>>32440
I don't see how my post contradicts Macnair's views.
" first world Communist parties need a slight update to the Democratic Centralism model since western communist parties aren't under the same conditions as the Bolsheviks in civil war Russia when the democratic centralist model was developed."
>"The decision to ban factions, as is well-known, was part of the turn to the New Economic Policy in 1921: the expectation was that economic liberalisation would strengthen the hand of small capital, which would naturally find political expression; in the circumstances, if the proletariat - a small minority in Russia - was to hang on to power until the expected revolution in the west caught up, opposition parties had to be more systematically banned, as did factions within the Communist Party."
>"With the benefit of hindsight, all of these decisions were mistakes. They were mistakes made under conditions of war, counterrevolutionary foreign intervention and civil war - and in an overwhelmingly peasant-majority country. But it needs to be clear that the Bolsheviks would not have had these problems if they had adapted their party to the needs of civil war in a peasant-majority country before they obtained political power: in that case they would not have built a serious workers’ party in the first place, or obtained political power in October 1917."

These conditions of being a formerly clandestine party in a peastant-majority country following a Civil Ware and trying to wait for a revolution in the west obviously do not exist for western communist parties.

"Democratic centralism as it currently exists in first world parties encourages cult like behaviour or constant splitting, which is somewhat due to the fact that capitalists do not want to hire full time communist revolutionaries so full time staff in Communist Parties try their hardest to keep the gravy train rolling"
">Behind this phenomenon is both a practical problem and an ideology. The practical problem is the equivalent of two prongs of a fork. The first prong is that capital generally offers workers the choice between overwork, on the one hand, and serious poverty, on the other. The result is that it is hard to do the work required to publish papers, run campaigns, organise meetings, and so on, without full-timers. To the extent that we do do without full-timers, we are generally forced to rely on people who have other advantages under capitalism - with the same risk of inequality as when employing full-timers. The second prong is that capitalists are generally unenthusiastic about employing people whose CVs include periods of full-time work for left organisations (or even trade unions). Between these two prongs, there is, therefore, a natural pressure of capitalist society on workers’ organisations to employ long-service full-timers. The larger the organisation, the more these long-service full-timers are needed, and also the more they are drawn into the common political culture of capitalist-bureaucratic managerialism."

The fact full-time party members would find it difficult to gain employment elsewhere is why they try their hardest to maintain in control of western demcen parties such as banning factions and becoming labour monarchs with cults around the leader such as Alan Wood in the IMT or more infamously Bob Avakian of the RCP.

>"all of which could be addressed by a properly democratic centralist system."
This is a point that I believe you and me agree with, I believe that western communists parties should adopt a proper democratic centralist system, that system being the system used by the SAP,SDAP, and the SDP. As western communist parties are not clandestine organisations.
>"The SDAP unambiguously rejected the model of being run by a directly elected president with unlimited powers. Instead, it was run by an elected committee. It was also an organisation composed of local branches, and so on, with their own extensive powers, especially the power to publish their own press - a noteworthy feature"
>"The leadership has broad powers - but the local, regional and sectoral organisations can also publish in their own names. This is democratic centralism, as opposed to federalism: the centre can, at need, overthrow the localities - but there are strong ‘constitutional conventions’ (to use an English constitutional phrase) preventing it from doing so except in really serious cases."
This is currently not the case in current western democratic centralist parties as local branches are subordinate to the central leadership and cannot disagree with the central party line, in addition to not being able to publish in their own name nor being able to communicate to other local branches. Current and former PSL memebers on leftypol have stated that PSL branches are unable to communicate with eachother and party higher ups such as Gloria La Riva get involved.
">Conversely, ‘permanent factions’ (existing outside the formal pre-conference period) were banned; with the effect that horizontal communication beyond the single local branch, though not formally banned, was liable to be treated as ‘factionalism’. And a sharp line was drawn between what could be published (the leadership’s line) and dissent, which had to remain internal only."

Another problem with western communist parties is that because disagreeing with the central party line and trying to persuade others to your viewpoint is seen as factionalism and discouraged or banned. I recall a PSL member in a recent thread saying that if a person does not agree with the party line that they should just leave, which is an attitude which enourages splitting and is no wonder why there are so many micro-parties formed from splits. Funnily enough the PSL formed from a split with the WWP.
>" The first is that - as I have already said - disagreement is normal. The watchword is ‘Freedom of discussion, unity in action’. The existence of disagreements and efforts to persuade others do not constitute undesirable ‘factionalism’. Nor are sharp expressions of disagreement ‘abuse’ or ‘sectarianism’. A party should seek to draw out and clarify its disagreements in the decision-making process. Conversely, dissentients have a duty to raise their views within party channels, rather than merely walking out."
A proper democratic centralist party would allow disagreement with the central party line with branches being able to have their own theoretical disagreement with the central leadership. Otherwise it would be pointless allowing branches to be able to publish in their own name if they're going to publish the exact same views as the central leadership.

I believe western parties should adopt the SDP organisational models for the reasons Macnair gives in https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1252/reclaiming-democratic-centralism/ and https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1253/negations-of-democratic-centralism/
If you still believe my views contradict Macnair's I would be more than happy to read how so