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.
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.
“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.
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".
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?
Ah, yeah, they don't read theory written after the 1970s. I wouldn't try to reconcile it with anything written afterwards.
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.
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.
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
I’m much more of a “be the dandelions cracking through the pavement” far left than a “burn it down” type
How did you come up with 1 billion dollars as the cap? You know that's an absolutely absurd amount of money right?
i’d much rather be arguing about what the cap should be than be arguing if there should even be a cap
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.
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.
I don't know how you combat climate change if you refuse to touch the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
I don't know how you address mass incarceration if you won't dismantle these massive organizations designed to surveil, arrest, and extort poor and homeless people at the scale we operate.
I don't know how you address greedflation and wage theft on a national scale if you don't touch the banking system, you leave in place these huge wage disparities, and you permit privatized industry to control all our critical natural resources.
When we talk about this kind of institution going away, we're talking about creative destruction. Clear space for Green Energy. Establish real civil rights and social justice, rather than a trillion dollar pack of mall cops guarding the richest people's property. Build an economy that allows public collaboration rather than industrial rent seeking.
That's not even utopian. It's just a step forward from capitalism.
But what are we going to do as a society if we don't label all people we don't like as a radical?
If I’ve learned anything from the collective left, it’s that unity comes second to bickering.
Wedge posts like this don’t help.
Exclusivity is more important than inclusivity.
bitch I'm far ting
but are you the shit tho?
Bröther I'm far king exhausted I need a nap.
I'm personally an Anarcho-Syndicalist so yes :3
God bless whoever pointed out "'both sides,' says one side."
I'm always hesitant to use that label because to the average American I'm far left, but to the average leftist I'm a moderate.
It's like it's relative to an ever moving goal post.
I know it wouldn’t work with the format, but fml I cannot upvote because they are the wrong way around
It's just a meme, but is it right to call oneself that in your opinion?
What, far left?
Average. /j
yup
Do you call yourself that?
What's the problem with that?
I was misunderstood for I find this exact wording cringe for far-left is an invention of rightwing propaganda and in itself denies description.
I think I get your point. That's why I prefer "radical left". It's also used as a derogatory term, but it's actually a quite accurate description.
I want us to choose these labels ourselves if we aren't to make our own or trash them altogether (:
And you get to be radical.
Check out my bio ;)
You, like, don't? You use existing go-to terms.
I was misunderstood for I find this exact wording cringe for far-left is an invention of rightwing propaganda and in itself denies description. Hence the question.
The salient point is that we don't try to hide or disguise what we actually believe
It is a topic of it's own discussion (and in r/anarchism and other spaces it was), but with how anarchy is coupled with disaster in a state-provided vocabular, many call themselves libsoc for example, e.g. I default to socialism or socdem. It is, by some degree, muddies the water, at least for those who don't know these things intersect with big scary words.
The difference is, probably, more nuanced. Although both are kinda off-color in a public discussion, fascism unlike anrachism is about statism, nepotism, populism, exclusion, big capital and they hide that because otherwise their goals put clear would frighten off regular folks (and not the state and capital). Anarchism isn't spoken directly because it's the state's dogma that scares people, while the causes are not even close but common and even though about by them already.
I call myself libsoc to randos, but I'll gladly call myself anarchist as well if I know they're not afraid of the word. Reactionaries however will bend themselves backwards to pass as centrists or "concerned citizens". They will of course go all "the time for talking is past" when cornered.
It's not right it's left.
Funny.
Yes. It's good to be self-aware and honest enough to properly represent your viewpoints. Saying your views "are just common sense" or whatever is dishonest.