Are you or yr band political?

[bremen]

[quote name='Mr Shiny Cadillackness' post='342882' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:56 AM']Definitely, admittedly I bitch a lot about this country and it's far from perfect, but we could do a hell of a lot worse. It's one of the best in the world, but don't read too much into that [/quote]

Being able to bitch about this country is one of the fine things about it.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Mr Shiny Cadillackness' post='342836' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:29 AM']As for using corporate products, well, the's just a sad by-product of a capitalist society. To survive, one must conform at least to some extent. But there are basic survival necessities, luxuries and that grey area inbetween. For instance, I see using an ISP a necessary evil, to remain informed.[/quote]
What bass and amp are you using?

[spinynorman]

This is the first political discussion I've seen on a bass site that didn't turn nasty before the end of page 1. Give yourselves a huge credit crunch bail-out bonus.

[Stingray5]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='343030' date='Dec 2 2008, 02:06 PM']This is the first political discussion I've seen on a bass site that didn't turn nasty before the end of page 1. Give yourselves a huge credit crunch bail-out bonus.[/quote]
On [i]any[/i] site, come to that!

[Musky]

FWIW I seem to remember the preferred form of music of the Communist Party (GB) was folk music - that's as a form of production, not the genre. Curiously it's also the BNP's favoured type of music.

So until money is abolished it's probably best to stick to busking. Just leave the hat at home.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='342847' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:34 AM']I'm all about "stickin' it to the man", but obviously not so hard that he'll stop paying me.[/quote]

Exactly.

I wouldn't say my music is political but it definitely isn't not political, if you see what I mean?

I'd love to see a better and fairer system than a capitalist democracy but I'll be damned if I can think of one that will actually work! Communism would be great if it wasn't for people messing it up...

Alex

[Cantdosleepy]

[quote name='bremen' post='342878' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:53 AM']We have a long way to go but we're a long way from feudalism :-)[/quote]

But I still get Prima Nocte, right?

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='343234' date='Dec 2 2008, 05:12 PM']Communism would be great if it wasn't for people messing it up... [/quote]

I think that can safely be said about any political system. Even National Socialism declared the undesirables to be not people, so that would have worked better than most if it wasn't for foreign troublemaking.

[The Funk]

We have a couple of political songs. Nothing wrong with it. It doesn't get in the way. They're such funky tunes that noone shows any sings of being annoyed at having politics rammed down their throats.

As for reconciling your socio-political beliefs with the entirely capitalist music industry, there are different approaches to finding a compromise which you find morally acceptable.

At one point Peter Green asked John McVie and Mick Fleetwood if the band could just keep whatever they needed to live off and give all the profit to charity. McVie was such a drunk at the time that he agreed. Fleetwood flipped at the idea.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Mr Shiny Cadillackness' post='342802' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:12 AM']And does it cause any problems within your band? I ask, since I'm a vehment anarcho-socialist, yet my band mates are all pretty average, run of the mill guys (basically capitalists in this society, IMHO anyway). They're good mates though, we've been friends for years and we all love the same music so it works. We keep politics out of our music, since I'm sh*te at writing lyrics and the singer doesn't really care about politics enough.

The only real problem would be in the unlikely event, that we would be offered a deal by a major label. I can handle being in a band, with people sponsored by corporations (so long as I'm never personally linked to any of it), that's their choice as individuals. However, I'd have to leave the band as a matter of principle, if the rest wanted to sign to a major label or an associate of one.

As much as I love their music, bands like Rage Against and the Machine, The Clash and Primal Scream seem so hypocritical to me, promoting socialism either on their records or off (usually both), and then getting signed to capitalist corporations like Sony, CBS and Epic. I grew up listening to these bands, back when I was young and had no interest in politics. Now I've grown up and developed an interest in the sunject, it's left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, now it's become apparant that not only are they just sell outs like everyone else, but they're a bunch of charlatans on top of that.[/quote]

What about [url="http://www.chumba.com/FAQ2.html"]Chumbawumba[/url]? Is their approach more to your liking?

[Pissman]

[quote name='Mr Shiny Cadillackness' post='342882' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:56 AM']Definitely, admittedly I bitch a lot about this country and it's far from perfect, but we could do a hell of a lot worse. It's one of the best in the world, but don't read too much into that [/quote]

And I'm the fittest guy at weight watchers.

Still not something to boast about....

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='bremen' post='342819' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:21 AM']Aren't socialism and anarchism mutually exclusive?

Isn't anarchism just another word for laissez-faire capitalism?

I'm going to wish I hadn't started this...[/quote]

I'm going to wish I hadn't answered.

You could argue that anarchism and socialism are mutually exclusive if you thought anarchism was merely another word for laissez-faire capitalism.

However, anarchism is a 'broad church', as they say, and includes people who do not see eye to eye.

To keep it simple, which it is not, the left-wing anarchists are collectivists and cooperativists who are commonly known as anarcho-socialists or anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists or even libertarian socialists. These kinds of anarchists have much in common with socialists and are more likely to be European.

The right-wing of anarchism has much more in common with classical liberalism than with socialism and is most commonly called anarcho-individualism or anarcho-capitalism and tends to be strongly linked with a very laissez-faire approach to the economy. This kind of anarchist is more likely to be American.

What generally separates anarchists (of whatever kind) from other political ideologists (whether socialists or liberals) is their denial of the necessity of a state, even of a minimal kind.

Edited December 2, 2008 by EssentialTension

[skankdelvar]

As far as anarcho-socialism goes, this is an interesting speculative piece:

www.anti-state.com/preston/preston5.html

...and as far as I can see, any form of party or political grouping requires an inherent compromise. The more members, the greater the compromise. In achieving consensus among larger groupings, certain individuals may have to subordinate their views on certain issues to those of the majority. Should they continue to disagree, they may be 'coerced' into agreement or expelled from the party. Sound familiar and acceptable so far?

So what happens when 'the party' is the whole of society? You get Gulags and Killing Fields. Imposed totalitarian political systems kill. Compromise, tolerance and accommodation form the basis for any successful social grouping.

In answer to your OP, I think your band is a better exemplar of progress through compromise than any political nostrum. If you're uncomfortable with the possible outcome - that is, getting a deal - it's maybe unfair to contemplate removing your skills at the point when the others achieve what may be, for them, a key objective .

Perhaps you should leave the band and join one with ambitions more closely aligned with your own.

[OutToPlayJazz]

I wouldn't say that any of the bands I play with are politically affiliated in any way, really - Just like the capitalist scum we are, it's all for personal gain & greed!

Edited December 2, 2008 by OutToPlayJazz

[Kiwi]

Many socialist political theories avoid or repress the issue of competitiveness. Isn't that what it all boils down to at the end of the day? Is it possible for a society to repress its collective, competitive urges?

[foal30]

No, I think not.

and if "competitiveness" is going to be the acknowledged driver of Society, by Society then those advocating such a system need to be at the forefront of leveling out the current inequalities.

Not likely?

Paragraph 4 and 5 of Essential Tension's post is pretty good. Or at least accurate to how I view things.
to expand maybe we could say that the left will use the form of "strong government" to implement their ultimate aims.
we're the right will tear it all down.


Interestingly those who most deny the usefulness of the State are the first in the que cap in hand when things go amiss.

there was a guy on the American News saying that Obama will continue the Bush program of seriously turning Amercia to the left of center. So there remains a good chance I know nothing.

[foal30]

and yes I am Political and so is the Band I write for.
this was something that was entered into before we started, not sort of happened on the way.

if we do Charity Work (not that I like to mention it, where is my pipe) then it's a consensus on the cause/group we are attempting to support.

if we will not do certain things then people are aware of this before they join the collective.

as far the basic hypocrisies of modern life I think it is about picking certain issues and making a good go of really getting those things sorted.But the actually reality of even getting informed on "the issues" is potentially unrealistic in this modern world.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='foal30' post='343512' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:09 PM']No, I think not.

and if "competitiveness" is going to be the acknowledged driver of Society, by Society then those advocating such a system need to be at the forefront of leveling out the current inequalities.

Not likely?[/quote]
Competitiveness wouldn't exist without inequality. Without inequality, species wouldn't adapt and we wouldn't have evolution. Therefore a non-competitive society wouldn't survive for very long (and by that I don't mean the society would die, but its state of non-competitiveness wouldn't perpetuate.)

[foal30]

er, possibly
I think the idea is to make it competitive to share
that's evolution I can bear.

If society's purpose is acquisition and it has designated enemies then a level of forwardness is required.

I'd like to see different avenues perused.

what you've described shows the history of free-market capitalism well. Develop the most Protectionist system, destroy by force if necessary any "foreign" competition then claim free trade is it from the position of exclusive dominance. As I asked above, advocates of such a line of thought should surrender their current prominence. As this will not happen I know I'm on a hiding to nothing.

Do we need evolution if this is the outcome?
Why live by a "fact" if it's actually of nihilistic disposition?

[Musky]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343529' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:20 PM']Competitiveness wouldn't exist without inequality. Without inequality, species wouldn't adapt and we wouldn't have evolution. Therefore a non-competitive society wouldn't survive for very long (and by that I don't mean the society would die, but its state of non-competitiveness wouldn't perpetuate.)[/quote]

I think you've rather mistaken the left's antipathy to competition Kiwi. It's not competition per se that most groups are against, but competition as the basis for economic activity.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='foal30' post='343574' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM']er, possibly I think the idea is to make it competitive to share
that's evolution I can bear.[/quote]
So what you mean is a society that values altruistic acts above its own collective survival?

[quote name='foal30' post='343574' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM']If society's purpose is acquisition and it has designated enemies then a level of forwardness is required.[/quote]
There is a big assumption under pinning that statement!

[quote name='foal30' post='343574' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM']what you've described shows the history of free-market capitalism well.[/quote]
If you look at the bigger picture, its how the whole biosphere has essentially functioned since life evolved.

[quote name='foal30' post='343574' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:56 PM']Do we need evolution if this is the outcome?[/quote]
Aren't you assuming that there's a choice? In the context of a society that represses economic activity as its basis, to quote that geeky bloke in Jurassic Park, "nature finds a way"...?

[quote name='Musky' post='343667' date='Dec 2 2008, 11:23 PM']I think you've rather mistaken the left's antipathy to competition Kiwi. It's not competition per se that most groups are against, but competition as the basis for economic activity.[/quote]
Ah ok. So what I can't understand is why a society that represses competition as the basis for economic activity believes that this is a sustainable practice if competition in other aspects is what we and pretty much every other living species on the planet owes its survival too...?

Lets not forget there's not only competition between people, but also competition between species. Anyone who has dealt with a pest infestation of some kind will have experienced this first hand, I'm sure.

Seems to me there's a fundamental conflict/incompatibility between moral ideals and economic realities maybe?

[Musky]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343703' date='Dec 3 2008, 12:04 AM']Seems to me there's a fundamental conflict/incompatibility between moral ideals and economic realities maybe?[/quote]

True. You'll not find me an apologist for flaw in left wing ideology.

However it's worth bearing in mind that despite the persistent championing of competition as the cornerstone of human activity, the overwhelming mark of humanity is cooperation.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343487' date='Dec 2 2008, 08:41 PM']Many socialist political theories avoid or repress the issue of competitiveness. Isn't that what it all boils down to at the end of the day?[/quote]

Well, according to cooperative socialist and anarchist theories, the answer is no, competitiveness is not what it all boils down to at the end of the day. For example, like most people, I spend the great majority of my time not competing but cooperating with others: when I queue for a bus, when I play music with others, when I take turns with my partner to cook each evening, when I manoeuvre as I walk down a crowded pavement to avoid bumping into others, when I buy my round in the pub, when I come to the mutual aid of a family member, or a friend, or an acquaintance, or even a stranger, I might well be said to be cooperating rather than competing.

One theme in the remake of the seventies TV series 'Survivors' - now showing on BBC1 (I think) on a Tuesday - is the battle between competitiveness and cooperation.

To put it mildly, it seems to me that it is by no means obvious that human nature is purely competitive; although also not obvious that human nature is wholly cooperative. It may also be extremely difficult to separate human nature from human nurture. Nonetheless, while individualist liberals of the right have claimed competitiveness as a key factor in human nature, collectivist socialists and anarchists of the left have claimed cooperation or mutual aid as a key factor in human nature.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343487' date='Dec 2 2008, 08:41 PM']Is it possible for a society to repress its collective, competitive urges?[/quote]

You seem to assume that these 'competitive urges' are innate in human nature; so you seem to be claiming a particular view of human nature which, as I suggest above, is exactly what is in dispute here.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343529' date='Dec 2 2008, 09:20 PM']Competitiveness wouldn't exist without inequality. Without inequality, species wouldn't adapt and we wouldn't have evolution. Therefore a non-competitive society wouldn't survive for very long (and by that I don't mean the society would die, but its state of non-competitiveness wouldn't perpetuate.)[/quote]

This kind of theory has been commonly known as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism"]Social Darwinism[/url]. The theory doesn't actually go back to Darwin and in fact predates him historically, owing more to Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest"]'survival of the fittest'[/url].

Edited December 3, 2008 by EssentialTension

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='343703' date='Dec 3 2008, 12:04 AM']Lets not forget there's not only competition between people, but also competition between species. Anyone who has dealt with a pest infestation of some kind will have experienced this first hand, I'm sure.[/quote]

There's also a great deal of cooperation between species. It's called symbiosis.

In fact we couldn't live without it.

Bacteria in your gut, for merely one example.

[foal30]

why do we need survival of the fittest or capitalism to survive?
I'm asking not accusing.

Altruistic acts are the community's Saviour.

What assumption? Competitiveness requires opposition, I think. You sort of imply this when you comment on the inherent inequalities this will be contribute to.

Possibly, and is this, with our collective intelligence the optimal living system/ideology? I am saying we have got to the point where it no longer need be tis way, and in more darker moods I'd suggest that only change will save us and the planet.


the gap between economic realities and morality....
well I could voice an opinion.


It is important that cooperation is shown to be successful as competition is claimed to be. Competition fits the culture of the dominant classes, because it attempts to justify their position of prominence. But I think analysis shows that ruthlessness and force of arms is more important than any innate skill.