"The long memory is the most radical idea in America" - Claire Sparks, American Radical Feminist
We are at a turning point in history. Over the past eight months, the American Empire has shed all semblance of pretext and shifted openly into an unabashedly white nationalist, Christian theocratic, corporate state. Under the surface, these aspects of the country have of course always existed, but the liberal idealism of the latter half of the 20th century fooled many in the so-called “middle class”, detached from the everyday violence inflicted on working and marginalized peoples, into believing the promises of America were being fulfilled. That illusion has come crashing down. The fascist parasite gestating inside America, gorging itself on the soul of the country and the lifeblood of the oppressed, has finally grown strong enough to emerge from the hollow shell of our national identity and present itself proudly as the legitimate government of the United States of America.
The atrocities currently being committed under Donald Trump’s second regime are not shocking in a historical sense. An individual analyzing history through a Marxist, Bakuninist or otherwise socialist lens could see this result approaching, as fascism is and always has been the logical endpoint of capitalism. Trump, or someone like him, was an eventuality. However, in a culture bereft of left wing political figures and education such as the current American political climate, his ascension was a surprise to most. Liberal and Neoliberal perspectives struggle to comprehend how or why Trump was elected, and are continually shocked by how far he is going. Every day a new variation of “can you believe Trump is doing x” or “how could this happen?” appears out of the aether. Unless socialist theory is applied to political analysis, the reasons for Trump and his actions, and therefore the effective solutions to our current situation, cannot ever be conceived.
Therefore, the American proletariat must be educated on socialism. There are many who are angry with the Trump regime, but lack the perspective to understand how it came to power and how to oppose it in any meaningful way. There is also the fact that liberal democracy perpetuates many of the same systems, but in a more palatable way to the general population. Liberal democracy, in fact, created the very conditions that allowed Trumpism to fester, grow, and take power. Without socialist education, the second the “normal” duopoly between our two right wing parties would be restored, many would profess their renewed faith in the system, having learned nothing. The proletariat would blindly shackle themselves once more to the ruling class, missing a great opportunity for real change. This depressing future must be prevented from happening. The logical question then becomes, what should the American people be educated on, and how do we do it?
Today, in 2025, we must carefully select a system, or combination of systems, to teach the working class that applies to the unique circumstances we find ourselves in. It must be equitable as well as largely democratic. We cannot afford to further taint the word socialism by repeating a slide into authoritarianism, despotism, or totalitarianism. The timeless question must be asked once again; what is to be done? To answer, we must look back in time to solve today’s challenges. American socialism once was at the forefront of ideological innovation, developing several concurrent yet unique strains that adapted to the reality of the American worker. Many of their ideas and ideologies, although different from more commonly known socialist ideologies like Marxism-Leninism, deserve a second look through a modern lens. The dreams of our ancestral comrades and their struggle should be continued. Their ideas must be tried, adapted, and put into practice.
In the late 19th century, rooted in the distinct material and social conditions of American capitalism and the struggle of her working class, American socialism was born. Rather than importing European models wholesale, American revolutionaries developed unique strains of thought that blended Marxist and Bakuninist analysis with the realities of an industrializing frontier society. Two of the most significant expressions of homegrown class consciousness were the rise and adoption of American Syndicalism and De-Leonism as major ideologies in the American left wing.
The largest mass expression of American Syndicalism began with the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905. Though never codified as a formal doctrine, Syndicalism emerged as a revolutionary current inside the IWW defined by its rejection of conservative craft unionism and electoral politics, and by its embrace of direct action, industrial unionism, and working-class solidarity across all divisions. Its ideological roots lay in frustration with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which limited membership to skilled, native-born white men and pursued incremental gains through cautious negotiation with employers. Against this backdrop, the IWW declared that its mission was not merely to improve wages but to abolish the wage system itself. The first section of the Preamble of the IWW states:
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organise as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the earth."
These three sentences define the essence of Syndicalism in the IWW: a belief that unionism must be the revolutionary vehicle, not limited to gradual economic improvement for workers. The union was to be both a weapon in the daily struggles of workers and the structural foundation of a new society. Central to this ideology was the conviction that workers must be organized by industry, not by craft. Industrial unionism, the IWW argued, alone should unite the entire working class into “One Big Union” capable of confronting employers and, ultimately, taking control of the means of production itself. This vision was inseparable from a commitment to direct action. Rather than relying on political parties or legal reform, American Syndicalists maintained that strikes, boycotts, workplace slowdowns, and mass actions represented the real power of the working class. As Vincent St. John explained in his 1914 pamphlet, The I.W.W.: Its History, Structure, and Methods:
"The I.W.W. has no political creed to foster… It holds that the working class, organized industrially, can accomplish all that is necessary for its emancipation."
Equally important was the IWW’s emphasis on democracy within the union itself. Authority resided in the rank and file, with leaders elected directly from the membership and subject to recall. This grassroots control reflected the union’s anti-authoritarian orientation and its insistence that the working class could liberate itself only through its own collective power, not any political aspiration. As Paul Brissenden summarized in his 1919 study:
"The Industrial Workers of the World is not a political labor organization. It is a revolutionary labor union. Its methods are direct action, its purpose is the abolition of the wage system, its philosophy is syndicalism."
The inclusiveness and intersectionality of Syndicalism and the IWW as an organization further distinguished it from mainstream unionism. It welcomed workers across racial, gender, and national lines, insisting that “all workers, regardless of craft, race, or sex, are entitled to membership.” In doing so, it offered representation to the most marginalized laborers in American society, from Black sharecroppers and Mexican farmworkers to Italian and Slavic miners, Chinese and Filipino dockworkers, and women textile workers. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, an influential early IWW organizer, later reflected that the IWW embodied:
"a vision of a new society in the shell of the old, a society in which there would be no wage slavery, no boss, no master, no servant, no rich, no poor."
The revolutionary aim of American Syndicalism was The General Strike, envisioned as the decisive act through which the working class would seize control of production and transform the country. In pamphlets like William D. Haywood’s Industrial Socialism (1911), the general strike was presented as the means by which workers would “take and hold” the economy, asserting their collective dominance over capital. The method to revolution was thus: once enough power and union control over the country had been established, the dismantling of the capitalist system would occur through The General Strike and a complete freeze of America’s economy. Once the economy was paralyzed, the Federal government would be forced to accede to the demands of the ascendant One Big Union, now containing a majority percentage of the American working class, and a transfer of control of the country to the IWW would end the strike. When control was secured, the decentralized labor councils would elect union representatives to larger governing body(s) along industry lines, which would serve as the governing councils for the newborn Syndicalist government.
However, this philosophy was not uniformly agreed upon inside the IWW. The question of how power should be organized, both within the IWW and in any future revolutionary society, quickly became a source of fierce debate internally after its founding. The western membership, rooted in mining, lumber, and migratory labor, leaned toward anarchistic ideas and embraced Syndicalism, stressing decentralized industrial action, mass strikes, and direct democracy. They believed that the union itself, built from the rank and file upward, could both fight the employers and serve as the foundation of a new society. By contrast, the eastern wing of the organization, composed heavily of members of the Socialist Labor Party influenced by Marxist theorist Daniel De Leon, insisted that industrial unions alone could not achieve emancipation. For them, the working class required not just industrial organization but also a disciplined political party capable of contesting elections and exposing the capitalist state as illegitimate. These tensions were present from the start, though the factions temporarily united in 1906 to expel the IWW’s first and only president, Charles Sherman, whose conciliatory approach toward the AFL was seen as a betrayal by revolutionaries on both sides. Once Sherman was removed and the office of president abolished, the divide between the Syndicalist and De Leonist socialist factions only grew wider.
By the 1908 convention, the conflict culminated in a formal split: the Syndicalist majority amended the Preamble to remove all references to political action, committing the IWW solely to industrial struggle, while De Leon and his followers walked out to establish a rival body in Detroit, often derisively labeled the “Yellow IWW” by the Syndicalist Chicago “Red IWW”. This Detroit organization, calling themselves the Workers’ International Industrial Union, or WIIU, retained close ties to the Socialist Labor Party and persisted until 1925, though it never rivaled the influence or membership of the Chicago IWW. To understand why De Leon and his supporters broke so decisively, it is necessary to return to 1905, when De Leon emerged as the de facto leader of the IWW’s socialist members. Drawing on years of experience in the SLP, he helped found the new Union with a fully developed body of thought that would later be known as De Leonism. He wrote in his 1907 pamphlet As to Politics:
"A Socialist Union can not, by the very laws of its being, avoid politics… On the political field, it must challenge the capitalist class for the control of the public powers; on the industrial field, it must prepare itself to assume control of the workshops."
This dual strategy, politics and industry, party and union, was the essence of what came to be called De Leonism. To De Leon, industrial action without politics was reckless adventurism, while politics without industrial strength was hollow. Only the combination could win emancipation. His influence also extended through the Socialist Labor Party, which sent delegates and resources into the IWW upon its founding in 1905. De Leon’s writings in the SLP newspaper The Daily People initially championed the IWW as the practical arm of socialism, while relentlessly attacking the American Federation of Labor (AFL) as a “labor fakers organization” that divided workers and collaborated with capital. De Leon’s influence is visible in the very charter of the IWW. The original 1905 Preamble declared:
"...we must organize on the political field, as well as on the industrial."
This line was inserted at De-Leon’s insistence, and removed after the 1908 split. Its existence attempted to ensure that the IWW would be tied, at least in theory, to socialist political action. De-Leon argued that the emancipation of the working class required a two-pronged strategy: the formation of revolutionary industrial unions to prepare for workers’ direct control of production, and the parallel use of electoral politics to delegitimize, destabilize, and erode capitalist rule. De Leon frequently described the industrial and political wings of the movement as “two arms” of the same body. Neither could succeed alone. Without political action, he argued that unions risked descending into anarchistic adventurism; without industrial power backing them, socialist parties would be toothless and be non-representative of the workers. He wrote in 1907:
"On the industrial field, the Socialist Union organizes the working class as an army of production; on the political field, the Socialist ballot declares that the army of production will take and hold the powers of government."
A single socialist political party was envisioned by DeLeonists as the vehicle for proletariat aspirations in the mainstream political scene. It endeavored to be a principled, ideologically coherent party that sought to win elections not to govern within capitalism, but to dismantle it legally and peacefully once in power, backed by the threat of mass industrial strike action. The party would emphasize political education, democratic internal processes, and accountability to the working class. DeLeon wrote, "The ballot is the people's weapon — not to govern under capitalism, but to abolish it."
Meanwhile, the industrial unions were to function as both the training ground for socialist administration and the eventual foundation of governance. Each industry would be democratically managed by its workers, and delegates to higher-level bodies (regional, national, or inter-industrial) would be elected and recallable at any time. This structure would ensure that economic and political power remained in the hands of the working class itself.
Once enough workers were organized into industrial unions and numerous enough to vote the political party into power, an American Socialist Commonwealth would be born. A single “All-Industrial Congress”, envisioned by DeLeon, would act as a national coordinating and legislating body composed of elected delegates from all industries. It would replace the traditional bourgeois state and serve as the administrative organ of the new industrial commonwealth. The new post-revolutionary state would not be governed by politicians or bureaucrats but by workers themselves through bottom up democratically run industrial unions who elected representatives to send to the congress. These unions would form the basis of both economic and political governance. In De-Leon's view, these unions are not merely vehicles of resistance, but "the embryonic form of the future society."
Like Syndicalists, De-Leonists aimed to abolish the capitalist wage system entirely, replacing it with a system of production and distribution based on need, not profits. Like Syndicalism though, the new society would be organized around industrial unions, which would both produce and distribute goods democratically based on regional and national requirements. The party also would play an essential role in education and political struggle but would not govern after the revolution, handing power over to the workers. Threat of socialist party takeover after the revolution would be thwarted by the power of the unions, able to freeze the country if the need arose. De-Leon emphasized that the party must not become a ruling class:
"The political state must be overthrown, not replaced with another form of class rule, but with a democracy of producers."
In essence, the political party only exists as long as it is necessary. After the Worker’s Republic is established, its purpose has been accomplished and will dissolve all ruling power to the All Industrial Congress. Any remaining functions would be non governance ones, such as education and publishing of revolutionary literary works.
Though neither De-Leonism nor Syndicalism has yet been successful in establishing worker’s rule in the United States, our past comrade’s ideas are still sound. Capitalism still oppresses us, even more so. The United States has only grown more cruel and bloody in the relentless pursuit of profits. Neoliberalism has rotted away, and in its molded carcass the fascism of MAGA has taken hold. De-Leon and the IWW’s Syndicalists might have been organizing more than a hundred years ago, but they understood the uniqueness of America. We are a people who desire emancipation through democracy, equality, and uplifting the lowest among us to stand at our side. As Bakunin said, "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick." Americans desire and deserve to hold their own power, and through adaptation and re-adoption of the ideas of our ancestors, we can do just that.
Solidarity Forever,
Forest Hoffman
Forest is an organizer in the New Hampshire IWW, a member of the Upper Valley DSA in the Libertarian Socialist Caucus, and Deputy Propaganda Commissioner for NH’s Congress of Worker’s Organizations, a congress of multiple left wing political parties and organizations.