Prog and Socialism

I want to say something about Italian scene.

In the '70s italian prog was extremely politicized obviously in a socialist way.

All the prog festivals concerts happenings was organized mainly by socialist students. In this situation some bands must declare themselves socialists just to to play live...the few bands that declared themselves conservative had been discriminated and ignored.

This is what happened in early '70s...after the situation changed progressively and the political side becames a marginal aspect. 

Paul K. wrote: My political views are pretty close to right-wing (I presume I'm single one here) and I'm avid progger. Anyway I don't think, that mixing politics or religion with music is good idea. However sometimes it does work.

Not quite, but it does put you in the minority.

BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all?

But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression.

Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.

Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.

Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age.

Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility.

Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility. So Pravda is your credible source?????????????????????????????????????

My point:

1. Pravda, the state owned Soviet newspaper (the name means 'Truth' in Russian) used to print blatant propaganda about the Soviet system
2. This was believed by almost nobody in the West, and apparently by a vanishingly small number of people in the Soviet Union as well
3. Pravda was not a credible source.

Moving on:

1. Media owned by huge multinational corporations with a vested interest in scorched earth consumer capitalism print blatant propaganda about consumer capitalism
2. This is believed by worryingly large numbers of people
3. News International et al are not credible sources

Now go and read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, in which every argument is backed up with checkable and verifiable citations. His prose style is highly readable, which is more than can be said for Ayn Rand.

mickstafa wrote: COME ON!!! Are you so, as you liberals like to say, "close minded" to think that conservatives actually WANT WAR???  No one wants war!  No one wants evil, fighting, dying.  But WAKE UP!  Name one generation in the history of our species that did not have war?  War, like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. unfortunately is a part of being human.  We must supress the violence and the seeds of war.  The only way to do this is through combating it.  The only way to combat it is through fighting the instigators.  That includes ruthless dictators that promote terror. Lefties boast about their human rights activism.  But then again, if the left had their way, Saddam would still be in power.  Is that just for those iraqis?  Is that just for those who are absolutely powerless??????  This is stupid, I'm going back to prog.  But once again, get off the high horse already and wake up to reality.

What about the military/industrial axis which accounts for such a large part of so many major economies (USA, UK, France, Germany)? Surely they've got a vested interest in the continuation of armed conflict?