Students for a Democratic Society 2.0

Students for a Democratic Society is re-launching with a meeting scheduled for this summer. Several local groupings of the participatory democratic student organization have popped up over the years, and it now seems there is enough of a critical mass to give it a go on a national level. With a the stark lack of an open, left-wing student federation in the United States, this can't but be a good development.

The parallels with the original SDS are interesting. It was in the early 1960s that Tom Hayden and the founders of SDS saw the insufficiency of the (barely socialist) Soviet Union as a simple liberation template. The general resurgence of resistance in the form of the civil rights/black power movement, anti-colonial revolt and a vibrant youth culture washed right over the walking dead corpse of the Old Left, the CP and state-department socialists alike. In fairly short order, the young radicals learned more than many had bargained for.

What began as a pragmatic, utopian network at elite colleges ripped through the heartland creating a laboratory of revolution. Much, if not most, of the SDS leadership moved into various forms of Marxist-Leninist politics in a historical irony that continues to confound both SDS's most ardent defenders and the now old New Left types such as Todd Gitlin who think the political dramas that played out within SDS define the generation.

SDS was one of the first significant groups to break the McCarthy-era ban on communists. Less inspired by Leninism than disgusted with the political repression of their time, it was a truly courageous "anti-anti-communism." In the years since, with the lack of vital socialist countries allowing international capitalists to set the ideological agenda even on the left, anti-communism is almost genetic among the non-party activists such a formation will initially appeal to. That recognized, the organizers of SDS 2.0 are apparently planning to maintain an open membership, which will allow the group to grow very quickly.

Let's see what the students have to teach us this time around.

Two good reads on first incarnation of SDS are Ron Jacobs' The Way the Wind Blew and Kirkpatrick Sale's SDS, which still ranks as one of the most attuned activist histories I've ever read. It's especially invigorating when read in tandem with Todd Gitlin's take that radicalization was some kind of Oedipal drama. Sale's book brings out the players, the pressures and the ways in which democratic process led to socialist politics (and a bit of loopiness).

---------

What follows is the press release received by Red Flags:

STUDENTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY CHAPTERS FORM NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

New York, NY: Several chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) announced today, Monday, January 16, 2006, their intent to form a national organization and hold the first SDS national convention since 1969. "It seemed appropriate to make this announcement today, on the observed Martin Luther King day", said SDS regional organizer Thomas Good.  "We have an anti-war movement that is addressing the issue of stopping the bloodletting in Iraq but the civil rights issue remains unaddressed", he added.  The national convention is scheduled for Summer 2006 and will be preceded by a series of regional conferences occurring on the Memorial Day weekend.

The newly formed SDS national organization was the idea of a student anti-war activist who contacted other student and veteran organizers. Good joined the new SDS when Stonington High School (Connecticut) senior Pat Korte contacted him with the idea of linking nascent SDS chapters into a national structure.

"Although I have been an active participant in the anti-war and student activist movement, I have become frustrated with the groups collective inability to unify enough people under a common goal/vision to address the overall problems with our society.  Historically, SDS was able to
address many of the issues pertinent at the time through Tom Hayden's Port Huron Statement. This document has stood the test of time, thus several fellow activists from across the country and myself decided to form a national SDS movement, only to discover that chapters already exist! Because of this we decided to hold a national conference", said Korte.

At his request, members of Korte's informal network of student activists from across the country began contacting Good and very quickly the informal network was replaced by a national structure that now includes a website, discussion forum and mailing list, all of which are now based at studentsforademocraticsociety.org.

Korte, realizing that the original SDS suffered from not having alot of veteran activists, WHO UNDERSTOOD THE IDEA OF STUDENT POWER, reached out to some older activists, including several members of the 1960s era student organization, to help ground the project and provide logistical support.

The first original SDSer to come on board was Alan Haber, president of SDS 1960-62. Today, Haber speaks of "re-membering SDS" rather than eulogizing it. Never giving up on the Dream, Haber is looking forward to the "the next meeting of SDS".  And the next meeting will be a national event linking any and all SDS chapters interested in taking part.

Today chapters exist at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, at the New School in New York City, at the University of Michigan and at Eastern Michigan University. In the western part of the US chapters that sprang up independently in Santa Ana, California and at Reigs University in Denver, Colorado have signed on to the national organization. Connecting these chapters and their organizers proved less difficult than Korte and Good initially thought.  Technology was the key.

"We should reconnect our networks. We should reassert the continuity of the radical movements in American politics. The new technologies of communication and independent media make this more possible than ever", said SDS founder Alan Haber. Korte and Good took this advice and ran with it.

As the project coalesced, Good, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) contacted labor historian Paul Buhle, co-editor of a graphic history of the IWW ("Wobblies") and former SDSer from the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter.  The timing was right on.  Buhle, who teaches at Brown in Rhode Island, is working on a new project: a graphic (i.e. comic book) history of SDS from the perspective of the individual chapters. Working with artist Gary Dumm, Buhle looks to avoid the usual history of the SDS national office by focusing on the street activists and their local branches.  Buhle is asking that members of the original SDS with stories to tell contact him via e-mail at pbuhle@studentsforademocraticsociety.org.

In addition to the book, Buhle has a personal interest in SDS. Describing himself for a recent article in Next Left Notes he noted: "Founder and publisher of RADICAL AMERICA, Paul Buhle was active in Champaign-Urbana, Storrs and Madison SDS chapters, 1965-1969. He hasn't been all that happy since, but he teaches at Brown."  In the piece on NLN Buhle talks about the historical parallels between the 1960s and the present noting that the US empire is over-extended, liberal Democrats are not the answer to vexing problems and the Port Huron Statement remains as vital today as it was in 1962 when Tom Hayden presented it to the third SDS national convention.

"Today, students of all backgrounds can be shown the need to mobilize, to help prevent the ongoing devastation of our world, to help empower the lowly as students learn to empower themselves, and to set out a vision of a really democratic society.  There's the key. The Industrial Workers of the World had it long before. Decentralized democracy, democratic decision-making at all levels is the most radical idea ever hatched in North America and the only one with real lasting appeal", said Buhle who has joined the new SDS.

The new SDS plans to continue the independent radical tradition in America: political education and demonstrating, advocating and organizing for democracy and justice, unions, civil liberties, peace and freedom.  According to Korte the meetings this spring and summer will focus on building an infrastructure that facilitates these goals as the new SDS, like the old, is an organization of activists.  Friends of peace and justice, those students who want a voice, a say in their own destiny, should visit www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org where regular updates will be posted and contact information is now available.

SDS is an education and social action organization dedicated to increasing democracy in all phases of our common life. It seeks to promote the active participation of young people in the formation of a movement to build a society free from poverty, ignorance, war, exploitation, racism and sexism.

Comments

[Eric Odell]

I dunno. This has been tried a number of times over the years. It's never gone anywhere. A comment on Indymedia referencing Marx's "second time as farce" quote rings too true for comfort.

This time it looks like the effort is largely being pushed by OGs who are hoping to rally the current generation of students. I don't begrudge them the sentiment, but I'm not sure how likely the recipe is to work, even if the conditions somehow turn out to be otherwise correct this time around.

I remember a similar regional effort in the '90s. It was centered around some similar ex-'60s activists in the Albany area, pretty multiracial and female-tilted in their case, who were trying to shepherd a new generation of activists in an area/regional network that they, the oldsters, were holding together.

From what I could see, they were doing just about as good a job as one could expect in such a situation, but there was just something fundamental that was missing. When students aren't in ultimate and complete control of their own organization, even if they're not immediately being held back by the older generation in an obvious way, it seems to deform the political dynamic. The students step into the role of followers, and their leadership capacity, their agency, is never properly developed and expressed. I've seen it a bunch of times in the student movement. The student environmental movement in the '90s also had a series of examples of this.

I haven't seen or thought of any way to avoid this dynamic, beyond keeping older generations in a purely advisory role with a tight leash. I also think trying to mechanically recreate SDS, even if current students try it themselves, is the wrong approach.

[Haven't Been There, Haven't Done That]

Lots of things have been tried before. Parties, movements, sects, religions...

There is a need for student mobilization and from where I'm looking, more groups means more dynamism and opportunity. Too many campuses are a one-trick pony. Or a no-trick pony.

I don't think groups founded on the form (not their politics) will work for all the reasons that SDS didn't. That doesn't mean they won't help turn back the hard-right tide.

[roquedaltonlives]

I wish the best of luck to them; I hope they succeed in creating a national left wing student organization. I unite with "Haven't Been There, Haven't Done That"s sentiment in supporting any effort to better organize the left to fight.

That said, general support is one thing. Particular guidance based on years of experience in the student movement is another, very valuable thing. And that is what I think Eric is getting at -- drawing out some very important lessons learned through deep involvement in the student movement in the 1980s, 90s, etc.

And to me Eric's assessment rings true to my experience in the student movement as well. It's great that they are inspired by the student movement of the 1960s, and want to rebuild the student movement as a viable force. But alot has happened in the student movement in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s. Including, as Eric pointed out, numerous attempts to recreate SDS or something just like it. None of those attempts have gained traction. Basically the Progressive Student Network which lasted from 1980-1994, came the closest to learning the lessons of how to build the student movement and sustain a national student organization through upsurges and downward trends in the student movement. SEAC also has lots of important experience. And like it or not, the ISO has lots of experiences in the 90s and 00s in building the student movement (though I disagree with their overall methodology for doing student work).

So I just wanted to say yes to general support for the folks trying to recreate SDS, while also putting out that there are valuable lessons to learn from the student movement from 1970-2006 that might lead to a different approach than trying to literally re-create SDS.

[Skeptikal]

All wishes of good luck granted, can't these founders see that the radical democratic vision of SDS isn't real? The original SDS couldn't hold it together once it became a mass organization because everyone coming into the room didn't already fundamentally agree.

Process democracy only works when everyone 1) comes from the same background and political culture, and 2) when there are no sharp disagreements.

I'm all for democracy in principle. The devil is just in the details: political organizations tend to form on what they are for, not how they hold meetings... unless having meetings is really what they are for.

[Eric Odell]

Just to clarify/correct my somewhat one-sided post, I strongly agree with other posters that these folks should give it a shot. (Not that any of them are listening to me here.) For one thing, there's so much space in the student movement to try out different things. Then of course there's the little matter of correct ideas coming from practice, and from it alone.

The student movement is a tricky thing. As I pointed out, students need to be in fundamental control of their organizations for those groups to have real life. However, students are young and inexperienced and volatile (which is both good and bad), and their organizations tend to go foom sooner or later without outside assistance. It happened to SEAC in 1996, the main group I was involved in during my early years. The only reason SEAC survived at all is because a few of us jumped in to do what we could to put things back on track. It isn't what it once was, but at least it still exists.

I think roquedaltonlives is correct that the PSN had the best balance of the various factors for any group in the predominantly white section of the student movement. It did have FRSO working as a guiding force within it, but the cadre recruited from that work always took great care to keep a light hand on things and to concentrate mainly on handling contradictions, rather than running the thing ISO-style. As a result, there was always a broad spectrum of folks in the network, including anarchists and semi-anarchists, and even Trots.

[roquedaltonlives]

Somewhat relevant to this thread, I just came across this article http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/grahamfelsen in the Nation, which gives a glimpse of the a new pseudo-left formation on campuses. A Clintonesque think-tank, the Center for American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/ has set up it's student organization called Campus Progress http://www.campusprogress.org/. President Clinton gave the keynote speech at their 2005 conference. Seems to be a student activist veneer for Democratic Party youth. They'll probably do a few good things here and there, but overall it looks to be a dead end for true progresives and radicals who want to, I dunno, end the US occupation of Iraq now, letalone something like support the liberation of Palestine. By comparison the "new SDS" is definitely on the right track!

[Dan]

Hey,
could you please add a link to the Wobblies (www.iww.org) on your website? We would be most grateful!

Comradely,
Dan

[boots]

The re-formation of SDS could be a good thing if it can keep its distance from "entrist" groups like the ISO. If the authoritarians (ISO/NION/ANSWER/etc.) can be kept at bay, the organization may stand a real chance of blossoming into a real alternative to all of the tired communist posturing which has polluted the antiwar movement.
The fact that elements of the IWW are working with them seems a promising signal as well.
Let's see more street parties and less newspaper sales!!!

[the burningman]

Boots is mistaken. In fact, what made SDS originally blossom was the widespread partipation of communists.

When it was an elitist group made up of democratic formalists, it never cracked the upper class colleges that spawned it. By the time Marxist-Leninists were in leadership, it grew to hundreds of thousands.

And they sold papers, too.

Regarding the ISO, you'll find them on DOZENS of colllege campuses doing everything from exchanging ideas (shocking as that is!) to counter-recruitment work.

Through SLAM, we worked in tense coordination with them -- but were never confused as to either our independence from their line, or that they were on the same side as us on every battle that counts.

Let it be said clearly: anti-anti-communism is a dividing line, and if SDS tries to hermetically seal itself off from the existing student left -- it won't happen.

Also, the ISO is not generally an "entrist" organization. They set up their own networks. If SDS has legs, that might change... but I'd put money on them INITIATING chapters before they "take over" other groups.

Anti-communism is for suckers.

[Christopher Day]

I wish that Burningman was right that SLAM understood that the ISO "were on the same side as us on every battle that counts." In fact the situation was more complicated. The ISO was hostile to SLAM's support for revolutionary Black and Puerto Rican nationalism and commitment to remaining a space in which the leadership of women of color could be developed (that is to say restricting membership of men and white folks). At the same time SLAM was prone to sectarianism that occasionally verged on red-baiting and that made it almost impossible to operate in an effective anti-war coalition when one was desperately needed.

[lu]

i think it's a good development in the same way that the iac march on march 18th is a good development. I do agree that a group that builds itself around the way its meetings work rather than its goals is not good. anti-leadership sentiment will not allow an organization in this day and age to go very far - if it does grow quantitatively, it will suffer qualitatively, if it does grow qualitatively, then it will suffer quantitavely.

[the burningman]

Chris -- your point about SLAM and the ISO's relationship at CUNY is correct. But my caveat is that the years we are talking about matter, with the Open Admission/budget cut struggles of a very different content than the post-911 re-shuffle.

[Delirium Tremens]

I would add a caveat to a caveat on SLAM's relationship to the ISO: quite a good bit of the sectarianism I experienced at Hunter (and confess, took part in) was exacerbated by both bad practice and the peculiarities of the ISO's brand of Trotskyism. On the former, there's the matter of the ISO using a more subtle form of the Trot "lead bottom" approach toward decision-making - wherein the activist who has the patience to sit down the longest ends up winning - which invariably alienates anyone who isn't ultra-dedicated cadre. It's a manipulative tactic that serves no real purpose other than to confirm anti-communist stereotypes of what red meetings must look like.

On the latter point, in addition to Christopher's note on their pat dismissal of black and Puerto Rican struggle, I would add that the ISO in my experience upheld as a theoretical tenet that not only can one act without establishing unity, but that one should always act without unity. The ISO's version of entryism and interventions at CUNY was, as far as I can tell, one in which their professional revolutionaries were supposed to waltz in and start telling people what to do, without building relationships and without building the struggle to begin with.

All in all, I will give the ISO props for one thing: the fact that so many meetings with them were so unproductive, manipulative, and divorced from the masses probably made me more interested than I had been in correcting such mistakes in myself, as well as turning me more toward Mao and Lenin's writings on the relationship between cadre and masses.

[Plain Old Daniel]

This is a Delirium Tremens, aka Non Serviam... just to revive and revisit this discussion on the eve of the first SDS covnent, I wanted to bring up some rather discouraging news.

A friend of mine passed me along this email that came from the Convention organizers. It seems there's a bit of heavy-handedness going on:

"Thank you for your request to table at the 2006 SDS National Convention. Unfortunately we are not able to accomodate that request. This is our founding convention and as such we find ourselves without an alternative process with which to resolve issues when consensus cannot be found. The inclusion of political parties and their affiliates in our convention - as tablers and/or workshop panel presenters - is something that generated heated debate within SDS which is an umbrella organization and home to many different types of activists. As consensus was not forthcoming the decision was made to postpone the decision until after this, our founding, convention.

"We regret the inconvenience caused by our inability to find consensus on the issue of inviting political parties to be a part of our convention. This is in no way a "final" decision in the sense that future conventions may well include various political parties - when SDS has a deliberative process in place complex issues will be more easily decided.

"Individual members of political parties are welcome to attend our convention and we would hope they will do so - in fact we are certain they will as many SDSers belong to political parties.

"Again, we are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused and for the delay in (not) reaching a decision.

- Tabling Subcommittee, SDS 2006 National Convention"

By my count, the "parties" excluded are all reds: the ISO, RCP, and both FRSO's. AK Press and CRASH Collective (a PGA affiliate) both got tables.

So it seems that by default, we've all taken a half-step back; radicals can joing as individuals, radical groups can table, but just not the reds. I don't think this is some abomination or death of free speech, but it's still ill. Worse is the fact that there's a liberal/anarchist -- I can't tell the difference really -- who, last I checked, managed to get himself a number of workshop slots throughout the weekend, most of them devoted to shit-talking leftists (do we really need this, or should I just stay in NYC with Fox News on blast?)

There seems to be quite a bit of disarray at the moment -- last I checked the schedule was pulled off the website. Hopefully, things are going to get a bit better, but I sense it's going to be later rather than sooner.

[LS]

I heard about this too. It's really sad that this would happen, as it represents a rejection of one of the most important pieces of the legacy of SDS. One of the things SDS did after breaking with the League for Industrial Democracy was to get rid of the communist exclusion clause. That openness of SDS to the radical and yes, even communist, left was a big part of what gave it its dynamism and allowed it to play a role in breaking out of the stifling McCarthyist atmosphere of the 1950s. Hopefully they will reverse this decision, and if not, hopefully they will learn from it.

[Plain Old Daniel]

Ooops, I should say, the schedule is up on one site but not a mirror. Check it out:
http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/convention/schedule.html

[the burningman]

The conservatism of consensus strikes again. What is supposed to be democratic about allowing ideological minorities to limit participation is beyond me, and this is the reason consensus has largely been dropped by long-term activists as anything like a first principle.

The issue, here, is reactionary anarchists (a minority of the minority) who know that their bullshit can't handle an open discussion. It's a lot easier to denounce people as "authoritarians" when you ban them from even responding...

It's interesting, if almost ironic, that they have become among the most censurous on the left.

It's interesting that the ISO is more open at their conferences than anti-authoritarians working in groups that promise to be participatory.

If the new SDS flies, this kind of petty bullshit won't last... or it won't fly. Who wants to impose anti-communist bans on left-wing student organizations? It will be brittle, and the most vociferous in pushing these positions will also not be doing the heavy lifting of organizing...

If I was a student organizer/activist, I'd definitely consider joining and building the new sds even if SOME who have been attracted to it are betraying what was a fundamental principle of the original...

People loved SDS becasue it was revolutionary, anti-imperialist and open to a fucking debate, not for the boys club that initiated it and their Roberts Rules...

[Plain Old Daniel]

The note on consensus organizing is mostly on point, though it does serve as something of a strawman for reds. I've seen the ISO in particular engage in a nasty habit of demanding straight 50% +1 majoritarianism on all decisions, even those that strip constituents of their rights (e.g., to end debate and call a vote) or make decisions of a permanent sort (e.g. articles of unity). Even Robert's Rules would call for a supermajority of some sort. It's often a stack-the-deck thing, and it's a documented tick of American Trotskyism.

At any rate, the apologetic tone of the email seems to hint at a determined minority either having blocked or demanded some action either for or against "parties". Whether this bodes well or ill, I do not know.

There are valid concerns, I think, with the possibility of entry by unprincipled sorts -- Trot groups, as I've mentioned above, or Larouche-types. In spite of my overall view of the original SDS's exclusion clause being a fucked up, I think were not very good elements inside of the original SDS -- file under "do not behave well with others" as well as "having tendencies toward racism."

An unheralded aspect of anarchism and anarchists (on this site and elsewhere) is its skepticism of just anyone who happens to be hawking a paper, which in this day and age happens to be a good thing given that most papers are hawked by capitalists, religious kooks, and the like. That this healthy skepticism warps in the hot sun of political contradiction into an unhealthy cynicism (e.g., don't ever trust a zine you didn't publish yourself) is the true irony and tragedy of the anarchists.

[LS]

The Fight Back! website printed the following statement / open letter from Joe Iosbaker to the organizers of the SDS convention about the issue of communists not being allowed to have lit tables there:

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2006/03/sdsletter.htm

Letter to Organizers of SDS Convention

On August 4, student activists and others will be meeting in Chicago to launch a new Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). In the 1960s SDS was one of the largest and most influential radical student organizations.

The editors and staff of Fight Back! view any attempt to build the student movement as positive and necessary. Unfortunately, some of the SDS organizers have decided that socialist and communist groups cannot set up information tables. We think this does the movement a disservice.

Below is a letter that was sent to the convention organizers:

To: Planning Committee
SDS National Convention

Dear Brothers & Sisters,

As a longtime activist in the student movement, having been a founder of the Progressive Student Network in 1980, I was very excited to hear about the national SDS convention being held here this weekend.

I’m also a communist, and so I was disappointed to learn that the convention has decided to prohibit Marxist organizations from setting up literature tables. It's ironic, given the historic struggle that SDS fought against their sponsors, the League for Industrial Democracy, to include communists in their efforts.

While I understand that certain political groups have a negative history of involvement in the student movement, I feel that the decision taken by the planning committee is a mistake. I hope the convention as a whole considers this matter.

Sincerely,

Joe Iosbaker
Freedom Road Socialist Organization and Fight Back! newspaper
www.frso.org

[jeez]

The tragedy isn't with anarchism that has always been with us and always will be.

It's when a minority can impose a lack of information and discussion. There is no reason to accept this, and once the fight is won -- it will be over.

The need for an open, participatory and radical student federation is apparent. Without openness, it will just be a clique should it even grow significantly beyond a press office.

My 2c: don't let the bastards get you down, they will collapse under their own narrowness if the argument is joined.

[the burningman]

Plain Old Daniel notes the apologetic tone of the email, but what I'd note is that this IS what has come to pass.

Consensus process is very, very easy to abuse.

What it shows is that a committed minority can impose its will be obstructionist fiat.

Let's see how it rolls if communists join this organization and take up the discussion. Let is be shown, once again, who seeks to censor and who wants to build!

Maybe we have to learn some lessons over and over again.

[SDS Revisited]

>>Let's see how it rolls if communists join this organization and take up the discussion. Let is be shown, once again, who seeks to censor and who wants to build!

Maybe we have to learn some lessons over and over again<<

"Communists" in America are a diffuse and fractious bunch with a crazy mixture of discredited theory and sci-fi utopianism. Just what are the ISO, RCP, CPUSA and WWP supposed to contibute to a serious discussion of democracy when they can't work together? Which of these groups would you exclude, Comrade Brandt?
After such a long history of sectarian nastiness it's laughable to read a known RCP agent's talk of inclusion.

[the burningman]

None of those.

Short of straight-up Spart-style disruption, a variety of groups should be allowed to function with liberty.

I don't believe the RCP has "agents." I agree with their politics -- if you have a problem with that, I'm game to argue, discuss and try to lift it higher.

Since my late teens over a decade ago, I have done activist work in a number of open, participatory organizations. Most notably SLAM and Indymedia. I have defended the inclusion of partisans of a wide variety of beliefs, to limited success.

The Indypendent, for example, manages to run material from Maoists to unionists, liberals and anarchists. It's a better read for it, and a more valuable project for anti-capitalists and radicals.

Mass organizations will always have such divisions, they might as well be recognized.

Further, communists have hardly cornered the market on sectarianism. Not by a longshot... as exactly this episode demonstrates. I can think of many, many more episodes of a similar ilk... and it never works. You can't stop people from learning. You can try, but they just end up learning what YOU are... which in this case appears to be a hypocrite.

Ursula LeGuin was long my favorite advocate of "discredited theory" and "sci-fi utopianism." I'd even support her participation...

If anti-capitalist parties (and organizations in the case of the ISO and FRSO-ML) are excluded, perhaps the same standard should be applied to registered Democrats.

After all, their party supports this fucking war and the Patriot Act, it's fractious and has trouble playing with others...

Or maybe "anarchists" should be judged collectively by the shittiest behavior of the self-identified, after all -- that appears to be the methodology at play here.

Ideological minorities should have no right stifle principled participation. If they want to ban communists, they should form a different organization.

[Comrade Zero]

I'm at the SDS convention in Chicago now. I've written a report/critique on my blog. You might want to look at it.

[Plain Old Daniel]

So far. . .

The tabling issue seems to have resolved itself. I can detect few red organizations that have come to the Convention, save both FRSO's, the Spartacist League, and possibly a PL or similarly oriented group. The former have both gotten tables; the Sparts have did some stuff at the entrance on Friday night; that last bit I glean from a few rather workerist comments by a local Chicagoite. Really, I think either a whole lot of groups that would have been here just wussed out of participation from the letter, or are solely observing and not raising points.

CZ's blog is mostly correct about the heavy anarchist presence. There were a couple of folks at the plenary who bashed red groups in an unprincipled fashion, perhaps having some legitimate beef with their local red scene's inactivity. There was an early admonishment to anarchists to chill out their sectarianism. Forums I have attended have been relatively non-sectarian with only a pinch of participation by individuals with axes to grind.

All in all, what I see is that the SDS is a bit gun-shy about the manner in which ideological struggle should be handled, with much of these conversations getting diverted into narrow "what do we do about that Spart?" digressions.

If I had to issue a Mao-style report card on the new SDS, what I'd say is that it's brought out advanced fighters on the scene and getting together; the theory by participants has been intermediate, plagued with some basic problems of anarchism including indecision and vascillation on several questions.