Why there was no revolution in the 1970s

[pecksniff]

The most interesting thing about the political leftism of the 1960s is that nothing much ever came of it -- almost all those involved eventually lost interest and got caught up in adult careers; those who remained active in politics went with the Democrats, and eventually accommodated to the DLC's DINO vision of accepting let-the-rich-get-richer neoliberal economics, and trying to moderate its worst effects just a little bit around the edges.

Even at the time, while a lot of radicals talked about revolution, they never really had any clear revolutionary agenda -- no vision of what might replace the economic and political status quo. Their vision of radicalism seems to have been more cultural than anything else. See the New Left.

"The New Left not only have no blueprint, they don’t want a blueprint. Let’s just see what happens, they say. Well, I can tell them what will happen: first anarchy, then dictatorship. They are rich in Tom Paines, but they have no Thomas Jefferson."

—Gore Vidal

Bringing this up because nowadays we hear "revolution" talk from the RW -- and they don't have any revolutionary agenda either. Like the New Leftists, they only know what they're against. And in the long run, they are similarly doomed to irrelevance.

 

[GothTalk]

Bringing this up because nowadays we hear "revolution" talk from the RW --

Actually the LW is ramping up talking about it.

They're scared.

and they don't have any revolutionary agenda either. Like the New Leftists, they only know what they're against. And in the long run, they are similarly doomed to irrelevance.

Wrong, we are against keeping traditional American things American.

All those civil rights, states being things and democracy you hate and want replaced with some other un-American bullshit???

Making sure you don't do that, is the cause.

 

[pecksniff]

Wrong, we are against keeping traditional American things American.

You're against that?!

 

[Dribble]

You're against that?!

He needs his meds upped again. He has no clue what he is arguing about

 

[GothTalk]

You're against that?!

I wrote that wrong.

We're against letting you purge our society of those things.

We are for keeping them.

 

[GothTalk]

He needs his meds upped again. He has no clue what he is arguing about

I fucked up typing, hardly a mental breakdown.

But don't let that stop you from acting like a overly dramatic teenage girl.

 

[pecksniff]

I wrote that wrong.

We're against letting you purge our society of those things.

We are for keeping them.

Well, you can't very well preserve anything traditional via revolution. That way leads to something dystopian, like the novels of Margaret Atwood -- or William S. Lind's Victoria -- or Harold Covington's Northwest Front -- or Kurt Schlichter's People's Republic. Or even the Turner Diaries.

 

[GothTalk]

Well, you can't very well preserve anything traditional via revolution. That way leads to something dystopian, like the novels of Margaret Atwood -- or William S. Lind's Victoria -- or Harold Covington's Northwest Front -- or Kurt Schlichter's People's Republic. Or even the Turner Diaries.

Sure you can.

When psychopathic control freak tyrants show up, you give them the bidnizz. Defensive revolution.

 

[pecksniff]

Sure you can.

When psychopathic control freak tyrants show up, you give them the bidnizz. Defensive revolution.

Cliven Bundy tried that. Didn't start no revolution, only ended up making the whole thing look silly. The only reason any of his armed supporters walked away from that confrontation was because they Feds didn't want to shoot them. Had there been gunplay, you know who would have won -- not Bundy.

And then his son went and made the whole thing look even sillier. What was supposed to be the point of taking over a bird sanctuary?!

 

[GothTalk]

Cliven Bundy tried that.

Cliven Bundy didn't try that.

 

[pecksniff]

Cliven Bundy didn't try that.

"When psychopathic control freak tyrants show up, you give them the bidnizz." Bundy didn't try that?

 

[rae121452]

there was no revolution in the 70's because: drugs.

 

[KeithD]

There was no revolution in the 70s for the same reason there will be no revolution now: Inertia dominates in the United States.

 

[pecksniff]

there was no revolution in the 70's because: drugs.

There was plenty of that in the '60s, but it didn't mellow things out none.

Maybe the answer is disco!

 

[rae121452]

There was plenty of that in the '60s, but it didn't mellow things out none.

Maybe the answer is disco!

it moved into hard drugs in the 70's, rather than hallucinogens and pot. even the hippies held a 'death of hippie' parade because the haight died from hard drugs. but, i'm sure that disco contributed somewhat. those platform shoes..............

 

[pecksniff]

it moved into hard drugs in the 70's, rather than hallucinogens and pot. even the hippies held a 'death of hippie' parade because the haight died from hard drugs. but, i'm sure that disco contributed somewhat. those platform shoes..............

I presume by "hard drugs" you mean coke. That got popular in the '70s. As for smack, I suspect the level of use has been pretty much constant since its invention (as a treatment for morphine addiction, BTW).

 

[pecksniff]

The most interesting thing about the political leftism of the 1960s is that nothing much ever came of it --

Of course, the main reason for that was numbers. The radicals were very highly visible, but even within the Baby Boom generation, a minority -- most Boomers spent the '60s just working or studying. And among the elder generations, the only revolutionaries were old-style lefties, an even smaller minority, and the Boomer radicals wanted nothing to do with them and their purely materialistic socialism. The New Leftists had nothing to say about questions most leftists have always regarded as pretty important, like who would control the means of production after the revolution.

 

[The_Trouvere]

The New Left may be said to have come into the world in 1960, with the creation of Students for a Democratic Society. The New Left came to national attention in 1964 with the Berkeley Free Speech Movement.

When President Johnson escalated the War in Vietnam in 1965 by sending ground troops to Vietnam, the New Left remained a minority persuasion, even among college students. Most thought that the War in Vietnam would be over and won by the time they graduated.

The Communist Tet Offensive in the spring of 1968 changed that delusion.

For a political movement to grow it must make members feel virtuous, but there must be a personal pay off. After Tet the payoff was a moral reason for avoiding combat duty in Vietnam. That moral reason came to an end in 1973 when President Nixon ended the draft. After the draft ended it became difficult to get many people to attend an anti war rally, even though the War continued for another two years.

With no draft the New Left faded into insignificance. If it had not been for the War in Vietnam, hardly anyone would know that there had been a New Left.

 

[GothTalk]

"When psychopathic control freak tyrants show up, you give them the bidnizz." Bundy didn't try that?

No. Bundy didn't try that.

He whined and cried, then pulled his pants down and let the government fuck him up the ass.

 

[coati]

There was no revolution in the 70s for the same reason there will be no revolution now: Inertia dominates in the United States.

^^^This

The violent revolutionaries got locked up, killed, or had to flee the country, just like what is happening today. The non-violent revolutionaries were either shot or they became more accommodating.

The most effective revolutionaries today are physics (climate change) and pathogens that are aspects of the overall inertia that Keith cited. Those revolutionaries will affect the inertia one way or another.

 

[pointless]

paris, chicago, mexico city, et cetera.

 

[pecksniff]

No. Bundy didn't try that.

So who has, recently?

 

[pecksniff]

Actually the LW is ramping up talking about it.

I haven't heard anything about that, actually. Bernie Sanders had (has?) an organization called "Our Revolution," but that's clearly meant in a political-electoral sense. Nobody on the left is putting forth any actual revolutionary agenda. The platform of the new People's Party is really not all that revolutionary, only social-democratic. Nobody's talking about marching on the Hamptons with torches and pitchforks. Not even the armed wing of progressivism, Redneck Revolt, is perceptibly gearing up for an actual fight.

 

[The_Trouvere]

During the late 1960's and early 1970's there was more energy on the left. Nevertheless, the electorate was moving to the right. Moreover, the concerns of the left were transitory; those of the right were durable.

The left was angry about the War in Vietnam. They were right to be angry. It was an immoral, pointless war. Vietnam was unimportant to our economy and our security. In his memoirs, President Eisenhower wrote that his advisers told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh. However, once President Nixon ended the draft the left lost the ability to appeal to the self interest of intelligent students at elite universities. They went back to their studies, while looking forward to lucrative, satisfying, and prestigious careers.

White racial moderates thought that by supporting the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty they were buying racial peace. When they got instead five years of black ghetto riots and more enduring increases in black social pathology they felt betrayed, and began voting Republican.

Race has remained the Republican's strongest issue. When class is the issue Democrats win. When race is the issue Republicans win. For most people most of the time loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class.

Mark Rudd said, "The War in Vietnam drove us crazy. Where we were really wrong was in imagining that a revolution was a remote possibility in the United States."

Bernardine Dohrn said, "One of the first things you learn when you get away from a university campus is how completely irrelevant the white left is to the lives of most people."

Jerry Rubin said, "We are refugees from a future that never happened."