New York back to the 70's?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

i think that there has been a major revision in the young's expectations of their futures, especially a lowering of expectations about their economic futures.

a google search on: generation americans lower living standards than parents
reveals a slew of articles on the fact that millennials are not doing as well as their parents, and that this lowered trajectory will continue into the future.

otoh, a search on: millennial optimism
produces numerous reports of an upbeat mood among this cohort. i think they see the world differently than their parents did. one part of that is that they are more social, more networked. this is a product of their enhanced means of staying in touch on top of having had that same ability in their youths, when peer relationships have always been paramount. they just never had to grow out of it. this provides a lot of social-psychological support. also, their response to the loss of job security has been to see themselves as entrepreneurs, their own economic agents. this is further facilitated by the so-called "sharing economy."

our tendency in discussions here has been to see the sharing economy as an adaptation to lowered means - e.g. you make the rent by letting strangers stay in your spare room now and then; you make your car payment by being an uber driver now and then, when "surge pricing" goes high enough to make it worth your while. they redefine this as entrepreneurship.

many years ago, here on itulip, there were discussions about how people would redefine their values to adapt to lower incomes, how values would shift to social relations and perhaps spiritual values instead of material consumption. i think i see both of those things in progress. the spiritual i think is a big part of what underlies ecological/green values, and it also fits with the social "we're all in this together" attitude.

i don't see the revolution coming.

I don't see revolution either, in a number of ways we are much better off(and in some ways worse) than 40-45 years ago.

But just as we didn't have revolution 40-45 years ago, it certainly didn't stop a few from making a violent concerted effort.

The more networked and social a generational cohort is, the greater the speed at which a few could attempt another concerted effort and achieve some momentum from a very small base.

I would agree that the slower the frog is boiled, the less likely there is to be a backlash, but straight lines are hard to find or manage.

[Raz]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

...

It's quite unfortunate (and quite telling) that you completely neglect the neon sign doctrine that many of these organizations proudly displayed at the time, which was a goal of violently overthrowing the country.

Which is not only illegal, but the kind of thing that logically compels an overwhelming and decisive response.

Expecting a government to play entirely by the rules when those violently opposing it have burned the same rule book is dangerously naive.

If you wish to continue down this path, I'd suggest opening your other closed eye to the mashup of political revolutionary violence committed by Weather Underground, BPP, BLA, and others that was thankfully extinguished, albeit with residual cancerous cells found in the form of convicted murderer Kathy Boudin teaching at Columbia University, convicted murderer Assata Shakur still harbored by Castro's Cuba, convicted murderer and airline hijacker George Wright still harbored OCONUS, airline hijacker Catherine Marie Kerkow whereabouts unknown, etc.

Your frequent diatribes on complex right wing information operations might also carry a little more weight if you balance it with some layman simple "useful idiot" operations such as those conducted by Bert Schneider at the 1974 Oscar Awards (his harboring of fugitives who committed acts of political violence is another story), the Jane Fonda fiasco that will haunt her for eternity, and the considerable information operations support for the likes of BPP/BLA/etc., offered by the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Algeria, etc. for just a bit of balance to go with your one dimensional attacks on "The Man".

...

Many look back with fondness at the 60's-70's US and for all the strong middle class job opportunities and low multiple of average incomes to purchase the average house, there were some very dark patches, much like the different ones that exist today.

We are quickly approaching the 3rd generation(at least experiences by the west) of irregular warfare since the end of WWII.

The first was the battle for influence and control over a wrecked Western Europe that was a direct continuation from the official end of WWII due to its initial strong vulnerabilities to being aggressively undermined (in a two way street with examples in a split Germany, Ukraine, and Albania to name a few) in Italy and Greece by a competing communist system.

The second was the battle that sprang from a combination of racial inequality and university incubated counter-culture/establishment movements some with direct and considerable external support from competing and sometimes partnered communist networks, just as the US was working to undermine (eventually with great success) the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as exemplified in Poland with Solidarity.

The third, in my opinion, will consist of a combination of vulnerabilities stemming from economic inequality and university(and university graduate) incubated movements sparked by student debt indentured slavery and other directly related movements to support the dismantling of US geopolitical/military power which could be leveraged cheaply and from a distance by competing networks such as Russia, Iran, China....just as the US is working to undermine them all in return to a greater or lesser degree.

The US 60's/70's and the Western European 70's/80's possess some incredibly rich history that offer some fantastic lessons and opportunities for us to avoid repeating them.

It's been my experience that a one eyed lefty is just as dangerous as an inflexible right winger (assuming they are both equidistant from the center).

I try to view it with both eyes wide open. ...


Isn't the only difference the specific conditions of social vulnerability that can lead to social upheaval/disruption?

+1.

[Woodsman]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

+1.

You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;

• standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
• in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
• led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
• operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;

was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!

Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.

For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.

In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.

[vinoveri]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

I submit that while this "rag tag group of down and out sixties radicals" may not have succeeded in "overthrow of the US government", they did receive a pretty big consolation prize - they were awarded control over higher education and the academies!

[jk]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

I submit that while this "rag tag group of down and out sixties radicals" may not have succeeded in "overthrow of the US government", they did receive a pretty big consolation prize - they were awarded control over higher education and the academies!

i can't read that without thinking of THIS:

The way our society works is this. Leftist intellectuals with harebrained Marxist ideas get to control Stanford, M.I.T., Yale and the American studies department at the University of Vermont. In return the right gets I.B.M., D.E.C., Honeywell, Disney World and the New York Stock Exchange. Leftist academics get to try out their stupid ideas on impressionable youths between 17 and 21 who don't have any money or power. The right gets to try out its ideas on North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and parts of Africa, most of which take Mastercard. The left gets Harvard, Oberlin, Twyla Tharp's dance company and Madison, Wisconsin. The right gets Nasdaq, Boeing, General Motors, Apple, McDonnell Douglas, Washington, D.C., Citicorp, Texas, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Japan and outer space. This seems like a fair arrangement.

some changes since he wrote that: scratch stanford and maybe m.i.t. and yale.

[vinoveri]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

i can't read that without thinking of THIS:


some changes since he wrote that: scratch stanford and maybe m.i.t. and yale.

Ha! Queenan's tongue-in-cheek comparison is certainly well received and accurate for the limited area it focuses on - economics.

In fact of course with grad schools and especially law schools, where folks remain until late 20s and then continue as "scholars" and professors in academia - higher education being now bastions of "progressive" world view - identity politics, absence of objective truth and basically a rejection and paranoia of anything that smells of traditions of western civilization, in short destruction (or reformation depending on your view) of culture. I'd say the radicals have had quite a bit of success

[TBBNF]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;

• standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
• in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
• led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
• operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;

was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!

Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.

For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.

In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.

+1

[lakedaemonian]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

It's interesting to see such harsh words(as well as the support of another forum member) over a problem where the root cause is being called out over a pattern of one eyed perception and a complete lack of balance.

Everything isn't "The Man's" fault.

That might be worth remembering once in a while.

While organizations like Weather Underground, SLA, BPP, BLA, JDL, etc never received broad based public support that's not from a lack of trying, it's from a lack of effective execution.

It's worth mentioning that in Western Europe, the development of the Baader Meinhoff Gang, before it mutated into the politically violent Red Army Faction(as well as considerable support/haven from the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact), enjoyed quite considerable moral support from the German public in public opinions polls, including a significant minority who were polled as willing to harbor them from German Police.

Of course this is before Baader Meinhoff/RAF went "full retard" political violence wise.

It's easy to stand around the water cooler to Monday morning quarterback what happened 45 years ago and call it insignificant, just as it's easy to say that had those organizations chosen a less violent, more effective path they would have developed greater and lasting influence.

it's ridiculous to think that an escalating and substantial cluster of quite high profile attacks of political violence was just that, with no risk of further escalation and failing confidence in government and law enforcement.

Predicting the future is pretty hard, even our best here only hit it out of the park on occasion, rather than with regularity.

Predicting 2000 in 1970 has proven to be laughable for nearly all who attempted it.

And the same applies to our predictions of 2045 right now in 2015.

But looking through a balanced lens from 1970, might offer some benefit in helping us navigate from 2015 to 2045.

[Raz]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

You seriously expect anyone to believe that the greatest power in the history of the world;

• standing at the absolute zenith of its economic, military, intellectual and spiritual confidence;
• in possession of the most sophisticated intelligence and internal security apparatus money could buy;
• led by men of imagination, zeal, dedication and courage;
• operating an exquisitely tuned and centrally controlled national propaganda enterprise;

was or could ever be under any existential threat from any of the rag-tag and tiny group of down and out sixties radicals worthy of a name? What tiredly preposterous and self-serving cant!

First of all, I notice that you didn't respond to the particular point of criticism by lakedaemonian that I agreed with: a complete lack of balance. It's a common affliction of those who possess "superior" knowledge and a monopoly of "truth"; they actually believe that by providing innumerable hyperlinks to mostly leftist sources they obliterate any and all opinions and views to the contrary.

Second, but most importantly, you overlook the fact that an existential threat to the United States truly did exist during those years in question and possessed a vastly superior intelligence, propaganda, and most certainly, internal security apparatus than did the United States. That existential threat was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During the 1970s they had their own bought and paid for mercenary army (Cuba) attacking countries on the western side of Africa while they proceeded to MASSIVELY increase their already superior array of both conventional and nuclear forces in Central and Eastern Europe, and all the while funding aggressive communist parties in Italy, France, and to a lesser degree, Germany. Once again, please read the attached and tell me if it is "right wing" propaganda. (And by the way, the Soviets did NOT share our view that a nuclear war was unwinnable.)

You once fretted that we were not "sympatico". That was back when you feigned respect for my opinions; now you apparently disregard the specific opinions I actually aligned myself with and proceeded to manufacture out of thin air that I saw no evil in the imperialist adventures of America's foreign policy during the Cold War, or any the crimes committed by our government. The vision from your right eye, while mostly peripheral, isn't so bad; your left eye, however, has apparently rendered you blind.

Surely there could no better evidence of the contempt you hold for us all. It's a slander on the intelligence of decent people everywhere, contrary to an Everest of documentary evidence, illogical, fundamentally lacking in veracity, and would I think be hilarious if it were not the justification for crimes unspeakable and suffering immeasurable.

"Contempt for us all"??? "Fundamentally lacking in veracity"? Apparently we do exist in a "separate reality". Or maybe you're off your meds.
Go back and carefully look at what I highlighted in lakedaemonian's post. Nowhere were your assertions of the US Government's criminal activity impugned, but your lack of balance and perspective most certainly was. The Sixties and Seventies were not "happy days" for America and ignoring the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union would have shocked even your hero JFK.

For me this is sufficient proof that we exist in a separate reality where objective and verifiable facts are rendered meaningless and across which no meaningful transmission of information is possible.

Yes apparently we do. You launch into foaming, cursing tirades when others complain that you only see altruism and purity from the Left, and all the worlds evils from global warming to the human rhinovirus emanating from the "right wing". Then you claim that they ignore "verifiable facts" as the reason for your explosion - when they did no such thing.

In short, this is bullshit and any further discussion on this matter is a waste of time. FRED, I humbly request that this thread be moved to Political Abyss, post haste.

Thank you for illustrating the "free speech" principle of virtue from the Left. If others don't adhere to your opinions, manufactured or otherwise, theirs are "bullshit" and not worthy of discussion. At a minimum they must be marginalized as have almost all conservative voices in academia and Hollywood are today. It's the blessed fruit of PC - political correctness - a sort of McCarthyism with manners.

And apparently FRED (whoever he is) shares your view.

[vt]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

As a Vista Volunteer in 1971-1972 our group of 16 was doing excellent work in the areas of low income housing (the working poor were actually building their own homes), welfare access, youth activities, and a low income credit union. You couldn't find a more liberal, anti poverty group.

Unfortunately three lefties in the group tried to take it over during a contentious group meeting and thankfully were voted down. They wanted total control and radicalization of every facet of our work. They left the group soon after.

We did see some minor push back from a few of the locals on the right. Sort of like the local county founding fathers who had controlled the area for years. They were only a nuisance and did nothing to impede our efforts. Nothing like the lefties.

The right wants to get rid of the left.

The left wants to destroy the right and the center. Total control.


In 1970 an SDS punk tried to take over a classroom I was in with a diatribe "All students are Ni*****" The couple of blacks in the class were not amused. Pathetic pseudo revolutionary.

What succeeded was 4 million students going on strike right after the Kent State shootings. I was there for that too as college radio stations spread the word in a non violent national action closed down colleges just about everywhere. This was the center shouting "Enough".

Yes there was some violence by lefties with firebombs and other property destruction tactics. If they can't take control, they throw a temper tantrum.

I pray the independent center will marginalize both radical wings.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

As a Vista Volunteer in 1971-1972 our group of 16 was doing excellent work in the areas of low income housing (the working poor were actually building their own homes), welfare access, youth activities, and a low income credit union. You couldn't find a more liberal, anti poverty group.

Unfortunately three lefties in the group tried to take it over during a contentious group meeting and thankfully were voted down. They wanted total control and radicalization of every facet of our work. They left the group soon after.

We did see some minor push back from a few of the locals on the right. Sort of like the local county founding fathers who had controlled the area for years. They were only a nuisance and did nothing to impede our efforts. Nothing like the lefties.

The right wants to get rid of the left.

The left wants to destroy the right and the center. Total control.


In 1970 an SDS punk tried to take over a classroom I was in with a diatribe "All students are Ni*****" The couple of blacks in the class were not amused. Pathetic pseudo revolutionary.

What succeeded was 4 million students going on strike right after the Kent State shootings. I was there for that too as college radio stations spread the word in a non violent national action closed down colleges just about everywhere. This was the center shouting "Enough".

Yes there was some violence by lefties with firebombs and other property destruction tactics. If they can't take control, they throw a temper tantrum.

I pray the independent center will marginalize both radical wings.

I guess that's what I foresee as a possible solution(or a small slice of one) learning from the lessons of the recent past(afterall, 45 years while half a lifetime is just a blink of an eye in terms of the big picture).

Although I'd add to your post that while I would agree those on the radical left wish to destroy the right and center, I reckon the opposing reactionary right wish to own the left and centre.

I hold out hope that the confluence of rising education costs, rising non-dischargeable student debt, flat nominal new graduate wages, with a free internet will see the rise of an effective network to drive positive change in a non-violent and legal way....and filtering out both the marginal crazies and provocateurs

The Arab Spring is worthy of study.

In it, the internet/social media savvy were able to disseminate information and self organize, but there was no rubber to meet the road until they connected with their own soccer hooligan street gangs for a tangible real world/meat space connection.

I wouldn't advise ANY violent behavior in the US, or even anything beyond very clearly defined cheeky civil disobedience for media exposure, as I reckon it would be quite counter productive.

But surely there's a few kids out there with the potential to be effective leaders of digital movements with physical presence.

It's happening elsewhere with the likes of Camila Vallejo in Chile.

Although I'm not a fan of her belief system, it's good to see kids both having a go and enjoying some success in fighting "The Man".

[jk]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

First of all, I notice that you didn't respond to the particular point of criticism by lakedaemonian that I agreed with: a complete lack of balance. It's a common affliction of those who possess "superior" knowledge and a monopoly of "truth"; they actually believe that by providing innumerable hyperlinks to mostly leftist sources they obliterate any and all opinions and views to the contrary.

Second, but most importantly, you overlook the fact that an existential threat to the United States truly did exist during those years in question and possessed a vastly superior intelligence, propaganda, and most certainly, internal security apparatus than did the United States. That existential threat was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During the 1970s they had their own bought and paid for mercenary army (Cuba) attacking countries on the western side of Africa while they proceeded to MASSIVELY increase their already superior array of both conventional and nuclear forces in Central and Eastern Europe, and all the while funding aggressive communist parties in Italy, France, and to a lesser degree, Germany. Once again, please read the attached and tell me if it is "right wing" propaganda. (And by the way, the Soviets did NOT share our view that a nuclear war was unwinnable.)

You once fretted that we were not "sympatico". That was back when you feigned respect for my opinions; now you apparently disregard the specific opinions I actually aligned myself with and proceeded to manufacture out of thin air that I saw no evil in the imperialist adventures of America's foreign policy during the Cold War, or any the crimes committed by our government. The vision from your right eye, while mostly peripheral, isn't so bad; your left eye, however, has apparently rendered you blind.






"Contempt for us all"??? "Fundamentally lacking in veracity"? Apparently we do exist in a "separate reality". Or maybe you're off your meds.
Go back and carefully look at what I highlighted in lakedaemonian's post. Nowhere were your assertions of the US Government's criminal activity impugned, but your lack of balance and perspective most certainly was. The Sixties and Seventies were not "happy days" for America and ignoring the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union would have shocked even your hero JFK.





Yes apparently we do. You launch into foaming, cursing tirades when others complain that you only see altruism and purity from the Left, and all the worlds evils from global warming to the human rhinovirus emanating from the "right wing". Then you claim that they ignore "verifiable facts" as the reason for your explosion - when they did no such thing.





Thank you for illustrating the "free speech" principle of virtue from the Left. If others don't adhere to your opinions, manufactured or otherwise, theirs are "bullshit" and not worthy of discussion. At a minimum they must be marginalized as have almost all conservative voices in academia and Hollywood are today. It's the blessed fruit of PC - political correctness - a sort of McCarthyism with manners.

And apparently FRED (whoever he is) shares your view.

as many did at the time, i think you greatly overestimate the u.s.s.r in the 1970's. kennedy had run in 1960 criticizing a "missile gap," which in office he discovered did not exist. brezhnev and his cohort's overthrow of the somewhat unpredictable khrushchev in 1964 marked the beginning of a long period of stagnation, economic, social, you name it. the brezhnev cohort had been junior officials who rose rapidly during stalin's rule because virtually everyone more senior to them was executed. molotov, krushchev, malenkov were the most senior people to survive stalin, but khrushchev soon emerged as sole leader. his "secret speech" to the party congress in 1956 denouncing stalin represented an important break with ruling by terror, but khrushchev's erratic behavior produced enough uncertainty for the brezhnev cohort for them to overthrow his rule. notably, khrushchev was not executed but allowed to retire peacefully to his dacha. the killing had ended.

brezhnev and his cohort stopped killing each other. a life of security and certainty had arrived for members of the hierarchy. however, because officials up and down the hierarchy were all of an age, there was nowhere for them to go, no way to rise in the hierarchy since no one above them would retire, be fired for anything short of gross deviation, or be shot. so they cultivated their own gardens, collecting rents in the form of corruption and privilege.

the soviet economy began stagnating ever more clearly during brezhnev's tenure. with the exception of a few technical areas, the only thing that they could produce that was close to world class was weaponry, with a few niche areas of special competence such as, iirc, metallurgy.

george kennan in his famous long telegram was ultimately proved right: the soviet union did not need to be defeated, it would eventually collapse of its own accord if contained and left to deal with the contradictions and inefficiencies of a "planned" economy. [my favorite story: the nail factory with its production set in tonnage produced only railroad spikes. when the next plan specified the number of nails, it produced only brads.]

sorry for this long ramble by way of background, but by the 1970's the ussr was in no way, shape or form an existential threat to the u.s. except in the case of a spasm of nuclear war. that is a big exception, except that i think both sides got very scared and very serious post the cuban missile crisis. khrushchev's decision to place soviet nuclear missiles in cuba was a direct response to the soviets' discovery that the u.s. ALREADY had nuclear missiles based on their border, in turkey. those missiles were quietly removed as part of the quid pro quo which ended the cuban crisis. thereafter more formal and more elaborate security measures were put in place, including the famous hotline. [the cuban crisis scare, in the meantime, probably hastened khrushchev's departure from power one year later.]

the "team b" assessment of soviet strength in the late 1970's stirred up a lot of political movement on the right, but it is important to remember that team b was wrong. the u.s.s.r. was a potemkin village writ large.


p.s. re the "massive superiority" of soviet forces in central and eastern europe, those forces served much more effectively as control over the satellite states, than as a threat to western europe. there was no way the soviets would have made it through the fulda gap. the essence of that fact lay in the u.s. refusal to renounce first use of nuclear weapons. it was clear that if western conventional forces were inadequate, tactical nukes were on order. since it was clear, pace herman kahn, that this would escalate to global destruction, it wasn't going to happen. both sides got a glimpse into the abyss in 1963 and, as samuel johnson said, there's nothing that concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging in the morning.

[vt]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

I do agree the radical right wants to own the right and center. Why destroy anything of value when you can find a way to own it.

The left wants to destroy the right and totally control the center.

[Raz]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

Ha! Queenan's tongue-in-cheek comparison is certainly well received and accurate for the limited area it focuses on - economics.

In fact of course with grad schools and especially law schools, where folks remain until late 20s and then continue as "scholars" and professors in academia - higher education being now bastions of "progressive" world view - identity politics, absence of objective truth and basically a rejection and paranoia of anything that smells of traditions of western civilization, in short destruction (or reformation depending on your view) of culture. I'd say the radicals have had quite a bit of success

+1.

[jk]

Re: New York back to the 70's?

+1.

correct, the left dominates public culture, the right economics. have you ever considered that social liberalism and fiscal conservatism might be an accurate reflection of the values of the american public?



p.s. i will also note that there has been no response to my post addressing the so-called soviet threat, and thus saying that there was NOT an existential threat to the u.s. in the 1970's: neither from the rag tag "revolutionaries" within, nor from the u.s.s.r. in fact the cold-war division of power into 2 opposing camps, frozen in place by an existential threat [not to their gov'ts, to their EXISTENCE], was far more stable than what we've been living with since.