cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/shit/p/1243452/facts
SVG Code
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
116 points (92.0% liked)
Memes
16560 readers
1388 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Relegated" means "to consign to an inferior or obscure place, rank, or category". And while I do not oppose governments regulating corporations (🤡 on 🤡 "violence" from my perspective) while both continue to exist, I want to see them both "relegated to the dustbin of history", i.e. abolished by the freed proletariat as part of an anarchist revolution.
My apologies, but that still sounds an awful lot like governing.
I mean
it kinda depends on what definition of "government" you're using, i.e. how much structure you give the word. I've been using "government" here as synonymous with "state", which is a little imprecise.
The part of government to which I am opposed is the authoritarian, hierarchical, nonconsensual, and violent power structure it imposes on the world, i.e. the state. For this reason, both pragmatically and from a position of moral outrage, states are unfit for liberatory purposes.
But that does not necessarily mean I oppose other forms of organization, e.g., anarchist collectives, community defense organizations, unions, and technical societies. Of course, these must continue to be freely associated, anti-authoritarian systems which do not reinforce power structures. For the latter two in particular, although it is possible for any organization, these are absolutely not inherently guaranteed characteristics. Hence why we must continuously reevaluate all existing organizations and deconstruct power hierarchies wherever they pop up. One could reasonably argue that anarchist collectives, community defense organizations, unions, and technical societies are "governments" in a weak sense, i.e. a sense that allows governments to be freely associated and without dominance. I obviously don't oppose these "governments" on principle.
But when ordinary people talk about "government"...they really mean the official organs of the state. They're thinking about men in uniforms with guns bearing down on them to force them to follow the law. (So my prior imprecision was justified.) I oppose this. Revolutionary violence, by contrast, is temporary, targeted, defensive, and bounded, and should in only be introduced as a last resort. (That being said...we are literally hundreds of years past the point where defensive violence against the capitalist class became a necessity. I.e. violence is the last resort, and it's necessary because these capitalist fucks won't leave us alone.)
Anarchists like me do not seek to establish a "revolutionary" state or even a permanent, hierarchical revolutionary vanguard (i.e., unlike other communists, anarchists are not vanguardists). We want the oppressed classes to free themselves from their power hierarchies, with bounded violence if needed (which it is). This is in stark opposition to the formation of a state.