From Woodstock to Wall Street: The Hippie Sellout Nobody Talks About
- 60s hippies opposed surveillance tech but later embraced libertarianism, favoring corporate power over democracy.
- Libertarians falsely believe technology inherently liberates, ignoring its role in oppression and corporate dominance.
- Neoliberalism turned hippies into pro-tech libertarians, dismantling worker protections and economic democracy.
- Libertarian communes failed due to power abuse, proving that unchecked capitalism and tech don’t create utopia.
- Corporate lobbying and oligarchic control threaten democracy, requiring strong government regulation to counterbalance.
When I was a kid I thought of hippies as some kind of American cultural peak of enlightenment. The edgy kids that broke the social status quo of the 50s dressing in denim sporting big hair and bigger progressive values, like sexual liberation and mystical mental expansion through psychedelics, at the historical Woodstock music festival. I wouldn't realize until later that they rebranded themselves as libertarians, and completely betrayed the spiritual undertones of their movement by backing corporate propaganda from technocratic capitalists under the conviction that democracy is a threat to capitalism.
Naturally, they don't see it that way. So we're going to have to look back through history to understand how these hippies went from sticking it to the man in the 60s to simping for big tech in the 90s and today, as well as why their peak experiments failed so badly.
I. Technology is inherently liberatory
When the internet was first being fabricated in MIT corridors during the 60s the hippies were the first to oppose it. They were under no illusion that the databases soaking in the mass surveillance created by connecting computers around the world was only benefitting intelligence agencies instead of the people. Protests, stand ins, and riots all demonstrated hippies opposing the advancement of tech empowering big brother; and these boomers were ready for nothing if not sticking it to the man.
They hadn't yet forgotten the internet was born in the hands of the CIA for both monitoring and destabilizing insurgencies foreign and domestic using next generation warfare like psychological manipulation and behavior modification. It was widely successful in quieting the arms of communists around the world before they organized into a competitive opponent to capitalism. Or, if need be, they could use the internet to stimulate insurgencies creating civil unrest that destabilized foreign opponents. Whatever behavior convenienced the intelligence agents. The same tactics would be used on left-wing movements and organized black communities here at home.
As though coping with creative block at a blank canvas, the libertarian fantasizes about the liberating power of tech and capital. Just unleash the power of technology and liberation will spontaneously produce itself. Nevermind the political democratic processes that defend the rights of the weak from the powerful. Just keep empowering the powerful. That should keep things balanced.
Albeit, technology is rather amazing. Whoever wins the fight between capitalists and the working class is going to be wielding superior tech. And technology is going to be a part of any civilization that moves forward into tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it necessarily has inherently liberatory properties. Tech is a tool, and often a mirror to the culture of humans. One that magnifies it exponentially. Something we clearly see in the sexism and racism of chatbots and AI facial recognition. It can be oppressive just as much as it can be liberatory. Depends on the hands wielding it.
Are the compulsory taxation networks of the IRS inherently liberatory? How about the databases owned by intelligence agencies logging psychological profiles on every US citizen? Are they inherently liberatory?
It's safer to say that technology is inherently empowering. Whether it's us or our oppressors, technology helps all of us get the job done more easily. However, in the context of the current power dynamic in the US, the big corporations already started out with an immense amount of capital that gave them political leverage over the public. Passing politicians stacks of millions is an easy way to assure your representation over the peasants after all. That overpowered position is just amplified by technology now. But US history does show us how to counterweight the fat cats with New Deal regulations and Gilded Age antitrust laws.
II. Government as a business
But by the 90s those same hippies turned libertarian, and started hosting tech conventions about the inherently liberatory powers of technology. Personal computers were everyone's gateway to the future. Everyone needed to buy a CIA wiretap to unleash the power of democracy. What happened?
In a word, neoliberalism.
An emergent philosophy in the post-cold war US. Frequently misunderstood by illiterate US folks who read the word liberal and mistake it for a left-wing modernization of classical liberalism. Neoliberalism stands for profits over people by limiting government's ability to regulate corporations and tax the wealthy. It's a reactionary libertarian right-wing position to classical liberalism rather than a modernization of it. Classical liberalism gave us the single most powerful working class economy in human history thanks to New Deal economics. Neither Republican nor Democrat will argue that the Baby Boomers had it best. And, in fact, it was the only time in human history that the American Dream was possible. It wasn't possible before or since then than an American could be assured of an abundant life by getting any US job. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is a misguided anarcho-capitalist position. The notion that personal liberty is enhanced by smaller government seems altogether illiterate to the historical relationship between capitalism and democracy.
History has shown us that classical liberalism got it right. Millenials and Gen Z wish they could've had what the Baby Boomers had. By regulating and taxing the ruling capitalists the economic democracy of the public was successfully defended making the American Dream accessible to the working class.
Libertarians seemed to have never read about this glorious period in US history and feel the need to reenvision liberation as though they need to reinvent the wheel. As though economic democracy is something we've never seen before. As though the American Dream had never been done before. They completely ignore the proven track record of classical liberalism in generating the historical heights of economic freedom. Somehow weakening the leverage of the laborer under their employer by lubricating the corporate expansionist path paved on the backs of workers to proliferate the tycoon is a renaissance painting of liberation. But the American Dream is only possible when workers rights of the people come before corporate profits.
The psychedelic connoisseur of the libertarian variety views government as a business, and therefore seeks to limit it. As though government is corporate competition. Which is convenient for big business stock holders who view democracy as a limitation of capitalism. Libertarians want to see government shrink into the smallest function possible. They believe it's doing too much, and part of the problem in today's struggling economy.
Far be it from corporate greed to be the problem. No democracy and big government is the problem. Except big government exists to protect the small workers from big business. Big government is the sheep dog of democracy that preserves the perimeter around the checks and balances that keep power dispersed in the hands of everyone, not just an elite few. And it's dead--defiled by right-wing corporate vandalism. Even as I type this an oligarchical corporate power is slashing at democratic agencies that exist to protect the people. They can't fulfill that regulatory role from a small government position. A government that represents the working class is the spectre projection of public opinion. One that can contend with the corporate super powers building the world and its rules around us. But a free world should be built by the public instead of corporate interests.
This should come as no surprise when we've already seen the impact of company towns like Hershey, Pennsylvania, established in 1903, that exploited workers in the past. A company town means that corporation owns not just the work campus, but the homes and the grocery stores. They owned the city. Which means every dollar workers were paid by their employers that money went straight back to them in the form of rent and grocery payments. Workers also didn't appreciate the paternalistic nature of their employers that often required building relationships to benefit from favoritism. All of which made workers receptive to starting a labor union.
By 1936 a newsletter was passed around the staff who agreed with common grievances from extremely physically-demanding labor, to deafening noise levels and working temperatures upwards of 100 degrees. In it Hershey leaders were vilified for their "high salaries and slave-driving methods."
In 1937, after attempts at negotiations were followed by corporate betrayal, workers went on strike. Unfortunately, local farmers were losing 800,000 pounds of milk sales per day, and were therefore more motivated to align with the corporation abusing those workers. Because their own livelihoods were being negatively impacted by the strike. So they counter-protested: violently. With bats, clubs, and hammers they brutalized factory workers on strike causing dozens of injuries and missing teeth. The farmers threw stones at the striking workers even as they fled the factory.
Which is all to say that trusting corporations to govern is a bad idea. When they seize enough power of governance it becomes close to impossible for workers grievances to be heard. What actually fixed the problem? Big government coming to regulate the whole issue through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The federal agency forced the worker union to hold an election, and then another one after they decided the first election was illegitimate. The second union election enabled the American Federation of Labor to get Hershey's workers increased overtime rates, paid vacations, and a procedure for arbitrating grievances.
In other words, regulation from big government protected the working class from the oppressive rule of an oligarchical company town. Is government a business the way libertarians would like to believe? To the contrary, government serves a variety of roles that serve the public democracy in ways that companies would have no interest in doing themselves. There is simply no saving workers without classical liberalism.
III. Collapse of communes
Perhaps no libertarian experiment highlights the culmination of their ideology like their hippie communes. Specifically the New Communalists in New Mexico. The beautiful thinking about retreating from society to try your own version of society is that there's no one else to blame for its failures except the ideology itself.
Inspired by cyberpunk and anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, these hippies figured they could withdraw from civilization and technology would naturally liberate them. Just leave us alone! We'll bloom without the oppressive mechanisms of the state. Well that was the idea anyway.
Cyberpunks vs. Technocrats
What Hacktivists and Oligarchs Are Fighting Over Cyberpunks vs Technocrats0:00/1222.0342861× * A long-standing battle exists between decentralization advocates (cyberpunks) and centralized power (technocratic oligarchs), shaping the future of privacy, democracy, and digital freedom. * From the 1960s to today, hacktivists have fought against corporate and government surveillance through encryption,
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
Except the majority of these communes collapsed in a few years or less. Mostly due to systematic sexual exploitation by cult leaders. A severe abuse of power.
The Network State Nightmare
A Critique of Technocratic Primacy * Billionaire technocrats like Peter Thiel and Balaji Srinivasan promote “network states,” AI-monitored corporate monarchies inspired by neo-reactionary ideology. * Military theorist John Robb legitimizes network states, arguing that traditional governance is too slow for modern polycrisis challenges. * Robb frames network states as high-performance governance akin to
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
And this is really the crown jewel of the libertarian naivety. That capital and tech will just spontaneously produce a utopia if the state is removed from the picture. Except without institutionalized formal power structures informal powers will exploit systems to their benefit without resistance.
There was no mechanism to avoid a single man rising to power as a cult leader, or the any mechanism at all to defend victims of sex abuse. Human nature dictates that the powerful will take as much as they can unless they're checked by another entity. In a democratic society that's the state. We use formal power structures like the courts to prevent the rise of sex abusing cults, and federal regulation to check the worker abuse of employers. And now those mechanisms are under attack by a White House that's slashing at agencies like those that protect whistleblowers. Which is why leftists are calling it a coup, or a threat against democracy. Because the very pillars holding up democracy are being progressively weakened by the GOP. These days faster than ever before.
Why It’s Called a Coup: Dark Enlightenment Influence On Trumpian Musk Philosophy
How The Core Values of MAGA Reflect Dark Enlightenment Philosophy Why Its Called a Coup: Dark Enlightenment Influence On Trumpian Musk Philosophy0:00/1263.0465311× * Trump’s administration and Musk’s growing influence reflect Curtis Yarvin’s neo-reactionary philosophy, which advocates for a technocratic monarchy over democracy. * Peter Thiel, a
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
Tech and capital alone will not save us. Propaganda has clouded the judgement of the public from understanding who their enemy is, and how to defend their interests.
From the perspective of democracy and egalitarianism, the enemy is any anti-egalitarian entity that seeks to lord over the rest of the country instead of enabling the economic democracy of all. That means oligarchical relationships like Musk and Trump, are counterintuitive to strengthening democracy. Any big business that wants to interject in the conversation between legislation and public opinion is the enemy. That's right, I'm talking about corporate lobbying, which should be abolished.
Capitalist interests want big business to benefit their pockets. Fine, then the public democracy needs big government to regulate it to prevent monopolies and worker exploitations. There is no inherently liberatory mechanism that can replace federal protections of public rights.
