Why Hardcore Techno Failed

in the 90s, there was plenty of revolutionary content in the hardcore techno scene, and plenty of revolutionary people. i know it because i was there. it might not get acknowledged so much today, and even those who were there in its heyday might deny it actually - seemingly comparable to how 80s conservative american dads might not have been so talkative about their anarchist hippie days in 1968.
but let us say at least three proto-revolutionary groups existed within the hardcore scene: 1. real anarchist types, squatters, rioters, etc. 2. people opposed to authorities, the system, police, without openly identifying themselves with anarchism. 3. and techno hedonists who might not have been openly against "the system" but dreamed of a happy life with partying and freedom without authorities, mainstream society and its pressure.
i think there was a real chance of a revolution in the 90s, to get away with capitalism and hierarchy, and the hardcore techno scene could have played an important role in that revolution. i *believed* that in the 90s, and nowadays i *know* it was possible.
why didn't it happen? i don't think it was due to pressure from outside forces (like the government and society). of course the outside pressure existed too, the government clamping down on the free party scene for example, but really, in the history of mankind, what military or police force could ever stop the spread of a revolutionary idea?
i think it was due to inside forces.
the hardcore scene, and especially its revolutionary individuals, were highly anti-ideology. remember in the 70s and the 80s, also in the 90s to a lesser extent, there were so many socialist, trotskyist, communist and anarchist groups with their programmes and manifestos and rules. and people in the hardcore scene tried to get away from that. they embraced chaos and individual action and spontaneity and many other things 3over this "ideological" approach. for the same reason they were critical of "organized" action and activism.
generally in the 90s there was a thing going on that people got more and more critical of "political ideology" and political activism - that got total in the 2000s years until now.
of course there is a lot to be criticized in trotskyist or leninist ideology - but that doesn't mean you should do away with everything associated with ideology.
let's face it, when you want to have a revolution you need ideas, you need a programme, you need ideals, you need leaflets and manifestos, you need organization, groups, large structures and even some set of rules (even if they're temporary and bendable).
ideology in the negative sense - be gone. but positive "ideology" and organization - embrace it.
but it goes deeper. the hostility and organization was a form of anti-intellectuality and anti-rationalism. 'listen to the records, enjoy the parties. but don't think too much on it. don't reflect it too much. don't write an essay. don't write a manifesto'.
this strain of anti-idealism was going on in the 20th century and became especially virulent in the 90s, and is even worse today.
anti-intellectualism under the guise of anti-ideology and anti-organization killed off the revolutionary content of the hardcore scene.
but, revolution is really possible at every point in history. we can still do it.
just this time it has to be an intellectual, rational, ideal, organized revolt, with superstructures and programmes, or things that resemble them.
because no police force or military force, no capital and hierarchy, could ever stop a revolutionary idea being spread and changing society.