Can be personal or external but what is something (you believe/see reflected so strongly in reality) AND (!(OR) the world of ideas)

AND but not OR

Please stick to that which you are confident about and holds to at least the spirit of the question

  • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Do you mean what is the alternative to democratic centralism as a method of democracy, or do you mean how, under democratic centralism, does decision making work when the vote doesn’t back the single candidate / option?

    EDIT: you might be interested in some of the decision making systems used in anarchist and left libertarian contexts, e.g. occupy movement hand signals and Loomio which came out of the Occupy movement. The Zapatistas movement also has some decision making process that is worth looking into - the way delegates from the movement would return to rural areas to discuss in town halls. Bookchin’s idea of libertarian munincipalism and using limited-sized town halls as a method for communal decision making through discussion and establishing consensus also seems related.

    There is an idea that with voluntary, cooperative decision-making, discussion and consensus precedes a vote, so that by the time the vote happens it is merely a formal confirmation of the consensus that was previously formed through discussion. If it gets to a vote and fails, it’s an indication that the cooperative consensus-forming process that should precede the vote did not happen, or something crucial has changed in the time between when consensus was informally established and when the vote was held.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Democratic Centralism doesn’t put forth a single option and hopes everyone agrees on it, it requires that the results of voting are followed through even if you individually disagree with the majority. I think reading this article may help you better understand it, but here’s an excerpt:

      In party meetings, a motion (new policy or amendment, goal, plan or any other kind of political question) is proposed. After a period of debate, a vote is taken. If the decision passes, all party members are expected to follow that decision, and not continue propagandizing or otherwise working against it, even if they disagree with it. In the development of socialism in the Soviet Union and China, democratic centralism was largely taken up in response to instability following their respective revolutions which required faster mechanisms of decision-making.

      The decision can always be recalled if there is grounds for it, but until it is cancelled, all members of the party are expected to uphold it as if they agreed with it.

      Consensus is generally sought over pure results, and there is often a lengthy period of debates before a decision is put to the vote. The debate period is used to refine the proposal that will be voted on until all (or most) members agree to it.