Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.
The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.
Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.
Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.
~~No, it means, no rulers.~~
~~Anomie means no rules~~
~~Edit: at least that's the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.~~
~~Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times here~~
Bud, re-read what I said
Ah, fuck...misread, sorry
No worries
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?
Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.
What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.
Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.
even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.
so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.
it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.
I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.
Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.
👆
that's a very petit understanding of anarchism
I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.
i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn't "give a fuck".
Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)
I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being "anarchism is...").
Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.
Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.
But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.
Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.
The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.
The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.
This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.
I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.
I think it sounds nice, but it's hard for me to take it seriously.
They do it in southern Kurdistan. Not sure if you take them seriously.
How do they manufacture their defensive weapons or communications equipment in harmony with nature? I'm just saying that an-prim isn't a realistic model for the world.
Vietcong was able to defend against the raid of the Washington beatling even though they had no industry. Southern Kurdistan is maintaining their position even though they don't produce their weapons. Zapatistas has a stronghold.
Isn't the most important thing that these bodies actually are able to defend their areas?
They all have support of industrialized areas. None of them are/were an-prim.
Not sure if I understand you correctly. You say that all of them are importing industrial goods? That doesn't imply that they are not anprim.
Let me know if I misinterpret you.
I mean, none of them would describe themselves as an-prim.
Does it matter which tags they associate with? As long as they are not doing industry, and living with nature, that's all that matter.
The Viet Cong and Kurdistanis are "living with nature"? I don't even know what that really means. It also seems to me to be against the spirit (if not the practice) of anprim to simply outsource industry.
Like I said at first, I think it (anprim) sounds nice but only as a kind of vague ideal. Fun to think about, but I can't take it seriously as any kind of revolutionary aspiration. And again, I don't think any of your examples (which are worth taking seriously, btw) are anything like my understanding of anprim.
I like this analogy
thank you :)
No government can give you freedom🏴🚩
No Masters, No Slaves.
What's the difference between this and libertarianism?
Anarchism is older and we have actual working examples
If I am not mistaken, Initially anarchism was called libertarianism, but later libertarianism was co-opted by American pro-market believers and now refers to anarcho-capitalists.
As for why an-caps are not real anarchists you can read an in depth explanation here. But briefly it is just an oxymoron. Anarchists believe in a world without hierarchies and capitalism is a system defined by the existence of two classes of people(capitalists and working people) and their relationship to the means of production. So there is an inherently hierarchical relationship within capitalism.
But who will tell me what to do!?