644
Big Bad Wolf Thought
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
644 points (84.1% liked)
Comic Strips
12029 readers
1566 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While I find anarchist ideas intriguing, I don't like how the comic seems to encourage a violent takeover of property like this.
yep. classic "the bad guy is actually good bc i drew him as a cool furry"
When interpreting the comic, I find it interesting to keep in mind that a wolf pack is a family unit, consisting of parents of children. So the wolf is taking the property for his family. The comic is advocating banditry, basically.
May have something to do with the fact that the capitalists have armies of state-funded paramilitaries called "police" that makes any kind of peaceful takeover utterly impossible.
What would a "peaceful takeover" even look like?
Out-competing and out-organising them. Decommodifying things, e.g. things like housing cooperatives and similar are an antidote to the real-estate market. Also, capturing even state structures, replacing hierarchical power into horizontal relations where you can, no topic is too small there. If the stars align just right simply changing the way the city's road planning authorities communicates, how it comes to decisions, can cause a cultural shift making the electorate want to have more of that stuff. With a thousand little things organised that way it becomes harder and harder for the people at large to not ask "hey why aren't we doing this big thing like that".
Ultimately, the enemy is not one particular thing but the idea that organisation necessarily involves hierarchy and domination.
None of that sounds impossible. Housing cooperatives ("andelsbolig" in Danish) are quite common in Denmark - I even live in one myself.
A Care Bears episode. Any attempt at solidarity with the police ends with them turning on the rest of us. It's how they got unions and everyone else still had to fight to get them
Probably something like this.
It's hardly been peaceful, though.
Where I live, The police are generally worse armed than the population. They're also haven't been any unwarranted police shootings in my memory. The only police shooting that I can remember happening in the came with a whole firefight. Unfortunately, this is generally uncommon in the more authoritarian states.
A peaceful takeover would in my mind involve a democratic decision to do the takeover - I don't see how the police would stand in the way of that. The bigger issue would seem to me to be convincing people to vote for such a democratic decision. But at least that is a peaceful path.
That's why you are not allowed anything that remotely resembles democracy - instead, you get an interactive horse and pony show every few years where you are allowed to choose which gang of racketeers gets to represent the rich's interests.
They are standing in the way of that right now. It's their only function - it's the only function they have ever had and ever will have.
There is no peaceful way to dismantle capitalism. The capitalists and their cronies has seen to that.
I don't agree with that. I think the Danish democratic political system is functioning quite well, all things considered.
Don't you guys still have a King who was born into wealth because his great great great great grandfather killed the most people and took their land?
The monarchy is slightly controversial but the majority of danes like it. There are certain benefits - if we didn't have a king, we'd need a president instead who would be a much more politically divisive figure than the king is. As it is, the king is a much more uniting figure. We also don't need to have elections for the president or any of that stuff.
And no, of course he has no real power. Which is honestly good, cause a president would have more power than that. I personally prefer the situation as it is right now. The king stays because the people say so - that is also democracy.
That you accept the child of the wolf as your king doesn't change that your King was born into wealth because of the violence of his ancestors.
That's fair, but his ancestors crimes are not his to bear or be blamed for.
And again, it doesn't change that the people still want to keep the monarchy. So democracy has spoken.
So it's fine if I murder your family and take everything your children have so that my children can live in luxury?
In the US, mobsters kill with impunity while their family gets reality TV (Mob wives) showing off their life of luxury. The "children are innocent of their parents crimes" is unjust because the victims' children suffer.
The King is the child of a mobster. His luxury life came from violence. Your children will have to work their entire lives in part because of what the King's ancestors stole from them.
Obviously that is not fine but you're making a strawman of what I said before. The situation you present is not comparable.
The King lives in luxury because his ancestors killed your ancestors and left their children in poverty to work for him.
That's not a strawman.
I provided the background that your claim "children are innocent of their parents' crimes" isn't just.
The danish monarchy is so old that this is so far in the past that it literally does not matter any more. A couple of generations, sure. 1000 years of generations? Nobody cares and I don't think it's reasonable to blame anyone for crimes made by ancestors that far in the past. It's not like we blame me for my ancestors (vikings) pillaging of Englang and other horrible things they did.
The King was still profiting from African slave trade in the early 1800's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_overseas_colonies
Lots of people where profiting from slave trade 200 years ago and we don't prosecute any ancestors of those people today. I really don't know what your point is.
You said his parents crimes aren't his to bear and I argue that children shouldn't benefit from the crimes of their parents.
You don't have to agree with it... reality is not on your side.
You can't even tell what qualifies as democratic or not - how can you tell if there is anything democratic about Denmark?
Have you even bothered to check how many factories and workplaces in Denmark are democratically run?
Yes? No?
Damn that wasn't hard to find
It's 35 employees in Denmark, btw.
But yeah... "industrial democracy" does exist in some places in Europe.
Oh look... a liberal arguing with itself!
How are those millions coming along, temporarily embarrassed billionaire?
I'm not the one arguing with myself on a public forum, genius - you are.
Again, liberal... I’m not the one arguing with myself on a public forum, genius - you are.
Again, liberal… I’m not the one arguing with myself on a public forum, genius - you are.
If the little piggy were a capitalist instead of a libertarian, he would have a pack of wolfhounds who would fuck that wolf up if he came near the piggy's house.
The moral of the story:
Liberal > anarchist > libertarian
Without a government to keep them in check, the wolfhounds would be the ones in charge, and everybody would have to pay them or their shit would get wrecked.
Yep. That's why the piggies set up a system of government. If the wolfhounds start going back on their word, society collapses and the wolves move in. With an orderly system, enforced by the wolfhounds who themselves are subject to the democracy set up by the piggies, everyone's house stays up and wolves are kept back.
Yet this is what a state is anarchism must devolve into.
I think that's a bit extreme - there are many different varieties of anarchism (some even say that every anarchist has their own definition, which makes the term itself very non-descript). Some might need to devolve to violence but I'm not convinced all of them do.