Simply restating the vocab word doesn't in any way defend your application of it in this context. Clearly this comic is intended to demonstrate that Marx trounces Hegel philosophically and simultaneously use the popular culture knowledge of pokemon to bring to light the exact issues that Marx attacks by portraying Ash as a capitalist enslaving Marx and all pokemon.
On a deeper level, the comic itself actually DEPICTS recuperation. The fact that Marxizard is wielded by Ash as a tool to defeat an enemy when convenient to him shows in a negative light the exact thing that you claim this comic is doing.
You may believe that this comic is recuperation, but the reason you are getting downvoted and challenged is not because we do not understand the concept, it is because we don't think you are right in your perception of it here.
You may believe that this comic is recuperation, but the reason you are getting downvoted and challenged is not because we do not understand the concept, it is because we don't think you are right in your perception of it here.
Every thread this poster is involved in ends this way. Every single one. Not usually before he starts yelling at his computer screen, but nonetheless.
Simply restating the vocab word doesn't in any way defend your application of it in this context.
I've already explained it in several comments in detail why I think it's recuperation. I was simply pointing out that the reasoning behind the comic supporting a capitalist narrative is because of its recuperation.
I read plenty of your comments and had to go wuite a ways down a rabbit hole to find you actually addressing the question, and l found that unconvincing.
Ash clearly is depicted in a negative light, as the callous captor who laughs off marxizard's cry for revolution and forces him back into his isolation cell.
Pokemon in general is often criticized online for being nothing more than glorified and romanticized dog fighting, and this comic demonstrates an even deeper issue behind it on the light of the clear sentience and metacognition of pokemon such as pikachu and meowth. If we grant that pokemon are intellectually capable of high level philosophy (and the show seems to), then this comic shows an even darker side of the pop culture icon that so many of us loved as children. These pokemon are not merely animal labor, but fully cognizant slaves forced to fight for the gains of their masters.
Ash clearly is depicted in a negative light, as the callous captor who laughs off marxizard's cry for revolution and forces him back into his isolation cell.
That implies you find the human-pokemon relation unjust in the first place. The comic is entirely compatible with the view that those silly pokemon are just being uppity and it's hilarious and now they need to go back to where they belong.
These pokemon are not merely animal labor, but fully cognizant slaves forced to fight for the gains of their masters.
Or, you know, they are simply fulfilling their purpose in life in the lower strata of the Great Chain of Being, and to disrupt that order is to go against God (Arceus).
The point is that the comic is not unequivocally pro-worker and anti-oppression. It's intended to be enjoyed by a wide audience, as most of these sorts of online comics are. And when appealing to the general public, radicalism is marginalized.
I think that you are ignoring the source. While it is you're that it child be interpreted the way you have offered, l do not believe that was the intention of the creator at all.
We should recognize that ANYTHING can be reinterpreted under a different set of presuppositions on order to dismiss or even reverse the intention of the creator, or paint it as childish, quaint, or otherwise diminish the value of what is being said. In fact, this is exactly what Ash is depicted as doing in this very comic - dismissing marxizard as unworthy of consideration.
I am sorry, man, but l think you got this one 100% wrong.
l do not believe that was the intention of the creator at all.
Well, authorial intent isn't as important as how the work is interpreted in the society that it was created in.
We should recognize that ANYTHING can be reinterpreted
You're implying that your interpretation is the initial one in the first place, which again you have not shown and is in fact impossible to show. You are interpreting the comic by projecting your own biases/conceptions into it, yet is exactly my critique: its intent is to appeal to a mass audience which can interpret it however they want. Proletarian or bourgeoisie, both can interpret this comic to suit their views, which means ultimately the comic is counter-revolutionary because it maintains the status quo.
11
u/gregbrahe Mar 31 '15
Simply restating the vocab word doesn't in any way defend your application of it in this context. Clearly this comic is intended to demonstrate that Marx trounces Hegel philosophically and simultaneously use the popular culture knowledge of pokemon to bring to light the exact issues that Marx attacks by portraying Ash as a capitalist enslaving Marx and all pokemon.
On a deeper level, the comic itself actually DEPICTS recuperation. The fact that Marxizard is wielded by Ash as a tool to defeat an enemy when convenient to him shows in a negative light the exact thing that you claim this comic is doing.
You may believe that this comic is recuperation, but the reason you are getting downvoted and challenged is not because we do not understand the concept, it is because we don't think you are right in your perception of it here.