Heres a report from the congress that was forwarded to me.
An Anonymous Libertarian Analysis Of The Detroit Convention
From SDSwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Rather than personal reminiscences or a generic summary, this article endeavors to be the first analysis of the SDS Detroit Convention from the perspective of the libertarian left.
The Convention was, first and foremost, run according to the logic predominating among sections of the present-day “Left”. This meant that liberal identity politics made a strong appearance, to the detriment of focusing on potential actions and even hurrying the proceedings to determine the national structure (ostensibly the purpose of this Convention). Liberalism showed its pervasive influence through the various statements approved by the Convention, generally under rushed circumstances, which featured such unimpressive ideas as the “equality of oppressions”. This totality of oppressions implies the equality of all forms of oppression, and therefore, mystifies the true class composition of capitalist society. Only the working class, through its own efforts, can bring about the social revolution. This “equality of oppressions” schema is nothing more than a theoretical incitement to scabbing. For example, if a strike is in progress, and the boss wants to break it, conceivably the boss would simply bring in members of one identity group and encourage workers to leave their pickets. Presumably, SDS would be supporting the bosses’ effort, since, after all, oppressions are equal, so scabbing is now acceptable so long as it is tied to throwing crumbs to one racial or otherwise oppressed group. Anyone seeing the history of U.S. labor, and how bosses have always advanced the interest of one artificial “identity group” over the interests of the class during strike time (White scabs, Black scabs, Irish scabs, Chinese scabs, etc.) can not help but be upset by this superficially appealing but fundamentally reactionary notion. Anyone not able to divine the basic class nature of our society is simply blinded by the obscurantism of bourgeois ideology, which has always wanted to downplay the question of class. Another vision proposal, in the same liberal vein, put forward Lenin’s “anti-imperialist” demand for “national self-determination”, as if after all these years these struggles have done anything but get workers killed to establish a local capitalism, generally under the guise of Leninist “socialism”, over a foreign one. As Rosa Luxemburg noted, the very idea of “self-determination” under capitalism is nothing but an illusory humbug.
Seeing as it was the main purpose of the Convention, the structure proposal did indeed take up most of the time – in fact, both the aforementioned vision proposals were passed in hurried settings, with only one person allowed to speak for and another against, to ensure that the structure proposal would have enough time. Needless to say, even if the relevant issues had been raised (which they were not), discussing these issues for two minutes is a caricature of the real debate needed to destroy these mindless shibboleths of the liberal left. In any event, the structure was hammered out Monday morning, which established the unaccountable and unelected National Caucuses (whose members essentially have two votes on issues because they have both a heavy influence over the distribution of funds as well as veto power over decisions made by SDS) and also created various aspiring bureaucracies for the fledgling SDS. To make things interesting, a veritable “Enabling Act” is now in place which allows the National Body to make “emergency” decisions which can be challenged by the chapters after it has already happened. Instead of simply being a coordinating committee, this national structure is already setting down the foundations of a centralized organization while simultaneously creating the conditions that will lead to a future power struggle between the various factional elements within SDS. Add to this the various loopholes which one can no doubt find in the multiple pages of the convoluted structure proposal, and one can see that the National Structure which was passed was a mistake.
Later in the day, and keeping with the hurried tone of everything, action proposals were rushed through with the ubiquitous and detrimental “one for, one against” speaking policy. The most upsetting part of this process was that SDSers passed two ambiguous resolutions in support of business union campaigns which rather obviously came from the Maoist sect FRSO. In the brief period allotted for opposition, no one mentioned the intellectually bankrupt group behind these resolutions or the historical dead-end of traditional unions. But with that, the decision making ended.
In terms of analysis, the Convention revealed two ideological currents within SDS: the Leninists and the alleged “anti-authoritarians”. Of these two, the Leninists, an informal coalition of Maoists, Stalinists, etc., were clearly in the minority and recognizing this fact, they were for the most part relatively quiet. At times, however, they did make their presence felt, mostly through their costumes and their cries for centralization. The anti-authoritarian tendency, by far the majority, was in reality nothing more than a very loose collection of individuals whose only point of similarity was the fact that they were all self-declared “anti-authoritarians”. In fact, several sub-groups could be easily discerned, most notably the anti-organizationalism of UCF and the Pacific Northwest, a minor trend within the larger anti-authoritarian current that surfaced on matters of structure and process. Yet for the anti-authoritarian majority, SDS currently has its social-democratic aspirations voiced by several outspoken and well-known activists who have achieved popularity either as a result of their early efforts in constructing SDS or because of their pervasive presence in working groups and informal decision-making bodies. For now, most of the individuals comprising this leadership clique fall into the camp of the anti-authoritarians although it is very clear that, as we’ve mentioned, the ideological orientation of this group is in fact solidly liberal. Interestingly enough, the informal leadership clique seems to be approved and supported by both ideological currents. This kind of support from the Leninists is rather unsurprising, but this same attitude from the self-styled anti-authoritarians is rather disturbing. Even more disturbing is the relationship between the so-called anti-authoritarians and the Leninists. The Leninists, who ruined every revolution in the 20th century (Russia, Spain, Hungary, France, Portugal etc.) and will undoubtedly try to do so in the 21st, are simply tolerated by the anti-authoritarians who, under the veil of a mindless “popular front” mentality, deceive themselves into thinking that the authoritarians can not be criticized and may even be considered allies in some common struggle. Unsurprisingly, these authoritarians are encouraging these notions with the ferocious cry of “red baiting” to avoid debate, along with childish and duplicitous appeals to “unity” when, as they must know, there can be no lasting unity between the libertarian social revolution and the decrepit state capitalist schemes they support.
Despite all the obfuscating talk about “unity”, “anti-authoritarianism”, “struggle”, “anarchism”, and the like, when the time came to make a decision on the national structure of SDS (the central task of the Convention), the true nature of these tendencies was revealed with perfect lucidity. The Leninists were the strongest supporters of a centralized structure most favorable to bureaucratization and the anti-authoritarian current, as expected, splintered on impact, with members supporting all the major proposals. When the time came to decide on the final structure proposal, the authors hurriedly edited their incomplete document while the facilitators abruptly truncated discussion for the sake of efficiency. The informal leadership supported the document, primarily because a portion of its members were responsible for its creation; the Leninists, having no other choice, also supported it, but only after making certain that the unaccountable and un-elected national caucuses could control funds. The majority of the anti-authoritarians also supported the document (falling in line behind their “anarcho”-leadership), although there were a few opponents. This final outcome clarified the farcical nature of the final session of the Convention by revealing the players for who they really were and by illuminating their real intentions: the informal leadership attempted to bolster its fledgling position, the Leninists, weak at the moment, sat and hoped that at least some kind of framework conducive to future bureaucratization and centralization would be passed, and the anti-authoritarian rank-and-file, totally devoid of any radical analysis, passively acquiesced. As anti-authoritarians, they failed to criticize the undemocratic nature of the rushed sessions; they failed to ensure the creation of a decentralized, non-bureaucratic and accountable structure; and they were so pitiful that they failed to oppose the passing of Maoist resolutions at a Convention where anti-authoritarians had an overwhelmingly large presence. When the moment came to see who stood where, it became apparent that most of the anarchists or anti-authoritarians were nothing but pacifists, liberals, primitivists, and anti-organization drop-outs – “anarchists” not in any historical sense of the term, but only individuals who simply latched on to the title to justify their meddled and pseudo-revolutionary ideas.
In sum, the results of the Convention are about what one would expect from a gathering of a privileged portion of the proletariat in the least class-conscious nation on the planet. The disowning of a revolutionary class analysis by the vast majority, the mechanical acquiescence to an obviously flawed structure simply in the interests of getting something done and leaving with a sense of accomplishment, the hopeless self-flagellation over white guilt, the creation of SDS bureaucracies to train the future cadres of recuperation (the future Gitlins, Haydens, etc.), and the pernicious influence of the Leninist left are all indicative of this. This is unsurprising, because from history we might expect such dismal results: the first SDS simply served as a tool for one alienated section of the working class, students, to advance its demands for better integration into capitalism, with a radical minority not content with the student milieu quickly enlisted in various Leninist sects. But in our era of capitalist downsizing, will students be allowed to have a massive organization to lobby the power structure for their parochial interests? Or, perchance, will students be forced, by the crisis of capitalist accumulation, to leave the reified conceptions of “university” behind and begin to regard themselves as who they really are, as a group of young workers that the capitalists have attempted to buy off? Only time will tell, but no doubt only a libertarian organization can help students in their struggle to conceptualize themselves as workers and to act accordingly.
What is up with SDS?
First they were a piece of history. Then suddenly they are contemporary.
A guy I met at IWW General Assembly told me that SDS is dominated by anarchos and the debate within it was between pro-organisation and anti-organisation anarchists. Is SDS a giant anarchist university students' network? What is the membership?
Do they do real actions or just demos?
What is the plan? Strategy? Will it ever come to anything?
Is there SDS in Canada?
Is anybody here SDS?