De Leonism?

[Invincible Summer]

So I noticed some people here - most notably, Zero Nowhere (I think that's his/her name) - say that they're "De Leonists," and some have made references to De Leonism.


Could someone enlighten me as to what this is?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I was actually wondering the same thing. Thanks for asking!

[ZeroNowhere]

Yup, that's my name.
Now, firstly, I'll just take some time to dismiss certain misconceptions from earlier threads on the subject.

DeLeonism also has a concept known as the “iron laws of wages” which Marx himself criticized.Nope, De Leon believed in the iron law of wages as much as Marx did. That is, he did not. Heh, I remember this claim being on Wikipedia. :laugh:
Fortunately, it seems that that one was challenged in the thread.


DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party's an old organization, originally founded by German radical immigrants, here's Engels commenting on it:


The Germans have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learnt off by heart but which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a credo [creed] and not a guide to action. Added to which they learn no English on principle.Actually, they have changed a lot. De Leonism wasn't invented until Engels died, anyhow. Also, the SLP was formed out of German immigrants, often fleeing from Bismarck, and Engels said that they would have to become 'American', which is what the SLP generally credit De Leon with doing. As for the 'doctrinaire and dogmatic' part, it's just mudslinging which deserves no attention. I have my own criticisms of the modern SLP, but nothing silly and overused like that. Though if one wishes to quote Engels... "More than this, there are plenty of symptoms that the working class of this country is awakening to the consciousness that it has for some time been moving in the wrong groove; that the present movements for higher wages and shorter hours exclusively, keep it in a vicious circle out of which there is no issue; that it is not the lowness of wages which forms the fundamental evil, but the wages system itself. This knowledge once generally spread amongst the working class, the position of Trades Unions must change considerably. They will no longer enjoy the privilege of being the only organisations of the working class. At the side of, or above, the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation [used in a different sense to De Leon's use of the term] of the working class as a whole." So yeah, I'd advise avoiding quoting Engels in argument here.


The bad side would be the dogma and standing aside from the living class struggle at timesThis was about De Leon. :laugh:


De Leonism is an ultra-left, utopian and impossibilist theory.That sums it up rather well. :D
Also, redstar2000 likes to claim that Lenin liked De Leon... He didn't, and that's a myth. He also refers to it as 'reformism', which is just plain stupid.

Anyways, I'd say that the best person to ask on this question would be Mike Lepore, but I suppose I can help here too. Firstly, if you want to read stuff written by De Leon, it's free over here (http://slp.org/litera2.htm#anchor437650). Note that De Leonism was only created in 1904, and before that he had a somewhat more authoritarian view, especially evident in 'Reform and Revolution'.

Political and Industrial organization

Well, basically political organisation is the shield, and industrial organisation the sword. Political victory's purpose is primarily to hold back the coercive forces of the political state, as well as earlier for political agitation, which was described as being of 'immeasurable' value. The ballot is to be used as a destructive force, that is, it is to be captured and immediately destroyed, while the constructive force is that of the SIU. Of course, there may be slight alterations in places where the ballot is silenced, and the bullet may have to speak.

Industrialism


"Industrialism is that system of economic organization of the working class that denies that labor and the capitalist class are brothers; that recognizes the irrepressible nature of the conflict between the two; that perceives that struggle will not, because it can not, end until the capitalist class is thrown off labor’s back; that recognizes that an injury to one workingman is an injury to all; and that, consequently, and with this end in view, organizes the WHOLE WORKING CLASS into ONE UNION, the same subdivided only into such bodies as their respective craft-tools demand, in order to wrestle as ONE BODY for the immediate amelioration of its membership, and for their eventual emancipation by the total overthrow of the Capitalist Class, its economic and political rule."
-De LeonDe Leon criticized those craft-based union leaders (whom he called 'labor fakirs', or intentionally misspelt 'labor fakers') who assert that capital and labour have common interests, and claimed that the true purpose of unionism was to unite the workers into one force for the "dethronement of the capitalist class" and to "take and hold" the industries. Basically, he was for the uniting of the workers into 'One Big Union' (as the IWW call it). Within this union, there would be councils going from the plant level to the shop level to an All-Industrial Congress, in which things such as the distribution of created wealth, co-operation of industries, and necessary wealth to be produced, etc, would be determined by democratically elected delegates who are also workers with ordinary wages, subject to recall at any time by the workers of their plant/shop/industry/etc. It means that things will be determined before the revolution takes place, and thus right after the revolution, the workers will already be organized, and changes shall take place immediately, thus meaning that production and such would not suffer, new managers could take place immediately, etc. Changes would also probably include some changes in, to quote the IWW, "what part of that work might better be left undone, or replaced by work that would do working people more good." This could be planned before the revolution took place, for immediate execution. They would then serve as the basis for the new social order (how social issues would be decided on differs greatly, and isn't much of a fixed aspect of De Leonism. There are some of us who want complete direct democracy on the issues, though with the possibility of secession if necessary, others want the SIU to deal with it, which is somewhat strange, and yet others, especially the DLSC, want a political government to also be elected along with the SIU.).

It also organizes the workers into a revolutionary force capable of ignoring the capitalists, for example, if they tried a capital strike when a labour party was gaining power. Members would also be required not to scab (members who promote the union fighting for improvements say that this is a good way to prevent them from scabbing).
It would be international and organized along industrial rather than geographical lines, thus uniting workers everywhere so that international production could be streamlined, and workers within each industry could co-operate as part of the international economy, as well as to mean that wealth (meaning the stuff produced) would be distributed towards places suffering from natural disasters as necessary, etc. This would also help with the internationalism of the socialist movement.

Whether or not the SIU would go for immediate demands (higher wages, etc) is debated, with some (eg. the SLP) saying that it should fight for them, but make it clear that it is simply biding its time ("At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with the effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady." -Marx) while others (eg. the De Leonist Society of Canada, or DLSC) say that it should be a purely revolutionary organization, and anything else would be a descent into reformism. Certainly, De Leon was strongly against populism or reformism (though I doubt a union fighting for higher wages while making it clear that this is not enough would count as reformism), saying, "Give up a single principle or a single particle of a principle, whether for votes or for ease, and you are gone, irretrievably gone." The SPUSA probably don't like that pronouncement. Ehm. Yeah, sorry guys, but your platform is bloody horrible. It's like you took demands from socialists, liberals and left-liberals, and then pasted them together blindfolded. Though De Leon's position on the matter was that the industrial union would fight for improvements and such, as its nature does not allow it to simply sit back or avoid the reality of class struggle.

The SIU would probably only accept socialists (generally anarcho-syndicalists and De Leonists, perhaps the occasional council commie would wish to join). Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Political Organization

As for the political party, its duty is not to take over the industry and rule of the workers as a 'workers' party', but to "adjourn itself sine die". As Mike Lepore put it, "De Leon asserted that a socialist political party has but one thing to do upon winning control of the political offices, and that is to transfer all management authority to the workers' councils [that is, the SIU], and, in so doing, abolish all political forms of power, including abolition of the socialist political party itself, without delay." The new 'industrial form of government' would only have economic responsibilities, rather than any political or social ones. Also note that De Leon recognised that different approaches would be necessary in different countries, for example, insurrection may have been possible in France at the time. See here (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/1909_aug03.pdf).

Interesting modern variations

Now, there are many interesting variations on De Leonism (though still remaining essentially as De Leonism) made since his death. One of the ones that I like the most is the concept made by People For A New Society (PFANS) of a bicameral congress with community representatives along with workers' representatives. While I would differ on them to some (small) extent on their models for this, I agree with the basic concept of community representatives. Their models for this kind of thing can be found on their site in three models. Links: Visual 1 (http://peopleforanewsociety.org/pfans/visual1.html), Visual 2 (http://peopleforanewsociety.org/pfans/visual2.html), Visual 3 (http://peopleforanewsociety.org/pfans/visual3.html). Of course, one of my major criticisms of them is their US-centricism. I mean, I know I'm probably the only De Leonist who's not from the US, but please, internationalism, it's a good idea. I also dislike the lack of focus on the schooling system, though that seems to be fairly common in the socialist movement. Hell, if you're going to go around talking about democracy and liberty, you'd better damn well apply it to education (ie. Fuck school. Which is far more profound than anything most communist movements have done on the subject).

Another major one is the DLSC addition of a government based on geographical constituencies with a recallable delegate system like the SIU, which would make decisions on social issues. While I disagree with this one, being mainly a direct democracy advocate (as far as would be tenable, and, due to the possible use of electronics, that would depend on the development of technology at the time), it does have some support, and brings up the issue of social, as opposed to economic, issues, and how to solve them after a revolution. This is something that was largely ignored by the SLP, and, as far as I know, De Leon, so it's good to see someone bringing up the issue.

[JimmyJazz]

Also, redstar2000 likes to claim that Lenin liked De Leon... He didn't, and that's a myth.

"Premier Lenin is a great admirer of Daniel DeLeon. He considers him the greatest of modern socialists--the only one who has added anything to socialist thought since Marx."

--John Reed, as qtd. by Arnold Peterson, as ctd. in Patrick Renshaw, The Wobblies: The Story of the IWW and Syndicalism in the United States

Maybe you know something I don't about the veracity of this quote, though.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Premier Lenin is a great admirer of Daniel DeLeon. He considers him the greatest of modern socialists--the only one who has added anything to socialist thought since Marx."

--John Reed, as qtd. by Arnold Peterson, as ctd. in Patrick Renshaw, The Wobblies: The Story of the IWW and Syndicalism in the United States

Maybe you know something I don't about the veracity of this quote, though.
It was based on a quote that was, as far as I know, either a hoax or a misquotation, that was apparently by Lenin saying that De Leon was the only one who had added anything to Marxism since Marx. I suspect it could have to do with Reed trying to woo the SLP towards the Comintern, though it was also a reported speech rather than a direct quotation. Also, Petersen wouldn't really have turned down a chance to make De Leon seem more influential. Also, of course, Petersen was an authoritarian, at least within his party, and certainly had democratic centralist influences. Of course, Irving Stone does try to portray De Leon as an authoritarian jackass, but seeing as his scene between Debs and De Leon is totally fictional, doesn't really succeed. Lenin did, IIRC, quote De Leon's labelling of the US trade unions, "labour lieutenants of the capitalist class", about the Mensheviks, however. He also used it to refer to the 'labour aristocracy', I believe.
Georges Seldes quotes Lenin telling Oscar Cesare that, "Bolshevism, our rendering of Marxism, actually originated in America. Daniel De Leon left the Socialist Party, he resigned, he founded a more radical party, a more truly Marxist party, which he called the Socialist Workers' Party of America." Of course, that is so incredibly historically inaccurate that it loses credibility.
On the other hand, Lenin did seem to have some interest in the SLP, and Trotsky made a speech for them at an anti-war rally, but there's no indication there of their opinions on De Leonism. Lenin did want a Russian translation of 'Two Pages from Roman History' (I think) by De Leon to be published, though, but didn't have much contact with De Leon's pamphlets otherwise, I believe.
Raisky, a pro-Bolshevik professor, once said that De Leon and Lenin were divided by De Leon's "failure to understand the inevitability and necessity of a transitional epoch", and that he "believed that the socialist revolution would at once eliminate the state." De Leon was somewhat Leninist before he created De Leonism, but after that he was a through and through libertarian socialist.

[Revolutionary Youth]

7191Thanks for the info, Zero!7191

[JimmyJazz]

I don't understand. Where did you hear that it was a misquotation on Peterson's part?

Sorry for the minor derail, but I was really interested by this quote when I first read it, so I want to figure this out.

The SLP website actually has a pdf reproducing the quotation by Reed.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't understand. Where did you hear that it was a misquotation on Peterson's part?
Either on Petersen's (let's just say that over half of the things he quoted were probably false) or Reed's. I've read it from quite a few sources, actually, and I'm certainly not going to put my faith in Petersen's abilities to quote accurately.


Sorry for the minor derail, but I was really interested by this quote when I first read it, so I want to figure this out.
Yeah, I just expanded on that through thousands of editing sessions in my last post. At least, I don't really see much reason to give the quote too much credibility.

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah, I just expanded on that through thousands of editing sessions in my last post.

So that's why you were viewing the thread for so long and not responding.

Thanks.

[mikelepore]

About two years ago I had an argument with another person on the wikipedia discussion page for the article on deleonism. He was the person who added to the article the claim that De Leon agreed with Lassalle's idea of the "iron law of wages." In saying that he was repeating a claim that was once made by James Connolly. As I tried to explain to the person, it's straight out of Marx that there's a tendency for wages to keep gravitating back to the mere "living wage" level. Of course De Leon believed that much, because all Marxists do. But that's not what Lassalle meant by the term. What Lassalle meant by the "iron law of wages" was was his own belief that that, since there's a tendency for wages to keep gravitating back to the "living wage" level, therefore there's no point in forming labor unions in the first place, and therefore a purely political party program for the working class is necessary. This viewpoint of Lassalle is quite the opposite of the viewpoint of De Leon, who supported industrial unionism, and, not only supported it but also considered it the primary basis for having a socialist reconstruction, with political organization relegated to a supportive role.

***

(I was a member of the SLP from 1973 to 1980, but now have no formal affiliation with them. I'm the person who founded the website deleonism.org.)

***

De Leonism is a branch of Marxism that didn't "go through" the legacy of Lenin or other later people in the Eastern hemisphere. It's root grew directly out of the American branches of the First International in the 1870s. Then De Leon joined in 1889 and, through his influence as their newspaper's editorial writer, he added a few things. Some of the biggies that he added were the "one big union" - "take, hold and operate" concept of the revolutionary process (as opposed to nationalization by the state) (1904), and the need to avoid most incremental goals (reformism) and to simply make the new social system the central goal (1896). Having been developed in the U.S., De Leonism also shows some Jeffersonian influence, such as the belief that the majority of the people will need to use the ballot to express approval for a socialist economic system, insistence on freedom of religion and other civil liberties, etc.

[mikelepore]

Georges Seldes quotes Lenin telling Oscar Cesare that ........... Daniel De Leon left the Socialist Party ...........

Someone reported it backwards. All historians know that De Leon was never in the SP. What happened was, some SLP members resigned during 1900, they held merger negotiations in 1901 with the (U.S.) Social Democratic Party, and that merger founded the Socialist Party.

[ZeroNowhere]

Someone reported it backwards. All historians know that De Leon was never in the SP. What happened was, some SLP members resigned during 1900, they held merger negotiations in 1901 with the (U.S.) Social Democratic Party, and that merger founded the Socialist Party.
Yes, as I said, it was completely historically inaccurate. He was never in the SP, and he didn't have anything to do with the SWP.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What Lassalle meant by the "iron law of wages" was was his own belief that that, since there's a tendency for wages to keep gravitating back to the "living wage" level, therefore there's no point in forming labor unions in the first place, and therefore a purely political party program for the working class is necessary. This viewpoint of Lassalle is quite the opposite of the viewpoint of De Leon, who supported industrial unionism, and, not only supported it but also considered it the primary basis for having a socialist reconstruction, with political organization relegated to a supportive role.

Interesting that, on this "purely political" question, I am with Lassalle (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-wages-t98609/index.html) on the appropriate road to power for the working class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html). Also (I only re-read this in detail last night):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/613/economism.htm


It is possible to respond to these arguments by pointing out that working class self-identification is as much a subjective as an objective reality, as Callinicos does, and by pointing to the political futility displayed in Britain by supporters of these ideas, as I did in my first article. It can be added that the “growing fragmentation of labour” has not shown any tendency to recreate genuine petty family production: on the contrary, this continues globally to retreat. What it has recreated are the conditions of widespread employment in small workplaces, etc - under which Chartism, the early trade union movement, the First International and the early socialist parties were created.

The implication then is not ‘good-bye to the working class’, but, rather than the means of struggle need to change, they need to shift from workplace collective organisation to district collective organisation. It is also that trade unions need to become again - as Engels called them - an alliance of the employed and the unemployed; and one which performs significant welfare functions rather than simply being an instrument of collective bargaining on wages and conditions.

[...]

The definition of the proletariat by its separation from the means of production (as opposed to peasants and artisans) means that the proletariat as a class includes the whole class - employed and unemployed, men, women and children - which is dependent on the wage fund. This, in turn, means that, though trade unions are one of the most immediate forms of worker organisation, it is only party organisation - organisation based in the working class districts, and tackling all the aspects of the experience of the class - which is really capable of expressing the unity of the class as a class, its independent interests, its existence as a class ‘for itself’. It is party organisation which can embed the particular trade union struggles in the solidarity of the broader masses and legitimate them against the attempts of the bosses to isolate them and present them as sectional claims.

Part of a larger series:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-v-lenin-t67203/index.html?p=1203523

[davidasearles]

My point will be made clear if we suggest to both the
pro-unionist and the anti-unionist that all the members of a trade be
enlisted in the union - those at work, those temporarily displaced,
and those that may be considered permanently displaced. ....

By constituting itself a jobs-furnishing institution, the union
turns itself into a pint measure into which it is impossible for the
gallon measure of labor to be received. And thus it is not only the
capitalist, from in front, but labor, from behind, that triturates the
union. In order to be able to contain the gallon measure of labor the
union must expand to gallon size; in order to expand to gallon size it
must drop its idle aspirations as a jobs - furnishing monopoly. And
this can be done only if it rises to the elevation of its political
mission. Then will it understand the solidarity of its class
generally and of the members of its trade in particular....

Daniel DeLeon
The Burning Question of Trades Unionism
An address delivered at
the New Auditorium Hall, Newark, N.J.,
April 21, 1904

http://www.deleonism.org/bqtu.htm

[Invincible Summer]

It's very interesting that De Leonism is not simply a branch of "Soviet-style" Marxism, and that it has some anarcho-syndicalist tendencies (e.g. uniting workers along industrial rather than geographical lines, direct democracy).

However, I don't think I understand this:


The ballot is to be used as a destructive force, that is, it is to be captured and immediately destroyed, while the constructive force is that of the SIU. Of course, there may be slight alterations in places where the ballot is silenced, and the bullet may have to speak.

Sorry if I'm dense, but what do you mean by the "ballot is to be captured and immediately destroyed?" Does it mean that De Leonists advocate a De Leonist party run against mainstream bourgeois political parties in elections?

Also,

e Leon asserted that a socialist political party has but one thing to do upon winning control of the political offices, and that is to transfer all management authority to the workers' councils [that is, the SIU], and, in so doing, abolish all political forms of power, including abolition of the socialist political party itself, without delay." How does this differ from a vanguard party? Not trying to be snarky, just asking a question. Does this party have any role in arousing "class consciousness" or "educating" in the proletariat? How do De Leonists assure that the party will truly transfer all authority to the industrial union?


The new 'industrial form of government' would only have economic responsibilities, rather than any political or social ones.How are political and social issues dealt with? Would it just differ from community?


Thanks for the posts, Zero and Mike :cool:

[ZeroNowhere]

Sorry if I'm dense, but what do you mean by the "ballot is to be captured and immediately destroyed?" Does it mean that De Leonists advocate a De Leonist party run against mainstream bourgeois political parties in elections?
Yup. Then "adjourn, sine die."


How are political and social issues dealt with? Would it just differ from community?
As I said, this differs from person to person. It quite possibly would. I'd support a direct democratic system, the DLSC would support a political government based around geographical constituencies alongside the SIU, the SLP would, it seems, support the SIU also functioning in the determining of social issues, which is somewhat... Strange. Ehm, yeah, it differs from person to person, just as it does between syndies, etc.


How does this differ from a vanguard party? Not trying to be snarky, just asking a question.
Well, that depends on what you mean by 'vanguard party'. ;)

[mikelepore]

Since the question was raised about De Leon's concept of the constructive industrial organization and the destructive political organization, I might as well copy that section here. The following text is pulled out of his 1905 speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota, eititled "Socialist Reconstruction of Society". (Although I report what he said for the sake of objective journalism, I personally disagree with this idea. I believe that political and legal departments of government needs to be shrunk in magnitude but not eliminated when the classless society is implemented.)

BEGINNING OF TEXT EXCERPT:
____________________________________

It does not lie in a political organization, that is, a party, to "take and hold" the machinery of production. Both the "reason" for a political party and its "structure" unfit it for such work. I have at considerable length dealt with some of the aspects of this question in the address I delivered last year in Newark, N.J., "The Burning Question of Trades Unionism." I shall now take it up somewhat more in detail.

The "reason" for a political party unfits it to "take and hold" the machinery of production. As shown when I dealt with the first sentence of this clause - the sentence that urges the necessity of political unity - the "reason" for a political movement is the exigencies of the bourgeois shell in which the social revolution must partly shape its course. The governmental administration of capitalism is the State, the government proper (that institution is purely political). Political power, in the language of Marx, is merely the organized power of the capitalist class to oppress, to curb, to keep the working class in subjection. The bourgeois shell in which the social revolution must partly shape its course dictates the setting up of a body that shall contest the possession of the political robber burg by the capitalist class. The reason for such initial tactics also dictates their ultimate goal - the razing to the ground of the robber burg of capitalist tyranny.

The shops, the yards, the mills, in short, the mechanical establishments of production, now in the hands of the capitalist class - they are all to be "taken," not for the purpose of being destroyed, but for the purpose of being "held"; for the purpose of improving and enlarging all the good that is latent in them, and that capitalism dwarfs; in short, they are to be "taken and held" in order to save them for civilization.

It is exactly the reverse with the "political power." That is to be taken for the purpose of abolishing it. It follows herefrom that the goal of the political movement of labor is purely destructive.

Suppose that, at some election, the classconscious political arm of labor were to sweep the field; suppose the sweeping were done in such a landslide fashion that the capitalist election officials are themselves so completely swept off their base that they wouldn't, if they could, and that they couldn't, if they would, count us out; suppose that, from President down to Congress and the rest of the political redoubts of the capitalist political robber burg, our candidates were installed - suppose that, what would there be for them to do? What should there be for them to do? Simply to adjourn themselves, on the spot, sine die. Their work would be done by disbanding.

The political movement of labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after triumph, would be a usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe. It would be the signal for a social catastrophe if the political triumph did not find the working class of the land industrially organized, that is, in full possession of the plants of production and distribution, capable, accordingly, to assume the integral conduct of the productive powers of the land. The catastrophe would be instantaneous. The plants of production and distribution having remained in capitalist hands, production would be instantly blocked.

On the other hand, if the political triumph does find the working class industrially organized, then for the political movement to prolong its existence would be to attempt to usurp the powers which its very triumph announces have devolved upon the central administration of the industrial organization.

The "reason" for a political movement obviously unfits it to "take and hold" the machinery of production. What the political movement "moves into" is not the shops but the robber burg of capitalism - for the purpose of dismantling it.

And now, as to the structure of a political party. Look closely into that and the fact cannot escape you that its structure also unfits the political movement to "take and hold" the machinery of production. The disability flows inevitably from the "reason" for politics. The "reason" for a political party, we have seen, is to contend with capitalism upon its own special field - the field that determines the fate of political power. It follows that the structure of a political party must be determined by the capitalist governmental system of territorial demarcations - a system that the socialist republic casts off like a slough that society shall have outgrown.

Take Congress, for instance, whether Senate or House of Representatives. The unity of the congressional representation is purely politically geographic; it is arbitrary. The structure of the congressional district reflects the purpose of the capitalist State political, that is, class tyranny over class. The thought of production is absent, wholly so from the congressional demarcations. It cannot be otherwise. Congress - not being a central administration of the productive forces of the land, but the organized power of the capitalist class for oppression - its constituent bodies can have no trace of a purpose to administer production. Shoemakers, bricklayers, miners, railroadmen, together with the workers in all manner of other fractions of industries, are, accordingly, jumbled together in each separate congressional district. Accordingly, the political organization of labor intended to capture a congressional district is wholly unfit to "take and hold" the plants of industry. The only organization fit for that is the organization of the several industries themselves - and they are not subject to political lines of demarcation; they mock all such arbitrary, imaginary lines.

The central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic - exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be exclusively industrial. The artillery may support the cavalry; the cavalry may support the infantry of an army in the act of final triumph; in the act, however, of "taking and holding" the nation's plants of production, the political organization of the working class can give no help. Its mission will have come to an end just before the consummation of that consummating act of labor's emancipation.

The form of central authority, to which the political organization had to adapt itself and consequently looked, will have ceased to be. As the slough shed by the serpent that immediately reappears in its new skin, the political State will have been shed, and society will simultaneously appear in its new administrative garb.

The mining, the railroad, the textile, the building industries, down or up the line, each of these, regardless of former political boundaries, will be the constituencies of that new central authority the rough scaffolding of which was raised last week in Chicago.

Where the General Executive Board of the Industrial Workers of the World will sit there will be the nation's capital.

Like the flimsy card houses that children raise, the present political governments of counties, of states, aye, of the city on the Potomac herself, will tumble down, their places taken by the central and the subordinate administrative organs of the nation's industrial forces. Obviously, not the "structure" of the political movement, but the structure of the economic movement is fit for the task, to "take and hold" the industrial administration of the country's productive activity - the only thing worth "taking and holding."

__________________

END OF TEXT

(The whole document is online in pdf format at slp.org and in ascii text format at deleonism.org)

[mikelepore]

How are political and social issues dealt with?

Strangely enough, De Leonists only began to ask themselves that question for the first time in the 1990s.

All those years since the first decade of the 20th century the group said that there would be nothing left for a political government to do. We used to say: after the medical industry takes over the response to disasters instead of the police doing it today, after the transportation industry takes over directing street traffic instead of the police doing it today, after the weather bureau is no longer part of the government but instead part of the earth science field, etc., etc., there will be nothing left for a political government to do.

It was rather late that some of us began to realize that such a position doesn' t make sense. Now it seems clear to me that there will always be ethical issues which the whole population needs to control, for example, the whole population needs the power to ban the use of a dengerous pesticide, we can't just say it's an agriculture issue so let only the agriculture workers vote on it. Nor can we say let an all-industry congress (delegates of all workers in all industries) vote on it, because that is less democratic than our input as human beings and not as workers.

Modern science increases the number of ethical issues, for example, now we have to argue about human cloning, designer babies, etc.

The question of law and enforcement had the biggest impact on me. We can't just go around saying that, beginning the hour after the workers seize the means of production, no one will ever again commit murder or assault. The suggestion simply to "adjourn" all law making and law enforcement functions of government now appears to me to be an absurd idea, but I must admit that for several decades I didn't even realize there was a problem with it.

The SLP still hasn't issued any public comment about this subject, but several breakaway De Leonist groups have published discussions of it. (such as (http://deleonism.org/dlsc2.htm))

[AnarchyIsOrder]

So, how would one be sure that the party, when taking power, would then give it up immediately? After all, power corrupts, surely you're not going to base a revolution on electing the right people? After all, when people are elected in most places, they can do whatever they wish for four or five years. If you're going to have a general strike against them then, why not just do it earlier? Also, if you're going to ignore capitalists before your party is in power, wouldn't that be practically the equivalent of a general strike, which you probably think would be crushed, and be treated as such?
Also, when it comes to political agitation, how is that any more effective than any other type of agitation and propaganda? Also, what is to stop miscounting of the votes?

[davidasearles]

The emancipation of the proletariat, that is, the Socialist
Republic, can not be the result of legislative enactment. No bunch of
office holders will emancipate the proletariat. The emancipation of
the proletariat can only be the mass-action of the proletariat itself,
"moving in," taking possession of the productive powers of the land.

This correct, this indisputable position leads directly to the
principle that the revolutionary proletariat can not fulfill its
historic mission unless it is so organized economically, that it can
take possession integrally, shed the slough of the capitalist
political State, and assume the reins of industrial administration of
the country.

Daniel DeLeon
As to Politics, 1907
http://www.deleonism.org/atp.htm

[davidasearles]

For what it's worth:

"Lenin, closing his speech on the adoption of the Rights of Workers Bill in the congress of Soviets showed the influence of De Leon, whose governmental construction on the basis of industries, fits admirably into the Soviet construction of the state now forming in Russia. De Leon is really the first American Socialist to affect European thought. —Arno Dosch-­Fleurot, Petrograd dispatch to N.Y. World , Jan. 31, 1918."

found in 1922 SLP pamphlet by Arnold Petersen, National Secretary
Socialist Production and Collapse of Capitalism
http://www.slp.org/pdf/slphist/soc_prod_1922.pdf (http://www.slp.org/pdf/slphist/soc_prod_1922.pdf)

[mikelepore]

So, how would one be sure that the party, when taking power, would then give it up immediately? After all, power corrupts, surely you're not going to base a revolution on electing the right people? After all, when people are elected in most places, they can do whatever they wish for four or five years. If you're going to have a general strike against them then, why not just do it earlier? Also, if you're going to ignore capitalists before your party is in power, wouldn't that be practically the equivalent of a general strike, which you probably think would be crushed, and be treated as such?
Also, when it comes to political agitation, how is that any more effective than any other type of agitation and propaganda? Also, what is to stop miscounting of the votes?

Those kinds of concerns never bothered to me. You have some political factions that support oppression and slavery, they don't deny it, they are even proud of it. Then you have another political faction that speaks in favor of the emancipation of the oppressed people -- but you can't prove with 100 percent certainty that they're telling the truth, you worry that they might get corrupted. That still leaves us with only one logical course -- to support those who call for the emancipation of the oppressed. What's the alternative -- the default of the continued dominance by a faction that proudly supports oppression?

[AnarchyIsOrder]

Those kinds of concerns never bothered to me. You have some political factions that support oppression and slavery, they don't deny it, they are even proud of it. Then you have another political faction that speaks in favor of the emancipation of the oppressed people -- but you can't prove with 100 percent certainty that they're telling the truth, you worry that they might get corrupted. That still leaves us with only one logical course -- to support those who call for the emancipation of the oppressed. What's the alternative -- the default of the continued dominance by a faction that proudly supports oppression?
Self-emancipation. Choosing a ruler and hoping that he will give up his power is a rather unreliable way to bring about a revolution, as is choosing a ruler and hoping that he won't simply get corrupted. You're making a largely false dichotomy here, based on socialism from above being the only possible way that it can come about. So what if the workers start to lock out the capitalists, but then the newly elected government, rather than adjourning, decided to crush their rebellion by force? So, what's in it for the new government to willingly give up their powers?
Also, elections, in fact, do not provide a reliable gauge for how many people want socialism or not. Only, what, 40% or so of people in the US vote currently? So what if you had a government made out of socialists, but only 30% of the people in the US voted for them? So, it would seem that elections are certainly not a valid way to see "which way the wind blows", and could even lead to a socialist government taking power without majority support, and without this support, socialism is destined to fail. That's even assuming that they give up power in the first place. The US government system is set up in a way that means that the government has no reason to listen to the people, which reflects its origins under capitalism, where the government is used only as a tool of the capitalist class. Unless you perhaps wish to elect a socialist Party, and then have a general strike if it is not appreciated? But then you are admitting that the general strike is an effective tactic. So then what?

[davidasearles]

AnarchyisOrder wrote:

Choosing a ruler and hoping that he will give up his power is a rather unreliable way to bring about a revolution, as is choosing a ruler and hoping that he won't simply get corrupted.


David Searles writes:


If think in the least that is what DeLeon advocated, you could not be more wrong.


It may be that since DeLeon advocated that the labor movement AMONG OTHER THINGS utilize
the political process which includes the ballot, that necessarily means to you "choosing a ruler".

You might go back and re-read the various DeLeon quotations in this thread.

such as:

"The emancipation of the proletariat, that is, the Socialist
Republic, can not be the result of legislative enactment. No bunch of
office holders will emancipate the proletariat. The emancipation of
the proletariat can only be the mass-action of the proletariat itself,
"moving in," taking possession of the productive powers of the land."

Daniel DeLeon
As to Politics, 1907
http://www.deleonism.org/atp.htm (http://www.deleonism.org/atp.htm)

[AnarchyIsOrder]

If think in the least that is what DeLeon advocated, you could not be more wrong.


It may be that since DeLeon advocated that the labor movement AMONG OTHER THINGS utilize
the political process which includes the ballot, that necessarily means to you "choosing a ruler".
Well, yes, which is why I prefer De Leonism to the purely political ideas advanced by the World Socialist Movement et al. Mais, De Leonism and anarcho-syndicalism are mainly differentiated by his advocacy of a political party. Now, regardless of what he said, the proletariat, in doing so, is still relying on the government not to simply kill off their movement and take power for itself. After all, if not, why not just do it without bothering with the Party? Also, if the Party gets in, as I said, but with only a minority vote, and the majority of the proletariat not on their side, thus negating mass-action, what do they do?
I merely put stress on the political party aspect because it is the main contention between us anarcho-syndicalists and De Leonists. I don't mean to imply that De Leonism focuses solely on the political party, merely that, in the end, De Leonism does base itself off the assumption that the government will, out of their own good will, give up power and 'adjourn sine die'. As the government of countries such as the US was birthed under systems of minority rule, they are made so that the elected people do not have to carry out the will of those who elected them. This means that they could quite easily turn things into a Soviet Union-type state if they wished, after all, the Constitution is merely a document, rather than a magical shield. For example, look at the Espionage Act.
tl;dr Regardless of what De Leon said, his system does generally rely on a newly elected socialist Party willingly giving up their power, and not stifling the workers through the police and other organs. After all, if the police weren't willing or able to put it down, why not just do the lockout immediately, rather than waiting for the new socialist Party to to be crowned?

Edit: On the other hand, pehaps it would be possible to lock Congress and such in until they made the decision? Or could that be put down by the police? Hm...

[Invincible Summer]

The central administrative organ of the Socialist Republic - exactly the opposite of the central power of capitalism, not being the organized power of a ruling class for oppression, in short, not being political, but exclusively administrative of the producing forces of the land - its constituent bodies must be exclusively industrial.
But if the productive forces become more central and significant in society (as the population will control the means of production), then would not "exclusively administrative control over the productive forces" essentially be a centralized power?


The artillery may support the cavalry; the cavalry may support the infantry of an army in the act of final triumph; in the act, however, of "taking and holding" the nation's plants of production, the political organization of the working class can give no help.
The "political organization" means the political party, correct?


The form of central authority, to which the political organization had to adapt itself and consequently looked, will have ceased to be. As the slough shed by the serpent that immediately reappears in its new skin, the political State will have been shed, and society will simultaneously appear in its new administrative garb.
This is the DeLeonist version of the state withering away?

[ZeroNowhere]

But if the productive forces become more central and significant in society (as the population will control the means of production), then would not "exclusively administrative control over the productive forces" essentially be a centralized power?
"It is one of the absurdities to say that the Central functions, not of governmental authority over the people, but necessitated by the general and common wants of the country, would become impossible. These functions would exist, but the functionaries themselves could not, as in the old governmental machinery, raise themselves over real society, because the functions were to be executed by Communal agents, and, therefore, always under real control." (Italics in original)
-Marx.

"National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan." (italics in original)
-Marx.

If you wish.


This is the DeLeonist version of the state withering away?
I don't see how exactly that works.

[PRC-UTE]

DeLeonism as a political current came out of the late nineteenth century workers movement in the USA. though it's produced some good quality comrades, it hasn't been involved in much since really. the idea of the soviet seems to have superseded industrial unionism

someone on the previous page denied that DeLeon believed in the iron law of wages. in fact this was his position, and it was one of the reasons he had a massive falling out with James Connolly.


Lately when reading the report of the meetings held by one of our organisers in the West, I discovered that in the course of a discussion with a spokesman of the Kangaroos [1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm#n1), this comrade held that the workers could not even temporarily benefit by a rise in wages “as every rise in wages was offset by a rise in prices.” When the Kangaroo quoted from Marx’s Value, Price and Profit [2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm#n2), to prove the contrary, our S.L.P. man airily disposed of Marx by saying that Marx wrote in advance of, and without anticipation of, the present day combinations of capital. I am afraid that that S.L.P. speaker knew little of Marx except his name, or he could not have made such a remark. The theory that a rise in prices always destroys the value of a rise in wages sound very revolutionary, of course, but it is not true. And, furthermore, it is no part of our doctrine. If it .were it knocks the feet from under the S.T. & L.A. [3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm#n3) and renders that body little else than a mere ward-heeling club for the S.L.P. I am prepared to defend this point if any one considers me wrong upon it. It was one of the points in dispute between my opponents at the Schenectady meeting and myself. Until the party is a unit upon such points our propaganda in one place will nullify our propaganda in another.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm

here's a link to the intro to this pamphlet published by the Cork Workers Club, and I'd recommend anyone interested in DeLeonism read it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/cwcintro.htm

btw, some DeLeonists still argue that DeLeon was correct on wages, such as the NUP. It's fine if you say that some DeLeonists no longer hold the position DeLeon did on wages. but there's no point in denying that DeLeon did when it's documented otherwise.

[mikelepore]

Self-emancipation. Choosing a ruler and hoping that he will give up his power is a rather unreliable way to bring about a revolution, as is choosing a ruler and hoping that he won't simply get corrupted. You're making a largely false dichotomy here, based on socialism from above being the only possible way that it can come about. So what if the workers start to lock out the capitalists, but then the newly elected government, rather than adjourning, decided to crush their rebellion by force? So, what's in it for the new government to willingly give up their powers?

Also, elections, in fact, do not provide a reliable gauge for how many people want socialism or not. Only, what, 40% or so of people in the US vote currently? So what if you had a government made out of socialists, but only 30% of the people in the US voted for them? So, it would seem that elections are certainly not a valid way to see "which way the wind blows", and could even lead to a socialist government taking power without majority support, and without this support, socialism is destined to fail. That's even assuming that they give up power in the first place.

I think the false dichotomy is on your side. You're never going to persuade all of the members of society to agree unanimously that no one shall vote, so that the election results the next morning will come back like this: Democratic Party: zero; Socialist Party: zero; etc. Since that can't happen, it's inevitable that someone is going to win each public office. It's better to insert someone who supports socialism than someone who opposes it. Having public office remain vacant isn't one of the choices on the ballot, but to stick a conservative in there or to stick a revolutionary delegate in there is on the ballot. Choice has to be made from among the array of choices.

Also, socialism "from above" is not my phrase. I see no "from above" involved in it, when the voting machine is already programmed to ask the population whether they would prefer the pro-oppression platform or the pro-emancipation platform, and then people go out on election day to answer that question.

But I'll accept your phrase "the only possible way that it can come about." Since private ownership of the means of production is currently the law, and since in any human society the law is always enforced, then discontinuing that private ownership means either having the legislature change the law, which is the very easy method, or having previously assassinated all of the law enforcement personnel, which is the very hard method.


The US government system is set up in a way that means that the government has no reason to listen to the people, which reflects its origins under capitalism, where the government is used only as a tool of the capitalist class.

I see no evidence for that. What I see is that modern political government does exactly what the people vote for. At the present time about 99.999 percent of the people support their own oppression, and then the election results and the subsequent social policy accurately reflect what the people have unwisely consented to.


Unless you perhaps wish to elect a socialist Party, and then have a general strike if it is not appreciated? But then you are admitting that the general strike is an effective tactic. So then what?

I consider the general strike to a completely ineffective tactic in all cases. The survival of the new workers' controlled administration depends on the distribution of all essential goods and services being continued without any interruptions.

[mikelepore]

But if the productive forces become more central and significant in society (as the population will control the means of production), then would not "exclusively administrative control over the productive forces" essentially be a centralized power?

I don't know what "power" may mean to various people, but a central decision-making process is the only way any human society can get anything done. Imagine a workshop where you're making parts and handing them to the next person, and we hear it said, "You're handing me the parts for making a clock? I thought we were making a toaster!"

Harmonious planning is our freedom, not our enemy. To those who don't grasp this point, I recommend Engels' essay "On Authority" and Marx's 'Capital' chapter 13 - "Cooperation."


The "political organization" means the political party, correct?

Yes, that's what he meant in the quoted passage.


This is the DeLeonist version of the state withering away?

De Leon sometimes used so many metaphors and similes that he ended up making himself more unclear. In fact he apparently didn't believe in the state withering away. In the early days of his public speaking career he said that he believed in the state being abolished in a single day, and I don't know of anywhere where he may have retracted the remark.

[mikelepore]

PRC-UTE quote James Connolly as saying:


The theory that a rise in prices always destroys the value of a rise in wages sound very revolutionary, of course, but it is not true. And, furthermore, it is no part of our doctrine.

We find Marx often making such comments as:

"Labor, being itself a commodity, is measured as such by the labor time needed to produce the labor-commodity. And what is needed to produce this labor-commodity? Just enough labor time to produce the objects indispensable to the constant maintenance of labor, that is, to keep the worker alive and in a condition to propagate his race. The natural price of labor is no other than the wage minimum." (from Marx, "The Poverty of Philosophy", 1847)

"Thus, the cost of production of simple labor-power amounts to the cost of the existence and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost of existence and propagation constitutes wages. The wages thus determined are called the minimum of wages. This minimum wage, like the determination of the price of commodities in general by cost of production, does not hold good for the single individual , but only for the race. Individual workers, indeed, millions of workers, do not receive enough to be able to exist and to propagate themselves; but the wages of the whole working class adjust themselves, within the limits of their fluctuations, to this minimum." (from Marx, "Wage-Labor and Capital", 1849)

But when De Leon said essentially the same thing that Marx said, that real wages (the amount that wages will buy at some moment) have a tendency to repeatedly gravate back to the bare subsistence level, Connolly claimed that De Leon was inconsistent with Marx.

PRC-UTE said:


and it was one of the reasons he had a massive falling out with James Connolly

Connolly was mainly disgruntled because De Leon often wrote disrespectfully about the conservative political comments coming out of the Vatican, and Connolly was a devout Catholic who defended the infallability of the Pope. So Connolly reacted to the blasphemer De Leon by sifting through everything that De Leon had ever written, with the aim of finding any apparent inconsistencies that he might be able to hit De Leon with. In reality, whatever inconsistencies De Leon did have, this point about the living wage wasn't one of them. De Leon had always maintained it, just as Marx and Engels had always maintained it.

[AnarchyIsOrder]

I recommend Engels' essay "On Authority" and Marx's 'Capital' chapter 13 - "Cooperation."
I dunno, I'd say that the former was rather silly, especially the part about revolution being authoritarian by default, and thus anti-authoritarianism being anti-revolution or something, which I hope was more of a humorous jab than meant as an actual argument. The latter seems pretty well done so far, though.


You're never going to persuade all of the members of society to agree unanimously that no one shall vote, so that the election results the next morning will come back like this: Democratic Party: zero; Socialist Party: zero; etc. Since that can't happen, it's inevitable that someone is going to win each public office. It's better to insert someone who supports socialism than someone who opposes it. Having public office remain vacant isn't one of the choices on the ballot, but to stick a conservative in there or to stick a revolutionary delegate in there is on the ballot. Choice has to be made from among the array of choices.
I suppose that your ideas do make more sense now. I have no problem with voting in a socialist party or anything, if you wish. That is, the whole, 'voting is issuing implicit support for the capitalist state' thing is silly. Still, I do see something of a problem coming about if a socialist party is elected without majority approval. If they do anything too extreme, but not abolishing capitalism, then a capital strike or flight could lead to economic crisis unless they then kept neoliberalism, though perhaps closer to the form found in Sweden. On the other hand, they can't really adjourn or implement socialism if they only have 30% or so support. Presumably the whole 'political agitation' idea means that they run before getting majority support, correct?
Also, my point, though I suppose that I assumed that you put more emphasis on the political party than you do, was that even if a socialist party was voted in with majority support, they would have no reason to give up power. In which case couldn't the state power be used against the workers anyways? That is, is there any sure-fire way to make sure that the politicians give up power, or, as it seems davidasearles is proposing, sign in the amendment? I mean, it could be possible, and would certainly make things simpler.
Also, I do like how DeLeonism (how is that pronounced? Lee-on or Lay-on?) seems to evade a common problem with electoral socialist strategies, that is, the lack of focus on worker self-emancipation, which would tend to breed too much inaction and reliance on politicians for emancipation. I don't really know why there were so many quarrels between De Leon and anarcho-syndicalists, though. Accusing us of being 'physical forcists' and the like does sort of put stress on the political program, though I suppose that, like in the Marx-Bakunin conflict, it may have had less to do with theory and more to do with personal conflicts (or anti-Semitism, in the example).


I consider the general strike to a completely ineffective tactic in all cases.
I suppose that your point about production being continued does make sense. Do you have any other reasons why you would see a general strike as being ineffectual?


someone on the previous page denied that DeLeon believed in the iron law of wages. in fact this was his position, and it was one of the reasons he had a massive falling out with James Connoly
Wait, so you're quoting Connoly on De Leon? That would be like me quoting Bakunin on Marx, or God on Satan.

[davidasearles]

Well, yes, which is why I prefer De Leonism to the purely political ideas advanced by the World Socialist Movement et al. Mais, De Leonism and anarcho-syndicalism are mainly differentiated by his advocacy of a political party. Now, regardless of what he said, the proletariat, in doing so, is still relying on the government not to simply kill off their movement and take power for itself. After all, if not, why not just do it without bothering with the Party? Also, if the Party gets in, as I said, but with only a minority vote, and the majority of the proletariat not on their side, thus negating mass-action, what do they do?
I merely put stress on the political party aspect because it is the main contention between us anarcho-syndicalists and De Leonists. I don't mean to imply that De Leonism focuses solely on the political party, merely that, in the end, De Leonism does base itself off the assumption that the government will, out of their own good will, give up power and 'adjourn sine die'.




Also, I do like how DeLeonism seems to evade a common problem with electoral socialist strategies, that is, the lack of focus on worker self-emancipation, which would tend to breed too much inaction and reliance on politicians for emancipation.

This is from the 1912 SLP national platform, the last one drawn up in DeLeon's lifetime:

To imply the Social Revolution with the ballot only, without the means to
enforce the ballot’s fiat, in case of Reaction’s attempt to override it, is to fire
blank cartridges at a foe. It is worse. It is to threaten his existence without
the means to carry out the threat. Threats of revolution, without provisions
to carry them out result in one of two things only—either the leaders are
bought out, or the revolutionary class, to which the leaders appeal and
which they succeed in drawing after themselves, are led like cattle to the
shambles. The Commune disaster of France stands a monumental warning
against the blunder….

Only two programs—the program of the Plutocracy and the program of the
Socialist Labor Party—grasp the situation.

The Political State, another name for the Class State, is worn out in this, the
leading capitalist Nation of the world, most prominently. The Industrial or
Socialist State is throbbing for birth. The Political State, being a Class State, is
government separate and apart from the productive energies of the
people; it is government mainly for holding the ruled class in subjection. The
Industrial or Socialist State, being the denial of the Class State, is
government that is part and parcel of the productive energies of the
people….

The program of the Socialist Labor Party is REVOLUTION—the Industrial or
Socialist Republic, the Social Order where the Political State is overthrown;
where the Congress of the land consists of the representatives of the useful
occupations of the land; where, accordingly, a government is an essential
factor in production; where the blessings to man that the Trust is instinct with
are freed from the trammels of the private ownership that now turn the
potential blessings into a curse; where, accordingly, abundance can be the
patrimony of all who work; and the shackles of wage slavery are no more….
In keeping with the goals of the different programs are the means of their
execution.

The means in contemplation by REACTION is the bayonet. To this end
REACTION is seeking, by means of the police spy and other agencies, to lash
the proletariat into acts of violence that may give a color to the resort to
the bayonet. By its manoeuvres, it is egging the Working Class on to deeds
of fury. The capitalist press echoes the policy, while the pure and simple
political Socialist party press, generally, is snared into the trap.

On the contrary, the means firmly adhered to by the Socialist Labor Party is
the constitutional method of political action, backed by the industrially and
class-consciously organized proletariat, to the exclusion of Anarchy, and all
that thereby hangs.

http://www.slp.org/pdf/platforms/plat1912.pdf

[davidasearles]

But it's always been an open or at least an unsettled question in the SLP as to the form of political organization of the workers. The SLP as I understood it didn't lay any special claim to legitimacy or of being the party of labor other than it had a correct program. There was some talk that if the economic organization of the workers itself putting up a political party, perhaps (in my words) a combined SP SLP, through the IWW, but unfortunately that never materialized.

By my own estimation, formulated in the last few years, a formal political party is not necessary and would probably be more of a hindrance. But that is to not in anyway depreciate the necessity of political action on the part of the workers. To me, and perhaps this is too fanciful, that when the workers finally get it into their heads that they need to have collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution, that the politicians are not going to get in their way by not amending the constitution.

[mikelepore]

Do you have any other reasons why you would see a general strike as being ineffectual?

The IWW's articles on the general strike always argued that the state requires goods from industry, so, if the workers stopped manufacturing and shipping weapons and ammo for the state, then the state simply wouldn't have any more weapons and ammo. They say this makes the union all-powerful and capable of shutting down a violent state repression at any time. The serious error there is the failure to realize that the state stores an inventory of weapons and ammo. Even if production of these things stopped, the forces of the state could massacre millions of workers before their inventory runs out.

As for the common goods that the police and military use, such as food and petroleum, a general strike can't stop making these for the state without starving the working class first. The person who operates the gasoline pump or the food market won't being saying "no" to the soldiers who came by with machine guns and bazookas, so if anyone at all gets these goods then the state will get them first, and the population would get them last.

A general strike is useless as a revolutionary strategy. It would result only in the working class hurting themselves. After the massacre, the survivors would then go back to work for the capitalists obediently, and this time they would go back to work under absolute fascism, not under the liberal circumstance of freedom of speech and assembly.

[mikelepore]

that even if a socialist party was voted in with majority support, they would have no reason to give up power.

I suggest looking up the "perfect solution fallacy" at wikipedia.

[mikelepore]

On the other hand, they can't really adjourn or implement socialism if they only have 30% or so support. Presumably the whole 'political agitation' idea means that they run before getting majority support, correct?

The educational use of the ballot, that is, an excuse to get oneself invited to podiums, interviews and debates, can be done at any time. However, the last time the SLP had a presidential candidate was 1976 because getting the number of signatures needed to appear on the ballot is now considered too large a job to be worthwhile.

To use the ballot to obtain a public mandate for socialism would require actually winning elections. What that public mandate would consist of is a matter of some debate. Some De Leonists say that a constitutional amendment will be necessary, which I agree with. Some De Leonists believe that merely electing a socialist to the office of the nation's president would be the signal for the industrial union to act at once to take possession of the industries, but I can't see how it could be.

[Pogue]

I was interested in it for a bit, good combination of political power for workers suplemented by industrial power in the revolutionary union, however I think a properly educated working class in a theoretically sound industrial revolutionary union negates the need for a party.

[mikelepore]

how is that pronounced? Lee-on or Lay-on?)

He was from South America where De Leon is pronounced properly like Day-Lay-OWN, accent on the last syllable. We lazy New Yorkers usually say Duh-LEE-uhn and Duh-LEE-uh-nizzum, but I also studied Spanish in school for five years, so I'm pulled both ways.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was interested in it for a bit, good combination of political power for workers suplemented by industrial power in the revolutionary union, however I think a properly educated working class in a theoretically sound industrial revolutionary union negates the need for a party.
Fair enough. What would you propose as an alternative?

[davidasearles]

Fair enough. What would you propose as an alternative? (to a political party)

A party can be an actual membership organization or it can be a lose affiliation of individuals sharing a like political philosophy.

In most states people may become democrats republicans and whatnot by merely checking a box on their voter registration form.

In several states such as in Vermont there isn't even that. Any voter can vote in any political party primary when one is held.

There are committees of various parties but for the most part the democrats and republicans hold power simply by having enough people vote for party designated candidates.

But as for the proposed constitutional amendment as I have stated before, I think that having a pro amendment party would actually work against it. I am not wedded to the idea, but to me it seems to be the case. The worst that could happen would be to get some amendment party people actually elected here and there, and then they become perceived to be part of the problem.

Politicians excel at taking the pulse of public opinion. They are especially not prone to taking principled stances on anything. If all they have to do to get a lot of angry workers off of their backs is to vote of the amendment proposal that's exactly what they will do - democrat or republican.

We have made the mistake to believe that the capitalist class is going to circle the wagons around the work places of the industrial means of production and distribution. Look how quickly they are being shut down and think again.

If the govt. on behalf of the workers offers the tens of millions of stock holders owners of industrial capital sliding scale payment for their stock certificates in the form of either labor vouchers or govt. fiat currency, based upon the actual depreciated value of the tools of production, as full restitution for the transfer of ownership to the workers' collective, I am crazy enough to think that the owners would jump at the offer, and that the workers would to.

Dare we be so bold as to believe that resolution of the class struggle could be a win/win scenero for by far most of the population?