The New MDS Website

August 07, 2007 08:51PM EDT
SDS: To Live Outside the Law, You Must be Honest
Students for a Democratic Society, unbossed and unowned, keeps on pushin'

By Daniel Tasripin

Following a year that witnessed a new generation of young activists adopt the name and legacy of Students for a Democratic Society, the new organization converged upon Detroit for its second national Convention. There are already attempts by both outsiders and a number of members of the organization to augur what meaning to assign to the convention.

To get it out of the way: it's disingenuous to suggest, as some have, that anyone in SDS came into this Convention with grandiose expectations of taking part in a world-historic event -- or at least, that it would be world-historic in the way that, say, the press casts Bono meeting the President as world-historic.

'Tis not quite the final conflict, but nevertheless -- give us no condescending saviors.

This preface aside, there actually was something in the back of everyone's head or on the tip of their tongue about what would distinguish this Convention from your standard, humdrum Left event. What the membership expected out of this Convention was a delivery upon the commitment made at last year's inaugural Convention in Chicago: beyond trading on name-brand recognition, the new SDS would commit itself to being a real live organization.

The devil, as with God, is in the details: the general will was to have a body that could embrace a multitude of chapters and members who each with their own character and ideas, but is still capable of issuing clarion calls to action that brings struggles to decisive resolutions. Further, it has been a near universal opinion that SDS can and must remain a independent and self-sustaining organization – powered by the members and chapters who make it work, not by the unseen hand of funders or sponsors who don’t ever want to see that unseen hand get dirty doing the shitwork. There is a lot within these parameters; it took a year of discussion plus a Convention to give it the attention that deserves.

Beyond a recap of the dry and droll minutiae of some of the decisions made, or worse how they were made – matters which those with a knack for “point-of-process”-ing things to death can have entirely to themselves – what is necessary to convey is the political problem which SDS took on by making that commitment last year.

That political problem which the Convention ended up dealing with: how do we lay claim to the future, mindful that we do not wish to merely repeat the past, but also mindful that the present state of things is nothing with which to be content?

On whether we wish to repeat the past, clarification is necessary. It can be taken for granted that the bulk of the members of the current SDS have no qualms about embracing the name of the organization, even with some of the baggage it brings. After all, the bulk of its luminaries have had nothing but encouraging words to say, and those who jealously guard “their” legacy with the first-wave SDS through disparaging the current SDS are those that chose to be sellouts or merely asinine (or merely asinine sellouts).

Beyond the name, however, there is relative unease with embracing the legacy of SDS. The traumatic experience of the original SDS folding in 1969, just as the campuses exploded, has left a residue across the activist Left. Underneath a certain veil of nostalgia most reporters barely pierce through, there are for the organization those moments of near-paralyzing fear of anything associated with the demise of the original SDS. Among some members of the current SDS that includes everything up to and including what made the original SDS vital to begin with.

Over the past year, there were the microphones getting jammed in front of SDS’ers faces demanding an answer to every absurd question on 60s movement trivia. There were the parades of Boomers approaching those with SDS pins at rallies, beaming with their air of paternalism and “I saw them live” attitude. Under that sort of microscope, the membership has largely adopted classic Freudian defense mechanisms to handle that unspoken fear of just repeating things over again.

In interviews with the reporters of the mainstream press, there is sarcasm (“Yeah, we took on this name so that we could be accused of blowing up toilets.” Nudge nudge, wink wink). At events, there is some light-hearted kitschiness (a purely nonsensical chant of the old RYM-faction slogan, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!” – as a motion to define chapter membership passes). Then there is the sublimation of old movement arguments into the current ones, so that stating which faction of the original SDS you’ve read the most on becomes a referendum upon your politics (and the reverse being true as well: ask for discipline, and you’re Progressive Labor in disguise; demand militancy and you’re a Motherfucker wannabe).

All this pressure from the weight of the past, which thus far can only be expressed in punchlines. Still, the name of SDS wouldn’t be adopted by so many chapters if there were nothing good out of it – or if people didn’t find something amiss in the current state of affairs that made a look back somewhat worthwhile.

That unspoken problem of today: the Left in general finds itself both factionalized and unproductive to the point of neutralization. Responses to crises such as Iraq or Hurricane Katrina that should be sparking greater collaboration on a wider scale have instead been used as opportunities for Left organizations to cut each other off at the knees. Dropping a few key buzzwords substitutes for analysis; one can even come up with a dictionary of activistese-to-plain English. “Autonomy” has been perverted to flipping off anyone not in one’s own target demographic. “Consensus” morphs into a shorthand for speaking exclusively with those who already agrees. A “temporary autonomous zone” is a bohemian enclave with an infoshop and a loaded dumpster behind the Whole Foods supermarket. And so on… Twinkle your fingers if you agree.

We have seen since the 1990s that the model of very loose and informal networks have been great for the planning and execution of militant demos. Yet they can be slaves to pre-existing conditions by their reactive nature, to the extent that they set up activists to become hamsters on a wheel; they thrive on summit-hopping and floundered when the War of Terror commenced. The work of actively changing conditions on the ground – building up the capability to wage further struggle, of uniting disparate struggle together into a common battle, agitating and building up militancy where there was once apathy – these are matters where large scale organization, along with a large-scale commitment, becomes necessary.

The importance of creating and sustaining a large-scale Left movement with large-scale organization is understood by the better part of virtually all Left tendencies from the liberal, to the anarchist, to the reds. The responsibilities and difficulties involved in forming and sustaining a large-scale organization and fostering a larger-scale Left tend to be viewed as the slings and arrows of the outrageous fortune of being Left in the era of No Alternative.

In this existential dilemma, in which a discomforting past and an all-too-comfortable present act as a pair of blinders, what we required from this Convention was to throw off those blinders, survey all of what is in front of us and not just what is immediate, glamorous, or expected of us by outside forces. After all, we take arms against a whole sea of troubles -- not some trickle that will disappear with one demo.

It would indeed be wonderful if we had the luxury of only discussing and executing actions – I should know, I had an action proposal (passed, without discussion unfortunately, but passed nevertheless). To everything there is a season, though, and the pressing matter of this Convention was to determine the organization’s work and settling on a means for handling it; if we did not decide, it is highly likely that outside events or actors would force a decision upon us and we would be likely less than equal to the task.

We have now mostly handled questions of a structure and have made opening gambits on vision documents – it will still be up to the chapters to decide whether to ratify them -- but the important thing is that the foundations are in place, and they were placed by us and not the Ford Foundation.

The time for action approaches as the semester begins. Students for a Democratic Society emerges from its Convention strong and ready for action -- because of the effort made by our members and chapters to put it in a position of strength and readiness.

=======
Daniel Tasripin is a student at Hunter College and is a member of the chapter of Students for a Democratic Society there.
By Daniel Tasripin dtasripin@gmail.com

Download Article (PDF)Add to PDF CompilationDownload PDF Compilation Email Article
Add your comments

not bad
Aug 07, 2007 09:26PM EDT
...
"Twinkle your fingers if you agree."

This made me laugh...but then I was thinking about it. Did anyone stop to think about these little things like the finger twinkling stuff in these "oppression workshops" or whatever? I suppose hipster white kids getting nostalgic for some beatnik poetry club really think the finger twinkles are cool but can you really picture a bunch of "thugged out" (for lack of a better term) guys from some urban high school or community college twinkling their fingers? White people with dreads sitting around chewing on their tongue piercings and twinkling their fingers is the kind of thing that makes people go "this sucks, I'm out...".
Thanks/Gracias for the SDS convention reportback
Aug 08, 2007 02:22AM EDT
Jesse Lokahi Heiwa http://www.myspace.com/JesseLokahiHeiwa
Dan, thanks for the SDS convention reportback, we definitely need a revitalized independent left in the u.s. (occupied Turtle Island), we need to become more ecumenical and reach beyond our own circles, and we need to acknowledge the original "sins" of the creation of the U.S., genocide against Native peoples and enslavement of African peoples; with U.S. foreign policy today largely being a continuation of what the state has done since it's beginning "Manifest Destiny".

JLH (Jesse Lokahi Heiwa)
CUNY Progressive Alumni Network
www.myspace.com/JesseLokahiHeiwa
(yes, I know it's corporate owned, just like the computer I'm using to type this out on, but dropping out means not communicating, let's use the tools we can, while creating a new reality)
SAME OLD SAME OLD
Aug 08, 2007 03:19PM EDT
chris snyder csnyde5@riseup.net
unfortunately, what i've heard about what happened formally at the SDS national convention is the same trite things that occured at previous SDS demos. Arguing about structure, organization, and membership...basically things that marginalize and divide people rather than uniting them for a democratic cause. Let me provide an example...at the march 20th demo at the pentagon SDS contingent opposed the war and wanted to let their voice be heard by the pentagon. They were apparently supposed to be a militant bloc, or whatever (personally i hate labels), but when they reached the police lines they sat down to vote, rather than pushing through and having a visual opposition to the ones that are preventing us free speech and demonstration (the police). We had an opportunity to break through, garner more support, make our voice be heard, embolden us, and demoralize them(the police, government etc.). But no, people decided to stop in their tracks and vote....Just like at the convention where apparently, instead of focusing on how to confront the injustices of the world and actually do it, things like gender identity and caucuses of people were formed...more marginalization and division instead of unity in the face of injustice. Seriously, who cares if WSU was angered if there was a demo. So what?? Standing up for what you believe in will of course create controversy, but you must be bold enough and motivated enough to stand up for what you do believe in. I'm starting to think some people within SDS might be scared to actually stand up for what they believe in. We can't just allow the university system to be a concrete structure on which we rely. I know we are different from the old SDS but we are more simliar than different. They challenged the university as well as other things within society....ARE WE AFRAID TO CHALLENGE THE ONE THING THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER??? maybe. But I know that if we are to accomplish anything, we must not be afraid to stand up and rise up.
Hum...
Aug 08, 2007 03:34PM EDT
MIke (Brown SDS)
I'm a bit shocked about this attitude. It was a convention, not an action. Wayne State SDS is fighting the administration and the state of Michigan in a devestment from military corporations right now and my chapter is fighting our administration and the schools corporate board over war corporations recruiting at Brown and to form a Student Union. Its not like we're afraid of fighting, we just realize that the convention isn't an action, it was for figuring out who we are an organization. Also, recognizing differences between people isn't division, its acknowledging real oppression and creating safe(r) spaces to help us work through those oppressions inside the organization so we can be united in fighting them in society at large.
It's Not Either/Or
Aug 08, 2007 04:16PM EDT
Daniel Tasripin
Since I was not in DC for March 20, I will not comment on that.

I will say that, as both the song and the Psalm go, to everything there is a season. There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.

This Convention date and place were set months in advance. The formation of an agenda was mostly working around a mandate that was set for us a year ago. I don't think that it is fair to anyone to say, "Drop everything! There's a demo!" (and I should also say, a demo that I don't think most folks had even heard about until the article in Counterpunch came out).

In general, those who call themselves activists need to learn how to operate beyond the incentives of cheap thrills and pleasure seeking. Those have their place, but that place shouldn't be the center of the universe. In the same way as you can't live off a diet of Doritos and ice cream, organizations and movements can't live off a diet of militant poses and rushing the cops. To make it seem as if that is the case is really just cheating yourself.
I don't think you were there, armchair militant...
Aug 08, 2007 05:47PM EDT
Daniel Meltzer, DC SDS danielmeltzer@riseup.net
>> [...]at the march 20th demo

March 17th, you mean?

>> They were apparently supposed to be a militant bloc,
>> [...] We had an opportunity to break through, [...]
>> But no, people decided to stop in their tracks and
>> vote....

Who decided that we should go up to the Pentagon at all? Who decided that we should confront the cops? Who decided that we should risk arrest? The fact that you are not asking these questions makes me think that you weren't there. The "militant bloc," which I took part in, meandered like a chicken with its head cut off. Without any plan whatsoever, we were being led by people in the front of the bloc who had no idea what they were doing. At one point, we almost blindly wandered into Arlington Cemetary. We should have stopped in our tracks about an hour before then, come up with a coherent plan, and then voted on it. Or had a plan worked out weeks beforehand. We were a group of mostly inexperienced activists who had no training, no prior knowledge, no strategy, and no plan. We were met by a highly trained group of government thugs who act with impugnity, who have thousands of dollars of "less-lethal" weapons at the ready, and who had both a strategy and a plan. Sure we could have sparred right there and spent the rest of the spring, summer and fall recuperating arrested and beaten comrades, legal fees, and etc. And for what? So that we could be 20 feet closer to the Pentagon? It is only worth it if you aren't the one on the front line, armchair militant.

Perhaps we would have more success training and preparing ourselves for these moments and organizing to create hundreds of meaningful moments of insurrection rather than singular symbolic displays of protest. If this was mere navel gazing at a prior meaningless action, I wouldn't have expounded this much on the topic, but I think that March 17th was allegorical to the movement. We might get pretty flames with just kindling, but if we want to burn this whole system down, we'll have to use firewood.

For a revolution within our lifetime...
Ice Cream is oppressive!
Aug 08, 2007 06:14PM EDT
West Point SDS
"In the same way as you can't live off a diet of Doritos and ice cream,"

First of all ice cream is not a vegan product ok. Won't you think of the COWS?!

Second you create an oppressive environment for our lactose intolerant comrades who are not comfortable with the consumption of delicious milky treats!

You, sir, have created an oppressive environment!

That's it. STOP EVERYTHING! I'm calling for a vote for the creation of a lactose intolerant caucus. There should be some intersectionality with the vegan caucus so I'm sure this oppression can be rooted out!