Did V do the right thing by destabilizing a functional (albeit corrupt) government that had provided food, shelter and electricity to a country that survived a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR?
Did V do the right thing by destabilizing a functional (albeit corrupt) government that had provided food...
Liam Brooks
Landon Wright
V was a terrorist bent on revenge and nothing more.
Nolan Russell
Isn't that the question of the day?
V says at one point that anarchy has two faces, that of a destroyer but also of a creator, and sometimes to build you have to destroy first. Perhaps V is naive in thinking that modern people can actually build and function in a leaderless society, which is the anarchist ideal, but he was kinda crazy to begin with.
Wyatt Phillips
Depends on the POV.
Justin Rodriguez
Probably not. Look at Iraq. Sure we removed a dictator from power but then we got ISIS.
Anarchists like Alan Moore are pretty naive when it comes to the afterthoughts of their revolution.
Asher Mitchell
Nothing ever ends Adrian
David Smith
V didn't intend for Anarchy to reign supreme after. It was a tool that he was very good at using.
Owen Torres
I've always wondered, in leaderless society wouldn't it be corporations who would have the most power? Isn't that something anarchists wouldn't want?
Jeremiah Richardson
V died at the end of his part in his goal. He molded his successor whose goal was not to be a destroyer but a creator.
He set the anarchy in motion and died when the need for said anarchy was over. He recognized he wasn't doing the "RIGHT" thing, but the necessary thing in his own deranged bonkers way.
Ethan Wood
>He doesnt know about Anarcho-Capitalism
Elijah Martin
you can look back even further with the cold war. We helped the Mujaheddin, but weren't around to help rebuild afterward and out of that the Taliban was birthed.
Jose Brooks
Be that as it may, you can't deny it's pretty irresponsible of V for him to create such a power vacuum.
Who's to say that after Adam Susan was killed, someone worse woudn't take his place.
You need a military coup (to enforce law and order during the transition) who is backing a democratically minded politician, and then have open elections as soon as possible.
Alexander Cooper
power vacuums and leaving weapons and other military stuff was the literal reasons the US ended helping creating ISIS, pick your poison
foxnews.com
thefiscaltimes.com
Nolan Scott
Middle east was always a mess,
Eli Ramirez
They gave him superpowers and burnt his crotch off. What did they expect?
Was it nuclear? Even a limited nuclear exchange should have caused much worse problems than we were ever shown.
Also if there's enough of a country to survive with basic infrastructure intact, then the people absolutely should have the right to choose the form of their government. The fact there's been a war is irrelevant.
Yeah, he was more like the fulfillment of Arthurianism/Sebastianism. Kings under the mountain and all that shit; everybody looks forward to the glorious revolution, but when it comes its ugly as hell and you kind of forget which side you wanted to be right.
Lincoln Sanders
Anarchy is an ideal that most modern anarchists don't believe is actually possible. Ideally, the outcome would be the people governing themselves and society being built in such a way that no one would even imagine doing something contrary to the interests of the community.
AnCaps are the ones that want what you describe.
Brody Bennett
pretty sure it was nuclear, i wanna say i read somewhere Moore confirmed it and said he hadn't done enough research cause England wouldn't have actually survived.
Aaron Sullivan
>and then have open elections
Just do recruitment you faggot. It works better.
Just remember to discriminate, and don't let people hold their positions until its a norm to behave like a sane person.
Camden Nelson
On the foreword for the paperback:
>There is a certain amount of political inexperience upon my part evident in these early episodes. Back in 1981 the term "nuclear winter" had not passed into common currency, and although my guess about climatic upheaval came pretty close to the eventual truth of the situation, the fact remains that the story to hand suggests that a nuclear war, even a limited one, might be survivable. To the best of my current knowledge, this is not the case.
Cameron Russell
Ancaps are the corporatists, anarchists are either edgy punks or people who want to do a reset on society.
Jose Martinez
Yeah, I know that Anarcho-Capitalism is not what most people mean under the name of anarchism, but I always seen it as inevitable consequence of getting rid of any leadership.
Thanks for explanation
Colton Adams
>literal unfunny meme
Sure kid, wonder what is unfunnier of both, anarcho-communism or that meme, love that Dapperton was literally begging for money not so long ago because how literally broke he is thinking He could pull a Stefan ONE DOLLAR Memelux
Jason Bell
Iraq didn't stabilize because we basically left after dethroning Saddam; which in hindsight was a pretty obvious result as it was really just a skirmish for resources and pleasing big businesses than actually freeing a people from dictatorship (which is perfectly justified despite what Sup Forumstards will tell you).
In this case, V basically did just that - overthrew a corrupt government without plans to form or stabilize a new one. That being said, a single anarchist doing such is a lot different than an entire global superpower. Still a mary sue, tho.
Liam Diaz
Should clarify, freeing people from dictatorship is justified, not the preceding part of the statement.
Andrew Brooks
>>Anarchists like Alan Moore are pretty naive when it comes to the afterthoughts of their revolution.
Confirmed for not getting the point, go watch his interviews on V, he expressly states that England has a tradition of confusing its villains and heroes. Chapter 1 is literally titled The Villain for that very reason.
The entire point was contrasting how V and Susan come off as heroes in times of fear and desperation, but after they've had their way it becomes apparent they're detached extremists with a sinister manipulative hand behind their seeming gestures of selflessness.
Both make it abundantly clear no matter the lengths they go they do not see themselves as in the wrong compared to their opposition, and believe people need their absolute order or upheaval with little regard for the consequences.
V comes out less sullied because like Evey we're given an idea about him and his actions stemming from being a victim, but that does not make him innocent or good.
Connor Garcia
>go watch his interviews on V
And just so there's no excuse to sidestep, here's some spoonfeeding
youtu.be
The interviewer like most people takes great lengths to conflate Alan's views for blind indulgence.