Mastodawn

Did the 70's Punk movement damage people's understanding or opinion of Anarchism?

Did the 70's Punk movement damage people's understanding or opinion of Anarchism? - Feddit UK

As per the title. I have been a long time supporter of Anarchism, but mostly following my own paths and reading random topics. One thing I find a lot, is that peoples opinions vary massively on their opinions of Anarchism and what it should entail (I am aware of the different types of Anarchism). One thing I have noticed a lot over the years, is that, not only do many people not understand what Anarchism is, most seem to think it means Chaos, revolting against everything and destruction of many things. This imho stems from the 70’s Punk movement. That’s where many people first heard the word, and it is what they associate the movement with. Did the 70’s (+ 80’s to a lesser extent) Punk movement damage people’s understanding or opinion of Anarchism in your opinion, and if so, how badly damaged is it? In my opinion it did, and I guess I am wondering how it would be possible to reverse or remove that opinion of so many. Social Media not very effective as a tool for that sort of thing. Or at least doesn’t seem to be anyway.

Show thread

Eldritch Mar 20

No.

Did mass media create false narratives, stoke fear, and misrepresent them. To sour opinion against them and preserve the hierarchy. Yes. If you knew one or are one you knew the narrative was BS.

Show thread

Maerman Mar 20

I absolutely agree. To me, anarchism is, and always has been, about empathy, mutual respect and the dignity of life. Capitalist media made it about aggression and destruction, because that is the lens through which capitalism views the world. Conquest and subjugation.

Show thread

Eldritch Mar 20

Yes, the same can generally be said of the original punks. Those were broadly their ideals as well. You will always get those just aping the aesthetic like John Lydon (Johnnie Rotten), vs those politically activated like Eric Boucher (Jello Biafra). But like with the goths etc, capitalism has distilled it down to just a pop culture aesthetic to try and slap on random things. Without understanding the less visible core elements.

Show thread

Maerman Mar 20

I actually had a thought about this in a discussion last night. Capitalism is based on the assumption of infinite growth, which is physically impossible with finite resources. So it turns inward, in a process of internal reduction. People are reduced to numbers, life is reduced to statistics, and so on. But that is also unsustainable, because this reduction weakens the core. To quote Yeats, the center cannot hold. These social movements like punk and goth get hollowed out by the commodification you describe, until they collapse. But hey, I’m a bit drunk right now, so maybe I’m just rambling.

Show thread

Eldritch

Well the modern concept of capitalism is a warped funhouse mirror of the originally envisioned economic-liberalism. Distilled down to it’s worst aspects under circumstances those that originally envisioned it couldn’t conceive. Much like the authoritarian socialist projects.

As individuals we all know about the limits of things and try to take care of our own immediate environments. It’s why the scam of pushing recycling on to consumers but not the businesses was so popular. There’s nothing wrong with recycling and those who do it. But without a duty and responsibility for business to do the same. It’s just pissing in the ocean unfortunately.

But large hierarchies of power insulate people from the negative outcomes of their actions. Decoupling those concerns and short circuiting any possible checks on that destructive behavior. Leaving a purely exploitative ravenous beast.

And I don’t know if hollowed out is quite the right term. But definitely projecting a false, marketable image. Groups born of outcasts and the fringe can only really exist in those conditions, and we still do. Billy Joe Armstrong is still doing his thing, despite blowing up in popular culture. With people stumbling across his politics wondering when he got political. Always. Greg Graffin while I don’t think he’s gotten a fraction of the recognition he should have. Doesn’t care and is still staunchly doing as he always has as well. Definitely one of the most interesting geology/zoology lectures you’ll ever meet. I don’t think either have necessarily self identified politically. But praxis is always more informative than what someone chooses to call themselves.

Green Day - American Idiot (Official Audio)

YouTube