Firebrand attended the annual Socialism Conference in Chicago over Labor Day weekend. The four-day event gathered socialists and other radicals from all over the United States, and featured dozens of panels and discussions on many subjects relevant to the broad left.
The conference’s organizers said that this year’s edition was the largest ever, with at least 2300 participants. The slate of panel topics ranged from reproductive justice to combating fascism to the recent Venezuelan elections, but there was a particular and appropriate focus on Palestine. Among the more well-known speakers were Palestinian-American legal scholar and activist Noura Erakat, anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappé, settler-colonial theorist Sai Englert, and former Women’s March chair Linda Sarsour.
Since 2019, when Haymarket Books organized the first Socialism Conference after the dissolution of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), the conference has changed a great deal. When it was a project of the ISO, the goal of the conference was to recruit people to revolutionary socialism and revolutionary organizing, and specifically to the ISO. The agenda was political education for ISO members and its periphery, and drawing said periphery closer to membership. While there were always representatives of labor and social movements and other progressive speakers on the bill, including well-known figures like Amy Goodman, Wallace Shawn, and John Cusack, these were never the dominant feature of the conference. These non-ISO speakers served to reflect the relationship of the organization with the rest of the left, and to draw wider layers of people to the conference.
Since that time, the politics of the conference and its attendees have shifted to the right. The conference organizers seem to be aiming for a broad-left or “big tent” conference, and at Socialism 2024, progressive or reformist speakers outnumbered the revolutionaries. Overall, the politics of the conference could best be described as tailing movements rather than advancing them through Marxist critique.
There were 90 or so organizations listed as official sponsors of the conference, including movement groups, social democrats, Trotskyists, and Maoists. As it did last year, the reformist Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) played a major role. The dominant revolutionary current was represented by the Tempest Collective, which includes many close comrades of ours and, like Firebrand, is largely made up of ex-members of the ISO.
The politics of the conference and its attendees have shifted to the right. The conference organizers seem to be aiming for a broad-left or “big tent” conference, and at Socialism 2024, progressive or reformist speakers outnumbered the revolutionaries. Overall, the politics of the conference could best be described as tailing movements rather than advancing them through Marxist critique.
Among our fellow Trotskyists at the conference were Workers’ Voice, who were previously part of the Revolutionary Socialist Network with us before we formed Firebrand; Marxist Workers’ Group (MWG); and the publications New Politics, Against the Current, and Salvage. Also present were a variety of DSA caucuses, including Reform and Revolution, former members of Socialist Alternative who describe themselves as a “revolutionary Marxist caucus” and support a “dirty break” strategy within the Democratic Party.
Other sponsors and attendees were an eclectic mixed-bag, including the Maoist group Liberation Road (formerly Freedom Road Socialist Organization), who campaigned at the conference for Kamala Harris; and the Spartacists, who rather bizarrely leafleted for the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s presidential candidate Claudia de la Cruz.
Firebrand had 12 members in attendance from Seattle, Denver, Boston, New York, Austin, and Los Angeles, several of whom contributed to this report. We tabled, held an informal meetup, and hung out late into the night with comrades from around the country, including members of Greensboro Revolutionary Socialists, Left Voice, and MWG. Our members spoke from the floor during discussions in a number of meetings to combat reformism and affirm revolutionary Marxist positions. We even got to join in a march for Palestine.
In true big-tent fashion, the sessions featured a wide array of politics. Thankfully, several talks found sure footing in the revolutionary lessons of history, especially from comrades in Tempest. On the downside, some limited, problematic, and terrible politics were aired at the conference — we have to be honest about that.
Sadly, there were very few sessions on basic Marxism and even fewer on Leninism. There were no sessions on the need to build revolutionary organization. Most were oriented to particular social movements.
Firebrand was thus in the position of being ideological outliers at a conference that used to be “ours.” At the same time, this created space for us to intervene and speak to a greater number of people with diverse political perspectives across the left.
The limits of movement politics
One trend at the conference was for speakers to be very informed about various social ills and to offer excellent analysis, but to present no perspectives on organizing against them. This was true of the talks on carceral psychiatry, reproductive justice, and “carewashing,” which was focused on state repression of the unhoused and mentally ill.
These limitations extended to the talk entitled “Dare to Win: Building on the Mass Protest Decade,” about the dramatic rise in struggle and protest around the world in the 2010s. The speaker, journalist Vincent Bevins, was very sharp in outlining the problems of horizontal, online-based protest lacking in firm leadership. But ultimately, his conclusions were reformist in nature — arguing that a “win” would look like making the US “a little more social-democratic.” This set up the comment section to offer revolutionary counterpoints, with several speakers intervening to argue for a revolutionary party.
“The Movement Mayor? A Critical Assessment of Brandon Johnson’s First Year” was hosted by Rampant Magazine and featured activists who had campaigned for the Chicago mayor last year. Johnson, a Democrat, was supported in his campaign by many on the left — shamefully including socialists — as a genuinely progressive option. Predictably, once elected, Johnson carried on the same neoliberal and repressive policies as previous mayors, such as giving the police raises.
The talk on Brandon Johnson was frustrating precisely because so many in the room should have known better. Did we really need to learn for the hundredth time that throwing our lot in with Democrats is a bad idea?
The tone of the talk and discussion was characterized by disappointment, confusion and betrayal. Some speakers noted how easily he gets away with repression, thanks to the perception that he is progressive, whereas previous mayors would have faced mass protests. Because the Chicago left was instrumental in getting him elected, the left is being blamed for him.
Only brian bean from Tempest came close to a correct assessment, arguing that what matters is the strength of the movement, and that electing Johnson made the movement weaker.
Ultimately it was a frustrating talk precisely because so many in the room should have known better. Did we really need to learn for the hundredth time that throwing our lot in with Democrats is a bad idea?
On the other hand, the talk from Hanif Abdurraqib on the poetry of June Jordan was phenomenal, and showed the value of opening up the conference to speakers who aren’t explicitly revolutionary socialists, especially those involved in art and culture. This is a separate issue from the eclectic nature of the conference. If the conference had a revolutionary focus, these broader sessions on culture would be able to connect with the revolutionary movement, as they did in the ISO days.
Abdurraqib’s own self-awareness of the limitations of art in the political sphere were clarifying on this point: “Art is not activism,” she said. “It’s just not going to cut it.” For her the answer is to “get organizing.”
Valuable discourse on colonialism and fascism
One of the best sessions over the weekend was “Palestine and the Limits of International Law,” featuring Erakat as speaker. The scholar and activist, whose profile has been raised during the genocide thanks to her sharp takes on the Palestinian struggle, taught an off-the-cuff, no-notes masterclass on the history of the movement’s attempts to use international law mechanisms. We didn’t quite agree with all of her assessments: we’re not sure there have been material and not just propaganda wins on the legal front, and we believe over-reliance on international law risks pulling us to the right. But Erakat is a powerful and knowledgeable voice in the struggle — we were honored to see her dynamism in person.
Pappé’s “Ten Myths About Zionism” talk was similarly great. Pappé is one of the foremost historians working on countering the revisionism that justifies the occupation and genocide of Palestine, as we said in our review of his similarly titled book. Though he does not reach Marxist conclusions, his talk was inspiring and enlightening — especially where it concerned the potential collapse of the Zionist project.
Noura Erakat is a powerful and knowledgeable voice in the Palestinian struggle — we were honored to see her dynamism in person.
Tempest’s talk on “The Genocidal Returns of Lesser Evilism: the U.S. Elections and Left Strategy” was also excellent in demolishing all the tired arguments for voting for Democrats, and denouncing labor leaders’ shameful support of an openly imperialist, genocidal party. Tempest comrades made a clear case against supporting the Harris campaign and looking to movements instead. It’s a talk we ourselves could have given, almost point by point, though they didn’t emphasize the need to build revolutionary organization. They also claimed that our arguments with the Democrats aren’t aimed at the average person voting for Harris out of fear, thus promoting the idea that it doesn’t matter what someone does in the voting booth. On the contrary, we think we shouldn’t shy away from arguing against voting for our class enemies.
“From Chávez to Maduro: Understanding Venezuela Today”was an excellent expression of solidarity with Venezuela’s workers and Indigenous people against the repressive Nicolàs Maduro regime. Anderson Bean and Mara Garcia, members of Tempest and Greensboro Revolutionary Socialists, weaved together a powerful narrative and air-tight facts to make the case that Venezuela under Maduro is not even close to being socialist, as many on both the left and right assume. There was only a bit of grumbling from Maduro supporters in attendance.
Jeffrey Webber’s talk on fascism emphasized the need for specificity in defining and identifying it as a phenomenon,unlike other speakers at the conference. He correctly argued that capitalism is always repressive, that repression is not enough to say that a society is fascist, and that fascism is not currently on the horizon anywhere in the world. For example, it would be wrong to refer to Donald Trump or Argentine president Javier Milei as fascists, in particular because they lack a fascist party that could reproduce their political power and ideology over time. This marks a big difference from historic fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, despite certain similarities.
Tempest’s talk on lesser evilism was excellent in demolishing all the tired arguments for voting for Democrats, and denouncing labor leaders’ shameful support of an openly imperialist, genocidal party.
“Settler Colonialism: An Introduction” was a very good talk from Englert on the mechanics of settlement throughout history and the inherent contradictions between settlers and Indigenous people whenever they come into contact. He also spoke on Marxism’s compatible relationship with settler-colonial theory, referencing Capital on primitive accumulation, slavery, and oppression of Natives at the dawn of capitalism. He made jabs at leftists who delusionally insist the Israeli working class can be convinced to come over to the side of Palestine. He even acknowledged “finished” settler colonial nations, like the US, Canada, and Australia, require a different analysis compared to an “early” or ongoing settler colony such as Israel. For example, an American worker has nowhere near the same stake in the oppression of Natives as does an Israeli, whose material interests are directly tied to the displacement and genocide of Palestinians.
It was fascinating to hear from British-French socialist John Mullen on “Fascism, the Left, and the Crisis in France.” Mullen gave us a good Marxist analysis of the New Popular Front coalition of left-wing parties, and the opportunities and dangers of the moment. According to Mullen it remains to be seen how the French left might avoid another reformist disaster along the lines of SYRIZA in Greece or Podemos in Spain, while still blocking the fascist right. Mullen may have been a bit too accommodating of the broad left and its electoral project. But he did give us a lot to chew on regarding the strengths and weaknesses of La France Insoumise and its leader Jean-Luc Melechon, including the ways they have evolved for the better, especially around combating Islamophobia.
Opposing two kinds of campism in debates on Ukraine
The two sessions we attended on Ukraine, “Solidarity Without Exception” and “Ukraine and the Struggle Against the Global Far Right,” displayed some of the fundamental problems of the conference’s politics, as well as the broad left’s. From the front, both sessions were explicitly in support of US military aid to Ukraine, with the Ukraine Solidarity Network involved with both. Discussion from the floor was divided between pro-Russia campists, who oppose Ukrainian self-determination, and the pro-US/NATO campists, who argue for arms to Ukraine. We countered both.
To be clear, Firebrand supports the national liberation of Ukraine from Russian imperialism, and we support Ukrainians’ right to get weapons from any place they can. But support for US arms to Ukraine is a separate and distinct question. As we argued, the productive capacity of the US arms industry has massively increased during the war, which in turn helps the US re-supply Israel for its slaughter in Gaza. Hence, supporting arms to Ukraine means supporting the genocidal war machine.
We certainly don’t blame Ukrainians for this, though Tempest’s Ashley Smith strawmanned our position during one discussion, arguing that we were counterposing the Palestinian and Ukrainian struggles and falsely asserting that we denied Ukrainians’ right to receive arms. Blanca Missé of Workers’ Voice, one of the speakers at the first session, argued that our solidarity was “abstract,” while theirs was “concrete” since it called for arms.
As we argued, the productive capacity of the US arms industry has massively increased during the Ukraine war, which in turn helps the US re-supply Israel for its slaughter in Gaza. Hence, supporting arms to Ukraine means supporting the genocidal war machine.
Frankly, it does socialists no good to support US imperialism, which is what US arms to Ukraine boils down to, while couching it in radical language. As they argued at the conference, the USN believes we can demand the US supply arms to Ukraine by getting rid of its existing stockpiles without further militarization of NATO. Missé argued that “the arms industry should not serve the profit interests of capital” and should be socialized instead.
This is utopian fiction, and a real degradation of Leninist principles. The US will always do everything it can to ensure it remains the dominant military power in the world. That inevitably means more and better weapons.
Socializing the arms industry is impossible without a socialist revolution, which in turn cannot happen without winning the working class to consistent opposition to “our own” imperialisms. By peddling these neatly packaged utopian positions, we risk creating illusions in imperialism’s “humanitarian” face, a danger not only with US imperialism but also Chinese and Russian imperialisms.
The USN needs a reality check. The State Department is not going to listen to socialists who support Ukraine. The ruling class is not our audience and never could be. Our audience is the working class. When we appeal to imperialists, we have no hope of changing their plans; we only degrade our own politics.
The task of the US left is to break our working class from support for US imperialism. The task of the Russian left is, correspondingly, to break their own working class from support for Putin’s annexationist war. We cannot waffle in our opposition to US imperialism. If we build a firm, principled opposition, the task of the Russian left is made that much easier. Neither US nor Russian workers have any interest in this war, a basic internationalist principle that is diminished by support for US arms.
Aside from this political conflict, we appreciated hearing from Ukrainian and Russian activists in both sessions. The latter spoke about the intense repression within Russia, and argued for solidarity with Ukraine, as well as its connection with the Palestinian struggle.
Errors in reframing anti-fascism
Jeanelle K. Hope and Bill Mullen’s talk on “The Black Antifascist Tradition,” based on their book of the same name, published by Haymarket earlier this year, highlighted another problematic trend on the left. As Firebrand’s Steve Leigh argued at length in our review of the book, by asserting that all Black resistance in US history has been anti-fascism, Hope and Mullen stretch the definition of fascism to the point of rendering it meaningless.
Their talk offered more of the same. On a research level, the pair’s recovery of the history of Black resistance is important work. Yet their analysis of fascism was too broad and lacked a class analysis. In Hope’s words, “the state itself is fascist,” implying that fascism and fascist policies are incipient at all times under capitalism. Quoting Angela Davis, Mullen said the left needs to see “fascism as process, not product.” If that’s the case, then what is the unique danger posed by actual fascist parties and movements? This position risks a number of strategic errors — undercutting the need to build a mass united front against fascists on the one hand and leading us to support Democratic candidates against the “more fascist” Republicans on the other.
A farcical session on Project 2025
The lowlight of the conference was unquestionably the one on Project 2025. Organized by two DSA caucuses, Socialist Majority and North Star, and the Maoist group Liberation Road, it was a travesty from beginning to end. At times it seemed like a B-tier MSNBC talk show, at other times like a church service — we were even urged to stand up and sing at one point.
The agenda of the talk was fearmongering over Trump and his supposed plans for a “fascist” takeover, and browbeating us to vote for the lesser evil. The speakers repeated all the usual talking points: now isn’t the time for independence, we can push the Democrats left, and so on. They even had the audacity to claim that the Democrats had been pushed left already and had embraced social democracy. Given the Biden regime’s union-busting and arming of genocide, to call this delusional would be generous. Their basis for calling the Republicans “fascist” amounted to pointing out that they engage in repression, the same error made by Hope and Mullen. In place of analysis, they offered a word salad — for example using the terms “united front” and “popular front” interchangeably, and incorrectly either way, to mean voting for liberals.
Tellingly, they made no mention of the genocide and did not utter the word Palestine once. Worse, they engaged in redbaiting, claiming leftists would be responsible if Trump wins, which was especially egregious at a socialism conference.
Class independence is non-negotiable for us, as it should be for all socialists. The Socialism Conference allows us an opportunity to confront reformism, influence others in a more revolutionary direction, and shine a light on a path forward with Marxist analysis.
We suffered through this bullshit hoping for an opportunity to intervene and push some in the audience away from this disastrous perspective. But instead of an open discussion — a cornerstone of the conference since its inception — instead we were broken out into groups and instructed to write questions on index cards. This gave the speakers complete control over what comments and questions would and would not be aired. We left after this plan was announced.
This blatant and inexcusable disregard for democratic expression of criticism, combined with uncritical support for the Democrats even as they back a genocide, raises many alarm bells for the Socialism Conference. The organizers have a lot to answer for in allowing this session to happen.
Conclusions
Deprived of its connection to a revolutionary organization for five years, the Socialism Conference has been politically adrift. Unsurprisingly, reformist politics have come to dominate. As Marxists we feel it’s important to highlight and confront this problem instead of convincing ourselves that the big tent is an effective strategy for change. History has proven again and again that reformism, eclecticism, and attempting to combine reformist and revolutionary politics, are dead-end approaches.
The conference’s overall reformism was perhaps most clearly exemplified by Spectre Journal’s session “Palestine and Global Liberation.” Intentionally or not, speaker Eman Abdelhadi echoed the reformist Karl Kautsky by claiming that organizing won’t destroy capitalism, only its inherent contradictions will do that. This combination of radical and anti-organizationalist politics is a perfect crystallization of Spectre’s spontaneism, which we critiqued after the conference last year.
Later in the session, Spectre’s David McNally bizarrely twisted the meaning of Rosa Luxemburg’s indispensable 1900 pamphlet Reform or Revolution, saying it shows the distinction between “those who fight for reforms, and those who sit around and do nothing waiting for revolution.” This is such an upside-down interpretation of Luxemburg’s still-relevant, still-decisive argument for revolutionary organizing through fighting for reforms that it’s almost comical — “the masterful alchemy of reformist academia,” as one of our members called it.
The most blunt way to respond to this rejection of revolutionary socialist strategy is to say that we in Firebrand are not asking the same questions, nor pursuing the same goals. We do not counterpose reform and revolution, but are actively fighting for both as revolutionaries. And, while revolution does depend on objective factors beyond our control, revolutionaries and revolutionary organizations not only can, but have a duty to intervene in the process to aid it along in the right direction.
But there were many positives too. The Socialism Conference remains an excellent place to get a sense of where the left is at, meet a minority of attendees interested in revolutionary organization, learn from various struggles, and hone our skills at intervening in large meetings and arguing politics with individuals.
While none of our proposed talks were approved, Firebrand was afforded a table at the conference, and we engaged in debates from the floor. We also distributed a pamphlet discussing the difficult lessons from the ISO’s collapse. We have no interest in simply drawing a line under the ISO experience and forgetting it ever happened. We want to grapple with that history and come out better for it.
In the face of the socialist movement’s rightward trajectory, revolutionaries must maintain a pole of attraction firmly outside the Democratic Party, and take a principled stand against the ideological slide into socialism from above — both the social-democratic and Stalinist/Maoist flavors. Class independence is non-negotiable for us, as it should be for all socialists. The Socialism Conference allows us an opportunity to confront reformism, influence others in a more revolutionary direction, and shine a light on a path forward with Marxist analysis.
But the best thing about the weekend was undoubtedly the chance to meet, talk, strategize, commiserate, and laugh with comrades from around the world whom we don’t often see outside of Zoom calls. In many ways these informal meetings between sessions are where the real conference happens, and that aspect of it was an unalloyed delight.
