Advertisement
View Alan Haber's comments on this message
Friends,
Students for a Democratic Society (sds) is back!
Finally, and not a moment (or a few decades) too soon, we have the re-emergence of a national and international nonsectarian umbrella anti-imperialist movement based in the US. This is one of the most crucial struggles on the Left going on anywhere today, and has met with amazing growth, although the specifics are fuzzy: over 200 chapters forming or in formation, over 1000 nationally registered, and active campaigns across the country, all within the first year since Martin Luther King day 2006.
But problems have emerged with the leadership -- who in advance of any national structure have emerged informally, and unfortunately seek to entrench themselves and their approach, which would render the organization a fortress impregnable to genuine democratic accountability. There is an uphill struggle afoot for authentic progressive participatory democracy, which could triumph with the help of the larger left. Remember that no such anti-imperialist movement in this country today is at all likely to emerge properly without a struggle, and that struggle is upon us.
Alan Haber, the founder and first president of the first sds (1958-63) has also been calling for the 're-membering' of sds since April 2003. He is the president of a newly minted non-profit corporation, MDS Inc., (movement for a democratic society) for fundraising and other support purposes to sds/mds. Yet this crew of insiders has frozen even him out of their undemocratic processes, as described in the letter we are forwarding to you here (see below).
Please publish and circulate this widely. Please contact the Alliance for Democracy in SDS if you would like to help and join this struggle, or if you would like any further information.
Alliance Contacts:
Charles E. Bishop. Burleson, Texas. BISHOP-13@texican.net
Kristopher Dingfield, chaos666-24@hotmail.com
Erkki KochKetola South Bend, IN ekochket@iusb.edu
Monty Reed Kroopkin, Co-founder of MDS, Inc., San Diego, Californias mkroopkin@juno.com , (858) 270-8067
Jesse Lemisch, Professor Emeritus of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. utopia1@attglobal.net
"Cloudy" from Springfield MA, cloudynuageux@aol.com
Donovan Smith,New Orleans, LA smith223@cox.net
Please note: forwarded message attached
Return-Path: nlc-owner@lists.riseup.net
From: Alan Haber
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:49:53 -0500
To: mds-discuss@lists.riseup.net [others suppressed]
Subject: [NLC] alan haber's perspective on developments in mds, inc alan haber's perspective on developments in mds, inc.,
i hesitate to burden anyone's email further, but in so far as i have been oft mentioned, and am indeed a principal in the controversy, as well as upholding principles, i will offer here some of my point of view. if you would prefer to hear it more personally, or to respond, call me up. my phone is 734 761 7967
i entered the world of mds with great enthusiasm. i had been calling for a "re-membering" of sds, since april 4, 2003 in memphis, when i participated in a panel with bob moses, judy richardson, staughton lynd, jesse lemish, and others, called "remembering sncc and sds." i envisioned the "re-membered sds" as an inclusive union, including students, and seniors also, and survivors, seekers, strugglers, sisters, singers, ... and all for a democratic society. i wrote a version of this vision in a draft membership card.
in practice however this organizing experience has been troubled from near the beginning,
[this turned out to be a long message. i will send it again with the text below as an “attachment”]
in my view, much of the controversy is about "how to begin." it is not trivial at all.
someone said: "who cares if al haber chairs? he will have opportunity to participate in discussion". that unfortunately is part of the problem.
wrongly, i believe, my voice has been eliminated, not only from the chairing, but also from the planning, development and actual program of the membership meeting, except for a last poetic word, after the meeting is essentially over. and the meeting itself is structured as a series of speeches and headliner introductions, with little actual opportunity for discussion, by me or anyone.
one small part of this problem is that, personally, i have been treated with a disrespect i do not deserve, accused of being un-comradely, un-collegial, un-trustworthy, in practice none of that has been so, though obviously my efforts to navigate troubled waters have not yet succeeded. i have refrained from criticisms or alignments in the disputes that arose around various questions, ever seeking rapprochement, focus on tasks and not personalities, moderation of language, listening, and putting forward ideas for discussion.
the February 17 membership meeting was planned essentially in secret, excluding me from any communications. the by-laws were ignored, or twisted to remove me from one function of president, to chair the meetings, and a non-existent "conflict of interest" was cooked up to somehow justify a "political" move the motivations for which i can only speculate. the way i have been treated, as well as others, is indicative of an organization style that has developed among other officers that is arrogant, narrow, sarcastic, nothing-breaks-my-stride self confident and self congratulatory, and needing correction.
when i am essentially excluded from the organization process, notwithstanding both my informal and formal positions, i can hardly feel this is the inclusive welcoming positive development in the movement of which i dreamed, spoke, wrote and worked.
i believe this situation is not really the intent of the other officers, all of whom i considered friends when i meet them. they too must somewhere have heavy hearts, but heavy handed politics have come to dominate, when differences arose, and that is just the wrong way for things to have developed. i have made practical proposals for amicable resolutions, with no positive response; indeed i have had no communication from the other officers and leadership in the last several weeks, accept one to warn me that disruption and conflict ending badly will have future consequences for me. so be it. but, beside the personal level of hurt, there are significant organization questions under all this drama.
i advocated a different kind of membership meeting: that "the membership meeting belongs to the membership," that discussion among the membership, including prospective board members as well, was an essential beginning for launching a "movement for a democratic society," and lengthy and "star" presentations was not so much, or at all, what we needed. some prominent people could be invited to give some pointed openings to discussions of difficult questions: that would be appropriate, but who needs speeches and anyone to lay it all out for us one more time, in this day and age? "we need to think together," was my view of how to begin, and to come forward with some statement or words, at least, about the war.
i promoted for discussion, an agenda of obvious and outstanding questions in beginning a political association adequate for our needs in these times, which is what i have considered our endeavor to be. the agenda proposal i put forward for discussion was basically ignored, and treated with derision, as expressed by one officer, "we can handle everything" referring to a "we" that didn't include me.
i imagine those who have sought to preempt the chair, that is, put me out of it, have done so because they are afraid/concerned that if i were to chair i would recognize questions or speakers they don't want heard. (they might also be concerned that i would invent a prerogative of the chair to make a "presidential address," as i had requested to do.) in my view, the sensitive questions under and around the surface, include:
1) organization vision, relations with sds,
2) financial accountability and responsibilities of the board
3) dealing with dissidents and security,
4) non-violence,
5) non-exclusionism,
6) open communication and democracy, and possibly,
7) baggage from the old sds, and range of political questions.
basically i think all of these questions are relevant, and should be addressed in our founding, or launching, first membership meeting, and discussion among us is the most important event in beginning, (as well as a fundraiser.) these are not questions we will settle, but to begin well, we must acknowledge them. some of these questions touch on the by laws which are part of the business of the meeting.
1) one of the questions that needs consideration on a membership agenda, where everyone has a right to speak and be heard, concerns the relations between "mds" and "mds, inc." and "sds," and "sds inclusive" what is the organizational vision?
i was elected president of "mds" by "sds" on presentation from a workshop at the chicago convention, that included those other officers, who now seek to depose me from the responsibilities of president, which include chairing the meetings. "mds, inc." was endorsed by "sds" as a fundraising facility and to develop a radical education project among other purposes, and "mds" was seen as a multipurpose movement political association with an all inclusive mission. and "sds" is an independent, integrally connected student movement organization identifying with the mission and continuity of sds from the 1960's, and sds-inclusive is the one that includes seniors, and survivors, sisters and all. some time discussing this multi-form nexus would be appropriate, at least to propose some questions to sds, for student groups to consider as they move toward defining their national regional and local structures.
2) a related question needing clarity at the beginning, is how to insure money raised for student work gets to the students, and does not become an indirect influence on the direction of student politics. a continuity of commitment from the old sds, and sncc too, is the independence of student organizing from "adult" control.
with money in the picture, attention has to be given to financial controls, and transparency, how this is accomplished should be considered by the membership and some principles affirmed as direction to the board. the present treasurer has not issued monthly financial reports as requested and agreed in our one phone meeting. aspirations abound of raising large amounts of money (like if i would write a check for $30,000 my status would be rehabilitated, or if a mere member who raised criticism would just write a check for $1000, he would be better heard and better serve.) money and the hope of it and commitment to raise it and identifying a place to ask for it, makes accountability, budgets, and all that more important.
and the functions of the board itself can also stand some consideration by the membership, given that "mds, inc." is established as a membership governed organization. some board “nominees” have, i expect, agreed to join the board mostly in name only, to give endorsement to the need to support student work; others are more interested in actually building a "movement for a democratic society" organization and taking on responsibilities. I consider myself one of the later. we need to figure out an organization structure that uses the talents and varied capacities of all.
3) security policy is another question, where my position seems in the minority, among the officers,
the other officers seem to be "protecting" the meeting against the possibility of someone of the members "raving and ranting" or disrupting from the floor. and they are prepared to put the person down, physically, if necessary, that is, necessary in their judgment, (being particularly concerned about several individuals in the opposition group, and possibly myself.)
i disagreed with that security approach, recalling my own sad experience with that approach in 1969, (in the sds-panther "united front against fascism" conference in oakland california) i didn't want to see it repeated.
in particular, some or all of the other officers are apparently determined that no criticism, discussion, denunciation or other unpleasant controversy about the weathermen, the weather-underground or over-ground, or the closing period of sds 1969-into the 70's, and possibly also policy discussion about political violence and use of weapons. i expect they also want no criticism, or accountability of their own behaviors.
i think the only limitation should be limiting long talks, not what is talked about, and creating an agenda that allows everyone to be heard on matters that affect them. i think there are better approaches to conflict resolution and intentional disruption than implication of strong arm options.
4) i have advocated for a, toward a policy of non-violence. i have made reference in speeches and writings, to the united nations general assembly resolution 53/25, that this first decade for this millennium is declared the "decade for creation of a culture of peace and non violence for the children if the world," and urged that we should ally our efforts with that mission, and indeed, the new sds, which selected me president in the beginning of mds, declared itself in existence on martin luther king jr. day in 2006. non-violence seems a basic principle of our endeavor, certainly as we consider this country. i believe a task in our endeavor is to create a culture of non-violence in our organization, among ourselves.
i think there is a tendency among the other officers, and others, to keep a more pragmatic, tactical, "maybe," approach, when useful. the love, compassion, kindness and soul force has not yet shone forth. other officers and friends have chosen to talk among themselves to one another under the name of "john brown caucus," famous as an advocate of revolutionary violence, taking arms against the state, and from the state, and willing to practice political murder, armed insurrection. giving that label to one's internal conversation suggests to me, at least, a romanticizing of political violence and use of weapons. the one glimpse i had into one thread in the archive of the john brown caucus, was very derogatory of me, and others, crudely characterizing those with whom they disagree as racist or kkk-like in their white sheets. this polarized view that doesn't try to find something good in everyone, is a problem in my view.
5) i am for non-exclusionism, and support full internal debate, and many lines of thought engage. i am for engagement, and not suppression. people complaining about the actions of the other officers complain about being suppressed. having been a reader of m.s.arnoni and his "minority of one" paper at the founding times of sds, and a contributor to the "all of us or none" archive, i am bound to speak for the rights to speak, even of the few
i disagree with other officers in how critics should be treated and addressed. "fuck you " [with a person's name, printed on a tee shirt], "fuck you" concluding a resolution to the so called "democracy caucus," “fuck off” and "up your ass" addressed to critics "ego maniacs" to describe the sum of them, and more, and i won't repeat what i was called. This is no way for organizational leadership to act, however provoked they might feel, and uncivil their critics. It particularly distresses me that "fuck" is used as an aggressive, rejecting, dominating act, not as loving and embracing, sadly replicating the pathology of the culture in which we live. fundamentally what is required of leadership, and for organizers, is respect for the members and for the people being invited in. somehow in the leadership culture that has developed among those who took the significant initiatives in getting this endeavor going, respect for the members, and whom we serve, has not yet gotten included.
i have advanced the view that everyone has something to contribute, and indeed, aches to be part of doing what needs to be done, the leadership group has acted as if those who are critical should shut up, or go somewhere else. i believe we are all in it together for "the long haul," and part of our task is to heal ourselves, and support and respect one another, as the best way to do the rest of our task, which is, more or less, to heal the rest of the world. among the leadership there has been insult and rejection for people's mental illnesses and disabilities and limitations. this i believe is the wrong attitude.
6) another factor that has caused difficulty is openness and closedness of lines of communication. the membership list is kept secret , there is no way for members to communicate with one another. the informal "new left cafe" was shut done by the one officer who runs the list serves and web technology., when too much of the content was critical of the leadership. it was reopened after protest, and then closed again, people are banned from the general mds discussion list. in my view its a mess; and needs some help in getting straightened out.
another event aggravating the climate of distrust, was an officer being involved in secretly changing the internet codes, locking out of his "my space" one of the critics of the way things were going, and then maintaining silence about what actually happened, (who did what and why?) this is not cool behavior. there is a deeply flawed attitude developing here, of trying to control communication. we need clearer guidelines and an organization wide "free speech zone."
it is hard for me to see how a "membership meeting" can proceed with the formal agenda, ignoring the actual experience that has brought us to this place, and the many questions needing to be discussed.
the meeting agenda itself, as announced, is an effort to control communication. an agenda drawn in secret, (at least from me) with no request for input from the members, a few accepted speakers and accepted topics, and then not enough time to do the business that has to be done, further limiting participation and interaction.
the proposal was rejected by other officers, (as though i had no right even to propose it,) that we develop appropriate means allowing members, not able to attend the meeting, to have meaningful participation, absentee, internet, proxy voting, pod casting, internet streaming, decentralizing, widening, some innovations. if we are promoting a democratic society, there should be a better way of practicing democracy internally.
i say such concerns are important in the beginning, the officer majority seem to say: later, wait to another meeting, another discussion, another time. april 15 in providence. the officer majority seem to have decided what we need now is a show the leadership, publicity event with some star statements for the press and radical community, hopefully to draw some money, with minimum discussion and decision making except to delegate authority to a "board of directors."
i argued also that in constructing a board we should be consciously inclusive of all the voices we wanted in "the beginning picture of our undertaking." that we affirm parity, indeed majority of women, that voices be invited who represent the continuities of the many movements we seek bring together, and re-member, that the process of selection and invitation be keep open as long as possible, and that we think together about the representation of ideas and tendencies and prestige we want to include, to begin with.
while there was agreement on diversity, the conscious cooperative construction of the board slate was not accepted, and there was no real discussion about invitations, and requests to have a clear statement of board functions was rejected, and nominations were peremptorily closed. though now, I have seen new thoughts arise about the absence of more labor activists and other omissions.
i considered myself committed to this undertaking, as one of the voices in the initial picture, and proposed myself to continue on the board, regardless for whether i was an officer or not.
i am grateful to everyone who was asked and agreed to help create this movement for a democratic society, whether as board member or ordinary member and my fellow officers.
i do not know what is the internal pathology of the other officer group, or my own, for that matter, in holding tenaciously to what i think are principles, even as an apparent minority of one myself. undertaking the tasks we are imagining is daunting indeed, and we already feel embattled by growing fascism around us. i believe we need organization mental health and psycho-therapy services from the beginning. the officer consensus acts like "wagons in a circle," defending against attacks. specifically to me, they act like the league for industrial democracy did years ago, firing me when i didn't do like they say, "accept it!" and i guess i'm acting like i did in 1960, and i don't go away. i believe there is a need for an mds, (or a generic sds,) and a non profit to go along with it, democratic, inclusive, respectful. the "mds, inc." that we have so far is not yet it. i'm working, even writing these reflections, to make it happen, or help.
i am sorry the interchange has so often devolved to acrimony, arrogance and insult, and the communication channels so difficult to navigate. in some ways the internet is the worst place to carry on political discussion, it also offers great possibilities. participatory democracy in the decisions that affect us is indeed possible, perhaps for the first time, and at all levels. we need to use it better, and people who function on the internet are not to be derided.
i know i want a way to communicate my ideas and political work. in the "megiddo peace project," "ann arbor town meeting," "earth day action april 22, 2007," and the related work in "women's international league for peace and freedom" in which odile, my wife, is on the leadership team.
one of the ideas we have put forward is the focal image of "the peace table," and women at the peace table, in every setting of conflict, and to call for negotiations, for imperialism and the warriors to cease fire, and come to the peace table, to conference house or tent of meeting, and to see our tasks as organizers, organizing the international union and its locals to negotiate with the ruling class and masters of war, and win a new social contract, reclaiming the commons and the peoples' rights, etc.
in terms of our own situation in mds, i have proposed to bring "the peace table" to new york, but it seems to have no place on the agenda, nor room on the stage. [as a cabinet maker i have made such a table for the people's peace.]
i think we need a "list serve" in the movement for a democratic society that can serve for an exchange of political perspectives, projects, actions, pictures.
i am sure everyone who reads this does want to help found a radical political organization that would be adequate to our needs in these times. we need it. we have a beginning, but our internal process has a long way to go.
i hope everyone who reads this will come to the meeting in new york, or do what you can to make your voice heard there, especially on the questions i raised here:
i hope all the speakers will consider these questions
relations between/ among mds, mds, inc. and sds, what is the vision?
financial accountability, transparency, and avoiding indirect political direction in student work by fundraising and handling money?
board functions
openness of internal communications, how do we talk to one another?
security and treatment of minorities, critics, agents
non-violence
non-exclusionism
and any baggage from the old sds that needs sorting out.
and should we make any kind of collective statement, out of this meeting? and, if so, what words would you like in it?
we have 9 hours, from 9 am to 6 pm, february 17 2007 saturday.
what we do together, in that time, and before, and after, or don't, remains an open question to me.
these are my reflections. deeply sad is what i feel now. i began this effort to say my perspective already a while ago, before the ice storm cut the power. since then, there has still been no communication to me from the other officers. my proposals for "truth and reconciliation" were left without response.
i came into this commitment to help sds rebirth and mds to gather us all, as happy as i have felt in a long time, what i hoped for was a new breath, where we put together the knowledges we had gained, etc as it has developed, the officers faced challenges, deserved or not, and regressed in to a tried and untrue (wrong) organization culture of control and exclusion and have gone so far in that direction to exclude even me. bizarre.
i don't exempt myself from responsibilities in this state of affairs, i am not always the best communicator, not brief and simple. i am over-committed, and taxed to my limit in even reading all the messages. i have even yet not done things and followed up communications i need to. sometimes even i'm a grumpy old man. but the questions i raise are not trivial: about how to begin what we are beginning to do.
and i don't know whether to bring the peace table, or not to bother.
heartfelt
alan haber
when i accepted to be president of mds, i said i wanted it considered "co-president," because i considered a model of shared leadership at the top, essential in beginning our partnership way toward a new social contract. so far we, including me, have failed in realizing this leadership model. it is ironic that a gesture toward partnership, now rationalizes exclusion. alan haber i do hope recipients of this communication will take the effort to reply. thank you. alan haber i haven't commented here on “number 7” in my list of themes: baggage from the old sds, and range of questions and concerns. the organization questions are enough for this letter, to suggest what i had in mind, consider the following: alan haber how do we respond to the challenge of the people of color caucus? alan haber how to make a feminist organization, for a change? alan haber how do we frame the discussion of fascism and social forces, the underground reich, 9/11 and who did what? who killed jfk, mlk.jr, rfk? skull and bones? what are we up against? alan haber Where are nuclear weapons and weapons in space and the war machine on our agenda alan haber how do we engage israel and palestine, zionism, anti-zionism, post zionism, anti-semitism ,and “peace in the holy lands? “ alan haber and is there room in this association for "spiritual progressives" and people of faith other than “secular humanism.” alan haber and quoting from a poster: “class consciousness is to know what side of the fence you are on; class analysis is to know who’s there with you.” how do we describe the international working class these days, where is it rising and with whom are we allies alan haber plenty to consider in launching a movement for a democratic society.
Friends,
Students for a Democratic Society (sds) is back!
Finally, and not a moment (or a few decades) too soon, we have the re-emergence of a national and international nonsectarian umbrella anti-imperialist movement based in the US. This is one of the most crucial struggles on the Left going on anywhere today, and has met with amazing growth, although the specifics are fuzzy: over 200 chapters forming or in formation, over 1000 nationally registered, and active campaigns across the country, all within the first year since Martin Luther King day 2006.
But problems have emerged with the leadership -- who in advance of any national structure have emerged informally, and unfortunately seek to entrench themselves and their approach, which would render the organization a fortress impregnable to genuine democratic accountability. There is an uphill struggle afoot for authentic progressive participatory democracy, which could triumph with the help of the larger left. Remember that no such anti-imperialist movement in this country today is at all likely to emerge properly without a struggle, and that struggle is upon us.
Alan Haber, the founder and first president of the first sds (1958-63) has also been calling for the 're-membering' of sds since April 2003. He is the president of a newly minted non-profit corporation, MDS Inc., (movement for a democratic society) for fundraising and other support purposes to sds/mds. Yet this crew of insiders has frozen even him out of their undemocratic processes, as described in the letter we are forwarding to you here (see below).
Please publish and circulate this widely. Please contact the Alliance for Democracy in SDS if you would like to help and join this struggle, or if you would like any further information.
Alliance Contacts:
Charles E. Bishop. Burleson, Texas. BISHOP-13@texican.net
Kristopher Dingfield, chaos666-24@hotmail.com
Erkki KochKetola South Bend, IN ekochket@iusb.edu
Monty Reed Kroopkin, Co-founder of MDS, Inc., San Diego, Californias mkroopkin@juno.com , (858) 270-8067
Jesse Lemisch, Professor Emeritus of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. utopia1@attglobal.net
"Cloudy" from Springfield MA, cloudynuageux@aol.com
Donovan Smith,New Orleans, LA smith223@cox.net
Please note: forwarded message attached
Return-Path: nlc-owner@lists.riseup.net
From: Alan Haber
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:49:53 -0500
To: mds-discuss@lists.riseup.net [others suppressed]
Subject: [NLC] alan haber's perspective on developments in mds, inc alan haber's perspective on developments in mds, inc.,
i hesitate to burden anyone's email further, but in so far as i have been oft mentioned, and am indeed a principal in the controversy, as well as upholding principles, i will offer here some of my point of view. if you would prefer to hear it more personally, or to respond, call me up. my phone is 734 761 7967
i entered the world of mds with great enthusiasm. i had been calling for a "re-membering" of sds, since april 4, 2003 in memphis, when i participated in a panel with bob moses, judy richardson, staughton lynd, jesse lemish, and others, called "remembering sncc and sds." i envisioned the "re-membered sds" as an inclusive union, including students, and seniors also, and survivors, seekers, strugglers, sisters, singers, ... and all for a democratic society. i wrote a version of this vision in a draft membership card.
in practice however this organizing experience has been troubled from near the beginning,
[this turned out to be a long message. i will send it again with the text below as an “attachment”]
in my view, much of the controversy is about "how to begin." it is not trivial at all.
someone said: "who cares if al haber chairs? he will have opportunity to participate in discussion". that unfortunately is part of the problem.
wrongly, i believe, my voice has been eliminated, not only from the chairing, but also from the planning, development and actual program of the membership meeting, except for a last poetic word, after the meeting is essentially over. and the meeting itself is structured as a series of speeches and headliner introductions, with little actual opportunity for discussion, by me or anyone.
one small part of this problem is that, personally, i have been treated with a disrespect i do not deserve, accused of being un-comradely, un-collegial, un-trustworthy, in practice none of that has been so, though obviously my efforts to navigate troubled waters have not yet succeeded. i have refrained from criticisms or alignments in the disputes that arose around various questions, ever seeking rapprochement, focus on tasks and not personalities, moderation of language, listening, and putting forward ideas for discussion.
the February 17 membership meeting was planned essentially in secret, excluding me from any communications. the by-laws were ignored, or twisted to remove me from one function of president, to chair the meetings, and a non-existent "conflict of interest" was cooked up to somehow justify a "political" move the motivations for which i can only speculate. the way i have been treated, as well as others, is indicative of an organization style that has developed among other officers that is arrogant, narrow, sarcastic, nothing-breaks-my-stride self confident and self congratulatory, and needing correction.
when i am essentially excluded from the organization process, notwithstanding both my informal and formal positions, i can hardly feel this is the inclusive welcoming positive development in the movement of which i dreamed, spoke, wrote and worked.
i believe this situation is not really the intent of the other officers, all of whom i considered friends when i meet them. they too must somewhere have heavy hearts, but heavy handed politics have come to dominate, when differences arose, and that is just the wrong way for things to have developed. i have made practical proposals for amicable resolutions, with no positive response; indeed i have had no communication from the other officers and leadership in the last several weeks, accept one to warn me that disruption and conflict ending badly will have future consequences for me. so be it. but, beside the personal level of hurt, there are significant organization questions under all this drama.
i advocated a different kind of membership meeting: that "the membership meeting belongs to the membership," that discussion among the membership, including prospective board members as well, was an essential beginning for launching a "movement for a democratic society," and lengthy and "star" presentations was not so much, or at all, what we needed. some prominent people could be invited to give some pointed openings to discussions of difficult questions: that would be appropriate, but who needs speeches and anyone to lay it all out for us one more time, in this day and age? "we need to think together," was my view of how to begin, and to come forward with some statement or words, at least, about the war.
i promoted for discussion, an agenda of obvious and outstanding questions in beginning a political association adequate for our needs in these times, which is what i have considered our endeavor to be. the agenda proposal i put forward for discussion was basically ignored, and treated with derision, as expressed by one officer, "we can handle everything" referring to a "we" that didn't include me.
i imagine those who have sought to preempt the chair, that is, put me out of it, have done so because they are afraid/concerned that if i were to chair i would recognize questions or speakers they don't want heard. (they might also be concerned that i would invent a prerogative of the chair to make a "presidential address," as i had requested to do.) in my view, the sensitive questions under and around the surface, include:
1) organization vision, relations with sds,
2) financial accountability and responsibilities of the board
3) dealing with dissidents and security,
4) non-violence,
5) non-exclusionism,
6) open communication and democracy, and possibly,
7) baggage from the old sds, and range of political questions.
basically i think all of these questions are relevant, and should be addressed in our founding, or launching, first membership meeting, and discussion among us is the most important event in beginning, (as well as a fundraiser.) these are not questions we will settle, but to begin well, we must acknowledge them. some of these questions touch on the by laws which are part of the business of the meeting.
1) one of the questions that needs consideration on a membership agenda, where everyone has a right to speak and be heard, concerns the relations between "mds" and "mds, inc." and "sds," and "sds inclusive" what is the organizational vision?
i was elected president of "mds" by "sds" on presentation from a workshop at the chicago convention, that included those other officers, who now seek to depose me from the responsibilities of president, which include chairing the meetings. "mds, inc." was endorsed by "sds" as a fundraising facility and to develop a radical education project among other purposes, and "mds" was seen as a multipurpose movement political association with an all inclusive mission. and "sds" is an independent, integrally connected student movement organization identifying with the mission and continuity of sds from the 1960's, and sds-inclusive is the one that includes seniors, and survivors, sisters and all. some time discussing this multi-form nexus would be appropriate, at least to propose some questions to sds, for student groups to consider as they move toward defining their national regional and local structures.
2) a related question needing clarity at the beginning, is how to insure money raised for student work gets to the students, and does not become an indirect influence on the direction of student politics. a continuity of commitment from the old sds, and sncc too, is the independence of student organizing from "adult" control.
with money in the picture, attention has to be given to financial controls, and transparency, how this is accomplished should be considered by the membership and some principles affirmed as direction to the board. the present treasurer has not issued monthly financial reports as requested and agreed in our one phone meeting. aspirations abound of raising large amounts of money (like if i would write a check for $30,000 my status would be rehabilitated, or if a mere member who raised criticism would just write a check for $1000, he would be better heard and better serve.) money and the hope of it and commitment to raise it and identifying a place to ask for it, makes accountability, budgets, and all that more important.
and the functions of the board itself can also stand some consideration by the membership, given that "mds, inc." is established as a membership governed organization. some board “nominees” have, i expect, agreed to join the board mostly in name only, to give endorsement to the need to support student work; others are more interested in actually building a "movement for a democratic society" organization and taking on responsibilities. I consider myself one of the later. we need to figure out an organization structure that uses the talents and varied capacities of all.
3) security policy is another question, where my position seems in the minority, among the officers,
the other officers seem to be "protecting" the meeting against the possibility of someone of the members "raving and ranting" or disrupting from the floor. and they are prepared to put the person down, physically, if necessary, that is, necessary in their judgment, (being particularly concerned about several individuals in the opposition group, and possibly myself.)
i disagreed with that security approach, recalling my own sad experience with that approach in 1969, (in the sds-panther "united front against fascism" conference in oakland california) i didn't want to see it repeated.
in particular, some or all of the other officers are apparently determined that no criticism, discussion, denunciation or other unpleasant controversy about the weathermen, the weather-underground or over-ground, or the closing period of sds 1969-into the 70's, and possibly also policy discussion about political violence and use of weapons. i expect they also want no criticism, or accountability of their own behaviors.
i think the only limitation should be limiting long talks, not what is talked about, and creating an agenda that allows everyone to be heard on matters that affect them. i think there are better approaches to conflict resolution and intentional disruption than implication of strong arm options.
4) i have advocated for a, toward a policy of non-violence. i have made reference in speeches and writings, to the united nations general assembly resolution 53/25, that this first decade for this millennium is declared the "decade for creation of a culture of peace and non violence for the children if the world," and urged that we should ally our efforts with that mission, and indeed, the new sds, which selected me president in the beginning of mds, declared itself in existence on martin luther king jr. day in 2006. non-violence seems a basic principle of our endeavor, certainly as we consider this country. i believe a task in our endeavor is to create a culture of non-violence in our organization, among ourselves.
i think there is a tendency among the other officers, and others, to keep a more pragmatic, tactical, "maybe," approach, when useful. the love, compassion, kindness and soul force has not yet shone forth. other officers and friends have chosen to talk among themselves to one another under the name of "john brown caucus," famous as an advocate of revolutionary violence, taking arms against the state, and from the state, and willing to practice political murder, armed insurrection. giving that label to one's internal conversation suggests to me, at least, a romanticizing of political violence and use of weapons. the one glimpse i had into one thread in the archive of the john brown caucus, was very derogatory of me, and others, crudely characterizing those with whom they disagree as racist or kkk-like in their white sheets. this polarized view that doesn't try to find something good in everyone, is a problem in my view.
5) i am for non-exclusionism, and support full internal debate, and many lines of thought engage. i am for engagement, and not suppression. people complaining about the actions of the other officers complain about being suppressed. having been a reader of m.s.arnoni and his "minority of one" paper at the founding times of sds, and a contributor to the "all of us or none" archive, i am bound to speak for the rights to speak, even of the few
i disagree with other officers in how critics should be treated and addressed. "fuck you " [with a person's name, printed on a tee shirt], "fuck you" concluding a resolution to the so called "democracy caucus," “fuck off” and "up your ass" addressed to critics "ego maniacs" to describe the sum of them, and more, and i won't repeat what i was called. This is no way for organizational leadership to act, however provoked they might feel, and uncivil their critics. It particularly distresses me that "fuck" is used as an aggressive, rejecting, dominating act, not as loving and embracing, sadly replicating the pathology of the culture in which we live. fundamentally what is required of leadership, and for organizers, is respect for the members and for the people being invited in. somehow in the leadership culture that has developed among those who took the significant initiatives in getting this endeavor going, respect for the members, and whom we serve, has not yet gotten included.
i have advanced the view that everyone has something to contribute, and indeed, aches to be part of doing what needs to be done, the leadership group has acted as if those who are critical should shut up, or go somewhere else. i believe we are all in it together for "the long haul," and part of our task is to heal ourselves, and support and respect one another, as the best way to do the rest of our task, which is, more or less, to heal the rest of the world. among the leadership there has been insult and rejection for people's mental illnesses and disabilities and limitations. this i believe is the wrong attitude.
6) another factor that has caused difficulty is openness and closedness of lines of communication. the membership list is kept secret , there is no way for members to communicate with one another. the informal "new left cafe" was shut done by the one officer who runs the list serves and web technology., when too much of the content was critical of the leadership. it was reopened after protest, and then closed again, people are banned from the general mds discussion list. in my view its a mess; and needs some help in getting straightened out.
another event aggravating the climate of distrust, was an officer being involved in secretly changing the internet codes, locking out of his "my space" one of the critics of the way things were going, and then maintaining silence about what actually happened, (who did what and why?) this is not cool behavior. there is a deeply flawed attitude developing here, of trying to control communication. we need clearer guidelines and an organization wide "free speech zone."
it is hard for me to see how a "membership meeting" can proceed with the formal agenda, ignoring the actual experience that has brought us to this place, and the many questions needing to be discussed.
the meeting agenda itself, as announced, is an effort to control communication. an agenda drawn in secret, (at least from me) with no request for input from the members, a few accepted speakers and accepted topics, and then not enough time to do the business that has to be done, further limiting participation and interaction.
the proposal was rejected by other officers, (as though i had no right even to propose it,) that we develop appropriate means allowing members, not able to attend the meeting, to have meaningful participation, absentee, internet, proxy voting, pod casting, internet streaming, decentralizing, widening, some innovations. if we are promoting a democratic society, there should be a better way of practicing democracy internally.
i say such concerns are important in the beginning, the officer majority seem to say: later, wait to another meeting, another discussion, another time. april 15 in providence. the officer majority seem to have decided what we need now is a show the leadership, publicity event with some star statements for the press and radical community, hopefully to draw some money, with minimum discussion and decision making except to delegate authority to a "board of directors."
i argued also that in constructing a board we should be consciously inclusive of all the voices we wanted in "the beginning picture of our undertaking." that we affirm parity, indeed majority of women, that voices be invited who represent the continuities of the many movements we seek bring together, and re-member, that the process of selection and invitation be keep open as long as possible, and that we think together about the representation of ideas and tendencies and prestige we want to include, to begin with.
while there was agreement on diversity, the conscious cooperative construction of the board slate was not accepted, and there was no real discussion about invitations, and requests to have a clear statement of board functions was rejected, and nominations were peremptorily closed. though now, I have seen new thoughts arise about the absence of more labor activists and other omissions.
i considered myself committed to this undertaking, as one of the voices in the initial picture, and proposed myself to continue on the board, regardless for whether i was an officer or not.
i am grateful to everyone who was asked and agreed to help create this movement for a democratic society, whether as board member or ordinary member and my fellow officers.
i do not know what is the internal pathology of the other officer group, or my own, for that matter, in holding tenaciously to what i think are principles, even as an apparent minority of one myself. undertaking the tasks we are imagining is daunting indeed, and we already feel embattled by growing fascism around us. i believe we need organization mental health and psycho-therapy services from the beginning. the officer consensus acts like "wagons in a circle," defending against attacks. specifically to me, they act like the league for industrial democracy did years ago, firing me when i didn't do like they say, "accept it!" and i guess i'm acting like i did in 1960, and i don't go away. i believe there is a need for an mds, (or a generic sds,) and a non profit to go along with it, democratic, inclusive, respectful. the "mds, inc." that we have so far is not yet it. i'm working, even writing these reflections, to make it happen, or help.
i am sorry the interchange has so often devolved to acrimony, arrogance and insult, and the communication channels so difficult to navigate. in some ways the internet is the worst place to carry on political discussion, it also offers great possibilities. participatory democracy in the decisions that affect us is indeed possible, perhaps for the first time, and at all levels. we need to use it better, and people who function on the internet are not to be derided.
i know i want a way to communicate my ideas and political work. in the "megiddo peace project," "ann arbor town meeting," "earth day action april 22, 2007," and the related work in "women's international league for peace and freedom" in which odile, my wife, is on the leadership team.
one of the ideas we have put forward is the focal image of "the peace table," and women at the peace table, in every setting of conflict, and to call for negotiations, for imperialism and the warriors to cease fire, and come to the peace table, to conference house or tent of meeting, and to see our tasks as organizers, organizing the international union and its locals to negotiate with the ruling class and masters of war, and win a new social contract, reclaiming the commons and the peoples' rights, etc.
in terms of our own situation in mds, i have proposed to bring "the peace table" to new york, but it seems to have no place on the agenda, nor room on the stage. [as a cabinet maker i have made such a table for the people's peace.]
i think we need a "list serve" in the movement for a democratic society that can serve for an exchange of political perspectives, projects, actions, pictures.
i am sure everyone who reads this does want to help found a radical political organization that would be adequate to our needs in these times. we need it. we have a beginning, but our internal process has a long way to go.
i hope everyone who reads this will come to the meeting in new york, or do what you can to make your voice heard there, especially on the questions i raised here:
i hope all the speakers will consider these questions
relations between/ among mds, mds, inc. and sds, what is the vision?
financial accountability, transparency, and avoiding indirect political direction in student work by fundraising and handling money?
board functions
openness of internal communications, how do we talk to one another?
security and treatment of minorities, critics, agents
non-violence
non-exclusionism
and any baggage from the old sds that needs sorting out.
and should we make any kind of collective statement, out of this meeting? and, if so, what words would you like in it?
we have 9 hours, from 9 am to 6 pm, february 17 2007 saturday.
what we do together, in that time, and before, and after, or don't, remains an open question to me.
these are my reflections. deeply sad is what i feel now. i began this effort to say my perspective already a while ago, before the ice storm cut the power. since then, there has still been no communication to me from the other officers. my proposals for "truth and reconciliation" were left without response.
i came into this commitment to help sds rebirth and mds to gather us all, as happy as i have felt in a long time, what i hoped for was a new breath, where we put together the knowledges we had gained, etc as it has developed, the officers faced challenges, deserved or not, and regressed in to a tried and untrue (wrong) organization culture of control and exclusion and have gone so far in that direction to exclude even me. bizarre.
i don't exempt myself from responsibilities in this state of affairs, i am not always the best communicator, not brief and simple. i am over-committed, and taxed to my limit in even reading all the messages. i have even yet not done things and followed up communications i need to. sometimes even i'm a grumpy old man. but the questions i raise are not trivial: about how to begin what we are beginning to do.
and i don't know whether to bring the peace table, or not to bother.
heartfelt
alan haber
when i accepted to be president of mds, i said i wanted it considered "co-president," because i considered a model of shared leadership at the top, essential in beginning our partnership way toward a new social contract. so far we, including me, have failed in realizing this leadership model. it is ironic that a gesture toward partnership, now rationalizes exclusion. alan haber i do hope recipients of this communication will take the effort to reply. thank you. alan haber i haven't commented here on “number 7” in my list of themes: baggage from the old sds, and range of questions and concerns. the organization questions are enough for this letter, to suggest what i had in mind, consider the following: alan haber how do we respond to the challenge of the people of color caucus? alan haber how to make a feminist organization, for a change? alan haber how do we frame the discussion of fascism and social forces, the underground reich, 9/11 and who did what? who killed jfk, mlk.jr, rfk? skull and bones? what are we up against? alan haber Where are nuclear weapons and weapons in space and the war machine on our agenda alan haber how do we engage israel and palestine, zionism, anti-zionism, post zionism, anti-semitism ,and “peace in the holy lands? “ alan haber and is there room in this association for "spiritual progressives" and people of faith other than “secular humanism.” alan haber and quoting from a poster: “class consciousness is to know what side of the fence you are on; class analysis is to know who’s there with you.” how do we describe the international working class these days, where is it rising and with whom are we allies alan haber plenty to consider in launching a movement for a democratic society.