this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
543 points (98.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
2230 readers
92 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Under capitalism, it is almost by definition. Glad you're having a better time than the rest of us, but your personal anecdote is irrelevant to society at large.
You would not be employed if it wasn't profitable. Which also means the surplus value of your labor, above and beyond what you're being compensated for, is going to your employer. That's exploitation. It's mandatory in most employment under capitalist economics.
I understand the surplus value argument and I’m not dismissing it, within that framework you’re technically correct. But reducing all employment to exploitation by definition flattens a meaningful distinction between a worker being genuinely mistreated and one who isn’t.
My point wasn’t that capitalism is perfect or that my experience is universal. It was that employment isn’t inherently exploitative in the lived sense, conditions, power dynamics, and how surplus is distributed all matter. A framework that calls everything exploitation equally makes it harder to identify and fight actual exploitation where it’s causing real harm.
There is never going to be a 1:1 ratio between labour value and compensation. Even in a non-profit employee-owned cooperative, there will be external costs that will have to funded from somewhere.
It becomes exploitation when that ratio becomes disproportionate and the ownership starts extracting more than their fair share. Capitalism definitely does nothing to discourage this, but it's not a mandatoy feature.
That somewhere being reduced labor compensation no matter what, meaning the labor is just worth that much less. That doesn't entitle an "owner" to jack shit.
Their fair share is nothing. A disproportionate ratio is any ratio greater than 0. No labor should be "owned" by anyone not performing it. There should not be "ownership" involved. Organizational leaders, sure. And they should also just be regular laborers, paid in the same manner.