SDS [Archive] - RevLeft

Pawn Power

16th October 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:50 pm
I really don't know much about the state of the new SDS and whether it's the same organizationally and if it's "going somewhere"

New SDS is quite different structurally then the original SDS. As I understand it, the SDS of the 60's was rather "hierarchical", that is there where national and regional offices that made decisions that supposedly the individual branches were to follow. Some would say it was "Leninist" in organization. I would say new SDS has more Anarchist feel, at least for many branches.

New SDS operates as a collection of united autonomous branches which act independently but communicate and organize together on a regional, and lest frequently, a national basis. Of course, no large organization is not with out any hierarchy.

As fare as if SDS is "going somewhere" I don't know. It sure is growing quickly. Over the last couple year hundreds of branches have cropped up at universities and high schools in various parts of the country. There have been regional and national conventions with over a hundred members for over 50 branches.

There are many problems with the new SDS and I don't know if I agree with the direction many of the branches and the regional and national structures are taking. SDS's internal communication and organization are not the most efficient and I think many of the events and actions they take are not particularly useful. But I do think that a large national "radical" student organization is useful, especially since activism on many collage campuses in the US is sparse.

That said, I am apart of Philly SDS.

Well SDS is an organization for more radical students and I believe they are also developing a non-student organization as well.

You mean liberal students...To be fair, there is a large number of "radical" students involved with SDS however there is also large numbers of liberals, or at least "liberals" that claim to be radicals or "radicals" with liberal tendencies. But I guess this would be the case when a large student activist group in the US attempts to organize around War and "Oppression."

There is Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS) which works to organize non-students and is united with SDS, though the relationship remains shaky and unclear.

The core purpose of the new SDS is to teach young radicals how to organize. And many of the teachers are veterans from the old SDS.
I don't know if that SDS's main purpose. Granted there are many members who work principally on such things. I think it depends from chapter to chapter. The feel I get is that one of the "core" purposes of SDS is "anti-war" and "ant-oppression" work.
Some of the veterans from old SDS are now members of MDS and do try to "teach" and "influence" new SDS however there has been some controversy over older members taking up too much authority, SDS decided to maintain itself as a "student" and "youth" organization.

lvleph

16th October 2007, 16:27

They are suppose to be holding an unpermitted protest in DC either this weekend or the next weekend. I cannot remember which. I think it is this weekend.

KurtFF8

17th October 2007, 02:07

Indeed they are. I'm looking into how much support I would get if I were to start a chapter at my university. Hopefully I'll find that I have enough and be able to form one.

Pawn Power

17th October 2007, 02:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:27 am
They are suppose to be holding an unpermitted protest in DC either this weekend or the next weekend. I cannot remember which. I think it is this weekend.
No WAR NO WARMING (http://www.nowarnowarming.org/)

Faux Real

17th October 2007, 04:28

I've heard much better things about the NSDS compared to the old one that was largely comprised of white middle-class hippies and counter-cultureites.

which doctor

17th October 2007, 04:42

I don't know a whole lot about them or have very much experience with them but I will give you my general impressions of them.

Fundamentally, besides having a larger base, I don't see very much difference between the new SDS and the various other campus leftist groups on campuses. They hold protests against Bush and the war and occasionally they may get out of hand, but this isn't the norm. Many of their members are little more than anti-bush liberals full of anti-war rhetoric. Their primary problem lies in the fact that the SDS is not organized along class lines, it is organized along ideological lines. It doesn't strike me as an organization that is "prole vs. bourg.", instead I view it as an organization that is "left wing vs right wing." This is the organization's primary flaw.

As far as bringing a proletarian revolution, I don't think they will play much of a part.

Remember again that this is my opinion based mostly on my impressions.

YSR

17th October 2007, 06:19

SDS basically kicks ass (for a student organization).

It's not going to bring about world revolution, but it's a great way for young people to ally themselves with and participate in proletarian struggles. The pro-working class line is very strong.

Plus, let's not forget that by organizing the students of today, we organize the workers of tomorrow. The vast majority of students become working class. Exposing them to radical politics today ensure that they will be prepared to organize in the workplace and the world.

(Bias: I attended the national convention this summer and am a part of SDS at my college.)

EDIT:

Originally posted by FoB
Many of their members are little more than anti-bush liberals full of anti-war rhetoric.

I have yet to meet a single member who self-identifies with the term "liberal" or who doesn't believe in ending capitalism through revolutionary change. But that's just me.

bezdomni

18th October 2007, 21:12

The new one can't hold a candle to the real SDS. I got harassed by some SDSers in Houston for being a Marxist-Leninist, but overall they seem to be an okay bunch.

RCYB>SDS

FoB,revolution is waged along ideological lines as much as it is along class lines. The goal isn't to just exterminate the bourgeoisie or something, it is the process by which the proletariat seizes production and political power (via the communist party).

KurtFF8

22nd October 2007, 21:57

The new one can't hold a candle to the real SDS. I got harassed by some SDSers in Houston for being a Marxist-Leninist, but overall they seem to be an okay bunch

Well when the old one was in its' infancy, it wasn't much either. It wasn't until the late 60s that it really started to effect change and be a major player. (And it started in 1960)

ShineThePath

27th October 2007, 06:33

I have to simply say, 3/4 of the stuff you hear about SDS is mostly bullshit...sometimes it is even from other SDS members. What is interesting about SDS is nothing about its organizational structure, which is subject to change, but rather what it is and does. The New SDS is a young organization, it is mostly active in the Northeast, and it is an organization opened to all different trends from a radical Left position or liberal-Left. This seems to be what SDS is like, throughout the Country, whatever their line.

That said, there are different lines within SDS. There are chapters with heavy Marxist or Marxist-Leninist influence...many more with some trend of Anarchism, etc.

If you're interested in joining a chapter, do so...it is an open united front of people, if there isn't a chapter...go ahead an create one.

From a friend in SDS-NYC and the Hunter College Chapter of SDS.

If you need more info, contact me at [email protected]

manic expression

28th October 2007, 21:37

In my opinion, SDS is a broad, vague leftist student group and not much more. As others have said, it's goals, vision and the like are oftentimes defined very loosely, which is creates a problem of direction. If you look at the resolutions they passed at the last national convention (I just finished reading it), many of the points can be very confounding in a lot of ways. In just one example I remember off the top of my head, it demanded "'power with' and not 'power over'". Is there any attempt to make a class analysis here? In its effort to be all-inclusive, it sacrifices cohesion and a unified program and organization. Furthermore, from what I can gather, the group suffers from a good deal of liberal tendencies, not to mention anti-Marxist positions.

For all their self-congratulation on fighting various forms of oppression, there is no conrete identification of where this oppression comes from, only a vague concept that "oppression must end". Again, if you ask me, it smacks of liberalist tendencies.

I have no problem working with them, and I have no doubt that many "SDSers" are solid activists, but it's so much an umbrella organization that it leaks.

ShineThePath

30th October 2007, 01:41

As one of the many Communists within SDS, I have been red baited, accused of trying to take power, of belonging to organizations which I am not a part of, and promoting "Business Unionism," etc. What has to be said though, this is politics in play, this is getting you hands dirty in struggle, and as Hegel said "history is the slaughterboard." Well if that is true, then we are hardly playing a deck of cards here.

Manic, I do agree with most of what you have said, but it is important to realize that SDS is coming out of the radical college community without much organizational leadership, structure, or specific trend. In a literal sense, this is a mass org, it isn't a Party formation and to treat it as such will be problematic.

On the line of SDS, as I have said before it is a broad unity of many Left-wing students. Such a broad unity will of course mean a line which isn't as concrete as lets say FIST, YCL, or RCYB. This is all true. However, the line in SDS is bond to get more cohesive and consolidated, and people parting their particular ways may also occur. Communists and Marxists entering SDS play a positive role in the sense that we stress such a broad united front while also engaging in the necessary political dialog to change conscious politics within.

manic expression

30th October 2007, 04:30

I agree with many of your points, ShineThePath. While I think it would be great for SDS to have a communist presence, I have reservations.

First of all, this is the way I see it: on my campus, I can spend a bunch of time and energy trying to run a chapter of SDS, or I can spend a bunch of time and energy trying to form a group with a Marxist program and outlook (and be more invested and interested in the work). I'd rather take the later and avoid the thick hail of anarcho-liberal rhetoric (not to mention the complete contrast in support provided by the respective national organizations).

That being said, I am open. My opinion on SDS isn't finalized because SDS itself is far from being finalized. One of my concerns, however, is that SDS will never truly be finalized as an organization or as a movement.

Both of us know that the treatment of communists is pretty ridiculous (here comes the rant), especially seeing as how communists are supposed to accept other sides in the name of "cooperation", but once communists suggest anything we get browbeaten over it, something that puts a bad taste in my mouth. As I said before, many parts of the resolutions passed at the national convention were outright anti-Marxist, and yet they simultaneously fashion themselves as open to all leftist ideologies (which just reinforces my perception of SDS as confused). At what point does working within such a group cease to be potentially positive and become futile?

On the other hand, I do think that communists should work within united fronts to bring Marxist analyses and practice to the forefront. The questions I keep asking myself remain: can SDS become anything more than a loose confederation of chapters and ideologies (dominated by anarchists and liberals)? Does it even matter? As I said, I'm open to an extent, but I'm heavily skeptical all the same.

ShineThePath

30th October 2007, 05:58

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 30, 2007 03:30 am
I agree with many of your points, ShineThePath. While I think it would be great for SDS to have a communist presence, I have reservations.

First of all, this is the way I see it: on my campus, I can spend a bunch of time and energy trying to run a chapter of SDS, or I can spend a bunch of time and energy trying to form a group with a Marxist program and outlook (and be more invested and interested in the work). I'd rather take the later and avoid the thick hail of anarcho-liberal rhetoric (not to mention the complete contrast in support provided by the respective national organizations).

That being said, I am open. My opinion on SDS isn't finalized because SDS itself is far from being finalized. One of my concerns, however, is that SDS will never truly be finalized as an organization or as a movement.

Both of us know that the treatment of communists is pretty ridiculous (here comes the rant), especially seeing as how communists are supposed to accept other sides in the name of "cooperation", but once communists suggest anything we get browbeaten over it, something that puts a bad taste in my mouth. As I said before, many parts of the resolutions passed at the national convention were outright anti-Marxist, and yet they simultaneously fashion themselves as open to all leftist ideologies (which just reinforces my perception of SDS as confused). At what point does working within such a group cease to be potentially positive and become futile?

On the other hand, I do think that communists should work within united fronts to bring Marxist analyses and practice to the forefront. The questions I keep asking myself remain: can SDS become anything more than a loose confederation of chapters and ideologies (dominated by anarchists and liberals)? Does it even matter? As I said, I'm open to an extent, but I'm heavily skeptical all the same.
Manic, I have shared and still have the same concerns you do about the Red Baiting that occurs. However SDS is, and this is important, becoming more organized and cohesive around a line that rejects such infantile anarchist behaviors. At the first and second convention, they only served to isolate themselves from the body of SDS. Most of the Communists within SDS have done good work and have been good to work with, so many people are realizing the idea that the Communists killed the original SDS is wrong and has no validity, if anything it was the various Communist organizations that made SDS slightly relevant to begin with.

On building Marxist collectives. I am certainly not opposed to this at all on campuses, in fact two semester ago I held the opinion that building a Communist collective was the best idea...I think still it is necessary at campuses, however Communists should work broadly with students in a way that is connected to the sentiment of the masses of Students to oppose this war. That is why I joined up with SDS, and through my work with others, our chapter has a good set of committed people and many REDs who are willing to raise the consciousness of our school.

On the resolutions, do you really think they were 'anti-communist?' I can only think of a few that seem futile to me that were passed, but many of the resolutions put forward by public Communists were actually passed by the National Conventions. Iraq Moratorium, Break the Chains, Support for the Anwser Demo, and many more that don't come to mind at the moment were put forward by people considered Red.

YSR

1st November 2007, 06:14

The reason people "red bait" in SDS is because people are terrified of Leninists taking over and destroying SDS like they did the old one. It's simply a lie to say that they didn't, ShineThePath. The split between PL, RIM, and RIM II ended the organization's usefulness on a national level.

I am one of those SDSers who fears that. The vast majority of SDS is anti-authoritarians, anarchists, libertarian communists and radical liberals. I would not say that there are "many communists," by which you seem to mean Marxist-Leninists. At the national convention, I observed a tiny clique of members of the cadre-organizing Maoist throwback Freedom Road Socialist Organization. I also observed tons of Wobblies, Earth First!ers, ParEconists, CrimethInc.ers and lots of others.

SDS is not becoming more centralized around rejecting "infantile anarchist behaviors". Quite the opposite, it is articulating very clearly that it is a student organization made up of radicals and revolutionaries who are opposed to the old way of doing things. SDS has learned from the past and I won't let the organization repeat the tragedies of the past. If you want to destroy SDS by making it like the old one, then you lose all credibility in my eyes.

P.S. ShineThePath, as in the Shining Path? Wait, are you in Freedom Road?

ShineThePath

1st November 2007, 07:04

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 01, 2007 05:14 am
The reason people "red bait" in SDS is because people are terrified of Leninists taking over and destroying SDS like they did the old one. It's simply a lie to say that they didn't, ShineThePath. The split between PL, RIM, and RIM II ended the organization's usefulness on a national level.

I am one of those SDSers who fears that. The vast majority of SDS is anti-authoritarians, anarchists, libertarian communists and radical liberals. I would not say that there are "many communists," by which you seem to mean Marxist-Leninists. At the national convention, I observed a tiny clique of members of the cadre-organizing Maoist throwback Freedom Road Socialist Organization. I also observed tons of Wobblies, Earth First!ers, ParEconists, CrimethInc.ers and lots of others.

SDS is not becoming more centralized around rejecting "infantile anarchist behaviors". Quite the opposite, it is articulating very clearly that it is a student organization made up of radicals and revolutionaries who are opposed to the old way of doing things. SDS has learned from the past and I won't let the organization repeat the tragedies of the past. If you want to destroy SDS by making it like the old one, then you lose all credibility in my eyes.

P.S. ShineThePath, as in the Shining Path? Wait, are you in Freedom Road?
This is the paranoia that will lead to the small cliquishness that exists in a great many SDS chapters. First, your history is just straight up wrong....the split wasn't because of Leninists, the split happened over the question of the political line and direction of the Student movement. Workers' Student Alliance which came out the hegemonic force of SDS, put forward a line that was anti-NLF and anti-BBP. Why don't you bother reading the historical documents than rather assuming the history on a priori principles.

On whether I am a member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization, I have a right not to answer this question, and further this is just more baiting. I will say however, knowing my right not to be baited, that I am not a member of FRSO. But you're typically wrong in your observations of the National Convention, there were many Marxists and Communists in that Convention. Of course I admit there were many more self-identified Anarchists, but I have never said anything otherwise...in fact I stated above so.

However the idea there is a battle between Reds and Anarchists within SDS is in the minds of a small group of sectarians who are isolating themselves, and that is reality. No one is digging it anymore, Bro.

Also yes... My name is a reference to the Peruvian Communist Party, otherwise known as Sendero Luminos (Shining Path).

ShineThePath

1st November 2007, 07:09

Further, the "centralization" of SDS in terms of organization IS taken place...and it is not even the Reds who are doing it. Are you forgetting the fact at that convention that the structure put forward by UCF and the Northwest, who had the most "de-centralized" structure proposal, was voted down in favor of the proposals for a federated council system? Aren't you aware the it was IWW members putting this forward?

Further do you really think there is any real unity and cohesion amongst the broad stripes of different political groupings you described such as the like CrimeThinc groupings and the ParEconist groupings?

Get serious and realistic...People don't want a floundering National student organization with no cohesion in action, they want a Movement.

Why don't you "learn from the past" and realize the tactics that actually need that to occur are not to be found in your red baiting tactics and revisionist historical understanding?

blackstone

1st November 2007, 19:05

What is the racial makeup of SDS? I'm asking because i saw a picture of a national convention and it was mostly if not all white youth, with a majority being white males.

YSR

1st November 2007, 23:10

Originally posted by blackstone+November 01, 2007 12:05 pm--> (blackstone @ November 01, 2007 12:05 pm) What is the racial makeup of SDS? I'm asking because i saw a picture of a national convention and it was mostly if not all white youth, with a majority being white males. [/b]
Mostly white, about half men. (at least at the convention)

Still, people of color were represented. That's clearly a place where SDS is losing right now.

Shine
Further, the "centralization" of SDS in terms of organization IS taken place...and it is not even the Reds who are doing it. Are you forgetting the fact at that convention that the structure put forward by UCF and the Northwest, who had the most "de-centralized" structure proposal, was voted down in favor of the proposals for a federated council system? Aren't you aware the it was IWW members putting this forward?

Yeah dude, and I thought that proposal by UCF and Northwest was stupid. But it represented a strain diametrically opposed to centralization.

I supported and support the federated council system. That's not centralization, it's organization.

ShineThePath

3rd November 2007, 03:34

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 01, 2007 10:10 pm
Yeah dude, and I thought that proposal by UCF and Northwest was stupid. But it represented a strain diametrically opposed to centralization.

I supported and support the federated council system. That's not centralization, it's organization.
Man, why are you being so thick? What is a federated organizational structure in a grouping that has none?

That is centralization. It is taking forces that are scattered and have no organizational character and giving it one, it is consolidating what is suppose to be SDS.

I am sorry, but this is just an example of the semantic game playing itself when it is devoid of Political meaning and actuality. Centralization and De-centralization are terms which are relative, they have no absolute value in and of themselves. In the contextuality of a groupings of chapters which have little organization and coordination beyond informal contacts, the fact it takes up a Council system of whatever type IS actual "centralization."

which doctor

3rd November 2007, 06:22

Despite my previous comments about the SDS I will probably join or at least hang with 'em at college just to see what it really is all about and whether or not it's worth my time.

YSR

4th November 2007, 18:42

Man, why are you being so thick? What is a federated organizational structure in a grouping that has none?

Why are you being so dogmatic? It's decentralization. Just because you like it and you're a Leninist doesn't mean you can call it Leninist-style organizing.

Centralization is not synonymous with organization and decentralization is not synonymous with chaos. The earlier lack of structure in SDS was chaos, it was not decentralization.

Let's see, creating a structure which affords autonomy to chapters and a federated model of decision-making on a national scale, where all chapters vote and there's no leaders? Does that sound like centralization? No, it's decentralized organization.

Pawn Power

4th November 2007, 20:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:22 am
Despite my previous comments about the SDS I will probably join or at least hang with 'em at college just to see what it really is all about and whether or not it's worth my time.
did you decide which uni you are going to yet?

ShineThePath

5th November 2007, 01:24

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 04, 2007 06:42 pm

Man, why are you being so thick? What is a federated organizational structure in a grouping that has none?

Why are you being so dogmatic? It's decentralization. Just because you like it and you're a Leninist doesn't mean you can call it Leninist-style organizing.

Centralization is not synonymous with organization and decentralization is not synonymous with chaos. The earlier lack of structure in SDS was chaos, it was not decentralization.

Let's see, creating a structure which affords autonomy to chapters and a federated model of decision-making on a national scale, where all chapters vote and there's no leaders? Does that sound like centralization? No, it's decentralized organization.
:rolleyes:

How am I being dogmatic? How can any organizational structure be "De-centralizing" when there is no organization to begin with?

I am sorry, I don't have allergies to reality and what things quite frankly mean in real political practice.

which doctor

5th November 2007, 04:32

I just wanted everyone to know, despite what I've said about the SDS so far, I will probably end up joining them in college to see if they are worth my time or not.

Marsella

5th November 2007, 04:34

I just wanted everyone to know, despite what I've said about the SDS so far, I will probably end up joining them in college to see if they are worth my time or not.

:lol:

You said that here:

Despite my previous comments about the SDS I will probably join or at least hang with 'em at college just to see what it really is all about and whether or not it's worth my time.

High? :redstar2000:

which doctor

5th November 2007, 05:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:34 pm

I just wanted everyone to know, despite what I've said about the SDS so far, I will probably end up joining them in college to see if they are worth my time or not.

:lol:

You said that here:

Despite my previous comments about the SDS I will probably join or at least hang with 'em at college just to see what it really is all about and whether or not it's worth my time.

High? :redstar2000:
wow, i've been taking a lot of klonopin recently and it basically destroys your memory, and mine is already shitty

I took 2mg at my high school homecoming game and barely remember a single thing, not even driving home, all I know of it is what people have told me about it

which doctor

5th November 2007, 05:14

Originally posted by Pawn Power+November 04, 2007 03:45 pm--> (Pawn Power @ November 04, 2007 03:45 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 12:22 am
Despite my previous comments about the SDS I will probably join or at least hang with 'em at college just to see what it really is all about and whether or not it's worth my time.
did you decide which uni you are going to yet? [/b]
Well, right now it's not up to me (but then again, it never was since I'm basically a determinist). I sent my app in to the University Of Chicago and depending on whether or not I get in and home much financial aid they give me, I would like to go there. If not I will go to UIC. If I go to UIC I might have contact with Bill Ayers (of WU fame).

Nothing Human Is Alien

6th November 2007, 00:35

YSR, I know you're committed to using the most radical sounding rhetoric as possible, but surely you know that even left communists have historically called for/utilized centralized organization.

There is nothing inherently anti-democratic about concrete unity (though I think the liberal fetishism over "democracy" in an of itself is incorrect.. an organization should be judged by whether or not it is correct and accomplishes its goals, not how many votes it takes to decide whether or not to issue a statement).

Pawn Power

6th November 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 07:35 pm
. an organization should be judged by whether or not it is correct and accomplishes its goals, not how many votes it takes to decide whether or not to issue a statement).
But the problem is, that when an organization functions in highly undemocratic means those goals are often not the goals of "the people" or even the "correct" goals in fighting against capitalism, oppression, racism, sexism, etc.

YSR

6th November 2007, 05:28

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:35 pm
YSR, I know you're committed to using the most radical sounding rhetoric as possible, but surely you know that even left communists have historically called for/utilized centralized organization.
I dunno anything about that. I'm an anarchist. While I get along really well with the left communists, I can't understand them sometimes.

All I know is that there is a difference between decentralization and centralization. I can say that without going "OMG Centralization is fascism" or "yay anarchy!" But there's a concrete difference between organizing a group by decentralist principles (autonomy, federation, etc.) and centralist principles (national leadership, etc).

Why is this so confusing? Or really, relevant? I mean, I guess I brought it up, but I didn't think it was debatable: SDS is organized as a decentralized federation of chapters.

ShineThePath

6th November 2007, 05:53

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+November 06, 2007 05:28 am--> (Young Stupid Radical @ November 06, 2007 05:28 am)
Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 06:35 pm
YSR, I know you're committed to using the most radical sounding rhetoric as possible, but surely you know that even left communists have historically called for/utilized centralized organization.
I dunno anything about that. I'm an anarchist. While I get along really well with the left communists, I can't understand them sometimes.

All I know is that there is a difference between decentralization and centralization. I can say that without going "OMG Centralization is fascism" or "yay anarchy!" But there's a concrete difference between organizing a group by decentralist principles (autonomy, federation, etc.) and centralist principles (national leadership, etc).

Why is this so confusing? Or really, relevant? I mean, I guess I brought it up, but I didn't think it was debatable: SDS is organized as a decentralized federation of chapters. [/b]
Because it is simply misunderstanding the relative quality of formation. That is, if you have a grouping with no coherent organization at all, and which has nothing central to what it is, any form of organization (Federated Councils in this instance) is a centrality of power. What is decidingly in question is the relativity here.

Now let us asking this question, what is more De-Centralized...what has preceded SDS's decision to create a Federated Council or if they were to have one? If there is literally no Council system, then that must be more "De-centralized" because it is the epitomy of it. You speak for example "local autonomy," what is more autnomous for chapters, to anwser and be accountable to a National Organization based on Councils, or to anwser to No one?

Furthermore it is relevant because it is quite important to the question of organizational politics, and the praxis of our Movement. It reveals the truth to the reality of what is the relation of power.

Rather than a simple naive one, I am settling for a Dialectical Materialist understanding.

Further...SDS is not a "Decentralized federation of chapters." That has yet to be established, it was decided upon, but it HASN'T even been set up....largely because of the fact there is no accountable leadership.

blackstone

6th November 2007, 22:39

That has yet to be established, it was decided upon, but it HASN'T even been set up....largely because of the fact there is no accountable leadership.

I'm not a member of SDS but this seemed off, so i took it upon myself to read SDS's 2007 Final Convention Bulletin.

Ratification: An Experiment
in Participatory Democracy

Under the ratification proposal, which
was passed at the convention, all of the decisions
made at the convention are viewed as
resolutions which are “binding pending ratification”—
meaning that we can implement
or begin to implement the decisions we
made, but that they must undergo the ratification
process, which can challenge those
decisions. The ratification process is the
process by which all decisions made at the
convention will be sent to all active, existing
SDS chapters for approval or rejection. This
process is being carried out by the
Ratification Collections Committee. This
committee was created at the convention
and approved by the present membership to
be an administrative body whose purpose is
to complete all the work necessary to carry
out the process and to collect and tally the
results. The process for enacting and completing
ratification involves several important
steps

The date by which chapters must send
back their ballots—voting for or against
each proposal subject to the ratification
process, or abstaining from voting—is
January 1st. The date by which results will be
compiled, tallied, and posted is February 1st.

So it seems to me that the structure hasn't been implemented because the ratification process,(a process voted upon at the Convention) hasn't been completed yet, not because of a lack of "accountable leadership" as your claim.

Cheers.

ShineThePath

6th November 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:39 pm

That has yet to be established, it was decided upon, but it HASN'T even been set up....largely because of the fact there is no accountable leadership.

I'm not a member of SDS but this seemed off, so i took it upon myself to read SDS's 2007 Final Convention Bulletin.

Ratification: An Experiment
in Participatory Democracy

Under the ratification proposal, which
was passed at the convention, all of the decisions
made at the convention are viewed as
resolutions which are “binding pending ratification”—
meaning that we can implement
or begin to implement the decisions we
made, but that they must undergo the ratification
process, which can challenge those
decisions. The ratification process is the
process by which all decisions made at the
convention will be sent to all active, existing
SDS chapters for approval or rejection. This
process is being carried out by the
Ratification Collections Committee. This
committee was created at the convention
and approved by the present membership to
be an administrative body whose purpose is
to complete all the work necessary to carry
out the process and to collect and tally the
results. The process for enacting and completing
ratification involves several important
steps

The date by which chapters must send
back their ballots—voting for or against
each proposal subject to the ratification
process, or abstaining from voting—is
January 1st. The date by which results will be
compiled, tallied, and posted is February 1st.

So it seems to me that the structure hasn't been implemented because the ratification process,(a process voted upon at the Convention) hasn't been completed yet, not because of a lack of "accountable leadership" as your claim.

Cheers.
Blackstone, that is a very simple way of looking at this....the reality is things take forever in SDS to get along because things are on a voluntary basis. No one is oversighted in anyway, and people take forever to get things done. This "Ratification Committee" has taken months on Conference Calls to even begin getting this to happen.

There is no organizational way of keeping things in line, if things take a month or longer.

This is not to say the people that take these things up are the people responsible for this, no, its the fact there is a complete lack of oversight and demands. These people who volunteer understand that things need to get done in SDS, and a few of them as well understand the lack of a structure to organize action has become problematic, but largely the very reason for the inability to begin organizing this Federation has a lot to do with the slothful pace that we have allowed.

At this point, too, I will be surprised to see SDS actually even ratify the structure. I Personally for one don't think this Structure will succeed because it is absurdly concerned about the form, and has supplanted ultra-democracy for the need to have a good National Organization...this is a concern amongst those who supported the Nested Council System at the Convention.

There are many others that will probably vote it down on the basis of it being too "authoritarian"

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th November 2007, 02:28

I dunno anything about that.

Well, don't you think you should at least look into it before writing it off?

black magick hustla

7th November 2007, 03:22

Originally posted by Pawn Power+November 06, 2007 12:47 am--> (Pawn Power @ November 06, 2007 12:47 am)
Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 07:35 pm
. an organization should be judged by whether or not it is correct and accomplishes its goals, not how many votes it takes to decide whether or not to issue a statement).
But the problem is, that when an organization functions in highly undemocratic means those goals are often not the goals of "the people" or even the "correct" goals in fighting against capitalism, oppression, racism, sexism, etc. [/b]
Depends.

There should be a core "clear as crystal, hard as steel" of communists that is dedicated to educate and agitate. The internal functioning of such organization is more about having the correct line and praxis than democracy. Obviously, there needs to be internal debate, because otherwise it would become a sect and stifled.

This is like virtually, how every effective revolutionary organization has worked. The left communists had no problem with centralization.

Mass organizations like trade unions are an entirely different matter.

YSR

7th November 2007, 05:36

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 06, 2007 08:28 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ November 06, 2007 08:28 pm)
I dunno anything about that.

Well, don't you think you should at least look into it before writing it off? [/b]
I wasn't writing off left-communist thought...I just said I don't know much about it. I don't see how that's relevant.

Shine
the reality is things take forever in SDS to get along because things are on a voluntary basis.

Not really! My school's SDS is staging a general strike of students, staff, and faculty next week.

The national organization of SDS should serve the chapters, not the other way around. National structure basically only needs to function to keep people in communication and keep general momentum. As I don't see SDS as the forefront of the class struggle, I'm not really sure why a massive bureaucracy at the national level is desirable. (Not that any massive bureaucracy is ever desirable.) If the national structure doesn't get implemented tomorrow, what's gonna not happen that otherwise would happen? Chapters will still organize, do actions, make alliances, make progress.

This is why I get sketched out by people demanding a "solid" national structure. Why do we need to do all this work? What's going to happen that's not now? And the inner conspiracy theorist says, obviously, that it's a tool for certain members to exert undue influence over the group. And before you can say "Fourth International," SDS will split if that happens. Because the vast majority of SDSers are absolutely opposed to anyone limiting chapter autonomy or having power over anyone else.

If this country reaches a point where a national structure for SDS is incredibly important, incredibly quickly, the revolutionary class will obviously be the working class, not students. There's simply no need for a strong national bureaucracy!

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th November 2007, 06:31

You wrote of centralism without knowing what it is, who historically developed it and why, etc.

obsolete discourse

7th November 2007, 06:35

If this country reaches a point where a national structure for SDS is incredibly important, incredibly quickly, the revolutionary class will obviously be the working class, not students. There's simply no need for a strong national bureaucracy!

I'm sort of confused. If you view "the student" as a sort of irrelevant category in relation to total transformation of society, why would you spend time working with an organization that places it as a protagonist in social change? Much less defend such an organization against random Stalinists and inevitable collapse?

I don't think utopia is ushered into being from hard political work and I don't think rebellion is measured by what effects change through demands.

YSR

7th November 2007, 07:58

Originally posted by obsolete discourse+November 07, 2007 12:35 am--> (obsolete discourse @ November 07, 2007 12:35 am) If you view "the student" as a sort of irrelevant category in relation to total transformation of society, why would you spend time working with an organization that places it as a protagonist in social change? [/b]
A solid point, and one addressed very well in a blog by a group of New Jersey SDSers here. (http://piratecaucus.blogspot.com/2007/09/whats-revolutionary-about-working-class.html)

A short excerpt:

Originally posted by Pirate [email protected]
When the original SDS fell apart in the late 1960’s nearly all factions agreed on one thing -- students were not workers and workers had to be organized. The result was the destruction of the student organization in an attempt to organize workers, or to organize in the “community.” This was a fatal error that flowed from an incorrect class analysis, and especially of students’ position in the class structure.
...
According to the old story students would be managers or coordinators of capitalist production processes that exploit workers, but most students will not be coordinators. They will become skilled workers. Organize them into the movement now and we are organizing the working class of the future.

An excellent perspective on student/worker relationships in the First World, I heartily suggest taking a look. So SDS is important because preparing students to become class-conscious workers is a great way to jump-start militancy. I am experimenting with this idea at my college with the IWW, trying to encourage students to "salt" as in organizing drives now, so they get experience and consciousness that will help them organize later.

I don't think utopia is ushered into being from hard political work and I don't think rebellion is measured by what effects change through demands.

I'm confused by what you mean here, but certainly disagree with the first sentence. Insofar as by "utopia" you simply mean "a better world," then history illustrates this is not true. Every successful union drive or working class action has been sparked, true, by some type of decisive action. But the groundwork is often laid for years before the moment of crisis plays out.

CdL
You wrote of centralism without knowing what it is, who historically developed it and why, etc.

Huh? I know what centralism vs. decentralism is in practice. I guess I don't know what Leninist parties mean when they use that word, but as ShineThePath's confused description of the national structure of SDS has indicated, "centralism" means different things to different people.

7th November 2007, 19:45

They should only call themselves "sds" after they:

1. have organized a major riot
2. have blown up empty federal buildings, police stations and national guard outposts and prisons
3. had drugged up orgies in churches
4. have broken a high profile drug dealer out jail and smuggled him to africa

blackstone

8th November 2007, 18:49

Originally posted by ShineThePath+November 06, 2007 06:41 pm--> (ShineThePath @ November 06, 2007 06:41 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 10:39 pm

That has yet to be established, it was decided upon, but it HASN'T even been set up....largely because of the fact there is no accountable leadership.

I'm not a member of SDS but this seemed off, so i took it upon myself to read SDS's 2007 Final Convention Bulletin.

Ratification: An Experiment
in Participatory Democracy

Under the ratification proposal, which
was passed at the convention, all of the decisions
made at the convention are viewed as
resolutions which are “binding pending ratification”—
meaning that we can implement
or begin to implement the decisions we
made, but that they must undergo the ratification
process, which can challenge those
decisions. The ratification process is the
process by which all decisions made at the
convention will be sent to all active, existing
SDS chapters for approval or rejection. This
process is being carried out by the
Ratification Collections Committee. This
committee was created at the convention
and approved by the present membership to
be an administrative body whose purpose is
to complete all the work necessary to carry
out the process and to collect and tally the
results. The process for enacting and completing
ratification involves several important
steps

The date by which chapters must send
back their ballots—voting for or against
each proposal subject to the ratification
process, or abstaining from voting—is
January 1st. The date by which results will be
compiled, tallied, and posted is February 1st.

So it seems to me that the structure hasn't been implemented because the ratification process,(a process voted upon at the Convention) hasn't been completed yet, not because of a lack of "accountable leadership" as your claim.

Cheers.
Blackstone, that is a very simple way of looking at this....the reality is things take forever in SDS to get along because things are on a voluntary basis. No one is oversighted in anyway, and people take forever to get things done. This "Ratification Committee" has taken months on Conference Calls to even begin getting this to happen.

There is no organizational way of keeping things in line, if things take a month or longer.

This is not to say the people that take these things up are the people responsible for this, no, its the fact there is a complete lack of oversight and demands. These people who volunteer understand that things need to get done in SDS, and a few of them as well understand the lack of a structure to organize action has become problematic, but largely the very reason for the inability to begin organizing this Federation has a lot to do with the slothful pace that we have allowed.

At this point, too, I will be surprised to see SDS actually even ratify the structure. I Personally for one don't think this Structure will succeed because it is absurdly concerned about the form, and has supplanted ultra-democracy for the need to have a good National Organization...this is a concern amongst those who supported the Nested Council System at the Convention.

There are many others that will probably vote it down on the basis of it being too "authoritarian" [/b]
Like i said, i'm not a member of SDS so i can not confirm the irresponsibilities of the "Ratification Committee". You posited that structure hasn't been implemented due to lack of leadership, i brought up official SDS documents showing that ratification of the proposal to be implemented has yet to be completed. Nor hasn't it been completed because of lack of leadership but because the deadline isn't until January!

SDS is a new organization, there are bound to be mistakes and hiccups. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I've been in and ran organizations that were centralized and things still didn't get done!

humbabba

9th November 2007, 08:01

Hi, since you asked, I'm a member of SDS, I started a chapter at my university.

Someone earlier said something about how it might be better to form a Marxist collective instead of an SDS chapter on a campus so one wouldn't have to deal with (i forget the pejorative)

I am sure that would be much more straightforward!

Some communities that might fly better than others of course. My university is in a curiously conservative community, and I think left-leaning liberal anti-war students might be scared off if the organization covers their flyers in hammers and sickles and red stars, but if the unity is in anti-imperialist politics some students come around to revolutionary ideas (hopefully marxist ones!) when they otherwise might not have.

I think there is value in sds and I hope that through experience the organization will learn what angles and techniques are effective. I think tighter organization will be a natural result of this.

ShineThePath

12th November 2007, 03:15

YSR, your approach is incredibly baffling to me. What I have criticized you for is your almost utterly dogmatic way of approaching the use of language and the content of what is being said. Centralism is a word of relative use, it is relative because it depends on the context of when and what you are describing.

IF YOU HAVE A GROUP WITH NO ORGANIZATION, THEN ANY ORGANIZATIONAL FORM IS CENTRALIZATION.

Get over your childish prejudices.

Here is reality, there will be some "paper chapters" that will no longer be chapters. That was a very "authoritarian" position taken up and made by us at the National Convention. We won't have 1-2 man chapters any longer.

If this country reaches a point where a national structure for SDS is incredibly important, incredibly quickly, the revolutionary class will obviously be the working class, not students. There's simply no need for a strong national bureaucracy!

This is absolutely incoherent.

Now lets something to be said of Students and Workers'. And now for REAL political critcism. The fethism that some SDS members, like YSR, put on working class people is utterly disgusting. Firstly, Students are not a homogenous grouping and come from all strata across this country. They have and will be a vital part in organizing revolutionary activity outside of what Trade Unionism does.

Further, the Working Class themselves are not a homogenous group themselves. To say Working Class is going to be the center of revolutionary activity is just an overgeneralization with no meaning, its hollow political rhetoric.

This is why I get sketched out by people demanding a "solid" national structure. Why do we need to do all this work? What's going to happen that's not now? And the inner conspiracy theorist says, obviously, that it's a tool for certain members to exert undue influence over the group. And before you can say "Fourth International," SDS will split if that happens. Because the vast majority of SDSers are absolutely opposed to anyone limiting chapter autonomy or having power over anyone else.

Sketched out? Here is what is "sketchy," people coming in putting out flyers demanding expulsion of members of SDS, claiming to be members of IWW...A speculative association of people said to be "conspiring," Listserves of "anti-authoritarians" kept secret from the rest of SDS to make attacks on women of color, etc. These blanketed ways of trying to isolate people in SDS by a certain grouping of "anti-authoritarians" in SDS is the only thing to me that is 'Sketchy.'

What about the news that one SDS chapter group went into the CAN National Convention and baited ISO?

More that is sketchy.

The only conspiracy is being mapped out by this certain grouping of people with poor politics. I hope for broad Unity, but if your thoughts of Unity are merely me having my voice subordinated to bad Workerist fethist politics, you have another thing coming.

YSR

13th November 2007, 06:44

Originally posted by [email protected]
We won't have 1-2 man chapters any longer.

I should hope we won't have 1-2 woman chapters either!

The fethism that some SDS members, like YSR, put on working class people is utterly disgusting.

What the fuck kind of fetishism are you talking about? I'm saying that the working class is the revolutionary agent in capitalism. What anarcho-communist or Marxist thinker has ever argued differently?

Oh, by the by, you can take your "prolier than thou" attitude elsewhere. First off, credibility games are bullshit, second off, I'm working class, so fuck you.

To say Working Class is going to be the center of revolutionary activity is just an overgeneralization with no meaning, its hollow political rhetoric.

Read some Marx, ese, then come back and talk to me.

Sketched out? Here is what is "sketchy," people coming in putting out flyers demanding expulsion of members of SDS, claiming to be members of IWW...A speculative association of people said to be "conspiring," Listserves of "anti-authoritarians" kept secret from the rest of SDS to make attacks on women of color, etc. These blanketed ways of trying to isolate people in SDS by a certain grouping of "anti-authoritarians" in SDS is the only thing to me that is 'Sketchy.'

I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

P.S. Somehow I doubt there are secret conspiracies of anarchists who get off on attacking women of color. All the anarchists I ever met were pretty committed to liberating humanity. That could just be my perspective though.

Marsella

13th November 2007, 07:00

To say Working Class is going to be the center of revolutionary activity is just an overgeneralization with no meaning, its hollow political rhetoric.

It depends on what revolution.

In the US, and other industrialised countries, the peasantry is non-existent.

In under-developed countries they will may form the basis of the bourgeoisie revolutions.

I think this is explained well here (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1134851903&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&):

Has it escaped your attention that the most reactionary part of any given country's population are always its rural inhabitants?

Rural life has been closely associated with ignorance, superstition, and gross servility from the era of classical antiquity to the present day. It seems to be an "inevitable" attribute of class society.

Marx did not refer to "the muck of rural idiocy" because he liked the sound of the words.

Consider the small peasant land-owner and what he perceives to be in his class interests.

By exploiting the labor of his wife and children, he raises enough food to feed himself and his family; whatever surplus is produced, he takes to a village market and sells to the public...for as much as he can get, of course. The money he acquires may be used to purchase commodities that he cannot "make for himself"...or for the purchase of additional land.

Successful peasants acquire more land...which they must either hire labor to work or else lease the land to landless peasants in exchange for a substantial share of the crop.

In either case, peasant society "naturally" differentiates itself into sub-classes of exploiters and exploited.

With the rise of capitalism, this differentiation accelerated. A successful peasant can become a "food wholesaler" to urban grocery stores and restaurants...transforming himself into a capitalist.

Thus, a portion of the successful peasantry become important supporters of the bourgeois revolution against feudalism...the transition to capitalism allows them "more economic room" as the landed aristocracy is broken up and their great estates "go on the market".

Many poor peasants also support bourgeois revolutions. It's their only chance to escape their genuinely miserable situation by acquiring more land...other than moving to the city, of course.

In the advanced capitalist countries, the only peasantry left are now modern petty-bourgeois or heavily exploited immigrant laborers.

In both cases, they're among the most reactionary portions of the whole population.

How a modern proletarian revolution will handle this situation is not easy to anticipate.

ShineThePath

13th November 2007, 08:02

To begin with YSR, the misuse of my moniker by yourself is childish.

I should hope we won't have 1-2 woman chapters either!

Most likely it is a chapter of two men who "dropped" out of Capitalism...

Are you seriously so petty as to begin baiting for the word "man?"

What the fuck kind of fetishism are you talking about? I'm saying that the working class is the revolutionary agent in capitalism. What anarcho-communist or Marxist thinker has ever argued differently?

You say so with an a priori assumption, why is the "working class" the revolutionary agent in Capitalism? Just because Marx said "workers of the world, unite!" and IWW continues to do organize Workers? Saying to me "working class is the revolutionary agent" is saying nothing to be quite honest, working classes are not homogenous, there are many contradictions amongst the people that needs a better class analysis then "Hail the Workers!"

Further, it isn't hard to see the difference in class analysis amongst people who try to put thought into it. Not even Marx's class analysis is so vulgar (Marx differentiates Proletarian vs. other Working Classes).

Oh, by the by, you can take your "prolier than thou" attitude elsewhere. First off, credibility games are bullshit, second off, I'm working class, so fuck you.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, I am not baiting you about what is your social class. I could be fucking the most Petit-Bourgeois guy on this forum, yours and most Workerist tendencies which have no critical value are still incorrect.

Read some Marx, ese, then come back and talk to me.

Yes because you quite honestly haven't.

1) Marx differentiates Proletariat from the Working Class. The Working Class at it svery base is those who provide the means of their subsistence through selling their labor power. However that doesn't define what the Proletariat. The Proletariat is in the means of production, the class which sells their labor power for its appropriate exchange value; however the labor they perform is exploited because it produces a surplus value.

Here is the difference. A Teacher for example is "working class," but doesn't produce surplus value or surplus product...whereas, lets say, a farm hand does.

2) Marx's point is hardly that the Proletariat IS some how (in some mechanistic fashion) the only ones who can have revolution. His point is that the coming of the Proletariat in the mode of Capitalist production in Europe has at last lifted the final veils of a system which hid the relations of humanity in its accordance the means of production. The Proletariat class arising in Capitalism gives way to the historical nescessary Class Consciousness that comes from it. Proletarian is the Spirit for the Revolutionary Subject.

I am glad you have read Marx YSR, now try to understand him!!

Further an appeal to class analysis from the 19th Century as a way of proving why the "Working Class" can make revolution seems to me a bit Dogmatic to say the least.

P.S. Somehow I doubt there are secret conspiracies of anarchists who get off on attacking women of color. All the anarchists I ever met were pretty committed to liberating humanity. That could just be my perspective though.

I am not saying ALL Anarchists have done this, in fact most of the best people I know who are Anarchists have attacked this. It was a select group of "sketchy" people from the South, but as it stands, have any Marxists within SDS try to bait people, force them out, and try to terrorize them the way a couple of Anarchists have done?

Lastly Martov, are you stuck in the 19th century? Lets look at this a bit historically. When Marx uses the term "idiocy of rural life," unlike your dribble you have posted up suggests, he is speaking of the fact that in Feudal relations, and in its Ideological consequences - up to this point - have covered up the relations in which Power has been vested. That is, the relations of the means of production and relations which ensure its continual existence (State, Cultural, Etc.) are hidden from the people through the formality of its ritual and its isolation.

Idiocy of Rural Life consists in the fact, you just don't recognize the world in Rural Life, there is no macro scale for a Peasant farmer in 14th century Germany.

Now, with the development of Capitalism, as I have already stated these relations are open to see. This allowed the development of a certain class consciousness of social relations. This class consciousness is not an "instinct" of the Proletariat, but a developed subjective political militancy that has a scientific rigor. It is the development of the ideas of "Scientific Socialism" and can be taken up by anyone. This Political Subject, that of the Proletariat, is accessible to all countries despite what their development is.

Especially in the age of Imperialism that purposesly keeps the chains so that Bourgeois Revolution can never develop in the same way it had done in Western Europe, it is only the Socialist model that can liberate it.

Further this idea is of "undeveloped countries" needing to go through "Bourgeois Revolutions" is inherently Eurocentric and racist. A reading of Marx that today is either dogmatically Trotskyist or treating Marx in the most vulgar of ways.

YSR

14th November 2007, 08:10

First off, my name-calling would be childish if you didn't have your username celebrating brutal murderers. But as it is, you do, so I feel childishness is just the beginning.

Further an appeal to class analysis from the 19th Century as a way of proving why the "Working Class" can make revolution seems to me a bit Dogmatic to say the least.

Careful comrade, your ideology is showing.

Interestingly, my reliance on the term "working class" as the center of revolutionary theory springs mostly from my reading of Toni Negri and Harry Cleaver, two very late 20th century thinkers.

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion with you. Your "oh-so-advanced theoretical level" boils down to uselessness. We live in a modern world, where the traditional industrial proletariat is no longer the only group of workers that is important. The fetishization (see, I can use this word too!) of the industrial working class over other workers is "so last century."

ShineThePath

17th November 2007, 08:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:10 am
First off, my name-calling would be childish if you didn't have your username celebrating brutal murderers. But as it is, you do, so I feel childishness is just the beginning.

Further an appeal to class analysis from the 19th Century as a way of proving why the "Working Class" can make revolution seems to me a bit Dogmatic to say the least.

Careful comrade, your ideology is showing.

Interestingly, my reliance on the term "working class" as the center of revolutionary theory springs mostly from my reading of Toni Negri and Harry Cleaver, two very late 20th century thinkers.

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion with you. Your "oh-so-advanced theoretical level" boils down to uselessness. We live in a modern world, where the traditional industrial proletariat is no longer the only group of workers that is important. The fetishization (see, I can use this word too!) of the industrial working class over other workers is "so last century."

I HOPE MY IDEOLOGY IS SHOWING, THAT IS THE POINT!

Second, my name celebrates revolutionaries who struggled in Peru for over two decades and had a legacy of Liberation and Revolution. This is merely a liberal tactic on your part, and obviously shows your empty gestures at actual dialogue.

Now on who you have read, I don't quite care, you have yet to actually put any analysis toward the working class. Just citing people and their relevance shows me you heard a name, not that you have any thorough-going analysis of your own or understood theres.

Also on this same point, it seems you have completely missed the point of what I said and have created a Red Herring to cover up your own indefensible views. Did I say anything about the "Industrial Workers?" No, I spoke about the differences between Proletariat v. other workers. Proletariat /=/ Industrial Workers, though for Marx industrial workers were mainly Proletarian.

Your own confusion though brings more light to the fact that workers' are not homogenous.

On the same note though, about fethishization of "Industrial Workers" (I was speaking of ALL workers though), if it is so passé , why do you continue to work with Industrial Workers of the World?

I think IWW has obviously moved beyond its name (Starbucks Workers) in form, but however its politics has not.

Forward Union

17th November 2007, 12:52

Shinethepath, please stop calling people liberals, children or whatever. Or I'll just lock the discussion, because these snipes always lead to more and more bickering, . Same goes to everyone else, don't respond to him/her in a similar manner. This is ment to be a forum for constructive discussion.

Industrial Workers of the World?

You do know that an industrial worker is any worker who works in an industry. That could be anything from farming and logging, to computer technitians and office workers. Infact, I can't think of a form of work that isn't industrial.

Apart from workers who are unemployed, all workers are industrial workers, and the IWW specicially states that it allows the unemployed to join.

IF YOU HAVE A GROUP WITH NO ORGANIZATION, THEN ANY ORGANIZATIONAL FORM IS CENTRALIZATION.

Only in a very loose/non political sense. If by centralise we mean "to cluster around a center" then any organisation, even an anarchist one, clusters around it's core politics. But it wouldn't have a central decision making body, which is what we mean by "centralisation"

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th November 2007, 13:17

But it wouldn't have a central decision making body, which is what we mean by "centralisation"

Who's we?

RedJacobin

17th November 2007, 17:07

Originally posted by William [email protected] 17, 2007 12:52 pm
Shinethepath, please stop calling people liberals, children or whatever. Or I'll just lock the discussion, because these snipes always lead to more and more bickering, . Same goes to everyone else, don't respond to him/her in a similar manner. This is ment to be a forum for constructive discussion.
And attacking someone's username is supposed to be constructive discussion?

As for the term "liberal," there is nothing wrong with calling people what they are.

Condemning revolutionary movements, no matter how flawed, as "brutal murderers" or (in another thread) "anti-peasant," a sign that one has done little to no investigation on the subject, sure seems like a hallmark of know-nothing liberalism to me.

YSR

17th November 2007, 17:39

Originally posted by RedJacobin+--> (RedJacobin)Condemning revolutionary movements, no matter how flawed, as "brutal murderers" or (in another thread) "anti-peasant," a sign that one has done little to no investigation on the subject, sure seems like a hallmark of know-nothing liberalism to me.[/b]

So we should just blindly support anyone who says they're revolutionaries? Fuck that. Shining Path is reactionary. If someone's username is a celebration of them, I'm certainly not gonna allow that shit to pass without making a comment. Maybe it was a bit inappropriate in this discussion, but my comments were 100% true.

ShiningPath
why do you continue to work with Industrial Workers of the World?

Oh lawl. We've totally departed from the topic, but I will direct you to this basic explanation of industrial unionism, which may clear up some of your confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unionism

Industrial unionism does not have anything inherently to do with factories.

RedJacobin

17th November 2007, 18:44

Originally posted by YSR+November 17, 2007 05:39 pm--> (YSR @ November 17, 2007 05:39 pm)
RedJacobin
Condemning revolutionary movements, no matter how flawed, as "brutal murderers" or (in another thread) "anti-peasant," a sign that one has done little to no investigation on the subject, sure seems like a hallmark of know-nothing liberalism to me.
So we should just blindly support anyone who says they're revolutionaries? Fuck that. Shining Path is reactionary. If someone's username is a celebration of them, I'm certainly not gonna allow that shit to pass without making a comment. Maybe it was a bit inappropriate in this discussion, but my comments were 100% true.[/b]
No, you judge whether or not an organization is revolutionary by its ideology, policies, and practice, and recognizing that within a given necessity, mistakes will be made, because revolution is not a dinner party. Simply asserting that something is "100% true" doesn't make it so, especially when that certitude (based on what? faith in anti-communist stereotypes?) is a stand-in for actual investigation.

black magick hustla

17th November 2007, 21:03

The SDS section of my university is composed by a student and a faculty advisor. :lol:

Comrade Rage

17th November 2007, 21:31

Originally posted by ShineThePath+November 17, 2007 03:24 am--> (ShineThePath @ November 17, 2007 03:24 am)
Careful comrade, your ideology is showing.

I HOPE MY IDEOLOGY IS SHOWING, THAT IS THE POINT! [/b]
Oh really? I've never noticed it. :rolleyes:

Your name is Shine the Path and your avatr looks like a guy from the Shining Path.

Geez... it's all starting to make sense! :P

ShinethePath
I think IWW has obviously moved beyond its name (Starbucks Workers) in form, but however its politics has not.
What do you mean? The IWW is always out there organizing workers in agriculture, the service industry, etc.

ShineThePath obviously knows nothing about my union, as he is making the same tired mistake of thinking the IWW is only about organizing in the factories.

The IWW is all about organizing workers from all different industries--NOT dividing them. One Big Union!

STP, time to start learning about the IWW. I doubt any revolutionary, despite their politics, will disagree with it's mission, and what they say.
IWW . ORG (http://www.iww.org)

Oh, and STP, let me clear up another misconception people have about the IWW--EVERYONE EVERYONE of all political stripes is welcome, the Union does not limit itself to anarchists, etc. and neither do we advocate a party line.

We simply believe in worker self-management of industry through democratic, solidarity unionism.

ShineThePath

18th November 2007, 01:08

I think everyone have misread my statements. Let me clear up what I have stated about IWW, I don't think they only organize Industrial Workers. I made that clear with the example of Starbucks workers, however their politics haven't changed from the beginning of the century.

On this particular point, while I agree IWW does good work, I don't want to organize with them and I don't agree with their vision and the role of Unions.

Sorry if people were confused, I was not jabbing at what work IWW does, but I am criticizing their politics.

Originally posted by "William Everend"+--> ("William Everend")You do know that an industrial worker is any worker who works in an industry. That could be anything from farming and logging, to computer technitians and office workers. Infact, I can't think of a form of work that isn't industrial. [/b]

So all workers are "Industrial Workers?" Then what is the need of calling them "Industrial Workers?" This is a foolish and ahistorical notion. "Industrial" is a term synomous for point of production of commodities, it isn't my Professor...he isn't an Industrial Worker.

This just shows very simple and foolish class analysis.

Now I understand certain differences between Industrial and Craft Unionism; however that was not my point to criticize one or the other methodology. My point was historically IWW first focused on heavy Industrial centres, which is not a bad thing, but their approach and politics have yet to develop to approach the changing developments from the end of the period of Industrialization to the larger development of Service Economies.

Comrade Crum
Oh, and STP, let me clear up another misconception people have about the IWW--EVERYONE EVERYONE of all political stripes is welcome, the Union does not limit itself to anarchists, etc. and neither do we advocate a party line.

I understand that Com. Crum, and I know quite a few sympathetic Socialists within IWW, and obviously now a Hoxhaist. However let us be quite clear on who in IWW dominates its politics.

The same is true of other mass organizations like SDS, but there are quite clearly always political trends which have a certain hegemony of these groups.

ShineThePath

18th November 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by YSR
So we should just blindly support anyone who says they're revolutionaries? Fuck that. Shining Path is reactionary. If someone's username is a celebration of them, I'm certainly not gonna allow that shit to pass without making a comment. Maybe it was a bit inappropriate in this discussion, but my comments were 100% true.

So YSR, can you please tell me then how Sendero Luminos became a popular rebellion amongst Peasants if they had no connection to them? How did an organization based in the country side of Peru grow with no Imperialist support and aid, and yet the Peruvian state had to resort to going under Fujimori's militarist state and creating death squads?

What is exactly a "100%" true of your statements?

kasama-rl

18th November 2007, 20:42

I think it is very important for any radical student movement to be(come) internationalist -- at least in the sense of constantly struggling to understand and politically support the revolutionary struggles of the world. It needs to have a real anti-patriotic flavor and militancy. Unapologetic opponents of the empire!

We all know that the media of this country pretty automatically portrays all struggles (especially around the world) as ugly, inhumane, needlessly bloody etc.

And one of the most important things that ANY radical movement has to confront is the auto-pilot verdict that new revolutionary societies are impossible. Revolutionaries are portrayed as "Pol Potist" and "terrorist" and "totalitarian" and "out of step with history" and so on.

So while we shouldn't automatically support anyone, or support anything in a kneejerk way, certainly we should have an open mind to movement the U.S. media have dissed -- especially when they are radical, popular, revolutionary and secular (!).

Some student movements (including in particular ISO) deal with this by taking distance from any communist movements around the world ("Oh, those guys are stalinist and have nothing to do WITH US.") IMHO this bows before (and in that way may even reinforce) anti-communism instead of opposing it. And more importantly, it doesn't actually grasp the important and positive nature of several key communist movements, past and present.

Since so much energy in the world is eaten up by Islamic fundamentalism -- which is (imho) reactionary in many ways. I think we should pay attention to those movements that exist which are different.

Needless to say, Maoism has given rise to some of the most important mass revolutionary movements in the world today: including in Peru (1980-92), India (from Naxalbari uprising until today), Philippines, and especially Nepal (where the maoists may well try to take power soon).

If we are going to have a real, radical student movement in the U.S., how can it NOT take such movements seriously! And I think the debate over them should be principled -- meaning: let's not start with simplistic or anti-communist rejection!

Obviously the new SDS is different from the old SDS. And we don't need to be constantly looking back over our shoulders. But... the most important turning point of the "old SDS" was when they broke with anti-communism and started to grasp the (then-shocking and forbidden) fact that the revolutionaries of Vietnam were the "good guys" and the U.S. invaders were the "bad guys." In other words moving toward a politics that really opposed and understood this system and what it does and who is fighting it.

manic expression

19th November 2007, 17:16

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 18, 2007 08:41 pm
And one of the most important things that ANY radical movement has to confront is the auto-pilot verdict that new revolutionary societies are impossible. Revolutionaries are portrayed as "Pol Potist" and "terrorist" and "totalitarian" and "out of step with history" and so on.

So while we shouldn't automatically support anyone, or support anything in a kneejerk way, certainly we should have an open mind to movement the U.S. media have dissed -- especially when they are radical, popular, revolutionary and secular (!).

Some student movements (including in particular ISO) deal with this by taking distance from any communist movements around the world ("Oh, those guys are stalinist and have nothing to do WITH US.") IMHO this bows before (and in that way may even reinforce) anti-communism instead of opposing it. And more importantly, it doesn't actually grasp the important and positive nature of several key communist movements, past and present.
Precisely. This is what I've been trying to say for awhile.

The same is true of other mass organizations like SDS, but there are quite clearly always political trends which have a certain hegemony of these groups.

But this is what I feel is wrong with SDS. It's a patchwork of different ideologies, some of them very much opposed to one another. Can that work at all? I'm still skeptical. Hopefully I can get to one of the coming conventions and see how it works in reality.

kasama-rl

19th November 2007, 18:49

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2007 05:15 pm

The same is true of other mass organizations like SDS, but there are quite clearly always political trends which have a certain hegemony of these groups.

But this is what I feel is wrong with SDS. It's a patchwork of different ideologies, some of them very much opposed to one another. Can that work at all? I'm still skeptical.

A thoughtful question. Here is what I think:

All major human endeavors and movements are a patchwork of different ideologies.

Even a future socialist state will have struggle between ideologies. Even a leading revolutinary party is not "monolithic" -- as we can learn from the study of history.

And certainly we need movement that draw in people -- who want social change but are still rather untrained and inexperience -- and that will inevitably mean that any living radical and revolutionary movement will be filled with turmoil and struggle over ideas and program.

This is not something to be skeptical of, or to fear -- it is something to embrace and 'HANDLE WELL".

We need to think about the Maoist process of "unity struggle unity" -- where you start with an initial basis of unity, and then struggle over differences with the goal and outcome of arriving at a new and higher level of unity.

And we also need to pay attention to the approach of "unity, struggle, transformation" -- where we are all open to transformation, learning new things and deepening our understandings in the course of a collective struggle to uncover truth.

What else could this process of change look like?

Could we ever begin with the same ideology? how would that work? And if everyone had the same ideology in order to 'get in" how would the larger process unfold?

Even when it looks like we have "the same ideology" -- you will discover that there are different views (both now, and more as the experience unfolds).

So again: we should embrace this, live with it, learn to struggle through differences to unite more and more people around higher and higher levels of common understanding....

that's an important part of what preparing minds and organized forces for revolution looks like.

manic expression

27th November 2007, 05:58

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 19, 2007 06:48 pm
A thoughtful question. Here is what I think:

All major human endeavors and movements are a patchwork of different ideologies.

Even a future socialist state will have struggle between ideologies. Even a leading revolutinary party is not "monolithic" -- as we can learn from the study of history.

And certainly we need movement that draw in people -- who want social change but are still rather untrained and inexperience -- and that will inevitably mean that any living radical and revolutionary movement will be filled with turmoil and struggle over ideas and program.

This is not something to be skeptical of, or to fear -- it is something to embrace and 'HANDLE WELL".

We need to think about the Maoist process of "unity struggle unity" -- where you start with an initial basis of unity, and then struggle over differences with the goal and outcome of arriving at a new and higher level of unity.

And we also need to pay attention to the approach of "unity, struggle, transformation" -- where we are all open to transformation, learning new things and deepening our understandings in the course of a collective struggle to uncover truth.

What else could this process of change look like?

Could we ever begin with the same ideology? how would that work? And if everyone had the same ideology in order to 'get in" how would the larger process unfold?

Even when it looks like we have "the same ideology" -- you will discover that there are different views (both now, and more as the experience unfolds).

So again: we should embrace this, live with it, learn to struggle through differences to unite more and more people around higher and higher levels of common understanding....

that's an important part of what preparing minds and organized forces for revolution looks like.
Thanks for the reply.

Perhaps I should have phrased my concerns differently: the problem isn't that there are simply too many ideologies, it goes far deeper than that. The real issues is a unified program. Read the SDS National Convention publication; I defy you to find a cohesive, constructive program that has true potential. I couldn't and I read it twice.

Secondly, different ideologies can and should work together. This is something I believe. What I also believe, however, is that this can also be a recipe for stagnation if not combined with cohesion. If we get everyone from the democratic socialists to the anarchists to the marxists, does that form the roots of a vanguard? I doubt it.

Again, I'm still very receptive on SDS, I'd like to see them prove my criticisms wrong. We'll see.

Anyway, it sucks that I can't get to the NE SDS Convention this weekend. Is anyone else going? If so, try to fill us in on how it went.

redcannon

28th November 2007, 07:37

i just dropped in on this thread and i read the beginning posts. i'm glad to hear that the SDS is a completely dead organization. I've always admired what they did back in the day, I'm happy to here that they haven't been converted to some meaningless reformist organization (like so many others have)

i'm going to college soon (though i don't know which one) maybe they'll have a branch.

kasama-rl

28th November 2007, 15:12

I think it is worth identifying the different (but intertwined) things that a revolutionary student movement aims to accomplish:

a) students as student: mobilizing fellow students as an important and influential force in society to struggle against the system and its crimes -- campaigns among students, student strikes and teachins against the war, contingents to the mass resistance, exposing and protesting ruling class reactionaries who come to campus.

b) students as carriers of radical ideas and movement: spread radical ideas off campus by connecting students with the surrounding communities and especially oppressed youth. Organizing teach-ins in nearby highschools... leafletting. etc. Mobilizing other students to do research, do exposure, make our skills and information available broadly in society (especially among the oppressed).

c) students as emerging revolutionary cadre: serving as a school for revolutionaries: training ourselves to become communists and be the core of a future revolution. Part of that is starting to think and act as representatives of the oppressed, and as representatives of a liberated future within the present, and starting to take seriously training and organizing ourselves in ways that go beyond this moment or this place.

All three of these are important in their own right.
And one way to measure any organization among students is how (and how much) it is able make progress on these different tasks.

manic expression

4th December 2007, 02:39

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 28, 2007 03:11 pm
I think it is worth identifying the different (but intertwined) things that a revolutionary student movement aims to accomplish:

a) students as student: mobilizing fellow students as an important and influential force in society to struggle against the system and its crimes -- campaigns among students, student strikes and teachins against the war, contingents to the mass resistance, exposing and protesting ruling class reactionaries who come to campus.

b) students as carriers of radical ideas and movement: spread radical ideas off campus by connecting students with the surrounding communities and especially oppressed youth. Organizing teach-ins in nearby highschools... leafletting. etc. Mobilizing other students to do research, do exposure, make our skills and information available broadly in society (especially among the oppressed).

c) students as emerging revolutionary cadre: serving as a school for revolutionaries: training ourselves to become communists and be the core of a future revolution. Part of that is starting to think and act as representatives of the oppressed, and as representatives of a liberated future within the present, and starting to take seriously training and organizing ourselves in ways that go beyond this moment or this place.

All three of these are important in their own right.
And one way to measure any organization among students is how (and how much) it is able make progress on these different tasks.
Yes, that's all well and good, but any organization provides such things. The problem is SDS' line, which seems to favor liberalism and anarchism as much as possible. I swear, if I ever find a passage from SDSwiki or NLN or the convention that contains a hint of Marxism, I'll reconsider, but that hasn't happened yet.

And plus, all my previous points about impotence and disunity still stand IMO. If you have communists and anarchists and liberal sociologist majors fighting over an organization, how much can it really do?

That being said, does anyone know what went down at the NE Convention?

YSR

4th December 2007, 05:25

Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 28, 2007 09:11 am
I think it is worth identifying the different (but intertwined) things that a revolutionary student movement aims to accomplish:

a) students as student: mobilizing fellow students as an important and influential force in society to struggle against the system and its crimes -- campaigns among students, student strikes and teachins against the war, contingents to the mass resistance, exposing and protesting ruling class reactionaries who come to campus.

b) students as carriers of radical ideas and movement: spread radical ideas off campus by connecting students with the surrounding communities and especially oppressed youth. Organizing teach-ins in nearby highschools... leafletting. etc. Mobilizing other students to do research, do exposure, make our skills and information available broadly in society (especially among the oppressed).

c) students as emerging revolutionary cadre: serving as a school for revolutionaries: training ourselves to become communists and be the core of a future revolution. Part of that is starting to think and act as representatives of the oppressed, and as representatives of a liberated future within the present, and starting to take seriously training and organizing ourselves in ways that go beyond this moment or this place.

All three of these are important in their own right.
And one way to measure any organization among students is how (and how much) it is able make progress on these different tasks.
YARG!

This whole thing leaves out the ONLY way of theorizing students that actually matters:

Students as workers-in-training.

I don't want to be a "representative of the proletariat". I am a member of the proletariat!

4th December 2007, 18:12

Perhaps I should have phrased my concerns differently: the problem isn't that there are simply too many ideologies, it goes far deeper than that. The real issues is a unified program. Read the SDS National Convention publication; I defy you to find a cohesive, constructive program that has true potential. I couldn't and I read it twice.

Secondly, different ideologies can and should work together. This is something I believe. What I also believe, however, is that this can also be a recipe for stagnation if not combined with cohesion. If we get everyone from the democratic socialists to the anarchists to the marxists, does that form the roots of a vanguard? I doubt it.

Again, I'm still very receptive on SDS, I'd like to see them prove my criticisms wrong. We'll see.

The goal isn't, then, to shun these groups, but to work within them in order to guide them towards a materialist outlook and a Marxist perspective. Breaking from these groups and shunning them is throwing away a very valuable political tool.

YARG!

This whole thing leaves out the ONLY way of theorizing students that actually matters:

Students as workers-in-training.

I don't want to be a "representative of the proletariat". I am a member of the proletariat!

One can be a member of the proletariat as well as a "representative of the proletariat" (i.e. a member of the proletarian vanguard; a communist).

blackstone

4th December 2007, 18:37

Why stop there, let the mostly white male SDS be the representatives of women and people of color too!

manic expression

4th December 2007, 19:44

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 04, 2007 06:11 pm
The goal isn't, then, to shun these groups, but to work within them in order to guide them towards a materialist outlook and a Marxist perspective. Breaking from these groups and shunning them is throwing away a very valuable political tool.
Understand that it's not like there's an SDS group down my street that I can join. If there were a chapter here, I'd work in it, but there isn't. I would have to rebuild the chapter here myself, and I don't think it's worth it for the reasons given. Also, the reason their politics annoy me so much is because I WANT them to be something they have no interest in being.

Back to the larger issue: How is SDS a "very valuable political tool"? Is it because there are a lot of people in it? Is it because they have vaguely "radical" ideas? Beyond that, I see very little reason to consider them valuable. I'd take 10 Bolsheviks over 100 Second Internationalists if you get what I mean.

Plus, how does one go about bringing them to a Marxist perspective if they embrace the idea that Marxism is "old left" (as if ideologies go out of style like clothes or something :rolleyes: )? We might as well try to bring the Democratic Socialist party to a Marxist perspective, although that probably won't go anywhere either.

I'd love to see SDS get a serious analysis, but most of their rhetoric sounds like it came straight from an intro to sociology class. If I tried to present a communist program, I'd probably do more harm than good anyway. I'd much rather put my energy towards working with a Marxist organization, no matter how undermanned it may be.

4th December 2007, 20:25

Why stop there, let the mostly white male SDS be the representatives of women and people of color too!

Because workers can't be communists. :rolleyes:

And because "white males" can't understand the dynamics of sexism or racism in class society. :rolleyes:

Take your identity politics elsewhere.

Back to the larger issue: How is SDS a "very valuable political tool"? Is it because there are a lot of people in it? Is it because they have vaguely "radical" ideas? Beyond that, I see very little reason to consider them valuable. I'd take 10 Bolsheviks over 100 Second Internationalists if you get what I mean.

No, I know what you mean. But, to be completely honest, I don't know enough about the political character of the SDS as a whole to back up my statement. I was basing it off of the local chapter here mostly, so I could be mistaken.

Plus, how does one go about bringing them to a Marxist perspective if they embrace the idea that Marxism is "old left" (as if ideologies go out of style like clothes or something rolleyes.gif )?

Where'd they state that?

YSR

4th December 2007, 21:06

Take your identity politics elsewhere.

In Soviet Russia, class reductionism take you elsewhere!

manic expression

4th December 2007, 21:53

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 04, 2007 08:24 pm
No, I know what you mean. But, to be completely honest, I don't know enough about the political character of the SDS as a whole to back up my statement. I was basing it off of the local chapter here mostly, so I could be mistaken.

Plus, how does one go about bringing them to a Marxist perspective if they embrace the idea that Marxism is "old left" (as if ideologies go out of style like clothes or something rolleyes.gif )?

Where'd they state that?
I understand. I'm basing my view off of what I get from the national organization (resolutions passed at the convention) and one of the listservs, so my perspective is limited as well. However, I really don't see SDS coming to Marxism anytime soon (I hope to be proven wrong).

On the "old left", I've heard SDSers say that sort of thing a few times, I can dig them up for you if you want.

YSR (on edit)

In Soviet Russia, class reductionism take you elsewhere!

:rolleyes:

5th December 2007, 02:18

In Soviet Russia, class reductionism take you elsewhere!

Don't you have some Marxist theory to vulgarize?

Oh wait, you're doing it right now. :wacko:

YSR

5th December 2007, 06:16

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 04, 2007 08:17 pm

In Soviet Russia, class reductionism take you elsewhere!

Don't you have some Marxist theory to vulgarize?

Oh wait, you're doing it right now. :wacko:
Nope, just some to take the good bits from and throw the crap away. That's the beauty of being a rebel, I don't take party line from even the gods of the left. You should try it, might strengthen your analysis.

ShineThePath

5th December 2007, 06:41

Soviet Class reductionism?

YSR, you obviously have little understanding of ML(M) Theory and evry bad understanding at Marxism at that.

First of all let me question this idea that Students are "workers in training." What an absurdity and an obvious distortion, Students are not just "workers" waiting to be molded, and this in its very form the "class reductionism" you are attacking and your workerist spin. Students are not a monolithic homogenous group, the education that students receieve will be putting them in various areas of divisions of labor.

Doesn't this sound like PLP 1969?

This is just the meat of the issue.

Further, what are you talking about Soviet Class Reductionism? The history of MLM is that it has always recognized Imperialist system and the relation of oppressed nations and oppressor nations. Further in its historical development it has recognized other forms of oppression and exploitation as intergral to what is Capitalism.

It was actually vulgar autonomous Marxists and Anarchists who continued to treat the question of National Oppression amongst others as mere instrumentalities to Class Exploitation. It has yet to be the problem of known Communists witht he big 'C' in SDS to have this tendency, it has however on the other side been the tendency of some self identified anti-authoritarians.

Before you go self-righteous, look within your own movement.

sonofbakunin

5th December 2007, 07:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:36 pm
Why stop there, let the mostly white male SDS be the representatives of women and people of color too!
Yeah, the lack of people of color is somewhat alarming, and says a lot about the left in general moreso than anything specific about SDS, IMO. I'm not too convinced that SDS is mostly male, but that's just judging by the convention and my own local chapter. Male dominance is a problem that may need to be addressed. The number of women by my account isn't a problem, but their role is. Hopefully both of these things will change, and people of color and women should continue to assert themselves and call out bullshit whenever they see it.

But when some radical who likes getting off on their own political line (activists inside and outside of SDS in general, not you specifically) tries to tell me that I'm not working class just because I go to college, I can only hope that their fantasy will carry over to my real-world-life after graduation when I get to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in loans for a basic public university education.

People need to stop romantically fetishizing the working class into something so abstract that they can't even recognize it when they look it in the face. We're everywhere, and some of us are even smart enough to make it into college (especially those of us dumb enough not to realize that we can't afford it!)!

manic expression

5th December 2007, 13:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:15 am
Nope, just some to take the good bits from and throw the crap away. That's the beauty of being a rebel, I don't take party line from even the gods of the left. You should try it, might strengthen your analysis.
Have fun being a self-proclaimed "rebel", because it's the only thing you'll ever be able to accomplish.

ShineThePath

5th December 2007, 16:46

Originally posted by sonofbakunin+December 05, 2007 07:37 am--> (sonofbakunin @ December 05, 2007 07:37 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 06:36 pm
Why stop there, let the mostly white male SDS be the representatives of women and people of color too!
Yeah, the lack of people of color is somewhat alarming, and says a lot about the left in general moreso than anything specific about SDS, IMO. I'm not too convinced that SDS is mostly male, but that's just judging by the convention and my own local chapter. Male dominance is a problem that may need to be addressed. The number of women by my account isn't a problem, but their role is. Hopefully both of these things will change, and people of color and women should continue to assert themselves and call out bullshit whenever they see it.

But when some radical who likes getting off on their own political line (activists inside and outside of SDS in general, not you specifically) tries to tell me that I'm not working class just because I go to college, I can only hope that their fantasy will carry over to my real-world-life after graduation when I get to pay back tens of thousands of dollars in loans for a basic public university education.

People need to stop romantically fetishizing the working class into something so abstract that they can't even recognize it when they look it in the face. We're everywhere, and some of us are even smart enough to make it into college (especially those of us dumb enough not to realize that we can't afford it!)! [/b]
Ummm, I guess I have to say as a Latino and Working Class kid, I am not concerned as much that People of Color are not as many as they should be in SDS. The reality of these things is that national student organizations that are political and open to all shades will be always dominated by White students from liberal arts colleges, especially private ones. What I have to say is White students need to organize themselves, we're a mass organization, and when people are going to schools where it is 97% White...what do you expect?

We live in a country where a black male has a better chance to be in Prison than in College.

Now I just have to say something particular here toward Students and Working Class. Simply put forward being a Student doesn't make someone Working Class. It is very complex.

For example myself, I come from a Working Class family. Students are not monolithic, we are not just training to be Workers...what would be the point of higher education if this was the case? We would just take up Union apprenticeships. Are there Working Class students, yes in so much as they come from Working Class families. Are Students workers? If the criterion of student being a worker is they will be becoming future workers, then no. That seems to me just a neat excuse for White males to have a caucus.

manic expression

5th December 2007, 16:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:45 pm
That seems to me just a neat excuse for White males to have a caucus.
Why are there caucases anyway? It's a political organization, work toward a common goal and forget about other people's backgrounds and genders. This insistence on identity politics is one of the reasons I see SDS so cynically.

YSR

5th December 2007, 19:32

Originally posted by ShinethePath+--> (ShinethePath)Students are not monolithic, we are not just training to be Workers...what would be the point of higher education if this was the case?[/b]

The vast majority of students become workers. Education has become part of the life of the modern worker. Go to high school, go to college, go to tech school, go to night school. Education is an incredibly important part of the modern economy. Dismissing its role is misunderstanding the fact capitalism has evolved tremendously in the last 50 years.

Are Students workers? If the criterion of student being a worker is they will be becoming future workers, then no.

Don't you have to work to get through school? I certainly do.

That seems to me just a neat excuse for White males to have a caucus.

As a member of the Working Class caucus, I fear that you are sometimes right. During college, most students earn less than even workers. There's not a whole lot of direct oppression that comes from being working class in SDS, except elements of classist discrimination which periodically pop up.

manic expression
It's a political organization, work toward a common goal and forget about other people's backgrounds and genders.

"We're a color-blind society, just forget about other people's backgrounds and genders."

Sound familiar?

manic expression

5th December 2007, 19:53

Originally posted by YSR+December 05, 2007 07:31 pm--> (YSR @ December 05, 2007 07:31 pm)
manic expression
It's a political organization, work toward a common goal and forget about other people's backgrounds and genders.

"We're a color-blind society, just forget about other people's backgrounds and genders."

Sound familiar? [/b]
So rejecting petty and counterproductive identity politics is equal to social conservatism and Plessy vs Ferguson?

You're a posterchild for why SDS is so lost.

Having a caucus and dividing people into groups does nothing to further our movement, it concentrates energy on things that scarcely exist. If you're afraid of women being shut out of a group by some innate patriarchical hardwiring, what are you doing with that group in the first place? If you work together like a group and have genuinely open discussions, you won't have sexism in that organization. It's really that simple. Furthermore, if you're fretting over how many minorities are or are not in your organization, you're asking all the wrong questions. Members shouldn't be treated as tokens to make you feel like you treasure diversity. SDS is stuck in sociology class, it keeps holding onto liberal views of "equal oppression", when it is ALL based in class society.

Then again, what do I know? You're the "rebel" here. Keep your identity politics of victimization, maybe that'll undermine capitalism. :rolleyes:

5th December 2007, 21:25

Nope, just some to take the good bits from and throw the crap away. That's the beauty of being a rebel, I don't take party line from even the gods of the left. You should try it, might strengthen your analysis.

:o

You're so rebellious!

:rolleyes:

Soviet Class reductionism?

YSR, you obviously have little understanding of ML(M) Theory and evry bad understanding at Marxism at that.

First of all let me question this idea that Students are "workers in training." What an absurdity and an obvious distortion, Students are not just "workers" waiting to be molded, and this in its very form the "class reductionism" you are attacking and your workerist spin. Students are not a monolithic homogenous group, the education that students receieve will be putting them in various areas of divisions of labor.

PWNT!

Yeah, the lack of people of color is somewhat alarming, and says a lot about the left in general moreso than anything specific about SDS, IMO. I'm not too convinced that SDS is mostly male, but that's just judging by the convention and my own local chapter. Male dominance is a problem that may need to be addressed. The number of women by my account isn't a problem, but their role is. Hopefully both of these things will change, and people of color and women should continue to assert themselves and call out bullshit whenever they see it.

Maybe SDS should set up some "diversity principles".

:lol:

The vast majority of students become workers. Education has become part of the life of the modern worker. Go to high school, go to college, go to tech school, go to night school. Education is an incredibly important part of the modern economy. Dismissing its role is misunderstanding the fact capitalism has evolved tremendously in the last 50 years.

Your statement was that students become workers-in-training, implying that students become workers. Not that the "vast majority" become workers. If you are going to stand by your statement then do so; if not then admit your statement was flawed. But don't attempt both.

Don't you have to work to get through school? I certainly do.

You've got to be kidding me.

"We're a color-blind society, just forget about other people's backgrounds and genders."

Sound familiar?

Oh please. You can't equate group organization with society in general. That's just fucking ridiculous. And I shouldn't have to remind you that it is you that support the bourgeois liberal notion of "diversity".

black magick hustla

6th December 2007, 00:11

I don't think SDS just focusing on students is bad though. The class issue is very important, but considering most students work part time, I doubt its a good idea for them to put so much emphasis in organizing the "workplace".

The SDS wasnt a communist organization,

The historical SDS was made up mostly of working class students (at least that is what Bill ayers said lol)

YSR

6th December 2007, 06:57

Originally posted by Zampano+--> (Zampano)Your statement was that students become workers-in-training, implying that students become workers. Not that the "vast majority" become workers. If you are going to stand by your statement then do so; if not then admit your statement was flawed. But don't attempt both.[/b]

Well, I live in the United States, which is where SDS exists. And here, yes, most students go on to become "skilled" workers. Some become bourgeois. But the purpose of higher education (just like all other types of education) is to impart ideology and train students to be good workers/consumers/etc.

How many Americans go to college? 39% of adult Americans have been in higher education. Do you think that 39% of America is capitalist class? Somehow I don't.

Originally posted by ShinethePath+--> (ShinethePath)Students are not a monolithic homogenous group, the education that students receieve will be putting them in various areas of divisions of labor.[/b]

Clearly. Within the division of labor. A small proportion will become capitalists. The majority will enter the workplace, at different places. So organizing/theorizing around the question of class is a really good idea for SDS. If you're serious about building a class conscious organization, then shaking all of this bullshit about how every college student is so damn privileged that they can't do anything blah blah blah is really important!

Originally posted by Zampano
You can't equate group organization with society in general. That's just fucking ridiculous. And I shouldn't have to remind you that it is you that support the bourgeois liberal notion of "diversity"

manic [email protected]
If you work together like a group and have genuinely open discussions, you won't have sexism in that organization. It's really that simple.

Your ignorance of feminism is astounding. Have you learned nothing from the failures of the old SDS and most of the New Left in general? Oppression doesn't just disappear when you walk into a revolutionary group. If it did, there never would have been a feminist movement within the Left. Oppression is built into us, socially enforced at all stages.

Listen, I didn't buy it either, until some of my female comrades called me out in a meeting for acting in patriarchal and sexist ways. I stepped back, and said "woah. If my comrades are telling me something, I should respect that." I don't think that anti-oppression is the same as identity politics.

Where did I say that I support "diversity"? I support members of my organization being aware of, and organizing to counteract, their privilege. I support organizing amongst groups that are under-represented in SDS. We can't claim to speak for all students if we're a bunch of white students. If that's "diversity," then all those posters with MLK that encouraged diversity that they put up in my middle school were really subversive and radical! But I doubt it.

ShineThePath
Soviet Class reductionism?

YSR, you obviously have little understanding of ML(M) Theory and evry bad understanding at Marxism at that.

Well, first off, if you're a Maoist, then you clearly don't either. Second off, I have enough knowledge of Leninism to dismiss it as a gigantic failure. So that's that.

I have no idea what "Soviet Class reductionism" means. But "class reductionism" is the tendency to reduce all oppression to problems of class, which is what people who dismiss anti-oppression organizing as "identity politics" are doing.

It was actually vulgar autonomous Marxists and Anarchists who continued to treat the question of National Oppression amongst others as mere instrumentalities to Class Exploitation. It has yet to be the problem of known Communists witht he big 'C' in SDS to have this tendency, it has however on the other side been the tendency of some self identified anti-authoritarians.

1. Anarchists have a far more sophisticated analysis of National Oppression then the Leninist "U.S.=bad, everyone else=good". The problem is that our analysis requires a lot more effort than just supporting hellish dictatorships in the third world, which means that our work is not always as instantly visible. It's also, in the long term, way more effective. This is something the movement is starting to get its gears going on.

2. A lot of people on the left are guilty of class reductionism. But I can honestly say that the anarchists are the least guilty. Some anarchists, who are influenced less by Marx, don't emphasize class oppression a great deal, and therefore could never be class reductionists. (I am not one of these anarchists.)

3. I'm not talking about the 5 of you in the organization who are Leninists. I'm talking about Zampano and manic expression. So calm down, big C.

6th December 2007, 07:06

Well, I live in the United States, which is where SDS exists. And here, yes, most students go on to become "skilled" workers.

Most but not all, yes.

Your ignorance of feminism is astounding. Have you learned nothing from the failures of the old SDS and most of the New Left in general? Oppression doesn't just disappear when you walk into a revolutionary group.

I don't think I said that it did. You just built a straw man that we pointed out, and now you are attempting to do the same thing.

Second off, I have enough knowledge of Leninism to dismiss it as a gigantic failure. So that's that.

Apparently not, according to your next statement:

1. Anarchists have a far more sophisticated analysis of National Oppression then the Leninist "U.S.=bad, everyone else=good".

I suggest you check out the post (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73843&view=findpost&p=1292428540) I made in the "communist nationalism" thread in the Learning forum, which outlines the position of Marxists on the subject of "anti-imperialism" and working with other classes and groups. It is quite different than the Maoist position, which you are incorrectly attributing to Lenin.

YSR

6th December 2007, 20:48

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)Oppression doesn't just disappear when you walk into a revolutionary group.[/b]

Zampano
You can't equate group organization with society in general. That's just fucking ridiculous.

6th December 2007, 22:59

Oppression doesn't just disappear when you walk into a revolutionary group.
I don't think I said that it did.
You can't equate group organization with society in general. That's just fucking ridiculous.

Exactly.

Are you going to address my point on imperialism and national liberation movements or not?

blackstone

19th December 2007, 23:01

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 04, 2007 03:24 pm

And because "white males" can't understand the dynamics of sexism or racism in class society. :rolleyes:

They don't. Sorry to break it to you. But if it makes you feel more progressive by thinking so, then continue being the representatives of the Black people who make less than 2% of your organizations membership. :rolleyes:

Ummm, I guess I have to say as a Latino and Working Class kid, I am not concerned as much that People of Color are not as many as they should be in SDS. The reality of these things is that national student organizations that are political and open to all shades will be always dominated by White students from liberal arts colleges, especially private ones. What I have to say is White students need to organize themselves, we're a mass organization, and when people are going to schools where it is 97% White...what do you expect?

That really doesn't answer the question. In Predominately White Institutions across the country their exists large groups of black organizations that are political. In my experiences Blacks have been more political and vocal on issues on campus than other minorities or whites.

So why now aren't black people in SDS? Come on, you know you wanna say it...

manic expression

24th December 2007, 01:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:00 pm
They don't. Sorry to break it to you. But if it makes you feel more progressive by thinking so, then continue being the representatives of the Black people who make less than 2% of your organizations membership. :rolleyes:
So a white male is incapable of understanding racism and sexism in our society? If that's the case, then I have a modest proposal: let's just exclude white males from our organizations, since they are obviously such a challenge to working class politics. :rolleyes:

In case no one told you, white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism. Of course, most don't, but this means absolutely nothing, and this would be clear to anyone who thought about it for 5 seconds. The fact that the majority of white males, an insanely broad demographic in the first place, almost all of whom are not leftists, do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant. Most blacks, most latinos, most women, most minorities, most non-white-males do not fully understand racism or sexism, much less the machinations of bourgeois society. What does this matter? That's right, it doesn't. Sit down and try again.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to drop this insistence on identity politics and concentrate on our goals. Racism and sexism are undeniably rooted in capitalist society. White males are more than capable of fighting capitalism itself. It's the inexplicable arguments of identity that split our movement and divert energy to the holy cause of finger pointing. Just stop.

And on a lack of minority membership of leftist organizations, I'd say that minorities have been a vitalizing force in many of the groups I have experience in. Anyway, at this point, I'd be happy to see ANYONE get involved in revolutionary politics.

blackstone

27th December 2007, 14:07

In case no one told you, white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism. Of course, most don't, but this means absolutely nothing, and this would be clear to anyone who thought about it for 5 seconds. The fact that the majority of white males, an insanely broad demographic in the first place, almost all of whom are not leftists, do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant.

I found this statement funny. You said "white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism" and "the fact that the majority of white males...do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant."

LOL!

White males are perfectly capable of understanding racism and sexism, but the fact that most of them don't is completely irrelevant!

Great way to making it not an issue,comrade.

I feel safe knowing your my representative and have my best interest at heart. :wub:

manic expression

28th December 2007, 13:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:06 pm
I found this statement funny. You said "white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism" and "the fact that the majority of white males...do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant."

LOL!

White males are perfectly capable of understanding racism and sexism, but the fact that most of them don't is completely irrelevant!

Great way to making it not an issue,comrade.

I feel safe knowing your my representative and have my best interest at heart. :wub:
Did you deliberately misunderstand me, or did you just refuse to think about it? Either way, you're completely wrong (not to mention arrogantly so).

Most people, regardless of ethnicity, gender and upbringing, do not fully grasp racism and sexism. White males are not alone in this, and to single out this large demographic (as you have) is as counterproductive as it is ignorant.

Here it is, let's see if you can bring yourself to actually grasp an argument:

Most white males do not understand racism or sexism. Many other white males do.

Most PEOPLE do not understand racism or sexism. Many other people do.

If you're in the same situation as last time, don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out, just let me know and I'll draw you a picture.

blackstone

28th December 2007, 13:46

Originally posted by manic expression+December 28, 2007 08:26 am--> (manic expression @ December 28, 2007 08:26 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 02:06 pm
I found this statement funny. You said "white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism" and "the fact that the majority of white males...do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant."

LOL!

White males are perfectly capable of understanding racism and sexism, but the fact that most of them don't is completely irrelevant!

Great way to making it not an issue,comrade.

I feel safe knowing your my representative and have my best interest at heart. :wub:
Did you deliberately misunderstand me, or did you just refuse to think about it? Either way, you're completely wrong (not to mention arrogantly so).

Most people, regardless of ethnicity, gender and upbringing, do not fully grasp racism and sexism. White males are not alone in this, and to single out this large demographic (as you have) is as counterproductive as it is ignorant.

Here it is, let's see if you can bring yourself to actually grasp an argument:

Most white males do not understand racism or sexism. Many other white males do.

Most PEOPLE do not understand racism or sexism. Many other people do.

If you're in the same situation as last time, don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out, just let me know and I'll draw you a picture. [/b]
I'm going to ignore the above post, because obviously, you ignored mine.

So i'll just restate, and you can start over.

QUOTE

In case no one told you, white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism. Of course, most don't, but this means absolutely nothing, and this would be clear to anyone who thought about it for 5 seconds. The fact that the majority of white males, an insanely broad demographic in the first place, almost all of whom are not leftists, do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant.

I found this statement funny. You said "white males are perfectly capable of grasping racism and sexism" and "the fact that the majority of white males...do not understand racism or sexism is completely irrelevant."

LOL!

White males are perfectly capable of understanding racism and sexism, but the fact that most of them don't is completely irrelevant!

Great way to making it not an issue,comrade.

But like i said, if it makes you feel more progressive by thinking you understand racism or sexism or can understand it more fully than those who experience it, then continue on Super Communist. :)

manic expression

29th December 2007, 09:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:45 pm
I'm going to ignore the above post, because obviously, you ignored mine.

So i'll just restate, and you can start over.
I didn't ignore your post, you just want to pretend that I did so you don't have to face facts. Sorry, but your point is worthless.

One more time:

Most people do not understand racism or sexism, white males included. However, that does not mean they are incapable of understanding these problems.

Quit dodging the argument and make one of your own.

KurtFF8

16th January 2008, 05:39

kasama-rl

16th January 2008, 09:07

i am curious why you would take such expulsion as your focus. Do you have a moment to explain that more fully?

RaÃºl Duke

16th January 2008, 10:30

Just an update, I have helped organize and SDS chapter in my school indeed (having moved from just talking about it) and we have held a couple of meetings (with decent turnout of about 15 people each meeting and it seems to be growing) and we are currently working with other organizations to organize a march to oppose the fact that the Florida delegates in the presidential primaries have been expelled (all for the Dems and half for the GOP)

Curiously, I heard that the GOP got rid of their penalties for the Florida delegates of their early primary.

However, the dems have penalized the Florida primary as irrelevant (no Florida delegates).

Not that it matters to me since I'm not registered to vote.

KurtFF8

20th January 2008, 03:21

Curiously, I heard that the GOP got rid of their penalties for the Florida delegates of their early primary.

However, the dems have penalized the Florida primary as irrelevant (no Florida delegates).

Not that it matters to me since I'm not registered to vote.

As far as I understand it, the GOP still has half of its delegates expelled and the dems indeed have all of their delegates expelled as well.

i am curious why you would take such expulsion as your focus. Do you have a moment to explain that more fully?

I wouldn't say that it is "our focus" although we are taking up the issue. Of course this would bring up the "working within the party vs not participating in the party" argument, but many of us feel that we should be able to participate in the primaries to help choose who will get the Democratic nomination, that way, whether we vote for a democrat in the election or not, we still had some say in the election process (where the Democratic primaries are all proportional representation which in my opinion is much more Democratic than winner take all). We feel that the expulsion of the delegates disfranchises voters in the state and is quite undemocratic and it has caused quite a lot of discontent in the state.