So the purpose of the phrase is to demonstrate how what seem to be personal choices are in fact influenced by the greater political struggle. When a woman chooses whether to wear makeup or not, or keep her last name when she gets married, her choice is in fact socially conditionned by a particular social context. Whether her partner is a perfect feminist (you know, the mythological perfect feminist man) or not, she still struggles against *the entire* patriarchy. The actions of a single woman compared to an entire system composed of millions of men (AND women) aren't going to make a dent. It is the organized struggle of women as a whole (which took its form through the feminist movement) that was able to make social changes.
It follows from this that even what may appear to be insignificant and apolitical choices are in fact socially conditionned by the various systems of oppression of which we are part: capitalism/class oppression, white supremacy/racial oppression, and patriarchy/gender oppression.
However from there many people use this fact to reverse entirely the meaning of the phrase 'the personal is political' by focusing their action on personal change. The idea, that ' the political is personal', puts this saying on its head and asserts that personal change will result in political change. But this is a sterile praxis. While personal change in order to conform with our political beliefs is beneficial, it does not lead to a global change in politics without collective action.
There are numerous traps with the Cult of Individual Change as a praxis. For one, it has often obscured the central issue at hand. Environmentalists of a reformist variety often champion individual change, by promoting awareness of recycling, energy saving, etc. But households are a minimal part of the environmental problem. Most of the garbage production and energy use is done by corporations. Further, capitalist economy as a whole causes much more damage than individual choices, through industrial practices like planned obsolescence and a lack of research in sustainability. Since it doesn't profit as much to build, say, computers that are designed to be upgraded continuously rather than thrown out for new models, capitalism results in huge waste. But our elites easily recuperate environmentalist language when it is couched in terms of individual responsability. Hey, it's not the system that's broken, it's all you dumb workers that aren't taking time to compost your trash!
For another, it often leads to a certain holier than thou attitude in certain activists. In fact, some of the allure of this form of activism is exactly this. When I was a student I was working with a reformist group that tried to bring fair trade coffee in the student cafeteria. We succeeded, in particular since we proved to the administrators that the coffee in question would cost *less* than the one they were buying previously. However, it didn't sell very well. So the administrators, instead of selling it for under the usual cost, decided to charge a premium to students who wanted to get fair trade coffee. The sales jumped up. The moral of this story is that nobody seemed to care much about the coffee being fair trade until they thought they were sacrificing something to get it. A marketing guru would say that they were probably willing to pay extra for the branding. Which is just another way of saying they were paying for the privilege of feeling like they were more politically advanced than their fellow students.
But most troubling is the reasoning shown by some of the more individualistic branches of anarchism and left-wing thought which posit the need to drop out of society in order to preserve a certain brand of political purity. It is my belief that this is actively counterproductive to 'the cause', as it were, as it disconnects activists from the general population which is needed to be brought on board to get a mass struggle. I must admit that when I first started down the road of radicalism, drop out culture was appealing, because it meant I could renounce my responsabilities as a contributor to 'the System'. But the most common response I get from reactionaries when I discuss the anarchist political programme is "why don't you just go off in the woods and build your little anarchist society and leave us in peace?" Isn't it weird when you agree with your political enemies? Shouldn't that trigger some introspection?
The politics of Personal Liberation that is frequent in individualist anarchist practice and in punk rock are basically a giving up of the fight. The most misanthropic individuals I've known were all part of this submovement within anarchism. Their belief system usually resolves around the idea that humanity as a whole is mostly hopelessly corrupted and beholden to capitalism as a system, that they'll never grow out of it or seek to tear it down, and that only a few enlightened individuals (themselves) recognize the truth and have the moral fortitude to drop out of society and live at its margins. It's a corrosive belief system. At some point I couldn't sustain that hatred anymore. I would have burned out and killed myself from it. One of the myriad ways in which I got out of that death spiral was when I read "Mutual Aid: A factor of evolution" by Peter Kropotkin and I got to see the other side of the coin: in spite of all the systemic ways in which capitalism and the state try to kill human cooperation, it is still a part of human nature that can never be killed and always resurfaces.
There is a lot of personal investment in the identity of 'radical' when you believe that you're one of the few who has his eyes wide open while the rest of the masses are sleeping. There is a danger when you're feeling all holier than thou that this feeling of being the only person in the world intelligent enough to know the truth becomes more important than the truth you claim to hold. There is a point when some anarchists seem to me to be more invested in *being anarchists* in a non-anarchist world than actually bringing about a freer world. What is more important to you: your view of yourself as a 'pure' individual, or moving the world closer to your view of a better world?
2. "Pyssed" - Crispus Attucks
3. "Ta place est dans la rue" - Les Perfusés
4. "Inde$troy" - Saw Throat
5. "Blind Life" - Provoked
6. "Basilisk" - Schifosi
7. "Héros & Martyrs" - Brigada Flores Magon
8. "Ain't She Sweet" - The Beatles
9. "Shock and Awe" - The Profits
10. "Homeless" - Pennywise
2. "Rien qu'une vie" - Bolchoi
3. "Vietnam - Laos - Cambodge" - Bérurier Noir
4. "Het Bloed Kruipt" - Makiladoras
5. "Summer Dying Fast" - Cradle of Filth
6. "Downtown" - Planet Boppers
7. "Limp Wrist" - Limp Wrist
8. "The Great Fear" - Naytia
9. "Rock 'n' Roll Suicide" - David Bowie
10. "Under the Banner of King Death" - Crispus Attucks
I very rarely watch MTV, or our local equivalent MuchMusic/Musiqueplus. But I caught this clip zapping and I found it very moving.
I love the "Lord of the Flies" vibe to it. Except I always detested the ending of "Lord of the Flies", as you can imagine. The interpretation usually given of the book and its ending in particular is that it is an analogy of the need for an external authority to keep the 'kids' (i.e. human beings) in check. I'm not an English major so I never figured out if the adults were stand-ins for God or Leviathan (the State), but either way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I love this ending better, even though it is technically more sad, as nobody comes to save the day. Our culture is addicted to the 'Good Ending'. This one is more poignant. There is no higher authority, the adults are busy doing the same atrocities as the kids. While it is a dark ending in the immediate, it also holds a libertarian potential. I'm pretty sure that's not the message that Serj wanted to pass in this clip, but there it is. I think it's a demonstration of the 'mainstreaming' of anarchist/libertarian cultural memes. If you want to end war, better start cracking on it yourself with your human comrades, because no God or State is going to do it for you.