What political ideas do hippies have?

Im just wondering what are they political views? I read some articles but no one didn't told me what are their political ideas.
As for me im an left-winger (socialist)

-thanks

 

Different "hippies", whoever wants to call themselves a hippie anyways, all have different political views.

 

Unformulated ideas here- apart from a separation from the establishment which includes not adopting its labels (left or right wing, conservative, liberal, etc.) because doing so prefabricates how others view what ideas I might formulate.

 

Politics is evil..

 

as you may have noticed, the Occupy movement is pretty big, but there really are so many different ideologies, just check out the politics section i guess.

 

Hippies don't have a particular political persuasion. I admire the inquiring mind that led you to this question, but it truly is a loaded question. The term 'hippie' is a loaded one; for example, are we talking about someone who listens to jam bands and smokes pot when we talk about a hippie? Or are we talking about someone who wears patchwork clothing and visually exemplifies the "hippie style"? Or are we talking about an individual with a frame of mind to question authority and that actively engages in civil disobedience and protest movements? Or is a hippie something altogether different from these examples or some combination of the bunch?

Furthermore, probably the biggest problem with our political system today is the branding and packaging of political ideals brought about by our two party system in America particularly, and the West in general. What defines "Left" and "Right"? Can one not be in between on some issues, further to one "direction" on others, and altogether of a different opinion on other issues? For example, is it possible for an individual with socialist convictions economically to be extremely for gun rights, pro-choice, and against gay marriage all at the same time? Is it possible for a "Christian Conservative" to fight to remove Biblical passages from government buildings?

In short, my answer would be that no, Hippies do not stick to one particular political persuasion, and that anyone who conforms to what a party or ideology dictates is doing themselves, democracy, and the world a dis-service by not thinking for themselves.

 

The two party system has become a not-so-funny joke. As far as hippie politics are concerned - I think most would agree that - although "hippie" though it means different things to different people at different times - hippies tend to be left leaning - but the spectrum is wide, ranging yuppie, middle of the road to punk nihilism (after all punk is nothing more than a disillusioned reaction to the beat and hippie movement.) I can't envision anyone calling themselves a hippie who doesn't believe in non-violence, social justice and/or environmental preservation - to some these are political issues, but in my humble opinion, they transcend - or should, transcend politics.

 

Do away with money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

 

Id prefer monarchy with a wise and good king.

 

Econonic hit men will corrupt him as long as the NWO in being insidiously install. lol, unless the new king has the same balls as Hugo Chávez.

 

Well, there are really two kinds of hippies.

Establishment, brainwashed hippies who believe the government serves to run their lives and provide for them from cradle to grave. They often talk about freedom, but their idea of freedom is often faulty and entails some utopian control system that can only result in bloody tyranny. These people are often "educated" and make enough money to afford the Prius with an obligatory "Water for Sudan" sticker on the back of it. In reality, they could not give a shit less about the people of Sudan or anyone who is not as educated and sophisticated as they are. They almost always vote Democrat because they naively believe they're the party of the little guy when nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, this is probably 75-80% of the poseurs who adhere to hippy stereotypes. These are sterotypes the system has given them under the guise of hippydom.

Genuine hippies have ALWAYS existed in every age (long before it became a commerical fad in the 60s) and always will. They shun politics and the establishment and refuse to vote for criminal politicians, Democrat or Republican. They have hopefully taken enough acid to see things for what they are if they weren't able without the use of such aids, understanding that IT'S ALL BULLSHIT and that the problems that exist are ALWAYS created by the system itself to give the few controlling it more and more power over the many. They see that every man is born free and it's the SYSTEM that enslaves. They understand that politics are part of that system and thus part of the problem.

 

The second kind won't call themselves hippies.

 

Exactly.

 

Rat

It’s like you have crib sheet handed down to you from central office

First - Push the idea that people on the left of politics are really part of the elite – it is something often promoted by the right, in the hope people will turn against the left wing ideas.

Second – but if you can’t get them to vote for the right try and stop them voting at all.

 

yup
I think if pressed, a lot of folks would agree. It would certainly get shit done quicker.

ZW

 

I believe most self-proclaimed hippies are in general people that are simply open-minded to an alternative political agenda altogether. But then again, people who proclaim not to be hippies also can adopt this belief.

 

Some musings on that -


The history of political thought has been mainly about trying to build balance into a political system.

Basically there are three models – the one (monarch, dictatorship) the few (oligarchy, plutocracy, theocracy) and the many (democracy, communism).

They all have there merits and there dangers.

For example take rule by one – if you get a good leader you get prompt, decisive and clear leadership with good outcomes - but get a bad leader and…. well history is full of bloody handed tyrants (and it must be asked what is ‘good’ one persons good is another’s poison).

So people have tried to make systems that keep the positives while tiring to keep the negatives down to the minimum.

By trying to have the best of the One (Prime Minister, Chancellor, President etc), the Few (Houses of Parliament, House of Representatives) and the Many (through the universal vote).

(Also added to these three elements is the thing often referred to as the ‘fourth estate’ the free press)

But what you get is power balanced by the other elements along with by regulations, constitutions and laws.

So many governments have balancing branches - an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.

For example a US President’s power is limited by the US Constitution, Supreme Court, laws such as the limited tenure of office, the house of representatives etc.

In the same way the power and interests of groups in society should be balanced by other groups for example the power and influence of wealth in a money based society should be balanced by the votes of the many.

Many problems in the world are down to their being little balance or were the balance has got out of kilter.

 

Hippies are mostly a political stereotype. I think we have a false polarity in politics, as having a group to join and be against is a common tendency of human nature, and people actually conform to stereotypes that the other side has made for them to prove how much against the other side they are. Bourgeois liberals will do a bunch of hippie/ hollywood stuff to fit the liberal stereotype, and conservatives will act like Ebenezer Scrooge to prove their allegiance to conservatism.

I don't think liberalism and conservatism were ever supposed to be opposing ideologies. To the intelligent, un-brainwashed, they're broad political positions that are only relative to a specific issue. You can be a conservative, want things to progress at a slower pace because you don't want things to destabilize too much, and liberal on others because you think something needs to progress faster. I've seen "liberals" take truly conservative positions, like wanting to conserve social security, and "conservatives" taking truly liberal positions like wanting to rapidly privatize everything.

The ironic thing about the Soviet Union is conservatives want to brand it as some sort of liberal-progressive phenomenon, which it did have characteristics of. The Bolsheviks wanting to rapidly restructure society was a very progressive stance. However there were a lot of traits of the Soviet dictatorship that was very conservative socially. They banned rock music, they banned homosexuality, a lot of the party tenants were based in an almost theocratic piety, etc etc. Not only that, but once bolshevik policy had been part of the establishment for 70 years, it would have been a conservative stance in the Soviet union to want to conserve old policies and resist reform. Everything that's old was once new. Everything that's establishment was once un-established.

The truth is that things that were formerly progressive stances at one time can turn into conservative stances once it becomes integrated into the establishment. Abolishing slavery was progressive at one time and someone who defended the position at one time would be a progressive. Now that slavery is against the law, and it doesn't exist in America, defending it as an established policy is now a conservative position.

Conservative means you want to conserve the existing order. Progressive means you want to change it. Over time the existing order can change so these are relative terms. They're completely pointless terms when used as some sort of false, ideological label. The bad thing about pointless and inconsistent terms is they can be altered into anything by the elites. They bastardize and degrade language to control us.

The ironic thing is that taking psychedelics and smoking weed while reading history made me see value in true conservatism. You really don't want to destabilize society by rapidly restructuring things, whether its a right wing or left wing rationale. It can be really dangerous. That's probably why I wouldn't call myself a hippie too, because a part of the stereotype is that they want to rapidly change things. I think certain things should really change, but it depends on what and how. I think we should be individuals and not labels. Hippie carries too much baggage as a term, even though certain aspects about me could be described as being hippie.