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
Personally I don't consider authoritarians to be "leftist".
Tankies and libs are both right-wing just with different imperial branding.
I don‘t think that this attitude is productive. Every school of thought has the potential of turning authoritarian and attract people who just want power and influence over people.
This fact is why anarchism is so appealing to me, they don't have all the answers but they've at least identified the problem: Authority.
It's kind of also the biggest problem with anarchy. It still has a foundation of social contract, the idea that we're allowed to exist without authority. There really isn't anything that stops someone from building power and exerting it on others. No one wants to accept a despot over freedom but if someone rolls up to my farm in a tank and says they own it now, I'm not really in any position to say otherwise. In a hierarchy of need, living sits above liberty.
That's why I can't be an anarchist. They're like the libertarians of the left. They're too idealistic. They never explain how they'll keep people from asserting power over others, and prevent nation states from forming, because it isn't possible without giving a different person similar power.
I'll take an imperfect but stable system over one that collapses the second someone with bad intentions gains control over weapons or other means of exerting power.
That's the edge democracy has, you can kick the motherfucker out.
That edge cuts both ways though, the history of democracy dating back to its foundation is people who should never have been given power getting put in charge. How many early democracies become dictatorships? Even today, the US has been trying to shake off the parasitic powers that be for decades and they just keep getting stronger.
Sure, but do you have a (credible) alternative?
IMO we should work on democracy (wherever you live) and make it more grassroot and direct. Power to the people, and not just "vote every 3-4-5-6 years.
No actually, that's my biggest frustration. Every single system fails to function as intended when you introduce people to it. Some will be bad actors to exploit the system for their gain. Some will be uninterested in participating and pick by habit. The tribalism of an area will inherently sway the results and it won't always be in everyone's best interest.
Even on that grass roots level, it can be used poorly. A great example is my home town of Whitewater. When desegregation came to Kansas, the residents petitioned to keep it. When that failed, they took matters into their own hands and burned down and bulldozed most of the cheaper side of town in a proactive bid to limit the aforeability and availability for colored people who may consider moving there. Decades later, the town is still diverse and has never recovered economically. It had a model T showroom at one time and now can't keep a Hunts Brother's pizza in buisness.
There isn't any political system where one liar with enough idiots can't ruin it for everyone.
Socialism is credible and proven, except for when Democracy©️ crushes, sanctions, and embargos, to prove how it doesn't work.
Does socialism have an actually governing formation? I've only ever seen it as a guiding principle for other institutions.
I have no idea what you're asking, but there are certainly AES states.
Yeah this is pointing toward my view as well.
Non partisan, community or regional based, term limited, focused entirely on evidence, social needs, working for an electorate.
Tell me, who and how many had actual real power, when the United States was founded?
After Lenin positioned himself as opposite to "left-wing communism" and called it an infantile disorder, I guess Leninism being right-wing became explicit.
What do you think that book is about?
Left and right are economic vectors up and down (authoritarian and freedom) are the ones to plot.
"up and down" is a very recent thing
Id respectfully argue that freedom vs tyrany is a very old concept and this is just another way to express that
I mean, in the context of 100 years ago, up and down weren't directions considered in the political spectrum