|
For a long time this was one of the few books if not the only book about SDS available.
In this sense, today, one feels a sense of gratitude to have this book.
It was by a Harvard undergraduate of the class of 1970 who
was there when Harvard students voted to shutdown the university.
Unfortunately, author Kelman is another perfect proof
that the anti-communist social-democrat
is the profound enemy of progress.
The main debate in April, 1969 was not whether to shut it down
but how long. "With six thousand voting, the stadium meeting
came within thirteen votes of calling for an indefinite strike."
(p. 267) Kelman was active pushing the student government to
push for no strike at all, but he failed.
Kelman freely admits that the Maoists of SDS and the
Black Panthers took the vast majority of
support among students. Yet, he opposed them and still called
himself a socialist, while thanking Vietnam war
supporter Michael Harrington and getting
kudos from Seymour Martin Lipset.
In 1966, SDS sponsored a talk by an English man teaching
at Peking University on the Cultural Revolution. Without
knowing anything about the talk, Kelman resisted it in
advance: "'How can SDS sponsor a speaker supporting the
purge in China?'"(p. 67) It did not occur to Kelman
that the Cultural Revolution was actually the first
experience of tens of millions of people with "free speech"
in a society ruled for hundreds of years by a monarchy.
When other students told him about the big character
posters appearing in China, Kelman went right on with
his dogmatic and reflexive social-democracy.
Within a few years, and while still at Harvard
before graduating in 1970, here is what it was like for Kelman:
"What is psychologically very difficult to cope with is that our
friends are potential executioners and commissars, or PR men for the
executioners and commissars."(p. 106) At the time, the u$A was
bombing millions of Vietnamese to death, and that is what
oh-so-moral-and-democratic Kelman had to say--that the protestors
were like executioners.
What seemed like five Progressive Labor (PL) people changed very
quickly: "My worst nightmares about the future of SDS, dreamable
only in vague and horrifying outlines during my freshman year,
have become reality now. Had I predicted them then, I would
have even thought myself insane. It's not so much that Harvard
SDS has been taken over by Progressive Labor as I feared then--
although it has been, the entire Harvard sixty-man delegation
to the 1969 SDS convention pandemonium and side show
having consisted of PL people. But even worse, the ideology
of the non-PL people, who came to be known as the chapter
split into opposing factions as the 'New Left caucus,' has itself
been transformed into something just as bad."(p. 108) When
social-democrat Kelman is having such nightmares, it's a good
sign for the revolutionary movement. Kelman goes on, "the
ideological wars between the two factions within SDS are
conducted via quotations from the Little Red Book,
each side claiming to be the truer Maoists."(p. 109)
|