this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
197 points (93.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
2459 readers
334 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
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.