Flippanarchy
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.
view the rest of the comments
That's fair.
The question of minority rights comes to mind. It's not really a collective interest for cishet people to support gay rights.
Although some argue that it is and that liberation requires everyone to be free, and there may be some truth to that, the fact is that in practice, this is not what most people believe or feel towards discriminated minorities.
If your governing system requires consensus it does. Besides without coercive violence even if people dislike you being gay personally they can't e.g. imprison you for it.
It's not like heirachies have worked out well for queer people. The USSR persecuted queer people, almost all "liberal democracies" have (the state made me get steralised to not have my ID all say "please bully me and do violence to me thanks!"), Cuba only recently became more accepting.
Meanwhile there are more anarchic societies that have or have had social roles for queer people, or tolerated it just fine.
Doesn't the government structure work on majority rule?
Anarchic societies exist/have existed? In recent times I mean, not back when we were hunter-gatherers or something.
There are many ways you can structure governance. It's just how you decide to do stuff collectively. In certain contexts (such as in crisis) you might choose to follow orders from one person, for example the lead firefighter. Generally for decisions which are not time-critical simple majority is pretty poor and often leads to polarised and ineffective decisions.
Anarchists tend to favour consensus, with voting as a backup if consensus fails
All societies have some anarchism in them, they can't function without it. Think community programs like buy nothing, classes, repair sheds, disaster relief efforts etc. Some societies have been more anarchic than others, David Graeber and David Wengrow cover some of how authority and power have been handled in their book The Dawn of Everything, mostly in the Americas where large and less heirarchical nations existed before colonisation (and some super hierarchical ones too). It would be a good jumping off point for finding more research via the citations.