Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
1968 Won the Culture War Because Nobody Paid Attention to 1979
There is little to argue with in Dr. Victor Davis Hanson’s level-headed piece, “So who won the ’60s?“
Republicans would claim that they have won more presidential elections since 1968. They would argue that the silent majority eventually saved much of what was still traditional America. Radicals of the ’60s such as Bill Ayers and Jane Fonda were never widely popular.
But turn on the television, watch a movie or an NFL game, listen to popular music, visit a campus, notice how crowds dress and speak, walk down a sidewalk in a major city, and examine the behavior of our celebrities and political class: It’s hard not to conclude that the ’60s won out.
Although the Republican Party and conservatives generally have made powerful counterattacks, the left has used the zeitgeist of 1968 to win the culture war over and over again. I believe the reason for this is that the lesson of 1968 has been preserved in our cultural memory but the lesson of 1979 has been lost if it ever was fully understood.
We withdrew from Southeast Asia in 1975. No longer was America using military force to attempt to counter Communism in the region. With North and South Vietnam now both Communist under Hanoi’s control and with the everpresent world power influence of close by Chinese and Russian Communism, Pol Pot defeated the Lon Nol government and took over Cambodia. This at first appeared a trivial outcome for the region but strangely the most significant event now unfolded. From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge perpetrated one of the worst genocides in the already blood-soaked 20th century. Emptying the cities they mass-murdered city dwellers rationalizing it by their twisted ideological scheme. So sick was the Khmer Rouge madness that in 1979 the North Vietnamese invaded and destroyed the Khmer Rouge to be rid of them.
What lesson should have been learned from this but was not. We had been indoctrinated by such lights as Lenin and Frantz Fanon that cultural imperialism was responsible for all of the ills of the developing world. The need of the West to impose its will on other cultures was the root of the problem. From the end of WWII on, the litany against colonialism in our intellectual bastions relentlessly went unchallenged. Marxist liberation movements were seen as a just response to this Western capitalist tyranny.
Cambodia is the answer to all of this. What possible rational reason could the Khmer Rouge have had to commit this atrocity? Did they feel insecure with Communist North & South Vietnam to their east, with Communist China to their north, with Communist Russia more than happy to ship in whatever aid they needed? There is only one answer. It is the answer that the Marxists don’t ever want you to think of. G-dless amoral Communism is just that. Once these master propagandists obtain power their true nature is revealed. Human beings are either moldable clay to be formed into their hideous obsessions or they are threats to be destroyed. Marxism is an inhuman ideology. It was, it is, and it always will be. For all of colonialism’s arrogance, for all of the American cultural clumsiness, none of it was as evil as the genocide perpetrated by the pure Marxist ideologues of the Khmer Rouge.
If that lesson had been learned then 1968 would have been answered once and for all by 1979.
Published in General
Agreed:
Accurate. Even by his own mad standards, Germany was the model for communism, not Russia. Russia was pre-industrial. Which helps explain why these idiots tried to accelerate modernization, which caused the deaths of millions.
Basically, you can’t trust commies. Not sure why that’s not clear, even now.
The thesis is that Lenin’s push for revolution in Russia is evidence that he wasn’t a “true” Marxist, because Russia’s development at that point wasn’t sufficient to qualify as “ready for communism” according to the criteria set out by Marx.
My antithesis is that the thrust of Lenin’s life’s work wasn’t for revolution in Russia, but since that’s where the revolution happened to occur he schemed to be made the leader of it after-the-fact out of “necessity” (i.e. expediency). He was still a “true” Marxist, but history stubbornly refused to obediently follow Marx’ predictions so Lenin grasped the opportunities history handed him.
(Interestingly, George Orwell reported in Homage To Catalonia that the Russians were the faction most strongly opposed to a workers’ revolution in Spain. They were the ones pushing hardest for liberal democracy because they wanted to build up a prosperous (bourgeois) middle class in Spain, which would pave the way for proletarian communism to emerge “naturally” later on. If Orwell’s reporting was accurate, I take it as evidence that the Russians were still “true” Marxists even in Stalin’s time, and that they didn’t follow the same prescriptions in Russia because of circumstance rather than intention.)
Mis,
Well, most of the most dangerous people of the 20th century refer to it as Marxism-Leninism, acknowledging the legitimacy of Lenin’s 2nd order theorizing. We may be off the subject again but you bring up questions that are most interesting. The question is why did the revolution happen in a country where Marx would not have predicted it. Lenin was sure that it had everything to do with Imperialism. I have a different theory about this
What if Marxism really isn’t about a progression to the next system. What if Marxism is really describing a regression to an older system. Let us say that the structure of the Marxist state actually most resembles a Feudal state. The difference is only the ideology employed. The Feudal state employs a religious ideology. The Marxist state employs a pseudo-scientific ideology.
What if a state is having trouble getting past Feudalism and achieving a capitalist democracy. Failing, it decides that sliding sideways into a Marxist state is much easier as the Feudal power relationships are much the same as the Marxist socialist state. No need to tackle anything so difficult as a constitutional democratic republic or a capitalist economy with a sophisticated capital market. Russia can’t quite get past the Czar’s Imperial rule. So she opts for Lenin’s Imperial rule. Kerensky is just too difficult too complicated for them to tackle. This resultant far from getting rid of Imperialism would extend it by employing a socialist Imperialism to exploit its vassal colonial states.
See you later. I’ll be back on-line in 25 hours.
Regards,
Jim
Revolutions happen plenty of times throughout human history. It’s only Marxists who think that revolutions are “marxist” by definition.
The simplest explanation for the Russian Revolution is that they had a huge number of armed men due to WWI, and those men ultimately decided that their leaders were incompetent so they turned those arms against the leaders. No marxist ideology required.
Note that Germany also ended WWI via revolution, and for much the same reason, but Germany didn’t become a marxist state (at least not until after 1933). Revolution itself isn’t inherently marxist.
Lenin was definitely a Marxist. His life’s work was very much about revolution in Russia, however. He just didn’t think it was going to be possible (and told people that) until World War I occurred and that changed everything. Lenin was about power and defeating his enemies by any means he could. He used words (What is to Be Done is an amazing polemic) initially but only because he did not have access to guns. Once he had access to guns, words became secondary to guns though the words kept coming and were useful in convincing others to deploy guns. He never held a steady course as philosophy (Marxism) would have suggested he should. At one moment Lenin could use the sailors at Kronstadt to bring about the October Revolution. At another moment, he could ruthlessly crush them. At one moment he could have grain expropriation; at another, he could have the NEP which most party members whispered under their breath was a sellout. Lenin was definitely a Marxist, but he used it as a weapon to convince others who were already convinced Marxists to do his bidding to gain, keep, and strengthen his own power. And it was personal power. Just as it would be for Stalin.
Could be worse. Could be the Cowsills.
I always thought of a mortgage as giving me a home. A house was never an investment.
Hm. I wasn’t even listening to music by ’83.
Not just 1979, but 1974-76. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and reneged on the US obligation to supply the South Vietnamese.
Perhaps it all would have been in vain, but it was dishonorable and reinforced the message that it was dangerous to be allied with the USA.
At least when the Dems control things.
Why look around for some complicated and metaphysical explanation? One need only observe two things about culture the first is that the culture is the product of the actions of those alive, and the second is that people always die to be replaced by new people. The culture of the 1960s has won because the people who were not part of the new culture died, because they grew old. The culture of the baby boomers will also be swept aside when they too die, as will Gen X, and Millenials and whoever is next…
Culture changes it always has. Because you always have new people taking over after the old die.
Morning James,
I entered college in 65, as part of the early boomers, I view my horrid generation as the coup de grace to an exhausted culture based on a traditional moral understanding. Our generation denied moral standing to our parents, our institutions, and we denied that our country was morally better than any other country. We threw the sins of the war and race prejudice in the faces of those “over 30”, and silenced and cowed the adults in society, “never trust anyone over thirty”. The case against communism had been reduced to a confused equivalence, two equally self interested super powers vying for market share. “Give Peace a Chance”, became a reasonable wish in a world where the US and the USSR are just similar powers. The war caused our leaders to become tongue tied, why are we there, don’t these people have a right to decide their own future, aren’t we becoming amoral killers in fighting this war. This confusion about the war is emblematic of the confusion about the moral superiority of the West and freedom, and about the nature of war and the nature of man. The boomers, including me, were ignorant of the war our parents had just fought in a few years before we were born, as if there was nothing to learn from the deadliest war in the history of the world. We did not know of the hardship and sacrifices of that generation and our parents worked to insure that we lived an idyllic life. We took this life as our baseline and the normal and not the exception to all of history. VDH notes that the Romans believed that “Luxury caused decadence (or an unserious life), we were that observation made manifest. We were pajama boys way before Obama, we didn’t take life seriously, only our personal wants. We want X and we want it now. So when you ask why didn’t we learn the lessons of 79, I would reply, why would we when we have not learned the lesson of “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” 1962, “Cancer Ward” 1968, “The Gulag Arhipleago” 1973. Our parents created a world for us where the “tragic nature” of life was hidden from our view.
Morning Misthio,
Your interpretation of the late 60’s differs from mine. Yes there was still music on AM and “Bubble Gum” 2 minute and 30 second songs could be heard, but that wouldn’t last. Even living through that time, no one I knew imagined that FM would become the dominate force in music and AM was essentially dead, even if there were a few more years of broadcasting. This time lag explains why the Beatles albums were out sold by Carol King later. Polling on the popularity of the war, does not match my experience. The only folks who I know who volunteered were making choices based on the least bad choice, no one I know believed the war as an attempt to secure the freedom for an ally and in doing so sacrifice for the liberty of other men. Kennedy’s inauguration speech had long since passed, we are not “proud of our heritage”, and we will not “pay any price” or “bear any burden” for liberty. The “Fish Cheer” more represented the spirit of my fellow students at the University of Cincinnati. Students took over Columbia admin offices in 68 and presented demands including the first of the “studies” additions, the students were not kicked out of the offices and expelled, no the administrators bravely asked the students “would you like Coke or Pepsi”. The admin loved the idea of over-throwing norms and got a rush out of this revolution. And what did our parents, who help pay tuitions say, “nothing”, they were a cowed force. Schools became scared of their students, in 1970 UC was closed early after Kent State. Also remember when Kerry, gave his theatric performance, not one Senator said “pajama boy, you should have seen Okinawa”. In the 60’s no one could have imagined living together and not being married, SSM, or the transgender fantasies, but the dominoes were already beginning to fall and there was nothing to stop the subsequent events.
Communism is the opposite of freedom. Therefore it must be imposed through force and intimidation.
Unless your need for the US as an ally is very transient, it is, as WFB used to say, a near metaphysical certainty that the Dems will control things at some point.
Every Democrat President since Roosevelt has had at least two Congresses in which the Dems held both houses except Obama, who had only the 111th Congress.
Eisenhower had one Congress in which Republicans had both houses, W had two, Trump one.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 never did.
Maybe even worse, Clinton was pretty “good” about getting Leftists into the civil service and judiciary, Bush was not very ideological about it, Obama was relentlessly transformative.
I don’t recognize the divisional patch. Anyone?
The crazy kids won that one sort of. Just that now because of, you know, rape culture they have to get a notarized consent form in triplicate first.
P.S. RicoComment of the week.
Can you buy them in bulk?
I flipped the switch and the wife and I were humming along. I couldn’t have named this song for all the avocado toast in Portland. But I remember it.
I’m kind of partial to
How about this for zeitgeist?
And 1968 wasn’t just rock’n’roll.
Merle Haggard had US hits with Mama Tried and Sing Me Back Home
Johnny Cash with Folsom Prison Blues and the album, Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison
Glen Campbell with Wichita Lineman
I didn’t develop a taste for country until about 1971, but I sure liked some of the other 1968 number one songs when I heard them; songs like
Marty Robbins with I Walk Alone
Tammy Wynette with D-I-V-O-R-C-E and Stand by Your Man
(#1 In Canada,) Jerry Lee Lewis with What Made Milwaukee Famous (Has Made a Loser Out of Me)
Gram Parsons was with The Byrds.
I never realized how geeky Canned Heat was.
No kidding. They started as mostly a bunch of middle and upper middle class music geeks who could really play.
A guy named Stu Brotman was, I think, one of their original members. I came across him as a member of Veretski Pass, a klezmer trio that I really like. See them if you get a chance. Basically the same thing as Canned Heat but klezmer and no drugs, come to think of it. Also total music geeks who can really play. I think they’ve all done session work. Geeks, you ask? Their
Cookie Segelstein, a terrific classically trained viola player (MS in viola from Yale and conservatory teacher as well,) her husband Josh Horowitz , button accordion and tsimbl (cymbalom) – and Masters degree in Composition and Music Theory from the Academy of Music in Graz, Austria, where he then taught Music Theory, and Brotman, who got a BS in music from UCLA focusing on ethnomusicology.
Brotman plays upright bass… and, speaking of enduring ethnomusicological geekiness, basy, baraban and Carpathian flute. He left Canned Heat early on to play with a gypsy band of some kind and was later a very early member of the Klezmorim, a pivotal early group in the klezmer revival.
I’m going to show off my non-cosmopolitanism with this question, but klezmer is Jewish music, isn’t it?
Yes. Specifically, Eastern European. Wikipedia’s article isn’t bad.
What documentation there is shows that professional musicians have been the same everywhere for a long time: a lot of them will take pretty much any gig they can get, and jam after hours with anybody they can.
Klezmer musicians weren’t always Jewish, and Jewish musicians played with non-Jewish ensembles, leading to considerable cross pollination though naturally enough adapting to whatever the audience liked.
This isn’t klezmer (though the Ottomans were probably an influence on klezmer and on the music of Salonica) I once had the privilege of hearing Isaac Sevi z”l speak. And sing. He was one of the few survivors of the Jewish community in Salonica. He had been trained by his father, who was a famous cantor (if his son’s voice was any indication, the father would have been spectacular.) So famous that a local mosque sometimes hired him to give the call to prayer from the minaret.
And the Moroccan born Israeli oud virtuoso Nino Bitton picked up Algerian traditional music – which is largely Andalusian in origin – on the radio when he was a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceUoFd08Pnc
This is not how I remember my history lessons, but am willing to admit up front that it is quite likely that my learning on this matter, as in many others, is flawed.
Edited to say that I see that others ‘mis-remember’ in a similar vein as me. Carry on.
For a revolution to succeed, there must be people good at underground organizations, espionage, counterespionage, sabotage, and military strategy and tactics and… revolution.
Once a revolution succeeds, anybody with that kind of experience becomes a potential danger to the revolutionaries newly in power.
33rd Infantry Division. Worn by 132nd Infantry Regiment, Illinois NG in the photo, now the 33rd IBCT.