I joined this site having read 'the Marxist interpretation of peaches'. I would agree song lyrics are open to interpretation (personally, the song is about peaches), but there are some basic mistakes in this 'interpretation', currently the leading comment in this thread, that make it incoherent and suggest it need not be considered seriously. For instance:
Marxism is not the same as communism or socialism, and socialism and communism are also very different from one another. No-one who was even vaguely informed about these topics would make them equivalent as they are done in this 'Marxist interpretation'.
There is no mention of 'class', which is the indispensable construct in any Marxist interpretation of anything.
If someone wanted to offer a Marxist interpretation of a song, their primary focus would not be lyrical content. Marxists (as literary critics) are more concerned with questions of process and the socio-historical conditions attendant to any phenomenon such as a song or work of art - relations of production and consumption within the 'culture industry' for instance. The lyrics themselves would be secondary considerations, the main interest is the conditions that gave rise to this particular song, at this particular time (and how it was received). A song, or poem, or book (from the Marxist view of history) is simply a product of socio-historical conditions, so Marxists do not devote much time to considering the intentions of the artist.
What UnseenSoul is trying to do is impose a (very loose and ill formulated) vaguely leftist/revolutionary message onto a song and its writers. This is not 'Marxist Interpretation'.
@genbo Yes the indispensability of class is a glaring omission, but overall there are larger problems. It’s a disservice to Marxist critique that would have Adorno spinning in his grave. The irony is this “Marxist interpretation” is an expression of a shallow kind of consumption (of the Marxian canon). Filtered through this bourgeoisie lens, likes commodify and make this ironic circle complete.
@genbo Yes the indispensability of class is a glaring omission, but overall there are larger problems. It’s a disservice to Marxist critique that would have Adorno spinning in his grave. The irony is this “Marxist interpretation” is an expression of a shallow kind of consumption (of the Marxian canon). Filtered through this bourgeoisie lens, likes commodify and make this ironic circle complete.
I joined this site having read 'the Marxist interpretation of peaches'. I would agree song lyrics are open to interpretation (personally, the song is about peaches), but there are some basic mistakes in this 'interpretation', currently the leading comment in this thread, that make it incoherent and suggest it need not be considered seriously. For instance:
Marxism is not the same as communism or socialism, and socialism and communism are also very different from one another. No-one who was even vaguely informed about these topics would make them equivalent as they are done in this 'Marxist interpretation'.
There is no mention of 'class', which is the indispensable construct in any Marxist interpretation of anything.
If someone wanted to offer a Marxist interpretation of a song, their primary focus would not be lyrical content. Marxists (as literary critics) are more concerned with questions of process and the socio-historical conditions attendant to any phenomenon such as a song or work of art - relations of production and consumption within the 'culture industry' for instance. The lyrics themselves would be secondary considerations, the main interest is the conditions that gave rise to this particular song, at this particular time (and how it was received). A song, or poem, or book (from the Marxist view of history) is simply a product of socio-historical conditions, so Marxists do not devote much time to considering the intentions of the artist.
What UnseenSoul is trying to do is impose a (very loose and ill formulated) vaguely leftist/revolutionary message onto a song and its writers. This is not 'Marxist Interpretation'.
@genbo Yes the indispensability of class is a glaring omission, but overall there are larger problems. It’s a disservice to Marxist critique that would have Adorno spinning in his grave. The irony is this “Marxist interpretation” is an expression of a shallow kind of consumption (of the Marxian canon). Filtered through this bourgeoisie lens, likes commodify and make this ironic circle complete.
@genbo Yes the indispensability of class is a glaring omission, but overall there are larger problems. It’s a disservice to Marxist critique that would have Adorno spinning in his grave. The irony is this “Marxist interpretation” is an expression of a shallow kind of consumption (of the Marxian canon). Filtered through this bourgeoisie lens, likes commodify and make this ironic circle complete.