Hippie culture

[punisa]

Being a big fan of old rock music, just recently I started researching a bit on the hippie culture.
How would one explain them from a Marxist point of view? (if that is even possible)
Where did they fit in the class compass? Many of them did not have jobs and just wondered around the states taking drugs and having lots of sex.
Were these just kids of regular working class parents who were able to spend their money? Were they the lumpens? (selling drugs etc)

Apparently there were certain communes organized were people could just drop by and get a bed, clothes, food and.. well, drugs.

Personally I see the whole movement as being mostly egoistic hedonistic escapism. Something along the lines of - world is one mean place, but we'll just escape into our own LSD-powered reality and live happily as long as we don't run out of cash.

Also - who financed all of this? Were hippies the burgouise kids? As I heard many of them became the core of the future capitalist class.

[Psy]

Being a big fan of old rock music, just recently I started researching a bit on the hippie culture.
How would one explain them from a Marxist point of view? (if that is even possible)
Where did they fit in the class compass? Many of them did not have jobs and just wondered around the states taking drugs and having lots of sex.
Were these just kids of regular working class parents who were able to spend their money? Were they the lumpens? (selling drugs etc)

Apparently there were certain communes organized were people could just drop by and get a bed, clothes, food and.. well, drugs.

Personally I see the whole movement as being mostly egoistic hedonistic escapism. Something along the lines of - world is one mean place, but we'll just escape into our own LSD-powered reality and live happily as long as we don't run out of cash.

Also - who financed all of this? Were hippies the burgouise kids? As I heard many of them became the core of the future capitalist class.

We are talking at the peak of the long boom were skilled wage workers were making a decent living and that is where the hippies came from. They came from suburban homes of the more well off proletariat families (and petite-bourgeois families) that could actually afford to send their kids to university and that is why hippies never really challenged capitalism as few had a good taste of wage slavery.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

We are talking at the peak of the long boom were skilled wage workers were making a decent living and that is where the hippies came from. They came from suburban homes of the more well off proletariat families (and petite-bourgeois families) that could actually afford to send their kids to university and that is why hippies never really challenged capitalism as few had a good taste of wage slavery.

And what about countries where university was free or at least not expensive even for workers? There were hippies in those places too.

I think the hippies had very broad and drew from all manner of class origins and had no clear class politic apart from their vapid counter-culture and hedonism and an air of naïveté and general rebellion brought on by the optimism of the era-zeitgeist. Their essential dissolution was also into all parts of society, often the same classes as they originally came from.

[khad]

The hippes grew up and became Reagan libertarians.

[Psy]

And what about countries where university was free or at least not expensive even for workers? There were hippies in those places too.

You mean like Paris well look at Paris May 1968 and tell me with a strait face you can call them hippies, they didn't even call themselves hippies they called themselves Situationists.

[black magick hustla]

i skimmed this a long time ago, but it was written by an american situationist in the 60s

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/bps/PS/hippies.htm

its called poverty of hip life

[L.A.P.]

The hippie movement was doomed to fail because they focused on age struggle rather than class struggle, and making your political platform "fuck old people" is bound to fail since you yourself will become old. Of course there were factions in the hippie movement that had a legitimate cause that had anarchist, communist, or at least progressive views and they brought some significant changes in our culture and system. However, most of it was just upper middle class kids being rebellious and you can see that by how most of the hippies have turned out politically.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You mean like Paris well look at Paris May 1968 and tell me with a strait face you can call them hippies, they didn't even call themselves hippies they called themselves Situationists.

There were a lot of people inspired by hippies here in Sweden, who behaved in the typical hippie ways, flower power, peace and love and the passion for strange cults, medical quackery, spirits and nature worship as well as the general timely opposition to various wars and whatnot. Some of them had never even attended higher education.

Not to mention that the hippies were obviously also present at May '68. They might not have been dominant, but hippies were a wide group that was found in many places from all walks of life in those times, all around at least the western world, and they were convenient in a way, because of their general weak and easily manipulated politics, which is probably why the hippies happened to get so much attention as opposed to many of the other struggles going on about the same time.

[Tommy4ever]

Lumpen.

[Psy]

There were a lot of people inspired by hippies here in Sweden, who behaved in the typical hippie ways, flower power, peace and love and the passion for strange cults, medical quackery, spirits and nature worship as well as the general timely opposition to various wars and whatnot. Some of them had never even attended higher education.

Not to mention that the hippies were obviously also present at May '68. They might not have been dominant, but hippies were a wide group that was found in many places from all walks of life in those times, all around at least the western world, and they were convenient in a way, because of their general weak and easily manipulated politics, which is probably why the hippies happened to get so much attention as opposed to many of the other struggles going on about the same time.

Marxists call for class war not peace, no peace can exist while capitalism exists. What did the hippies do to advance class struggle other then resist the draft? Even the FBI stated that hippies would have been a threat if they become actual revolutionaries, the hippies in the USA had the numbers but did nothing with their numbers. Think about all they did was have peaceful marches there were lawful, and they refused to fight the ruling class by stepping outside the rules of bourgeois society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

First, what exactly is a "hippie"?

If it's young people who had ideas including anti-war/anti-authoritarian positions and free love type stuff, along with an affinity for taking drugs, then we're talking about a lot of people, including the broad "New Left" in the USA (and probably a whole hell of a lot of people internationally).

If we're talking about the stereotypical hippie wearing a tie dye shirt with a beard two feet long in Haight Ashbury, then we're talking about a much smaller group of people, who's influence on popular culture far exceeded their actual numerical presence in the USA. Most Americans were politically conservative during the 1960's.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Marxists call for class war not peace, no peace can exist while capitalism exists. What did the hippies do to advance class struggle other then resist the draft? Even the FBI stated that hippies would have been a threat if they become actual revolutionaries, the hippies in the USA had the numbers but did nothing with their numbers. Think about all they did was have peaceful marches there were lawful, and they refused to fight the ruling class by stepping outside the rules of bourgeois society.

I'm sorry Psy, but really, please do read more before you post, that was exactly what I was saying. The hippie movement was convenient because it was un-directed and therefore weak and did not do much of anything; yet here you are, acting like I was saying the hippies were good. I'll put it this way, I quite loathe hippies and most of their values.

[LewisQ]

I think the best critique of hippy culture came from David Bowie (!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKMSgZo9c8s

[Psy]

I'm sorry Psy, but really, please do read more before you post, that was exactly what I was saying. The hippie movement was convenient because it was un-directed and therefore weak and did not do much of anything; yet here you are, acting like I was saying the hippies were good. I'll put it this way, I quite loathe hippies and most of their values.

I got that it is the idea that hippies played any significant role on revolutionary moments as revolutionary movements simply ignored them and really outside the USA the hippie movement played a insignificant role.

[AnonymousOne]

Hippies were important for society, specifically the United States. Many social and cultural norms were questioned and challenged breaking the 50's consensus. Possibility of socialist revolution? Not a chance. A step forward? Most certainly.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I got that it is the idea that hippies played any significant role on revolutionary moments as revolutionary movements simply ignored them and really outside the USA the hippie movement played a insignificant role.

Did I say that? It's hard to understand what you're getting at. What I said, I hope it was clear, was that there were parts of the hippie-movement that partook in and were sympathetic to things like the French spring in May 1968 and similar, I did not say anything about whether they were significant or not, or whether they had any real revolutionary potential on their own.

[RED DAVE]

Unlike the rest of you motherfuckers, I was there. :D


Being a big fan of old rock music, just recently I started researching a bit on the hippie culture.
How would one explain them from a Marxist point of view? (if that is even possible)From a Marxist point of view, hippie culture was a mass bohemian culture that challenged the mass culture of capitalism.


Where did they fit in the class compass?In terms of class, it was a petit-bourgeois movement.


Many of them did not have jobs and just wondered around the states taking drugs and having lots of sex.Somebody has been reading too many bourgeois sources. While there was a mobile aspect to hippie culture, it was centered in and around the major cities, especially Berkeley, CA and the Lower East Side of New York.


Were these just kids of regular working class parents who were able to spend their money? Were they the lumpens? (selling drugs etc)As a petit-bourgeois phenomenon, the hippies came from various classes, primarily from the petit-bourgeoisie and the working class. However, there were hippies who came from the bourgeoisie itself and some from the lumpen-proletariat.

As to work, remember that the movement only lasted about 6-7 years. In my experience (I lived in the heart of East Coast hippiedom, in New York, from '64-'69), most hippies worked at some kind of job, primarily in the service area. There was a significant part that engaged in petty trading. The drug trade was a significant source of income.


Apparently there were certain communes organized were people could just drop by and get a bed, clothes, food and.. well, drugs.Very few. There were, briefly, so-called crash pads in some places where the above took place. They didn't last very long. Most communes were small, lasted only a brief period of time. They found out very quickly that crashing had to be discouraged for a host of reasons.


Personally I see the whole movement as being mostly egoistic hedonistic escapism.And you would be dead wrong. Hippiedom was the first mass bohemian response to capitalism. While there was, of course, egotism, hedonism and escapism, therre was also a serious challenge to the capitalism way of life. That this response was naive, even foolish, does not take away from its intent.


Something along the lines of - world is one mean place, but we'll just escape into our own LSD-powered reality and live happily as long as we don't run out of cash.Someone has been watching Easy Rider too many times. Hippiedom was a lot more than bell-bottoms, dope and rock music. It represented a mass cultural challenge to capitalism.


Also - who financed all of this? Were hippies the burgouise kids?Life was a lot cheaper back then. It didn't take much.


As I heard many of them became the core of the future capitalist class.You heard wrong. There were a lot of hippies and there ain't a lot of members of the bourgeoisie. Many hippies became a part of the petit-bourgeoisie, yes, but very few went from 4th Street to Wall Street.

It was great fun while it lasted. I haven't, of course, addressed such questions as the hippies and the organized left (old and new), the hippies and the civil rights movement and the race question in general, the role of the war in Vietnam and about a hundred more important issues.

Meantime, I'm gettin' my old bells, my denim shirt, my love beads and work shoes out of storage. I'm gonna spin some Stones vinyl, torch up and turn on, tune in and drip the fuck out! You all shoulda been there. :D

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

i disagree with red dave. i don't think it was a "petit bourgeois" phenomeon. that would imply that most were from or part of the small business class, which is absurd. i was in L.A. at the time which was a major source of this phenonemon. it existed mainly among working class youth in my experience.

"crash pads" were not common and did not last long, as dave says.

also, the hippy culture was highly influenced by the beats, which go back to the '50s, early '60s.

but hippy culture was a rejection of bourgeois values. a counter culture to the dominant one.

the bit about not having jobs is cute but not true. i recall when i was working in a gas station in L.A. in 1967. there was a guy working with me who was trying to earn money to complete his film on the Diggers in San Francisco.

[Reznov]

The hippes grew up and became Reagan libertarians.

Preach it, Preach it loud ma Brother!

But yeah, that was catchy. Well written.

[RED DAVE]

i disagree with red dave. i don't think it was a "petit bourgeois" phenomeon. that would imply that most were from or part of the small business class, which is absurd.(1) You misunderstand the term "petit-bourgeois phenomenon." I am not discussing the class composition of the hippy movement. I'm discussing its world view, which was petit-bourgeois. However, since its composition was from different classes, we can say even from this point of view, it was petit-bourgeois.

(2) And, by the way, petit-bourgeois does not refer exclusively to small business owners. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, artists, lower management, engineers, etc., are part of this class. It's a mixed bag squashed between the burgeoisie and the proletariat.


i was in L.A. at the timeYou have my sympathies. :D


which was a major source of this phenonemon. it existed mainly among working class youth in my experience.In New York and Berkeley, the composition was more petit-bourgeois. This could be because of the importance of the colleges in these places.


"crash pads" were not common and did not last long, as dave says.Yeah, and they were mostly disgusting.


also, the hippy culture was highly influenced by the beats, which go back to the '50s, early '60s.At the beginning, yes, especially in New York and the Bay Area, but later on, hippiedom took on a life of its own. Jazz turned to rock, red wine to dope and berets, sweaters, leotards and stockings turned to cowboy hats, t-shirts, miniskirts and tights.


but hippy culture was a rejection of bourgeois values. a counter culture to the dominant one.Far freakin' out, man!


the bit about not having jobs is cute but not true. i recall when i was working in a gas station in L.A. in 1967. there was a guy working with me who was trying to earn money to complete his film on the Diggers in San Francisco.In New York, where the livin' was not so easy (but much easier than today) most hippies I knew had jobs.

I'll bet if you checked the bottom of your old rucksack, cat, you'll find a package of Easy Widers.

RED DAVE

[Manic Impressive]

i disagree with red dave. i don't think it was a "petit bourgeois" phenomeon. that would imply that most were from or part of the small business class, which is absurd. i was in L.A. at the time which was a major source of this phenonemon. it existed mainly among working class youth in my experience.
I think he was saying that the class characteristic of the movement was petit bourgeois. That does not mean that it was primarily made up of members of the petit bourgeois.

[syndicat]

(1) You misunderstand the term "petit-bourgeois phenomenon." I am not discussing the class composition of the hippy movement. I'm discussing its world view, which was petit-bourgeois. However, since its composition was from different classes, we can say even from this point of view, it was petit-bourgeois.

And, by the way, petit-bourgeois does not refer exclusively to small business owners. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, artists, lower management, engineers, etc., are part of this class. It is a mixed bag.
i don't agree with you that the term "petit bourgeois" has any clear meaning. it doesn't. and I don't think doctors and lawyers are in the same class as working artists or shop engineers (who i regard as part of the skilled section of the working class), and doctors and lawyers in my view are part of the bureaucratic class because their class power is based on control of labor & expertise. its not their ownership of assets that is the basis of their affluence, but their work & expertise.

but i'm certainly not an orthodox Marxist. i believe that's something that needs to be left behind.

I don't know what "Easy Winders" are. i think the "counter-culture" was a dead end as a strategy for change. i just wouldn't agree with mischaracterizations of its character.

[RED DAVE]

I don't know what "Easy Winders" are.Lighten up, dude.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2194dbp.jpg

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

i don't like smoking anything, weed included. never have.

too "heavy' for you dave? tough shit.

[syndicat]

I think he was saying that the class characteristic of the movement was petit bourgeois. That does not mean that it was primarily made up of members of the petit bourgeois.

yeah. then calling it "petit bourgeois" is meaningless bullshit. which is what I tend to expect from orthodox marxoids.

[black magick hustla]

yeah. then calling it "petit bourgeois" is meaningless bullshit. which is what I tend to expect from orthodox marxoids.

the term "petty-bourgeois" is supposed to be foggy, its a class that vacilates between the bourgeosie and the proletariat.

[syndicat]

classes are defined by their objective role in the system of social production. there is no such thing as a "class" that is defined only as "vacilating."

[Manic Impressive]

Well no it's not meaningless as all movements have a class characteristic. The class characteristic of a capitalistic revolution is bourgeois although the revolution is not fought for only by them.

BTW was the orthodox Marxist dig directed at me or Dave? I thought Dave was a trot and I'm not an orthodox marxist .

[black magick hustla]

classes are defined by their objective role in the system of social production. there is no such thing as a "class" that is defined only as "vacilating."

"class" in marxist theory is not a sociological category, it only makes sense ifit has a political significance. yes, a way to define class is as "relationship to means of production" but only insofar it is politically significant. "lumpenproletariat" is also a fuzzy class but the idea is not to come up with a rigurous sociological definiton, but to define what is the political manifestation of criminality. i also agree that a lot of marxists are obsessed with the term of "petit-bourgeois" as a slur, but the point is that according to marx the petit-bourgeois is a lost class without a stable place in capital hence why it vasilates and is extremely fluid.

[AnonymousOne]

The line between prole and petit-bourgeois is a fine one. For example, a contractor/w/e (assuming that the one person is the only employee) would they be a prole because they have to sell their labor, or would they be petit-borugeois?

[syndicat]

in this case i believe "petit bourgeois" was used by dave in purely a derogatory fashion. this is the sort of thing that stalinists resort to.

talk about the "petit bourgeiousie" in Marxist theory historically blinded marxism to the objective potential of the bureaucratic class...professionals and managers, and their potential to become a dominating, exploiting class..that is, a ruling class... over the working class. it's one of the basic failures of marxism.

[black magick hustla]

in this case i believe "petit bourgeois" was used by dave in purely a derogatory fashion. this is the sort of thing that stalinists resort to.

talk about the "petit bourgeiousie" in Marxist theory historically blinded marxism to the objective potential of the bureaucratic class...professionals and managers, and their potential to become a dominating, exploiting class..that is, a ruling class... over the working class. it's one of the basic failures of marxism.
not really, there where plenty of marxists who faught against bureacrats and paid with their lives. this is just a cheap shot. i could turn the table around and say that the whole talk of "bureacratic class" belongs to sachmanite traitors and weirdos around Z-magazine that only exist in universities

[RED DAVE]

in this case i believe "petit bourgeois" was used by dave in purely a derogatory fashion. this is the sort of thing that stalinists resort to.Actually, I was using it objecively and descriptively. Lighten up, Dude.


talk about the "petit bourgeiousie" in Marxist theory historically blinded marxism to the objective potential of the bureaucratic class...professionals and managers, and their potential to become a dominating, exploiting class..that is, a ruling class... over the working class. it's one of the basic failures of marxism.As an independent socialist, I believe it was my tendency that explored that notion in various ways post-WWII: bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, new class, etc.

Peace and love! :D

RED DAVE

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well no it's not meaningless as all movements have a class characteristic. The class characteristic of a capitalistic revolution is bourgeois although the revolution is not fought for only by them.

Right and if we look at how far hippies were generally politically willing to go, you get a lot of "drop-out" and "commune" alternatives (sorry if I've been watching too many cheesy movies and documentaries Dave:lol:) to the system rather than an view that sees the need for class self-liberation against the ruling class.

I think people today think of hippies as dead-heads but it was probably more along the lines of the lifestyle-politics and sort of "cultural" anarchists we see today but on a larger scale. Anti-capitalist attitudes seem common from things I've read from the time, but outside of the self-identified radicals, I don't think the anti-capitalism went beyond a rejection of the ills of capitalism.

[Psy]

Did I say that? It's hard to understand what you're getting at. What I said, I hope it was clear, was that there were parts of the hippie-movement that partook in and were sympathetic to things like the French spring in May 1968 and similar, I did not say anything about whether they were significant or not, or whether they had any real revolutionary potential on their own.
Yet where these parts worth mentioning? You can say individual hippies was pulled towards actual revolutionary movements but not the hippie movement itself, the Woodstock concert is the iconic event of the hippies not any movement against the establishment.

[Ingraham Effingham]

The hippes grew up and became Reagan libertarians.

The neo-con movement was in response to the hippie movement, which was in response to WWII nationalism, which was a response to the social liberties found during the 20's, which was a response to the imperialism of the turn of the century.

MY generation, as children of the reaganites, HAD the charge to swing the pendulum back to the left after witnessing the failures of the reagan administration.

Movies like The Fight Club, Donnie Darko, the Matrix etc. were really getting popular, and it seemed like my college years were going to be full of activism, questioning the establishment and libery-loving change.

Then it all got "hijacked" by 9/11, an over-hyped attack, with dubious origins. Now my generation (born 1980 and on) resorts to escapism (reality TV; MMA fighting; cosmetic channels and millions of wannabe comedians on youtube) and nihilism (the apocalypse is chic now).

The social movements of the 20's had the artificially created depression to scare things back to the right.
The social movements of the "hippies" in the 60's and 70's had the recessions of the early 80's to stymie their admittedly dissolute resolutions.

I'm pissed (we all should be) that 9/11, and this impending economic trouble has stopped my generation's (and youngers) revolution before its even started yet. But, as the elder of a generation with a robbed birthright, I havent given up yet.

[syndicat]

I think people today think of hippies as dead-heads but it was probably more along the lines of the lifestyle-politics and sort of "cultural" anarchists we see today but on a larger scale. Anti-capitalist attitudes seem common from things I've read from the time, but outside of the self-identified radicals, I don't think the anti-capitalism went beyond a rejection of the ills of capitalism.

this is a fair description of the limits of the old counter-culture.

[syndicat]

red dave re hippy movement as petit bourgeois:


Actually, I as using it objecively and descriptively.then you were wrong. in L.A. the movement had more influence among working class youth. less so among the more affluent.

[Tim Finnegan]

(2) And, by the way, petit-bourgeois does not refer exclusively to small business owners. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, artists, lower management, engineers, etc., are part of this class. It's a mixed bag squashed between the burgeoisie and the proletariat.
Aren't these over-generalising a bit? Plenty of doctors, engineers, etc. are essentially proletarian, in that they represent wage-workers who are alienated from the conditions of their labour; their alignment with capital over labour is subjective, when it exists, is based in expectations or even simple hopes of future petty bourgeoisiedom (the junior doctor with ambitions to set up in a private practice, etc.), which would seem to make things more complicated than you're allowing. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif


in this case i believe "petit bourgeois" was used by dave in purely a derogatory fashion. this is the sort of thing that stalinists resort to.

talk about the "petit bourgeiousie" in Marxist theory historically blinded marxism to the objective potential of the bureaucratic class...professionals and managers, and their potential to become a dominating, exploiting class..that is, a ruling class... over the working class. it's one of the basic failures of marxism.
But the "bureaucratic class" do not embody a novel property form, and so do not constitute a revolutionary subject. To the extent that they exist, it as functionaries of capital; they only have the potential to become a ruling class distinct from the bourgeoisie if we focus on the secondary aspect of their legal relationship to capital, rather than the primary aspect of their social relationship to capital. The Soviet nomenklatura, despite legally owning not a machine press between them, embodied capital as much as the corporate executive strata in the West does.

[RedMarxist]

I was born the early 90's so don't remember Reagan, but I agree that he failed. I remember Bush though...oh how I hated Bush.

Everywhere you turned post-9/11 was rampant American nationalism, not that nationalism in itself is bad, but it was extreme-er is extreme.

I was confronted, especially where I lived, with overly patriotic racist nationalism. This country is now being torn asunder in this so called "Great Recession", that despite what the media is saying is only getting worse worldwide, just look at Greece and Wisconsin. I DON'T hope to live to see the day when the Second Great Depression happens which easily could happen if the slightest thing goes wrong in the Eurozone, which It already has(they are talking about a SECOND bailout for Greece and one for Italy!)

I had this teacher once, who fought in the Vietnam war in the marine unit with the highest death ratio IN THE WAR('The Walking Dead') who said on veterans day he barely survived walking through a mine laden jungle and the following Vietcong ambush, cant remember the name of the operation but its on wikipedia look up the walking dead.

he was VERY patriotic and hated on people who showed the slightest disrespect to the flag.

I Guess I've begun to lose my respect and my Christian faith(which i don't have anymore) for this country and where it is headed. Now, most of the time I don't even find myself reciting the mindless brainwashing pledge of allegiance much to the chagrin of teachers, because I don't/won't swear my allegiance to this oppressive regime that once was the worlds first bastion of freedom.

Ho Chi Mihn-Mao-Lenin-etc. I look up to them as examples. All 3 did great things-and also made great mistakes. They were people like you and I. I just hope to one day take part in a revolution-when, not if, it comes.

May this empire fall...

[syndicat]

Originally Posted by RED DAVE http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2177676#post2177676)
(2) And, by the way, petit-bourgeois does not refer exclusively to small business owners. Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, artists, lower management, engineers, etc., are part of this class. It's a mixed bag squashed between the burgeoisie and the proletariat.

middle management, lawyers , judges, military officers are not part of the same class as people who own small businesses and hire small numbers of employees. the basis of the class posiition is different. it is based on decision-making authority (position in a bureaucratic hierarchy) and expertise related to decision-making in that context.


But the "bureaucratic class" do not embody a novel property form, and so do not constitute a revolutionary subject. To the extent that they exist, it as functionaries of capital; they only have the potential to become a ruling class distinct from the bourgeoisie if we focus on the secondary aspect of their legal relationship to capital, rather than the primary aspect of their social relationship to capital. The Soviet nomenklatura, despite legally owning not a machine press between them, embodied capital as much as the corporate executive strata in the West does.

property ownership is not the only basis of a dominating class.

the military officers, industrial managers, Gosplan planners, party apparatchiks, who formed the ruling class in the USSR, did not "embody capital." there weren't autonomous capitals that went out onto factor markets and bought or hired whatever they needed to produce commodities, and then captured the revenue from the sale of those commodities as the basis of profit they could pocket or re-invest.

to try to use categories like "capital" so abstractly as to cover the USSR, you make these categories useless for historical description and explanation.

[Tim Finnegan]

property ownership is not the only basis of a dominating class.

the military officers, industrial managers, Gosplan planners, party apparatchiks, who formed the ruling class in the USSR, did not "embody capital." there weren't autonomous capitals that went out onto factor markets and bought or hired whatever they needed to produce commodities, and then captured the revenue from the sale of those commodities as the basis of profit they could pocket or re-invest.

to try to use categories like "capital" so abstractly as to cover the USSR, you make these categories useless for historical description and explanation.
Well, I'm a thousand miles from being an expert on this, so all I can do is recommend The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience by Paresh Chattopadhyay (http://libcom.org/library/paresh-chattopadhyay-marxian-concept-capital-soviet-experience) (recommended to me by The Inform Candidate), which examines the Soviet experience in terms of the Marxian conception of capitalism as a social formation rather than a legal framework, as well as dispelling some of the more stubborn myths about the Soviet "command economy".

[Edit: There's a bit in The Marxian Concept... that I tried to find that explains it quite well, I'll post it if I can dig it out. Chattopadhyay explains capital as being primarily "negative" in character, i.e. representing the separation of the worker from the conditions of their work, and that the "positive" aspect, i.e. the legal relationship between capital and capitalists, is a secondary concern. What is critical, according to Chattopadhyaya, is not that Jimmy the capitalists owns X, Y and Z, but that Bobby the worker does not. (Perhaps somebody a bit better informed would be hammer that in something closer to sense?)]

And you're right that property ownership as such is not the only basis of a ruling class- I used the wrong term there- but to emerge as a new dominating class, they would have to represent some novel set of social relations that were capable of superseding capitalism, which is not found in any contemporary bureaucratic class (which, if anything, has been greatly decreased in recent years by the ongoing proletarianisation of the professional strata, rather than expanded by some new form of accumulation).

[S.Artesian]

I think it's hilarious-- a discussion on "hippie culture" turns into a debate over the class composition, class make-up, and class orientation of the culture.

All I can think of Zhdanov trying to figure what the fuck Hendrix was doing to that guitar at Monterey.

What was "hippie culture"? Rock 'n roll? Certainly wasn't limited to hippies. Drugs? Ditto. Sex? Puhleese.

Let's just say it was an expression of and by youth, some of whom were dissatisfied with what capitalism offered, some of whom were just curious, many more of whom just wanted to have fun, and most of whom just wanted to be around other young people who felt the same dissatisfaction, or curiosity, or need to have fun as themselves.

Then of course, as occurs with all things different, it was commercialized, marketed-- even the Monkees went psychedelic.

[RED DAVE]

the MonkeesYou are walking on the ragged edge of neg rep here. The Monkees were a wholly derivative, synthetic group created for a TV show. You should know this.

Penalty: Turn in your bells and walk bare-ass down Avenue B from 14th Street to Houston Street on August 15th (42nd anniversary of Woodstock).

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

You are walking on the ragged edge of neg rep here. The Monkees were a wholly derivative, synthetic group created for a TV show. You should know this.

Penalty: Turn in your bells and walk bare-ass down Avenue B from 14th Street to Houston Street on August 15th (42nd anniversary of Woodstock).

RED DAVE


I know exactly who the Monkees were, the Milli Vanilli of "Peace and Love"-- a Beatles knock off designed for US pre-teens.

And as I said, as the "hippie 'culture'" became commericalized, even the Monkees went all psychedelic on our asses.

As did Tommie James and the Shondells for crying out loud. "Crystal Blue Persuasion" and all that bullshit.

Hey, that's what I would say about "hippie culture," -- all that bullshit.

Of course, I never was a hippie. Didn't believe in "dropping out," thought Timothy Leary was a self-aggrandizing sociopath [redundant terms there].

[syndicat]

I don't think the counterculture was a way to change society. i wouldn't defend it as a "movement". my objection was to the throwing around of the "petit bourgeois" label.

[WyoLeftist]

Abbie Hoffman was a bad ass... Nuff said

[RED DAVE]

You all are jealous BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE! :D

http://i53.tinypic.com/i3ykua.jpg


O pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For great were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very Heaven!Wordsworth, "The French Revolution"

RED DAVE

[Ingraham Effingham]

We are fed this view of the "hippie" that makes the word itself into an insult.

We are fed this idea that the hippie just burned out on acid trips and free love
and that they were too fucking lazy to ever really accomplish anything.

But what really happened?

They got SHOT IN THE FACE

MLK jr, jfk, robert kennedy, malcolm x, john lennon, kent state, etc
And how much stuff was done that we don't know about, not to mention that a huge chunk of that particular generation was being flown off to the furnace halfway around the world

The soldiers drafted into vietnam were part of that generation, they had that same dynamism, and they were capable of the most radical action because they were the most disenfranchised

We are given the impression that the hippie is an ineffective loser, while, on the contrary, the hippie had the whole deck stacked against him from the start, yet he still effected change despite that.

That's why i hate the use of the word "hippie" in a deragotory sense.

[S.Artesian]

Except I was there, for part of it at least: Berkeley 67; Chicago August 68; Not at Woodstock, I'm proud to say where several thousand were fed by US Army helicopters, Hueys, the same ones used to ferry combat troops from fire bases into the bush in Vietnam. Nor was I at Altamont-- remember those great peace and love advocates, the Hells Angels?

[syndicat]

yeah. i was there for part of it. the Sunset Strip riot in 1965. the Human Be-In in Griffith Park 1968. Venice in 1970.

[S.Artesian]

Sunset Strip riot...wow, that was one of the originals....... Buffalo Springfield-- For What It's Worth. And Sonny and Cher, no less!

We shouldn't make too much out of the whole thing. Really, it was fun, and not fun. We were young, thought we were good looking, and loved rock 'n roll. Cops didn't like hippies. That's a good start. Hippies didn't like cops. Even better.