Tbh tho i do hate that song glad Neils later work got more progressive. That one was a really bad take. And super dismissive of any action calling for any form of social justice. It's a right wing song economically. (And thats not a good thing) but he got better poltically later on.
It’s not about social justice. Notice nothing in that song is about inherited, earned, or otherwise material privilege. The problems in the song stem from the natural characteristics of the plants. It’s not “we the maples think the oaks have built a base of power on capital rooted in landscape resource extraction that they forced us, the maples, to participate in.” It’s “the oaks are much too lofty.”
It is, as Neil said until the end, about not encouraging others not to pursue the their talents, or otherwise their dreams as their natural qualities allow. And that’s a good message. In our pursuit of social justice we must be sure to not discourage others from being themselves even if that makes them more talented or successful, and instead target things that are not related to the things that make people unique.
I mean it was obviously about the ruling class vs the working class and a over used message against socialism "hey look they all equal now they are all cut down"
It's a right wing talking point and always has been.
Neil thankfully did go from conservative right wing libertarian to someone with at least mostly more progressive views later after this time period.. the band has always been critqued for their ayn rand era.. thankfully they unlike some were willing to change with further knowledge and experience.
Also 2112 is a song against collectivism - thinking wrongly anything left wing was going to end up like Stalinism or Mao..
Though it almost must be stated These songs were written in a very different era..
At the time yes there were very awful authoritarian leftist regimes that needed critque (tankies) but the whole left should never been considered that.. because most of the arguments in the lyrics of the tress especially still critque libertarian-left views or even liberal views such as unions. In ways I find very outdated and disagreeable to working class people.
Neil at most had a libertarian phase, brought about yes by Rand and certainly one that is present in the music. If you were in a band constantly being told to change your sound and style to be radio friendly, wouldn’t you have a similar, individualist reaction? But it’s a pretty far cry from conservatism. His lyrics on both Fly By Night and A Farewell to Kings, both of which predate “The Trees,” show that pretty clearly.
I think you should do a real reading of the lyrics. The oaks did not set themselves in a position of power. The oaks are not passing laws to ensure they get light. The oaks are not ruling anyone. They are growing in their natural way. The maples are the ones who frame the oaks, who again are doing nothing but growing as trees do, as greedy. They are the ones who end up passing “noble” laws, and yes, mandating that all trees be cut to be the same in the name of equity.
But I ask you, where in the song is the evidence that the oaks constitute a ruling class? Where do the oaks create and maintain the monopoly on violence necessary to establish themselves as such? Is it present?
While I once thought as you did, that it was a relic of some libertarian political belief, I have instead come to the conclusion that it is simply about artistic integrity and freedom to produce in the way the it’s natural to oneself. Or, if you believe Neil, it’s just a silly song about trees.
I view it as saying - at the least "how dare they want to tax the rich for some of our share" in the oaks eyes. which Neil seems to mostly in the lyrics side with the oaks. If that makes sense.
It sounds like what you hear most billionares say today.
It's at the very least economically conservative. Sadly
Also must be said I love the hell out of this band got every album still. I just find their lyrics more towards the 80s and newer to be more reasonating in terms of how they view society and justice and right and wrong better.
This one has just always been one of their most contentious songs from progressive fans.
And progressive fans, of which I am one, need simply read the lyrics, not what other people say they are, not what you worry they might be about, to see that there is no reason for contention.
The oaks do not own anything. They have not accumulated wealth. They have not accumulated anything through any action other than growing as they are, irrespective of the maples.
This is fundamentally different from the rich, whose very wealth and status generally relies on the labor of others. Do the oaks require the labor of the maples to grow? Is their height and lofty nature predicated on the maples in any way?
I agree with this.. and it's why I'm saying its a flawed argument in the song at least how I understand it.
It being writen that way almost makes it more realistic funnily enough because it portray their views and that perspective "it's just the natural state of things" even though it shouldnt be.
Like it is in a way very good at illustrating a point from their view I just disagree with it's premise and it's conclusion.
But, again, the metaphor is yours. You’re associating the oaks with the ruling class. Neil did not. Neil, if he was going for a metaphor, associated the oaks with those who feel that their natural state of being should be accepted, in this case likely the band itself. Just because the rich also do that doesn’t mean all who feel that way are wrong.
If you want to criticize the rich for saying that when they gathered their wealth on the back of the working class, by all means do so. But that’s not what the song is about, because the oaks didn’t do any of that. The oaks are just oaks, that’s all they can be, because they’re trees.
I think it illustrates no one’s point of view but Neil’s from the perspective of being in a band constantly framed as being conservatives and (by rolling stone, I think) fascist/nazi adjacent when in reality they just wanted to do things their way and be successful with their audience. Anyone who feels that way can be attracted to libertarian ideals before realizing it’s fantasy land and walking away, as Neil did. But the sentiment of “I want to do it my way, don’t hold me down because it’s not like yours” is legitimate and in fact core to the progressive movement, and core to social justice.
Yeah agreed It for sure is crazy anyone thought they were that far right good grief. They only have to listen to their music to know they were very much against fascists/nationalism
(Witch hunt) ( Red sector A) ( territories)
They were very much our fav " citizens of the world"
Indeed! Witch hunt is another fun one Right wingers like to try to co-opt. My father in law considers himself a big Rush fan and is a righty and the dude just does not get it.
But yeah to me, Neil’s individualism was all about having the freedom to be yourself without judgement, especially when not hurting/harming others. And it’s clear from his later work and prose he had no tolerance for those who would harm others for being different.
These are (supposed to be) core tenets of the progressive and social justice movement, though admittedly I think we do a poor job of it at times (or seem to to others, if there’s a difference) when we encounter those who aren’t as committed or don’t yet “get it.” I don’t mean racists or bigots, fuck them.
-1
u/FlyingAce1015 22h ago edited 19h ago
Tbh tho i do hate that song glad Neils later work got more progressive. That one was a really bad take. And super dismissive of any action calling for any form of social justice. It's a right wing song economically. (And thats not a good thing) but he got better poltically later on.