this is my first book on anarchism. in it i try to explore various topics, politics, art (especially music) and philosophy.
my intent is to outline a vision of an idealist anarchism, that is beyond the materialist philosophy of modernism and modern anarchism. with a special focus on the political potential of art and music and how it could be used for social change.
but i don't want to use so much words, if you're interested in the content, check it out.
all texts written by Sönke Moehl.
you can also download this ebook as a pdf at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7sf4lah79cga21y/Anarchism%20Beyond%20Modernism.pdf?dl=0
Anarchism Beyond Modernism
Table Of Contents
00. Further Reading Material
01. Anarchy After Modernism
02. The Deed Of Propaganda
03. Sentiments
04. Can Music Change The World?
05. Anarchism And Subconsciousness
06. The Appeal Of Fascism
07. Plato's Anarchy
08. Music And Ideal
09. Music And Politics - Part 2
10. Anarchy Is Real
11. How To Incite Social Change By Purely Sonic Means
12. Anarchy Is Possible
13. The Power Of Art
14. Hyperphilosophy
15. Let Art Reign
16. The Higher Layer
17. Idealism And Social Rank
18. Techno, Anarchy And The Failure Of the 20st Century
19. Old vs.New, And Ideology
20. The Crisis Of Music
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Further Reading Material
i was contacted by people who read my book "Anarchism Beyond Modernism" and were astonished and perplexed to hear that there was indeed a connection between hardcore techno and breakcore in the 90s and anarchism and political activism.
seems most of it is forgotten by now.
i might compile a list of artictles in the future, but for now, if you're interested in this, it is very much worth checking out the first issues of alien underground and the datacide magazine, which were in my opinion the center of this artistic and social structure, published by praxis and christoph fringeli.
http://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/alien-underground-0-0/
http://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/alien-underground-0-1/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-one/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-two/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-three/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-four/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-five/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-six/
note that were similar projects to these with more material back then.
also worth checking out:
http://darksickmusic.com/c8/archive/09-97/c8/c8contx.html
http://darksickmusic.com/c8/archive/01-98/zine/zine.html
and for content that is published in the current days:
http://datacide-magazine.com
seems most of it is forgotten by now.
i might compile a list of artictles in the future, but for now, if you're interested in this, it is very much worth checking out the first issues of alien underground and the datacide magazine, which were in my opinion the center of this artistic and social structure, published by praxis and christoph fringeli.
http://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/alien-underground-0-0/
http://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/alien-underground-0-1/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-one/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-two/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-three/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-four/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-five/
https://datacide-magazine.com/magazine/datacide-six/
note that were similar projects to these with more material back then.
also worth checking out:
http://darksickmusic.com/c8/archive/09-97/c8/c8contx.html
http://darksickmusic.com/c8/archive/01-98/zine/zine.html
and for content that is published in the current days:
http://datacide-magazine.com
Monday, June 19, 2017
Anarchy After Modernism
anarchism was the only thing that had any sense, any meaning in the last 200 years or so, in the west. all subcultures that had any meaning, such as punk or subversive techno, gained it by their entanglement in anarchy. the anarchist theory was ahead of its contemporary theorists, starting with monarchists, bourgeois democrats, authoritarian socialists, more liberal democrats after WWII or even more modern strains of thinking such as 'focaultism'.
yet anarchism, from its conception on, had one big, painful, crippling flaw, that was the sole reason a lasting anarchist society was never created during its times. which was that it was created during modernism, and was a modernist ideology through and through. from modernism it inherited the one big misconception; that action and activism relating to the 'real world' would be more important than theoretical, intellectual efforts. anarchism was all about activism; the man who is 'all talk no action' was always the main antagonist in anarchists' thought. so they stormed into the real world, agitated, organized, creating protests, rallies, even sabotage and terrorism. and met the fierce opposition of the powers that be and - failed.
in modernism, action speaks louder than words, the real world is more important than thinking.
but this is all wrong; theory is more important than action; idealism is more powerful than realism; the intellect is the one driving force in human behavior; and the intellectual is the one who holds the key to changing society.
the humans who had the most impact on the course of history, did do this solely by picking up a pen or using their voice. marx, freud, countless of other 'theorists', or if you believe the myth: buddha, christ, etc.
the theoretical, abstract, 'ideological' defines society, its tangible structures, its concrete happenings, its everyday life, not the other way round. the belief in the 'idea' of military has more power on people than the military forces, the idea of anarchy would have more impact than anarchist activism.
we don't need anarchist terrorism, we need 'anarchist theorism'. direct action, while still important, has not the place of - abstract thinking.
there is something that has happened to almost every anarchist. when turned to anarchism, the idea of anarchy seems within ones grasp, the revolution just around the corner. then one ventures into 'the real world', into anarchist organizations, activism, struggles, and meets disappointment after disappointment, until the idea of anarchy seems so faded and weak. what happened? not the idea of anarchy was weak - you just turned from it by choosing activism and 'real world action' over furthering your ideal by thinking, idealism, spreading the ideas. you should have stayed with your ideal - you should have stayed an idealist.
i'll give you examples. there is a generation of people that grew up with movies in which 'blacks' have as much wit, impact, smartness and appeal as 'whites'. this has changed minds more than any activism.
even mainstream movies now often, quite routinely paint politicians as utterly corrupt and incompetent. this has corroded the popular belief in government institutions more than our own ittle work.
music such as punk, political hip hop, subversive techno did more propaganda for our rebel cause - by purely artistic and intellectual means - then we could have done otherwise.
if all anarchists had turned into writers, philosophers, musicians, directors, painters, instead of ralliers, 'activists' and bomb builders - we would already live in perfect anarchy by now.
even with the classical anarchists, what is most remembered, admired, and recreated to this day? their countless acts and their activism, or not rather - their thoughts, books, theories?
let us get rid of modernism and its painful reversal of things, with its replacement of the theoretical with the practical.
let us be idealists - dull 'realists' be gone - let us embrace the theoretical, the abstract, let us embrace thinking.
let us not be unbalanced.
we likely need *some* action for our anarchy (or do we?) - 100% theory and 0% could be a trap.
but the main focus should be on theory and the abstract. the right form of activity will almost automatically arise when our theories, and our framework of theories, are strong enough.
let us be artists and dreamers, for these inspire, and for these have have the last laugh.
let us be philosophers.
let us be intellectual.
and let us spread ideas - and let us spread ideals.
yet anarchism, from its conception on, had one big, painful, crippling flaw, that was the sole reason a lasting anarchist society was never created during its times. which was that it was created during modernism, and was a modernist ideology through and through. from modernism it inherited the one big misconception; that action and activism relating to the 'real world' would be more important than theoretical, intellectual efforts. anarchism was all about activism; the man who is 'all talk no action' was always the main antagonist in anarchists' thought. so they stormed into the real world, agitated, organized, creating protests, rallies, even sabotage and terrorism. and met the fierce opposition of the powers that be and - failed.
in modernism, action speaks louder than words, the real world is more important than thinking.
but this is all wrong; theory is more important than action; idealism is more powerful than realism; the intellect is the one driving force in human behavior; and the intellectual is the one who holds the key to changing society.
the humans who had the most impact on the course of history, did do this solely by picking up a pen or using their voice. marx, freud, countless of other 'theorists', or if you believe the myth: buddha, christ, etc.
the theoretical, abstract, 'ideological' defines society, its tangible structures, its concrete happenings, its everyday life, not the other way round. the belief in the 'idea' of military has more power on people than the military forces, the idea of anarchy would have more impact than anarchist activism.
we don't need anarchist terrorism, we need 'anarchist theorism'. direct action, while still important, has not the place of - abstract thinking.
there is something that has happened to almost every anarchist. when turned to anarchism, the idea of anarchy seems within ones grasp, the revolution just around the corner. then one ventures into 'the real world', into anarchist organizations, activism, struggles, and meets disappointment after disappointment, until the idea of anarchy seems so faded and weak. what happened? not the idea of anarchy was weak - you just turned from it by choosing activism and 'real world action' over furthering your ideal by thinking, idealism, spreading the ideas. you should have stayed with your ideal - you should have stayed an idealist.
i'll give you examples. there is a generation of people that grew up with movies in which 'blacks' have as much wit, impact, smartness and appeal as 'whites'. this has changed minds more than any activism.
even mainstream movies now often, quite routinely paint politicians as utterly corrupt and incompetent. this has corroded the popular belief in government institutions more than our own ittle work.
music such as punk, political hip hop, subversive techno did more propaganda for our rebel cause - by purely artistic and intellectual means - then we could have done otherwise.
if all anarchists had turned into writers, philosophers, musicians, directors, painters, instead of ralliers, 'activists' and bomb builders - we would already live in perfect anarchy by now.
even with the classical anarchists, what is most remembered, admired, and recreated to this day? their countless acts and their activism, or not rather - their thoughts, books, theories?
let us get rid of modernism and its painful reversal of things, with its replacement of the theoretical with the practical.
let us be idealists - dull 'realists' be gone - let us embrace the theoretical, the abstract, let us embrace thinking.
let us not be unbalanced.
we likely need *some* action for our anarchy (or do we?) - 100% theory and 0% could be a trap.
but the main focus should be on theory and the abstract. the right form of activity will almost automatically arise when our theories, and our framework of theories, are strong enough.
let us be artists and dreamers, for these inspire, and for these have have the last laugh.
let us be philosophers.
let us be intellectual.
and let us spread ideas - and let us spread ideals.
The Deed Of Propaganda
there has been talk in the anarchist scene for years, that anarchism is too much theory, too much talk, too little action, too little 'real life' impact. but nothing could be farther from the truth. what anarchism is really lacking *is* theory and thought.
think about it. imagine the ruling class has one of their little meetings again, and a meteor strike or plane crash or bomb wipes them all out, the 100 or 1000 most powerful people on earth. the hierarchy lost its head and command. do you think the result would then be anarchy or anarchism? no, either another group claims power or society falls into total chaos. or somehow, an anarchist supported by a small group ends being the president of a western country. do you think he could steer society to anarchism then? no, society would resist this, and he would end up powerless or a coup takes place etc.
why is this? because capitalism and hierarchy is deeply buried in the minds of the populace. they believe in hierarchy and working for material goods and social ranks and gaining as much goods and power as one can get. and as long as their focus is on these things, anarchy won't be possible. what we need is an anarchist mindset that gets spread. that people realize that solidarity and freedom and struggle against oppression and beauty and creativity is the way to go, and not to work your ass off to get another luxury item you don't need.
if the majority of society has this mindset, hierarchy and capital will collapse by themselves as their support by the majority, which they need, is cut off. how should armies and big business and the state agencies still run when its members and workers no longer support them?
this is what we need. not more action and pragmatism. but spreading an anarchist state of mind.
in light of that anarchists are so focused on 'practical' issues it's astounding that they not only lack lofty, deep theories but also the more practical theories. if a man asks, you: 'how would anarchy work? how would the forming of hierarchies, or oppressive power, or violent groups be prevented in an anarchist society?' and all these other questions. what would you answer? anarchism is really lacking in that aspect.
and this is why we don't get a lot of support. because we're lacking in anarchist theories in the first place.
but, as hinted at, we don't just need these practical aspects of theories. what is really lacking more is a deep, abstract, grand anarchist vision, theories that really go to the core, are groundbreaking, and would manage to inspire the masses and lead to true change in the history of man.
"propaganda of the deed" was a phase in anarchist history, in which bombings, assassinations happened to 'agitate' the masses and lead to a revolution. the result was almost zero, as expected. a true dead end for anarchism.
i suggest the opposite. the deed of propaganda. focus more on theory than action, focus more on propaganda than on activism. spread ideas, thoughts, visions, fantasies, manifestos, of solidarity, of class struggle, of adventure, of freedom, of ecstasy, of peace and compassion and of revolution.
reason and intellect are the strongest aspect of human nature. if we try to stimulate reason and intellect through our propaganda, we could really inflame the hearts of people. and change things.
if we try to act and activate before we have a well thought out, brilliant theory of anarchism and how anarchist society works, we will achieve nothing. but if we focus on rationalism, and create these theories, we can truly make a difference.
let's do the deed of propaganda.
think about it. imagine the ruling class has one of their little meetings again, and a meteor strike or plane crash or bomb wipes them all out, the 100 or 1000 most powerful people on earth. the hierarchy lost its head and command. do you think the result would then be anarchy or anarchism? no, either another group claims power or society falls into total chaos. or somehow, an anarchist supported by a small group ends being the president of a western country. do you think he could steer society to anarchism then? no, society would resist this, and he would end up powerless or a coup takes place etc.
why is this? because capitalism and hierarchy is deeply buried in the minds of the populace. they believe in hierarchy and working for material goods and social ranks and gaining as much goods and power as one can get. and as long as their focus is on these things, anarchy won't be possible. what we need is an anarchist mindset that gets spread. that people realize that solidarity and freedom and struggle against oppression and beauty and creativity is the way to go, and not to work your ass off to get another luxury item you don't need.
if the majority of society has this mindset, hierarchy and capital will collapse by themselves as their support by the majority, which they need, is cut off. how should armies and big business and the state agencies still run when its members and workers no longer support them?
this is what we need. not more action and pragmatism. but spreading an anarchist state of mind.
in light of that anarchists are so focused on 'practical' issues it's astounding that they not only lack lofty, deep theories but also the more practical theories. if a man asks, you: 'how would anarchy work? how would the forming of hierarchies, or oppressive power, or violent groups be prevented in an anarchist society?' and all these other questions. what would you answer? anarchism is really lacking in that aspect.
and this is why we don't get a lot of support. because we're lacking in anarchist theories in the first place.
but, as hinted at, we don't just need these practical aspects of theories. what is really lacking more is a deep, abstract, grand anarchist vision, theories that really go to the core, are groundbreaking, and would manage to inspire the masses and lead to true change in the history of man.
"propaganda of the deed" was a phase in anarchist history, in which bombings, assassinations happened to 'agitate' the masses and lead to a revolution. the result was almost zero, as expected. a true dead end for anarchism.
i suggest the opposite. the deed of propaganda. focus more on theory than action, focus more on propaganda than on activism. spread ideas, thoughts, visions, fantasies, manifestos, of solidarity, of class struggle, of adventure, of freedom, of ecstasy, of peace and compassion and of revolution.
reason and intellect are the strongest aspect of human nature. if we try to stimulate reason and intellect through our propaganda, we could really inflame the hearts of people. and change things.
if we try to act and activate before we have a well thought out, brilliant theory of anarchism and how anarchist society works, we will achieve nothing. but if we focus on rationalism, and create these theories, we can truly make a difference.
let's do the deed of propaganda.
Sentiments
a common statement thrown at one's head is: "you might criticize capitalism and 'the west' but if you're honest, are you not glad you live here than in one of the crisis regions of the world?"
but no! i'd rather be in a trench with a machine gun in the third world fighting for anarchism than be stuck in this western nightmare. as the band 'the shizit' once said: "I'd rather be starving and free. Than fat and know they own me."
the truth is that it's the opposite case. the complete lack of meaning and higher purpose in the life of western people leaves them in a state of permanent existential mental terror, and they then need all the luxury and comfiness of 21st century life to at least temporarily forget about this. if you had any real meaning in your life you wouldn't need all you smartphones and fast cars and perfumed toilet paper, you wouldn't even need a roof over your head and could live in perfect freedom. it's no wonder poor countries often top the rankings of having the happiest inhabitants.
the western lifestyle and luxury is a mental prison.
note: i do not approve of the violent struggle, and i think in most cases it is pointless. when i mentioned it, i mentioned it in the sense of a thought experiment.
but no! i'd rather be in a trench with a machine gun in the third world fighting for anarchism than be stuck in this western nightmare. as the band 'the shizit' once said: "I'd rather be starving and free. Than fat and know they own me."
the truth is that it's the opposite case. the complete lack of meaning and higher purpose in the life of western people leaves them in a state of permanent existential mental terror, and they then need all the luxury and comfiness of 21st century life to at least temporarily forget about this. if you had any real meaning in your life you wouldn't need all you smartphones and fast cars and perfumed toilet paper, you wouldn't even need a roof over your head and could live in perfect freedom. it's no wonder poor countries often top the rankings of having the happiest inhabitants.
the western lifestyle and luxury is a mental prison.
note: i do not approve of the violent struggle, and i think in most cases it is pointless. when i mentioned it, i mentioned it in the sense of a thought experiment.
Can Music Change The World?
imagine an isolated tribe on a remote island would lose the knowledge and skills to construct boats. after a few centuries not only the knowledge could be forgotten, but also the existance of the boats themselves. the idea to travel the ocean and visit other islands would be like fairytales and myths to them.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
the same has happened in western culture with the truth that art can change the world.
for centuries, people knew that books, plays, poems, music, paintings can change society.
yet if you state nowadays that art can change society positively, that, for example, a single piece of music, when done right, can spark a revolution, one is met with disbelief and ridicule.
yet this was the belief for a long time, even for most part if the 20th century.
for example, for more than half a century the soviets knew that certain art could damage their authoritarian society and lead uprisings, and took great pains to eradicate and ban it.
but also in the west people knew this.
when rock'n'roll happened in the 50s, americans realized this music could overthrow their old, conservative and also authoritarian society.
and indeed this music changed society for good. that a fullscale revolution did not happen was only because the artists and fans lacked true faith in the end and gave up with the total uprising already in sight. not because it was not strong enough for it, or because the authoritans could have stopped it.
it didn't end in the 50s. similiar fears by society happened with 60s rock, punk in the 70s, and plenty of other subcultures.
the last subculture that was seen like this, as a possible "downfall of society" (in fact a positive revolution) was techno and rave in the 90s.
again, the social "techno revolution" was indeed very much possible back then and only stopped (maybe in almost the very last second) because the DJs and producers "switched side" and joined the capitalist business branches and markets instead - for petty self gain. but the revolution is still possible, even today.
so until the end of the 20th century, in both the western and eastern bloc, people knew that art can thoroughly change society. it is only at the turn of the millenium this knowledge was lost.
if we go back in history, we are met with this knowledge again. remenber the "scandalous" books or paintings of the 19th century.
again, the oppenents claimed that if these were allowed to spread, the whole of society would be in danger (again, in these cases a good thing - because not positive social aspects were in danger but rather oppressive, authoritarian structures of society).
imagine that! in the 19th century a single book could have led to a revolution. but this is very much still possible with art today.
if we go even deeper in history, we again see how the church and monarchs went out of their way to battle certain books and texts - because they knew they could end their reign.
if we look at other cultures, for example islam, we again find the knowledge and fear of societal powerful art.
but even in western society today! the far right artists know they can change society by art (and they should be fought on this). the left radical artists, for example political punk bands, know it too.
the church types are scared of certain art due to this. the esoterics believe in the power of art.
there is only a self proclaimed "elite" of conservative media persons, subcultural people and false, boring "rarionalists" who think that music, art and culture couldn't "change a thing"
most examples i mentioned involve a certain "fear" of powerful art; but the fear was only there because it was voiced by those who were entangled in an oppressive and authoritarian society, profiteering by it, and fearing everything that could lead to real change.
almost every culture and society in history and right now knew that art can change the world. isn't it then very unlikely that the "media conservatives" are right?
believe in it - no, rather *know* it - that music, books, all of art can start a revolution - and change the world positively for good.
Anarchism And Subconsciousness
a common argument against anarchism is the following thing: "yes, anarchist might put forward lofty ideals and theories, but the real life anarchist movements have been crippled by greed, egoism, narcissism. that's why we can't have anarchy. man might talk about ideals, but subconsciously he is ruled by motives like power hunger and greed".
western society is not the first to come up with an idea of the subconscious. you can find ideas about that in ancient indian culture and elsewhere too. but what is unique in western culture is the idea that the subconsciousness is somehow higher, more important thing, the true identity of man. a person talks anarchism but subconsciously he tries to impress others by it, narcissistic. "ah, now we got him! that's his true motive! he is a fool!" bullshit. you can as well see it the other way round. what he consciously does (embracing anarchism) is the real thing and his subconscious motives is of lesser importance. and that's how it is!
maybe the critics are right. there is no man or woman who really fully stuck up to his or her ideals, who did not do weak, nasty, debased and purely selfish things in his life. i'm not impressed by this argument. because you as well will find that noone lived his life without believing in an ideal or a higher intend in some in some circumstances. why should the former be the defining thing of a person and not the latter? i would say: even if someone lived the most vile, ugly, debased life - if he for one second believed in an ideal in his life, then that was his "true self" and everything else he did was of lesser importance.
the subconsciousness and primal drives and urges is never the "true nature" of man. consciousness, rationality and idealism is.
that radical movements are being crippled by greed and narcissism is a very real problem. but it's not a problem as big as people assume.
that man has subconscious motives of violence, selfishness and power hunger is the least worry for anarchism. because this is just subconscious. in the end, it can not overrule the power of the consciousness or rationality.
man doesn't have to be perfect to implement a perfect society.
western society is not the first to come up with an idea of the subconscious. you can find ideas about that in ancient indian culture and elsewhere too. but what is unique in western culture is the idea that the subconsciousness is somehow higher, more important thing, the true identity of man. a person talks anarchism but subconsciously he tries to impress others by it, narcissistic. "ah, now we got him! that's his true motive! he is a fool!" bullshit. you can as well see it the other way round. what he consciously does (embracing anarchism) is the real thing and his subconscious motives is of lesser importance. and that's how it is!
maybe the critics are right. there is no man or woman who really fully stuck up to his or her ideals, who did not do weak, nasty, debased and purely selfish things in his life. i'm not impressed by this argument. because you as well will find that noone lived his life without believing in an ideal or a higher intend in some in some circumstances. why should the former be the defining thing of a person and not the latter? i would say: even if someone lived the most vile, ugly, debased life - if he for one second believed in an ideal in his life, then that was his "true self" and everything else he did was of lesser importance.
the subconsciousness and primal drives and urges is never the "true nature" of man. consciousness, rationality and idealism is.
that radical movements are being crippled by greed and narcissism is a very real problem. but it's not a problem as big as people assume.
that man has subconscious motives of violence, selfishness and power hunger is the least worry for anarchism. because this is just subconscious. in the end, it can not overrule the power of the consciousness or rationality.
man doesn't have to be perfect to implement a perfect society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)