Imagine telling the original artist right after they finished it that in 113 years time people would be posting his/her creation in full color and high fidelity on a communications system that instantly made it accessible to anyone in the world. That would completely blow their mind.
Now imagine also telling them the situation in the meme is the same or worse 113 years later and they will cry.
Them: “What’s a meme?”
You are not ready for this
A joke reminding people of a shared experience. It gets really good in the internet age.
Eh. Marx was pretty clear that it was a process, and worker rights have improved.
What they’d be upset about is everyone twiddling their thumbs while we kill the climate.
Or put on a sly grin and sue OP for Future -Royalties
“Wow, so with all that innovation things are better?”
“Look I don’t know how to tell you this but we definitely aren’t making the most of our new technology and medicine.”
“Wow, so with all that innovation things are better?”
I mean… things are better, just not nearly as much as they should be.
My partner’s father is a member of the canadian communist party and he has this framed and hung up in his house
A classic
Does lemmy have im14andthisisdeep yet
Since when are memes supposed to be deep?
I’d like to see your explanation of why this meme belongs there, please
We live in a society
Bottom text
Bro turned 15 and has it all figured out now
I’m confused about what this picture is trying to say. What do the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tiers from the top — rule by royalty(?), indoctrination by the clergy, oppression by the military — have to do with capitalism?
I think it’s more:
- We rule you and take your money
- We preach to you and take your money
- We fight you and take your money/resources
- We take your resources that you’ve grown
Or it could be the rulling class takes the biggest cut, clergy the next biggest etc. with workers at the bottom supporting the entire system but receiving the least.
None of that has anything to do with capitalism, though. You’re just pointing out the negatives of tyranny, which, arguably, capitalism doesn’t necessitate.
They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system, with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.
They are each beneficiaries of the capitalist system
How do police and the military specifically benefit from a capitalist system?
with the military / police serving duel roles as employed and enforcers / protectors of the system.
Are you saying that only a capitalist system benefits from the police and military?
All that being said, I’m not entirely sure what your point has to do with the thesis of the poster.
Thank you! I recently saw a thumbnail of this in a Feral Historian video and I was hoping to find a copy.
Well, they were likely called mimemes back then, but, yes, they still count. And holy crap is it still relevant.
Especially so.
We need an updated version of this.
First, the money goes underneath the liberal politicians and their capitalist and fascist cronies. The Marxists got that wrong. They don’t serve capital - capital serves them.
Second, replace the religious types with media personalities.
Third, replace the diners with upper middle-class “managerial” types and move them one step up.
Fourth, move the goon squad one level down and - of course - replace them with pigs.
You don’t think religion is still used to control people?
Not really. I don’t think religion was ever used to control people. Certain aspects of religion was used to justify certain classes hoarding the real means of control - which is always a material thing - but that makes religion no different than any other justification (such as nationalism or the belief in the so-called “free market”)
Marx himself had a pretty nuanced take on this - I’d say he was half-right about it. The Marxist-Lennists completely fudged it - as they do with almost everything - but even anarchists got this horribly wrong.
Even if you disagree with what I’m saying - and most leftists do - you still have to admit that the only way you control religion today is through media.
So you’re saying that trusted religious sources that tell people in person (believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”) what to believe does not control them and that’s only a left-wing view that trusted people control others? Really?
(believe it or not, going to church is not “media.”)
Do you know what happens to religious organisations or movements that starts to threaten the line laid down through the media by the status quo? This.
The example posted also nicely demonstrates just how easily the status quo can be threatened by religion.
Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat. Control is a material thing - justifying that control isn’t.
If you could control people through religion you wouldn’t need goon squads to terrorize people into giving you that control in the first place, would you? Humans are not zombies - they can interpret religious ideas on their own just as they can political ones.
Religion is a very important propaganda tool - but it doesn’t control squat.
That must be why LGBT+ people are so tolerated in Muslim and evangelical Christian communities in countries where being queer is legal, right? They’re really tolerated and loved and no one in a church or mosque is telling them they’re evil, just the media. Because you can’t control people through religion.
There’s no need to go all reactionary atheist (a religion that has no churches or temples - but lots of media) on me - it’s not going to gain you anything.
I’ll explain it this way -
To be anti-LGBTQ+ is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
To be anti-religion is to be anti-working class. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.
There is no contradiction here. If you think there is one, it’s your logic that requires examination.
Who do you think tells them to be homophobic? Do you think it’s genetic or something? They get it from the churches.
I don’t think religion was ever used to control people.
Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments. You clearly lack a wealth of knowledge on how society functions both in the past and in the now.
Ignoring thousands of years of history where religion literally controlled people does not help the rest of your arguments.
I’m afraid not - it’s you that is blithely ignoring history. Religion has been used to justify revolt as much as - if not far more - than it has been used to justify conformity.
I guess we’re beyond the point of merely calling this “edgelord atheism” now - I’d say that a better term for it would be fundamentalist atheism. And, like everything peddled by the right, it’s perfectly ahistorical and essentialized.
I like this one
