270
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago

Not a fan of capitalism, but enough with the tankie garbage

[-] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago

Do you even know what Tankie means, or do you just like throwing around useless labels?

[-] hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

I'm not pro-russia

[-] Zyansheep@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This is pretty standard left wing stuff, tankie garbage would be like: "we need to create a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent climate change"

Edit: well maybe it might be a little bit tankie from the last bit

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 points 2 years ago

You can be against reflexive non-sequitor defenses of capitalism without being a tankie. The last panel could have been "no, because the free market always corrects itself" and the meaning would have been the same.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

If the options are Stalin or capitalism, then capitalism would be a clear winner even if it's shit because Stalin and his ideology still has the 2 issues from the first panel but on top of that he would execute anyone with an actual good system.

[-] hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Stalin and communism are different things

[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Yea, but the meme implies those are the two options.

[-] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago

Not really. It implies that people conflate the two being knowingly intellectually dishonest.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Well, there are like a million options beside capitalism so if it references Stalin I'm assuming it's implying the alternative is the weird authoritarian ideology Stalin made that tankies want.

Another interpretation I can think of would be socialism but Stalin isn't linked with socialism much here in eastern europe. Could be this works better in the US since they have some weirdness with conflating Stalin, communism, authoritarianism and socialism but I don't have those cultural impacts so I don't get it.

Best memes are the ones that require an explanation.

[-] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

To the American right wing, all of the positions to the left of Trump are basically communism. There's not much distinction there.

That's the position the comic is satirizing.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago

If we change anything, Stalin will personally come and steal your toothbrush.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

Ah yes, I remember the USSR being known for being very environmentally friendly

[-] Miczech@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago

This is naive. Having grown up in a post communist country I know better than to fall for empty propaganda. You don't know what you're asking for calling out on communism as your saving grace. Communism didn't allow for any valie creation and the system was too rigid to respond to people's needs as economy was preplanned in 5 year intervals. Chronic shortages. Full employment was required by law but quality of life remained stagnant. Capitalism has its pitfalls too. The best outcome lays somewhere in the middle of the two

[-] hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'm not advocating for communism, and a political crisis of an authoritarian/totalitarian regime is a different problem from communism. Capitalism has a lot of problems, and I agree that there should be a better in-between to mitigate inequalities. Socialism is soluble in capitalism.

[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago

"Communism" does not describe any nation on Earth today, no matter what they choose to call themselves.

Most of the "communist" (and "capitalist") nations in the world are run by a small number of greedy, brutal assholes who have concentrated their entire nation's wealth into an elite 1%. NONE of them believe in anything beyond money.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 9 points 2 years ago

"Okay, let's say we were going to change some things...what did you have in mind?"

"I was thinking maybe you should give me lots of shit for free."

[-] skulblaka@kbin.social 17 points 2 years ago

I was thinking maybe we should stop giving the disgustingly rich lots of shit for free. But that's just me. If some of that free shit makes it into the hands of people that can use it, all the better.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 3 points 2 years ago

What free shit? You mean, we should stop letting them keep so much of their own shit? I mean, I'm okay with that, but it's got basically nothing to do with the presented problems. More people using more shit is not going to cool the globe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Ah, so the current system where we privatize profits and socialize losses

[-] yiliu@informis.land 4 points 2 years ago

As bad as it is in many ways, it's better for the environment. There's less actual consumption.

There's a certain strain of Leftism that sees that people are taking the climate crisis seriously, so they're like "Oh shit, it's my chance to make good! If you care about the environment, you gotta give me shit! Capitalism is bad for the environment, and the opposite of capitalism is money in my pocket, let's get going!"

It's purely self-serving.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

Am I reading you right, that full tilt, unashamed crony capitalism is good for the environment?

[-] yiliu@informis.land 2 points 2 years ago

As opposed to what?

Jesus Christ returning and establishing God's Kingdom on Earth? Yeah, capitalism is probably worse.

Compared to Soviet Communism? Way better.

When people say "we need to stop capitalism", do they mean add some new regulations? Or do they mean overthrowing society and replacing it with some as-yet-completely-nebulous leftist system? Cuz, like, I could get on board with the first one. But the second, or variations thereof, are downright ridiculous.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

As opposed to regulated capitalism, with social safety nets, privatized losses, public services and utilities, regulations, and real accountability for choices that get people hurt.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 4 points 2 years ago

I'm...not sure you're really in sync with a lot of the people here. I'm 100% in favor of all of that, which I would just call healthy capitalism.

I guess I'm reacting to other conversations I've had today. A lot of people with Mao banners and Che Guevara profile pics, calling for the total overthrow of capitalism.

If people are just talking about capitalism with accountability, hell, sign me up.

[-] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

How many people has capitalism killed?

[-] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Millions, easily.

British East India Company, one of the first publicly traded entities, commited a couple of genocides before Marx even shit his first nappie. So capitalism got a nice head start in.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 8 points 2 years ago

Including social murder? Several billions.

[-] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago
[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

That's kind of a bullshit question in that it's easy to bullshit your way out of any possible legitimate challenge. The implication in the question is, of course, that capitalism never killed anyone, or at least a tiny fraction of those killed by communists. So, before we go any further, can I get an agreement that we're not going to trot out the tired old "but that's not really ~~communism~~ capitalism"? Because if we're not going to allow that argument for communism just because it wasn't the idealized, utopian version of it, then we ought not let imperfect capitalism slide.

Mind you, I'm a believer in free markets where they exist, but I also believe that it's important to be able to be critical of the things you believe in.

[-] voidMainVoid@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

The implication in the question is, of course, that capitalism never killed anyone

LOL. That isn't what I was implying at all. I'm just saying that if you're going to trot out "Communism killed X number of people", then you should hold capitalism to the same standard. I've seen estimates that capitalism has killed orders of magnitude more people than communism.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Ah, we've had a misunderstanding, my dude. Nevermind me

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

When we drink water, we experience inequality, poverty, and climate change. Stop drinking water?

Not to be snarky, just never saw any good evidence full-socialism fixes these issues. I’m still okay with leaning in that basic direction, eg to support the homeless.

[-] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 years ago

Drinking water doesn't CAUSE inequality, poverty and climate change. Capitalism does.

Whether or not the answer is socialism, capitalism is the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Russia is a massive gas exporter. How is climate change a capitalist issue? At least we can report on it in the West without falling out a window.

[-] Zyansheep@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago

Russia is a capitalist oligopoly tho?

[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

They were pumping that gas way before modern Russia.

[-] hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

As you are writing this comment, is Russia is a communist country?

Regulating capitalism entails limiting capitalist ideology. It's simple.

[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

As you are writing this comment, did Russia only start pumping and burning fossil fuels? No, they've done so for decades, regardless of name change. Economic ideology has nothing to do with global warming. It's inherit with basic human activity in every country. Operate factories? Impact. Meat farms? Impact. Military activities? Impact.

It is amazing how many of you can't grasp this.

[-] hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

At least planned economies can centralize and organize how society reduces consumption and carbon, for example if the Chinese governments says "less car more bus", it happens very quickly and people don't complain like babies in a SUV like in western countries.

It's immensely more difficult to do with a capitalist country where advertising is everywhere because consumers are being sold a dream of infinite growth.

Economic ideology has nothing to do with global warming.

Yes it does. Liberal ideology and the push for competition without oversight generate a disorganized chaos where people fend for themselves, without regards for the common interest.

Democracy is short term system, Tocqueville talks about it. Democracy is all fine and dandy when you have abundant energy, but it becomes difficulty where you need to add physical constraints.

[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

the push for competition without oversight generate a disorganized chaos

And Communism doesn't have this very issue? Russia and China have done immense damage to the environment as well. Industrializing a nation does damage. Maybe you can mitigate it, but I don't believe a system involving humans would ever achieve it. Whatever basis you use to run things, it causes problems, because everyone wants progress.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
270 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

51589 readers
996 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS