this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
553 points (99.5% liked)
Memes of Production
1109 readers
1303 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We can also just look at the reasons people today still live in densely populated cities, despite big drawbacks such as the cost of housing. Proximity to jobs, universities, recreation options, grocery stores, and more. It makes perfect sense that during COVID when much of these benefits were essentially eliminated due to lockdowns, that the negatives began to outweigh the positives for many people, and so they moved away.
I don't know exactly what your idea of an anarchist utopia looks like, but if it still involves things like universities, a wide variety of available jobs, various recreational activities, etc. then I don't see why the desire for people to live in cities would change?
Also, not really related to my main point, but still: Yes throughout history we generally lived in rural communities, but this was not due to desire but necessity. For most of history small areas simply could not sustain large numbers of people, not too mention the other problems like housing and disease. But once we worked out how to sustain ourselves, we started living in larger and larger groups. It just so happens that some of these problems were solved under capitalism.
You've not thought about this for very long, but almost instantly replied to me as if I'm trying to argue with you.
Why do people base their life upon work? Moving closer to where jobs are. This isn't a thing people do because they want to but because they need to. Because capitalism demands it.
Universities don't need proximity, as evidenced by the UK's largest and arguably most left wing university in the country. But again, people move close to them because of a sense of need, not want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University
Recreation, do rural people not have recreation? Many recreational centres being in cities is due to the centralisation of populations. It's perfectly viable to have recreational venues spread across an area when the chase of profit is no longer the driving goal.
Grocery stores, lol.
I'm not saying cities will disappear or that there will be no need for them. But there's certainly no need for countries like the UK to have over 10% of the population within one city and over 80% of the entire population living in urban environments. It results in misery, mass pollution, unsustainable practices as everything must be transported, and as you originally noted, issues with enforcement of civility.
Cities will forever be a thing in human society I'm sure, but current cities are an abomination due to the constant centralisation of power and wealth. Never before has human civilisation been so centralised into so few places and it has created a myriad of problems. It's time for a change on our perspectives beyond the constant chase of wealth, there's plenty to go around if it weren't hoarded by a select few as our current system enables.
I posted about my doubts about a concept due to scalability. Was your response to that not an argument for why scalability need not be a concern? Maybe I misunderstood it.
Also, your condescension is unnecessary. You don't know how long I've been thinking about something.
In what way does capitalism require moving close to your job? The line between want and need in these situations is very thin. They need to work, and they want to not spend much of their day commuting. If they didn't have to work at all they might prefer to live elsewhere, but in a world where they do have to work, they would rather live closer to work. Though afaik abolishing capitalism does not mean abolishing the need to work (though it would greatly reduce the amount of work)
For universities and recreation you seem to be saying it is not necessary to live in a city to access, which I agree with, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that people still do live in cities because they want to live closer to university, or they want to have access to a wide variety of recreational activities. Even without a profit motive, having a large number of people nearby is a good reason to build recreational centres, and having access to a wide range of recreational activities is still a good motivation to live in a place. On top of this, many dense population centres are around natural sources of recreation which cannot be simply built elsewhere, like beaches, mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.
You don't have to convince me that cities as they exist now are generally terrible, I totally agree with you. But evidently a huge number of people still think it is worth living in cities, and if cities/ high population centres in general still exist even without capitalism, then the scalability of a system is still very much a valid concern, no?
Ya. Some of the problems we encounter are a result of civilization and not just capitalism. Not that the effects of either are to be diminished.