A ton of weird stuff from that time seems to run through Esalen. I will read this or that history of computing/hippies/etc and boom, Esalen.
Strange how influence works.
Anyway, beyond that... this is something I've been contemplating for a long time. I would actually agree with the other HN poster that New Thought was a contributing factor. I also locate part of the hyper-individualism at play today in the reaction to the Soviet Union's collectivism and Nazi Germany's mass movements. There seemed to have been a certain "inoculation" that was put in people's heads that "collaborating in large groups was e.v.i.l."; this later cropped out to Reagan's nostrum "government is the problem", along with the decline of labor, etc. The Me Decade was what, the 70s, and then on into the 80s. I recently read "We were as gods", a memoir & history about growing up in a Vermont commune in the 70s and how those communes fell apart. The author locates the major root cause (out of many factors) in the inability to form a proper governance mechanism and in the heavy "can't tell ME what to do" individualism in the movement.
So.... we have selfies, dysfunctional governments, libertarian fascism, and gig economies today. There are links here between all 4. (Although, an astute observer remarked that "self portraits" are an old tradition of painters, so it's prudent not to point a finger too, ehm, pointedly at the moderns).
Anyway, I view movements such as the DSA as a sign of a more healthy society struggling to come into being - the individual is important - but so is society and the group. N.b., this isn't particularly liberal as an idea goes - I seem to remember remarks on this from the Mass. Bay Colony chiefs, and at least one part of that concept goes back to early Christian writings.
There's a marked ... level of association, at the very least, between major parts of the conservative and Rothbardian/Randian Libertarian movements, and straight-up fascist action or ideology.
The Daily Beast had an excellent article on this in August, 2017:
Apologies for the long reply in advance. Due to a shortage of time (don't we all wish for more of it?), I'll summarize and address the first article you linked to.
Paragraph 1: Alt-right figure A identifies as libertarian. Alt-right figure B identifies as a former libertarian.
Paragraph 2: Alt-right figures C and D identify as libertarian. Alt-right figure E kicked out of libertarian conference. This last example seems to contradict the article's thesis.
Paragraph 3: There are many more conservatives than libertarians, thus a disproportionate number of today’s prominent alt-righters began as libertarians. Plain non-sequitur.
But suppose the conclusion were true. The fact that many X began as Y does not mean many Y will end up as X. Thus we have another fallacy. P(future alt-right | past libertarian) ≠ P(past libertarian | future alt-right).
Paragraph 5: Both libertarians and paleoconservatives are anti-interventionist. Ok? A shared belief does not make a shared ideology.
"And yet, it seems observably true that libertarianism is disproportionately a gateway drug to the alt-right. Again, the question is… why?"
The article has provided zero evidence for this claim, yet simply asserts it as "observably true". This is begging the question.
Paragraphs 8 and 9: Finally we get something interesting. A historical link between a subset (paleolibertarianism) of A (libertarianism) and B (the alt-right movement). None of this, however, supports the article's premise that there is an "insidious pipeline" from A to B, or that the former is "disproportionately a gateway drug" for the latter. This is a bait-and-switch.
Paragraph 10: Libertarianism is an unpopular/provocative view. Some people are drawn to unpopular/provocative views. Some of those people end up "merely passing through a libertarian phase" on their way to alt-right views. Therefore...?
Paragraph 11: Libertarianism takes a principled stance on freedom of speech, not just when it suits them (unlike the alt-right). Ok.
Paragraph 12: "Ultimately libertarianism is about peaceful cooperation―markets, civil society, global trade, peace." So libertarianism and fascism/alt-right are antithetical, which undermines the consistency of the phrase "libertarian fascism".
Paragraphs 13-15: Alt-right figure F describes his conversion from libertarianism to alt-right ideas.
Paragraph 16 points out the obvious: Cantwell was simply using libertarianism “as a shield for expressing a lot of disturbing viewpoints.”
The last few paragraphs boil down to the idea that some alt-rightists passed through a self-described "libertarian" phase. True. But this has nothing to do with the idea that there is an "insidious pipeline" from libertariansm to fascism, or that the former is "disproportionately a gateway drug" for the latter.
I agree with the conclusion that libertarians should distance themselves from alt-right and fascist ideas. After all, they're antithetical to libertarianism.
Let's take a step back from the article and return to the original comment. The GP used the phrase "libertarian fascism", yet nothing in the linked article supports the existence of such a thing. The article describes how alt-rightists abandoned libertarian ideas. It also describes a few public figures who claim they're both libertarian and alt-right, while being repudiated by other libertarians for the inconsistency of such a position. This is far from showing that libertarianism and fascism are ideologically compatible, as the phrase "libertarian fascism" seems to imply.
All those ("identifies as X but isn't really") responses bring to mind the "no true Scotchman".
>"Libertarian fascism" is a literal contradiction.
So is war in the name of the "religion of Peace and Love", or being cruel in the name of Christ, or being pro "equality" (like communists) and creating a party elite.
One important aspect of any ideology is not just what it pays lip service to, but how people actually use it, and what it enables its followers to do.
And one common thread in all ideology A is the complain "yeah, X, Y, Z wasn't a REAL A".
Contradictions are the name of the game in all human affairs.
Tons of people chose the most humble public stances purely out of virtue signaling for example (the very opposite of being actually humble), or are "small government" ideologues with very powerful ties and influence in government (which they use to turn towards their private interests).
Strange how influence works.
Anyway, beyond that... this is something I've been contemplating for a long time. I would actually agree with the other HN poster that New Thought was a contributing factor. I also locate part of the hyper-individualism at play today in the reaction to the Soviet Union's collectivism and Nazi Germany's mass movements. There seemed to have been a certain "inoculation" that was put in people's heads that "collaborating in large groups was e.v.i.l."; this later cropped out to Reagan's nostrum "government is the problem", along with the decline of labor, etc. The Me Decade was what, the 70s, and then on into the 80s. I recently read "We were as gods", a memoir & history about growing up in a Vermont commune in the 70s and how those communes fell apart. The author locates the major root cause (out of many factors) in the inability to form a proper governance mechanism and in the heavy "can't tell ME what to do" individualism in the movement.
So.... we have selfies, dysfunctional governments, libertarian fascism, and gig economies today. There are links here between all 4. (Although, an astute observer remarked that "self portraits" are an old tradition of painters, so it's prudent not to point a finger too, ehm, pointedly at the moderns).
Anyway, I view movements such as the DSA as a sign of a more healthy society struggling to come into being - the individual is important - but so is society and the group. N.b., this isn't particularly liberal as an idea goes - I seem to remember remarks on this from the Mass. Bay Colony chiefs, and at least one part of that concept goes back to early Christian writings.