De Leonism

[Pogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism

This seems an interesting strand of Marxism - a revolutionary syndicate and a party. Any followers of this idea here? Anyone think its a good or bad idea?

I think it sounds good.

[Incendiarism]

I like the sound of it, but I haven't been able to actually read much from De Leon.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

De Leonism is an ultra-left, utopian and impossibilist theory.

The SLP (http://www.slp.org/) still upholds the theory, though their ranks and finances continue to dwindle. The New Union Party (http://www.newunionparty.org/) came out of the SLP but is no longer vocal in advocating "De Leonism"

[Pogue]

Why do you believe it is utopian, Nothing Human Is Alien? And isn't impossibilism an actual term, not just an insult? They call themselves impossibilist.

Whats so utopian about a syndicalist movement with a democratic mandate? Surely it ensures full legitimacy and backing, useful in both guaranteeing support and justifying ones actions to the world as a revolutionary?

[mikelepore]

I was a member of the SLP from 1973 to 1980. I'm the founder of deleonism.org, which isn't affiliated with the SLP or any other organization. If there's anyone else online at revleft more capable of answering questions about the theory than I am, I haven't encountered them yet. As for whether it's a valid outlook, I would say that I agree with about 95 percent of it.

[PRC-UTE]

Why does DeLeon have such a following?

[Hit The North]

Why does DeLeon have such a following?

What following does he have?

[PRC-UTE]

What following does he have?

people that call themselves "DeLeonists".

[Hit The North]

No shit. But you remarked, "Why does DeLeon have such a following?"(my emphasis) implying that it is substantial.

[Revy]

De Leon doesn't have a large following. The SLP was much larger in its day, it was in fact the first socialist party in America. But now it's got a few members on the internet, that's all.

[black magick hustla]

I knew an ex-slp militant. He was this old homophobic, xenophobic cranky man who was a vegan and a neomalthusian. He considered himself a deleonist. I doubt all deleonists are crazy like that though.

[black magick hustla]

At the Paris Congress of the Second International, in 1900, those who favoured entry into government, with all the implied compromises, called themselves Possibilists, while those who opposed participation became known as Impossibilists.

If this is true then I suppose communists are impossibilists.

[PRC-UTE]

No shit. But you remarked, "Why does DeLeon have such a following?"(my emphasis) implying that it is substantial.

oops. well I didn't mean to imply that it was substantial. just wondering why people like DeLeon so much they want to call themselves DeLeonists.

[Revulero]

i find their theories outdated and too orthodox on marx.

[JimmyJazz]

IIRC from reading A Bending Cross (a bio of Eugene Debs), didn't De Leon want to start a workers' colony in the American West? :lol:

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does DeLeon have such a following?



Conceptually DeLeonism is quite appealing. DeLeonism occupies a strange space in the Leftist political spectrum. Mikelepore can correct me, but on one hand it is deeply syndicalist and emphasizes the self-liberation of the working class. On the other hand, it sees a place for parliamentary politics, essentially to serve as a coda for the worker's struggle.

The appeal of DeLeon himself, at least in North America, probably has to do with nativism and it's unambiguous lack of ties to Leninisms (as opposed to, say, "Luxembourgism"). North American leftists can't avoid learning about DeLeon. If they were leftists already distrustful of Leninism, DeLeonism offers an alternative to what's out there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why do you believe it is utopian, Nothing Human Is Alien? And isn't impossibilism an actual term, not just an insult? They call themselves impossibilist.


If this is true then I suppose communists are impossibilists.

Impossiblists reject all fights for reforms and instead say we should only/always take "revolutionary political action," which in reality leads them to shout slogans from the sidelines.


Whats so utopian about a syndicalist movement with a democratic mandate? Surely it ensures full legitimacy and backing, useful in both guaranteeing support and justifying ones actions to the world as a revolutionary?

They are utopians because they waiting for a pure revolution that will never come.

Bourgeois electoral politics aren't "democratic." Getting elected in a bourgeois government does not guarantee continuing support.

And to whom does such work "legitimize" communists?

Communists fight for the working class to destroy the capitalist state and construct a new one of their own in its place.


As for whether it's a valid outlook, I would say that I agree with about 95 percent of it.

Unfortunately, whether or not you agree with it has no bearing on its validity in bringing about socialism.


just wondering why people like DeLeon so much they want to call themselves DeLeonists.

There are a number of reasons. Of course it makes much more sense for communists to base themselves on the results of the struggles over the years, and to take what was correct from its various contributors and to leave behind what was wrong.

[mikelepore]

Mikelepore can correct me, but on one hand it is deeply syndicalist and emphasizes the self-liberation of the working class.

The plan is ordinarily described as industrial union departments for agriculture, mining, transportation, etc., all integrated in to a single industrial union of the entire working class. The industrial organization plans to "take, hold and operate" the means of production. The pre-revolutionary workplace organization has to take a form that can be snapped into operation as a new management system, with no interruption in the flow of goods and services.


From the IWW Preamble, 1905: "The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggles with the capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially, we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

From an article written by De Leon in 1913: "Industrial unionism is the socialist republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the industrial union is the socialist republic in operation. Accordingly, the industrial union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself."

[mikelepore]

On the other hand, it sees a place for parliamentary politics, essentially to serve as a coda for the worker's struggle.

The political process is decribed as "an achievement for civilization". The Communist Manifesto describes how revolutionary capitalism once was, historically, sweeping away remnants of feudalism, exploring the globe, promoting scientific discoveries, assembling and concentrating the machinery of production. Likewise, another way in which capitalism had a progressive role was that it tended to replace monarchy with the ballot, recurrently adding places for disputes to be resolved by counting votes instead of by swords and gunpowder. It is not in order to be to be "legal", but to be "civilized", that socialists should seek a political mandate by the majority of the people before saying that the workers' industrial union is authorized to be installed as the new management.

Opponents of the political half of the program often say that "the revolution will have violence anyway." This is what logicians call the "perfect solution fallacy", for example, "There no sense in drivers wearing seatbelts, because some people will always have fatal accidents anyway", etc. Of course the only point is to optimize results, not to claim perfection. Use of the political process maximizes the probability that revolutionary change will be as peaceful as possible.

[mikelepore]

The appeal of DeLeon himself, at least in North America, probably has to do with nativism and it's unambiguous lack of ties to Leninisms (as opposed to, say, "Luxembourgism"). North American leftists can't avoid learning about DeLeon. If they were leftists already distrustful of Leninism, DeLeonism offers an alternative to what's out there.

Right, De Leon, who died in 1914, simply never inherited any concepts from Lenin. Due to time and place, the theory never developed through that heritage of thought. (However there was some influence from Luxemburg and the two Liebknechts.)

The SLP grew directly out of the International Working Men's Association. The North American branch of the IWMA changed its name to the Workingmen's Party for just a few months and then changed its name again to the Socialist Labor Party, That was in 1876. Mostly German immigrants at the time, they said, rather, Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei, although most of them were in New York City.

Before De Leon joined the SLP he taught law at Columbia in NYC and he was a supporter of Edward Bellamy and Henry George. Rather suddenly he discovered Marx and joined the SLP. The party membership voted him into an elected office called "the editor", the writer of newspaper editorials. There he pressed for a few new principles, the main one being a new intolerance for platforms proposing gradual reforms. In a speech in 1904 he introduced the industrial unionism concept that the IWW adopted in 1905.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Likewise, another way in which capitalism had a progressive role was that it tended to replace monarchy with the ballot, recurrently adding places for disputes to be resolved by counting votes instead of by swords and gunpowder [...]

Opponents of the political half of the program often say that "the revolution will have violence anyway." This is what logicians call the "perfect solution fallacy", for example, "There no sense in drivers wearing seatbelts, because some people will always have fatal accidents anyway", etc. Of course the only point is to optimize results, not to claim perfection. Use of the political process maximizes the probability that revolutionary change will be as peaceful as possible.

The only way to minimize revolutionary violence is to enact class-strugglist democracy (a very specific form of participatory democracy). The "ballot" as it stands now is, contrary to what Marx said, still an instrument of deception and not an instrument of emancipation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm), given its combination of the democratic principle of universal suffrage and the oligarchic principle (in the Greek sense) of selection.

The era of dual power just after the fall of the czar had the unsung role of ensuring that the Bolshevik revolution would NOT be as "gloriously" violent as depicted in Soviet propaganda films (friendly casualties ;) ). What you should really fear is the prospect of civil war AFTER the political revolution (be it peaceful or violent). If the Pinochets don't succeed in your parliamentary scenario (like Pinochet did in Chile), the Denikins will step up (during the Russian civil war).

Then there's Mao who, besides the Korean war, didn't face civil unrest after taking power. Now THAT's something.

[Die Neue Zeit]

De Leonism is an ultra-left, utopian and impossibilist theory.

Notwithstanding the question of parliamentarianism, I would NOT jump to that conclusion:

http://deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=351&start=75


I don't say that the call for a 32 hour workweek is a reform... Socialist literature should instead say: "Having now completed our description covered the socialist platform, we will go on to mention some additional noteworthy parts of the class struggle. Note carefully that the following objectives have nothing whatsoever to do with the implementation of socialism, and are recommended as short-term survival tactics." NOW, go on to inform everyone that we are struggling for a 32 hour workweek.

That's what "socialist" reformism fails to do. Try to find that kind of openness at a typical leftist web site. Try to find such a clarification in any leftist newspaper emblazoned with "we demand ...."

(Interesting discussion going on in that thread, BTW :) )



The World Socialist Movement, on the other hand, has the same position on reform struggles as that of the typical ultra-leftist groups (the latter being infected with the economistic notion that political struggles can grow only out of economic ones, as manifested by their fetish for "workers' councils").

[mikelepore]

The "ballot" as it stands now is, contrary to what Marx said, still an instrument of deception and not an instrument of emancipation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)

Yes it it, but what makes it so is that most working class people gives their consent to their own oppression. After each person is intensely indoctrinated for 18 years to believe in competitive institutions that throw the human being to the dogs, that person is now allowed to vote. By habit and through misconception, people vote to continue their own oppression. All versions of socialist thought assume that something or other, some say a new economic crisis, some say a better organization, etc., will be able to break that logjam and interrupt the feedback in which people consent to their own oppression. To the extent that the loop can be broken, that people withdraw their consent for the obsolete institutions, in that proportion the ballot will become an instrument of emancipation.