this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
307 points (97.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
2094 readers
233 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…
No. The problem is that what people want is not the same as what the people need.
The central problem of economics is that humans have infinite desires, which need resources to be met, and resources are finite. Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.
If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers, you're gone get more fiction books than you can read, and you're probably die of hunger, because now the other 900 have to sustain the 100 writers for basically no value. Since probably most people will only want to read the top 1-2 that are actually good.
If the other 99-98 other writers don't have any pressure to change careers because the community provides for them, why would they? The thing they want to do most is writing!
And all that is assuming such a civilization exists. From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense. Our world was born anarchic. There were no CEOs nor governments. And the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies, because that is the most efficient way.
The natural consequence of anarchy is non-anarchy. Anarchy is not a final state, it's transitory. Anarchy is not a stable state.
Just like you can try mixing water and oil all you want, the moment you stop stirring, they will separate.
The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force. That is, if you want anarchy, there must be someone enforcing that there be anarchy. And if that's the case, then it's no longer anarchy, since there is a ruler.
Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.
Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm
You don't need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.
Hierarchy is not when you are convinced someone is wise lol. Please read a book
When i say that there were sages in tribes, I don't mean that there was just a wise guy. I mean that an elder would basically rule the tribe, because everyone would ask him for advice, and there could be consequences if that "advice" wasn't followed.
Supply evidence for your claim. Modern anthropology basically disagrees with you utterly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe
Under "classifications" plenty of kinds of tribes. Many of them with leaders and hierarchies.
This is a waste of my time. You aren't interested or wanting to learn, you have a cartoon definition of anarchy in your head, you've made no study of human culture and society, you know nothing of the nuanced differences between various cultural groups that have all been lumped under "tribal" and the complex obligations therein, you have not made a study of anything.
Obviously a chief is a chief is a chief, and obviously these structures existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Yep, completel trivial to explain the fascinating details of the egalitarian and not so egalitarian burial traditions we've found, the decorated disables bodies, sites like Çatalhöyük showing stable and identical houses for thousands of years.
That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.
Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes
Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.
That’s a fine opinion to hold.
There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?
Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.
Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?
I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.
All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.
We're not talking about capitalism. IDK where you're getting that from.
I'm reading your argument as "the current system sucks, so this other that I propose is obviously better".
Yes, you can keep mixing water and oil. That's the point of my argument. But to do that, you need someone to enforce anarchy. But when you have someone enforcing a political system, you no longer have anarchy. Since that dude/organization is clearly above others, forming a hierarchy.