this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
197 points (93.4% liked)

Flippanarchy

2456 readers
161 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

  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. 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.

  7. 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
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
197
Populism vs Anarchism (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Quite a few comments making false claims about anarchism unfortunately.

Anarchism DOES NOT MEAN NON VIOLENCE. Anarchism means that no institution should have a monopoly over violence.

What happens when a king decides to invade anarchist communes?

Anarchist communes form militias and fight back. Violently.

Anarchism does not mean no organisation. It just means no individual elements giving away their means to violence to an entity that claims to represent the group.

I am not an anarchist myself, but for different reasons. However critiques of anarchism presented in the comments of this post make no sense whatsoever.

[–] ddplf@szmer.info -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you call civil militias in a time of need and how do you make sure it's not a bunch of randos with pipes and baseball bats against armor and guns?

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

If I understood your question correctly, you are asking how one can be sure that anarchist militias would be well equipped and trained against a professional army.

There's somehow an underlying assumption that anarchist militias themselves wouldn't be professional armies.

Let's say 3000 anarchist communes exist in a given piece of land. There's a dictatorship nearby which could invade. 2800 of these communes recognise the threat and a need for their own defense force. They come together and form a defense pact. Requirements of the pact are that every commune supplies x individuals for the militia and x resources. Training is done at xyz training camps, yadayadayada.

Communes are free to leave this pact, but doing so makes them lose protection.

Effectively what you get out of this is a professional army just like any other. WITHOUT the existence of a state.

Organisation can be done by these communes without giving the high command of this defence pact monopoly over violence.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Populism is a common phenomena. Anarchism is mostly a subject of discussion and arguments.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah. Most of them aren’t cunts.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, but it's the ones who are that fuck everything up for the rest of us.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ahh yes, humans are evil by nature, therefore we need to give some people power over others.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Would you support a world government?

Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.

One democratic government, one armed forces.

Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.

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.

Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To enforce laws.

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.

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.

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.

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

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).

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?

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me.

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.)

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

you can't build a strong political movement on such open individualism.

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.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.

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.

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.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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?

Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else.

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?

[–] wraekscadu@vargar.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

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?

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.

Yes, yes I would very much support that government.

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.

they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?

How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.

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?

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.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Lynchings are also what happens when people learn to speak and act for themselves.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wee bit hard to imagine chattel slavery existing without a gigantic state apparatus making that happen, but sure, go off.

(In case it's not clear, I'm assuming you're referencing the American South, and any discussion of what occurred/occurs there cannot be disentangled from the history of state-driven slavery whatsoever, it is all fundamentally and inextricably the same interdependent thing)

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Chattel slavery sure, but slavery in general predates the existence of nation states by centuries. That is beside the point. While lynching has become associated with chattel slavery, it refers to any extrajudicial vigilante execution. The term "Lynching" was coined during the American revolution after extrajudicial corporal punishment or killing of British Loyalists. It was later used quite a bit against Chinese and Mexicans in the American West. Current racial associations arose after the Civil War. (Justifiably so. I'm certainly not arguing that African Americans didn't get the worst of it.)

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fair enough, if the original assertion above is along the lines of "groups thinking for themselves also leads to mob violence like lynching", no real disagreement. But it sounds like you're saying "and that's why hierarchical systems are necessary", or "better", or something.

I just don't find it very compelling to point out mob violence, when comparing it with the brutality enacted against our scapegoats today done with the full might of the state. Which is what your original comment seemed to do, yeah?

We have genocides, we have a teeming for-profit prison system, we have generations of families and people broken beyond repair from targeted attacks on their communities.

But small groups also do the immoral mob violence thing. And it can get really fucked up, yep. Okay? To me, pointing it out just serves to highlight how hierarchical systems are so much better at systematizing that human tendency toward scapegoating and violence.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not going to pretend I don't think some sort of hierarchical system is most effective for minimizing instances of mob rule. I think it's fair to say it is an inevitability that sometimes the majority will want something that is very bad for a minority or an individual.

I have a hard time thinking of a non-hierarchical method of preventing the tyranny of the majority. For example, what happens when a To Kill A Mockingbird type situation happens where someone is falsely accused of a heinous crime and the public wants blood? There won't always be an Atticus Finch in reality to persuade people to choose logic over emotion.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm pretty uneasy about those kinds of questions myself. I think caring about ideals of justice and fairness inherently carries some amount of "...so your rules should be like my rules" along with it, and how could it not? Self-determination allows choosing rules and behaviors I think are bad, including horrifically bad.

Nonetheless. Me imposing my judgment and values on what people should do, shares enough of the problems with some faraway monolithic state doing so, that I probably just shouldn't.

And again, hypothetical harms from self determination vs known really horrific crimes at extreme scales, many done for fairly shallow and otherwise heinous goals, to boot. I understand unease, I don't understand defending present systems against even just the idea of trying some better ways.

It sounds like we disagree about that.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If everyone was like you and me, anarchy would work perfectly fine as a social system. I don't want to control anyone and I don't care how anyone lives their life as long as it doesn't directly harm me. But rules aren't developed for reasonable people, but because of unreasonable people. Ultimately I'm more afraid of unreasonable people with no restrictions than I am of the present system.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

But communities of people naturally, inevitably, develop rules to deal with unreasonable people.

In a way you're just pointing out - "notice how some people are bad and must be controlled" (yes, clearly) and then arriving at "so the way we're doing it now is better than what I'm imagining anarchists are suggesting".

What I'm trying (probably failing) to say clearly is that - for me, the fundamental principle of *an-*archism - anti-hierarchical thinking - revolves around people in their own communities knowing what's best for them. As an idea. As opposed to just gigantic new feudalism + boundlessly scary tech - knowing what's best for folks. Which we have.

The launch into "but what if everyone can just do what they want" is...well, it's you not thinking very hard. It's not what I mean, I can't speak for anyone else, but fairly sure it's not what others mean either.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I absolutely get that communities will develop their own rules. I just don't see a third option besides mob violence or creating a hierarchy. Either everyone collectively metes out justice, or you make justice someone's job which creates a hierarchy of control. Maybe that's too simplistic thinking?

What we have has big big problems, no doubt. Getting to a better place just takes so many big changes, I have a hard time visualizing getting from A to B.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I struggle with that too, to be perfectly honest. I certainly don't have all the answers. Almost none of them, if I'm really being honest.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'll expand a bit because I've got some time now.

But again, you seem to just lurch between "mob violence" and what sounds to me like "the hierarchies we have", and imagine that these are like two inevitable and distinct outcomes.

Again, I don't see smaller groups of people deciding for themselves what justice means as scarier or worse than what we have, and really I think it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. Signalling poor awareness of what the world is like, or a borderline-paranoid misunderstanding of what most folks are like. Or something.

The question and useful discussion is "so how to make better things for all of us?", not "what if worst case version of other_idea is somehow even fucking worse than alllllll this?"

It's just a useless and silly premise. Self-defeating. Worse, everyone-defeating.

What we have is indefensible. It can't be defended, it's beyond the pale, that's the end of that discussion for me. But "oh no what if other_thing..."

Well. We're over here saying "what if", not like you though.

I will say I enjoy the slow unpacking of ideas, this has been roughly what I like about Lemmy mostly, and I don't intend to be an asshole, really. I do feel pretty strongly about things, and I don't have a lot of patience for shallow critical takes amounting to "what if mob violence".

"What if we keep this?" There's a softball.

Again. It's not hypothetical. Its ruinous. That's the crucial distinction, what we have is ruinous, not a preferred choice among whatever you're imagining as alternatives. The "elites" have abandoned humanity in favor of their own fantasy of someday eking out some version of isolated luxury (note, this is corroborated by an article by an experienced sex worker attending I think most recent Davos - event? The dickhead Olympics I guess?).

Instead of accepting that they have to share and stop working strictly toward their own ends. Not all of them think precisely that way, but they all have roughly the same ideas and plans for all of us.

It's that simple. They've been doing that, they're doing it, we're seeing what happens by them doing it. It's as evident as the sky being blue.

"What if mob violence". Right. So scary.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hierarchies incentivize spreading hate. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tactics rulers use.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Zero argument from me on that one.

[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You say that like any billionaire has treated you like a human.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 2 weeks ago

It's not just billionaires that would fall to mob justice.

Mobs tend to kill first and ask questions later. Think of how many black people were killed for imagined crimes.