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.
Transcript
A crudely drawn ms-paint-style comic. The first panel depicts a person with an ancap (anarcho capitalist) mask. The mask is black and yellow, the colors are divided diagonally. The person is saying "statist bootlickers fuck off!" to a boot. In the next panel, they are staring at the boot draw an amazon logo on it with a marker. The last panel shows the person deepthroathing the boot, saying "At least it's not the gubermint [government".
And they will sometimes mask slip their intentions
I replied to him, let's see how long until it gets removed or he starts whining that he's rich so I have no right
Of course you have no right, he makes a big point about talking about the difference between slavery of the protected (which would be met with aggressive response from the private security they pay for) and slavery of the unprotected (aka poor, and thus are not paying private security to not be enslaved) which is apparently acceptable.
Ah, but is he currently paying for said expensive private security?
If they reply, I imagine it will be some hog wash about the NAP (non-aggression principle). Which in short is a honor code they expect everyone to abide (currently not possible because government). It is a rather odd claim for the ancaps I think. They are saying something about solidarity and no one will want to work with an abuser/slaver. They will also deny that Ayn Rand's objectivism is distinct from their ideas, but interrogating them shows its not. So they have an appeal to solidarity, but the selling points of their ideology are selfish motivations. Historically that means there will be plenty who find their selfish interests are to side with an abuser/slaver/colonizer. Id compare them to a religious fundamentalist that just found some contradictions in the bible and is working on the apologetic.
That last paragraph was a wild read
For real. Sometimes its hard to tell if its a 4chan type being edge, but the whole things is a bit too candid to be a troll.
Sweet mother of fuck just blatantly desiring/justifying slavery is..wild.
“I dream of a world where I can enslave the poors with no consequence” essentially.
Oh, so you would prefer abolitionists running arouns being mean to you?
Tl;dr
Well I guess we now know what kind of idiot starts their manifesto with abandoning any form of morality
Nothing is wrong with capitalism; but the current crony capitalism doesn't provide enough opportunities to be the boot
ancaps in a nutshell
I'm not sure we will ever find a proper cure for cronyism. The beast is multifaceted. On the most familiar side, we trust our friends better, on the uglier side, you have to sate appetites for them to lend power. I see this as our last big trial towards actual Utopia.
The thing is that crony capitalism is just capitalism. If you are a head on the market, if you have some goose that lays golden eggs, you are going to do everything you can to keep it relevant. Abusing systems or outright harassing your competitors included. By ancaps own selling point, "capitalism works because people purse their selfish interests". I often find ancaps debating this to be like a fundamentalist that found some contradictions in the bible and is working out the apologetics. The bible being good and moral becuase the bible says so is a tautology, and so are their ideas around capitalism.
Oh yeah, hands down, no argument on the ancaps. I was just rolling the ball a bit further down the line in my head and couldn't get past 'power corrupts'.
Then I wrote out 3 paragraphs of drivel only to realize that if everyone realizes the agency they have over themselves, the notion of manipulation flies out the window.
Hmh, I think I like it here. A few weeks in and I can already see a clearer path to utopia. Thank you for the inspiration!
I'm not gonna read whatever weird BS that came from, but I do think its entirely possible to have a coherent and attractive worldview without morality. If you want to make any sense to normal people, you have to replace it with a belief system that emphasizes community service and the common good. In the end, if it works, it winds up looking just like morality with objective foundations.
Like... Like they make you do when you did a misdemeanor?
Filthy commie!
I feel likeeither we're not working with the same people, or youre working with entirely hypothetical people.
Community service as punishment is meant to link you back to your community. Where you live. Where you presumably shat. Go clean that up. We live here.
The common good includes oneself. The tragedy of the commons is only possible when its "somebody else's problem". When that's "my park", you clean up the shit.
Yes, people are problematic and largely prone to shitting in the park. They have to be taught. It's not easy.
I find, when you deny people bathrooms, they shit in the street. Or park.
When you don't do that, they're a lot more civic minded about things.
Yes, everything youre saying is rational and i see no faults.
But that's the problem. It's rational. Have you ever met a people? They're largely petty bundles of excuses and tribal loyalty buffeted by winds of propaganda enforced myopia and delusional coping mechanisms. Rational self interest isn't a huge factor in how most people live or behave. It is, in fact, vanishingly fucking rare.
I know. I used to shit in the park. Nice to meet you, friend.
Don't shit in the park when there's a perfectly good wal-mart around.
Hey, there's a place for a bit of anarchy in any society. Grease the wheels of change.
I'm discussing shitting in the park with the perilous out-house ~~guy~~ (lol. person.). Lemmy moment.
Not a guy, and outhouse perilous is a philosophical concept.
:]
Never heard of it. My name has a meaning too. Won't bother to explain.
Okay it's a concept i nade uo, but it's about everything being kinda shit.
but morality is a fundamental part of getting along with others, it's necessitated by the fact that you don't want to be stabbed in the gut, thus gut-stabbing is bad.
if someone doesn't agree that gut-stabbing is reprehensible, then you know they might stab you in the gut, thus you have a very big incentive to tell them to eat shit and stay the fuck away from you.
But that's not morality, that's self-preservation. It's morality if you don't do it because it affects others in a negative way, it's self-preservation if you don't do it because you don't want negative consequences for yourself.
I guess we can only truly measure morality where there are no consequences for one's actions. That's why it usually goes out the window for rich people.
I don't think this is real or helpful towards understanding the world. The measure of morality is the shape of your life after you practice it. Your impact on others. Morals are about things that matter. You've come quite near to postulating that they don't matter. I cannot support this view.
There you go, starting to establish a new system of beliefs from first principles. You don't have to call it morality, if you don't start from some existing authority. In the end, if whatever belief system you build actually works, it winds up looking very like our existing moral code.
Well, no, because thats mostly fucked up and awful and nonsense and made for oppression.
But it would totally include like 'dont kill people or fuck shit up for no reason.'
I unfortunately agree that people largely do not adhere to what one might regard as the normal moral code. In fact there are loud voices saying it is defunct. But its still there. We still use it to judge.
These are some of the reasons that I feel one should be open to rebuilding the squishy biz that is morals into something based on objective values. This project has been tackled by much better men, and I have nothing to add. Rene Descartes. Immanuel Kant. Even Friedrich Nietzsche had powerful things to say about reworking morals into something that actually works.
And
So who is we?
Okay. I even like some of it. Not the basis of anything we have, which amounts to a tangled shit show of messy tribal loyalties and group membership signifiers. Most people are not moral actors. They have none, they believe in less than that.
We'd need to start from scratch.
I find no argument. It's a big project. Much bigger than me.
I mean, I have no morals. I do things my way, because its best for me and everyone else.
I'm a self-serving rationalist that's realized that society and my place in it are of great personal benefit and it behooves me to support them in all ways.