Daniel De Leon - the American Marxist

[Sensitive]

Could anyone explain to me what exactly De Leon's views were? I've heard this called De-Leonism. I also know that his political party - the Socialist Labor Party (the first Marxist political party here in the US, founded in 1877 and became Marxist in 1890) is still around, although it is very tiny like most other left parties.

[redstar2000]

As I understand it, they are "strict parliamentarians"...the road to socialism is through a majority in the U.S. Congress. No talk of proletarian revolution is permitted.

For reasons obscure to me now (bad memory!), Lenin thought quite highly of DeLeon, citing him as the only American to make a contribution to Marxist theory.

But I can't remember or even imagine what that "contribution" might have been. :cheesy:

:cool:

[Sensitive]

Ah, so they are similar to the World Socialist Party?

With the US electoral system so hopelessly fucked up, I can't imagine how anyone can truly expect to get any significant change by working within that system.

[RedCeltic]

I believe that Deleon's works are available in an archive database at www.slp.org

They are like the World Socialists, but differ in some ways. They support industrial unionism, which the World Socialists believes is in conflict with their believe in implementing socialism through parlimentery means, and, according to the WSP, they believe socialism can be brought about in one nation. That's according to the World Socialists anyway.

I find them fairly useless really. There is a group here near my city that once published an article attacking a archaeology proffessor of mine for saying that the Aztecs had markets... they claimed he was trying to show that capitalism is natural.

His rebuttle was simply that the SLP didn't know what they were talking about. Yes the Aztecs had markets, but they also had no wage labor, nor did they buy and sell land.

[Sensitive]

Oh, I see, thanks for the clarification RedCeltic.

[Ian]

"according to the WSP, they believe socialism can be brought about in one nation. That's according to the World Socialists anyway" You have asserted this so confidently RC but quite the opposite is true, the world socialist movement which has parties in many countries around the world is quite a revolutionary party (albeit utopian) and they believe that the only way to get socialism is internationally, hence the name world socialist movement, one of the reasons they opposed the october revolution and still do is because It was a national upheaval. Visit their site at www.worldsocialistmovement.com (http://www.worldsocialistmovement.com) , I find them a bit boring about history but their analysis of capitalism is very good and their quote archive is worth a look

[Conghaileach]

DeLeon was one of the founders of the Industrial Workers of the World. He may have believed that the trade union would do the economic agitation and that the political party would do the political agitation.

His archive is online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/index.htm

On his strict parliamentarianism, this is probably due to the fact that the party was a strong supporter of the Second International, which believed in economic determinism - that socialism would naturally come about, so the only role of the Marxists was agitation and propaganda.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Ian Rocks on 6:02 am on April 30, 2003
"according to the WSP, they believe socialism can be brought about in one nation. That's according to the World Socialists anyway" You have asserted this so confidently RC but quite the opposite is true, the world socialist movement which has parties in many countries around the world is quite a revolutionary party (albeit utopian) and they believe that the only way to get socialism is internationally, hence the name world socialist movement, one of the reasons they opposed the october revolution and still do is because It was a national upheaval. Visit their site at www.worldsocialistmovement.com (http://www.worldsocialistmovement.com) , I find them a bit boring about history but their analysis of capitalism is very good and their quote archive is worth a look



IAN ROCKS I was talking about the World Socialist View on the SLP, not the WSP!!!

The world socialist website lists their views on different groups.

Maybe you should have taken the time to actually read what I was saying.

The question was about DELEIONISM

Why on earth would you think I am talking about World Socialism??? I was using their own words to point out the difference!

[The Muckraker]

I think that perhaps the picture of DeLeon portrayed here is not quite accurate. I strongly urge anyone with an interest in Marxism to read DeLeon introduction (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/bio.htm) at marxists.org. These posts make it sound like he was a reformist, but he most certainly was not, demanding a radical change in the very structure of society. For more on this, his speech Reform or Revolution? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/960126.htm) is probably the best place to start. Some of you may be familiar with the often quoted opening of the speech.

DeLeon recognized that without political power, any move by the proletariat to alter the status quo in a meaningful way would be met be violence from the State. Only through taking political power and dismantling the State itself could society truly be changed.

DeLeon offers a very good alternative to the Leninist model, with which I'm personally not very comfortable, and is an often neglected Marxist who deserves closer attention.

The Muckraker

[redstar2000]

Taking Muckrucker's advice to heart, I removed myself to the archives and read DeLeon's speech Reform or Revolution.

I see now why Lenin liked him. A fair portion of DeLeon's speech is about party discipline, the need for. :o

There's nothing about "democratic centralism", of course; in 1896, Lenin had not yet even thought of that himself.

But I had the sense that DeLeon would have been, um, receptive to the idea.

DeLeon died in 1914, prior to the massive February 1917 revolution in Russia. The battle of the streets, which he thought the working class would "always lose", was, in fact, won.

On the other hand, his path of working class victory through the capitalist ballot box has never won and is now regarded by intelligent communists as a complete fantasy.

Perhaps it did not seem so "fantastic" in 1896...we cannot blame people for failing to anticipate the future.

What we can do, however, is criticize people who refuse to learn from experience. ;)

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 2:34 pm on May 9, 2003)

[The Muckraker]

I agree, we should learn from the past and dismiss such terrible ideas as "democratic centralism." Lenin failed. Move on.