I think you if you redact a fair number of those at the top who reap all the benefits it will cause a noticeable dishevelment in the organization’s structure. I don’t think megacorporations are stable configurations where the whole being extracts value rapaciously for the shareholders and the CEO or whatever. There is always a lot of policing required to make sure that it functions in the way it does. That’s the reason why tyrannical managers and pinkerstons exist.
The amount you’d need to get rid off would put you in territory or pure fantasy though. Also, the government would probably step in and force a merger.
I think you make a good point here, that relates somewhat to the general idea: although we do need to understand the systems we’re up against and how to overcome their functioning, we don’t need to believe in the myths perpetuated by them of an inherent strength and unwavering power they don’t have. At the end of the day, it’s humans running these systems and humans choosing to support them in spite of any moral qualms they may have. The inertia of that, and the inertia of the organized violence that protects capital, can be a powerful and dangerous thing, no doubt about it, but it is a kind of inertia and things that disrupt that inertia are going to have an impact, whether it’s the impact we wanted or some other one.
Where I’d venture to say the pointlessness of it shows is in isolated acts that are not seized upon in order to make use of how they impact the inertia of things and are instead looked upon naively as a form of damage that will stick, no matter what, and won’t be repaired or worked around. As if human society is a jenga tower and if you just pull enough pieces out, it will topple and you’ll replace it with what you want instead.
To use an example that relates to the US, Lincoln was far from the ideal figure of taking the US people in an actually good direction, but I do think it’s safe to say that if he hadn’t been assassinated, the reconstruction efforts probably would have done a better job of dealing with the whitewashing of slavery. Groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy, however, did not sit around and hope such whitewashing would organically happen in the absence of sufficient opposition to it. They organized and shoved that whitewashing into school textbooks.
So in despicable systems, there is inertia, but there is also those who organize and seize upon that inertia. And the same can be said for systems of liberation and the fight to maintain them against imperialists and against the reaction.
What you said is correct 100%. This discussion is different from the idea that the comic is presenting but that is not important.
It is true that the merely redacting, let’s say the top 20 net worth individuals, will automatically lead to a more equitable society with them gone. As you said, the only guarantee we can make is that it will lead to instability and chaos, and the grand outcome will depend on which organised forces are able to take advantage of it.
I think you if you redact a fair number of those at the top who reap all the benefits it will cause a noticeable dishevelment in the organization’s structure. I don’t think megacorporations are stable configurations where the whole being extracts value rapaciously for the shareholders and the CEO or whatever. There is always a lot of policing required to make sure that it functions in the way it does. That’s the reason why tyrannical managers and pinkerstons exist.
The amount you’d need to get rid off would put you in territory or pure fantasy though. Also, the government would probably step in and force a merger.
I think you make a good point here, that relates somewhat to the general idea: although we do need to understand the systems we’re up against and how to overcome their functioning, we don’t need to believe in the myths perpetuated by them of an inherent strength and unwavering power they don’t have. At the end of the day, it’s humans running these systems and humans choosing to support them in spite of any moral qualms they may have. The inertia of that, and the inertia of the organized violence that protects capital, can be a powerful and dangerous thing, no doubt about it, but it is a kind of inertia and things that disrupt that inertia are going to have an impact, whether it’s the impact we wanted or some other one.
Where I’d venture to say the pointlessness of it shows is in isolated acts that are not seized upon in order to make use of how they impact the inertia of things and are instead looked upon naively as a form of damage that will stick, no matter what, and won’t be repaired or worked around. As if human society is a jenga tower and if you just pull enough pieces out, it will topple and you’ll replace it with what you want instead.
To use an example that relates to the US, Lincoln was far from the ideal figure of taking the US people in an actually good direction, but I do think it’s safe to say that if he hadn’t been assassinated, the reconstruction efforts probably would have done a better job of dealing with the whitewashing of slavery. Groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy, however, did not sit around and hope such whitewashing would organically happen in the absence of sufficient opposition to it. They organized and shoved that whitewashing into school textbooks.
So in despicable systems, there is inertia, but there is also those who organize and seize upon that inertia. And the same can be said for systems of liberation and the fight to maintain them against imperialists and against the reaction.
What you said is correct 100%. This discussion is different from the idea that the comic is presenting but that is not important.
It is true that the merely redacting, let’s say the top 20 net worth individuals, will automatically lead to a more equitable society with them gone. As you said, the only guarantee we can make is that it will lead to instability and chaos, and the grand outcome will depend on which organised forces are able to take advantage of it.