Recently I’ve been listening to the records by the titular rap-rock group, and I have been very impressed with their musicianship, especially with the innovative guitar playing. At the heart of the band, though, lies lyrics that speak of socialist agendas and lack of justice. While I find the revolutionary aspect interesting and admire the human rights campaigning done by the band, I have heard some people claim that since the band members are all successful millionaires, they are hypocrites for criticizing corporate barons. I personally think that it gives them more influence and coverage to spread their ideas, and I don’t think it matters how much money you have when you honestly believe in what you are campaigning for. For example, Rage has played numerous free shows for several thousands of people, and guitarist Tom Morello has showed up at many protests without receiving any payment at all. Some people, however, think that at this stage it is impossible for Rage to realistically relate to the Occupy movements due to their wealth classifying them in the economic class that are being protested! What do you think of this band and its stances with the money it has accumulated over the years? :dubious:
Socialism is not a personal asceticism theology; it is a political theory for the whole society. There is no clash between being ungodly rich in a capitalist society and being a socialist working to further a different society. Worse are hypocrites such as Bono with his tax evasion tricks, or all the climate NGO pundits zipping here and there in their private jets, etc.
I don’t really take Rage’s politics seriously, some lyrics (can’t be bothered to find examples) are pretty ridiculous. But no, I don’t think it’s especially hypocritical. The point isn’t to criticize all rich people but the ones who keep poor people poor, or take advantage of them excessively.
Do their lyrics say or imply that there should be 100 percent complete redistribution of all wealth? Otherwise I see no problem with them being a millionaires.
So only the poor are allowed to advocate for the poor?
As I posted in the other thread that got closed:
I am not a fan of the band (can’t stand the singer’s voice, though I appreciate Morello), however I presume much of their style and ideologies - and many songs - were developed before they became millionaires. Those songs and ideologies are what made the band successful, gained them an audience…and got them money as a consequence.
Seems silly to view that as hypocritical - it is those very fans that fuelled the money machine that made the singers rich. RATM might still have created the same music even if they never became successful.
If the poor don’t want rich musicians to speak on their behalf, they can stop sending their money to those musicians, IMHO.
There are a lot of rich liberals. Nancy Pelosi is rich. Tim Gill is rich. Ned Lamont is rich (about the same net worth as Romney). Stephen King is rich. Michael Moore is rich. etc.
Being rich and being liberal are not at odds with each other. Liberals generally (from what I’ve seen) aren’t opposed to rich people in and of themselves they are more opposed to an economic system designed solely to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else and a system where they have too much political clout to write the rules of government to serve themselves. Rich people who do not partake in that do not cause the same outrage. Michael Moore was received well in Occupy wall street protests.
I went to the doctor last year, and he wasn’t even sick!
Do we actually know that the members of RATM are millionaires? Their biggest successes were achieved while attached to Epic records, owned by Sony Music. Many high-profile artists do not take home near as much money as one would think.
“To each according to his need…”
Unless you think that RATM’s needs are excessively beyond those of everyone else, then yes, it goes against Socialist thought to hoard money.
According to need and ability is the political goal of a socialist society in which RATM would be sorely taxed – not a prescript for private conduct. This is the difference I made with Bono and the private jetting climate NGOs. Christianity, for instance, is a theology for the reformation of the individual, whereas socialism is an ideology for the reformation of society. I don’t know the band that much, but unless they call for personal sacrifice or changes here and now (rather than societal changes), for instance that rich people should give their wealth to poor people, then I don’t see anything hypocritical about being rich and being a socialist.
I was friends with Morello in college, and he was a raving radical socialist then, and a lot of the original songs he wrote for the various college bands he played in had those themes. I haven’t seen him change much in the years since, and like others have said, RATM has done a number of free concerts for various causes, and Morello has done free performances at protests. I don’t think being a socialist requires that you give all your money away willingly and voluntarily, especially if that money allows you the opportunity to work on causes and issues that are important to you.
It is possible to have a more nuanced opinion than “rich people BAD…poor people GOOD!”
The stance of the Occupy movement (such that it even has a cohesive stance) is that the current system of government and corporate ownership is fundamentally unjust and self serving.
It is theoretically possible to have a society where wealthy people exist while many services are socialized.
Bear in mind we are not talking about policy wonks, nor are we talking about political philosophers. These dudes are poets. Poets are worth listening to, not necessarily worth following.
So then they should be poor because they spend all of their money lobbying politicians to raise their taxes.
I’ve listened to Rage Against The Machine’s first album extensively,but not so much their other albums, and i don’t remember very many lyrics supporting a socialist agenda. If i had to describe their agenda in one wrod, it would be anti-fascist. To be a little more descriptive: against American Imperialism, against the unjust power the government uses over some of its people, and against nationalism, also a little bit of railing against propaganda and the power of media and corporations.
Can anyone give me any examples of their lyrics that promote socialism?
But we don’t live in a Socialist society. It’s not really something you can do on your own. It’s like trying to be a libertarian by just not paying your taxes. Doesn’t work.
meh, it’s a matter of degree. Once you redistribute wealth then you have some level socialism.
So anyway do I have a problem with being rich and wanting a fair shake for poor people? No.
Frank Hardy the Australian author said it best, it’s easy being a rich communist…
This. You can’t be a socialist on your own. A *society *can be socialist, not an individual (beyond that individual’s desire for society to become socialist of course).
I’m reminded of the asshats who jeered at Occupy WS’s protesters because “ha ha, you’re anti-corporate but you wear Levi’s / have an iPod / use other products made by large corporations, what a hypocrite !”. /headdesk.
I’m also reminded of Russell Brand, who said something to the extent of “When I was poor and I complained about inequality they said I was jealous of the rich. Now that I’m rich and I complain about inequality, they say I’m a hypocrite. I’m starting to think they just don’t want to talk about inequality”. Dismiss the speaker and you don’t have to bother with addressing his speech.
Not smoking weed does not lead to a society where weed smoking is outlawed so someone who smokes everyday and advocates for it to be criminalized is not a hypocrite.
Not going to hookers is not going to lead to prostitution being outlawed so someone can visit hookers while advocating for prostitution to be outlawed and not be a hypocrite.
Giving away your money is not going to lead to a socialist society, so one can hoard millions of dollars while advocating for socialism and not be a hypocrite.
They are all the same argument and all equally wrong. Not doing something voluntarily that you advocate other people to be forced to do at gunpoint is hypocrisy. If it is not, then nothing is.