Flippanarchy
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.
view the rest of the comments
...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.
The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.
Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.
Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.
~~No, it means, no rulers.~~
~~Anomie means no rules~~
~~Edit: at least that's the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.~~
~~Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times here~~
Bud, re-read what I said
Ah, fuck...misread, sorry
Ok, and who gets to decide those rules?
And don't start with "everyone decides them", I mean practically. Who gets to have the idea of a rule, bring it forth to the group, organize the whole shtick of deciding on it, implement it, inform everyone else how the new rule works, enforce it, and everything else that needs to happen for a rule to exist?
Do some reading. There are a lot of solutions. The most obvious, as you brought it up just to dismiss it, is direct democracy. Everyone votes. There are other options too, like a rotating panel of representatives, so no one has lasting g authority and everyone shares in it.
There are people smarter than both of us who think it's a good idea and have thought of potential solutions. Before you just dismiss things out of hand, you should actually look into what solutions have been thought of before. I promise you your thought isn't unique, and people have considered how it would work. Maybe you can learn from it, even if you don't agree with it.
I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.
I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.
Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn't hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.
Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.
I love people who are so confident that they're the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here's the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you're actually open to learning.
I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don't think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to "learn something". I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?
Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I'll bother.
The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I've read it.
Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You'd rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You'd rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.
how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?
Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.
Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.
What democracy? I dont see any democracy here.
even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.
so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.
it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.
indeed :)