and when you ask the other peasants if we should do something about it they just start licking those dangling boots
deleted by creator
I don’t know what this means exactly but I like it anyway.
To me it makes me think of the intellectualization of revolutionary theory to the degree that it’s no longer revolutionary, merely a means by which academics can advance their careers. I get that impression with a lot of western Marxian/critical theory from the last few decades tbh (although that doesn’t mean the works don’t contain interesting ideas).
A quote from Marx that I like:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
Yet some academics remain content to idly interpret while benefitting from the spoils of imperialism and colonialism.
Oooorrr it’s just a comic by an anti-communist trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy so they don’t have to engage with the ideas lmao
Eh, feudalism too. And real-world communism. And pretty much any society that ever existed on this pale blue dot in space. There are always some in power that live in wealth, and then the rest that live in poverty and get fucked, it’s not a feature specifically of capitalism.
That’s not really accurate, if workers collectively own the Means of Production and thus can direct where the production goes, they are not simply “fucked.” Alienation from labor is minimized, because instead of a Capitalist owning all of the profits, the Workers can democratically participate in the system and collectively allocate the benefits of production.
This meme is necessarily depicting Capitalism. Even within Feudalism, Serfs still owned their own tools and as such they could produce for themselves while giving a large portion to the noble lords, unlike Capitalism where all of the goods are given to the Capitalist and a petty share of the profits are returned.
Yeah, thankfully I said real-world communism. Utopian communism would indeed be great.
In feudal society, the noble owns the serfs. The serf cannot move without the noble’s consent and is tied to the land in such a manner that, if the noble decides to sell the land, the serf on the land are sold too. They have to work the lands of the noble before their own and have to pay a tax on what they own to the noble. While they own some small tools, like pots, needles, tools for churning butter and other small farming tools, the biggest tools were often owned by the village as they were too expensive for the single farmer. Some other tools were instead illegal to own, a famous example was the grinding stone, which was illegal to own, since you HAD to go to the noble’s mill to transform your wheat into flour and then bread. This was because you then had to pay a tax to the miller and a tax to the noble in order to mill your wheat.
So, in essence, in feudalism a serf did not own their land, did not own their labor and was not even free to move. So much better, right? /s
That isn’t “real world” Communism, though. Socialist States tended to place a much higher emphasis on welfare than Capitalist states, that’s historical fact, regardless of how effective or not they are/were.
Secondly, I never said Feudalism was better. I indicated the key production distinctions between Capitalism and Feudalism, in Feudalism the serf gives the lord a flat portion of that which they create, in Capitalism the proletarian receives flat wages as a petty portion of profits. Feudalism therefore has very different mechanisms, and while horrible, is different from Capitalism.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with the comic OP posted. Are there, in real-world communist/feudal societies, people that get more on the shoulders of other people’s work? If the answer is yes, then the comic does not specifically represent a capitalist society.
Because this is what the comic represents. It does not represent the welfare system, or lack thereof. It does not show any means of production. It just shows some person getting wealth on the shoulders of another person’s work. That’s it.
Then all that matters is that OP thinks it’s fitting for Capitalism, and should therefore be taken in that context.
Ok, then you are equally ok with this, I guess:
It would be stupid, but we could evaluate it within that context, without having to bring in other systems like Capitalism or Feudalism.
Oh ok, I guess nothing is good then and no one should even try to make alternatives. Cool
Not at all what I’ve said. I just want people here to have an honest conversation rather than circlejerking each other. But circlejerking it is I guess
Eh
Every time
Indeed
Yeah this is just selfishness. Capitalism is when the one kids father bought the tree decades ago and now that kid has the legal right to all of its fruits forever despite doing literally nothing.
Eh, in feudalism too, if you were the son of a noble, you’d get the estate. And in real-world communism too, if you were the child of a high ranking official, you’d get into positions of power and know influential people. Even this is not specifically tied to capitalism.
Capitalism is the fact that you can buy and sell the tree and the fruits freely. In feudalism, you couldn’t do this, not really at least, the land belonged to the noble, and you owed them your life and your work. In some cases, it was more akin to slavery than anything else. And in communism you couldn’t do this either, the land and the produce was of the state, and the powerful officials decide how to allocate them.
And I’m not even saying that capitalism is in any way good, just that “powerful people at the top” is not in any way specific to this or that economic system.
You seem to be the only one arguing about how this meme can apply to multiple ideologies. So far no one has disagreed about this meme possibly applying to feudalism, communism, or even a dictatorship.
I don’t think there’s any debate that the selfishness depicted in this meme is representative of modern day capitalism, so I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make? It seems like you’re just trying to find anything you can to disagree with.
