Some members, of the organizations we criticize, have the best of intentions, but good intentions do not change the nature of those organizations, and membership carries the responsibility for the actions of those organizations.
Clearly this is a "broad brush" approach. If this results in minor errors in our assignment of ideas to these groups, we apologize and are willing to make corrections. Overall, however, the comments will give a good perspective of how they differ from the World Socialist Movement (WSM).
These comments apply to both the Leninists and the Trotskyists.
* Free Access: No. Support a market economy.
* Leadership: Noted for their vanguardist approach (the idea that a small group of leaders - the vanguard - will lead the working class to socialism).
Lenin said that if workers were not led by a vanguard, it would take them 500 years to understand and establish socialism. This apparently justified the brutal subjugation of the Russian people (and later all of eastern Europe), because they had to be led to socialism against their will.
* Reformism: Campaign explicitly for reforms.
* One country socialism: Claim that socialism was established in Russia in 1917, even though Lenin correctly noted in 1920 that state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia.
* Democratic approach: When the Bolsheviks lost the first election in Russia after their 1917 revolution, they dissolved the new constituent assembly as soon as it met, in January 1918. By the middle of 1918 the Bolshevik government had arrested leaders who opposed the Bolsheviks, expelled their delegates from the Soviets, and driven the parties underground, making the Communist Party the only legal party in Russia.
For more information on Trotskyists, read WSM on Trotsky(ism).
* Free Access: No. Support a market economy.
* Reformism: Usually do not, or cannot, distinguish between reforms and socialism. Most of them explicitly consider socialism and capitalism compatible (usually by defining "socialism" so that it means capitalism).
* One country socialism: Claim the existence (past or present) of socialism in at least one country.
Some of these parties have, on occasion, been the national governments in several countries. If they do not claim to have established socialism, after apparently being elected to do so, then they have no justifiable claim to be socialists, even using their own, flawed definitions of socialism.
Inclusion of the IWW as DeLeonist is admittedly questionable, but the IWW is a "socialist industrial union," which is usually considered a DeLeonist approach.
* Free Access: No. Support labour vouchers, which although not exactly the same as money, are very similar in some ways. Labour vouchers were supported by Marx to accommodate the real shortages that existed in 1875. Even if they were appropriate in 1875, and that is at least questionable, they are not now. For a description of labour vouchers, please see the article on Labour Vouchers.
* Leadership: Appear to recognize that only a working class that understands the problems can build the solution, but there have been occasional concerns raised by ex-SLPers and others over what has been perceived as autocratic leadership in the SLP (which is the largest DeLeonist organization). In fairness, these concerns may be just disagreements blown out of proportion.
* One country socialism: Vary on their position. DeLeonism is generally a U.S. phenomenon, and this may be partly responsible for the tendency, by some, to talk about establishing "socialism" in the United States. Nevertheless, this approach fosters a nationalist approach which is opposed by the WSM.
The SLP says that "socialism" can be established in one country. As evidence, we quote from the SLP journal, The People (1 May 1993), in answer to an unprinted letter:
* Parliamentary approach: Support the socialist industrial union (SIU) model, which we claim is somewhat at odds with their stated support for a parliamentary approach. The IWW is sometimes considered to oppose the parliamentary approach.
The SIU model has some clear attractions. It is easy to explain and understand, it builds upon recognizable, existing structures, and it is worker oriented. However, the SIU model creates or continues as many problems as it addresses. The SIU model deserves a longer discussion than is appropriate for this immediate discussion (of differences), so if you want to review a longer article, please see the article on Socialist Industrial Unions.