The New SDS

by Scott McLemee on April 2, 2007

The cover story to this week’s issue of The Nation is an article by Christopher Phelps on the new Students for a Democratic Society. I read it in a couple of earlier drafts, and can’t imagine anything more fair to the young people who are being radicalized by the war. As Phelps says, it’s not that they tend to know a lot about the old SDS and want to relive it. They aren’t antiquarians. But “democratic society” just sounds like a good a name for what they want — and they know better than to think they are living in one now.

At the same time, the article will probably piss off some readers off — because it’s pretty clear that a number of the people in SDS’s geezer auxillary are…how to put this?…not exactly healthy influences.

The Weather faction of the old SDS took its name from a Bob Dylan line — “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” — that its members must have been too zoned out on psychedelics to understand. A popular documentary about the group a few years ago somehow managed never to mention the speech in which a Weather leader revealed its improvement on the two-fingered peace sign. Instead, the movement would hold up three fingers, in honor of the fork that the Manson family left stuck in one of its bourgeois victims. Righteous, man! That is so revolutionary.

One of the top guys in the Movement for a Democratic Society (as the non-student auxillary is called) is a former Weatherman who says he’d do it all over again, if he had a chance. When Lenin called ultraleftism “an infantile disorder,” he was only half right. Evidently it has its senile phase as well.

With luck, the kids will be creative in finding ways to keep MDS occupied and away from the microphones. Just remember the other big slogan from 1969: “You don’t need a proctologist to know who the assholes are.”

{ 44 comments }

1

albert 04.02.07 at 11:46 pm

I Liked this part:


Maurice Isserman, who joined SDS at Reed College in 1968, recently published a sharply critical piece about the new SDS in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In an interview, he said of the group’s revival, “As a historian, I found it a little offensive…”

Right, ‘as a historian’… So that’s a completely experty-academic response that isn’t tied to your completely personal interest here? Makes sense I suppose. As a historian, I find mayonnaise a little offensive, so I use mustard instead.

2

julian 04.02.07 at 11:52 pm

The weathermen weren’t the only piece of bad news. The Progressive Labor Party faction weren’t too cuddly either. I say the “democratic society” phrase is not worth the baggage; go with a new name.

3

radek 04.03.07 at 12:08 am

That was a half way decent documentary I thought, it certainly wasn’t celebratin’ the Weathermen or anything.

But “democratic society” just sounds like a good a name for what they want—and they know better than to think they are living in one now.

Now, unless you have a different definition of ‘democracy’ then I do, that’s a pretty goofy thing to say. It was true when the original SDS formed though (for reasons, which if you read the Port Huron statement, are obvious)

Anyway. You shouldn’t have the right to vote unless you own at least two heads of cattle.

4

Walt 04.03.07 at 12:33 am

What about two heads of cat? I think I could manage that.

5

radek 04.03.07 at 1:11 am

Only if you can pass a literacy test… in Esperanto!!!!!!

6

radek 04.03.07 at 1:19 am

BTW, estas nenio pli ĝena ol junulo kun politika opinio.

7

In Translation 04.03.07 at 3:28 am

That last comment, in English, means, “Dig it, they stuck a fork in that pig.”

8

voyou 04.03.07 at 3:40 am

The way that article tries to tie the current SDS’s difficulties in coming up with a common strategy to the influence of ex-Weather people seems pretty tendentious to me. Every activist group I’ve been involved with has had problems because, at times, the majority have felt railroaded into taking more (or less) confrontational/destructive actions than they wanted to. I suspect the anti-globalization movement (which never resolved the conflict between direct action and broad involvement) is more significant than the malign influence of Bruce Rubenstein.

And Scott, I think you make too much of the ex-Weather members’ lack of repentance. No-one, as far as I know, is advocating the formation of an underground terrorist organization. And Dohrn, who also refuses to apologize for her Weather past, is, I think, saying some pretty sensible things.

9

Harald K 04.03.07 at 5:55 am

“There’s nothing more embarrasing than youth with a political opinion.” Sorry to spoil it, but it’s not all that often I get to use my Esperanto.

10

ejh 04.03.07 at 9:35 am

I rather like it when leftist people refuse to apologise for their pasts. Everybody does stupid things – it’s just that only some are invited to apologise for them.

11

abb1 04.03.07 at 9:41 am

With all due respect, I feel that the “crazy moonbats ruin it for everybody” line is getting a bit overplayed here.

It takes all kinds.

12

Hidari 04.03.07 at 10:05 am

‘A popular documentary about the group a few years ago somehow managed never to mention the speech in which a Weather leader revealed its improvement on the two-fingered peace sign. Instead, the movement would hold up three fingers, in honor of the fork that the Manson family left stuck in one of its bourgeois victims. Righteous, man! That is so revolutionary.’

Is that really true? Because if it is, it is incredibly stupid. As I thought was well known, Manson was a crypto-fascist who murdered Tate et al and then tried to make it look like it was black revolutionaries who carried out the act, in order to provoke a ‘race war’ that would result in the victory of the black race, whereupon the Family would (according to the Wikipedia) ‘”would scratch [the black man’s] fuzzy head and kick him in the butt and tell him to go pick the cotton and go be a good nxxxxr”.’ Then Manson would rule the world as a neo-Hitler figure.

Completely insane and racist, obviously, but not even tangentially ‘left wing’.

13

In Translation 04.03.07 at 11:04 am

Yes, the Weatherman faction and Weather Underground people ought to apologize– to the left. First they organized the “Days of Rage” in 1969 which made the left look like certifiable adventurist lunatics, as Fred Hampton, the Black Panther Chicago leader, said at the time. Then they forced everyone in SDS to swear fealty to North Korea, among other states. Then they wrecked SDS (they were the ones in power and made the call to close up shop, without consulting the other 99,000 members). Then they went on a tear, bombing various targets, again a self-defeating strategy. The idea that they have nothing to apologize for stems from fuzzy notions, a hangover from McCarthyism, that criticism of such practices implies a criticism of the whole left or the objective of social transformation. But it’s precisely because they made that social transformation harder to achieve that Weather ought to apologize and should not be seen in remotely favorable terms.

14

abb1 04.03.07 at 11:21 am

Political actions (including the violent ones) should be viewed in their historical context, Translation. There was a revolutionary situation, people were terrorized and killed on both sides. I haven’t heard anyone apologizing for cointelpro, fbi assassination and stuff like that; not even for the Kent state massacre as far as I know. Hey, a la guerre comme a la guerre.

15

Barry 04.03.07 at 11:32 am

Scott: “But “democratic society” just sounds like a good a name for what they want—and they know better than to think they are living in one now.”

Radek: “Now, unless you have a different definition of ‘democracy’ then I do, that’s a pretty goofy thing to say. It was true when the original SDS formed though (for reasons, which if you read the Port Huron statement, are obvious)”

A couple of weeks ago, one of the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency announced that she’ll keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, IIRC.

The past few years have seen Dem politicians defy the will of the majority of their constituents, screw things up, and get away with it.

In the USA today, we definitely take our democracy with a *lot* of ice, and a gallon or two of mixer.

16

Barry 04.03.07 at 11:34 am

Meanwhile, back in 2000 the GOP nominee was pretty much picked before the first primary was held.

17

engels 04.03.07 at 1:25 pm

Never trust anyone under 30, that’s what I say.

18

Michael Bérubé 04.03.07 at 1:27 pm

There was a revolutionary situation, people were terrorized and killed on both sides. I haven’t heard anyone apologizing for cointelpro, fbi assassination and stuff like that; not even for the Kent state massacre as far as I know. Hey, a la guerre comme a la guerre.

Yes, it’s probably best that the left hold itself to the standards of J. Edgar Hoover, John Mitchell, and Richard Nixon. Surely that way lies justice.

19

soru 04.03.07 at 2:03 pm

As Ash said:

Left, Right? I’m the guy with the gun.

20

Fitz 04.03.07 at 2:29 pm

It was a close friend of my Fathers who kicked the SDS out of the labor retreat back in the day. The AFL-CIO wasn’t going to have these radicals prancing around their pow-wow. They called him the “catholic president”.

They ended up in Port-Huron, and drafted statement of that name.

21

engels 04.03.07 at 2:59 pm

“The Left” needs to take a mature, principled stand. Violence and war can never be conscionable means to progressive ends, unless they are carried out by USAF.

22

abb1 04.03.07 at 3:06 pm

I don’t think that making tasteless jokes, organizing riots and blowing up empty buildings is exactly the standard of J. Edgar Hoover. Something like assassination of Fred Hampton would be his standard, which is, indeed, not too far from Charles Manson’s M.O.

23

ejh 04.03.07 at 3:07 pm

Yes, it’s probably best that the left hold itself to the standards of J. Edgar Hoover, John Mitchell, and Richard Nixon.

Or conceivably those of Robert McNamara.

The US left have an awful lot of killing to do before they catch up with the Democrats.

They’re probably ahead on apologies though.

24

Miracle Max 04.03.07 at 3:40 pm

I spoke at an SDS teach-in in Virginia a few weeks ago. If I had to classify them, I would put them closest to an early pre-marxist vintage, maybe 1963. Think kids putting flowers into National Guard rifles. Peace signs. Raw vegetables.

MDS looks more diverse than ex-weather people. I agree that the most vocal of the latter seem to have failed to reconstruct themselves.

We should be confident that today’s youth will be as disinterested in the advice of their elders as we were, which of course has its good and bad implications, depending on who is dispensing the advice.

25

Michael Bérubé 04.03.07 at 3:40 pm

“The Left” needs to take a mature, principled stand. Violence and war can never be conscionable means to progressive ends, unless they are carried out by USAF.

Curses! My Decent designs have been foiled again. For as somebody or other argues in Left Hook, the people who now believe that Weatherman and Weather Underground were disasters for the left are the same people who supported the war in Vietnam and complained that Martin Luther King was eroding the moral credibility of the antiwar movement.

26

ejh 04.03.07 at 4:04 pm

I know you’re full of yourself, Michael, but will your complaints that your position is being represented ever take any form other than the misrepresentation of other people’s positions? What may seem like wit to you may seem merely tiresome to those of a less intellectually flippant frame of mind.

27

abb1 04.03.07 at 4:28 pm

As far as the Decents go, I think it’s quite easy to argue that government controlled by madmen burning hundreds of peasants alive with napalm on a daily basis and poisoning their crops with agent orange constitutes exactly a humanitarian emergency the Decents worry about so much.

And so, if (as engels alluded above) it’s typically OK to send a bunch of contracted psychopaths armed with hightech weapons to protect the peasants, I don’t see why a bunch of volunteered psychopaths doing the same with home-made bombs should be so shocking. It’s certainly much cheaper.

That’s from the Decents’ point of view, of course. I’m probably missing something here.

28

Anthony Paul Smith 04.03.07 at 4:55 pm

Michael,

I do like you ever so much, but I wish there was some way to have a non-snark infested discussion about this sometime. I’m guessing that this would have to take place somewhere that isn’t the internet. I also try to avoid these discussions in part because I do vehmently disagree with your position but find the criticims leveled against you done in poor form. Don’t see anyway of entering into that without being sprayed by bullets from all sides…

“No-one, as far as I know, is advocating the formation of an underground terrorist organization. ”

Umm… I don’t know. Do you know of any that are hiring? Any health plans? Seems like if there is a health plan we can accept all the mistakes they are bound to make.

29

Michael Bérubé 04.03.07 at 4:56 pm

Oh, ejh, I can’t compete with you for moral seriousness. You know that. I just lie about people ‘cuz it’s kinda fun. Also because I love me some US Air Force!

Back on topic: I read Phelps’ essay yesterday, and I agree with Scott: I can’t imagine anything more fair to the young people who are being radicalized by the war. The MDS Follies weren’t ignored, but weren’t given undue prominence, either. And the debate over tactics at the Jan 27 demo was handled with a deft touch, too. So, kudos to Phelps on a fine piece, and thanks to Scott for his take on it here.

30

ejh 04.03.07 at 5:02 pm

Oh, ejh, I can’t compete with you for moral seriousness.

Quite likely: but it is possible that if your engagement with others is made almost exclusively in the form it currently takes, then other people will find it hard to hold as high an opinion of your capabilities as the opinion you hold yourself.

31

Barry 04.03.07 at 5:13 pm

Ditto (excuse my profanity). Humor is nice, as is irony and sarcasm, much in the same way that sweeteners are. And in a similar fashion, too mucy of the former is like trying to eat a meal covered in corn syrup.

32

blah 04.03.07 at 5:41 pm

Michael:

Please don’t change because of the haters.

33

aaron 04.03.07 at 6:34 pm

The current SDS is learning from the failures of the old. The weatherman faction was not solely responsible for the destruction of the “old” SDS. Rather, it was the leadership hierarchies of the old organization and its peculiar power structure that led enabled a “fringe” group like the weather undergrounds to take control. The current SDS, perhaps due to the influence of its anarchist members, has done its best to avoid hierarchies and “vanguardism” which I think is a promising sign for the organization. As the article points out, this can generate problems when organizing events, and it will be interesting to see what forms the organization takes as time goes on.

34

Brad Kerr 04.03.07 at 6:48 pm

While “The Weather Underground” was at Film Forum in NYC, several Weatherman and Black Liberation Army folks gave a talk at the Gilda’s House nearby. Lynne Stewart got a standing ovation. The evening was a blast for a certain type of nerd like myself.

Someone upthread doubted that anyone was advocating underground terrorist cells. I don’t know if this counts, but one of the BLA members — tall, female, wrappered — told the crowd that night that, as “white activists” (her term), we were obligated to do the drudge work of the revolution. She emphasized bank robbery as especially useful.

Now that’s comedy!

35

Jon Kay 04.03.07 at 7:01 pm

How is the SDS interested in democracy? An admittedly small minority are interested in autocratic rule, the more contemporary majority are into consensus government, really.

Do you see any examples of consensus governments existing in our times? No, and it’s not for not having been tried. The reason is that there’s at least one voter who votes against war or military funding even in cases of imminent invasion. It’s a success from the antiwar perspective, I guess, but hardly for the people.

Have democracies done stupid and intolerant things? Have they done those things to minorities? Of course.

Democracies have also overruled minorities to extend voter franchise, end slavery, end institutional racism, vote for the Persian, Revolutionary, and Second World Wars, install transport, etc..

Yes, elected leaders have even done things against the wills of majorities. Lincoln’s election is an excellent example. He was elected on a plank of limiting slavery in time and place, which was unpopular (Southerners opposed it, others feared rupture of the Union). He succeeded beyond his hopes because 2/3 of the majority in question left the Union.

36

Donald Johnson 04.03.07 at 7:12 pm

“Haters” in post 32 is a bit much, but I agree with poster 28–there is a need somewhere someplace to have a non-snarky (and possibly even semi-polite) discussion about the rights and wrongs of real or alleged humanitarian interventions. The problem isn’t just the personal conflicts, but the way people tend to caricature the opponent. Okay, dumb utopian suggestion. Back to snark.

37

abb1 04.03.07 at 8:22 pm

“Haters” in post 32 is a bit much…

I know I’m voicing the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of posters, readers and commenters here when I say: those who don’t recognize the utmost necessity of defending our dear comrade Michael against nasty, malicious hatred-filled attacks by moonbats and wingnuts alike are not welcome here. Yes, that’s you, Donald Johnson, if that’s your real name.

38

Donald Johnson 04.03.07 at 8:24 pm

Yikes.

39

Nell 04.03.07 at 9:30 pm

Max: an early pre-marxist vintage, maybe 1963. Think kids putting flowers into National Guard rifles.

Which event was considerably post-1963, and not done by SDS-ers. But I quibble, as Max’s assessment seems a lot calmer and more realistic than that in the main post.

40

Nell 04.06.07 at 12:32 am

Just for the historical record: The demonstrator photographed putting flowers in the barrels of National Guardsmen at the Pentagon demo of 1967 was either ‘Super-Joel’ Tornabene (says his brother) or George Harris, ‘Hibiscus’ of the SF Cockettes (says film director David Weissman). Neither is alive today to resolve the question. I doubt that either of them came anywhere near an SDS chapter in their eventful lives.

41

Roy Belmont 04.07.07 at 12:07 am

It’s absolutely crucial, can’t be stressed too often or too much, that we all remember to keep in mind that in spite of the fact that there was a sudden and total drop-off in leadership of any left or even leftish resistance in the US after 1969 and its covert assassinations and neutralizations, and no one emerged after ever again who wasn’t remnant and on the run or turned, so that it looks like some kind of profiling and consequent custodial engineering may have taken place, run on those born in the US after about 1946 or so – possibly through the great catalogs of teh educational system, begun in earnest in the 1950’s – although there may be some other explanation for that complete and total void of charismatic and radical leadership figures in a population at the time numbering around 200 million of which many were among the rising tide of the so-called “baby-boom” and yet none, no one, rose up as visibly resistant to anything political between the years of say 1975 and pretty close to right now today – it’s vital that we remember that that’s okay, it’s alright, nothing happened, nothing serious, Fred Hampton was a victim of a procedural error or set of errors, total anomaly, Angela Davis is/was some kind of sado/maochistic Maoist freak, the cartoonishness of most of the public figures on the visible radical left was a direct outgrowth of the cartoonish nature of radical leftists and leftism generally, when they aren’t being scary and feral they’re just plain comically stupid. So forget about anything that smacks of deeper covert action domestically from a government and its semi-rogue agents and agencies that’s documented, substantiated, witnessed, testified to as willing to go the extra dark covert mile in every other country on the planet that fits its self-assigned mandate – they would never have moved against their own people, not even to protect them from the scourge of communist infiltration, not in a million years, and if they had we’d know about it.
Although…
As to the incessant triangulation of Berube and his erstwhile liberal cohort in their avid push to gain the comfort and safety of the middle of the herd – the explications of that process, so precisely and eloquently delivered by the still-greatly-missed Turbulent Velvet in many an other venue, will have to suffice, I’ve run out of steam.

42

in translation 04.07.07 at 10:15 am

I actually laughed out loud when I came to “I’ve run out of steam.”

43

Michael Bérubé 04.07.07 at 4:35 pm

And I laughed out loud when I came to “It’s absolutely crucial, can’t be stressed too often or too much, that we all remember to keep in mind that in spite of the fact that.”

44

Roy Belmont 04.07.07 at 9:21 pm

Berube-
That final period belongs outside the quote.
Also, if that laughter you laughed out loud was scornful, I win. Having delivered that compounding series of phrases all intentionally and everything. Because it’s fun!
But if it was genuine, shared amusement, then I’m a jerk for thinking it was smug, blind, and wannabe semi-elitist sneering.

Comments on this entry are closed.