This class was similar to the previous ones we have had. During class on 10/5 we talked about a quasi-religion through the student movements. The student movements contributed potentially radical political ideas to the utopia. The ideas they proposed to the movement served as the building ground for wokeism. We started class off with some background history related to the chapters we read for class of “The New Student Left” and “The Berkeley Student Movement”. The Berkeley Student Movement can be referred to as the free speech movement. The author of these chapters was a faculty member at Berkeley in the 60s when this was occurring.
During the reading presentation, the question of is the Old Left similar to the current Right was addressed. It was answered that the Old Left were the political actors that came of age in the 20s,30s, and 40s. The political issues they fought on were not the same at the national or local level. Therefore, no cohesiveness. At the national level they addressed the conflict between Communism and fascism in Europe. Fascism would not have existed without global Communism. Fascism was a challenge to Communism. The Old Left was pro-Soviet and anti-fascist. However, the New Left had a different perspective as the global political situation changed. During the 40s and 50s the crimes that the Soviets committed were discovered. Therefore, people rethought their position on Communism. This brought up how after reading the chapters for class, the perspective of the Vietnam War was also changed.
We discussed the Vietnam War. The purpose of giving details about the movements behind the war was to address many of the misconceptions that we had been taught in school previously or due to the media. It was originally thought that the hippies and peace-oriented groups were leading the anti-war movements. However, these individuals were the cultural part of the New Left. They had particular ideas about how to live one’s life and a certain value system. Overall, they did have a pacifist philosophy. However, they rejected the establishment of politics altogether.
The discussion of hippies brought on the 1968 Democratic Convention. During this convention, it was thought that the most anti-war candidate needed to be nominated. They were hostile to the cultural movement of the New Left. This was because the “hippies” were not cooperating with the ideals of the Democrats politically. They were thought to be getting in the way of their goals and contributing to the defeat of said goals. They Democrats thought that the enemies could point out what the hippies want as what they want.
Then the Vietnam War was further discussed on how there was substantial change between 1967 and 1968. In 1968 it was thought that fighting this war was defending freedom and defending capitalism. However, it was difficult to keep up this position within the United States. The movements at the time thought of capitalism as a produced inequality and created conflict in society. Thus, the movements made it hard to sustain the war effort. The New Left was discouraging to the political elites; thus, they gave up and left the Vietnamese on their own.
The New Student Movement became interested in the Vietnam War in the 60s. However, the war was not their main concern. Free speech was the central concern. They drew from their interest in the war, as they were interested in violence because they themselves wanted to be violent. This group viewed themselves as a defining change in society. They thought that they were going to be the generation to bring great change. In order to achieve this revolution, they were characterizing themselves through outrage and anger.
Overall, the demographics of this group was young people. They received criticism about being the great change makers. This was because they knew less about historical questions than the older generations. They were criticized for their competence and knowledge. Thus, it created a generational conflict. The young people thought that they could fix what their parents screwed up. They thought that they were the future. The students believed in a self-righteous position to solve the issues. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, however, did not believe in free speech. They justified limiting discussion and debated, as they thought that only they had the calling. Free speech was limited to their side and they shut down positions they did not like. This position was similar to the ones voiced in the Russian Student Movement.
After identifying the position of the new student movement, we talked about their ironic issues that they were concerned with. How they thought of the student as a student was similar to the ways that intellects tried to identify themselves with the proletariat. The students of this movement felt they could identify with the poor southern black people living under the Jim Crow laws. This was ironic as these were college students from elite universities, most of whom came from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. The students thought of themselves as unfree. They believe that the campus was a machine, and they were the raw materials. They believed that they were hapless victims of the system in the same way that the Jim Crow laws were crushing the black people in the South or the American War Machine was crushing the Vietnamese. This ironic position transitioned to the last theme of class.
We ended class by discussing whether there was a legitimate reason for the formation of the New Student Left. From the beginning of the movement there was a propensity to authoritarianism. The individuals who made up the movement were skewed toward elite campuses such as those from the middle to upper middle class. Therefore, is there any way to justify the legitimacy of this movement’s claim? This group had support to back up their statements. On page 396, it was stated that there was suffering of society as a whole. This political and social movement was taking on a utopian complex. They recognized that the social and political conditions that we live in cannot be escaped. However, it was thought that the problems can be tolerated and be able to live with them. Overall, the goal was to get rid of the hierarchy in human society.
Comparisons between the New Student Left and the quasi-Communist movement can be drawn. Both of these movements have the same criticism. Each group wanted to move the utopia into this world. The purpose was to expand the utopia to all of these movements. Although, the goals of the utopia were never realized.
The criticism conversation transitioned us into the last topic of the night. The end of class we were talking about the “Weather Underground”. Both Ayers and Bourne understood the historical record and risks of a political movement. They were committed to the utopia and defeating the capitalists, and therefore became a spy. Ultimately, they were able to make a deal with the authorities and received light sentences. After serving their time, both became college professors and made justifications for what they did. They thought that it was so important to pursue a particular set of goals for the utopian movements, that the methods were justified. This highlights the vindication of the system. The system allowed them to engage in terrorist activities and then they were imprisoned. From there they bargained and were able to live normal lives. This shows that it is not a totalitarian regime, as they were suggesting.
We wrapped up by starting to talk about the concept of participatory democracy. This type of system is neither participative or democratic in practice. It is a theory that was borrowed from Leninism. It suggested that political activity should be total equality, transparency, and freedom. However, in reality it is the complete opposite of it. This set up allows for a restricted viewpoint and to eliminate any inconvenient perspectives. Therefore, stopping opposition allowed the movement to flourish.