this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
431 points (99.8% liked)

Memes of Production

359 readers
1029 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 6 days ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Virus implies we are invasive. We are born from and part of nature. Humans are more like cancer. We are growing too rapidly and killing the host.

[–] Semester3383@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That's an easy thing to say, but not really accurate. Even without capitalism, we've wiped out entire animal populations. We're just doing it a lot faster now. Even if we were fully socialist, and there was no profit being made for anyone, our own humanity would be destroying the ecosystem; strip mining would still happen under perfect communism (e.g., not authoritarian states).

Capitalism and communism both need to same resources, they're just distributed different.

[–] magickrock@sopuli.xyz 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Capitalism and communism both need to same resources, they’re just distributed different.

I'm really not convinced by this. I'm not going to try and make an argument for communism. But the idea the amount of consumption under capitalism would be the same as under alternative economic systems is just absurd. The amount of waste created by planned obsolescence, fashion (fast and otherwise), consumption from status anxiety, the things people buy to cope with long working weeks and commutes. In addition to this the extra damage caused by the billionaires and mega rich.

We would still need access to the same types of resources under alternative economic systems. But there is so much waste created by things which are exclusive to capitalism.

I like you critical thinking going on. To me it is simply the number of people, pure and simple. If there was 10 people on the planet it would be a lot harder for any long term consequences to show up. Unfortunately all the modern systems support an ever expanding population base (for stupid reasons imho). We need a system that doesn't have this feature. Despite capitalism's benefits, it's tied to exhaustion. Problem I see, how could the breeding ever be overcome within the system? I've got nothing. I'm sure natural processes will take the system off line if it doesn't line up with some fundamentals.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

This post: How do invasive species overtax an ecosystem? Capitalism. List of the worst offenders.

[–] mudkip 1 points 15 hours ago

Removed by Moderator –– Modlog

[–] JamBandFan1996@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is capitalism but the problem is also people that are unwilling to change their lifestyle

So the people unwilling to let go of glutinous life styles is the real issue? Person living in the woods with a simple lifestyle ok but Taylor and her plane no good?

[–] LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The vast majority of self-proclaimed leftists I met still eat animals.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

As a vegetarian I feel like this is purity testing. It's easy for me to not eat meat but some of them seem really weirdly attached to it.

Unilateral sacrifices are fine when it's easy, but a lot has to change and it can exhaust you. If they've only got the mental energy for one, then I'll accept their help with systemic change. Even a slightly better economy would internalize the cost of eating meat.

[–] LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

As a vegetarian you still pay for animals to be murdered for your personal enjoyment. Every laying hen whose eggs you eat had a brother who best case was shredded alive soon after hatching, or kept around for a few weeks to be murdered for his flesh. Laying hens are murdered once they age out of peak egg productivity to be sold as cheap meat. Cows and their male counterparts suffer similar fates.

My point is that yes, even most well-intentioned communist humans indeed are a plague, and the planet would be better of without us.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That is literally eco-fascist rhetoric.

[–] LuigiMaoFrance@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago

"Fascism is when animals aren't put through a lifetime of torture for no reason"

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago

Sounds delicious.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We are perfectly capable of sustaining a clean and balanced environment. We probably will, eventually. The question is: how much damage and pain will we cause before we decide to?

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We probably will, eventually

My old boss told me one time (I’m translating from corporate speak) that it’s 100% totally okay to personally inflict any amount of environmental damage that benefits us in the short term, because the solutions to climate change are on the way. Like it’s a totally forgone conclusion that the bright minds working on these problems will solve them. Always have, always will.

You and I and every sane person agrees minimizing the damage is best either way. It just reminded me of that convo lol. Bro was using the “confidence in human ingenuity” as a blank check excuse to actively cause the damage that will need to be undone. Absolutely insufferable. If it were 100% confirmed there were no way for us to survive what’s coming he’d still run the business the same way just with a different convenient excuse

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

"Well what does it matter that the oceans are all lava now, and will tsunami every livable inch of land, killing all life on earth? We can still harm the planet today. Won't batter next week when we're all ash!"

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 3 points 15 hours ago

Was going to mention the Aral Sea

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that when robots become autonomous, they can be used to promote healthier ecosystems. Forestry robots can plant new generations of flora, using GPS to identify rain patterns alongside soil erosion records, then plant the right types of things for a given location to improve the ecosystem's success.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I think that going "future solutions will fix this problem, don't think about it now" like you are is a huge part of the problem.

Don't think big picture, do actions, now.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It has to be both IMHO. We need to stop the bleeding, and also plan to heal. Re-introducing beavers by airdrop was once a futuristic solution too.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago

Oh you're certainly right, but "I think once the future happens" is just silly, it's the same logic religious nuts have of "once the rapture happens" it breeds inaction and stagnation.

[–] pilferjinx@piefed.social 16 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Wouldn't we need to exploit our planet for material for a growing population regardless of our species economic system? It's more of an issue of degree, no?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Education and quality of life improvements lower birth-rates. We have enough resources and the logistical means to ensure all peoples have access to high quality of life. We choose to deny this based on a capitalist profit seeking model, where we over allocate resources to the most wealthy and strip them from the least.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

Think about how much shit is wasted on the daily, and then think about if we just didn't do that. Tons of shit nobody wants is manufactured and destined for landfills for no reason other than to make a few billionaires some pocket change. Now think about all the plastic fucking packaging.

We could be doing shit in a sustainable manner. But no, capitalism.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Some exploitation is necessary, in the same way a bison exploits the grass.

But different economic systems can generate vastly different levels of environmental destruction. For example, our system encourages planned obsolescence, fast fashion, and overall disposable goods. There are countless materials we don't recycle simply because it's not profitable to do so. You can build a system on a more circular economy, where new raw materials are only harvested if recycling can't provide.

It's the deliberate choice to use processes over more sustainable options, like using gas and coal instead of cleaner solutions like nuclear. Other examples would be outsourcing processes that we could do cleanly to the 3rd world because it's cheaper.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›