this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchist Memes

1412 readers
1 users here now

This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

You forgot to mention that they violently took an empty house no one used but the owner wanted it to be empty

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

As much as I agree that “civilized society” spouted by right-wingers is awfully damn far from it it seems kinda weird to act like anarchy would bring about a structured society.

All large groups who don’t want to end up falling into disparate groups led by the nearest psychopath and trauma-fueled meat-heads are going to need structure. Yes, capitalism and the right in general have failed but that doesn’t mean government is bad(or even difficult).

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Anarchism isn't the absence of structure but the absence of hierarchy. The most basic idea of anarchist decision making is a council free for everyone to join that tries to find consensus.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it seems kinda weird to act like anarchy would bring about a structured society

This isn't exactly what the comic portrays though. If you're thinking of "anarchy" as being the absence of government, it isn't anarchy itself that would lead to a structured society, it's the intentional efforts of people to build a society sans government that is structured on things other than property and institutional violence.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

The idea of government does not require property and institutional violence. If that’s where we’re starting from then there’s not going to be much of a conversation to be had.

[–] Epicmulch@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

I'm 13 and this is deep.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those aren't anarchists, they're synarchists.

The things they do like pooling resources require governing over. Governing.

[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Just do a simple fucking web search before you comment, this is embarassing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, it really is.

Let's use your link, if that's the level of discussion you're on.

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions

Literally the first sentence.

These people demonstrate a community so large that pooling the resources will surely be written down. That or it won't work like in the comic. Thus they'll end up making the very same institutions they claim to abolish.

These are a minimally governed commune. Minarchy, synarchy, but not anarchy.

Quite embarrassing indeed.

[–] DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that depends on which definition you go off of tho idk about their link but in the begginnings of the industrial age anarchism was redefined for propaganda use and didnt actually mean the complete eradication of government but instead the creation of syndicates and communes

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The actual prescriptive definition, not some vague colloquial use that goes against the prescriptive meaning of the word.

Oh syndicates you say? Huh. That word has the same beginning as the word "synarchy", doesn't it? Followed by "-archy", denoting "rule of". Huh. I wonder why I chose the word "synarchy". It's a mystery, it seems.

[–] DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

yea well words tend to have multiple definitions and arent just latin afterall we are writing english not latin right?

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Anarchy" is pretty directly from Greek through Latin.

Yes English has a lot of loanwords and they don't always use the prescriptive meaning, and sometimes evolve. Like "English". The language of the people of Angle-Land. Englaland (old English for England), if you will.

I think this is still fairly known despite having few to none practical applications.

That is still a proper noun though.

We're talking about Greek and Latin words we use precisely because of their prescriptive meaning.

"Democracy" is still the rule of the people, despite "Democrat" being a party alignment in the US, and thus obviously having more meanings than the basic prescriptive meaning, but I think we can still agree that the word indeed means "the [common] people's rule".

So do other words we picked up exactly because of their prescriptive meaning keep their meanings as well.

Like synarchy, minarchy and anarchy.

Colloquially anarchists have switched to supporting minarchy, because it's very evident to anyone that even a small society will need governing in some form, to function. So it wouldn't be wrong to say that modern anarchism isn't actually anarchy, but minarchic synarchism, just like I described.

bro homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia (phóbos) tho chief

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] moog@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Meanwhile actual anarchists: "I'm bigger than you so your loved ones are now my sex slaves"

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I think they meant to ask "in an anarchic society, who enforces rights in the absence of the state?"

Also I'll second that motion because I honestly know next to nothing about anarchy.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I love how you have the decency to frame it as a lack of understanding on your side. If you're interested, I can look up entry level material about that question tomorrow or the day after for you.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah I've seen too many "just asking questions" types so I absolutely don't want to be seen as doing that. I have a basic concept of anarchy but that's all. And that'd be cool, drop a reply here or dm.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Glad to be of help! I think it's better to do it here so other people might find it as well.

A very resourceful channel is Anark. Maybe his "mini series" Listen, Liberals and Listen, Conservatives is a good starting point or Why we must destroy the state. He also has a series about Liberation in Action. More to the point of your question might be a video by another resourceful channel Andrewism called We Need To Rethink Justice.

I hope this is still entry level. It might be too much but you don't have to watch everything but once you did, you will find more videos about this topic.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My understanding is that anarchy isn't about the lack of any authority, it's the lack of unearned authority or unearned authoritative hierarchy. If the members of a community choose to use a democratic process to elect individuals to hold some specific authority for an amount of time that doesn't stop being anarchy. It stops being anarchy when individuals capture or hold authority not granted by a dictate from the community. There are some issues with how a species like humanity could be governed under anarchy, but enforcing rights isn't a necessary problem.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I thought absence of a state was kind of core to anarchy. Wouldn't any sort of elected official or rights enforcing body be the de facto state regardless of how you frame it?

Though, I'm not trying to debate, just trying to grasp the concept, so if y'all have something like an anarchist pamphlet I'll be glad to take that and go lol. Longer literature is fine but no promises on when it'll get read.

[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Anarchist here. I recommend the Anarchist FAQ. for an extensive and well sourced answer.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah no sweat I'm not an authority on anarchy if you'll excuse the pun and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/ is probably going to be a better source

I think the biggest difference between what I was describing and a state is the individuals elected are not part of any governing body or political party and are granted authority by a community for a specific purpose/job.

In general and broadly somewhere between 'that's Diane we elected her during the last community meeting to take care of the roads for the next 5 years based on community funds because she's got some good ideas on how to do that we mostly agree on' and 'the person you elected is a member of a governing body representing a political party following a bureaucracy of processes and they're in charge of police, education, roads, etc so if you want anything done get your wallet ready for lobbying and if you try to fix that pothole yourself it's illegal' a line is crossed.

[–] moog@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

In an anarchist ideal society everyone would get along and it would be butterflies and gumdrops. But in reality the person with the bigger stick will simply take what they want and everyone will just say "hey stop that" and then get shot in the face. Naivety: political edition.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Who do you think keeps getting into street fights with fascists? Like anarchists are notoriously willing to engage in political violence against oppressors. For fucks sake we had an army in the Russian revolution and we poured in from around the world to shoot at Francoists.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which anarchist said everyone had to get along? You're building a straw man nobody is actually advocating for.

If you need an example of how a system of agreement across large groups that sometimes violently disagree can work without any governing body see bitcoin and the block chain ledger it maintains. You don't need 100% agreement to maintain the integrity of the ledger, just 51%.

[–] moog@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

I do not want my society to be run on the tenets of cryptocurrency and I don't see how it's a good comparison anyway.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Slavery is like the opposite of anarchism

[–] moog@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those are fundamental theorists of anarchism. Who can be called more of an actual anarchist than the guy who coined the term in modern day and the prince who abdicated to join the Russian revolution under the name of anarchism and wrote the basic texts of modern anarchy?

Want to know who will stop the bigger person from doing that? Three people teamed up with clubs.

[–] moog@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah yes that went so well for us historically.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It really depends on what you mean by historically. Have you read worshipping power or any other book on early state formation? Or are you talking out your ass?

[–] LoveSausage@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

To me this shows the problem with anarchism. It's a reason anarchism is the somewhat acceptable protestation. In the mean time others are working on actually takeover use the No1 weapon avvailable, the state. /Anarchist in the street, ML in the sheets

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The state is a corrupting force. It’s using the ring to fight Sauron. You can use it at times, but to seize it or accept its right to exist even temporarily gives room for those interested in power to seize your movement and they will never let go. Add in power corrupting even the good and you’ve got problems brewing.

We will be as the weeds. And we will fill the holes an unjust society leaves, cracking the concrete and overrunning their manicured lawns. A decentralized movement cannot be extinguished without removing the conditions that allow it to thrive. It cannot be subverted or taken over. It has its weaknesses, but I don’t trust the people’s stick to beat my neighbors either.

[–] LoveSausage@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Making my point. That's the think that's creates smelly hippies . The opposite is what actually create socialist states. . The people's stick will beat deadbeats and I'm happy with that. Liberalism is perhaps the ideology you are looking for?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Ohhhhhhh, you stand in the front this revolution, we’re done standing between you and the fascists. May you suffer the world you seek to create.