Excluding Reds from SDS?

Some important issues have been raised on the Kasama blog by Mike Ely about anti-communist exclusionary policies in the new SDS.

The first entry, dated August 31, was titled “SDS: Ideology, Agendas and Raw Anti-Communism” and published an interview with SDS member Rachel Haut that originally appeared in Platypus, an online publication.

Ely prefaces the interview with the following comments:

The following interview appeared in platypus1917.org. It focuses heavily on Rachel Haut’ belief that communist politics have no legitimate place within a movement for an alternative society. Her discussion lumps some very diverse forces together under a single label “Maoists” i – but that superficial and questionable generalization is part of the overall anti-communist method. The interview raises issues about the meaning of democracy, the kind of society that should replace this one, and whether communists have “agendas” and “ideology” (while presumably non-communist democrats do not).

It also raises the question of how this approach of pressuring Obama is linked to a particular (and anti-communist) view of “democracy.”

Laurie Rojas is a member of Chicago SDS and editor of The Platypus Review. Rachel Haut is a member of the New York non-student SDS chapter. Both are participating in the Hundred Days campaign- which plans to mobilize people in the first hundred days of the next administration to put pressure on Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Haut’s interview expresses a need not just to exclude “Maoists” but “crazy anarchists” as well:

However, I think it is inappropriate to have conversations about ideological differences when we still have Maoists in the organization. Why should we be having these conversations with them, including them in the discussion, if their ideology is in direct opposition to building a democratic society? To say that the Maoists can be part of the ideological debate would mean to condone them being in this organization, which is something I don’t do. In the New York City SDS I have spoken numerous times with SDSers who are not Maoists about having the Maoists or certain kinds of anarchists in our organization, because both sides hurt us. If we want to build a democratic society, and we want to be relevant, both of these opposing forces are working against us. There are varying degrees of anarchism, definitely, as well as varying degrees of socialism. But, I think ideas that conflict with our vision and our goals need to be clearly defined and excluded before we can actually start talking about our ideological differences formally as a national organization.

It is a little hard for me to judge the role of anarchists in SDS but I am somewhat surprised by this characterization since I was under the impression that anarchists enjoyed something of a hegemony in SDS. I surmised that with the implosion of the anti-globalization movement, anarchists have been on the prowl trying to find an outlet for their tactical fetishism. Apparently, they must have worn out their welcome in SDS, at least with people like Rachel Haut whose politics are a bit hard for me to extract out of the interview. I guess she sounds a bit like one of the early New Leftists who operated in SDS until factional lines were drawn with an earlier generation of Maoists.

In a follow-up post, Ely tries to clarify the underlying politics, based on what he reads as an adaptation to the Obama campaign by Haut mounted as a typical “left pressure” bloc:

But, the point is that it is necessary to go far beyond the exposure of liberal hypocrisy [a reference to Obama’s imperfections]. There needs to be a speaking out about what the program, beliefs and activities of revolutionary communists are today – to speak about preparing for revolution, seeking to reach socialism, organizing the overthrow of imperialism, uprooting the oppression of Black people and immigrants within the U.S., about initiating a revolutionary fight for sustainable human activity within the biosphere, and shattering gender oppression.

All of that stands in contrast to the tepid politics of pressuring Obama (whether gently or rudely, loyally or critically).

Mike sort of lost me with a plea to speak out on “the program, beliefs and activities of revolutionary communists” since that kind of thing sounds more like overheated rhetoric than a real engagement with the tasks of the left today. Frankly, it would be best to retire terms such as “revolutionary communists” since they smack of the kind of in-group mentality on the Marxist-Leninist left. The SWP used to use another ungainly term: “worker-Bolshevik”. Ugh.

Moving right along, I also wonder if Mike really has the politics figured out since both Haut and the FRSO (both groups apparently) are soft on Obama. As he puts it:

There is a strong current within both Freedom Road Socialist Organizations toward supporting Obama (and the Democrats, despite all the crimes of their imperialist politics past, present and future). And so, some associated with those FRSO’s may have trouble pointing out the connection between Rachel Haut’s anti-communism and her softness on Obama.

Frankly, I have a bit of a problem following the peregrinations of Maoist formations like the FRSO and the RCP, but I definitely would not be surprised to see the FRSO lining up behind Obama since one of their more prominent semi-public figures Bill Fletcher has been making the case for the Illinois Senator for some time now.

Beyond the vexing political questions, there is a dimension to the problem that defies easy categorization as “red baiting” or “exclusionism”, even though I had to put up with this kind of threat when I was in the Trotskyist movement in the 1960s and 70s. Basically, the FRSO operates in SDS in the same fashion that any “Leninist” group operates in the mass movement. It caucuses beforehand and comes to the meeting with its own proposals etched in granite. No matter how persuasive the arguments of other members in SDS, the FRSO members are obligated to vote for what their own organization decided in advance. That is in the nature of “democratic centralism”, at least crudely understood in Maoist and Trotskyist sects.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary SDS member. You see people whose minds are made up on debated issues, but always in accord with each other. This is sheer poison for any formation in the mass movement, particularly in a group like SDS that was destroyed by the machinations of a 1960s Maoist formation, the Progressive Labor Party.

As individuals I have high regard for FRSO’ers, at least those who I am familiar with in the “Refoundation” grouping-such as Stan Goff (who subsequently broke with the group and ideologically with Marxism, for what that’s worth.)

If I was a member of SDS, I’d argue strongly against any exclusionary measures but I would just as strongly hold the feet of any “Marxist-Leninist” intervening in the organization to the fire. Basically, the mode of operation they favor is a sad relic of our dogmatic past and should be retired ASAP. Furthermore, if the FRSO’ers want to stave off expulsion, the best thing that they could do is learn to differ with each other in public. Unfortunately, that is pretty much excluded by their understanding of “Leninism” so my advice would fall on deaf ears. Perhaps, as their influence continues to decline, they might wake up to the fact that a broader movement is needed. If the cry goes out for non-exclusion, it must be accompanied by one for organizational transparency-something that “revolutionary communists” have had no use for in the past.