1967 flashback and how we got to crony capitalism

From June 5 to June 10th in 1967 there was an Arab war against I$rael. Here in 2010 we at MIM and the people in Palestine and I$rael talk about the results of that war every day. We still have not overcome that war.

I was too young to have been in SDS contrary to some Internet web reports. However, I find Sara Evans’s account of female activists in the 1960s — Personal Politics — very enlightening.

A month after the war, it’s no accident that females in SDS wrote the following: “As we analyze the position of women in capitalist society and especially in the United States we find that women are in a colonial relationship to men and we recognize ourselves as part of the Third World.”(1) I didn’t know that they actually said that, but now I can say that that statement did deserve ridicule, and such ridicule is not male chauvinism. The problem is that it equated oppressor nation females with Third World oppression, this in the midst of the Vietnam War and a month after the Six Day War.

Christian Sara Evans defended the statement, but she admitted the role of Jewish females at crucial moments in 1967.


“Black power was at its zenith. . . . Black delegates shouted ‘Kill Whitey!’ as they repeatedly insisted that should cast 50 percent of the conference vote and occupy half of the committee slots though they constituted about one-sixth of the convention. In addition they demanded from this audience full of Jewish radicals a resolution condemning Zionist imperialism.”(2)

In the end, in the later 1960s, cross-ethnic organizing broke down in favor of “work on your own oppression,” which whites turned into “do your own thing” with sex and drugs.

Progressive Labor (PLP) was first to blame in falsely asserting the exploitation of white workers. The budding feminist movement was derivative of derivative and thereby went one step beyond PLP. The derivative of the derivative was Zionist “feminism” and we know when the derivative of the derivative is negative, counterrevolution is on the way.

Jewish females are the most polarized on my lynching case. I don’t want to deny their support at all. However, when we look back at the crucial moment of 1967, many things become clear. Females who did not want to take a stand on class and nation eventually took a stand on gender oppression, in isolation, in order to leave other matters unstated.

Whereas in the earlier 1960s, the movement started with pre-scientific Christian females such as Anne Braden and earned follow-up and rumors of whites sleeping with Blacks, by the end of the 1960s white females were off to “work on their own oppression.” (Sara Evans says red diaper babies (children of Communist Party parents) were the lonely positive contribution on feminist issues, but I’m not sure I buy that.)

Jewish female defender of I$rael Susan Estrich wrote a major paperback on acquaintance rape and how rape should expand to include it. Famous rape writer Andrea Dworkin wrote that she became Zionist via contemplation of the Black Panthers.

Big celebrity Gloria Steinem was not so much known for rape discussions, but she spied on communists. Then there was Phyllis Chesler. A 1974 book by “New York Radical Feminists” again targeted rape. Chesler was the most analytical of the bunch of its writers. She did not start from an SDS “heavy” position on nation and class, but she opposed the Vietnam War and the U.$. prison system(3) even then when it was not as proportionately great as it has been since. Yet decades later we find Chesler openly recruiting for both the U.$. and I$raeli intelligence services while working with the Avakkkianites. Lately Chesler seems to say that opposing Islam is enough to be feminist, with no stance necessary on other typical pet issues of Amerika.

Today it is painful to read the New York Radical Feminists’ book, even as many people became even more watered down and less radical since that time. The male anti-war movement petered out too.

We know that the samples the New York Radical Feminists considered for most questions were too small. At one point we hear about a sample (n=263) of child abuse that did not include a single heterosexual adult female, “because the boys were victims of male homosexuals.”(4) Now we know that the majority of child-killers in the United $tates are female, and the anti-gay barb was typical of the SDS whites of just a few years earlier than the 1974 book.

Young U.$. men are several times more likely to commit suicide than U.$. females, probably because of gender role rigidity. In one major study, females now also report that they are more likely to instigate domestic violence physically. Social reality is difficult. Sometimes it’s not so easy to go find something and “work on your own oppression.”

It was tough being Phyllis Chesler at the time. SDS females knew it was men that went into the Vietnam draft. Chesler had the added disadvantage of understanding that males vastly disproportionately filled the prisons. So what was “working on our own oppression” became the question for females. To her credit, Chesler discovered that females disproportionately went the mad route, not prison, hence her book, Women and Madness.

MIM would like to credit Betty Friedan’s work in 1963 on the idiocy of housewife suburban life. On the whole though, it was not the fault of male students in SDS that the females wrote such a poor statement for “New Left Notes” in 1967 as quoted for the first footnote. It should have been possible to raise Friedan without making her contribution the principal contradiction globally.

No doubt the intimidation that females felt in SDS stemmed from college admissions policies and mistaken societal preferences. If males outnumber females 3 to 1 in big meetings and perhaps even more in serious sub-committee meetings, then there is going to be a problem. MIM would not deny it while not equating it with the Six Day War either. The MIM generation had none of that gender ratio problem.

It took 20 years for Catharine MacKinnon to really reply to the male “heavies” of SDS known for their greater ideological consistency. She’s still writing that females should not surrender theory to men.(5)

When we read Feminism Unmodified, we can say that is what SDS should have discussed in 1967, but it was not available. So we have to understand that the SDS, the student movement and civil rights movement of the 1960s had many weaknesses.

To us of the MIM generation, SDS was from a time when a million students considered themselves revolutionary; however, we should not go too far in assuming what they figured out. In the main, the student movement embraced and then rejected Huey Newton and Arghiri Emmanuel, who tried to tell the student revolutionaries that the white workers were not a revolutionary vehicle and not exploited.

White females in the 1960s went from receiving death threats for being “nigger-lovers” in the South to backing off class and nation entirely to write about rape. It’s not an accident. “Do your own thing” became supporting I$rael and consciously failing to wrap heads around all the intersections of class, nation and gender.

What remained of SDS was what it always had, a white-collar career network behind it. The communists such as Huey Newton were not able to impose a single dominating view of nation, class and gender on a majority and the resulting “do your own thing” paved the way to what SDS became, the intellectual milieu that produced the crony capitalism and corporatism of 2010.

Zionist or not Zionist, opposed to exploitation or not opposed to exploitation, the SDS movement individuals had career contacts. The ultimate expression of this fact was in vulgar sociology and the “resource-mobilization” school, which was nothing but revisionism’s Bernstein writ-large. Bernstein said the goal was nothing and the movement was everything and a wag of the “resource-mobilization” school of thought regarding social movements said that where there were resources, movements appeared later.

That was exactly what the 1960s generation ended up doing–appropriating its share of the swag. SDS went after surplus-value first and asked questions later, the modus operandi of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Notes:
1. Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left (NY: Vintage Books, 1980), p. 240.
2. Ibid., p. 197.
3. New York Radical Feminists, Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson eds., (NY: Times Mirror, 1974), p. 78.
4. , Ibid., p. 66.
5. “While sympathetic with the resulting impulse to jettison theory, I hope to persuade you not to give it to men. . . . New theories help make new realities.”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Theory is not a Luxury,” Are Women Human and Other Dialogues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 34.

Advertisements

One Response to “1967 flashback and how we got to crony capitalism”

  1. Iran and sociological time: college education and wimmin « Mimdefense's Weblog Says:

    […] tough to answer this question. In 1967, which I just got done talking about, male college enrollments among U.$. youth aged 18-24 were more than 50% higher than female college […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: