Aaron Kreider History of Economic Thought Term Paper Date Due: December 10, 1997 Seeking the Unattainable: A Peoples' History of Economic Theory of the American New Left The 'New Left' is a relatively small but hard core of young student revolutionaries aimed at nothing less than the destruction of the U.S. society in general and the Business Establishment in particular. (Editors of the Harvard Business Review, 1969, qtd in Perrow 1) We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit (opening paragraph of the Port Huron Statement). Thirty-five years ago, a small group of students, from a small student movement, gathered at an autoworkers' camp and rehashed a not so small draft into what became the Port Huron Statement. A hundred thousand copies were printed of this manifesto from the New Left to America and these students were, as they believed, about "to change the world." Intensely critical to the core, their values and theory called for a profound social and economic restructuring of society. It was a well researched radical systemic critique of the current structure. The New Left was founded in the activism of the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, student rights, and other issues. Out of the unprecedented social change and movements of the Sixties, emerged a New Left with a very radical economic theory, which both influenced and was influenced by the movements of the times. While not always explicitly stated, activists developed both a conscious and an unconscious economic theory that led them to radical activism. Underlying almost every act of civil disobedience, every political demonstration, every teach-in, and every petition, was a radical economic theory favoring a transformation of society. The focus of this paper will be the relationship between external events, activism, and the development of theory. The Sixties was a period when both democracy and Americans were in the streets or raising hell in their respective communities and campuses, and to many the revolution appeared imminent. It was not, and the New Left collapsed leaving an important legacy of history and theory for the use of future movements. This paper will first examine issues of methodology and justify that which it will use. Then it will investigate the background events that surrounded and shaped the creation of the New Left, including major cultural change, the Civil Rights Movement, and the peace movement against the Bomb and the war in Vietnam. Next it will look at the origins of the primary document of the New Left, the Port Huron Statement, by telling a brief history of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and noting the influence of C. Wright Mills. After the statement it will note how students first criticized their schools, realizing how they fit in to, and supported, the system. Over time the New Left moved from liberalism to radicalism, and started attacking business in the US, and ultimately business abroad (imperialism). The New Left eventually favored radical change. So second to last we discuss revolutionary and vanguard theory. Finally it recognizes that the dreams of SDS were not met and examines the failure of the organization and what this means to its theory. 1. Methodology Regarding methodology, unlike other historians of economics or other disciplines who so often fail to mention their profound acceptance of one position or another and thus their bias, I will make it clear that I am in profound sympathy with practitioners of the New Left. I would like to see the goals expressed in the Port Huron Statement fulfilled, the creation of a new democratic society, and am working to do so. The title of this paper was half- stolen from Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States who explained his methodology and bias thus: As for the title of this book, it is not quite accurate; a "people's history" promises more than any one person can fulfill, and it is the most difficult kind of history to recapture. I call it that anyway because, with all its limitations, it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance. That makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction--so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people's movements--that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission (Zinn 1980; 570). Where as with regular economic theory, if one were to remain within the main paradigms of neoclassical or Keynesian theory, it would be possible to tell a history within limits of the "conventional wisdom" and to be perceived, albeit falsely, as unbiased by fellow believers. However radical economics is a theory of political economy, which neither is recognized as, nor claims to be "science" in the traditional sense. I too, like Zinn, shall examine the stories of people who, upon realization of the system's failure to live up to its presumed ideals, were driven to resistance and furthermore to seek radical change. My main references are to first hand accounts by people who were involved, to best represent the actual emotions and beliefs of the times, and place them in a foundation of knowledge of the surrounding events and culture. Most of the economic theory in this paper comes from economists who are neither trained nor recognized as such, but yet manage to develop and explain theory unhindered by the lack of traditional qualification. Quite likely this aids many of them to be unburdened by an economics degree, since they are breaking away from the conventional wisdom. Much of this theory is implicit rather than explicit. It can be recognized in the dedicated thoughtful actions of the participants in the movement such as Tom Hayden. Key individuals seemed to play crucial roles, notably Tom Hayden who wrote the Port Huron Statement, and was the primary figure in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) for most of its existence. Without these key people something different from SDS would have emerged. Possibly a more liberal organization. This paper shall examine the New Left, as a "peoples' movement," and radical economics as the corresponding "peoples' economics" that emerged focussing on its peak of creativity and influence during the Sixties. Because the theory is systemic, I shall attempt a broad overview examining all of its elements to the extent that it is possible, focusing on the whole, rather than on parts. 2. Origins The Sixties were a time of profound social upheaval. The New Left was shaped to a great extent by changing social values, the Civil Rights movement, the threat of nuclear war, and the Vietnam War. The Civil Rights Movement, the Bomb, and the Vietnam War shocked students away from their complacency, causing them to question the system due to the clear existence of injustice, rebel, and in the process develop a radical theory. The theory that emerged was created through a process of experimentation that parallels that of the emerging youth culture of the Sixties. A. Cultural Experimentation The world has never favored the experimental life. It despises poets, fanatics, prophets and lovers. It admires physical courage, but it has small use for moral courage. Yet it has always been those who experimented with life, who formed their philosophy of life as a crystallization out of that experimenting, who were the light and life of the world. Causes have only finally triumphed when the rational 'gradual progress' men have been overwhelmed. Better crude irrationality than the rationality that checks hope and stifles faith. (Randolph Bourne, "The Experimental Life" (1913), qtd. in Miller 155) "[B]red in at least moderate comfort," according to the Port Huron Statement, students of the Sixties from middle and upper class families, "tuned in, turned on, and dropped out," but in doing so were role models of courage, action, and provided a new analysis of U.S. society and the economy that was unprecedented in its bite. Many students ignored their parents' cultural values and experimented with life becoming hippies, growing long hair, smoking pot, and living for free love. They were dropping out from Galbraith's Affluent Society (1958), which was assuredly wealthy, but whose wealth was being wasted on the military and other unneeded luxury goods rather than being used to confront important issues like poverty. The founders of SDS found this shocking: We live amidst a national celebration of economic prosperity while poverty and deprivation remain an unbreakable way of life for millions in the "affluent society," including many of our generation (Port Huron Statement). Students like, Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader, Mario Salio were no longer interested in imitating their parents and having successful careers, but sought self-fulfillment in a greater good. They turned their backs on the traditional economy, revolted against its "middle class values," and dreamed of a new one that they then sought to build: It is a bleak scene, but it is all a lot of us have to look forward to. Society provides no challenge. American society in the standard conception it has of itself is simply no longer exciting. The most exciting things going on in America today are movements to change America. America is becoming ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment. The 'futures' and 'careers' for which American students now prepare are for the most part intellectual and moral wastelands. This chrome-plated consumers' paradise would have us grow up to be well-behaved children. But an important minority of men and women coming to the front today have shown that they will die rather than be standardized, replaceable and irrelevant (Salio: 1964, qtd in Stolz 134). B. The Civil Rights Movement As we grew, however, our comfort was penetrated by events too troubling to dismiss. First, the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry, compelled most of us from silence to activism ... The declaration "all men are created equal . . . " rang hollow before the facts of Negro life in the South and the big cities of the North (Port Huron Statement 1962). Through a combination of media, personal experiences, and the stories of friends the Civil Rights movement inspired activists up North who saw what could be best described as a battle between good and pure evil. Also they admired greatly the direct action tactics used by the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and adopted them. The Supreme Court had banned segregation in interstate transport in 1946 and 194. And in a momentous, but unenforced, decision of 1954 extended desegregation to schools. From the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956, through the sit-ins, marches and pickets of Sixties, courageous activists put their lives on the line to force and embarrass the government to uphold its own law. In May 1961, the Freedom Riders tested the desegregation of interstate bus terminals by riding from Washington, D.C. to the South. There they were met by mob violence. Fourteen years after the Supreme Court ruling the law was still not being enforced. The mob's violence and blatant denial of the law showed that liberalism, a doctrine of working within the system, had failed to end segregation (Kahn 1962; 65). School desegregation was also very slow in coming. In October, Hayden met head on with Southern racism, and was beaten in Mississippi by local whites while working with SNCC activist Bob Moses on a voter registration drive. Phil Ochs was not kidding when he sang, "I'm going down to Mississippi, I'm going down a southern road, and if you never see me again, remember that I had to go, remember that I had to go." During the summer of 1964 hundreds of Northern students went to Mississippi as part of SNCC's Freedom Summer Project to register voters. That summer eighty civil rights activists were beaten, thirty shot at, four killed, over a thousand arrested, and over sixty houses, businesses, and churches were burnt (Andersen 1987; 78). Seeing the U.S. government failing to implement its own law, not forcefully acting against racists, permitting beatings, arrests, and even murders, radicalized the New Left. SDS and students in the northern U.S. focussed on helping the Civil Rights Movement as their primary goal until the escalation of the Vietnam War in late 1964. C. The Peace Movement: The Bomb and The War Second, the enclosing fact of the Cold War, symbolized by the presence of the Bomb, brought awareness that we ourselves, and our friends, and millions of abstract "others" we knew more directly because of our common peril, might die at any time (Port Huron Statement 1962). U.S. post-World War II hegemony and world peace (under American terms) was first threatened when Russia built its own bomb, sparking an arms race leading both super powers to try to achieve the power of global destruction. With nuclear weapons spreading into the hands of several nations, war was forever changed, with the imposing of a potential for spontaneous illogical global destruction. From initial horror of the Bomb, the New Left shifted its focus to critiquing U.S. foreign policy and its brutal suppressive response of anti- colonial struggles of Third World liberation, in the Americas, and most shockingly in Vietnam. As the U.S. rapidly increased involvement in Vietnam starting in the mid-Sixties, SDS chapters organized demonstrations, challenged campuses ties to the military research, held teach-ins, tried to shut down ROTC programs, campaigned for peace candidates, occupied campus buildings (bringing the war "home"), some avoided the draft, and eventually SDS came out in full- fledge support of the NLF. The struggle of the Vietnamese people and the brutal tactics of the US government dedicated to stopping them, exposed the failure of the system, and radicalized students, more so than any other event of the time. Paul Potter expressed this sentiment when he spoke at the first major demonstration against the war (which was organized by SDS), with over fifteen thousand people, on April 17, 1965 at the capital: "What we must do, is begin to build a democratic and humane society in which human life and initiative are precious. The incredible war in Vietnam, has provided the razor, the terrifying sharp cutting edge that has finally severed the last vestige of illusion that morality and democracy are the guiding principles of American foreign policy....What in fact has the war done for freedom in America? It has led to even more vigorous governmental efforts to control information, manipulate the press and pressure and persuade the public through distorted or downright dishonest documents. What kind of system is it that justifies United Sates or any country seizing the destinies of the Vietnamese people and using them callously for its own purpose? What kind of system is it that disenfranchises people in the South, leaves millions upon millions of people throughout the country impoverished and excluded from the mainstream and promise of American society, that creates faceless and terrible bureaucracies and makes those the place where people spend their lives and do their work, that consistently puts material values before human values--and still persists in calling itself free and still persists in finding itself fit to police the world? What place is there for ordinary men in that system, and how are they to control it, make it bend itself to their will rather than bending them to its?" "We must name the system," said Potter, pausing for effect. Someone in the crowd yelled, "Capitalism." Others shouted him down. Potter finished his thought: "We must name it, describe it, analyze it, understand it and change it." (Potter 1965; qtd in Miller 232-233) 3. Background to the Port Huron Statement A. SDS History Students for a Democratic Society was but a minor group until the publication of the Port Huron Statement and subsequent field organizing, led to it becoming a major force of reckoning. The Port Huron Statement was arguably the New Left at its best, an initial creative burst of energy, and a new ideology, before it was overcome by the later onset of traditional Marxism (Miller 1987; 14). It is important to examine the history of SDS and the background in which the statement was written, to show what the New Left was like in its initial liberal phase. It is quite amazing how a small group of individuals launched the most important US student movement ever. SDS was born in the late fifties to early sixties at the University of Michigan. Robert Alan Haber, Tom Hayden, Sharon Jeffrey, and Bob Ross all attend the University of Michigan around that time. Haber was responsible for the initial ideological formulation, realizing that focussing on democracy could unite the struggles against racism, war, poverty, and for students' rights. In 1958 he joined the student section of the League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), which was previously named the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and had been founded in 1905 to educate people in universities about socialism. Students in general and SLID in particular were very inactive, with only thirteen people coming to its 1958 national convention. SLID changed its outdated name to "Students for a Democratic Society," but by 1960 there were still only twenty-five members at the national convention that elected Haber as the first president. Haber went out to organize while recruits, Jeffrey and Ross, stayed on at the University of Michigan. In Fall of 1960, Haber managed, with considerable persuasion, to recruit Tom Hayden who had met activists in Berkeley that summer. Unlike the others, he was not from a liberal or socialist background, and wanted an Americanized ideology, which the Port Huron Statement was to epitomize (Miller 1987; 54). By 1961, SDS had grown to 575 members and was working hard on outreach. Some of the new members included Paul Booth, Rennie Davis, and Paul Potter. The Winter national council meeting decided that Hayden would draft a major SDS position paper on democracy for the upcoming June national convention. So at age 22, Hayden drew upon a wide range of sources and drafted the over thirty page Port Huron Statement. One of his main inspirers was C. Wright Mills, who taught Sociology at Columbia from 1944 until his death in 1962 (died of a heart attack strongly impacting Hayden who was writing the draft (Miller 1987; 92)). Mills' writings on democracy, publics, and the power elite shaped the draft and were the "Americanized" philosophy for which Hayden had been searching. B. Mills' Theory C. Wright Mills' prime thesis was that a "power elite" controlled society: "at the top there has emerged an elite whose power probably exceeds that of any small group of men in world history" (Mills 17). This prevented / perverted democracy in America. This small group is a combination of a military, political, and economic elite who have interlocking control over the major organs of power, share backgrounds and interests, and swap positions (6-8). And he argued that the elite's power was extensive enough to reproduce itself: "For among the means of power which now prevail is the power to manage and to manipulate the consent of men" (2). Mills believe that pluralism existed, but only at lower levels of power, thus a pluralism within limits: "The issues that now shape man's fate are neither raised nor decided by any public at large" (15). For example the Cold War and the Vietnam War (at least initially) were both perceived as necessary by the Democrats and Republicans. Labor unions, once militant in the Thirties, are now fighting for gains within the system at the middle levels of power (Mills 12). While pessimistic as to the chances for democracy, he rests hope in a gain in activity of the publics, freed from corporate and institutional influence, to again participate in decision making (16) in a transformation from "mass publics," influenced by institutions like the mass media to "primary publics" who generate their own decisions (qtd in Miller 1987; 84). The New Left was to later explore the potential for liberal change as should exist in a pluralist society, discover that this potential was largely absent, and focus its analysis and attack on removing Mills' "power elite." Mills believed in intellectuals as capable of provoking change and emphasized the need to clearly communicate ideas with the public (Miller 1987; 82, 83). His Letter to the New Left, published in a British Journal, was on the SDS reading list and The Power Elite was also greatly admired: "Mills was a model. The Power Elite was Bible" (Paul Booth; qtd in Miller 1987; 87). Mills' failure was that he painted a nostalgic picture of egalitarian "classical democracy" in the U.S. that never existed, and he failed to provide a theory of how to end the rule of the elite (Miller 1987; 88). SDS faced similar problems and was unable to develop a cohesive revolutionary theory. C. Marx As with the development of most left-wing theory, Hayden (and others of the New Left) consulted Marx's works, but did not rely upon them. Zinn, in his essay "Marxism and the New Left" argues that the New Left was taking the best of Marxism as modified to the present circumstances and learning from the failure of Soviet style "communism" (Zinn 1964?; qtd in Stolz 1971; 36, 42). Zinn believes that the Old Left's glory lies in the actions of the CIO and the Spanish Civil War, rather than in debates over surplus value (in Stolz 38, 45). It is this spirit that the New Left took from the old left, and multiplied it. 4. The Port Huron Convention In June 1962, 59 people representing eight SDS chapters, assembled for a summer convention at a United Auto Workers Camp in Port Huron, Michigan. The statement that they were to draft was a declaration of ideas, more than a platform set in stone as Hayden explained: "'Manifesto' sounds like 'Case closed.' 'Statement' sound like 'Take a look at this.'" (Hayden qtd. in Miller 1987; 141). The convention split into groups to determine the main points of contention. Two major issues were whether or not it should denounce communism, and to what extent should it be critical of labor. Issues, like these, were brought in front of a plenary session and dealt with. A final all-night session ended Saturday morning with the passing of the statement as the sun rose, and Hayden was elected president. The overall feeling was one of exhilaration, friendships were formed, and participants felt that they were about to change the world (Miller 1987; 118). Now this paper will turn to examine the major issues that the New Left identified and how its involvement radicalized it, sharpening its critique, but also separating it so far from society and pragmatism that it ultimately disintegrated. It was only natural that the first place the New Left would analyze and criticize, was that which it knew the most about: the schools. 5. Schools in Revolt We look at those rows of desks, the other bored pupils, our unfinished homework, and some of our culturally mechanized teachers and say, "Fuck it" (Marqusee 15). As Michael Marqusee, a Junior from well-off NYC suburbia family, expresses: high school students were rebelling. Students were skipping classes, dropping out, organizing student unions, demonstrating, holding vigils against the war, fighting for their first amendment rights (speech, press, expression in clothing), opposing gender and racial tracking, trying to fire racist and incompetent teachers, advocating for relevant curriculum like black history, speaking truth to power (or "acting insubordinate"), and as a result getting black-balled, suspended, and ultimately expelled. Students were treated as "niggers" in an authoritarian system that requires asking permission to go to the bathroom, whose order is symbolized by the power of the bell, and who ultimately chooses a student's career and values for them (Marqusee 19-20). In High School Revolutionaries there are numerous personal accounts from students of the injustices inherent in high school, injustices that also occur and are expressed in differing fashion at the university level. School in general, and high schools in particular operated so far away from the movement's values of democracy, and in doing so exposed the false promises of liberal society. This sharp contrast in values polarized students into the New Left camp and led them to develop revolutionary theory. The question of whether, given the authoritarian elite that ran them, schools were not just as bad as jails, was an interesting one. The aim of removing hierarchy and returning the school to the students, was a truly revolutionary goal. The outside of the building is unattractive and without warmth. The inside is dark, depressing, and ugly. The whole interior is painted with dull drab colors, the way prison halls and cells are painted. Guards walk the halls not unlike in prison, haranguing people with their mere presence. The stairways are in little closets, and fenced in like cages. A feeling of utter confinement would fall upon me whenever I was forced to use them. People are stopped in the halls and harassed and threatened while struggling to produce a piece of paper to prove they belong there. Yet they do belong there. They belong there more than the pigs who they are trying to prove it to. This is supposed to be a school, not a prison or jail. A school for the people... (Harris 58). Out of this deep and utter frustration, emerges a challenge to the system that leads teenagers to support revolution and hold the same values as the New Left. Joe Harris, a fifteen year old organizer from NYC, in his essay, Firebomb, recognizes the importance schools play and their necessity for the maintenance of the capitalist state: Schools are nothing but the capitalist system's classification and processing centers. In the schools we are taught how to best become cogs to go into the capitalistic machine (59). Harris believes, like sixteen year old NYC school newspaper editor Eric Oakstein, that, "Our education should not be based on the needs of employers or corporations, but on the needs of people" (Oakstein 233). Harris' stark expression of anger and desire for change is indicative of wide spread teenager disenchantment with the schools and ultimately the system as a whole: You're the puppets that give us the fucked-up capitalist system's dog-eat-dog competition ideology by putting so much emphasis on good marks and pressure to be the "smartest in the class"... Schools are closed, strikes are called, schools burn, violent take-overs occur, and riots take place. In the course of the national revolution and liberation, the schools must be used by the people for the people's struggle, and not by the oppressor for his brainwashing counter-revolutionary fight. The pigs' school will be destroyed unless they serve the people, and to serve the people the schools must be controlled on a community level by the people (Harris 67). Students, especially university students, turned to the institutions they attended believing that democratic experimentation there might provide positive results that could be extended through the rest of society. Students realized that their schools could serve as an important base of support with power adequate to threaten, in many aspects, the integrity of the system itself. The first step towards liberating the universities was to identify and remove their ties to the system. 6. Universities Crucial to the System Universities supported capitalism through doing the research and by educating the future elites and managers necessary to maintain the economic structure. The New Left challenged it on both counts. Since World War II university links to the military had become incredibly important with research funding at unprecedented levels (Perrow 1971; 127). Science was a crucial component of "the system," and much of it was done in universities in the interests of the military and/or industry rather than that of the public who subsidized it with their taxes (Perrow 1971; 128, 129). There are the scientists who calculate trajectories, develop weapons, locate minerals, improve manufacturing techniques, adulterate foods, and develop pesticides (Perrow 1971; 129). For example the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), with strong ties to Stanford University, was involved in chemical and biological warfare research during the Vietnam War. In a piece of radical scholarship, two students wrote a "Minority Report" regarding SRI asking for it to stop its involvement with military research and to focus on issues, like poverty, which concerned people. They detailed its creation, listing its ties to business, the government, and military and how its research contributed to a military buildup and the Cold War (Bauer and Cleaver 1969; 135). Some examples of SRI's research include reports on: A Methodology For National Deployment of Local Ballistic Missile Defense Batteries; National Effectiveness Evaluation Models for BMD; A Methodology for Estimating Fallout Casualties; Light Attack Shelter Requirements and Defense Avoidance Fallout Tactics; Civil Defense Interactions with BMD in a Direct Attack; Computer Implementation of the Miller Fallout Model; Civil Defense Interactions with Ballistic Missile Defense [BMD] (Bauer and Cleaver qtd in Perrow 141-142). Students attacked research with military ties, but also that of so-called neutral research, arguing that the way questions were determined, framed, limited, and funded allowed only certain answers to emerge that served the interests of the system (Horowitz 1969; 167). Most academics no more perceive the ideological basis of their work than we smell air or taste water. The politically inoffensive (not neutral) is seen as unbiased, objective, value-free science; a radical orientation stands out as prejudiced, inappropriate and, gravest of all, unprofessional (Horowitz 1969; qtd in Perrow 167). Horowitz recognizes that rise of programs of study of international affairs, were a way for foundations to influence ideology and public opinion since the professors and students were pushed towards projects that would get funding (154, 155). For instance the top five employment possibilities for graduates of the Columbia School of International Affairs were: 1. CIA; 2. State Department; 3. AID; 4. US Information Agency; 5. National Security Agency (Horowitz 156). Not good choices if one was a radical. Likewise the Russian Studies program at Columbia, founded with $1.25 million of Rockefeller money, by 1964 had 500 graduates and was able to dominate the market for Russian experts and influence US policy towards it (Horowitz 156, 158). University links to the CIA were not a far fetched notion as even its director Admiral William Raborn admitted: ...in actual numbers we could easily staff the faculty of the university with our experts. In a way we do. Many of those who leave us join the faculties of universities and colleges. Some of our personnel take a leave of absence to teach and renew their contacts in the academic world (qtd in Horowitz, in Perrow 162) In a NACLA pamphlet, "Who Rules Columbia?", the authors noted that defense research went from 1% to 48% of the total from 1945-1968, which the School of International Affairs trains CIA agents, and that Columbia helped develop the bomb (1968; 163, 167). They justified the recent occupation of buildings by students because Columbia was supporting war, controlled by trustees, and had a profoundly undemocratic structure that left no other recourse to achieve change (NACLA 161). This combination of activism and theory brought major changes at Columbia University as the administration acquiesced to many of the students' demands. The other side to letting universities be controlled by outside military, economic, and industrial interests, is that the students are left powerless. Thomas Hayden expressed the radical critique of universities, in a speech at University of Michigan, in Spring 1962, which was later very widely circulated with 10,000 copies printed in 1966 alone. As an example of the abuse of university power, he referred to the case of a student leader who got expelled from Southern University (a black university) for protesting against segregation, supposedly violating the following rule: Lack of University Adjustment. The University reserves the right to sever a student's connection with the University for inability to adjust himself to the pattern of the institution (qtd in Hayden; in Cohen and Hale 271). Universities had historically taken upon themselves parental authority (in loco parentis) and thus justified their imposing numerous rules on students. Hayden argued that it was crazy that students, who were the cream of society and destined for leadership, had the greatest restrictions for their age group except for prisoners (273): "man is meant to live, not prepare for life" (qtd in Cohen and Hale 286). He saw student government as having no practical power and being more a "let's pretend" affair (274-275). He opposed the hierarchical placement of professors over students, urging that learning ought to be done as a community instead (276). As a radical he believed that education should not be designed to uphold Western middle class values (281). Instead of doing research for the military or big business, universities should focus on social issues and try to develop minds that are reflective, critical, creative, and independent (281-282). We must have a try at bringing society under human control. We must wrest control somehow from the endless machines that grind up men's jobs, the few hundred corporations that exercise greater power over the economy and the country than in feudal societies, the vast military profession that came into existence with universal military training during our brief lifetime, the irresponsible politicians secured by the ideological overlap, the seniority system and the gerrymandered base of our political structure, and the pervasive bureaucracy that perpetuates and multiplies itself everywhere. These are the dominators of human beings, the real, definable phenomena that make human beings fall--victimized by undefinable "circumstance." Sadly, the university in America has become a part of this hierarchy of power, rather than an instrument to make men free (Hayden 1962; qtd in Cohen and Hale, 283-284). In conclusion he urges for joint student and faculty governance of universities, with an abolishment of the administration except for use in dealing with bureaucratic matters (284, 285). This would be a true democracy. 7. Moving from Liberalism to Radicalism A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance and the latter for their sense of thorough going reforms in the system (Port Huron Statement 1962). Initially the New Left hoped to ally itself with liberals and achieve positive social results by pushing them to the left. In the Port Huron Statement they express hope that the Democrats would kick the conservative racist Dixiecrats (southern Democrats) out of the party and implement progressive policies. But later the New Left realized that liberals were not about to change, since it would mean relinquishing their power and position in society (Miller 182). As time progressed, activists realized that working within the system that someone else designed was not going to work: Political institutions designed to perpetuate a system of power will never become instruments for the transformation of that system. If you want to stop not only the Vietnam War but the system that begot it, if you want not merely to blur the edges of racism but to change the system that needed slaves in the first place and could 'emancipate' them only into ghettos in the second, if you want not merely to make deals with irrationality but to liberate reason for the conquest of joy, then you will have to go outside the system for preparation of your means (Oglesby, qtd. in Stolz 1971; 80-81). Corporate liberalism showed how liberalism had sold-out and was being used by the system, consisting of corporations, and big labor to maintain itself through the carrot rather than resorting to less desirable repressive means. However the system's true colors were shown down South, in Chicago in 1968, and in Vietnam. Carl Oglesby, president of SDS, was a notorious critic of corporate liberalism and in a speech at a SANE rally in the capital in November 1965, against the Vietnam war, he laid full blame for the war where it belonged: The original commitment in Vietnam was made by President Truman, a mainstream liberal. It was seconded by President Eisenhower, a moderate liberal. It was intensified by the late President Kennedy, a flaming liberal. Think of the men who now engineer the war--those who study the maps, give the commands, push the buttons, and tally the dead: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk, Lodge, Goldberg, and the President himself. They are not moral monsters. They are all honorable men. They are liberals (Oglesby 1965; qtd in Perrow 19-20). Naming these war-mongers as liberals, at a rally attended and sponsored by liberals, was a clear message to anyone listening that they had better recognize their hypocrisy and join the radicals in true effective opposition to the war and the system that was behind it. America's problems and the destruction of the war traces back through a legacy of liberal presidents dating back to FDR (Oglesby in Perrow 19). Carl Oglesby said that he too was once a liberal, but a humanist liberal, not a corporate one like the warmongers. Radicals argued that liberalism is merely business acting in its long-term interest to preserve the system (Perrow 209): The amelioration of the impact of the system is referred to as the social responsibilities of business. It might also be described as letting off steam while keeping the lid on, or more simply, as tidying up the stables (qtd Perrow 1971; 210). Businesses argued that everyone should share in being "social responsible," paying their share for the welfare state, while radicals argued that the maintenance of the system should be funded by the elite and corporations who benefit from it (Perrow 210). 8. Attacking the Business Establishment The 'New Left' is a relatively small but hard core of young student revolutionaries aimed at nothing less than the destruction of the U.S. society in general and the Business Establishment in particular. (Editors of the Harvard Business Review, 1969, qtd in Perrow 1) Perrow agrees with the editors as by 1968 it was true, but notes that the real threat to business lies in the fact that moderates are being inspired by radicals, adopting part of the critique, and that their desire for reform poses a greater threat (1971; 1). In the long run, the New Left might (as it did) decline, but issues of corporations and power, imperialism, and doubt surrounding the entire system will continue (Perrow 1971; 2). Perrow argues that the radical attack on business is the very important with wider support, being more encompassing, and better researched than any prior attempt (3-4). The scope of the radical attack has expanded, for example, from General Motors to the universities that help staff GM and vote its stock; to the foundations that support research for GM and generate policy statements that will influence national policy with the least long-term rupture of business interests; to the labor unions whose members have been sold out and whose leaders only scramble for the crumbs; to the liberal politicians and statesmen who would stanch a gaping, mortal wound in society with a Band-aid, suitably sterilized; and of course to the military (qtd. Perrow 4). In a good example of systemic radical scholarship and showing the need for it, a report on General Electric reveals that it had forty-nine government antitrust suits in the past ten years (as of the sixties), recently paying $150 million from 1962-1964 for utility price fixing (DeMuth 1967; 61-62). There is clear proof of planned obsolescence in a 1932 engineer report that figured how GE could get flashlight bulbs to last two instead of three battery lifetimes and were working on reducing it down to one (DeMuth 61). Generally GE was guilty of price fixing, cartelization, intentionally violating the law, large profits, and attacking its unions. Another report on GE by Liberation News Service showed that it was run by nineteen men whom control seventy-five other companies, employs eighty-nine retired Pentagon generals and colonels, and has directors on the boards of eleven top universities and colleges (Liberation News Service 72- 73). Over time the New Left radicalized and moved from a belief in corporate responsibility as expressed in the reformist Port Huron Statement to revolution. This was partially due to lack of success, for example the continuation of the Vietnam War despite protest; however, a more considerable factor was the recognition of links between universities, the military, the government, business, and labor whom were all allied to prevent social change and maintain the system (Perrow 1971; 6-7). Radical theory was primarily a critique of the current system, it lacked a theory of what should replace the current system, but it argued that such a replacement cannot be predicted ahead of time and is best shaped by people through their experience in social movements. 9. The Economics of Imperialism ...our foreign aid programs constitute a distinct benefit to American business. The three major benefits are: (1) Foreign aid provides a substantial and immediate market for U.S. goods and services. (2) Foreign aid stimulates the development of new overseas markets for U.S. companies. (3) Foreign aid orients national economies towards a free enterprise system in which U.S. firms can prosper. (Eugene R. Black, former president and chairman of World Bank, 1965; in Perrow 107). Even worse that what business has done to the US is what it has done to the rest of world through the promotion of imperialism (Perrow 87). As the New Left agitated in streets against U.S. military intervention, especially in Vietnam, it developed a theory that rationalized why the U.S. was acting in such an apparently illogical and inhumane way. But is it not logical that for the U.S. to maintain its consumption of almost one half of the world's production with only 5% of the population (Oglesby 1965; in Stolz 23) for it to require a system of world exploitation and domination? The New Left goes beyond the liberal critique of imperialism and military intervention to argue that in fact ALL U.S. international activity, government and corporate, whether military or economic, is designed to further American aims and perpetuate U.S. domination and income inequality among nations. Economic aid and investment in the Third World appear at first to only be helpful and for the best of a country's development. However Weissman and Gerassi denounce the foreign economic aid for which liberals clamor: "They want to export the New Deal, the welfare state. They are welfare imperialists" (1968; qtd in Stolz 91). They argue that, like in the case of Vietnam, economic involvement will ultimately lead to exploitation and military involvement as the need for peace and stability will lead to suppression of "guerrillas" (91, 94). U.S. AID (Agency for International Development) programs, mostly large scale and corporate in nature, in Latin America benefit unduly the small urban middle class increasing the divide between them and the rural impoverished majority (92). The creation of this middle class creates a market for US exports and ties the interests of the political and economic elite to that of United State (96, 97). Aid, whether technical or economic, increases US control over a country's internal policy (94). 86% of Alliance for Progress aid went to buy US products or services (96). For all these reasons radicals should oppose so called foreign "aid" (94). Radicals argue, in sum, that foreign investment leads to a dependency and an extraction of resources from nations rather than a development of their productive power. In the Sixties, 30-40% (much more now) of hard currency earnings in Latin America have gone to service its debt (W & G 1968; 95). The U.S. took more funds out of Latin American that it is investing, having received five billion dollars of profits in return for only two billion in investments over the past six years (W & G 96). Frank argues that, at least in the case of Brazil, these profits were often derived using local capital to monopolize local markets (Frank 1964; 99, 100). Many U.S. investments were for production of luxury goods that do not contribute to economic growth, and the growth of subsidiaries in Brazil tied them into a subservient position to the US where crucial component of production and technological control originated, thus denying Brazil a chance to develop its own (Frank 103). In reaction to this a Brazilian Treasury minister (of the Vargas government that was soon "replaced") said in the Fifties: "I have to declare that foreign capital...demands guarantees to enter the country, great guarantees to remain in it, and still greater ones to withdraw from it. Therefore it does not seem desirable for any country and still less for Brazil." (from Osny Duarte Perira, Quem faz as leis no Brasil? p. 97, in Perrow) Radicals believe that the United States seeks to reserve a disproportionate share of the world's resources for itself since according to the "Resources in America's Future," published by Resources for the Future (RFF): It should be pointed out clearly, however, that our conclusion that there is no general resource shortage problem for the balance of the century applies specifically to the United States; it cannot be extended automatically to other countries (qtd in Dean 113). So actually the resources that the US imports are not in surplus, instead due to US power and imposed underdevelopment they can be taken from the Third World (Dean in Perrow 113). Everything from communism to nationalism threatens to cut off resources, and countries that do not produce may lie on essential shipping routes (Dean 114, 115). According to Minerals Yearbook, in 1963 US imported 94% of its maganese, 98% of its cobalt, 100% of its chromite, and 86% of its nickel (Perrow 111). Clearly importing these resources is very important. It might appear irrational for the US to support imperialism for returns that are often so small. The costs of maintaining a huge military pale compare to the economic value of, say, Vietnam. However there is a difference between who bears the cost (the public) and who benefits (corporations) from US imperialism: "So it is no longer in the interests of the American people to support a war for oil, but it may well be in the interests of the Rockefellers" (Dean 117). The New Left was standing up for the interests of the American people. 10. Revolution and the Vanguard The New Left, went from endorsing massive social change, to idealizing and working for revolution. Throughout both its liberal and radical phases, it was always strategizing, attempting to determine which segment of society would prove most helpful in aiding their cause. There was great tension surrounding this issue, and the debate had to be decided for them, as it was, when it turned out that no-one proved to be the needed revolutionary vanguard. A. Labor Today labor remains the most liberal "mainstream" institution--but often its liberalism represents vestigial commitments, self-interestedness, unradicalism. In some measures labor has succumbed to institutionalization, its social idealism waning under the tendencies of bureaucracy, materialism, business ethics (Port Huron Statement 1962). Traditional Marxists assume that the workers will be the vanguard of the revolution, however the New Left was not so sure. The Port Huron statement recognized the important role of labor as a liberal force in society, but the New Left was also aware of the defacto capital-labor accord under which labor was supporting the system in exchange for a larger slice of the pie. Also many southern locals still supported segregation. There was some hope found in the rising number of wildcat strikes as signs of increasing rank-in-file militancy, but in general the New Left looked else where for the vanguard, and especially by the late Sixties when they were hoping for a revolution rather than mere reform. B. Intellectuals / Students Paul Potter urged that students could be a principle actor in his speech, The Intellectual as an Agent for Social Change, at the June 1964, SDS convention: "What is happening," is "a dropping out of the system. But what is critical about the new situation is that although people are dropping out, they are hanging on with one hand and are knocking the system for all it's worth. And they are getting away with it." (Potter qtd in Miller 178) Mills had written that intellectuals could be the source for social change and this had influenced initial SDS thought. Later Marxism made inroads in SDS and its supporters said students had to look towards and / or become the working class ("go work in a factory") to lead the revolution. In 1969, Hayden and Bardacke spoke out against this attack on student activism, power, and values: So much of this can be disastrous. Certainly we remain isolated at our own peril, certainly we cannot make the revolution alone, certainly we must build alliances with other revolutionary movements. But when these arguments are pushed too far, they leave no room for students to struggle as students, no room for hippies to fight for their identity. Campus and street rebellions are no longer called for, and we are told that in order to relate to workers we have to cut our hair, stop smoking pot, deny who we are. (Hayden and Bardacke 1969; in Stolz 147) They argued that student power had put a brake on the Vietnam War (148) and had proved itself worthy: "We should not choose our vanguards in theory. They will identify themselves in action." (Hayden and Bardacke 1969; qtd in Stolz 149) How does a moderate, pro-war, and often racist labor movement look under such criteria? Hayden argued that the middle class is the majority, and like the working class it is also essentially powerless, and that the young people from this class are the most volatile and ready to revolt (Hayden and Bardacke, in Stolz 151). C. The Poor ...people strongly afflicted with the rottenness of our society are best capable of exorcising the rot (Gitlin 1964; in Cohen and Hale 120). The poor know they are poor and don't like it; hence they can be organized to demand an end to poverty and the construction of a decent social order (Gitlin 1964; in Cohen and Hale 120). Outside of students, SDS did try an experiment organizing the poor called the Economic Research and Action Project. ERAP started in September 1963 and was given a boost when LBJ declared a War on Poverty in January. Over a hundred young people first attended a summer training institute and then established programs in nine cities. ERAP eventually collapsed as organizing the poor was harder than expected, and organizing turned towards getting the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam. The New Left (SDS) wanted to organize poor people so that they would realize the systemic source of their not so accidental "misfortunes." Rather than blaming themselves and feeling powerless to enact change, they should realize that behind unemployment lay automation, diversion and waste of public resources in efforts like war, and corporate dominance (Gitlin 122). The movement wanted to eventually grow to target the federal government who alone had the power and resources necessary to really win the war on poverty (Gitlin 124). In response to the federally imposed "solution" from above (Johnson's War on Poverty), SDS developed a "strategy of insurgent response" (Davis 1965; 169). For if the government was able to end poverty, what would stop them from reintroducing it at a later point in time if it were in their interest? The "army approach to poverty," did not address power, and hurt or destroyed many existing grassroots groups through co-optation and rewarding compromise (Davis 156,157). The radical solution was to empower grassroots organizations from block level on up, who should control the federal resources and implement their own program to end poverty (Davis 169). This met with very limited success. D. Tactics and Revolution In Texas, to join SDS meant breaking with your family, it meant being cut off-- it was like early Rome joining a Christian sect--and the break was much more total....Your mother didn't say,"Oh isn't that nice, you're involved. We supported the republicans in the Spanish Civil War and now you're in SDS and I'm glad to see you're socially concerned." In most of those places, it meant "You Goddamn Communist." (Jeffrey Shero qtd in Miller 224-225) To oversimplify a bit: in the politics of order, men follow the rules; in the politics of violence, they attack the enemy; in the politics of disorder, they pursue change. (Waskow 1964; 51) Initially the New Left excelled in the "politics of disorder" using non-violent pickets, rallies, sit-ins, and teach-ins. However as these failed to produce the desired rapid results, and as radicalization set in, it turned to direct confrontation and often destructive approach that included street fighting, rioting, and property destruction. An anonymous high school Senior from Erie PA, wrote: There are three things that a student can do: he can drop his hands in despair and say that he doesn't want to think about the school's problems, he can keep trying to work for change peacefully, knowing all the time that it's not doing any good, or he can resort to violence. I'm not really sure where I stand right now; but I do know that the third possibility seems increasingly more appealing ("Snow" 97). By 1968, many of the New Left, agreed with high school student David Romano who wrote in, I saw America in the Streets, that having been involved in the violent confrontations at the Democratic convention in Chicago of 1968, he favored a violent revolution to end racism and inequality (7, 9, 10). 11. The Demise of the New Left The New Left grew quickly, but also declined quickly. As it radicalized and even turned towards violence, it alienated possible liberal allies. SDS's internal structure and the organization's cohesiveness started to fall apart, as its grand experiment in participatory democracy failed and it fell to insider fighting. This paper will examine the ideals and failures of participatory democracy, and then focus on SDS's ultimate fissure. A. Participatory Democracy Participatory democracy was a catchword. It became a clich‚. It masked a theoretical muddle. It was a stick of conceptual dynamite. It pointed toward daring personal experiments and modest social reforms. It implied a political revolution. (Miller 1987; 152) Whether it was a revolutionary doctrine or not, SDS and the New Left sought to restore democracy to America. Hayden saw America as currently, "a republic, not a democracy, and nearly everyone wants to keep it that way" (qtd in Miller 151). He adopted the concept of "participatory democracy" from a former professor, Arnold Kaufman, who had first described the idea in an essay entitled: "Participatory Democracy and Human Nature" (Miller 94). SDS experimented with "participatory democracy" and there was great ambiguity left as to its meaning. On the one hand Hayden and Kaufman thought that it would increase the effectiveness of representative democracy (Miller 95). Some saw it as a code word for socialism, while in the end it became synonymous with consensus and it replaced the perceived "hierarchical" representative democracy in SDS (Miller 152, 153). All in all it was very important and one of the elements of the Port Huron statement that was most commonly referred to, even if it was not clear what it meant (Miller 142). The big question of whether it could actually work showed mixed results. Participatory democracy was successful with smaller and dedicated groups, but it also led to endless meetings and was of questionable use in a large organization. In SDS the attempt at replacing participatory democracy with representative, led to an absence of accountability and less democracy which was instrumental in the organization's decline. B. SDS: Growth and Decline SDS experienced both rapid growth and corresponding growing pains starting in the mid Sixties. After its 1965 summer convention that was attended by five hundred people, SDS got its first media attention that inevitably led to red- baiting. Also a crisis developed at the national office, and a lot of mailings and basic outreach was left undone. Still with all these difficulties by 1968 SDS claimed 100,000 members. 1968 in many ways was a turning point with the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. Hayden and Davis organized a week of protests during the Democrats Chicago convention, which turned violent as Mayor Daley brought in the troops. Hayden was representative of the indecision in the New Left for he was both meeting with Robert Kennedy and coming close to playing the romantic urban guerilla (Miller 288). The following year SDS split due to an attempted organizational takeover by the Maoist Progressive Labor Party (who had been "burrowing from within" in classic old left style since 1967), and a growing sectarian influence that it had initially managed to avoid. Violence increased on campuses and during 1969 a couple ROTC buildings burnt to the ground. Students occupied buildings at Columbia holding an administrator hostage, trying to bring the war home. If as Che had said, we could have "two, maybe three Vietnams", then they felt that something would have to give. The final straw was on May 4, 1970, when four students were shot by the National Guard at Kent State (where SDS had a very active chapter). In response to this and Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, 500 campuses and four million students went on strike in a last blast of New Left activity. But the initial burst was over, SDS was for all purposes dead, and members of the New Left went underground (like the Weathermen), faded away from the struggle, or moved into the mainstream (like Hayden who was elected to the CA state assembly as a Democrat). The revolution never came. Clearly by the early Seventies, the movement was over. 12. Conclusion If we are said to seek the unattainable let it be know that we do so to avoid the unimaginable (Port Huron Statement 1962). The New Left died long before reaching its utopia. While it lived, the Sixties were a fascinating period of history. Out of pressures from the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and general social and cultural change, a large social movement emerged that developed a New Left economics that was expressed both in traditional articles, but also in day to day organizing, on picket lines, in the streets, at sit-ins, and in jail. The New Left no longer exists, but its combination of practice (activism) and theory (much of it economic), remains and influences current like-minded movements. The ideals of the Port Huron Statement, with certain historical updates, are still true today and felt by millions of people, who despite past defeats and failures are seeking "the unattainable." SDS died twenty-eight years ago and its closest successor, the Progressive Student Network died in 1991. But students, like those active in the Democracy Teach-In Movement, are currently working to form an national organization that would live up to past radical ideals that still hold, and in doing so are using the New Left's economic theory and relating it to their activism. We students of the 1990s are coming to realize that our country is at a crossroads and that we have a choice as to what course it travels. We have identified the forces attacking our society, and what road they travel, and we can see an alternative path which leads to justice. Which way we choose to go and how we choose to get there will irrevocably determine the fate of our society. One thing is clear: When corporations control so much power and wealth, democracy and justice cannot survive. We are faced with no less than slavery and ecological collapse, for no matter what veil the corporate executives hide behind, their intentions become clearer every day. Corporations possess the rights but not the responsibilities of the individual, and this combined with their sheer size allows them to control communities, the work place, mass media, elections, government, and social institutions. At the same time, the corporations suppress popular dissent and undermine the very social movements aimed at improving the conditions of our society. In their control of the economy, corporations stop at nothing to achieve their ends of plunder and profit. (Democracy Teach-In, 1997) Works Cited Anderson, Terry H. The Movement and The Sixties. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Bauer, Ann C. & Harry M. Cleaver. Student Minority Report on the Stanford Research Institute. (1969) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Cohen, Mitchell & Dennis Hale, eds. The New Student Left. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Davis, Rennie. The War on Poverty: Notes on the Insurgent Response. (1965) in The New Student Left. Cohen, Mitchell & Dennis Hale, eds. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Dean, Heather. Scarce Resources: the Dynamics of American Imperialism. (1966) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Democracy Teach-In Mission Statement. (draft II), 1997. DeMuth, Jerry. GE: Profile of a Corporation. (1967) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Frank, Andrew Gunder. On the Mechanisms of Imperialism: the Case of Brazil. (1964) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Gitlin, Todd. The Battlefields and the War. (1964) in The New Student Left. Cohen, Mitchell & Dennis Hale, eds. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Kahn, Thomas. The Political Significance of Freedom Rides. (speech) (1962) in The New Student Left. Cohen, Mitchell & Dennis Hale, eds. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Harris, Joe. Firebomb, in The High School Revolutionaries, Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. New York: Random House, 1970. Hayden, Thomas. Student Social Action: From Liberation to Community. (speech) (1962) in Politics of the New Left, Stolz, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Hayden, Thomas and Frank Bardacke. Free Berkeley. (1969) in Politics of the New Left, Stolz, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Horowitz, David. Sinews of Empire. (1969) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. The High School Revolutionaries. New York: Random House, 1970. Liberation News Service. GE: Electric Octopus. (1970) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Magdoff, Harry. Economic Aspects of U.S. Imperialism. (excerpts) 1966 in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Marqusee, Michael. Turn Left at Scarsdale. in The High School Revolutionaries, Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. New York: Random House, 1970. Miller, James. "Democracy is in the Streets." New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Mills, C. Wright. The Structure of Power in American Society. in Politics of the New Left, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. NACLA. Who Rules Columbia? (1968), in Politics of the New Left, Stolz, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Oakstein, Eric. The Headmaster's Word is Law. in The High School Revolutionaries, Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. New York: Random House, 1970. Oglesby, Carl. Trapped in a System. (speech) (1965) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Oglesby, Carl. An Open Letter to McCarthy Supporters. in Politics of the New Left, Stolz, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Perrow, Charles, ed. The Radical Attack on Business. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. The Port Huron Statement, 1962. in Democracy is in the Streets. Miller, James. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Romano, David. I Saw America in the Streets. in The High School Revolutionaries, Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. New York: Random House, 1970. Salio, Mario. The End of History. (speech) (1964) in Politics of the New Left, Stolz Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Snow, Susan (a pseudonym). My Teacher is a Racist. in The High School Revolutionaries, Libarle, Marc & Tom Seligson, eds. New York: Random House, 1970. Stolz, Matthew F. ed. Politics of the New Left. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Waskow, Arthur. The Meaning of Creative Disorder. (1964) in Politics of the New Left, Stolz Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Weissman, Steve & John Gerassi. The Vietnamization of Latin America. (excerpt) (1968) in The Radical Attack on Business. Perrow (ed), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Zinn, Howard. Marxism and the New Left. (1964?) in Politics of the New Left, Stolz, Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1971. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.