Anarchism as a Movement

A communist once told me what he saw as the problem with Anarchism. He said that it was a one time and out thing; one action and run away; one protest, then a year of sitting and drinking. Now, I don't agree with him completely (and just about anything is better than waving red flags, talking about Marx, and selling Worker's Weekly), but he does have a point. As important as affinity groups and direct actions are, it is also necessary to build a movement because true power lies in numbers. Imagine if 10% of Americans were active anarchists. Radical events and Community organizations, such as free markets, free health clinics, and Food Not Bombs could have a presence in every city and town and be noticed and recognized nationally. These grass roots programs could grow beyond the community level and change larger national and international policies. To build this we must first bring people to anarchism.

For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, Emma Goldman defines anarchism as "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." Anarchists want to build a world free from any form of hierarchy and oppression. Whether that oppression takes the form of Man over women, the rich over the poor, the boss over the worker, God over Man or the government over the people. In every society that is or pretends to be democratic, the government claims to be the the people. When the Venezuelan government nationalizes a corporation, it says, "The people have taken back control", but that is a lie. The government is not the people, the government is the government and it will serve its own interest no matter what is best for the population. Anarchists want a peaceful world where people live in freedom, voluntarily help each other and work together because it is right, not because they are obligated to do so by culture, government or creed. Unlike other radical movements, Anarchists do not sit around theorizing about politics. We work everyday to build the society we want. Though the anarchist movement is currently quite strong, there are many easy things that could be done to make it stronger, more effective, and more influential.

Let's face it, most Americans know nothing about Anarchism. The only image they may have is chaos represented by bomb throwers and violent masked protesters. They know nothing of anarchist groups, beliefs, or history. They are caught up in the political binary system. They see their political beliefs as a choice between Republican and Democrat, and find it very difficult to think outside of that box. As Vonnegut said at his cynical best, "If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative." We need to make it clear to large numbers of people that there are other options. The one good thing about the lack of public knowledge about anarchism is the lack of negative public opinion. This contrasts with the public opinion about communists, who are still viewed as the enemy. Anarchists must defend the beliefs of indigenous people, not Stalin and Mao. Keeping this is mind, our major movement building goal must be to get anarchist ideas into the public mind. This sounds like an insurmountable task, the capitalists do control the media and the money, but with current technology and mass media it is easier than it seems.

The Internet has made it extremely easy to reach millions of people. The Internet makes it simple to make information available to everyone; the only difficulty is getting them to see it. One way of doing this is to put links everywhere you can. Sign your emails, blog posts and comments with links to the Anarchy Archives, Infoshop.org or Indymedia. This can help in a number of ways. Obviously it increases the amount of people who click on the links and view the sites, but more importantly search engines rank sites based on how many other web pages link to them, if we increase the links to our sites, they will show up more often on Google. You can also start your own website that promotes anarchism or presents the news from an anarchist perspective, these websites could be especially effective if they were local. Wikipedia can also be very useful for movement building. We could link articles such as "Freedom" and "Community" to the articles on Anarchism, as well as adding links other anarchist websites. The more people read, the more they know; the more they understand, the more they are willing to do.

In addition to these legal means, there are many extralegal tactics that could be used effectively on the Internet. It is well known that some of the best hackers are radicals, and they could be essential to the movement. It is possible to place articles on major news sites. Imagine if the CNN.com had a story about the achievements and history of Anarchism; if the New York Times had an editorial promoting Anarchism as the best alternative before an election. Also hacking tactics could be used to crash the servers of oppressive websites, or redirect traffic to anarchist sites.

Television, though it is to be avoided by every thinking person, can be very useful for our effort. During actions such as the Cascadia Free State in 1996, and the WTO protests in Seattle of 1999, many anarchists got television time and were able to speak and spread their ideas in a relatively uncensored way. The Eugene anarchists even got their own 60 Minutes episode. The problem is that many of these actions alienate many people, who have been taught from birth that the only moral form of violence is government violence. Now there is obviously a place for violent actions (as long as they are pertinent and effective), but looking at it from a movement building stand point, actions such as hunger strikes and lock-downs in front of the offices of corporations such as Monsanto could be very effective. Fifty anarchists camped out in front of Monsanto's corporate headquarters would be hard for the news media to ignore, and the protesters would be given air time to speak. It is hard even for Fox News to portray a group of hunger striking activists as dangerous criminals that need to be locked up. As campaigns like this progress, and people get a taste of the freedom and ideas of Anarchism, many will be drawn to it. The huge groundswell of support for Ron Paul, despite his radical ideas, shows that many people are ready for a radical change, we just need to bring them to a set of ideals that, unlike Ron Paul's libertarianism, will not lead to corporate control of every facet of our lives. Many of the people who would be drawn to Anarchism are already liberal, but many would be disaffected people who hate politics and want to live in a completely different world.

We must also promote the anarchist life style (show people what living in an anarchist world would be like). Setting up free states and autonomous zones would do a great deal to gain media attention and public support. If there were large groups of anarchists living peacefully and effectively outside of government control, corporations or landlords, it would add a great deal of popular appeal to the idea of anarchism itself, as it would show that anarchism can be practical and effective. It would also have the effect of causing Anarchists, to stand for something positive, not just stand against the current state of affairs. Today, most of the left defines itself as anti-war, anti-globalization, anti-Bush, anti-whatever, but it fails to stand for anything on a strong enough ideological foundation to support movement. Anarchists should stand for the creation of a new world, where people can live freely and autonomously, without the oppressive forces of capitalism and the state.

Also, we should aim to get more well known anarchists and radicals such as Noam Chomsky, Derrick Jensen and Howard Zinn on to television along with younger radicals, who are actively building anarchist organizations. In the 60's and 70's it was common to see the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Bobby Seale and Malcolm X on late night talk shows promoting and defending their ideas, being seen by millions of Americans. Shows such as Real Time with Bill Maher and Countdown with Keith Olbermann would be happy to have some true radicals on their shows to show that different political beliefs exist. If a young anarchist were to start an organization started to create noticable change, it would be easy for him or her to get into the mainstream media and promote anarchist beliefs.

Free independent publications and pamphlets such as the Indypendant and the New York Rat are very important in building a movement. Even in this age of digital technology, the printed word still has power. It is necessary to have a publication that not only relates an anarchist perspective on the news, but also includes more general essays and discussions about anarchism, and answers the question "Why Anarchism?". Before the American Revolution, the best selling book, except for the Bible, was Thomas Paine's Common Sense. It was read by about 1/5 of Colonial America. This radical pamphlet was one of the major reasons why the Patriots were able to gain support for the American Revolution. If we could distribute a pamphlet or video to a large part of the public, it could have a similar effect: causing our ranks to grow and real change to occur. The 9/11 Conspiracy movement has done a great job of this. Their various documentaries have been viewed by millions of people, and they have appeared in the mainstream media; giving them the opportunity to defend their (largely unsupported) views. If anarchists can get their views out into the public in that way, it will do a great deal to educate and generate conversation about anarchism as not only an idea, but a possibility.

While discussing bigger issues, we must not forget the smaller scale. On the personal level it is important to be admired and liked by the people in your life. As an anarchist, you are not just a single person; you are a representative of the movement. Thus, if people don't like you and think you're a bad person, it reflects badly on the movement. When people hear about any issue they relate it to their personal experience. If an issue involves anarchists, they think of an anarchist they know, and if they think about how good and nice a person he or she was, it will make them see the issue and the anarchist movement in a more positive light. We should try to act with malice toward none and with charity towards all, doing our best to live by the values we preach. No one likes a hypocrite.

One of the most important problems with the current anarchist community is that it's a largely white, middle class, punk movement. We must recognize this, and instead of complaining about it, work to change it. Refusal to openly acknowledge this problem only makes it worse. The demographic make up of the movement alienates many minorities and average people because it makes them see anarchism as unsuitable for them. All too often, anarchists pay lip service to diversity and racial equality while living and working in largely white communities, as anyone who has ever attended an Anarchist event can attest to. We need to include all people whose interests are supported by anarchism. The urban and especially the rural poor are natural anarchists, government and corporations have no positive impact on their lives. We must reach out to minorities and the poor through a variety of methods, especially though music and community outreach. There are tons of anarchist punk bands, but we should aim to promote and support radical rappers and reggaetón artists, such as the Foundation Movement, because they appeal to a demographic that is very different than the current anarchist community. It is also very likely that as people become radicalized politically, they will also reject much of mainstream consumption culture, bringing their values more into line with the anarchist community.

In the late 60s, Lyndon B. Johnson was considering further escalation in Vietnam, but he decided against it when J. Edgar Hoover told him that if the war was expanded, he could not guarantee domestic security. Though many of the recommendations in this essay may seem overly optimistic, they can all make a positive impact and increase the power of the anarchist movement, helping to build a society where the government cannot launch wars and pursue violent imperialist policies due to massive resistance at home. Our main focus for the future must be to build a larger movement, to build a better society. We have to make sure that we stand for things, not just against the status quo. Although we will not be a majority in the near future, it is very possible for Anarchists to become a minority large enough to positively affect the country and help to dethrone the current rulers of our society. And of course, if you have any other ideas for expanding the anarchist movement, take initiative and make your ideas reality!

An appeal to Direct Action.

In November there was another election, and it turned out as all have before: one party won, one party lost, and nothing changed. The Democrats have already gone back on their campaign promises to clean up Washington and to institute real change. Not that the Republicans would have done any better. They would have continued to push imperialism, "family values," and other policies specially designed to cause as much death and destruction for as many people as possible. It is obvious that the true interests of the people cannot be accomplished simply by voting for corporate controlled politicians every year. In the words of Emma Goldman, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." History has shown that true social change can only be achieved by people's movements go beyond simply voting, and employ direct action.

Every sucessful major social movement has used direct action. Gandhi did not force the British out of India by waiting until the next election. He used non-violent direct action and civil disobedience to cause unrest in India to the point where the British could not continue their imperialist occupation. Direct action has also always had a place in American history. From the Boston Tea Party, to Henry David Thoreau's refusal to pay taxes as a protest against the Mexican-American war and slavery, the American spirit of individualism has always pushed people towards direct resistance of oppression. Direct action in America reached its peak during the civil rights movement and social struggles of the 60's. Martin Luther King did not sit back and wait for times to change. He did not wait for the government to grant freedom to his people. He did not let moderates put a time table on his people's freedom. He stood up and demanded freedom. He organized direct actions such as sit ins and boycotts that challenged racist laws and business practices. Direct action was also used by the anti-Vietnam War movement. Young radicals burnt their draft cards, blocked recruitment centers and took over colleges. All to directly stop the war, and to get their voices heard in a way that a traditional march or rally never could.

Since the end of the Vietnam war, direct action, and activism in general, has declined in America. This is largely due to the expansion of mass media, which is now pervasive through all of society. This media limits the realm of thought and encourages people to obey the government as well as societal norms. Anyone who tries to break the mold is either portrayed as a terrorist or as a lone crazy to be derided and not taken seriously. The mass media is willfully blind to the fact that our current situation lends itself more to effective direct action than almost any other period in history. We live in a time of corporate control and dominance over almost every area of our lives, but corporations are prime targets for direct action. A corporation is its own entity, and though it may effect the lives of millions of people, those people have no say in company policy. Since a corporation is concerned with profit above all else, if a group is able to make a certain business practice, whether it is virtual slave labor in the third world or excessive pollution at home, unprofitable, the corporation will be forced to discontinue that practice.

Often direct action is demonized and considered ineffective, which if done correctly it need not be. There are a few important points that must be kept in mind when planning or performing a direct action. The most important of these is that a direct action must be relevant to the societal ill it seeks to correct. For example burning a car to protest the killing of 500 animals per day by Huntington Life Science will have no positive effect and, in fact, will only bias public opinion in favor of HLS because they would be seen as a victim. On the other hand, organizing protests and boycotts against the suppliers and customers of HLS will cut into the bottom line, and force HLS to modify their business practices or force them out of business entirely. By using these tactics, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty has put HLS hundreds of million dollars in debt, and succeeded in getting it removed from the New York Stock Exchange. If the direct action is going to attract media coverage, it is important to make sure that the media coverage is in the best possible light, which can be accomplished through press releases and media interviews. Finally, if you are planning a riskier action that could get you arrested, make sure that you know and trust the people you are working with becuse as many activists of hte past have discovered, the government will go to any length to protect corporations and to promote "order" over justice.

Right now at White Plains High School a new club is being formed. This club is called Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS. It will be dedicated to constructive direct action to challenge corporate and government power and build a better world for us all. Everyone is welcome at the meetings, students and teachers alike, as long as they are willing to work together in a non hierarchical way and to fight for true democratic values.

Though many people are disillusioned with the American political system, and are tired of choosing between two rich white Christian men, the solution is not to ignore or boycott the election process, but instead to vote for lesser of two evils, but then spend the other 364 days of the year voting with your actions. Which througout history has proved to be the only way to affect meaningful change in society.

The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

Everyday it seems we are told by government officials that the current War on Terror is a battle for civilization itself, much akin to World War II. The purpose of these flawed analogies is to raise nationalist sentiment in the United States, thus building up support for the War on Terror and any other actions the government deems necessary to protect America. Patriotism is quite different from nationalism, though they are often used interchangeably. Charles de Gaulle described the difference as, "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." The Bush administration wishes to instill the purest form of nationalism in the American people. They want us to believe that we are always right. That as Americans we are superior to all other peoples. That we have a God given right to invade, exploit and otherwise use them for our own benefit.

In the period immediately after the 9/11 attacks the patriotic, nationalist sentiment in America was exploited by the administration. At that time, anyone who spoke out against the president was considered a traitor and a supporter of terrorists. If the senate was not caught up in nationalistic fervor (and had actually read the bill) more would have opposed the PATRIOT Act's vast expansion of executive power. As it was, however, Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against it. This nationalistic desire to support the president has also led to our current quagmire in Iraq. In the run up to the war, the Congress and the media fell back into line with the president. They did not ask questions and accepted intelligence that turned out to be false. If politicians and the media were more willing to challenge the administration we may not now be stuck in an increasingly violent Iraq and the Taliban would not be taking control of large parts of Afghanistan.

Nationalism is directly connected to militarism. A society that believes itself to be superior feels a need to arm itself to prove its strength. Often when nations arm themselves they claim they do so to promote peace. By this logic, the most peaceful person is the one who goes about heavily armed. However, experience proves armed individuals are eager to try out their strength. The same is true of governments. Truly peaceful countries do not waste time and resources on war preparations. They choose to focus their energies on improving the quality of life of their people. The American government currently spends 470 billion dollars on maintaining the armed forces in peacetime; wars are extra-budgetary. The armed forces include a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons that have absolutely no practical purpose. They also contain highly mechanized forces that have again and again proved worthless against guerrilla insurgencies. The American military was built to fight World War II, not our current struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, our multi-billion dollar stealth bombers are completely useless.

As we enter the 21st century we need to ask ourselves if we want to continue living in a world controlled by the forces of profit and nationalism or if we want to build a global society in which every human matters. Today we live in a world where men kill each other over arbitrary lines in the sand. Where millions live in virtual slavery to produce consumer products for the West. Where the skies are full of smog and the oceans full of chemicals. Where no one, save the last few indigenous peoples, is truly free. But we have the power to create a global society free of exploitation, hatred, and greed. The first step is to rid ourselves of nationalism. We must realize that wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. Only then can we begin to build a better world. Only then can we be truly free.

Legalize it!

At this point in the 21st century it is necessary and pragmatic for the government to stop their legislation of pleasure and sin. Just as laws forbidding sodomy have become a thing of the past so should the restrictions on drugs fade away into the sunset. The American government currently spends $50 billion dollars every year fighting the War on Drugs. A war that has had absolutely no positive effect. The rates of drug use have remained relatively steady even as more and more people are arrested and thrown in jail simply for drug possession. The most sensible, effective drug policy complete legalization.

The main societal problems caused by drugs are tied to their illegal status. Since drugs are illegal they are expensive to obtain and highly profitable to sell. This high profit market draws in many youths looking to make a quick buck. Since drug dealing is very profitable it eventually becomes over saturated, forcing the dealers to engage in violent turf wars to control the best dealing areas. If drugs were legalized and available at stores such as CVS, the illegal occupation of drug dealing, and the violence and crime that comes with it, would be completely eliminated. Why would anyone pay more for illegal drugs if the same drugs were available for less in a clean, safe, supermarket?

If drugs were produced by pharmaceutical companies instead of in basements, they would be much safer to use. Since the government could regulate a legal drug market they could enforce purity and safety standards. This would safe thousands of lives every year. It would not only stop people from making dangerous drugs such as crystal meth themselves, but it would also stop the rampant cutting and lacing (in which the drug is diluted with other substances, which often are more addictive and dangerous than the drug itself). By enforcing stringent purity standards the government could eliminate many of the main dangers of drug use.

Many argue that the legalization of drugs would cause a huge increase in drug use. This argument is illogical because it assumes that the only reason people do not do drugs is because they are illegal. They ignore the fact that two of the most dangerous and addictive drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, are legal. There are many people who choose not to use these substances even though they are legal. They avoid them because they are aware of the deleterious effects of alcohol and cigarette use. The same holds true for illegal drugs, most people avoid heroin, not because it is illegal, but because it is incredible addictive and dangerous. If heroin were legalized, millions of Americans would not go out shoot up. It is also obvious that the current illegal status of drugs does not prevent or deter determined people from using them. Someone who really wants to use drugs will find a way acquire and use them whether or not they are illegal. However, if the drugs were legal, drug users could more easily acquire the drugs, for a lower price, and have easier access to rehab clinics.

One of the most inhumane parts of the war on drugs is the persecution of third world farmers, whose only way to escape from poverty is to grow crops that are made into illegal drugs. The US government has rashly used chemicals similar to Agent Orange to destroy huge fields of marijuana plants in areas such as Columbia. Needless to say this policy is incredibly harmful, both to the environment and the people living in the area. This destruction is not only immoral but unnecessary. If drugs were legalized in America, major pharmaceutical companies could buy the raw materials such as poppy and coca plants, and make them into drugs to be sold legally. This would cut out the illegal drug smuggling market, and would bring a large economic boost to both America, and the countries that poorer countries that grow the drugs; it's a win-win situation.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars each year fighting an unwinnable war on drugs, the US should legalize drugs, which would not only give a improve the safety of drugs and the American economy, but would also free up billions of dollars to rehabilitate drug addicts. We must realize that there is nothing wrong with responsible drug use, it is addiction that is a problem. By forbidding pleasure and choosing jail time over rehabilitation, our current drug policy is wrong headed and immoral. Legalizing drugs is the only logical and ethical solution to the drug problem.

Nation Article

As the 2008 Presidential election quickly approaches, we, as the next generation of Americans, must ask ourselves whether we wish to become entangled in a generation long struggle against a faceless enemies with no homeland. Whether we wish the assault on personal freedoms at home, and human rights abroad to continue. Whether we wish the death of thousands more US troops, and millions more civilians to continue. We must ask whether we wish to press on with the Bush Administration's ill-fated War on Terror, and if not, how we plan to deal with terrorism in the 21st Century.

It has become painfully obvious that the Neo-Conservative policy of regime change and preemptive war has been an abysmal failure. We have managed to topple two governments with relative ease, but we have made almost no progress against the group that attacked us, Al Qaeda. In fact, they are stronger now than they were in 2001. Though they have been largely removed from Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has set up shop in Waziristan, Pakistan where they have been relentlessly recruiting, attacking American troops in Iraq, and supporting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq and the abuses at Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo Bay have given Al Qaeda their best recruiting tool.

The problem is that once we reject the Neo-Conservative platform we are left without any plan to deal with the consequences that strategy. Due to the failures of the War on Terror, terrorism is a bigger problem now than it was 5 years ago. An effective terrorism plan will involve basic changes in the philosophy of our policy. We must move away from direct military intervention, towards political and economic solutions that fight the root causes of terrorism. This plan will be considerably more complicated than the current "Bring 'Em On" approach, but it will be considerably more effective in defeating terrorism.

To pursue a new policy against terrorism we will first have to end our occupation of Iraq. The occupation is destroying our military and eliminating its capacity to respond to any additional situation that may emerge. It has also given credence to Al Qaeda's claim that America is an imperialist power bent on colonizing and Christianizing the Middle East, further radicalizing the Muslim world. While we pull out of Iraq we must avoid a war with Iran, which would have all the negative consequences of the Iraq War, with the additional problem of uniting Sunni's and Shi'ites against the "Great Satan."

When we are out of Iraq we will be able to focus on the more important parts of the War on Terror. We will be able to commit the necessary forces to defeat the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and help the Afghans stabilize and rebuild their country. We will also be able to transform our efforts against terrorism into a police action instead of a series of wars. This police action would involve a greater focus on intelligence gathering to stop terrorist groups before they attack eliminating civilian deaths, which are an intrinsic part of war. It would also help to eliminate so-called "home grown terrorism," which no invasion can prevent.

Better intelligence gathering will do much to stop individual attacks, but it will not solve the underlying problem of terrorism. Today, a majority of Muslims believe that suicide bombing in defense of Islam can be justified. That belief, combined with the belief that the West is waging war against Islam cause Muslims to become, aid and support terrorists. A two part solution is necessary in solving these problems. Since Muslim countries such as Turkey and those in Southeast Asia, which are well off economically, are more liberal and therefore are less likely to engage in or support terrorism the first part of the plan involves developing innovative ways to support sustainable economic development in the Muslim world. As integration into the world economy increases, the spell of religious radicalism loses its charm.

The second part involves recognizing why so many Muslims are willing to become terrorists. They believe that they are victims of a Western assault on their land and culture. To combat these greivences we must make a basic change in our foreign policy. It would be very beneficial to our relations with the Arab World to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, reconsider our unqualified support of Israel and stop killing Muslims.

By taking these basic steps we can not only improve American security and save American lives, but we can also begin to build a more ethical foreign policy and begin to build a new world for the new century.

On June 10^th a new kind of event will take place in White Plains. This event is called Really Really Free Markets. It will take place from 12-4pm in J. Harvey Turnure Park, a beautiful park on Lake Street, across from Eastview Middle School. Really Really Free Markets is a community sharing event meant to provide goods and services for free to those who need them.

Really Really Free Markets works by people sharing what they have. Those attending bring stuff that they no longer need or use, such as old clothes, books, pots and pans, video games and CD’s and give them away free to anyone who wants them. This reusing of goods is beneficial on many levels. It allows packrats to clean out their attics and closets those in need to get what they need for free. It also reduces the massive amounts of trash flowing into our ever expanding garbage dumps.

Although everyone loves free stuff, Really Really Free Markets is about a lot more than just goods. It is a free exchange of goods and services. There will be a variety of groups and individuals running interesting and useful workshops, from bike repair and survival skills to healthy cooking and dancing. Along with the workshops there will be a number of performances and art exhibits with acoustic music being performed all afternoon long.

If you are interested in participating in the event, all you need to do is bring a blanket or table with the stuff you are giving away to Turnure Park on June 10^th. We will not however be removing trash that is left behind, so please be prepared to bring anything you don’t give away home with you. If you are interested in doing a workshop, teaching anything, or if you have a particular political cause you wish to promote please contact me at jonathon.booth@gmail.com.

If you need things and can’t pay, your house is full of stuff, you want to learn something new or if you just want to have an enjoyable Sunday afternoon, I urge to you to come to Really Really Free Markets, Sunday, June 10^th in J Harvey Turnure Park on Lake Street.

Many of you have probably seen SDS around our school in recent months, but many students I have encountered do not really know what SDS is, or even what it stands for. SDS stands for Students for a Democratic Society. It is in no way related to the Democratic Party, it simply advocates Democracy, Equality, Freedom, Liberty and Justice for all. The main focus of the White Plains High School chapter of SDS is to bring an increased level of awareness on a variety of topics to the White Plains student body, and to show students the ways in which they can make a positive change on issues they care about. SDS is a diverse group, with all different genders and ethnicities represented, working together towards the ideal of more democratic society.

I have heard other students (who have a small idea about the organization) discussing its history; sometimes factually and sometimes not. The original SDS was a hallmark of the New Left in the 1960's, and was one of the largest student activism groups in the country before it collapsed during its 1969 national convention. It was founded in 1962, with the Port Huron Statement, a manifesto which criticized the US government and laid out the goals, ideals and methods of SDS. These methods were primarily non-violent civil disobedience and direct action, holding with the tradition of the civil rights movement which was held in high esteem by the founders and members of Students for a Democratic Society. Things went slowly during the first few years of the organization, but picked up considerably during the second half of the 1960's as American troops began to be sent to Vietnam in large numbers. Opposition to the draft and the Vietnam War united the students, but they also fought for other causes including civil rights. The organization continued to hold non-violent actions such as teach-ins and student strikes throughout the remainder of the 60's, but the in 1969 SDS fell apart into a number of splinter groups.

The most notable of these groups was The Weather Underground. Taking their name from the Bob Dylan lyric, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," The Weather Underground were a revolutionary group committed to using violent means to overthrow the American government and capitalism as a whole. They engaged in many bombings of government targets during the early 70's. They are the reason that many people associate SDS with violent revolutionaries, but in fact The Weatherman were not at all related to the SDS organization and were formed after the organization imploded.

In January 2006 Jessica Rapchick and Pat Korte decided to put out a call to restart Students for a Democratic Society to help jump start a new student movement for the new century. The new organization is extremely decentralized, and the central organization only controls the website, www.newsds.org. There are currently 266 SDS chapters at high schools and colleges across the country including the one at our school. All completely autonomous, and all dedicated to positive change.

I, with a small group of friends, decided to start a SDS chapter at White Plains High School because we thought there was a lack of any kind of serious political activism at our school. I thought that SDS could be a positive force for change in our school and community and could bring together a diverse group of students to fight for common ideals and to fight against poverty, ignorance, war, exploitation, racism, sexism, and homophobia. Despite this ideal, I was met with four months of opposition from the administration until the club was finally approved in March, just in time for the 4th anniversary of the Iraq War. Since then SDS has held weekly meetings in A207, and organized the rally against immigration policy on May 1st. The next event we are organizing is a series of debates with Conservative Americans United, a club of conservative students formed in opposition to SDS. Hopefully this debate series will continue into next year. The first debate will be about immigration and take place on May 30th, during lunch in the Media Center. I invite everyone to attend and hear two opposing view points on an issue that affects many of us personally.

I for one am a fervent believer in the mission and importance of Students for a Democratic Society and activism in general. Our government is currently engaged in a seemingly endless war with no specific goals and no plan to win. It is using that war, and the fear of terrorism, to push through legislation taking away rights as basic as the Habeas Corpus, the right to know why you have been arrested, which dates back to 1215. At the same time this government is actively supporting the destruction of the environment and refuses to take action, and in many cases even acknowledge the existence of, global warming. Politicians are unwilling to take decisive action on important issues because they are are concerned solely with reelection. Pundits on the right such as Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity are quick to demonize those who oppose American policy, calling them traitors and claiming that they "hate America."

All of these factors together make it more important now than ever to support direct action and activism, outside of the ballot box. I believe that if we work together we can build a new and better society and a new and better world, based on shared values and voluntary associations. A world where power is shared equally by all people regardless or race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. A world where people have control over the resources on which they depend. A world based on true democratic values where everyone's voice matters. I am very encouraged with the way that SDS has grown, and the variety of people who are interested in working with us towards common goals. I encourage everyone, students, teachers and stuff, to attend SDS meetings and to work with us on topics that are important to you. Together we can institute real, substantial change. Together we can build a different world.