But, having said this, I think you could also make the "seriousness" argument in favor of the sixties, too. In the thirties, people just wanted jobs again. In the sixties, lots of good new stuff was getting put on the table.
To heck with asceticism! Che's sackcloth-and-ashes thing is a recipe for failure.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 6:22 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: How Americans Would Respond
>
> Turbulo at aol.com wrote:
>
> >But I can't help but think that part of it also had to do with a
> >generalized mentality that exalted pleasure and scorned sacrifice or
> >methodical effort. The rebellion simply wasn't as profound or
> >serious as the rebellion of the thirties. (This isn't simply
> >revolutionary ascetic scolding. I am very much a child of the
> >sixties, and consider many of its weaknesses to be my weaknesses as
> >well.)
>
> Why are they weaknesses? Why can't our critique of capitalism include
> its punishing work ethic and its denial of non-commercial aspects of
> pleasure? As Susie Bright once said in an interview with me, "Workers
> of the world, unite!" is an erotic concept.
>
> Doug