“Hardcore More Than Music” Rant #1

For most people, hardcore culture will never hold any real significance. In fact, many will never even hear about it. But that doesn’t mean our culture lacks revolutionary potential. For one, the scene could serve as a platform for radical ideas that can spread beyond it, much like how radical animal rights took hold in Sweden in the ’90s.

Hardcore also provides a space to experiment with new ways of relating to one another and organizing ourselves. It’s a space we control, and in that sense, it can function as a kind of micro-revolution. Just as a small strike at one company won’t overthrow the entire capitalist system, it can still teach those involved important lessons about power structures. Similarly, hardcore can help shift our worldviews and challenge our perceptions of what’s possible.

Unfortunately, today’s hardcore movement seems to lack ambition in offering a real alternative to the broader, consumption-driven culture. We seem content to be passive consumers of a subculture rather than active participants in something we create ourselves.

Grassroots participation is what makes punk and hardcore special. As long as we—the kids—decide what’s good, what’s hardcore, we retain control over our scene. Sure, we choose what bands to support, but it’s more than creating an alternative market. It’s about actively participating in shaping the culture we “consume.” To me, hardcore is only hardcore as long as we hold the power over the scene, without letting corporations or media dictate what hardcore is or what we should listen to. This power comes through a DIY approach, which is, at its core, a form of direct action.

Direct action is often seen as illegal acts for a political cause, but in reality, it can be anything where you set the terms with others involved, without relying on authority (like politicians). It could be anything from planting vegetables on your roof or creating a subculture, to burning a car or smashing a window. In the long run, so-called non-violent direct actions may pose a greater threat to capitalist society than violent ones. By starting a rooftop garden, you could teach people how to secure their own food, making them less dependent on wage labor for survival. This won’t start a revolution by itself, but it might shift someone’s understanding of food, realizing it comes from the earth, not just the store.

In short, I’d like to see a hardcore scene rooted in the conscious application of direct action, one that challenges what culture is and how it’s made. I want a culture that challenges the worldview of anyone who comes into contact with it, showing what’s possible when you commit to an idea.

Ultimately, I believe that a scene organized this way would inherently be an anarchist movement, whether it intends to be or not. A horizontal movement that operates through direct action to challenge capitalist culture and society is, in my view, as anarchist as it gets.

But the question remains: do we really want this change? Do we have the ambition to turn hardcore into something more than just another subculture with its own style and an alternative market, trading demos, zines, and shirts as the end products? Can we envision a different final product—or no product at all? Can we think that far outside the box? And more importantly, do we want to?