Punk Rock Contradictions

There are many ambiguous contradictions in humanity. There are too many variables to neatly pack into a single explanation or ideology. The human body itself remains a vast internal universe barely understood. If we can't comprehend ourselves internally how can we possibly expect to deal with ourselves externally?

How we behave is a source of many debates among various branches of science and philosophy. Many great minds have offered interesting opinions and theories yet we as a species remain a mystery. Some think this is just fine and others, such as scientists, will never cease, rightfully, to seek for answers. All philosophy is a reaction to things we do not know. Because humans are so diverse in their make-up, it is only natural we were bound to come up with many forms of ideologies and institutions (from the simple to the complex from the kooky to the legitimate).

It's what makes us advance and progress.

So, with this in mind, it always astounds me how people can be so self-righteous in their beliefs. They talk, write and sing as if they and they alone have the answers. Some may not be so arrogant but still feel their way is closer to the truth. Whatever and however one defines 'truth'.

Everyone has a 'take' on politics and history. Sports writers, celebrity talk show hosts, the local cross walk guard, vagabonds, whatever. All feel confident enough to make their thoughts known however idiotic it may sound. That is not to say some of it is not thoughtful. We would not want to censor anybody but when someone begins to quote Chomsky, Moore or some religious fundamentalist things can get, well, slightly askew.

Punk rock represents one of those bizarre human contradictions.

Life is not fair. It is often unequal and unjust. As such, the people who feel left out demand and begin to search for answers. Punk was a music movement that shattered any conventional taboos or stereo-types we may have held. All of a sudden bands like the New York Dolls were cross-dressing in the early 70s and Lou Reed was writing about gay hustlers in their respective social commentaries. Later, in the late 70s, punk began to refine its intellectualism, mixed in with some reggae, and turned its attention to politics and economics.

Many punk architects were intelligent poets and thinkers. They questioned all sorts of things about the flaws in humanity. They had their visions and beliefs as to why this was so. But like everything else, as they grow old, they grow wise and begin to realize that, well, their political and economic beliefs were either unworkable and just plain a tad to idealistic. Didn't Johnny Rotten recently dismiss socialism, so prevalent in punk, as foolish?

While the Sex Pistols and The Clash were genuine punkers, they remained largely on the outskirts of the mainstream. During the 80s, influential underground acts with polished socialist commentaries like The Minutemen were laying down the bricks for punk's foundation in the next decade.

By the time Nirvana came around under the guise of grunge in the 90s, punk was now mainstream. And with it came a lot of dough. One of the grievances, out of many, was the need for 'wealth distribution'. This is such a general term it is no wonder they could never offer a realistic way to achieve this (if it was at all possible which I don't think. The cold hard fact is that as long as their are lazy or dim witted people around, some will always trail. Socialism wants to even out the playing field by taking from the successful and giving it to the sloth. People who work don't like to be made fools of).

Of course, our whole ethos now is to lower the standards as much as possible, create an egalitarian world and pander to the lowest common denominator. We have empowered the lesser minds and decided to anti-trust the hell out of our creams of the crop. At some point, if it hasn't already, this will be detrimental to us. In a way, Burke's conservative assertion that democracy is limited in that you can't let the common man rule has some merit.

There is no doubt we need to govern against the excesses of our vices. The problem is that too often, the people who seek to protect us only serve to consolidate their own power base. Sure, unions, as an example, act and exist to protect their workers in principle, but in practice it's just another power grab. They function no different than their opponents at the table. When they don't get the vote they want from their members,they use any means necessary to get the result they seek....just like a politician.

The real travesty is that they hold many of their own back. While they fill their coffers they act anti-democratic. Of course, the same can be said of the corporation itself as Bakan argues in 'The Corporation'. While I disagree with what I interpret as pessimism in the institution, he does make valid points about the corporations Jeckyll and Hyde personality and how this can be detrimental to society at large.

Today, to get back on track, punks are rich millionaire socialists. Millionaire athletes, for their part, have no businsss holding out or banding into unions under the code banner 'associations.'

A friend of mine earns $150 000 a year. He worships and romanticizes men like Che (Crazy Ernie) without realizing that these are the same 'revolutionaries' who would take it all away from them. If they are afraid of Bush, imagine the treatment they'd receive in, say, oh I don't know, China or Cuba?

They claim freedom is being censored yet all we hear is their message. More importantly, we pay THEM to tell us about social injustice. While they talk a nice story, they pad their bank accounts. Then they wonder why no one listens to them. They have no credibility at the core and end of it all.

They hold and cling on to (as they have to) to oudtted political ideals. Green Day's 'American Idiot' track is a prime example of a cynical youth movement to afraid to be wrong or made fools of. They may not want to be an American idiot but the 'wealth distribution' they seek has been funneled into their pockets.

The famous ' widening gap' theory has proven to be elusive. While the West continues on its own questionable path of over consumption that may or may not prove damaging to our environment, the fact remains that many poorer countries are better off than they were prior, for example, to organizations like the IMF, World Bank and WTO. These organizations may be evil incarnate to the seed eater but what is the alternative? Prior to this, what was the recourse for poor nations? We had to start somewhere. No?

Activism has brought us here and now they seek to destroy it because they fear a 5000 year old concept like 'globalization?' If trade practices are to improve it won't happen by throwing rocks at world leaders. Pressure needs to be increased on the tyrannies who have the final say on their own peoples in the emerging world.

Much of what we have created has been achieved over time through trial and error. Thus far, this is the best we've got. We continue to explore ourselves as we move forward. Some of us are more ahead than others in our stage of enlightenment. We can't force poor countries where education remains inadequate to think like us. We need to engage them and figure out a way to narrow the gap of knowledge before we seek to narrow the gap in wages. In other words, getting to know ourselves internally and spiritually remains a work in progress.

I don't know if there will be a quantum leap into another dimension but I do know we need to destroy the culture of mediocrity. Start with all these superficial movements that only serve to hold back some at the expense of others.