problems are stacking up

If the options are Stalin or capitalism, then capitalism would be a clear winner even if it's shit because Stalin and his ideology still has the 2 issues from the first panel but on top of that he would execute anyone with an actual good system.

Stalin and communism are different things
- Yea, but the meme implies those are the two options.

If we change anything, Stalin will personally come and steal your toothbrush.

- We want to abolish private property. Often, this freaks liberals out because they think it means we want everyone to live in a hive or something.

Not a fan of capitalism, but enough with the tankie garbage

You can be against reflexive non-sequitor defenses of capitalism without being a tankie. The last panel could have been "no, because the free market always corrects itself" and the meaning would have been the same.
Do you even know what Tankie means, or do you just like throwing around useless labels?
This is pretty standard left wing stuff, tankie garbage would be like: "we need to create a dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent climate change"
Edit: well maybe it might be a little bit tankie from the last bit
- No, that's still just being leftist. Tankie shit is "kill all who disagree with the revolution".
I'm not pro-russia

"Communism" does not describe any nation on Earth today, no matter what they choose to call themselves.

Most of the "communist" (and "capitalist") nations in the world are run by a small number of greedy, brutal assholes who have concentrated their entire nation's wealth into an elite 1%. NONE of them believe in anything beyond money.

Ah yes, I remember the USSR being known for being very environmentally friendly

This is naive. Having grown up in a post communist country I know better than to fall for empty propaganda. You don't know what you're asking for calling out on communism as your saving grace. Communism didn't allow for any valie creation and the system was too rigid to respond to people's needs as economy was preplanned in 5 year intervals. Chronic shortages. Full employment was required by law but quality of life remained stagnant. Capitalism has its pitfalls too. The best outcome lays somewhere in the middle of the two

I'm not advocating for communism, and a political crisis of an authoritarian/totalitarian regime is a different problem from communism. Capitalism has a lot of problems, and I agree that there should be a better in-between to mitigate inequalities. Socialism is soluble in capitalism.
Having grown up in a post communist country
- The only cheerleaders for communism are people who have never lived under it.

How many people has capitalism killed?

Millions, easily.
British East India Company, one of the first publicly traded entities, commited a couple of genocides before Marx even shit his first nappie. So capitalism got a nice head start in.
Including social murder? Several billions.
Billions.
Billions.
That's kind of a bullshit question in that it's easy to bullshit your way out of any possible legitimate challenge. The implication in the question is, of course, that capitalism never killed anyone, or at least a tiny fraction of those killed by communists. So, before we go any further, can I get an agreement that we're not going to trot out the tired old "but that's not really ~~communism~~ capitalism"? Because if we're not going to allow that argument for communism just because it wasn't the idealized, utopian version of it, then we ought not let imperfect capitalism slide.
Mind you, I'm a believer in free markets where they exist, but I also believe that it's important to be able to be critical of the things you believe in.
- The implication in the question is, of course, that capitalism never killed anyone
  LOL. That isn't what I was implying at all. I'm just saying that if you're going to trot out "Communism killed X number of people", then you should hold capitalism to the same standard. I've seen estimates that capitalism has killed orders of magnitude more people than communism.

Russia is a massive gas exporter. How is climate change a capitalist issue? At least we can report on it in the West without falling out a window.

Russia is a capitalist oligopoly tho?
- They were pumping that gas way before modern Russia.
As you are writing this comment, is Russia is a communist country?
Regulating capitalism entails limiting capitalist ideology. It's simple.
- As you are writing this comment, did Russia only start pumping and burning fossil fuels? No, they've done so for decades, regardless of name change. Economic ideology has nothing to do with global warming. It's inherit with basic human activity in every country. Operate factories? Impact. Meat farms? Impact. Military activities? Impact.
  It is amazing how many of you can't grasp this.

When we drink water, we experience inequality, poverty, and climate change. Stop drinking water?

Not to be snarky, just never saw any good evidence full-socialism fixes these issues. I’m still okay with leaning in that basic direction, eg to support the homeless.

Drinking water doesn't CAUSE inequality, poverty and climate change. Capitalism does.
Whether or not the answer is socialism, capitalism is the problem.
- What’s your proof? Can you point me to a society that is 100% functional under socialism and never has these issues?
  Leading question, I know, but the reason there’s not more support for this idea is that it’s hard to prove.

Capitalism causes poverty?

History would suggest otherwise.

It really wouldn't, no. Capitalism inevitably leads to resource hoarding, which leads to resource scarcity aka poverty.
- The life of the average person post capitalism is hundreds of times better than before it existed. Being poor now is infinitely better than being middle class 600 years ago.
  Capitalism has allowed people more freedom than ever before, because of capatilism it is more possible for the average person to take risks in new ventures without the help and approval of their lord's. Capatilism has continuously lifted people out of poverty, my family included.
  Capatilism is a meritocracy, but even the most incompetent person is better off today than before it's existence. Yet those who are successful and driven are given a chance to elevate their quality of life that were unfathomable to people before. It's what my parents did, and what I watched many other people do.
  Edit: typos
- Let's use China as an example.
  In 1990, there were 750 million people in poverty. Then the pro-market reforms kicked in, and in 2016 the number of people in poverty has fallen to 7 million.

"Okay, let's say we were going to change some things...what did you have in mind?"

"I was thinking maybe you should give me lots of shit for free."

I was thinking maybe we should stop giving the disgustingly rich lots of shit for free. But that's just me. If some of that free shit makes it into the hands of people that can use it, all the better.
- Nothing is free.
- What free shit? You mean, we should stop letting them keep so much of their own shit? I mean, I'm okay with that, but it's got basically nothing to do with the presented problems. More people using more shit is not going to cool the globe.
Ah, so the current system where we privatize profits and socialize losses
- As bad as it is in many ways, it's better for the environment. There's less actual consumption.
  There's a certain strain of Leftism that sees that people are taking the climate crisis seriously, so they're like "Oh shit, it's my chance to make good! If you care about the environment, you gotta give me shit! Capitalism is bad for the environment, and the opposite of capitalism is money in my pocket, let's get going!"
  It's purely self-serving.