Can we have a discussion on de leonism

[campesino]

i'm curious about it, hopefully some de leonist or critics of it are here to respond.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I don't know much about him except that he advocated a combination of the union and political party. I was thoroughly turned off reading him after seeing some of the elitist shit he said about 'slum proletarians'.

[l'Enfermé]

It's not a "real" tendency, like Luxemburgism, as far as I understand.

[Ostrinski]

MarxSchmarx is a DeLeonist and one of the most insightful users on the board to boot. He is the group leader of the DeLeonist group and can be very informative.

I don't know if it is a tendency of its own, it's more related to Orthodox Marxism but it is its own strategy. It advocates an auxiliary economic struggle within revolutionary unions in direct relation to a revolutionary political struggle in the form of a mass party.

Daniel DeLeon is also the only prominent Marxist theoretician from the US, as far as I know.

[l'Enfermé]

Is it Daniel De Leon or Daniel DeLeon? Anyway, DeLeon/De Leon is held in high esteem among the "orthodox Marxists"/Members of the "Revolutionary Marxists" tendency on RevLeft.

[Ostrinski]

Well technically it should be De Leon, as in Spanish it means from Leon, a region and city in Spain. But they get squished together in English because it's not an English word. Either way would probably be considered proper, even wikipedia uses both.

[LordAcheron]

I think it was a great tactic to be used at that point in time (certainly better than Lenin's crap) but has no relevance to our current situation. The government is far too authoritarian and corrupt, and the unions have been hijacked by the liberals. Yes, we have the ability to regain control of the unions, but the government is a lost cause.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm a former De Leonist. My first exposure to leftist politics in the early 1990s was as a member of the SLP.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That book o'dead guy that was banned a few months ago was one as well. Was right wing moralism widespread in the slp or was it unique to him?

[campesino]

I'm a former De Leonist. My first exposure to leftist politics in the early 1990s was as a member of the SLP.

how was you experiance in the SLP?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

That book o'dead guy that was banned a few months ago was one as well. Was right wing moralism widespread in the slp or was it unique to him?
From my interaction with a few DeLeonists, just that guy.
If anyone wants to track him down, the user ZeroNowhere (banned a year or two ago during the Great Purge) was an excellent resource on DeLeon. He seemed to have studied DeLeon's writings, even his daily/weekly articles, quite well. He was one of the smartest users on this forum. Definitely worth the conversation.

[jookyle]

One of the biggest criticism you'll see of what he wrote was the emphasis he put on participation in elections.

[The Douche]

It's not a "real" tendency, like Luxemburgism, as far as I understand.

Not really. DeLeonism isn't a real tendency anymore, but at one time it was extremely popular, and it was a large minority in the IWW at the height of the IWW's popularity, and DeLeon headed a party, the SLP is (was) the oldest socialist party in the US, and one of the oldest in the world, I think.

It is now a dead tendency though, with only a few scattered subscribers.

[Ostrinski]

I think it was a great tactic to be used at that point in time (certainly better than Lenin's crap) but has no relevance to our current situation. The government is far too authoritarian and corrupt, and the unions have been hijacked by the liberals. Yes, we have the ability to regain control of the unions, but the government is a lost cause.Actually, there is more in the way of continuity between Lenin and DeLeon than you might think. Both were advocates of a mass party.

Their strategic outlooks on unions were different as DeLeon wanted the formation of a revolutionary union as part ofnthe not capturing the existing ones as you seem to imply. Lenin was a proponent of working within the existing trade unions that might be under bureaucratic or reactionary leadership to try and turn over some of the membership toward revolutionary politics through education.

While they may have some differences they are both important for the reason that they come from a Marxist tradition that places emphasis on the political strategical outlook on the movement toward socialism.

And yes, ZeroNowhere was good. The Inform Candidate was another DeLeonist that was good.

[Grenzer]

Luxemburgism isn't a real tendency, but De Leonism was.

What De Leon emphasized was a unique set of tactics based on the conditions faced in each country. I'd say that De Leon's ideas for revolutionary strategy in America are still quite applicable today. He did not see his ideas for the SLP as being universally applicable in every country, unlike other tendencies which have a mechanical strategy to be applied everywhere regardless of circumstance.

De Leon essentially took what was best about the revolutionary era of German social-democracy and applied an American spin on it. De Leonism, in my opinion, has a lot of good ideas that we would benefit greatly from making a return to. He's in my top five Marxists.

You can find a lot of his works at the SLP website (www.slp.org).

[The Jay]

I think it was a great tactic to be used at that point in time (certainly better than Lenin's crap) but has no relevance to our current situation. The government is far too authoritarian and corrupt, and the unions have been hijacked by the liberals. Yes, we have the ability to regain control of the unions, but the government is a lost cause.


DeLeon actually wrote a lot on the yellow trade unions and their management style. If you look at his archives (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/index.htm) you will find that a lot of the issues he talked about are the exact same ones that are being discussed now.

[The Idler]

In some respects at some periods, De Leonism shared elements of Impossibilism, but yeah, De Leonism seems to be pretty underrated just because the organisation has become defunct. Much more of a real tendency than Leninism or Trotskyism as far as I'm concerned.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Also - DeLeon was a brilliant man. However, the problem with a lot of his ideas and DeLeon in general is that it was not allowed to be criticized, or spread. DeLeon, for all that he did, was arrogant. He scoffed at criticism.
Once he died, the SLP party was never the same in its leadership. It received a modest revival in the 60s, when it's presidential candidate received over 52,000 votes in 1968, and 54,000 votes in 1972. But let's be honest: during that time, any leftist organization was getting college students out the wazoo due to Vietnam and all the activism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

how was you experiance in the SLP?
I learned a lot politically, but all the members in my chapter were 50-70 years older than me. One member in the chapter casually dropped racial slurs like "Japs," which I found disconcerting. I shared my concerns with someone in the national office, and a few weeks later the local chapter organizer sent me a letter saying I had been dismissed for "attacking a comrade."

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How did the tendency die out?

[Zanthorus]

The Inform Candidate was another DeLeonist that was good.

Minor side point, but I don't think TIC was a DeLeonist.

[Blake's Baby]

How did the tendency die out?

Not entirely sure they have completely. I'm sure they were still going in the 1990s, even into the 2000s. There must still be a few around even apart from the 'revivalists' like Book o'Dead. Isn't Paulappaul influenced by De Leonism?

There are some scattered De Leonists in the UK, I met one (allegedly) only a few weeks ago. The current SLP in the UK however, while claiming to be in continuity with the SLP of 1903-1980 (the current one was formed in 1996, the 'Party History' section of their website is bizarre, it claims the SLP ceased to exist in 1923) is not in the least. The original SLP was De Leonist and the later one Stalinist (at least after successive expulsions of Trotskyist groups in the 1990s, and the dominance of the Stalin Society and Indian Workers Association, before Harpal Brar and his faction split to form the CPGB-ML), making no mention of De Leon in its history, but much of James Connelly.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

How did the tendency die out?
He fell out with the IWW and lost a lot of working class support and then his followers after he died, such as Debs, were imprisoned for opposing the first world war. And when a movement grounded on tying politics with unions looses its union support and has its political wing suppressed...

[The Idler]

Does King Arthur's SLP really make claims of continuity with the SLP formed in 1903?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Also, my experience of the SLP is that the party was very sectarian, i.e. De Leonism was correct and all other tendencies were wrong. There wasn't an openness to new ideas or new analyses.

[Blake's Baby]

Does King Arthur's SLP really make claims of continuity with the SLP formed in 1903?

Yes. Except, they date the formation of the SLP to 1902 (when the faction around Connelly formed inside the SDF?) and claim that it 'ceased to operate' in 1923, after the formation of the Labour Party. Here's the link to the party's 'History' page: http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/partyhistory.html

It's shameful, honestly.

[MarxSchmarx]

MarxSchmarx is a DeLeonist and one of the most insightful users on the board to boot. He is the group leader of the DeLeonist group and can be very informative.

I don't know if it is a tendency of its own, it's more related to Orthodox Marxism but it is its own strategy. It advocates an auxiliary economic struggle within revolutionary unions in direct relation to a revolutionary political struggle in the form of a mass party.

Daniel DeLeon is also the only prominent Marxist theoretician from the US, as far as I know.

:blushing: humbled and touched... :blushing:

But I think you give a good characterization of the central issue: historically, de Leon himself didn't see his approach as particularly unique but as a reflection and reformulation of the concrete issues of the struggle faced by workers of his day.

It's important to remember de Leon was a newspaper editor first, and saw his role as facilitating communication among workers. He often printed (albeit somewhat selectively) articles denouncing his approach and was committed really to advancing the discussion. Despite his deep sectarian reputation, de Leon was quite pragmatic and this was reflected in his editorship. That's why it's fair I think to say de Leon's outlook was "orthodox marxist" - because like the young Marx, I think it's safe to say de Leon saw his role as less a transformative "world-historical" individual than one of partaking in giving voice to the voiceless.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Would it be fair to say that a contemporary DeLeonism would be similar in some respects to council communism or is it closer to anarco-syndicalism?

[Zeus the Moose]

Would it be fair to say that a contemporary DeLeonism would be similar in some respects to council communism or is it closer to anarco-syndicalism?

In terms of its organising via socialist industrial unionism, I'd probably put it closer to anarcho-syndicalism (though my understanding of SIU is not very deep, so I could be wrong on this point.) That said, since DeLeonism is generally very pro-party, I don't see it as being particularly close to either council communism or anarcho-syndicalism, though given their rejection of "Leninism," my guess is that most modern-day DeLeonists would find themselves closer to such tendencies in terms of common work.

[Zeus the Moose]

Hm, something which comrades here might find interesting- the Marxists Internet Archive has a listing of SLP programs in its section of the Early American Marxism page. It seems like all the SLP programs up until the late 1890s split are formulated a bit like the programs of contemporary European Marxist parties. Compare the 1885 SLP Program (http://marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1885/1008-slp-platform.pdf) with the 1880 program of the French Workers Party (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm) and the Erfurt Program of 1891 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm). There is a stark similarity in the division between political and economic sections of the program, and many of the political demands are consistent throughout the three. On the other hand, the post-1890s SLP programs (like their 1900 one (http://marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1900/plat1900.pdf)) does not follow this pattern. I don't really know what this says with regard to DeLeonism, but it seems like an interesting note.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Wasn't De Leon to some extent a right-wing socialist given his opposition to the Wobblies and his reactionary comment about them being "slum proletarians"?

[The Jay]

Wasn't De Leon to some extent a right-wing socialist given his opposition to the Wobblies and his reactionary comment about them being "slum proletarians"?

He was a wobbly for a while. He just supported acting in politics, to put it simply. The IWW technically split into his camp and the IWW of today.

[l'Enfermé]

^He called them "the bummery" also, which I think is infinitely more catchy.

What's reactionary about it though? He was criticisng their lumpenproletarian attitude.

[Grenzer]

Wasn't De Leon to some extent a right-wing socialist given his opposition to the Wobblies and his reactionary comment about them being "slum proletarians"?

How could you consider him right wing? You'd have to tear everything completely out of context to come to this conclusion.

For one, you have to understand that he was one of the founders of the IWW, and you also need to understand that the intended purpose of the IWW during its creation was far, far different from the very apolitical thing it became and remains today.

The IWW was not founded solely by De Leon and the SLP; it was a multi-tendency project and I believe many people from the Socialist Party were involved as well. Essentially the key thing to realize is that De Leon's strategy of what can be termed revolutionary industrial unionism was tended to be an AUXILIARY to political struggle. The IWW as supposed to struggle alongside, and compliment the efforts of the party. Which party specifically hadn't really been determined. None of the parties; the SLP, SP, etc had really become hegemonic, so the question of which party the IWW should be affiliated with had never been solved. The IWW was supposed to provide an additional avenue of struggle that could be pursued along with political struggle.

Unlike most leftist organizations today, the IWW was run alongside genuinely democratic lines(although the tragic end of this may highlight the limitations of this kind of organization). The Anarchists started entering the organization in mass and just hijacked it from its intended purpose and robbed it of all political content. The IWW just became an apolitical entity that would become divorced from the masses over time, which is actually exactly what ended up happening. The reason De Leon was pissed is because he knew this would happen, and was angry over the apolitical direction the organization was being taken in.

His comment may be a bit inappropriate, but reactionary? Not by any stretch of the imagination. No more reactionary than anyone who opposes the self-isolating and impotent unpolitics of anarchism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Daniel De Leon's great-grandson was one of my college professors and even he believed that his great-grandfather's was too sectarian, specifically in comparison to Eugene Victor Debs. Sorry to have stirred up a shitstorm, but De Leonism was frankly always a secondary current on the American left, and AFAIK is rather moribund.

[Grenzer]

Daniel De Leon's great-grandson was one of my college professors and even he believed that his great-grandfather's was too sectarian, specifically in comparison to Eugene Victor Debs. Sorry to have stirred up a shitstorm, but De Leonism was frankly always a secondary current on the American left, and AFAIK is rather moribund.

Nothing to apologize for; you do speak the truth in that it was a secondary current. The SLP is around today still, but I think it only is a small shell of its former self. For all practical intents and purposes, it doesn't exist anymore.

I am not sure that Eugene Debs is the ideal counterpoint, though. If De Leon's problem was that he was too sectarian(something I would debate, but that's beside the point here), then Debs' problem was the opposite. He was too afraid to assert himself as a strong leader, and essentially let Bernsteinites and other petit-bourgeois elements run amok through the party. To some extent, I would not blame this on any inherent fault in Debs, but rather to the fact that he had never conducted an in depth study of Marxism, and never, I think, fully understood it.

[l'Enfermé]

Nothing to apologize for; you do speak the truth in that it was a secondary current. The SLP is around today still, but I think it only is a small shell of its former self. For all practical intents and purposes, it doesn't exist anymore.

I am not sure that Eugene Debs is the ideal counterpoint, though. If De Leon's problem was that he was too sectarian(something I would debate, but that's beside the point here), then Debs' problem was the opposite. He was too afraid to assert himself as a strong leader, and essentially let Bernsteinites and other petit-bourgeois elements run amok through the party.To some extent, I would not blame this on any inherent fault in Debs, but rather to the fact that he had never conducted an in depth study of Marxism, and never, I think, fully understood it.
Did you do that on purpose(" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/he%20has%20never%20made%20a%20study%20of%20the%20d ialectics,%20and,%20I%20think,%20never%20fully%20u nderstood%20it)he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/he%20has%20never%20made%20a%20study%20of%20the%20d ialectics,%20and,%20I%20think,%20never%20fully%20u nderstood%20it)) :lol:?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Agree with you about Debs. Any ideas as to why the SLP never developed into a significant force, even to the extent of the CPUSA? I read somewhere that De Leon's appeal was largely limited to ethnically Germanic skilled workers and never really went much beyond that limited base of support.

[Ostrinski]

DeLeon was a quality theoretician in terms of defining the strategical line in rational terms that could drive the workers movement in a productive direction, while Debs was more of an organizational leader that positively influenced affairs that he was personally involved in through his leadership and organizational skills.

Two very different qualities. I don't think DeLeon and Debs should be compared like that because they're completely different types of figures in terms of the roles and tasks that they set for themselves in the movement.

[Grenzer]

Agree with you about Debs. Any ideas as to why the SLP never developed into a significant force, even to the extent of the CPUSA? I read somewhere that De Leon's appeal was largely limited to ethnically Germanic skilled workers and never really went much beyond that limited base of support.

Unfortunately I haven't read enough on the subject to be able to say anything concrete, something that I plan on remedying soon by acquiring party literature from the 20's, 30's, and 40's; but I have a few ideas. Revolutionary unionism was a major component of De Leon's strategy, and I can see it easily being the case that his successors tended to emphasize this while neglecting the political elements in accordance with the merger formula. In other words, I have a strong suspicion they succumbed to economism and bent the stick to far in the direction apolitical syndicalism. No doubt there were other factors, perhaps such as the one you mentioned, but I believe that this was probably one of the most significant reasons.

De Leonism and the SLP never became a significant force in American politics, or even among the American radical left, but I still think there is much value in De Leon's writings and his political ideas that are worth returning to. In particular, his emphasis on the need for a flexible strategy that could be adapted to various circumstances. Most tendencies today have a very specific idea of what needs to be done(such as council fetishism), and are unwilling to consider any sort of diversity in accordance with the conditions.


Did you do that on purpose("he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it") ?

Hahaha. I was wondering if someone would notice that little easter egg. I just pulled that one from memory(jeezus I'm becoming a nerd). Is it from Lenin's will? I don't even fucking remember. Bukharin's philosophical works in which he extensively addresses Lenin's criticism of his lack of understanding of dialectics arrived in the mail today, so it was on my mind.