Left Parties

by Joe Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:13

Might help if you actually defined what you mean by democratic centralism somewhere Davy. Otherwise in my experience the SWP tends to define DC according to what they think the listener might like to hear.

There is a useful discussion of what DC means and its consequences at http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html by an ex CWI member but the problems alsoo obviously apply to other groups. I'm sure this sounds familar to many

" permitted to indicate the slightest disagreement in the leadership... There was uniformity, which at times came dangerously close to conformism... The tendency became unused to genuine discussion and debate. To be frank, many comrades (including ‘leading comrades’) simply stopped thinking. It was sufficient just to accept the line of the leadership... We have a situation where the leadership enjoys such trust that it amounts to a blank cheque; where there is uniformity of ideas, in which all dissent is automatically presented as disloyalty; where the leadership is allowed to function with virtually no checks or accountability, under conditions of complete secrecy from the rank-and-file"

"...no decisions of any significance are taken without the full knowledge and consent of the General Secretary, and that the great majority of them are taken, either on his initiative, or at least with his active participation.... The full-timers tend to order and bully the comrades, instead of convincing them. They rely upon the political authority of the leadership handed down from the past, in order to get their way. If you do not accept the targets handed down by the full-timer, you are "not a good comrade", you are "conservative", and so on."

and indeed

"We were taught to absolutely hate every other political organization that there was. .... But other Trotskyist groupings were the worst. We just laughed at them in internal meetings. We called them ‘the sects’ and took the view that they were incapable of any development at all. They were good for a laugh at best, but really the attitude towards anybody else claiming to be Trotskyist was that they were the complete enemy of everything we stood for. If we ever had taken power God knows what we would have done to them."

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:29

Joe thanks for the imput and a bit of reading to kick it of. D

by Akrasia Wed Jul 21, 2004 13:49

Centralism restricts autonomy and freedom.
I believe that this can be stated as a fact as there is no possible logical alternative outcome. (History has proven this also)

These restrictions on freedom and the strength of authority have been the most obvious common factors in every single murderous, despotic and brutal regime that I can think of. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that in Soviet Russia, whatever the socialist aspects to life that may have existed, the extreme limitations on the personal freedom of the citizens led to all the preventable economic, ecological and social catastrophes that were suffered in that period.

Those with power became corrupt alarmingly quickly and such widespread corruption must lead us to conclude that the structures that were in place must have had corrupting effects.

Centralist democracy needs to be enforced against those who disagree with the decisions handed down (very often with good reason) In a revolutionary situation this often allows leaders to justify military power against dissidents under the pretence that such measures are necessary to protect against counter revolutionary forces.
Propaganda is used by the central authority to sell the decisions to the public. In all examples of DC the governments have decided that the average person is incapable of understanding or unworthy of the truth surrounding policies and decisions so dishonesty becomes normal. The Communist parties throughout Europe have a terrible history of lying about political opponents and manipulating facts to suit them. The SWP continues this proud tradition to this very day.


DC is an elitist system where individuals feel it is necessary to lead vanguard revolutions and defend them on behalf of the people. There is never any mechanism that requires these vanguards to relinquish power to the people once the revolution has been successfully defended or if the people feel they are not being represented properly.
Elections are only tolerated if it can be assured that the correct outcome will be achieved (another tradition continued by the SWP)

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 13:51

A bit of time, so


Joe as stated, this is just an introduction on my dealings with other left parties as I will go into it in depth in a later {detailed} article of my 'Firm' understanding of Democratic Centralism.. This as I come to my 'own' still developing understanding to such, as stated from the onset.

So if I need to know and undertanding something I, as I have always done will search for my own answers.

Therefore I pose the above questions, in part, and in that context, as to find other activists views and experiences on such, as it all begins to pull together threads of understanding from the whole range of the 'activist community', for the 'activists community'.

I have read your link attached and will read through it again, but I will say finally,

that it is 'my' firm belief and conviction that open debate within organisations and as importantly between 'differing activist's' individuals, groups, organisations and parties members, is nothing to fear, and it does not have to always begin or come from above.

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:08

Hi Akrasia,

I will deal with the specific points of interest for oneself.

'Centralism restricts autonomy and freedom.
I believe that this can be stated as a fact as there is no possible logical alternative outcome. (History has proven this also)'

Why is it a fact, is it soley because of History, - does history dictate for the present, or indeed the future?

Is is not as people have raised before, about the nature of various parties, or is it solely DC itself and its structures?

Are you saying that a majority decision should not be followed, if so, what replaces it?

Will differing mechinism {as you state} make a difference, what are they, and why?

by a clue Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:12

What society exists today that is organised under 'DC' that has not turned into a human rights nightmare and economic disaster?

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:18

therefore, 'does history dictate for the present, or indeed the future? Or is their more, ie - 'Questions'.

by pat c Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:18

(This is the type of culture you get under DC pat c)

Hair-Raising Hair, Skinheads Banned from Stage

HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam has banned skinheads and actors with uncombed or colored hair from performing on stage to preserve "traditional aesthetic values," the culture ministry has announced.

Regulation 47, issued last week, said the ministry had banned "all hairdos that inflict horrors, colorfully painted or dyed hair, uncombed hair, shaved heads, racy and revealing dresses and make up that goes against traditional aesthetic values" from the stage.

The communist country enforces strict censorship of all public performances, but this regulation has made some theater people unhappy.

Full story at:

by Joe Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:23

This is sort of why I asked for a definition of what was meant by DC. The SWP has a traditional trick of pretending various points of leninist dogma are really no more than something everybody already accepts.

Above D suggests that without DC you can't have 'majority decisions'. Huh? Is he suggesting that when me and three mates decide to go to the cinema rather than pub because 3 of us want to go to the cinema and only 1 to the pub we have somehow formed a 'democratic centralist' organisation?

If thats all democratic centralism was then few would object to it and indeed just about every organisation from the GAA to college debating societies is 'democratic centralist'.

I'll offer a definition.

Democratic centralism means you have some say in who makes decisions for you. In terms of leninist parties it means from time to time you get to vote for who comprises the leadership (the democracy part). That leadership then gets to tell you what to do (the centralism part). You have to do what you are told and you are forbidden telling others outside the party (and sometimes inside) that you think the leadership are wrong.

by Harry Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:32

Does the ordinary SWP member get to nominate people to run in an election for the Centralist bit of DC and if so do they get to vote for a list of those nominated for the Democratic bit of DC?

by Joe Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:47

My understanding is that all SWP members get to vote at conference for a 'slate' that forms the incoming leadership. The out going leadership suggest a slate and without exception this wil lbe the one chosen. Depending on the dynamics within the leadership group this may change a little from year to year. So if someone falls out of favor with the rest of the leadership they will not be on the suggested slate.

It's a system pretty much guranteed to provide a leadership where changes can only happen with the approval of the leadership. Just to make sure SWP members are not allowed to form an internal group (a faction) arguing for an other course of action or another slate of leaders until 6 weeks before a conference. In the situation where you have 13 odd branches this pretty much makes it impossible to even find those who already agree with you, nevey mind then convince the rest of the organisation.

This is all pretty secondary though to the fact that any DC system means that you are handing over your decision making power to someone else who will be able to tell you what to do. It's pretty like Dail elections in other words.

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:47

Again on specific points of interest to oneself re - the last posts,

You asked for a definition of DC and I had stated that ' I ', {as stated also in my article} am developing still ‘my’ understanding on such. With that I am interested in hearing others position on such. Your definition though, is that, ‘your’ definition as you have developed. {Although many would disagree with it as of course others would agree}

I can of course give the dictionary or one particular view of DC but as I stated that is not what this article {Intro} or this engagement is about. Although as stated I will give my understanding {still developing} in time. So it is in that context I engage..


Finally have not stated that without DC you cannot have a majority decision, in fact the ARN has not worked via DC, was again but seeing what others thought as so to get an understanding of alternative views

PS - My questions are raised in a fraternal way for fraternal debate in and for an exchange of view points. D

by Joe Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:52

D I'm not sure how you think you can have a debate when one side refuses to outline what their actual position is!

So I'm forced to assume your position is what I understand the SWP position to be (and my understanding would include that you would have to pretend this was your position even if it were not!).

I think in terms of the 'new movement' DC is quite clearly dead, indeed one thing it formed around was the desire to bury it. In other words maybe we could resurrect Lenin but to be honest why would we want to?

Those interested in the development of DC in the British SWP can read more at the link below

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:56

I have said recently on Indymedia that I will respond on all such issues in relation to DC in my second detailed article {including the issue of slates etc} when I have come to 'my' understanding of Dc.

This not only in relation to the SWP but taking in my experiences of all DC organisations presently, as well as 'learning' from history.

Have to go will try to come back later D

Thanks to those that engaged. D

by SPwatch Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:56

Joe has put together a good outline of what D C means in reality. This would also be true of how the SP operate especially the election of slates at Conferences. the outgoing SP NC nominates the incoming NC! This NC slate is then "democratically" approved by the conference.

by Anarcho Andy Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:04

Democratic centralism is the worst thing which can happen to any party.

The SP/SWP are an example of this - Tourish's arguments are spot on when applied to the CWI in particular bar one or two points.

He ,makes the points:

The group’s beliefs are immune to falsification. No test can be devised or suggested which might have the effect of inducing a reappraisal. The all-embracing quality of the dominant ideology precludes re-evaluation, since it implies both omniscience and infallibility. Methods of analysis which set themselves more modest explanatory goals are viewed as intrinsically inferior. Those who question any aspect of the group’s analysis are branded as deviationists bending to the ‘pressures of capitalism.’

This can applied to so many of the The sp/swp membership who have made the choice to leave on that basis.

by D Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:07

Joe,

I thought I had said several times, ' I am developing my position, this is about engagement to see other views, I will detail in depth 'my' understanding in a second article when I have arrived at that understanding'

I do not 'pretend what my position is as the above statement could not be more clear to the objective reader as to that poistion.

You say what you are against, what though are you for and why is it better, Must Dash, D

by Louis Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:09

Does anyone ever find it interesting how the SP national Committee, is usually the same people - with the odd exception now and again??

Democratic me arse. The Socialist Party is one of the most undemocratic parties in this country.

The thing that pains me is that the SP frequently stick their chests out and argue that everyone else is wrong except them - they are unwilling to listen to any criticism or alternative argument which they will brand as unscientific and not marxist

by Joe Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:23

D I'm in the WSM so in terms of that organisation the decision making process I'm involved in is outlined at http://struggle.ws/ppapers/constitution.html

by Chekov Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:26

There are two major problems with Democratic Centralism in my opinion - the democratic bit and the centralist bit!

1) Democratic. As Joe has pointed out above, democracy in DC is generally limited to choosing the people who will make the decisions - a pretty wafer thin version of democracy. This is compounded by the fact that the leadership's ability to nominate a new slate generally allows it to choose the leadership.

2) Centralist. There is a natural tension in all organisations between the collective and the individual. Most healthy organisations grant a certain amount of autonomy to the various sub-groupings and individuals that make up the organisation. That is to say that although some decisions are taken in a centralist way, by majority vote or whatever, there are large areas that are effectively left to be decided by local or individual choice.

In contrast to this centralism, the federative organisational principle states that it is up to the constituent parts of the federation to decide which areas are subject to centralised decision making - everything else being outside of the remit of the federation and autonomously decided. This also extends to the individual as the federative concept of the organisation generally sets strict bounds on those areas affecting individuals that the organisation can take decisions upon.

The DC organisational model is the most extreme form of centralism that I know of. There is in practice afaik no delimitation on the bounds of centralised decisions. So, for example, it is quite consisent with DC practices to take binding decisions on such personal areas as the hairstyles of members (as above) and their cultural choices. It is also quite typical of DC organisations to dictate in minute detail the activity of the constituent parts (for example 'you should have a stall every saturday outside shopping centre x').

To some extent, the problems with DC can be traced back to its origins in the illegal bolshevik party in Russia in the early years of the century. It does make some sense for an organisation that is essentially on 'war footing' where the smallest mistake could have very serious consequences. In an environment where political activity is legal and where there are significant civil liberties, it makes no sense at all.

However, I think that one can trace the problems of DC back further, to the origin of Marxism. For all their insight into economic matters, the followers of Marx have generally tended to completely ignore the question of power and its ability to corrupt those who hold it.

by LennonisT FRONT - THE BEATLES Wed Jul 21, 2004 21:38 Penny Lane

Joe your wrong yet again. Several years ago SWP conference voted in alternative slate in opposition to the outgoing committee after an huge bebate.Plenty of internal debate.

For all the dangers that anarchists point out with DC I have yet to hear how you take on a centrally controlled system like capitalism and its state without some form of organisation that can function together
coherently during a revolutionary period.
Oh but I forgot you guys dont believe that you have to take on and replace the state do you?

Lastly if anyone believes that the working class in a revolutionary situation are going to be hoodwinked by evil lenninists they are bigger fools then this tread already suggest .

by Badman Wed Jul 21, 2004 21:56

"Lastly if anyone believes that the working class in a revolutionary situation are going to be hoodwinked by evil lenninists they are bigger fools then this tread already suggest ."

Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, DRC.... Nah, it could never happen.

Incidentally, I should point out that until your arrival on this thread, it was largely conducted without the usual scattering of abuse that we often suffer from on indymedia. Thanks for remedying that.

To paraphrase Kent Brockman "your angry rant against everybody who disagrees with you is worth much more than real argument ever could be.

by . Thu Jul 22, 2004 00:56

It is a while since I have been in touch with SWP thinking but I understood that the SWP would not have considered itself a DC organisation?

by karl kautsky Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:05

Democratic centralism, like the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is an oxymoron.

Indeed it is a sad commentary on the revolutionary left that it ought to be clinging to these outdated and totally discredited ideas, which as others here have pointed out were the specific products of a particular historical era. The horrors of "Stalinism" could not have been possible had it not been for the organisational and state machinery created by Leninism. Until the left realises this, and accepts that the brutal aberration that blighted the 20th century - and still afflicts North Korea and Cuba - began not in 1924, but in 1917, it will remain irrelevant. It must accept that the intellectual origins of the Terror can be traced further back to 1905 and "What is to be Done".

by pat c Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:52

(This is eerily reminiscent of the way Trot groups control their internal lists and even those of their front organisations such as the IAWM. pat c)

Vietnam keeps eye on internet

Vietnam has stepped up efforts to control the internet, instructing internet service providers to terminate contracts with cyber-cafes that allow customers to access pornographic or anti-government websites.

The directive, issued by Minister of Post and Telecommunications Do Trung Ta on Monday, is the latest in a string of measures unveiled in recent months to prevent "bad and poisonous information" being circulated online.

This latest regulation requires the communist nation's seven state-owned internet service providers to disconnect cyber-cafes if they allow clients to access forbidden websites, state media reported.

Cafe owners are also instructed to monitor their customers' use of the web for any violations of government regulations, such as distributing viruses and accessing pornographic sites or those that "threaten national security".

Hanoi is determined to prevent pro-democracy advocates using the internet to communicate and voice their opposition to the government. Earlier this month two elderly dissidents were jailed for using the web to criticise the regime.

by D Thu Jul 22, 2004 16:14

Some interesting points raised and some interesting links to read. I will say though, does history necessarily always have to dictate the future; I do not personally think so.

So what is the alternative, and I start with 'decision making'

- 'complete Consensus', if it is, I can raise my own {impossible} experiences at times {past}, trying to find such consensus even from those who where meant to be there all in the same cause. This indeed was at times impossible, especially from those that held the 'Holy Grails'.

I say this of course putting aside in a more intense period the fact that the state would wreck ' complete consensus ' through infiltration etc {in a far easier way than DC, although of course all such historically relevant organisations of DC where infiltrated by the state - {but making a majority decision as opposed to finding complete consensus I believe is more realistic especially under such a period}


Alternatively {secondly} , is it a case of people proposing what they want, and even putting aside state infiltration, for example, say ten different things where proposed. Do you say well here are ten different things to attend and people can choose and pick which to go to {this more especially if you are aware the state is in preparedness to crack down, as opposed to a situation where the state was most unlikely not to - i.e little threat to its establishment}?

Again this happened recently at an Anti Capitalism rally and people all went their different ways with the smallest part of just a few hundred going to one event, thus being picked of and battered by the state.

Of course the state can lay into anybody but would it not have been better taking a majority decision, especially in such situations, and with strength of numbers moving forward as a collective force, rather than as splintered groupings?


Or thirdly is it Partial Consensus {that is the majority decision} follows through?


This a just a few points and very recent personal experiences of various other methods of decision making , this putting aside many other such past experience and of course the historical experiences of many. Yet, and of course, there are many other views on the nature of decision making but these come to mind at the minute.

Checkov states

'that it is up constituent parts of the federation to decide which areas are subject to centralised decision making'

On what basis do the constituent parts decide, 'Complete consensus', partial consensus', or by some other means?

What happens if you don't find agree, does that mean decisions do not get made?

What happens if there are huge differences in the constituent parts of the federation, which would be more so in the case of an intense period, how do you move forward in the most urgent of terms say against counter revolution, or immense state repression if agreement thus decisions cannot be reached quickly?

Do people therefore just do then their own things within their constituent part without co - ordination against a highly co coordinated, organised and brutal system.

Finally if one believes in an alternative way of decision making, do you believe it remains the same in differing periods, i.e. presently, or under immense state repression, or indeed in a revolutionary situation, with the revolution in ascendancy?

Hope some one can also come back to some of the original questions I have raised. Again some interesting points raised, and on the very most part a respectful {of others to hold other views} exchange of views to date. D

by Badman Thu Jul 22, 2004 16:24

Interesting article from the blanket on Democratic Centralism and SF.

by D Thu Jul 22, 2004 16:54

Thanks for the link badman, Jessss, so much to read. D

by A joe Thu Jul 22, 2004 19:14

The problem with the SWP and micro-groups like the WSM is that you are all fantasists. 'The working class in a revolutionary situation', blah, blah. When will this be exactly? How far off is heaven on earth exactly? 10 years? 20? 100? Can we not just avoid dogma and live in this world for a change.

by ds Thu Jul 22, 2004 19:33

Strange as it may seem the working class and a combination of classes and none has found themselves in quite a few possible revolutionary situations in the last generation

by Badman Thu Jul 22, 2004 19:47

"The problem with the SWP and micro-groups like the WSM is that you are all fantasists. 'The working class in a revolutionary situation', blah, blah. When will this be exactly? "


Russia 1917, much of the world from 1918-1921, Spain 1936, China 1940's, Cuba late 1950's, much of Africa 1960's-70's, Chile 1971, much of Latin American 1970's-80's....

Or maybe all of these revolutionary situations were in fact fantasies?

"How far off is heaven on earth exactly? 10 years? 20? 100?"

I think you are mistaking socialism with messianic religion. Very few revolutionaries (at least the sane ones) believe that they have a science that can predict when revolutionary upheavals will arrive. What we can say with reasonable certainty from observing history is that they do arrive regularly.

"Can we not just avoid dogma and live in this world for a change."

What you are implying here is that fundamental change is impossible and there is no point in talking about it. This is merely repeating capitalist dogma, a dogma which runs against all the evidence (ie. we don't live in feudal monarchies or under a roman empire).

If you do accept the historical evidence that revolutionary situations arrive pretty regularly, then it is surely worthwhile to ask what we can do to try to ensure that the society that emerges from that revolutionary situation avoids some of the problems of the current society and the preceding attempts to build revolutionary societies that went badly wrong (ie pretty much all of the situations above).

The type of organisational models that are adopted by the working class in revolutionary situations has a great bearing on what type of society will emerge from it. Therefore discussions such as this are not dogma, they are part of the process whereby theoretical ideas circulate amongst the working class and the theories that convince the majority are then put to the test when the next revolutionary situation arrives.

On the other hand, such discussion would obviously be of no interest to those who are happy to swallow capitalist dogma and live in the real world, obediently and unthinking.

by karl kautsky Thu Jul 22, 2004 20:06

Badman - what if the conclusion from a study of the history of previous revolutions leads one to the conclusion that the only way to avoid the descent into the barbarism which has marred ALL socialist revolutions to date, is in fact to reject the entire concept of revolution? I am not talking about the ideas of socialism but the methodology. Surely the honest and brave thing for all revolutionary socialists now is to accept the lessons of history and decisively reject Leninism.

by D Thu Jul 22, 2004 20:08

Dare I say it - I agree with much of Badman's last statement.
,
There I said it; it was not that hard actually, despite our 'differences',

In fact, as stated previously, we see and stand against the same brutal system and therefore despite those ‘differences’ as Badman states,

‘discussions such as this are not dogma, they are part of the process whereby theoretical ideas circulate amongst the working class and the theories that convince the majority are then put to the test when the next revolutionary situation arrives'.

Therefore such is needed, much required, and should not be feared. D

by D Thu Jul 22, 2004 20:13

Then quite simply if that is your conclusion then you are entitled to it, as others are to theirs..

by Susan D Thu Jul 22, 2004 20:32

sorry, nothing really to do with the thread but can anyone tell me how to post pictures on Indymedia? thanks very much.

by pat c Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:04

Cuban dissident economist freed

(Wow! What an enemy of the people! She created a website that criticised the state! pat c)

Roque was the only woman in a group of 75 dissidents arrested. Cuba has freed Martha Beatriz Roque, a prominent opponent of Fidel Castro, on health grounds. The 58-year-old economist was the only woman in a group of 75 people arrested in a crackdown on dissent last year.

Ms Roque is the seventh of the group to be freed in recent weeks. She had been serving a 20-year sentence. After her release, she pledged to work for the freedom of all political prisoners in Cuba, saying: "I will fight for them".

She was arrested in March 2003 and later convicted of conspiring with the US against Cuba. She was found guilty - among other things - of creating a website that reported on Cuba's worsening economic situation.

by Pat a Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:55

When is a dissident not a dissident?

When she is an agent of the CIA.

Pat, when your tiny country is blocaded, boycotted, invaded and subject to 24 hour propaganda you are entitled to imprison agents who are working for your enemy.

Its a war!

by Akrasia Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:58

[quote]
originally posted by D
On what basis do the constituent parts decide, 'Complete consensus', partial consensus', or by some other means?

What happens if you don't find agree, does that mean decisions do not get made?

What happens if there are huge differences in the constituent parts of the federation, which would be more so in the case of an intense period, how do you move forward in the most urgent of terms say against counter revolution, or immense state repression if agreement thus decisions cannot be reached quickly? [quote]

D, you seem to be coming at this from a different direction than most anarchists. I personally feel that consensus is not as important as you suggest because i don't want to live in a society where everybody has to abide by the same rules and decisions regardless of their different circumstances.
In democratic centralism, blanket rules are handed down that suit some sections of society and restrict others.
The reason why there is disagreement is because there are different circumstances and ideologies. There will never be a conflict free world so any attempt to create one is futile and often counter productive, trying to forcibly asimilate people creates conflict where previously there was none. In federated systems, people are relatively free to asociate with people who share or closely reflect their own ideas and circumstances. If these ideas clash with the ideas of others, then there is usually space for people to act seperately without conlict. If there is no room to co-exist, then compromise or another form of resolution must be reached.

The perfect example is in protest politics. Direct Action versus Passive Resistance. It is perfectly possible for both ideas to operate seperately yet co-operatively as long as there is an atmosphere of support and solidarity. However if one side decides that it can not tolerate the activities of the others nd attempts to sabbotage of control the other side, this is where the conflict is unnecessary and overly damaging to everybody.
Anarchism rejects inflexible and ineffective rules especially when it's often more efficient and intuitive to do things a different way.

the answer to your question, 'consensus or majority' i believe, is a little bit of both with some alternatives thrown in when necessary

by jose marti Fri Jul 23, 2004 13:11

The woman must be mad!! Everyone knows that the Cuban economy goes from strength to strength - or is it just that part of it based on cocaine and prostitution?

by pat c Fri Jul 23, 2004 13:36

yeah right! everyone who opposes castro is a cia agent. i oppose the economic blockade. i also believe that cuba is not a socialist democracy. there have never been free elections there.

in cuba indymedia would be banned and the collectice would be imprisoned as enemies of the state.

do you believe that it should be a crime to criticise the economic policies of the irish government on this site?

by D Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:00

Sorry will come back @ later date as thisdiscussion is important, But people are probably aware of the vicious racist attacks in south Belfast in last 24 four hours or so firstly with petrol bombs {attempted murder on a family} and now this morning bomb disposal vans at a house where Nigerian men lived.


As before requests for interviews are coming in hand over fist to the ARN not only from around N. Ireland {as it is to forefront of the news} but again interwiews being sought from all around the world., especially giving our hard hitting release in relation to the police, loyalist paramilitries and the NIHE

Therefore I must sign of but promise I will return to this interesting thread, Cheers Davy

by Kieran Allah - Socialist Wahhabbi Party Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:02 (Tongue in cheek Street)

"in cuba indymedia would be banned "

And this would be a bad idea?

by jose marti Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:06

It is indeed! A war by the Cuban Communist Party against the Cuban people.

by pat c Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:12

Covering events from January - December 2003

2003 saw a severe deterioration in the human rights situation in Cuba. In mid-March the Cuban authorities carried out an unprecedented crack-down on the dissident movement. Seventy-five long-term activists were arrested, unfairly tried and sentenced to up to 28 years' imprisonment; they were prisoners of conscience. In April, three men convicted of involvement in a hijacking were executed by firing squad, ending a three-year de facto moratorium.

Prisoners of conscience

Eighty-four prisoners of conscience remained held, seven of whom were awaiting trial at the end of the year.

Crack-down in March
A government crack-down in March led to the imprisonment of most of the leadership of the dissident movement including teachers, librarians, journalists, medical personnel, and political and human rights activists. Only a few very well-known figures critical of the regime were not affected.

Detainees were brought to trial immediately and subjected to hasty and unfair proceedings. Following a detailed assessment of the available evidence against them, AI considered that all 75 were prisoners of conscience.

Marcelo López Bañobre, a member of the Comisión Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliación Nacional, Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for, among other activities, "sending information to international organisms like Amnesty International".

Health concerns
There were continuing concerns about the health of many prisoners of conscience. Some were reportedly denied access to appropriate medical attention and held in harsh conditions. Access to family was limited, as many of the prisoners were held in facilities far from their home provinces.

Roberto de Miranda Hernández, aged 56, was believed to have suffered a heart attack, cardiac pain and a stomach ulcer in custody. The health of Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe, aged 63, deteriorated after his arrest, making it probable that he would need a liver transplant. The families of both claimed that prison conditions contributed to their illnesses.

Releases
A handful of prisoners of conscience were released during 2003.

Yosvany Aguilar Camejo, José Aguilar Hernández and Carlos Oquendo Rodríguez were released on 11 October after having spent 20 months in prison. The latter was the only one of the three to have been tried and sentenced.

Bernardo Arévalo Padrón was released in November after having served six years for "disrespect" towards President Fidel Castro and Vice-President Carlos Lage.
Eddy Alfredo Mena González, sentenced in 2000 to five years' imprisonment on charges including "disrespect" and "public disorder", was also released.

Executions resumed

The three-year de facto moratorium on the use of the death penalty ended with the execution by firing squad of Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla García and Jorge Luis Martínez Isaac on 11 April. They were among a group of people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry with several dozen passengers on board. The hijacking was resolved without violence. The three men were brought to trial, found guilty under "anti-terrorism" legislation, and had their appeals denied all within the space of one week. This raised profound concerns about the fairness of the judicial procedure to which they were subjected. International community

United Nations
In April the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution asking the Cuban government to achieve similar progress in respecting civil and political rights as it had done in economic and social rights. It also called on Cuba to receive the visit of the personal representative for Cuba of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Cuban government responded that they did not accept the mandate of the resolution and would not allow the High Commissioner's representative onto the island.

In November, for the 12th consecutive year, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on the USA to end its embargo.



The activities of the dissident movement stalled following the imprisonment of middle-ranking activists in the opposition movement. Trials in April revealed the existence of 12 state security agents who had infiltrated the dissident movement, some several years earlier. This, together with the publication of two books on alleged state security activity within the dissident movement, was seen as an attempt to promote suspicion and mistrust among those dissidents still at liberty.

In October, in the first big movement of opposition after the March crack-down, Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, leader of the unofficial political group Movimiento Cristiano Liberación, Christian Liberation Movement, presented more than 14,000 new signatures for the Varela Project – a petition for a referendum on political and economic reforms – to the General Assembly. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of the Cuban Parliament had ruled the initiative unconstitutional in January. In December, Oswaldo Payá presented for public debate a national plan for transition to democracy.

Restrictions on travel outside Cuba continued to be applied to the most prominent dissidents. In June, Elizardo Sánchez Santacruz, Vladimiro Roca Antúnez, Manuel Cuesta Morúa and Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas were not allowed to travel to Italy to attend a seminar on the democratic opposition movement in Cuba organized by an Italian political party; Vladimiro Roca was denied permission to travel to Mexico in July to witness Mexico's federal elections; and Oswaldo Payá was prevented from attending a session in the European Parliament to which he had been invited.

AI country visits

AI last visited Cuba in 1988. The government did not respond to AI's repeated requests to be allowed into the country.

Full report at:

by jose marti Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:36

Now what does that remind one of? Tommy from Good Fellas?, Tony Soprano?

by pat c Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:46

what kind of a socialist country would make it a crime to disrespect the president?

i suppose AI are cia agents as well? heres the proof:

1 Amnesty International - Library - USA: Post 11 September detainees deprived of their basic rights
Amnesty International - Library - USA: Post 11 September detainees deprived of their basic rights. USA : Post 11 September detainees deprived of their basic rights. Amnesty International is also c...

URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510452002

2 Amnesty International - Library - USA: "Double jeopardy" for some Guantánamo detainees
Held in isolating conditions, the detainees held in Guantánamo Bay have not been allowed to see lawyers or relatives, or to have access to any court. Now, even if eventually released with no charg...

URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510042004

3 Amnesty International - Library - USA: Detainees from Afghan conflict should be released or tried
There is no abstract for this document

URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511642002

4 Amnesty International - Library - USA: Restoring the rule of law, The right of Guantánamo detainees to judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention
Part I of this memorandum describes the situation of the Guantánamo detainees, including the legal proceedings filed in US courts on their behalf. Part II illustrates the right under international...

URL: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510932004

Bring justice to thousands still illegally detained in Iraq

Thousands of men, women and children are still held without charge or trial in detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, after the official end of the occupation on 28 June 2004. Some detainees are housed in tents, and are suffering under the intense heat of Iraq's summer
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-140704-action-eng

by DemoSoc Fri Jul 23, 2004 14:48

"what kind of a socialist country would make it a crime to disrespect the president? "

If the SP or SWP came to power, you can be sure Ireland would be one.

by pat a Fri Jul 23, 2004 19:23

I suppose hi jackers should get suspended sentences?

Pat you are an enemy of Cuban independence.

You are an agent of american imperialism.

You must ask yourself - WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

If the Cuban people are so oppressed they will rise against their oppressors as happened in most Eastern European countries.

They are not. Despite the fifth columnists who are funded by the CIA , Maimi Mafia and Barcardi imperialist.

Their only wish is for the return of the phony independence when gangsters controlled a brothel for yankie tourists.

Pat you are a bourgeoise liberal

by pat c Fri Jul 23, 2004 19:33

"suppose hi jackers should get suspended sentences?"

I dont believe that people who hijacked a boat should be executed. Is that your idea of a better society?

"Pat you are an enemy of Cuban independence. "

No, I support Cuban independence. I oppose dictatorship.

"You are an agent of american imperialism. You must ask yourself - WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?"

I am an anti-imperialist who supports Cuban independence and I oppose the US blockade and all of the US attempts to destabilise Cuba. I am on the side of the Cuban people.

Whose side are you on? The CP ruling class who make it a crime to disrespect the president?


"Pat you are a bourgeoise liberal"

You are a supporter of a Stalinist regime that puts people in prison for merely criticising iyt. Is Cuba your idea of a Socialist Utopia.

Why have you no answer for the cases raised by Amnesty?

If Fidel has such support why is it necessary to ban all opposition parties? Why is it necessary to ban all dissident press and websites.

You are a supporter of tyranny. It is people like you who bring Socialism into disrepute.

by aquifer Sat Jul 24, 2004 02:01 water.margin at ntlworld dot com

A key test for democracy is the ability to change your leaders, in case they are taking you in a wrong or futile direction, or when they are incompetent or oppressive.

A danger with self selected groups, like US generals in Vietnam, is groupthink ,where neither dissent nor innovation nor evolution is tolerated. The political life of the group sinks to a lowest common denominator of the repetition of jargon or hollow slogans. The group loses traction because they cannot deal with outside reality in a constructive way.

Democratic centralism is OK, isn't it?

by anarcho Sat Jul 24, 2004 19:01

"An Anarchist FAQ" has a section on vanguardism and why anarchists
reject it along with the "democratic centralism" at its core:

H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html

by John Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:14

Davy

I recall reading a SWP pamphlet on the English Civil War written by a Mary/Ann? Carlin - any relation?

by D Mon Jul 26, 2004 14:04

I shall be coming back to some of the points briefy this afternoon after work as other issues to attend to via computer. {Interested in replying to Akrasia more especially}. Will also post up original ARN press statement as I see in some of the Southern Media and some of the International media they have again mixed and picked some words and statements. Such was the same pre ARN rally which had some on the left following the establishment media lines statements in relation to ourselves {as so {some on the left}seeing the ARN as the problem, but such is things}. In future though I will post up such statements {on Indymedia} as activists can see them in full {in this case, the statement in relation to the police, NIHE and loyalist paramiltaries} and also so they can be recorded for future reference. D

by Davy Carlin Mon Jul 26, 2004 18:14

Akrasia, Hi,

Interesting points you raise I have only got a few minutes. Can you elaborate on what you mean and as to how this works in practice, in relation to your quote?


'consensus or majority' I believe, is a little bit of both with some alternatives thrown in when necessary'

For example when do you say it’s a decision based on consensus and when do you decide it is a decision base on majority and by what method is it decided and why? And what are the alternatives?

Also can any body address some of the other points raised including that of a federation as again below?

'that it is up to constituent parts of the federation to decide which areas are subject to centralised decision making'

Davy Carlin - On what basis do the constituent parts decide, 'Complete consensus', partial consensus', or by some other means?

What happens if you don't find agree, does that mean decisions do not get made?

What happens if there are huge differences in the constituent parts of the federation, which would be more so in the case of an intense period, how do you move forward in the most urgent of terms say against counter revolution, or immense state repression if agreement thus decisions cannot be reached quickly?

Do people therefore just do then their own things within their constituent part without co - ordination against a highly co coordinated, organised and brutal system.

Finally if one believes in an alternative way of decision making, do you believe it remains the same in differing periods, i.e. presently, or under immense state repression, or indeed in a revolutionary situation, with the revolution in ascendancy?

Also do people see other ways of decision making as better and fairer, if so, what are they, and why? Cheers,

Finally as I stated above I had to break of this thread due to the brutal racist attacks in South Belfast, with again the ARN s' response being sought from across the globe. So as stated above in future I will post up press releases on Indymedia of the various campaigns in which I am involved in. So below is the original ARN press release that some across the globe 'picked and mixed' but fortunately ' most' of the Northern Press carried accurately. D


Press Release 22/07/04

From, The Anti Racism Network

The PSNI, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and loyalist paramilitaries all have very serious questions to answer after Wednesday night’s attack on Mr Mohammad Hossain and his family in their home in Fane Street.

Mr Hossain, who has lived in Northern Ireland for eleven years, has been attacked up to 20 times in the same house of the Lisburn Road. In the past two months alone he and his family have been attacked 8 times. The attention of last nights petrol bomb attack was chillingly clear – it was the attempted murder of a couple and their 5 year old child, the awful memory of the three Quinn children in Ballymoney comes to mind immediately.

Yet incredibly all the PSNI have said is that they are investigating a ‘possible’ racist motive. This begs the question as to what it is going to take for the PSNI to treat something as a racist incident. Mr Davy Carlin. Chairperson of the ARN commented ‘the seriousness of the PSNI’s commitment to tackling racist crime must be called into question by their response to this and the previous 19 attacks on this man and his family. To simply state that they are investigating a ‘possible’ racist motive in the face of what every body recognises as a viciously racist attack, must instil little confidence in the PSNI from this family and the minority ethnic communities in general’

The ARN is also aware that following months of attacks and racist harassment Mr Hossian last week approached the NI housing Executive for the provision of emergency housing out of the area – and again, incredibly, the NIHE sent them away. The NIHE clearly have some explaining to do in this case.

Lastly all the indications are that loyalist paramilitaries were once again involved in this attack. Following the spate of vicious attacks on members of minority ethnic communities earlier this year the UVF leadership, claimed to have, ‘stood down’ one of its commanders. The public was assured that a stop had been put to such attacks. Last nights attack raises a huge question over this claim. Loyalist paramilitary leaders must move quickly to make their position on this and other attacks very clear.

Neither is it good enough for the political representatives of the loyalist community in the Village area to condemn such attacks – they must stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have suffered these attacks.

Anti Racism Network

by aut aut Mon Jul 26, 2004 18:44

Hi Dave,

two guys called Michael Hardt and Toni Negri have just published a book called _Multitude_. They have a lot to say about democracy and organisation, including the following: true democracy is ''the rule of everyone by everyone, a democracy without qualifiers.'' It's publisehd by Penguin and it's relatively cheap. Have a look at it, they have some new, badly needed ideas.

by D Mon Jul 26, 2004 18:48

Cheers

by D Mon Jul 26, 2004 20:13

If persons are interested my next article to go up on the Blanket is on Republicanism and goes into in part the issue of Democratic Centralism - re - Republicanism.

Again as stated I will go into all DC organisations in greater detail in a specific article in the time ahead, but would be interested in some debate here, re - on Anarchists decision making processes and organisation etc. More especially replies, debate and discussions in relation to points raised to date. D

by Akrasia Tue Jul 27, 2004 14:18

'consensus or majority' I believe, is a little bit of both with some alternatives thrown in when necessary'

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there is no definite way of making decisions that will appeal to everybody all of the time. In order to reach 'agreement' it's often necessary for one or both parties to concede ground. Even in authoritarian decision making apparatus, agreement is often not forthcoming.

Anarchist principles diverge with DC because, according to my interpretation, there is a much lower importance placed on homogenisation of structures and social institutions in an anarchist society. Power is devolved to the lowest levels, individuals whenever possible, so there is not a need for large scale negotiations as often as there are with DC and other centralised decision making structures. All of this means that decision making is more organic and dictated less by protocal and regulation except for when the negotiating parties agree on the specific methods of negotiation. Full consensus would be most desirable in most instances, and would probably be the aim at the start of any negotiation or decision making plenary, if consensus is not possible then different methods of majority voting could be decided on, by the participants. if no agreement can be reached then negotiations would break down, as happens in the current system.

Anarchists would abhor use of force or authority to enforce decisions that have a negative effect on individuals while being of great benefit to others. If it's possible to allow local communities or institutions operate autonomously of a decision taken by other groups then this would be allowed.

Majority voting would probably still be the definitive deciding factor, but because of differences in scale, each individual will have a much greater opportunity to contribute their ideas to the debate. Most common decisions would be by workers in collectivised industry to decide which direction their factory or shop should take in response to a change of circumstances. Such decisions would come from the bottom up. Information would be circulated regarding the circumstances surrounding the necessary decision, workers would put forward proposals at meetings of their peers, decisions and proposals made at these meetings would be carried upwards by delegates of each meeting. any proposals made at the delegates meeting will be carried back to the individual groups for ratification until agreement is reached.
This would be as complicated as necessary to make a good decision relative to it's importance.

by . Tue Jul 27, 2004 22:47

DC was not proposed by Lenin as a form of state it was a form of party democracy and disipline during the struggle against capital.

by D Wed Jul 28, 2004 13:54

'Majority voting would still be the definitive deciding factor'

It seems to me that they way in which decisions are made rather than the method to that arrival {to a decision} is more important to anarchists. That is, that more autonomy and more participation at grassroots levels is of more importance than to the actual method of the decision, although full concensus would be 'preferable'.

Therefore if the difinitive factor is still majority decision, {as you state} then the difference is one on the issue of how that decision {grassroots, autonomy etc }is arrived at, rather than that specific method.

As you agree as to the difinitive character being majority decision {everybody having to abide by that decision and to move as one}, this, as opposed to a number of counter suggestions being made where then everybody does what they feel best,

therefore if that is the case, then there is no difference in the method, {'Majority voting would still be the definitive deciding factor'}, in relation to DC organisations and the situation you state.

The difference therefore as stated, is how that is arrived at.

Therefore this brings me on to the nature of organisation, structure and methods. What do you think of the federation way of organising as raised previous and can you come back on some of my points and questions I raised in relation to this. D