Jacob Conrad
> blithely dismiss the impact of the 1960s cultural revolution. The
> change in the status of women, and the upheaval in long-established
> relations and attitudes in regard to sex and gender, are _by
themselves
> alone_ of world-historic significance. The American form of
apartheid,
Yes, but these social changes were caused by the changes of of material production (especially volume) and the distribution of world power 9especially the cold war). The cultural revolution of the 1960s - the goofy clothing, the long hair, the sex-drugs-and rock'n'roll were merely the icing on the cake, in WAS CAUSED by the affluence created by material production that brought the other social changes rather than caused these changes. That "revolution" was a sign, not the cause of the changes.
To illustrate how apolitical the 1960s were, I suggest watching the Beatles anthology available on DVD. Here we have a group of young men ostensibly proud of their working class origins (they even retained their working class accent, which was a big faux pass in Britain) singing sentimental songs about teenage love and acting like clowns for the enjoyment of the booboisie. I do not think that any of their lyrics ever mentioned the dreaded u-word. This is the image of emaciated working class, longing for cheap sentimentality and consumer goodies.
To be sure, I liked and still like the Beatles, as well as most of the 1960s from Jimmi Hendrix to Led Zeppelin and even misogynistic Pink Floyd, the inhalants, the free wheeling attitudes, pacifism, even the naïve belief that "times are changing" - but let's face, this was but one big party time that was an escape from the real world and its politics. And while we were partying, the right wingers were planning their revolution......
Wojtek