people always say ideally with therapy but never most probably. and in that sense it reminds me of the orthodox textual religious person. ideally our society should look like so-and-so. or even the Stalinist, for that matter. ideally. but what about 'really?' I've had therapy on and off since the age of 12, granted fairly basic nhs shit but if we're talking about mass liberation then we have to grapple with the fact that not everyone is going to get top draw Reichian group therapy.
reminds me of this datacide review of DiJ
https://datacide-magazine.com/we-mean-it-man/
reminds me of this datacide review of DiJ
There is a notion that explains a great deal not only about punk rock in general and Crisis in particular, but also the subsequent evolution of both Pearce and Wakeford. – and that is a hankering after “authenticity”. The motive force in everything Pearce and Wakeford have done as “adults” is not politics but aesthetics. It was an aesthetic desire for “authenticity” that led them to join Trotskyist groups despite the fact that they were dandies. Pearce, in particular, has always behaved as though it is possible to live differently in this world – a prima donna act in which he pretends to have risen above capitalism while the commodity economy is still intact – and all of anarchism is evident in this aesthetic pose. Aesthetically (and therefore politically) Crisis were much closer to anarchist noise merchants such as Crass than later “Trotskyist” bands from the Redskins to Blaggers ITA (whose bolshevism was an outgrowth of Bakuninism, whereas both Pearce and the Crass are much closer to the anarchism of Proudhon). Crisis wanted to be “real” and utilised politics as a short cut to realising what is ultimately an aesthetic position. In chasing the chimera of personal authenticity rather than the reality of revolutionary transformation, Pearce and Wakeford came to believe their political posturing was sincere. This fanatical but nonetheless deluded self-belief in a political mission was the basis on which Crisis sold themselves to their fans (some of whom were actually attracted by the hilarious gap between what Pearce and Wakeford believed about themselves and what they actually represented). Given the inability of the aesthetically driven Crisis to deliver on what they’d declared as their political positions, it is hardly surprising that the dominant members of the band ended up breaking with RAR and ultimately conventional Trotskyism.
While there are commentators who have become hysterical about Pearce, the best way of dealing with his scam is to expose him for what he is – an anarchist dry goods salesman.
There is a continuity between Crisis and DIJ in terms of both imagery centred on fascism/anti-fascism and a desire for authenticity that is aesthetically driven. It is difficult to imagine Crisis ever making much of an impression without RAR to mediate their presence on the punk scene, or DIJ existing at all without Wakeford and Pearce being slowly seduced by the ideas and imagery RAR set out to oppose (a seduction that began with these two musicians learning the power of political symbolism – at least partially – through their involvement with RAR). I would stress symbols and imagery in all this, both Crisis and DIJ were aesthetically overloaded to the detriment of both their politics and their music. Although very much a product of RAR, Crisis were also in many ways an anomaly – within a punk culture that thrived on confusion about identity and political belief, Crisis were far more confused than most of their peers. The Art Attacks appear to have been unmoved by their brush with RAR, Adam and the Ants merely ruffled. In contrast to this, Wakeford and Pearce provide examples of “individuals” who were transformed by RAR, but their deep involvement produced effects at odds with the avowed intentions of those who’d set up the organisation.
https://datacide-magazine.com/we-mean-it-man/
Last edited: