DeLeonism as an ideology

Author

Message

graymouser

Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Location: Tabernacle, NJ

Posted: 18 Jul 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: De Leonism as an ideology

The more I study early 20th century Marxism in the United States - whether that of Debs, of Irish socialist and martyr James Connolly, or otherwise - the more it seems that industrial unionism really was the consensus accepted on the left wing of the American socialist movement from about 1905 (the founding of the IWW) until 1917 (the Russian Revolution). And, in fact, the Socialist Industrial Union program is quite similar to that developed by Rosa Luxemburg and the successors to her ideological line, the Left Communists in Italy and the Council Communists such as Pannekoek and Mattick. In fact, Pannekoek in an essay refers to the IWW as basically the workers' arm of a successful model for organization of the workers. So I have to ask: what makes De Leonism a separate ideology? I know the Socialist Labor Party is quite far from most of the organized Left, but nothing about its sectarianism seems inherent in De Leonist ideas. -Wayne

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 252
Location: Vermont

Posted: 19 Jul 2005 12:57 am Post subject:

Hi Wayne: A while ago in the forum ( I can't recall if you were on board at the time or not) I think we had come to a consensus that "DeLeonism" as used in this site, means Socialist Industrial Unionism. As such I am answering the above post in the industrial union topic. http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 307

Posted: 20 Jul 2005 05:39 pm Post subject:

I haven't heard it expressed this way before, but it seems to me that Deleonism as an ideology has the premise that there are many ways for the socialist movement to go wrong. Go at it the wrong way, and the result won't be something that deserves the name "socialism", and so people who are going at it the wrong way barely deserve to be called "socialists." It's not in the intentions, but in the issue of whether the path is just right. It's like a conception of modern history that sees socialists trying to steer while strong winds alwys tend to divert the course. So a reform suggestion, for example, is called a "distraction." It's as if we're saying that socialism in operation will be a stable system, but the socialist movement under capitalism is fragile. It's so easy for the sincere intentions of forming socialism to end up with bureaucracy, a new form of class rule, instead of real socialism, that we have to be concerned with purity of the ideas as their proponents, not because we are overly "dogmatic and sectarian", as critics say, but because we're trying to give some direction to a feather in a hurricane.

davesearles

Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 252
Location: Vermont

Posted: 21 Jul 2005 06:42 am Post subject:

Mike, you are way to heavy for me on this one. Can you please translate? thanks, dave

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 307

Posted: 22 Jul 2005 11:55 pm Post subject:

For example, look at the way the SLP advises against use of the phrase "public ownership." This is immediately followed by the admission that the phrase is alright if understood literally, since the public is the population (from the Greek root), but that the phrase has the unintended effect of promoting nationalization by the state. The terms "collective ownership" and "social ownership" seem to set a better example, although it's not entirely clear why. We who come out of SLP influence have always been on hair-trigger alert to notice any phrase or action which could "distract" or "mislead" the consciousness of the working class. It's almost like refraining from saying curse words in front of a toddler -- always warning ourselves to be extra careful about the examples that we set. Perhaps history is "chaotic" in the mathematical sense of the word --unpredictably hypersensitive to initial conditions.

The Greenman

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Western New York

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 02:30 am Post subject:

I just notice this. Wayne paid a visit. How are you doing? I also have noticed the consensus of the American left over the Socialist Industrial Union in the early 20th century America. After the Russian revolution the American Socialist movement became stagnant. Why did this happen? John

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 307

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:13 am Post subject:

Are you replying to someone who last posted here two years ago?

The Greenman

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Western New York

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:27 am Post subject:

OOOOOOOOOOOkay, I am tired and thought it was a recent post on the 18th and I had reduced the fonts because I was on a different website earlier. It's not the first time I have made an asshole of myself. I kinda gotten use to doing it. :x

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 307

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:31 am Post subject:

The Greenman wrote:

After the Russian revolution the American Socialist movement became stagnant. Why did this happen?

Mainly because "socialists" told the American workers that socialism means getting political reforms like regulating child labor and establishing old age pensions, so when those things were done there's no more apparent need for a socialist movement. All of their goals were already achieved.

The Socialist Party actually complained that F.D. Roosevelt stole its platform.

mikelepore
Site Admin

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 307

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 03:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's not the first time I have made an asshole of myself.

I usually do it when I'm drunk. Being tired isn't sufficient cause for me.