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!
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:
Posts (Atom)