Very confused. Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Deray McKeeson, Linda Sassour and Tamika Mallory were none of them leaders, although Hayden was leader of SDS back around 1962. They were all people who came to prominence through movements, sometimes had good things to say, others not so much, but you can't identify any sort of strategic "and then and then" to their decisions about movements (maybe about their own trajectories). You can do so with actual leaders, like MLK or Ho Chi Minh. Leaderless movement was already something of an idea back around the feminist movement in 1970, and most scholarship on that movement people are fairly proud of this aspect of it, although people also struggle with its limitations. Since then, there have been a bunch of leaderless movements, such as Nicaragua solidarity, global justice, occupy. AOC and Bernie are both elected officials. They both kind of try to be leaders, but when they encourage those they would lead to work with them through the system, usually some large portion of their followers get pissed. I don't think they made a bad decision to sit 2024 out (is AOC even old enough to run yet?) but in any case, I don't see what that has to do with being a leader--do you mean the movement could've used an advocate in the primary? I think a more mainstream figure like Chris van Hollen might've worked better, but nobody bit. I think in some circumstances many people want to act in a disciplined manner and are willing to follow a leader, but in many social movements this isn't the case. So you have currents that emerge, some flourish, others crash, you have personalities, some of whom endure (I remember hearing from Hayden up til his death about seven years ago; McKeeson seems pretty much forgotten at this point) but you don't really have leaders. Is this whole thing about how the Palestine movement, which is basically less than a year old in its current form, hasn't yet generated prominent personalities? It probably will.
The article confuses "leaders" with "personalities raised into prominence by media".
The article also confuses the contemporary mish-mash of neoliberalized "issue-specific" protest movements with the very pointedly socialist "left" that was behind, beneath and embedded in much of what the article wants to define as "68".
To that point, it needs to be said that there is NO "left" in 2024 comparable to the leftist political ferment that grew around the anti-Vietnam War protest and out of the Civil Rights Movement.
The New Left of the '60s was socialist, occasionally "communist", internationalist and connected to other similar protest movements around the world at the time. Malcolm X wasn't in Africa flashpacking and support for so-called "terrorist" groups was widespread.
And they weren't liberals. This is the biggest difference and one that most Americans in 2024 simply cannot wrap their heads around. As both Malcolm X and MLK were aware, liberals were not (and are not) friends of "the left".
Abby Hoffman & Rubin WERE NOT leaders of any movement. Their role was to create outlandish stunts. Chicago 68 was led by many. We do not need one voice to speak for us.
There are more left leaders now than ever before, a greater multiplicity by far - some even in Congress now, each member of the expanded Squad, for example - and a good thing too, because when some get cut down (Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman recently) the movement continues, temporarily injured, but still strong, relatively. Wouldn't want it to be more singularly led, typically, which would make popular progressive movements more vulnerable. That said, sometimes a more singular leadership is necessary, the first big Bernie push being the most recent example. Preceded by Jesse Jackson's two big pushes and his similar near miss. Of course always a need for much greater and ongoing expansions of the current strengths in both the broad movements and the leadership.
It is — IMHO — The Occupy Movement and Bernie Sanders who should get a lot more credit for our current liberal perspective. But it most certainly will not happen any time soon.
Have been on the list for about 6 months and great insights from you. The current post is so true to the way I see things now. The Democrats are much happier with puppets than leaders in these days as puppets are much easier to control by the controllers. See the post I made on this on my site Midnight Oil Studios at https://midnightoilstudios.org/2024/08/07/the-puppet-presidency/. Keep up the battle!
I'm looking forward to reading the full piece, have some thoughts on the topic as well, but will hold them until I see where you're headed.
Same
Very confused. Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Deray McKeeson, Linda Sassour and Tamika Mallory were none of them leaders, although Hayden was leader of SDS back around 1962. They were all people who came to prominence through movements, sometimes had good things to say, others not so much, but you can't identify any sort of strategic "and then and then" to their decisions about movements (maybe about their own trajectories). You can do so with actual leaders, like MLK or Ho Chi Minh. Leaderless movement was already something of an idea back around the feminist movement in 1970, and most scholarship on that movement people are fairly proud of this aspect of it, although people also struggle with its limitations. Since then, there have been a bunch of leaderless movements, such as Nicaragua solidarity, global justice, occupy. AOC and Bernie are both elected officials. They both kind of try to be leaders, but when they encourage those they would lead to work with them through the system, usually some large portion of their followers get pissed. I don't think they made a bad decision to sit 2024 out (is AOC even old enough to run yet?) but in any case, I don't see what that has to do with being a leader--do you mean the movement could've used an advocate in the primary? I think a more mainstream figure like Chris van Hollen might've worked better, but nobody bit. I think in some circumstances many people want to act in a disciplined manner and are willing to follow a leader, but in many social movements this isn't the case. So you have currents that emerge, some flourish, others crash, you have personalities, some of whom endure (I remember hearing from Hayden up til his death about seven years ago; McKeeson seems pretty much forgotten at this point) but you don't really have leaders. Is this whole thing about how the Palestine movement, which is basically less than a year old in its current form, hasn't yet generated prominent personalities? It probably will.
Yes.
The article confuses "leaders" with "personalities raised into prominence by media".
The article also confuses the contemporary mish-mash of neoliberalized "issue-specific" protest movements with the very pointedly socialist "left" that was behind, beneath and embedded in much of what the article wants to define as "68".
To that point, it needs to be said that there is NO "left" in 2024 comparable to the leftist political ferment that grew around the anti-Vietnam War protest and out of the Civil Rights Movement.
The New Left of the '60s was socialist, occasionally "communist", internationalist and connected to other similar protest movements around the world at the time. Malcolm X wasn't in Africa flashpacking and support for so-called "terrorist" groups was widespread.
And they weren't liberals. This is the biggest difference and one that most Americans in 2024 simply cannot wrap their heads around. As both Malcolm X and MLK were aware, liberals were not (and are not) friends of "the left".
Abby Hoffman & Rubin WERE NOT leaders of any movement. Their role was to create outlandish stunts. Chicago 68 was led by many. We do not need one voice to speak for us.
There are more left leaders now than ever before, a greater multiplicity by far - some even in Congress now, each member of the expanded Squad, for example - and a good thing too, because when some get cut down (Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman recently) the movement continues, temporarily injured, but still strong, relatively. Wouldn't want it to be more singularly led, typically, which would make popular progressive movements more vulnerable. That said, sometimes a more singular leadership is necessary, the first big Bernie push being the most recent example. Preceded by Jesse Jackson's two big pushes and his similar near miss. Of course always a need for much greater and ongoing expansions of the current strengths in both the broad movements and the leadership.
Will be checking out the complete essay in the Magazine.
It is — IMHO — The Occupy Movement and Bernie Sanders who should get a lot more credit for our current liberal perspective. But it most certainly will not happen any time soon.
Ross,
Have been on the list for about 6 months and great insights from you. The current post is so true to the way I see things now. The Democrats are much happier with puppets than leaders in these days as puppets are much easier to control by the controllers. See the post I made on this on my site Midnight Oil Studios at https://midnightoilstudios.org/2024/08/07/the-puppet-presidency/. Keep up the battle!
John
Have fun in Chicago.
Thanks for the kinder, gentler firewall.
ELDERLY FREELOADERS
Slowly, slowly,
The median income
Creeps over our heads,
Making us fear
For our daily bread
And our beds.
Instead of, “Many liberals seemed personality-obsessed…” how about, “Many liberals are truth-obsessed…”? That seems more to the point.