Celebrities

[drain.you]

How will celebrities exist, if at all, under anything but capitalism?
To my knowledge celebrities only came into existence with modern capitalism and the technology it has brought. When I say celebrity I mean a famous person who is not part of the government, royalty or directly associated with business. I mean Bill Gates shouldnt be classed as a celeb.
As I see it, celebrities are the people exploited the most in society and those who the workers and other classes look up to. They are best of the musicians, the actors, the artists and such. All those with special skills that capitalism takes advantage of on such a personal level in order to generate wealth for record companies, film industry and other business.
Of course music, plays and paintings existed before capitalism and their creators were still exploited (musicians forced to play for royalty,etc). But now we have this super elite, they are known throughout the world thanks to the mass media. What happens to them after the revolution? Do they still perform when they wont gain wealth? Will music be reduced back to small scale acts like it used to be, with people that aren't well known (even if great) playing for fun in a small bar somewhere?
What will become of them?

[redstar2000]

I would surmise that the whole concept of "celebrity" would run so counter to the egalitarian mores of a communist society that there'd be very little of that sort of thing.

No one would have any financial incentive to manufacture a celebrity...which is actually what usually takes place now. What, besides "being famous", are most "famous people" famous for?

Not much. :lol:

Some folks might enjoy enhanced "name recognition" because of some especially spectacular achievement.

But nothing like what we see now...where hordes of people piss themselves in their eagerness to "get close" to a "celebrity".

In the hopes, I guess, that their "glamor" will "rub off" on anyone nearby...providing an "escape-route" from the tedium of ordinary daily life.

Poor bastards. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Chrysalis]

I like the idea of performers and artists, but not "celebrities". As you guys have already said, celebrities are marketing-products and I don't have to go through all the list of entourage they have just to maintain that status, we already know what they are.

Performers and artists are the true talents, and communism deserves them. I've been in several live-performance theaters, and have met actors backstage. Cute guys, funny guys. They have day jobs like everyone else, but would devote time to travel and audition for the parts: most of the acting jobs they get are unpaid. They don't have the air of superiority or importance, but they take acting and art seriously. I have great respect for them.

[wet blanket]

I think we'd see a lot less celebrities in the sense that we know them, however great writers, artists, artisans, performers etc. will likely be recognized for their works.

[apathy maybe]

I tend to agree. Yes there will be people who will be famous (for discovering a cure for cancer perhaps), but not in the same sense that (umm... I don't know) some singer today is.

Personally I am going to be famous for discovering that two and two equals four in most situations, but not all! :)

[piet11111]

im more or less expecting some form of admiration for scientists like stephen hawking or poeple that go above expectations to help others.

also i think the participants of the revolution will also be local "celebrities"
and then ofcourse you will also have some hero's of the caliber of che or zhukov or a communist rommel.

but im quite certain we wont have any grandfather stalin types around.

[321zero]

I'm sure clever people will be celebrated, there just won't be a celebrity industry motivated by the need to sell another bit of celebrity paraphernalia as there is now.

[Sacha]

I believe, in addition to artisans and such, there will also be more of the 'hero' status about. In a society that relies and recognizes socially progessive works, those who excel or go beyond their responsibility will be recognized for their acheivements.

To make the point more clear, people will begin being realized for their acomplishments in place of people who are recognized for their born attributes (fame, family name, money) and other such status based on nothing more then desire.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah I agree with you guys. Of course there will still be actors and musicians that are famous just they won't have 15 lamboginis and 6 houses in the hamptons anymore.

[drain.you]

Okay, so there will be 'celebrities' but they obviously wont have any more wealth than others but have more prestige and influence over people then the average person. I mean, in our societies celebrities often condemn or support something and this sways loads of people, not because the money the person has but because they have influence due to being well known and appreciated. Not really democratic but we couldnt change that, can we?
But what happens to the products of the famous?
Will music be spread via the internet and available to all?
Will films still be made and spread via internet or will films be reduced to just on stage plays and such?
Will paintings be placed in museums and exihibtions?
Will celebrities personal lives be covered by the media like it is today?

[Cheung Mo]

Watching air heads like Tom Cruise and Pamela Anderson shoot their mouths off makes me MORE likely to support things like the Chinese occupation of Tibet (I have no love for the old ruling class, but I totalitarianism wrapped in a red flag is no different than totalitarianism buried under a Buddhist templ) or the Canadian seal hunt.

[drain.you]

Thanks for sharing but you not really addressing any of the questions.

[phragit]

In the communist state the famous are chosen by what they give to society and tend to be intellecutuals, Film directors(Einstien), and extremely talanted musicians or composers, they do exist, just in a different way.

[bezdomni]

I'm a Leninist...so only the vanguard party despots can be celebrities. :-p

Seriously though - celebrities, in the capitalist sense, would not exist. Some people might enjoy a good reputation for being particularly good at something, but they should not have the superhuman traits that the media seems to give to celebrities under capitalism.

[dislatino]

So in a communist world, celebrities would not exist, i grasped that point at least.

would achievements of some sort be rewarded with some sort of name status or anything at all?

[MexAmLeft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:02 AM
So in a communist world, celebrities would not exist, i grasped that point at least.

would achievements of some sort be rewarded with some sort of name status or anything at all?
I disagree celebrities do exist in a communist world, just look at baseball players in Cuba for example, they just wouldnt be rich but im sure athletes, musicians, artists,actors would still be famous.

[anomaly]

just look at baseball players in Cuba for example
Cuba's not communist.

Communism is stateless, classless and free. Cuba is none of these.

[dislatino]

Well, MexAmLeft i must ask, are you prepared to have some sort of fame and recognition and still be treated as an equal? it's all for the love of communism.

[Led Zeppelin]

The former members of the party (which is dissolved by then) will probably be looked at as "wise people", no doubt their opinions will be held in high regard.

Of course materially they are completely equal to others.

[dislatino]

Of course materially they are completely equal to others.

Question: how is it society decides what people need? materially if someone wants something that say another person does not, how is that resolved?

[MexAmLeft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:04 AM
Well, MexAmLeft i must ask, are you prepared to have some sort of fame and recognition and still be treated as an equal? it's all for the love of communism.
he can be famous as long as hes not making 10 million and im making 20,000, thats my only beef with athletes.I could care less about fame as long as it doenst bring special treatment with it.Cuba may not be "communist" but the wages are set pretty equally, the baseball players are stars in Cuba but they make the same money as everybody else.

[dislatino]

he can be famous as long as hes not making 10 million and im making 20,000, thats my only beef with athletes.I could care less about fame as long as it doenst bring special treatment with it.Cuba may not be "communist" but the wages are set pretty equally, the baseball players are stars in Cuba but they make the same money as everybody else.

That's cool, it was just for clarification i agree with you.

[Americancommi]

I think in a communist society there wouldn't be celebrity's, but their would be famous people. By celebrities i mean these rich dickheads with millions upon millions that do next to nothing. By famous people i mean people that are well known for their good deeds like mother Teresa who is known becase she helps people.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:00 PM
I think in a communist society there wouldn't be celebrity's, but their would be famous people. By celebrities i mean these rich dickheads with millions upon millions that do next to nothing. By famous people i mean people that are well known for their good deeds like mother Teresa who is known becase she helps people.
you know i heared many story's about that Teresa person that where everything but "saintly" or "motherly"

these ofcourse include abuse and rape in her shelters for the poor among other things.

[VermontLeft]

rape? :o abuse? :o

WHT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? :blink:

i mean i know that mother theresa was against abortion and whatever, but id never heard that she was actually bad to the poor. if so how come everyone always says how charitible she was and shit.

if this is true youd better have some evidence and the Catholic church had better have a really good excuse for why they covered it up. :angry:

[Nicky Scarfo]

I can tell you this much, after "The Revolution", Tom Cruise should go straight to a re-education through work camp, as should every single correspondent and producer for E!, Entertainment Tonight, Extra and all those other fucks who glorify the lives and bourgoeis excesses of these dumb shits, who just happened into their wealth through good-looks and dumb luck. I've got more respect for the capitalists who made their way to the top on the back of workers. They may be evil, but at least they did SOMETHING to make their money other than fall ass-backwards into it after they blew some producer in the bathroom at Spago's.

[LSD]

i mean i know that mother theresa was against abortion and whatever, but id never heard that she was actually bad to the poor. if so how come everyone always says how charitible she was and shit.

I can't speak to any "rapes", but insofar as her treatment of the poor it was indeed horrendous.

She left them in horrible conditions while she spent the bulk of her donations building nunneries. Her "home" in India was a joke where she wouldn't even spring for poper living conditions.

The sanitary conditions were attrocious, there was one pit in the ground where everyone had to deficate in public view, The dying were forced to lie in terrible little hammocks, forbidden to move, not allowed to leave. They couldn't recieve any visits from family or friends, nor recieve any medical attention. And, perhaps worst of all, Mother Theresa did not allow doctors in.

It wasn't that she couldn't afford them, mind you, she had more than enough money. She didn't want doctors because she didn't want people to recover.

She outright admitted that she wanted them in horrible conditions, she wanted them dying.

Understand that? She wanted them to suffer.

She had a personal obsession with suffering and thought that if people suffered they'd become "closer" to "God". And so she inflicted it wherever she could. Not only that, but she believed that associating with suffering helped her personal "enlightenment" and so she ran around the world keeping the poor poor and keeping the dying dying just so that she could be "around" suffering.

Millions died and millions more suffered because of her deception and cruelty.


if this is true youd better have some evidence

None of this is actually particularly "controversial".

Her "home" in Kolkota was investigated by several independent medical groups all of which found the conditions there appaling. Furthermore, she herself admitted that she getting "close to suffering" was her aim.

In the words of the Catholic League "she wanted people to live in poverty". :angry:

And that's not even mentioning her blatant support for dictators and outright corruption.

She was photographed with the Duvaliers after all, and publically praised their rule. Additionaly, many ex-member of her cult have come out and revealed that the vast majority of the charitable donations she recieved did not go to charity.

This is all already public!

But you want sources?

Start here:
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm
http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/chatlet.htm


I can tell you this much, after "The Revolution", Tom Cruise should go straight to a re-education through work camp

I don't think that his "beliefs" allow him to work.

As an "operating Thetan, level 7", he is supposed to concentrate on "higher pusuits". Furthermore, he would undoubtably rebel against any progressive social moves against his "Church".

I think that following a revolution, our only option would be to remove his higher brain functions and convert him into a particularly realistic crash test dummy.

How sad. :lol:

[Nicky Scarfo]

I think that following a revolution, our only option would be to remove his higher brain functions

What higher brain functions?

[Americancommi]

Well i certainly feel alot better informed about her and i thank you for the info. I would like to note that i don't support her actions and that I was only using her as an example of a famous person that wasn't a celebrity like a movie star or something.