I am still getting some comments from the Cait blog comments box about my theories on post capitalism. I am going to have to cut this off pretty soon but I think I have some material here that could be worked into a nice blog article. I have been planning something for awhile on the topic.

One commentator on my commentating is also from Toronto. He concluded by telling me he thinks Ontario Premier Bucket Head Doug is “the right guy” for the province. I bet he lives in Etobicoke south.

I discovered I have been corresponding with an aging Hippie chick from the 1970s. She remembers the “yeah, but what are you for?” line. She found it dishonest and did not answer because she thought such people would not understand the answer anyway.

Yes, it is basically a dishonest riff. That is why it was such a good opportunity to counterpunch. The key is, you have to really know what you are for. Then you launch the fifteen minute pitch, leaving them without much to answer back.

That question also worked pretty well in the 1980s against the Miltie Friedman types. But it was most effective when followed up with “And where has that ever actually worked?” Ah, the good old days.

Yes, the hippies were different from the student activists. I was never part of either. The “sex, drugs, rock n’ roll always happened somewhere I wasn’t. Some people just practiced their alternate lifestyle and parts of it did become the norm in society for subsequent generations.

What annoyed me was the people who made a display about their counterculture style, like it made them morally superior. I bet their kids are the “woke” types of today.

But in this thread, I am more concerned about the student radical types, especially the “flower powers”. They struck me as being mostly about some anarchist vision of society; tearing down most government institutions. I did not trust them at all.

But I repeat that my problem was and is that they had no real ideas about what they wanted. They assumed everything was going to keep getting better on its own. The right wing reaction of the 1980s just moved into a vacuum.

Between then and now, you still have the same types of bubble heads. The first difference is that instead of unrealistic optimism, they are hung up in unrealistic pessimism. But the most important difference is that this time we have people with a clear idea of what they want as a replacement to the current arrangements.

These people understand that it is not going to happen by itself. It will not happen by everyone throwing out “peace and love” vibes. Also, there is no point in waking people up if you have nothing to show them; after awhile they just go back to sleep. Right, Cait?

One commentator on this thread criticized Cait as seeming unaware that whatever change she seems to be advocating will only come about from a revolution which is likely to be violent. By golly, it does seem that way, doesn’t it? Corrupt oligarchies usually do not go away without a fight.

Corrupt oligarchies are never as formidable as they appear. They fall regularly. Then the question is; are the leaders of the resistance surprised at their own success? Do they have a clue what to do next? When they only know what they are against, and not what they are for, what they are trying to do, oligarchies tend to regroup and come back.

But there is the point I started out trying to make. You will never end capitalism until you have post capitalism figured out. I have spent enough time on this thread. I have compost to haul around today.

Sometime soon, I will use this discussion as a base for another brilliant blog post.