DeLeonism is a type of socialism that could be considered uniquely American, to some degree. While based in Marxism, DeLeonism is relatively free of the influence of European or Asian Marxist thinkers (Lenin, Kautsky, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc), and to my knowledge DeLeonist parties were unable to spread outside of the English speaking world, though such organisations did exist in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia.
Anyway, the main thing that strikes me about DeLeonism is its focus on bottom-up workers democracy via the "socialist industrial union" (apparently ignoring work in existing unions?), and its almost naive insistence in a majority-based, relatively peaceful revolution via the ballot box. Theoretically, the socialist industrial union would be the primary organising method for achieving socialism; however a political party would also be used to capture the state apparatus via democratic elections. After the DeLeonist party is voted into power, the state would essentially "legalise socialism", making it possible for the socialist industrial unions to take control of the workplace and actually socialise the economy. At least, this is how I understand the idea. Still, seems kind of strange. Also, as an additional note, DeLeonists have been notoriously hostile to other camps of socialism stemming from either "reformist" traditions (the mass-based Socialist Party of America of the 1900s and 1910s) or "authoritarian" and "state capitalist" traditions (anything having to do with Leninism.) With this information in mind, it seems fairly obvious as to why most other socialists tend to consider DeLeonism "impossiblist."
But I'm getting off topic. The main point of this was to discuss the idea that's been floated by a poster on the Debsian e-mail list (for anyone interested, Debsian is an open list, but is maintained by the Debs Tendency of the Socialist Party USA). This poster, a self-described DeLeonist, has mentioned the idea of a constitutional amendment which would "allow" the workers to take over the means of production. The poster says that he intends to have this as a platform plank in the run for Congress he plans in 2008.
The idea of legislating socialism in my constitutional amendment seems somewhat silly to me, and without any other content about building workers power, winning immediate and transitional demands, etc to back it up, sounds very authoritarian and top-down. Now, I doubt this is the poster's intention, but does seem to focus primarily on this idea of a constitution amendment, while at the same time apparently dismissing the broadly-defined concept of "transitional demands" as mere metaphor.
Still, if he does run, I wish him the best for his campaign, and will most likely support him once if I can find a more detailed platform that he intends to run on (or if he decides to run on the SP platform.) The idea of a constitutional amendment to abolish capitalism doesn't sound like a bad idea in term of getting people talking, but there needs to be more concrete demands backing it up, in addition to a realisation that socialism will probably not come through the election of socialist candidates and parties to power, but rather as a more revolutionary seizure of power my popular protest and workers action from below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Zeus, that naive soul with the idea of the people adding a workers’ amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be me, David Searles of Rutland Vermont.
BRIDGE to socialist program of the revolution:
I guess I am just a little too dense to understand the point of transition demands. I’ve read brother Trotsky at least dozen times on this – he talks about a metaphorical bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution:
“It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to
find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of
the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional
demands, stemming from today's conditions and from today's
consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably
leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the
proletariat.”
Even if one were to assume that Trotsky was inerrantly prophetic on the above somehow people usually interpret his remarks to mean that it is never a good idea to come right out and tell people what the socialist program of the revolution actually is.
Which seems to also beg the question of just what is this socialist program of the revolution that the metaphorical bridge is supposed to lead to?
I know that for generations people somehow have come to believe that Trotsky’s bridge provides THE answer as to specifically how we should direct our energies toward advocating the revolution. I just don’t see it, if others do, God bless them.
Specific goal as opposed to a socialist program:
I cannot speak to what others want to do, FOR MYSELF I want to go to workers with a specific goal as opposed to a generalized program. FOR MYSELF that seems like a more cogent exercise.
Amendment proposal:
Zeus you got it right when you stated:
“This poster, a self-described DeLeonist, has mentioned the
idea of a constitutional amendment which would "allow" the
workers to take over the means of production. “
Just to add these thoughts: The workers have a revolutionary right to take hold and operate the means of production and distribution just as any slave has a right to free him or herself by otherwise illegal means IF NECESSARY.
Even if one starts with the premise that capital and the state apparatus that it controls shall under no circumstances, even if by legal means allow the workers to take hold and operate the means of production and distribution the amendment proposal would make sense TO ME. However I do not accept that premise.
The amendment would allow the workers to take hold and operate the means of production and distribution without having to abolish the current political state. It would radically alter the control of the state but at the same time keep the state in tact. TO ME this seems like a preferable course to follow instead of automatically giving up on the idea that the people can democratically alter the current state.
Text of proposed amendment to U.S. Constitution
Section 1. Exclusion of the workers from collective ownership and
control of the means of production and distribution shall not exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. The workers have a right to organize into industrial
unions which shall control and operate the means of production and
distribution and allocate the products of labor as the workers at all
times democratically determine.
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Zeus, you continued your remarks as follows:
“The poster says that he intends to have this as a platform plank in the
run for Congress he plans in 2008.
”The idea of legislating socialism in my constitutional amendment
seems somewhat silly to me, and without any other content about
building workers power, winning immediate and transitional demands,
etc to back it up, sounds very authoritarian and top-down."
If I can at all manage it I am going to run for congress from Vermont with this as the main plank of my platform. (I will use other planks such as human rights demands in ancillary support of the main idea such as universal access to health care, and immediate end to the war.) But perhaps my campaign platform will sound a little alien to those of us on the left who are used to a more strident phraseology. I own that criticism completely.
I had at once thought that I would run under the SP name on the ballot. (It would have been the first time in 87 years I think that a candidate for congress appeared on the ballot in Vermont under the name “socialist”.) But I don’t really see the SP as chomping at the bit to actually accepting the amendment proposal as a part of it’s strategy and I accept that. And if others such as yourself were to run for congress with the amendment proposal but had the type of language in your platform containing “other content about
building workers power, winning immediate and transitional demands, etc to back it up” I doubt that I would find it that objectionable that I would not be able to support it. But since this now going to be a campaign it looks like fueled entirely of my own energies I am going to assume entire editorial control over it. I guess that would be considered "top down" and so I await my execution :-)
Thank you for creating the opportunity for me to respond.
Dave Searles
davidasearles@yahoo.com
Post a Comment