M-L vs Marxist-DeLeonism?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades, could any of you differentiate Marxist-Leninism and Marxist-DeLeonism for me? What is DeLeonism, and where does it stand in relation to Leninism, Marxist-Leninism, Left Communism, etc?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Marxism-Leninism and De Leonism are miles apart.
Daniel De Leon was the foremost American Marxist theorist. He helped found the Socialist Labor Party of America and the IWW. He was a Revolutionary Syndicalist and Orthodox Marxist. Strategically De Leonism and Leninism are pretty different, but I wouldn't say absolutely incompatible if you wanna be eclectic. DeLeonism hasn't got anything to do with Marxism-Leninism in that it is actually Marxist.
Personally I am not a fan of syndicalism or the fetishization of unions because I feel they are inherently reformist institutions and I don't feel DeLeonism is a very relevant tendency but find his writing interesting and fun.

[Ostrinski]

DeLeonists generally believe in a dual strategy of revolutionary industrial unionism and the building of a mass party that would be intercoordinated. They are part of the Impossibilist tradition that doesn't believe in campaigning for reforms or believe that meaningful reforms can anymore be captured, making them similar to the SPGB in that they don't believe in reforms but still aim to achieve power electorally.

Most Leninists by contrast believe in the formation of a vanguard party of class militants that takes power of the state on behalf of the working class and believe in working within the already existing reactionary or moderate trade unions to try and win the rank and file over to revolutionary politics, as opposed to the DeLeonist approach to revolutionary industrial unionism whereby radically inclined broad unions will be formed independently to supplement political struggle.

Along with Luxemburg he was to the left of most of the Second International, and only attended one conference I think so was hardly even affiliated. Apparently he met Lenin though and they got along really well. Lenin later wrote of how he admired DeLeon and recommended a few of his writings.

If you are interested in DeLeon you should speak with MarxSchmarx who is a resident expert.

[prolcon]

I think DeLeonism is more of a specifically historical trend of syndicalism that's more or less died out as a distinct ideological trend.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Apparently he met Lenin though and they got along really well. Lenin later wrote of how he admired DeLeon and recommended a few of his writings.



Source? I would love to read about this.

[GoddessCleoLover]

One of my college professors back in the 70s was a great-grandson of Daniel De Leon. He considered DeLeonism to be an anachronism even then. Have I somehow missed a DeLeonist revival?:D

[Yuppie Grinder]

Anyways, I don't really find Syndicalism and Impossiblism compatible personally.

[prolcon]

Gourmet, you have all the class and wit of a neocon.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Thanks bro. Never talked to you before but thanks for letting me know you're so fond of me. I'm not the only impossiblist who doesn't love syndicalism but finds it interesting.

[prolcon]

Hey, funny thing. See, I thought you were calling Leninism "impossibilism" as a kind of jab. It occurs to me now that isn't even kind of what you'd meant.

Sorry about that. Please disregard earlier posts.

[Yuppie Grinder]

lol did you think i was calling things impossiblist meaning they're impossible

[prolcon]

Yes, but I know what you're talking about now.

[Grenzer]

I don't think that De Leonism is necessarily synonymous with syndicalism. I think one of the hallmarks of De Leonism is its strategic flexibility. Revolutionary unions were intended to be a supplement for party work. They could possibly be used as the basis for proletarian dictatorship, but I don't think there is anywhere in De Leon's works where he was ironclad in his insistence on this. De Leon was all about diversity of tactics.

Marxism-Leninism really has no relation to De Leonism at all; they were developed entirely separate from one another. Even Left Communism traces part of its heritage to Lenin, Luxemburg, etc. while De Leonism has no connection at all with these figures. It's been a dead tendency for a long time. Revolutionary unionism probably made sense a hundred years ago, but it doesn't seem applicable in the present political geography.

De Leon's conception of a revolutionary union was not necessarily organizationally bound to the party. In this, there is a vast gulf between him and Lenin. I don't recall Lenin ever fostering the development of non-party organizations. This ended up being an achille's heel of De Leon's conception of revolutionary unionism as a supplement to the party when the party was captured by anarchists and repurposed.

I'm fond of reading some of the ancient De Leonist texts found on SLP.org and I have a few mouldering old SLP books of my own from the 1940's, but that's because I'm a huge nerd with this kind of thing. De Leon is cool, but fucking anachronistic.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Even one of his grandsons who is a leftist intellectual regards great-grandpa as anachronistic.:D

[JPSartre12]

DeLeonists generally believe in a dual strategy of revolutionary industrial unionism and the building of a mass party that would be intercoordinated. They are part of the Impossibilist tradition that doesn't believe in campaigning for reforms or believe that meaningful reforms can anymore be captured, making them similar to the SPGB in that they don't believe in reforms but still aim to achieve power electorally.

Most Leninists by contrast believe in the formation of a vanguard party of class militants that takes power of the state on behalf of the working class and believe in working within the already existing reactionary or moderate trade unions to try and win the rank and file over to revolutionary politics, as opposed to the DeLeonist approach to revolutionary industrial unionism whereby radically inclined broad unions will be formed independently to supplement political struggle.

My first impression is that it seems very pro-labour and libertarian. I have to admit that the idea of a "dual strategy of revolution industrial unionism and the building of a mass party" is something that I have for a long agreed with, and found very with whom I strongly shared that view.

What is Marxist-DeLeonism's view of the Soviet Union, Stalin, Trotsky, etc? Does it consider it to be a valid illustration of socialism, or does it dissent from that.

[Grenzer]

To my knowledge, there wasn't an official view of the party other than that it was not not socialist or a "workers' state" of any kind, nor qualitatively superior to capitalism. In party literature even into the 80's, they seem to primarily describe it as bureaucratic collectivist or something of that nature, but I think views varied from member to member so long as it involved a rejection of the Soviet Union as a proletarian dictatorship.

The one thing De Leonism does have in common with "Marxism-Leninism" is its acceptance of the Menshevik two-stage theory. Although they realized the Soviet Union and its hangers on were no proletarian, they generally supported actions that would lead to the development of the productive forces since, outside of industrially developed countries, they did not believe a proletarian revolution was viable.

De Leon would probably have rejected the idea that his views were "libertarian" as a bourgeois dichotomy. I don't see how De Leonism is incompatable with "authoritarianism", frankly. That his conception of proletarian dictatorship may seem more "free" than the fusion of party and state advocated by the Stalinists is incidental.

[prolcon]

I love conspiratorial language like this: "... [A]dvocated by the Stalinists ..." (emphasis added).

[Grenzer]

Don't you have some photographs to be doctoring or something? Just sayin'.

[Ostrinski]

DeLeon did indeed help found the IWW. However he left when the atmosphere became anti-political and syndicalist/anarchist oriented.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Wasn't he expelled from the IWW as a result of the "slum proletarian" insult? Also, IIRC didn't Daniel De Leon die prior to the Russian Revolution?

Edit; Daniel DeLeon died in May, 1914, prior to the beginning of World War One and the "reneging" of certain Marxists. He not only referred to the IWW as "slum proletarians" but also of appealing to "the bummery". I am getting a pretty clear picture of shy my left-oriented college prof was a tad embarrassed by great-grandpa.

[prolcon]

Don't you have some photographs to be doctoring or something? Just sayin'.

Here's where I should've that line about neocon wit, instead of on innocent GourmetPez.

[helot]

Personally I am not a fan of syndicalism or the fetishization of unions because I feel they are inherently reformist institutions and I don't feel DeLeonism is a very relevant tendency but find his writing interesting and fun.

You might be interested to check out various debates between anarchist communists and anarcho-syndicalists around the question of unions and their reformist nature. There's multiple inceptions of revolutionary unions by anarchists ranging from a traditional anarcho-syndicalism to the FORA model. Of course this is to do with anarcho-syndicalism and not DeLeonism/IWW which isn't anarcho-syndicalist but it provides some quite interesting perspectives that are somewhat relevant to DeLeon.


My own view is a bit closer to that of the FORA in that revolutionary unions can't properly exist outside revolutionary periods due to reformist tendencies within the working class and would either become reformist organisations or remain minority organisations of revolutionary workers dedicated to building workplace militancy.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Wasn't he expelled from the IWW as a result of the "slum proletarian" insult? Also, IIRC didn't Daniel De Leon die prior to the Russian Revolution?

Edit; Daniel DeLeon died in May, 1914, prior to the beginning of World War One and the "reneging" of certain Marxists. He not only referred to the IWW as "slum proletarians" but also of appealing to "the bummery". I am getting a pretty clear picture of shy my left-oriented college prof was a tad embarrassed by great-grandpa.
Initially the IWW had in its preamble the promise for the union to work industrially and politically to struggle for the working class. But because many of the IWWs key organisers travelled up and down the country, they couldn't register to vote and felt the association with the SLP was unnecessary especially considering the SLP was dogmatically marxist and critical of some of the anarchistic efforts of these organisers. Similarly, IWW organisers like Bill Haywood struggled for higher wages for workers that DeLeon saw as a waste of time as he believed that higher overall wages just allows the capitalists to justify higher prices. The union got rid of the political clause and essentially dissassociated with the SLP and DeLeon left on bad terms.

[Ostrinski]

Daniel DeLeon did indeed have socially conservative and sometimes reactionary tendencies. There were fierce polemics between him and the Irish Marxist and republican James Connolly who was socially radical, on the issue of women and womens rights that I think DeLeon had some very reactionary views on.

[The Jay]

To my knowledge, there wasn't an official view of the party other than that it was not not socialist or a "workers' state" of any kind, nor qualitatively superior to capitalism. In party literature even into the 80's, they seem to primarily describe it as bureaucratic collectivist or something of that nature, but I think views varied from member to member so long as it involved a rejection of the Soviet Union as a proletarian dictatorship.

The one thing De Leonism does have in common with "Marxism-Leninism" is its acceptance of the Menshevik two-stage theory. Although they realized the Soviet Union and its hangers on were no proletarian, they generally supported actions that would lead to the development of the productive forces since, outside of industrially developed countries, they did not believe a proletarian revolution was viable.

De Leon would probably have rejected the idea that his views were "libertarian" as a bourgeois dichotomy. I don't see how De Leonism is incompatable with "authoritarianism", frankly. That his conception of proletarian dictatorship may seem more "free" than the fusion of party and state advocated by the Stalinists is incidental.

Could you expand on this please? I am very skeptical but open to this interpretation.

[The Jay]

Here's where I should've that line about neocon wit, instead of on innocent GourmetPez.

Quit trolling. I haven't seen you add anything to the conversation except flames.

[prolcon]

Quit trolling. I haven't seen you add anything to the conversation except flames.

Then you missed page one.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Daniel De Leon was not expelled from the IWW, he left several years into it's existence after it became overrun with anarchists.

[The Jay]

Then you missed page one.

You typed in one vague comment, good for you.

[prolcon]

You typed in one vague comment, good for you.

I know you're trying to get your thank-count up by stirring shit up, but give it a rest. One useful comment is more than you've managed to give us in this thread.

[l'Enfermé]

That "slum proletarians" and "the bummery" was De Leon's response to the Anarchists and Semi-Anarchists who were propagating rioting, arson, looting, etc, etc. His comments were completely justified.


Daniel DeLeon did indeed have socially conservative and sometimes reactionary tendencies. There were fierce polemics between him and the Irish Marxist and republican James Connolly who was socially radical, on the issue of women and womens rights that I think DeLeon had some very reactionary views on.
No, no, no. It was the opposite actually. Connolly was the one who wasn't so fond of approaching women's equality and such, fearing that it would alienate male workers. De Leon actually translated one of the most important early pieces of Marxist feminist literature into English, Bebel's "Woman and Socialism".Check out De Leon's huge PDF archive on MIA:

http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/index.htm

I ctrl+F'd "Connolly", "Women", "Sex", and "Gender" and found the following articles:

James Connolly (http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1910/jan07b_1910.pdf)

Here he criticizes Connolly for defending the Catholic Church, calling Bebel's "Woman" a lewd book and such.

Not Sex, But Class (http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1908/may09_1908.pdf)
Women In Industry (http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1903/jul14_1903.pdf)
As To James Connolly's Report (http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1907/mar11b_1907.pdf)
James Connolly's Report To The State Convention of New Jersey (http://marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1907/feb28_1907.pdf)

I didn't read these though.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Such derogatory language is anti-worker. Socialists should not shame the very poor, but empathize with them.

[The Jay]

I know you're trying to get your thank-count up by stirring shit up, but give it a rest. One useful comment is more than you've managed to give us in this thread.

If you actually knew me you would know that I don't pander. I asked for an expansion of an explanation and called you out for being the arrogant prick that you are. If you want to be an internet tough guy then go ahead, you won't be here long.

[prolcon]

I asked for an expansion of an explanation ...

Where?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Daniel De Leon's base of support was among skilled craftsman. I am willing to concede that De Leon was correct to oppose anarchist violence. Nonetheless, as someone familiar with American Labor history, a familiarity due in part to being taught by among others Daniel De Leon's grandson, the terminology used was not justified and not really related to political differences.

Advocates of industrial unionism were traditionally disdained by De Leon and other labor leaders based upon the skilled tradesmen of the day. Accusing the IWW of representing "the bummery" and "slum proletarians" was the type of rhetoric used by advocates of craft unions who looked down upon industrial unionism. Daniel De Leon had his good pints, but let us not romanticise the guy. Hew was what he was, a craft union advocate who correctly disdained anarchist violence, but used inflammatory language that disparaged unskilled workers. It is no accident that De Leonism became an anachronism. The 20th century became the century of industrial unionism and De Leonism became outdated.

[JPSartre12]

Daniel De Leon's base of support was among skilled craftsman

Would the mass party that DeLeonism advocates behave in the same way as the Leninist vanguard party? The idea of having labor unions work hand-in-hand with socialist, pro-labor political party that would act as the "shield" of the proletariat, as you said, is something that I think sounds very interesting.

Let's say that there is a Marxist-DeLeonist socialist-labor party, and that it does win in a series of elections and does indeed take control of the State. Now that the party has control of the political apparatus, how would it go about governing? What is the role of the DeLeonist party once it is in charge of the government?

I'm assuming that it would try to enact policies, programs, etc that would work to bring about the transition of capitalism to socialism, and do their best to push forth organized labor's political program. But other than that, could you expand upon it? Would they be in favor of nationalization, centralized vs decentralized planning, etc?

What would a DeLeonist government and economy look like?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Would the mass party that DeLeonism advocates behave in the same way as the Leninist vanguard party? The idea of having labor unions work hand-in-hand with socialist, pro-labor political party that would act as the "shield" of the proletariat, as you said, is something that I think sounds very interesting.

Let's say that there is a Marxist-DeLeonist socialist-labor party, and that it does win in a series of elections and does indeed take control of the State. Now that the party has control of the political apparatus, how would it go about governing? What is the role of the DeLeonist party once it is in charge of the government?

I'm assuming that it would try to enact policies, programs, etc that would work to bring about the transition of capitalism to socialism, and do their best to push forth organized labor's political program. But other than that, could you expand upon it? Would they be in favor of nationalization, centralized vs decentralized planning, etc?

What would a DeLeonist government and economy look like?

In the 1800's, there were Marxists who thought that if Socialists could gain control of the state electorally they could transform the tools of bourgeois governance into proletarian ones. Engels, for instance, writes in Principles of Communism that America has already established a democratic constitution, and the task of the proletariat in America is to transform that constitution from something that protects private property into something that abolishes it.
Since the Paris Commune, this mindset has become increasingly unpopular. The dominant idea now is that the bourgeois tool of governance can not be made into proletarian ones the way some aristocratic tools of governance were made into bourgeois ones (look at England), because the proletariat has no meaningful, powerful, economic agency and therefore no governmental agency.
Instead the proletariat must completely destroy the bourgeois states and establish new ones that exist only as tools for the creation of a superstructure without a state, only as the means with which the proletariat abolishes itself as a class.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Would the mass party that DeLeonism advocates behave in the same way as the Leninist vanguard party? The idea of having labor unions work hand-in-hand with socialist, pro-labor political party that would act as the "shield" of the proletariat, as you said, is something that I think sounds very interesting.

Let's say that there is a Marxist-DeLeonist socialist-labor party, and that it does win in a series of elections and does indeed take control of the State. Now that the party has control of the political apparatus, how would it go about governing? What is the role of the DeLeonist party once it is in charge of the government?

I'm assuming that it would try to enact policies, programs, etc that would work to bring about the transition of capitalism to socialism, and do their best to push forth organized labor's political program. But other than that, could you expand upon it? Would they be in favor of nationalization, centralized vs decentralized planning, etc?

What would a DeLeonist government and economy look like?


Some of your questions are IMO not readily answerable since Daniel De Leon died in May, 1914, and De Leonism went into decline after his death. Daniel De Leon has his followers and they have their opinions and I hope they post them. Nonetheless, to my mind De Leonism is largely a historical phenomena and one could only surmise how Daniel De Leon would have fared in the modern world. My surmise is that he would not have been a major figure, since he disdained mass industrial unionism in favor of craft unionism.

[l'Enfermé]

Such derogatory language is anti-worker. Socialists should not shame the very poor, but empathize with them.
The fuck it is. Was DeLeon shaming the "very poor" or Anarchist hooligans?


Would the mass party that DeLeonism advocates behave in the same way as the Leninist vanguard party? The idea of having labor unions work hand-in-hand with socialist, pro-labor political party that would act as the "shield" of the proletariat, as you said, is something that I think sounds very interesting.

Let's say that there is a Marxist-DeLeonist socialist-labor party, and that it does win in a series of elections and does indeed take control of the State. Now that the party has control of the political apparatus, how would it go about governing? What is the role of the DeLeonist party once it is in charge of the government?

I'm assuming that it would try to enact policies, programs, etc that would work to bring about the transition of capitalism to socialism, and do their best to push forth organized labor's political program. But other than that, could you expand upon it? Would they be in favor of nationalization, centralized vs decentralized planning, etc?

What would a DeLeonist government and economy look like?
What the fuck is a "Leninist vanguard party"? The concept of the vanguard is not Lenin's, and so far I have not seen Lenin speak of a "vanguard party" a single time in his writings. I just went over the second and third volumes of his "Collected Works"(1917-1923) and not a single mention of this famous "vanguard party" is found there, and in fact, when he speaks of the proletarian vanguard, he doesn't assume the entire vanguard is a part of the communist party, in fact, he sometimes speaks of the communist party "winning over the vanguard" to their side. So yeah, if you want to mention "vanguard parties", call them what they are: Stalinist Vanguard Parties, not "Leninist". If the "vanguard party" is not found in Lenin, it can't possibly be "Leninist".

The merger of socialism and the worker's movement, i.e the fundamental original idea of the Communist Manifesto(a concept invented 3 years earlier not by Marx but by Engels), is what is meant by vanguardism, anyway. The notion of a vanguard, not the "vanguard party"(two entirely different things), is found in Marx and Engels. It came into the Russian movement only after it was developed further by the German.

[Yuppie Grinder]

^Aye, this is spot on. The charge of Blanquism against Lenin comes from people who haven't read him.

[Blake's Baby]

Haven't read Lenin, or haven't read Blanqui? Or haven't read either?

I've certainly never read anything at all by Louis Blanqui. Then again, I've never accused Lenin of 'Blanquism', though obviously, I'd take Rosa's accusation seriously. I also wouldn't say Rosa had 'never read him'.

[JPSartre12]

^Aye, this is spot on. The charge of Blanquism against Lenin comes from people who haven't read him.

I'll admit that I'm not particularly well-read on Lenin, and that I've yet to get around to reading any Blanqui, so forgive my ignorance. What is the primary difference between the two, in regards to their thoughts about parties?

From what I've heard, Blanquism supports a sort of small, conspiratorial revolutionary party that aims to seize control in the name of the proletariat. Is this wrong? What is Lenin's view?

[Manic Impressive]

Haven't read Lenin, or haven't read Blanqui? Or haven't read either?

I've certainly never read anything at all by Louis Blanqui. Then again, I've never accused Lenin of 'Blanquism', though obviously, I'd take Rosa's accusation seriously. I also wouldn't say Rosa had 'never read him'.
Are you thinking of Plekhanov's article which Rosa Luxembourg refuted? An article I've searched for quite hard. I've been told that it was censored and destroyed, don't know if that's right, but yeah that article seems pretty lost. Plekhanov did also write about the Blanquism of Russian Agrarian socialism that article is in his collected works.

Anyway SLP

These videos are quite cool

1CictEaNr_o
Iulqp9xlCFg

[Grenzer]

Such derogatory language is anti-worker. Socialists should not shame the very poor, but empathize with them.The fuck it is. Was DeLeon shaming the "very poor" or Anarchist hooligans?

You really need to get off of the DNZ steroids. De Leon's comment was dumb. What are "hooligans" anyway? Something that is worthy of collaborating with the bourgeois state to dispose of, according to DNZ.

The IWW was at the center of a lot of class struggle in the US after the First World War, to an infinitesimally greater degree than any Socialist or Communist party. They'd hardly qualify as "hooligans". One could make criticisms of their way of doing things, but they were more or less the closest thing that the United States had to a vanguard of the proletariat, at least in the post-war period before the Depression.

It's no secret that the IWW was pretty big among migratory workers("hobos"), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if his comment was a chauvinist dig at that.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'll admit that I'm not particularly well-read on Lenin, and that I've yet to get around to reading any Blanqui, so forgive my ignorance. What is the primary difference between the two, in regards to their thoughts about parties?

From what I've heard, Blanquism supports a sort of small, conspiratorial revolutionary party that aims to seize control in the name of the proletariat. Is this wrong? What is Lenin's view?

They haven't really got anything in common. Blanqui is as irrelevant as you can get. His ideas are wholly un-Marxist and after the Paris Commune (where Mutualism and Blanquisim were the most popular political groups), he has had no real following.
If you want to get a good understanding of Lenin's conception of the party, read State and Revolution. It's not a hard read and pretty short. Lenin's a bit of a dry writer, using lots of lengthy quotes from M&E, but he's important to read even if you don't buy into Leninism.

[Manic Impressive]

Thought this might interest some as well. It's an extract from a pamphlet called "Why we have resigned from the Socialist Labour Party" by J and N Plant


The S.L.P. and Soviet Russia

Few incidents in SLP history have exposed the Party's theoretical weaknesses, opportunist tendencies, lack of honesty about its own past and unwillingness to frankly and openly admit mistakes to the full, than its attitude over the years to Soviet Russia.

We do not have the time available to trace the complete history, or to delve into all the implications, of the SLP's attitude to Soviet Russia over the years. At best we can give an outline indication, and at the same time recommend our readers to do some research themselves into this question.

The first reaction of the SLP to the Bolshevik Revolution, although not without faults, was basically healthy. In the Weekly People of November 24, 1917, Arnold Peterson correctly pointed out that it would not be possible to build Socialism independently in an industrially backward, peasant country like Russia. In time, however, particularly after it was reported that Lenin was an admirer of Daniel De Leon, the SLP attitude softened in relation to Russia. Nonetheless, we might have expected, with the rise of the Stalinist despotism, that the SLP, claiming to be the Party of scientific Marxism, would have been able to find its bearings again without too much trouble or delay. But not so. By the late 1930's the SLP had become a de facto supporter of, and apologist for, the Stalinist terror regime, albeit a critical supporter and apologist.

Let us take a look at a pamphlet by Arnold Peterson entitled Soviet Russia; Promise or Menace? published in 1939. It should be carefully observed that in the Foreword to this pamphlet it is stated, "...it should be noted that the contents of this booklet have been expressly approved by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Labor Party, thus constituting the expression of the Party's official attitude on the questions dealt with, and concurrence in the general views expressed."[39]

In this pamphlet Petersen lists a number of points that he says summarize criticisms of, or objections to, Stalinist Russia. Below we print some of these points followed by a summary of Peterson's replies to them, or an indication of the nature of his answers. For the full flavour of his replies, however, we recommend that readers of this document try and get hold of copies of this now out of print pamphlet to read for themselves.

"1. That the Russian 'dictatorship' is as ruthless as the Nazi-Fascist ditto." (p.10) Petersen answers this by suggesting that the ruthlessness of the Stalinist dictatorship is inspired by concern for the safety of "the workers' republic" (p.11) and concludes that: "We may, therefore, dismiss this point as being irrelevant".
"2. That the 'dictator' — Stalin — is answerable to no one." (p.10) Comments Petersen, in part: "That Stalin is answerable to no one is a contention which seems neither reasonable, nor supported by the facts". (p.12) Also, "...it would seen that there are good grounds for believing that with all its shortcomings, the Russian democracy [sic] is more responsive to the will of the masses than in the United States."(p.14)
"3. That Soviet Russia is being deliberately and consciously directed or driven toward Industrial Feudalism, and. that it wants to 'stabilize capitalism. '" (p.10) Petersen concedes that Russia may be moving in the direction of Industrial Feudalism [inspite of this "Russian democracy" that was so responsive to the will of the masses" ?] , but he starts off his answer with the following astonishing (in 1939) remark: "Is Soviet Russia deliberately being directed or driven toward Industrial Feudalism? It has not been possible to find any evidence of such." (p.17) .
"5. That Soviet Russia constitutes the model from which have been patterned the Italian and German gangster governments, and that 'trials' conducted by the Nazi dictators (specifically the Reichstag fire trial) was fairer than the Russian trials." (p.10) In the course of his answer to this point, Petersen, in a footnote, draws the readers attention to an appendix in the pamphlet wherein articles and editorials printed in the Weekly People that in effect justify and approve — yes, justify and approve — the hideously shameful Moscow frame-up trials of the 1930s that led to the liquidation of nearly all the "Old Bolsheviks" — the comrades in arms of Lenin and similar experiences, yet the Socialist Labor Party has had no qualms in dealing properly and effectively with traitors and disrupters, no matter whether they held the lowest or the highest posts in the Party. And in our ability to maintain discipline, and dispense Socialist Labor Party justice, with complete Party, i.e., rank and file democracy and publicity we have found proof of our strength, our 'indestructibility.' And so with Soviet Russia. [Our emphasis]
"That men go wrong in great causes is a fact too well known to require proof. The Russians who have paid with their lives for their errors (whether these resulted from serious disagreement with principles or from baser motives) serve as a warning that revolutions are not to be trifled with, even though the revolutionists in command are themselves far from being spotless or correct in all details." [40]
"It behooves all clear-thinking Marxists not to be led astray by the dramatic trials in Moscow...The battle-lines will eventually shape themselves with the international capitalist robber class on one side, and the international, exploited proletariat on the other. And. when the battle-lines are being finally formed, Soviet Russia (if she and her leaders remain true to Marxian principles) will be found on the side of the Socialist Labor Party and its principles….And a Foster, a Browder, or their successors in the dock will present no prettier sight than did the Bukharins, Rykovs, Radeks, Zinovievs, et al....
"Accordingly, not censure and condemnation, but understanding and interpretation in the light of Marxism, have been the aim of the Socialist Labor Party with respect to the 'Russian trials.'”[4l]
"7. ...the criticism has been made that Russia is maintaining a huge military establishment (in contravention of Socialist principles) in order to protect the interests, and preserve the power, of the Soviet bureaucracy." (p.10) In the course of "answering" this point Petersen observes: "Whether or not the army in any degree or sense is being used by the Stalin bureaucracy to defend their 'vested’ interests as bureaucrats, is a question that cannot be discussed on the basis of available facts...."
"8. And from still other quarters [the criticism has been made] that there is no freedom of speech, press and assembly in Russia."(p.11) To this criticism — made at a tine of unrestrained Stalinist terror when tons of thousands of Communists had been executed during the purges, when up to 20 million Soviet citizens were slaving in labour camps under the most inhuman conditions — Petersen replies, in part:
"As to freedom of speech, etc., in Russia, there is probably all that could be reasonably expected in a country which recently has brought to book a large number of self-confessed traitors and conspirators.... there is no indication that there are restrictions which prevent the people of Russia from discussing fully and freely problems directly relating to the Soviet economy..." (p.41-42)

There is much more of the same calibre in this pamphlet. And this rubbish is modestly introduced to the reader in a blurb printed on the inside front cover: "This is no offhand answer [to the questions: Where is Russia headed? Why the purge? etc.]. It is the critically scientific reply of a well posted Marxist who, in the tradition of Marx and De Leon, has hewn and let the chips fall where they may."

It may be argued that all the facts about Stalinist Russia were not available in 1939. It is true that all the facts were not known, but enough facts were known to enable genuine Marxists to make a reasonably accurate assessment of the nature of the Soviet Union in 1939. Many did, in fact, make such a reasonably accurate, or very close and quite valuable, assessments then, or indeed long before: vide, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) and its counterparts in other countries. And what about Leon Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed [42] which was published in an English edition in the U.S.A. in 1937?

Indeed, it is evident that several members of the SLP were on the right lines and very close to a correct position in 1939. For Petersen states on page 7 of Soviet Russia: Promise or Menace?:

"Generally speaking, the claims made that there is no difference whatever between Soviet Russia and the Nazi-Fascist dictatorships proceed from the camp of capitalism, or from avowed counter-revolutionists, or anti-Soviet conspiratorial groups. It has been somewhat startling, however, to note similar contentions made (or doubts expressed) from otherwise sound and well-posted Marxists."

The pamphlet is designed to bludgeon these dissidents within the SLP back into line, for it is "the criticisms made by sincere and convinced Marxists" (p.7) that Petersen sets out to "answer". And hence, apparently, the warning already cited in the Foreword, "... it should be noted that the contents of this booklet have been expressly approved by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Labor Party, thus constituting the expression of the Party's official attitude on the questions dealt with, and concurrence in the general views expressed."

With the Stalin-Hitler pact and the Russian invasion of Finland even Petersen's attitude to Stalinist Russia changed, and from then on Soviet Russia was denounced without reservations, and a much better assessment of Soviet Russia evolved in the Party. But even after these events Soviet Russia: Promise or Menace? was pushed as a Marxist assessment. For example, in the pamphlet issued by the SLP in 1943 on the dissolution of the Communist International [43] the following advertisement is printed on the inside back cover:

"SOVIET RUSSIA: PROMISE OR MENACE? (l0c.) The Socialist Labor Party, in 1939, asked: Where is Russia headed? Back to capitalism? Etc. And answered in the light of Marxian science."

In the 1950 edition of the pamphlet Stalinist Imperialism [44] Soviet Russia: Promise or Menace? is still advertised for sale, this time with the recommendation that it "discusses the question of Russian Stateism from all angles"!

The pamphlet was allowed to go out of print, however, and now the SLP tries to give the dishonest impression that it was always more or less on the right lines with regard to Soviet Russia, and certainly that it never supported the Stalinist terror. For example, the pamphlet by Arnold Petersen Marxism versus Soviet Despotism[45] which was first published in 1958 and has been reissued at least twice since that date, sharply criticises and condemns in strong terms the Soviet Union of 1953 and before. An appendix to this pamphlet reprints Petersen's November 24, 1917 Weekly People article on the Bolshevik Revolution, which is introduced as a conclusive demonstration of the SLP's "prescience". Nothing is said, however, of support by the SLP to Stalinism, and the newcomer is left with the impression that all along the SLP has had a principled and scientific Marxist stand on Russia.

In fact, of course, the SLP is still unable to produce a satisfactory definition of the Russian social system. It is characterized as a "bureaucratic state despotism". This might do as a tentative description pending deeper study and investigation (there is no evidence of such deeper study or investigation in relation to Russia on the part of the SLP) but it is inadequate as a socio-economic definition. The point being that all class divided societies are to one degree or another "bureaucratic" and all such societies are to one degree or another "despotic" or '”state despotisms". [46]

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'll admit that I'm not particularly well-read on Lenin, and that I've yet to get around to reading any Blanqui, so forgive my ignorance. What is the primary difference between the two, in regards to their thoughts about parties?

From what I've heard, Blanquism supports a sort of small, conspiratorial revolutionary party that aims to seize control in the name of the proletariat. Is this wrong? What is Lenin's view?
Lenin's Vangaurd is not a conspiratorial minority party that seizes power on behalf of the proletariat, it is the section of the proletariat that has developed revolutionary consciousness that must be won over to the party.
"While there is a state, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state." - Lenin
The charge of anti-worker "totalitarianism" is unfounded. There are many quality critiques of Leninism, equating Lenin with Blanqui is not one of them.

[l'Enfermé]

You really need to get off of the DNZ steroids.
DNZ has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Weren't you just recently fond of mocking Ismail because Ismail brought Hoxha into everything? There's no reason for you to treat me like that because you broke with DNZ. It's not my fault you thought DNZ is some sort of bourgeois humanist or "politically correct" liberal.


De Leon's comment was dumb. What are "hooligans" anyway? Something that is worthy of collaborating with the bourgeois state to dispose of, according to DNZ.
If someone throws Molotovs at me, and I have the choice of either clubbing them to death in retaliation, doing nothing, or giving them over to the police so the police deal with them(which is their damn job anyway), I would most definitely choose the police option. What, if say, my sister gets raped and calls the police, should I decry her for "collaborating with the bourgeois state"? There's a difference between Anarchists that conduct a political struggle and criminals who call themselves "anarchists" that just want to hurt people, break windows, and sabotage demonstrations out of spite.


The IWW was at the center of a lot of class struggle in the US after the First World War, to an infinitesimally greater degree than any Socialist or Communist party. They'd hardly qualify as "hooligans". One could make criticisms of their way of doing things, but they were more or less the closest thing that the United States had to a vanguard of the proletariat, at least in the post-war period before the Depression.

It's no secret that the IWW was pretty big among migratory workers("hobos"), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if his comment was a chauvinist dig at that.
De Leon summarized the reason for his contempt for the anarchist over-run Chicago IWW("the bummery", "anarchist scum", "slum proletarians", etc) very concisely:


This, then is the inspiring task of the IWW, and its purpose and reason of being: To decry the ballot, which is a civilized method of settling social issues; to advocate physical force only; to preach petty larceny, rioting, smashing machines, and all these things that come under the term "direct action," is unnecessary, and also invites disaster to the workers and helps the forces of reaction. Such measures are suicidal and condemned by civilization. The working class cannot "sabotage," cannot dynamite itself into possession of the plants of production.

I see no fault with his line of thinking. The Chicago IWW's line was politically a dead-end and self-defeating and destined to failure, thus the only service it provided to the working class is to undermine the proletarian movement with this craziness and criminal mentality.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The Chicago IWW may have been ultraleft, but Daniel De Leon's affinity for "civilized" electoral reformism goes too far in the other direction. Also, one can critique ultraleftism and adventurism without resorting using terms like "the bummery" and "slum proletarians".

[l'Enfermé]

The Chicago IWW may have been ultraleft, but Daniel De Leon's affinity for "civilized" electoral reformism goes too far in the other direction. Also, one can critique ultraletism and adventurism without resorting using terms like "the bummery" and "slum proletarians".
It doesn't having anything to do with critiquing ultra-leftism and adventurism but attacking the lumpen-proletariat mentality that promotes burning things, tossing dynamite at things, rioting, and generally being thugs, and then pretending it has anything to do with politics. If the Chicago IWW acts like fucking idiots, De Leon is well within his rights to call them idiots and "political correctness", which didn't even exist back then, can go fuck itself.

[The Idler]

De Leonism will be the next hipster tendency after Bordigism. Get on it before its goes mainstream.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Chicago IWW may have been ultraleft, but Daniel De Leon's affinity for "civilized" electoral reformism goes too far in the other direction. Also, one can critique ultraleftism and adventurism without resorting using terms like "the bummery" and "slum proletarians".

I wouldn't call the IWW adventurist at all.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I wouldn't call the IWW adventurist at all.
I was trying to give l'Enferme the benefit of the doubt.

[black magick hustla]

It doesn't having anything to do with critiquing ultra-leftism and adventurism but attacking the lumpen-proletariat mentality that promotes burning things, tossing dynamite at things, rioting, and generally being thugs, and then pretending it has anything to do with politics. If the Chicago IWW acts like fucking idiots, De Leon is well within his rights to call them idiots and "political correctness", which didn't even exist back then, can go fuck itself.

boy, you are quite the bore. for all the "ultraleftism" of the iww, the iww was way more relevant and well known and effective than deleonism. that is why the iww is still remembered, while nobody gives a fuck about deleonism

[black magick hustla]

dnzism- take the most boring and dry turn of the century marxist chauvinists, spice them up with some barracks pseudo stalinism, douce it a bit with eurocommunism, and merge it a bit with scifi worthy technocratism, voila!

[l'Enfermé]

I'm sorry for destroying the intellectual atmosphere of your precious thread. I will immediately return to the nerd brigade mobile, to read a book and think for myself.

[black magick hustla]

the iww could marshall support of 300k workers at its peak, and had 100k members in good standing at its peak. deleon..... gained 14k votes in new york? lol. so much for electoral/civilized sensibilities to not alienate the good non-bum proletarians

[l'Enfermé]

So? The Soviet Communist Party had 20 million members at its peak, the Chinese has 80 million members. Why don't we just drop all this communism stuff and start promoting "scientific development concept" and attempt to create a "harmonious society"? Duclos got almost 5 million votes in 1969, yet I don't see you defending the Stalinist PCF against the French ultra-lefts.

Or are you too stupid to understand that I said nothing about how famous and relevant and effective DeLeonism is? Did I say anyone "gives a fuck about" DeLeonism? How is any of this relevant? Is running around crying about DNZ and "dnzism" your new thing? At least when Ismail dumps his Hoxha quotes everywhere, most of the time they are somewhat on subject, but DNZ has literally nothing to do with this thread at all, he didn't even make a single post here.

Take your pathetic obsession with DNZ somewhere, I don't see him mentioning you at every corner.

[Ravachol]

It doesn't having anything to do with critiquing ultra-leftism and adventurism but attacking the lumpen-proletariat mentality that promotes burning things, tossing dynamite at things, rioting, and generally being thugs, and then pretending it has anything to do with politics.

Boy I bet you're a blast at parties...

Honest question by the way, have you ever even participated in anything 'political' outside of this forum?

[l'Enfermé]

Oh, yes, of course, make it about me and my personality. You must, of course, forgive me for being boring. I will follow the example of our friend, the brilliant BHM, who has been so kind in demonstrating how cool and un-nerdy he is by disregarding proper punctuation, telling capital letters to fuck themselves and derailing every thread he passes by with 2-line incoherent jabs at this or that person. Yes, I think that will do the trick! But meanwhile, I think I'll be adding you and that other clown to my ignore list, it appeals to me as the only sensible thing to do.

[Grenzer]

It doesn't having anything to do with critiquing ultra-leftism and adventurism but attacking the lumpen-proletariat mentality that promotes burning things, tossing dynamite at things, rioting, and generally being thugs, and then pretending it has anything to do with politics.

In this post: none of the things things that the IWW actually advocated. These stereotypes really just echo Fox News talking points.

The IWW's politics weren't self-defeating. The problem is that you're still enamored of this voluntaristic idea of "revolutionary strategy"; the idea that making revolution is as easy as plugging in the right formula. World revolution had failed so it was inevitable that there was going to be an ebb in struggle and membership regardless of what they tried doing(short of embracing reformism and shit like that). Unfortunately the idea that we as individual militants, and even together in organizations, can move towards revolution by ourselves is just wishful thinking. Class struggle, not the actions of individuals, creates the conditions for revolution.

[l'Enfermé]

In this post: none of the things things that the IWW actually advocated. These stereotypes really just echo Fox News talking points.
I'm sure De Leon just pulled it out of his ass. It's not like promoting anarchy has long been the modus operandi of our Anarchist friends since the 19th century, in fact, they still do it.


The IWW's politics weren't self-defeating.Of course they were.



The problem is that you're still enamored of this voluntaristic idea of "revolutionary strategy"; the idea that making revolution is as easy as plugging in the right formula. "Без революционной теории не может быть и революционного движения"
"Without revolutionary theory", says Lenin, "there can be no revolutionary movement".


World revolution had failed so it was inevitable that there was going to be an ebb in struggle and membership regardless of what they tried doing(short of embracing reformism and shit like that). Naturally, comrade.


Unfortunately the idea that we as individual militants, "Militant" is a stupid word and has a Trotskyist connotations I don't like and anyway the English borrowed it from the French for whom it was an almost exclusively religious word.


and even together in organizations, can move towards revolution by ourselves is just wishful thinking. "Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes."
- Karl Marx


Class struggle, not the actions of individuals, creates the conditions for revolution.Class struggle is the net product of the actions of individuals. I know it's very comforting to think, "Hmm, yes, indeed, there is no proletarian class-strugglist revolutionary movement pretty much anywhere in the world, communism as a movement is for all intents and purposes is dead and doesn't look like it will revive in the near future, but look, this "class struggle" will one day drop out of the sky, without any effort on our part, as if by magic, and we will be delivered to socialist revolution!". But it's also naïve. The failure and death of socialists and the it's possible revival is entirely up to socialists also, well, wherever socialists still exist.

[Ravachol]

"Без революционной теории не может быть и революционного движения"
"Without Revolutionary", says Lenin, "there can be no revolutionary movement".


Perhaps arguments would make a fine substitute for quotes.



Class struggle is the net product of the actions of individuals.


Class struggle is also something very different from revolutionary struggle and communism as a real movement. Class struggle can very well be immanent to the dynamics of capital and can only potentially serve as a spring-board from which the communist tendency blossoms. Such a thing, however, is not the result of tedious men who shout in the desert about 'building the party'.



but look, this "class struggle" will one day drop out of the sky


Class struggle occurs all around us and is an integral feature of class society, there is nothing we can or have to do in order to bring that about. Communism, however, is something else and will not be the product of individual militancy alone nor of the combined efforts of sects seeking to divine the correct program. The communist problem is not one reducible to strategy or tactics.



The failure and death of socialists and the it's possible revival is entirely up to socialists also, well, wherever socialists still exist.

Tell me how that's working out for you...

[Grenzer]

The problem is, Borz, that Lenin was quite wrong about that. His idea(and Kautsky's) was that the working class could not achieve what some call revolutionary consciousness without being introduced to it by an outside force, the vanguard. History has proven this conception wrong. Where was the party with the creation of soviets in 1905; where was it with the rise of the soviets in 1917? In both cases, it was the class that surged ahead with revolution, while the party was long behind struggling to keep up. It is class struggle that turns the working class to revolution, not propaganda from militants. This is not to say that individual militants do not have a role to play, but their role is clearly limited within the context of the class struggle. Propaganda is not a substitute for class struggle.

I can say that a failure to understand this is what led to my political mistakes, but it's easy to see how people can fall into this trap. Isn't it a nice sounding idea that, somehow, if we all just got together and sang kumbaya that we could make a difference? It is a nice sounding idea, but it's ultimately just wishful thinking. One of the most important things that individual militants can do is stay invariant in the pursuit of the proletariat's class interests even as class struggle ebbs and others turn to making compromise with Capital. Our numbers will dwindle, but ultimately the important thing is to remain in opposition to Capital.

Only the class as a whole can really know exactly what its interests are, but I think Marxism can give us a decent tool for making an approximation of what many of these interests might be and what we can do in the mean time. I think we can safely say that reformism, siding with a faction of Capital, etc. are not part of that, so these things must be discarded.

[l'Enfermé]

The problem is, Borz, that Lenin was quite wrong about that. His idea(and Kautsky's) was that the working class could not achieve what some call revolutionary consciousness without being introduced to it by an outside force, the vanguard. History has proven this conception wrong.
Rubbish. Neither Lenin nor Kautsky had such opinions. Lenin's point was that during his era, the proper education and leisure time for developing proper socialist theory was available only for bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theorists. History has proven this "conception" right before Lenin ever uttered it: Scientific socialism was introduced into the worker's movement by 2 bourgeois(or petty-bourgeois) theorists, Marx and Engels. Now, there is the question of whether or not Lenin was content with the fact that socialist theory was provided by philanthropic bourgeoise intellectuals who defected to the camp of the proletariat, and the answer, written clearly in Lenin's writings, is readily available: Lenin was not content with this state of affairs and wanted more proletarians to be raised to the role of theorists; Lenin's contempt for the "intelligentsia", even the "socialist intelligentsia, was so high, that he openly called them "spineless, craven, Russian philistines" and the like.

As for the "vanguard" being an "outside force", this bullshit is found nowhere in Lenin's writings. The proletarian vanguard, by definition, is an integral part of the proletariat, it's a part of the proletarian just like the rearguard is also a part of the proletariat. The van of an army doesn't form an army all on its own, it merely serves a function as a part of the army.



Where was the party with the creation of soviets in 1905; where was it with the rise of the soviets in 1917? In both cases, it was the class that surged ahead with revolution, while the party was long behind struggling to keep up. It is class struggle that turns the working class to revolution, not propaganda from militants. This is not to say that individual militants do not have a role to play, but their role is clearly limited within the context of the class struggle. Propaganda is not a substitute for class struggle.
Your Russian history leaves much to be desired, comrade. Of the 784 delegates with a full vote at the First Congress of the Soviets, 638 belonged to the Socialist parties(Social-Democrats and SRs). The 1917 Petrograd Soviet, the main one in the country, was founded on February 27, mostly by Social-Democrats, and they chose a Menshevik(Chkheidze) as Chairmen and another Menshevik as deputy-chairman(Skobelev). Same in Moscow. The Moscow Soviet was founded on March 1 I think and a Menshevik, Khinchuk, was elected Chairman I believe. In, the Soviets were, from the beginning, dominated by Mensheviks. The first 1905 Soviet according to official historiography was the one in Ivanovo, but I'm not sure if that's true because in Ivanovo, one of the major Russian industrial centers, the Bolsheviks dominated and the Mensheviks were a minority. The 1905 Soviet movement, anyway, was dominated by the Mensheviks, Trotsky, Parvus, etc, etc. Anyway, the 1905 Soviet movement wasn't a socialist one in the least, the demands of the movement were universal suffrage, a republic, etc, etc. I don't understand what you mean by "surged ahead with the revolution"? What revolution? The democratic revolution. There was no Socialist revolution until October.


I can say that a failure to understand this is what led to my political mistakes, but it's easy to see how people can fall into this trap. Isn't it a nice sounding idea that, somehow, if we all just got together and sang kumbaya that we could make a difference? It is a nice sounding idea, but it's ultimately just wishful thinking. One of the most important things that individual militants can do is stay invariant in the pursuit of the proletariat's class interests even as class struggle ebbs and others turn to making compromise with Capital. Our numbers will dwindle, but ultimately the important thing is to remain in opposition to Capital.

Only the class as a whole can really know exactly what its interests are, but I think Marxism can give us a decent tool for making an approximation of what many of these interests might be and what we can do in the mean time. I think we can safely say that reformism, siding with a faction of Capital, etc. are not part of that, so these things must be discarded.
Rubbish not worth addressing. There is no open class struggle without a mass political movement. The class, when not constituted into a democratic party-movement, is just a "class-in-itself"(Marx), there is very little virtue in actually calling it a class at all unless the class is constituted into a "class-for-itself"(Marx).

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes."
- Karl Marx

[Sea]

The problem is, Borz, that Lenin was quite wrong about that. His idea(and Kautsky's) was that the working class could not achieve what some call revolutionary consciousness without being introduced to it by an outside force, the vanguard. History has proven this conception wrong.The problem with this analysis is that Lenin was using Kautsky's idea as a refutation, just as Kautsky used it. Their (supposed) pessimistic view of class consciousness was in responce to reformism. Nothing is to be read out of it literally other than that sound theory is needed.


Did Lenin put this theory forward even in WITBD? Not exactly.
The fact is that Lenin had just read this theory in the most prestigious theoretical organ of Marxism of the whole international socialist movement, the Neue Zeit. It had been put forward in an important article by the leading Marxist authority of the International, Karl Kautsky. And this was why and how it got into WITBD. In WITBD Lenin first paraphrased Kautsky. [2] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n2) Then he quoted a long passage from Kautsky’s article, almost a page long. Here is Kautsky, whom Lenin then looked up to as the master (some said the “pope”) of socialist theory:

Of course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern economic relationships ... But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other; each arises under different conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say, modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so; both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [emphasis by Kautsky]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians ... Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without and not something that arose within it spontaneously. [3]

There it is – the whole theory laid out, the devilish crux of “Leninism”; and it turns out to be the product of Kautsky’s pen! When Lenin paraphrased it a few pages before, he began, “We have said that ...” – that is, he tied it up immediately as the accepted view of the movement (or so he seemed to think). His summary was by no means as brash as Kautsky’s formulation. But we will return to Lenin’s formulation.
Why did Kautsky emphasize this view of socialist history at this time? The reason is perfectly clear: the new reformist wing of the movement, the Bernsteinian Revisionists, were arguing that all one needed was the ongoing movement of the workers, not theory; that the spontaneous class activity of the trade-union movement and other class movements was enough.

[Grenzer]

I never said the vanguard was a force that existed outside the proletariat; you are confusing the issue entirely and creating a massive straw man. By outside, I mean that it is something separate from the class as a whole. The vanguard, in most historical situations, is only going to be a minority of the class, therefore it cannot be considered the same thing as the class itself. The vanguard is the part of the proletariat that recognizes the need for revolution, that's all it is. By extension, the part of the proletariat that is not part of the vanguard does not recognize the need for revolution. The question is, is the party needed for the parts of the proletariat that do not advocate revolution to come to the conclusion that revolution is needed?

The answer is no; the party is not needed for this. Class struggle produces communists, and then when these communists are organized into a party, they can play a positive role. To disagree with this is to follow the logic I already outlined: that class struggle can be replaced with party propaganda; that capitalism does not create the conditions of its own demise. It was Lenin's view that you needed the advanced portion of the proletariat to spread revolutionary views among the parts of the proletariat that did not embrace revolution; i.e. that the working class could not spontaneously recognize the need for revolution of its own efforts separately from that of its vanguard section(hence the need for revolutionary theory). It's been proven to be wrong. Organizations can have a role in the growth of pro-revolutionary ideology, but it is ultimately not the decisive one.

Talking about Bernstein is totally irrelevant here because we are talking about the idea of revolution, not "trade union consciousness". Again, the idea that all you need to create a revolutionary scenario is to plug in the right formula is entirely delusional.

The point is that workers' councils are an instrument of working class rule. Whether they actually succeeded in overthrowing bourgeois rule or had representatives that had not fully broken with bourgeois ideology in a given instance is quite beside the point. The party did not create the councils, nor could it. Only the working class itself of its own efforts can do this. The Party had nothing to do with the creation of workers' councils, which formed the basis of working class rule. The 1905 movement was a proletarian movement, which is the key factor you're ignoring, choosing to instead emphasize the ideological portion of it. Your brief discourse of history has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Your statement that "There is no open class struggle without a mass political movement." is complete trash and unwittingly embraces the Kautskyite tripe that "consciousness must be introduced from the outside". Your parochial, paternalistic view of the party is pretty fucking dated. Class struggle exists outside the party, or I suppose that proletarian class struggle didn't exist for a good portion of capitalism's history and that the Paris Commune wasn't a proletarian uprising. You're also making imaginary assumptions about what I believe the role of organization to be. I have stated that class struggle produces communists; you have stated that communist propaganda from within the working class creates communists. That's ultimately what this is about.

[Sea]

I never said the vanguard was a force that existed outside the proletariat; you are confusing the issue entirely and creating a massive straw man. By outside, I mean that it is something separate from the class as a whole. The vanguard, in most historical situations, is only going to be a minority of the class, therefore it cannot be considered the same thing as the class itself.But the goal isn't to represent the class, it's to represent the class's interests. When the proletarians are still clinging on to reactionary ideas, these shouldn't be represented. In tzarist Russia, it simply wasn't a very wise idea to take the wishes of the workers of the moment and average them out. My apologies, but what you said certainly seemed like another re-hashed accusation of "Blanquism" on Lenin's part.


The vanguard is the part of the proletariat that recognizes the need for revolution, that's all it is. By extension, the part of the proletariat that is not part of the vanguard does not recognize the need for revolution. The question is, is the party needed for the parts of the proletariat that do not advocate revolution to come to the conclusion that revolution is needed?That's an alright way of summing it up, I suppose. But I'd say that the real question here is weather the proletariat of Russia at the time could self-organize and abandon bourgeois influence to the point where a well-guided revolution could proceed without a rallying point for radical ideas -- the vanguard party.
The answer is no; the party is not needed for this. Class struggle produces communists, and then when these communists are organized into a party, they can play a positive role. To disagree with this is to follow the logic I already outlined: that class struggle can be replaced with party propaganda; that capitalism does not create the conditions of its own demise. It was Lenin's view that you needed the advanced portion of the proletariat to spread revolutionary views among the parts of the proletariat that did not embrace revolution; i.e. that the working class could not spontaneously recognize the need for revolution of its own efforts separately from that of its vanguard section(hence the need for revolutionary theory). It's been proven to be wrong. Organizations can have a role in the growth of pro-revolutionary ideology, but it is ultimately not the decisive one.

Talking about Bernstein is totally irrelevant here because we are talking about the idea of revolution, not "trade union consciousness". Again, the idea that all you need to create a revolutionary scenario is to plug in the right formula is entirely delusional.Talking about the context of Lenin's words is completely relevant no matter who he was using them against. And considering weather a vanguard is beneficial or not makes talking about what degree spontaneous class-consciousness can develop all the more relevant as well. I'd argue that class consciousness produces disgruntled workers, not communists specifically. How can you be sure that the workers will turn to communism rather than fascism, primitivism or what have you? Opportunists always knock twice! If the workers already understand that as workers capital is their exclusive enemy perhaps struggle alone would be sufficient, but history has shown that a big mass of pitchfork-carrying proles is not the whole picture.

The point is that workers' councils are an instrument of working class rule. Whether they actually succeeded in overthrowing bourgeois rule or had representatives that had not fully broken with bourgeois ideology in a given instance is quite beside the point. Only the working class itself of its own efforts can do this. The Party had nothing to do with the creation of workers' councils, which formed the basis of working class rule. The 1905 movement was a proletarian movement, which is the key factor you're ignoring, choosing to instead emphasize the ideological portion of it. Your brief discourse of history has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.It's beside the point when considering who runs the councils. The working class runs the councils. But if they have not broken with bourgeois ideology by that point, it stands to follow they are not in a position to do so. It does not matter weather the wishes of the ruling class are represented directly or by proxy. Who's acting in whose class interest is the key, not simply who's acting.
Your statement that "There is no open class struggle without a mass political movement." is complete trash and unwittingly embraces the Kautskyite tripe that "consciousness must be introduced from the outside".Isn't a big part of the point of Marxism that the workers must "take back" politics, so to speak? If you can demonstrate that a mass (massive, in the interest of the masses and of the masses, not just the first and last) movement isn't needed, I'll be happy to renege on my evil kautskyism. Besides, you "never said the vanguard was a force that existed outside the proletariat".

Your parochial, paternalistic view of the party is pretty fucking dated. Class struggle exists outside the party, or I suppose that proletarian class struggle didn't exist for a good portion of capitalism's history and that the Paris Commune wasn't a proletarian uprising. You're also making imaginary assumptions about what I believe the role of organization to be.Of course class struggle is inherent to capitalism; the interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat contradict each other. You seem to be confusing class struggle with revolutionary struggle. And yes my politics are a bit dated. In fact, much of my political thought comes from the latter half of the 19th century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now I'll pop in, surprisingly before comrade MarxSchmarx the DeLeonist. I'll take the "voluntarism" insult on revolutionary strategy as a compliment, folks.


"Без революционной теории не может быть и революционного движения"
"Without revolutionary theory", says Lenin, "there can be no revolutionary movement".

He used the wrong word, comrade. It should be program or perhaps even program and strategy.


"Militant" is a stupid word and has a Trotskyist connotations I don't like and anyway the English borrowed it from the French for whom it was an almost exclusively religious word.

One learns something new everyday.


"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes."

This is nothing less than profoundly true and important.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

My entry into Marxism was through De Leonism and the Socialist Labor Party in the early 1990s. Prior to that, I was an eco-anarchist.

I found merit in the more syndicalist aspects of De Leonism, although in a country where something like 86% of workers aren't unionized, the idea of unions in general are an anachronism to most workers.

De Leonism was a development of a specific period of US history. If it's an anachronism, then it's no more so than Marxism-Leninism, which was also a development of a specific period of Russian history.

[Fridisen]

I know this thread is dead but


Advocates of industrial unionism were traditionally disdained by De Leon and other labor leaders based upon the skilled tradesmen of the day. Accusing the IWW of representing "the bummery" and "slum proletarians" was the type of rhetoric used by advocates of craft unions who looked down upon industrial unionism. Daniel De Leon had his good pints, but let us not romanticise the guy. Hew was what he was, a craft union advocate who correctly disdained anarchist violence, but used inflammatory language that disparaged unskilled workers. It is no accident that De Leonism became an anachronism. The 20th century became the century of industrial unionism and De Leonism became outdated.


a craft union advocate

(cant post links smh but slp. org/res_state_htm/siu_ism.html
and marxists. org/archive/deleon/works/1913/130120.htm)
De Leonism can also be called socialist industrial unionism, which uhm..is not craft unionism


Industrial Unionism, free from optical illusions, is clear upon the goal the substitution of the political State with the Industrial Government. Clearness of vision renders Industrial Unionism immune both to the Anarch self-deceit of the “No government!” slogan, together with all the mischief that flows therefrom, and to the politician’s “parliamentary idiocy” of looking to legislation for the overthrow of class rule.The Industrial Union grasps the principle: “No government, no organization; no organization, no co-operative labor; no co-operative labor, no abundance for all without arduous toil, hence, no freedom." -- Hence, the Industrial Union aims at a democratically centralized government, accompanied by the democratically requisite “local self-rule.”The Industrial Union grasps the principle of the political State -- central and local authorities disconnected from productive activity; and it grasps the requirement of the government of freedom”the central and local administrative authorities of the productive capabilities of the people. The Industrial Union hearkens to the command of social evolution to cast the nation, and, with the nation, its government, in a mold different from the mold in which class rule casts nations and existing governments. While class rule casts the nation, and, with the nation, its government, in the mold of territory, Industrial Unionism casts the nation in the mold of useful occupations, and transforms the nation’s government into the representations from these. Accordingly, Industrial Unionism organizes the useful occupations of the land into constituencies of future society.In performing this all-embracing function, Industrial Unionism, the legitimate offspring of civilization, comes equipped with all the experience of the age.

Industrial Unionism is the Socialist Republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the Industrial Union is the Socialist Republic in operation.

now I do not know His suporters at the time but the ideology is clear, industrial unionism(walking into a form of general unionism with the one big union aspect).

He was very critical of craft unionism, referring to the American Federation of Labor as the "American Seperation of Labor" and favored not just a one big union concept, but rather a concept of international labor unionism. He founded the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, which tried (largely unsuccessfully) to form international solidarity with other labor unions.

:)
like..4 year late respons,,but still