• finitebanjo@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    My take on Bioshock is people became mutants and started killing each other because there were no laws or regulations aside from “you can’t stop others from profiting.” It was legal for them to become mutants. It was legal for them to weaponize and arm themselves before the inevitable revolution / civil war of Rapture. The closest thing to a law enforcer was the big daddy and he does NOTHING about the hordes of cannibalistic telepathic monsters. You know why? Because there are no laws against what they’re doing, the daddy was only made to protect the little sisters who produce profit for Fontaine.

    Bioshock is steampunk scifi but it’s also anarchy in it’s truest form. People built whatever they liked, and they destroyed whatever they liked, and when violently mutating psychoactive drugs were introduced the latter succeeded over the former.

    • aaaa@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      BioShock 2 revealed that Andrew Ryan had a secret prison to throw people into when they disrupted his control over the city. And more than once he decided he would burn it all down rather than let someone else win.

      It may have masqueraded as anarchy, but the system was still rigged from the start. There was always a ruler. And power can corrupt even the strongest idealistic convictions

      • SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        but the system was still rigged from the start

        And this, intentionally or not, is the real message. There’s no such thing as a real meritocracy, the system is always rigged in favor of the people who created it.

      • finitebanjo@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s fair, and to add onto that Ryan did have a self destruct button in his office that would wipe out the whole city.

        On the other hand, though, Fontaine and Lamb both rose to power despite Ryan’s head start on authoritarianism.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      rofl Bioshock is explicitly NOT anarchism in its truest form… Big Daddys existing at all disproves that by itself, let alone Ryan’s ruling of the city.

      • finitebanjo@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Big Daddies were owned by Fontaine, not by Ryan. Fontaine and Ryan were literally opposing faction leaders in the Rapture civil war.

        I even mentioned how Big Daddies do NOTHING to stop the hordes of cannibals because they’re not there to enforce any laws.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          They are still a de-facto authority regardless of their purpose. De-facto authority is by definition NOT anarchism.

          • finitebanjo@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            What happens when it comes somebody’s turn and they decide to stay in charge permanently? Well obviously the loss of the social contract means that individual isn’t protected anymore, either, so they kill him. Just like the splicers tried to kill Andrew Ryan.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The same thing that happens anywhere else? A power struggle between the people who want it and don’t? Are you implying this is unique to anarchism in some way? I don’t see why it would be.

              • finitebanjo@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                A power struggle with no legal recourse except bloodshed is indeed specific to a system where there is no power structure or system of laws, correct. That’s what I said. It has never once proven false. And you came in here and demanded I retract my statement? What are you going to do about it, eat my liver?

                • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  There is a legal recourse, you’re saying someone with power ignored the law and attempted a coup… do you think coups don’t happen in non anarchist countries? How is this unique to anarchism in any way?

                  • finitebanjo@piefed.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    In non anarchist countries they can be arrested and face trial, and there are many barriers in place to prevent them from taking total control in the first place.

                    In Anarchy it’s literally handed to them and the only recourse is to abduct or kill that guy.

                    That’s why nations last hundreds of years and Anarchies last days.

    • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Core ideas of anarchism: mutual aid, no hierarchies, stateless moneyless society, free association.

      This person: anarchism is capitalism without rules

      • finitebanjo@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re probably thinking Anarcho-Communism or some other convoluted trite. Dictionaries all say the same thing: no laws, no leader, no order.

        • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Surely you know better after skimming through a dictionary than me, an anarchist that has read dozens of anarchist theory books

          • finitebanjo@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Even antivaxxers have their own books, your theories mean nothing in the face of the consensus.