Was ist denn jetzt eigentlich so schlimm an Facebook?

als im 19ten jahrhundert die meisten länder demokratische institutionen bekamen, war ein beliebtes argument der herschenden: "was stört euch denn jetzt noch an unserer gesellschaftsform, wenn euch was nicht passt, wählt anders, oder gründet eine partei und lässt auch wählen" woraufhin die antwort der anarchisten, sozialisten war: formelle demokratische mitbestimmung nützt überhaupt nichts, solange die bevölkerung, die einzelnen menschen, nicht auch die produktionsmittel besitzen bzw. "demokratisch" an ihnen teilhaben können. solange eine kleine gruppe, klasse von menschen - die bourgeoisie - sämtliche fabriken, nahrungsmittel, rohstoffe besitzen, haben diese auch de fakto die macht, und nicht die parlamente. wenn ein reformpolitiker ausnahmsweise mal gewählt werden sollte, könnte die bourgeoisie nach der wahl an ihn herantreten, und sagen: "es ist ja schön, was du den menschen versprochen hast. aber denke daran, wir sind die wirtschaft. also regiere besser nicht gegen unsere interessen".
das war im industriezeitalter - als der besitz der produktionsmittel mit das wichtigste schien. im medienzeitalter haben aber die kommunikationsmittel diesen platz eingenommen.
die allerwichtigste frage ist heute: wer besitzt die kommunikationsmittel?
in den 70ern waren viele kommunikationsmittel in der hand des staates. nehmen wir den bereich musik: das öffentlich-rechtliche fernsehen hatte einige musiksendungen, die für eine band entscheidend sein konnten, ob sie ihre musik in einem größeren kreis verbreiten kann oder nicht. wenn den verantwortlichen der ARD eine band nicht gefiel, weil sie zu punkig, lärmig, oder kritische texte hatte, dann wurde sie auch nicht gesendet. (letzendlich gab es punk und new wave bands die gesendet wurden - das wär ein eigenes thema - aber die mehrheit der musik war es nicht.)
das sich punk trotzdem verbreiten kann, lag daran, das damals die jugend, die bevölkerung noch ein grosses eigenes netz an kommunikationsmitteln hatte und entwickelte:
mundpropaganda, fanzines, parties...
das gerade diese form der kommunikation nun zu einem grossteil über facebook läuft, ist besonders traurig.
facebook ist eine art ARD-hoch-eine-million. wesentlich größer, wesentlich authoritärer, wesentlich bürokratischer, mit wesentlich mehr einfluss und künstlern / bands die von der organisation facebook abhängig sind.
was heisst es nun, das facebook in einem enormen besitz an kommunikationsmitteln ist?
es heisst z.B., das facebook jederzeit ein profil löschen kann und von der kommunikation abschneiden kann. es gibt ja kein "recht" auf ein facebookprofil. in der praxis kann das z.B. folgendes heissen: in amerika formiert sich eine christliche bewegung, die meint, metalmusik ist teufelszeug und muss verbannt werden. die medien greifen das auf, viele eltern sind begeistert, und facebook wird das ganze zu heiss, und konzipiert eine neue regel, nachdem sämtliche profile von metalbands auf facebook gelöscht werden müssen. das ist ihr "recht" weil es eben keinen rechtsanspruch auf ein facebookprofil gibt, und kann jederzeit passieren. es muss auch nicht von aussen sein. die facebookführung will z.B. auf einmal ein neues image für ihren konzern, es soll positiv-familienfreundlich sein, und sie sind der meinung, dass rapmusik da nicht reinpasst, also werden die leute aufgefordert, ihre rapprofile zu löschen. hypothetisch kann facebook ja auch jedes beliebige profil einfach so löschen, ohne das was passiert - man hat einfch keinen rechtsanspruch.
facebook ist wesentlich weniger demokratisch strukturiert als der staat und deshalb auch gefährlicher.
wenn man jetzt facebook mit älteren kommunikationsmittel vergleicht, fällt das auch auf:
z.B. eine anarchistische gruppe verteilt flugblätter, und findet auch viele anhänger. ein politiker fordert nun: stellt denen die telefone ab, verbietet das sie sich treffen, miteinander kommunizieren. dann könnten sie, solange sie nicht krass gegen das gesetz verstossen haben, dagegen protestieren, klagen, usw, und werden oft recht bekommen.
diese rechtliche mittel gibt es bei facebook garnicht mehr - facebook sperrt und löscht einfach, und damit fertig.
nun werden viele einfach sagen, das ist ja auch ihr gutes recht, sie besitzen nunmal die kommunikationsmittel, und wer diese besitzt, kann mit ihnen auch schalten und walten, wie er will.
das ist vergleichbar damit, dass die menschen im mittelalter den feudalismus auch irgendwie als normal empfunden haben, und gesagt hatten "ist nunmal so, der könig besitzt mein haus, meine felder, und kann damit machen was er will. dem könig gehört halt alles und das war schon immer so".
es sollte klar sein, dass es nicht der normalzustand sein muss, dass die menschen nicht die kommunikationsmittel besitzen, die sie benutzen, und dadurch beherschbar und abhängig werden.
die momentane situation ist praktisch so, als dürfte man sich nicht selber etwas zu essen kaufen, sondern ein nachbar verteilt das essen an alle personen im haus, und die menschen sagen: ach das ist so ein netter mensch, der würde diese macht schon nicht ausnutzen. würde er nicht? genauso verwaltet und bestimmt facebook die kommunikation der menschen, und die menschen hoffen, das facebook dies nie ausnutzen würde (obwohl das schon längst passiert).
seiten wie wikileaks wurden einfach gelöscht, weil wohl einige politiker druck auf facebook gemacht haben. man kann sich vorstellen, das jede ähnliche organisation, die eine grosse öffentlichkeit erreicht, der gleichen gefahr ausgesetzt ist.
nun war der kampf der kommunikationsmittel eines der großen themen des 20ten jahrhunderts; vielleicht das größte. selbst rocknroll war größtenteils durch kleine (eine art indie-) labels, mundpropaganda, rudimentäre gegenkulter verbreitet worden.
trotzdem war rocknroll enormer repression seitens des staates und vieler etablierter medien ausgesetzt; aber die labels konnten z.B. sagen "uns egal was die öffentliche meinung ist, wir produzieren weiter rocknrollplatten".
wenn es damals schon facebook gegeben hätte und so verbreitet gewesen wäre, wäre genau das folgende passiert: facebook hätte dem öffentlichen druck nachgegeben, und rocknroll von ihrem netzwerk verbannt, und rocknroll wäre geschichte gewesen.
der bewusste, gezielte kampf um die kommunikationsmittel wurde durch die hippiebewegung und die punkexplosion und die folgenden subkulturen noch verstärkt, durch das schaffen von gegenmedien, dem versuch einer gegenkultur, gegenöffentlichkeit und eigenen magazinen, büchern, foren verschiedenster art, treffen, gruppierungen, und es ist schade, das gerade diese form des widerstands nahezu verschwindet, und gerade die "subkultur" heute über kommunikationsmittel kommuniziert, die in extrem authoritärer hand liegen.
was auch die frage beantwortet, "was" man denn nun gegen facebook tun kann: eben wieder *eigene* kommunikationsmittel aufbauen.
der aufstieg der sozialen netzwerke ist eine enorme niederlage im kampf um die kommunikatiosnmittel und die selbstbestimmung der menschen; aber er ist noch lange nicht vorbei, und es gibt noch viel zu gewinnen.

Techno, Anarchy And The Failure Of the 20st Century

there is a feeling that many members of the technovement in the 90s, or the digital chaos movement, or meta-anarchism, felt: that, for a short moment in time, we were at the top of the world. and then we feel deep, so deep, into the deepest abyss. what exactly was this feeling - and what caused it?
i think an easy way to get a clear picture, of the situation and the possibities that were there at the end of the 20th century, is to look at the music of electronic labels such as Fischkopf or Digital Hardcore Recordings. there was something special about this music; it was not the aggression or the use of digital beats,
not even the noise; this had been done; maybe not done to the extreme, but it had been done. no, what made it special that it was actually composed of various styles of music that were stacked on each other. before Taciturne on Fischkopf Records 012, you didn't have records that combined analog techno, shrill noize, christian chorals, gabber beats, postpunk samples, japanese-style harmonics, and plenty of other things, with each other.
before Atari Teenage Riot, music with aggresion, with shouting, that combined electronic and guitars, existed; plenty of it. but before Atari Teenage Riot, there were not songs that combined rap, acid, electronic hardcore, krautrock-style electronics, avantgarde, punkrock, riot girl shouting, in one piece.
a new kind of music was created. a type of metamusic. that was what intrigued us. it was not only a combination of existing styles, but something on top of it.
most clearly this tendency at the end of the 20th century is seen in what i call "meta-anarchism"; the politics of people like Bob Black, John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. while anarchism during most of its time was firmly rooted in enlightment and 19th century style ideology, these authors took it to a whole new level and combined it with anti-enlighment, advanced ideas, ideas taken from other cultures, from art, from poetry - from science, combined them and created something new.
and, a third part of this final tendency of the 20th century, was the cyberspace, virtual reality movement.
"cyberspace" is the idea to create a completely computerbased world, a world based purely on logic and rationality and reason. a world that is artificial and exists on their own.
how are these three things connected? in all 3 types, material from the world of rationality, philosophy or art, was taken, fused with each other, combined - and something new was created, which then influented the created arts, or philosophy.
this new "rationality", way of thinking, was what suddenly came into existence at the end of 1990s - and vanished almost as quickly again. it was taking rationality and philosopy to its extreme.

so what went we wrong? we had it, for hecks sake we had - and we lost it, and we lost so much.
but, it was not without our fault.
the movie "the matrix" is a good example of this phenomen. it was hyped extremely in 1999 - and lost most of its fans in the 2000s. yet, there was now a changed fangroup that adored the movie.
the matrix was about cyberspace, a computergenerated world. this was how it was understand back then. but nowadays, its main fan base lies in the esoteric, new age realm. and these people say; "no, this is not cyberspace". "the matrix is just a metaphor for the 'astral plane'".
so we had a concept of cyberspace, something based on pure logic and reason, replaced by anti-rational, esoteric new age stuff.
and this is a good example of the degeneration of western thinking in the decades that followed the end of the 20th century.
rationality and reason is lacking more and more, so it's no wonder anti-rational "new age" ideas and such, spread. of course not only in the "esoteric" realm, anti-rationalism everywhere is growing.

but again, this is without our doing. techno *was* hyperrational in the 90s - hardcore too - maybe the most rational, logic based music - feed your head, my friends - but it also had a virulent anti-rational content. especically the social scenes around it. while music such as the anarchist, utopists bands of the 60s led to a culture of demonstrations, books written, essays, manifests, there was not much such output or activity related to techno. the crazed raver of 1992 might be an anarchist in heart, and by action and nihilistic dancing - but he was not an anarchist in action, he didn't join - or created - an anarchist group in most cases.
this scepticism of ideology and rationality by the techno-crowd was its downfull - and no wonder the original techno, trance and hardcore was replaced by "dumb" music when the year 2000 came by.

similarly, the meta-anarchist group was highly, toxically anti-rational. and deliberately and openly so. rationality and intellect was seen as a problem of 19th century philosophy and the enlightment period in philosophy generally - that had to be overcome.

only the "cyberspace" movement was seemingly not tainted by this - but quickly and completey forgotten by the people. creating a computerworld is not so much a topic for scientists and intellectuals anymore, but more for computernerds.

so, at the end of the century, existing philosophical, artistic and rational ideas were stacked on each other - with great results, but then this was quickly forgotten again. but we can get back to it. and then, we're in the advantage again.

addendum:
in the aftermath of the 20th century, this tendency still leaves it waves in some way; there are artists that combinee different musical genres, and philosophers that combine different ideas. but generally, in music the tendency is to "copy" a single genre, like punkrock, or rocknroll, or even krautrock - in an exact way, not creating something new - and the same in current "rationality" and philosophy. in many cases, the combination is laughable - like combining one hardcore techno genre with another hardcore techno genres. generally, it is lacking.

Music And Ideal

i addressed the issue of art, music, ideals and ideology before, but there are still more aspects to look at.
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!

Scales With A Single Fundemental Note

coming from a "techno" background, i was always fascinated by logarithmic scales and their possibility of free transponation of melodies. yet, i was also always interested in linear tuning system.
what do i mean with logarithmic and linear? 12 TET is a logarithmic tuning. all intervals are the same between notes according to their steps; C - C# is the same as F - F#. in other words, the intervals are not based on a "fundemental" note, such as C, but each interval makes sense from any note of the tonal scare. the opposite is the 12 tone linear tuning that i mentioned before; where each interval is based on a basic note, the first note. the second note then is 12-13, the second 12-14, and so on. so, unlike in TET scales, an interval between the third and the fourth note is different than for example the first and second. all tones are directly linked to a fundemental note, ratio.
now, the pythagorean tuning seems to be quite popular these days. yet, if i understand it right, it's not a linear, but a logarithmic tuning again. the interval C-G is, in it, based on the harmony 2:3, which is linear. yet C-D is not based on an interval relating directly to "C", but going a step 2:3 further from G. which means the D directs to the G, not the C. so the "C" is not a fundemental note on which everything is based.
now, each system seems to have its merits. yet i have a feeling that there is something extraordinary about linear tunings / based on a fundemental note. actually, with my first attempts i was not happy at all with the results in trying out this tuning. but now i am finally gaining ground, and the result, in the moment, is more satisfying than linear tunings to me.

The Crisis Of Music

what is the crisis of music these days, that so many people seem to feel, yet find it hard to put in words often? - only to be denounced by those who assure everyone that everything would be "fine". it is that music is only made for petty, small, boring, useless, mindless reasons - to get rich, for fame, for a social position, for greed and material selfgain. to became a star, a megaseller - or at least a "star" within an enclosed "underground scene". music should be made for positive things, for ideals - for the good of humanity, for utopian concepts, to help others, to heal others. to add something good, something truly good and positive and wonderful and fantastic to this world. but this is to most parts lost now. oh, i know a lot of people say this was always the case, just "covered up" so maybe not visible to everyone. but this is far from the truth. even if we would say it was like that, even in the full extent, there is a change in quality now. some promoter or musician might have joined a radical, utopian youth culture for money or fame, and covered it up with nice words. but at least the possiblity of making truly utopian music was acknowledged. these guys might have though "yeah, we are clever, the others strive for social change, but we go for luxury". but nowadays, this position itself has become almost an impossible - for these people. if an electronic musician says he makes music for the revolution, for a free world, for a radical change of the social system, or a peaceful, equal society - he will simply be laughed at, not taken serious, in fact a lot of people would assume he or she has lost his or her mind. because this "utopian viewpoint" is simply not understandable to most people now. almost impossible - but not quite. because, after all, there are still people who believe in the revolution, in a just society and world, and in wonderful, adventurous ideals and concepts. maybe they do not even lack numbers, as opposed to the radical 60s or the punk years of the 70s. but they for sure have become less visible, less "public". in fact, i often get feedback by people who are still radical and dreamers, but most say they feel alienated to the material, greey, shallow music cultures and subcultures that feed the bullshit of the masses and the rest these days. this could be an intermission to say to these people: go on with the struggle! you are for sure not alone. to go on with the topic, if music is not made with a high and positive ideal in mind, it loses all it's value, it's spark, the elements that are interesting and special and outragous (in a good way). this music - becomes the shallow tripe that it is. just think about it - some of music that is most respected and well-known these days, was it not made by dreamers and idealists, who had the most ideal social structures and radical concepts in mind? couldn't that serve as a proof that indeed this way has - its merits? who will think of bands or musicians in 50 years that just swam with their greedy peers in a shallow soup. also what i see a lot these day, is that, especially upcoming musicians, walk a road without orientation. they put a lot of work and energy, and quite some hard sacrifices, into their art. then it first gets ignored, gets picked up by a label or distributor or something else, than "public" interest vanes, and they slowly get back to their start and are in danger of fading into obscurity. this is the danger when music is not based on a high ideal! if you have an ideal - for example, helping people, giving them a positive outlook at life - you have already "attained" everything with your art, when you do this very thing. even if you only help 2-3 people this way, you have done a good deed. and it doesn't matter how many other people listen to your music or stuff like that. and even - which is unlikely - you do not manage to do something good with your art - at least you have tried, and this is noble in itself, and you have done something good and do not have to blame yourself. so what are these high ideals art could be based on? i already mentioned some - to create a revolutionary situation by your music, or helping a radical struggle with your output. music can be a vehicle to make people aware of social and political issues by your lyrics or titles. a noble way is to make music that generally spreads a feeling of amazement, something adventurous, marvelous - for adventure and marvel is what the world needs! and, the most noble act could be, to create art that *heals* others, gives them hope and an outlook and a good foundation for their life. it is no sense to try to make a comprehensive list here - any noble and good and high ideal is worth being put into art. so the next question would be, *how* to put these ideas into? well it should be obvious - just do it. use vocals or lyrics to achieve this, or the direction of your music, the general structure of your art. also there are many many more ways. and, in the end, if you are guided by high ideals when doing your art, they doubtless will end up in your art! so go ahead.

The Error In Thinking

at the turn of the century, there was a realization that a lot of people had, well, that almost anyone i knew of had, me included. indeed, it is interesting that this sudden thought was so widespread. but what was this thought? it went along the following lines; in the history of mankind, man was fueled by great ideas; of social revolution; of cultural revolution; of better times, of a better society. this was in theory. but, in "praxis", these ideas never paved the way in which it was intended. the russian revolution, that ought to bring freedom and equality to everyone, brought more oppression and misery than before. didn't even the french revolution end in "the terror"? could not be the same said about every other revolution - and even if one could say, it did have, all parts accumulated, a positive outcome; was this not a mere nothingness compared to the ideals of utopia, on whose terms it was made on?
the same could be said about cultural movements and subcultures; the young punks screamed rebellion and anarchy - but in real life, didn't they join the "workforce" and a calm life after they had turned 30?
couldn't be the same said about the hippies, the ravers, all the others?
yes, of all the lofty ideals, in the end, judging realistically, not much was left in "praxis".
we, almost, all of mankind, realized that ideal and reality never met, not in the history of men, and probably never will. and on this followed another realization, that seemed so obvious and logical; to not follow these lofty dreams of change and anarchy anymore, and instead focus on - the real life, everyday experience.
to make something groundbreaking in "the actual", in existing genres, instead of clinging for dreams.
in practical results, this for example meaned that former radical electronic musicians dropped their "riot" and "anarchy" shouting and dived into other fields, usually under the guise of "pure art", "art for arts sake". their music and creativity suffered a lot by this.
but let us get back to our way of thinking. the "conclusion" was seemed so obvious, but it was not.
what we didn't realize was that there were two lines of thinking and the one didn't necessarily had to be concluded by the other. yes, that dream and reality do not meet - in principle, this thought was correct. and, it was supported by plenty of evidence. but what we thought then - there lies the problem. because if we can't have both - theory and praxis, dreams and actual results - then why choose the latter, instead of the former?
if we cannot ever put our dreams into "praxis", into an actual, substantial result - why do we have to give up our dreams? there is no logic behind it, well, there is actually no cause or evidence or anything behind it at all. it was just *obvious* to everyone. because "we" knew that pursuing dreams, that were bound to be without the chance of a direct, concrete consequence, was painful and useless. or so we thought.
because this is the big error in the line of thinking of almost all humans. most people, it seems, are unable to follow ideals or dreams, or utopian thoughts at all. but even those who are able to somewhat comprehend these things, still demand that dreams and ideals, have to be realized in some way, have to be put into effect.
and this is not the case at all. if you follow a dream, and it is a good dream, and you have no chance of ever putting it into something concrete, this can be most wonderful thing at all.
because, if dreams and ideals are still chained to the "actual", to a direct experience, they still lack vision, they still lack - what makes them ideal. ideals and dreams that are complete abstract, complete non-definitive, are those that are to be the most admired.
let us give some examples for this. a man might admire the ideal of anarchy, of revolution. this is good. but in the next step, he immediately wants that this idea is turned real. which, in itself is not bad at all. but, if he can't do it, or sees that others cannot do it aswell, he gives up this dream - because for him it is "just a dream". and this is where the error lies. if you cannot put it into something direct - this doesn't take anything of the dream and ideal away. the dream of anarchy stays grand - even if it is never realized! and it is worthy to fight for anarchy - even if it is never realized!
similiar, a life spent on fighting for social justice, is never wasted - even if you "reached" nothing with it, even if you did not manage to make the slightest change by your struggle - it is worthy. because the idea is grand. and the idea is great.
now, to most people this might seem like a depressing stand; to have an ideal and not being able to turn it direct. but it is not like that! the guy who fights for social justice, if he believes in it, even if he "fails", even if it amounts to seemingly "nothing", will live a much happier life than the richest men who is devoid of dreams and ideals - because this idea will give him happiness, too.
of course, this doesn't mean you should pursue ideas for selfgain - but you will gain a lot, gain everything - if you follow a dream or a great idea.
it doesn't matter if a dream cannot be put through - it was never the matter - strive for dreams - for the dreams sake!
this was the error in judgement and logic that we made - that the lack of "substance" of ideals and dreams would mean, that we should abandon dreams.
of course, in no way does that mean you should abandon the "everyday life", "real world" either - live in the real world. but also live in your dreams.
what should also be noted that if you pursue an ideal for an ideals sake, and it is a grand ideal, and you don't care if this ideal "can work" or not - *then* you will actually achieve a lot, in everyday life in the real world too. just like many (or all?) men who truly pursued an ideal and dream and dedicated themselves to it, went down in history. but, again, this should not be a prerequisite for taking this path, not at all.

so to end with our beginning, what would be the results for the subcultures, for anarchists and dreamers?
be a punk, be a hippie, be an anarchist, be a revolutionary, be a wonderful dreamer, or be something new - don't
let it bother you that the "actual" hippie scenes, punk scenes, anarchist scenes, men, women, actions and moves, might not be on par with those ideas and dreams - because this matters little. because the ideals are great. and this is what matters.

Our Current Crisis Of Culture

it is obvious and easy to realise what the current crisis of culture is. and it is easy to explain, why this crisis is so plainly visible to many - while to others it is invisible, even to the point that they insist there would be no crisis at all.
in the last decade of the 20th century, people were bored with the generic tripe that polluted the music area - all that cheesy eurodisco, all those ridiculous poser "hardrock" bands, and so on. instead they wanted new, fresh, different, groundbreaking, breathtaking ideas, concepts. and they got them. some created techno, acid, others dark ambient, breakcore, or other experimental and different music. it is impossible for those who did not live that era to realise how hard these sounds hit everyone; how the feeling of revolution and utopia and paradise music spread. because they are used to it now; but those living then, were not.
now, for nostalgics, the scheme is easy: revolution was in the air; we go to techno paradise, experimental music will break through, forgone by the rock relics and the boring pop genres. but, according to them, something went wrong, and the revolution failed and did not come. but nothing could be more from the truth.
we had our techno revolution. we had our breakcore revolution. we had our dark ambient move. and - we won.
and this is exactly the problem. if we were just crushed by the state repression, or this music had never left its shell, the situation would be much better now. where is the problem with this, with this succesful change?
because, we wanted new ideas, new movements, new society. and we have them. but, now, as they're established - they are simply not new ideas anymore. "our" new ideas are the old ideas now. what was once revolutionary - techno and its genres - is now reactionary. because life is about change, about movement, about breaking from the past each time anew. it cannot stop, it must not stop. yes, the techno breakthrough, the breakcore moment did *indeed* bring a lot of new ideas and modes to the musicworld; but these days, they are simply not new anymore - they belong to the past too, became boring, and worse, predicticable, formatted, precut. in that other decade, it was a breath of fresh air when boring pop songs were cut up and tuned to frantic beats - nowadays, you know this exactly how the breakcore track by some bullshit artist is gonna play out, when you hit play.
the same goes for society; society is indeed different from how society was in the 90s, 80s, 70s. but - it still sucks. or rather, it sucks - again.
our current culture, our music, our mode of living, is indeed the result of the breakthroughs, the social and sonic revolutions of the 90s; rave utopia came true; as came breakcore resistance. but utopia grew stale; as did resistance. not because these ideas were wrong - they were glorious. but because they are no longer new and exciting; they are old, and conservative, and establised. our past revolutionaries are the establishment of today. this can be seen in the all-night techno clubbers; the "party and forget society" myth still holds true for them; but it no longer has the utopian aspect, anarchist, fantastical edge to it, that it had to the first ravers.
the revolutionaries, the ravers, the experimenters, wanted new ideas in that past decade; and they got them. but now, they are not fresh anymore.
culture is always the product between two forces; the agents of change, and the agents of stillstand. those who were agents of change in that other decade, are agents of stillstand now. and the genres that were agents of change; speedcore, acidhouse; too are agents of stillstand now.
now, to get back to our beginning of this texts, this explains why this "crisis" is not visible to many; rather, it is not "visible" to the agents of stillstand; as they *want* stillstand, they do not see the problem. they appreciate it if nothing changes and culture and music just goes on, and doesn't change, so they approve of this.
the cultural stillstand, that is gripping western culture now, is just the "normal situation" for them now.
while for the agents of change, this annoying situation is plainly visible.
what needs to be done, is to rise up once again; to forget the concepts of past music and culture and society. to find something new, create something new, create something great, something wondrous. to produce music that was not done before; to rebel, to revel, to rave, to start a revolution.
"techno" is multiple decades old; and just as tripe as rock was after it lasted several decades. leave this behind; find new ideas, moves, possibilites, methods.
the ideas, the genres, that were so revolutionary in the past, are the moments of reaction now. we need to move on. to create something - awesome. to reach utopia!