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
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.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
ID: WookieeMark @EvilGenXer posted:
"OK so look, Capitalism is right wing.
Period.
If you are pro-capitalism, you are Right Wing.
There is no pro-capitalist Left. That's a polite fiction in the US that no one can afford any longer as the ecosystem is actually collapsing around us."
jesus christ these comments are terrible
Keynesian economic policy resulted in unprecedented prosperity for 60 years. It ended by Reagan's trickle down supply side economics.
Seems now there's a false dichotomy between supply side economics (which is an obvious failure) and communism (which was an obvious failure).
Crazy idea, maybe we should consider using economic policy that was proven to work? I guess that makes me hated by both the "right" and the "leftists" (two peas in a pod). So where would that put me in your made up political spectrum?
communism (which was an obvious failure)
Compare any communist country to a capitalist country at the same level of technological development and the communist country comes out ahead in wealth and happiness. Communism only seems like a failure because US and EU propaganda does a trick where they compare isolated (often literally blockaded) Communist countries to the wealthiest empires on the planet and say "look how much more money we have! Our system must be better!"
The trouble with Keynesian economics is that it created the conditions for Reagan's neoliberal revolution to occur, and any country that tries to recreate that economic system will fall into the exact same trap that America did, because the fundamental underlying problem in Capitalism is the ownership of Capital. Capitalists accumulate wealth, and they use that accumulated wealth to capture the system that is supposed to keep them in check, and they sabotage that system for their own profits, and they will do that every single time.
Compare any communist country to a capitalist country at the same level of technological development and the communist country comes out ahead in wealth and happiness.
Could you name an example of this happening?
North Korea was ahead of South Korea in economic development up to the 1960s, IIRC. Happiness is of course mandated by the party.
This has little to do with communism though. Centrally planned economies can transform an economy rapidly from agrarian to industrial, improve education and healthcare immensely. The Human cost for this is can be extremely high though.
I remember reading somewhere that one of the main reasons for the USSR's failure was that they immediately shot down any idea that had the tiniest bit in it that could be interpreted as capitalism-related. Even a suggestion that's 100% communist values but was using some capitalist-sounding terminology would get immediately disqualified and place it's supporters in hot water.
I think the USA - even if not as extremely - is doing the same thing but from the other side.
With such a mindset, "using economic policy that was proven to work" is outright impossible. Any policy that works (and not just in economy) will need to address the problems raised by all major ideologies - because even if an ideology got the solution completely wrong, at the very least that problems it was born from are real. Refusing to acknowledge these problems on ideological basis will not make them go away.
You're getting close, but you're still not quite there. The solution isn't to address all of the concerns of all the ideologies since that would be impossible. The solution is for people to realize that ideology is the problem. When we get to the point where we realize capitalism and socialism are tools that are good for different purposes we could have a healthy economy and we'd all be prosperous. But as long as we continue think in ideological terms which centers around creating false dichotomies that prevent us from using the best tool for the job we're always going to be living in a failed economy.
We'd be no better off living in a failed socialist economy run by the ideology obsessed than we are living in a capitalist economy run by the ideology obsessed.
In the end politics is always tribal, ideologies are just rationalizations made by a tribe to make them feel like they're the rational ones while the other tribes aren't. It's all bullshit.
What is Finland though? Social democracy seems pretty good but still fits in with capitalism as far as I can tell
Neoliberal, just like the rest of the "socialist" nordics (E: having socialised aspects to the state and or economy, or even being a "social democracy" does not socialism make), which are all on the exact same trajectory as the rest of us, only a few years behind.
Do you have an example of a properly socialist country that is doing better than the nordics?
Otherwise, perhaps we should look closely at the politics in the nordics for inspiration of what to do that actually seems to work?
Finland still pollutes the world at unsustainable levels, exploits the global south for raw materials and cheap labour, and is on a downwards trend to fascism like all of Europe. Liberal democracy only has one conclusion, and it's fascism.
Whatever social safety nets and programs they have will be dismantled as Western capitalism devours itself. As is happening all around Europe
Since people don't work for free and some people have more money than others, finland is obviously an extreme right wing faschist oligarchy where people live in miserable slavery and needs the proletariat red army invasion like right now. Wouldn't even be hard for a landlocked nation. The capital Reykvetsvhik would fall in minutes thanks to the liberated people welcoming their saviors.
Yes im American, how could you tell? /S
Politically speaking, I don't believe there's such thing as "right" or "left" except in the relative sense. Even then it's questionable.
Edit: I'm really curious about what people downvoting think it fundamentally means for there to be an absolute political "center" from which there is an objective "right" wing and an objective "left" wing. Furthermore, I'd like to know what advantages this model has that makes you value it so much.
I agree, politics aren't a line where some are in the right, some in the left and the center is some kind of mythological beast (if they are we are screwed, but they aren't)
Politics are complicated, politicians are simple. Capitalism isn't an ideology it's an economic system, it's as good or as bad as the mechanisms put in place to govern/control/rule it. It's supposed to be free but it can't be because no one can't trust corporations, it's also not supposed to be controlled by the State but when they inject money in it that's what they are doing.
Capitalism can work in any kind of environment, and fail too.
Personally I believe democracy is failing, technofeudalism is coming in hard for it. In my country we replaced nobility with politicians and they are the caste, the president is the King, if you defy the party stand you are kicked out, they claim to be socialdemocrats but all the social aspects are worse than 5, 10, and 20 years ago and although keynesian economics plays a part on the reason I believe it's democracy's fault.
Capitalism isn't an ideology it's an economic system
Well, it's both. All economic systems are ideologies with specific values and concerns.
it's as good or as bad as the mechanisms put in place to govern/control/rule it
This implies that economic systems can't be good or bad in themselves. But every implementation of capitalism (or any other economic system) is going to reflect that system's values, and those values can be judged to be good or bad. So I think it's reasonable to label different economic systems as "good" or "bad", so long as you precisely define the system and its values before judging it.
Right and left is a very rough but easy to understand model. In the US it represents the two big parties somewhat okay. You can also put political ideologies on this scale:
fascism - conservatism - liberalism - social democracy - socialism - communism
Centrism is more related to the Overton window, so what’s currently accepted by society as acceptable mainstream discourse. That means the center can include conservatives, liberals, and social democrats. However as the Overton window changes, centrism also adjusts. Centrism strives to represent a supermajority majority consensus.
That was well-thought-out and well-said, thank you.
No lies detected.
So where do Co-ops fall, one where all the workers own everything equally and vote on hiring and firing etc?
Socialism. Plenty of models that use or aspire to that system, especially when it's part of a larger capitalist society and one can't expect the workers to change it all.
Few large coops are truly equal partnerships or that democratic though.
Generally speaking, what prevents it from falling under capitalism is non-transferable ownership stakes. Otherwise the workers can sell their stake and the system inevitably declines into capital interests hiring employees instead of a partnership.
Isn't a co-op just an individual organization where the workers have already seized the means of production and share it fairly among themselves? With every worker having a say right? Sounds like socialism on a small scale to me.
That would be socialism because the power and profit of the company are eventually distributed throughout the workforce regardless of their capital investment.
coöps are cool, but we can't just have coöps. their liberatory potential is cancelled out by the fact that they still participate in capitalism and they still need to turn a profit.
Even if the labour of individuals might be slightly transformed by having a vote over the methods and aims of production, the very nature of co-operatives as institutions for the production of commodities renders them a revolutionary dead end. Even enterprises seized by workers during struggle and turned to cooperative production face a dead end if the broader struggle across society does not continue to move forward.