Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
268 points (91.6% liked)
Flippanarchy
1451 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
What legitimately socialist country? Are you referring to the one where "Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics" is the law of the land, perhaps?
It's a complete mystery, I tell you... why would the US want to crush it's most powerful imperialist rival? You know... the one that helped the US push the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan back in the 80s?
Lol!
Liberals can be trusted when they pretend that liberalism is compatible with democracy? Fascists can be trusted when they pretend to be doing something in the interests of nationalism?
Again... lol.
History, perhaps?
Oh, yeah... they rely on the "masses," all right. I guess the Gulags existed to keep them "reliable," eh?
You mean that exact thing all the (supposedly) "Actually Existing Socialist" countries have been doing since their inception to one degree or the other?
There would only be a point to this if we were discussing liberalism. But it's not liberals brigading this post, is it now?
I'll just ignore your other remarks because they're reductive and show that you simply didn't read my comment (as you confirmed in your other reply)
No, those are the contradictions in their ideologies. I know that they're contradictory and they get spun around in circles when they try to figure out those contradictions. That's why I'm not a liberal or a fascist. But when you read liberal and fascist texts, they don't really hide their motivation. The liberal wants the victory of freedom over backwardness and enlightenment over dogmatism. The fascist wants the victory of the will and the ubermensch over the rabble. They don't really obscure those motivations, they're clearly spelled out and intelligible. I'm asking you why it is that when communists state exactly what they are motivated by, they are the ones that actually mean the opposite.
Lol! To those with institutionalised power ideology is not a science, tankie. It's art. It's not contradiction - it's merely the paint they work with. You know... institutionalised power? That thing you tankies are only comfortable talking about as long as it's only liberals and fascists that have it?
Do we live on the same planet? The one on which I live liberals want whatever it is that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer - and that is pretty much it. And yes... everything they say and do is designed to obfuscate that.
Perhaps we should investigate why it is that you have such a hard time seeing that - I sincerely doubt it's purely due to naivety.
So no, tankie... you are not the only one.
Does that make you feel better?
You're conflating ideologues and pragmatists. John Locke and Stuart Mill vs. Actually Existing Liberalism. Kamala Harris believes in nothing, I'm honestly not concerned about what goes on behind those eyes, but it helps to know what the people who do believe in something that are setting the tone for where the state is headed are talking about. FWIW I think the most relevant people to look into for that end are the neoreactionaries, people like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin. It seems like Thiel and other billionaires currently setting the course for how America will deal with its waning hegemony are following in that model.
I'm very familiar with the postmodern condition and how power wields hegemony to make reality what it will, what this means for people that are in danger of being defined out of existence and exterminated. That's an important thing to understand and criticize.
Look, obviously institutional political power and the state are things that naturally lend themselves to oppression. "While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State." Are MLs usually a bit annoyed to argue about this point a lot? Yeah, because when someone who hasn't read Lenin but is familiar with that quote gets in an argument like this, they start to make a lot of claims like "Lenin just wanted to make his own dictatorship to replace the Tsar" or something similar to that. You start to argue that, actually, it would've been best for nothing to have happened because all attempts at seizing power are inherently corrupt and reactionary. I don't have a lot of patience for that, and I'm not even really an ML personally, I just think that it's a very privileged position to have that because all states are oppressive the workers ought to just nobly stop having a state at all.
Did you read my comment, or did you just skim over it looking for phrases to reply to with a dictionary of cheap gotchas?
If you want my undivided attention, tankie, you should have a word with your fellow tankies about the brigade you launched on this post.
I think it's pretty funny that you've just become openly anti-intellectual, though. There's now multiple subthreads where you've disgracefully taken on the most stereotypical image of an anarchist telling the adults that bed time (good epistemology) is fascist. If you can't be arsed to read through an argument, what (if not arrogance) makes you feel the need to refute it?
You call the shit you tankies spout "arguments?"
What's a good argument, then? Citing Orwell and Arendt? Fangirling over slave-owning Greek lesbians on Tumblr? What's the rhetorical magnum opus of the online-anarchist cultural milieu?
I know you tankies are sore at Orwell for calling out your realpoliticking horseshit... but what is your problem with Arendt now?
Maybe read the essay I cited!
Racism, you complete blockhead. She was a horrendous racist.
(also true of Orwell)
It's not just her racism, which was really horrible even for the time, it's the way that she was a zealously driven anticommunist to the point that she had to use her racism to justify why the "totalitarianism" she observed in the commonalities between the USSR and Nazi Germany didn't also describe Western liberal countries. Spoiler alert: every crime you can accuse the USSR of committing was done an order of magnitude more by the British Empire.
I trace back the infantile anti-authoritarian arguments of today to Arendt. The fantasy of the Orientals being subhumans that just have to submit themselves to an authoritarian government, as opposed to our free and democratic Western governments, is incredibly pervasive even in the left.
It was a serious question, tankie - I've never read much of Arendt's work.