Dare to Struggle: A report from the SDS National Convention

By: Max Uhlenbeck
www.ideasforaction.org

It seemed only right that longtime civil rights veteran Grace Lee Boggs  was asked to open up the 2nd annual national convention for the newly reformed Students for a Democratic Society [SDS], which took place in Detroit over this past weekend.

Grace Lee Boggs, although rarely receiving the same kind of attention as some of her male counterparts in the movement, is truly a living testament to what a life-long commitment to revolutionary organizing looks like. Many of the 150 students in attendance seemed aware that they were witnessing something special, as they battled through some tough audio difficulties to listen to Grace's talk.

Grace painted an eloquent historical backdrop for the convention, as she described the rebellions that shook Detroit in the summer of 1967, nearly 40 years ago to the day. She talked about how although the media had called described the uprising as 'unruly riots', but that to many militant black workers it signified the start of something much more hopeful, "a time when anything seemed possible".

Although many have argued that the cities crisis far pre-dated 1967, Detroit over the last few decades has become the poster child as Boggs put it for the "false promises of industrial Capitalism," with vacant lots, burned down buildings, and extreme poverty and high school drop out rates. Boggs argues however, that this combination of extremely harsh circumstances, has simultaneously had the effect of making Detroit a new kind of "laboratory of resistance," as the community, still highly invested in the future of the city, figures out how to fill those huge social gaps vacated by both the state as well as the corporations who have left the city. A large network of community gardens and discussions around starting up some ambitious alternative schooling options (most statistics show that Detroit city public school drop out rates are well over 70%) are some of the small but hopefully very real foundations for turning things around in the motor city.

Only being in Detroit for five days, it was difficult to get a sense of how real the hopefulness was, in contrast to the abandoned streets that I walked down every morning on the way to Wayne State University. Either way it was an eye opening experience just to visit the city and to hear some of the remarkable histories of working class struggle that had taken place there over the years.

One of my goals for the trip was to finally finish the classic book "Detroit: I Do Mind Dying," which as the publishers put it was a "Study in Urban Revolution," following groups like DRUM (Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement) and the League of Revolutionaries Black Workers . Unfortunately due to a combination of my extremely slow reading skills and the long intense days that were the SDS convention, I barely got through a few chapters.

Detroit: I Do Mind Driving

After doing the 20 hour bus trip each way to Atlanta for the US Social Forum, I told myself that was going to be it on the road trips for a while but just a few weeks later there we were heading off to Detroit for the first of two 12 hour stretches. Without making the usual condescending statements about "red states" and "middle America," I have to admit that every time we stopped at one of those gas/convenience stores on the way and looked around at all of the NASCAR paraphenalia, I got a little more depressed. The only bright side to the long ride over was having some time to look over the impressive 70 or so proposals written up for consideration at the convention.

I was very anxious to see what this convention was going to be looking like and how many people would actually make it all the way to Detroit after so many months of planning. My personal responsibilities within SDS, besides some general help with logistical coordination, was helping to grassroots fundraise $10,000 through individual donors (which we achieved!) in order to be able to pay not only for the convention costs but also for the 4-day "Action Camp" that will be taking place Aug 13-16 in Lancaster, PA. The purpose of the Action Camp is to provide a space for 40-50 active SDS'ers (mostly between the ages of 16-21) to come together and build up some of their organizing skills before heading back into their respective high-schools and universities for the fall semester. The planning specifically for the Action Camp has been very exciting and really gives me the sense that SDS is coming together and moving off of the internet and into the "real world" as the organization continues to grow. The last thing I will say about the Action Camp is that it will be facilitated by our friends at The Catalyst Project who will help lead all the participants through the three main themes; social movement history, anti-oppression, and organizing skills.

We arrived in Detroit on Thursday evening and pulled right up in front of the local church which was housing many of the SDS'ers. The final orientation meeting was already in progress with around 30 people in attendance and we sat down quietly, looking around at so many of the faces that up until this point we had only none through email chat and late night conference calls. There was Carmen, Aaron, Michael, Sicily, Arick and the rest of the Wayne State SDS crew who had worked so hard to make this all a reality. There was Lisa from Texas, Matt from New York, and Nile from the Bay Area who made up the core outside facilitation team (something some of us had to push for on the convention planning calls and am so glad we did!). There was Jenna, Beth and Zach from the Drew University Chapter. There was Babken, Dave, and Samantha from UCLA SDS. And of course my fellow New Yorkers Pat, Meaghan, Madeline, Brian, John, Kaz and the rest of the crew. Although it was only a small sampling of who would arrive the next morning, it felt good to be around friends.

Convention day I (or voting on how to vote...)

Having been tasked last minute with pulling together the "white ally caucus" taking place Saturday morning, I spent the first part of Friday going over some ideas and meeting with some of my co-facilitators. Although I had never personally organized an anti-racism training or discussion, I had had a lot of (mostly negative) experiences with these kinds of things and I wanted to make sure that our group did not replicate some of those dynamics, leading often to feelings of intense guilt and defensiveness.

People were starting to flow onto the Wayne State campus by mid-afternoon. After running around making extra copies of the proposal packets and hand-outs for our caucus, I stopped into a room of 50 people where two (recent) friends of mine Shea Howell and Angela Jones (an amazing poet if you ever get a chance to see her) were conducting what seemed to be a lively discussion on some basic anti-oppression principles. It was encouraging to see such a large number of SDS'ers participating in the discussion, especially because it was well before the official convention was starting up.

After the afternoon workshops and Grace Lee Boggs' talk, there was a quick dinner break before the real work started. Unlike most conferences and conventions, because of the amount of decisions that had to be made at this convention (ie. how is an 'SDS member' defined, what constitutes an SDS chapter, what is the overall vision of the organization, what kind of national structure do we need for increased chapter coordination etc), the scheduling team put out a meeting agenda that started around 9:00am and often lasted until 9 or 10pm at night, including various time extensions for further discussion. Personally I was very anxious about the decision to meet so deep into the evening but maybe at 27 it was just my old age talking.

The first, and most frustrating step of the evening was to "vote on how we would be voting during the convention." The first roadblock that came up was that there was a huge contingent of over 20 people from the University of Central Florida (UCF) who had somehow gotten their school to subsidize their travel expenses. I think it is fair to say, that broadly speaking, UCF together with a few chapters from the Northwest (Tacoma, Olympia) represented a tendency within SDS that was very concerned with local chapter autonomy, highlighted by the at times outright hostility shown to compromising on some sort of national structure.

To their credit, UCF pointed out early on how their large numbers might sway certain vote counts and so we proceeded to come up with a procedure that would take this into consideration. The problem in the end was not the number of votes that the anti-organizational tendency (for lack of a better word) had but the way in which they at times dragged on conversations and debates needlessly by abusing modified consensus process. It was frustrating for me to watch initially as you could see the facilitators, who were really put into an impossible situation, struggle with finding a way to reach some clarity on some of these major initial decisions among a body of 150 young folks, many of whom had very different ideas of how SDS as an organization might function.

• Final Convention Decision Making Process:
• Present Proposal (all of which were included in the packets ahead of time)
• Clarifications/Questions
• Pro/Con Speakers [1-2 on each side]
• Amendments [friendly/unfriendly]
• Test for Consensus
• If No Concensus, Chapters Caucus
• Final Vote on the Floor (Has to get 2/3 to pass)

Although at least a process was voted on, we did not get much more done that initial evening, and it laid the foundation for what would be a tense few days, as many SDS'ers who traveled long ways to actually make some decisions wondered if they would even get to some of the many proposals that were on the table. The facilitators were frustrated. I was tired. Tomorrow would be a better day.

Convention day II (to caucus or not to caucus...)

Although I had been pretty involved in the organizing leading up to the convention, I did not realize until I saw the drafts of the 4-day schedule that people had decided on what amounted to a full day (6 hours) of caucusing on Saturday. There were five or six hour-long caucus sessions back to back on; people of color/white allies, LGBTQ/straight allies, working class/class privileged, women & trans caucus/male allies, high school caucus/older allies. On the one hand it was good to see SDS take seriously the need for oppressed groups within the organization to self organize their own spaces. This convention would set an important precedent for the future and it was clear that caucusing would play an integral role in future gatherings. On the other hand however, after making arguments for the need to have so many caucuses--especially back to back on the first full day of the convention--there were very few people who followed up and actually organized a facilitated group discussion during these times slots. This particular attempt at trying to address oppression within the organization came across to me as more symbolic then real. In the end though, I think this is a very difficult process to navigate and hearing about how the caucusing went down during the first convention last year in Chicago, it seemed like it was a big step forward. In the future my concrete (humble) suggestions would be:

• Spread the caucusing out a bit more over the course of the weekend so that young folks, many of whom have not been in these kinds of spaces before do not get hit with this emotionally charged material all at once.
• Figure out if some of the caucuses really need to happen and have an honest conversation with some of the members of that would be caucus beforehand to figure out what the needs are. I believe in Detroit that the high-school caucus for example had about 3 participants in it with the remaining 150+ people supposedly getting together in the room next door.
• Perhaps focus in on a few of the main "organizational weaknesses" and have slightly longer caucus times for fewer total caucuses (People of color & Womyns caucuses would stand out within SDS as two of the most important ones for example).

My main responsibility as mentioned earlier was helping to facilitate the white ally caucus which I think went quite well. Being on such a tight time schedule, we really only had about 45 minutes to plan for both a presentation as well as an interactive discussion component but I think we did about as well as could be expected given such limitations. The feedback was generally all very positive, but i would be curious to hear any suggestions for things that could have gone better from folks who were in the room. Our basic outline included:

1. Introductions of facilitators and asking permission to lead everyone through this 45 minute discussion. Clarifying that none of us were experts on the subject and that we know many people often have negative associations with anti-racism workshops.
2. Defining a few terms, specifically the concept of "intersectionality" and the way that although everyone in the room benefits from white privilege in some way, that we all benefit in very different ways depending on other variables like class, gender, sexual orientation, place we live, level of education etc.
3. Some historical and current day examples of white supremacy, including Bacon's Rebellion and the current case of the Jena Six.
4. Small break-out group exercise discussing the quote: "If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together." Followed by some group report backs.
5. Tools for moving forward: passing out some copies of a Catalyst Project handout on strategies around anti-racist organizing.
6. Commitments & check out: having everyone take a few minutes to think about what specific commitment(s) they would like to make around anti-racist practice heading into the fall semester and in the context of SDS chapter organizing.

My initial misgivings about the intense amount of caucus times were partially confirmed when I went to the next one after our workshop and we waited around for 15 minutes until finally realizing that there was no one who had stepped up to facilitate the meeting. I decided to leave and walk over to get some food before taking an afternoon nap. I knew we would all need our energy for the evening plenaries (side-note: unlike the US Social Forum, plenaries in Detroit were focused around debate & decision making on the various proposals--something which next year might be nice to mix up a bit and also have some analysis/strategy discussion & debate).

The Saturday evening plenary was probably the most challenging part of the entire weekend. It was here that the discussion turned to the "vision" of SDS as an organization, something for which twelve separate proposals had been written up and submitted ahead of time, many of them quite lengthy and unnecessarily wordy. The number and length of the proposals were perhaps signs of strength and as as weaknesses within SDS. A strength because they signified both the enthusiasm and the intellectual commitment to writing some very thought out visions proposals, but weakness because many of the proposals (11 out of the 12 were either authored or co-authored by white men) did not seem realistic to get passed at a convention with so many things to work through without some sort of synthesizing before they hit the convention floor. With the help of the facilitation team, this process of bringing together authors and coming up with more concise collective proposals would mark much of the rest of the weekend.

Convention day III (A question of structure)

The truth was that one of the reasons why the vision discussion on Saturday night (which flowed over into Sunday) became so tense, was because of the conflicting ideas within SDS around the nature of national structure. The word "national" itself seemed to be a scary concept to some, again specifically those from the Southeast and the Northwest parts of the country. A few weeks prior to the convention I had received an email from one of the local Northwest SDS organizers saying:

"How is it that SDS has a national organizer (someone that organizes from the top-down) when SDS is supposed to be a bottom-up organization?."

I replied that I felt like this was perhaps a misunderstanding of the idea of national organizers and suggested:

"when i say national organizer, or whenever anyone in SDS says national organizer, i think all that really means is that you work with SDS on the national level. In my case im helping to coordinate and bottom line parts of the summer Action Camp as well as parts of the national convention in Detroit. "

Although i never heard back from that particular person, the brief email exchange symbolized for me the deep mistrust of any kind of nationally structured organization. Another central concern on the part of the Northwest/Southeast contingents--And I should be clear that there were various positions and voices within each of these groups of course, but these seemed to be in the minority most of the time)--was the problem of "informal leadership" which was indeed a real phenomenon within SDS.

The issue of informal leadership is something that comes up all the time, specifically in so called "decentralized" or "horizontally structured" organizations (for some good background reading to this check out the classic pamphlet "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman. It stems from an unwillingness to confront the fact that power dynamics and issues of leadership will always exists whether we talk about them honestly or choose to avoid them. In the case of SDS, many of the folks who were considered part of this informal leadership (made up mostly of a network of SDS'ers located in the Northeast and Midwest who had been in contact regularly over the past year and had the privilege of organizing several face to face meetings over that time), were trying to articulate that the way to actually combat informal leaderships was in fact to decide on a democratic national structure proposal, and not put it off for another year.

When this position was clearly articulated in small group break-out sessions (during the more heated debates I almost got up the nerve to grab the mic and shout it from the overhead balcony) it seemed like people were on the same page. Once the proposals were put out on the floor however, there was just an endless amount of process nit-picking and manipulation of the concept of consensus, where some people would make counter proposals from the floor knowing that 80% of the room was not in favor of them but taking up another 15 minutes all the same.

By Sunday evening we had manage to pass several of the consolidated vision proposals including an edited version of the impressive " Who We Are, What We Are Doing" document that will be going back to the local chapters for official ratification. Still, the question of structure hung in the balance, and with it the success (or lack thereof) of this all important 2nd national convention.

Convention Day IV (All is well that ends well...)

Although initially the group (with at its high point nearly 200 people in attendance, and an average of about 125 in the main auditorium at the same time) voted to not make any serious decisions on Monday, it quickly became obvious that this might need to be re-thought. On Sunday the question was posed again and over 100 people said they would still be around and a large majority of the remaining attendees agreed that it would be important to have Monday morning as an option to attempt to come to some last minute compromises on a structure proposal.

Even with the extended time on Monday morning, it seemed unlikely that we would be able to reach any kind of agreement. We voted to go until 11:00am and by 10:15am the facilitators were making us break into small groups one last time to try and work out some of our differences. We would then one final time with the structure proposal sponsors (which by this time included at least three different groupings who had synthesized their proposal into one) and if we did not come to compromise we would take that long ride home without a national structure.

Im not exactly sure how it happened, but it finally seemed to dawn on everyone that we needed to come out of Detroit with something. The facilitators brought the final proposal to one last vote on the floor... and it passed. The final vote was 89 for, 9 opposed, with 16 stand asides. A nationally federated chapter structure and a series of working groups would fill the void for now. Although the final wording for the structure document is still being worked on, Matt Wasserman a member of Reed SDS commented: "Decision-making power will rest in the hands of local chapters, who must approve proposals by a super-majority, while a council of chapter delegates will be tasked with supervising the working groups that will actually carry out decisions and campaigns on the national level."

After a loud round of applause, we moved to vote on several "action proposals" which unfortunately got left to the very end, although I am not sure how else we would have done it any other way. The two main proposals that passed and seemed to garner the most excitement were the Iraq Moratorium initiative, as well as the major "No War, No Warming" mobilization taking place in DC, Oct 21-23rd. Michael Albert, co-founder of Z Magazine & ZNET gave a rousing closing talk and we got ready for the (suddenly less hard) 12 hour ride back to New York.

It had been an intense, long, and at times very difficult five days in Detroit. In the historic city, with such an incredible history of militant social movements, SDS as an organization and the anti-war movement more generally took a big step forward.

----------------------------

Max Uhlenbeck is an editor with Left Turn Magazine living and working in New York City. He would like to dedicate this article to all of the wonderful people organizing in Detroit including Mike and Jenny who work on the annual Allied Media Conference. Shea Howell, Grace Lee Boggs and the rest of the folks at the Boggs Center. And finally the whole Detroit Summer crew who just released a really dope CD called "Chronicles of a dropout" which you can buy on their website.

Comments

[anybody know...]

What was the racial and sexual breakdown of the conference?

Is SDS a predominantly white group? What regions were most represented or seem to be vital?

Are there any other national or significant local identity-based student groups these days? Black Student Unions, "feminist" projets?

I know Mecha on the West Coast, and their indigenist unity tends to reinforce some of the criticisms made here. Nothing wrong with radical nationalist groups.

Where any kind of "La Raza" stands in for the unity of oppressed people it's not good in the long run.

Please help me if SDS has any unifying statement to pass on.

[Saoirse]

All due respect to my friends and comrades on this board. the reality of it is so much of what has been written above frankly pissed me off its hard to push it all aside and say I'll just ignore all the snid remarks about "identity politics" and focus on the positive.

And mind you I am not thrilled with you two either.

I'll take on some blue collar LI boys.

[JB]

Don't focus on the positive, least of all for good feelings.

Is there a better word for "identity politics" that isn't snide? A more accurate way of dealing with the reification of static identity in place of political program and strategy?

That's basically how I use it, and in the broadest sense – I have argued here and elsewhere – that the "original" identity politics is the Marxist-Leninist conception of "the workers".

As in, "what's in it for the workers" as if that is what socialism is about... or by extension national liberation and the fight against various caste systems...

The obvious truth is that the overwhelming problem is "white identity politics", on the larger left (to say nothing about the Trent Lotts of the world).

That doesn't mean these issues haven't played out in a thousand microdramas around the world in destructive and often reactionary ways in the name of the oppressed. Democratic Party constituency politics are a material base for these ideas. They aren't just in people's heads.

--------

Sartre's comments on "seriality", which I linked above – are very much a part of why I think this is so very imporant. Which are not snide, and in essence begin with how bourgeois democracy turns us into a series of "others" that are (and are not) what we are in the world.

So, again – I don't (honestly) know how much this is arguing general student politics backstory, and how much it refers to what is really going down in SDS. That's why I'd defer to the words of Modern P., who was there and thankfully continues to return to the meat on that bone.

[Saoirse]

I think reactionary nationalism, liberal feminism, and selfish dykes and fags (or, if your straight, how about elitist gays and lesbians) are all welcome alternatives to identity politics.

Look for many years the DP had a better line on L & G (if not BT) rights than most revolutionary communists. That's a fact. So when we look to getting to the root of the problem, who's talking and what line does matter.

[r. john]

"Look for many years the DP had a better line on L & G (if not BT) rights than most revolutionary communists."

that is both wrong and revealing.

[Saoirse]

that is both wrong and revealing.

okay, I'll bite. do tell.

[JB]

Aside – truly, but not entirely wrong. The RCP in this country had a position that called for "homosexuals to be reformed and homosexuality eliminated" up to the turn of the 21st Century.

Considering efforts to "reform and eliminate homosexuals" in the 20th Century – I'd say you can't get worse. You were allowed to be a Democrat if you were gay. For real, R. John – there is no mincing "intentions" with this or really all that much to clarify except how profoundly wrong and damaging that position was.

[r. john]

"

All due respect to my friends and comrades on this board. the reality of it is so much of what has been written above frankly pissed me off its hard to push it all aside and say I'll just ignore all the snid remarks about "identity politics" and focus on the positive. And mind you I am not thrilled with you two either. I'll take on some blue collar LI boys."

This is a posing of political and ideological questions that (by the nature of the posing) has no solution:

Subjectivity is paramount ("i'm offended, pissed off, tired of dealing with..."), and really what can you say against emotions? They are stated but undebatable.

Political ideas and line are treated as irrelevent -- process and "who people are" is paramount. And since (in this debate) process is NEVER acceptable, and grievances are never resolvable... and so the divisions inevitably destroy the unities.

And "who people are" is defined in the most apriori way (by things that are not transformable, like gender and nationality). so no one can escape the problem by transformation (and can't even escape the endless sniping by groveling).

This method, this politics is simply destructive. It can't lead to change because it isn't interested in macro-change. It is focused on the petty dynamics of the now, and it is rooted in "jostling for position" not changing the world.

and the logic of these politics is always to divide (yet again), to drag any process (yet again) from its goals to its processes, to raise the petty over the lofty, to take common interests and parse them into petty (and often invented) grievances.

Perhaps there is such a thing as ""white identity politics, on the larger left" -- but for even JB to casually state that (as if it is a given, a universal, and inherently a major problem) is remarkable.

I have seen countless movements, conventions, meetings, and real hopes dragged down into this kind of pettiness.

Identity politics is repulsive to most people for obvious reasons. It has no hopes for a new world, and doesn't even really consider one. It is really about "ME writ large, and you writ very very small." And that is why the comparison to zionism is appropriate.

[Saoirse]

I will concide that WWP has had the most consistent and comprehesive understanding of LGBT issues. On the ground I think it has been a more mixed affair but they've certainly been more consistently active in LGBT fights and movements. Running a far second, the anarchist scene, after that...the DP.

Altho WWP may or may not be rev. communist they do have better politics than the DP.

[Saoirse]

wow. I am sorry to have missed a chance to respond R. John. Don't really know what to say. I will cede the board but not the struggle.

[JB]

By "damaging" I mean to the people it closeted and forced into lonely lives, to the ostensibly revolutionary forces it wed to a grotesquely reactionary position against the current of people outside the party, to the social movements that wrote off communism exactly because they knew the history of bedroom police in socialist countries – and so on.

Civil rights is a "better" position than having cops arrest, detain and "reform" people for not being heterosexual. That's what that position would have been in practice: State-regulated gay bashing under a (goddamned) red flag.

Oh god – tangents and blogs!

[r. john]

the RCP for all the problems we are familiar with had, in their 1981 program a full "bill of rights" for gay people -- opposition to discrimination in employment, housing etc. And opposition to gay bashing.

there were problems (again, as we know and should never sidestep), but to say the Democratic party had a better position is ridiculous and wrong.

Even today they can't support gay marriage.

As lenin once said to opponents "Lie if you have to, but don't overdo it."

And on the history of the gay question and the great communist shortfalls in theory and practice, the lying has always been overdone.

[Saoirse]

Well. I will say this somehow its okay for you to call "identity politics" whatever that may or may not be petty. Imply whatever with your "wrong and revealing" remark and yet I can't be pissed off. Or say, that's just passive-aggressive.

Again there have been so many wrong, problematic things said in this debate that I dont have the patience to engage. Frankly I have my own petty identity politics surivial issues to keep me busy at this stage of the game.

[JB]

Reform homosexuals and eliminate homosexuality.

Very straight-forward, and that "bill of rights" was frankly bullshit when that party expected to create a one-party government (them) that wouldn't even allow two men who kissed to join... simply on that basis.

That's some strange conception of democratic rights.

Sorry to tangent on this – but, from the names I recognize participating here, several of us were veterans of that argument, and in my case it fundamentally marked my political direction from a fairly young age.

[r. john]

I also want to add that (in my experience) there is nothing more arrogant and impervious to discussion than identity politics. Its followers are practitioners of the politics of threat and ultimatums -- the endless gripe backed by the constant threat of "bringing down the temple."

They are not interested in your ideas or proposals. Don't want to hear what you have to say about their methods or dogmas.

they are simply arrogant, and (like fundamentalists) convinced that any sign of disagreement (and critical thinking) simply confirms that you are a fucking asshole.

[Saoirse]

I will also say I never mentioned the RCP's politics in this debate nor was I even thinking about them. But to say in 1981 the RCP had better politics on the "homosexual" question or gay people than the DP isn't funny. its sad. In my personal (groan) experience most members of the RCP couldn't look me in the eye when talking about Lesbian and Gay people. Never mind the choice words (politics) the RCP mapped on to transsexual and transgender women and men.

[JB]

Or to be difficult...

When I speak of "white identity politics" and R. John expresses surprise... is this not a perfect example?

Banning homosexuality DEMANDS hetero-normativity. So we can be "complicated" in heterosexuality, but supposedly uniform in any "deviant" sexuality.

Applied to nationality, it is the essence of white supremacy. Applied to sexuality, it is profoundly patriarchal and reactionary (in theory and practice).

By treating the dominant as the "normal", it stigmatizes and directly and really oppresses the "abnormal".

It is the normalized ideology of domination, of whatever type, that creates the perceived need for identity fixation – as defense and health mechanism, regardless of its merits as solution.

In other words, it's not for nothing that the "workers movement" as organized labor fought for the Asian exclusion acts, ran lynchmobs against blacks, etc. It wasn't the Chinese workers "huddling together and eating inscrutable dishes" that generated a "white backlash" in the 19th Century – it was a treasonous compact between white workers and white capital to put real privilege ahead of proletarian solidarity.

This is real. Defining of our political fabric – and must be dealt with. I'm just saying ID politics won't do that. But pretending racism is the problem of those who call it out is just bananas.

[JB]

Before this (completely) devolves into another fascinating round of ripping apart the RCPs reactionary sexual politics in the 1980s... I wanted to quote what Max said regarding these workshops in the article that started this thread.... (my own guilt, lol, about the diversions hereby noted).

There were five or six hour-long caucus sessions back to back on; people of color/white allies, LGBTQ/straight allies, working class/class privileged, women & trans caucus/male allies, high school caucus/older allies. On the one hand it was good to see SDS take seriously the need for oppressed groups within the organization to self organize their own spaces. This convention would set an important precedent for the future and it was clear that caucusing would play an integral role in future gatherings.

Doesn't sound like ID politics uber-alles... It's also funny that the author, who notes his own skepticism about these kinds of things was actually drafted to run one...

So before we get too far lost arguing about ID politics and the chauvinisms of privilege – let's try to keep it as grounded in what is happening as possible.

Shadow-boxing be gone!

[r. john]

JB:

the issue is not defending the RCP position, but the comparison to the democratic party.

Be simply materialist: What was the DP position on gay rights (including today gay marriage), and what was the position of the RCP.

the argument that the establishment liberals have had a better position on sexuality (what about abortion? what about parental consent? what about birth control for kids and a fight for sex education?)

It romanticizes the Democratic Party position (which at a national level is not even liberal in the NYC sense). And it takes (as your remark does) the theoretical error of the RCP and confuses it with their actual political stance on gay rights (which was to support equality overall and explicitly).

And it would be a "side trip" except that it is in the nature of "identity politics" to always consider "the rest of the left" as "as much of the problem" as the reactionaries and imperialists.

To casually imply that revolutioanry communists are a bigger problem for gay peole than the imperialist Democratic party is wrong on many levels (and not just the textual way I'm approaching it). And it is part and parcel of a kind of thinking that always allows the followers of IDENTITY POLITICS to assume that the destruction of any left project is not that big a problem or error.

If the left is as soaked with reactionary ideology as the rest of society, if leftists are as racist, sexist and homophobic as the rest of society -- then shattering the projects of these hypocrites is not wrong, it is a positive good. And what better way to spend a bitter life than to haunt the left as stalkers, show up at conventions and meetings, to turn the spearhead of hostility at each other and at our project, and then leave (once again) feeling superior, offended and really self-righteously pissed off.

The argument that the revolutionaries are worse than the imperialists on key issues is not true, and is part and parcel of a larger line (which is poisonous in so many potent ways)

Really this utterly self-absorbed and destructive nonsense needs to be exposed and opposed... not tip-toed around with gentle steps and kid gloves.

(And arguing this is not, as several have pointed out, to argue against all kinds of productive caucuses per se, or to oppose the righteous, principled and constantly necessary struggle against reactionary influences "on the left.")

[max]

Good to see all the discussion (although i wish these things did not *always* have to go off on RCP/WWP tangents). So much to respond to, unfortunately im on the road for two weeks with no internet access so it will have to wait for a while.

One quick comment though to the 'lack of politics' comment that Chris made -- its partly just because i tried to get this piece out at 1am a few hours before my flight because i knew it would not happen for about a month later if i didnt.

Looking back over it there was a whole section on politics and a heading called 'anarchists, communists, and the other...' that i unfortunately was not able to finish and so decided to leave out. Plenty to analyze in terms of the politics, but i will leave that to others, this was primarily to give folks a sense of what the convention was like.

One quick response to the diversity level(s) -- I would say approx 40-50% women, with many in leadership positions in terms of their roles in helping to pull together the convention, the action camps and internal discussions etc.

People of color was probably 10-15%. There seemed to be a good representation of working class students and people that attended primarily state or community colleges. Also (and all of this is just from general observation and discussions) good LGBTQ representation. But the most strides over this past year were definitely made in terms of female leadership development, something which seemed very unlikely when I attending an SDS conference in April 2006 and the audience was literally 90-95% male.

[Kazembe]

I think at some point I want to write an essay rooting radicial left politics within the context of race in this country. Not only in terms of policy, but also as spectacle.

During the Moscow show trials in the 1930s, there were similar events going on in the CPUSA, trials over "white chavuism." In the most part, the CP was dealing with a very real issue, but the way thet dealt with it, propped up a political agenda (In this case, Stalinism)

In the same vein, the famed SDS convention in 1969, when the Black Panthers were ushered in by the Weather faction as a moral counterweight to the PL faction.

Today, race (and by extension gender) is either a moral weight or contained through caucuses.

White people feel safe that business will not be disrupted as long as their "representation". Representation is the illusion of power and if we dig deep to who is really pulling strings, it ain't the people who have the most at the stake.

So, I agree with Jed's points about the need for an internationalist perspective. For me, it's taken a lot of personal experience and struggle to come to this position. I want to be in a situation where we are no longer bound by by our roles in history.

Though, one caveat. I'm not arguing for a race neutral internationalism. The internationalist perspective must be rooted in the key demand for self-determination. The absence of key communist/socialist writing on the oppression of Black folks, Native Americans, women, queers, etc.,alongside conscious organizing in these sectors has lead to a growth of said ID politics.

"Plenty to analyze in terms of the politics, but i will leave that to others..."

Please don't!

[Saoirse]

I also want to add that (in my experience) there is nothing more arrogant and impervious to discussion than identity politics. Its followers are practitioners of the politics of threat and ultimatums -- the endless gripe backed by the constant threat of "bringing down the temple."

They are not interested in your ideas or proposals. Don't want to hear what you have to say about their methods or dogmas.

they are simply arrogant, and (like fundamentalists) convinced that any sign of disagreement (and critical thinking) simply confirms that you are a fucking asshole.

**********
Sorry to bring this all back to me but since there are only 3 people talking here I will assume these remarks are indeed direct toward me.

I am not sure at what point all things politically devolved so far. It certainly wasnt my intent by putting myself into my politics. Been there, done that. I will concede again and we can all debate what this means I find this thread and discuss especially the later portion deeply disappointing.

As a leftist who has played in some forms a leading role in lgbt politics are certain points in their life as well as in non-queer left mvmts, and found both wanting. this discussion unfortunately hasnt moved my thinking fwd. peace.

[Modern P.]

Whatever issues you have with past organizations are your issues, JB. Let Saigons be Saigons on that one.

The issue with identity politics cannot be phrased as, "It makes [white/hetero/men] uncomfortable." That's a just plain chauvinist formulation, and for all the jibber jabber about how this or that group demanding to be listened to just needs to "grow the fuck up", if it makes privileged folk uncomfortable to discuss an articulated position given in a spirit of respect they need to grow up.

The problem of identity politics and its tactics -- race-baiting, guilt-tripping, etc. -- ain't that they make the privileged uncomfortable, it is that they accept the cheap and easy victories for the oppressed.

What would the People of Color Caucus get if it chose to say "Hey you bunch of funky honkies, shut the fuck up" ?

Ten inches of turf. A pat on the head as an exotic pet. Perhaps a promotion in status to white man's chief. Sob stories. Anything other than an actual attempt to have the organization work out the political issue of its stance on white supremacy.

This is why the People of Color Caucus in SDS doesn't race-bait, not because it hurts anyone's feelings, but because what we need and what we are concentrated on is an actual confrontation with the white supremacist power structure -- no more and no less.

[r. john]

"Sorry to bring this all back to me but since there are only 3 people talking here I will assume these remarks are indeed direct toward me."

Uh, wrong assumption. They were triggered by your remarks and method... but clearly there is a whole current of identity politics (which I am rather familiar with) while (in all fairness) I don't know nearly enough about you or your politics to honestly characterize or engage yet.

In fact, my remarks are not even aimed at identity politics (which is blissfully oblivious to engagement or discussion), but to those who I perceive as endlessly craven and conciliating with behaviors and verdicts that are (i believe) truly poisonous.

We need a multinational movement for radical change. It is a fact that without a chunk of white people engaged (and another chunk neutral) real change cannot happen. This is not an argument for ignoring racism in its many forms -- but it is an argument for resisting the false subjective assumption that all white people are racist.

there is real value in mao's approach of differentiating between contradictions among the people and contradictions between the people and the enemy. And (as you all know) identity politics fundamentally takes contradicitons among the people, and makes them as hostile and divisive as possible. (Just the casual mocking talk of "white boys" etc. is an example of how deeply unprincipled language reflects deeply unprincipled politics.)

* * * * * *

Kazembe writes:

"I think at some point I want to write an essay rooting radicial left politics within the context of race in this country. Not only in terms of policy, but also as spectacle."

Sounds interesting, but if you do, make sure you get your facts straight.

"During the Moscow show trials in the 1930s, there were similar events going on in the CPUSA, trials over 'white chavuism.'"

Actually this is false. the trial of a finnish worker for racism was just after the late twenties (as a result of fight against Lovestonism, and the campaign within the communist movement to adopt a recognision of the oppressed nature of black people.)

The Moscow trials were a decade later.

I.e. the dynamics were separate.

Kaz writes, "In the most part, the CP was dealing with a very real issue, but the way thet dealt with it, propped up a political agenda (In this case, Stalinism)."

I will be interested to learn how one can deal with real issues WITHOUT political agendas. How does that work?

kaz writes: "In the same vein, the famed SDS convention in 1969, when the Black Panthers were ushered in by the Weather faction as a moral counterweight to the PL faction."

I would be very, very curious how these two events are "in the same vein." The Black Panthers were supported within SDS because they were playing a truly vanguard role -- in putting revolution on the political agenda for the first time in American history.

PLP was despised because their mechanical and reductionist thinking led them to announce that "all nationalism is reactionary" (within a world where raging national liberation struggles were the cutting edge -- and the target of massive U.S. attack).

Today, race (and by extension gender) is either a moral weight or contained through caucuses.

Some day explain to me this concept of "moral counterweight" -- and why you can't just say "the Revolutionary Youth Movement forces in SDS politically supported the Panthers, and opposed PLP in large part because of their newly minted hostility toward national liberation and Black liberation."

In other words, here too I'm curious how this "moral counterweight" is different from politics, and from the real issues that faced them all.

Surely you can't be saying that supporting the Panthers was a gimmick in a struggle that was really over some "political agenda" disconnected to revolution and black liberation? And if so, on what possible basis do you assert that?