07-29-2020, 07:19 PM
(07-29-2020, 05:59 PM)Einzige Wrote:(07-29-2020, 05:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There is a big difference between what Marx put between the pages of various books and what the revolutionaries actually did when they got their hands on power.
It's almost like those revolutions occurred in pre-capitalist societies in which "the fleeing serfs only wished to freely develop and fully realise the conditions of existence, which were already at sight" - capitalism, and that Marxists who tried to telescope the capitalist into the proletarian revolution were bound to fail for this reason.
Now, can we talk about how the 60s counterculture contributed to the rise of Reaganism?
Quote:A big disconnect. I remember JPT pulled this trick too in quoting Marx's writing and supposedly making excuses for giving the revolutionaries another shot. Me, I think they have been given enough shots. There are actually non Marxist systems that have achieved real results in the real world that should be tried first. Violence is the proverbial last resort.
It hardly matters what you or I think ought to be "given a shot"; it's inexorable and will happen.
But again, this thread is about how the individualists of the 1960s were perfectly integrated into the Reaganite marketing scheme.
But the counter-culture was not "individualists." The individualists of Reaganomics already had existed since the start of the republic. Individual initiative, competition in free enterprise, deregulation, laissez faire, were already the tenets of the first revolution that created the USA. It was already the dominant society; it was not created by its critics in the sixties. The collectivists were the marxists, socialists and new dealers who already existed as well from the second revolution.
The counter-culture is the third revolution. It is individualistic in its free expression and non-conformity, but collectivist in its dedication to a society of love for all people and the planet, and communal, non-possessive methods of living.
Reaganomics re-established conformity and thus stifled individual expression. It promoted old-fashioned restrictive morality. It used the abortion issue to rally superstitious Christians. The goal was to concentrate wealth and leave most people poor, who thus did not have the time or the money to experiment with lifestyles.
Maybe it's the rise of the counter-culture again and not your marxist utopia that is inevitable. Maybe they are not so different either. How do you know what is inexorable?