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.
Libs thinking we're on their side, until the point we reject electoralism and US imperialist propaganda. Then label as as "tankies".
Campists thinking we're on their side until the point we reject "AES" and "left unity". Then label as a "liberals".
Anarchists are clearly the rare species of "liberal tankie" π
Finding a way to defend yourself without reinventing the machinery of the state is certainly one of the larger practical problems facing anarchism.
Anarchists can defend themselves just fine. We just need to learn not to trust MLs and libs to do it with as they'll backstab anarchists at the first opportunity they have to grab power. This sort of rhetoric is like claiming that democracy is a failed concept in the middle ages, because democracies "can't defend themselves from monarchies" or some shit.
What are you talking about? The only currently extant anarchish communities are in places where states are weak. Anarchists in places with highly centralised states tend to get attacked by everyone, and that's a serious problem you can't just vibes away.
Wars, even ones you win, are a tremendous drain. States tend to suck at fighting non states, but that doesn't mean it's conducive to human flourishing for the non state people. States are also moronically optimistic about their ability to "productively" war.
This isn't some fringe concern. There's any number of proposals you can read on anarchists library about how to deal with this.
It has nothing to do with being failed. If you wanted to start a democratic collective in manorialist times then yes, figuring out how not to get invaded was very important.
You're not saying anything new, anarchism can't happen in times where the system is strong. It can happen when the system is in crisis if we set the relevant groundwork. And when it does, we can defend ourselves from the likewise weakened states.
I didn't think I was saying anything new, just that it's a practical problem that needs solving.
What do you mean? Long drawn out Guerilla wars?
In part. States have a lot of trouble understanding anything that isn't as centralised as a state. Consequently state militaries and intelligence agencies are highly specialised towards attacking these targets and going after the infrastructure they depend on.
When confronted by more horizontally organised structures they tend to get drawn into situations that become long drawn out guerrilla wars. Or playing whackamole with insurgency cells.
Afghanistan, and after we destabilized it, Iraq are good examples.
I wonder if thatβs part of why the Taliban reportedly hate having to actually run Afghanistan?
Itβs still a bunch of assholes with guns though, which sucks.
Its 5 pm i just woke up and im too tired to argue this shit again. You're wrong. There are books about why you're wrong and you're wrong in most ways from the atomic level up to planetary scale shit. Every part of these ideas is wrong in a frustrating stubborn common way.
Honestly it makes me understand why tankies exist. I don't agree with them, but I get it. Just like I get capitalism. They both suck but they're both right for different reasons.
Lemmy has just ruined the word tankie but if you are referring to the more militant/dogmatic MLs then I would agree that I think a search for "realistic" solutions drives some of the more concerning/ardent believers.