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.
License (as always): CC-0, No rights reserved.
Hello m@tes. I have immigrated from lemm.ee following the imminent closure, (and needed to but ana in front of my name because the one I used on lemm.ee was taken.)
Here is just a small thing I made after skimming the comments of a recent popular post. As it is a small image and I'm getting better with Krita this one only took ~35 minutes. Improvements. Yay!
While the dems' pro-genocide stance was absolutely disgusting, at the very least they'd still be letting aid in. Now we're looking at a potential mass starvation event under the Christofacists.
Abandoning the tiny leverage we do have to maintain moral "purity" would be contradictory at best. While the dems are certainly complicit by fielding yet another pro genocide candidate, ultimately the choice between slow genocide and speed run genocide was up to those with the ability to vote.
I noticed 'moderates' did not give a single shit about trans rights while a dem was in office. Only during trumps first term did i notice them even trying to act like allies. Same for immigrants.
I think palestine is the same. I dont think we would be seeing public opinion turn against the protocols of the elders of zion larpers, even as little as it has, under the harris administration.
It sounds accellerationist, but the biden administration showed they were not going to mitigate the threat or remediate damage done by their buddies in red.
Biden was just as bad if not worse than Trump 2 has been (as of today) on the genocide, and Harris would have been just as bad because she made it clear that her presidency would be an extension of Biden's. Frankly, Biden is an ideological Zionist, more so than Trump is ideological about anything. Said differently: all politicians in both parties would have continued the genocide because foreign policy is uniparty. So IMO the trajectory of the genocide is completely independent of the result of the election.
No it literally wasn't. We have zero power in this current system and we have zero responsibility for how the people in power responded to this genocide. The levers of power are fully insulated from the will of the general public. And again: Biden handed the keys to the kingdom to the monster. And so did Obama before Trump 1. And Bill Clinton before Bush Jr. And Carter before Reagan. Not to imply that any of those Dem presidents were not themselves bloodthirsty monsters.
My position has nothing to do with morality (beyond the goal of achieving the best world in the shortest time) and everything to do with the harsh truth that the State truly offers us nothing, and that we need to live our lives in spite of them and around them.
And frankly, if you want to go to the polls... it's your time, and it doesn't matter anyways. What I am (and I think the mod team here, which I'm not a part of, are) tired of is (1) this constant discussion about electoralism taking up time and space from things that actually matter and (2) liberals (or well-meaning leftists parroting liberal talking points) trying to shame us for not participating in their system. Shock horror, an anarchist has principled objection to a core liberal talking point! Shock horror, an anarchist does not believe that helping liberal democrats has anything to do with anarchism. Shock horror, anarchists will not bow to liberal sensibilities. What is the world coming to?
Yeah, turns out starvation takes a little while. It's been roughly 3 months since Gaza has been able to receive food aid. Holodomor took ~1 year to kill off 20% of the affected population, which Israel seems hell bent on replicating. If there's not a grave difference in death statistics by this time next year, I'd be happy to reconsider my position that both sides are very much not the same.
Y'all are rightfully getting flamed for holding a position that harm reduction doesn't reduce harm when it absolutely does, and only takes you an hour every four years.
You're right that the current state of representation is abysmal, but boycotting voting does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation, and actively harms people domestically and abroad.
Edit: Just to add about the ideological differences between Biden and Trump, Binden was an ideological pro-Israelite, but he still gave some tiny semblance of a fuck about humanitarianism. Trump does not. He doesn't have a misguided moral compass, he has none. Whoever lays out the most beneficial deal to him (petty grievances aside) in the moment is what he will take.
If you can't see why the latter is infinitely more dangerous in a world run by corporate interests, then I'm not sure what more I can say.
harm reduction has a specific meaning, and voting is not harm reduction
Fine, replace it with "reducing harm". Y'all very well understand what I mean by the term in this context, and if you don't, I'd be happy to clarify.
If that's all that article has to say (which it doesn't) then it'd simply be clearing up some semantic confusion.
voting Harris didn't reduce any harm, but it did prevent real alternatives from gaining traction.
How does anti-electoralism prevent alternatives from gaining traction? Nobody in this thread has yet advocated for voting 3rd party, if that's what you're implying.
I didn't say it does. you are arguing with a strawman
It's a question, signifying I have no clue what your actual position is. If you don't care to elucidate, I've got no argument for a non-position.
I said what I meant: voting is not harm reduction, and voting for Harris didn't reduce any harm
Disengage