Anarchy and Me:
A statement concerning my status as a punk, an individualist, a "poser", and a human being
Okay. Here's the moral dilemma that forces it's ugly head into my simpleton life every single day of the last two months. As a "punk" I am expected to be supportive of anarchy. Punks hate oppression, the government represents oppression, punks hate the government, punks support anarchy. I understand all that. WHat I don't understand is WHY ANARCHY? Why not instead of saying "NO GOVERNMENT!" punks can't just support honest politicians? The reality of the situation is that anarchy would fail. "'A man dies, right? And his body is put into the ground, where it decomposes into random molecules of dirt, nutriants, whatever. Anarchy.' `But then it's reincarnated, if you will, into something complete and organized, a flower, an insect, ultimately, another human being, perhaps. Order.'" (Dialogue Excerpt from SLC Punk). If yu thing about it, Anarchy is only an ideal, and one that would collapse before it had a chance to rise. You see, the punk movement in itself of pushing anrachy on the UK (US, Canada, whatever) is in fact a form of government, a revolution! And even if you can discount punks as a social party, then you certainly can't make the argument that a state in anarchy would remain in anarchy. People WILL take chargel you'd just have a hostile government run by a bunch of elitist snobs who are more well-armed and smarter than the rest of the average bunch. Today, we at least have the option of voting people into power who can do as we tell them to. My point is, even if anyachy did somehow turn over the government and rule the land, eventually the mob or whatever would take over and some sort of governmental institution (if you will) would eventually take hold and take charge.
Now, to my problem with this whole anarchy deal. I don't have a problem with the punks pushing for anyarchy. To me, punk is about being against the grain for social causes, to fight against conformity, racism, ignorance, intollerance, homophobia, whatever. But just because I don't wear leather clothes with spikes in them, have blue hair that's three feet tall, and am often quoted saying "Anarchy in the UK" (which, by the way, means shit to me, as I live in UTAH), I'm labeled a poser and can't be a punk. What's the deal with that? Being punk isn't something you can put on; it's something you live by, something in your head! It's your own change of social conscience. It's about equality! People think it's about Dr. Martens and upbeat music; it's about changing society for the better. And I'm suprised how many punks, who I thought were legit, turn out to be posers.
So what am I supposed to say when somebody calls me a poser? "I'm not the poser, you are, because I've made the decision inside my head to push for equality in America and you haven't, you bigot!" Not exactly a burning comeback, is it? And who is somebody else to say if I'm a poser or not? I can look like a prep or a jock or a schoolgirl or whatever I want, as long as I love the music and hate the fascists, right? Nope! Being punk is now a fashion statement, and until somebody makes society realize this, kids like me are going to be having a very difficult time telling the sheep from the wolves, let alone denting the machine of corporate greed that is America.
