488
Seize the Means of Production (static.existentialcomics.com)
submitted 3 months ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 134 points 3 months ago

Marxican stand-off

Potentially controversial opinion: Just like capitalism, communism also needs to be regulated so as to not get exploited by a powerful few.

Any political system requires vigilant population, which needs education, which means we're fucked no matter the system we're living under because most people rather tune out 'the noise' and live their lives being blissfully ignorant.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 51 points 3 months ago

Ding ding ding! Communists like to blame capitalism for everything (and vice versa), but anybody not blinded by ideology can understand that the problem is the human element. People like to imagine perfect systems, but those cannot exist with flawed creatures within them, especially when the flawed creatures operate the system. All of those systems require constant vigilance.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That is pretty much why the Constitution had checks and balances, in order to insulate it from the human element, by pitting elements against each other. It worked, until capture of the assorted branches became too concentrated for the checks to balance.

This isn't to say that the Constitution is a bad idea. Rather, I view laws and bureaucracy as a type of social technology. There are merits and demerits in the make and placement of components, and without good design, maintenance, or a well thought out replacement, the technology will inevitably fail.

We need a v2.0 Constitution for a better United States, one designed to eliminate flaws, loopholes, or even add new checks & balances outright. For example, term and age limits on supreme justices, with each state having 1 popularly voted supreme every 10 years. We don't want congress nor the president to select who interprets law, because it becomes a game of trickery or horse trading. We need younger and more diverse justices to represent the land's people.

In addition to this, I believe that we will need floors and ceilings to be set on wealth, alongside the provisioning of universal benefits to all people. By doing this, America and other nations can guard from the corrosion that excessive individual wealth can cause. We have to prevent the existence of future Musks, and design an economy that allows the many to live in comfort and freedom, without letting individuals metastasize into a cancer.

[-] And009@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 3 months ago

Narcissistic assholes are born everywhere, randomly.

[-] theparadox@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

the problem is the human element

I absolutely agree. The difference is that the incentives of capitalism virtually guarantee exploitation and inequality. It's a system that encourages the concentration of wealth and power. Antisocial and anticompetitive tactics maximize returns and ensure that bad actors willing to put profit above anything else benefit the most and rise to the top as leaders and bosses. It relies on competition and, assumes "market forces" will self correct an imbalanced system... eventually.

Unless you want a brutal, unstable system where power and wealth accumulate and get concentrated until a violent shift (hopefully) collapses that power and eventually market forces pick a new "winner" you need regulation to keep the profit motive in check and competition fair. Still, the rules of the system encourage regulatory capture as competitive actors try to gain advantage however they can, regardless of the impact on the general population.

Socialism, honestly, has become a weird catch-all term for critiques of capitalism looking to align the goals of society toward democracy and equality. There is a ton of theory and different methods of achieving or implementing such a society but that's kind of where I see things.

Within that eventual ideal society there is still the ability for people to exploit each other for power. The human element doesn't disappear. The idea is that it is harder when the goal of the system is to ensure everyone has what they need and everyone gets a say in how things are done. The system needs to be built and tweaked with checks and balances to ensure that power doesn't get concentrated without the ability for the greater population to redistribute that power.

Basically, unless you are a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism (no government involvement) then you recognize the danger posed by unfettered capitalism. Socialism attempts to change the incentives so that society can be designed, fundamentally, to minimize the danger posed by that human element. It recognizes that a democratic and fair capitalist society is an oxymoron.

I have a challenge for you. Again, assuming you are not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, think about the ways that our capitalist society could be improved by new regulation or the removal or adjusting of existing bad regulation (Edit: regulation is meant to include laws, taxes, etc). How many of those regulations don't exist - were proposed and shot down - because those empowered by capitalism (Edit: **who have achieved disproportionate wealth and power via capitalism and wish to maintain their status) have fought tooth and tail to prevent them? How many of those bad, restrictive, existing regulations were implemented, or twisted, by those empowered by capitalism?

Edit: Look around the world at the questionable actions performed by the United States and ask why did the US do that? What was their incentive? More often than not, it involves preserving and furthering the power of those who already hold a disproportionate amount of power in that capitalist society.

[-] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is the reason I'm a Mutualist/Market-Socialist.

I think that its a system that metaphorically is trained in Aikido against some of human's worst elements and maximizes the positive of human being's behavior.

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 40 points 3 months ago

It's hardly controversial. Marx envisioned that a revolution would happen when the working class (the majority of any society) becomes class conscious and usher in socialism. That in essence would be a vigilant population.

The issue with popular presentation of Marxism is that what is presented is actually Leninism. Lenin is the one who thought proletariats can't become class conscious (or vigilant) on their own and instead require a vanguard party of revolutionaries to lead the proletariat into communism. How that worked out is evident from the USSR.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

What about social democracy?

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

What about it makes it so special that it can exist and not get exploited without vigilant population?

Every system needs awareness from people to keep functioning.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Social democracy seems to be working better than most systems, including keeping the people interested in politics. Because the democracy works reasonably well. Scandinavian countries that have social democracy also have high election participation.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

People are aware, that's not the problem IMO.

Every system needs to adjust when people are aware, that's why democracy works and autocracy not.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

People are aware

Are they really?

[-] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

They are aware something is wrong. Not what's causing it. The powerful have learned to scream "immigrant, immigrant,trans, gay, black!" when anyone looks their way, and assure you their big pile of cash is actually helping you by getting bigger.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Not everyone ofc but there are always people who are.

[-] doug@lemmy.today -2 points 3 months ago

I’d be ok being under the rule of an open source AI— not today’s AI, but like, at this point I’d trust a robot more than I’d trust a human in leadership.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 20 points 3 months ago

IDK man. AI generally reproduces existing biases, and who is going to control those who control the AI?

[-] doug@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

another ai. Let me dream, dammit!

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago

Isn't ruling by definition centralized and open source by definition decentralized?

[-] MudMan@fedia.io 28 points 3 months ago

I am pretty sure that this honest leftist self-criticism thing is against online decency rules and I demand to see the manager.

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

Of what use, then, are the American Communists?

They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.

Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.

Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.

—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago

Well. He's not wrong. Admittedly, many people in the US are opposed to socialist policies largely because of propagandizing by corporate interests, but when they get really popular anyways, that's def. a sure sign that everything is going to shit.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago

I might start throwing Heinlein in the same bucket as GK Chesterton. Wrong a lot, but wrong in interesting ways, and so close to getting it.

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

That whole book is a wild read. It's about how and why to be involved in politics. Some of it is kind of a 1940s manual on how to operate a campaign, but a lot of it is talking about why it's important to be engaged and pay attention, and also stuff like this:

If you believe that laws forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath, or any such, are necessary to the welfare of your community, that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws. But remember that such laws are, at most, a preliminary step in doing away with the evils they indict. Moral evils can never be solved by anything as easy as passing laws alone. If you aid in passing such laws without bothering to follow through by digging in to the involved questions of sociology, economics, and psychology which underlie the causes of the evils you are gunning for, you will not only fail to correct the evils you sought to prohibit but will create a dozen new evils as well.

Heinlein has plenty of issues, but I feel like a lot of people overlook his positives.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

He told us that the only good bug is a dead bug

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Actually that's Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier writing the movie Starship Troopers, which I maintain is a dumb movie with aspirations of being a smart movie, pretending to be a dumb movie.

Just as an example, in the scene where the guy asks why they're learning to throw knives when they have ICBMs, here's Heinlein's take:

Once, during one of the two-minute rest periods that were scattered sparsely through each day’s work, one of the boys — a kid named Ted Hendrick — asked, "Sergeant? I guess this knife throwing is fun... but why do we have to learn it? What possible use is it?"

"Well," answered Zim, "suppose all you have is a knife? Or maybe not even a knife? What do you do? Just say your prayers and die? Or wade in and make him buy it anyhow? Son, this is real — it’s not a checker game you can concede if you find yourself too far behind."

"But that’s just what I mean, sir. Suppose you aren’t armed at all? Or just one of these toadstickers, say? And the man you’re up against has all sorts of dangerous weapons? There’s nothing you can do about it; he’s got you licked on showdown."

Zim said almost gently, "You’ve got it all wrong, son. There’s no such thing as a ‘dangerous weapon.’ "

"Huh? Sir?"

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. We’re trying to teach you to be dangerous — to the enemy. Dangerous even without a knife. Deadly as long as you still have one hand or one foot and are still alive. If you don’t know what I mean, go read ‘Horatius at the Bridge’ or ‘The Death of the Bon Homme Richard’; they’re both in the Camp library. But take the case you first mentioned; I’m you and all you have is a knife. That target behind me — the one you’ve been missing, number three — is a sentry, armed with everything but an H-bomb. You’ve got to get him... quietly, at once, and without letting him call for help." Zim turned slightly —thunk! — a knife he hadn’t even had in his hand was quivering in the center of target number three. "You see? Best to carry two knives — but get him you must, even barehanded."

"Uh — "

"Something still troubling you? Speak up. That’s what I’m here for, to answer your questions."

"Uh, yes, sir. You said the sentry didn’t have any H-bomb. But he does have an H-bomb; that’s just the point. Well, at least we have, if we’re the sentry . . . and any sentry we’re up against is likely to have them, too. I don’t mean the sentry, I mean the side he’s on."

"I understood you."

"Well... you see, sir? If we can use an H-bomb — and, as you said, it’s no checker game; it’s real, it’s war and nobody is fooling around — isn’t it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed... and even losing the war... when you’ve got a real weapon you can use to win? What’s the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?"

Zim didn’t answer at once, which wasn’t like him at all. Then he said softly, "Are you happy in the Infantry, Hendrick? You can resign, you know." Hendrick muttered something; Zim said, "Speak up!"

"I’m not itching to resign, sir. I’m going to sweat out my term."

"I see. Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn’t really qualified to answer... and one that you shouldn’t ask me. You’re supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?"

"What? Sure — yes, sir."

"Then you’ve heard the answer. But I’ll give you my own — unofficial — views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off?"

"Why... no, sir!"

"Of course not. You’d paddle it. There can be circumstances when it’s just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him... but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say — supply the control. Which is as it should be. That’s the best answer I can give you. If it doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can’t convince you — then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier."

...and in the movie the guy just gets a knife through the hand and Zim says "Try to push a button now!" They're not exactly equivalent. This (admittedly quite long) series discusses the issues with Verhoeven's interpretation of Heinlein, but the short of it is that Verhoeven and Heinlein were such fundamentally different people that the very idea of Verhoeven adaptating Heinlein is absurd.

[-] Sergio@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

lolz Sarge explains it better than Clausewitz. Heinlein representing his US Naval Academy knowledge.

the movie Starship Troopers, which I maintain is a dumb movie with aspirations of being a smart movie, pretending to be a dumb movie.

Agreed, he tried to make a satire but only made a b-movie.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I've read the book several times, it's a completely different style.

I was also incredibly disappointed when I saw a trailer for the movie and they were not in power armor.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I feel like a lot of people forget just how wildly different the time Heinlein was raised in was. He may have been wrong-headed in our current view about a fair amount of things--particular his work prior to the mid-60s or so--but that's a cultural issue, rather than someone that was pig-headedly stupid. The quote you have--"[...] forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath [...]--is especially ironic because AFAIK Heinlein appears to have had open/polyamorous marriages (...or multiamorous/polyerotic, if you're a linguistic pedant); that sort of inclination should be quite antithetical to laws enforcing religious doctrine or sexual morality.

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 17 points 3 months ago

If the people are the true means of production, then wouldn't seizing the means of production mean slavery? 🤔

[-] superkret@feddit.org 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's not slavery, the workers seize control over themselves.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago

Looking at soviet Russia and maoist China, no they don't.

[-] jonathan@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 months ago

Hence the final panel.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Yeah but they were authotarian dictatorships, as communist ad DPRK is democratic or the NAZIs were socialist.

[-] superkret@feddit.org -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[-] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

This is a comic about a politic theme and a conversion about said political theme. I don't understand your comment at all on why you don't want to talk about politics when you chose to participate in a political conversion.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 3 months ago

, they say, after bringing it up themselves.

[-] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 months ago

"Means of production" means factories, fields and mines and shit. Bear in mind that was before digitalization, so now the meaning would be more broad.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah. Today the means of production is your laptop!

[-] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Ok, so Two-Tone-Beard-Man is Marx, Slightly-Darker-Beard-Man is Engels, but who are Long-Beard-Man and Auntie-Glasses-Lady? I ask because Long-Beard-Man appears to be the winner of the heated exchange at the end...

[-] dunz@feddit.nu 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, both are anarchists. It's below the comic on the source :)

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 months ago

Why didn't they take Kropotkin instead of Bakunin? He aged much better

[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Kropotkin was on a different bakery related mission

[-] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 months ago
[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

" ALEXA, define power vacuum."

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Source, "Wikipedia": A power vacuum is a very powerful vacuum."

Edit: fuck I didn't mean to make this comment

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front

[-] hausthatforrem@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
488 points (96.6% liked)

Comic Strips

18421 readers
250 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS