this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2026
614 points (100.0% liked)

Memes of Production

1271 readers
1250 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 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 41 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

The main issue with capitalism as it stands now, is the refusal to let things fail.

"Too big to fail" just means "too big", the company should never have been allowed to get so large.

I want successful companies to last for a maximum of 30 years, then die off so new people can create new companies and build innovation.

Companies should also not be allowed to buy eachother.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 41 points 3 weeks ago (24 children)

I would argue that the main issue with capitalism as it stands now, is capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't make innovation, it stops people from pursuing innovation to focus on profitability. How many people could be contributing to the world, but are stuck struggling to generate revenue for some business so they can have their basic life needs met.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As Marx pointed out, capitalism is inherently destructive, in an ever-repeating cycle of destroying and recreating its own society for profit.

On one hand, this is good, insofar as it allows extremely rapid progress in pre-modern societies that have never heard of wireless communication. The old feudal ways are churned up and spat out; the old mercantilist ways are churned up and spat out; even previous capitalist ways are churned up and spat out. At the end of it, you do have a shiny new set of institutions that are better suited to current conditions than existed before. Capitalism prioritizes profitability over innovation; but profitability is still better by-proxy for innovation than valuing stagnation itself, as aristocracies do.

On the other, much more obvious hand to us, this is, uh, bad, on account of the process of destroying our society, and the cost of constantly recreating it. I think churning up some 2000 years of feudal privilege, which had resisted numerous previous movements and revolutions, is a... good run. It did its job, now it's time to make sure it doesn't overstay its welcome any more than it already has. Which it has, probably by about [checks notes] 108 years, say?

It's time to take the system and its diminished returns to actual human wellbeing behind the shed before the net balance goes entirely negative.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you know what society has had the greatest leap forward ever? Ill give you a hint, its not a capitalistic one.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

... bruh I run a fucking comm called tankiejerk, I assure you, I am well fucking aware of the faults and flaws of the bureaucratic despotisms of China and the Soviet Union.

When I say it is destructive - and I thought I had pointed this out with unnecessary directness considering the leftist fucking comm we're in, but apparently it was still too subtle for some guests/passers-by who fail to read the sidebar - I mean that it is destructive inherently, as a system, it has no deeper goal. Tyrants and despots throughout history have destroyed, typically for their delusional dreams or petty self-satisfaction. Capitalism, as a system, is oriented around constantly retooling, not just materially, but also organizationally.

Traditionally, societies entrench themselves in their ways of behaving once it's established to be effective enough to survive. Capitalism, as an economic system, upends that because the transfer of power - through currency, which is not traditionally the main conduit of power - becomes extremely rapid and fluid. This means that more efficient solutions are, on a civilizational timescale, very quickly adopted in matters of internal and economic dispute, not just military advancements.

This also means, however, that capitalism is constantly building and rebuilding its own structures; seen in its most grotesque (but arguably not necessary) form as consumerism - this year's model is out of date in a year's time, even though it will function for another ten. Capitalism destroys the old, inefficient system, and replaces it immediately with a newer, more efficient system (or else pisses the money away, since failures are inevitable and capitalism is not a thinking system, it is a self-perpetuating system; "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" and all that).

Capitalism, thus, incurs massive material costs for its increased efficiency of designs - billions of tons of steel are created and then discarded because the rapidly advancing nature of capitalism makes it more cost-effective, under current conditions, to immediately move on to the production of the next, 4% more productive model to stay competitive in the market.

Furthermore, it incurs social costs in that, especially since the period of heightened labor mobility since the 1950s, it freely breaks up traditional social groupings by offering economic incentives for labor to relocate where it is economically needed, not necessarily where it is most useful to general society. Again, this is both good and bad - good when you need traditional social groupings broken up, bad when it's been picking up pace for two centuries now and counting, and we're questioning our ability to create social groupings faster than they're broken up.

Capitalism is destructive, as a system, not as a matter of decisions made or tyrannies enabled, but by its very nature, and this is both good and bad. We are fast approaching, with the efficiency capitalism has lent us, to the point where the bad may overwhelm the good - we are looking at industrial scale production creating shortages of raw material, excesses of pollution, and a rapidly changing climate that threatens economic and ecological devastation.

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I want successful companies to last for a maximum of 30 years, then die off

If a company builds a surplus of useful capital and becomes so entrenched in the economy that it functions as a utility, I don't want it to fail.

I want it unionized, organized into a national planned economy, and regulated to maximize utility divided by cost.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

The main issue with capitalism as it stands now, is the refusal to let things fail.

The issue is much, MUCH broader than that.

Capitalism is not a 'rational' system, it doesn't seek even self-preservation. Capitalism is a self-feeding fever. And when you need to burn out a few thousand years of entrenched aristocracies, that's not so bad. But when your temperature is 106 and still rising, you should be looking at how to fucking stop it.

Even if governments regulated capitalism in such a way as to allow perfect competition, the result of that would be that capitalist institutions would become more adept at their individual tasks without regard for the actual wellbeing of society. Shit, man, letting things fail doesn't mean Google (which isn't even 30 years old, for example) is felled and the people are free, it just means the next search engine giant is even better at tracking us and selling our data. "Perfecting" capitalism in this sense would not mean a necessary increase in our society's wellbeing, only an increase in the efficiency of institutions which are already not-always net-positive.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago

How about we give power to workers to decide how the economy is run. Maybe we can call it socialism? Almost like if society runs the economy it would be better than two or three people running it.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I think the main problem is the private ownership of the means of production.

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I want successful companies to last for a maximum of 30 years, then die off

Feels too extreme to me, forcing change on customers as the companies they buy goods or services from cycle out feels unnecessary. Companies existing for a long time should be fine if they don't pursue endless growth.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, I was a bit on the fence on this when I wrote it....

It is a hard balance to strike.

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is that the Chelsea Manning?

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

God I feel stupid.

"She looks super familiar."

(Doesn't bother to read the name).

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Dunno about most, but even if you assume only a good 20% of issues would be solved by removing capitalism...

... fuck, how massive would that be? Not just in the amount of problems we no longer have to fucking deal with, but also in the resources we can reallocate to the remaining issues.

Forget that fucking "We have a 50% increase in pollution because of a 7% budget shortfall" penny-wise and pound-foolish bullshit forced on us by a capitalist system. Many problems not directly caused by capitalism also have known solutions; only misallocation of the massive resources generated by modernity prevents their implementation.

And if new problems arise, in total or in implementation? Then we'll deal with those as they come. Nothing ever improved by fretting about how things might get worse if you take the leap. Serfdom wasn't abolished by timidity, but by the growth and exercise of power on the part of the people. We can't listen to feudal lords pleading that freedom from serfdom could be even worse than a subsistence level existence under terms of near-literal slavery to abusive, unchecked authority. We have to take a step forward, even with all the 'what if's and 'how about's.

... of course, insofar as we can think of, consider, and plan for any potential new problems, we absolutely should. Just that fear of the unknown shouldn't stop us.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It honestly amazes me that that account is still posting given how often they get ratioed

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

A testament to the lie of Liberal Meritocracy is Dennis Praeger floating to the top of the punch bowl for thirty years.

[–] RanryuuRain@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Capitalism is a tool, and if you use the tool wrong it will hurt you. Unfortunately we seem to be worshipping the tool and declaring any other tool as dangerous.

"Wow this knife is really sharp and cuts great, imagine how well it will cut if there was no handle, only blade!"

And of course capitalism should not have a place at all where demand is largely inelastic. That is to say, healthcare, mainly.

[–] msage@programming.dev 27 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Capitalism is a tool to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands.

There is no good version of it.

Trade can work without capital ownership.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Trade can work without capital ownership.

It's always staggering to see people who know absolutely fuck all about supply chains and trade flows point to the Bitcoin trading desk of JP Morgan and proclaim "if not for these brave souls, nothing good in your life would exist".

I'm not even strictly against capitalism. I still subscribe to the old school Marxist "stages of history" theory that says "okay at some point you kinda gotta". But then you see people living in a rancid stew of monopoly middle men proudly proclaiming "Best of All Possible Worlds!" and my eyes roll so hard they practically fall out of my head.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What a bullshit argument.

What do you believe capitalism is actually a "tool" for?

[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

A generous interpretation would be to focus production towards consumer demand independent of ideology.

Anybody thinking capitalism only has downsides for the people living under it is living in a fantasy world of their own making.

Any crticism of capitalism worth their salt will stop treating it like an evil force imposed by the few on the many and more like a way society organizes itself.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Hahahahaha, pathetic.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

Its a tool that hurts you just for knowing of its existence. Horrible analogy by the way.

[–] ReptilianCleric@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

A tool that is used for a purpose other than it was intended is useless.

Capitalism was built to exploit and repress the masses. Using it to accomplish something else will fail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] llama@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 weeks ago

Let me guess, the answer they were looking for is because young people reject pastoral expansion

The path to removing capitalism is likely to outlast us. But the steps towards it would help so much.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

Man for a second my brain was adding a NOT in there and I was getting pretty mad.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Probably because prager u is indoctrinating them into the Shitler youth

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

Because happy people with a bright future and obtainable goals are hard to control.

load more comments
view more: next ›