"America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve."

I was took away is that he's saying your not actually free.

Oh ok, so your paraphrasing wasn't really what he was saying. He was actually talking about how the power that corporations exert in the US impedes people's ability have options in how they make a living for themselves. It's sort of melodramatic the way he puts it, but it's also definitely not what you were making it out to be.

Maybe it's not what I made it out to be. But it's just what I took it as when I first read it. Sorry if it was a bit misleading. Not my intention.

I mean, there's a meaningful discussion to be had over whether or not there is a better system (which isn't something I've really made up my mind on yet), but I sort of can't fault the basic line of thinking here. It seems to pretty accurately describe how wage labour works.

Basically, in a capitalist economy, one (amongst the working class) usually meets their needs et cetera through work. There exists a consequence for not working: poverty (for a pretty huge chunk of the population). Therefore, even though any individual employee-worker relationship might be voluntary, it's awfully hard to construe the whole system as completely voluntary and lacking in coercion. An (admittedly exaggerated) example that's pretty commonly used is this: if slaves were given the only the freedom to choose their master, would they cease being slaves and become "free"? Obviously not.

Even if you don't agree to the conclusion that the radical-left reaches, and whether or not you think this possibly minor coercion is acceptable, this understanding of the worker-employed relationship seems pretty damn hard to invalidate.

Wow that's a blast from the past, sounds like something that was written out of the 1940's, he must have been very young at the time.

The problem I have with Rage Against the Machine is that they talk the talk but don't walk the walk. These self proclaimed socialists were all to happy to sign up to a big corporate record label and become multimillionaires.

To Jello Biafra's credit, he never sold out, he's stayed indie his whole life despite corporate offers. Now that's a true commie, love him or hate him, you have to respect that.

I already said something similar.

I honestly don't know anything by DK. So I can't really comment on their music.

I don't mind say liberal politics in music like Neil Young or R.E.M. but I have a problem with people on the hard left who preach the evils of capitalism and American Imperialism, while becoming millionaires on a big corporate record label (Rage against the machine, anti flag)

Music is kind of different now though, since the collapse of the industry. Outside of big pop stars like Miley Cyrus and Kayne West, I think most new artists are pretty small scale now?

^Yeah, RATM are certainly hypocrites, but plenty of that sort of political music is still underground.

I kind of hope it stays that way. When I listen to music, I don't want to be bombarded with political messages. I want to hear a beautiful sound with a wonderful construction of effects.

When music (or any art) gets too political, it easily crosses over into the realm of propaganda. I'm of the opinion that art and propaganda cannot coexist, so if it crosses over, it ceases to be art. And I stop listening.