Our online replay of the 60s/70s is interesting, because in the original version, the "peace and love" hippies, the angry identitarians, and the leftist radicals all happened basically at the same time. But we got our peace-and-love in the 00s and our angry radicals in the 10s.
In 1969 you could be for "revolution", and that could either mean you wanted to change our culture so people weren't uptight assholes anymore, or it could mean you wanted to bomb bathrooms to bring down capitalism. (Only one of these worked.)
In the 2010s, both radical leftism and radical identitarian movements had a very downbeat, grim attitude (which persists to this day). No beads and flowers. Not much music or art or self-expression. No Age of Aquarius. Not much vision of utopia.
Usually this is attributed to the more dire circumstances of the modern day -- the economic pain of the Great Recession and student loans, the looming doom of climate change, and so on.
An alternative hypothesis is that social media just makes everyone negativistic...
But I'm toying with the hypothesis that we did get our beads-and-flowers hippies; they just came in the 00s.
The antiwar movement and the triumph of the gay rights movement being the most obvious manifestation of "peace and love".
But there was also a sort of gentleness to 00s liberalism...a sort of softness and pluralism and warm, accepting attitude. That is now almost entirely gone, and I feel like few even remember it. But it did feel like a beads-and-flowers moment for the online age.
And because the beads-and-flowers movement of the online age came a decade before the radical movements, there's a generation gap between the older and younger Millennials.
I think about this tweet a lot
I also think that this decade separation between hippies and radicals worked against the modern-day hippies.
Our culture really did loosen up and become more accepting in many ways after the 60s, but in the 10s it became harsher and more negativistic than ever.
We needed a new beads-and-flowers movement. We needed an America that was more accepting of diversity, more willing to let people do their own thing, more "live and let live".
Instead we got the opposite -- a country where people just drink hate all day.
We needed -- we still need! -- that beads-and-flowers movement, because it's a thing that gives people hope and helps them imagine a better future. Anger is strong motivation in the short term but it peters out.
There are hopeful, optimistic people on the left, working to build a better America -- the YIMBYs, the socdems, the Green New Dealers -- but they need the sustaining energy of positivity and hope. At the mass level, our current online culture just saps hope.
Don't think that our modern challenges are worse than the 70s. Those people faced plummeting wages, inflation, a disintegrating social contract, environmental devastation, an out-of-control FBI and CIA, and the ever-present looming threat of nuclear war and the end of humanity.
We need another "beads-and-flowers" hippie movement (a term I got from @csilverandgold btw), to sustain our positive energy, create a more tolerant society, and give us an idea of what a better world would look like.
I don't know where we're going to get one, though!
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm reading "The Sleepwalkers". About 10 minutes into the section about European politics, you realize that the question of why these people went to war has an obvious, boring answer: All of these people were just totally batshit insane.
Everyone in Britain, Russia, France and (eventually) Germany was just constantly thinking of how to conquer more of the world -- not even considering the possibility that that might not be a good goal. Very few of them were particularly afraid of war.
When you have a bunch of countries that are used to constantly trying to conquer more territory, and who aren't particularly afraid of war, you will get a war. It's not even a question. Asking "What if they hadn't gone to war?" is like asking "What if my dog hadn't pooped?".
The idea that "Japan is not really democratic" is very wrong. It is. The LDP occasionally does lose power, and doesn't use anti-democratic methods to prevent this. But the LDP is very good at triangulating on policy, so it bounces back.
Giving people a choice doesn't preclude that they'll make the same choice most of the time. The LDP plays the game fairly and usually wins, because it's generally pretty good at giving Japanese people what they want -- or at least, less bad than the opposition.
Most of the countries where one party usually (or always) wins have some sort of authoritarian structure that advantages the dominant party. Japan does not. This book is a little dated, but it basically explains why the LDP usually wins.
Suppose IQ = The kind of mental ability we actually care about + Some other pointless crap that's specific to the person being measured + random measurement error
Then someone's change in IQ = The change in the kind of mental ability we care about + random measurement error
In other words, even if the "pointless crap" part of IQ is very large, as long as it's specific to the person, it nets out when we look at the individual change.
(Economists recognize this as just a good old fixed-effects model.)
At this point, radical online ideologies have become a consumption good, consumed by A) young people bored with video games, and B) older people who incorrectly think that things really might be totally different going forward.
One result of this is that as general popular unrest recedes and lots of people get bored or jaded or exhausted and walk quietly away, the radical ideological entrepreneurs who sprung up to take advantage of the boom are now fighting each other over a shrinking pie.
As the market size for radical online ideology decreases, we see some ideological entrepreneurs frantically trying to pivot; this explains Nazbols, Jacobin praising QAnon, tankies embracing right-wing elements, and so on.
One of America's central problems is that we don't believe in our people. We've been brainwashed to think large segments of our people are just useless trash, so we think giving people money is just a handout to people who have no other option.
If we believed in our people more, we'd understand that they have a ton of potential. Giving them money is often (though of course not always) a way of giving people a boost so they can realize that potential instead of just scrabbling for survival.
Actually this is all very good news IMO. The "investment" and "redistribution" parts of the bill are the new centerpieces, while the "cost disease" parts of the bill have been de-emphasized. This is better and more focused than I expected.
I expected the bill to be a bag of stuff I wasn't enthused about, but the new proposal emphasizes the stuff I'm most enthused about.