this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
502 points (93.3% liked)

Flippanarchy

210 readers
948 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 [email protected]

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.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disguy_ovahea 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (18 children)

My views fall mainly under progressive, between liberal and far-left. I believe we should cap wealth at a billion dollars, and use the surplus capital for alternative energy infrastructure.

That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.

There are plenty of people on the left that hold non-centrist views, who would also not be considered far-left.

[–] captainlezbian 15 points 1 day ago

I’m much more of a “be the dandelions cracking through the pavement” far left than a “burn it down” type

[–] vala 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How did you come up with 1 billion dollars as the cap? You know that's an absolutely absurd amount of money right?

[–] disguy_ovahea 12 points 1 day ago

I chose it arbitrarily. Specifically, I think we should look at historical economic trends, admit that Trickle-Down/Voodoo/Horse and Sparrow economics yielded inequality, redistribute the surplus, and implement equitable economic policies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

“burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.

Yeah, I haven't really been able to make sense of all the tailism and accelerationism happening on .ml and hexbear. I don't know how we've gotten to the point where stanning a bunch of right winged authoritarian countries is a form of anti-imperialism.

[–] chaogomu 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My main take on Tankies is that they're sort of stealth right-wingers.

They believe that the way to communism is through a strongman dictator who will enforce the communism from the top.

If you sub out communism for "social hierarchies" then you have the right-wing wet dream. Because Tankies worship Lenin, the man who betrayed the revolution to seize power after he lost an election. It was the first and last free election in Russia, and Lenin ignored the results because he lost. Then he spent the rest of his life pretending that an authoritarian dictatorship could ever be communist.

No, true communism needs to come from the people. Extreme democracy is the way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you sub out communism for “social hierarchies” then you have the right-wing wet dream.

If you replace "the abolition of social hierarchies" with "the reinforcement of social hierarchies," it makes left wing people sound just like right wing people 🤔

[–] chaogomu 0 points 16 hours ago

My point is that Tankies love dictators and hate democracy.

Which is the antithesis of communism.

Communism is much closer to a worker co-opt than anything else.

Dictators who seize the means of production are just kings in disguise. That's Feudalism. It's a step backwards.

[–] Quadhammer 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Turns out when 90±% of people when put into power have to grapple with their own morals and outside pressures they conform to what the situation calls for right then or use it for their own gain. You're never going to get to utopia when there's so much disfunction and division in the human experience

To me the tankies are almost like nazis in that regard that they want to force the issue and create a new world RIGHT NOW. When there are going to be a billion different factors that are going to counter act that notion and with prejudice

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unlike anarchists, MLs don't really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can't cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.

The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of "burn it all down".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?

I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it's only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.

Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand...... But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the "imperialist core".

Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don't know about or something?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Lenin didn't define Imperialism as "competition between great powers," just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin's analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] undergroundoverground 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, yeah, they don't read theory written after the 1970s. I wouldn't try to reconcile it with anything written afterwards.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Well the crazy thing is, I'm starting to think they don't read anything but reductionist interpretations made by their fellow shit posters.

A lot of the language they use are terms made by liberal academics made to critique neoliberal policies in the Regan era. They just ignore the rest of the theory they don't agree with, and then claim it all as Marxist Leninists, despite it being antithetical to actual ML writing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But what are we going to do as a society if we don't label all people we don't like as a radical?

[–] disguy_ovahea 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If I’ve learned anything from the collective left, it’s that unity comes second to bickering.

Wedge posts like this don’t help.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Exclusivity is more important than inclusivity.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

I'm personally an Anarcho-Syndicalist so yes :3

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago

Two sides of the same coffin

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's just a meme, but is it right to call oneself that in your opinion?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Average. /j

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

yup

Do you call yourself that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

What's the problem with that?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WorkIsSlow 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›