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.
Similarly, a politician can abuse kids with impunity, but you can go to prison for seeing pictures of him doing it (or of others doing the same).
I’m not saying that possession of CSAM shouldn’t be illegal, but if we’re not prosecuting the crimes they depict, then is what they depict the crime or is it the knowledge it’s happening and who’s doing it?
You just need to familiarize yourself with the concept of blackwhite. Do you know much newspeak?
Let me doublethink about that
As far as I know CSPAN comes with most cable packages.
That's the point of government: the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
That's from "Politics as a Vocation" by Max Weber. It's also why the population needs to beat back if that violence isn't legitimate (i.e. it's abusing the population in the first place).
Or dissolve the government and realise offloading societal obligations to use violence to a hierarchical organisation is not the solution.
If there must be violence, let it come from the people for the people.
Government is like money. Get rid of it and people will create it again to fill the function they need it to fill, so let's have it do what we need and help instead of harm
you're making that up
No, they aren't. Humans have been using currency for thousands of years because it's just assigning a value to labor.
While a currency free system is possible on a very small scale, it's not something that can reasonably scale.
Which is the main problem with anarchy. You have to have a centralized government with a vertical hierarchy when you're dealing with massive populations because there are too many moving parts for millions of small groups to effectively self advocate.
Not to mention that achieving anarchy would require total world domination through a robust centralized power structure and lots and lots of killing.
There is still a point, though, when a government gets so bad that you just have to throw it away even if you know a new one would eventually rise to replace it.
Yup. People are social animals, and governments are just formalized outgrowths of the social structures they form. Fun bit, the research they've done shows that not just people but all primates fall back into all of the same social structures they are used to whenever there is a vacancy.
Vigilantism is not a suitable replacement. The general population is shit at properly investigating things.
Just look at how Reddit responded to who they incorrectly thought was the Boston Marathon bomber. A lot of innocent people will die to mob justice.
Community defences is a suitable replacement.
I can point to millions of examples of cops and courts getting it wrong and innocent people suffering and dying, yet that’s not an argument against the system for you so why should it be against community management?
As there are millions of examples of them finding culprits and getting it right. I may not agree with the punishments, but I think your argument breaks down outside of a very small close knit community of people who practice consensus decision making.
You can't just plop down community management without the culture to make it work. These tools are missing from most communities and would lead to as many negative results if not more.
We don't even need to create hypothetical examples of this because we already have many historical examples of community management gone wrong like the Salem Witch trials.
I think you need to seriously address this before you can shout community management as a panacea.
You can’t just plop down community management without the culture to make it work. These tools are missing from most communities and would lead to as many negative results if not more.
Well of course. Nothing will work right away if people aren't educated and empowered. But the tools are missing precisely because we have given them to the state. Thus to see this change, they must be returned to the community who can relearn to practice them.
We also have examples of community management going right, such as in Rojava or Chiaps where the people are the ones patrolling their streets, deciding on how to right wrongs collectively, and generally showing much better results than we have in the West.
and innocent people die at the hands of police. i'm willing to take my chances with my neighbors.
Weber did mean to legitimize the state but his reasoning can easily be turned from prescriptive to descriptive: we define the state as merely the entity with monopoly on violence over an area. Who decides what is "legitimate" violence? Why, the state, of course: by definition, it has the means to impose its views.
The Weberian idea is there are legitimate non-violent politics that the state offers itself to, which therefore allow the state to use violence against unlegitimate politics that don't "play by the rules". However since the state itself decides what is legitimate or not, and since any illegitimate political group will turn illegal else disappear when faced with the violence of the state, we just land back where we started: the state has a monopoly on violence and that is what decides what is "legitimate" politics, and therefore what is legitimate violence. The state calls its own violence "law", but that of others "crime".
The current labelling of political opponents as terrorists by the US government is illustrative of that. Some Weberians have you believe that is all legitimate since after all there indeed was an election
It's easy to get away with crime, though.
Step 1: have parents who are billionaires
Step two, pick victims who are socially disadvantaged
Step 3: Pit them against each other to distract them while you run out the back carrying all the money, leaving them with crumbs.
The news media is pushing the narrative that it was a fake school. Fake art supplies etc. Its REALLY fucking evil. Of course everyone will believe that now.
Who cares about the school. Were the children also fake?
Oh, children don't look like children on camera you have to paint capybaras.
Only to people who believe the media, who are already quite lost.
what is this in reference to?
US tomahawking 200 kids at girl school in Iran recently.
didn't they also double tap to kill the responders and survivors
I just assume the evil sumbitches are doing that on all the bombings now
Criminal law is basically self interest fully encoded. "Well I don't want bad things to happen to me, so lets codify them all and make it illegal to do any of them."
state that does not have to answer to its citizens is basically foreign occupation
👀