Thinking Politically

Learning from One of the Best of the 1960s–70s–80s Political Organizations

review by Kim Scipes

Truth and Revolution: A History of the Sojourner Truth Organization, 1969-1986, by Michael Stau-denmaier, AK Press, Oakland, USA, 2012, 387 pages, ISBN: 13: 978-1-84935-097-6. $19.95.

As Max Elbaum pointed out in his acclaimed 2002 book, Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals turn to Lenin, Mao and Che, there was more to the 1960s than just dope smoking and free love. Importantly, there was the New Communist Movement (NCM) that developed in an effort to revolutionarily trans-form the United States from what it was to what it was imagined it could be. Elbaum took a critical look at the NCM, but he all-but-ignored arguably one of the most important organizations that developed within the NCM, the Sojourner Truth Organization (STO).

However, Michael Staudenmaier has now given us an excellent, critical and in-depth examination of STO. This is an important organization that Stauden-maier believes has considerable relevance today, and he clearly wrote it with the idea of understanding STO to the greatest extent possible so as to provide on-going guidance for revolutionaries today. Impor-tantly, and allowing a level of detachment that makes

his study even more relevant today, Staudenmaier is not a veteran of the ‘60s, although he’s been politi-cally engaged in the anarchist world for a consider-able number of years.

STO, Staudenmaier asserts, organized its work over the 15 or so years it existed in three main areas: prioritizing workplace organizing (approximately 1970–75), anti-imperialist solidarity (1976–80), and then direct-action, tendency-building from the late 1970s to its demise by 1986). There are important things to learn from these experiences, and the work produced by this small organization (which never hadmore than about 50 people) over the years is impres-sive.

What makes STO so important in my viewpoint,is its focus on theoretical work: at best, their theoreti-cal understanding contributed to their practice and their practice, in turn, was reflected upon and then utilized to confirm/falsify and/or develop their theo-ry. I have not heard of nor seen anywhere near this level of intellectual work by any comparable organi-zation of that period, regardless of size. In other words, in an era in which other Leninist organiza-tions dogmatically asserted the correctness of their respective “political line,” Sojourner Truth discussed and debated theoretical issues publicly, and sought to

take greatest advantage of its extensive and often-times innovative practice. Staudenmaier notes,

On an intellectual level, several key themes re-cur throughout the group’s history. In every area and at every point in time, STO emphasized the importance of mass action, the rejection of legal constraints on struggle, the question of con-sciousness within the working class, the central

role of white supremacy to the continued misery of life under capitalism, and the ne-cessity of autonomy for exploited and op-pressed groups, not only from capitalism and white supremacy but also from their supposed representatives, various self-pro-

claimed vanguards, and any other ‘condescend-ing saviors’ (p. 4).And Staudenmaier argues “two essential theoret-

ical innovations in particular marked STO’s contribu-tion to the revolutionary left” (p. 4). He explains, “the group articulated Italian Marxist Antonio Gram-sci’s understanding of hegemony as an analysis of ‘dual consciousness,’ arguing that the working class displayed both a broad acceptance of the status quo and an embryonic awareness of its own revolutionarypotential as a class,” (p. 4) and they presented “an

analysis of white-skin privilege as a bulwark of whitesupremacy” (p. 5). He adds that they later added the concept of “autonomy” to their theoretical universe.

And, when differing levels of intellectual devel-opment threatened the integrity of the organization, the organization consciously decided to address this

Green Social Thought 61: A Magazine of Synthesis and Regeneration, Spring 2013 43

I have not seen this level of intellectual work byany comparable organization of that period …

This was an organization that consciouslyused theory to elevate its practice and the

intellectual capabilities of its members.

theoretical “gap” by educating its members in politi-cal theory, transforming members into theorists to supplement (not replace) their practical work, reduc-ing internal differences. This was an organization thatconsciously used theory not to dissuade dissidents, but to elevate its practice and the intellectual capabil-ities of its members. (Obviously, STO’s small size over the years indicates that considerable number of self-styled “revolutionaries” did not value or see the

need for this, but STO’s approach to this internal problem is another example of its innovative ap-proach.)

The book examines this interaction between practice-theory-practice over the group’s history. Thisis done with considerable sympathy to STO’s efforts, yet with a critical perspective that refuses to give them a pass for their mistakes or their, at times, “less-than-saintly” efforts, both externally and internally. Staudenmaier is particularly astute in addressing the implications of their theoretical developments, some which were brilliant, while others were not consid-ered.

He has gotten access to a considerable amount of STO’s material—both publically disseminated andinternally confined—and examines theoretical de-bates, internal conflicts, and changing political ap-proaches. (A considerable amount of this original material is currently available on-line at www.so-journertruth.net.) He has interviewed a number of people who were active at different times—both those who left the organization and those who stayed—and at differing levels of power andinfluence within the group, combiningunderstandings from these oral inter-views with published material. His ma-terial on the internal life of the organiza-tion, and how it affected members andothers, is important.

The first eight chapters are bril-liant: Staudenmaier handles an amazingamount of material deftly and withpanache, and he gives about as full of anaccounting of an avowedly revolution-ary organization as can probably bedone by an outsider. In addition to theorganization itself, he carefully contex-tualizes it in the times, and offers astutecomments in relation to other organiza-tions of the New Communist Move-ment.

Further, I give him tremendouscredit for weaving his accounts of theo-ry and practice together innovatively.And as one who had some contact with

STO over the late 1970s-early ‘80s—but never joined—I had a hard time putting the book down, and I consumed its 333 pages carefully over a three-day period (in addition to work-related responsibilities). In short, I give the overall bulk of the book the high-est accolade one author can give another: I wish I had written this book.

That being said—and sincerely meant—I was disappointed in his concluding chapter where he tried

to extract lessons from STO’s experiences for today’s revolutionaries. As stated above, Stau-denmaier’s political experience has been in the revolutionary anarchist movement. Obviously for one from this background, he challenges STO’s Leninism, however innovative and non-dogmatic it was, and especially its theoreti-cians’ reliance on quotations from Lenin in their theoretical debates.

Nonetheless, he recognizes the strength of the group’s broadmindedness towards theory, noting STO had “three distinct and competing leaders” who “routinely disagreed with each other on major issues,” and “each of them was frequently challengedby newer members who had their own theoretical in-sights” (p. 315). Further, he noted that STO’s theoret-ical work was based on the writings of Marx and Lenin, but supplemented by thinking by Gramsci, W.E.B. Du Bois and C.L.R. James, which were “any-thing but commonplace touchstones among the revo-lutionary left at the time” (p. 315). Obviously, STO was not a typical Leninist organization by any stretchof the imagination, whether in range of thinkers con-sidered or by the amount of internal democracy where members were encouraged to discuss and de-bate the issues before the organization and move-ment.

All of that being recognized, however, Stauden-maier does not push himself theoretically around twoissues. He does not question Marxism itself, when hisown material suggests that he should have done so:

could Marxism, based on the inter-action between forces of produc-tion and relations of production, explain white supremacy and espe-cially the concept of white skin privilege from within its theoreticalparameters?

Considering the importance ofMarxism and challenging white supremacy to the organization, should not this combination been examined, especially so many years after the demise of the orga-nization? Or could it explain male supremacy? I don’t think Marxism can explain either white or male supremacy within its theoretical parameters, but in any case, Stau-denmaier does not even question it,nor what might it mean for self-identified Marxists to transgress “the founder’s” limitations, seeing

44 Green Social Thought 61: A Magazine of Synthesis and Regeneration, Spring 2013

STO’s theoretical work was based on Marx andLenin, but supplemented by thinking by

Gramsci, W.E.B. Du Bois and C.L.R. James …

Marxism as necessary but not sufficient for their pur-poses?

Second, and perhaps even more immediately im-portant for his chosen tasks, Staudenmaier fails to in-terrogate the concepts of “revolution,” and “revolu-tionary change.” He uses these concepts uncritically, but what do they mean? What does it mean to as-sume the mantle of “revolutionary organization?” This is one issue whose examination/non-examina-tion would appear to have made a sig-nificant impact on the organization. Ifby revolution, one means an apoplec-tic, almost orgasmic, rupture with theestablished social order (ala the initialseizure of power by the Bolsheviks),then what does that mean when thatdoesn’t happen?

Or if by revolution, one means an extended armed struggle, ala China or Vietnam, how does that affect your organization? Or, if by “revolution,” one means a long-time, gradual but relatively peaceful period of change that may or may not end up with armed warfare at the end—recognizing that changes won earlier may or may not positively effect subse-quent developments—what does that mean? And even if the concept of revolution was in the air in 1969–70, as Elbaum asserts, what does it mean after 1971 when the draft ended, or 1975, when the war in Southeast Asia ended, or 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, and why wasn’t this critically inter-rogated? I think doing so in these later periods wouldhave significantly affected STO’s subsequent devel-opment, and Staudenmaier does not provide any evi-

dence that this took place, nor did he question its lack.

These problems—critically interrogating Marx-ism, recognizing its importance but questioning its sufficiency as a “total” analysis, and the non-ques-tioning approach to revolution—demand specific at-tention from Occupy and subsequent activists, at least in my opinion. This probably isn’t their most pressing issue, admittedly, but I suggest it essential

for long-term development.Nonetheless, despite my dissatis-

faction with one chapter, how do I ratethis book? I think it is excellent, and Michael Staudenmaier should be rec-ognized for writing an important and insightful book. Quite frankly, whatev-

er one’s politics from left-of-center leftward, I think this is a critically important book, no matter what onemight think of the Sojourner Truth Organization, and I think everyone should read it and carefully considerthe issues they faced, their approaches and solutions, to see how we can surpass their efforts. This, as Stau-denmaier clearly intends, certainly extends to the Oc-cupy Movement. There’s a lot to learn from between the covers of this book—and I think each of us wouldbe a fool not to take advantage of this exemplary work.Kim Scipes is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Pur-due University North Central in Westville, Indiana, and Chair of the Chicago Chapter of the National Writers Union, UAW #1981. His latest book, AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? was issued in paperback in 2011: http://facul-ty.pnc.edu/kscipes/book.htm.

Reagan over Carter:

When Big Energy Triumphedby G.S. Evans

That Ronald Reagan’s victory in the 1980 election represented a turning point in American political his-tory is commonly recognized. Especially in that the Reagan administration initiated an attack on the American social state (i.e., the many New Deal and Great Society programs that gave us at least the semblance of a social-democratic state) that continues to the present day. But, as the historian Kevin Mattson reminds us in his recent book, What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President, the election had a further, in the global scheme of things perhaps even greater, significance than an assault on the social state. Namely, it obliterated what I would call “a moment of historical possibility” in the mid to late 1970s when an increasingly sophisticated awareness by the American people of the ecological and ideo-logical limitations of consumer capitalism was giving impetus to a governmental attempt to capitalize a “sustainable,” technologically-oriented segment of the American bourgeoisie.

At a minimum, these forces were moving us in the direction of a more ecological, European-style form of capitalism as opposed to the commodi-ties-based, extractive form of capitalism that tri-umphed with Reagan’s victory. More hopefully, the level of popular awareness of ecological and lifestyleissues made a radical, left-green transformation of society and economy a less desperately distant possi-

bility than it has become in the wake of Reagan’s vic-tory.

This historical moment of possibility is best epitomized by, and most eloquently expressed in, a speech that Carter gave to the nation on July 15, 1979. The context of the speech was dramatic, as the United States was in the midst of a severe oil short-age, high inflation, and was experiencing the imme-

Green Social Thought 61: A Magazine of Synthesis and Regeneration, Spring 2013 45

Could Marxism explainwhite supremacy?