How can you say that when the CP-sponsored "youth group" is represented on the national board?

[End lefty snarkiness]

This argument for prioritization and recognition inside a coalition is silly. Organize, organize, organize -- and the facts will be on the ground. The campuses have been very quiet. Deal with that SDS -- and keep the energy focused outward on people yet to be activated, not inward at the managers of permits and who gets "recognized."

Tom himself is in his mid-40s. He had a falling out with UFPJ and Leslie Cagan that he wrote about on this site in October 2005.

UFPJ Diary: The Case for Participatory Democracy
 http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/58662.html
 http://antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/archive/ufpj_diary.html

An Open Letter to Leslie Cagan
 http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/57370.html

So, is the voice of the youth being expressed here? Or, is the SDS name just being appropriated to take a poke at UFPJ?

'observer' has a novel point, but the problem with that is that youth have long been the backbone of UFPJ and many other adult-dominated groups. we just usually get stuck doing the shit work, because there's a silent agreement that youth are just a pool of cheap/free labor for the institutionalized Left. therefore, there's a serious bias against youth in coalitions, particularly UFPJ.

don't believe it? consider this: SDS is now the largest student organization on the US left. we are, in fact, one of the largest Left organizations in the US. yet we still get the shit end of the stick. funny how that works.

in response to 'say what?': Tom also just recently wrote an article called "Saying Nay," which goes down the list of baseless accusations made against the new SDS, which can be read here:  http://antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/?p=15

to quote...
"New SDS is “coopting the name”, “dressing up in costume”, etc. This is a laughable notion. We chose this name for The Project because it describes us precisely, because it is an idea that has not died - just because Al Haber and Carl Davidson had to wait 37 years between meetings it does not follow that we are not directly linked to the original SDS: the same ideals, hopes and aspirations motivate new SDS as motivated the first iteration. Some old SDSers feel that they hold a proprietary interest on the acronym. I would answer that they do not own the democratic vision or the struggle to achieve it. I would answer those critics who write us off as nostalgia that the IWW has been written off a few times as well - when its numbers dipped very low. But it has also come back a few times and is enjoying a resurgence now because the desire for democracy will not die."

Secondly, Tom has been a tireless supporter and comrade of the new SDS. But he is by no means at the reins of SDS. SDS is just that: STUDENTS for a Democratic Society. Not YCL for a Democratic Society, not Democrats for a Democratic Society, and not even Wobblies for a Democratic Society. Do your fucking homework before you shoot your mouth off. If there's one thing my time in SDS has taught me, there's nothing people like more than to make "educated" guesses about the reality of something which they don't bother to find out the truth about.

I'm a grad student at Pace University.Despite the fact its a conservative campus, I've seen SDS flyers all over the place and they are doing great work. They even forced Hillary Clinton from speaking there.
Their politics may be a little left center but revolutionaries and radicals should support youth trying to make a breakthrough.
Great work SDS, keep it up!

... you just might get it.

I've done my homework on the new SDS. It's a great idea whose time has come, but it still has serious problems, as seen at the national convention in Chicago -- which I attended.

The convention itself had a number of severe problems with persons who were apparently charged with duties -- who refused to take any responsibility for them (e.g., the "Scheduling Committee" was nowhere to be found when the point was raised about the scheduling of Caucuses, leaving it up to interested parties themselves to have to reschedule -- and as a result, the People of Color Caucus got locked out).

At the convention, no decisions related to the organization, its structure or path, or anything like a general policy were ever made. Instead, we mostly had a bunch of whiteboy chest-thumping that led nowhere.

M(A)tt: you criticize the established forces of the left for treating youth as a mere auxiliary. A fair critique -- but let's examine things here. Is it really a matter of the left being "authoritarian?" Or is it in fact, more like the so-called "anti-authoritarians" shirking any responsibility for arguing their point, to make decisions, or to carry those decisions out?

I mean, look at yourself, M(A)tt -- can you really say you've taken on any responsiblity toward SDS when you've got to fish for ideas from Tom Good (who is, sadly, the most frequent contributor to Next Left Notes?) Can nobody under 40 be really so busy that they can't write up their own thoughts? So can you really blame anyone for identifying him as the honcho behind SDS?

SDS, like every great idea, has, lo and behold, problems in its infancy. Wow, news flash. No doubt, the convention had its share of problems, which we have all discussed and learned from. I, however, got a lot out of that convention, and I know many others who can say the same.

I have no doubt that bad people (and organizations) require only our silence to be successful. And until now, anti-authoritarians have been, if not silent, surely ineffective or unwilling to make an alternative. But hey, ya know what? what was the last national anti-authoriatarian organization to exist in the US? certainly not since Love & Rage, and not since the original SDS has there been a anti-authoritarian mass social organization. so, give us a little credit, considering how little we've got to work with. i think we've done a damn fine job. the record speaks for itself.

what have i done to take responsibility for building sds? let's see, i...

1. made a flyer which has been distributed throughout my area and several others

2. hand-screen printed 60 t-shirts to raise money for SDS, and solicited money to pay for them

3. organized a statewide meeting of SDS

4. actively recruited people into both SDS and MDS

5. wrote articles promoting SDS

6. defended SDS against all unfair claims and attacks.

and i know a lot of other SDSers who have done way more than me, without having to 'fish' ideas from Tom, though i think he's written some very important things.

No need to add to m(a)tt's reply. he is on the mark. "Been There" may have attended the convention, but he or she seriously misses the major positive results of the convention. As a member of the scheduling committee, I have to laugh at all this bullshit about "whiteboy chest thumping." There certainly were many issues raised and problems became clear.

As to defining a path or deciding on a structure, I still can't believe people came to this convention (it was only a couple hundred at max) expecting some concrete structure that would be decided by a democratic process. Considering that SDS is the fastest growing student organization in the US (with nearly 200 chapters - 2 or 3 requests for chapters a day, and well over 1000 registered members), it would be foolish and stupid to assume that a small gathering could ever decide on any of those things in a democratic way that would allow for full participation of all the membership.

The organizers of the convention, admittedly a small group of volunteers assembled on an ad hoc basis, from the get go proposed this convention as a relationship-building event. Shit, the very notion that structure would be decided on in August is grotesque and an insult to the concept of participatory democracy. If you cared about shaping SDS and a future structure perhaps you might have volunteered to participate in shaping the convention. I'm a fulltime worker and I devoted as much of my time to building it as possible, while simultaneously organizing actions and building ties with other people. Several calls were issued for just such a voluntary process, but very few people stepped up to the plate. You can't pull participatory democracy out of your ass. You participate. You can't blame the organizers for your lack of engagement in the process of building a national organization. If you cared, you would have volunteered.

Considering how it all transpired, it was fairly successful if you consider the fact that it was put together very quickly and without any substantial money or resources at all. We aren't a front group with quick cash available to put out ads in the New York Times. We are a grassroots project.

As far as decisions coming out of the convention go, the final session on Monday decided that each region will hold a conference (or two if possible) over the school year to debate and develop vision, strategy, and tactics. MDS has formed itself to help aid legal defense for activists and organizers, as well as develop meaningful community projects past the undergrad level.

Several questions remain for "been there."

How can a structure be imposed from above and still be a participatory democratic process?

How can a national organizing strategy be decided by convention attendees without the full participation of the entire membership? That is profoundly undemocratic and detrimental to meaningful group process and development of a workable collective decision-making process.

From the beginning, the new SDS has been guided by a committment to an organic process of organizational development. If your not down with that, then why did you attend a founding convention for an organization committed to PARTICIPATORY democracy?

I'm happy to admit that issues were raised and problems emerged. As a revolutionary, radical democrat, I wouldn't have it any other way.
Port Huron wasn't written in a day.

Patience, young Skywalker.

Onward

Dug

after i thought about it a little, it's a little unfair for me to say there there's no national anti-authoritarian organizations out there. there's the IWW one, which perhaps a very significant wob presence in SDS, and others like Critical Resistance, Bring the Ruckus, and more informal groups like FNB. still, for students, we don't have a huge amount to work with, and we are in a sense largely starting from scratch.

United for Peace and Justice has given SDS a space to speak at the rally! Although most of us believe SDS and the larger anti-war coalitions deserve a fair amount of criticism, this is an opportunity for students from the NYC community to present a message to the greater anti-war community with a more militant and anti-imperialist stance. There is an active national student power movement, and it is growing. I hope to see both students & non-students on the 19th! Remember that our end goal is to end the war, not to simply voice our opposition to it.

- Pat Korte, New School University

The two respondees would do well to see how their responses prove the criticism: nowhere in what I wrote was it ad hominem, and yet all the defense is some reflexive, defensive attempt to vindicate yourselves from a (non-existant) personal criticism.

Responsibility to a larger group and to a politics is more than just drive and initiative. I don't for a second doubt that there is a good and healthy drive and initiative exercised by the founders of SDS as individuals -- in fact, I find it to be one of the praiseworthy things about it in my writeup on the convention, and in general it's one of the redeeming features in the "anti-authoritarian" wing of the Left.

Where "anti-authoritarians" go wrong, however, is where "anti-authoritarianism" sets up this dynamic of people either "doing their own thing" without much discussion, or having a ton of discussion leading to nobody doing anything at all -- in the end, leading to a tyranny of structurelessness where people lead either because they're going to do whatever they want, discussion be damned, or because they have asses made of depleted uranium massive enough to sit through discussions that run way too long.

In short, anti-authoritarianism becomes a formula for making participatory democracy useless, by writing off the idea that you might ever come to a decision is "authoritarian" exercise and by leaving it up to those forces that don't give a rat's ass about democracy to make the decisions for the whole group.

It's great that there are folks willing to sweat things out and do work. But individual efforts and endeavors only go so far if they're done in an uncentralized, unaccountable way. Which isn't a value judgement on what you've done, m(A)tt, but a simple observation: what often happens in an organization that depends on such efforts crumbles apart the minute they lose that individual. God forbid, you or any of the other group gets arrested, have new commitments, or gets struck by lightning, etc. -- are we just supposed to start from the beginning all over again?

On dug's contribution: while I appreciate the magnitude of the commitment in taking on the task to get such a widespread group into one spot and to actually talk to each other, this is where responsibility has to be seen as more than just individual drive or initiative.

When volunteers aren't forthcoming, or the conversation goes quiet or unproductive, all the individual drive and initiative in the world isn't going to get you out of the mess -- but it can keep you stuck further, by demotivating the energetic individual, or push things back a whole step backward if the gulf between the energies of a motivated indivudal and the rest of the group grows.

The duty is therefore to be responsible -- to be able to see that at times the organization's rests on your shoulders, to move it out of bad situations, and then get it the hell off your shoulders and on its own feet. There's no reason someone couldn't come prepared with a backup plan for formation of a provisional national structure, that could be re-evaluated and discussed. Or otherwise have people who are currently acting as leadership of the organization formalize their leadership, with a provision that there's no guarantee that they're accountable to the rest of the group.

That these questions of responsibility for day-to-day operation got ducked in favor of endless squabbling over abstract principles wasn't the worst thing that could have happened in Chicago -- but it's certainly not the best.

As a member of a student organization that isn't yet a part of SDS (which may join in the future) -- but nevertheless sees itself tied to the SDS organizing effort, I'm as down as anyone for the organic development of a muhc larger student movement. What I'm not down for (and I suspect that no one is down for) is a process that's going to get dragged out so long that by the time we do have a structure most of the organization's doing its own thing, graduating out of college, or otherwise gets taken out of student organizing.

The time we have as studens and student organizers is short. Patience may be a virtue, but procrastination isn't.

There are ways to be both anti-authoritarian and accountable. It is as much an artform as it is political, but it can be done. Many of us understand the importance of a well-structured organization, which may include things like recallable delegates, whose only power is to fulfill specific mandates, and many other radical democratic mechanisms that we see in the many anti-authoritarian social organizations around the world, be they anarcho-syndicalist, Peoples' Global Action-oriented, and so on. they may have other problems, but the point is that there *is* another model out there, where we can be accountable, get shit done over the long haul, through the bad times and the good, and not have to subjugate ourselves to centralization and hierarchy.

i know to you that structure and centralism are one and the same, for all intents and purposes, but that's where we differ. the difference is that centralism puts initiative, and the ability to steer things, into a few hands which fairly easily becomes entrenched; whereas anti-authoritarian structure, or as i prefer, participatory democracy facilitates *collective and equal* development of praxis, direction and initiative. with that of course comes the importance of anti-oppression praxis, good avenues of communication, and plenty of other group dynamics. i desire a new movement that learns from the past and pioneers new territory altogether. this is my ambition, and many others' as well.

Speaking as one of the "sophisticated Marxists" Thomas Good talked about in his article, I'm equally opposed to the fetishism of "centralization" as I am the fetishism of "decentralization". The idea that everything must be centralized or decentralized is taking the organizational and investing it with a lot more political meaning than it's really worth.

Two moments in the Monty Python film "Life of Brian" illustrate these fetishisms. On the fetishism of centralization, of the idea that only a small discrete group have the truth, we have that moment in the film where we are introduced to the bumbling Judean liberationist movement -- the feuding Judean Liberation Front, the Front for the Liberation of Judea, et al., who are really six of one and half a dozen of the other, but due to a rigid centralism are constantly splitting over the questions of the Romans.

Then we have the running joke of the film, that no matter what he does, the titular Brian can't make people not believe he's the Messiah -- because everything he does is taken as a divine sign, including his rejection of the title of Messiah. This joke climaxes with Brian, frustrated, tellign the crowd, "You don't need me! You're all individuals!"

Like a robotic herd, the crowd yells back "Yes! We're all individuals!" Followed by a lonely voice in the back, that peeps up, "I'm not!"

The first Life of Brian moment illustrates the problem of Marxists in America: a fractiousness that is always ascribed to "political differences" (i.e., my group's "got it" and yours ain't, or didn't have it 20 years ago, or some such) -- in truth it is a form of mindless hero worship of Lenin and ego-fulfillment, not any particular revolutionary fervor.

Moreover, it's flows from a bureaucratic understanding of centralism that is the antithesis of what Lenin wrote about in his advocacy of democratic centralism -- which was that a) the particular situation in Russia (rapid, often spontaneous acts of revolution and repression in quick succession) necessitated leadership by a few who could make decisions quickly, b) that this few should be political and democratic, rather than by bureaucratic and undemocratic, and c) that this was a situation particular to Russia of his time (Lenin himself writes agains the idea of the idea that organizations take on "immutable" forms).

The second moment in "Life of Brian" illustrates the problem of anarchists in America: rather than get a clue that there are people who are people fed up with life under capitalism who aren't interested in Kropotkin and Bakunin, who have to be led out of ignorance toward a greater awareness and consciousness, anarchists and "anti-authorititarians" would rather just say that either everyone's a leader or there are no leaders. In doing so, anyone who isn't in the black-hood-and-bandana set is just ignored. The problem is that of course there are leaders -- people who carry a good deal of influence and power -- even among anarchists.

The relevant question for SDS then is not a matter of centralization or decentralization. It is whether we admit that there's a lot of distance within the current SDS -- both physical distance and distance of politics -- but a real need to keep expanding, keep moving, and keep active. Do we just let people "do their thing" and live with the consequences of working at cross purposes? or do we put such questions through a process where things of interest nationally can be decided finally and decisively, with a modicum of transparency and evaluation?

Alrighty. Good's strategy for positioning a reborn SDS as a critical new revolutionary voice for youth within the broader antiwar movement is to petition the honchos of UFPJ for a SDS speaker (a demand that UFPJ has already agreed to) and a slot as the 'lead' contingent in the Sept. 19th march -- on the sidewalk, bracketed by UFPJ 'peacekeepers' and the cops?

Pitiful.

we have to be aware, there are people with good enegry and ideas, but ultimately are seeking affirmation and accolades as an individual, we need to use that enegry, idras, impetud, and then take it that one step beyond the individual, that's a movement.... as marion said, if you/we setttle for, as she so siccintly put it:

the sidewalk
with police escort, not to mention the worse ufpj "marshalls"
to then yell a few words from the approved stage, then you is wacked!

come on, the sidewalk????? to protest bush and the war/s????

then it will take decades to stop this

we'll take the streets
US out of middle east!

"Alrighty. Good's strategy for positioning a reborn SDS as a critical new revolutionary voice for youth within the broader antiwar movement is to petition the honchos of UFPJ for a SDS speaker (a demand that UFPJ has already agreed to) and a slot as the 'lead' contingent in the Sept. 19th march -- on the sidewalk, bracketed by UFPJ 'peacekeepers' and the cops?"

SDS in the early 60s worked with social democrats and liberals all the time. Most of the early planning sessions directly involved Irving Howe and Michael Harrington (who bullied anti-communist positions onto some of the younger activists).

To confine your idea of SDS to the late 1960s (when it was breaking up anyway) is simply to be unaware of its history. I don't think SDS was even opposed to the Vietnam war until *after* PL had the first big anti-war demo in 1965.

Take the streets if you have the numbers and the momentum. But ruling out any protest/coalition that doesn't have some stated plank in its charter that one will never participate in permitted marches or work with people who are less radical than thou really has no meaning outside of Al Gore's internet (which you shouldn't be on anyway since it's a US government built network and thus "authoritarian").

This wasn't Tom Good's press release. It was an SDS press release; drafted by a bunch of us with a message that NYC SDS wanted to put out. There is also a lot more that went on behind the scenes.

First off, the goal wasn't and isn't a speaking spot (which we won). Some of the goals are to 1) Give students a voice in UFPJ and the antiwar movement in general (a role which UFPJ has traditionally denied; always opting for sticking us at the rear end of their marches despite the fact that we are the strongest part of the antiwar movement). 2) to pressure UFPJ into taking more militant action; giving due praise when they do; pressuring them when they don't; while AT THE SAME TIME, doing our own actions (like our unpermitted SDS student and youth march to the UN), bringing militancy to UFPJ actions, and organising outside of the coalition itself.

Anyone that thinks SDS should not use the opportunity to address a large antiwar audience, would seem to me, to be far divorced from reality. We also didn't "appeal" to the "head honchos" of UFPJ; we demanded it and took action to make it happen. UFPJ didn't have to let us speak, and we would have adapted to their actions accordingly- like any group should do.

Lastly, revolutionaries and radicals who do not reach out to and work with liberals aren't doing their job.

I hope that students and youths will join us at 8:30am on the steps of the NY public library on 41 street and 5th avenue (the steps with the lions) for our march. If you want more information contact me at the e-mail or phone number below. I also hope that other groups will join us in continuing to pressure the antiwar movement to take more militant actions and adopt more radical positions.

Drive the US from Iraq!

-Brian
 kelly@leftist.ws
845-649-2146.

m(a)tt wrote: "don't believe it? consider this: SDS is now the largest student organization on the US left. we are, in fact, one of the largest Left organizations in the US."

I'm skeptical about this. I hope it becomes true. SDS seems very much like an idea, with a few local groups doing work and a lot of internet chatter.

I'd bet a dollar to a dime that the ISO is a far larger student group. That's been my experience. The SDS conference had about a hundred people, including the very particular slice of older SDS members. The ISO's Socialism 2006 had over 1,200 at Columbia this summer.

Lucky for all there are millions of people to be activated.

I wish SDS all success. I heard they are trying to resurrect the old ban on communists. Remember this: when SDS was just a participatory democratic organization, it was small. When it spread beyond its founding cohort, to hundreds of thousands of members, all the major factions were one kind of Marxist-Leninist or another. Communists didn't "infiltrate" SDS. They either joined it, in the case of PL who led many of the chapaters, or much more often became communists in course of political development.

If you want a real participatory organization, ideological litmus tests stoked by sectarian anarchists won't do you well.

Word to the wise.

It is my hope that those in SDS attending this march are not going to be pulled into the UFPJ atmosphere. SDS should not be turned into a liberal anti war group. Direct action should be taken and physical force used if necessary.

Lets make sure this "end the war" slogan is not a lot of talk. We will probably need to use physical means to do this.

I think that SDS should do what it talks about in their press release. " Using physical force" is not there and shouldn't really be advocated by anyone on Indymedia threads.

SDS is undoubtedly a positive national development. I'm generally amazed with the allegations that they are the most active and largest anti-authoritarian group in the US. Have ya'll been around for more than 2 years? are there more SDSers than IMCers?

I am unaware of any SDS orgaizations in the South except for Florida, the allegation that it is the largest left student group is annoying and ignorant. Mecha has chapters on more than 400 campuses, including middle and high schools. Mecha drew up their constitution in 1995 and has precursors stretching back to the 60's.

I think that SDS has an amazing amount of potential, both in terms of brand recognition, and in building on the great work that many of the chapters have already done. I'm just frustrated by the arogant attitude of yankee's in private schools and would be refreshed by a little humility.

The assertion that SDS is the largest youth based antiwar/anti-imperialist group in the US is simply false advertising. Whatever their warts, both the ISO and their larger front group, the Campus Anti-War Network, far outnumber SDS chapters and that organization's overall national membership at this point -- like it or not. Rather than try to muscle the liberals of UFPJ into acknowleging youth 'leadership' potential -- a pointless exercise - SDS needs to actually take some real initative and call for a independent national student and youth day of direct action against the war sometime this year. But first, you have to decide to decide.

Spin is no substitute for seizing the time -- something earlier SDSers were well aware off.

SDS @ NYPL

galvanizing SDS speaker

NYMAA revolutionary anarchist contingent

some photos from today's march

all-ages rally crowd

NYPD jack-in-a-box spy booth

the 56%

more photos from today's march

SDS and MDS currently have 150 chapters with varying degrees of activity. 1000 members have signed up through the webite, and at most chapters few if any have registered. we can only guess how many we are, but i think 3-5000 is a safe estimate. however, i must concede that between high schools and colleges, SDS only has 114 registered.

MEChA has 67 chapters, according to this chapter's website:  http://clubs.asua.arizona.edu/~mecha/pages/MechaChapterLinks.html

ISO, on the other hand, has 60 according to their website:  http://www.internationalsocialist.org/branches.html

CAN has 125:  http://campusantiwar.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=53

so clearly CAN is barely the largest. but its been around since '03. SDS is still an infant, having been re-animated only this past January. but anyway, i'm not trying to start a pissing match, just trying to set the record straight.

I attended the SDS convention. I advised my old comrades to lend them a hand, but with a light touch. Every generation needs to find its own voice and find its way.

There were some veterans there, but if you think they ran the show behind the scenes, you're way off base. In fact, I invoked my elder privlege and stayed away from the structure debate. I've suffered through more than my share of them.

I think they're off to a good start. They have problems, but not worse than anyone else, and perhaps fewer.

I think they'll grow because they've targeted the right enemy, imperialism, and picked a good core organizing theme, 'participatory democracy.'

It won't make the anarchists completely happy, because it's too open and not hard line enough.

It won't make the socialists happy, because its too loose and doesn't fit the old dogmas and formulas, and too much in the American grain.

It won't make the liberals happy, because it's too tinged with anarchism, socialism and direct action, irreverent, and involvement of the rank and file.

In other words, it's just about right for a dynamic, pluralist, learn-through-doing, radically democratic, anti-imperialist, no-redbaiting, open to anarchism, socialism, communism and whatever, youth and student group that can catch the wave and grow.

Naturally, that leads to other problems, but those are the problems one loves to have....

More power to them.

Thanks for the friendly words Carl :). Just a quick update to m(a)tt's post; SDS has about 200 chapters- some aren't on the website yet.

And the ISO isn't a student organisation- look at its leadership, cadre, structure, etc... Socialism 2006 was a CONFERENCE, not a CONVENTION (like we had in August of 2006). The ISO every year has an open conference and CLOSED convention. That should be pointed out. Their convention- a decision making event- is FAR smaller. That's because conventions have a different purpose. And their conference is by no means all ISO people.

sds was NOT restarted last january.. i helped start a chapter at the new school 2 years ago in 2004. it died down when i graduated and now there's some organizers stepping up...

we weren't at at all iso or can related, more direct action & outreach, trying to get people educated and amped up about things like war, for fuck's sake... and it was really hard to inspire students to even COME to meetings... we had a core group, but not even free fucking pizza could get the Students of Higher Education to attend. my lord the amount of posters and flyers we pasted up...

here's some stuff we did:
 http://www.newschoolsds.com/events.html

peace
rine

I feel you Rine. The incredible apathy at colleges around the nation is truly astounding... that is, until you realize that America is sucking the blood of the world. A lot of my fellow anarchists say "Well we're the center of imperialism in the world! The most resistance should be here!" From a moral perspective, yes that's true. From a practical perspective, the motherfuckers on top usually have little to no interest in evening the score. Until the war comes home, shit will not change. Full stop. I hate to be a fucking cynic, but the three million revolutionary dead Indochinese had more to do with the end of Vietnam than students did.

Just a point of clarification regarding Rine's point that SDS WAS NOT restarted in 2006, but rather, she/he argues that there was a chapter at New School in 2004.

When we say that SDS has been "restarted", or whatever you want to call it, we are referring to SDS as a National entity and student movement. The three founding chapters of SDS had existed, like yours, by themselves for a while; however, they got in contact with eachother, and decided to cooridate and help build something bigger. We now have over 200 chapters. That is what we mean by "restarted".

Hopefully, you will take part in the new SDS one more time.

By the way, the action yesterday went very well. Great job everyone!!!!

Here's a story about the protest on Sept. 19 and some choice comments from SDSers.

 http://www.indypendent.org/?p=548