I know plenty of people who hate both
this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
110 points (95.1% liked)
Flippanarchy
2514 readers
156 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
-
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The principal difference being that the government issues the currency in the first place. If they didn’t collect taxes the money wouldn’t be worth anything.
So “making you do something you wouldn’t do otherwise” is true, but it’s also allowing you to do something you couldn’t do otherwise.
If they didn’t collect taxes the money wouldn’t be worth anything.
wat. lol. that is legitimately not how currency works. governments didnt invent currency through taxes. currency came about through standardization of value exchange.
According to Adam Smith who was just imagining how money “must have” come about, yeah. But not according to anthropologists who have traced physical artifacts.
See Debt: The First 5,000 Years and/or Finding The Money
There’s actually a very specific section of Finding The Money that covers this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mrje-m01kI8&t=1708
the information in your video doesnt negate anything i said and it doesnt say anything about taxations being the source of currency. it certainly talks about currency being used for taxation but it doesnt imply that taxation was the source of currency (though currency does help with implementing a tax system, but there are plenty of tax systems that didnt use currency either)
you're confusing record keeping and the need for a transferable representation of value which are necessary once specialized skills develop within a community with taxation. the 'traced physical artifacts' are what you can view as signal bias in the analysis. if the actual behavior that triggered the development of currency (the need for a standardization of value between individuals and groups of individuals) doesnt leave any 'records' then you find historical records of taxes etc you'll come to the wrong conclusion. that taxes caused currency to develop, when in fact it was the group dynamics that caused it to develop.