So, what would the various members here classify themselves as?

Deleon clarified Marxism and made it more popularly understandable. Like Kautsky and the early Social Democrats making of Marxism into and Ideology, into a concrete theory rather then a set of texts. Particulary I think Deleon made sense of Marx's positions on Revolutionary Tactics and set it in stone.

I'm a Libertarian Communist. Which means I like to mix and mash aspects of Left - Communism, Council Commuism, Autonomist Marxism, Deleonism, Luxemburgism and Anarchism to my own satisfaction. I like Deleonism for its Internationalism, for its respect for the fact that every country has its own unique conditions and therein, implies its own unique method of a revolution. I like Deleonism for its respect of the idea that along a Political and Economic field, a battle must go down. It does not fetish either field, but recognizes that both are necessary.

This also ties into the idea that De Leon served to systematize Marx's ideas on revolutionary theory, as the interconnectedness of political and economic struggle is very much present in Marx, and many members of the Marxist movement have tended to put this down simply to some form of arbitrariness, etc., as if Marx's political views were disconnected from his economics and views of the necessary progress of history.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at, well said.

To be honest, though, I think that Marxism was quite concrete in Marx and Engels themselves, the difference being that there the concreteness is somewhat more spread out, while De Leon's position and occupation meant that his articles and speeches were very much focused on a particular field, although he still discussed theoretical works like Capital from time to time.

What I want to stress while we are on the topic of this, is that Marx's key works and Hegal's work in large part weren't translated until the 50s and 60s, way after the height of the workers' movement. People weren't aware of how concrete Marxism till after this renaissance.

Besides being in the International Movement gave Deleon access to texts not popularly accessible like they are now. The relative level of education between Deleon and the average working class person in the start of the 20th century is of no comparison. It takes a very educated person to have true understand of Marxism. To make sense of the spareness of texts, spread between decades, each having almost its own methodology.

Deleon wasn't perfect though. I accept the basic premise of the ICC's critique of Deleon's economic work, which led to further problems in his approach to a revolution.

What I am really wondering though, is their any relevance today in Deleon's means of achieving this dual political - economic battle? The world where Deleon lived, fought and died is completely different then the world today. In a world where Class Struggle manifests itself more socially, autonomously, using direct action then in the workplace or by the ballot box, is there a need for Socialist Industrial Unionism? Or are activists trying to bring back the dead?

De Leonism has always struck me as something of an inkblot test of the left; what people read into it and emphasize about it speaks more about the reader than the text.

But I digress.

I think one audience are those who are simply interested in marxist currents "untouched" by leninism. even a lot of the writings of Bordiga and Luxemburg engage, in my reading, to varying degrees with Lenin (and Trotsky).

What's intriguing to me about deLeonism is that it suggests in many respects marxism's road not taken. This almost makes it like an experiment where two different petri dishes, one with Kautsky/Lenin/Trotsky/Mao etc... and another with deLeon, developed largely independently for decades. So I think a comparative approach to leninism could be quite informative, especially because most of us on the left are more or less cognizant of the major tenets of Leninism.

Lenin followed Deleon. He famously quoted Deleon in referring to the "Labor Lieutenants of the working class" - i.e. the traditional craft unions which lead the working class. I don't think Lenin understood Deleon, partly in his inability to obtain Deleons substantial work, partly in his lack of understanding of Marxism. He considered the Socialist Labor Party opportunistic and against the Communist International. Particularly I think the British SLP was antagonistic to the movement for a Communist Party in Europe, they actually grouped themselves with the Left Communist and Anarchist Factions around Sylvia Pankhurst, but never formally aligned themselves because the two rejected working in parliament for the most part.

Whereas Deleon tries to directly appropriate Marxism for its correct conditions, where the development of the productive forces have developed to the point where the "Real domination of capital" begins, Lenin went the opposite direction, utilizing Marxism for an extremely backward country. I dont think there can be much comparison between the two, their methods were fundamentally different.

Whereas Deleon tries to directly appropriate Marxism for its correct conditions, where the development of the productive forces have developed to the point where the "Real domination of capital" begins, Lenin went the opposite direction, utilizing Marxism for an extremely backward country. I dont think there can be much comparison between the two, their methods were fundamentally different.

Really? How different were their methods? Both saw themselves as using Marx's texts and applying it to the political situation the found themselves in. Both realized that Marx wrote in a different time/place than they were operating in. Both tried to translated these differences to practical political work. etc... So I think whilst their conclusions and (perhaps) even readings of marx may have been different, you can compare how they used Marx to apply it to their political world view. I guess one can call that a "difference in methods", but I do not understand why that precludes a comparison in using one to provide insights about the other.

In particular, as I noted in my post, most of the left is quite familiar with Lenin that it would help to compare DeLeon's writings with Lenin's. I think in this way it could help people frame DeLeon's ideas and better appreciate their place within the history of Marxist thought.

I suppose that sounds more like "contrasting" it with Lenin's, but another quite common use of the word "compare" basically means to put side by side and try to identify the differences. It is with this latter sense (as it is often used in the practice of history when one speaks of, for example, a "comparative approach") that I think it would help readers interested in DeLeonism. I certainly didn't mean to imply that DeLeon's work was merely akin to or anticipatory of Lenin's.

Really? How different were their methods? Both saw themselves as using Marx's texts and applying it to the political situation the found themselves in. Both realized that Marx wrote in a different time/place than they were operating in. Both tried to translated these differences to practical political work. etc... So I think whilst their conclusions and (perhaps) even readings of marx may have been different, you can compare how they used Marx to apply it to their political world view. I guess one can call that a "difference in methods", but I do not understand why that precludes a comparison in using one to provide insights about the other.

Deleon was not trying to "adapt" Marxism to American Conditions. He said only in America and some Western countries was Marxism applicable. So in this sense, he was realizing Marxian Tactics, not adapting.

Deleon was not trying to "adapt" Marxism to American Conditions. He said only in America and some Western countries was Marxism applicable. So in this sense, he was realizing Marxian Tactics, not adapting.

"adapt" being your word, not mine.

In response to the original question: I see myself as an "unaffiliated Debsian" who is influenced by DeLeonism. I see DeLeonism as a predecessor to autonomist Marxism. I am sympathetic to the Campaign for Working Democracy, an offshoot of SLP originally organized as the New Union Party. Now having said this I am sure someone might cite chapter and verse as to why I can't be Debsian and DeLeonist. And perhaps I fail as a good sectarian but I do recall that when Karl Marx was told how a French Marxist sect was reinterpreting his thought, Marx said, "And that is why I am not a Marxist". I agree with Marx.

I view myself as a left-communist influenced mainly by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bordiga, and DeLeon.