Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    You speak of why when what i have posted does not say why? This social change is not of natural making, it has been influenced massively. The creation and continuation has been taken and manipulated by other means as I have shown with the case of attitudes of Enoch Powell.
    Society is comprised of individuals; individuals have made the choice to behave in a particular way, which influences the salient sociocultural themes seen in this country.

    People are free to form their own political party or vote for far-right ones if they share your ideology or beliefs, but they don't. Blame your fellow residents.

    Well yet again you have shown a complete lack of care of community and culture.
    I treat everyone as individuals.

    It is not surprising that you do not let it have much sway on your views on history if you yourself ignore it upon you. You have yet again avoided a question where it asks you directly to associate yourself with a culture.
    Like everyone else, I am the product of innumerable cultural influences.

    Your perspective, which is the billiard-ball model of culture, was refuted by Wolf in 1982.

    You first changed my question of what set of people you would see yourself more at home with.
    I'm not obliged to answer a question that presupposes something (in this case, that somebody's national identity necessarily has a bearing on their sociocultural propinquity to me). I gravitate towards whichever individuals share that which I consider to be important in a person; this does not necessarily coincide with their national identity, so the information I have been given about the people (their national identity) does not confer valuable information.

    Now you have decided not to answer my question entirely of if you like where society is going.
    I treat everyone as individuals, so this question isn't relevant to my social perspective. There has never been a point where any given British person could get along with any other given British person—this belief that there is or has been sociocultural homogeneity is a baseless myth. I gravitate towards the individuals who share that which I consider to be important in a person.

    Why are you so concerned about the actions of people you do not know and will never meet?

    If you want to have a debate you need to stop bending the questions put on you, We do not move the debate on if you choose to not confront these questions.

    For the record although i mentioned the BNP in my original post, UKIP are far more likely to get my vote.
    If you want to have a debate you need to stop avoiding the questions presented to you; the debate cannot progress if you avoid confronting these questions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What makes you think artificial concepts like religion, 'race', discrete cultural units, exclusive heterosexual marriage, etc. are natural? You're very uneducated. :erm: None of them withstand scrutiny and all of them are demonstrably socially constructed in their natures. Change is inevitable: I've already told you that you don't have social contact with everyone in this country, so you cannot expect there to be a nationwide homogeneity of values. You do not derive your values from the entire British populace, you derive them from the limited number of social contacts you encounter in your life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    What makes you think artificial concepts like religion, 'race', discrete cultural units, exclusive heterosexual marriage, etc. are natural? You're very uneducated. :erm: None of them withstand scrutiny and all of them are demonstrably socially constructed in their natures. Change is inevitable: I've already told you that you don't have social contact with everyone in this country, so you cannot expect there to be a nationwide homogeneity of values. You do not derive your values from the entire British populace, you derive them from the limited number of social contacts you encounter in your life.
    The context of me using natural was that of how society has been influenced and not come about by it's own means, it was very clear in the perspective I gave it, not some biological genetic traits. So someone throwing insults around about education should look more closely.

    Change is inevitable of course, but this cultural schism is more of a social experiment being played about with by other means.

    No I do not have contact with everyone, but there are still areas that will bind us in more ways than another country. Will not there be more of those in this country that place emphasis on historical events such as the battle of Britain, Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada?
    Won't there be more in this country that see the significance of 1066, the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell.
    Instead of learning a second language of English, won't it be more the English themselves who appreciate the journey the language has taken taking it's bite from Latin, Greek, to even the french and many more.
    Won't there be those that see the significance of Henry VIII's decision, where as on the continent they will put more emphasis on Martin Luther in the protestant reform?

    The list is endless and spreads it gaze far beyond that of the bit of History here.

    So you say we have differences and i agree, but as above, the English will have idea's of importance that influence them in ways differently, as in every country.
    It is without question that these events are more prevalent in the minds of the English, so as always it is the amount of numbers. While I cannot go around everyone in the country, I can be certain that these events vary from country to country. So as you say we are a product of our surroundings and the English are quite a product. It is a question of numbers, and those numbers are changing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why are you selectively quoting me? If your argument is correct you should be able to refute everything I say.

    (Original post by Fides)
    The context of me using natural was that of how society has been influenced and not come about by it's own means, it was very clear in the perspective I gave it, not some biological genetic traits. So someone throwing insults around about education should look more closely.
    How do you make the distinction? Individuals make the choice to acquire and/or enact any given cultural themes of the people around them. You are not identical to your parents or grandparents because you have chosen to acquire and discard certain cultural themes from them and other people. The same applies to everyone else.

    Change is inevitable of course, but this cultural schism is more of a social experiment being played about with by other means.
    Division and multiculturalism exist everywhere, as I have explained in my previous posts.

    No I do not have contact with everyone, but there are still areas that will bind us in more ways than another country. Will not there be more of those in this country that place emphasis on historical events such as the battle of Britain, Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada?
    Won't there be more in this country that see the significance of 1066, the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell.
    Instead of learning a second language of English, won't it be more the English themselves who appreciate the journey the language has taken taking it's bite from Latin, Greek, to even the french and many more.
    Won't there be those that see the significance of Henry VIII's decision, where as on the continent they will put more emphasis on Martin Luther in the protestant reform?
    I don't see how this matters in day-to-day affairs; hence, these things do not bind anyone. How many people form their friends on the basis of whether or not someone is conscious of the Battle of Britain, Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada? :confused:

    The list is endless and spreads it gaze far beyond that of the bit of History here.
    How does the present alter historical facts? As long as this country exists, those things are parts of this country's history.

    So you say we have differences and i agree, but as above, the English will have idea's of importance that influence them in ways differently, as in every country.
    It is without question that these events are more prevalent in the minds of the English, so as always it is the amount of numbers. While I cannot go around everyone in the country, I can be certain that these events vary from country to country. So as you say we are a product of our surroundings and the English are quite a product. It is a question of numbers, and those numbers are changing.
    No. Ask random British people how much the things you have listed influence their contemporary lives. I expect many of them won't even know what most of them are, let alone consider them important or binding. If the response of my peers in secondary school history lessons is anything to go by, I am quite sure that most people are not conscious of historical events. Why exactly is this a bad thing?

    They are more prevalent in the minds of people who consider such things to be important—again, this does not necessarily coincide with an individual's national identity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ah yes, the classic 'Cultural Marxism' conspiracy theory thread. It's quite easy to make your own, it goes like this:

    1. Make a list of things you don't like. Stuff like immigration, 'political correctness', gay people, etc are the usual picks.

    2. Use Wikipedia or Google to find some prominent philosophers who called themselves 'Cultural Marxists'. Finding out what these philosophers actually talked and wrote about is unnecessary.

    3. Claim that the people you looked up in Part 2 are responsible for the things in Part 1 through infiltrating government, universities, etc. Providing any supporting evidence is unnecessary.


    (Original post by Fides)
    In WW1/WW2 the people rose up to protect their lands and their ways of life to fight with other men.
    I'm unsure whether to be amused or disgusted by the characterisation of the World Wars (especially WW1) as 'the people rising up'.

    There was no rising up on both sides against Capitalism
    Yes, there was. There were left-wing uprisings all over Europe and the USA following WW1. That they were all put down except the Russian Revolution doesn't mean they didn't happen.

    Antonio Gramsci, one of Marx's followers was the one who decided that it was fundamental that the culture of a people be removed before the revolution can take place.
    Gramsci said nothing of the sort. In fact almost the opposite - as the link you posted said, he considered capitalism to be creating a 'cultural hegemony'.

    There is literally no explanation of why anything else you've mentioned constitutes 'Cultural Marxism' (which by the way, is a mode of analysis and not prescriptive).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I suspect Fides is one of those people who doesn't have much to boast about himself, so is trying to leech off the achievements of people in the past. Hence the references to "British culture" and history. Trying to blame "cultural marxism" is just a vain attempt to intellectualise what is simply Daily Mail style resistance to change.

    The fact is, times change and societies move on: Britain is not the same place it was in the Edwardian times, Victorian times, pre-Union times etc. That doesn't mean that we should stop all progress; change is good. And it certainly doesn't mean there must be some fantastic sinister force behind it all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Why are you selectively quoting me? If your argument is correct you should be able to refute everything I say.
    The debate has boiled down to recognising whether there is a culture further than the individual, a lot of what you say stems from that.

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    How do you make the distinction? Individuals make the choice to acquire and/or enact any given cultural themes of the people around them. You are not identical to your parents or grandparents because you have chosen to acquire and discard certain cultural themes from them and other people. The same applies to everyone else.
    The distinction was the clear context of the word that you misinterpreted, so your just digging yourself a hole on a irrelevant point.

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    I don't see how this matters in day-to-day affairs; hence, these things do not bind anyone. How many people form their friends on the basis of whether or not someone is conscious of the Battle of Britain, Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada? :confused:

    No. Ask random British people how much the things you have listed influence their contemporary lives. I expect many of them won't even know what most of them are, let alone consider them important or binding. If the response of my peers in secondary school history lessons is anything to go by, I am quite sure that most people are not conscious of historical events. Why exactly is this a bad thing?

    They are more prevalent in the minds of people who consider such things to be important—again, this does not necessarily coincide with an individual's national identity.
    We both agree that we are products of our surroundings, so what we are exposed to will all add their bit to "you".

    So in the case of some of the historical events I mentioned, I am not saying that it is just these events that give rise to a culture. So to single out any one event will of course not get across the importance of what I am trying to say. But what I am saying is that they are part of the building blocks of that culture. History is just one part of the multitude of things that people will share.

    People going day to day will not single out the Armada to change their mind (will never say never though). History is an easy example of showing that there is a likeness across the country. Some of my examples will not be as well known as others, but there was a point about numbers. I will be more likely to find people who see them as important in this country. While myself and those people will have differences with each other, we will still share something that we see as more important than say another group on another topic in China.

    But lets find an example that your peers in secondary school will find more of a likeness on. The huge cloud of WW2 is hard to ignore, I am sure if you would be hard to find those who do not have a opinion on it. Most British people would find a sense of unity on this subject which would be different to say those in Russia and Germany.

    While I have used History as my main examples here, do not get caught up in them solely.




    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    As long as this country exists, those things are parts of this country's history.
    Ah, music to my ears. Probably the most significant thing you have said. That statement is such a contrast to how you first came into this.

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    What is the basis of distinction between 'our culture' and 'other cultures'? What do you and I share?
    If you have now opened up History and a sense of country, well the flood gate is open to everything else. All that we could mention would go on for pages and pages, all of the these things would then amount to what I and many others would call a culture. It is then not so difficult to see the changes in this country.


    While you like to put so much emphasis on the individual, which isn't a bad thing entirely. It is best to remind you that being on the society page of the forum, maybe looking up what sociology is would be best. While I do not study the subject I do like to look into it.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Fides)
      Since WW2 this country and much of the West has undergone massive social change. From culture, behaviour and demographics. We have seen Christianity plummet, family break ups in huge numbers and the idea planted that we are no longer a British Society but a Multicultural society.

      Our whole way of life is different to that of a hundred years ago, where we are going changes from each decade and few know where we are going or why this has even happened.

      ...

      Do you want this new society?[/COLOR][/LEFT]
      Changes in social life, culture, values and demographics since WWII have more than anything else been driven by the advance of political liberalism combined with the effects of globalising capitalism, so it's more than a little ironic that you think it's all a Marxist conspiracy. Societies change, in particular large and urban societies change. British society at the end of nineteenth-century was very different to British society at the end of the eighteenth-century for example, thanks primarily to the effects of advances in agriculure and the industrial revolution.

      If I had a choice I'd always want to live in a society with greater cultural opportunity than less and I certainly don't want someone like you telling me what religion I should follow, what music I should like, what food I should eat and what clothes I should wear.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Fides)
      The debate has boiled down to recognising whether there is a culture further than the individual, a lot of what you say stems from that.
      That doesn't render the rest of what I'm saying irrelevant.

      The distinction was the clear context of the word that you misinterpreted, so your just digging yourself a hole on a irrelevant point.
      I'm not sure how this answers my question. You haven't explained how you distinguish between 'natural' (whatever that means) and artificial change.

      We both agree that we are products of our surroundings, so what we are exposed to will all add their bit to "you".
      And since we are not exposed to the same things or people, it is apparent that we have exposure to different cultures; hence, the juxtaposition of any two people creates a state of multiculturalism.

      So in the case of some of the historical events I mentioned, I am not saying that it is just these events that give rise to a culture. So to single out any one event will of course not get across the importance of what I am trying to say. But what I am saying is that they are part of the building blocks of that culture. History is just one part of the multitude of things that people will share.
      It is part of the spatial culture (I expand on this concept below), which applies to everything that occurs in any given geographical space.

      People going day to day will not single out the Armada to change their mind (will never say never though). History is an easy example of showing that there is a likeness across the country. Some of my examples will not be as well known as others, but there was a point about numbers. I will be more likely to find people who see them as important in this country. While myself and those people will have differences with each other, we will still share something that we see as more important than say another group on another topic in China.
      The same applies to everything. With any given person you will share some things but not others, which is why it is my position that multiculturalism is everywhere and we all hold multiple, non-concordant cultural identities simultaneously.

      But lets find an example that your peers in secondary school will find more of a likeness on. The huge cloud of WW2 is hard to ignore, I am sure if you would be hard to find those who do not have a opinion on it. Most British people would find a sense of unity on this subject which would be different to say those in Russia and Germany.

      While I have used History as my main examples here, do not get caught up in them solely.
      I'm not sure what your point is here. This does not mean it is important or influential to any given Briton's social affairs. Somebody (you, for example) who is a nationalist, cares about history and is conservative will hold this cultural identity at the forefront of their persona, but this doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to do so or that the absence of people who share those sentiments is indicative of a decline of 'British culture'. Somebody who considers fox hunting, received pronunciation and fawning over the Royal Family to be important may consider the decline of these things to be indicative of the decline of 'British culture', but this doesn't make much sense. Luddites may consider the Internet, use of mobile phones, GPS systems, etc. to be indicative of a decline of 'British culture'. People who consider a woman's place to be in the kitchen and adopt a 'seen but not heard' perspective may consider the decline of this cultural lineage to be indicative of a decline of 'British culture'. Anything that occurs in the geographical space known as 'Britain' is British culture; there cannot be a decline, there can only be a change. Since you acknowledge the absence of national-scale sociocultural homogeneity (where you said everyone is different), it is apparent that you acknowledge the fact that people ascribe different levels of importance to the various cultural identities they hold; in doing so, everyone is constantly changing the cultural landscape of Britain. Various people will complain about the presence or absence of people doing X, Y and Z, but none of these people's arguments amount to anything more than an opinion that will treat various individuals (Britons and non-Britons alike) as friends or enemies depending on what that opinion is. It is not the case that simply being from Britain and having an ancestral relation to WWII means it is necessarily important to a person.

      The significance of any given change is contingent on your individual perspective of—from all the things that occur in Britain—what is considered socially 'important'. The Luddite may look at you, your parents and grandparents using the Internet and say you are a product of an unnatural cultural shift; you may look at an atheist, pro-gay marriage single parent and say they are the product of an unnatural cultural shift. You may also consider anyone who doesn't share your perspective on WWII to be outside the undefined boundaries of 'British culture' (others won't, as they do not ascribe importance to this dimension). You're both looking at a single dimension of the multidimensional thing that is British culture, falsely up-scaling that single dimension to the national level (calling it non-spatial British culture), then declaring the decline of this single dimension amongst Britons is indicative of the decline of 'British culture'. It isn't—it is the decline of one dimension of British culture; you are free to attempt to transfer this dimension to other people if you wish, but they are not obliged to accept it. This is what I meant by the parents/grandparents example: you have chosen to discard some of their cultural traits in favour of other people's (which is why you are not identical to them). In doing so, you have contributed to the termination of that sociocultural lineage. Irrespective of whether or not they consider those traits to be important, it doesn't mean you have been indoctrinated by an artificial cultural re-education because you have chosen to discard them—it simply means you do not value them to the same extent (and there is no reason you should be obliged to do so).

      Ah, music to my ears. Probably the most significant thing you have said. That statement is such a contrast to how you first came into this.
      Okay.

      If you have now opened up History and a sense of country, well the flood gate is open to everything else. All that we could mention would go on for pages and pages, all of the these things would then amount to what I and many others would call a culture. It is then not so difficult to see the changes in this country.
      A spatial culture, where 'British culture' is whatever occurs in the geographical space known as 'Britain'.

      While you like to put so much emphasis on the individual, which isn't a bad thing entirely. It is best to remind you that being on the society page of the forum, maybe looking up what sociology is would be best. While I do not study the subject I do like to look into it.
      My views on culture relate to sociology, psychology and philosophy.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      Changes in social life, culture, values and demographics since WWII have more than anything else been driven by the advance of political liberalism combined with the effects of globalising capitalism, so it's more than a little ironic that you think it's all a Marxist conspiracy.
      I am stating that what they wanted to happen has taken root.
      Look at Japan for example, a well established capitalist country that has not had the change in society we have had.


      (Original post by Oswy)
      Societies change, in particular large and urban societies change. British society at the end of nineteenth-century was very different to British society at the end of the eighteenth-century for example, thanks primarily to the effects of advances in agriculure and the industrial revolution.
      Yes, but they are completely different fields to society. They would have had there influences ofcourse. But what has happened in regard to what I have mentioned family/immigration etc has had more of a change.


      (Original post by Oswy)
      If I had a choice I'd always want to live in a society with greater cultural opportunity than less and I certainly don't want someone like you telling me what religion I should follow, what music I should like, what food I should eat and what clothes I should wear.
      I have not told what to do, I have given some problems in society and some of the reasons why behind them.


      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Very good post. The communists always wanted to destroy the ' capatalist ' west but economicially they could not do it so they shifted their focus to cultural arena -- hence the name cultural Marxism.

      PC or cultural Marxism is essentially a racist conspiracy against the west and its majority people. PC types, if they know It or not, are agents of the conspiracy.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      That doesn't render the rest of what I'm saying irrelevant.

      You're both looking at a single dimension of the multidimensional thing that is British culture, falsely up-scaling that single dimension to the national level (calling it non-spatial British culture), then declaring the decline of this single dimension amongst Britons is indicative of the decline of 'British culture'. It isn't—it is the decline of one dimension of British culture;
      You are desperately trying to tip toe around the fact there is a national identity. There are differences as we have said, and your differences do not put you in that identity, fair enough. Your argument speaks for yourself though not of the country. I am sure that if we still asked how people associated themselves in terms of culture a significant amount would say British, instead of the culture of I.

      So you have now changed your position, but it has been given the title of one dimension. Ok. So that one dimension includes what I have stated in my original post, do you like it that that one dimension is being lost?
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Fides)
      You are desperately trying to tip toe around the fact there is a national identity.
      I've explained how a shared identity does not necessarily indicate a shared substance. Although the following quote addresses 'race', the findings are applicable across the board (indicated by the fact that your conception of 'British culture' clearly doesn't match other people's conceptions of 'British culture'). Just because it has the same name, it doesn't mean it has the same connotations.

      Spoiler:
      Show
      "But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability.However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology" (Hunt, 2008).


      There are differences as we have said, and your differences do not put you in that identity, fair enough. Your argument speaks for yourself though not of the country. I am sure that if we still asked how people associated themselves in terms of culture a significant amount would say British, instead of the culture of I.
      Yet, these same people won't be able to tell me and/or won't have a mutual understanding of
      • what 'British culture' is,
      • how the things with which they identify are 'British', and
      • how a non-spatial concept of 'British culture' is logically tenable.


      The label of non-spatial 'British culture' disintegrates under scrutiny, so how people identify with something is inconsequential to the reality of cultural heterogeneity. My argument applies to everyone, but not everyone acknowledges it. If you acknowledge the state of cultural heterogeneity, how can you simultaneously believe the single label of 'British culture' means anything? Then we need to account for the fact that the term 'culture' is itself replete with semantic ambiguity; in a systematic cross-disciplinary literature review, Faulkner et al. (2006) found 313 separate definitions for 'culture'. This study was an update of Kroeber and Kluckhohn's (1952) study that found 164 separate definitions.

      So you have now changed your position, but it has been given the title of one dimension. Ok. So that one dimension includes what I have stated in my original post, do you like it that that one dimension is being lost?
      How have I changed my position?
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Fides)
        I am stating that what they wanted to happen has taken root.

        Look at Japan for example, a well established capitalist country that has not had the change in society we have had.

        Yes, but they are completely different fields to society. They would have had there influences ofcourse. But what has happened in regard to what I have mentioned family/immigration etc has had more of a change.

        I have not told what to do, I have given some problems in society and some of the reasons why behind them.
        I don't think it makes much sense to suggest that Marxists have 'wanted' to see the advance of liberal capitalism across the globe, which is what has happened. If there has been any external influence on Japan's social and cultural life it has been US foreign policy - are you suggesting that US foreign policy is Marxist now?

        You seem to be pussyfooting - do you think you, or some other 'authority', has the right to tell me what clothes I should wear, what food I should like, what music I should listen to and what God I should worship? If you accept that such things should be matters of personal preference then you are in agreement with me.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Fides)
        I am stating that what they wanted to happen has taken root.
        Look at Japan for example, a well established capitalist country that has not had the change in society we have had.
        There have been massive, sweeping changes in Japan's society since the end of WW2.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Fides)
        I am stating that what they wanted to happen has taken root.
        No, it hasn't.

        The 1960s was the great era of radical and liberation movements, peaking in the May 1968 uprising in France. Yet most Marxists consider it a failure, because the movements allowed focus to be shifted to social conservatism rather than keeping economic issues in the public debate as well. Take the Civil Rights movement - it removed the political impoverishment of African Americans but failed to do much about their economic impoverishment.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Fides)
        Do you want this new society?
        Yes please! Its awesome.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by whyumadtho)
        Yet, these same people won't be able to tell me and/or won't have a mutual understanding of
        • what 'British culture' is,
        • how the things with which they identify are 'British', and
        • how a non-spatial concept of 'British culture' is logically tenable.

        Yet those people who can't put words to something as a culture will still feel that something is there. Because you cannot get an answer out of them under scrutiny you deny all aspects of there being one? Have you tried asking yourself why they would think there is a culture?

        The truth is those people will still have an understanding of one thing. Familiarity. They will as of most people, recognise where they are more likely to fit in.

        If you cannot see the differences in familiarity to two main groups in the UK say White British and British Pakistani. Then your ideology has stripped away all basic observational rationality.

        Now is it logically tenable your final point, well as I have stated there are some major social issues regarding family for example which stems from culture and where we are as a people of our attitudes towards it. The negative consequences are all too obvious, but I see that as a bad thing. You on the other hand probably won't, let alone try and tackle the issue.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by anarchism101)
        No, it hasn't.

        The 1960s was the great era of radical and liberation movements, peaking in the May 1968 uprising in France. Yet most Marxists consider it a failure, because the movements allowed focus to be shifted to social conservatism rather than keeping economic issues in the public debate as well. Take the Civil Rights movement - it removed the political impoverishment of African Americans but failed to do much about their economic impoverishment.
        Yes the 1960's it took hold massively, but it has not ended there. Whether it peaked then or not doesn't matter, the point is it still going on that liberal movement is still going on.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Carecup)
        There have been massive, sweeping changes in Japan's society since the end of WW2.
        Yes there have, but not the same in what the west has seen.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.