this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
197 points (93.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
2459 readers
251 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
Anarchism is, as far as I can tell, a contradiction.
Equality and freedom are a core foundation of anarchy, right? Except, how do you enforce it when inevitably someone fails to respect others freedom and rights, if you reject any sort of hierarchy or control?
I'd really love to believe that everyone would be civically irreprehensible, but reality begs to differ.
It's basically a philosophy that says, "if humans would stop being cunts the world would be a good place."
Like, yeah, but have you met people?
Yeah. Most of them aren’t cunts.
Yeah, but it's the ones who are that fuck everything up for the rest of us.
They're the leftist libertarians. Instead of blindly believing in the free market self correcting, they blindly believe in the good will of civil society. Obviously neither has access to a history book.
Ahh yes, humans are evil by nature, therefore we need to give some people power over others.
Individuals are usually good. Tribes are typically good to one another. Competing tribes are fucking ruthless.
Society is an attempt to string tribes together under agreed upon frameworks.
And anarchism doesn't contradict this. Anarchism does not mean no organisation. "Agreed upon frameworks" means consensual organisation. No anarchist is against this.
However, non consensual organisation, where an entity with monopoly over violence forces frameworks on "ruled" tribes and peoples is something that anarchism is meant to solve.
Anarchists in fact DON'T believe in the goodwill of society. Which is why they're against all states, (even if the states are democratic).
Lemme ask you a question. Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else. I'm guessing you wouldn't support such an arrangement. Why? Because you don't trust the rest of the world to have the same values as you, the same way of life, etc. The world is deeply homophobic for example. The UN could immediately ban homosexuality. You wouldn't want that.
The UN is an organization, yes. Is it a state? No. Would the world be better if it was one state? No.
Try analysing using the same technique to lower and lower levels. What about a country? Imagine country X doesn't exist and instead, sovereign provinces in that country exist. They all want to make a deal to cooperate and further shared interests. Does giving up sovereignty over violence make sense as part of that deal? It almost always doesn't (in my opinion).
Take this further down to cities and towns in those provinces.
Sovereignty over violence makes sure that exit from a cooperation agreement is possible. If you remove the ability to exit, then well... you've essentially allowed yourself to be enslaved.
Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
To enforce laws. A "law" is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let's say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state's last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get... the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to "talk". It is not a state itself.
That's a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that's not their job and they tend to suck at it.
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for 'defence' that could be better used for constructive purposes? Also, a world government would redistribute resources and stop colonialism, allowing those 'deeply socially conservative' societies to develop and stop being socially conservative.
Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).
Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I'm done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.
That's perfectly fine, but you can't build a strong political movement on such open individualism. (This is not a moral statement, by the way; you might merely be open about something other movements secretly believe in, but you at least need to make a show of working for the common good.)
It's not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it's pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how "close" they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn't happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
I'm not saying that political movements have to be altruistic in practice. I'm saying the leaders need to at least make a show of working for their followers. People won't readily follow someone who openly says that empathy for others comes after empathy for themself.
Russian revolution was more industrial workers than serfs, but broadly, yes. In other words, they thought the communists would work for their interests. Because they trusted the leaders to work for them, they were ready to make small sacrifices (mostly going on strikes) to support these leaders.
If a movement's leaders do not gain the people's trust, their support will not be strong. The communists were preceded by a more radical group called the narodniks, who were mostly middle-class intellectuals, and favoured an agrarian revolution, and later, assasinations of corrupt officials / nobles. Some people sympathised with them, but because they didn't convince the people that they would work for them (rather than just against the tsar), that 'sympathy' didn't amount to much.
I don't get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
Yes, yes I would very much support that government. I don't see a point in "one armed forces" though, they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
Let's continue from here.
EDIT: About your note that anarchism doesn't believe in the goodwill of society: I said was that freedom and equality are core rights, I don't think you've corrected me on this, so the question stands on who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Hmm... Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women's rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I'm in Canada, and I wouldn't want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let's say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn't given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it's states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.