[lbo-talk] Von Hayek was wrong

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Sat Apr 2 14:16:27 PDT 2011

It wasn't the substance of your post I objected to, it was the "boomer" reference.

>From the very beginning in the early 1960s one of the chief methods by which
the mass media distorted and trivialized the actual content of '60s activity was to label it a generational conflict. That along with other idiocies concerning the '60s has frequently appeared on this and other lists. I've just finished reading (actually, having it read to me) Ted Morgan's _What Really Happened in the 1960s_, which contains a detailed history of what he calls the "Corporate Backlash," which continues even to the present, the Tea Party being a recent instance. An accurate understanding of the 1060s is crucial to our political understanding, and even casual references to "boomers" as having some sort of explanatory power contributes to this suppression of politics.

You were trying in your post, if I understood it correctly, precisely to defend politics against mere moralizing. Why then through careless terminology contribute to the very attitude you are attacking?

Sorry for my own rudeness, but as Wisconsin offers a slim bit of light showing in the darkness, understanding our past becomes increasingly important.


-----Original Message-----

From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Mark DeLucas Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 3:37 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Von Hayek was wrong

"Until I came to this I thought you were making a sensible argument. But you are apparently just another of the ignoramuses who circulate lies about u.s. politics and particularly the '60s by associating them with generational differences."

I don't know. What provoked me was a conversation with a person who thinks that 1) a penniless person living with a boyfriend is asset-rich (until she's dumped); 2) that "working for free is a luxury" rather than (much more plausibly) an onerous seeming necessity borne by people, say, like me, who also work paid dead-end jobs; 3) that the hoards of the unpaid are suppressing employment (unlikely); 4) that, logically, all non-unionized workers, paid or unpaid are, in whatever context, "scabs" deserving of our disrespect. And typically when I come into contact with someone so unimaginative, so unsympathetic I find more often than not I'm dealing with an elder -- most usually a self-satisfied boomer. But you're right I shouldn't generalize.

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Adam Proctor <proctorvt at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Joanna wrote:
> "But I'm curious, according to you, is there such a thing as a scab?"
> There definitely is duh a thing. But those judgments must be made in the
> context of actually-existinga labor movements. In the absence of
> one cNnot blame a worker for beig forced to accept harsh working
> even to work with no pay.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list