Sometimes I think punk is the musical expression of anarchism, but other times I think punk is more about nihilism, the view that existence is useless and senseless, than about anarchism. Maybe it's both. There have been times in the past when anarchists were considered nihilists, but that was in the early years of the movement, whereas nowdays I think anarchists take a more positive stance -- we aren't against everything; rather, we're against social and political oppression.
I consider myself a punk, if only because I love the music (because I don't have "the look"), and have since I was in high school. To me, several things resonated with me regarding punk, which I think are also the aspects of it most compatible with anarchism. These include anger at the status quo, do-it-yourself culture, antifashion, opposition to corporate control, lack of pretension.
My favorite bands are (not in order)...The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, Wire, The Buzzcocks, and The Dead Kennedys. I like the music from a lot of other bands, though -- it's just the above are ones I like most consistently.
The racist right-wing has used hardcore music very well to recruit chowderheads into their ranks, which is something anarchists should consider. It's a clear example of a political movement (in this case, neo-nazi groups) using a social medium ("music" -- although I think their stuff sounds like crap) -- as a way to draw young people into their crap.
I hate the notion of recruitment, which I think is creepy. Anarchists shouldn't go that route, but as a way of communicating anarchistic ideas in a novel way, music is always a good medium, particularly with the rise of MP3 and other DIY-style efforts. My concern is always with getting the idea out there in as many effective ways as possible.
But I'm digressing, here. What is there to say about punk and anarchy, ultimately? There are some very active anarcho-punks out there, who are good people and committed anarchists. Did punk lead them to anarchism, or did anarchism lead them to punk? In my own case, I listened to punk long before I was an anarchist. I'm not overtly aware of it influencing my attitudes -- I just liked the music, the angry energy, and the lack of pretension. But other people were probably radicalized by punk music.
DIY culture is about creating your own world amid the existing culture -- of it, but not part of it. Anarchists have been working harder than most for the past decade (and even faster in the past five years) to create their own subculture. I think this effort has finally paid off, although there's still a long way to go.
The beauty of DIY culture is you're not dependent on the whims of ad execs in corporations to decide what you're supposed to think and feel. You devise it yourself, and thereby free yourself from the tendrils of the consumer culture.
The antifashion aspects of punk are also useful, although this is a narrower path to walk, because the pop culture is quick to embrace street-level or "alternative" subcultures and sap them of meaning through mass-marketing. Antifashion itself can be fashionable.
This is why I tend to get pissed about circle-A's and other assorted symbolic representations of anarchism. The December 13, 1999 issue of TIME features the circle-A a couple of times in its coverage of the Battle of Seattle. Symbols are illusions -- they are abstractions, and should be kept at arm's length by anarchists, if at all. The symbol is not the idea; it's just a symbol, and can be manipulated accordingly.
That's part of the reason why Rage Against the Machine annoys me -- they wear their "revolution" on their shirtsleeves, literally. I'm thinking of that guitarist with his "Commie" cap who supposedly came from Harvard, that radical seedbed. They're a popular rock band, right? They're in the same category in my mind as Stryper, except that Rage is a toy radical band, instead of a toy Christian band. I think they're pandering to pissed-off young people, instead of bringing across new ideas. I mean, you can't be signed to a major multinational corporation (Sony) and honestly preach revolution, can you?
Maybe their success is a result of American cultural myopia -- certainly they're considered a permissable outlet for the youth. It's okay to rage against machines so long as you don't organize against Big Business....
I'll be curious to see how this evolves over the next few years, but at least right now it offers enormous potential, and I think that'll grow as more people get onto the Net.
MP3 allows bands to escape the Rage Against the Machine trap -- that is, they can honestly be radical, instead of posing as it while embracing their corporate overlords.
It's actually a pretty enjoyable movie, and it's nice to see someone calling himself an anarchist in a movie, even though this joker is a to the bone. There are some anarcho-trappings in the movie, but it's clear the screenwriter doesn't know squat about anarchism. It seems more like it's geared toward middle-class kids who'll ooh and ahh at his characters' various antics rather than come away with a clear understanding of anarchism.
Sometimes I think this portrayal is a lot like what Europeans think American anarchists are like -- when they see this movie, I'm sure they'll laugh and nod and think that their suspicions are well-founded. But we're not like that; some, yes, but they move on and become the next generation of CEOs.
I won't spoil the movie for you if you haven't seen it, but to me, it wasn't a surprise at all how Stevo ends up, because really, he hadn't departed at all from the traditional expectations of youth in America -- the only difference is the way he looked, not the way he acted. That's all I'll say on that.
12/14/99
a4a