this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
739 points (100.0% liked)

196

16552 readers
2024 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How is it this community has so many good fucking memes?!

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

You’re such a charmer, you probably say that to all the users.

This is legit the best meme community on Lemmy

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Capitalism will fall and a new system will come, either by design or by disaster

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

No. Disaster only allows capitalists to sell food for everything you have once there is no surplus of food anymore.

If you want something better, you better start now. And no, there won't be a revolution. But you can think of better policies and convince a majority.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism 2 electric boogaloo

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Sophie From Mars has a video specifically about this, highlighting pre-apocalyptic non-capitalism (commie-anarcho-pinko-socialist society) and post-apocalyptic non-capitalism, since eventually there will be too few people to set up trade lines.

If we do the latter, then the risk of human extinction in the next few centuries goes up, but Sophie explixitly doesn't talk about that

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is there a good reason to assume that what comes after the revolution is better than what there is right now? Asking for a friend

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the aughts I thought it was such an obvious thing to do to make a wiki meant to feature all national (and regional) constitutional documents, cross-translated, ideally, with a place to put in suppositional sections and clauses (like changing the US federal elections from FPTP and a two party system. How would we word that in the Constitution of the United States so that it was ironclad?)

I assumed someone would make this wiki somewhere, especially since there are ongoing regime changes, and we want to help those factions that side with the public to figure out what they want. Right?

Nope. Legal think tanks are usually formed by billionaires to circumvent or subvert public-serving law. In laywer culture, helping the public is regarded as an altruistic sacrifice or a sign you're not good enough to defend white-collar criminals.

I'd think some university might want to host a wiki like this, so they could get big donations to shut it down a year at a time.

That actually sounds like an awesome idea. You could probably get a vps and set up mediawiki to run it yourself. The problem would be hosting cost depending bandwidth usage.

[–] Twelve20two@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder this constantly, too

[–] DocCrankenstein@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Objectively looking at our system of economics and governance has proven to not take the interests and plights of the people seriously, and is routinely highjacked by special interests to further their wealth and power at the expense of the working class and global environment.

If no fundamental change is made then ...

millions will die.

And those in power will write it off as an acceptable cost of doing business. They already have.

That isn't a hypothetical. That is the reality of climate change on our current trajectory that our current systems fail to accept and do something about.

So to answer your question, there is no alternative people are trying to speak of. Our society is already crumbling and it is not salvageable.

So we have a choice not about alternatives, but on if ending it now would mitigate casualties as opposed to letting the train derail naturally.

At least if we willingly make effort to change we can have some control of the situation in favor of the working class or at least have solace we died on our feet than on our knees

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A revolution for one group is an apocalypse for another

[–] DocCrankenstein@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

And climate change is an apocalypse for all, which without revolution, we are on a crash course for.

[–] DocCrankenstein@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

And climate change is an apocalypse for all, which without revolution, we are on a crash course for.

[–] kugel7c@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

So if one group is large and the other small maybe it's worth it, especially if we keep the firing squads in the closet.

[–] ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

it needs to start in china or india since they polute the most

Sources

[–] mobius_slip@beehaw.org 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They pollute the most because we export our pollution to them. Everything you own is made in China because they have much lax labor and environmental regulations.

If we can stop large corporations from moving manufacturing overseas, we can maintain a much tighter control on pollution worldwide.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 1 year ago

Revolution that causes apocalypse.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I have made my decision a long time ago.