实行计划经济条件下领导国家建设的党，成为对外开放和社会主义市场经济条件下领导国家建设的党。党的十九大宣布中国特色社会主义进入新时代，这是我国发展新的历史方位。
值得警惕的是，一些人宣称，党的历史方位变化意味着党的性质发生了变化，声称民主集中制是战争时代、计划经济的产物，在改革开放和市场经济条件下已经过时，将之视为“违背政党活动的共同规律”，企图淡化甚至取消民主集中制。针对这一错误倾向，我们党一再强调，在改革开放和发展社会主义市场经济的条件下，以为实行改革开放和建立社会主义市场经济体制，就可以不要民主集中制，就可以各自为政，不讲集中统一，不讲组织纪律性，这是完全错误的；民主集中制是我们党的优良传统和作风，只能加强，不能削弱。但一个时期以来，在包括历史虚无主义在内的各种错误思潮影响下，在党内脱离集中讲民主，忽视、淡化、削弱党的领导，党内政治生活宽松软等问题逐步突出。一些人打着“民主”的旗号，自以为是、胡言乱语，搞任人唯亲、团团伙伙、匿名诬告、收买人心、封官许愿、尾大不掉，有的已经到了肆无忌惮、胆大妄为的地步，与民主集中制原则背道而驰。如果任其发展，党内民主就会脱离党的集中领导而变质，我们党就会像苏共那样分崩离析。
党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央果断提出坚持和改善党的领导的重大政治要求，坚持和完善民主集中制，严明党的政治纪律和政治规矩，有力纠正了一个时期以来在坚持党的领导及民主集中制问题上出现的模糊认识和错误思想，实现了全党思想上统一、政治上团结、行动上一致，大大增强了党的凝聚力、战斗力和领导力、号召力。党的十八届六中全会指出：“坚持集体领导制度，实行集体领导和个人分工负责相结合，是民主集中制的重要组成部分，必须始终坚持，任何组织和个人在任何情况下都不允许以任何理由违反这项制度。”党的十九大进一步强调，全党必须增强“四个意识”，坚持党中央权威和集中统一领导；要求完善和落实民主集中制的各项制度，坚持民主基础上的集中和集中指导下的民主相结合，既充分发扬民主，又善于集中统一。这既是对全党的要求，也是对历史虚无主义等错误思潮在民主集中制问题上散布的错误观点的有力回击。
（作者单位：中央党史和文献研究院）
责任编辑：孙煜华 魏天舒
No comments:
Post a Comment