• VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It really wouldn’t, no. Capitalism inevitably leads to resource hoarding, which leads to resource scarcity aka poverty.

  • yiliu@informis.land
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • yiliu@informis.land
        link
        fedilink
        Français
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year 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.

          • yiliu@informis.land
            link
            fedilink
            Français
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year 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
              link
              fedilink
              Français
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                Français
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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.

  • Miczech@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year 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

        • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’d sooner take my chances with communism before I trusted global crackery for shit else other than to crumble in an orgy of genocidal violence. Which, mind you, the latter is the system that the world is currently forced to live under.

    • hairinmybellybutt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      Français
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

    • EchoCT@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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.