MAOISTS REVIEW BRITNEY

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/music/pop/clayaiken.html

seriously, QUOTE OF THE YEAR

"MIM has explained that one might even "like" this music while knowing rationally that there is something wrong with it, maybe even profoundly wrong and evil. Being a Maoist means being a revolutionary scientist and that means having the ability to question everything that we like."

Subjectivism is the philosophical approach putting the individual's opinions first and foremost, regardless of scientific truth or the possibility that the individual might learn and change. It often comes combined with Liberal laziness toward struggle--a desire to preserve oneself as one is without ever changing for the better. Marxists only speak of "subjectivism" as a criticism, but unfortunately some self-labeled "feminist" writers celebrate subjectivism--Catharine MacKinnon to name just the most explicit one. Subjectivists don't take into account how their feelings were constructed.
People who oppose subjectivism realize that their own persynal feelings may come from dishonorable sources. People can scientifically recognize that they like something that is not good for society or the future. For example, millions of parents like smoking, but they know that it is no good for their children. These smoking parents have conquered subjectivism.

Likewise, we progressives and the society as a whole like the most misogynist music there is and pay billions for it while still imagining that the society can do better. It's a matter of being objective about ourselves. MIM reviewers often like profoundly flawed music that needs to be banned or at least revised. Our Liberal and traditionalist critics who believe individuals are supreme and should remain unchallenged by science or Reason criticize us for wanting to ban or revise things that we like. We see otherwise and we even proclaim to the world that its tastes can change: we know it from experience. Often times it is enough for us to see through something scientifically for our tastes to change completely or at least some.

MIM will only succeed in transforming the culture when the people decide to support MIM in abolishing even cultural works that we all currently like. We can alter the tastes of those who are adults today, but even moreso children can grow up in a world without songs and movies glorifying gratuitous violence.

Imperialist country populations have to know that they are enemies of world peace right now. They will not like to hear that, but it's something that Reason can reveal to anyone. Conquering subjectivism is a big part of the self-transformation of all people but especially imperialist country people, who will most have to change for the world to survive.

"No Rest for the Wicked"
Sony
1988, remastered 2002

It's hard to tell that this is a mildly progressive album, but it is. Two of the eleven tracks are "Miracle Man," which slam television evangelist Jim Bakker, who left TV for 16 years after an adultery scandal and five year prison term. Ozzy is consistently critical of scamming Christianity; although, he may be some kind of Christian himself.

He also has a song about what could refer to his own struggle with alcohol "Demon Alcohol" and another song about Vietnam and the aftermath for veterans in "Bloodbath in Paradise."

This album stays consistent with the Ozzy Osbourne sound even with a new guitarist. However, old Black Sabbath hits "War Pigs" and "Iron Man" are more essential.

Mao ROCKS.

We do not agree with rocking the vote, but we're sure that whole discussion is more interesting than this album.

reviewed by mim3@mim.org July 18, 2004

These are simple pop songs with a little more energy than most, but these days it's almost an accomplishment for a female vocalist that the album is not directly pornographic. Avril Lavigne is absolutely correct for slamming Britney Spears as a "sex object."(1)

The mega-corporations of the recording industry have handed us formula after formula and those formulas are the most tightly binding for wimmin. 19-year-olds like Lavigne and those younger are allowed out of being porno stars, but they still face a pretty tight formula. In contrast, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, we will also ban some music, but we will allow a much wider range of expression by wimmin than the mega-corporations allow today.

What Avril Lavigne is singing about is trite stuff--disappointments in boyfriends. However, compared with the trite squared formula for wimmin in their twenties set by mega-corporations Avril Lavigne is no doubt pushing the "bitchy" envelope, and for what. Nothing. That's how restrictive the industry is. We'd like to see her songs rejecting men "When I'm alone/I feel so much better" ("Together") and for example telling them "no" to sex ("Don't Tell Me") to get even punchier. Then we'd like to see the industry let her sing about something other than romance culture.

As it stands now, Lavigne is assertive in romance culture. Assertive on behalf of what is another question. "Forgotten" belts out "Have you forgotten/Everything that I wanted" and justifies a break-up. Reviewer David Brinn at the Jerusalem Post has knocked Lavigne as "mall punk,"(2) and there's nothing on this album to make us think otherwise. We are left picturing "Everything that I wanted" as some clothes and jewelry at the mall, because this album lacks ideological edge other than slight female assertiveness.

One thing we do know is that Avril Lavigne signed on to the "Stop Harper" campaign, which seeks to keep Kanada Kanadian and distinct from George W. Bush's politics.(3) The statement she signs pits more moderate reactionaries against more extreme ones and in so doing she opposes Kanadian involvement in the Iraq war, building the military, taking away abortion rights and reinitiating the death penalty.

For now we better give this album the thumbs up for youth and hope to see better work from Avril Lavigne in the future.

"19-year-olds like Lavigne and those younger are allowed out of being porno stars, but they still face a pretty tight formula. In contrast, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, we will also ban some music, but we will allow a much wider range of expression by wimmin than the mega-corporations allow today. "

"Hard" & "Solid Gold"
Gang of Four
Warner Bros.
2003

We're going to give the Gang of Four/Warner Bros credit for this idea--putting two 1980s albums --"Hard" & "Solid Gold"--by this "post-punk" band on one CD. After all, CDs have the space on them. Why waste plastic? It's only a pity that the two albums are so artistically different that they do not play well as songs one through nineteen.
The "Gang of Four" was stuck in an artistic tension where it partly wanted to pull off in a disco-dance direction and partly wanted a hard rock and didactic political message to pound into people's heads. It's tempting to say that "Gang of Four" thus made both right opportunist and ultra-left errors--on the one hand just trying to make money with inane dance music that is nonetheless hugely popular (right opportunist) and on the other hand, using music for what it is not suited for, slogan-chanting (ultra-left didacticism). Music does not need to pander to the currently bad tastes of people and nor does it need to try to substitute itself for books or documentary films.

From a marketing stand-point, the band may also have felt that it made its political statements and now it wanted to draw attention to itself with feminist dance music. "Gang of Four" was a hard-core punk band in its soul but with a much greater range of musical talents and polished professional skills, and maybe just a little less drive than the average hard-core punk band.

In fact, "Gang of Four" does manage its own central artistic tension in some cases, not by splitting the middle as some might think. "Outside the Trains Don't Run on Time" works perfectly as political rock, because the pointed, disciplined guitar-playing and marching beat go together well. Likewise, "Cheeseburger" was the right subject to imagine a truck-driver on a long-haul to go with music to pound in some alienating thoughts. There are some subjects where that disciplined and in-your-face sound makes sense.

We also have to give Gang of Four credit for trying to be one of the most feminist bands around. We don't agree with all of what they say, but we see the effort--and that's much more than we can say for the vast majority of commercial bands. "A Hole in the Wallet" asks why wimmin bother with men sometimes and draws the whole comparison of how a lot of men might look at similar questions--as a question of the wallet. Listeners should keep in mind sarcasm and alienation when listening to the band.

There are other songs where the "Gang of Four"'s basic tension does not work. "A Piece of My Heart" just has too many words and comes off awkward. It seemed that some of the will to pound in a message found it's way into "Hard," the more disco-influenced album. Likewise, "It Don't Matter," tries to be disco, but it's not: it's just awkward.

Some of the music in "Hard" makes MIM think the band was "trying too hard" to cross over to the "womyn's point of view" in an almost stereotypical way by taking up the disco sound and womynish voices. The attempt to mix in a feminist view was probably doomed to at least some failures, but we at MIM are much more sympathetic to such failures than all the successes of the Britney Spearses of the world.

For those looking for a mix of different kinds of music, we can say for sure that this is not a stupid album. It deserves that "alternative" label even being early 1980s music that isn't punk.

P.S. "Gang of Four" is an epithet that refers to four political leaders in China who upheld Mao's line in favor of the Cultural Revolution. The whole MIM political line can be summed up as a "Gang of Four" line, so we are here referring in a sense, to our namesakes.

It's an open question whether southern wimmin will be able to make the transition to communism more easily than say pseudo-feminist Northern wimmin.

Unlike the Dixie Chicks, who sing about a womyn waiting for her man while he is fighting in Vietnam (what could possibly be more reactionary) and unlike Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera who are totally bogged down in bedroom matters (what could possibly be more backward), Shania comes up with more optimistic and even progressive ideas.

An example of what could be called feminist lyrics is the song "She is not just a pretty face." The title is self-explanatory.

Womyn is not just a pretty face. We would give Shania additional credit for saying that. Also contrary to the opinion popular in some pseudo-feminist circles, it's desirable and admirable for wimmin to be not only astronauts, but ballerinas as well.

That is truly inclusive and feminist. Most of Shania's lyrics are very realistic and social. With her down-to-earth, sometimes even crude, manner, Shania criticized the omnipresent media-supported culture of consumerism and vanity, talks about experiences of a single mother in hostile social environment, and so forth.

-- Spencer Chow (spencercho...) (webmail), December 22nd, 2004 5:18 PM. (spencermfi) (link)

MAOISTS, dude, MAOISTS. and yes.

Womyn is the nygger of the wyrld.

Call me a reactionary liberal, but that's a pretty fucked up philosophy.

Funnily enough...

When we tell the Liberals there has to be a party or body of scientists deciding what is good or bad for society in terms of art and music, they say, "who are you to decide?" We should throw back in their face, "who are you to decide that mega-corporations should decide?" The whole question of "totalitarianism" is based on an illusion that someone is not deciding currently.
Advertising works which is why corporations spend billions each year on it. If advertising did not work, our critics might have a point, but billions of dollars spent prove otherwise. Advertising is also the reason that looks are crucially important in establishing Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Beyonce etc.

It is not true that consumers assess the world and then come up with their choices. Consumers do not wander from business establishment to business establishment analyzing how products are produced and what is available. We are also convinced the consumers would rather that the government regulate foods and drugs--do an analysis of what is in these drugs and under what conditions food and drugs are produced. Anyone who assumes that consumers really want to do the analysis of the products they buy themselves is badly deluded, probably a professional bourgeois economist.

Consumers go to a store and based on prior ads they buy what is available. It is not an arbitrary process covering all the bases. Walmart stores are big but not so big as to allow every commodity anyone anywhere could think of producing. A few corporations decide on the vast majority of merchandise.

Mega-corporations choose and then spend money on ads. If a product makes less profit than others, the mega-corporation simply stops selling it. They make the choices. That is the truth even if the commodity sold is completely harmful as with cigarettes or junk food.

Once we get over our "free will" illusions and realize that people by their millions have been brainwashed into smoking and getting fat, we can start to debate the topic correctly. When it comes to the "who are you to decide" question, MIM is better to decide than the mega-corporations, because mega-corporations profit from their products and are not objective about them as a result. Both MIM and mega-corporations will make mistakes in what is good for consumers, but when something harmful like cigarettes come along, MIM has no vested interest in lying in their defense. We also have no vested interest in spreading ads for potato chips. Even if it is not profitable, MIM in power can propagate a product that substitutes for cigarettes while not harming the public. Such did not happen under capitalism for decades until doctors starting getting tougher on their patients and ordering this and that type of therapy.

That is an example why MIM is better than the mega-corporations in deciding "what" to produce in the first place. Their goal is to make profit which simply depends on what is easily available and easy to advertise. The goals of the international proletariat include a sustainable environment, enough food to eat, adequate shelter, clothing to wear and ever-improving medical science.

Who are we to decide? Better us than Frito-Lay or R.J. Reynolds or Playboy Magazine. People in the wealthiest capitalist countries are the most brainwashed because they think they are not. Anyone who has thought for five seconds about advertising's effects on children knows there is a Western form of brainwashing. It would be better that MIM does the brainwashing.

How does the Amerikan womyn avoid the singles bar scene?
Answer: She marries her kidnapper.

Why do Amerikan wars always come in twos?
Answer: The first one creates terrorists and the second one does too.

By only briefly glancing I thought this was a post about Maoris reviewing music. It made more sense then.

When MIM comes to power in the dictatorship of the proletariat, entertainment won't be for profit...

Still waiting!