Overpopulation is a myth, and we only can’t feed and house the existing population because of capitalism, not because of lack of resources, exactly as the meme you’re responding to points out.
We are using far more resources as are regenerated. This is why the Earth overshoot Day is a thing. We are at almost 2x the resource usage that would be sustainable.
Lol ok, that’s still entirely down to and in service of capitalism, not some inevitability sent down from above or “human nature”, despite what they might have you believing… 🙄
Remember when restaurants set police up to protect their dumpsters containing perfectly good and edible foods? Or was that grocery stores? Probably both.
So of we just keep people poor… issue solved. Like someone in Africa or North Korea, they are not going to need more resources than what can be regenerated. Simply because they lack the means to do so.
If we assume a communism with the same level of technology, comfort, … how would we avoid the exact same issue? Why would people suddenly not drive their own car mostly alone? Heat their homes in winter, causing a big portion of global CO2 emissions by doing so?
So of we just keep people poor… issue solved. Like someone in Africa or North Korea, they are not going to need more resources than what can be regenerated. Simply because they lack the means to do so.
You’re missing the mark, here. I am specifically referring to things like fast-fashion, trinkets, new phones every year, and other goods pushed on consumers not for their convenience, but to satisfy Capitalists.
If we assume a communism with the same level of technology, comfort, … how would we avoid the exact same issue? Why would people suddenly not drive their own car mostly alone? Heat their homes in winter, causing a big portion of global CO2 emissions by doing so?
Socialism and Communism would be more focused on public transit and urbanized environments.
So you want to focus on some niche stuff? Leave out the stuff that would not change and currently causes most of the issues?
Why should this type of fashion, for example, even change in communism? People want to look different than others, better, prestige, blablabla many reasons that would not change.
I ask again, how would communism make us sustainable? I do not see it. Some niche stuff is replaced by something else in communism, not worth mentioning. A new phone every year is bad, but not the big problem. People drive 13’500 miles per year on average in the USA, burning 10’000 barrels daily or 1 billion m³ each year, 3 m³ per person each year. Add to that all the fuel for heating homes and making electricity. That is our big problem.
Look at where the CO2 comes from. Heating, electricity, transport and agriculture alone are more than 50 %. Compare that to aviation and shipping, next to nothing. Even an of industry is nothing compared to that. How much are these 4 things supposed to be reduced with communism? And why?
When you satisfy the needs of your population, have cheap birth control and good sexual education (which was given in almost all socialist countries) people will naturally have fewer children. In poor countries people have the most children.
Under capitalism, people in many rich countries are panicking because fewer and fewer working people have to feed more and more elderly, even though we have the resources to easily meet their needs. But profits have to keep rising, so the shrinking working population has to be more and more productive. The superexploited growing populations in the global south are what keeps this system alive, so overpopulation is even encouraged under capitalism.
These are hardly good examples of communism, just like how modern day U.S. is a pretty poor example of capitalism. A capitalistic society shouldn’t prop up failing businesses using money taken from the workers. A failing business should just fail, yet they’ve been “rescued” time and time again, at the detriment of the people who don’t see those funds and keep being exploited for their labour.
True communism hasn’t ever been implemented, and I wouldn’t look to dictators as examples for how to do it. Dictatorships are incompatible with the fundamental ideas behind communism.
As the name might imply, “communes” (of e.g. the hippie persuasion) could be truly communist. Possibly some indigenous tribes, kibbutzim, the Paris Commune, Fristaden Christiania in Copenhagen, and various other intentional communities might qualify, too.
There have absolutely been true and authentic attempts at building Communism, just via Socialism. Denouncing these Socialist states for not being able to yet achieve global Communism is anti-Marxist idealism.
I’m not arguing that the attempts haven’t been made, I’m saying that the end result, or status quo if you’d prefer, doesn’t align with intent. Intent isn’t irrelevant, but I don’t think it holds as much water as results.
Like @grue@lemmy.world said, communes have and do exist, and some form of communism has existed throughout history, and likely before it. The states we have today though don’t hold up to scrutiny.
The “end” result did align with the intent. The USSR, for example, never tried to jump straight to Communism. They were Marxists, they opted to go through Socialism.
Communism isn’t “doing Socialism for a while then collapsing into magical Communism arbitrarily.” It’s a long, drawn-out process of building towards Communism. Socialism wasn’t a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on previous conditions.
The states we have today have never identified their conditions as Communist, but as Socialist, with a stated goal of moving towards Communism.
Communes are Anarchist, not Marxist, so pretending only Communes have managed to accomplish what Marxist states set out to do is a drastic misunderstanding of Marxism, Communism, and Anarchism.
This is also greatly a misconception, redefining Communism to be anti-Marxist and pro-Anarchist is silly. Marxism is the largest and most historically relevent strain of Communist thought, denying that is pointlessly sectarian.
How does communism deal with overpopulation?
Overpopulation is a myth, and we only can’t feed and house the existing population because of capitalism, not because of lack of resources, exactly as the meme you’re responding to points out.
We are using far more resources as are regenerated. This is why the Earth overshoot Day is a thing. We are at almost 2x the resource usage that would be sustainable.
Lol ok, that’s still entirely down to and in service of capitalism, not some inevitability sent down from above or “human nature”, despite what they might have you believing… 🙄
“Lol”
Do people in capitalism need more resources? Why? How much more?
Remember when restaurants set police up to protect their dumpsters containing perfectly good and edible foods? Or was that grocery stores? Probably both.
Because consumption greases the wheels of profit.
So of we just keep people poor… issue solved. Like someone in Africa or North Korea, they are not going to need more resources than what can be regenerated. Simply because they lack the means to do so.
If we assume a communism with the same level of technology, comfort, … how would we avoid the exact same issue? Why would people suddenly not drive their own car mostly alone? Heat their homes in winter, causing a big portion of global CO2 emissions by doing so?
You’re missing the mark, here. I am specifically referring to things like fast-fashion, trinkets, new phones every year, and other goods pushed on consumers not for their convenience, but to satisfy Capitalists.
Socialism and Communism would be more focused on public transit and urbanized environments.
So you want to focus on some niche stuff? Leave out the stuff that would not change and currently causes most of the issues?
Why should this type of fashion, for example, even change in communism? People want to look different than others, better, prestige, blablabla many reasons that would not change.
I ask again, how would communism make us sustainable? I do not see it. Some niche stuff is replaced by something else in communism, not worth mentioning. A new phone every year is bad, but not the big problem. People drive 13’500 miles per year on average in the USA, burning 10’000 barrels daily or 1 billion m³ each year, 3 m³ per person each year. Add to that all the fuel for heating homes and making electricity. That is our big problem.
Look at where the CO2 comes from. Heating, electricity, transport and agriculture alone are more than 50 %. Compare that to aviation and shipping, next to nothing. Even an of industry is nothing compared to that. How much are these 4 things supposed to be reduced with communism? And why?
When you satisfy the needs of your population, have cheap birth control and good sexual education (which was given in almost all socialist countries) people will naturally have fewer children. In poor countries people have the most children.
Under capitalism, people in many rich countries are panicking because fewer and fewer working people have to feed more and more elderly, even though we have the resources to easily meet their needs. But profits have to keep rising, so the shrinking working population has to be more and more productive. The superexploited growing populations in the global south are what keeps this system alive, so overpopulation is even encouraged under capitalism.
Overpopulation is a myth
It has never happened under communism.
Mao starved millions and Stalin murdered millions.
Let’s see how long until these true statements get banned like a book in Florida.
These are hardly good examples of communism, just like how modern day U.S. is a pretty poor example of capitalism. A capitalistic society shouldn’t prop up failing businesses using money taken from the workers. A failing business should just fail, yet they’ve been “rescued” time and time again, at the detriment of the people who don’t see those funds and keep being exploited for their labour.
True communism hasn’t ever been implemented, and I wouldn’t look to dictators as examples for how to do it. Dictatorships are incompatible with the fundamental ideas behind communism.
…at scale.
As the name might imply, “communes” (of e.g. the hippie persuasion) could be truly communist. Possibly some indigenous tribes, kibbutzim, the Paris Commune, Fristaden Christiania in Copenhagen, and various other intentional communities might qualify, too.
True, thank you for the correction.
There have absolutely been true and authentic attempts at building Communism, just via Socialism. Denouncing these Socialist states for not being able to yet achieve global Communism is anti-Marxist idealism.
I’m not arguing that the attempts haven’t been made, I’m saying that the end result, or status quo if you’d prefer, doesn’t align with intent. Intent isn’t irrelevant, but I don’t think it holds as much water as results.
Like @grue@lemmy.world said, communes have and do exist, and some form of communism has existed throughout history, and likely before it. The states we have today though don’t hold up to scrutiny.
The “end” result did align with the intent. The USSR, for example, never tried to jump straight to Communism. They were Marxists, they opted to go through Socialism.
Communism isn’t “doing Socialism for a while then collapsing into magical Communism arbitrarily.” It’s a long, drawn-out process of building towards Communism. Socialism wasn’t a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on previous conditions.
The states we have today have never identified their conditions as Communist, but as Socialist, with a stated goal of moving towards Communism.
Communes are Anarchist, not Marxist, so pretending only Communes have managed to accomplish what Marxist states set out to do is a drastic misunderstanding of Marxism, Communism, and Anarchism.
Your ignorance is clearly wilful, so this isn’t for you, but I’m just going to leave this here anyway:
https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f
This is also greatly a misconception, redefining Communism to be anti-Marxist and pro-Anarchist is silly. Marxism is the largest and most historically relevent strain of Communist thought, denying that is pointlessly sectarian.