What was the legacy of the 1960s?

[Anonymous]

I was born in 1975, so that decade is a mystery to me. But, it seems that is the decade that gave

birth to the feeling of entitlement today.

That is not true.



The period of 64 to 69 re-defined society, and importantly, set a path towards re-defining the social contract between governments and their people.



A comment was made above that mistakes were made in the 60's. Whatever those "mistakes", they pale in comparison to the catastrophic and howling aberrations the previous generation inflicted on the world, starting with two world wars, a nuclear holocaust, and invading other countries because their political tenets and principles did not match your own ideology. That generation slaughtered millions.



And in 1961, the US President committed its sons to a war in Vietnam that had no basis in reason or virtue. The US commandeered other nations to join them in this battle for "the true path", and they in turn conscripted their men to go forth and die in a jungle that had no influence on their homeland whatsoever.



The youth of the 60's, tired of the old guard, their contraints, demand for total compliance in both culture and governance and their passion for war grew restless. The cultural tsunami led by, of all things, popular music turned into a political earthquake that set the agenda of change we feel even today.



So many shibboleths were challenged...such as women being treated as lesser beings than men or black people being lynched for demanding equality...and dismantled in lieu of fairness and a a more just society for better or in some cases, worse.



But no-one can predict the longer term effects of social change, because humans are startlingly unpredictable.

We are arguing two different things. The growth of government took off in the late sixties. It hasn't slowed down since.

[Bricktop]

There are a number of problems created by the social changes arising from the 1960's.



However, that statement is valid no matter which era you place at the end of the sentence.



I am not convinced that the huge government bureaucracies and burdensome political class are a product of the 60's. They were there long before 1960, and I suspect they are more a product of the 40's and 50's, with a large period of growth during the war when government departments controlled virtually all aspects of society.



Governments would find it difficult to wage wars without a bureaucracy to manage the masses.

[Anonymous]

The 150 years since Confederation have witnessed a transition of the federal government from its primary concern with the active economic development of a state grounded in liberal economic principles to an activist role partly aimed at bringing about a more egalitarian state via redistribution. This led to an expansion of the federal government's spending in the 1960's that, in the absence of more concerted fiscal discipline and given the slowdown in economic growth, ultimately was a factor in the debt crisis of the 1990s.

[Bricktop]

However, there is no connection between the social upheaval and fiscal expenditure.



The 60's revolution was about social change to address inherent injustices in society, not financial inequity.



For the most part, the post war period was a period of economic growth, and almost full employment.



The 60's revolution was far more focussed on irrational wars, social injustices, government control and institutionalised conformity of dress standards and acceptable behaviour. For example, people were turned away from court hearings if their hair was too long...or they were denied employment if they did not wear a dark suit, white shirt and black tie.



Socialist driven resistance and armed uprisings were more a product of the 70's.

[Anonymous]

However, there is no connection between the social upheaval and fiscal expenditure.



The 60's revolution was about social change to address inherent injustices in society, not financial inequity.



For the most part, the post war period was a period of economic growth, and almost full employment.



The 60's revolution was far more focussed on irrational wars, social injustices, government control and institutionalised conformity of dress standards and acceptable behaviour. For example, people were turned away from court hearings if their hair was too long...or they were denied employment if they did not wear a dark suit, white shirt and black tie.



Socialist driven resistance and armed uprisings were more a product of the 70's.

I am not saying all of the spending programs created in the sixties were bad, but most of the welfare state in Canada was introduced in that decade. They all have huge expensive bureaucracies that are sacred cows to those on the left and cowardly conservatives.

[Superchecker]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

[Anonymous]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

Do you sing Superchecker?

 

[Superchecker]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

Do you sing Superchecker?

 

Not professionally  

[Anonymous]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

Do you sing Superchecker?

 

Not professionally  

We should got to karaoke together some time.

[Superchecker]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

Do you sing Superchecker?

 

Not professionally  

We should got to karaoke together some time.

Well, it's Saturday night, You're all dressed up in blue, I've been watching you awhile, maybe you've been watching me to

[Anonymous]

The Monkeys



The Beatles



Neil Diamond



Me

Do you sing Superchecker?

 

Not professionally  

We should got to karaoke together some time.

Well, it's Saturday night, You're all dressed up in blue, I've been watching you awhile, maybe you've been watching me to

Tougher Than the Rest by Bruce Springsteen.

[Bricktop]

However, there is no connection between the social upheaval and fiscal expenditure.



The 60's revolution was about social change to address inherent injustices in society, not financial inequity.



For the most part, the post war period was a period of economic growth, and almost full employment.



The 60's revolution was far more focussed on irrational wars, social injustices, government control and institutionalised conformity of dress standards and acceptable behaviour. For example, people were turned away from court hearings if their hair was too long...or they were denied employment if they did not wear a dark suit, white shirt and black tie.



Socialist driven resistance and armed uprisings were more a product of the 70's.

I am not saying all of the spending programs created in the sixties were bad, but most of the welfare state in Canada was introduced in that decade. They all have huge expensive bureaucracies that are sacred cows to those on the left and cowardly conservatives.

The welfare State was created in Britain long before 1960.



In fact, handing out welfare, or providing "alms to the poor" was known in medieval times, usually administered by the great Catholic monasteries before Henry began the program of Church reform that saw the end of Catholicism in Britain.



Social welfare programs did not arise as a result of the 60's. At the risk of being repetitive, the upheaval and turbulence was more about social change than fiscal reform. Whilst it cannot be denied that "socialism" was a key player, we must be careful not to equate ALL socialism with tyranny and ruin. Creating a more equal, fairer and just society is not a bad thing. And the post war period up until the 60's was far from fair, equal or just, with it's arrogant dictatorial excess peaking when it conscripted young men to go to war in a country no-one knew anything about, purportedly to halt the advance of communism - the flawed and irrational "Domino Theory" that underpinned America's foreign policy.



This disgrace alone was enough to ignite rage and realisation in western countries; that our governments acted as if they were gods, and sending people to die was rational and right.



The 60's revolution was ignited by popular culture that rejected the stifled and benign 50's conformity, and once the youth realised it had the power to make real changes to our world, they realised that this could be converted into political power that saw the end of the Vietnam War, equal rights and pay for women and non-whites, an end to dictatorial government policies, a more rational justice system, and a recognition of the rights of the individual to choose their own lifestyle which rejected the choking constraints of "normality".



This political power eventually gave the far left courage to become more militant and aggressive in implementing socialism...but this became more a phenomenon of the 70's.

[Anonymous]

Most of Canada's social welfare programs were created in the sixties.Welfare state, is a term that was apparently first used in the English language in 1941 in a book written by William Temple, Archbishop of York, England. For many years after, postwar British society was frequently characterized (often pejoratively) as a "welfare state," but by the 1960s the term commonly denoted an industrial capitalist society in which state power was "deliberately used (through politics and administration) in an effort to modify the play of market forces." For Asa Briggs, the author of this definition in an article appearing in The Welfare State (1967), there are three types of welfare state activities: provision of minimum income, provision for the reduction of economic insecurity resulting from such "contingencies" as sickness, old age and unemployment, and provision to all members of society of a range of social services. Under this definition, Canada became a welfare state after the passage of the social welfare reforms of the 1960s.

[Bricktop]

Not being a scholar of Canadian socio-political history, I must take your word.



However, tying that to the social revolution of the 60's is, in my view, erroneous.



The revolution was a cultural phenomenon, not a political one. That came later, as I claim above. Not ALL initiatives and government policies can be attributed to the social changes that were occurring during that period. The major political angst was directed at the Vietnam War and verified social, rather than economical injustices. Another cause for street protests was South Africa's apartheid, and these protests led to most western governments isolating South Africa and putting embargoes on trade, travel and political recognition.



Most civil disruption was directed at war and repression, not demands for welfare.

[Anonymous]

I don't have a problem with a social safety net. But, the huge bureaucracies they create in this country are pure money wasters.