John Lennon Socialist,Communist,Anarchist?

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

Im just listening to John Lennon - Imagine and from my views hes ideas are anarcho-communistic, or utopian anarchist.

What is your view on john lennon politics views?

2xB4dbdNSXY

p.s: Fuck you Mark David Chapman

[The Jay]

I think that he wore a mao pin at one time or another.

[AmericanCommie421]

John Lennon was photographed with a Trotskyist newspaper at a protest and admired Karl Marx, it's fair to say he certainly agreed with the idea of a Communist society. I don't think you could necessarily attach him to any particular tendency.

[#FF0000]

mostly a douchebag

[Manic Impressive]

njG7p6CSbCU

[RedScot24/11/1859]

Anarcho-Communism seems to fit him quite well, he seems the type, but he was meant to have expressed sympathy with the International Marxist Group(Trotskyists).

[Искра]

He was a hippie....

[the Leftâ„¢]

Wiki said he was a member of a revolutionary communist group but authorities never deemed him dangerous because he was under the influence of narcotics so often

[MarkMadness]

I'm pretty sure he would be somewhere around anarcho-communist, but as pointed out by the comment "he was a hippie", he didn't much like the idea of a violent revolution, because he thought that violence would simply lead to state repression and would be ultimately harmful to a movement.

[Manic Impressive]

He was a hippie....
so?

It's really weird how people are so dismissive of the class struggles of the 60's. Look at it like this a generation born during WW2 had seen wars like the Korean war and then Vietnam said enough of all the killing. This is why they abhorred violence as they had lived through one of the bloodiest periods in human history. Most including John Lennon later realized and admitted that "flower power" hadn't worked. Out of this collective frustration and failure groups like the weather underground, RAF, Angry Brigade came to the forefront they were a reaction to the failure of the peaceful protests and their efforts were equally as futile as the "flower power movement". I predict a similar thing will happen again out of this "peaceful" occupy movement.

Anyway back to Lennon, he was an anarchist, but as he always said he was an artist first and a politician second and thus portrayed his politics through the medium of art. I don't see much wrong with his politics except for his views on national liberation struggles (he supported them). He was probably the biggest star on the planet and could do whatever he wanted and would get publicity for it. Think about it we would piss our pants if someone like him was around today using his celebrity to promote revolution. Getting activists heard on mainstream TV, supporting groups like the Black Panthers and others, funding the anti-war movement out of his own pocket etc.

[Manic Impressive]

Wiki said he was a member of a revolutionary communist group but authorities never deemed him dangerous because he was under the influence of narcotics so often
which is why the US government spent years trying to deport him

[Искра]

so?
He didn't have any coherent politics, but just an idealist concept of freedom in toughts.

Anyhow, I dislike him because of his music, even I agree that its good to have "radical artists" in mainstream. Even, I doubt that many Lennon fans get the message.

[Manic Impressive]

He didn't have any coherent politics, but just an idealist concept of freedom in toughts.
you dislike him because he didn't follow a single ideology? And no his politics were clearly in class struggle not just freedom. Or are you talking about while he was still with the beatles and was into all that spiritual stuff? His views changed as the resistance heightened and as he changed as a person.


Anyhow, I dislike him because of his music,
I'm not a huge fan, I always preferred the rolling stones but as I've got older I have started to appreciate it more. But disliking his music is different from disrespecting the activist work he did and dismissing ALL his positions because he may not have been as concise or theoretically informed as we may have liked. If you really looked into his positions on certain things I'm sure (even) you would agree with him.


even I agree that its good to have "radical artists" in mainstream. Even, I doubt that many Lennon fans get the message.
yeah that is a sad truth. I've even heard Christians trying to claim imagine was about heaven :rolleyes:

[Vendetta]

so?

Hippies are gross. :p

That being said, Lennon was a really talented dude.

[Manic Impressive]

Hippies are gross. :p
So are punks

[Искра]

So are punks
Skinhead power!:cool:

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

yeah that is a sad truth. I've even heard Christians trying to claim imagine was about heaven :rolleyes:


How stupid can you get: imagine there is no religion no hell below us only sky above us. And no religion to. come on are they fucking retarder
Religion people are the worlds stupidest people.

p.s:When hi is singing: "Imagine no possessions".And he has an Bloody big mansion how can this go together?

[Искра]

p.s:When hi is singing: "Imagine no possessions".And he has an Bloody big mansion how can this go together?
It's just a show buissnes.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/36/3640/WXSEF00Z.jpg

[Manic Impressive]

p.s:When hi is singing: "Imagine no possessions".And he has an Bloody big mansion how can this go together?
How come when Engles was writing about abolishing private property when he stood to inherit his fathers factory?

The answer is you can still be a communist and own property this isn't a lifestyle choice, we are not Franciscan monks sworn to a life of poverty. Lennon still had value extracted from his labour no matter how rich he was. Although he certainly recognized his privilege his background was extremely impoverished while growing up. The fact that he used his money, his celebrity and his privileged position to further revolutionary and other working class causes is a testament to his commitment.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

It's just a show buissnes.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/36/3640/WXSEF00Z.jpg

this nazi scum reminds me of Johnny Rotten for some reason

[Rusty Shackleford]

not a communist, not a socialist, not an anarchist.

[Manic Impressive]

not a communist, not a socialist, not an anarchist.
because.....?

seriously you guys aren't even putting up an argument

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

not a communist, not a socialist, not an anarchist.

so he was so great that he builted his own political group and they called the group Hippies?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Listen to the song 'Revolution'

[Book O'Dead]

You guys really make me mad!

Everyone knows--or ought to know--that John Lennon started out as a Quarrymanist, moved on to become a Beatleist and ended up an Ononite.

Someone here said he was a douchebag. Okay, maybe he was, but he was OUR douchebag, goddamit!

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

Listen to the song 'Revolution'


You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

he was an revolutionary but he didnt want to use violence he wanted to make change with peaceful ways not with guns!

[Smyg]

Anti-Maoist? That's enough for me.

[Manic Impressive]

Listen to the song 'Revolution'
sRq1mp4VArA

[Book O'Dead]

he was an revolutionary but he didnt want to use violence he wanted to make change with peaceful ways not with guns!

John Lennon was NOT a revolutionary, he was fucking musician!

Hey, I loved the guy almost as much as you and Yoko (except I never sucked his dick), but this idea that Lennon was this, that or the other political thing is ridiculous.

Years ago, when he was fighting the INS for his green card, he gave an interview to Rolling Stone wherein he said that he would help out anyone who came to him with a cause he deemed worthy but that he should not be expected to 'march around the coffee table chanting slogans'.

By that I think he meant that people should not place too high an expectation on his ability or desire to commit entirely to any one political cause. This is something that happens to many, if not most celebrities; people project onto them their own viewpoints because they admire and identify strongly with them. Understandable but not very rational.

[Manic Impressive]

John Lennon was NOT a revolutionary, he was fucking musician!
I play the bass and harmonica, does that mean I'm not a revolutionary :confused:
Or do you only qualify as a revolutionary if you've an AK strapped to your back and are trekking through a jungle somewhere?


Hey, I loved the guy almost as much as you and Yoko (except I never sucked his dick), but this idea that Lennon was this, that or the other political thing is ridiculous.
first what's wrong with sucking dick? second he described himself as a socialist and a revolutionary many times. He said he wanted a revolution in order to end private property and exploitation for everyone in society.


Years ago, when he was fighting the INS for his green card, he gave an interview to Rolling Stone wherein he said that he would help out anyone who came to him with a cause he deemed worthy but that he should not be expected to 'march around the coffee table chanting slogans'.So you're basing your opinion on one quote from a magazine at a time when the Reagan administration was trying to have him deported for being too radical.

[Smyg]

Musicians can't be revolutionaries? :D

[fatpanda]

Didn't it just came out recently that he later changed his views and became a Reagan Republican?

Just a thought...

[Killforpeace]

Didn't it just came out recently that he later changed his views and became a Reagan Republican?

Just a thought...

I hope not...

Lennon had me thinking of suffering through war, labor and life in general when I was about 13, first memories of deep thought actually. Don't really listen to him now though.

[Red Commissar]

Didn't it just came out recently that he later changed his views and became a Reagan Republican?

Just a thought...

Yeah, that's an account given by John Seaman, a former associate of Lennon's who got charged with many crimes relating to robbing Lennon. He claims that Lennon told him he was supporting Reagan but he may've been fiddling with what he was really told. It doesn't match up with things Lennon was doing before then. This is an article from the Nation (yeah, apologies) covering that:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161751/john-lennon-not-closet-republican


A guy named Fred Seaman is all over the conservative blogs today for a new documentary in which he claims that John Lennon was “a closet Republican” at the time he was shot. This seems unlikely.

First of all, who is Fred Seaman? He’d been a personal assistant to John and Yoko at the Dakota in the late seventies, but he’s also a convicted criminal. He was found guilty of stealing John Lennon’s personal belongings, including his diaries, after Lennon had been killed. He was sentenced to five years probation.

You might say that weakens his credibility.

What exactly were Lennon’s political views at the end of 1980? Late that November, Lennon spoke out on behalf of striking workers in Los Angeles and San Francisco. (The story is told in my book Come Together: John Lennon in His Time.) The strike was against Japan Foods Corporation, a subsidiary of the Japanese multinational Kikkoman, best known for its soy sauce. The US workers, primarily Japanese, were members of the Teamsters. In LA and San Francisco, they went on strike for higher wages. The shop steward of the LA local, Shinya Ono, persuaded John and Yoko to make a public statement addressed to the striking workers:

“We are with you in spirit.… In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children.

“Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.”

That was Lennon’s last written political statement. It doesn’t seem to be the work of a “closet Republican.”

Seaman says Lennon told him he was disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980. Lots of people on the left were disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980, and for good reasons. That didn't make you a Republican, closeted or otherwise.

In what turned out to be Lennon’s last interview, with RKO radio the afternoon of the day he was shot, he talked about “the opening up of the sixties.” He said “Maybe in the sixties we were naïve and like children and later everyone when back to their rooms and said, ‘we didn’t get a wonderful world of flowers and peace.… the world is a nasty horrible place because it didn’t give us everything we cried for.’ Right? Crying for it wasn’t enough.

“The thing the sixties did was show us the possibility and the responsibility that we all had. It wasn’t the answer. It just gave us a glimpse of the possibility.”

That interview was his last. Six hours later he was killed.

Fred Seaman tried to cash in on his Lennon connection with an earlier book, published twenty years ago. That one has been forgotten. This story will be too.

That being said, his later years may've led him to repudiate his 'radical' and 'hippie' days, and he certainly wasn't alone in this- we saw other musicians from the old 60s and 70s scene making a similar trajectory and abandoning their earlier progressive sentiments.

To compare his change in thought, here is an interview with John Lennon by Tariq Ali back in 1971 where you can see his 'radical' colors quite well:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/12/08/the-lost-john-lennon-interview/

And then contrast that with this account of Lennon blasting those with 'dreams' of socialism (and complaining about the Spanish Civil War still...) along with attacks on the political establishment. It could indicate a libertarian drift in his later years, or at the very least Lennon reconciling himself to the way the world is.

yoC83orA4ys

Then again it depends on your interpretation of that interview. But there's definitely disillusionment there.

There was definitely a 'left'-bent in Lennon from the 70s and earlier, but it wasn't really socialist or anything on that line. Just the general "Left" scene back in those days that gave him a hodge podge of different political beliefs that he may or may have not retained into his later years.

[Manic Impressive]

There was definitely a 'left'-bent in Lennon from the 70s and earlier, but it wasn't really socialist or anything on that line. Just the general "Left" scene back in those days that gave him a hodge podge of different political beliefs that he may or may have not retained into his later years.
How do you come to that conclusion after reading the Tariq Ali interview? seriously "a leftist-bent"?


Then again it depends on your interpretation of that interview. But there's definitely disillusionment there.
personally I interpret it as an attack on Leninism but mainly agreeing with everyone in this thread. That the hippy dream was doomed to failure and all the people who had considered themselves radicals had given up. He seems angry at people who have given up on revolution.

[CornetJoyce]

"Seaman says Lennon told him he was disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980. Lots of people on the left were disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980, and for good reasons."
What were his illusions about Carter?

[Red Commissar]

How do you come to that conclusion after reading the Tariq Ali interview? seriously "a leftist-bent"?

I'm sorry? I didn't mean to get you angry.

Well to answer that, through out the interview he refers to the differences in class, comments on politics, on the cult of personalities, etc. He had an idea of how these things were going with the way these class differences tied together. Especially in the American scene where mentioning this whole bit regarding differences between workers and the middle-class (and activists and musicians attempting to get themselves involved in all that) rather than the big-tent middle-class that is often espoused in the US, isn't something a lot of guys were willing to do. And it's still like that more or less. The sort of reading material he brought up too, and his opinions on some of the politics in the UK at the time, shows someone who was interested in those things. He certainly was interested in the 'left'.

Point being there's a different difference in the tone from that interview and some of his accounts later on. That was what I was pointing out.

I mean around that time Lennon was also involved in all sorts of activism. I thought it was an accepted fact at the time he was definitely involving himself in these activities, why else was the LBJ and Nixon governments hoping to deport him out of the country? It's one thing to have had the politics he had then, but another to have the money, fame, and resources to make some meaningful action out of it.

I just don't think he kept this same outlook as he went through the late 70s and into his last year of life. Then again we can't know for sure what he would have or wouldn't have done with the upheavals in the 80s. I think to say he was a Reagan supporter was unfounded though, but it's doubtful he could have kept the same hippie views by then.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm sorry? I didn't mean to get you angry.
oh fuck off I'm not angry :lol:

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

mostly a douchebag

^This, alot of hippies back in the 60s wore Commie stuff and hung around comrades but I have never heard anything revolutionary or anything coming close to it coming from Lennon and I think he's vastly overrated. If anything I would bet he was just some pacifist idealist.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

mostly a douchebag
in what ways?


you want to step on the plate you better be ready to win

[∞]

It's just a show buissnes.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/36/3640/WXSEF00Z.jpg

Whos that?

[Geiseric]

Lol it's johnny rotten from the sex pistols. He was making fun of the hypocracy of "radical" artists using political stuff to garner attention, however John Lennon was more political than fucking Bob Dylan, but was no phil ochs. He was political enough to get assassinated and for the government to dislike him.

[Cencus]

this nazi scum reminds me of Johnny Rotten for some reasonIt is Johnny Rotten dressed by Malcom McLaren in a Vivian Westwood creation. The wearing of swastikas at that time did not always denote a favouring of far right politics, it was more a way to piss off your parents/grandparents. In that era in the U.K. it was not uncommon to hear older folks complaining "it wasn't like this in the war" whenever youngsters did anything wrong. What better way to express your rebellion than wearing the symbol of the enemy, dumb, thoughtless but not always racist.

An old aquaintance of mine who was about in the early days of punk in the UK has a swastika tattooed on his kneecap from 77 or 78, his old man beat the shit outta him for it but he was at no point a fascist, far from it. He admits he didn't understand what it really stood for just wanted it for shock value. If you look at any footage Stiff Little Fingers from 78 or 79 you will see swastikas painted on the guitars and I'm pretty sure Jake burns and co were anything but neonazis.

The Swastika in early UK punk came from McLaren using John Jydon as a clotheshorse to display his girlfriend Vivienne Westwoods creations and folks copying that. The only band in that era that as far I know openly objected to use of Nazi symbology was the Clash.

Sorry for off topic post.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

It is Johnny Rotten dressed by Malcom McLaren in a Vivian Westwood creation. The wearing of swastikas at that time did not always denote a favouring of far right politics, it was more a way to piss off your parents/grandparents. In that era in the U.K. it was not uncommon to hear older folks complaining "it wasn't like this in the war" whenever youngsters did anything wrong. What better way to express your rebellion than wearing the symbol of the enemy, dumb, thoughtless but not always racist.

An old aquaintance of mine who was about in the early days of punk in the UK has a swastika tattooed on his kneecap from 77 or 78, his old man beat the shit outta him for it but he was at no point a fascist, far from it. He admits he didn't understand what it really stood for just wanted it for shock value. If you look at any footage Stiff Little Fingers from 78 or 79 you will see swastikas painted on the guitars and I'm pretty sure Jake burns and co were anything but neonazis.

The Swastika in early UK punk came from McLaren using John Jydon as a clotheshorse to display his girlfriend Vivienne Westwoods creations and folks copying that. The only band in that era that as far I know openly objected to use of Nazi symbology was the Clash.

Sorry for off topic post.

i listened to stiff little fingers when i was like 12 years old ( i was a punk from 11-13) but now im a hippie ♥ ☻☺ i dont know what maked me to be a "punk" maybe it was puberty

[Geiseric]

You can still enjoy some punk music if you're not a "punk," however the punk music scene hasn't evolved much since the 80's and 90's so it tends to get boring

[Sputnik_1]

njG7p6CSbCU

my lennon's fav i think

[CornetJoyce]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idzxVynX2XY

[Adorno4498]

...that is John Lydon.

[norwegianwood90]

The Beatles are definitely my favorite artist, and Lennon is very near the top. I must admit, however, that I don't listen to Lennon's music for his politics (or lack thereof). While some elements of politics do appear in the lyrics, I primarily listen to the songs because I think they're genuinely good songs.

Someone mentioned that people think "Imagine" is about heaven. In The God Delusion, Dawkins notes that some religious people have taken to altering the lyrics to state, "Imagine one religion..."

[Book O'Dead]

I play the bass and harmonica, does that mean I'm not a revolutionary :confused:

I didn't say that musicianship and being a revolutionary are mutually exclusive. Nope, never said that.



Or do you only qualify as a revolutionary if you've an AK strapped to your back and are trekking through a jungle somewhere?


No, but we have to distinguish between a diletante and the real thing. Lennon was the real thing when it came to music, he was diletante in matters political.


first what's wrong with sucking dick? second he described himself as a socialist and a revolutionary many times. He said he wanted a revolution in order to end private property and exploitation for everyone in society.

Sucking dicks is fine by me. I have no memory of Lennon ever describing himself as a revolutionary. Sure, he often expressed sympathy for radical causes and even made significant contributions to them; he was generous to a fault. But merely "wanting" a revolution does not make one a revo.



So you're basing your opinion on one quote from a magazine at a time when the Reagan administration was trying to have him deported for being too radical.

More than that, I'm basing it on a lifetime of listening to his music and an almost obssesive adulation of the person of John Lennon.

Also, as far as I know, Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the attempted deportation of Lennon. In fact, Reagan wasn't even president at the time! It all started during Nixon's second term. In fact, after Gerald Ford became prez., George Harrison met with him (thanks to Ford's oldest son) presumably to appeal to him on behalf of John. BTW, there is no evidence that Lennon's deportation case had anything to do with his political views. The stated reason was his marijuana conviction in the UK a few years prior.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than to learn that John had been a socialist revolutionary in his time; the impact on youth would have been enormous. But the reality is different. John Lennon was phenomenally good musician, poet and, in his own modest way, a hero to much of the working class youth, but he was not a socialist revolutionary in any real sense of the word.

[Manic Impressive]

I didn't say that musicianship and being a revolutionary are mutually exclusive. Nope, never said that.
sure sounded like it


No, but we have to distinguish between a diletante and the real thing. Lennon was the real thing when it came to music, he was diletante in matters political.
It seems I have a different definition of a socialist. To me a socialist is not judged by their knowledge of theory but by a few basic premises e.g. being a class concious worker, not advocating capitalism, not advocating reformism and advocating that the MoP be commonly owned. I can't think of much else one needs to have to be defined as a socialist.


Sucking dicks is fine by me. I have no memory of Lennon ever describing himself as a revolutionary. Sure, he often expressed sympathy for radical causes and even made significant contributions to them; he was generous to a fault. But merely "wanting" a revolution does not make one a revo.

More than that, I'm basing it on a lifetime of listening to his music and an almost obssesive adulation of the person of John Lennon.
Just listen to or read some of the interviews posted in this thread or take a look at some on youtube. He described himself as a socialist, a revolutionary, before he renounced religion he called himself a Christian communist. Now I'm far from obsessed about the work or life of John Lennon but I can find evidence of him saying that within a few clicks.


Also, as far as I know, Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the attempted deportation of Lennon. In fact, Reagan wasn't even president at the time! It all started during Nixon's second term. In fact, after Gerald Ford became prez., George Harrison met with him (thanks to Ford's oldest son) presumably to appeal to him on behalf of John. BTW, there is no evidence that Lennon's deportation case had anything to do with his political views. The stated reason was his marijuana conviction in the UK a few years prior.
:lol: I always get Nixon and Reagan confused, my mistake. I think that the evidence about the motivation behind Lennon's deportation case was pretty compelling seeing as he was being singled out above the other pop stars who were not radical but who had the same convictions, plus the fact that the US has form with that sort of thing for instance Charlie Chaplin.



Believe me, nothing would please me more than to learn that John had been a socialist revolutionary in his time; the impact on youth would have been enormous. But the reality is different. John Lennon was phenomenally good musician, poet and, in his own modest way, a hero to much of the working class youth, but he was not a socialist revolutionary in any real sense of the word.
well I aim to please :D

but what would you say is the real sense of the word socialist?

Aside from that what do people think about this?
S5lMxWWK218

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Anarcho-communist, I'd imagine, at least.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Above all else, he was a hypocrite.

[∞]

Anarcho Pacifist?

[Adorno4498]

Just a socialist, Utopian or New Left if any faction. Although not very theoretically grounded, he expressed socialist and antiwar sympathies in songs, was active in the protest movement of the time, and wore a Chairman Mao pin on some occasions.

[Rusty Shackleford]

probably a New Left intellectual elitists/dope enthusiast/liberal.

[Manic Impressive]

intellectual elitists
:confused: make up your minds either he wasn't good enough theoretically or he was an intellectual elitist :lol:

[Rusty Shackleford]

:confused: make up your minds either he wasn't good enough theoretically or he was an intellectual elitist :lol:
you dont have to be theoretically good to be an intellectual elitist. you can be dumb as a brick and still think people who sound smart are the only useful people. :lol:


Kenneth Clark is an intellectual elite but his analyses and presentations are bourgeois as fuck.

[∞]

^Well he is an art historian...

[El Louton]

Leftie. Ask Yoko Ono.

[Rusty Shackleford]

^Well he is an art historian...
my point exactly.