The Port Huron Statement
was the 1962 manifesto of the activist movement Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS). The following essay on the SDS movement's
visions and the way they could be related to and implemented using
emerging technology was written by Michael Hauben, Columbia professor and internet pioneer/scholar credited with coining the term "Netizen", who sadly passed away in 2001 at the age of 29.
The 1960s was a time of people around the world struggling for more
of a say in the decisions of their society. The emergence of the
personal computer in the late 70s and early 80s and the longer gestation
of the new forms of people-controlled communication facilitated by the
Internet and Usenet in the late 80s and today are the direct descendents
of 1960s.
The era of the 1960s was a special time in America. Masses of people
realized their own potential to affect how the world around them worked.
People rose up to protest the ways of society which were out of their
control, whether to fight against racial segregation, or to gain more
power for students in the university setting. The "Port Huron Statement"
created by the
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a document which helped set the mood for the decade.
By the 1970s, some of the people who were directly involved in
student protests continued their efforts to bring power to the people
by developing and spreading computer power in a form accessible and
affordable to individuals. The personal computer movement of the 1970s
created the personal computer. By the mid 1980s they forced the
corporations to produce computers which everyone could afford. The new
communications media of the Internet grew out of the ARPANET research
that started in 1969 and Usenet which was born in 1979. These
communications advances coupled with the availability of computers
transforms the spirit of the 1960s into an achievable goal for our
times.
SDS and THE NEED FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
The early members of SDS found a real problem in American Society.
They felt that the United States was a democracy that never existed, or
rather which was transformed into a representative system after the
constitutional convention. The United States society is called a
democracy, but had ceased being democratic after the early beginnings of
American society. SDS felt it is crucial for people to have a part in
how their society is governed. SDS leaders had an understanding of
democratic forms which did not function democratically in the 1960s nor
do they today. This is a real problem which the leaders and members of
SDS intuitively understood and worked to change.
An important part of the SDS program included the understanding of
the need for a medium to make it possible for a community of active
citizens to discuss and debate the issues affecting their lives. While
not available in the 1960s, such a medium exists today in the 1990s. The
seeds for the revival of the 1960s SDS vision of how to bring about a
more democratic society now exists in the personal computer and the Net.
These seeds will be an important element in the battle for winning
control for people as we approach the new millennium.
THE PORT HURON STATEMENT and DEEP PROBLEMS WITH AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
The Port Huron Statement was the foundation on which to build a
movement for participatory democracy in the 1960s. In June 1962, an SDS
national convention was held in a UAW camp located in the backwoods of
Port Huron, Michigan. The original text of the Port Huron Statement was
drafted by Tom Hayden, who was then SDS Field Secretary. The Statement
sets out the theory of SDS's criticism of American society. The Port
Huron convention was itself a concrete living example of the practice
of participatory democracy.
The Port Huron Statement was originally thought of as a manifesto,
but SDS members moved instead to call it a "statement". It was prefixed
by an introductory note describing how it was to be a document that
should develop and change with experience: "This document represents
the results of several months of writing and discussion among the
membership, a draft paper, and revision by the Students for a
Democratic Society national convention meeting in Port Huron, Michigan,
June 11-15, 1962. It is presented as a document with which SDS
officially identifies, but also as a living document open to change with
our times and experiences. It is a beginning: in our own debate and
education, in our dialogue with society." Port Huron Statement in
Miller, p. 329)
This note is important in that it signifies that the SDS document was
not defining the definite solution to the problems of society, but was
making suggestions that would be open to experiences towards a better
understanding. This openness is an important precursor to practicing
participatory democracy by asking for the opinions of everyone and
treating these various opinions equally.
The first serious problem inherent in American society identified by the Port Huron Statement is
the myth of a functioning democracy:
"For Americans concerned with the development of democratic
societies, the anti-colonial movements and revolutions in the emerging
nations pose serious problems. We need to face the problems with
humanity; after 180 years of constitutional government we are still
striving for democracy in our own society." (Port Huron Statement in
Miller, p. 361)
This lack of democracy in American society contributes to the political disillusionment of the population.
Tom Hayden and SDS were deeply influenced by the writings of C. Wright
Mills, a philosopher who was a Professor at Columbia University until
his death early in 1962. Mills' thesis was that the "the idea of the
community of publics" which make up a democracy had disappeared as
people increasingly got further away from politics. Mills felt that the
disengagement of people from the State had resulted in control being
given to a few who in the 1960s were no longer valid representatives of
the American people. In his book about SDS, "Democracy is in the
Streets", James Miller wrote:
"Politics became a spectator sport.
The support of voters was marshaled through advertising campaigns, not
direct participation in reasoned debate. A citizen's chief sources of
political information, the mass media, typically assaulted him with a
barrage of distracting commercial come-ons, feeble entertainments and
hand-me-down glosses on complicated issues." (Miller, p. 85)
Such fundamental problems with democracy continue today in the
middle of the 1990s. In the Port Huron Statement, SDS was successful in
identifying and understanding the problems which still plague us today.
This is a necessary first step to working towards a solution. The
students involved with SDS understood people were tired of the problems
and wanted to make changes in society. The Port Huron Statement was
written to address these concerns:
"...do they not as well produce a yearning to believe there is an
alternative to the present, that something can be done to change
circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the
government? It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine
of change, that we direct our present appeal. The search for a truly
democratic alternatives to the present, and a commitment to social
experimentation with them, is a worthy and fulfilling human enterprise,
one which moves us, and we hope, others today." (SDS, "The
Introduction, Agenda for Change", p. 331)
Describing how the separation of people from power is the means used
to keep people uninterested and apathetic, the Port Huron Statement
explains: "The apathy is, first, subjective -- the felt powerlessness
of ordinary people, the resignation before the enormity of events. But
subjective apathy is encouraged by the objective American situation --
the actual structural separation of people from power, from relevant
knowledge, from pinnacles of decision-making. Just as the university
influences the student way of life, so do major social institutions
create the circumstances which the isolated citizen will try
hopelessly to understand the world and himself." ("The Society Beyond"
in the Port Huron Statement, in Miller, p. 336)
The Statement analyzes the personal disconnection to society and its effect:
"The very isolation of the
individual -- from power and community and ability to aspire -- means
the rise of democracy without publics. With the great mass of people
structurally remote and psychologically hesitant with respect to
democratic institutions, those institutions themselves attenuate and
become, in the fashion of the vicious cycle, progressively less
accessible to those few who aspire to serious participation in social
affairs. The vital democratic connection between community and
leadership, between the mass and the several elites, has been so
wrenched and perverted that disastrous policies go unchallenged time
and again." (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p. 336)
The Statement describes how it is typical for people to get
frustrated and quit going along with the electoral system as something
which works. The problem has continued, as we now have all time lows in
voter turn-outs for national and local elections. In a section titled
Politics Without Publics, the Statement explains:
"The American voter is buffeted from
all directions by pseudo-problems, by the the structurally initiated
sense that nothing political is subject to human mastery. Worried by his
mundane problems which never get solved, but constrained by the common
belief that politics is an agonizingly slow accommodation of views, he
quits all pretense of bothering." (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p.
337)
Students in SDS did not let these real problems discourage their
efforts to work for a better future. They wanted to be part of the
forces to defeat the problems. The Port Huron Statement contains an
understanding that people are inherently good and can deal with the
problems that were described. This understanding is conveyed in the
Values section of the Statement:
"Men have unrealized potential for
self-cultivation, self- direction, self-understanding, and creativity.
It is this potential that we regard as crucial and to which we appeal,
not to the human potential for violence, unreason, and submission to
authority. The goal of man and society should be human independence: a
concern not with the image of popularity but with finding a meaning in
life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind not compulsively
driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts
status values, nor one which represses all threats to its habits, but
one which easily unites the fragmented parts of personal history, one
which openly faces problems which are troubling and unresolved; one
with an intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of
curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn." (Port Huron Statement
in Miller, p. 332)
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
Those participating in the Port Huron convention came away with a
sense of the importance of participatory democracy. This sense was in
the air in several ways. The convention itself embodied participatory
democracy through the discussion and debate over the text of the
Statement as several people later explained.
The Port Huron
Statement called for the implementation of participatory democracy as a
way to bring people back into decisions about the country in general,
and their individual lives, in particular. One of Tom Hayden's
professors at University of Michigan, Arnold Kaufman, came to speak
about his thoughts and use of phrase 'participatory democracy.' Miller
writes that in a 1960 essay, "Participatory Democracy and Human Nature",
Kaufman had described a society in which every member had a "direct
responsibility for decisions." The "main justifying function" of
participatory democracy, quotes Miller, "is and always has been, not the
extent to which it protects or stabilizes a community, but the
contribution it can make to the development of human powers of thought,
feeling and action. In this respect, it differs, and differs quite
fundamentally, from a representative system incorporating all sorts of
institutional features designed to safeguard human rights and ensure
social order." (Miller, p. 94)
"Participation" explained
Kaufman, "means both personal initiative -- that men feel obliged to
help resolve social problems -- and social opportunity -- that society
feels obliged to maximize the possibility for personal initiative to
find creative outlets." (Miller, p. 95)
A participant at the Port Huron Conference, Richard Flacks remembers
Arnold Kaufman speaking at the convention, "At one point, he declared
that our job as citizens was not to role-play the President. Our job was
to put forth our own perspective. That was the real meaning of
democracy--press for your own perspective as you see it, not trying to
be a statesman understanding the big picture." (Miller, p. 111)
After identifying participatory democracy as the means of how to
wrest control back from corporate and government bureaucracies, the next
step was to identify the means to having participatory democracy. In
the "Values" section of The Port Huron Statement, the means proposed is
a new media that would make this possible: "As a social system we seek
the establishment of a democracy of individual participation governed
by two central aims: that the individual share in those social decisions
determining the quality and direction of his life; the society be
organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for
their common participation." (Port Huron Statement in Miller, p.
333)
Others in SDS further detailed their understandings of participatory
democracy to mean people becoming active and committed to playing more
of a public role. Miller documents Al Haber's idea of democracy as "a
model, another way of organizing society." The emphasis was on a charge
to action. It was how to be out there doing. Rather than an ideology or
a theory." (Miller, pp. 143-144)
Tom Hayden, Miller writes,
understood participatory democracy to mean: "number one, action; we
believed in action. We had behind us the so-called decade of apathy; we
were emerging from apathy. What's the opposite of apathy? Active
participation. Citizenship. Making history. Secondly, we were very
directly influenced by the civil rights movement in its student phase,
which believed that by personally committing yourself and taking risks,
you could enter history and try to change it after a hundred years of
segregation. And so it was this element of participation in democracy
that was important. Voting was not enough. Having a democracy in which
you have an apathetic citizenship, spoon-fed information by a monolithic
media, periodically voting, was very weak, a declining form of
democracy. And we believed, as an end in itself, to make the human being
whole by becoming an actor in history instead of just a passive object.
Not only as an end in itself, but as a means to change, the idea of
participatory democracy was our central focus." (Miller, p. 144)
Another member of SDS, Sharon Jeffrey understood "Participatory" to mean
"involved in decisions." She continued, "And I definitely wanted to be
involved in decisions that were going to affect me! How could I let
anyone make a decision about me that I wasn't involved in?" (Miller, p.
144)
It is important to see the value of participatory democracy as a
common understanding among both the leaders and members of SDS. While
the Port Huron Statement contained other criticisms and thoughts, its
major contribution was to highlight the need to more actively involve
the citizens of the United States in the daily political process to
correct some of the wrongs which passivity had allowed to build. Richard
Flacks summarizes this in his article "On the Uses of Participatory
Democracy":
"The most frequently heard phrase
for defining participatory democracy is that 'men must share in the
decisions which affect their lives.' in other words, participatory
democrats take seriously a vision of man as citizen: and by taking
seriously such a vision, they seek to extend the conception of
citizenship beyond the conventional political sphere to all
institutions. Other ways of stating the core values are to assert the
following: each man has responsibility for the action of the
institutions in which he is embedded ...." (Flacks, pp. 397-398)
THE NEED FOR COMMUNITY FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
The leaders of SDS strove to create forms of participatory democracy
within its structure and organization as a prototype and as leadership
for the student protest movement and society in general. Al Haber, the
University of Michigan graduate student who was the first SDS national
officer, describes the need for a communication system to provide the
foundation for the movement:
"The challenge ahead is to appraise and evolve radical alternatives
to the inadequate society of today, and to develop an institutionalized
communication system that will give perspective to our immediate
actions. We will then have the groundwork for a radical student
movement in America." (Sale, p. 25)
He understood the general society would be the last place to
approach. There was a need to start smaller among the element of society
that was becoming more active in the 1960s or the students. Haber
outlined his idea of where to start: "We do not now have such a public
[interaction in a functioning community] in America. Perhaps, among the
students, we are beginning to approach it on the left. It is now the
major task before liberals, radicals, socialists and democrats. It is a
task in which the SDS should play a major role." (Miller, p.69)
The Port Huron Statement defines
'community' to mean: "Human relations should involve fraternity and
honesty. Human interdependence is a contemporary fact; .... Personal
links between man and man are needed.'" (SDS, p. 332)
Prior to his full time involvement with SDS, Hayden wrote an article for the Michigan Daily describing how
democratic decision making is a necessary first step towards creating community. Hayden's focus was on the University when he wrote,
"If decisions are the sole work of an isolated few rather than of a
participating many, alienation from the University complex will emerge,
because the University will be just that: a complex, not a community."
However, this sentiment persisted in Hayden's and others thoughts about
community and democracy for the whole country. (Miller, p. 54)
This feeling about community is represented in the Port Huron Statement's conclusion.
The
Statement calls for the communal sharing of problems to see that they
are public and not private problems. Only by communicating and and
sharing these problems through a community will it be a chance to solve
them together. SDS called for the new left to "transform modern
complexity into issues that can be understood and felt close-up by
every human being."
The statement continues,
"It must give form to the
feelings of helplessness and indifference, so people may see the
political, social an economic sources of their private troubles and
organize to change society...'" (Port Huron Statement, p. 374 of
Miller)
The theory of participatory democracy was engaging. However, the
actual practice of giving everyone a say within the SDS structures made
the value of participatory democracy clear. The Port Huron Convention
was a real life example of how the principles were refreshing and
capable of bringing American citizens back into political process. The
community created among SDS members brought this new spirit to light. C.
Wright Mills writings spoke about "the scattered little circles of
face-to-face citizens discussing their public business." Al Haber's hope
for this to happen among students was demonstrated at Port Huron. SDS
members saw this as proof of Miller's hope for democracy. This was to be
the first example of many among SDS gatherings and meetings. Richard
Flacks highlighted what made Port Huron special. He found a "mutual
discovery of like minds." Flacks continued, "You felt isolated before,
because you had these political interests and values and suddenly you
were discovering not only like minds, but the possibility of actually
creating something together." It was also exciting because, "it was our
thing: we were there at the beginning." (Miller, p. 118)
THE MEANS FOR CHANGE
SDS succeeded in doing several things. First, they clearly identified
the crucial problem in American democracy. Next, they came up with an
understanding of what theory would make a difference. All that remained
was to find the means to make this change manifest. They discovered how
to create changes in their own lives and these changes affected the
world around them. However, something more was needed to bring change to
all of American society.
Al Haber understood this something more would be
an open communication system or media which people could use to communicate.
He understood that, "the challenge ahead is to appraise and evolve
radical alternatives to the inadequate society of today, and to develop
an institutionalized communication system that will give perspective to
our immediate actions." (Sale, p. 25) This system would lay the "the
groundwork for a radical student movement in America." (Sale, p. 25)
Haber and Hayden understood SDS to be this, "a national communications
network" (Miller, p. 72)
While many people made their voices heard and produced a real effect
on the world in the 1960s, lasting structural changes were not
established. The real problems outlined earlier continued in the 1970s
and afterwards. A national, or even international, public communications
network needed to be built to keep the public's voice out in the open.
Members of SDS partially understood this, and put forth the following
two points in the Port Huron Statement section on "Towards American
Democracy":
~ "Mechanisms of voluntary
association must be created through which political information can be
imparted and political participation encouraged."
~ "The allocation of resources
must be based on social needs. A truly 'public sector' must be
established, and its nature debated and planned." (PHS, in Miller, p.
362)
INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK - OR THE NET
This network and the means to access it began developing towards the
end of the 1960s. Two milestones in the genesis were 1969 when the first
ARPANET node was installed and in 1979 when Usenet started. Both are
pioneering experiments in using computers to facilitate human
communication in a fundamentally different way than already existing
public communications networks like the telephone or television
networks. The ARPANET, which was a prototype for today's Internet, and
Usenet, which continues to grow and expand around the world, are parts
of the Net, or the worldwide global computer communication networks.
Another important step towards the development of an international
communication network was the personal computer movement, which took
place in the middle to late 1970s. This movement created the personal
computer which makes it affordable for an individual to purchase the
means to connect to this public network.
However, the network can not simply be created. SDS understood that:
"democracy and freedom do not
magically occur, but have roots in historical experience; they cannot
always be demanded for any society at any time, but must be nurtured and
facilitated." (SDS, Port Huron Statement, in Miller, p. 361)
Participants on the ARPANET, Internet and Usenet inherently
understood this, and built a social and knowledge network from the
ground up. As Usenet was created to help students who did not have
access to the ARPANET, or a chance to communicate in a similar way, they
came to it in full force.
In "Culture and Communication: The Interplay in the New Public Commons", Michael Hauben writes that:
"the on-line user is part of a global culture and considers him or herself to be a global citizen. This
global citizen is a net citizen, or a Netizen. The world which has
developed is based on communal effort to make a cooperative community.
Those who have become Netizens have gained more control of their lives
and the world around them. However, access to this world needs to spread
in order to have the largest possible effect for the most number of
people. In addition, as some efforts to spread the Net become more
commercial, some of the values important to the Net are being
challenged."
A recent speech I was invited to present at a conference on "the
Netizen Revolution and the Regional Information Infrastructure" in
Beppu, Japan helps to bring the world of the Netizen into perspective
with the ideas of participatory democracy,
"Netizens are not just anyone who
comes on-line, and they are especially not people who come on-line for
isolated gain or profit. They are not people who come to the Net
thinking it is a service. Rather they are people who understand it takes
effort and action on each and everyones part to make the Net a
regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are people who
decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this new part of
our world, a better place." (Hauben, Hypernetwork '95 speech)
The Net is a technological and social development which is in the
spirit of the theory clearly defined by the Students for a Democratic
Society. This understanding could help in the fight to keep the Net a
uncommercialized public commons (Felsenstein). This many to many medium
provides the tools necessary to bring the open commons needed to make
participatory democracy a reality. It is important now to spread access
to this medium to all who understand they could benefit.
The Net brings power to people's
lives because it is a public forum. The airing of real problems and
concerns in the open brings help towards the solution and makes those
responsible accountable to the general public. The Net is the public
distribution of people's muckraking and whistle blowing. It is also just
a damn good way for people to come together to communicate about common
interests and to come into contact with people with similar and
differing ideas.
The lack of control over the events surrounding an individual's life
was a common concern of protesters in the 1960s. The Port Huron
Statement gave this as a reason for the reforms SDS was calling for. The
section titled "The Society Beyond" included that "Americans are in
withdrawal from public life, from any collective efforts at directing
their own affairs." (PHS, in Miller, p. 335)
Hayden echoed C. Wright Mills when he wrote, "What experience we have
is our own, not vicarious or inherited." Hayden continued, "We keep
believing that people need to control, or try to control, their work and
their life. Otherwise, they are without intensity, without the
subjective creative consciousness of themselves which is the root of
free and secure feeling. It may be too much to believe, we don't know."
(Miller, p. 262)
The desire to bring more control into people's daily life was a
common goal of student protest in the 1960s. Mario Savio, active in the
Berkeley Free Speech movement, "believed that the students, who paid the
university to educate them, should have the the power to influence
decisions concerning their university lives." (Haskins and Benson, p.
55) This desire was also a common motivator of the personal computer
movement.
THE PERSONAL COMPUTER MOVEMENT
The personal computer movement immediately picked up after the
protest movements of the 1960s died down. Hobbiest computer enthusiasts
wanted to provide access to computing power to the people. People across
the United States picked up circuit boards and worked on making a
personal mini-computer or mainframe which previously only large
corporations and educational institutions could afford. Magazines, such
as Creative Computing, Byte and Dr. Dobbs' Journal, and clubs, such as
the Homebrew Club, formed cooperative communities of people working
towards solving the technical problems of building a personal and
inexpensive computer.
Several pioneers of the personal computer movement contributed to the
tenth anniversary issue of Creative Computing Magazine. Some of their
impressions follow:
"The people involved were people with vision, people who stubbornly
clung to the idea that the computers could offer individuals advantages
previously available only to large corporations. ..." (Leyland, p. 111)
"Computer power was meant for the people. In the early 70s computer
cults were being formed across the country. Sol Libes on the East Coast
and Gordon French in the West were organizing computer enthusiasts into
clubs...." (Terrell, p. 100)
"We didn't have many things you take for granted today, but we did
have a feeling of excitement and adventure. A feeling that we were the
pioneers in a new era in which small computers would free everyone from
much of the drudgery of everyday life. A feeling that we were secretly
taking control of information and power jealously guarded by the Fortune
500 owners of multi-million dollar IBM mainframes. A feeling that the
world would never be the same once "hobby computers" really caught on."
(Marsh, p. 110)
"There was a strong feeling [at the
Homebrew Club] that we were subversives. We were subverting the way the
giant corporations had run things. We were upsetting the establishment,
forcing our mores into the industry. I was amazed that we could continue
to meet without people arriving with bayonets to arrest the lot of
us."
THE NET and CONCLUSION
The development of the Internet and of Usenet is an investment in a
strong force towards making direct democracy a reality. These new
technologies present the chance to overcome the obstacles preventing the
implementation of direct democracy. Online communication forums also
make possible the discussion necessary to identify today's fundamental
questions. One criticism is that it would be impossible to assemble the
body politic in person at a single time. The Net allows for a meeting
which takes place on each person's own time, rather than all at one
time. Usenet newsgroups are discussion forums where questions are
raised, and people can leave comments when convenient, rather than at a
particular time and at a particular place. As a computer discussion
forum, individuals can connect from their own computers, or from
publicly accessible computers across the nation to participate in a
particular debate. The discussion takes place in one concrete time and
place, while the discussants can be dispersed. Current Usenet newsgroups
and mailing lists prove that citizens can both do their daily jobs and
participate in discussions that interest them within their daily
schedules.
Another criticism was that people would not be able to communicate
peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have the same
characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the
discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be
thoughtful in their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a
traditional meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In
addition, online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas
finite length meetings only allow a certain number of people to have
their say. Online meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts
in a message, which is then accessible to whomever else is reading and
participating in the discussion.
These new communication technologies
hold the potential for the implementation of direct democracy in a
country as long as the necessary computer and communications
infrastructure are installed. Future advancement towards a more
responsible government is possible with these new technologies. While
the future is discussed and planned for, it will also be possible to use
these technologies to assist in the citizen participation in
government. Netizens are watching various government institutions on
various newsgroups and mailing lists throughout the global computer
communications network. People's thoughts about and criticisms of their
respective governments are being aired on the currently uncensored
networks.
These networks can revitalize the concept of a democratic "Town
Meeting" via online communication and discussion. Discussions involve
people interacting with others. Voting involves the isolated thoughts of
an individual on an issue, and then his or her acting on those thoughts
in a private vote. In society where people live together, it is
important for people to communicate with each other about their
situations to best understand the world from the broadest possible
viewpoint.
The individuals involved with SDS, the personal computer movement and
the pioneers involved with the development of the Net understood they
were a part of history. This spirit helped them to push forward in the
hard struggle needed to bring the movements to fruition. The invention
of the personal computer was one step that made it possible for people
to afford the means to connect to the Net. The Internet has just begun
to emerge as a tool available to the public.
It is important
that the combination of the personal computer and the Net be spread and
made widely available at low or no costs to people around the world.
It is important to understand the tradition which these developments
have come from, in order to truly understand their value to society and
to make them widely available. With the hope connected to this new
public communications medium, I encourage people to take up the struggle
which continues in the great American radical tradition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Felsenstein, Lee. "The Commons of Information." In Dr. Dobbs'Journal.
May 1993
http://www.sils.umich.edu/impact/speakers/felsenstein/felsenstein-article.html
Flacks, Richard. "On the Uses of Participatory Democracy". In
Dissent. No 13. November 1966. Pp. 701-708. Reprinted in The American
Left. Edited by Loren Baritz. Pp. 397-405.
Freiberger, Paul and Michael Swaine. Fire in the Valley: The Making
of the Personal Computer. Osborne/McGraw-Hill. Berkeley. 1984. Haskins,
James and Kathleen Benson. The 60s Reader. Viking Kestrel. New York.
1988.
Hauben, Michael. Culture and Communication: The interplay in the new
public commons - Usenet and Community. 1995.
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/usenet-culture.txt Hauben, Michael
and Ronda Hauben. Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet. 1994 http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
Hauben, Michael. "Netizens and Community Networks." Presentation at
Hyper network '95, Beppu Bay Conference. November 24, 1995. Beppu Bay,
Oita Prefecture, Japan.
Leyland, Diane Asher. "As We Were." In Creative Computing. Vol 10 no 11. November, 1984. Pp. 111-112.
Marsh, Robert. "1975: Ancient History." In Creative Computing. Vol 10 no 11. November, 1984. Pp. 108-110.
Miller, James. Democracy in the Streets. Simon and Schuster. New
York. 1987 Sale, Kirkpatrick. SDS. Vintage Books. New York, 1974.
SDS. Port Huron Statement. As found in Miller. Pp. 329-374.
Terrell, Paul. "A Guided Tour of Personal Computing". In Creative Computing. Vol 10 no 11. November, 1984. Pp. 100-104.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE PUBLISHED HERE: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/netdemocracy-60s.txt
