Why does Ross, who is the largest friend, simply not eat the other friends?
It was a good joke then, timeless joke now.
I am so happy this was the top comment, if it wasn’t, the disappointment would have been immense.
I love the reference to Futurama.
Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?
However, yes. Capitalism is fucked up that rewards those with the most resources.
Nice of you to not include source.
It's far worse than this:
See how these supply and demand lines intersect over here? Well we get to shift the supply a little lower, sell for higher price, and get to extort workers harder, so that they feel lucky to have a job at all.
The reason that the large class doesn't eat us, is that we have enough profits to control media and politicians to brainwash and force them not to eat us, and so when we say "free market", we're just lying to create a corrupt market and a corrupt society which we get to control absolutely.
--Ahhh says the alien.
Do you have any intrinsic concerns about being evil? Or does the only thing that matters is that the slaves accept your evil and their oppression?
That bottom left dialogue sounds too close to Lrrr - ruler of omicron persei 8!
The larger class is saving that for sweeps
I may be misremembering Posadas but he had a bit where he imagined that any alien society that managed to make it to space travel would have necessarily developed to Communism as they would have to go through the different Modes of Production on their own alongside the necessary development of tech. If Posadas' theory is correct, the Aliens would indeed be familiar with some form of Capitalism.
Not a Posadist nor a Trotskyist though.
when i'm angry and pessimistic, i'm posadist concerning the nukes' part. when i'm happy and optimistic, i'm posadist concerning the aliens' part.
Lmao 🤣
Something tells me the aliens would be smart enough to ask questions like, "How do the factories get here to begin with?"
Even though I lean heavily toward socialism and believe an open source society is our future, we've got to move beyond memes and kindergarten oversimplifications of capitalism. Every industry and business empire ultimately starts with clever individuals working very hard on ideas that turn out to be better in some way than what's already around, so they can grow and grow to become giant corporations. Over the course of time a lot of people get involved who don't work any harder than a normal person but are just paid a lot more, and others simply inherit the money. Those are really ones everybody gets upset at,. The innovators and entrepreneurs deserve recognition and reward, we just have to find a way to do that without creating oligarchs and vast blocks of wealth.
Capitalism didn't emerge from the primordial ooze where everyone was equal and no one owned anything. This is silly.
Every industry and business empire ultimately starts with clever individuals working very hard on ideas
That is the flowery idealist narrative that the capitalist class relentlessly promotes, to the point that you’re now promoting it for them, but in fact each one starts with capital.
please put a link to the source in your post description!
(in this case, it's https://existentialcomics.com/comic/418 )
I sure hope intergalactic-capable aliens would be smart enough to understand the concept of ownership, which seems to be the sticking point here.
Maybe they wouldn't if they evolved as a hive-mind, without predators, or without inter-group competition in some other way, but I doubt it.
If aliens hadn't abolished capitalism at some point they would destroy themselves before becoming capable of interstellar travel.
There's a difference between owning your own things and owning things that other people use and extracting value from their labor. I can tell you aren't capable of traveling the stars.
Barely related but you've spurred a thought into mind:
Would a hive mind or other gestalt consciousness even have the drive to reach the stars outside of circumstances involving potential extinction? I feel as though a GC who has reached the galactic stage would perhaps (almost necessarily) be a fanatic assimilator that had assimilated a race who has a drive to be spacefaring.
My theory, a Terran like imperialist force hailing from a dead world attempts to colonize a habitable planet, only for the colonial force to become assimilated into a fungoid hivemind who has never considered life on other worlds, nor that their world could potentially not be eternal. This spurs action in the hivemind, a drive to expand to other worlds to secure their eternium, and with this newfound difference in thought a drive to assimilate more and more species to see just how different thinking can be
Ironically, the Aliens would be woefully unequiped to deal with organized groups of humans acting for the interests of wealthy groups to enter the alien facilities and using them as they see fit, since the aliens apparently don't have distinction of ownership of their own facilities.
If the Aliens proselytize to a collective that puts their own interests first they lessen themselves and many might empathize with the humans instead.
They would then devolve into political tribalism not unlike the ones on earth.
Anyone ever post funny non political or economy based comics, or are these the only kind getting made now
Humour is often way to deal with some problem, so you see what kind of problems are we as a society facing right now...
That would imply these comics are funny tho, I dont like cringing about stuff that im siding with, it makes me not like my own views
I hear Garfield is still being made
The I'm sorry Jon variant is a better read
Jon goes to work on Monday after hanging out with Garfield all weekend. This is the only discernable reason for Garfield to hate Mondays.
The point of many .ml lemmy posts is to pretend that Marxism and Leninism are the best ideas created and can never do no wrong. The point isn’t to be correct, factual, or entertaining.
Let’s not even bother with the flawed assumptions made by the aliens in the comic.
lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged
You're getting downvoted here because you are attacking people that don't exist. No Marxist thinks Marxism-Leninism is incapable of being incorrect in some ways, in fact adjusting theory as it is tested in reality is a core concept of Marxism in general, the "Dialectical Materialist method of knowledge." It's basically the scientific method but built-in to the ideology itself. You aren't challenging anything in this comment, just punching at clouds and ghosts.
didnt notice lemmyworld had one, but its kinda dead, do professional comics not exist anymore or do ppl just see and post random twitter stuff
Teacher at a schoolyard: Why don't the large children just beat the shit out of the small child?
So I say somewhere else that one shouldn’t bother with this comic because its assumptions are flawed, but let’s point out exactly how because otherwise Marxists will live in the flawed understanding that their pov is unchallenged or inherently correct.
— the alien assumes for some magical reason a property cannot be owned, specifically a factory. A factory is not a natural product of the world, there’s not tree growing factories. Someone put in an investment to create it, and the work they allocate in that factory is a recoupment of that factory building investment.
— the workers obey “pieces” of paper because that’s what society decided is civilized behavior. The alternative is one where a factory owner decides to kill people for trying to take what’s theirs, or the workers decide to kill the factory owner to take over. Either way, there is violence and bloodshed.
Marxist believe, for whatever magical reasons, that the violence will stop once they seize the means of production. But why should it? Why wouldn’t another subgroup of Marxists constantly want to challenge the committees who want to run that specific factory? The answer is that without a rule or agreement (piece of paper), various groups will constantly try to seize what they think should be theirs.
— the alien believes that agreeing to work with someone is slavery. Here I have two things to say: 1) for someone who doesn’t want to work, then any kind of work will appear to be slavery, and that’s not a a capitalism problem, that’s a self actualization problem for some people. 2) in reasonable economies, people have choices for places to work, or unions which ensure that employers cannot abuse them, or laws which ensure protections.
The fact is simply this, whenever two people interact, they will have disagreements. We make laws to not kill each other over those disagreements. If you want to experience what it’s like living in an authoritarian state, try living in china or Vietnam. Rule of law means little or nothing in such places, whereas in democracies you can still get some recourse via the courts, or via regulations. Have kleptocrats and oligarchs ruined democracies, yes definitely.
— being a larger class doesn’t necessarily mean anything in violent conflict. I think any philosophy which relies on violent conflict to achieve its goals is tacitly admitting that it cannot win the hearts and minds of people via ideas alone.
Edit to say, I have a busy day ahead so I wont be responding lol, but doesn’t mean I agree or don’t want to challenge this vapid Marxist pov
And once more: lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged
I want to point out that Marxists don't believe Marxism is "inherently correct" or "unable to be challenged." Marxists tend to be confident in the usefulness of Marxism as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness. If parts of Marxism were to be proven incorrect, those would be dropped and the new theory adapted. That's the strength of the Dialectical Materialist method of learning, which is similar to the scientific method but built-in to Marxism as a concept. Either way, on to your main comment.
For point 1, you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of "ownership" is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is "morally correct" doesn't guide society, starving people don't refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
For your second, it's pretty clear that these contracts heavily benefit the owners of the contracts at the expense of those who don't. You are correct in saying that without the State, the workers would simply take the factories, but this wasn't because "society" decided it, but the owners of Capital in the first place.
Your point on Marxism is a strawman. Marxists believe administration, laws, and government are necessary, but that over time as the economy is publicly owned and planned there will cease to be real class distinctions, and thus the "State," the elements of government that exist purely for class oppression, would wither. Laws would still exist along with public service workers, but would play different roles to how society is run today with heavily millitarized police forces and massive armies between hard borders.
Your next point, the third outlined, is nihilism (and chauvanism towards the end). When presented with the case that holders of Capital have far more power than those without, you sidestep that equation and say any labor is slavery. Instead of grappling with the presented idea of equal ownership and thus more even power dynamics, you choose to not engage at all or even consider it. This is nihilism.
The second part of your third point, the ability to choose where you work, is already a part of Marxist thinking and is in place in Vietnam and the PRC, which you allude isn't possible. Moreover, you make an appeal to democracy while avoiding tackling the imbalance of power between factory owners and workers, a society with equal ownership is inherently more democratic as the voices of the people are more equalized.
Your final point, the "reliance on violence" rather than "hearts and minds" applies more to liberalism than Marxism. In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily. The appeal to "hearts and minds" is to quell opposition to this daily violence. No Marxist wants violence, but Marxists accept that revolution is necessary to move beyond this industrialized system of violence.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of "winning hearts and minds" for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions.
You don't have to reply, but you can feel free to. I have my own criticisms of the comic, the Aliens certainly would have gone through similar economic systems before reaching their current, likely Communist Mode of Production and therefore would understand the Capitalist (unless they failed to write down their history, which is unlikely as well), but I don't think your critique is good either.
I would like to offer a few counter-counterpoints.
Property rights are indeed enforced by the state under a threat of violence, but I would say that someone needs to own the factory: workers, the state, or the capitalists, so if the state(or a different institution) did not ensure stable ownership, people would just use violence to take what they can: the economy can not work under such chaotic conditions, as meaningful decisions needs stable expectations.
I would not say that capitalism benefits capitalists at the expense of the workers. Just because capitalists are profiting from the labour of workers, does not mean that this state of things is undesirable for workers, since the profits are then reinvested and so used to improve the economy. I would say this is a sensible arrangement: the economic power is wielded by the people that are relatively competent and driven and have incentives to do well. It has proven it's efficiency.
..as a tool for analysis because it has proven its handiness
If you mean, China then most would agree that their success is a natural consequence of intense competition, and not necessarily of their economic system of choice. When you run a country like an army, then it’s very likely to get good results. Yes, the people there have recourse via law (against each other, not the state), and freedom to decide where to work, but that freedom is limited when there are no natural mechanisms to create sources to direct productivity. Many new grads are jobless or underemployed.
you talk about why the concept of ownership of, say, a factory is foreign. Your point misunderstands theirs. The belief in a societal concept of “ownership” is separate from the actual, real world mechanisms at play. What is “morally correct” doesn’t guide society, starving people don’t refuse to steal bread because of morals. The reasoning behind ownership is punishment by the state for not respecting it.
So you say Marxist don’t believe moral superiority and then come out with this lol? Why isn’t owning moral good? If you give resources to acquire something, then why shouldn’t it be yours? The reason why Marxists insist on state ownership of means of production is because they fear losing control and power. The people don’t and wont own anything, just as they don’t in China or Vietnam.
In an inherently violent, imbalanced system like Capitalism, the violence is systemic and daily.
The problems are due to centralization of power and control. That’s why regulations protect everyone, including the wealthy and powerful. That’s why monopolies are dangerous to freedom.
The reality of Liberalism is violence and Imperialism, from murdering 1 million Iraqis for the pursuit of profits to dropping napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese for daring to go against the US-dominated world marketplace to dropping more tons of bombs on Korea than the entire pacific front of World War 2, Liberalism dons the mask of “winning hearts and minds” for its public while slaughtering without care innocents to the tune of millions
You cant seriously say that Marxist nations won’t do asshole things to each other. This is magical thinking again. The problem is greedy people will always preserve themselves and their power, that’s what Stalin did. That’s what Lenin did. That’s what Marx would have done, if he had gotten the chance.
I am not saying the world is perfect right now. I am saying I don’t want to fool myself into thinking that creating a different hell is better than trying to make the current place less hellish.
Good thing the communism understander from .world is here to explain Marxism to us.
This user has justified the Imperialism practiced by the Nordic Countries by claiming it is the fault of those Imperialized for not effectively standing against it, claimed DEI is bad and used by foreign nations to threaten stability, and said people opposed to the Nordic Model are racist against the Nordic people. This isn't someone with a consistent viewpoint, just a consistent defense of Capitalism and Imperialism.
Anti-communism, anti-immigration, pro-Imperialism, pro-Capitalism, chauvanistic views... where have I seen this before? 🤔
[A bunch of embarrassingly ignorant nonsense.]
And once more: lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged
You're just mad because I'm so smart I can challenge your century and a half of sociological theory despite having never engaged with it.
Thank you for tasking the time to respond to this instead of just giving it a disappointed downvote and moving on, you're a better citizen than I am.
try living in china or Vietnam. Rule of law means little or nothing in such places
Criminal gangs rampaging through the country side because their jails are relatively empty? Plenty of private property and GDP growth. Tough to do in mad max world.
It is not marxist to not praise only having laws to protect extortionist oligarchs.
There's no magic involved, the comic assumes a lot of things and you chose to assume the wrong ones for it to make sense.
It contraposes the rational modeling of modern economists to its illogical effects.
The alien assumes a property cannot be owned because it in fact can not be owned. You can say you own the statue of liberty but if there's no consensus you will have no particoular agency toward it. This applies to trees themselves even if there are tree growing trees.
the workers obey “pieces” of paper because that’s what society decided is civilized behavior.
That's the point.
The alternative is one where a factory owner decides to kill people for trying to take what’s theirs, or the workers decide to kill the factory owner to take over. Either way, there is violence and bloodshed.
Congratulation, you do get the comic. That's what the aliens are saying, why don't the many worker take the place from the single owner.
Then you go on bringing forward your personal opinion about "obvious facts of life" which are old, trite, wrong and unworthy of my time.
The alien assumes a property cannot be owned because it in fact can not be owned.
Why? If someone pays for the resources to build it, then who owns it? If the labor could build it to begin with, then why didn’t it? Then labor could be the owner. But if labor relies on resources to build mechanisms of productivity, then it’s fair to say that those who build the mechanisms are justly due some compensation for their input.
We already tried armed conflict over resources, the pieces of paper were what we decided was a better alternative.
Not only that, it insists on this 1800s argument/fantasy about factory workers. In an age and economy where 70% of people work in the services sector.
I seized my means of production. Or rather, bought them on Amazon. Same for lawyers, accountants, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, cleaning people, photographers, gardeners, painters...
it insists on this 1800s argument/fantasy about factory workers. In an age and economy where 70% of people work in the services sector.
It insists nothing of the sort. It makes no difference whether one labors for manufacturing industry wages or service industry wages. Either way one is proletariat, selling one’s labor to the bourgeoisie for survival.
I seized my means of production.
Congratulations, you are now petit bourgeois.
Inb4 "you dont understand communism" and then you say "how am i wrong" and they say "heres some titles of topics and books that prove you wrong" and you say "why cant you explain how it applies to this situation?" And they say "if people behaved selflessly..." and you say "but people are selfish" and they say "you are brainwashed by captialistic values" and then you both get tired of typing and move on.
that's why unregulated capitalism (like in amcapistan or a minarchy) would be better, unions would actually be as powerfull as corporations
No lol, the factory owner would just pay his private security a premium to kick your fucking teeth in if you don't work. You actually think unregulated capitalism is BETTER???
The whole point of a state is to mitigate the worst of class conflict, remove that and the class with greater resources (the one ruling before the removal of the state) wins the conflict.
The removal of a state doesn't make unions more powerful it makes the owning class more able to destroy them. An anarcho-capitalist experiment either ends in slavery or revolution.
No, no, the Prophetess Rand foretold what would happen! The rich would just lock themselves away in their golden city and the poor outside the gates would starve!
... As yet, though, no word one who's washing their dishes or making their clothes...
Not by a long shot. Remove the guardrails and the (theoretically) neutral party that enforces them, the state, and violence abounds. Whoever has more guns will call the shots. After enough time and consolidation, any big group will become its own state. If you don't think that'd happen, just take a look at EVE Online and how the biggest player run corps work.
Capitalism can't function without a State, in a "minarchist" or "ancap" situation there would be some intermediary group with a monopoly on violence to suppress workers and hash out deals between business owners. Moreover, we exist in a world largely dominated by US Imperialism, we can't just swap to minarchism or ancapism by gathering the infinity stones.
Whatever system we transition to must come from where it once was, even revolutionary societies have to deal with the holdovers from the previous Mode of Production. That's why the Soviets had the NEP, in fact, they couldn't just snap their fingers and institute what they wanted. It was a big deal when they managed to collectivize.
How do you personally reckon we can make it to your prefered organization of society, from where we are now? Genuinely curious.
... Whatever system we transition to must come from where it once was, even revolutionary societies have to deal with the holdovers from the previous Mode of Production...
Which is why the funniest thing in this comic strip is a human trying to explain economics to clotheless aliens without appearing to know even an iota of their economics, or whatever system do they have / had in their society.
What? The only thing stopping the oligarch from buying an army and enslaving everyone who can't fight back is the fact that the government has a bigger army to stop them before they have time to even think about it. Monopolies of violence. It's not that hard to figure this out.
The only reason why "ownership" even exists is because the government's army serves as a threat to anyone who even thinks about disrespecting it. Without is, nothing is stopping someone who can exert more violence than you from stealing everything you thought you owned.
Uh huh. And how would you guarantee it stays freely unregulated by any one party. With a regulator perhaps?
We already tried that. It wasn't great.
