Flippanarchy
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.
view the rest of the comments
It boils down to cooperation vs coordination.
A cooperative force has fewer week points. A single point of failure would be unlikely to cause the rest of the cooperatives to quit. Contrast that to a coordinated war machine where a coup d'etat could quite literally cause them to lay down arms.
Cooperatives by their nature are volunteers whereas state solders are frequently conscripted or coerced in other ways.
A state has hierarchical structures which allows a few leaders near the top to organize a large portion of the state's workforce and economy into a war machine. We have seen examples of that many times through history. Have we seen a counter example of an anarchist cooperative building a war machine to protect itself? Bonus: Has that ever happened without then turning into a state because of the systems it built took on a life of their own birthing regime soaked in the blood of its own? I digress.
In a defensive war the attacker does that.
Kind of. Ukraine. They didnt lose because red vs black, they kind of lost because look-at-a-fucking-map, and did win against the white army. Remember what happened when republican armies (even napolean's republican-built one) started going up against monarchist armies?
I feel like people just give authoritarianism a ton of points that... I dont get where they're getting them?
How near the top? Lets say youre fighting america right now, lets say you're in that position, trying to use that power. The nature of your power dwtermines so much of whqt you can and cannot do. In fact they're trying to do exactly what youve said and have been failing for months. You could give whatever orders you like, of course, but what actually gets done and what damages your authority or gets you fired in the attempt is a serious stumbling block-a king does not have freedom, only power, and that binds him.
Like, you're believing all the hype here.
The main advantage they have is that there's lots of people who buy their shit and lots of shit they've stolen. It's that they're established. Break that and i genuinely dont think they have much on more liberated forms of society. I think the rest is various degrees of bullshit.