this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
1462 points (98.5% liked)

solarpunk memes

4184 readers
211 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jared@mander.xyz 51 points 1 week ago (55 children)

The idea of ownership is kinda silly.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu -4 points 1 week ago (39 children)

I mean this in good faith, what's the alternative? That anyone could enter anyone's house freely? Or that everything is shared (owned by the state, which would give it too much power).

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You don't own the stall of a public toilet and you can still expect to use it without having people walk on you. It's like we can all agree to distribute resources and keep rights like privacy without the need of property.

[–] G4Z@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

how about instead of restricting all ownership, you instead just limited it.

My idea is that basically once anybody hits 10 million in net worth (for example), then we just say 'well done, you've completed it mate'. Now fuck off down the beach and don't come back.

Basically tax any further income of any kind at 100%.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This. Then just put up a scoreboard of who’s excess revenue is providing the most tax revenue to the public, then they can play for first place and we can all benefit off of their sociopathic narcissism. Everybody wins.

[–] AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com 3 points 1 week ago

how about instead of restricting all ownership, you instead just limited it

But basically nobody proposes this. Communists don't propose "abolishing property" altogether, we propose abolishing private capital, which is the type of property that isn't owned for its use value, but instead owned for profit. A commie would say you can own a car to use it, but you can't own a car to employ someone else to drive it as a taxi and generate a profit for you.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

While I agree with you, in principle, I much prefer my toilet than a public toilet with partial privacy and partial cleanliness.

I think it's going to be interesting when we move from private ownership of cars to self driving, shared, how there may be different classes again, like trains of old. It's inevitable we transition. The gig economy is effectively a more even distribution of resource usage with benefits environmentally. However, we need to ensure it's more even ownership too, which is looking unlikely at this point.

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Self driving cars are not going to stop car ownership, that's pure CEO fantasy. The logistics of it doesn't make any sense. Gig economy it's the opposite of even distribution, it's companies owning everything and workers owning nothing. Stop drinking the neoliberal kool aid.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 1 week ago

Gig economy is better distribution of asset use, as I said. The problem to correct is distribution of ownership, again as I already said. Stop drinking the socialism kool aid. Nobody owning cars is more likely than community ownership.

Car ownership may not go away but it's likely to decrease. It's rare in America to not own a car. It's less rare in cities with good public transport, eg New York, Europe. Self driving, on demand taxis may mean the same effect is carried over to places that currently don't have great public transport.

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)