generally, the last years, or even decades, there was a rising interest in a specific decade - the 80s. lots of revivals, retrospectives and lots of other retros. what was significant for me was that they painted a much, much different picture of the 80s then the one i lived through. i was born on the 16th november 1980 - so basically i lived through almost all of the 80s. whether the situation in germany was different to the rest of the world and and thus different to the picture of the usually usa and uk centered retrospectives of the 80s, whether my own situation was different, or whether there is a redefinition of a decade going on as part of cultural warfare - i don't know. all i can do is write down my personal account of the 80s.
first of all, the 80s was a political decade. the left movement was strong. the peace movement was strong. the ecology movement was strong. the punk movement was strong. images of riots, demonstrations, rallies, greenpeace, left terrorism and activism on the television defined my early childhood. the left was simply a major player these years, including the radical left. it cannot be compared to our current days, where it has withered, and is far from being a hearable voice in public debate, even farther from being a force in society.
i remember in the early 2000s talking to an anarchist friend about the riots in genova and other cities, that were part of the anti-globalization then. his comment was the riots were all good, but, back in the 80s one would not have to travel annually to far away cities for this, but there were similar riots in hamburg and other large cities of germany every weekend!
apart from the anarchist rioters, the peace and fairly new ecological movements were another factor in society. and unlike the rioters their voices also had a bigger effect on debates in the more mainstream of societies. i remember my oldest brother ran into trouble at school because he brought coca-cola for the break inbetween classes. coca-cola, a money-minded corporation from capitalist usa! the teachers and parents were shocked!
of course germany in the 80s was far from being a "riot nation" - but it was, to a degree.
but getting beyond leftism, the 80s were dominated by politics either way. the cold war was in full effect, and talk about a possible war, the danger of nuclear bombs, the relationship to russia and the eastern bloc, as well as the revolts and changes that went on in the "third world" totally dominated public discourse and the media these years, till the fall of the eastern wall.
yet, there was also a wholly different thing about the 80s. it was still the space age. there was an interest in everything science, astronomy, space, science fiction, that too was a part of societal live and society. the then new synthpop music was full of space themes, science fiction movies generally attracted a large audience, there were plenty of documentaries relating to everything space on TV. if you think "interest in space" today, you think of a scifi nerd teen maybe, but if you seen some 80s TV shows or documentaries on this topic, you will remember serious, well combed and dressed adult men talking about and taking an earnest interest in "mars flights until the year 2000" or the possibility of alien life, or the future moon colonization, with a seriousness towards these things that is baffling for today's audience (because now we are sure we will not live on the moon in the next 50 years... or will we?). this definitely gives a picture of how it was then.
of course, similar with leftism, not everyone was a spacehead in the 80s. but it definitely was not the nerd thing it was by 1996 - but played a part in the societal mainstream.
this were my 80s. did i get the wrong picture due to my young age? or do people of our era can not dive deep into a gone decade, and necessarily they're the ones with the wrong picture? over the years, with snippets of tv shows or films from the 80s, i get the idea that my picture is maybe not as subjective as it might appear at first.
so, now we have 2016, and it seems that maybe these things are not as gone and far away as one might have thought between 2000-2010. there is definitely a growing interest in politics. there is real political talk and debates again. there is a heightened interest in anarchism.
space themes and science fiction, in music tv and film make a comeback. when it was announced earlier this year, that a 9th (10th?) planet might be discovered soon in our solar system, and the mainstream news was eager to pick this up and run the story, i got a positive vibe of "retro-future shock". because this was definitely close to the feelings towards these things in the long gone by decade.
Plato's Anarchy
plato's theory of forms can be seen in a purely intellectual way. of certain theories, ideas, concepts, thoughts, pure versions can be conceived. this can be seen best in the field of mathematics, with it's pure, irrefutable logic, formulas, theorems and abstractions. what is noteworthy is that in the history of philosophy, these thinkers that dealt with plato's theory of forms usually put their focus only on ideas that are friendly to existing society and hierarchy; such as the question of a pure government. yet if we assume that on an intellectual level we can imagine a pure version to any idea or thought (such as pure justice to justice, or pure freedom to freedom), this also goes for ideas that are neglected by and are dirty to society. pure rebellion, pure anarchy, pure resistance, pure chaos. the theory of anarchism and resistance has to exist on an abstract, wholly intellectual, "higher" level too (while at the same time, of course, staying a real world affair). so let's indulge in that.
Music And Politics - Part 2
there are two main points that are brought forth when talking about the connection of politics and music. the first is that one should not *force* artists to develop a connection with politics. that it is the choice of the artist whether he wants to do political or unpolitical art. what quickly becomes visible though is that the same people readily get angry about political art and artists. if it's freedom of choice, shouldn't the choice to be political be respected too? seems these types have a very one-sided definition of freedom, and of choice. but that is not the main thing i want to say. the thing is that no artwork is merely the artwork to itself. art always has a cultural connection, a social connection, a connection to the individual, the artist - and always a political connection! there is simply no unpolitical art. every art also has a political message that it communicates to the audience. it's so strange that in our times there is such a focus on the social and other connections of the artist - how was his childhood, his youth, his ethnic background, was he raised religiously - but almost no interest in the political convictions of the artist. if the culture or social surrounding influenced his artworks, why shouldn't have his political connection left a mark on his art? in fact even when there is a piece written or a documentary segment made about a band whose political connection can't be denied, like some bands from 70s punk or 60s rock, this is then downplayed to some kind of general 'social discontent' or social flux. the actual political ideas of the artists in question are rarely mentioned and almost never debated.
saying the political ideas of an artist have no influence on his or her art is like saying the social and cultural situation of jamaica had no impact on the history of reggae music.
note that this not only goes for particular "leftradical" or other artists, but every artist, because every artist (and person) has political ideas.
art doesn't exist in a vacuum and just as everyone understands that the cultural background and personal biography of an artist has an impact on his or her art, it should be understood that the political opinions of the artist have an impact on the art - whether the artist wants it or not.
which brings us to the second point. when saying that art should be political - does that put down artists that are unpolitical? well again it is no "should", but every form of art *is* political. but, what this kind of statement hints at is that some art doesn't have an obvious political statement. but take oldschool gabber or early breakcore for example, even if there was no political statement visibly attached to a track, the raw power, anger, defiance of this music was a politically anarchist and nihilist statement by itself. even more so than a lot of outright political punk bands, for example. this music was anarchist in every way, so the call for political music takes nothing away from it. now there are a lot of electro, minimal, chic house type of producers. i never "bought" that they're unpolitical. they're celebrating luxury lifestyles in their music, expensive clothing, cars, clubs. it's in their lyrics. so they're completely capitalist, hyper-capitalist, to the point it becomes ridiculous. so a lot of people think this is unpolitical music, just for dancing and having a good time at the weekend, but it's deeply, very serious pro-capitalist music actually. but the point is, even if the producers had no intention to do political music, it would be political. because every music is political. if there would be a way, that a producer is really completely freeing himself of all conscious political influence in his music, then i think this would be very risky, because some random political content would fill this gap - because music *has* to be political - and influence his audience and this would be very dangerous. so maybe, in a way, we should be glad in a way that the common techno producers of this day are capitalists. but, of course, there are much better alternatives.
so, saying that music is political is not forcing anything, or devaluing anything. it's just stating a fact.
saying the political ideas of an artist have no influence on his or her art is like saying the social and cultural situation of jamaica had no impact on the history of reggae music.
note that this not only goes for particular "leftradical" or other artists, but every artist, because every artist (and person) has political ideas.
art doesn't exist in a vacuum and just as everyone understands that the cultural background and personal biography of an artist has an impact on his or her art, it should be understood that the political opinions of the artist have an impact on the art - whether the artist wants it or not.
which brings us to the second point. when saying that art should be political - does that put down artists that are unpolitical? well again it is no "should", but every form of art *is* political. but, what this kind of statement hints at is that some art doesn't have an obvious political statement. but take oldschool gabber or early breakcore for example, even if there was no political statement visibly attached to a track, the raw power, anger, defiance of this music was a politically anarchist and nihilist statement by itself. even more so than a lot of outright political punk bands, for example. this music was anarchist in every way, so the call for political music takes nothing away from it. now there are a lot of electro, minimal, chic house type of producers. i never "bought" that they're unpolitical. they're celebrating luxury lifestyles in their music, expensive clothing, cars, clubs. it's in their lyrics. so they're completely capitalist, hyper-capitalist, to the point it becomes ridiculous. so a lot of people think this is unpolitical music, just for dancing and having a good time at the weekend, but it's deeply, very serious pro-capitalist music actually. but the point is, even if the producers had no intention to do political music, it would be political. because every music is political. if there would be a way, that a producer is really completely freeing himself of all conscious political influence in his music, then i think this would be very risky, because some random political content would fill this gap - because music *has* to be political - and influence his audience and this would be very dangerous. so maybe, in a way, we should be glad in a way that the common techno producers of this day are capitalists. but, of course, there are much better alternatives.
so, saying that music is political is not forcing anything, or devaluing anything. it's just stating a fact.
Anarchy Is Real
i talked about anarchy and revolution, and these are not only true but possible; not only more possible than everything else but the only thing possible. the thing is, how do people see revolution and anarchism? they think one day, the president or chancellor or whatever is addressing people on TV or a stream, announcing he will step back in the light of some 'revolutionary forces' that have overpowered the state. this is unlikely, people realise this is unlikely and therefore think anarchism is a pipedream. it would be an official message by an official power. but that's not how anarchy works! there is always anarchy, there is always people who rebel, who fight for justice and freedom, who challenge oppression and exploitation, at any point in history, around the world. there is never 100% control by the state or capital or whatever. there is never control. even the sheltered kid by some politician or businessman or politician turns to drugs and fucks things up and gets wayward. often in a negative way but it shows there is never really any control. people do not really believe in society or the laws or politicians. who would not disregard the interest of (hierarchic) society for self gain? people know no government or political affiliation when the pure self interest is challenged. we live in an anarchy, but we live in the anarchy we were warned about; where people don't play by the rules, but in a very egotistical way. when they go against the morals of the masses or hierarchies they often do this for petty reasons or petty gains. still - this shows there is no control.
what we need to realise that anarchy is all around us; that anarchy is a daily choice we can make. but that it has to be a positive anarchy of mutual aid, of cooperation, of freedom. and we need to realise that we are already part of a large matrix of likeminded individuals who do this thing already, even if they don't call themselves anarchists, even if we don't know them - yet. this is the real revolution. let the president believe he still has some power; he never had any.
what we need to realise that anarchy is all around us; that anarchy is a daily choice we can make. but that it has to be a positive anarchy of mutual aid, of cooperation, of freedom. and we need to realise that we are already part of a large matrix of likeminded individuals who do this thing already, even if they don't call themselves anarchists, even if we don't know them - yet. this is the real revolution. let the president believe he still has some power; he never had any.
Towards Revolution
in the heyday of the experimental hardcore scene, when breakcore, acidcore, speedcore, were still developing, there was something in the sounds, parties, records, manifestos, but also above it, that is hard to put in words. an inspiration, something bigger, something great.
but i can try to put in in words nevertheless. society is ruled by rules, regulations, categories, hierarchies, orders and servants, but not only society, the whole culture, the whole world. in the 90s, when record after record came out, and we felt like we were moving forward and had a common goal, it felt like all those rules suddenly became bendable, as if the regulations turned liquid, as if the whole world was in a flux and it was suddenly possible to change the world and program a new path.
when all this crashed down a few years later, it felt as if that time was a feverish dream, a memory almost unreal when thinking of these impressions and motions. but, before that, anarchy had become possible. rebellion was true and revolution seemed round the corner. this then felt faded - quickly.
other points in history where similiar things happened were the sixties in america, or the punk explosion in the 70s.
it took me a long time to realise, that there was a wrong thought to it, when all this was dismissed so fast.
society is always fluid, and always changable - not only in 1968, 1977 or 1999. rebellion, anarchy, a true+just+pure society is possible at any point in history, at 1901, at 1981 and at 2011. a small group of man and woman can change the turn of the world and set a new destiny and unravel everything and built something new. the only people who still seem to know this is a small group (or large?) of capitalists, who turned society into capitalist 'paradise' in the last decades. but this is not necessarily so. anarchy is round the corner. revolution is round the corner - again. so better get things going.
but i can try to put in in words nevertheless. society is ruled by rules, regulations, categories, hierarchies, orders and servants, but not only society, the whole culture, the whole world. in the 90s, when record after record came out, and we felt like we were moving forward and had a common goal, it felt like all those rules suddenly became bendable, as if the regulations turned liquid, as if the whole world was in a flux and it was suddenly possible to change the world and program a new path.
when all this crashed down a few years later, it felt as if that time was a feverish dream, a memory almost unreal when thinking of these impressions and motions. but, before that, anarchy had become possible. rebellion was true and revolution seemed round the corner. this then felt faded - quickly.
other points in history where similiar things happened were the sixties in america, or the punk explosion in the 70s.
it took me a long time to realise, that there was a wrong thought to it, when all this was dismissed so fast.
society is always fluid, and always changable - not only in 1968, 1977 or 1999. rebellion, anarchy, a true+just+pure society is possible at any point in history, at 1901, at 1981 and at 2011. a small group of man and woman can change the turn of the world and set a new destiny and unravel everything and built something new. the only people who still seem to know this is a small group (or large?) of capitalists, who turned society into capitalist 'paradise' in the last decades. but this is not necessarily so. anarchy is round the corner. revolution is round the corner - again. so better get things going.
How To Incite Social Change By Purely Sonic Means
it is not accidental that "culture" has a double meaning: for works of art aswell as for a society, a civilization as a whole (as in: the egypt culture, the roman culture). farming, a millstone are techniques of culture; but a painting of a field or a windmill is "culture" too! the truth is that in any part of culture, the whole of culture is recreated. in a military society, the stories, poems will be about war. a seafaring nation will have fairytales and epics about the ocean; and so on. but this not a onesided transmission; the works of art shape and recreate the society at large too. therefore; changing the art of a society will inevitably change this society too. this is the reason dictators and oppressors always hated the free expression of art; and often feared it more than armed rebels and resistance.
so, let us look at music. every song is a model of the culture it was created in at large. by changing this model you give an impulse to change society at large. the question is: what is represented by what in the song, and exactly what is to be changed. this is, at first, a tough question. for example, the high frequencies of noise music have an unnerving, exciting, insurrectionary aspect. but the high frequencies of pop can transport the uneasiness that makes people cling to the promises of false "security" by the autocrats. the distorted midranges of rocknroll transport raw emotion that can fuel uprisings. yet the distorted midrange of nazirock supports primitive "urges" that fuel fascism. the pounding rhythm of early techno made you get going and get active; the monotonous rhythm of later techno makes you walk "the straight path" of society without diverging from it, in a monotonous fashion.
but there is one thing that is the key factor in insurrectionary music. it is song structure. it is no wonder that the most political decades of the 20th century, the 60s and 70s, gave rise to the most complicated song structures since classical music, in genres like psychedelic rock, progressive rock or krautrock. it is the one thing that defines all. the society which defines every aspect of life in a hierarchic way has pop music in which the whole structure is predefined. verse, middle 8, chorus... it's all the same in hundreds, in millions of songs. the structure of 99% of songs is so predictable, formatted, defined by rules, "by the book" that it takes all fun, all life - all revolution out of it. the first thing that happened when genres such as techno, house, drumnbass sold out was that all songs started to get similiar in structure (compare the ongoing beat and structure changes in early jungle to the monotonic "DJ friendly" later drumnbass tracks).
so, experiment in structure; combine silent with loud parts, flick through whole genres in a single track, morph frequency ranges. find every way to break up a solid and fixed structure. find the written and unwritten rules that define the structures of pop and other music in western culture, and break them, get rid of them. especially speed changes seem important to me; that's something that has nearly disappeared from music and is something that upsets the pop hierarchists the most. i cannot strain the urgency of that.
this way, you can create sonic pieces, that will have a revolutionary effect on society at large!
so, let us look at music. every song is a model of the culture it was created in at large. by changing this model you give an impulse to change society at large. the question is: what is represented by what in the song, and exactly what is to be changed. this is, at first, a tough question. for example, the high frequencies of noise music have an unnerving, exciting, insurrectionary aspect. but the high frequencies of pop can transport the uneasiness that makes people cling to the promises of false "security" by the autocrats. the distorted midranges of rocknroll transport raw emotion that can fuel uprisings. yet the distorted midrange of nazirock supports primitive "urges" that fuel fascism. the pounding rhythm of early techno made you get going and get active; the monotonous rhythm of later techno makes you walk "the straight path" of society without diverging from it, in a monotonous fashion.
but there is one thing that is the key factor in insurrectionary music. it is song structure. it is no wonder that the most political decades of the 20th century, the 60s and 70s, gave rise to the most complicated song structures since classical music, in genres like psychedelic rock, progressive rock or krautrock. it is the one thing that defines all. the society which defines every aspect of life in a hierarchic way has pop music in which the whole structure is predefined. verse, middle 8, chorus... it's all the same in hundreds, in millions of songs. the structure of 99% of songs is so predictable, formatted, defined by rules, "by the book" that it takes all fun, all life - all revolution out of it. the first thing that happened when genres such as techno, house, drumnbass sold out was that all songs started to get similiar in structure (compare the ongoing beat and structure changes in early jungle to the monotonic "DJ friendly" later drumnbass tracks).
so, experiment in structure; combine silent with loud parts, flick through whole genres in a single track, morph frequency ranges. find every way to break up a solid and fixed structure. find the written and unwritten rules that define the structures of pop and other music in western culture, and break them, get rid of them. especially speed changes seem important to me; that's something that has nearly disappeared from music and is something that upsets the pop hierarchists the most. i cannot strain the urgency of that.
this way, you can create sonic pieces, that will have a revolutionary effect on society at large!
Anarchy Is Possible
all revolutionary political, subcultural, artistic movements came to an end or were severely damaged at the end of the last decade of the 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21th century. the leftist movements withered, anarchism withered, the political part of punk withered, of hardcore, of breakcore, situationists, hippies, anticapitalists, everything.
in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was - the internet. and this can be explained in a very simple way. with access to the internet, one can look up and read all about the various anarchism movements, the various attempts at revolution, the struggles - and how all of them failed. one can look up the political bands and artists of the past, and see how they either selled out when they got the chance, or succumb to infighting and selfishness - the old "human nature makes anarchism impossible" argument - or were run by crooks and impostors who used the revolutionary slogans for "self-gain" from the start.
it's the main reasoning one hears now when talking to people to that dislike anarchism or activism. "okay, society is crooked. but what do you want to do? start a revolution? we had revolutions in the past and they did not work. an uprising by the under classes? did not work either. create small communes, groups that are free from the system? it failed in the 60s and elsewhere. do a personal, individual rebellion inside society like the punks did? they all joined society again later - or ended in a worse ways".
that is the main thing that keeps everything in control. people do not believe in change, in positive change, because of this anymore.
but it is not true. it's a lie. everything above is a lie. *why* it is a lie could fill a whole book - maybe a whole library - and this would then be the book of revolution.
so let's just give - a few - examples.
first, the anarchists obviously do not believe in it. they're still here. we're still here. and we have reasons to believe that revolution, anarchy and utopia are still very much possible. so, there is not just one take on the above mentioned idea. there are various attitudes towards the idea that revolution failed. there is opposition to this idea. so how can you be sure that revolution really has to fail?
second, look at a typical biography of an anarchist in 19th, early 20th century. being introduced to anarchy as an adolescent, joining anarchist circles, breaking free from his family, maybe his social surrounding, to join the cause. doing propaganda and activism. and then get killed or imprisoned or something else during a riot or another struggle. there are thousands, millions of people who lived like that. now the early 21th bourgeois will say: see, "he failed. he better had chosen to join a bourgeois life, like we did!" but the truth, during his active days of struggle, he felt more free, more joyful, more ecstatic, more closer to the truth, than any bourgeois could, no matter if it's a billionaire or the president himself. he had a more fulfilling live than the rest. oh, his tragedy is sad - but this doesn't take away the fact that at least it was close to the truth.
of course i would not support such way of life in today's world - there are ways to resists without risking your life! but that does not take this point away.
third, and even more importantly. in western society, in the current days, we only really know about the last 200, 300 years of western culture, any maybe not even that. oh there is a lot of knowledge about past cultures, foreign cultures, but it is far from being conclusive. since hundreds of years, there has always been anthropologists, sociologists etc - not to mention more "crackpot"-style theorists - who claimed that in the past indeed societies that could be considered half, mostly, or fully(!) anarchist. tribal societies, sometimes even agricultural or advanced societies, or "short lived" (i.e. a matter of a few decades - or sometimes even centuries) enclaves. the point is not whether this is true or not - but that we *cannot* know. it might very likely be that there has been organized anarchy before. if the "primitivists" (which i often do not like very much) are right, in a sense mankind has lived much longer without government than with government. that mankind lived longer without capitalism and a ruling bourgeoisie is indisputable.
so how can then people be *sure* that anarchy is not possible with 'human nature'? how can they be sure of something that they do not know for sure?
this shows the whole weakness of modernism, of the modern age; that most of it's theories are only based on the short period of the modern age itself, and generally disregards anything else. it shows that there is a lot we don't know - especially about human history and human "nature" - and that people just disregard that!
so, yes. anarchy is true. anarchy works. the revolution is possible, even today. and the belief that this is not so - is to most part fake.
in my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was - the internet. and this can be explained in a very simple way. with access to the internet, one can look up and read all about the various anarchism movements, the various attempts at revolution, the struggles - and how all of them failed. one can look up the political bands and artists of the past, and see how they either selled out when they got the chance, or succumb to infighting and selfishness - the old "human nature makes anarchism impossible" argument - or were run by crooks and impostors who used the revolutionary slogans for "self-gain" from the start.
it's the main reasoning one hears now when talking to people to that dislike anarchism or activism. "okay, society is crooked. but what do you want to do? start a revolution? we had revolutions in the past and they did not work. an uprising by the under classes? did not work either. create small communes, groups that are free from the system? it failed in the 60s and elsewhere. do a personal, individual rebellion inside society like the punks did? they all joined society again later - or ended in a worse ways".
that is the main thing that keeps everything in control. people do not believe in change, in positive change, because of this anymore.
but it is not true. it's a lie. everything above is a lie. *why* it is a lie could fill a whole book - maybe a whole library - and this would then be the book of revolution.
so let's just give - a few - examples.
first, the anarchists obviously do not believe in it. they're still here. we're still here. and we have reasons to believe that revolution, anarchy and utopia are still very much possible. so, there is not just one take on the above mentioned idea. there are various attitudes towards the idea that revolution failed. there is opposition to this idea. so how can you be sure that revolution really has to fail?
second, look at a typical biography of an anarchist in 19th, early 20th century. being introduced to anarchy as an adolescent, joining anarchist circles, breaking free from his family, maybe his social surrounding, to join the cause. doing propaganda and activism. and then get killed or imprisoned or something else during a riot or another struggle. there are thousands, millions of people who lived like that. now the early 21th bourgeois will say: see, "he failed. he better had chosen to join a bourgeois life, like we did!" but the truth, during his active days of struggle, he felt more free, more joyful, more ecstatic, more closer to the truth, than any bourgeois could, no matter if it's a billionaire or the president himself. he had a more fulfilling live than the rest. oh, his tragedy is sad - but this doesn't take away the fact that at least it was close to the truth.
of course i would not support such way of life in today's world - there are ways to resists without risking your life! but that does not take this point away.
third, and even more importantly. in western society, in the current days, we only really know about the last 200, 300 years of western culture, any maybe not even that. oh there is a lot of knowledge about past cultures, foreign cultures, but it is far from being conclusive. since hundreds of years, there has always been anthropologists, sociologists etc - not to mention more "crackpot"-style theorists - who claimed that in the past indeed societies that could be considered half, mostly, or fully(!) anarchist. tribal societies, sometimes even agricultural or advanced societies, or "short lived" (i.e. a matter of a few decades - or sometimes even centuries) enclaves. the point is not whether this is true or not - but that we *cannot* know. it might very likely be that there has been organized anarchy before. if the "primitivists" (which i often do not like very much) are right, in a sense mankind has lived much longer without government than with government. that mankind lived longer without capitalism and a ruling bourgeoisie is indisputable.
so how can then people be *sure* that anarchy is not possible with 'human nature'? how can they be sure of something that they do not know for sure?
this shows the whole weakness of modernism, of the modern age; that most of it's theories are only based on the short period of the modern age itself, and generally disregards anything else. it shows that there is a lot we don't know - especially about human history and human "nature" - and that people just disregard that!
so, yes. anarchy is true. anarchy works. the revolution is possible, even today. and the belief that this is not so - is to most part fake.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)