Like I've said elsewhere: punk may be about 'spitting in the face' of the establishment, but there's a way to do it and there's a way not to do it. I like the idea of punk insofar as there needs to be a medium to express outrage at society and the desire to have that society change. I dislike the use of that medium to self-promote, particularly when it comes to the promotion of anarchism (which is an absolutely ridiculous concept), and also when it comes to the incitement of unguided rage.
I can hardly blame punk music for the idiocy of the younger crowds (re: highschool kids mostly) that follow it, and seem to (one way or another) be under the impression that breaking windows and tipping over mailboxes is the proper vehicle for social reform... but frankly, that shit isn't practical, it accomplishes nothing (except perhaps provokes a reaction from the already stronger powers that are so "oppressive") and it makes a mockery of all the hard work people put in to trying to make positive changes, and I might even go so far as to say that violent immature bullshit actually sets back progressive changes. Violence and vandalism tends not to phase the fabulously wealthy, the multi-national corporation, etc... they have large enough safety nets to prevent them from being too affected.
If 'anarchism', and the placement of individual self-interest and freedom as the highest priority, which effectively culminates in a 'might = right' scenario (because, truth be told, 6 billion individuals cannot work as individuals in any cohesive and non-conflicting manner), then a social majority is stronger than the social minority and is therefore right to oppress that minority no matter what the minority feels about this scenario. Clearly, this is ridiculous, and noone who actually cares about individual self-interest and freedom would advocate this position; because it leaves them open to unbridaled oppression the likes of which they don't currently face. I mean, seriously. Sure, you may work a shitty job, for shitty pay, with a shitty boss, but its that same shitty job, shitty money, shitty boss, that keep food in your stomach and all that jazz. Really, how many of us can truly say that if all our social safety nets were removed that we could be entirely self-sufficient -- and even if we can, would our lives be made better for it? Not likely many of us, and not likely that it would do us a damn bit of good.
If people want to make changes, then let them argue it out and establish why things in society are wrong and why they need to be changed. The exploitation of blue collar workers, for one. The treatment of the unemployed and/or homeless, for another. The treatment of racial minorities. And on, and on, and on. The answer to this is not the immature, uninformed, ignorant belief of school-children who believe that social-destruction is the punk ideology; destroying society would be the worst thing to do. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. That'd be like getting a papercut on your finger, recognizing it needs healing, and cutting off your arm in response. 'Well, my finger doesn't hurt anymore!' you'd say, as you bled to death from your should stump.
Maybe I never gave the Sex Pistols a fair shot, but from what I've said, it shouldn't come as much of a suprise that I have nothing but contempt and disgust for them.
It's hard to overpraise The Clash, no matter what, or who, got you listening to them. Sure, there are many other punk acts, but they set the bar. They created meaningful anarchy, instead of the predictable territory of chasing women and booze.
]....
holy shit, i forgot about that lit song. they were so bad. i told my friend that when i got an electric guitar that would be the first song i wanted to play. no fucking way!
