the communist party, frozen in its stalinism, which has lost any credibility with the fall of USSR. It has never renounced to fighting for those you tell belonging the middle class. In fact i hate the word which is an ideological lie.
the French socialist party which came to power in 1981 and has forgotten every principle of the traditional left.
In fact, i disagree with Lozenge.
the French socialist party never really promoted a communist revolution, being more existing in the frame of the Keynesian/Fordist compromise, meaning a sharing of the profits between capital and workers, with a welfare state promoting the rights of the workers.
This compromise was a necessity as the capitalists had to show that they were able to do better for the workers than the communist bloc.
The fall of URSS has made this necessity obsolete. The economy crisis of the 70ths and 80ths and the rise of neoliberalism have made this compromise impossible.
The French socialist party has lost its doctrine and its electorate and has been looking for a substitute, the minorities, and this is a failure.
In UK, the labor party has become a party of tories wearing red ties âŚ
The way you put it is as if as said the French socialist party promoted a communist revolution.
But this is not what I said.
I spoke of the left, which is made of communism and socialism, the two being theoretically and historically different, but close at the same time, for them being all âsocialistâ in the larger sense of the term. As an exemple, de facto, many communist vote âcommunismâ at the first round of the French election, and âsocialismâ at the second, often supporting both at the same time.
I hold that the âmarxistâ fringe wanted a revolution, the less âmarxistâ fringe simply taking power of the state democratically, but still ending, for it being socialism, taking care of very many many things once in power.
Communism and socialism all heavily rely on the masses, on the âpeopleâ, with a similar rhetoric, to gain political power, and they are all statist.
Could you indicate one economist who self-identified as âneoliberalâ?
There are Chicago School Economists, there are neo-classical economists, there are Austrian school economists, there are monetarists, I know of no economists who really founded or where associated with an academic school named by its proponents âneoliberalismâ.
What do âthe capitalistsâ mean? A conspiracy group?
Neoliberalism is a generic name for those who reject the Keynesian/Fordist compromise and are absolute free markets defenders.
For a Marxist, the position of people in the process of production and their relationship to the property of the means of production definite their social positions.
The capitalist class includes the ones who own and control the means of production.
Social class fight for power and for their share of the added value.
Following the 1929 crisis and WWII, capitalists thought that their interest was to share the profits with the workers. The reasons were economic and political.
In the 70ths, the political reason had largely disappeared and with the crisis, and unemployment, power shifted from a relative balance in favor of the capitalist class.
The compromise was seen as useless and too costly.
Okay, if you say so. I remember transcendental meditation and the yogis. And yes, George Harrison got into that crap. But âtranscendentalismâ was not a salient part of the hippie world as I experienced it.
Oh, great. More philosophy.
Note: If I saw the length of this post, I wouldnât read it. But I was literally called back and the topic piques my interest.
First, âHippie culture.â What that is - its definition - depends on your perspective. If you are coming at this as a literary review of societal norms based largely on transcendentalism and other literary ideals, then great. Have fun with that. Seriously. Not much I can add.
But if you were a young person who experienced the âHippie cultureâ in the U.S. - thatâs me - then here is what you saw and thought as you were just entering adulthood (I use letters so as not to confuse your numbers):
A. There is a war going on. Young men were forced to have draft cards (conscription). Bloody bodies showed up nightly on the news.
B. Puberty.
C. A large part of the population thinks the Vietnam war is costing lives for no reason. Partly because veterans are coming back saying that the politicians and their puppet generals are keeping us from winning the war by keeping us from bombing key targets. The Pentagon Papers came out and reinforced this.
D. Nixon started his war on drugs.
E. Marijuana was readily available. After experiencing it, I (and millions of others) noticed the drug war much ado about very little.
F. Given E, D seemed stupid. It was obvious that Nixon didnât really think marijuana was bad (he was likely clueless), he simply wanted to punish the war protesters - many of whom were âhippies.â I.e., scared young kids who were good but didnât want to die.
G. Music. For me (and millions of others) the music of the 60âs and early 70âs was magical. The Beatles, CS&N, Rolling Stones, Hendrix, Dylan, The Doors, Credence, Cream (Although Eric turns out to be a disappointment) and many more created powerful and novel environments everywhere we went.
H. Free Love. This was a result of B and G, but also a reaction against the prude ways of the conservative and religious Americans (remember the Moral Majority?). We discovered on our own that sex wasnât a four-letter word.
Regarding your numbered items:
The hippie culture didnât give us anything. The hippie culture was a phase of growing up for a new generation who saw a bleak future if Nixon, Falwell, Gingrich, and their ilk remained in power. We were not against laws. We were not against a strong military used for good. Many of the veterans who came back from Nam were hippies. They werenât necessarily anti-military, but they were against the current military involvement. And yes, some hippies hated the entire industrial military complex. Much of that came from being young and naive.
For me, that is the end of hippie culture. Now, did others try to make the hippie culture their own? Yep. The yogis and those bald guys with incense recruited some. Several communes that were really cults took some. Tantric sex people? I suppose, although I hadnât heard that one. Mysticism? Sure, some went there but that was their adventure - not part of hippie culture. That ânew ageâ culture came later. We were not against reason. And we were not anti-science or anti-intellectualism. In fact, we saw much in the world (conservatives and religion) that was not reasonable. We wanted to fix that. Still do.
But I feel you canât ignore the real intellectual basis of the music you were listening to, nor the real intellectual basis of the political organizations that organized the protests.
The cultural and political hippie culture of the 1960s middle class adolescents, did not come out of nothing.
You say the âNew Ageâ thing came after, but Jack Kerouac and others, who wrote their books in 1950s were very esoteric already.
Of course I canât ignore the real reality of how this movement unfolded in this real context (middle class American society) in this real time (Viet-Nam war) neither. (Thatâs why I think our dialogue is very interesting).
You sound very rational about how the war had to happen or not, how it was to be conducted, but I feel this rationality has little to do with the hippie culture, but from the news, education, the personâs own personality, etc.
Coffee I totally second Laustenâs compliment, well said.
===============================
Whoâs the âyouâ youâre talking about?
And why not?
The real intellectual basis of the music?
Sure, that must be there, still, the main reason I heard coming from rock musicians about origin inspirations, trying to get girls, was top of the list.
And if youâre going to talk about the âbasisâ of the music, worth mentioning how many rock stars learned and love classical music, and how famous riffs were inspired by classical music and its standards.
And how much mechanical advance inspire new music with new instruments and adaptations. Technology has always lead music.
Coffee is looking back on it in reflection.
It coincides with the memories of this one individual and my experiences during that period. California, and on the road.
Lozenge, I think youâd do yourself a favor by reading Coffeeâs post again. Thereâs a lot in it.
Your post #28 misses a lot, but
I can admit your post #29 is accurate enough, and of course the hippy happening didnât arise out of nowhere. But most teens and 20s, werenât much interested history, or East Coast high brows.
Folds within folds of cumulative poetry in motion.
Nor should you attribute to an era everything that came before. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as they say. Everything I listed by letter in my last post was the basis of the music. Now, this is my perspective. No better or worse than yours.
For sure. And I do think Kerouac was influential in the hippie culture. But here in the U.S. there was a later ânew ageâ culture that thought, for example, crystals and pyramids had special powers. Thatâs what I was referring to.
I agree that our conversation is worth having and I respect your thoughts. However, I think my rationale explains the hippie mindset quite well. The only advantage I have over you is that I was there. But that does not mean Iâm right or that I understand everything. Your mention of Kerouac was spot on.
This post made me realize that we should (or I should have from the beginning), distinguish between:
_the hippie movement as an intellectual framework (see the intellectual, artistic and political references I made)
_the hippie movement as a sociological movement, or period (see the testimonies of the persons having experienced that period and were part of that movement)
The US is too away from me and there are many informations I did not process yet and there are many things I donât know about that American period (for instance what you described about the war, the military generals, the âPentagon Papersâ).
This is not false modesty. This is just factual.
So I am not sure how to interpret these informations from the perspective of the intellectual framework.
For instance what you described made me feel that the hippie sociological movement was much much broader that I expected (like it seems to have touched almost every middle class adolescents).
I donât think there is a direct link between the intellectual framework and the hippie sociological movement, in the sense that our discussion tends to show that the link is much more nuanced and complex than we could think.
The intellectual framework stems from a very long Western tradition, which is romanticism (coming back to the original title/post of the thread).
The sociological movement has a lot to see with specific historical events that have nothing to see with the intellectual framework (the Vietnam war, and the Cold War of the 1960s).
From what you guys described, I feel the persons who followed this sociological movement were not necessarily (and, de facto, most of the time) not the same as those who developed this intellectual movements (the Kerouac and company).
To take an example, I bet there are no many similarities between most of the middle class college students hippies biography and Kerouac biography (who died from severe alcoholism and depression).
But arenât there crossroads between the intellectual framework and the sociological movements? Of course there are, I believe.
First of all, Kerouac (a figure of the intellectual/political/cultural framework) was 100% a member of the hippie sociological movement. Osho (a figure of the intellectual/political/cultural framework) was 100% a member of the hippie sociological movement. Same for Alan Watts, John Cunningham Lilly, Timothy Leary, Carlos Castaneda, etc. etc. (yes I completed my homework).
Can we deny that the middle class adolescents were not influenced at all by the intellectual framework, and its values? I donât think so. There may be similar behaviors between Kerouac and the middle class college students hippies at the time.
Coffee also touched on the idea that there is a connection between the 60âs and later anti-intellectualism, up to today. At least thatâs my take on this conversation. Itâs the problem presented in âThe Electric Kool-Aid Acid Testâ, when you believe your thoughts can change reality, youâre on a road to failure, you arenât living the change you want.
Osho was a case of exploiting those beliefs. He said he had answers and started building a utopia. Thatâs been done in many ways throughout time, and everyone who follows someone like that thinks the latest version is new, better, and âitâ. But he was after money and power just like any fake guru.
Once those movement failed, the self-centered aspects of the new-age remained. Attempts to codify it, or to give a scientific basis spun off new versions. The old tried to mix itself in, like âThe Wayâ, which still exists in quieter forms. Much of this was born of distrust of actual science, which was blowing up entire cities and putting Strontium 90 in everything, and using farming as a propaganda weapon, or getting everyone to believe that more flavors of Doritos was the road to happiness. Then the internet, and every nutty idea had a voice.
