Socialist Scholars Archive The Political Economy of Incompetence: Tito in Theory, Denitch in Action Part 2 May 15 1993 R L Norman Jr. JMKeynes@ClassStruggle.net Conclusions
"After the rising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers' Association Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee In which you could read that the people Had lost the Government's confidence Could only win it back By redoubled efforts. If so would it not Be simpler for the Government To dissolve the people And elect another?" "The Solution" 1
After eleven years, what has the Socialist Scholars Conference accomplished? More importantly, what is it capable of accomplishing during the crisis surrounding the collapse of the communist system in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and possibly the biggest crisis of over-production in the history of capitalism. First it should be said that the SSC maintained a left presence in the academy during the worst crisis of American socialism since the end of the McCarthy Era. This is no small contribution and it would not have occurred without Bogdan. Today it is not possible to speak of a conference in any meaningful way, apart from whatever Bogdan feels at any given point. At this point all of the original founders have either died or moved on. In fact a second generation of hangers on and malingers have also left for various reasons, principally that they have obtained whatever they could from the conference and they have left. At this point, Louis could truly be paraphrased, with Bogdan as the 'I': I am the conference. Having said that, what can be reasonably expected today and in the future? First there is no real DSA presence at CUNY. There is Bogdan of course, but one man is not a movement, his huge ego notwithstanding. In fact, a handful of people cluster around Bogdan at various times and he is fairly popular with people who know him but don't have to deal with him in any serious way. He is charming when on his best behavior, like most children. Yet in terms of an actual structure with working students who have a commitment to social democratic ideals, there is nothing. This is a direct result of Bogdan's continued actions. He has been unwilling to permit anything to exist which might in any way restrict his ability to do any damn thing that he wishes, any damn time that he pleases. This is not to say that he has carte blanche around the department or the Graduate Center, but in terms of a social democratic presence, he has successfully monopolized the area. And as in any forest where one large tree shades out other small similar seedlings, weeds are likely to grow. And they have.
The conference itself can no longer continue to function at CUNY without the presence of someone who can occasionally tell Bogdan where to get off and who will keep the details of the process moving forward. There is no one willing or able to do this task. In the fall of 1992, I had a couple of chats with Bogdan about this matter. I told him that I was out as of the 1993 SSC. I told him that he had two basic choices, either turn more to DSA or fold the conference into BMCC itself. Either choice would restrict him. He has apparently decided that the BMCC option is the lesser of the evils 2. So long as Bogdan survives, he will probably continue to bring in excellent speakers from Europe and Latin America. He has no economic understanding beyond the worker self-management model 3, which has succeeded in the former Yugoslavia almost as well as its associated ethnic policies. Our main economic advisor, Bob Lekachman, died some years back and no one has replaced him. It could not be said that Bogdan allowed Bob a major role at the conference. Prior to that Ray Brown, an original organizer at Cooper Union died. Bill Tabb was associated with the conference for a while, but has since left 4.
The demographic makeup of the conference became a little blacker in 1992 and more so in 1993. The price paid for this change was the inclusion of a fair number of Afrocentric academics. Since a large number of BMCC students are black, it is possible that more black students would attend in the future. It is also probable that those students attracted to the conference would be more friendly to Leonard Jeffries than to anything said by DSA representatives. Other black students use BMCC, as other students in America, to get an education and move ahead. For those students, the conference has nothing to offer since it contains little directly relevant to their problems 7. For the large number of middle class students, the conference is a total waste.
So long as Bogdan lives, some degree of sanity will prevail. Peter Kott's worst stupidities may be kept from destroying the conference. The school itself is friendly, on the whole 8. When and if something unfortunate occurs to Bogdan, Peter Kott will attempt to assert control. Since he has no political contacts independent of Bogdan, he will have to make a deal with other people. He will have no compuction as to whom he deals with. He is a total and complete asshole. He could as likely deal with the New Alliance Party as with cultural studies as with the Workers World Party. Most likely he will turn to Stanley Aronowitz or Bill Tabb. [Again, working with Tabb probably would have turned the conference in a less negative direction. With the publication of at least one major work on labor and economics during the 1990s- with William DeFazio- even Stanley might have added a more economic and more serious direction to the conference. April 12, 2002- RLN] The conference would either collapse or soon deteriorate to a meeting of perhaps five hundred persons a year with uncertain or no politics.
It might also be asked as to why I remained so long in the operation. During the first years, I didn't understand the dynamics of how Bogdan operated and other founding members had more influence. I remained principally because I despised Ronald Reagan and the international capitalist system as it was operating in the 1980s, more than I despised the arrogance and incompetence of Bogdan Denitch. Ronald Reagan and his designated flunkie have left office. My future political activity will be with less arrogant, incompetent persons. Bogdan has had the gall to call me a 'martyr' type. I deny with great intensity his allegation. I hope that he will have the good judgement to not say it again. I simply made the mistake of believing that the social democratic movement deserved the best possible organizational work. I felt like the movement deserved better than the incompetence so often associated with the 1960s movements and which I now charge Bogdan Denitch in writing. It is a mistake I'll not repeat in the future. Post Script 1994
Conference The reality of the 1994 conference was that the conference had just had its worst disaster in eleven years. The number of panels was less than half the previous years, the number of attendees, while difficult to ascertain, was clearly not much more than one half of 1993, the number of paid tables appeared to be far less than one half of 1993, with the sectarians much more prominent than ever before. Yet in the face of all this, Bogdan could look me in the face and tell me than the conference was a success. And the tragedy of it all, was that by Bogdan's criteria, the conference was a success. Following the lead of his mentors in Yugoslavia, the criteria for success had little to do with any simple financial or numeric criteria, but had to do with the degree of agreement or disagreement by 'important' or 'political' people. The fact that the conference had occurred at all and that Bogdan could get most people he met at the conference to agree that it was successful was sufficient. The idea that the validation of the conference might have something to do with whether the bills could be paid or by how many people showed up- these criteria smacked of 'business' criteria, and as any good Yugoslav socialist knows, politics is the important criteria, not 'business'. Bogdan asked me more than once, and I refused to validate his view. I later told him to go and fuck himself. [The primary problem in dealing with Denitch, is that he is in many ways, the ‘liar’s liar’. In dealing with most people most of the time, it is useful to believe that they will often tell the truth. In dealing with Denitch, this is a serious mistake. Denitch can lie more competently than most people can tell the truth- April 12, 2002 RLN.] 1 cited in Robert Engler, The Brotherhood of Oil,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977, preface.Back
[This was my view in 1993- I was badly mistaken about Tabb. His presence there MIGHT have encouraged Denitch in a more economistic direction.- April 12, 2002- RLN] Back
As of March 1, the newsletter had been sent out exactly once- to about 4,000 of the 5,000 SSC list. I received my newsletter at the end of February. Another mailing may get out to about 30,000 names before the conference, but that remains to be seen. Back
|