The image problem that socialism has is more pronounced than that of other forms of politics, as far as Westerners are concerned, I think. It's associated with police states, sudden arrests at dawns, an atmosphere where no-one can be trusted, a lack of any real freedom of speech, and low standards of living for all. And there are the images of those euphoric people clambering on the Berlin Wall in 1989. Whilst there may be plenty of cynicism and distrust about Western politicians, the fears that are engendered about socialism - on the basis of actually-existing models that called themselves socialist - are in a different league. If there was something approaching a socialist society or part-socialist society in the West that could be viewed positively (or at least no more negatively than any other Western society), that might change the 'image' (some might cite Sweden, or Britain under the Attlee government, though it's very debatable whether they really count as 'socialist', depending of course how one defines the term), but I fear even that is a long way off. 'Socialism in one country' seems to bring massive problems, not least in terms of foreign interventions from other states wishing to prevent such ideas and models catching on in their own countries (as well as to protect business interests and so on). But worldwide revolution seems a pretty tall order. The theories can be disseminated, but how many people will ultimately be convinced by a theory without some practical evidence of its application, especially when there is plenty of evidence that can be used against such a theory?

It isn't just socialism but all of politics which has an "image problem", isn't it? The political class has succeeded in controlling the agenda to the point where the meaning of "political" in most people's minds has become associated (ie. confused) with the activities of professional politicians and nothing else (as we can see from a lot of the things Baz writes on the subject)....

Member Baz has very little idea of my views on the social and historical constitution of musical composition, performance and listening (and musicology). He delineates the 'political' as if it were some specialised realm of activity, rather than the apprehension that all phenomena exist in society and as such exhibit various types of relationship to that society. And nowhere is this more true than in the high bourgeois field of 'classical' music. His own opinions (and posts on baroque music) are as 'political' as anyone's; their mystification of the music concerned, separating it from lived experience and society, are a classic example of the type of 'old' musicology which serves little purpose other than to reinforce such music's appropriation towards the consolidation and reinforcement of unequal power structures, by rendering it the exclusive property of an elite, whose very identity is defined in large measure through their varieties of cultural consumption (one reason why irreverent articles about opera and classical music in general are not merely acceptable but essential). If music really were how if describes it, it would have absolutely no positive value whatsoever. But I do believe something positive can be salvaged from the music despite such arch-reactionary appropriation. This is why I am glad that this variety of musical discourse (of which the member is of course not the sole perpetuator, including on this messageboard) is gradually being consigned to the scrapheap at least in musicological circles. 

My comment to which you're here responding was occasioned by my thinking you have the wrong end of the stick here, or at least a different end from some others of us.

So, as far as I'm concerned "politics" is not a "belief" but the totality of dynamic structures and interactions in human society (that's a stab at a general definition which I hope stabs in the right direction). One might indeed "believe" in a particular interpretation of politics thus defined, but I don't think this belief is necessarily of a comparable nature to religious belief (although obviously it is for some people, indeed it's often even conflated with religious belief), since any interpretation must remain critical and responsive to trends and changes in society, having thus aspects in common with science (pace Dr Popper).

Any artwork is intimately conditioned by the aforementioned structures and interactions in society, because it has been produced by a member of that society and is part of that society's culture, and therefore according to the above definition has a political dimension. The artist might be consciously aware of that dimension and indeed be "inspired" by it, so that his/her work becomes a ("critical") response to its political environment. On the other hand he/she might regard this dimension as irrelevant, which in no way removes it but usually tends to make such an artist's work passively symptomatic of its political environment.

So, going back to your post, it isn't a question of whether music (or any other form of human expression) "should" or "must" have a political dimension. It's simply the case that it does. I hope that's a helpful answer.

Even if it turns out not to be to its addressee, it's certainly been a very interesting and clear explanation to this member...