Was John Lennon from the Beatles really a libertarian?

[BarryDonegan]

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/06/29/report-john-lennon-closet-republican-ronald-reagan-fan/

Ronald Reagan fan probably meant libertarian in the case of John Lennon. I think this calls for a little investigation. ;)

[acptulsa]

Uh, no. He really never progressed much beyond 'progressive'. From what I remember of his last interview, he could have gotten there by now had he lived, but...

[YumYum]

Uh, no. He really never progressed much beyond 'progressive'. From what I remember of his last interview, he could have gotten there by now had he lived, but...

He was against government. How was he a "progressive"? He seems to be more of an anarchist.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Many of his lyrics left me thinking he was a globalist.

[Guitarzan]

Many of his lyrics left me thinking he was a globalist.


Yes! Lennon was a proud anti-war hippie who believed in a liberal utopia. But...he was a brilliant musician/writer.

[Sola_Fide]

He was communist who sang about a utopia in which there would be "no possessions". Private property is the cornerstone of freedom.

[pcosmar]

Like many he was all for liberty for himself.

[YumYum]

He was communist who sang about a utopia in which there would be "no possessions". Private property is the cornerstone of freedom.

No, when he sang about "no possessions" in imagine, it was all about voluntarism, in the same way the apostles practiced "communism" in the first century. He never said anything about sharing "possessions" by use of force.

[Sola_Fide]

No, when he sang about "no possessions" in imagine, it was all about voluntarism, in the same way the apostles practiced "communism" in the first century. He never said anything about sharing "possessions" by use of force.

Okayyyyyy. W/E

[Lucille]

I'm sorry but, John Lennon is the most over-rated "artist" in the history of the world. Team Paul (even though he's a collectivist tool)!

(I was surprised to see Neil Young defend Reagan and GWB in the WSJ.)

[gls]

I don't know if he would've considered himself a "libertarian", but if you read the lyrics to "Revolution" (which Lennon wrote) he comes across as much less radical than many of his contemporaries.

This last verse is unmistakably pro-constitution and anti-fascist. It speaks to the power of the individual (you better free your mind instead).


You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know if he would've considered himself a "libertarian", but if you read the lyrics to "Revolution" (which Lennon wrote) he comes across as much less radical than many of his contemporaries.

This last verse is unmistakably pro-constitution and anti-fascist. It speaks to the power of the individual (you better free your mind instead).

LoL. You think THAT verse is pro-constitution and anti-Mao? No way man:)

[gls]

LoL. You think THAT verse is pro-constitution and anti-Mao? No way man:)

How else could it be read? Back then many people were proposing radical changes to the Constitution (instead of just ignoring it like they do now) and Lennon was basically saying that it is better to change the way one personally thinks and acts than to try and impose a new order on everyone using the government. And of course it was anti-Mao: another line from the song is "And if you want money for people with minds that hate...All I can tell you is brother you have to wait." That's clearly calling out the left for supporting tyrants under the auspices of progress.

[Valli6]

Supposedly he moved to the US because of England's high taxes. George Harrison is the one who wrote "Taxman", but Lennon said he helped him with a couple of lines. I don't recall Lennon ever suggesting that the government is the answer to any problem.


The Beatles were making more money than most at the time, but when George Harrison discovered that 96 pence of each pound the group earned went to the taxman, he was not amused.

"'Taxman' was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes. It was and still is typical," Harrison later said.

http://www.thebeatlesonline.com/pages/beatles_taxman.htm

[givemeliberty]

I don't know if he would've considered himself a "libertarian", but if you read the lyrics to "Revolution" (which Lennon wrote) he comes across as much less radical than many of his contemporaries.

This last verse is unmistakably pro-constitution and anti-fascist. It speaks to the power of the individual (you better free your mind instead).


When he wrote this there was a very real fear w/ tptb that there WOULD be a revolution. There were songs out like Street Fighting Man that were fomenting violence against the establishment. Lennon was decidedly pacifist when Revolution came out. There is a school of thought that tptb actually asked him to water down the fire at the time so to speak.

[YumYum]

How else could it be read? Back then many people were proposing radical changes to the Constitution (instead of just ignoring it like they do now) and Lennon was basically saying that it is better to change the way one personally thinks and acts than to try and impose a new order on everyone using the government. And of course it was anti-Mao: another line from the song is "And if you want money for people with minds that hate...All I can tell you is brother you have to wait." That's clearly calling out the left for supporting tyrants under the auspices of progress.

Excellent reply!

[Guitarzan]

He is the Walrus...hence, he fancied himself as a dictator.

Just take the first line of that song....

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together"


That's spooky collectivist. ;)

[gls]

When he wrote this there was a very real fear w/ tptb that there WOULD be a revolution. There were songs out like Street Fighting Man that were fomenting violence against the establishment. Lennon was decidedly pacifist when Revolution came out. There is a school of thought that tptb actually asked him to water down the fire at the time so to speak.

Interesting but my guess is that it had more to do with what was in his heart than some sort of acquiescence to establishment orders. After all they tried for many years to kick him out of the country; if he was a useful tool for them they would've just let him be.

[jmdrake]

He was communist who sang about a utopia in which there would be "no possessions". Private property is the cornerstone of freedom.


No, when he sang about "no possessions" in imagine, it was all about voluntarism, in the same way the apostles practiced "communism" in the first century. He never said anything about sharing "possessions" by use of force.


Okayyyyyy. W/E

I was about to post the lyrics from "Imagine" but you beat me to it. However YumYum has a point. There are those who don't believe in possessions per say, but don't believe in enforcing that through government force. Think of the early Christian church where people sold all of their possessions and shared everything. But that was voluntarily done. Of course Imagine also says "imagine no religion" so that leaves the early church model out.

[Vessol]

I was about to post the lyrics from "Imagine" but you beat me to it. However YumYum has a point. There are those who don't believe in possessions per say, but don't believe in enforcing that through government force. Think of the early Christian church where people sold all of their possessions and shared everything. But that was voluntarily done. Of course Imagine also says "imagine no religion" so that leaves the early church model out.

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. But what's to stop someone without religion from getting rid of all their possessions and sharing everything voluntarily?

[jmdrake]

LoL. You think THAT verse is pro-constitution and anti-Mao? No way man:)


How else could it be read? Back then many people were proposing radical changes to the Constitution (instead of just ignoring it like they do now) and Lennon was basically saying that it is better to change the way one personally thinks and acts than to try and impose a new order on everyone using the government. And of course it was anti-Mao: another line from the song is "And if you want money for people with minds that hate...All I can tell you is brother you have to wait." That's clearly calling out the left for supporting tyrants under the auspices of progress.

AquaBuddha put a smiley face on the end so I think he was being sarcastic. But if he wasn't then I agree with your point. Revolution clearly to a swipe at those endorse tyrants like Mao just because the didn't like what was going in in the U.S. That said the old Beatles song "Back in the U.S.S.R." always gave me pause. I don't think many people living their thought "how lucky" they were to be there.

[Rael]

I'm sorry but, John Lennon is the most over-rated "artist" in the history of the world.

Thank you. Although I do like a lot of older music, I always though Lennon and the Beatles were extremely overrated, neither ever impressed me.

[YumYum]

He is the Walrus...hence, he fancied himself as a dictator.

Just take the first line of that song....

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together"


That's spooky collectivist. ;)

He wrote that song while on acid. He said in an interview that he wrote the "I am he as you are he and we are all together" line because he was inspired by the verse where Jesus prayed at John 17:21: "Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us..." Lennon enjoyed reading the Bible, even though he claimed he didn't believe in it in the song "God". Jesus was a source of inspiration for him.

[Guitarzan]

He wrote that song while on acid. He said in an interview that he wrote the "I am he as you are he and we are all together" line because he was inspired by the verse where Jesus prayed at John 17:21: "Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us..." Lennon enjoyed reading the Bible, even though he claimed he didn't believe in it in the song "God". Jesus was a source of inspiration for him.

Interesting. Also, just a note to say that maybe I should've inserted a "sarc/" into my post.

[jmdrake]

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. But what's to stop someone without religion from voluntarily getting rid of all their possessions and sharing everything voluntarily?

Nothing I suppose. But what would be incentive for more than a small few to do so? The ZGM will tell you that people will get rid of all of their possessions because the new technocracy will provide everything everybody needs for free. I personally don't see that happening, but who knows? Anyway, that's 3 different ways to persuade a possession free world, government force, moral persuasion and bribery. (You're going to get free appliances out of the deal from the shared 3D printer).

I envision a world (or at least a nation) where people "chip in" to causes they think are worthwhile (firefighting, small business loans, education, whatever) and we do away with taxes but keep possession. (What else are you going to chip in with)?

[YumYum]

Interesting. Also, just a note to say that maybe I should've inserted a "sarc/" into my post.

I thought you were being humorous. :) Are you a big Beatles fan? They are my favorite group. With regards to Lennon, he strikes me as someone who was rather confused; he didn't know whether he was a pancake or a waffle.

[givemeliberty]

Interesting but my guess is that it had more to do with what was in his heart than some sort of acquiescence to establishment orders. After all they tried for many years to kick him out of the country; if he was a useful tool for them they would've just let him be.

Yea, I don't know if I buy that either but it has been mentioned. A number of his contemporaries at the time were curious though about his reluctance to take a more militant stance particularly since the title of the song was "Revolution" and most everyone else were becoming more militant rather than less.

[Acala]

I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. But what's to stop someone without religion from getting rid of all their possessions and sharing everything voluntarily?

Exactly! Those lyrics don't say anything about being deprived of your possessions at gunpoint. And getting rid of all your possessions voluntarily IS a kind of liberation.

[Vessol]

Nothing I suppose. But what would be incentive for more than a small few to do so? The ZGM will tell you that people will get rid of all of their possessions because the new technocracy will provide everything everybody needs for free. I personally don't see that happening, but who knows? Anyway, that's 3 different ways to persuade a possession free world, government force, moral persuasion and bribery. (You're going to get free appliances out of the deal from the shared 3D printer).

I envision a world (or at least a nation) where people "chip in" to causes they think are worthwhile (firefighting, small business loans, education, whatever) and we do away with taxes but keep possession. (What else are you going to chip in with)?

Oh I'm a big fan of property rights and property in general, but I was just wondering if you thought a Asceticistic lifestype was possible without religion.

[Guitarzan]

Thank you. Although I do like a lot of older music, I always though Lennon and the Beatles were extremely overrated, neither ever impressed me.


To each their own, of course, but "overrated" is not the correct term. The Beatles wrote more chart topping hits than any rock band in history. They once had the top 5 slots on the billboard top 100 all to themselves...at once. They broke records for album sales and many of those records still haven't been broken to this day. And one can still hear the Beatles influence in the newer bands today. They might just be to most influential pop/rock band ever. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they're overrated.

[osan]

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/06/29/report-john-lennon-closet-republican-ronald-reagan-fan/

Ronald Reagan fan probably meant libertarian in the case of John Lennon. I think this calls for a little investigation. ;)

Everything I ever heard him say indicated he was a collectivist. Hard core.

[Vessol]

Thank you. Although I do like a lot of older music, I always though Lennon and the Beatles were extremely overrated, neither ever impressed me.

Eh, overrated, perhaps. I still like a lot of their music, it has a good beat and well done lyrics, especially in the age before everything was autotuned the fuck out.

[Guitarzan]

I thought you were being humorous. :) Are you a big Beatles fan? They are my favorite group. With regards to Lennon, he strikes me as someone who was rather confused; he didn't know whether he was a pancake or a waffle.

Very much so. :)

[Sola_Fide]

John Lennon was definitely influenced by 60's-era communist propaganda.

http://www.rusbasan.com/Politics/John_Lennon_Imagines.html

[osan]

Yes! Lennon was a proud anti-war hippie who believed in a liberal utopia. But...he was a brilliant musician/writer.

Different strokes and all... I would not characterize his work as "brilliant" by a very long shot. It was, at best in my opinion, OK. At worst, it was pure drech, especially his post-Beatles offerings.

When one experiences brilliant music and then that of Lennon, they are left with precious little room for doubt as to how the latter's work really rates.

[jmdrake]

Oh I'm a big fan of property rights and property in general, but I was just wondering if you thought a Asceticistic lifestype was possible without religion.

I learned a new word today. :)

Anyway, I believe it's possible for any individual to choose any lifestyle regardless of religion or government coercion. It's totally possible for an atheist or agnostic to come to the conclusion that life is more fun dropping out of the "rat race" and choosing an austere life. But how many people can that individual get to go along with his new life? And is there any indication that John Lennon ever adopted such a life? (Just curious).

[Acala]

To each their own, of course, but "overrated" is not the correct term. The Beatles wrote more chart topping hits than any rock band in history. They once had the top 5 slots on the billboard top 100 all to themselves...at once. They broke records for album sales and many of those records still haven't been broken to this day. And one can still hear the Beatles influence in the newer bands today. They might just be to most influential pop/rock band ever. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they're overrated.

I'm not a big Beatles fan, and their lyrics were mostly crap, but there are not too many musicians who could structure a song like McCartney. Penny Lane. Enough said.

[Rael]

To each their own, of course, but "overrated" is not the correct term. The Beatles wrote more chart topping hits than any rock band in history. They once had the top 5 slots on the billboard top 100 all to themselves...at once. They broke records for album sales and many of those records still haven't been broken to this day. And one can still hear the Beatles influence in the newer bands today. They might just be to most influential pop/rock band ever. You may not like them, but that doesn't mean that they're overrated.

Well, Lady Gaga is popular too... =P

[osan]

I'm sorry but, John Lennon is the most over-rated "artist" in the history of the world.

One of.

[Danke]

Hatin on the Beatles. Tough Crowd.

http://www.deejayphoto.com/files/Rodney_Dangerfield.JPG

[Guitarzan]

Well, Lady Gaga is popular too... =P

Well, when Lady Gaga songs are being played on the radio 60 years after she wrote them, maybe she can be considered on par with the Beatles.

[Acala]

I learned a new word today. :)

Anyway, I believe it's possible for any individual to choose any lifestyle regardless of religion or government coercion. It's totally possible for an atheist or agnostic to come to the conclusion that life is more fun dropping out of the "rat race" and choosing an austere life. But how many people can that individual get to go along with his new life? And is there any indication that John Lennon ever adopted such a life? (Just curious).

I know some people who essentially have no possessions. Meditation teachers in the Theravada tradition. They teach for free and live off whatever is given in donations. It is really a pretty courageous way of life. They just surrender everything and trust that in return for giving everything they have to the teaching they will in return be sustained. And they are. The biggest obstacle for them seems to be the cost of health care. Thanks government!

Don't get me wrong, I am hardcore Libertarian/Austrian/nearly anarcho capitalist. But I have recently given some thought to an alternative to self-interest as a driving force in economics. First, answer this question: when do you do your BEST work, whatever the field? When you are driven by your own enthusiasm? When you are driven by your own pleasure in the process? When you are doing something for someone you love? Or when none of the above apply but you are being paid?

I think it is "theoretically" possible to have an economy that is based on a complete surrender to the joy of creating and the joy of giving and a surrender of the need to get anything in return. Of course it would need to be a community of others with a similar attitude. But it seems possible.

[Bruno]

Keep in mind his assistant said these were his views toward the end of his life, not that he wasn't more of a liberal or progressive previously, and that he was disappointed with Carter (who wasn't?).