The Hippie Movement as a Völkisch Revival

The Hippie movement has long since been canonized in American politics as a left-wing, liberal/radical/libertarian movement, and to a certain extent that is true. But I think what made the Hippie movement so subversive, at least in its initial stages (up until 1969) was what we might call its "right-wing" element—its "völkischness." What we need more than ever in the U.S. today is an emancipatory movement that cannot be easily attacked from the right, and I think that the Hippie movement, in its initial stages, held this promise. If the Hippie movement had gone further with its völkisch element and had drawn some more concrete parallels with other historical manifestations of völkischness, then it might not have become so easy prey for the right-wing critiques along the lines of, "The Hippie movement is just a bunch of irresponsible brats who are weakening morality and society," etc.

For example, what if, instead, the initial Hippies had interpreted their movement precisely as a response to the weakening of morality and society under the capitalist consumerism of their parents' generation? What if the Hippies had said to the parent generation, "It is you who are being irresponsible, with your unhappy marriages, your unsatisfied, desperate wives escaping into painkillers, your sacrificing of real human relationships between husbands and wives for your childish, superficial status symbols that consumerist capitalism spits out at you, your abandonment of the democratic spirit of a free people in lieu of the drone-like spirit of the corporate yes-man...the Communists need not destroy your families, your sacred beliefs, or your democratic society...your cynical pursuit of the status symbols of consumerist capitalism have already accomplished this for you."

In contrast to this portrait of "Leave-it-to-Beaver-America," Hippies could have presented themselves as the responsible alternative, the alternative that would regenerate the American volk, that would regenerate human relationships and root them back into what really mattered—love, shared experiences, and satisfying work (rather than consumerism). The Hippies could have re-framed work as a satisfying communal experience to be accomplished among equals (instead of simply shunning work and "dropping out" and becoming consumers). The Hippies could have appeared as a force possessing more wisdom than the previous generation, as well as a freer, more democratic spirit befitting the United States of America.

In fact, I say, "The Hippies could have done all of this," but the fact is that some initial Hippies *were* doing all of this. What else was signified by the peasant dresses, the talk of "love," the "going back to the land" projects, in which people would theoretically make a living in order to live real human lives (sharing love and meaningful experiences and heartfelt beliefs) rather than work in order to buy pathetic status symbols.

Where it all went wrong, of course, is that the Hippie movement was hijacked by the same consumerist capitalism that it should have been more precisely targeting in the first place. Capitalist consumerism did not need productive workers, it just needed trendy consumers, so it suited capitalist consumerism just fine if the Hippie movement became a vapid, irresponsible movement of trendy consumers spending their middle-class parents' money on stupid status symbols of coolness and supposed "rebellion."

Is it crazy to think that a little bit of anti-capitalism from the right, and perhaps even a little bit more Spartan militarism, could have helped to save the Hippie movement from this awful fate? To be sure, the message would remain that of "love of friends," but it would also include "struggle with enemies," and would transform "love" from a passive emotion to a meaningful and deliberate conveyance towards other comradely human beings.