You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Stalin and communism are different things
Removed by mod
Yea, but the meme implies those are the two options.
Not really. It implies that people conflate the two being knowingly intellectually dishonest.
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.
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.
If we change anything, Stalin will personally come and steal your toothbrush.
Removed by mod
We want to abolish private property. Often, this freaks liberals out because they think it means we want everyone to live in a hive or something.
Not a fan of capitalism, but enough with the tankie garbage
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.
I’m not pro-russia
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
No, that’s still just being leftist. Tankie shit is “kill all who disagree with the revolution”.
Do you even know what Tankie means, or do you just like throwing around useless labels?
Removed by mod
Ah yes, I remember the USSR being known for being very environmentally friendly
“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.
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
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.
Having grown up in a post communist country
The only cheerleaders for communism are people who have never lived under it.
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. Die mad about it; I have no reason to want to see your systems perpetuate, and I strongly doubt you could formulate any.
North Korea is available to you.
How many people has capitalism killed?
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.
Including social murder? Several billions.
Billions.
Billions.
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
communismcapitalism”? 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.
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.
Ah, we’ve had a misunderstanding, my dude. Nevermind me
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.
Russia is a capitalist oligopoly tho?
They were pumping that gas way before modern Russia.
deleted by creator
Right, because they obviously had no use for it internally. Some of you are really desperate to be ignorant. Lol
As you are writing this comment, is Russia is a communist country?
Regulating capitalism entails limiting capitalist ideology. It’s simple.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of what china produces goes to exports.
A planned economy is a regulated system.
Capitalism led to a deregulated capitalism, which is mostly under the oversight of capitalists, not by politicians or public interests. I want capitalism to become better regulated again, especially advertising. Do you believe that can happen? I don’t really know.
All am I saying is that under a planned economy, capitalists cannot advertise for products and target the reward systems of the brains of consumers which work short term, not long term.
Production should happen in a regulated system that benefits people on the long term. The production of sodas and taco bells are not in the same priority system compared to maintaining roads, to produce a steady food supply or have healthcare, teachers and a military. Supply and demand requires that you cannot mix everything when it comes to public interests. That’s why planned economies are much much “agile” in a war economy like what the climate is causing.
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.
Drinking water doesn’t CAUSE inequality, poverty and climate change. Capitalism does.
Whether or not the answer is socialism, capitalism is the problem.
What’s your proof? Can you point me to a society that is 100% functional under socialism and never has these issues?
Leading question, I know, but the reason there’s not more support for this idea is that it’s hard to prove.
Me: capitalism is inherently flawed and will inevitably cause poverty. I don’t know if socialism is the answer but capitalism is the problem.
You: demands proof of perfect socialist society
Take these ideas and use your own brain to imagine the results.
Capitalism: rewards you for being selfish.
Socialism: rewards you for being alive.
Which one do you think is going to incentivise asshole behaviour? And which one do you think will end up being marked by such behaviour?
Capitalism causes poverty?
History would suggest otherwise.
It really wouldn’t, no. Capitalism inevitably leads to resource hoarding, which leads to resource scarcity aka poverty.
The life of the average person post capitalism is hundreds of times better than before it existed. Being poor now is infinitely better than being middle class 600 years ago.
Capitalism has allowed people more freedom than ever before, because of capatilism it is more possible for the average person to take risks in new ventures without the help and approval of their lord’s. Capatilism has continuously lifted people out of poverty, my family included.
Capatilism is a meritocracy, but even the most incompetent person is better off today than before it’s existence. Yet those who are successful and driven are given a chance to elevate their quality of life that were unfathomable to people before. It’s what my parents did, and what I watched many other people do.
Edit: typos
The life of the average person post capitalism is hundreds of times better than before it existed. Being poor now is infinitely better than being middle class 600 years ago.
You’re confusing capitalism with science/innovation. It’s a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless.
Capitalism has allowed people more freed than ever before
Awful grammar aside, the opposite is true: capitalism has been the main driver of enslavement, both literally and figuratively.
because of capatilism it is more possible for the average person to take risks
No, because of capitalism, BEING the average person rather than a rich person carries a sharply increased risk of premature death
new ventures without the help and approval of their lord’s.
Not true. The Lords aren’t the literal landed gentry anymore, but the economic elite and the politicians they buy control the lives of regular people even more now than feudal lords did in the middle ages. They just have a bunch of multimillionaires telling people otherwise.
Capatilism has continuously lifted people out of poverty, my family included.
Capitalism has impoverished many times more people than it has enriched. Capitalism didn’t lift you up, another aspect of society did, such as a social safety net, innovation, neighbours who care etc etc. All things that exist without capitalism.
Capatilism is a meritocracy
🤯 Ok, I’m out. I was having fun picking apart your silly misgivings, but that’s just too delusional. If you can claim THAT with a straight face, there’s definitely not enough hope for you in the short term for you to be worth any more of my time and effort. 🤦
deleted by creator
Let’s use China as an example.
In 1990, there were 750 million people in poverty. Then the pro-market reforms kicked in, and in 2016 the number of people in poverty has fallen to 7 million.
Let’s use China as an example.
As a general rule, let’s not. Their government is a mess of conflicting elements and as such, it’s not a good example of anything
And I’m pretty sure you’re using the statistics that says you’re not poor if your income is above $1.50/day, which is as low a bar as calling someone a model of honesty for lying less than Donald Trump 🙄
Markets not= capitalism. Try again.
Do you think China is still a communist country?
Of course not. Do you think they’re capitalist?
“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.”
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.
Nothing is free.
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.
Ah, so the current system where we privatize profits and socialize losses
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.
Am I reading you right, that full tilt, unashamed crony capitalism is good for the environment?
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.
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.
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.
