Influence Of The Hippie Generation

[tommyedison]

Could you tell exactly how much influence the hippie generation has had on the modern world with their philosophy of relativism. I personally think that it has had a lot of influence considering that the world was much better in the 50s.

[AndrewSternberg]

Was the world better in the 50's?

I honestly don't know since I was born in 1984.

[The Durande]

I believe it is nihilism, rather than relativism, that has made our culture so sickening.Hippies, as such (sheep), led to no ideas. The worst of them adopted nihilism, the "best" - marxism. Marxists, though they exist in decent numbers, have no real influence anymore. Our culture now is nihilist. Those on the right - starting after Goldwater(who I believe to have been our last possible policital choice of any merit) - have either sided with religion or joined the rank of pragmatists. Religion offers nothing "this-worldly" to combat nihilsm, and in fact are likely to "turn the other cheek." Pragmatists cannot combat ANYTHING in principle. THEY LACK PRINCIPLES.

[Thoyd Loki]

Better in the '50's? That would be fun to compare. They are arguing the 60's&70's vs. now on the Peikoff thread. I find that to be a no-brainer if one knows about the 60's and 70's -they sucked.

I was not alive in the 50's (hell, not the 60's either, but I've read enough about it) but maybe some of the finer aged among us can shed a little light on it.

I think the communist scare, Korean war, nuclear war scare, would be black marks. The only plus I can come up with is Atlas Shrugged came out that decade!

[Prae]

Was the world better in the 50's?

from what i know of the 50's it was a decade that was certainly not as perfect as we see on old movies and TV shows. it seems to me that the 50's had two sides, those who were disillusioned after ww2 and those who got on with their lives. I think that this large group of people who were disillusioned helped lead the way for the turbulent 60's.

[BurgessLau]

... the world was much better in the 50s.

Do you mean that you believe that life for everyone in the whole world was better in the 1950s than in W. Civilization today? Or are you comparing the 1950s to the 1960s and 1970s?

If I could choose any period of history in which to live, I would choose right now.

Life in the Soviet Union in 1955 was rotten. The same goes for China and many other countries. Life in W. Europe was getting better, but there was still a lot of post-war poverty. Communism was spreading steadily around the world. Cuba fell in the 1950s, creating a dictatorship at the doorstep of the freest country in the world -- and now 50 years later, the U. S. government -- to its shame -- has still done nothing about it.

In the U. S., the culture was one of legalized racism, in part, conformism in dress, intense pressure to be religious, senseless altruist war in Korea (sound familiar?), and authoritarianism ("Father Knows Best" was a popular TV Show).

Was everything bad? Of course not. Science, technology, rule by law, and other areas were advancing. But the big slide began before the hippies appeared in the 1960s, The latter were just the noxious bloom on the weed.

Reread Leonard Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, for the big picture and the underlying philosophical explanation.

I would rather be 60 in 2004 than 10 in 1954. Much.

[stephen_speicher]

If I could choose any period of history in which to live, I would choose right now.

Amen to that, Burgess!

Life is good.

[oldsalt]

Finely aged? Okay, I'll go for it.

When one determines that the war in Korea and the war in Viet Nam were altruistic, one is in possession of only a piece of a much larger picture. We ended the war in Korea in a stalemate that has lasted over 50 years and we lost the war in Viet Nam because we fought them altruistically. That does not mean that we had no just cause to fight them.

Remember that we had only just begun our battle with a virulent communism, which for the first time stated explicitly that they were out to take over the world. In the West, the Soviets took over East Berlin, then broke their treaties concerning Eastern Europe, turning country after country in that area into a Soviet satellite. The Marshall Plan then morphed into NATO for the protection of Western Europe, and we've been in Europe ever sinse.

In the East, we were still occupying Japan and the Philippines, and France was in Viet Nam. We were suddenly facing a communist China, which was allied with the Soviets, as well as communist incursions into the rest of SE Asia, causing no end of political turmoil. When the communists poured over the 38th parallel into South Korea, we had to act. Look at a map and see how close South Korea is to Japan. There was no way that we could allow the communists to completely surround us, endangering both Japan and the Philippines.

(My early years were spent in early post-war Japan, and a year in the Philippines. My first true memories are of Japan and the Korean War. My father was career Navy. We were among the first military families allowed in Japan after the war.)

It was always right that we fought communism every where we found it. It is only in how we went about it that gross mistakes were made early on.

By the way, we are still fighting communism, don't forget. China is eyeing us right now because we are in the midst of a war. They are looking for the right time to go after Taiwan, a time when we might not be able to protect her suffiently to keep China from taking over. We are also in a battle with the North Koreans. Just because guns aren't ablazin' doesn't mean that we aren't in a war with these two communist countries. Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world doesn't mean that our resources of men and treasure are unlimited. If we are going to win, we, not our enemies, must set the timetable. We are playing for time all over the world. It is a delicate game requiring intelligence and know-how. I hope we've got decent people running this part of the war, but I don't know enough to say. I have little respect for the striped-pants of Foggy Bottom.

There were good and bad things about the 50's. We were dirt poor -- dad was in the Navy, remember, and raising a family of five on a non-com's salary wasn't easy -- but as a kid I never noticed because everybody was in the same boat. Children generally had more freedom then; parents didn't have to panic everytime their children were out of sight. My boundries were set by the distance my legs could carry me. We were allowed to be children; no adult was interested in what we had to say because they understood that children didn't have the experience and knowledge required to form an opinion. They didn't discuss adult matters with little unformed minds. Instead, we were taught the difference between experienced, thinking adults and ourselves, and to show respect for the adult. This attitude serves to releave a child from the burden of knowledge which the child is not equiped to handle. Instead, we worried about the house on the block that just had to be haunted, or about the crazy cat lady, or about the bully down the street. I was taught not to get into the car with a stranger, never to sit on a particular great-uncle's lap, to scream and yell if someone grabbed me, etc. In other words, I was taught what I needed to survive, but I was never given more information than I needed or could handle. My innocence was protected as much as was possible, even though I was mostly growing up in a war torn country. (Travelling between Japan and the States was always an eye-opening experience.) In other words, children were given more respect for their age and abilities than they are today.

One thing my parents were not able to protect me from, however, was the threat of nuclear war. Stateside, I was taught to duck-and-cover (a singularly lame exercise, but it gave children the quieting illusion that they could do something to protect themselves). I experienced a little thrill of panic every Saturday at noon when the air-raid siren was tested, or when a test pattern would suddenly interrupt Howdy-Doody and the Voice of Authority told us that "This is a test of the emergency boardcasting Station. In the event. . . ." Civil defense was the big concern of the day. You get the picture. As a child, however, it was something that was like a monster under the bed; there wasn't a lot one could do. Besides, I was always too busy to worry. There was always a pick-up game of baseball to beg my brothers to allow me to play in, or kick the can, or tunnels to erect out of the building materials from the house down the street, the building of which, for some reason, never seemed to be close to completion.

We worried about polio, as well. Too many of my young friends suffered from polio in one degree or another. I sent my card of dimes every year to the March of Dimes and felt very proud when Dr. Salk discovered his vaccine. I was sure that I had made a difference.

I was vaccinated for small pox. I spent three miserable weeks in a dark room with the German measles. I had mumps, the chicken pox, and hooping cough, but was blessed with virtually non-existent tonsils which never gave me a turn. These were diseases that most children suffered from and were considered "normal". Thank goodness and the scientists that this is no longer the case.

I could go into some of the other aspects of the time, such as the beginning of the civil-rights movement, but I think I've given enough so that you have some slight idea what it was like for me as a child of the 50's. As is always true, I'm sure other's had a very different experience.

[argive99]

It was always right that we fought communism every where we found it.  It is only in how we went about it that gross mistakes were made early on. 

By this do you mean that we did not fight to win?

[oldsalt]

argive: Did we fight to win?

I don't think so. I think we fought to contain. In Korea, MacArthur wanted to fight to win, which would have meant going into China. He ended up losing his job for it, after he fought with Truman over the order to pull back on land and not send our planes after the enemy's when they ran across the border into China.

America ran the war, but remember that Korea was the first joint effort of the UN.

[tommyedison]

from what i know of the 50's it was a decade that was certainly not as perfect as we see on old movies and TV shows. it seems to me that the 50's had two sides, those who were disillusioned after ww2 and those who got on with their lives. I think that this large group of people who were disillusioned helped lead the way for the turbulent 60's.

I wasn't alive in the 50s but atleast then, we had great people who still lived like Ayn Rand, Frank Lloyd Wright and Albert Einstein. Now there is virtually no one.

By the way, how many of you believe that there will be a major cultural revolution, whether for the good or for the bad, in your lifetime?

[Inspector]

Janet, thank you for that rare glimpse into the past of America. You'd be surprised how few people can articulate things from that era. Keep up the good and inspiring posts!

[Prae]

By the way, how many of you believe that there will be a major cultural revolution, whether for the good or for the bad, in your lifetime?

im sure there will be, possibly more than one. could be good or bad i dont know

[Betsy]

By the way, how many of you believe that there will be a major cultural revolution, whether for the good or for the bad, in your lifetime?

There already has been and I've been watching it happening for 42 years.

Objectivism is in the process of taking over the culture.

[stephen_speicher]

Was the world better in the 50's? 

I honestly don't know since I was born in 1984.

Well, let me put it this way. How would you like to wear pink pants with black saddle-stitching down the side?

[stephen_speicher]

...

Janet, you should write a book. Really!

That was terrific.

[Godless Capitalist]

I think the main influence of the 60s was in spreading relativism, the idea that there are no absolute standards of anything and that "anything goes." This is still a dominant idea in our culture, whereas before the 60s it was rare. The flip side is that before the 60s our culture was dominated by arbitrary religious absolutism, which of course is just as bad. Now the 2 are fighting it out for control of the culture, with Objectivism trying to promote a third approach.

There already has been and I've been watching it happening for 42 years.

 

Objectivism is in the process of taking over the culture.

I hope you are right but I am not seeing much evidence. Can you point to some?

[Prae]

Objectivism is in the process of taking over the culture.

i really dont see it happening now or in the future.

[argive99]

There already has been and I've been watching it happening for 42 years.

 

Objectivism is in the process of taking over the culture.

You definitely are an optimist. I hope you prove right because I could use the tax break.

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon. And when there is a laissez faire revolution, sadly I'm not so sure it will be explicitly referred to as an 'Objectivist' one as much as I'd like it to. I don't know if that's the way history will play out; ie a tidal wave of Objectivists sweeping the culture up underneath them. The term Objectivist is being so watered down between the Brandens, Kellys and Sciabarras that I don't know if it will stick. I also think by the time Rand is fully integrated into mainstream academia there will be so many additions and reformulations to the Objectivist core that at that time there will be a long history of contributing intellectuals.

In short, I think what we are seeing now is just the begining; the first ripples of a movement that will take a few centuries to reach its ascendency.

Strangely enough, I actually think that Sciabarra may be right on this score like the proverbial broken clock. When things get going, I can see the movement and its main players, both intellectual and political, being referred to as 'Randians' as much as I hate that term. But I'd wager, using hisory as a guide, that that's the term that might stick; like Aristotelians, Thomists, Kantians and Marxists. And for kickers, future intellectual historians might refer to Peikoff, Branden, and Kelly all as the first generation of 'Randians' despite the fact that if you were to put them in the same room today there would be a mercy killing.

In a way, I wish I would have been born in say about 75 to a hundred years from now. That's when things should get pretty damn interesting.

[Betsy]

Objectivism is in the process of taking over the culture.

I hope you are right but I am not seeing much evidence. Can you point to some?

ABSOLUTELY! And LOTS of it. That's what my CyberNet is all about.

Write to [email protected] and ask for a free sample issue.

[Betsy]

And when there is a laissez faire revolution, sadly I'm not so sure it will be explicitly referred to as an 'Objectivist' one as much as I'd like it to. I don't know if that's the way history will play out; ie a tidal wave of Objectivists sweeping the culture up underneath them. The term Objectivist is being so watered down between the Brandens, Kellys and Sciabarras that I don't know if it will stick. I also think by the time Rand is fully integrated into mainstream academia there will be so many additions and reformulations to the Objectivist core that at that time there will be a long history of contributing intellectuals.

It's up to real Objectivist to disown and refute the phonies. That is called being "intolerant" and "dogmatic" -- and it works.

In short, I think what we are seeing now is just the begining; the first ripples of a movement that will take a few centuries to reach its ascendency.

Ah, another not-yet CyberNet subscriber!

Would you believe 20-40 years?