Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Lady Gaga promotes a capitalist system Dominick T.

Armentano November 19, 2011, Capitalism and the Wall Street Protesters Consumers place a higher value on Lady Gagas services than they do on my services and, thus, her income is far higher than mine. Under capitalism, Lady Gaga (certainly a member of the 1% club) is entitled by right to keep what she earns in free trade . . . or give it away if she chooses. By what right would protesters advocate that government confiscate some of that income and distribute it to people who didnt earn it? Sounds like theft and not social justice to me.

Lady Gagas transgressive tactics are directly reflective of the Capitalist system loneberry: 2011 I get the sense that most people who celebrate Lady Gaga for her performance artist schtick arent critical of capitalism. Counter-critics assert that Lady Gaga is not glorifying commodity culture but parodying it by offering herself as a figurative mirroring or projection of consumer culture. The problem with such an argument is that ironic derision, risk, subversion, transgression are all thoroughly integrated into the polymorphous techniques of capitalism and are indeed representative of its flexibility, its ever-expanding markets and its ability to appeal even to intellectuals, queers, feminists, and politicos of varying sorts. The transgressive tactics employed by Gaga produce what Michel Foucault might call an incitement to discourseigniting blog posts, cultural criticism, theory which effectively produces the image of Gaga and generates value, meaning, and interest in her project while transgression-as-capitalist tactic remains obscuredWhen US academics sift through popular culture to look for subversive messages, its not surprising at all that they find them everywhere (yet even with the proliferation of subversion in commodity culture, their analyses can still sound very forced). Lady Gagas attempts to fight capitalism are subjected by the system her message is still spread thru the capitalist system and controlled by it. Capitalism Magazine, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/6599-lady-gaga-please-shut-up-andsing.html, sept 26, 2011 Music megastar Lady Gaga is -- reportedly -- going to do her next album for free. Not surprisingly, Lady Gaga is also a known Obama supporter. Just what we need. Another millionaire in favor of socialism. Many of Lady Gaga's fans are socialists just like her. Yet if Lady Gaga had never been allowed to make a profit in the first place, would she be where she is today? She didn't get where she is with her own money. She got where she is, in part, because of an already established music industry. The music industry is certainly a for-profit business, a direct result of the capitalism that socialists so despise.

Why is it virtuous for Lady Gaga to denounce the system that enabled her to become who she is? (Support of Obama is equivalent to denouncing capitalism.) Even if the essence of virtue is to give away all your money, then why is the system that enables you to make the money in the first place so evil and bad? This is the question celebrity socialists never have to answer, because nobody ever asks them. I'm asking it now, but people will call it "inflammatory" which is just another way of saying: "I don't like that question. Don't ask it." As for giving away her profits, I have another question. If giving your money away is so virtuous, then why be public about it? It seems to me that if you had more money than you wanted or needed, and you wanted to give it away, then you would simply and quietly give it away. You wouldn't feel the need to tell everyone about it. Where's the "virtue" in that? If the real purpose of giving your profits away is to do good for others, then it wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) even occur to you to tell anybody. Also, I wonder how much Lady Gaga's fans will actually value her next album, assuming it's given away for free? People tend not to value that which they don't have to pay for. Something given to you as an entitlement tends to be something you value less than something you have to put your time and effort into attaining. Consider any spoiled child. The child who never has to work for anything has little or no appreciation for it. You don't value what's given and what's promised to always be there for you.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai