[at-fates-hands]

His messages were always the same politically. He was always snubbing his nose at the crown, at the art world and other rich folks who would pay millions of pounds for his art. Back in the day when I discovered him, he came off as a rebel, as most graffiti writers do.

Now? He makes millions off his work while still thumbing his nose at capitalism? Doesn't ring the same any more. You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.

[NekkoDroid]

> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

There really is no winning when you become famous. When people liked you before and you are effectively still the same but just richer they call you part of the problem, if you aren't richer people just don't know you and you most likely arent actually famous. Usually money follows the fame and vice versa (unless you specifically use your money to remain anonymous).

[solenoid0937]

> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.

You absolutely can though. This is a false dichotomy.

[kelnos]

> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.

It depends on what you do with that money, no?

I'll be one of the first to agree that most rich people have likely gotten where the are by doing at least some immoral or unethical things, and that many of those people try to whitewash their image with philanthropy. But there certainly exist rich people who got there as ethically as one can in this world, and use that money to try to change things.

Sure, there are many fewer of the latter people than the former, but I think it's unfair to automatically assume that "made some money" = "part of the system".

[moogly]

If you're rich, you can't slag off your ilk because that makes you a hypocrite, and if you're poor, you're just envious. And if you're threading the narrow path inbetween, well that just makes you bourgie so in summary: get fucked. Convenient. Of course, this only works in one direction...

[master-lincoln]

> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.

What makes you think so? I think it depends on what happens to the money extracted from the system. Do we know how Banksy uses it?

[croon]

You can absolutely play within the rules to your advantage, while also vocally and electorally work for changing those rules (for both the better or the worse). Whether one way is the good and the other the bad can of course be discussed.

Example: "I'm rich and think I should pay more in taxes because I have it more than good enough" vs "I'm rich and think that I'm already paying too much in taxes". Neither is inconsistent or hypocritical.

Other example: "I got rich by extracting more from my workers than was justifiable compared to what they produced, and that should probably be regulated" vs "I got rich by providing value I got paid for, and created a lot of jobs, and we should have less regulation so I could do more of it".