> No... it isn't... what people talk about years later, and what they accomplish
> because of those events, can be two very different things. I mean... Jerry
> Rubin became a STOCKBROKER fer crissake! (Yeah Doug, imho, that's a bad thing).
The 1960s movement was much different, but many people understand that the stuff that happened back then had lasting consequences.
> People remember the Pomp... The Circumstance, and "it was a BIG TIME", but it
> was never ONE BIG TIME. As Ravi suspects, sectarianism is part and parcel of
> social movements (until, as Marcuse insinuated, fubar "politics" is overthrown)
> and is best left to the "professionals", while the rest of us get on with making
> the revolution, and not getting busy talking about how the other person...
> group... organization, isn't. Boring, alienating, and unconstructive.
Sectarianism is part of social movements, but it was less of a problem in the anti-globalization movements. I've seen more real, organic unity in the anti-glob movements that I've seen in the anti-war and peace movements.
Whatever. I guess there are a handful of people who missed out on the revolution. Too bad, it keeps me busy everyday and continues to inspire me.
Chuck