From the article: "The advantage of mindfulness lies in the interiority it encourages: it keeps your employees quiet and more inclined to accept unreasonable demands on their time and energy."
Union-busting has come so far since the goon squad era.
Lots of creative fact-ery in this article. Just for one, take the assertion: "In any case, the counterculture was always a middle-class phenomenon." One of the primary features of CC was rejection of middle-class values. See 'The Graduate'. Listen to 'Crown of Creation'.
Reminds me of a PBS series called "Making Sense of the Sixties". It failed miserably at that.
ps- this is a media word, not a cultural word, and always has been.. those who ascribe to common cultural practices do not refer to themselves this way, at least in the Western USA.. it might be slightly derogatory, like the n-word, also like the n-word, is used daily still.
I was part of the counterculture in the '60s and '70s. We called ourselves hippies and freaks.
And we called people who were not hippies or freaks "straight". This did not refer to sexual preference, but meant someone you should not share your dope with.
"Dope" meant grass or ganja, which we might refer to as pot or cannabis today, or as young people call it, "weed".
Some straights used "hippie" or "freak" as derogatory terms, but we took them as a badge of pride.
Major correction! Straight vs. freak wasn't really about who you could share your grass with. Of course if someone was a freak or hippie, you knew they would appreciate your sharing it.
But someone could look straight and still be cool. Once you knew they were cool, pass them a joint!
... been dragging this acronym as a definition around since the 90's, of course its probably way older. A hippie is a, "highly intelligent person, pursuing infinite enlightenment."
What was the deal with those roach clips? I always felt a joint needs a small filter, which I would roll up from harder paper(takes 10 sec). Was it just a Cheech and Chong prop or did hippies really carry those around?
Roach clips were all too real. Everyone I knew rolled the traditional joints with both ends twisted, and we all had roach clips.
The roach was the strongest part of the joint, so it was highly prized and we smoked it right down to the end. No matter that it tasted awful and burned your lips and fingers even with a clip.
I did see a few people roll little filters into their joints, but it was rare. You were wise to do that.
As for myself, I never smoked again after trying a flower vaporizer for the first time a dozen years ago. So much better than burning it!
I didn't mean that hippies were specifically minority races, but that they associated with "minorities" at a time when that was considered scandalous. Back when politicians and the media criticized people for not being racist.
There may be one bit of validity in the comparison, although I have to wonder where the N-word is only "slightly" derogatory as GP said. Quite the opposite, as Wikipedia notes:
Because the term is considered extremely offensive, it is often referred to by the euphemism "the N-word". But it remains in use...by African Americans among themselves.
Indirect link to avoid using the actual word here:
Obviously the degree of offensiveness is vastly different, but there have often been words that would be offensive when used by an outsider but accepted within a group.
If a straight called me a hippie or a freak, it might be an insult. But if another freak - or even even one of my straight friends who was cool - called me a freak, I would take it as a compliment.
(See my other comment for an explanation of the terminology.)
Another example from my childhood: I grew up in an Italian family, and back then you would never want to call an Italian a "wop" or "dago" to their face. In fact you would still be wise to avoid those words.
But my cousins from the Italian side of the family? They called each other "wop" and "dago" all the time! Just normal sibling kidding around.
That's why I find anti-profit movements to be fundamentally disingenuous - the tendency to act in one's own interest is too powerful to ever be sustainably resisted by a broad movement. To preach against something one is very likely to succumb to is manipulative.
I can trust someone who admits that self-interest motivates their actions more than one who claims altruism does.
I run a zero profit project. There are folks who are motivated by taking care of others. There are a lot of young people who draw meaning from that, especially in these times where the world has been messed up by greed
It's really hard to make generalizations about the Rainbow family et. al. I attended a couple of gatherings a while back, and that's it, so take my anecdotally-derived remarks with that grain of salt...
It's not a movement in the organized political sense, but it could be considered a kind of cultural movement. Many of the people who gather live alternative lifestyles all year 'round, and many of them do eschew the profit-motive as a way of life and ideology, AFAIK. Certainly the gatherings themselves are sans currency. People do some light bartering but it's mostly what you might call (if you had to) a "gifting economy".
The gatherings are not festivals although they are festive. They're more like religious gatherings but without the religion. Although you will religious people there, of all kinds of religions, all getting along.
Referencing your original comment, one thing they're not is disingenuous but they're also not promoting themselves. (No one pays to go to a gathering, all prep and cleanup is done by volunteers.)
