this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
20 points (88.5% liked)

Flippanarchy

2489 readers
1125 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
 

I made a post on hierarchy a month ago but I have some more specific questions now.

I've been hit with the claim that mass production industries that are needed today would not be possible without a hierarchy. That due to regional limitations and the logistics of smartphone manufacturing, technology cannot be produced on the needed scale without a hierarchy of managers.

This is quoted in PCB fabrication, as well as other areas such as medicine and other mass produced goods.

It is also said that managers are needed for efficiency, though I don't understand that.

Because the anarchist movement, abolishing hierarchy, "runs counter" to the "global direction of humanity and progress", it is acclaimed to being "doomed to failure" and "idealist".

What would be the anarchist response to this? Would appreciate detailed responses and/or resources.

I want to improve my anarchist understanding

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Call me old school maybe, but I'm a fan of Anarcho Syndicalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

The Mondragon Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque Country of Spain.

...

In 2024, it employed 70,085 people across four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail, and knowledge,[1] with 30,660 workers in the Basque Country, 29,340 elsewhere in Spain, and approximately 10,000 abroad.[2] Co-operative News has described it as the world's largest worker co-operative federation, the largest employer in the Basque Country, and the fifth-largest private employer in Spain.[3]

...

The corporation's companies manufacture consumer goods, capital goods, industrial components, products and systems for construction, and services. Services include:

Abantail: adaptive design optimisation

Alecop: engineering training

LKS Consultores: legal services

KREAN: architects and engineers

MCCTelecom: telecommunication engineering

Mondragon Lingua: translation and language schools

Mondragon Sistemas: automation, industrial computing, and telecommunications

Ondoan: turnkey projects in energy and environment

...

Mondragon co-operatives share a humanist view of business and a philosophy of participation and solidarity. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a defined set of principles, corporate values, and business policies.[22]

...

Mondragon bases its culture on 10 basic co-operative principles: open admission, democratic organisation, the sovereignty of labour, instrumental and subordinate nature of capital, participatory management, payment solidarity, inter-cooperation, social transformation, universality, and education.[24]

The philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: co-operation (acting as owners and protagonists), participation (commitment to management), social responsibility (distribution of wealth based on solidarity), and innovation (continual renewal across all areas).[25]

These values are translated into basic objectives (customer focus, development, innovation, profitability, people in co-operation, and community involvement) and general policies approved by the Co-operative Congress, which feed into the four-year strategic plans and the annual business plans of the individual co-operatives, divisions, and the corporation as a whole.[26]

Wage regulation

At Mondragon, wage ratios between executive work and the field or factory work that earns a minimum wage are agreed by vote. The ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 across cooperatives and average 5:1; the general manager of an average cooperative earns no more than five times the theoretical minimum wage paid in their cooperative. Most worker-owners do not earn the minimum wage because most jobs are classified at higher wage levels. The wage ratio of a cooperative is decided periodically by its worker-owners through a democratic vote.[27]

Personally, I think that the idea of 'abolish all hierarchy' is rather silly.

Instead, question and critique all hierarchy, and then use what you learn from that to design the most equitable system possible.

Mondragon is not perfect, but I would argue it is (at least in the west) the most well known functional antithesis to capitalist private ownership that actually literally works and produces complex things.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

What form(s) of hierarchy do you believe is necessary or helpful, and why?

Can you introduce me to Anarcho syndicalism?

Thanks for the mondragon example and quotations, I've saved this for future reference.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If I could tell you plainly what specific forms of hierarchy are and are not acceptable, a consistent and coherent ruleset that 100% accurately defines that, I'd have essentially created a grand unified theory of anarchism.

I am not that smart.

I would argue that part of the entire idea of anarchism is that no one is, that people and groups will always have differences, even if they broadly agree on general principles.

Generally speaking, I would say start with the idea of 'a system is to be judged by what it does or produces, not what it claims to do or produce.'

Apply that principle to everything, every social construct, every machine, every bias or norm, every political system, every monetary or financial system, every mode of production.

There will commonalities in many of these subsets, but many of them will also have unique elements thay require at least some level of specialized knowledge or serious study to well comprehend.

As to anarcho-syndicalism, well I mean wikipedia is a decent starting point ->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism is an anarchist organisational model that centres trade unions as a vehicle for class conflict. Drawing from the theory of libertarian socialism and the practice of syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism sees trade unions as both a means to achieve immediate improvements to working conditions and to build towards a social revolution in the form of a general strike with the ultimate aim of abolishing the state and capitalism.

Anarcho-syndicalists consider trade unions to be the prefiguration of a post-capitalist society, and seek to use them in order to establish workers' control of production and distribution. An anti-political ideology, anarcho-syndicalism rejects political parties and participation in parliamentary politics, considering them to be a corrupting influence on the labour movement.

In order to achieve their material and economic goals, anarcho-syndicalists instead practice direct action in the form of strike actions, boycotts and sabotage. Anarcho-syndicalists also attempt to build solidarity among the working class in order to unite workers against the exploitation of labour and build workers' self-management.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Worker's cooperatives can and do run factories lol

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Globally? As in beyond just local-level set ups. Cause they need to be able to do the international logistics to compile all the respective pieces of computers, or smn.

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

It's well known that people cannot collaborate long distance without coercive violent threats. I'll fucking kill you if you disagree.

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

Horizontal hierarchies are better at handling complexity than vertical hierarchies.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Could I direct you to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com? Thos community is probably better suited for a discussion, as !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is mainly a meme community.

managers are needed for efficiency

Whoever said that never worked in a corporate job lol. Also David Graeber made a good argument for why manager (as in hierarchical decicionmakers, not as in sorting out logistics) are a bullshit job. But who even cares about efficiency more than about human suffering? Capitalists do, anarchists don't.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Saw a take that "billionaires are needed to stimulate the economy" a few days ago. The funniest part is they specifically meant Chinese "socialism" when writing that.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Lmao. If there is some useful function that billionaires do, then you should be able to emulate it in a democratically controlled way without enriching individuals.

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago

Oh so we all need to be pedophiles in an anarchist society? Thanks. Thanks so much.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 day ago

Which was my point in response, yeah. There's nothing of value they provide that can't be done without creating a massive wealth inequality.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah I figured that community wasn't as active as flippanarchy, but alright.

That appears to be a whole book, perhaps I can give it a read sometime

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

That appears to be a whole book, perhaps I can give it a read sometime

I tried to link the relevant paragraph, maybe your brwose doesnt take you there correctly. Its under the section "5. what taskmasters do" of the second chapter.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

That appears to be a whole book, perhaps I can give it a read sometime

Yes, anything from Greaber is absolutely eye-opening.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I’ve been hit with the claim that mass production industries that are needed today would not be possible without a hierarchy. That due to regional limitations and the logistics of smartphone manufacturing, technology cannot be produced on the needed scale without a hierarchy of managers.

This is quoted in PCB fabrication, as well as other areas such as medicine and other mass produced goods.

Just because some people cannot image alternative pathways to reach a goal, it doesnt mean its impossible. But I would agree that current global production lines are incompatible with anarchism, as they use local / regional circunstances to maximize their exploitation through ressource extraction, low wages, lower safety regulations etc.

Managers, CEOs, states, colonialism, patriarchy and more hierarchical institutions are needed to protect this exploitation, to justify it and to further it through violence.

I dont really care about the ability to produce billions of smartphones yearly and I am sure a reduction of PCB production would be manageable for an anarchist society. But medicine should be way more accessible globally, so I think anarchists should have some answers ready. One I can think of is the end of medicine patents. Other answers were mentioned in this Lemmy thread Medicine production in an anarchist society

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, we all need to remember that every smartphone, every cup of coffee is an exported exploitation pain and suffering. That we all partake in this mess routinely.

And I agree completely that anarchistic societies should not really attempt to replicate things that capitalism is capable of. Sure PCBs and chips could be scavenged and repurposed - something hierarchical system is TOTALLY incapable of, it being economically nonviable. Medicine production is whole another thing, local chemists could totally cater to all the finest needs in local community if only they wouldn't be busted by SWAT on day 1 like some drug making labs (which IMO should also be totally accepted in society so long as they don't turn into another capitalist abomination of control and pointless accumulation/exploitation). I feel this pain, being a chemist, so many opportunities to make our world a better place just made impossible by violence.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Being able to make enough mobiles for everyone around the world would be significant if we are trying to go for implementing an anarchist model of society globally (or it's just not viable).

I'll check out the link.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Being able to make enough mobiles for everyone around the world would be significant if we are trying to go for implementing an anarchist model of society globally (or it’s just not viable).

There are probably already enough smart phones in existense for every person on the planet. And I really dont think snartphones are a necessary component of enabling anarchism, but its also not really anything bad to have them, IF we can source them and their parts without further hurting the earth via extraction. I think the current style of yearly new models and the goal of rapid improvement of capabilities is something that an anarchist society would question and probably end.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

The chips themselves would suffice. Check out collapse OS.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That implies people would be content living under a system that didn't allow them to get a phone, when modern everyday work and life have become inextricably digitized to a significant extent.

Though I agree in that we don't need new models every year lol.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 23 hours ago

I think there probably reasonable and non violent ways to get everyone pretty decent smartphones, its just not something I would prioritize. An anarchist society spanning the whole globe might disagree with me of course and I wont object in that case, as long as we dont keep up current destructive practices.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anarcho-syndicalism is of course not a real thing

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's that?

I'm new to anarchism.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tldr unions get real big and do more and more and knit together more and more with less and less use for money and stuff until there's literally no more excuse for the bosses and governments or close enough as to make no difference it was way more plausible a century ago when unions ran things like social clubs and hospitals even in anti labor places like the united States but it took a pretty big hit when the shitlibs blockades Spain except German and itallian weapons during the civil war

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, anarcho syndicalism was so threatening as a concept that both the Nazis and Stalinists tried very hard to kill it, the first from without and the second from within.

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Centralized, efficient mass production of goods to satisfy human needs does require some hierarchy, but under a society that has successfully abolished commodity production in favor of production for use these hierarchies would operate in a completely different way than they do now - not being born out of class antagonisms but rather out of necessity for coordination, never permanent but revocable and based on competency.

A project or a large production chain might have engineers, organizers - basically, whatever is necessary for the division of labor and for the end product to come into fruition. After all, how are you going to manufacture something like a phone without dividing up necessary tasks, having someone directing the production chain (which often consists of 1000+ people btw)?

Kropotkin and his anarcho-communism theory (which is the most developed anarchist theory afaik) does propose a solution as seen in the works such as "Fields, Factories, and Workshops" where the argument is essentially 'centralized production requires hierarchy, therefore we must have small localized production', or in other words, throw away hundreds of years of progress and return to medieval style-esque production which would greatly increase the total amount of work hours needed to produce goods to satisfy needs (assuming all the needed materials get supplied without issues), all for the sake of ideology and ghosts within the mind.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Kropotkin ...

I would like to reply to this specific part with an quote and an link from the anarchist FAQ. Feel free to follow the link, there is so much more detail an perspective in the parts I left out of the quote.

I.3.8 Do anarchists seek "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production"?

No. The idea that anarchism aims for small, self-sufficient, communes is a Leninist slander. They misrepresent anarchist ideas on this matter, suggesting that anarchists seriously want society based on "small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production." In particular, they point to Kropotkin, arguing that he "looked backwards for change" and "witnessed such communities among Siberian peasants and watchmakers in the Swiss mountains." [Pat Stack, "Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246] Another Leninist, Donny Gluckstein, makes a similar assertion about Proudhon wanting a federation of "tiny economic units". [The Paris Commune, p. 75]

...

Kropotkin's vision was one of federations of decentralised communities in which production would be based on the "scattering of industries over the country -- so as to bring the factory amidst the fields . . . agriculture . . . combined with industry . . . to produce a combination of industrial with agricultural work." He considered this as "surely the next step to be made, as soon as a reorganisation of our present conditions is possible" and "is imposed by the very necessity of producing for the producers themselves." [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, pp. 157-8] He based this vision on a detailed analysis of current economic statistics and trends.

Kropotkin did not see such an anarchist economy as being based around the small community, taking the basic unit of a free society as one "large enough to dispose of a certain variety of natural resources -- it may be a nation, or rather a region -- produces and itself consumes most of its own agricultural and manufactured produce." Such a region would "find the best means of combining agriculture with manufacture -- the work in the field with a decentralised industry." Moreover, he recognised that the "geographical distribution of industries in a given country depends . . . to a great extent upon a complexus of natural conditions; it is obvious that there are spots which are best suited for the development of certain industries . . . The[se] industries always find some advantages in being grouped, to some extent, according to the natural features of separate regions." [Op. Cit., p. 26, p. 27 and pp. 154-5]

Kropotkin stressed that agriculture "cannot develop without the aid of machinery and the use of a perfect machinery cannot be generalised without industrial surroundings . . . The village smith would not do." He supported the integration of agriculture and industry, with "the factory and workshop at the gates of your fields and gardens" in which a "variety of agricultural, industrial and intellectual pursuits are combined in each community" to ensure "the greatest sum total of well-being." He thought that "large establishments" would still exist, but these would be "better placed at certain spots indicated by Nature." He stressed that it "would be a great mistake to imagine industry ought to return to its hand-work stage in order to be combined with agriculture. Whenever a saving of human labour can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome and will be resorted to; and there is hardly one single branch of industry into which machinery work could not be introduced with great advantage, at least at some of the stages of the manufacture." [Op. Cit., p. 156, p. 197, p. 18, pp. 154-5 and pp. 151-2]

Clearly Kropotkin was not opposed to large-scale industry for "if we analyse the modern industries, we soon discover that for some of them the co-operation of hundred, even thousands, of workers gathered at the same spot is really necessary. The great iron works and mining enterprises decidedly belong to that category; oceanic steamers cannot be built in village factories." However, he stressed that this objective necessity was not the case in many other industries and centralised production existed in these purely to allow capitalists "to hold command of the market" and "to suit the temporary interests of the few -- by no means those of the nation." Kropotkin made a clear division between economic tendencies which existed to aid the capitalist to dominate the market and enhance their profits and power and those which indicated a different kind of future. Once we consider the "moral and physical advantages which man would derive from dividing his work between field and the workshop" we must automatically evaluate the structure of modern industry with the criteria of what is best for the worker (and society and the environment) rather than what was best for capitalist profits and power. [Op. Cit., p. 153, p. 147 and p. 153]

Clearly, Leninist summaries of Kropotkin's ideas on this subject are nonsense. Rather than seeing "small-scale" production as the basis of his vision of a free society, he saw production as being geared around the economic unit of a nation or region: "Each region will become its own producer and its own consumer of manufactured goods . . . [and] its own producer and consumer of agricultural produce." Industry would come to the village "not in its present shape of a capitalist factory" but "in the shape of a socially organised industrial production, with the full aid of machinery and technical knowledge." [Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 151]

Industry would be decentralised and integrated with agriculture and based around communes, but these communes would be part of a federation and so production would be based around meeting the needs of these federations. A system of rational decentralisation would be the basis of Kropotkin's communist-anarchism, with productive activity and a free society's workplaces geared to the appropriate level. For those forms of industry which would be best organised on a large-scale would continue to be so organised, but for those whose current (i.e., capitalist) structure had no objective need to be centralised would be broken up to allow the transformation of work for the benefit of both workers and society. Thus we would see a system of workplaces geared to local and district needs complementing larger factories which would meet regional and wider needs.

Link to the relevant part of the anarchist FAQ

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

PCB fabrication exists because hierarchical systems can't assemble electronics without PCBs.

Making a PCB in a small chaotic team (or even alone, damn, who in hw didn't etch their own PCBs as a kid?) is totally possible and quite easy; now making them to tight specs to make them compatible with a vertical manufacturing giant is incredibly hard (yet doable).

I was running an anarchic hardware design and manufacturing shop until last year (now I just have a bunch of unused equipment at home; can't come up with ideas on what to do). The problem wasn't in production, the problem was in sales - monopolist shops took over whole distribution networks and won't let an outsider in without getting their cut.

What would you need electronics devices for, anyway? Other than run Android that's designed to be ridiculously complex and uniform, alienating system with a sprawl of flaws and horrible centralization; catering hardware for smartphone industry is exactly hard because of hierarchical system in existence. Sure, there is an ecosystem of apps... that get rewritten on a monthly basis, cloned and vibecoded in minutes. And operating system vulnerabilities get scaled worldwide in an instant as everyone has exact same system.

I'd say, we'd have way more beauty in the world and way more security if our hardware was not unified. And for that we'd need to get rid of hierarchical optimizations. Which is not going to happen... on a global scale, that is, I'm soldering my nonsence equipment in a non-standard way now and do not care.

Here is a customary link to my friend working without a PCB at all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo8qckXgNNw I just love rewatching this sick video.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But even if you're running a local system of apps and hardware, you still need to be able to manufacture the parts needed for said electronic devices.

I didn't think PCB was something people could make themselves, that is cool.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Manufacture or scavenge or trade. There were initiatives to build local chips, too, those just fail because existing fabs are just too good; also because when you really need a job done, you often do not even need any electronics. One common place where we all rely on it inevitably is access to this internet - which it pretty much a manifestation of capitalist unifying action; totally expected to require us to comply somehow, also totally avoidable, if we choose to (although autonomous zones are better off not ignoring stuff just randomly).

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you in favour of abolishing the internet?

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 1 points 21 hours ago

No I'm not. It's just important to be able to do a personal action if you choose to IMO.

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

Also check out mechanical computing while you are at it.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If the workers are motivated, they can self-organize. However, a hierachy in a production facility or across multiple is not incompatible with anarchy on a national scale. There can be different kind of jobs. There can be someone who just organizes logistics, replacing the manager.

All of this has nothing to do with political systems like anarchism or oligarchy tho. People like to mix them up, but these are economic systems; in this case even microeconomic.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I thought anarchism was against hierarchy? Like isn't that the point of anarchism?

How does a person who organizes logistics differ from a manager?

Please elaborate.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The thing about extreme high frequency x ray lithography is that its literally black magic and the machines literally do not work if the operators don't wish they were somewhere else its that suffering that longing for elsewhere that escape that allows the light to get small enough to cut 4nm MOSFETs and operators' consciousness to leak through the pneuma into the chips that's why computers actually have at least the fractional residue of souls and electrical engineers are all soulless husks its also why all the Asian chip fabs need suicide nets to keep workers because their souls are literally being stolen and they know it and why the big american chip fab is in phoenix az so you can't tell

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get this is satire but like idk something about global logistics of moving parts across countries being needed for manufacturing computers. Honestly I guess it's difficult to understand if I have no clue how computers are made to begin with.

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It was made that way for the capitalism it can all be put in the same very very large building that's kind of what shenzhen is anarchists can and do do global logistics its just usually smuggling because States hate us so you don't hear about it in detail and we tend to prefer because shipping isn't free and people should be able but not have to rely on each other if they don't want to what I outlined there is only like half as stupid as claim in OP that authoritarianism is necessary