Anti-Communist Purges Within SDS?

[Mindtoaster]

I'm not a Maoist, but if they start doing this I'm sure it will spread to barring Marxist-Leninist and maybe even anarchists eventually.

Hoping to join the NCU-Ashville chapter next year myself.


Kasama republished an interview with Rachel Haut (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sds-the-problem-of-democracy/) — which was a thinly disguised call for an anti-communist purge within SDS, coupled with a political program of pressuring Obama and the Democrats (based on the assumption that they are more open to such pressure).
Rachel’s sweeping attack on a number of diverse political forces included the following:
“I believe that Maoism is in opposition to a democratic society, and thus their position or reason for being in SDS is opportunist. We are attempting to build a student movement not a Maoist movement.…we don’t have a mechanism to be able to say to somebody: “you are not interested in building a democratic society and you are not welcome in this organization.” To put that on that table, but to have no way of questioning it would be premature, or possibly dangerous.”
I think that the attack on Maoism from people like Rachel Haut should be answered by revolutionaries speaking clearly about what they are FOR.
As several have said correctly: there is glaring hypocrisy here — where rachel advocates suppressing discussion and purging people, all in the name of “democracy.” (And we have to ask, as an aside, where Laura Roja and Platypus (http://www.platypus1917.org/) itself stand, as they first solicit and then publish this call for an anti-communist purge in SDS? Laura’s postscript to the interview was nervous but completely unclear on the matter of raw anti-communism.)
But, the point is that it is necessary to go far beyond the exposure of liberal hypocrisy. There needs to be a speaking out about what the program, beliefs and activities of revolutionary communists are today — to speak about preparing for revolution, seeking to reach socialism, organizing the overthrow of imperialism, uprooting the oppression of Black people and immigrants within the U.S., about initiating a revolutionary fight for sustainable human activity within the biosphere, and shattering gender oppression.
All of that stands in contrast to the tepid politics of pressuring Obama (whether gently or rudely, loyally or critically).
Different Currents, Different Instincts
clearly, on these matters of revolution and communism, it has to be noted that there are stark differences between those people being targeted (collectively) as Maoists.
RedFlag noted (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sds-the-problem-of-democracy/#comment-6392):
“There were three groupings with tables and members at the SDS confab that have developed out of (something like) Maoism: the two FRSOs and Kasama.”
There is a strong current within both Freedom Road Socialist Organizations toward supporting Obama (and the Democrats, despite all the crimes of their imperialist politics (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sds-the-problem-of-democracy/#comment-6405) past, present and future). And so, some associated with those FRSO’s may have trouble pointing out the connection between Rachel Haut’s anti-communism and her softness on Obama.
Further if your politics is supportive of a Breshnev-style society or China today (as I believe characterizes “FRSO Fight Back (http://www.frso.org/)“) — then you have pretty much declared you don’t have any radical vision to explain or fight for.
And if your methods can be described as “putting in long hours doing the dullest and most skill-intensive kinds of work to assist social movements in having a bigger and better impact” (as Redflag characterizes “FRSO/OSCL (http://www.freedomroad.org/)“) — well, then your deep instincts cause you to shy away from any open fight for communist politics, for revolutionary perspectives. Even if that fight is BROUGHT TO YOU — in the midst of a liberal whoooosh toward Obama.
I think the young reds within SDS should cruise straight into the waters and accusations stirred by Rachel Haut. Not mainly to refute Rachel Haut (and others conducting “whispering campaigns”) — but to define THEMSELVES publicly, to critique the very system we are rising up against, and to win others to that uprising.
Rachel is merely and crudely expressing the most tired mainstream politics from within SDS. And if there isn’t an ongoing fight for something truly radical within SDS then where will it start?
In some ways, the declarations of a Rachel Haut are a god-send, a gift. They demand of the different forces within SDS that they each speak in their own name — that they declare what their various agendas are, what their emerging vision of society is, their vision of SDS, their vision for “the student movement,” their critique of Obama, electoral democracy, and this fuck-up society generally.
This world needs a revolutionary youth movement. If our politics are not shocking and provocative — if they are not heart-felt and passionate — if they are not truly revolutionary and profoundly serious — then what is the point?
In short, I think that there needs to be a powerful and persuasive argument made for revolution, for a new socialist society — not for some vague line of “fight back” or “building the movement.” In fact, within all the vague talk of “build a student movement” there has to be a vigorous, creative, growing, substantive, long-term debate over “movement for what.”
Revolution, socialist transition, classless communism, liberation, anti-imperialism, internationalism, and the central role of the oppressed in transforming society — these are things that need to be championed and engaged.


http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/needed-a-revolutionary-response-to-red-baiting-in-sds/

[Winter]

I'm not a Maoist, but if they start doing this I'm sure it will spread to barring Marxist-Leninist and maybe even anarchists eventually.

Hoping to join the NCU-Ashville chapter next year myself.



http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/needed-a-revolutionary-response-to-red-baiting-in-sds/

Very unfortunate. Reactionaries and reformists are everywhere. Like the article says, this is clearly opportunist. What are they to gain by barring Marxists? The same slave-master relationship we've been subjected to our whole lives.

[Mindtoaster]

Very unfortunate. Reactionaries and reformists are everywhere. Like the article says, this is clearly opportunist. What are they to gain by barring Marxists? The same slave-master relationship we've been subjected to our whole lives.

They can kiss the asses of some of the more reactionary liberals.

This really pisses me off to no end, especially since SDS is one of the strongest leftist organizations in the US.

[Raúl Duke]

At least from what I heard about the old SDS, it would be pretty hard to "purge" people unless every chapter decides to purge willingly. Not sure how the new SDS is run in comparison.

Yet I find this ironic in a sense...since Maoism is held as one of the factors of the old SDS's collapse. Maybe the new SDS read that up in the history of the old SDS and some thought about acting first to avoid the same fate.

[The Douche]

There can be no purge in SDS, each chapter would individually have to decide to remove its maoists. I would be suprised if this was extended to all revolutionaries, I know some of the people who helped SDS get started and they are anarchists, I've met some of the people who (at least a few years ago) were heavily involved in SDS and they were anarchist. And wasn't it just like two years ago where SDS formed what turned out to be the bulk of the most militant bloc at a protest in DC, the one where they "stormed" (aka walked up the steps) of the capitol building?

[JimmyJazz]

Rachel’s sweeping attack on a number of diverse political forces included the following: “I believe that Maoism is in opposition to a democratic society, and thus their position or reason for being in SDS is opportunist. We are attempting to build a student movement not a Maoist movement.…we don’t have a mechanism to be able to say to somebody: “you are not interested in building a democratic society and you are not welcome in this organization.” To put that on that table, but to have no way of questioning it would be premature, or possibly dangerous.”If she gets her way, I hope the organization is honest enough to rename itself Students for a Parliamentarian Society.

[YSR]

This is so fucking pathetic I can't even begin to talk about it.

A tiny tiny sectarian grouplet, Freedom Road Socialist Organization - Fight Back, which focuses on building a "popular front" by taking over liberal organizations, has been active in SDS. They dominate maybe 3 chapters around the country. Everyone in the organization is tremendously wary of them, because of their history of take-overs and general weirdness. Basically, Rachel called them out for their authoritarian politics and now every member of their organization is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy her reputation. Well, fuck that. I live in the Twin Cities, where FRSO is active, and I can tell you personally that Rachel is a better organizer by herself than their whole organization.

Mindtoaster may be an "undecided leftist" but he/she should know that UNC Asheville is one of the three chapters of SDS controlled by FRSO-FB! If ze's just "accidentally" dropping their name, then I'll eat my hat.

The ultra-authoritarians in SDS have begun a very public attempt to normalize their politics and practice by publicly targeting those who have opposed them. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of them taking their campaign of defamation outside of our organization to the general public.


I'm not a Maoist, but if they start doing this I'm sure it will spread to barring Marxist-Leninist and maybe even anarchists eventually.

You speak of red-baiting but engage in the same kind of speculation and assumption of bad intentions that you accuse Rachel of. Lame shit.


Like the article says, this is clearly opportunist. What are they to gain by barring Marxists?

That's bullshit. She suggested excluding FRSO. I don't personally agree with her (I think we can out-organize them instead) but she's not suggesting excluding all Marxists. The majority (in my experience) of SDSers are very influenced by Marx, even if they choose to call themselves anarchists or other labels.


Yet I find this ironic in a sense...since Maoism is held as one of the factors of the old SDS's collapse.

We're not the same organization and I have zero sympathy for the legacy of sectarian Maoism on the left.

[Q]

Forgive my Dutch ignorance, but what is the SDS?

[Mindtoaster]

You speak of red-baiting but engage in the same kind of speculation and assumption of bad intentions that you accuse Rachel of. Lame shit.





Calm the fuck down, I pulled this off a website that was linked on Digg and posted it so someone could better explain it to me.

I think it should be pretty understandable that, as a communist, when I ran across an article about a figurehead within a leftist group I'm joining recommending the barring of some of its communist members, I became a tad disturbed.

I admittedly don't know much about the situation, so bear with me. Its why I posted this in the first place.

[YSR]

My bad, Mindtoaster. I assumed you were feigning ignorance to further the agenda of the ultra-authoritarians within SDS. No offense intended if that's not what you were doing.

[Mindtoaster]

My bad, Mindtoaster. I assumed you were feigning ignorance to further the agenda of the ultra-authoritarians within SDS. No offense intended if that's not what you were doing.

No problem

I'm not an authoritarian either. I float between anarcho-syndicalism and what I guess would be considered libertarian Marxism.

[Winter]

FRSO (Fight Back) Responds to Red-Baiting in SDS (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/frso-fight-back-responds-to-red-baiting-in-sds/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on September 14, 2008
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/frsologo.jpg?w=300&h=85 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/frsologo.jpg)We have discussed this red-bating on Kasama:: SDS:Ideology, Agenda and Raw Anti-Communism (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sds-the-problem-of-democracy/) and Needed: Revolutionary Response to Red-Baiting in SDS (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/needed-a-revolutionary-response-to-red-baiting-in-sds/) by Mike Ely. This latest response comes from supporters of the group known as Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight-Back) (http://frso.org/). Kasama posts this, not as any endorsement of the following views, but because the issues addressed are important and interesting.
SDS: Study and struggle, unite and fight! (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/sds-study-struggle-unite-fight.htm)

By Kati Ketz, Tracy Molm, and Kosta Harlan (for the Student Commission of Freedom Road Socialist Organization)
We in Freedom Road Socialist Organization were disappointed to read Rachel Haut’s September 2008 interview with the Platypus project on “the present and future of SD (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sds-the-problem-of-democracy/)S”. Freedom Road members work very hard to maintain Students for a Democratic Society as a strong, fighting organization that benefits from its ideological plurality while remaining united practically by radical, anti-imperialist activism. Unfortunately Rachel Haut, an SDS organizer in New York, said a few things to give us pause. We would like to take this opportunity to address those points here, because we think the things Rachel says have the potential to undermine some of SDS’s core principles. Mainly, we are concerned with the mistaken notion that FRSO wants to `take over’ SDS. We also want to address Rachel’s statement that “Maoism is in opposition to a democratic society” and that “it is inappropriate to have conversations about ideological differences when we still have Maoists in the organization”. Rachel says she will not `condone’ FRSO members being in SDS, and is, in effect, calling for all Marxist-Leninists to be purged. We think this sort of sectarianism is and has been a detriment to SDS as a whole. These are big issues, and we can’t deal with them thoroughly here. But we think a conversation is needed and that people in SDS should talk to us about these things, whether they agree or disagree with us.

What is Freedom Road’s agenda in SDS?

A few people think Freedom Road’s `agenda’ in SDS is to `take over’ and turn this radical and vibrant student organization into something we direct and control in an undemocratic way. Anybody who has spent any time working with us can see that this is not the case. Members of FRSO have been working in SDS since the first National Convention in Chicago back in 2006. What have we been doing? We have organized militant local chapters. We organized against the war in Iraq, for immigrants’ rights, labor solidarity, in defense of the Jena Six, and more. We are all involved in a lot of local work, and while doing that, we worked hard to build national campaigns. In 2007 and 2008 members of Freedom Road were in the lead of SDS’s work around opposition to the 4th and 5th anniversaries of the U.S. war against Iraq. This led to actions on more than 80 campuses in 2007 and on 90 campuses in 2008, many of which were not associated with SDS before. Through this and other work we’ve brought many new activists and student groups to radical politics and into SDS. We helped organize student contingents in major national marches and we also helped to organize the 2007 and 2008 National Conventions in Detroit and Maryland, and the 2008 SDS Action Camp in Asheville. We have always participated in an honest and straightforward way in SDS’s agreed- upon democratic processes and have never worked to undermine them or to marginalize others in SDS. It is the same for our members who work in the antiwar movement, the trade unions, the immigrants’ rights movement, in the movements of oppressed nationalities, and in the poor people’s movement. We will continue to work in this way.

What then is Freedom Road’s `agenda’ in SDS? Our larger strategy is available for all to see on our website – Class in the U.S. and Our Strategy for Revolution (http://frso.org/about/5congress/class.htm). That strategy is the United Front against Monopoly Capitalism. Furthermore, in all the work that we do, we try to keep in mind three revolutionary objectives:

Harm the enemy and win all that can be won for the people. Raise the level of consciousness, organization, and struggle of the mass organizations we work in. Win the advanced fighters to Marxism-Leninism and build organization for revolution. That should be straightforward enough. We believe that all three of those objectives are at the core of how we need to formulate revolutionary tactics.

Furthermore, we think that the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples is the principle contradiction on a world-scale. We think the Iraq war, where U.S. imperialism is tied down by the armed Iraqi people, is the main front of this contradiction. Put simply, we think the Iraq war is central to the political situation in this country. We see the contradiction between U.S. imperialism and the sovereignty and self-determination of the Iraqi people as playing a determining role in relation to all other contradictions in society. We also believe that, despite all of its shortcomings and problems, the antiwar movement has tremendous potential for SDS. So to that end, much of our work in SDS is centered on the war in Iraq. In that regard, our `agenda’ is best expressed in our 2007 statement, The Movement Against the War In Iraq: A New Period and Our Tasks (http://frso.org/about/statements/2007/antiwartasks2007.htm). The core of that `agenda’ is keeping the demand for `troops out now’ at the forefront of the movement. In addition, we see raising an anti-imperialist pole in the antiwar movement, along with raising the social costs of the war, as tasks of major importance.

We came to these conclusions through a process of practice, summation, analysis, criticism and self-criticism, guided by Marxism- Leninism.

Why we are Marxist-Leninists

Rachel Haut says,
“I think it is inappropriate to have conversations about ideological differences when we still have Maoists in the organization.”

We see this as an open invitation to have just such a conversation. Therefore, we’re going to take this opportunity to say a few things about Marxism-Leninism and about the contributions of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Revolution.

We see Marxism-Leninism as a science, drawing from and synthesizing the great contributions of political economy, philosophy, and socialism that came before it. In this era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, Marxist-Leninists have made revolutions all around the world. Marxism-Leninism was an inspiration and a weapon in the hands of our predecessors. The same can be said today as it is used as a tool for liberation by working and oppressed people around the world, in Palestine, Colombia, Nepal, the Philippines, and here at home. We use Marxism-Leninism to analyze conditions and formulate strategies and tactics to act and change those conditions.

Two points are made by Rachel Haut regarding Marxism-Leninism: first, Rachel says it is opposed to democracy; second, she says it is irrelevant.
Marxist-Leninists have a particular understanding of democracy and the State and how democracy relates to class structures in society. We understand very well that in capitalist society, `democracy’ means that only the rich and powerful get a say. There is a lot of unity in SDS around this view, so we won’t dwell on it. The goal of socialism is at its very core related to this question of class and democracy. We think working people make society run, and should therefore run society. We think this demands revolutionary change. It is as simple as that. We think this is a million times more democratic than the bourgeois `democracy’ of the Republicans and Democrats. We hope that Rachel Haut is not being duped by tired old McCarthyite lies about `communist totalitarianism’ just because that’s what the ruling class teaches in their high school civics classes. That certainly isn’t what we intend, and we don’t think that accurately characterizes the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, or the other socialist countries.

As for its relevance, the track record of Marxism-Leninism speaks for itself. The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnam war of national liberation and the dozens of national liberation movements that ended colonial rule, the hundreds of millions of people who found a way out from the misery imposed on them by imperialism, the establishment of socialism in over a third of the globe – all this did not fall out of the sky, but was in large part thanks to the heroic efforts of communist militants organized into revolutionary parties that creatively applied Marxism to their specific conditions. As for the 21st century, the overthrow of the Nepalese monarchy – a revolution at the roof of the world – was not an accomplishment of bourgeois democrats. This victory was paid for in blood by thousands of Nepalese communists, whose self-sacrifice, perseverance, and correct political practice allowed their small guerrilla movement to empower millions in the overthrow of the oppressor, and who are now moving forward in building a humane society in one of the poorest countries on earth.

In sum, it is the direct opposite of what our modern day anti- communists claim: nothing could be more relevant to the present political situation than Marxism, for as long as imperialism exists, the need for revolution is present, and to make revolution, there must be a communist party that applies Marxism to its particular situation.

On the contributions of Mao Zedong

Because Rachel Haut characterizes us as `Maoists’ we feel compelled to dwell on the place of Mao Zedong in all of this. We do not think that Mao Zedong was an infallible genius, nor do we think that he was solely responsible for the successes of the Chinese Revolution. Mainly that victory belongs to the Chinese people, but the communists helped to give form to their demands, and to carry out the revolution in strategic way that ultimately brought about success.

We in Freedom Road draw a great deal from the work of Mao Zedong. He made great contributions to revolutionary strategy and tactics for Third World liberation struggles, in particular his theory of protracted people’s war and New Democratic revolution. We think his formulation of the Mass Line, a method of leadership that involves learning from masses as you move forward, is central to success. We have a document on our website concerning this: Some Points on the Mass Line (http://frso.org/about/docs/frsomassline.htm). Mao also contributed to Marxism-Leninism in his understanding of various contradictions in society, and how they interrelate. These are major issues for all revolutionaries. Finally Mao fought against some of the mistaken ideas that were put forward at various times by others in the socialist camp, including the Soviet Union. He led the fight against modern revisionism, which pretends to ‘revise’ Marxism while in truth undermining Marxism’s basic revolutionary principles. In general the anti-revisionist struggle helped Marxist-Leninists clarify a number of pressing theoretical and practical issues.

Unity and Struggle in SDS
“We are not a vanguard,” Rachel says, regarding SDS. We are in agreement. For some reason that is unclear to us, Rachel Haut seems to think that we want to change this fact. What have we ever said or done to make anyone think that we want to make SDS into a `vanguard’, by which we assume she means something like a democratic-centralist, Marxist-Leninist organization? We have never said or done anything that should give her or anyone else that impression. By implying the contrary she is only trying to stir up trouble. FRSO has existed for more than twenty years. All this time we have worked in mass organizations, student groups, trade unions, and so on. We have always worked to strengthen those organizations, help them fight, win victories, and grow stronger. We have always been champions of real democracy, and have never tried to command the masses in a top-down way. Our work in SDS is no different.
We are opposed to ideological purges in SDS. We think SDS benefits from being a `big tent’ of different ideological tendencies. To this end Mao once said,

“You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will not win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by employing the method of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.”

We appreciate our friends and allies in SDS who, though they may not agree with us on everything, have defended us against attacks and have stood up against sectarianism. For that we are thankful. Sectarianism is harmful to SDS. It has created mistrust and provided fertile soil for damaging rumors and flat out lies. It can be used to sow division and undermines real democracy. We have found it damaging on several occasions to the hard work that we all do.

We think it is a good thing that anarchists, social-democrats, Marxists, and other radical Leftist ideological tendencies can coexist in SDS. We think this gives SDS its vibrancy and energy. We have gained valuable lessons and experience from working alongside of so many different political views in one organization. We think that as SDSers we have far more to unite us than divide us, and that at the core of our unity is practical struggle. Because despite our differences almost all of us can unite around this fact: we are out to fundamentally transform the social relations that exist in this country - to overthrow capitalism and empower oppressed and working people.

[KurtFF8]

It's sad that SDS is already going through this type of thing again. Compared to the original org. it's happening quite early (although obviously the nature and situations in which the two were founded are different).

I suppose this type of intra-SDS fighting was inevitable, but it's just frustrating to see another leftist organization falling into the cliche sectarianism that hurts the left overall so much. Especially considering that we are coming up on an opportunity to truly rebuild "the movement" in the West with the way economics are moving and how imperialism continues to advance and become more obvious to the masses.

I'm not suggesting we all just "get along." There's unfortunantley no answer to the intra-leftist fighting as there are some fundamental disagreements (e.g. Maoism vs Anarchism).

Lets just hope that SDS remains and grows and doesn't fall victim to the same fate as the last SDS.

(And of course as a Marxist, lets hope that it doesn't become an anarchist organization ;) ) <--joke

[DiaMat86]

There is a a great article on SDS from the PLP perspective. Go to plp.org and on the left margin about half way down is a link to the article. What it really shows is the right wing characteristics of "Revolutionary Nationalism". You can see the source of the current problems in SDS pretty clearly.

[Winter]

There is a a great article on SDS from the PLP perspective. Go to plp.org and on the left margin about half way down is a link to the article. What it really shows is the right wing characteristics of "Revolutionary Nationalism". You can see the source of the current problems in SDS pretty clearly.

Here's the link to the article: http://plp.org/web_supplement/sdsnplp.html

[KurtFF8]

There is a a great article on SDS from the PLP perspective. Go to plp.org and on the left margin about half way down is a link to the article. What it really shows is the right wing characteristics of "Revolutionary Nationalism". You can see the source of the current problems in SDS pretty clearly.

I think that article is actually problematic though. It spends a lot of time equating the Weathermen to the "right wing reactionaries of SDS". They failed to turn that claim into any sort of thought out argument providing any reasons though.

They also take out of context Mark Rudd's quote to try to say that the Weathermen were "FBI agents" of some sort.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid criticisms of the Weathermen or their involvement in late SDS politics (I mean they are responsible for dissolving SDS after all), but the PLP's article on the subject is kind of weak in my opinion.

[Kal98]

Students for (Bourgeois) Democratic Society?

[Kal98]

I think that article is actually problematic though. It spends a lot of time equating the Weathermen to the "right wing reactionaries of SDS". They failed to turn that claim into any sort of thought out argument providing any reasons though.

They also take out of context Mark Rudd's quote to try to say that the Weathermen were "FBI agents" of some sort.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid criticisms of the Weathermen or their involvement in late SDS politics (I mean they are responsible for dissolving SDS after all), but the PLP's article on the subject is kind of weak in my opinion.
Well in terms of strategy the Weatherman did alot of work for rallying reactionary feelings in the general public.

[KurtFF8]

Well in terms of strategy the Weatherman did alot of work for rallying reactionary feelings in the general public.

Well this is why I clarified in my post that there certainly are valid criticisms of the Weathermen. For example their strategy was indeed flawed in my opinion. I mean this should be pretty obvious as their goal was to gain popular support when instead they were alienated obscured, and when people of the "masses" did hear about them, they generally had a negative view of them.

That doesn't mean that what they were trying to do was flawed, just that their actual strategy for accomplishing what they were trying to do was.

[DiaMat86]

PLP's article on the subject is kind of weak in my opinion.


In what way is this weak? Politically? What else have you read about the period? The article refers to other books, etc.. Have you looked at those?

Mark Rudd said he did the work of the FBI for them. Is it too far off for other people in the movement to believe he was cops? After all you are what you do not what you say. He did not go to prison for his activities when apprehended. I am not saying he was, but people may have assumed that. One of the reasons Weathermen were considered the right wing reactionaries in SDS is their close relations with the Black Panthers and other nationalist groups. These groups have a racist and nationalist line. Did you read what the Panthers said at the convention? Revoltingly sexist.

These attacks on the Freedom Road appear similar to what split SDS 1.0. I hope both sides keep cool heads.

[bayano]

Firstly, Platypus is a super sectarian group in Chicago that themselves moved to take over as much of the Chicago SDS as they could, and have purged any number of Marxists from their ranks, though they are themselves some form of marxists. some of the folks i knew who were purged are totally peaceable, connected to no leninist group or other group with the intention of taking over. as in, folks were banned. so if platypus is supporting a push to purge maoists, they are doing it out of the opportunism of combatting the maoist and maoist-inspired SDSers in chicago and so they can have C-O-N control (forgive me, a clash reference)

as for Fight Back, it is fairly small and operates in only a handful of cities, including asheville, chicago, the twin cities, and la. but ill be frank, i have a lot of comrades in it (i have a lot of comrades in everything cuz im antisectarian as fuck), and some of them are very strong organizers. why, theyve multiple times won the election of Teamsters local 743 and run that 13000 member union after wresting it from some gangsters. ive seen them do plenty of good organizing, just as ive seen them be as weird as any other group of members of any other leninist party. but there are some very good folks in fight back, and theyve been connected to the new SDS since its inception, supporting it in at least a few of those cities while no other such group did.

thats right, im anti-sectarian to the core, 'mano!

[KurtFF8]

In what way is this weak? Politically? What else have you read about the period? The article refers to other books, etc.. Have you looked at those?

Mark Rudd said he did the work of the FBI for them. Is it too far off for other people in the movement to believe he was cops? After all you are what you do not what you say.


Yes it's quite a stretch. That quote of his is taken way out of context. Especially if you watch him saying similar things in other interviews (I think he also says something along these lines in the documentary The Weather Underground).

His point was that, by getting so violent, the Weathermen gave the FBI a reason to come after them with "any means". He wasn't saying that he helped make the weathermen violent so the FBI would do this but he is saying that as a result of the Weathermen turning violent, the FBI went after them even harder.

This is his argument and why he regrets what the Weathermen did. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, only that for the PLP to point to quotes like that and say "see, he was working for the FBI!" or that this shows that they were somehow right-wing reactionaries is quite a stretch.

[bcbm]

Mark Rudd said he did the work of the FBI for them. Is it too far off for other people in the movement to believe he was cops? After all you are what you do not what you say.

He said the Weatherman in general did that. Were they all cops? Of course not. And those who were uh, we would've found out about via the release of various COINTELPRO files I'm sure. He also probably wouldn't still be saying their analysis was correct, be an active Marxist-influenced individual and trying to drum up support for the new SDS either. Most infiltrators disappear real quick.


One of the reasons Weathermen were considered the right wing reactionaries in SDS is their close relations with the Black Panthers and other nationalist groups. These groups have a racist and nationalist line. Did you read what the Panthers said at the convention? Revoltingly sexist.

Quotes please, and how were the BPP racist?

[DiaMat86]

He said the Weatherman in general did that. Were they all cops? Of course not. And those who were uh, we would've found out about via the release of various COINTELPRO files I'm sure. He also probably wouldn't still be saying their analysis was correct, be an active Marxist-influenced individual and trying to drum up support for the new SDS either. Most infiltrators disappear real quick.



Quotes please, and how were the BPP racist?

The rest of this is posted in the History section. This is what happened on the floor of the convention. The BPP contingent was brought in by the weathermen clique :



"Blacks have the right to self-determination," he shouted. Immediately the hall rang with cheers. "I’m gonna tell you motherfuckers, blacks have a right to choose. I have seen a lot of things around here I don’t like. People says [sic] blacks don’t have a right to choose as blacks. You motherfuckers better get yourselves together." (Racist)
Walls next turned to the feminists [sic] issue. "About all this male chauvinism," he said. "I’m for penis power myself."
"Revolutionary women have a lot to contribute," Walls said. "I’m glad to see they’re [sic] enough women around here for all the revolution. The way the women contribute is by getting laid." (Sexist)
RYM strategy was fast becoming a disaster. In the back of the hall WSA people chanted, "Fight male chauvinism. Fight male chauvinism."
But Walls was out of control. "Superman," he shouted, "was a punk. He never even tried to fuck Lois Lane." (Sexist)
The chant swelled. Walls could not continue as the din increased. Momentarily Jewell Cook, another Panther, replaced Walls at the microphone and pleaded for quiet. "The Worker-Student Alliance," he said, "comes here and makes a lot of noise, but they’re not leading any fights on campuses." A loud cheer arose from members of the Revolutionary Youth Movement. "But," Cook said, "you got to know I’m with my brother. I’m for penis power myself. The position of women in the movement * * *." (Sexist)
[Author's Note: Asterisks present in original document]
The chant against male chauvinism grew louder as the delegates guessed what was coming.
"The position of women," roared Cook, "should be prone." (It is assumed that Cook meant "supine.") (sexist)
With this utterance the RYM strategy virtually collapsed. ...

[bayano]

that's quite sexist, but there's nothing in there that's racist. and ill take you to the debate forum if you want

[Raúl Duke]

It's more sexist then anything.

(Unless you are calling it racist because it makes reference to race which isn't much of a "real concept" only a social construct)

[YSR]

Old SDS /=/ New SDS and so this discussion of the BPP is irrelevant. (for the record, some members of the BPP, like Kathleen Cleaver, were quite anti-sexist and pro-feminist.)

[bcbm]

(for the record, some members of the BPP, like Kathleen Cleaver, were quite anti-sexist and pro-feminist.)

This. There were a number of factions within the BPP, so while those comments may reflect negatively on some of the party and its members, its false to say the whole party was sexist.

[DiaMat86]

that's quite sexist, but there's nothing in there that's racist. and ill take you to the debate forum if you want


Okay, you lead.