It’s not so much advocating this situation as it is pointing out that it’s the system we’re living under.
This is not a valid interpretation, because the wolf is wearing a jacket with the anarchy symbol in the last frame, in which it advocates for the use of direct violence to seize property. Also, the frame before this says:
“The wolf devoured him on the spot, and redistributed his property among the wolf pack.”
This is a sort of benevolent strong-man fantasy, where the mighty (violent killers) redistribute wealth (in a presumably equitable way?) because they are willing and able to exert force to do so. It wants to paint itself with the Robin Hood mythology (rob the rich and give to the poor) but it is actually a disgusting fetishization of violence as a source of moral superiority.
In fact, there’s no reason why we should consider the wolf to be any more moral than the pig, as their story begins with property destruction (unprovoked, so far as we know in this context) and then moves on to murder and theft. The benevolence or charity they might perform after these actions does not excuse or redeem the destruction, murder or theft. Based on what is presented in this comic, the wolf is demonstrably a less moral individual than the pig. This isn’t even ambiguous, because they didn’t actually bother having a conversation with the pig - they leapt straight to murder as a solution to what they perceived to be a problem.
Perhaps the wolf is a valid representation of anarchist ideology. If so, anarchists need to reexamine their ideology.
Agreed on this. I’m an anarchist myself and find the “moral” of the comic to be absurd and contrary to much of the anarchist ideas that I am familiar with. It feels much more edgelordy and effectively seems to be promoting the use of violence to establish new hierarchy (hierarchical systems being kinda contradictory to anarchism).
It’s not so much advocating this situation as it is pointing out that it’s the system we’re living under. So you have an alternative to it?
This is not a valid interpretation, because the wolf is wearing a jacket with the anarchy symbol in the last frame, in which it advocates for the use of direct violence to seize property. Also, the frame before this says:
This is a sort of benevolent strong-man fantasy, where the mighty (violent killers) redistribute wealth (in a presumably equitable way?) because they are willing and able to exert force to do so. It wants to paint itself with the Robin Hood mythology (rob the rich and give to the poor) but it is actually a disgusting fetishization of violence as a source of moral superiority.
In fact, there’s no reason why we should consider the wolf to be any more moral than the pig, as their story begins with property destruction (unprovoked, so far as we know in this context) and then moves on to murder and theft. The benevolence or charity they might perform after these actions does not excuse or redeem the destruction, murder or theft. Based on what is presented in this comic, the wolf is demonstrably a less moral individual than the pig. This isn’t even ambiguous, because they didn’t actually bother having a conversation with the pig - they leapt straight to murder as a solution to what they perceived to be a problem.
Perhaps the wolf is a valid representation of anarchist ideology. If so, anarchists need to reexamine their ideology.
Agreed on this. I’m an anarchist myself and find the “moral” of the comic to be absurd and contrary to much of the anarchist ideas that I am familiar with. It feels much more edgelordy and effectively seems to be promoting the use of violence to establish new hierarchy (hierarchical systems being kinda contradictory to anarchism).
Not sure if it is bad faith or ignorance.