More languages
More actions
General-KJ (talk | contribs) Integrated anonymous edit with criticism Tag: Visual edit |
Comrade Kiwi (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary Tag: Visual edit |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/subject/Ind_Unionism.pdf}}</ref> He believed in a two-front approach to the socialist movement, where industrial unions organize to attack the [[bourgeoisie]] along the economic sphere, while a political party organizes to attack the bourgeoisie along the political sphere.<ref>{{Citation|last=De Leon|first=Daniel|author=Daniel De Leon|year=1896|title=Reform of Revolution?|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm|quote="Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1896/RefRev.pdf}}</ref> He viewed the socialist movement as [[Revolution|revolutionary]], disavowing [[reformism]] as purely external changes.<ref>{{Citation|last=De Leon|first=Daniel|author=Daniel De Leon|year=1986|title=Reform of Revolution?|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm|quote="And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain. That is reform."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1896/RefRev.pdf}}</ref> | 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."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/subject/Ind_Unionism.pdf}}</ref> He believed in a two-front approach to the socialist movement, where industrial unions organize to attack the [[bourgeoisie]] along the economic sphere, while a political party organizes to attack the bourgeoisie along the political sphere.<ref>{{Citation|last=De Leon|first=Daniel|author=Daniel De Leon|year=1896|title=Reform of Revolution?|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm|quote="Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1896/RefRev.pdf}}</ref> He viewed the socialist movement as [[Revolution|revolutionary]], disavowing [[reformism]] as purely external changes.<ref>{{Citation|last=De Leon|first=Daniel|author=Daniel De Leon|year=1986|title=Reform of Revolution?|title-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm|quote="And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain. That is reform."|pdf=https://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/1896/RefRev.pdf}}</ref> | ||
De Leon's two-front approach is limited in that the two pillars focus on conflicting purposes; with unions engaging in the very economist fights for immediate relief that De Leon rejected as pointless. Either the trade unions are subordinate to the political goal of state conquest or they are their own organizations seeking out economist victories.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Kristen Svanum|newspaper=International Council Correspondence|title=Daniel De Leon|date=1935|url=https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/icc/1935/03/daniel-de-leon.htm}}</ref> However, he did correctly criticize the [[American Federation of Labor|AFL]] for being [[Class collaborationism|class-collaborationist]] and called for creating new unions instead of radicalizing existing ones.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The S.L.P: De Leonism and Decline (1890-1900)|chapter-url=https://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-six-slp-de-leonism-and-decline.html}}</ref> | De Leon's two-front approach is limited in that the two pillars focus on conflicting purposes; with unions engaging in the very economist fights for immediate relief that De Leon rejected as pointless. Either the trade unions are subordinate to the political goal of state conquest or they are their own organizations seeking out [[Economism|economist]] victories.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Kristen Svanum|newspaper=International Council Correspondence|title=Daniel De Leon|date=1935|url=https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/icc/1935/03/daniel-de-leon.htm}}</ref> However, he did correctly criticize the [[American Federation of Labor|AFL]] for being [[Class collaborationism|class-collaborationist]] and called for creating new unions instead of radicalizing existing ones.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The S.L.P: De Leonism and Decline (1890-1900)|chapter-url=https://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-six-slp-de-leonism-and-decline.html}}</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Latest revision as of 18:02, 16 February 2026
Daniel De Leon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | December 14, 1852 Curaçao |
| Died | May 11, 1914 (aged 61) New York City, New York, United States |
| Political orientation | Syndicalism De Leonism |
| Political party | Socialist Labor Party |
Daniel De Leon (December 14, 1852 – May 11, 1914) was a Statesian socialist who served as the leader of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP) from 1891 until his death. De Leon was an influential thinker in early socialist thought in the United States and was also a co-founder of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), although he only briefly associated with it.
He supported a society administered by industrial unions instead of the contemporary dictatorship of the proletariat.[1] He believed in a two-front approach to the socialist movement, where industrial unions organize to attack the bourgeoisie along the economic sphere, while a political party organizes to attack the bourgeoisie along the political sphere.[2] He viewed the socialist movement as revolutionary, disavowing reformism as purely external changes.[3]
De Leon's two-front approach is limited in that the two pillars focus on conflicting purposes; with unions engaging in the very economist fights for immediate relief that De Leon rejected as pointless. Either the trade unions are subordinate to the political goal of state conquest or they are their own organizations seeking out economist victories.[4] However, he did correctly criticize the AFL for being class-collaborationist and called for creating new unions instead of radicalizing existing ones.[5]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ “"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."”
De Leon, Daniel (1913). Industrial Unionism. [PDF] - ↑ “"Make no mistake: The organization of the working class must be both economic and political. The capitalist is organized upon both lines. You must attack him on both."”
De Leon, Daniel (1896). Reform of Revolution?. [PDF] - ↑ “"And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain. That is reform."”
De Leon, Daniel (1986). Reform of Revolution?. [PDF] - ↑ Kristen Svanum (1935). "Daniel De Leon" International Council Correspondence.
- ↑ William Z. Foster (1952). History of the Communist Party of the United States: 'The S.L.P: De Leonism and Decline (1890-1900)'.