support for black movements. This faction took the name Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM), and managed briefly to paper over its own glaring disagreements, long enough to expel the PL members from SDS through a set of procedural moves that were awkward at best and antidemocratic at worst.
Once the split in SDS was final, the conflicts within RYM came to the surface, with the Weatherman faction (briefly known as RYM I) retaining control of the formal apparatus of the group long enough to finally run it into the ground on their way to clandestinity. Opposing their efforts, if only half-heartedly, was the RYM II faction, which agreed on opposition to PL and Weather, and support for an orientation toward the working class, but not on much else. The collapse of SDS had soured RYM II on student struggles, and attention increasingly turned toward workplace and community organizing. But once again, political differences made RYM II short-lived, as it disintegrated after its only conference, in Atlanta in November, 1969 (which was attended by several of the soon-to-be founders of STO). Putting to one side the continuing efforts of PL to maintain what it called the “real” SDS, the organized student movement was dead by the end of the year, and even though hundreds of campuses would erupt the following spring in anger over the bombing of Cambodia, the linkages between STO and the campus left had been more or less permanently sundered before the group was even founded.
* * *
In many ways, Chicago represented a microcosm of the left at the end of the sixties. Each movement described here was on display, and in several cases Chicago was something of an advanced laboratory for left trajectories that would later become more widespread. The city’s large size, economic vitality, and geographic location between the coasts helped ensure that it was a place people moved to from elsewhere in the country. For the new left, this centrality was augmented by two factors: first, the presence of the SDS National Office in Chicago guaranteed that participants in the most advanced sectors of the white left visited frequently, and in many cases moved there temporarily or permanently.42 Second, the infamous events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention put Chicago on the map as an important center for militant social struggles. Not surprisingly, the founding members of STO represented something of a cross-section of the movements of the sixties, all based in the city of big shoulders.
Among the leaders of the RYM II faction of SDS who called Chicago home in 1969 was Noel Ignatin, who, as mentioned previously, was responsible for the initial articulation of what became STO’s line on white supremacy and white skin privilege. His background included time spent in old left cadre organizations, and, as he recalled later, “I myself was still a Stalinist, with several important reservations.”43 He was heavily influenced by the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois, especially the landmark study Black Reconstruction, from which he drew the title for his polemic against PL.44 Ignatin’s attachment to Stalinism was challenged by C.L.R. James, who was living temporarily in Chicago in 1968. At the invitation of his friend Ken Lawrence (who would himself join STO in the mid-seventies), Ignatin attended a public speech by James and came away impressed.45 James had made the opposition to Stalinism one of the two pillars of his political outlook, along with the opposition to white supremacy.46 Ignatin agreed with the latter, and as the decade ended he found himself more and more in agreement with the former. As late as fall 1969, he could still criticize the Weatherman faction of SDS by favorably referencing the leading role of “Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.”47 Nonetheless, given his encounters with PL, his experience inside SDS, and the rapidly changing political environment, Ignatin’s move toward anti-Stalinism was swift.
In addition, Ignatin had years of direct experience with factory work, which gave him additional prestige as RYM II moved closer to a working-class orientation. By 1969, he was working at the International Harvester (IH) Plant on the southwest side of Chicago.48 When IH announced the impending closure of the plant (in a little-noticed sign of the massive deindustrialization that was to come), Ignatin attempted to combine in-plant organizing with the support of movement people. On the same weekend in October that the Weatherman faction had called for Days of Rage, the RYM II faction held a series of nonconfrontational protests designed to showcase their commitment to the working class.49 One of these protests was held at the gates of the IH plant, which nonetheless closed its doors for good some months later and was eventually replaced by an expansion of the Cook County Jail.50
Three other founding members of STO, Marilyn Katz and Evie and Mike Goldfield, were also veterans of SDS. Katz had been actively involved in planning the protests at the 1968 Democratic Convention, as part of the tactical team that coordinated security and demonstration marshals.51 She was specifically identified by prosecution witnesses during the Chicago Seven trial, although she was never charged.52 Her expertise in the area of movement defense was enhanced by her relationship with another founding member, Bob Duggan, a martial arts trainer whose background supposedly included extensive experience in semi-underground revolutionary formations in Latin America.53
The Goldfields had lengthy experience with SDS, including work with the Radical Education Project (REP) of the mid-sixties, and active involvement in the student protests against the firing of feminist radical professor Marlene Dixon from the University of Chicago in late 1968.54 These protests had led to the occupation of an administration building in early 1969 and the expulsion of dozens of students. Mike Goldfield was also employed at the International Harvester plant with Ignatin, and was enthusiastic about organizing at the point of production.55
In addition to her participation in SDS, Evie Goldfield was also active in the feminist movement, both within and outside of SDS. She was the co-author of a number of pamphlets and essays, including Toward a Radical Movement, published in April 1968.56 The perspective of this piece is clearly aligned with that of feminist radicalism, as the pamphlet ties together “women’s liberation and the liberation of all people.” Further, the essay highlights the plight of working-class women and women of color, while still addressing the concerns of middle-class alienation and general issues of women’s oppression by social roles.
At least one other founding member of STO was involved in the women’s movement in Chicago: Hilda Vasquez Ignatin, wife of Noel, was a contact person in the late sixties for a Chicago-based newsletter called The Voice of the Women’s Liberation Movement.57 Despite being of Mexican ancestry, she was also a prominent member of the Young Lords, a Puerto Rican revolutionary organization that had been founded as a street gang in Chicago in the early sixties.58 By the time Vasquez Ignatin was involved, the group had undergone its political transformation and had expanded geographically to include radical Puerto Ricans in New York City and elsewhere. Her role in leadership was indicated by her selection to speak on behalf of the Young Lords at a rally during the RYM II demonstrations that fall.59
On the other hand, at least two female founders of STO, Lynn French and Carole Travis, did not have extensive involvement with the women’s movement, although they had their own areas of experience on the left.
