Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sandcastles of Capitalism Crumbling
Karl Marx must be both happy and sad — happy because capitalism is crumbling and sad because it is not happening the way he thought it would in a revolution of the proletariat. When socialism, albeit a corrupt version of it, was wiped off the political landscape of the world some 20 years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the capitalists touted the free market liberal economic system as the only engine for the progress of mankind. Of course, they interpreted the word progress in a loose sense, confining it to short-term economic prosperity and not taking its social cost into account. Little did they realize then that unbridled capitalism, sustained by selfishness and greed, was evil incarnate — warts and all.
Just as the seeds of destruction of any system are found within it, capitalism's downfall is largely caused by its own rotten core. When greed or selfishness, which the capitalists interpret as economic freedom of an individual, becomes the operative vice, there is little place for values.
When the Soviet-led politico-economic order collapsed, many pundits dismissed the proposition that capitalism would also crumble sooner or later. They argued that capitalism served mankind, as Adams Smith had explained in his Wealth of Nations. True, capitalists earn their profit by providing goods and services that the people need. But over the years, they have tricked the people into buying not only what they need but also what they do not need. The form of capitalism that exists today was a far cry from what gave birth to Protestantism or Puritanism in feudalistic yet frugal Europe. Max Weber in his much hailed work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, claims that the Calvinist European entrepreneurs in the early days of capitalism were prompted by a desire to serve God. Material success was, for them, a sign of divine favour, though Jesus Christ made it clear that a person cannot serve God and money, for he will hate one and love the other.
But today's greed-driven capitalism has given rise to commercialism and materialism and buried moral values with even God being reduced to a commodity.
Thus it comes as no surprise that the United States, the world's biggest economy, is in the throes of death or an unbearable burden of debt and is being hit by crisis after crisis. Since 2000, the capitalist-driven western economies have been in recession with occasional booms. They have not recovered from the 2006-2008 economic crisis brought about by big time Wall Street capitalists or banking racketeers.
Instead of finding economic remedies to its economic problems, the US used its military might to boost its faltering economy. The economically unsustainable or misfired wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have dragged the US into a $14.3 trillion public debt quagmire.
On August 2, the US raised its borrowing limits after much haggling between the Republicans and Democrats over a compromise. But it was a temporary measure aimed at providing breathing space for the Barack Obama administration to survive till reelection time in November next year. One need not be an economic genius to sense that it will be only a matter of time before capitalism is dealt another deadly blow. It may happen sooner rather than later because the Republicans and the Tea Party activists are more concerned about ousting Obama than saving the economy.
In Britain, too, signs that capitalism have failed emerged this week. Prime Minister David Cameron admitted on Wednesday that there was something seriously wrong with society. But he failed to acknowledge that the fault lay in the capitalist system or, in Britain's case, Thatcherism which it has embraced as economic gospel. Thatcherism promoted wholesale privatization; preferred policies aimed at controlling inflation at the expense of social welfare measures and curtailed trade union activism while moral values became less important in the hunt for profit and prosperity.
Thatcherism sowed the wind and Britain this week reaped the whirlwind with children as young as ten becoming looters. They did not loot book stores. Rather they targeted shops that sold items that guaranteed immediate liquidity. A photograph in London Daily Mail showed a ten-year-old boy carrying a bottle of wine which he had looted while another showed two teenagers running away with bottles of vodka. Perhaps, the difference between the Wall Street bankers and the British looters is that the former did not break windows.
What has happened to Britain? Where are the values? Perhaps, a girl looter provided the answer. She told a BBC reporter that rioting and looting gave them an opportunity to show "the rich" and the police that "we can do what we like".
So the looting was revenge or a mini revolt by the marginalised against the rich and a state that protects the rich at the expense of the poor. Most of these youth have no jobs. Statistics show that about 18 percent of youths in Britain between 16 and 24 are jobless and nearly half of all black youths are out of work.
No wonder, Britain has one of the highest violent crime rates among the European Union countries. The underprivileged, who are different from the Englishmen and women we see at the Lord's cricket grounds, at Wimbledon, at the Ascot race course, have lost faith in the system. Their welfare is no business of unbridled capitalism which puts self before community. For the capitalists, community is only a market.
To make the marginalized forget the revolution which Marx spoke of, the capitalists have succeeded in corrupting the mind with pop culture, drugs, liberal sex and pornography with the capitalist-backed media also playing a big role. Visit the websites of Britain's Sun, Daily Mail or Daily Star. They are full of pictures of half-naked celebrities whom the middle class take as role models though most of these so-called stars are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Against the backdrop of values being reduced to a discarded commodity, it was no surprise when robbing other people's property took place this week in Britain as though it was innate. Why won't the youths behave so when their governments have shown them that invading Iraq for oil is perfectly alright and supporting Israel's continuous robbery of Palestinian land is part of accepted political behaviour. It seems the chickens have come home to roost.
97 Comments so far
Show AllCapitalism is doing just fine - the rich never had it so good, and the rest of us are suffering. And the phrase, "...greed-driven capitalism..." is just repetition.
Good article.
Hello, GoingGreen,
You said,
"[G]reed-driven capitalism..." is just repetition. "
For a counter-example, please see today's article by Ralph Nader: "Ray Anderson: Enlightened CEO and Environmentalist ("http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/12-9).
Even in the lunatic modern world economic system (of which I'm certainly no fan), not all capitalism is greed-driven. I expect that you also recognize that "Capitalism" does not mean "the rich", exclusively.
In fairness to the author, let's not overlook that he took pains to explain that capitalism wasn't always as it is now:
"The form of capitalism that exists today was a far cry from what gave birth to Protestantism or Puritanism in feudalistic yet frugal Europe. Max Weber in his much hailed work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, claims that the Calvinist European entrepreneurs in the early days of capitalism were prompted by a desire to serve God. Material success was, for them, a sign of divine favour, though Jesus Christ made it clear that a person cannot serve God and money, for he will hate one and love the other."
The author may be right about that history (I know people who run their small businesses the same way, even now), or he may be wrong, but he does address the objections that you raised. Do you have a refutation of what he said?
Perhaps some people don't take seriously what the author said because of another phenomenon that he was careful to note:
"But today's greed-driven capitalism has given rise to commercialism and materialism and buried moral values with even God being reduced to a commodity."
That phenomenon makes it difficult for many to accept that there really are people who are serious when they say they refuse to be greedy because God tells them they mustn't.
Some refuse to be greedy and god has nothing to do with it.
True. But for others, God has everything to do with it.
SSJJ writes, "The form of capitalism that exists today was a far cry from what gave birth to Protestantism or Puritanism in feudalistic yet frugal Europe. Max Weber in his much hailed work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, claims that the Calvinist European entrepreneurs in the early days of capitalism were prompted by a desire to serve God. Material success was, for them, a sign of divine favour..."
Thank you for proving my point.
There is NOTHING greedier than religion. That's why it works so well with Capitalism.
A German Marxist, Hans Magnus Enzensberger once made the point that the capitalist system is crumbling because it is based on making things to be sold rather than things to be used. This planned obselescence accelerates the exploitation of finite resources. Eliminating the worship of commodities was the only solution, he said.
Of course, doing that would destroy the economies of all of the developed world, so his solution cannot be taken seriously, even if it is correct.
Eliminating commodities made to be sold instead of used would not destroy any economy and commerce would certainly still exist in the exchange of those things truely needed to be used. And as the planet edges closer to the need for a steady-state economy at the minimum, such a solution is vital and MUST be taken seriously. What would be destroyed by the adoption of such a system is the current Status System based upon material wealth, which is the fundamental cause of the current global societal dysfunction that's inceased daily since the advent of accumulation enabled by settled agriculture.
Marx made the fundamental mistake of assuming that ALL capitalistc economies would have the same percentage of proletarians as the British system he studied while writing his works, while reality would prove the British example to be the anommaly which would corrupt his assumed sequences of future cause and effect and render them untenable.
Thanks for making this very fine post.
I would need to see some proof of the British versus other corrupt capitalistic societies. I don't see any difference, the 1% top earners are practicing class warfare all over the world. As Max Keiser said, this is World War 3. Us against them.
Marx postulated the Proletarian Revolution based on what he observed in England, where almost 85% of the populus was engaged in factory work of some sort. As such, he assumed ALL other capitailist industrial nations would have the same ratio of workers to elite--that assumption turned out to be false. And since that assumption is one of his foundational princilples, it renders unfounded his whole philosophical structure--arguments cannot be valid/won based upon false premises. Hegel, his mentor, makes similar errors, which is why the study of philosophy and its systems are always being modified--we are human, so nobody can be perfect/reach perfecrtion.
Almost all contemporary societies are "corrupt" and dysfunctional--a situation many millenia in age
How many people are entering the starvation age of their lives ... hourly?
When extreme hunger has become endemic throughout the nation, how many acts of cannibalism will have taken place?
Are we being moved, inexorably, towards a time when there will be overweight cannibals on our streets?
No we are not.
We are a plague of locusts o'er the land. Future generations, if there are any, will definitely judge us--for our greed, our sloth, our complicity, our inaction.
The fact that this was set in place and in motion before I was born is not relevant to this; it happened on our watch and we are all considered "contemporaries" in historical perspective. Blame will be assigned us.
In my lifetime, the land has changed. For tens of thousands of years, each generation enjoyed the planet and its gifts and then left those gifts for the next generation. But we have to HAVE it all for OURSELVES and destroy that mountain, poison that lake, fill that canyon with shit, etc. So that the next generations will be the first to inherit NOTHING. Cavemen had it better than your grandkids; at least they had an intact planet and history a blank page spread out before them....
This author writes the best, most succinct assessment of our current situation I have seen yet.
The Neanderthals had a larger brain than the contemporary homo sapiens, the misnamed thinking man. Out of necessity the Neanderthals had to have a larger brain to cope with the conditions under which they lived. Better yet, they knew how to use their brains.
Actually, it is worse. "Homo sapiens" actually means "wise man". Sometimes we refer to ourselves as "Homo sapiens sapiens" which is even more absurd. Yes, we think and we are certainly very clever but I see little wisdom in our relationship with others and the natural world. Imagine a species that has plenty of information about how perilous is our situation and the fact that we are leaving an increasingly horrible fate to our grandchildren and yet we do little but more of the same. Sounds more like Einstein's famous definition of insanity rather than wisdom or even clear thinking. One of the few things to make this situation easier is that the Earth will abide one way or another. However, it looks more and more that we are making the Earth unviable for our long term survival.
Headline: 12 Million In Need of Emergency Food Assistance in the Horn of Africa.
Not a Headline: 50 Million Receiving Emergency Food Assitance (Food Stamps) in America.
Tick... tick... tick...
OVERWEIGHT CANNIBALS RULE WALLSTREET AND THEIR DIET IS OTHER FOLKS LUNCHES...The big economy runs on specialists..the new economy will be based on the individual as generalist..doing the inventing on the sly...what is at the basis of americas greatness is the inventiveness of its citizens..the black market will bury the real black market ( wallstreet )
Both Engels and Luxemburg outlined the choice facing humanity almost a century ago -- Socialism or Barbarism. A revolution is not a given, it must be made. Otherwise, fascism and imperialism will ascend and sweep the board towards a new dark age as it is doing across the world, and especially in the advanced capitalist countries. Right now the candles are going out.
Barbarism indeed. You know, when I was growing up, I always associated barbarism with primitive, almost anarchist, societies. It never occurred to me at the time that barbarism is most effectively implemented by highly sophisticated bureaucratic states. Live and learn.
"...barbarism is most effectively implemented by highly sophisticated bureaucratic states."
___________________
FWIW, during the run-up to the Millennium the top administrators of the state unemployment agency where I worked disclosed the master plan to close "field offices", i.e. the good old neighborhood or county offices where the public got face-to-face service, and transition to state-of-the-art service-delivery facilities originally termed "Megacenters".
It was explained that the state (PA) didn't really have a choice; they needed to abandon their traditional approach in order to qualify for federal funding in the form of block grants that required this "modernization".
These "Megacenters" would still allow some direct face-to-face public access, but routine unemployment claims would be handled via telephone.
By the time this got off the drawing board, the face-to-face access component had been discarded; instead, the re-branded "Service Centers" were launched as call centers-- they might as well have been orbiting the Earth like satellites.
As this transmogrification proceeded through the planning and "pilot" stages, management insisted that the Service Centers in this Brave New World would be enlightened, kinder, gentler workplaces-- a win/win outcome for both staff and the public, who would receive "world-class service".
Management especially reassured the staff that Service Centers would NOT be the grim, dehumanized electronic sweatshops like the call centers of ill-repute in the private sector.
Management lied.
I don't intend to do this critique justice by detailing the thousand slings and arrows of ramshackle, lowest-bidder, good-enough-for-government-work technology and brutal top-down management policies that wreaked hell upon workers and monstrously disserviced public alike.
I only provide this anecdotal history to note that as I participated in this appalling transition with growing horror, outrage, and dismay, it became painfully clear that all of the science-fiction stories I'd avidly read and watched since my teens were quite true: the machines indeed inevitably come to dominate and control the humans they're ostensibly created to serve and assist.
It prompted me to coin the term "technobarbaric culture", for exactly the reason you provide. Die by inches and learn!
Indeed, I will take the company of so-called "primitive" people over the machinations of the monsters in D.C. and on Wall Street any day. The real barbarians have names like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rubin, Geithner, Summers, Dimon, Blankfein, and that big imperialist phony Barry Obama. The U.S. has the highest number of prisoners incarcerated in the world, even more than China. Our prisons are bursting with small-time crooks, many on minor drug charges while the real criminals walk free. Dostoyevsky said that "the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." By that standard, the growing injustice and inequality in our society and our endless war machine worldwide we are a barbarous country.
I think capitalism is actually solidifying its death grip on the species.
yes, exactly. And when it loosens its grip, the social order will have disintegrated entirely, and most of us will have died along with it.
Countries like Bolivia and Venezuela and Russia are using capitalism as a tool to create wealth while socializing those aspects of the common good that pure capitalists don't want to bother with (education, health care, infrastructure). If the US and England are smart enough to look back at post-WWII Europe to see the similar setup created by the Marshall Plan for recovery, we will see how to do it right. Otherwise we are sinking into something. See Sara Robinson' October 22, 2010 article, "Fascist America: Is This Election the Next Turn?" at www.ourfuture.org), in which she posits that we're about halfway to fascism and that Tea Party rule could take us the rest of the way; but also see www.alecexposed.org and The Nation magazine for articles on the takeover of our economy and our government by corporate power -- using the Tea Party as a tool of ALEC. So we could end up as a traditional fascist state OR a corporate fascist state unless we can prevent it/them somehow.
Fascism is indeed the most likely scenario for the US in the near future and yes, we're more than halfway there. As more and more of us are left jobless, they will have to criminalize us into the prison/slave labor system or kill us in the streets because we refuse to starve in the midst of plenty.
At the same time, there are more leftists in our country than at any time in history. Our challenge is to unite in our own interest and build sustainable community as well as a broad anti-corporatist movement. By building community that reaches out to our class brothers and sisters in a supportive way that offers some hope and security, our movement will grow. Capitalism is a failed system that has nothing left of offer but death and destruction. Socialism is the only alternative to barbarism though it can take many forms.
The struggle is escalating and we must remember that though they have the guns, (as Jim Morrison said) we have the numbers. If we fail to build and win the new society even beneath the shadow of the dying behemoth of capitalism we will have no one to blame but ourselves -- and time is running out.
What is your source for the statement that "there are more leftists in our ocuntry than at any time in history"? I think you are mistaken on that.
Compare the situation in the 30s, when massive majorities elected FDR, the union movment grew by leaps and bounds, left wing parties like the Communists had a prominent role in left wing organizing, and the Republicans were marginal players in national politics.
If there are so many leftists, where are they? Watching Jon Stewart?
>
Actually "true leftists" (not liberals) represent a tiny fraction of the population (probably around 1-2%), and there are far fewer of them than there was in the 1930's and 1940's, or even during the late 19th and early 20th century. It's become easy to be fooled by this fact because virtually our entire national discourse has incrementally over many years perverted the left/right continuum by pushing the whole spectrum to the right. So for example "moderate/liberals" from the 1930's might very well be conventionally described as "leftists" today.
How can they call it "Free Market Capitalism" when the market is held captive by corporate and banking monopolies and oligopolies?
All functioning systems of government benefit the most people, but how can they do so for long when ruled by a tiny super-rich, super-powerful few instead of by the people themselves?
Direct democracy
That's what "Free Market" means - corporations and the super-rich are free to control the market.
I am reminded of the perceptive words to John Lennon's excellent song "Working Class Hero" -
"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fuckin' peasants as far as I can see."
And, yes, I agree that capitalism is "solidifying its death grip on the species". Just one scary example - as the Arctic melts faster and causes all manner of environmental horrors the extraction corporations are drawing up big plans to exploit even more oil and minerals. Barry the Liar, while spouting bullshit about reducing our carbon footprint and moving to greater energy efficiency is on board with these schemes along with the Keystone XL pipeline to bring filthy tar sands oil from Alberta all the way to Texas and Louisiana. He also supports Arctic Ocean oil drilling and he did nothing to prosecute BP for their environmental crime of the Gulf spill. The Corporate States of Amurka is bristling with ideas for converting the riches of the Earth into investment capital. Any person who is "elected" President will automatically be a capitalist shill. No others will even be permitted to be nominated. The Big Game is rigged and, as I have said before, George Carlin told us that "we ain't in it".
It is time for a deep commitment to communitarianism and as much resistance to these gangsters as possible. Read "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler or "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. The arrogance of capitalists that they are the ultimate providers of goods and services is NOT true. There is more meaning when we do as much of these things ourselves. Local economies are real. In the 19th century there were many forms of legal currency in the U.S.. I would like to believe that we are not destined to be little more than hapless "consumers". They started regularly calling us consumers back in the 70s. I have never accepted that label.
What could a society need more than a cap on wealth/power established by the people themselves to prevent plutocracy or hegemony?
Direct democracy
**Thus it comes as no surprise that the United States, the world's biggest economy, is in the throes of death or an unbearable burden of debt and is being hit by crisis after crisis.** No shit! But we can't say it was by accident or that no one saw it coming. Unless of course the one speaking spends all their 'free' time with the almighty, super dee dooper, electronic brainwash box!
As I read that capitalism is failing, I decided to look at how the Cato institute (Libertarian Think Tank) ranked countries most free (closest to lassies faire capitalist) to least free, and which ones I thought were a good place to live.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2010/EFW2010-chapter1.pdf
By and large I would choose the free countries. BTW the US used to be 3rd but we lost ground and dropped to 6th under the Bush Presidency, (he was not a good capitalist).
Where would you choose?
The Cato Institute is not an independent academic enterprise, but a propaganda centre for its "libertarian" ideology.
Frankly, there are quite a few places in the world which are better to live in than the US. Countries that don't have such gross inequality, countries that don't go to war, or only do so in a token way to please the US; countries that have universal health care, strong social safety nets, good retirement guarantees, and strong unions. Many European countries are like that, and they are great places to live. I live in Canada, which may not be considered "free" by the BS artists at Cato, but which is consistently ranked higher than the US by unbiased sources like the UN as a place to live.
Bravo - in fact, I would even prefer Greece where democracy is more apparent in the citizenry.
Hello Leezasky
Too bad you didn't bother to look what the report said. If you did you would see that Canada is rated essentially right with the US by a group who covets individual liberty, smaller government and peace.
You are living where a Libertarian (capitalist) think tank says is one of the best places to live on earth and defending it. Good for you!!!!!!! And I agree, Canada is one of the best places on earth to live. (Greece not so much these days, too socialized and debt ridden) I think the US is trying to become Greece.
We live in a world that exists and multiplies due to the creation and sale of commodities. And we have reached a point where the creators of the commodities have become commodities themselves. And like nature, humans cannot be in the same category. It goes against nature. Our government, which once referred to "the people" as citizens, now call the people consumers. We The People have attained the status of cows and sheep. And like these animals which don't complain until they're walking thru the doors of the slaughterhouse, the sheeple hope that if they stay quiet enough, they won't have to make that walk. But they're lying to themselves and the rest of us. Ask the Jews who survived the Holocaust. Unless the rich can find another planet, they share the fate of the rest of us. They just exchange long term benefit for short term, a.k.a., insanity. We truly exist on this rock life boat that is hurtling thru the cosmos at thousands of miles per hour. What happens to one, happens to all. To choose and promote greed and consumerism as the highest values to be attained dooms the whole species to extinction for nature is not passive to this assault as we arrogant humans would like to assume. Like a virus attacking a host, the host produces an immune response. A host the size of the Earth, gets a fever, a.k.a. Global Warming. The fever results in floods and hurricanes and earthquakes, and plagues and most of all, destruction of all that makes us human. The virus says "that's the cost of doing business" and invests in real estate around the North Pole. Problem solved. This all is a drama that Shakespeare could only dream about writing.
Superb comment. Thank you...
The real problem for the world isn't capitalism, socialism, communism, or an other ism, but rather it is us, the people. Some time in this century our population will peek at about 10 billion. That is at least 9 billion more people than this planet can bear, if we take into consideration the rights of other species. All plants and animals have rights, too. But most humans believe they stand outside of nature, placed there by some omnipotent force that loves them more than the rest, for some unexplained reason.
No matter your political persuasion, you should be able to see that a world with 10 billion humans means a world with destroyed natural resources, including water (or most importantly, water). We will have wars far beyond those we have seen so far if we do not do something to cut down our own numbers.
Historically, populations go down in 3 ways -- war, disease, or a demographic shift to a declining population when life becomes easier, such as in Europe.
The last occurs when people realize that they can survive without lots of children as insurance in their old age. We need to put all people into that situation, where children are born solely for love, and not for retirement insurance.
Great reply. Overpopulation means resource depletion, pollution and species extinctions. Add extreme wealth and power concentration to the mix and we have a recipe for disaster. Nature's cropping of the human species is very painful, but Planned Parenthood is painless.
Bravo Ez-I often wonder why birth control is not one of the most widely funded and desirable programs out there...I keep hearing the Fundamentalist/extremist argument about the evils of abortion, but no mention what so ever about World wide birth control...
Perhaps you heard no mention of Birth Control, because the "Gag Rule" has been reinstituted by the GOP infested House,: Recipients of US Aid can't talk about Birth Control or Over-Population. Es verboden! Sieg Heil !
While population is A problem it is not THE problem.
If you look at the numbers you'll see that we need to work on it but cannot "solve" this problem in time to avoid climate chaos. Only reducing inequality and reducing the effects of the lives of the rich will accomplish that. And it turns out that equality, especially of women, and a guarantee of reasonable life even in sickness, age and hard times are what reduce population growth best.
We need to reduce the consumption of the rich, bring the poorest up to a decent material level and reduce the harmful effects of our lives by switching to efficiency, renewable energy and a low- or no-meat diet produced by organic permaculture.
Very true. Add extreme wealth/power concentration to the mix and you get turbocharged entropy
"when the govenrment is showing them that invading Iraq for oil is okay and supporting Israel's continuous robbery of Palestian land is part of accepted political behavior"..........
Yeah... what he said !
We did NOT invade Iraq for oil. We invaded it because AIPAC controls our foreign policy.
Chomsky points out that foreign oil countries ended up with more Iraqi oil than US ones did. Furthermore, is there any doubt that our access to oil is now MORE PRECARIOUS now and in the long run because of our invasion. Let's be honest - if it was about oil, then we would have invaded Venezuela after the failed coup against Chavez.
The only path to peace is to dissolve Israel and force Zionists to pay reparations to those they have harmed worldwide.
"To make the marginalized forget the revolution which Marx spoke of, the capitalists have succeeded in corrupting the mind with pop culture, drugs, liberal sex and pornography with the capitalist-backed media also playing a big role. Visit the websites of Britain's Sun, Daily Mail or Daily Star. They are full of pictures of half-naked celebrities whom the middle class take as role models though most of these so-called stars are intellectually and morally bankrupt."
Ameen, you're getting too theocratic here for my tastes. In the anti-capitalist sixties we enjoyed great pop culture music and art, great liberal sex, psychedelic drug consciousness raising, community and peace and love? What's wrong with that?
Pseudo Communists playing the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock? Honestly, do you really think screaming out against 'narcisitic and unprincipled ideological mush' is anything other than your own mish mashed Marxbabbling-ism served up as mush? Marx must be rolling over in his grave to hear such jello like yours spoken, Murphy. Really, 'Comrade'.
Yes, they are: environmentalism, modern feminism, co-op stores, remaining communes, and the Green Party (founded later, but an outgrowth of that period), among them.
Unfortunately, so is the right-wing backlash that ultimately captured the Democratic Party.
Of course, there was plenty of mushy thinking; that we have always with us, especially among young people exploring new ideas. But over all, the modern progressive movement, to the degree it exists, owes its existence to that period. That's why demonstrations still have too damn much gray hair: the same people are still pursuing the principles they discovered then. That's what "principled" actually means.
I concur. Good reply