by Niko J-F
Eugene Debs addresses supporters in Canton, OH
So far, 2026 has been a huge year for the Democratic Socialists of America. We have reached over 100,000 DSA members, the highest ever, and have seen heightened electoral success, most prominently the election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City. As organizers within DSA grapple with the contradictions of this success, Eric Blanc and Steven R have made comparisons to the municipal socialism of the early 20th century Socialist Party of America (SPA), with a specific focus on Milwaukee’s sewer socialists which occupied their city hall for decades.
While DSA has not reached the SPA’s peak of 112,000 dues-paying socialists (or anywhere close when adjusted for population), Mamdani’s victory and our membership growth shows that we may be approaching similar political relevance. As argued by longtime DSA member David Duhalde in a piece comparing DSA to the SPA, “the U.S. socialist movement has returned, in some ways via a long reroute, to its original structures and impact.” As we continue to grow this movement, we have and will continue to face similar challenges to those of the 1910s SPA. For this reason, it is important to continue our study of socialism’s history.
As many DSA members acknowledge this, the focus on Milwaukee, a city with many years of socialist governance, is understandable. However, as a member of Cleveland DSA, I am particularly interested in examining the vibrant socialist history in this part of the country, which saw its own share of socialist victories. As a result of the SPA’s electoral success in various municipalities early in the 1910s, this state was dubbed “Red Ohio”. By the end of the decade, Ohioan mass socialist organizing had arguably reached its all-time peak, as Cleveland SPA local led 30,000+ workers into the streets in the 1919 May Day demonstration.
This growth was predicated on the historical context of the early 20th century, when Cleveland had taken its place as the heart of an industrial empire, represented most quintessentially in the monopolistic trusts of Clevelander John D. Rockefeller. As industrialization pushed more workers into the mines, steel mills and garment factories, Cleveland would also become the site of increased working class organizing. This would only escalate as economic conditions worsened and the United States would enter World War One, sending workers to their deaths as the ruling class grew even more wealthy. These changing material conditions, alongside the organizing of the SPA detailed throughout this piece, led to unprecedented support for socialism. This strength was met with violent repression from the state, which, alongside internal party conflict and purges, led to a sharp downfall in SPA membership and activity nationwide.
The widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo was also channeled by more mainstream political organizations. The late 1800s and early 1900s saw the Progressive and Populist movement(s) gain heightened support in national elections. This included repeat Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan and Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who would later found a third party (the Progressive Party a.k.a. the Bull Moose Party). Some figures of the Progressive movement, like Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld, were praised by socialists, but many of them strongly opposed socialism. Ultimately, the two largest political parties, despite flirtations with Progressivism and Populism, were largely beholden to the capitalist class, and no sizable third party would emerge. Additionally, the largest union confederation, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), was led by anti-socialist Samuel Gompers and avoided political advocacy until aligning with the Democratic Party in the late 1910s. At the turn of the century, the largest socialist organization in the country was the Socialist Labor Party (SLP), which remained marginal in size and had little engagement with mainstream politics.
Electoral Politics
Charles Ruthenberg addresses an anti-war rally in Ohio
It was in this context that the SPA emerged in 1901, with union leader Eugene Debs serving as a unifying figurehead and recurring presidential candidate. The party united socialists who believed in working within existing union formations and dual unionists, many of whom initially split from the SLP. As the party grew, it attracted many who felt the Progressives of the time did not do enough to meet the political moment. This included Charles Emil Ruthenberg, who is arguably the most important figure of the Cleveland SPA. Ruthenberg was originally a strong supporter of Progressive Cleveland mayor Tom Johnson, viewing his advocacy for municipal ownership as a step towards socialism. When Johnson opposed the demands of workers who ran those municipal enterprises, Ruthenberg defended him, and was critiqued by socialist Robert Bandlow. Through these debates with socialists and his own intellectual curiosity, he would move to the left, joining the SPA in January of 1909. Within months, he would be elected as recording secretary of the local, and soon thereafter he would become their English-language spokesperson and a perennial candidate for office.
Ruthenberg’s electoral campaigns would succeed in growing party membership. During his run for mayor of Cleveland in 1911, the local grew its membership by 50%, totaling around 1,600 members in that year. The following year, Ruthenberg would launch a campaign for Governor of Ohio, visiting every county and more than 100 cities in the state. Many SPA statewide campaigns failed to match presidential candidate Eugene Debs, as the Progressives (running on a platform with many policies taken from the SPA) absorbed many of their votes. In Ohio, however, Ruthenberg received a similar margin to Debs, a little over 8% of the vote. This was the highest of any socialist party gubernatorial candidate throughout the country. At this time, Cleveland had become by far the largest Socialist Party local in Ohio, growing to 2,950 members. While Ruthenberg and other Cleveland socialists were successful at building membership, they would not win any office prior to 1917. However, the same was not true for other parts of the so-called “Red State”. As put by Richard Judd in Socialist Cities, Ohio socialists were able to “elect more mayors to office in small and medium-sized cities than any other state.” In bigger cities, including Columbus, Akron, Dayton and Toledo, one or more city councilors were also elected.
Unlike most successful socialist candidates today, the SPA would run its candidates on their own independent ballot line, competing directly with Democrats, Republicans and third parties (primarily the Progressive Party). This historical practice was borne out of the conditions surrounding the Civil War, which brought the Republican Party into prominence. In the following decades, the party system began to consolidate towards the modern system, with Democrats and Republicans being the sole presidential contenders ever since. Today, socialists have adapted to this system by focusing on Democratic primaries or non-partisan local races with primarily Democratic voter bases. However, In the 1910s, many Progressives and Socialists pursued the development of an independent third party, in part because of the newer and less developed nature of the two party regime, and, even more so than today, the lack of a distinction between Republican and Democratic policies towards workers.
While many of the fundamental challenges remain the same, the different socialist ballot line provided certain strengths and weaknesses for the SPA. Across Ohio, Democratic and Republican establishments would work together as fusion candidates to run against socialists.
Today, we do see similar consolidation from conservative and liberal opposition, such as Andrew Cuomo’s general election campaign against Zohran Mamdani. However, these efforts are less likely to succeed when socialists win the Democratic Party’s official nomination. This typically splits the existing Democratic establishment, with some willing to embrace more left wing figures, and others refusing to do so. On the other hand, in the heyday of the socialist party, there was no such split, and the Republican and Democratic establishments were both firmly in opposition to socialist candidates. An independent socialist ballot line would also not prevent socialist electeds from betraying their party. The mayors of Ohio cities Lima and Lorain, for instance, while elected under the SPA, later switched to a mainstream party. Additionally, party officials nationwide would regularly be expelled for disagreement with the party platform.
As Emerson Bodde argues in Until Victory is Achieved, the distinction between socialist success in big cities and smaller ones was largely due to the differing political environments. Smaller cities often had competing Republican and Democratic candidates, which made it possible for socialist candidates focusing on affordability and municipal reform to take power. On the other hand, major cities were more likely to have developed political machines, capable of absorbing Progressive policies and presenting themselves as the logical option for municipal change. Bodde argues that being forced to the sidelines in mainstream electoral politics led to the radicalization and diversification of socialist organizing in Cleveland.
Meanwhile, socialists in Milwaukee (or in smaller Ohio cities with SPA mayors), focused primarily on good municipal governance, attracting the “middle-class Progressive milieu”. Ruthenberg himself would also emphasize immediate municipal reforms and critique the corruption of the existing machine, while always keeping in mind the end goal of societal transformation. As SPA members in different cities charted different paths, Ruthenberg showed his principled commitment to party unity in approaching their political differences. As Oakley Johnson’s biography of Ruthenberg articulates:
“While reformist in character, the Socialist Milwaukee administration performed many valuable social services and benefited the people. But the Milwaukee Administration received vicious attacks from old-party politicians, and Ruthenberg, who carefully watched the situation, defended it.”
Today, DSA members should take note from Ruthenberg, understanding the different political contexts of our comrades throughout the country, and standing in solidarity with them as they strive to fight for something new. We should seek to analyze and understand the conditions of the two-party system as they exist today, and identify how we can run electoral campaigns that truly engage the masses and build party membership, as organizers did in “Red Ohio” over a century ago. This assessment can learn from the Milwaukee approach – that genuine commitments to improving the lives of working class people can be an effective mechanism for building a socialist electoral constituency. But it should also learn from the Cleveland experience outlined in this piece, which demonstrates that organizing workers while maintaining clear socialist and anti-war principles prepares an organization to reach the masses in times of crisis.
Labor
There were two different approaches to “the labor question” in the 1910s SPA. The first approach was to work within the existing unions. In the early 20th century, the dominant AFL was composed of trade unions representing workers with specific skills, did not stand up for broader working class interests, and was bigoted and exclusionary towards racial minorities and women. Many socialists sought to confront the AFL leadership and push unions in a different direction. This included Clevelander Max Hayes, who would at one point win close to a third of the vote in the AFL leadership race, and is now commemorated in a namesake West Side high school.
Others sought to follow the path of dual unionism, which was advocated by the SLP, and organized on a mass scale following the founding of the International Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905. Wobblies, as IWW members were at times known, favored industrial unions, which represented sectors or workplaces, rather than workers with specific skills. This advocacy for industrial unionism was shared by others in the SPA (including some in the AFL), but was not reflected within the party’s platform for most of the 1910s.
Labor organizing was another topic where Ruthenberg demonstrated a commitment to unity, despite the bitter divides among SPA members. As his biographer stated, “his primary interest was in labor’s struggle, whether led by a craft union or industrial union.” This principle of solidarity came to the forefront as worker organizing escalated. In 1911, Cleveland saw the historic International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union strike, with thousands of workers participating. In his mayoral campaign of that year, Ruthenberg argued that the power of the state should be wielded in favor of the workers through the swearing in “a hundred of the coolest heads among the strikers” as special police. Three years later, Cleveland teachers organized a union, working in solidarity with a group of mothers from the school districts. Ruthenberg again supported this organizing, which was ultimately derailed by the administration’s firing of pro-union teachers. This repression of worker organizing was upheld by a frequent enemy of workers – District Judge David Westenhaver, who effectively delayed the unionization of Cleveland teachers until 1934. The same year, Ohio miners were locked out of their workplace following the passage of a new labor law, which the mine owners hoped to appeal as unconstitutional. In response, Ruthenberg called on the Ohio Socialist Party to push for immediate state ownership and worker operation of the coal mines. Later on, Ruthenberg would unionize his own white-collar workplace, and lead mass rallies of workers including IWW and AFL members.
The unity practiced by Ruthenberg and the Cleveland local is admirable, and carried on within DSA’s labor organizing approach today. While there are still contentious debates to be had within DSA regarding our approach to labor organizing, the disagreement is over narrower territory. This is largely a reaction to the changes in the labor movement within the past century, shifting predominantly towards industrial unions which are much more willing to embrace the entire working class. This has eliminated a considerable portion of the impetus for dual unionism. Instead, DSA labor work now focuses on organizing new workplaces into unions, and bringing existing unions towards a more militant posture and political unity with our aims. As we undertake this work, as I am honored to do as Cleveland DSA’s elected Union Liaison, we should strive for the same levels of mass organizing as the SPA, bringing thousands of workers towards a socialist vision.
Diversity in the SPA
As we learn from the successful organizing of the SPA, we must also acknowledge the SPA’s greatest failure. At the same time reactionary tendencies dominated the AFL, bigotry also had a far too common place in the socialist movement. Many prominent SPA members held racist and misogynistic viewpoints, and the membership of the organization (predominantly white and male) reflected this. While it is accurate that socialist politicians and the party’s position tended to be more emancipatory than other political organizations of the time, the lack of a strong anti-racist and feminist culture significantly weakened it.
While many women did join the party and played crucial roles as socialist organizers, the organization never reached anywhere near gender parity, with few women in leadership positions. This occurred despite an effort by the party to take a role in the movement for women’s rights. In 1908, the SPA endorsed the women’s suffrage movement and hired a full-time staffer dedicated to the cause. Ruthenberg himself once argued that there was “no more important cause” than bringing women into the party. But the demographic imbalance persisted. This situation was described by Cleveland local member Nellie Zell in her article “The Lone Woman in the Local”:
“The first thing that greets her is that same capitalist mind of these Socialist men who have invited her to come. . . . Indeed, it is a very embarrassing position for both men and women. They want her there, yet now that she is there, they don’t know what to do with her. To make the matter worse, they talk about things of which she has no knowledge, and to smoke or not to smoke is the burden on their minds, while she is wondering whether she had better talk or preserve that lady-like silence so much admired by members of the old parties… I wonder if you men fully realize what that word ‘Comrade’ means to us women?”
Put simply, the party was failing to present a comradely attitude towards women who were interested in socialism. Within a broader US social culture that discouraged women from being active and vocal politically, this resulted in a failure to recruit significant numbers of women into the SPA.
The SPA did not embrace anti-racism in the 1910s in the same way it did the suffrage movement. Many locals in the South operated under segregation, and several prominent socialist leaders were open white supremacists. The Ohio Socialist Party adopted a position in 1911 of encouraging the recruitment of Black members, but there was a failure to explicitly condemn racial oppression, rather than just class oppression of Black workers. This changed over time, as discussed in Eric Blanc’s article which focuses primarily on SPA congressman Victor Berger’s shift from holding openly racist views to being praised by the NAACP. However, this tolerance of racism was an incredibly significant failure of the organization for the duration of the 1910s, when it was most politically relevant.
On the other hand, we can take some positive examples from the SPA’s national and linguistic diversity. Cleveland was a cosmopolitan city, and the Cleveland local represented this well, including German, Bohemian, Polish, Jewish, Finnish, Hungarian, Lettish, Lithuanian, Slovak and Italian branches.. Nationally, there were similar language-based federations, with both posing an interesting question of internal governance. These groups represented a significant portion of party membership on paper, but in practice operated very autonomously. Some SPA members, like Ruthenberg, advocated for more centralization of the language federations, bringing them closer in line with the organizing of the party as a whole. Others advocated for the autonomous model as an effective way to organize immigrant communities. Ultimately, it is clear that the party’s diversity among European immigrant groups was a strength enabled through providing spaces for socialists of the same identity to coordinate. With the language federation’s tendency to effectively act as internal factions, Ruthenberg’s push towards centralization is understandable, although such practices should be accompanied with a clear understanding that solidarity, not assimilation, is the answer to xenophobic attitudes.
In many regards, DSA has come a long way from the open displays of bigotry and predominantly white male membership of the SPA. However, there is still much to be learned from their failure to stand with the oppressed – which is both a moral disgrace and a political weakness. With a membership and mass reach beyond DSA’s today, one can imagine how much stronger the SPA would have been had it built a membership that represented the broader working class. To avoid replicating this, DSA members should heed comrade Zell’s words. Even with the SPA supporting women’s suffrage, it did not create an environment conducive for women to organize. It is easy for a chapter’s demographics to self-perpetuate, as new members do not feel welcome in a space that does not look like them or their communities. In order to change this, we need consistent and proactive effort throughout all organizing projects, and structured ways for marginalized comrades to coordinate. To do otherwise will only serve to cement Cleveland DSA’s current place – as a predominantly white organization in a multiracial city.
Conclusion: The SPA’s Rise and Fall
Portrait from the funeral of Charles Ruthenberg
The 1910s were a period of opportunity for socialist organizing across the world, and represented the peak of mass membership in socialist organizations in the United States. The country’s economic inequality was becoming more salient, with the First World War exacerbating these dynamics as working people were being sent to their death for the profit of the wealthy. The SPA was able to take advantage of these conditions to build a mass socialist organization which this country has not seen before or since, but it ultimately failed in its mission to transform society. The causes of the party’s collapse are multifaceted, including its aforementioned failure to embrace the multiracial, multigendered working class, as well as state repression and heightened internal party conflict.
As the 1910s went on, the left wing of the SPA consolidated, with Ruthenberg as an important leader of the faction that would be increasingly in tension with the party’s incumbent leadership. Many left-wing leaders, such as legendary IWW organizer Bill Haywood, would be accused by fellow members of supporting violence and sabotage, implicating them in legal proceedings and removing them from party office. Despite Ruthenberg’s rejection of these tactics, he was similarly removed from state party leadership in 1912. In Ohio, Ruthenberg and his allies still had strong support, and may have been able to defeat this motion were it not for his ongoing gubernatorial campaign. Elsewhere, however, the right wing of the party was more solidly in control. In many locals, these attacks, often on left-wing labor organizers connected to the IWW, led to a significant exodus from the party throughout the 1910s.
However, things were different in Cleveland. From 1912 to 1919, as national membership declined or stagnated, Cleveland’s local would see immense growth. With more than 3,000 of the Ohio SPA’s 8,000+ members in 1919, they would present a major success story for the party’s left wing. The local’s internal structures were a crucial part of building this connection to the masses. They emphasized political education, particularly on Marxist theory. This ranged from establishing a Socialist Sunday School for children to speeches from figures such as Karl Liebknecht and Bill Haywood. The party also held cultural events and fundraisers for adults, while developing a Young People’s Socialist League which included bowling matches, dances and baseball games. These opportunities allowed party members to not only organize politically, but develop socialist culture and community with their comrades.
In 1917, the US formally entered World War One, despite President Wilson’s campaign promise to maintain peace. In reaction, the SPA held an emergency convention in St. Louis, where leaders across the organization, including Ruthenberg, drafted an anti-war resolution. Many workers, who did not want to be sent overseas and fight in a brutal war, were increasingly drawn to socialist politics. Cleveland’s well-organized local, with a clear left wing politics that consistently stood against imperialis, was well positioned to take advantage of this. In 1917, the Cleveland Local saw its best ever electoral results, with SPA candidates J.G. Willert and Noah Mandelkorn elected to Cleveland City Council and A.L. Hitchcock elected to the school board. Additionally, Ruthenberg’s Mayoral campaign, calling for “socialism, peace and democracy” would win close to 30% of the vote. While socialists were not in the majority, they were gaining in popularity among workers, and the ruling class was starting to notice.
Soon, the harassment, censorship, imprisonment and deportation of socialists and the broader anti-war movement would escalate. In 1918, Cleveland’s two socialist city councilors and school board member would be removed from their positions for opposing the war. Ruthenberg was fired from his job and repeatedly arrested for anti-war speech along with many of his comrades. This culminated in the previously mentioned anti-worker judge David Westenhaver sentencing Ruthenberg to a year in the Canton work camp.
During his time in Canton, Ruthenberg was informed of the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The Cleveland local had held a 2,500 person celebration that February of the Tsar’s overthrow, and the enthusiasm continued to grow as they heard of this news. Ruthenberg himself found a lot of inspiration from the Bolsheviks and the writings of Lenin, which were at that point not very commonly read among the socialists in the US. Under his leadership, the Cleveland local would lead the SPA in becoming an outspoken proponent of solidarity with the Russian revolution, and opposition to US military intervention on behalf of the White Army.
For the next couple of years, Ruthenberg and Eugene Debs would be repeatedly imprisoned, often directly calling for the other’s release. At the 1918 Ohio Socialist Party convention, held within view from Ruthenberg’s prison cell, Eugene Debs would give his famous Canton Speech, calling for Ruthenberg’s freedom and an end to the US involvement in the war. Debs would subsequently be arrested for this speech, and sentenced to ten years in prison by, once again, Judge David Westenhaver. Once Ruthenberg was released from detention,he would help organize multiple rallies calling for Debs’ freedom, culminating in the 1919 May Day demonstration, which would once again land him in jail.
The events of May 1st, 1919 represent the peak of mass socialist presence in Cleveland, with 30,000 workers, led by the Socialist Party and including many IWW and AFL members, marching through the streets. The demonstration called for the economic demands of work for the unemployed and an increased minimum wage alongside calls for international solidarity and opposition to war. The workers held Red Flags and American Flags as they marched towards Public Square. This display was considered offensive by one businessman, who drew a revolver on a socialist WW1 veteran holding a red flag. Soon thereafter, the police, who had until that point been oddly absent, would descend on the demonstration, and along with other right wing members of the public, beat and arrest over 150 workers. Two workers would be killed by the police that day, and the socialist party headquarters would be ransacked. In the next day’s issue, The Plain Dealer would describe the violence as followed:
“Mounted police at the gallop wielding truncheons on the heads of Bolsheviki, citizens and soldiers tearing red flags and trampling them in the mud, [and] tanks from the western battle front charging crowds in the front of the statue of Tom Johnson”
Today, this event is commonly known as the May Day Riot. One could embrace that term, in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous proclamation that “a riot is the language of the unheard.” Alternatively, you could describe what happened as a peaceful demonstration and a subsequent massacre. The violence was provoked by the reactionaries, and actions taken by socialists were largely in self-defense. Ultimately, while the May Day demonstration led to another round of arrests and imprisonments for socialist leaders like Ruthenberg, it also coincided with the continued growth of Cleveland local, with hundreds more joining that month.
From this point onward, the repression of socialist and anti-war organizers would continue to escalate, while the Socialist Party was facing extreme internal turmoil. Ruthenberg and others on the left wing of the party would formalize their internal faction, and win 12 of the 15 National Executive Committee seats. However, the incumbent SPA leadership refused to recognize these results, eventually leading to a mass exodus of party members, either through expulsion or resignation. What followed was a messy process which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA), led by General Secretary C.E. Ruthenberg.
This split, alongside the continued repression of the movement, was the final nail in the coffin. The SPA would continue to operate, but no longer holding its same mass reach, with the party falling to 10,000 members by 1923. Socialist organizing would continue elsewhere, of course, including in Ruthenberg’s CPUSA. However, no US organization has since reached the peaks of the SPA’s 113,000 members in a country of less than 100 million. Learning from this period, we cannot understand the organizing of the past solely through modern lenses. The historical development of capitalism and the US political system placed 1910s SPA organizers in very different positions than DSA members in 2026. However, there are still some conclusions we can draw from the electoral and labor organizing of the party, as well as its demographic makeup and internal structures.
For both electoral and labor organizing, the conditions of the 1910s were dramatically different, but ultimately the SPA’s success showed the importance of the slow and steady work of constructing a socialist organization. Engaging the masses with a socialist vision requires a commitment to improving their lives in the short term, while maintaining our principled vision for a socialist future. This can come through electoral campaigns, and through solidarity with the workers fighting for better conditions at work.
On the other hand, the SPA’s failures demonstrate the need for constructing a culture within our organization which is welcoming, stands clearly against bigotry, and accepts political conflict while striving for unity in action. No resolution or policy alone can make our organization more diverse, but a welcoming attitude and constant, proactive thinking within each part of our organizing work can help. Similarly, no moderation or grievance policy alone can prevent the worst forms of interpersonal conflict or political repression. These policies are the first step, which must be accompanied by conducting ourselves in a comradely way for the next thousand steps.
Of course, there are things we cannot control – like the actions of our enemies. We do not know how or when the socialist movement will face additional state repression. But one lesson of the SPA, and any other successful socialist movement, is that our opposition will not sit idly by while we work to build ourselves up. With that in mind, I will end with the last words of C.E. Ruthenberg, reported after his death in 1927:
“Tell the comrades to close their ranks, to build the party. The American working class, under the leadership of our party and the Comintern, will win. Let’s fight on!”