Talk:Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)

LSD and SDS

Anybody that does not understand the connection between LSD and SDS, or seeks to somehow seperate the two - clearly has no understanding much less feeling for the way it was. In fact, the issue of chemical use in the movement was seized upon by the PLP in an effort to hijack the organisation. I experienced this on a very personal level organizing in West Los Angeles. The history of SDS has taken on almost an iconic status in terms of radical resistance. This is not in of itself bad or incorrect - but if activists are to find anything useful for today they must not edit the realities of yesterday. Relief Hill

Relief Hill is correct that SDS, and the student movement in general, cannot be understood without understanding the importance of psychedelics -- as well as the incredible outpouring of music -- that swept the "youth culture" or "counterculture" in the late 1960s. ja 131.230.179.9 04:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Progressive Labor's Role in SDS

Earlier versions of this entry characterized Progressive Labor (PL) and its Student Worker Alliance as "factions" of SDS. PL was not a "faction;" rather, it was an independent organization, that operated under Leninist discipline within SDS. It split from the U.S. Communist Party, adhering to the Chinese, rather than Soviet, Revolution -- aka "Maoist." When they first moved into SDS in the mid-1960s they simply pushed their line and sought recruits within SDS. They later formed (or took over) chapters and began to actively combat what they viewed as "counter-revolutionary" tendencies within the organization. While PL was not the only, or even the primary, cause of SDS's final demise, their actions raise the very serious question of how an open, democratic organization such as SDS can deal with a committed, secretive cadre organization that exercises strict discipline upon its members.

Columbia details

The material on the Columbia University chapter has grown so large that it should probably become its own article. As it is now, this material, by virtue of its length, tends to overwhelm the rest of the article. Ropcat 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is all out of balance. Further, it reads like it was copied from another source. I sugeest we move it to its own article and replace it with a paragraph or two summary. Ropcat, would you be willing? In the meantime, I sectioned out the Columbia material, and moved two overview paragraphs up to the top. -Willmcw 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Totally screws up the balance. There were about 350 campus organizations, all with their demonstrations, personalities and peculiarities. Move it to a separate article and restore some balance.DonSiano 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I've seen some evidence of the SDS resurection where I live. If SDS is coming back, might Yippie come back too?

SDS "fully defunct in 1972"?

It bothers me to see histories of SDS that state the organization broke up after the 1969 convention. I joined SDS in 1972 when I was a freshman at San Francisco State University and was there when the national organization finally closed its doors in 1974. Just because all the well known members left in 1969 doesn't mean the organization didn't exist. Yes, it was controlled by PLP (Progressive Labor Party and their "worker-student alliance" faction). I joined PLP in 1975 and left for good around 1984. There is a book that goes into detail about those years: Alan Adelson's "SDS, a Profile". Despite whatever people think about PL, SDS played a big role in the student movement in the early seventies, most notably the anti-ROTC campaign at UC Berkeley. I still recall watching the evening news and seeing the riot police in full gear running through Sproul Plaza and onto Telegraph Avenue, pursued by protesting students. SDS was organizing sit-ins in the ROTC building at SF State when I joined. With the demise of the campus anti-war movement, the emphasis switched to supporting campus workers (which never really went anywhere) and fighting academic racism (which generated a lot of controversy and publicity). Though PLP controlled SDS organizationally and ideologically, a lot of the old culture remained. "New Left Notes" was published up until 1974. There were also many long term members who were not PL members. There were slogans particular to SDS - my favorite was "less talk, more action". The organization ultimately met its demise as a result of the factional dispute within PLP, when most of the Boston chapter (derisively known as the "Chicken Little" faction) left, taking with them all the property in the SDS national office and effectively finishing the national organization. Even then, we heard reports of various SDS chapters starting up throughout the country into the late seventies.

new sds should have its own page

there really should be a seperate section for the new SDS (possibly with a link included on this page to the new SDS).

the pictures of the new SDS are being kind of mashed in with the sections about the old SDS, and i think it kind of takes away from both of them.

not to mention the very different politics. whereas the original sds was very socialist/communist influenced, from what i've heard the new SDS is much more anarchist influenced.

sorry i don't have the time to fix her up myself.

I agree that the new SDS should have its own page with links to this one and vice versa. DonSiano 14:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The American left as a whole is far more libertarian today than it was in the 1960's. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the new stage of capitalist globalization that followed have brought with them a revival of the anarchist movement. The twentieth century itself is a glaring indictment against capitalism and authoritarian Marxism. Other American left groups that have seen renewed activity in recent years (such as the IWW for example) are far less Marxist and far more explicitly anarchist then they were in their original heyday. While this new stage of the SDS has a deep historical and ideological connection to the SDS of the 1960's, it exists the world of the mid 2000's. Trotskyism and Maoism are an even more laughably absurd response to the world now than it was then. Anarchism itself changed with the times. The incorperation of the concensus process developed in 1960's radical femenist circles is only one of these evolutionary changes. If a social movement is to be a vital vehicle for change and not some sort of a dusty historical society, it must respond to the world around it. The SDS of today is built on the experiences, ideas and documents of the 1960's movement and everything that has happened since then. Even if one cannot step into the same river twice, a dry clump of silt and a map of the river’s erstwhile route is not a river at all. The "new" SDS is a distinct group from the "old" SDS only in the sense that one cannot step into the same river twice. And though this river has been dry for the last 30-odd years, the draught is over. A rain has come at last.

--Eugene, NYC SDS March 5 2007

Ummm... right. You get right on that.

Anyway, I agree that the new SDS should have its own page. Ideally the new page would be less annoyingly pro-new-SDS, as well. Perhaps a "criticisms" section, and fewer blatantly pro-SDS words like "impressive" and "sophistication".

(By the way, I'm glad to see that the new SDS is just as "femenist" as the old one... every revolutionary organization needs women to do its laundry, after all.) CarolinianJeff 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we need a separate article for the new SDS, but I think we could stand to resection the current article a bit to better indicate the two time periods. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After a while, I think a New SDS article will be warranted. SDS is really getting popular and the new version seems to have little in common with the old version (for instance, no national structure). --Liface 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SDS Publications

Just FYI: I've added references to several SDS publications which were either by persons of note, or indicate significant moments in SDS's history. Its one way to chart the evolution of the organization. DJ Silverfish 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement

"Though organizations have been formed in the years prior as proposed national networks for left-wing student organizing, none has approached the scale of SDS, and most have lasted a few years at best."

The Progressive Student Network lasted from 1980-1993/1994 (see the well-developed wiki page). That is not "a few years". Several organizations have been stronger than this new SDS, including the Progressive Student Network, Students Transforming And Resisting Corporations (they started off with a much bigger bang that this new SDS), and the Movement for Democracy and Education.

The fact that this new SDS is doing well, doesn't mean it will continue to do so as all three of these organizations started off doing well and then tended to fizzle. There is a good history of excellent starts (ex. a founding conference with 300 people and lots of energy) followed by organization decline and death. This new SDS claims over 100 chapters, but they are (like that of many networks) primarily on-paper-chapters. Many of them are in-formation, start-ups (with one interested person) that haven't done anything.

A good way of measuring network strength is how many chapters are filing activity reports (by email, in a newsletter, or on a website), combined with how many people you get to attend your second round of conferences.

Previous Attempts to Re-Form SDS

It would be useful to have a list of previous attempts to re-form SDS.

1997 I was on an email list for an attempt to re-form SDS in 1997 or so. The list: sds-l@greens.org

2004-2005 Luis-Alejandro Dinnella-Borrego was trying to start an organization that he kept switching the name. It varied from SDS, Student Reform Movement, and Reform America Now. This was a more serious attempt and had several chapters.

He wrote his own Port Huron Statement. http://www.geocities.com/ladb2007/theoutcryofthesrm.html

Links to several chapters http://www.geocities.com/ladb2007/sds_org.html

The Impact of SNCC

This article currently ignores the impact of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) on SDS. From what I've read, SNCC was critical in inspiring SDS - from the importance of civil rights as SDS's first major issue, to organizational style (participatory democracy), to even fashion (jeans and workboots, according to Kirkpatrick Sale's book), and the role of nonviolent direct action. SDS saw itself as the "SNCC of the North". For the early years SNCC was of primary importance, SDS secondary. Arguably, the role of SNCC has been discounted for reasons of race and class because it was a black organization - whereas SDS was full of Ivy League white college students.

I just added a small link to SNCC, but hopefully someone who was involved first-hand in SDS/SNCC would be able to do a better job in explaining SNCC's impact.

Magazine covers

I consider the two fair-use magazine covers to serve a role that is primarily decorative in the Students for a Democratic Society article. Fair use images that serve a mainly-decorative purpose are not permitted. We already have four images there: an arrest (itself a fair use screencap that also should go), as well as a strategy training session (public domain), the Jeb Bush protest (copyrighted free use), and the M17 shield bloc (GFDL).

Additionally, both magazine covers, as well as the screencap, have no fair use rationale explicitly detailing why the image is fair use for this article. We can't carry them without a rationale as well.

Now don't get me wrong - in articles about the magazines themselves, those same covers might be valid fair use. But for this article's purposes, no, we can't use them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've noticed quite a bit of vandalism on this particular page with random insertions of "penis," "homo," "vaginal," and "pube" occurring throughout. Please be vigilant against this, moderators and editors. --Daniel Meltzer, DC-SDS

Never you fear. We revert vandalism on sight. Don't forget also that unregistered users can revert vandalism, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the new SDS Anarcho-Syndicalists?

In the section about the New SDS, there is a picture of them protesting against the Iraq War holding shields in the colors and shape of the Anarcho-Syndicalist flag. Are they involved in the "class struggle" as well as criticism of governmental foreign and social policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.80.234 (talk • contribs)

I cannot speak for those pictured. A significant number of individuals involved with the new SDS are also involved with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The IWW uses the colors red and black, although not necessarily in the shape of the anarcho-syndicalist flag. Some IWW members consider themselves anarcho-syndicalists, while others — possibly a majority — do not. There are certainly similarities between the "revolutionary industrial unionism" of the IWW and anarcho-syndicalism, but saying that the IWW is anarcho-syndicalist, even within the IWW, is likely to generate some disagreement. In either case, this is probably best described as a tendency among some members of the SDS. I've never heard anyone suggest that the new SDS is, itself, in any sense anarcho-syndicalist. And most of the IWW members i've known tend to be a lot less dogmatic than some of the groups that were involved with, or split off from, the original SDS. (I happen to be a longtime member of the IWW, and assisted with the launch of an SDS chapter where i live...) best wishes, Richard Myers 15:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not as an organization dedicated to anarchism (opposition to the state and/or authority as such), syndicalism (worker ownership/management of individual factories) or anarcho-syndicalism. There are, of course, individuals who hold these beliefs and many more – but as an organization the answer is no. It is a democratic and participatory organization representing a wide swath of defined and inchoate leftism among students.In the Stacks 13:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to the 2009 National Convention, and there were lots of anarchists but also lots of Maoists/Leninists. There's no specific ideology nationally and the chapters have a lot of autonomy.Dylan Stafne (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight modification to "origins" section - where do I cite sources?

This is my first "edit" on wikipedia. I modified one sentence which implied that Irving Howe was at Port Huron (he was not). How and where do I cite my source for this (which is, by the way, The Sixties by Todd Gitlin)? Thanks. I Am Not The Walrus 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The full description of how to cite sources is in Wikipedia:Citing sources. There are several different techniques in use, all of which are acceptable. I've taken the liberty of adding your citation - feel free to add the page number, correct the edition, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New SDS

I've suggested that this new article be merged here. Please see the discussion. Murderbike 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge "New SDS" back in

I contend that splitting off the article about the modern SDS is a BAD IDEA. In similar cases where organizations dissolved and reformed, they are on the same article. Additionally, the new organization doesn't refer to itself as "New SDS", but as "Students for a Democratic Society". Likewise, members of the original SDS helped form the new organization. If there are no strong objections, I'm merging it back in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the articles are best left separate. The old SDS was a historically important organization that should easily lend itself to an encyclopedia article. Given the dynamic nature of the new SDS I think we might be better served in keeping the articles separate. Internally much of what happens with the new SDS is controversial so I can imagine what chaos will result from a publicly editable wiki page about it! Also being from the new SDS myself I can tell you that a lot of us have a high opinion of some of the old-timers and a few of them have been speakers at new SDS functions and helpful in otherways and whatnot but we are talking about two fundamentally different organizations here. For example one of the professors at my school is the sds faculty advisor and she was in the old sds, but it is in no way viewed as the continuity of a long dormant organization. Humbabba 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They are two different organizations. --Liface 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually have a better idea. Since both organizations are SDS, and share a name and insignia and other things, let's do a little work and make something less lopsided. Lemme fiddle around here... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is the point of this article? Even though there are "main article" links to the 1960 and 2006 articles, it took me digging through the history before I realized where the rest of this article had gone. I believe that when people type "Students for a Democratic Society" into Wikipedia, they probably want to read about the original organization, or quite possibly the new organization, but that's it. They don't need a purposely skimpy article with links to the proper pages in the middle. Therefore, given the above consensus of having separate articles, I see only two options for this page:

• a disambiguation page
• the article about the original SDS with an {otheruses} reference to the new one

Two articles are fine, but not three! MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

You kind of answered your own question there - you don't know which SDS people are looking for, so that's what this article is for - to get people to where they need to get to. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what a disambiguation page is for. Or, in the case of one "meaning" being more popularly sought, a tag at the top referring to the less popular article. Which is exactly what I indicated above. It is never standard (or, in my opinion, good) to have something in between, as is seen here. Opinions? (Sorry for the fragmented sentences.) MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read through again, and you're right - it's a dab page now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Fiction

Just been watching Forrest Gump tonight, and a character, one of Jenny's Boyfriends, is interduced as a member of the SDS, not a very symapathtic chachter, by the films standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab.c.McHobo (talk • contribs) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this divided into "1960" and "2006"?

I have to say that while I understand the arguments for separating the two SDS organizations, I don't see the purpose of calling the original SDS "(1960 organization)." It is significantly the more notable of the two, and has a much deeper structure of related articles (1960 vs. 2006) - why isn't the original SDS referred to simply as Students for a Democratic Society, the reformed version under the current name, and this page a disambiguation page? Frimairist (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)