• "As a socialist I have long since learned how to stand alone. I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything rather than be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, especially the intellectual variety." (Eugene Debs)
I am sorry but I think we depend on leaders all the time. We must all play the role of leader sometimes, or be willing to follow one, or be lost. We can't all know everything about everything so we need to depend on others sometimes to lead the way. Am I misunderstanding?
ReplyDeleteI think the confusion arises because authority is equated with leadership.
ReplyDeleteNo-one would question the instructions of, say, an aeroplane captain because of safety reasons. And who can fly a plane, if not the captain?
Expertise and experience are certainly vital for society. We listen to experts because they can inform us on issues or subjects we know little or nothing about; and that allows us to make good choices.
These examples illustrate authority contra leadership.
There are life situations which do not permit a vote. There are times where we just don't have the knowledge, whereas someone does.
Leadership is a political principle which quashes the sort of democracy socialists talk about (a democracy where authority isn't eliminated, only the form with which it is exercised). It negates an informed, democratic decision making process.
We have to bear in mind also the very structures of most left wing parties are open to abuse, with a leadership and an expendable cadre of foot-soldiers,with apparent democracy, meaning that a small range of options and policies are decided beforehand, by the leadership and this limited range is voted upon by the party faithfull.It is called ,this model, 'Democratic Centralism'.
ReplyDeleteThus,'All Power to the Soviets' becomes,'All Power to the Party' and from there,'all Power to the Central Committee'.
Understandably, the faithful cadre don't want to rock the boat in which they placed their hopes and dreams.It is a form of political emasculation, as they are outwith the process of decision making.
They then assume,measures are taken for 'good' reasons, and negative conclusions, about those decisions, are the consequence of 'enemies without', spreading disinformation.They rally to the Party, and any conscious political contributions they make are subsumed to the wishes of the leadership who really 'are',have become, the Party .
The cadre become potential cannon fodder in this model,but perceive themselves as 'good shepherds' guiding the common herd or masses to the slaughter,as history reminds us,ends justifying means.
The WSM and its companion parties, insists that ends must 'determine' the means and a truly democratic society can only spring from ends and means being integrated and informing models of organisation.
We have no leaders,the newest of members stands in an equal relation to the longest serving one.
It is the working class will, indeed must, make the revolution and not some elitist vanguard .