BastardofYoung

neither. they are the same drugs, the punk just steal them off the hippies.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

Buzzov*en

Crust punks

__________________

hip hop bunny hop

It's important to keep in mind that what punk is now, how the fans are now, isnt necessarilly how punk was then and how punks were then.

I haven't researched punks early subculture; but most modern (20-something) punks I meet are white kids from suburbs, got picked on in highschool, lack a body type that inspires fear, and the style isn't shocking any more - it's just silly. Take crust punks as an example; hyper liberal white kids, who beg for change because (insert asinine politics), and have dreadlocks and really, really bad tattoos. How the hell is that intimidating?

Hippies didn't do that; most of headsmashing in the Vietnam era (domestically) was done by cops, national guard, and patriotic militias. Take a look at the Black Panthers, AIM, or the various Maoist groups.... and their record was pretty dismal. The classic example being May 4, 1970. Team Hippie: 4 dead, 9 wounded. Team National Guard: 0 dead, 0 wounded.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Metal Connoisseur

So I take it you're not for raising the debt ceiling?

Neapolitan

I haven't heard that before, but I wouldn't entirely agree with it. You could find some similarities between the two movements, but their vision of the world was focused entirely in two different directions. I always thought that Hippies idea was to go back to the Garden of Eden they wanted to be in a steady state of ecstasy through mind altering drug, sex and transcendental meditation, skinny dipping (eg during during Woodstock) living in communes on farms etc. I'm not saying that that is what the Garden of Eden was, but that was for some what they envisioned it would be like.

The Punks on the other hand instead envisioning the Garden of Eden saw a post-Apocalyptic world. During that the time Punk began the economy was tough, there was a Cold War that was always presenting the scenario that a nuclear war could wipe out civilization. Not all Punks imo were in the beginning weren't haters but started out cynical and angry about the state of the world so they lean toward a post-Apocalyptic image as a way of saying look where we going - to hell in a hand basket. They wore ripped shirts, safety pins, spikes, piercings, had Mohawks or spiked hair cuts, imo this was what people would wear in a post-civilized world. There was of course other influences for fashion too. I really can't make an blanket statement to include everything the punk movement, (e.g. when the Punk movement start out some were middle class kids who like to dress up like punks and others were poor and lived poor) but it how I see one aspect of it being opposite of hippie movement.

__________________

killcreek

punks are much more nihilistic in general than hippies
hippies: everything is beautiful
punks: everything sucks

OccultHawk

I'll give you that but at least they were in the fight.

Queen Boo

I like the group that has better drugs that I don't have to pay for.

__________________
https://www.twitch.tv/drrobuttnik

hip hop bunny hop

I'd talk about this.... but that's too good a way of derailing this thread.

1. The Cold War was already in full swing when hippies got their start.
2. By the time Punk took off, de-stalinization was decades old, the sino-soviet split solidified by Nixon's (Kissinger's, really) ping-pong diplomacy, and China had declared Soviet Social Imperialism the gravest threat to Socialism (or the New Democratic Revolution, if you prefer).
3. Although we can argue the centrality and importance of The Ramones, they are a good yardstick to measure punk with; their debut came in '76. This was the year of the Gang of Four, after which China became much, much more in looking.

...so, it'd be more accurate to say the Hippie movement, whilst in full swing, existed in a much more dire geopolitical climate.

Eh? I reject this, and the notion that (early) punk was some sort of quasi-Situationist movement. The punk subculture emerged in an era of crass consumerism (which remains) which differed from earlier decades of crass consumerism due to the beginning of multiculturalism and sweeping demographic change, so kids, instead of identifying with what we could loosely term traditional culture, took their identity from music instead of heritage. It was simply a way of differentiating themselves from others; same as the rituals performed by Orthodox Jews or observant Muslims.

Of course not all punks were hippies or influenced by hippies (see revival skinheads); however, Jello Biafra admits to being influenced by hippies, and Penny from crass admits to having been a hippie. The politics of early left wing punks was influenced by hippie culture and I don't see enough differences between it and the concurrent late 70s far left politics to warrant a seperate category.

Regarding class; let's be frank, kids from poor backrounds rarely have the funds or time to indulge artistic inclinations, and to participate in an underground movement certainly requires plenty of both.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Metal Connoisseur

Is there a politics forum in the non-music forums? I'd imagine that'd be some really stimulating conversation