What Is Idealist Anarchism?
Traditionally, anarchism has been to most part a materialist - often a very heavily materialist - political philosophy. Idealist anarchism on the other hand sides with idealism, and tries to set the anarchist ideas and principles on an idealist basis.
The idealist part of idealist anarchism claims that life, human nature, human behavior, society, the political world - is defined by ideals. And that all traditional governmental or economic, religious etc authoritarian organizations fail to live up to these ideals; the only way that people could live in a society of these ideals - an ideal society, is by the lack of (i.e. the abolishment of) these authoritarian and hierarchical organizations.
Ideals are ideas, thoughts, concepts, such as freedom, heroism, liberty, equality, individuality, compassion, mutual aid, solidarity. The highest ideals are the truth, rationality and "the good", i.e. the ideal of all goodness.
Hierarchical organizations claim that they represent ideals. But they fail these ideals and usually represent the opposite. The military says it protects freedom, but it serves tyranny; the government says it further progress, but it fuels societal regression; the capitalist press says it spreads knowledge, but it spreads lies and deceit.
The statist or "common" answer to this problem is to say the institutions need to be renewed or replaced; but the new institutions will just be as corrupt and vile, as history showed plenty of times (think of the Russian Revolution).
The only solution to this problem is get away with these authoritarian institutions completely. This will pave a way for humans to truly live with these ideals.
Idealist anarchism has some core ideas, and these are three of them:
Society is not based on or defined by economic or political relations. It is defined by ideals, thoughts, concepts. The economic structure and political structure follows these ideas. The economic or political structure *does not* shape these ideas. Not the ruling class, not the priests, not the military, police or workers are the strongest force in society; but the ideals and those that define them; the artists, poets, philosophers, 'wise men', theorists. Therefore, if you change the ideals of society, you can change society.
Likewise, the strongest force in human nature is rationality. It is not the subconscious, or instincts, or primitive emotions that are the strongest forces. The psychoanalytical theory of the "power" of the subconscious is one of the most vile materialist theories around and total nonsense. There might indeed be *some* humans that in the current state rather follow their instincts than rationality; but even with these: if their rational aspirations would be inspired, rationality would become the strongest factor in their minds.
Therefore, if you inspire the rationality of humans, you will have the most influence. And a society that inspires rationality the most would be an ideal society; and such society would be an anarchist society.
Likewise, idealist action is preferable over "direct" action. Every "action", every move that inspires and furthers rationality, ideals, wisdom, knowledge, enlightenment will shape and steer society and help humans and lead the way to true anarchism.
The pen is mightier than the sword - by a million times. Any "activism" based on violence, guns, bombs, fighting will fail in the end. A movement that spreads ideals by creating art, movies, music, manifestos, poems, critical articles will win over any force that exists in society or human nature.
Anarchists of the past indeed failed because they trusted "materialist" violence and action more than the power of art, of wisdom and knowledge.
Rationality is the strongest force in both society and humans. And idealism is rational. The way to a real free and just anarchist society.
Footnote: [1] I used the word ideals in more than one sense in this text. For most part, I talked about ideals in the real sense; but when I said society follows ideals there is something that should be noted: in the end, society follows *real* ideals; but in our current time, it also follows corrupted ideals like money or power that are far away from the real ideals but are still linked to it in a very imperfect way; people desire money to get human respect by others, which in a sense *would be* an ideal. But even these corrupted ideals are far away from the "materialist" forces of which the materialists philosophers say that they are the motors of society.
Left And Right
in the end, right wing people have been more tolerant of my views than those on the left. i think one of the reasons for this is the following. the left in the 20th century had a very strong anti-modernist sentiment. take for example the main structure of modernism, "bourgeois democracy", i.e. the type of "democracy" thagt exists in western nations. a typical leftwing position was this: bourgeois democracy is another system of oppression and authority and has to be rejected. but with the 90s of the last century and going into the current century, there was suddenly a new breeze of leftists, who would say something like "well, western democracy is still better than fascism or radical theocracy, so maybe we should *strengthen* bourgeois democracy against these threats"*. the funny thing is, this is a typical conservative, reactionary, rightwing stance and i don't want to have anything to do with it. those who *identify* as rightwingers on the other hand usually understand very well that western democracy is a fake, a joke, a trap. but the problem is of course, that unlike the "oldschool leftists" they don't want to replace it with a free society but with a fascist dictatorship that indeed would be a million times worse.
*on a side note, i think that western democracy inevitably leads to fascism, so supporting the one in favor of the other is even more of a dangerous illusion. we should fight for anarchy instead.
*on a side note, i think that western democracy inevitably leads to fascism, so supporting the one in favor of the other is even more of a dangerous illusion. we should fight for anarchy instead.
Hardcore Techno And Anarchist Theory
My new E-book is finished.
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, aswell as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
"sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good."
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
(also available as PDF)
https://hardcoretechnoandanarchisttheory.blogspot.com
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, aswell as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
"sure, the anarchy and rebellion, the anarchies and rebellions you read about might have all failed, or found a bad end. but *your* anarchy does not have to fail. forgot what you read. it is dead. it is text. it is of no meaning. *your* rebellion does not have to fail. your anarchy and rebellion is still possible, it is alive, it is living, inside yourself and everywhere. and this way, you can end up with something good."
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
(also available as PDF)
https://hardcoretechnoandanarchisttheory.blogspot.com
The Trap
I said everything in this world is a trap; and the trap always works the same way.
I will talk about my personal trap, because that is the trap I know best.
When I got records out, and played at parties and did other things, I got to know a lot of people of course. And almost all of them told me the same thing: "give up this idea of an anarchist revolution through music! We can still have parties and lots of fun and good times and enjoy it and the music will continue, but get rid of this anarchist idea." the meaning behind this is clear: to give up an ideal or dream for selfish, material gain. But this is of course wrong. A revolution triggered by music, or any form of art or even books is indeed possible. And anarchism is indeed possible.
So don't fall for such traps. Don't trade in your ideal, dream or vision in order to gain something in this world.
I will talk about my personal trap, because that is the trap I know best.
When I got records out, and played at parties and did other things, I got to know a lot of people of course. And almost all of them told me the same thing: "give up this idea of an anarchist revolution through music! We can still have parties and lots of fun and good times and enjoy it and the music will continue, but get rid of this anarchist idea." the meaning behind this is clear: to give up an ideal or dream for selfish, material gain. But this is of course wrong. A revolution triggered by music, or any form of art or even books is indeed possible. And anarchism is indeed possible.
So don't fall for such traps. Don't trade in your ideal, dream or vision in order to gain something in this world.
On Drugs
I never voluntarily did drugs, unless you count caffeine. I never was drunk in my life. I was sometimes stoned outta my mind being in a room of weed smokers and it's possible someone spilled something in my drink at parties, but in both cases, it didn't make me feel weirder than usual. There were two main reasons for this. The first was I always assumed I might like drugs just a little bit too much, and become easily addicted. The other was the following. Some take drugs for entertainment. Not interesting to me. But what is interesting is that drugs are used in an attempt to gain enlightenment and wisdom. Now this never clicked with me. Reaching enlightenment not by contemplation, but by doing a tangible, direct thing as buying a pill and swallowing it. That seems just so illogical to me. Now you might say, you can get knowledge by reading a book and that's a tangible thing too. But it's not, really. The book and the bed you sit in is not intellectual, but the content of the book you read is intellectual. While the drug is very physical.
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
To further illustrate this; if people could get knowledge and enlightenment with drugs, a restrictive government for example could set up a powerful anti-drug police force, maybe even using extreme measures, stopping people from taking drugs, and blocking them from gaining enlightenment this way! This is just so much non-sense. Because there is no way a government could ever block the spread of true knowledge. Therefore, the true knowledge could not be spread using drugs.
I re-read the texts by Hakim Bey a while ago. He is pro-drugs and actually addresses this point. He claims that the very nature of psychedelic drugs is that they evade government control. Somehow they always get spread.
Interesting idea. If that's true I could've tried drugs all these years. No I won't, just kidding.
I will not believe you can get a very profound insight by doing a very tangible thing such as reaching out, taking a pill, putting it in your mouth and swallowing it. Instead of contemplating. At least not without paying a heavy price. Because people do assume they got important knowledge by drugs. And this knowledge can get them places; becoming a rockstar, rich, whatever, or getting some things they want in life. But it doesn't help them with their intellectual development; at least not to the full extent. And that's what really matters.
Of course I don't condemn use of drugs or drug users, even if they're just doing it for entertainment.
And then there is the shamanic and religious use of drugs, which *could* be useful.
To further explain my point: how do you gain knowledge? By using your mind, reason, logic, your intellect. If someone told you: you will gain knowledge (profound knowledge) by taking a hammer and hitting a nail, or by picking up a stone and throwing it, you would say: nonsense. But that's what taking a drug is: not using your intellect, but doing a physical action: reaching with your hand, grabbing an object, putting it inside your mouth and swallowing it. How could you gain an important insight by this?
My Motivation
When I got back into doing music, I was very enthusiastic at first. But that quickly waned. There were two reasons for it.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
The first was, I felt my music was not on par with my earlier music. It just didn't feel as exciting to me anymore. But the other reason was more important. I felt that I had expressed all that I could express with my old style of music already. I had reached a plateau. And I wondered if it was possible to get to a higher plateau. What made it worse was that with most music I listened to, I had the same reaction. It seemed to be good and exciting and everything, but didn't get beyond a certain level. And I wondered if it was indeed possible to transcend that level by the use of art.
Then three things happened. I re-read Neuromancer by William Gibson, listened to the new music done by Joerg Buchholz, and watched Inland Empire by David lynch. This showed that there was still a higher level to be reached by art.
This was in 2011. All music I done since then would likely not have been possible without encountering these three things.
I of course don't mean I tried to reach the level of mastership a David Lynch or a William Gibson has. But to realize there is something in art, that is still above and not common, and maybe one can reach and share a tiny part of it. Maybe it's a kind of hubris to even desire to reach this level. But I gave it my all, and I am not to judge if I succeeded with it or not.
Hardcore Saved My Life
lately, other artists have posted about their mental or personal problems and their past, so i thought i should do it to.
hardcore literally saved my life.
when i was a kid, i was subjected to bullying. there was a group of other kids that brought knives and other weapons to school. one of their favorite things was to stage "fake executions" with me. for example, they would corner me, and then approach with the knife and make a motion as if they would stab me, and just stop short of my body.
they also beat me, kicked me and strangled me. when they didn't have any weapon, they threatened to just beat my to death or beat me to a cripple.
of course, i was aware that this might as well be hollow threats, trying to impress their peers with that kind of talk and behavior. but to me, they were psycho enough to actually do these things. also they encouraged each other when doing these kind of things, and i feared one of them would snap and turn that threat into reality. and there could just be an accident; the kid wants to fake stab me, but accidentally stabs me for real.
now, i was not very tough as a kid. i was more a nerdy person. so this was really a problem for me. i developed mortal fear and anxiety. and the anxiety started to spill into other areas of life too, not just school.
and i didn't know what to do or how to solve that situation. this is when hardcore entered my life. when listening to tracks like Extreme Terror and other speedcore, it seemed to me that music had that same sensation of "mortal terror" that i experienced at school, but in a lesser degree.
it allowed me to get into a controlled situation regarding that fear. i could listen to hardcore and get used to these feeling and just stop it at will by turning off the CD player. this way, i slowly got used to my anxiety problem and and learned to deal with it, and learned to handle it.
hardcore generally toughened me and got me more self-esteem and control and slowly taught me to take on these problems.
so, in the end, i owe a lot to hardcore.
hardcore literally saved my life.
when i was a kid, i was subjected to bullying. there was a group of other kids that brought knives and other weapons to school. one of their favorite things was to stage "fake executions" with me. for example, they would corner me, and then approach with the knife and make a motion as if they would stab me, and just stop short of my body.
they also beat me, kicked me and strangled me. when they didn't have any weapon, they threatened to just beat my to death or beat me to a cripple.
of course, i was aware that this might as well be hollow threats, trying to impress their peers with that kind of talk and behavior. but to me, they were psycho enough to actually do these things. also they encouraged each other when doing these kind of things, and i feared one of them would snap and turn that threat into reality. and there could just be an accident; the kid wants to fake stab me, but accidentally stabs me for real.
now, i was not very tough as a kid. i was more a nerdy person. so this was really a problem for me. i developed mortal fear and anxiety. and the anxiety started to spill into other areas of life too, not just school.
and i didn't know what to do or how to solve that situation. this is when hardcore entered my life. when listening to tracks like Extreme Terror and other speedcore, it seemed to me that music had that same sensation of "mortal terror" that i experienced at school, but in a lesser degree.
it allowed me to get into a controlled situation regarding that fear. i could listen to hardcore and get used to these feeling and just stop it at will by turning off the CD player. this way, i slowly got used to my anxiety problem and and learned to deal with it, and learned to handle it.
hardcore generally toughened me and got me more self-esteem and control and slowly taught me to take on these problems.
so, in the end, i owe a lot to hardcore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)