4 ms·

A lot of times people who loudly yell "fuck the system" are also quietly using the system when it suits them, that's my point. Bansky is no "dismantle the capit

by 323 5y ago

A lot of times people who loudly yell "fuck the system" are also quietly using the system when it suits them, that's my point. Bansky is no "dismantle the capitalism" hero or whatever pedestal people have him on.

jrm4 5y ago
This argument, most of the time, is just bad and not smart. "If you hate capitalism, why do you use iPads? etc." It's dreck and it should stop because it's rarely constructive. Sometimes it's a necessary tool. Sometimes people are experimenting. Sometimes people do actually sell out. The problem with this argument is that it tries to shut down the above questions. Details matter, and bad arguments like the above rarely help.
- runarberg 5y ago
  A few counterpoints I’ve heard over the years include: * The prevailing system will never be toppled by the conscious choice of the individual consumer. * No one person has the power to overturn capitalism, no matter how persistent. * There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    >There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. That's such a useless statement that even were it true, it proves the parent's point. That moral judgement doesn't lead us closer to a world without capitalism. Go to any haven of anti-capitalism and ask for a link to the manual they have for getting from HERE to THERE. Not even a theory on how to dismantle what we have. FWIW personally I think capitalism is the worst system, other than all the others. Rein it in, set principles in stone for what we expect and demand from our system, but markets shouldn't magically disappear because we've lost control once.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    All these points are doing the stupid thing of presuming a clear controllable definition of capitalism; when in reality, no "ism" is a controllable unified entity. People will always and forever make mutually beneficial trades, probably with money. Now, will people also always have the opportunity to freely invest sums of money in imaginary chopped up pieces of a corporation without fear of financial liability should they cause a great deal of harm? Maybe not, because Gamestop is teaching us a lot of things. Regardless of what happens, the dumb thing is presuming that these two things are both the exact same thing called "capitalism."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
kdmccormick 5y ago
I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. But I think it's worth maintaining that (1) some things are worse than other things and (2) motive matters and (3) imperfect people can still make good points. I have never, ever felt like a piece of Banksy's art, or any original piece of visual artwork for that matter, is being shoved down my throat. They're quiet, static, relatively low in number, and easily avoidable & ignorable. I've never felt distracted or distressed because my local coffee shop has a new mural on their wall, and nobody has ever forced me to walk through an art museum in order to get to the grocery store. On the other hand, advertisements are loud, moving, insanely numerous, and totally non-optional. My local subway and subway stations are plastered in advertisements; if I want to transit anywhere, I must endure them. Plus, the motives are different! Sure, Banksy or $artist_name likely want folks to find their art appealing and then compensate them somehow, via buying copies, commissioning new art, spreading their reputation, whatever. But advertisers do not care if you found their ad appealing; they just want you to buy their product. In fact, many ads are purposely obnoxious or abhorrent just because it's an effective way to bring your attention towards their product. How dystopian is that? And yes, there's some irony in Banksy, as someone who occasionally benefits from copyright law, to be making this point. But that doesn't make him wrong! And, it'd be far more ironic if, I don't know, Sergey Brin or someone else who use hugely benefited from advertising and copyright law were making the point.
- jjulius 5y ago
  >I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. Does it, though? The linked TMZ article suggests the lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles DA on behalf of the property owner whose property lost value because of the defacement. It doesn't appear that Banksy himself is involved in the lawsuit.
  - kdmccormick 5y ago
    The postcard copyright lawsuit, not the vandalism case.
    - 5y ago
b3morales 5y ago
It is similar to the logic of nations desiring peace but having an armed force for defense. If you are attacked and you refuse to engage in that system, disarming unilaterally, you may avoid violence, but at a loss of other values. Using the system judiciously can enable you to disengage from it in the longer term. The tradeoffs for choosing this path will be different for different situations, but I don't think it's fair to say that taking advantage of rules you claim to hate is always clear-cut hypocrisy.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > It is similar to the logic of nations desiring peace but having an armed force for defense. The whole point of having a strong defense force is to have peace. People don't start wars with a strong opponent, only a weak one.
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    Proxy wars are a wrinkle in this logic whereby strong belligerents pick their battles so that they have plausible deniability; deniable wins and losses, deniable assets and capital, deniable aims and goals. Deceit and détente have a fractious relationship, but often serve complementary purposes - managing perception of reality and control of time and space via control of individuals and groups. The personal is political. Weak sides challenge stronger opponents all the time, just usually not militarily. By situating yourself in opposition to power structures, you may reframe the debate and win it on its merits in the minds of the public, thus causing friction when status quo attempts to reassert itself.
- pleb_nz 5y ago
  Defense forces in some places serve in other defense capacities outside of military conflict. I would say they are quite desirable even in places you mentioned

by 323 5y ago

jrm4 5y ago

This argument, most of the time, is just bad and not smart. "If you hate capitalism, why do you use iPads? etc." It's dreck and it should stop because it's rarely constructive. Sometimes it's a necessary tool. Sometimes people are experimenting. Sometimes people do actually sell out. The problem with this argument is that it tries to shut down the above questions. Details matter, and bad arguments like the above rarely help.

runarberg 5y ago
A few counterpoints I’ve heard over the years include: * The prevailing system will never be toppled by the conscious choice of the individual consumer. * No one person has the power to overturn capitalism, no matter how persistent. * There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  >There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. That's such a useless statement that even were it true, it proves the parent's point. That moral judgement doesn't lead us closer to a world without capitalism. Go to any haven of anti-capitalism and ask for a link to the manual they have for getting from HERE to THERE. Not even a theory on how to dismantle what we have. FWIW personally I think capitalism is the worst system, other than all the others. Rein it in, set principles in stone for what we expect and demand from our system, but markets shouldn't magically disappear because we've lost control once.
- jrm4 5y ago
  All these points are doing the stupid thing of presuming a clear controllable definition of capitalism; when in reality, no "ism" is a controllable unified entity. People will always and forever make mutually beneficial trades, probably with money. Now, will people also always have the opportunity to freely invest sums of money in imaginary chopped up pieces of a corporation without fear of financial liability should they cause a great deal of harm? Maybe not, because Gamestop is teaching us a lot of things. Regardless of what happens, the dumb thing is presuming that these two things are both the exact same thing called "capitalism."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

kdmccormick 5y ago

I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. But I think it's worth maintaining that (1) some things are worse than other things and (2) motive matters and (3) imperfect people can still make good points. I have never, ever felt like a piece of Banksy's art, or any original piece of visual artwork for that matter, is being shoved down my throat. They're quiet, static, relatively low in number, and easily avoidable & ignorable. I've never felt distracted or distressed because my local coffee shop has a new mural on their wall, and nobody has ever forced me to walk through an art museum in order to get to the grocery store. On the other hand, advertisements are loud, moving, insanely numerous, and totally non-optional. My local subway and subway stations are plastered in advertisements; if I want to transit anywhere, I must endure them. Plus, the motives are different! Sure, Banksy or $artist_name likely want folks to find their art appealing and then compensate them somehow, via buying copies, commissioning new art, spreading their reputation, whatever. But advertisers do not care if you found their ad appealing; they just want you to buy their product. In fact, many ads are purposely obnoxious or abhorrent just because it's an effective way to bring your attention towards their product. How dystopian is that? And yes, there's some irony in Banksy, as someone who occasionally benefits from copyright law, to be making this point. But that doesn't make him wrong! And, it'd be far more ironic if, I don't know, Sergey Brin or someone else who use hugely benefited from advertising and copyright law were making the point.

jjulius 5y ago
>I hear you; the copyright case especially shows that he is no paragon of anti-capitalism. Does it, though? The linked TMZ article suggests the lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles DA on behalf of the property owner whose property lost value because of the defacement. It doesn't appear that Banksy himself is involved in the lawsuit.
- kdmccormick 5y ago
  The postcard copyright lawsuit, not the vandalism case.
  - 5y ago

b3morales 5y ago

It is similar to the logic of nations desiring peace but having an armed force for defense. If you are attacked and you refuse to engage in that system, disarming unilaterally, you may avoid violence, but at a loss of other values. Using the system judiciously can enable you to disengage from it in the longer term. The tradeoffs for choosing this path will be different for different situations, but I don't think it's fair to say that taking advantage of rules you claim to hate is always clear-cut hypocrisy.

WalterBright 5y ago
> It is similar to the logic of nations desiring peace but having an armed force for defense. The whole point of having a strong defense force is to have peace. People don't start wars with a strong opponent, only a weak one.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  Proxy wars are a wrinkle in this logic whereby strong belligerents pick their battles so that they have plausible deniability; deniable wins and losses, deniable assets and capital, deniable aims and goals. Deceit and détente have a fractious relationship, but often serve complementary purposes - managing perception of reality and control of time and space via control of individuals and groups. The personal is political. Weak sides challenge stronger opponents all the time, just usually not militarily. By situating yourself in opposition to power structures, you may reframe the debate and win it on its merits in the minds of the public, thus causing friction when status quo attempts to reassert itself.
pleb_nz 5y ago
Defense forces in some places serve in other defense capacities outside of military conflict. I would say they are quite desirable even in places you mentioned