Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post

  • Dolphinfucker420@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    17 hours ago

    In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.

    Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.

          • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that “we the people” so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?

            The person you responded to is making the point that people don’t rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn’t/haven’t died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.

            I’m also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.

            A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.

            There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.

            On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.

            • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Fuck, you Tankies sure like to ramble. It’s like you forget you’ve already lost all credibility before you post full page comments.

              • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                13 hours ago

                I’m not a Tankie. This right here is exactly what I expected.

                I’m trying to bridge the gap between the two arguments being made in this thread.

                The masses have to have an avenue to make change and decide ethics. People like Mao and Stalin and Musk and so on deliberately go out of their way to circumvent those avenues.

                Eventually that leads to a pressure cooker of violent action because diplomacy has failed.

                Either way, Ethics informs law, they aren’t two mutually exclusive entities.

                You’re sounding an awful lot like a Mao apologist right now.

                And if Mao could see what China has become he’d off the whole party.

                • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  And if Mao could see what China has become he’d off the whole party.

                  Oh hey look at this totally-not-a-tankie worshipping big strong daddy Mao Zedong. Pathetic.

                  • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    13 hours ago

                    One of us is acknowledging that the current Chinese Communist party is not Maos party nor is it holding up to his ideals, and pointing out that he was a mass murdering psycopath. The other one either needs a history lesson and a social studies lesson, or is so intent on being an asshole that they speak before they think.

          • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he’s softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.

            Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil…

            Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not ‘Men who lived’ is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.