Gotcha, very cool!

Funny meme, never got why they used a bias instead of two’s complement for the exponent though

They’re calling it the falsest dichotomy of all time

By not voting you explicitly stated you’re fine with exactly what we have now.

The point is to organize outside of the system to be able to force change, because time and time again working within the system has been shown to do jack shit.

And Harris would have been infinitely better than Trump for Palestinians.

Yeah no, she has repeatedly expressed support for Israel.

Everyone knows that the way to defeat fascism is by voting it out of power. That’s exactly how mussolini and hitler were defeated, right? Get real. This “lesser-evil” style of voting will take us down the road to fascism no matter what.

And why don’t people want to participate in voting? Could it be that they feel like their vote doesn’t matter for some reason? Tell me, who should I have voted in 2024 if I’m pro-palestine?

If someone like waffles, does that mean they must hate pancakes?

Finally, Video Game 2 on Game Console is coming out!

Won’t someone think of the landlords? They’re the real heroes who run society, without them no one would have a place to live! /s

Yes, you can say that “capitalism is driven by a desire to produce as many goods and services as possible without much regard to its consequences.” But the same could be said for any economic or political system.

Except it literally can’t, given that socialism and communism are trying to abollish commodity production. All the examples you give after this are about people trying to obtain wealth, which is kind of capitalism’s whole thing. The USSR was in the very earliest stages of socialism, and still had many problems given that it was created then immediately went through a civil war, went through WW2, and went through the Cold War. Yet it still achieved some of the fastest quality of life improvements of any civilization in recorded history, because obtaining individual wealth was no longer the primary focus of the economy.

You do have a point about China and its renewable production, but remember it was capitalist economies that did the decades worth of preceding work on renewables before China really ramped up manufacturing.

Take a second to think about why said capitalist countries have not implemented the results of their own work, then. Could it be that it’s not as profitable to anyone who has a stake in the Oil/traditional energy industries?

China is doing all of that renewable rollout through capitalist enterprises, rather than through some centrally planned system.

Except they are doing it through a centrally planned system, to an extent. The communist party is the one who implemented the conservation policies and paid the subsidies to make this happen.

Humans, regardless of the economic system, have proven talented at exploiting resources beyond their sustainable level. Most of what gets lazily ascribed to capitalism this way is just human nature.

Once again, read a psychology or sociology textbook please. Humans are influenced by their environment and society, not all human behavior is some innate thing.

And how do you propose they do that, since it’s so simple?

There is actually plenty of reason to suspect our environmental destructivity is a function of capitalism, given that capitalism is driven by a desire to produce as many goods and services as possible without much regard to its consequences. The two prehistoric examples you gave don’t really make much sense anymore, given that we now possess significantly more knowledge about how our actions affect the environment, as well as the tools to alter the environment in general. The Soviets destroyed the Aral Sea because they were in need of cotton, but this doesn’t really have much to do with what economic system the soviet union used, just that they were a country that made mistakes. Simply put, capitalism actively incentivizes the destruction of the environment while socialism does not. The People’s Republic of China is the world leader in renewable energy production, has significantly increased its forest coverage, and its CO2 emissions have already peaked.

A better question for the last example you gave might be, would a worker-owned co-op, with the interests of its workers in mind, want to tear down a rainforest to the same degree as a regular company? Or would they deforest at a more responsible level, planting replacement trees in order to guarantee a stable resource and not destroy the environment the workers live in (assuming the workers are owning a co-op in their own rainforest)?

I don’t necessarily disagree with your claim. What I’m trying to say is that those in power have a disproportionate impact on society, which trivializes the impacts of other individuals and groups. If I decide that the color red should be banned because it’s ugly, the most I can do is rant about it on the internet, try to convince other people, or send letters to government officials who may not even read it. If a billionaire decides that the color red is ugly, they can ban it from their companies, pump out massive amounts of propaganda to support their opinion, and lobby for politicians who will write laws to ban the color red.

Uh, yeah? that doesn’t disagree with what I’m saying. Naturally, as different people and groups came to power through the actions and decisions you mentioned, they acted in their own self-interest. Around late 19th/early 20th centuries, the property-owning class (the Bourgeoisie) started gaining power and the Aristocratic class started losing power, particularly due to the increasing importance of capital and industry in a country’s economy. Eventually, the Bourgeoisie overthrew the Aristocracy in many countries, and began developing and enforcing the ideas that worked the best for their interests, which we know today as capitalism. As for your belief that capitalism evolved from ancient barter systems, here’s the result from a very basic internet search:

The concept that humanity evolved from a pure barter economy to a monetary one is widely considered a myth by anthropologists and economic historians. Adam Smith popularized this narrative in The Wealth of Nations (1776), arguing that money emerged to solve the inefficiencies of barter, such as the “double coincidence of wants.” However, there is no historical or ethnographic evidence that any society relied exclusively on barter as its primary mode of exchange.

Instead of barter, early societies operated on credit, debt, and gift economies. In these systems, resources were distributed through social trust and communal obligations rather than direct, simultaneous swapping of goods. For example, if a baker needed meat, he would receive it from a butcher based on social expectation, with the debt settled later through various means, not an immediate trade of bagels for steaks.

Barter did exist, but it was not the precursor to money. It typically occurred between strangers or enemies who lacked the social trust required for credit, or as a temporary substitute for currency in times of crisis (e.g., post-Roman Europe or modern economic collapses). The “barter myth” persists largely because it serves as a simplified thought experiment in economics textbooks to illustrate market efficiency, not because it reflects historical reality.

A basic course in psychology would tell you that’s not how human nature works. “We” (those in power) “picked” (enforced) capitalism because it is the system that benefits them the most.

And what happens when the elections are not-so-subtly influenced by corporate lobbyists and whoever has more money to spend on campaigning?

Well… what the past hundreds of years of capitalism has shown us is that it has many faults in practice and is causing the destruction of the environment, no? You can have the greatest, most amazing idea in the world, but if it sucks in implementation it’s not a good idea. You may be on the right track though, I would recommend you watch some videos by the youtube channel Second Thought on socialism

This looks like it was made for 60 year olds on facebook

Yes, greedy thinking is the only thinking that creates societal progress, that’s the reason why civilization only was created when capitalism was invented, no one has ever shared anything, and the USSR never become a superpower.

What are you talking about? Humans have existed for thousands of years before capitalism, and we will exist for thousands of years after it.

The guy you’re replying to isn’t Enkrod

Socialism and Communism != USSR/Warsaw Pact countries btw