<underfire> chaos, illusions & the 60's

[Allan Siegel]

It is useful to make comparisons between the political activism of  
the 60’s and the present. And, I am not just talking about the in the  
U.S. but throughout Western Europe, the Third World and Asia. For  
better or worse the gulf between theorizing and action – a political  
praxis – was less ‘way-back-than’ than it is today. In the 60’s in  
the U.S. the theorizing was mostly shallow and simplistic and  
reflected the rampant anti-intellectualism in American society.  
Marcuse’s notion of ‘repressive tolerance’ seems to be quite accurate  
in describing how many left and counter-cultural ideas oozed their  
way into the mainstream. I thought I once heard Richard Nixon use the  
phrase “Power to the People.” Oh, well. In Europe theory had more  
traction. In the Third World there were some notable successes and  
some implosions.

However, Loretta’s idea that:
The media played a major role in promoting the 1960s generation  
revolution and in exposing the faults of the establishment. One could  
say that the mainstream media was antiestablishment. Who can forget  
Dan Rather standing in the Viet Nam jungle accusing the US army to  
use napalm against the viet cong?

This statement is patently false. The 60’s and 70’s mainstream media  
tried to catch a wave that was already cresting. They were little  
better than the media today. They soaked up Pentagon numbers and lies  
just as they are doing today. It is only when the war was collapsing  
that they jumped on the anti-war bandwagon. The 60’s revolution – it  
sounded good at the time – was fueled by its own media with  
alternative papers in virtually every major city and an alternative  
news service. This correlation was critical. (And, even Mr. Michael  
Moore once worked on a San Francisco magazine called Ramparts before  
he was sacked or quit or some combination of the two).

The point is that today there is a disparity, rather an abyss,  
between theoretical discourses entrenched within academic circles and  
the more popular dialogues that shape public opinion. No matter how  
prescient the discourse or the information it has little affect on  
the neo-liberal corporate trajectory. One, because there are few if  
any political institutions capable of altering the course of events  
and utilizing, absorbing this analysis.. And, two, particularly in  
U.S., this extremely knowledgeable academic elite has either become  
part of the spectacle (Chomsky is a good example) or neutralized in  
some think tank.

Please excuse the rather terse nature of the above…

a.s.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061101/1f59c029/attachment-0001.html