this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1171 points (95.6% liked)

Comic Strips

12538 readers
3622 users here now

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

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Small comic based on the amazing words of Ursula K. Le Guin".

author

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snooggums@midwest.social 90 points 4 months ago (3 children)

SCOTUS just ruled that US presidents have the divine right of kings.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 54 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hot take (not entirely serious):

Now that Presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts that are crimes, Biden should enact Project 2025 EARLY give himself unitary executive power, and refuse to leave office.

This would either destroy the country, save the country, or force SCOTUS to reconsider their ruling.

Of course he could just deem the imbalance on SCOTUS a threat to national security, and write an official law saying that all major parties must be equally repressented by the judges on there (a one out, one in law).

That would also work, and run less risk of tearing the country apart.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

That isn't how p2025 works, but in theory...he could do something a lot like it. While it is better than the other guy, it would be a deeply fucked precedent...

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

From this day forward, every day that Biden doesn't have the Republican judges killed is a betrayal of democracy.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 4 months ago

He can't because it was tossed to the lower court to be put on ice until the election decides how they should rule.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Franconian_Nomad@feddit.de 60 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Not to be downer, but there are people literally thinking Donald Trump is the second coming of Christ.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If anything, I'm more concerned with folks like Jamie Dimon and Satya Nadella and Andy Jassy. People who have trillions of dollars of capital at their command exert immense influence over my quality of life. Arguably much more so than any king or high priest or even any American president.

We talk about Divine Right of Kings like its a thing that came and went, but consider how a guy like Elon Musk has accrued phenomenal amounts of wealth and authority. Consider how people see him. And how he sees himself. Its chilling to consider how much power some of these people wield and how blind we all are to their intentions.

[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you can be concerned by both. All these examples are of people that can exert and incredible amount of power through their respective means.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I read intense concern about the results of the next election, without seeing anything approaching the comparative concern for a private monopoly of real estate, a mass privatization of our postal and shipping system, or the horrifying prospect of a computerized administrative state run out of Microsoft's digital basement.

If you want to talk about the Divine Right of Kings, it should be noted how much of that authority was accrued through mystifying the mechanisms of authority. The modern capitalist state reinvents mysticism through contracts, borders, and advanced technologies, while working towards the same fundamental ends.

Kings and Priests would have plotzed at the power afforded by a credit card company or mortgage lender or OS vendor over one of its clients. And yet these are powers we hand over to modern capitalist institutions without a second thought.

[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I appreciate the perspective but nothing here says we can't be coscerbed by both positions (or all sides) of power.

I don't want kings or monopolies, or either by any other name. No need to split hairs on it.

I would also argue that "we hand powers over to modern capitalist institutions without a second thought" is a pretty loaded sentence. Who's doing that? Me? You? It's not like someone asked us. Sounds pretty dismissive to assume people are acting outside of their better interest.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago

And there are people who thought their kings were divine.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, it is worse than that. There are accelerationist Christians that are certain he is the antichrist. They believe bringing him to power will bring about the end of days, the rapture(that will save them), and the 1000 years of peace promised after revelations. Religion is vile.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 49 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I read the comic and was like "didn't Le Guin say something similar" than I read the subtitle and apparently, I was right

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 18 points 4 months ago

The comic's author should have add the proper quote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Kings never went away, they just changed to a different form and name to remain accepted in society, as the ones with the crowns ended up in the gallows.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This isn't good historical analysis. The feudal class society, with its aristocracy, church and peasants, was highly rigid in terms of class mobility. Peasants stayed peasants and aristocrats stayed aristocrats. The current dominant class, the capitalist owners, exert their power not by god-given rights over the population, but by legal control of the means of production. The current exploited class, the workers, aren't tied to a lord anymore and pay tributes in kind on exchange for land and protection, but instead are "free" to work where they want for a payment in cash, and unable for the most part to have ownership of the means of production they themselves work.

Kings have disappeared, classes in society haven't

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Up until the last part I thought your point was going to be "but now we have class mobility". Yeah, we don't 😫 freedom is an illusion for the most part, but a convenient one

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Accepting the existence of class mobility doesn't imply freedom. Freedom to exploit your fellow workers and become a class traitor isn't freedom. It's just a fact that social mobility has increased significantly

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 11 points 4 months ago

Already has more than a hundred people would ever need, yet takes every opportunity to oppress the have-nots in order to make their ego number go up?

I’d make a punch line about billionaires, but it’s way, way more than just them.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Divine right of kings lasted for a long long long time, and caused the deaths of untold millions

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

What point are you trying to make? That it would have been better if the divine right of kings ended sooner? I'm sure Ursula K. Le Guin would agree.

Or are you trying to say we shouldn't be complacent in working to end capitalism? Because I'm sure Ursula K. Le Guin would agree as well.

The point of even saying this is to rally people who might feel there's no point in trying, because the current system seems unstoppable.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

to me it read like "that's a nice thought and I'm sure one day we'll move beyond it, but i doubt I'll live to see that"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just pondering the difference between something that is practically inescapable in a finite human lifespan vs something that is surely escapable given a removal of that metric. Merely the first thought I had when enjoying the art, no point to be made of it... More mumblings of a idle fool/thinker?

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

An important thought. What we tell ourselves needs to be true, or at least be believable, in order for us to take action. I tell myself that whether we reach such and such a goal in my lifetime, I want to have contributed to moving whatever tiny amount closer to the goal. It would be disappointing to me to not have tried to contribute something.

I like the Le Guin quote because it touches on that mental block to action, "Is trying to make change pointless?" On the one hand it is pointless, because we all die. On the other hand, it's possible to contribute to a multigenerational project.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

I'm sure one day we'll achieve some sort of utopia if we aren't killed off by climate change or some other catastrophe, but my bones will have eroded to dust by then.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 27 points 4 months ago

socialize the costs, privatize the rewards

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 23 points 4 months ago

Confused British noises

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago (5 children)

In contrast to a monarchy, where people cannot choose their leader, in capitalism people can choose from which company they buy, or even create their own.

As another person already pointed out, these are obviously two different categories.

The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don't because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).

The point can be summed up as a question: Why don't people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don't they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?

These non-capitalist things exist, it's certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.

So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don't see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?

[–] sus@programming.dev 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

♫ monopoly duopoly oligopoly cartel ♫

♪ anti-trust, pork barrel, propaganda lobbying ♪

♫ economies of scale, information asymmetry, regulatory capture and personal responsibility ♫

♪ unions, pinkertons, labor theory of value and the CIA ♪

♫ rent seeking, georgism, tax incentive, scarcity ♫

♪ free trade, minimum wage, petrodollar and the MIC ♪

♫ we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning ♫

~provided~ ~as~ ~is,~ ~no~ ~warranty~ ~in~ ~regard~ ~to~ ~serving~ ~any~ ~particular~ ~rhyme~ ~or~ ~meter,~ ~express~ ~or~ ~implied,~ ~consult~ ~a~ ~licensed~ ~physician~ ~before~ ~attempting~ ~to~ ~sing~ ~along~

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don't because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).

The ideas that people have are shaped by their Material Conditions, and people generally act in their best interests. People will buy what is available in the market, and Capitalists work to accumulate more and more money in an M-C-M' circuit.

The point can be summed up as a question: Why don't people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don't they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?

These are 2 questions.

  1. People generally don't run Socialist services as frequently because in the framework of Capitalism, it is excessively difficult to gain the Capital necessary to start one, and furthermore the people with access to Capital continue to act in their own interests and accumulate more profit off of ownership.

  2. People do not care where their commodities come from, largely, as they work for their income and thus their access is limited by the money they have.

These non-capitalist things exist, it's certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.

This is known as Mutual Aid, which is a big cornerstone of Anarchism. The issue is that Anarchism generally relies on individuals making the right decisions due to their horizontal structures and has issues with scaling horizontally. These structures tend to have great success locally, such as Food Not Bombs feeding people, but without strong organization scaling becomes difficult and action becomes unfocused.

So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don't see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?

Why don't you think Capitalism could be abolished via revolution? It's been done before.

Secondly, it is not simply capable of being replaced entirely via parallel systems because that depends on individuals outcompeting the immense resources of the Bourgeoisie. It's certainly possible at a local level, but at a state level takes enourmous power and unity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dudinax@programming.dev 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The Supremos: on second thought, let's have a King after all.

[–] 299792458ms@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I read an interesting take on some site and it said that we are leaving Capitalism for Feudalism where the kings are now big Companies.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Kind of. American Proletarians have a unique position of enjoying the benefits of a super-exploited class of domestic immigrants paid lower wages via threat of deportation, and Imperialistic hegemony, but are also enslaved by vast amounts of debt. This is very different from standard Capitalism, but not quite feudalism. It depresses the revolutionary potential of the American Proletariat for as long as Imperialism is the status quo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aolley@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

We agree that the current situation won't change itself, and change to this system from inside of it would likely be stifled and repressed.

I agree that we need to keep trying to find a better way, because there are many people are will certainly keep trying to make things worse for us.

The first step is a better way to communicate between ourselves about what we want, why we want it, and how to enact our intentions.

With the advent and use of the internet we now have the possibility for a new way to organize our collective wants.

This system, which I call a consensus engine, would let us as a species make long term goals and work towards their fruition. Without some way to communicate that is less sustainable to misinformation I don't see any way we can get out of this into something better.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

SCOTUS got you covered, fam. The new King-Maker ruling by the regressives should get us back there in no time flat!

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are still plenty of kings in the world.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If old man Charles starts talking shit about divine right they'll put him in a home and replace him with another inbred fuck in like a month

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are also kings in the Middle East, and all over Asia and Africa.

I'm sorry to be a wet rag but the comic is simply innacurate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

My favourite author. LeGuin, that is.

load more comments
view more: next ›