There is an alternate timeline where the animal crossing town is run by a tankie tanuki.>>447>The only conclusion I've been able to come to is that the developers themselves are a bit confused about who Tom Nook really is.
Ultimately, Tom Nook is a great example of false consciousness. He is the idealized version of a capitalist, and what most capitalists imagine themselves to be. At least in the more recent games. Originally he was much more predatory, basically tricking the player into becoming an indentured servant.
>What is bunkerchan's opinion of Tom Nook from Animal Crossing?
I've seen a lot of leftist argue that he deserves the bullet because he's a property owner,
Owning property in itself isn't the problem. It's that he traps people unwittingly in contracts where they have huge debt to pay off, and exploits this to make you labor for him (which only makes sense if he profits from it, i.e. selling what you sell him for still more).>but others have said that in the game he gives away more than he could ever turn a profit from.
That doesn't make mathematical sense. You can't give away more than you have.>Does this mean he gets a pass?
Fuck no. A billionaire who gives away all their earnings beyond what it takes to live is still exploiting people's labor by necessity. Nook's charity is irrelevant to the fact that he indebts people. In real life, the need for charity is generally a product of capitalism in the first place, and porky charity tends to be a mix of PR and an attempt to assuage feelings of guilt.
>The game doesn't really valorize his actions, either. He's a tanooki, and in Japanese folklore they are seen as tricksters by nature. In this way, he exists more as an anthropomorphized analog for the duplicity of the capitalist.
In the first game he was pretty directly portrayed as predatory IIRC. He lured people to the woods where he would put them into debt bondage, and his shop was a run down, ratty piece of shit. He was kind of the epitome of a slum lord or entrepreneur clawing his way up from the bottom.>Yet despite this, he also isn't as harsh as a modern capitalist might be. He doesn't tack on interest, have a set-in-stone timeline when you're supposed to pay him back, and won't ever repossess your home if you refuse to pay him. In this way, he represents more of the fantastical benevolent capitalist that Americans idealize.
Right. Even when he's being portrayed as crooked and predatory he's still much less evil than a capitalist in reality necessarily is. This is because it's a video game and doesn't have to obey any real economic laws of motion.
>I personally think Isabelle should be given critical support and usurp power from him at some point in time so that she could implement communal type measures after Nook industrializes the island using your labor, but it's almost as if the game is trying to say that Tom Nook is a necessary evil to get to modern communal living.
Marx would agree that capitalism is necessary to get to communism. I wouldn't say it's necessary
, although I would concede it builds productive forces faster. It's also insanely risky because of ecological consequences, but that's a whole other topic. I tend to think the risks and costs outweigh the benefits tbh.
Isabelle is also a whole other topic, but in a nutshell she's the equivalent of Tom Nook but for a government worker. She's the cute animal version of Leslie Knope from Parks & Rec.