MarxSchmarx

Stephen Coleman's biography of DeLeon is a good place to start; I read it a few years ago, it's very accessible but is written by a serious historian and fair to his subject. It is, IMHO, due for a new edition.

As to DeLeon's relations to other figures, may I ask what prompts the interest? In the sense that they are all marxists, there are quite a few commonalities. Lenin was impressed by DeLeon but I don't believe very influenced by him. Coleman delves into this some.

But it is important to understand that folks like DeLeon, Lenin, Kautsky tend to reflect the movements they participate in and their social conditions. So perhaps you will find more utility comparing their orgs?

Am I correct in assuming you ask because of the DeLeonist group?

There is much the modern left could learn from the failures of DeLeonism a century ago, yet it remains virtually ignored.


For instance, one of the neglected facets of DeLeonism is that it is a response to Marxism that was born and developed under liberal democracy in a highly advanced capitalist society. Now that what some call "Americanism" is so dominant, it deserves a closer examination by the serious left.

This is the kind of discussion the left needs right now - a reassessment of its paths not taken. Unfortunately, this is largely the kind of discussion the left is strikingly largely lacking.

However, as to my personal views, it's a bit of a stretch to label myself as such. My short answer is "Not really", the long answer begins "Yes, but..."

It's a very difficult question ascertaining when technological progress has "gone far enough". The american patent office famously considered shutting down in the 1890s because they figured everything that could be invented had been invented.

My suspicion is that there is still much technological progress that capitalism can accelerate, particularly in areas like entertainment or leisure activities in consumer societies that would be comparatively neglected under socialism where housing, energy nutrition etc.. are prioritized viz. resource allocation. Maybe carefully circumscribed areas of life could be left to some degree of market forces and there will be a long period of coexistence between capitalist approaches and non-capitalist approaches. We already get some kind of uncomfortable coexistence in areas like, e.g., the haute art world where feudal patronage models coexist with a pretty mature market.

...when a workers party takes power soon.

You know, i think Paul Cockshott and the Third Period Marxists notably Bukharin and i believe Lenin ("we shall achieve state capitalism for a big step towards socialism") were and are completely correct in their assessment that markets, capital and private property ownership should be used by the vanguard party until the productive forces render them obsolete.

I though adamantly believe that "the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces" and that they in fact are already so advanced that we could replace manual labor with computers and now emerging industrial robotics within a few years and that we must immediately begin the integration and education for workers to increasingly control their own surplus more directly.