You must log in or # to comment.
How do we feel about this comics’ insinuation that the only safety any of us deserve is that which we can secure through our own personal ability to preserve through violence? By that logic, the pig should have shot the wolf the instant he saw him, and there would be no end to the violence until everyone was equally afraid of everyone else’s capacity for violence, or until they re-invented feudalism from first principles, and neither sounds like a great state of affairs to me.
The Pig mistakenly believed that the systematic violence and oppression of the state via the police to protect his capital would be an effective deterrent against the violence of the Wolf. The Wolf called his bluff by showing just how tenuous that trust in the police is
All?
So, if I collect clay in some remote place, and make a dinner plate out of it to use in my kitchen, then that dinner plate, which is my property, has been gained and maintained through violence? And it’s okay to eat me if I refuse to let go of my dinner plate?
I mean, I do agree with the sentiment of “eat the rich”, but for fuck’s sake, how is all property supposed to be violence? All property really does include even my toothbrush.
Words do matter.
I think this comment I saw anwers your question.
Doesn’t the state also back the security of my possessions though? If you stole my toothbrush, I could call the police and they could prosecute you. So you don’t, out of fear of the system.
I’m not saying we’re all equally complicit in the power structures that exist to persist capital, but we are all somewhat complicit if we expect petty larceny to be resolved without violence
Seizing the commons as private property (real estate) is different to personal property, which is legitimized by usage. You use the toothbrush, so I recognize it as yours. If you’re instead a toothbrush hoarder who corners the market and rents them out, then expect some larceny.
Mmm good point
It looks like it reinforces what I was already thinking.
The comic’s choice to include personal property is completely bonkers.
Note this doesn’t apply to personal property (legitimized by usage: your home, clothing, toothbrush, etc), but only to the state-backed legal regime of property such as owning land or companies.
I think the comic just uses the word in the context of land ownership (because it’s about houses), so the latter of those.
