this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
113 points (91.9% liked)
Flippanarchy
1457 readers
40 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So... yes, in practice, because you can't create equality of means, resources, or power.
Even if you could (for the sake of argument) make all other things equal, you can't redistribute human bodies to be equal (in age/mass/height/arm reach/strength/etc), and you can't redistribute willingness to kill for personal gain to be equal.
There will always be individuals who have both the means and the will to do violence in order to enrich themselves. Without some system of enforcement to prevent this (e.g. the state) the outcome is always might makes right.
Anarchy in the context of anarchism doesn't refer to a complete absence of rules or their enforcement. On the contrary, anarchism rejects any form of higher power (aka might), and focuses on building communities in a way that makes them resilient to it.
I'm not sure I really understand your argument though. Societies and communities were able to have rules preventing violence long before the existence of nation states. Not to mention that your definition of the state is ironic in and of itself: We need violence (the state) to prevent violence (by non-state actors). The state itself in this definition (which I agree with) is itself following the method might makes right.