Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
265 points (91.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
1414 readers
1 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Correct. I do not discuss squat with enemies.
Oh, look... the reactionary cosplaying as a leftist is calling me a "reactionary."
You're calling us your enemies because you refuse to actually read what we're saying. We have the same goal and the same people want to put us in prison or to simply shoot us. The only real ways in which our views put us on opposite ends of any political discourse are historical debates like the one you're running away from right now. If you can't even engage in the debate (which is valid, I honestly CBA to parse through all the primary sources to figure out which side of the debate is more correct about the nature of the soviet system or whatever either), then why are you taking such a strong position in the debate's conclusion? Why does the conclusion matter so much to you that you're willing to draw a line in the sand and declare us your enemies, but the process of getting there doesn't matter enough to read "walls of text" (God forbid you ever encounter a book)?
I call you enemies because you are reactionaries cosplaying as leftists. I call you enemies because our ideologies are violently incompatible and diametrically opposed to each other.
See? No walls of text required, tankie.
Okay, but you see how you're arguing circularly now? Actually, I think if I try to trace back your epistemology here, it's worse than circular: it's just made up.
"We're enemies because we are diametrically opposed, and we are diametrically opposed because of a historical betrayal. The historical betrayal need not be justified because it's well-established fact and a matter of historical record, your evidence can't convince me otherwise"
That's what you sound like. It's intellectually dishonest. You've made a way to argue that is not only exhausting, but puzzling, because I can't see how you don't see what's wrong here.
Really? I'm the one "arguing circularly" here?
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is "made-up" now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it's sad history is "made-up" now?
You tankies really have managed to combine the duplicitousness of the liberal with the self-serving zealotry of the fascist.
The liberal and the fascist can, of course, use the excuse they have been brainwashed into it since birth... but you cannot.
Just break down to me, in simple terms, how you can defend these claims when earlier in this same thread you were dismissing the refutation of this argument (that cited multiple history books) by calling it "tankie walls of text". If you make a claim, then someone refutes it, but you refuse to even read their refutation, you're not in a position to then go back to saying that claim you made earlier is simply true. That's not how it works.
We don’t have to be enemies, but if you insist…
Don’t blame me if you find your back against a
Considering the history of your ideology, tankie, you have even reason to fear that wall than I do.
Ok kiddo