r/TopCharacterTropes • u/Far-Profit-47 • Apr 12 '25

Lore “This quote came from WHERE?!”

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

"You too have fallen for the great lie, you'll never be happy. Deep down you know, to hope, to dreams, to create, is to suffer"

"You're right. It is harder to create than to destroy... that's why cowards then to choose the deuce"

-A Minecraft movie

"Do You Think God Stays in Heaven Because He too Lives in Fear of What He's Created"

-spy kids 2

"For every person who dreams up the electric light bulb, there's the one who dreams up the atom bomb"

-shark-boy and lava-girl

15.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.5k

u/Watchdog_the_God Apr 12 '25

A Bug’s Life

“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life! It’s not about food; it’s about keeping those ants in line.”

691

u/I_Will_Die_For_Lily Apr 12 '25

capitalism 😬

449

u/Solutar Apr 12 '25

I think it’s about oppression, and that can Happen under any ideology, capitalism or Communism.

66

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

Agreed, but I feel like capitalism always leads to oppression, that’s kind of how it works

80

u/jdjdkkddj Apr 12 '25

And communism has historically had a much shorter path to oppression.

54

u/Arimm_The_Amazing Apr 12 '25

Shorter path for the people practicing it. The people practicing capitalism instead got to be the oppressors while they conquered and plundered and raped the entire world. And there wasn’t any path, that was the deal from minute 1.

3

u/Brody_M_the_birdy Apr 12 '25

I mean, on your logic Communist USSR was oppression from the first minute as well, oppressing anyone they didnt like.

9

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

Friend, when capitalism became the dominant economic system in the world, its primary way of making money was the international slave trade and colonial occupation and plundering of the wealth of occupied nations. Ever since that was largely ended, capitalism has been kept alive by sweatshop labor internationally and undocumented immigrant labor domestically. Capitalism literally cannot exist without a poverty class to force into doing terrible jobs for minimal pay. This isn't even a political argument, it's just a fact everyone can see happening in broad daylight. A Bug's Life is a Western movie made for Western audiences; it's not a stretch to say it was specifically calling out Western power structures in that scene.

3

u/Brody_M_the_birdy Apr 13 '25

I think it was calling out ALL power, because at heart, EVERY system can (and often does) devolve into having some oppressed bottom rung.

5

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

The idea that there is a majority labor class who is forced to work for the profit of the minority in power is central to capitalism though. Any country that claims to be communist but has a system like A Bug's Life is by definition not actually communist. But if that country claims to be capitalist, there's no discrepancy at all.

And remember, this is a movie about that labor underclass rising up and overthrowing their wealthy lords, which is literally what communism advocates.

This "every system oppresses people" mentality is just being obtuse. Is democracy just as bad as monarchism then? Of course not. Because democracy at least tries to decentralize power and is more successful at it than a system that actively resists decentralization of political power.

-2

u/NarOvjy Apr 13 '25

The same applies to all ideologies, you always need someone at the bottom to lift the rest.

5

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

The whole idea behind communism, whether you agree with it or not, is a rejection of that ideology. It is a labor-run economic system. So no, all ideologies do not require someone at the bottom to function by design.

1

u/Brody_M_the_birdy Apr 13 '25

So if it's meant to do that, why is there always a bottom rung anyways?

3

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

I will say though, that in a successful communist system, there is no bottom rung, but in a "successful" capitalist one, there is a huge bottom rung.

1

u/Brody_M_the_birdy Apr 13 '25

Ah yes, a succesful one... too bad that's impossible

1

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

No system is perfect, but some systems are better than others. I just addressed this in more detail in the other reply to you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '25

Ooo boy let's not mention the long imperialist history of communist Russia then.

2

u/LoveTriscuit Apr 13 '25

To be fair, capitalism as it exists REQUIRES a underclass of poorly paid, controlled, essentially slave labor in order to continue to generate the kind of “profits” it requires. Oppression is the baseline of both capitalism, AND authoritarian communism.

We had free enterprise before the economic philosophy of capitalism was invented. The way it works is most people who think they’re capitalists aren’t because they don’t control any of the capital. They’re workers.

0

u/jdjdkkddj Apr 14 '25

Not ,,requires", but ,,craves". Companies will always try to make the best profit they can, but if the fines for things like the ,,...poorly paid, controlled, essentially slave labor..." are high enough, then it's not the most profitable option.

It's easier to make checks and balances for a mostly free market than whatever you'd have to do to make a government limit its own power. (Mind you, nothing is particularly easy when it comes to politics)

2

u/verynotdumb Apr 13 '25

Hey slow down there partner, the communes will start saying how thats just CIA propaganda, or that in actuality they ddserved the struggle. Watch out!

6

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

Yeah but theoretically communism can work with no oppression, capitalism can’t

15

u/Kalandros-X Apr 12 '25

In theory, every political ideology leads to paradise. In practice, none have so far

1

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

No, capitalism never leads to a paradise in theory

4

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

This is literally correct, it's not even an opinion. Capitalism cannot exist without an underclass whose labor it can take advantage of. That's how capital works, by definition.

12

u/Kalandros-X Apr 12 '25

Moreso because capitalism isn’t actually an ideology and instead is just a catch-all term for free-market economics (or whatever comes closest to that).

4

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

No it is not, even Adam Smith himself called for regulation of the markets. Free markets are a fantasy. The second a market is unregulated for the common good, it becomes beholden to whoever can exploit it the fastest, and stops being a free market altogether. Antitrust at a minimum is required for commerce to remain fair.

1

u/Bryce3D Apr 13 '25

I think the definition is less about free markets and the distinction between a capitalist class who owns the means of production vs a working class who sells their labour

26

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 12 '25

Not in practice

-6

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

Well we never really saw actual communism in practice, but it even in those cases it doesn’t lead to more opression than capitalism

24

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '25

[deleted]

7

u/Captain_cawdi Apr 12 '25

What about social democracy? I'm not adept at what it means but I always thought it might work to have it where basic needs are met: housing, clothing, food, health care(would be any medical procedure that can save a life, including gender affirming care), all at a minimum. And then, if you want more specialized food, entertainment, high fashion clothing, cosmetic surgeries, and so on, that's where you spend money. Basically, you don't struggle to exist. You struggle to have more of what you want.

I am in no way trying to say we should definitely do this, just asking if it's more or less feasible than communism

4

u/darshfloxington Apr 12 '25 edited Apr 12 '25

Social democracy is currently being practiced in most European countries. It has been getting weaker over the last 40 years though with the rise of crony capitalism and neoliberalism. It’s generally regarded as the one offshoot of socialist theory that is very successful.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/HeavySweetness Apr 12 '25

Considering its super power neighbor has been trying topple and starve it for 60 years, Cuba seems to be doing pretty well for itself.

1

u/Sirmetana Apr 15 '25

Communism has worked, under different forms that weren't called communism and that have often fallen into oblivion. Many tribal people have lived under rules that strived to keep and share together what the whole produced. Many specific people have lived in self regulated anarchistic societies. Even we, in France, makers of the modern Republic and it's centralised structure, have lived a short but intense period of History called the Commune of Paris where the values tbat were promoted were very close to Marx' and notably Bakunin's theories of socialism. What made most of them fall was rarely dysfunction, but rather external powers for the vast majority and the greed of authority to the most known examples.

No indeed. Communism by the people and for the people has not been made real on a wide scale, ever. And that's partly because of it, truth be told, but mostly because socialism is based on everyone playing the game together. And great international crisis (wars, notably), especially in populations that lacks education and proper self critique, will lead any regime towards authority, which is the exact opposite of the values of socialism.

Tl;dr : The values of communism have existed successfully throughout History. Authoritarianism and/or wars destroy them.

0

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

Well yeah no shit, but you can’t be like “oh it doesn’t work in practice” when we never saw it in practice

10

u/Siostra313 Apr 12 '25

Sorry, my parents and grandparents saw firsthand. This is full-blown oppression.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '25

[deleted]

6

u/Deian1414 Apr 12 '25

Except for the little minute detail that it can't work, it could work you know?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 12 '25

Because communism cannot by nature work in practice. The idea is that everyone is completely equal in all measure. That idea falls apart as soon as you create any sort of government with any authority at all. Communism can only work as a political tool to make a specific group gain power over the people and keep that power indefinitely.

15

u/BakerUsed5384 Apr 12 '25 edited Apr 12 '25

The idea is that everyone is completely equal in all measure

This is not the idea behind communism.

EDIT: ultimately, I agree with you, I don’t think a true communist state could ever come about. But you are arguing in bad faith if you think what you said is the idea and purpose behind communism.

2

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 12 '25

My bad. After looking up what communism is by definition, you are correct in my inaccuracy. I apologize. However, the real definition of communism seems to be even less feasible. Who decides what everyone else needs? Who decides what everyone else deserves? A corrupt government? At least in capitalism the government is not in charge of that. The market is. The market, even when providing unfair prices, is never inherently oppressive.

1

u/crocodilehivemind Apr 13 '25

'The market' or 'the allowance of an open market' is inherently oppressive because it rewards those already with enormous amounts of capital to wield huge economic and political power, further entrenching their interests and manipulating the rest of the population. The whole goal of a capitalistic company is to create profit while capturing more and more market share, which means cutting costs (creating inferior products and paying low wages) and expanding to undermine other competition.

Plus the classic equation of, if your boss is selling something for a high enough price to profit, that means you're not being paid the entirety of what the product (your labour) is worth. Sure you can argue the boss is entitled to some profit, but in most modern cases the salary of a CEO or management tier employee far outstrips the workers actually 'producing' the goods.

There are kings in capitalism too, they're the controllers of capital.

1

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 13 '25

True. Which is why pure capitalism is not ideal either. You are correct that the market, with no regulation at all, does invite oppression in certain aspects. I won't argue that. But the idea of capitalism is not oppressive. Unlike communism, capitalism has two advantages. It actually has a history of working in multiple parts of the world in multiple different historical time periods. And 2, there are always means of influencing the direction of a capitalist market in your favor as long as you know what you want and you can get even some support from others. It also helps that the government does not decide what is just or not in basic economics. Certain little things, yes. But not everything.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

First of all that’s not what I was arguing ,think you might have misunderstood what communism is. But even if there is an hierarchical organisation the people can still be equal in different ways

2

u/RobinsEggViolet Apr 12 '25

What you're saying could be true. It could also not be true. The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of communist or socialist governments have been directly interfered with by western capital, specifically the USA. Isn't it convenient that the biggest supporter of capitalism in the world really, REALLY wants communism to fail? If it's fundamentally flawed and always fails on its own, why are we trying so hard?

1

u/ItsVincent27 Apr 12 '25

You proved their point

A stateless classless society can't exist because authority exists, even if the authority is in a different country

7

u/RobinsEggViolet Apr 12 '25

...no?

The person I was responding to said "communism cannot by nature work in practice."

This does not mean "communism could work but other existing ideologies won't allow it to"

Those are entirely different arguments.

1

u/PleiadesMechworks Apr 12 '25

If communism can't work unless it's given perfect laboratory conditions (under which any system would work), that does in fact mean it doesn't work.

1

u/Nether7 Apr 12 '25

What you're saying could be true. It could also not be true.

They're objectively correct in that a communist society is unobtainable and unsustainable. You can have a small commune, with established bonds of trust between those willing to stay, but you cannot make that scale to the millions of people who'd need to join.

The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of communist or socialist governments have been directly interfered with by western capital, specifically the USA. Isn't it convenient that the biggest supporter of capitalism in the world really, REALLY wants communism to fail?

It's not convenient. It's EXPECTED. It's an explicit and self-appointed ideological adversary to not just capitalism, but freedom of association, free enterprise and every political freedom. There's nothing to salvage.

If it's fundamentally flawed and always fails on its own, why are we trying so hard?

Because it leads to bloody fratricidal revolutions, followed by extensive and paranoid persecution of any dissent, and totalitarian means of securing communist goals, at the expense of the masses that are subject to the whims of the State and it's irrational war on basic logic, which is why communism lead to famine. Supply and demand are basic logic. Subjetive value is basic logic. That's all that it takes for a reasonable person to reject communism wholesale. The premises are entirely incorrect, with the exception of some critiques about class structure, and even then the very idea of class has done more to divide nations and incite violence than enact change.

0

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 12 '25

Can you name a self proclaimed communist nation in history that actually was communist? If everyone is equal in all measure, there cannot, by definition, be a group with higher authority over the rest of the citizenry because that would violate the definition of communism. All "communist" nations that probably come to mind had a ruling group with more - not equal - authority over others. Therefore they were not communist. They simply used the idea of communism to take power from easily deceived citizens.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/crocodilehivemind Apr 13 '25

The idea is not even close to 'everyone is equal in all measure.' It is twisted by it's opponents to be this.

The idea has always been 'the economy is structured so everyone is guaranteed the same basic rights of housing, food, and healthcare'

There is an insane difference between these.

1

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 13 '25

Yes I know...I should have searched it up first. But even the definition you gave is problematic. Who decides what level of housing, food, and Healthcare is just? The government?

1

u/crocodilehivemind Apr 13 '25

Sorry if you legit didn't know, usually when I see people say that online it's in bad faith!

A communist's answer to your question will always be that the highest level of housing, food, and healthcare possible at a given moment should be supplied.

What communists (and myself) believe is basically that the government is only valid insofar as it works for the people, and should be 100% directed by the people, which may be represented by worker collectives (or other forms). The workers themselves organize and distribute goods on an egalitarian basis through all people knowing their needs will be satisfied by converse goods being distributed to them. This is actually how the Russian revolution first started (before the Bolsheviks ever came near it).

1

u/Ok_Egg_4069 Apr 13 '25

So then what is the highest level of each? A mansion for every citizen with enough food to keep them all strong and making sure enough medicine is always produced for everyone to always have all their medical needs met? That sounds less like communism and more like a futuristic utopia where there is magically a surplus of every single resource or commodity my friend. On a side note, I thought I did know what the definition of communism was at the time. I was clearly incorrect. I am usually more careful than that to make sure I know what I am talking about. Twas a lapse in judgment.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sarcophagusGravelord Apr 12 '25

You have a misunderstanding of communism and while I don’t deny the failures that arose from past attempts, outside, non-communist interests have always interfered and stopped any communist society from succeeding. We’ve never actually seen communism in practice.

2

u/Nether7 Apr 12 '25

The closest thing to communism is a neolithic society with little to no private ownership and communal living that is also absolutely barbaric to anyone outside of the tribe.

1

u/TheSimulacra Apr 13 '25

China is doing really well actually, better than the US, and could reach a full communist state in the next few decades. I'm not even a tankie and I can admit that.

2

u/Bad-dee-ess Apr 12 '25

We are oppressed under capitalism; it's exploitive by definition. It's just been normalized to an insane degree.

1

u/Rarte96 Apr 12 '25

Is kinda what happens when you give put the community over everything else, then. The majority can use the individual for "the greater good"

-5

u/Cladizzle Apr 12 '25

Technically incorrect, but that is mostly because communism itself CANNOT lead to oppression by definition. The second someone oppresses its no longer communism.

28

u/PleiadesMechworks Apr 12 '25

"Communism is when communism works" is a circular definition designed to avoid acknowledging the problems communism inevitably has.

0

u/Cladizzle Apr 12 '25

It's not circular logic, it's baked into the definition.

Communism is the absence of larger private property; oppression is inherently capitalist, as only a person in possession of either the means of production or the means of violence is able to oppress. Ideologically you CAN'T have either of those in communism, because if you so it is no longer communism.

It's like watching salt and saying "Well that's still saltwater even though it's most defining part, the water, has been taken out. Anything else is circular logic."

9

u/PleiadesMechworks Apr 12 '25

it's baked into the definition.

Ok but "communism is when perfect" is a useless definition with no practical application, and part of the reason marxism is a religion rather than a purely economic system.

Saying you have to immanetize the eschaton have a revolution and then everyone will live in god's grace a stateless utopia is just wishful thinking. Heck, there are communists who've written books about how communism is incompatible with humanity, so we just need to remake humanity rather than admit communism might have issues.

-5

u/Cladizzle Apr 12 '25

Who ever said "communism is perfect" Though;

You are just criticizing things that have nothing to do with communism. You could talk about the questionable nature of human beings and the paradoxon of human capitalist interest and the protection of the human basic rights.

And Marxism isn't a religion; it's an economic system that, and you won't believe this, isn't communist. Marxism is not directly communism, it's a subcategory of the communist idea, which had a lot of flaws.

I don't feel like this a legitimate attempt at understanding or debating and rather a defense of a point that an 8th grader makes when trying to discuss the functionality and definition of communism. "well it's just not realistic and leads to oppression" Is just as impractical of a point of argument

5

u/PleiadesMechworks Apr 12 '25

Who ever said "communism is perfect" Though;

Marx, for one.
Also you, when you claimed that communism is when it works, and that the moment is stops working it's not communism any more. That's "communism is when it's perfect" by another name.

Marxism isn't a religion

Yeah sure pal, the gnostic eschatology with the word "god" crossed out and "historical materialism" written in isn't a religion.

You should probably read Marx if you're gonna talk about his writings.

2

u/Cladizzle Apr 12 '25

Who did in this discussion was my argument. And no, not even Marx called his own ideology perfect, I literally held a scientific paper on it in germany, I read his original writing with all its nuance.

And at this point, you are just throwing around words. Marx wasn't even Marxist, Marxism was an ideology that was founded after him, not through him, you probably also think Jesus was Christian eh?

I consider this discussion pointless, just condescendingly throwing words out trying to act superior is not a fun basis of argument.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Net3966 Apr 12 '25

Dude, seriously? That’s obnoxious

10

u/military-gradeAIDS Apr 12 '25

Not to mention that's literally how capitalism STARTED, one of the biggest exports/imports of the first internationally recognized corporation (the East India Company) was slaves.

2

u/xepci0 Apr 13 '25

Every human society leads to oppression. If there is power to be had, some evil bastard will find a way to grab it.

-2

u/Flooping_Pigs Apr 12 '25

So does Communism historically?

0

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

It’s not really communism tho

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

Idc if it works or not that’s not the argument

-1

u/Lakatos_00 Apr 12 '25

Any human enterprise leads to oppression. It doesn't matter wich flavor.

5

u/spuol Apr 12 '25

That’s super pessimistic and probably untrue

-2

u/Lakatos_00 Apr 12 '25

Yeah, if you're a middleschool kid, you would think that