[Marxism] Critical examination of 60's = rightwing troll?

[Bradley Bauerly]

First of all my analysis is far different than that emanating from right wingnuts.  I am not arguing that the 60's were all about drugs and sex, I am arguing that the 60's and the babyboomer generation from which it was born have not posed a serious threat to capitalism.   Furthermore, that the babyboomers in aggragate have been a positive force for capitalism, conservative politics and imperialism.  The argument that the 60's have nothing to do with the babyboomers I find illogical.  How can you take the agents out of history?  Also, the babyboom did not only consist of white males as someone suggested.  

Mike your point that every movement begins by self-interested individuals is not accurate, what about the environmental movement?  I also never mentioned any 'program' so you can take your epistemic presuppositions out of any reference to me.  

It is statements such as this and the sectarian nature of those who 'lived through the 60's' that ultimately bear the responsibility for its falure to achive anything beyond liberal victories; " The period we call the sixties was one of the great revolutionary upheavals of the last four centuries. It is the most important factor shaping the consciousness
of the left in the world today. "  Come on, do you really think that the 60's IS THE most important factor shaping the consciousness of the left in the WORLD today?  The 60's had very little impact on 75% of the world population, to claim that it shaped world consciousness is, well, self-indulgent.  

Those who hold that any critique of the sixties must eminate from the bowls of fox news is simply mistaken.  It is the veiw of most who did not live through the 60's that their importance is much overstated by those who did.  I am sorry if this upsets some and bursts some ego bubbles.  It is rather dialectical in nature, the 60's brought some postive changes but also brough some negative ones.  To hold onto the fantasy that there is nothing negative that came out of the 60's and the babyboomers is both non-marxist, non-productive and not realistic.  

As others have said Bush is a child of the sixties and so are the people who are now in the postition of power that elected him (ditto for Clinton I and II).  The vast majority of those radicalized in the sixties abandoned that radical nature in the next two decades, and I would argue swung violently to the right.  The movements of the 30's had a lasting negative impact on capitalism while the legacy of the sixties has some postitive gains, none of them challenge capitalism.  

I am in the process of getting thunderbird, I apologize if some could not read my message.  It is sort of strange that one must get a special program in order to respond to a single email list.  

The tone of attacks has been a real eye opener for me.  As I said you who were so quick to spew catagorical labels onto me might want to examine why you were so defensive and rude about it, and what this might have to do with the falures of the movement.