What were John Lennon's political views?

[Blanquist]

Is it true he gave money to Trotskyists?

Some of his music is very revolutionary, like "working class hero"

[Book O'Dead]

Is it true he gave money to Trotskyists?

Some of his music is very revolutionary, like "working class hero"

According to a biography of of him that I read while he was living, Lennon was "generous to a fault", meaning that he often gave money to people who asked and who may not have been as deserving as they claimed. So it it would not surprise me if he gave money to political orgs out of sympathy, etc.

[The Idler]

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

[NorwegianCommunist]

That text sound a lot like communism =)

[B.K.]

I think he was some kind of anarcho-pacifist, like most hippies of his time.

[JAM]

In the book, Lennon in America, by Geoffrey Giuliano, Lennon is quoted as saying that the song "Imagine" is "an anti-religious, anti-nationalist, anti-conventional, anti-capitalist song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted." Lennon also described the song as "virtually the Communist Manifesto."

[Revolution starts with U]

Regardless of what he said, and I love Lennon and the Beatle's music, he was a hypocrite, pure and simple.

How dare you sit in your luxury apartment full of luxury goods, planning your luxurious vacation on your gigantic yacht, and tell me to "imagine no possessions." I say to you, John Lennon, "fuck off, wanker."

[Jimmie Higgins]

He was trending leftward during the radicalization of that time. He took on political causes and hung out with a lot of the counter-culture celebrity radicals of the day. It seems like he always had a strong class-consciousness, if a sort of pessimistic bitter one but in the late 60s he clearly developed strong anti-imperialist and anti-racist politics.

But as is most often the case, he never really developed any "answers" just some relatively sharp criticisms. Like a lot of working class people who become famous, he was conflicted because he had the resources that most people don't have, but lacked a regular connection to society that could have kept him more gounded and, as a worker or student, would have given him avenues and bases of power where he could organize with others. So rich, but no real solidarity in an organic sense whereas most of us don't have resources but we do have networks at the grassroots.

Because of this situation I think he, like a lot of celebrities who radicalize tried to use his fame as his "base of political power" he could bring attention to some issue or give people money - he couldn't organize even if he wanted to IMO.

So I think he's an example of how general consciousness shifted and for many of that age in that time, radicalized quickly to a certain extent. But without a solid way to relate these ideas to reality, it's easy to drift politically. I think "Revolution" probably sums up his politics the best - sympathetic, but not totally convinced.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Another point is that he was at least high-profile and radical enought to get shit from the US state :lol:. Probably second only to Charlie Chaplin in incredibly popular celebrities in the US (and the world) who radicalized. Both British, both from common backgrounds, both influenced by the radicalization of their eras, both threatened with deportation.

The trotskyist connection may have been through Tariq Ali, if that's true.

Here's a quote about class-consciousness from interview Tariq did with Lennon:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/12/08/the-lost-john-lennon-interview/

... John Lennon: I’ve always been politically minded, you know, and against the status quo. It’s pretty basic when you’re brought up, like I was, to hate and fear the police as a natural enemy and to despise the army as something that takes everybody away and leaves them dead somewhere.
I mean, it’s just a basic working class thing, though it begins to wear off when you get older, get a family and get swallowed up in the system.
In my case I’ve never not been political, though religion tended to overshadow it in my acid days; that would be around ’65 or ’66. And that religion was directly the result of all that superstar shit–religion was an outlet for my repression. I thought, ‘Well, there’s something else to life, isn’t there? This isn’t it, surely?’
But I was always political in a way, you know. In the two books I wrote, even though they were written in a sort of Joycean gobbledegook, there’s many knocks at religion and there is a play about a worker and a capitalist. I’ve been satirising the system since my childhood. I used to write magazines in school and hand them around.
I was very conscious of class, they would say with a chip on my shoulder, because I knew what happened to me and I knew about the class repression coming down on us–it was a fucking fact but in the hurricane Beatle world it got left out, I got farther away from reality for a time.
...

[Robespierres Neck]

Regardless of what he said, and I love Lennon and the Beatle's music, he was a hypocrite, pure and simple.

How dare you sit in your luxury apartment full of luxury goods, planning your luxurious vacation on your gigantic yacht, and tell me to "imagine no possessions." I say to you, John Lennon, "fuck off, wanker."

I had a girlfriend that broke up with me (partially) because I exposed Lennon's hypocrisy and lack of political motivation to her.

[Revolution starts with U]

I had basically the same thing almost happen to me with a group of friends (who are all now Ron Paulbots. Cult of personality types, you know...). In the end I said "you guys see nothing wrong because you would all do the same!" They were all like "how dare you!" lolz

[Blanquist]

Regardless of what he said, and I love Lennon and the Beatle's music, he was a hypocrite, pure and simple.

How dare you sit in your luxury apartment full of luxury goods, planning your luxurious vacation on your gigantic yacht, and tell me to "imagine no possessions." I say to you, John Lennon, "fuck off, wanker."

What was he supposed to do? Burn his money and live under a bridge?

[hatzel]

What was he supposed to do? Burn his money and live under a bridge?

Something like that, yeah...

(no)

[Hexen]

Another example he was a hypocrite that he often talked about peace but he never shown it in his private life (he abused both of his wives, got into fights, etc).

[Revolution starts with U]

What was he supposed to do? Burn his money and live under a bridge?

He could
1) not accept it because it comes about through intellectual property rights, an institutionalized possession contrary to his supposed ethics
2) use it to fund black markets or revolutionary projects which actually challenge the dominance of capital (rather than sending a few obligatory notes to certain political parties)
3) (This is my plan actually) only accept a small stipend, which allows one to live comfortably, and donate the rest to #2 and poor people.

But no, he fully accepts his bourgois position, rails against it, and by (a paraphrase of) his own words "turns to (eastern) religion to help comfort himself." Fuck off, Lennon. You're a wanker. :thumbdown:
(Love the music tho :D )

EDIT: and claims his superstar-dom is "repression."

[Bostana]

John Lennon once said in an interview about his song "Imagine"that quote:
"It is basically the Communist Manifesto in Song Form."

[ed miliband]

Regardless of what he said, and I love Lennon and the Beatle's music, he was a hypocrite, pure and simple.

How dare you sit in your luxury apartment full of luxury goods, planning your luxurious vacation on your gigantic yacht, and tell me to "imagine no possessions." I say to you, John Lennon, "fuck off, wanker."

don't tell me you wouldn't live like that if you had the option


not that lennon had decent politics or anything, just bashing people for being "champagne socialists" or whatever is boring - proletarian decadence!

[Blanquist]

He could
1) not accept it because it comes about through intellectual property rights, an institutionalized possession contrary to his supposed ethics
2) use it to fund black markets or revolutionary projects which actually challenge the dominance of capital (rather than sending a few obligatory notes to certain political parties)
3) (This is my plan actually) only accept a small stipend, which allows one to live comfortably, and donate the rest to #2 and poor people.

But no, he fully accepts his bourgois position, rails against it, and by (a paraphrase of) his own words "turns to (eastern) religion to help comfort himself." Fuck off, Lennon. You're a wanker. :thumbdown:
(Love the music tho :D )

EDIT: and claims his superstar-dom is "repression."

Oh my goodness, 'fund black markets?' are you joking?

[A Marxist Historian]

He was trending leftward during the radicalization of that time. He took on political causes and hung out with a lot of the counter-culture celebrity radicals of the day. It seems like he always had a strong class-consciousness, if a sort of pessimistic bitter one but in the late 60s he clearly developed strong anti-imperialist and anti-racist politics.

But as is most often the case, he never really developed any "answers" just some relatively sharp criticisms. Like a lot of working class people who become famous, he was conflicted because he had the resources that most people don't have, but lacked a regular connection to society that could have kept him more gounded and, as a worker or student, would have given him avenues and bases of power where he could organize with others. So rich, but no real solidarity in an organic sense whereas most of us don't have resources but we do have networks at the grassroots.

Because of this situation I think he, like a lot of celebrities who radicalize tried to use his fame as his "base of political power" he could bring attention to some issue or give people money - he couldn't organize even if he wanted to IMO.

So I think he's an example of how general consciousness shifted and for many of that age in that time, radicalized quickly to a certain extent. But without a solid way to relate these ideas to reality, it's easy to drift politically. I think "Revolution" probably sums up his politics the best - sympathetic, but not totally convinced.

This is true. At the leftmost point of his political evolution, he did participate I have heard in a study group of the International Marxist Group, which was back then a fairly important Trotskyist organization in England. No longer exists.

I think he mellowed out however in his last years before he got assassinated.

Bob Dylan by the way, at the leftmost point of his political evolution, 1966 or so, was in a "Progressive Labor Movement" study group, a precursor of the ultra-Stalinist Progressive Labor Party.

-M.H.-

[brigadista]

confused[Lennon] - and i hate imagine

[Hexen]

This is true. At the leftmost point of his political evolution, he did participate I have heard in a study group of the International Marxist Group, which was back then a fairly important Trotskyist organization in England. No longer exists.

I think he mellowed out however in his last years before he got assassinated.

Bob Dylan by the way, at the leftmost point of his political evolution, 1966 or so, was in a "Progressive Labor Movement" study group, a precursor of the ultra-Stalinist Progressive Labor Party.

-M.H.-

I guess it shows if John Lennon was still alive today he will most likely be a bourgeois liberal or conservative like Bob Dylan is today.

[Questionable]

He changed his political views a lot. He considered himself working-class, and was sympathetic to their plights. There's one interview where he mentions Mao and talks a little bit about what the revolution in Britain might look like.

http://www.marxsite.com/Lennon%20interview.htm

He went through that whole political phase, but I don't think he was very dedicated. He later wrote a song denouncing pretty much every notable figure in contemporary history and saying that he only believed in himself and his family, so I guess he changed his mind again before he died.

[Revolution starts with U]

don't tell me you wouldn't live like that if you had the option

I wouldn't, and have a very specific plan to insure I don't when I do have the option, including only accepting enough payment to live comfortably, giving the copyrights to my works, etc freely to the public, setting up any companies I may as cooperatives, etc.


not that lennon had decent politics or anything, just bashing people for being "champagne socialists" or whatever is boring - proletarian decadence!
If I were talking to you about how glorious socialism, while at the same time hiring goons to break up the strike from the workers in my factory... what would you think of me?


Oh my goodness, 'fund black markets?' are you joking?
Perhaps I was hasty in that regard. I merely meant funding enterprises which operate below the legal status, and challenge the quo; like bootlegged movies and books, etc. It was literally the least important thing in my post, and I don't see why you singled it out.

I guess it shows if John Lennon was still alive today he will most likely be a bourgeois liberal or conservative like Bob Dylan is today.
Most likely.

[Revolution starts with U]

"You say you want a Revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But if you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count-me-out.
Don't you know it's going to be alright?"

Hardly a revleft.

[Hexen]

The most annoying part however is the conspiracy theories surrounding his assassination saying the US Government did it as if people try to make a martyr out of him.

[The Douche]

Moved to music.

[GallowsBird]

He seems to have generally leaned towards Maoism (in numerous interviews he mentioned Mao as an influence) which is ironic as earlier he wrote and sang in the song 'Revolution' "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow".
He later regretted these lyrics, saying "I should never have put that in about Chairman Mao. I was just finishing off in the studio when I did that."

Whether he is a good socialist or not is up to you, however, many I see who call themselves "Socialists" seem to be comfortable and living well off their parents' money so...

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I always considered working class hero to be a very honest song with some powerful lyrics. Much superior to Imagine in every way.

"As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all"

So fucking true!

"When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear"

Much more valid and valuable observations than that utopian stuff said in Imagine IMO.

[Hexen]

Basically what can be summed up about John Lennon's (and almost every bourgeois accepted artist) life that he basically went through a 'rebellious' stage during his process of raising to the top (keyword) which they will eventually grow out of and embrace bourgeois life.

[Rafiq]

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

So he was a Utopian scum.

Next.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[gorillafuck]

So he was a Utopian scum.you think that the lyrics to Imagine make John Lennon "scum"?:laugh:


He could
1) not accept it because it comes about through intellectual property rights, an institutionalized possession contrary to his supposed ethics
2) use it to fund black markets or revolutionary projects which actually challenge the dominance of capital (rather than sending a few obligatory notes to certain political parties)
3) (This is my plan actually) only accept a small stipend, which allows one to live comfortably, and donate the rest to #2 and poor people.he did donate to leftist stuff. he donated to some trotskyist party and to the irish republican cause.

he had pretty standard new left political views.

[Ostrinski]

I wouldn't, and have a very specific plan to insure I don't when I do have the option, including only accepting enough payment to live comfortably, giving the copyrights to my works, etc freely to the public, setting up any companies I may as cooperatives, etc.Comrade I'm not taking you seriously until you move into the Everglades and renounce civilization. Only then will you have passed the Great Socialist Trials.

[gorillafuck]

I wouldn't, and have a very specific plan to insure I don't when I do have the option, including only accepting enough payment to live comfortably, giving the copyrights to my works, etc freely to the public, setting up any companies I may as cooperatives, etc.only accepting enough payment to live comfortably?

as, letting the people who employ you keep more of your money than they normally would?

[Revolution starts with U]

Comrade I'm not taking you seriously until you move into the Everglades and renounce civilization. Only then will you have passed the Great Socialist Trials.

Ya, because socialism is primitivism. Ya, because I don't desire to be rich, I obviously must go live in a cave. Nice thinking there, comrade.


only accepting enough payment to live comfortably?

as, letting the people who employ you keep more of your money than they normally would?

No, as in funneling the money to worker's empowerment, and revolutionary movements. I explained all this. I understand communism is not a lifestyle. If you want to be rich, whatever. I just will not feel comfortable living lavish at the expense of everyone else. (Nor do I want to live in a cave, or poverty)

[Ostrinski]

But if you're not going to do something like move into a cave then any other measures taken are just arbitrary.

[Revolution starts with U]

Be that as it may, I would not feel comfortable living bourgeois. I'm not going to call myself better than you. It's just how I feel.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Lennonism.
See what I did there? :D

[Sputnik_1]

If i had the opportunity I would have my own yacht and shit like that as well. In my opinion best action you can take is to spread awareness, what would it change even if he gave all his money to the poor and lived under a bridge? "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We have to free ourselves, no one will do that for us, best you can do is to spread awareness, not to be a patronizing pseudo- martyr. Was is hypocrite? Yeah, i guess. Were Marx and Engles hypocrites because of their social status (especially Engles, since Marx was having hard times) ?

[brigadista]

thought yoko ono wrote the lyrics to imagine

[Sputnik_1]

So he was a Utopian scum.

Next.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

So a stateless, moneyless, classless society is an utopia? :/ Cause, you know, that's what communism is about :/

[Revolution starts with U]

If i had the opportunity I would have my own yacht and shit like that as well. In my opinion best action you can take is to spread awareness, what would it change even if he gave all his money to the poor and lived under a bridge? "
Oh my science! :rolleyes: The gap between "I wouldn't willingly become bourgois" and "i want to live starving under a bridge" is far and wide. You guys sound like right wingers when they say "if capitalism's so bad why don't you go live in a cave..."


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We have to free ourselves, no one will do that for us, best you can do is to spread awareness, not to be a patronizing pseudo- martyr. Was is hypocrite? Yeah, i guess. Were Marx and Engles hypocrites because of their social status (especially Engles, since Marx was having hard times) ?
Yes, Engels was a hypocrite. That doesn't diminish his contribution to the writings, or the movement. But he is, flat out, a hypocrite.

[Rafiq]

you think that the lyrics to Imagine make John Lennon "scum"?:laugh:


Yes, I do. He's adopting what a lot of "Socialist" officials in Western Europe did: They tried to re invent the proletarian Ideological vanguard into some kind of big pile of shit. In Lennon's case, he wanted to white wash it into a far off Idea, that we aim to adjust the world to. But when we grow up, we later realize that this is unrealistic and move on. I would go as far as to say that people like Lennon, the Utopians and Hippies in general, were a contributing factor in this disgusting postmodern Bourgeois ideology that dominates most of the Western World: That it is either what we have today, or this far off Utopia in which everything is perfect. It is already established the latter is unrealistic and impossible (Which, quite frankly, it is). So, in turn, they try to combine Bourgeois culture with the old 60's rhetoric, thus an obscure, twisted monster provides itself as a synthesis of this: Modern Day Humanism.

Really, Zeekloid, dump this tendency you have of Balanced politics. There isn't any room for moderates on the Radical Left. You cannot simply define modern day norms as a measurement for analyzing and criticizing things. It simply doesn't pose itself as a measurement superior to any other one (For example, Fascist society/culture).

[Rafiq]

So a stateless, moneyless, classless society is an utopia? :/ Cause, you know, that's what communism is about :/

I would say, yes: Defining your ultimate political objective as a stateless, monyless, and classless society is Utopian. Communism is not, for Marxists at least, some kind of end goal. It is an instrument of the Proletarian class, an embodiment of their interests (or at least it was). It no longer corresponds with modern day Bourgeois society, and therefore needs to be totally re invented or replaced.

We are not here for "Imagining" or visualizing any kind of new society. We are here to crush the Bourgeois class and contribute to, if you will, the ultimate embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class expressed, and actualized: Revolution. What comes after that is a topic for the future, which we cannot predict.

I know the road you are going down. You'll eventually be demoralized and dump all of your Radical views, all because of this gross misinterperitation of Communism. My, my, people have forgotten why Marx and Engels so vehemently opposed Utopianism. It wasn't simply because "Well, they want a perfect society, but we want X society". No, the point is not to even speak about any "Society" you want. To say you have X Idea, and want X idea to have material conditions adjust to it, to say Society as we know it adopt completely, for Moral reasons or because you think it's more "Efficient" or "Sounds better" is in itself Utopian.

The Radical Left must be unapologetically violent. Romanticists have no place in the Revolution. Romanticists, on the contrary, contribute to the demise of the revolutionary movement. Of course, they are not accountable, but represent Revolutionary degeneration. The hippie scum, are arguably partially accountable, as a Bourgeois force, for the demise of the revolutionary proletarian movement, which took even more defeat in the 1980's, and took it's final blow in the 90's. Arguably, because of the Bourgeois Utopian scum.

[Sputnik_1]

I would say, yes: Defining your ultimate political objective as a stateless, monyless, and classless society is Utopian. Communism is not, for Marxists at least, some kind of end goal. It is an instrument of the Proletarian class, an embodiment of their interests (or at least it was). It no longer corresponds with modern day Bourgeois society, and therefore needs to be totally re invented or replaced.

We are not here for "Imagining" or visualizing any kind of new society. We are here to crush the Bourgeois class and contribute to, if you will, the ultimate embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class expressed, and actualized: Revolution. What comes after that is a topic for the future, which we cannot predict.

I know the road you are going down. You'll eventually be demoralized and dump all of your Radical views, all because of this gross misinterperitation of Communism. My, my, people have forgotten why Marx and Engels so vehemently opposed Utopianism. It wasn't simply because "Well, they want a perfect society, but we want X society". No, the point is not to even speak about any "Society" you want. To say you have X Idea, and want X idea to have material conditions adjust to it, to say Society as we know it adopt completely, for Moral reasons or because you think it's more "Efficient" or "Sounds better" is in itself Utopian.

The Radical Left must be unapologetically violent. Romanticists have no place in the Revolution. Romanticists, on the contrary, contribute to the demise of the revolutionary movement. Of course, they are not accountable, but represent Revolutionary degeneration. The hippie scum, are arguably partially accountable, as a Bourgeois force, for the demise of the revolutionary proletarian movement, which took even more defeat in the 1980's, and took it's final blow in the 90's. Arguably, because of the Bourgeois Utopian scum.

Well, I would say no. I am not a damn hippie that believes in flower power revolution, I have no doubts that it's gonna be violent. But if it is not stateless, moneyless and classless then I don't indentify myself with the movement that leads to anythinhg that would be (another state capitalism?).

[Jimmie Higgins]

"You say you want a Revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But if you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count-me-out.
Don't you know it's going to be alright?"

Hardly a revleft.

Actually the single version went like this (addition in bold):
"You say you want a Revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But if you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count-me-out. (In)
Don't you know it's going to be alright?"

That's why I think this song best sums up his views on revolutionary politics: unsure. And this is basically what he said about the song - that he went back and forth during that time period.

I general, I think what people are missing in this discussion is the radicalization of the times. It isn't simply a case of "hippy ideas" or people getting rich and becoming conservative because of it or being a champagne socialist or whatnot in isolation. People like John Lennon, Muhammad Ali, and Jane Fonda all radicalized because of broader things going on in society. The default for celebrities is just tossing some of their money or fame at some issue passively - and so even in 68, these figures (just look at the consequences for Ali) had more to loose through their politics than they had to gain. So I think it's evidence of the depth of the radicalization of that time that some celebrities went beyond just passively being against racism or the war, but actually supported black revolutionaries, resisting GIs, and the Vietnamese.

Anyway, sure none of them became Marxist or anarchist revolutionaries, but why should we expect them to - especially given the way radicalization happened in the 60s/70s? Considering that 2/3rds of the Beatles remained happily apolitical or got into religion, I think we can spare Lennon some our bile and save it for for real crap celeb politics - like Bono's.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Radical Left must be unapologetically violent.Do you mean unapologetic about necessary revolutionary violence or unapologetically violent on principle?


Romanticists have no place in the Revolution. Romanticists, on the contrary, contribute to the demise of the revolutionary movement. Of course, they are not accountable, but represent Revolutionary degeneration. The hippie scum, are arguably partially accountable, as a Bourgeois force, for the demise of the revolutionary proletarian movement, which took even more defeat in the 1980's, and took it's final blow in the 90's. Arguably, because of the Bourgeois Utopian scum.You mean Fukuyama's utopian visions? Maybe I don't understand your argument, but I think you overstate the influence of political counter-culture. In fact some of the turn towards the counter-culture came from a retreat from the first wave of New Left politics: a vague communism to hippie commune-ism. - it would be like life-style anarchism compared to class-struggle anarchism. But the radicalization continued outside the youth counter-culture in the 1970s and so Maoism was probably the main political current among political radicals at that time, not "flower-power" utopianism. And many of the Maoists at that time were unapologetic about the "violence" of BBP (not really violent - more implied potential for revolutionary violence), North Vietnamese and national liberation struggles else-where. That and some of them were just unapologetically violent in a stupid romantic way.

[gorillafuck]

Really, Zeekloid, dump this tendency you have of Balanced politics. There isn't any room for moderates on the Radical Left. You cannot simply define modern day norms as a measurement for analyzing and criticizing things. It simply doesn't pose itself as a measurement superior to any other one (For example, Fascist society/culture).you are calling me a moderate because I don't think that John Lennons song "Imagine" makes him scum?

pardon me for not having strong opinions on the most irrelevant, politically worthless shit.:rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Well, I would say no. I am not a damn hippie that believes in flower power revolution, I have no doubts that it's gonna be violent. But if it is not stateless, moneyless and classless then I don't indentify myself with the movement that leads to anythinhg that would be (another state capitalism?).

Here, this is Utopian. Again, what are your goals? Are they the emancipation of the proletariat, or the forfilment of the existence, of a society which you deem most beneficial?

You can't, here, play as Mr. Fortune Teller. There is no telling as to whether a State may be retained, there is no telling where currency would be necessary. All of these topics are for future. But really, your passion for the cause resides here: Is your allegence with the Idea (which always will change in accordance to material conditions and production dynamic), or with the Material force which gave birth to it?

[Rafiq]

Do you mean unapologetic about necessary revolutionary violence or unapologetically violent on principle?

The former.


You mean Fukuyama's utopian visions?

No, the sixties Idealism. It has a lot to do with the failure of 68', which was in turn a failure of Organization.


Maybe I don't understand your argument, but I think you overstate the influence of political counter-culture. In fact some of the turn towards the counter-culture came from a retreat from the first wave of New Left politics: a vague communism to hippie commune-ism. - it would be like life-style anarchism compared to class-struggle anarchism.

Right, the New Left, though, came from the 1968 failure, no? The hippies, on the other hand, existed since the early 60's. I think it may be the opposite, this Utopianism, and Idealism may have heavily influenced the rise of the New Left. And this, in turn was a result of what they call the "Baby Boom" or whatever following the First World War.



But the radicalization continued outside the youth counter-culture in the 1970s and so Maoism was probably the main political current among political radicals at that time, not "flower-power" utopianism. And many of the Maoists at that time were unapologetic about the "violence" of BBP (not really violent - more implied potential for revolutionary violence), North Vietnamese and national liberation struggles else-where. That and some of them were just unapologetically violent in a stupid romantic way.

That's true, they were, though, none the less Idealist, unorganized and Romanticist. We still, though, have to think: What if these Maoists were influenced by the 60's Utopianism which preceded it?

[Rafiq]

you are calling me a moderate because I don't think that John Lennons song "Imagine" makes him scum?

pardon me for not having strong opinions on the most irrelevant, politically worthless shit.:rolleyes:

No, I think you're a moderate because you consider that the fact I said that is completely far fetched or laughable. And it isn't irrelevant, or politically worthless, it is in itself a reflection of a very relevant and worthy situation existent for that time. You're missing the underlying Ideological point: That Imagine, to some extent contains this Ideological existence.

[brigadista]

really - i have to ask - why does anyone really care??? surely what matters is what is happening now to working class people?

[gorillafuck]

No, I think you're a moderate because you consider that the fact I said that is completely far fetched or laughable.yes, I think calling a liberal celebrity a scum for writing a utopian socialist or whatever type song is far fetched.

[Rafiq]

yes, I think calling a liberal celebrity a scum for writing a utopian socialist or whatever type song is far fetched.

Why is it far fetched, then?

[Ocean Seal]

So he was a Utopian scum.

Next.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Beat me to it.

[gorillafuck]

Why is it far fetched, then?because a shitload of people have viewpoints that I consider wrong, and I don't think they're all total scum. I don't put special importance on or even really pay attention to liberal celebrities so why would it be extra scummy when they have these views?

[corolla]

John Lennon was a shitbag, though. He was abusive to Yoko etc. That and his music was awful, glad I didn't live through that era.

[gorillafuck]

I thought he was abusive to his first wife but not Yoko?

and for the record I am not a Lennon or fan

[corolla]

Yeah, it could have been his first wife, I saw it on a documentary a few years ago. Like he used to follow her into the bathroom and stand outside the stall while she was peeing, what a douche.

[Sputnik_1]

Here, this is Utopian. Again, what are your goals? Are they the emancipation of the proletariat, or the forfilment of the existence, of a society which you deem most beneficial?

You can't, here, play as Mr. Fortune Teller. There is no telling as to whether a State may be retained, there is no telling where currency would be necessary. All of these topics are for future. But really, your passion for the cause resides here: Is your allegence with the Idea (which always will change in accordance to material conditions and production dynamic), or with the Material force which gave birth to it?

Well, tell me what is the point in a revolution if we don't change a single thing? I wouldn't even call it revolution. If we don't get rid of classes (which consequently means tht there would be no need for money or state) then what do you expect to obtain? A few nice looking reforms that are gonna charm masses for a while? Or maybe another failed attempt?
Revolution of working class is all about a classless, moneyless, stateless society.

[Rafiq]

because a shitload of people have viewpoints that I consider wrong, and I don't think they're all total scum. I don't put special importance on or even really pay attention to liberal celebrities so why would it be extra scummy when they have these views?

Because John Lennon is, unlike most Liberal celebrities, painted as a political icon, and therefore criticism railed against him is all the more relevant.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

..........I don't know about you guys but when I listen to music I listen to enjoy the music not politically analyze the music I am listening to..........

[Koba Junior]

John Lennon always struck me as your typical celebrity liberal. Were he alive today, I don't think he'd be much different from, say, Bono. I'm no authority on the matter.

[Rafiq]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2441024&postcount=64

[Koba Junior]

Yes, Engels was a hypocrite. That doesn't diminish his contribution to the writings, or the movement. But he is, flat out, a hypocrite.

I don't think acknowledging the impending doom of your own class makes Engels a hypocrite.

[gorillafuck]

Because John Lennon is, unlike most Liberal celebrities, painted as a political icon, and therefore criticism railed against him is all the more relevant.oh come on. it's the 1960's and 70's, we have martin luther king not promoting workers revolution and promoting pacifism. does it mean MLK promoted ideas that don't serve the working class? yeah. does it make him an utter scumbag? of course not. you need to wrap your head around the idea that having political views that don't fall in line with international workers revolution does not make somebody a scum.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I do love the song "Imagine", as well as "Working Class Hero". It's funny how these songs managed to grab the attention of people who otherwise reject the politics expressed in them.

It's kind of weird to hear otherwise religious people I know singing along to "Imagine there's no heaven...".

[The Intransigent Faction]

..........I don't know about you guys but when I listen to music I listen to enjoy the music not politically analyze the music I am listening to..........

This reminds me of those comments on YouTube saying "Omg guyz how did this become a debate on politics/religion? stfu and enjoy the music", as if we should ignore the political implications of ideology expressed (overtly or otherwise) in pop culture. Doing so would be a fatal error for radical leftists.

[HomelessMaoist]

I think that John Lennon was a socialist, as shown by the song "Working Class Hero", but just wanted to be left alone with Yoko, as shown by the ending of the song "God."

But I would recommend listening to the whole album "Plastic Ono Band", which is all up on youtube.