this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
199 points (93.1% liked)

Flippanarchy

2358 readers
1045 users here now

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


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Radio waves were thought to have no value, to the point that the person that discovered them thought so too.

Following this graph, we would never have radio, because it didn't have value. Which was true.

There's many things where something didn't have value but does later on. That's where this graph has a huge flaw.

Unless you want to extinguish all progressivism.

This graph also doesn't work at a large scale. Good luck figuring out food distribution logistics that everyone just accepts at a scale of even 200,000 people, let alone millions. "But just make an organization of volunteers that deals with that!" - congratulations, you just reinvented "government".

Unfettered Capitalism is extremely obviously not the answer, but neither is idealistic anarchism that at best works only with a smaller sizes community that does not rely on anything post-industrial era due to advanced complex logistical systems of creation. There needs to be a new system.

[–] LSNLDN@slrpnk.net 9 points 9 hours ago

But nobody even likes twitter ☹️

[–] vrek@programming.dev 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I get the idea but there are several issues.

  1. Intermediate products. For example I've used many automatic measuring microscopes, so if a block was 25mm +/- 1mm it would find the edge of both sides and calculate the distance between them and determine if part was good. These systems are very expensive (cheap ones could buy a car, expensive ones could buy a house). It's useful but I don't think anyone would make it without a benefit to them personally. Technically I could do the same with a drop gauge or even a ruler but wouldn't be as accurate or as fast. In a lot of cases you don't need that, for example making utensils like forks or spoons. But for example making gears in a transmission have as tight if not tighter tolerances.

  2. Quanitity. Now let's make a house, yeah people might like the act of building. And we all agree houses are valuable, not monetarily but in shelter from weather and safety from animals and other humans. How many screws are in your house? If your answer is 3 digits you are wrong. Who is going to make all those screws? Now we are going to ignore machine screws which need a precise thread and just use wood screws. Do you think anyone's life dream is to make 10,000s of screws? If you find someone to make them, how are they going to feed their family over the months/years it will take them?

  3. Quality. Going back to screws they need accurate threading and accurate heads. Without accurate heads a screwdriver won't work(think of removing a stripped screw) and without accurate threads it won't screw down or mate with the drilled hole. Who is going to verify that? If you "buy" 1000 screws and only 50 are usable what do you do? With no incentive to make good screws does the screw maker care? Who is going to verify the food you get is safe to eat?

  4. Non-profit products. Let's say you love math. How are you going to survive? In history their were patrons who paid some of these people hoping there would be a reason in several years or decades. Some worked out, some didn't. But someone needed to say "yeah study how to solve that problem and I'll support you while you do". But they have limited resources too. In most cases these were basically investments hoping the end product would result in a net benefit. You can't survive with just math. You can't go into the woods and scream a theorum at a deer to get meat to feed your family. Now that math feeds into intermediate products which feed into final products which are valuable and that value gets distributed to all the earlier producers.

Yeah people like to make final products. Most people won't enjoy just sitting their useless. Some people like fixing/restoring stuff. But they use so so many stuff other people have done. Distribution is totally fucked up, granted. But for some people to do their dreams there are so many other people they rely on.

[–] nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm gonna skip 1 and come back to it at the end

  1. yes I think there are definitely people willing to do a simple task to create things everybody needs (screws) to make things, plenty of people. the people who produce food and need screws (all of the food producers) will feed the screw makers' families. they have a very obvious incentive to keep their screw makers alive even if we're being superficial in the way capitalism has trained us to be (in an anarchist/communist/socialist society we don't feed and house and heal people based on how useful they are. we give them what they need because they deserve it because they're people, their existence makes them valuable and worthy of the things they need)

  2. no incentive to make good screws? what??? they're using those screws in their own house too!! you gotta be trolling tbh, what?? people making food will make sure it's safe to eat because they're eating it too!! in what universe is governmental oversight the only way to guarantee quality?

  3. people deserve the things they need to have to exist, just by simple right of them existing. "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." there is more than enough food and housing in the world to feed and house everybody, the only reason we don't is the greed of the ruling class

ok back to 1, I think that people would still make these devices even if they owned the means of production but if they didn't that means that they were not valuable as the flow chart says

getting to part 2 I'm half convinced this is just trolling but I'll still post this in case it's not

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Here’s the harder question that I haven’t seen satisfactorily answered by alternatives to markets:

How many screws should the screw-maker make?

With markets, the answer is that prices are the signal to make more/less screws. The screw-maker doesn’t need to know anything about the rest of society: when screw prices go up they make more screws. When they go down they make less.

Screws are not made by hand today, of course, they’re made by very large and expensive machines that can produce millions of screws per year. When the screw-maker wants to increase screw output but their machine is already at full capacity, they need to buy another machine (and perhaps even another building to house it). Needless to say, this is a very big decision that can’t be taken lightly, otherwise the screw-maker might go out of business.

In a non-market economy, how do decisions like this get made? The advantage of markets is that the decision-makers only need access to “local” information: that is, information about prices of screws and screw-making machines and other miscellaneous details related to the screw-making business. They don’t need to know how the entire economy works as a whole, something central planners do need to know if they’re going to decide for everyone how many screws need to be made.

This simple difference (information on a need to know basis) lets the screw-makers be experts at screw-making, and optimize their business in ways no central planning committee could ever hope to achieve.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 hours ago

How many screws should the screw-maker make?

They probably get asked every day for some screws. They are either capable to extrapolate this into a reasonable monthly goal or they ask for help from someone who is good at that. If they make a mistake and make not enough, than people who need screws will probably have to wait a little. And if they make to many, they can spend their time doing something else. Like where actually is the problem here? We dont need perfection in an anarchist society.

They could even create a guild or syndicate or something with other screwmakers to help each other out in materials, when one is unable to work, when a communities needs emergency screws etc.

And if screw making to meet everyones need is so shitty that nobody would want to do it, then everybody who is able to should do part of it and as a community think of a process that makes this possible and maybe even good by whatever metric they care about.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 45 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Only if you're stuck in a mindset of "it's valuable even if literally nobody wants it enough to make it"

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Cleaning sewers? Generally anything waste related?

There are some people that actually kinda love those jobs, but idk if there are enough of them. And a game of chicken where the first person to become too annoyed at the smell in the streets fixes the issue would be... not great.

But anyway that'd only ever be an issue if there's no market at all but that's not a necessity to not have capitalism

[–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure once the waste starts to pile up it'd be valuable enough to society to remove it that lots of people would be willing to do it. There's people out there right now working full time jobs and still picking up garbage on the side of the road in their free time because they don't want to look at it.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah but you don't want to leave waste up to "we'll do it when the problem gets bad enough."

It requires maintenance and prevention, and while there might be people who recognize that and want to do the prevention there are almost certainly not enough for how large of a task it is. Especially because some of that prevention involves wading around in the poopy water, no body wants that without incentive.

It's the same thing for things like road maintenance and electrical and plumbing maintenance. There are people who would do some of the jobs for free, again maybe, I'm just letting that go for the sake of argument. But those tasks are huge and require vast networks of people with a lot of education doing them professionally. Most are only there right now because they get a paycheck.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 17 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This can be a critical mass thing, though. Some projects are pointless unless you get enough people involved, but then have worthwhile results.

I would also put 'safety' in the "valuable, but no one wants to use it" category (note - not create safety systems, but convincing the truck driver or forge worker or backyard chemist to implement and use them).

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net -2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Then you need to get enough people willing to work on it. If you cannot, then its value is non-existent because it cannot exist without coercion.

When it comes to safety, as long as they are informed and not harming anyone else to do so then it is their choice to take as much risk as they are comfortable with taking. People tend to value their own safety but each values it differently than others, and it is their right to do so as long as they are not imposing harm on anyone else through their actions.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Coercion can be a relative thing - anything from slavery to a gentleman's agreement that if you help me build a house, I'll help you build a house, because neither of us wants to lift rafters on our own.

The work required to e.g. build a (reasonably large) bridge is substantial; the work required to maintain that bridge in a safe condition is also substantial and it's quite well known in free software circles that maintenance is a lot less sexy than building another shiny new bridge - government can struggle with this too, but that's where rigid safety and oversight systems come into it. Start looking at dams and it gets way more scary.

Many many safety failures affect far more than the person who made the decision. That said, you often find the opposite - many people value others' safety more than their own.

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 5 points 9 hours ago

wouldnt get made because it isnt useful.

NEXT!

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I get it and am here for the anarchy of it all, but there's no "no" coming out of the "Would other people be willing..." box, which a capitalist would say is the most important line.

Maybe it should loop back to the "Then capitalism is wasting..." box, since if nobody is willing to create it, is it really valuable enough to exceed creation inertia?

[–] llkkjjhhggffddssaa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

There is a “no”. It loops back to the top.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Haha, oh my god, I looked everywhere and didn't see it. Leaving my comment as-is as a lasting monument to my cluelessness.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Which is funny because it shows the same logic that you stated by returning to the "Is it valuable" question. So even if you missed it, you still came to the same conclusion which just goes to reinforce the legitimacy of the flowchart.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Solarpunk folks be like "would you be willing to CAD a tensegrity-constructed X and print it on your solar-powered 3d printer out of compostable polymer sustainably synthesized from hemp?"

The answer, obviously, is "hell yeah".

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 minutes ago

How would we produce the processors necessary for the 3d printer tho?

[–] SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world 14 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I can hear it now: "Eventually, but the competition of capitalism accelerates innovation so we can have it now instead of decades or centuries from now."

Maybe life would be actually enjoyable without the constant forced pressure of having to be "valuable."

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 5 points 9 hours ago

The "innovation" is why the climate and biosphere are going to shit. It's accelerationism -- straight into a cliff wall that's on the other side of an abyss.

X is the opposite of valuable.

[–] oeuf@slrpnk.net 1 points 15 hours ago

This is the one

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

What about Y? Or A-W for that matter? And Z???