this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
236 points (94.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

1437 readers
107 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

To anyone who supports capitalism or otherwise opposes socialism:

Do you support the idea that one man can accumulate enough wealth to own all land of this Earth, making everyone born in his empire under his rule as long as he can kill to defend it? What prevents capitalism from accomplishing this in law? What law exists that limits the borders of nations?

Why, then, must we endure a system where a single man owning the Earth and enslave it is a feature, not a bug?

https://dice.camp/@sean/114698774200264413

I just wanna know what people think. Why must this be maintained? Why is any opposition to capping wealth just the end of the world when it probably would save it, just logically thinking it through?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If we hate capitalism and want socialism, we need to recognise that most people do not really know what those words mean, or are even intimidated by them. We need to use very plain language - fewer isms - if we want to bring people with us. Otherwise we are just preaching to the choir.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 month ago

Tim Walz's attempt to rebrand social democratic policies as neighborliness might be a good start.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No doubt, but I'm talking to people who care about the term capitalism so much that they'll be considered "pro capitalism." That's fine if you're not a capitalist, but I'm not trying to argue that people who are already not pro capitalism should be against it, I'm trying to argue that people who are pro capitalism should be against it.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Generally agree on not assuming a high level understanding but

fewer isms

Okay but this specific phrasing makes me want to violence you. Would you be amenable to this?

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Knock yourself (or me!) out :) But there is an irony in not liking the word "isms" in an argument against using them in their full / correct form.

[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago (5 children)

anyone who hates socialism must hate driving their truck on all of those free roads.

[–] Caffeinated_Sloth@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

And they should pay the fire department for saving their home.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

This is the first anti-capitalism post on Lemmy I can agree with. Not because I think capitalism is bad (but what we see now actually is bad and ugly, no question there), but because it poses a valid question: if you are against whatever looks like socialism, go on and explain how current fuckery should be the norm. Thank you for posting this

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

this is an interesting analogy that i haven't heard before. it doesn't seem like a fully fleshed out analogy though. it jumps between concepts without making the links apparent.

would anyone like to expand upon this analogy for us? how do we get from ruling everything, to killing, to borders, to law, to economics?

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

I look forward to seeing an evolution of thought, theory and practice in the next few years.

I think there are effective ways to undo this problem that are not born yet

[–] onesixone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If only one man owns everything, then expropriation would be really fast in theory

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not if he's surrounded by dead bodies, but capitalism can't prevent that either.

[–] match@pawb.social 4 points 1 month ago

There's sort of an unstated rule that capitalism needs black markets / organized crime to work, so, criminals would stop this

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

UHMMM AKSHUALLY (🤓) a single man cannot own all of earth, given how liberalism is heavily propagated and maintained by concepts such as nationalism and by extension xenophobia, racism, bigotry - all that fun stuff.

If a single man or an entity tried to create some pan-cosmopolitan world where every piece of land is under a single world-wide country, you bet your ass there's gonna be countless of reactionary national liberation movements to proclaim sovereignty.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

People using violence to gather resources and power to themselves has always been the state of humanity. Capitalism is just a present day version of that.

Power is never relinquished willingly. Only through the threat of violence, or by actual violence.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I highly recommend you read up on history. For most of humanity's existence we lived in small relatively egalitarian groups were people depended on each other for survival.

Your "always" is a very recent state of afairs and also not universally true even today.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not only is it recent, it can also flip back relatively easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Paradise_Built_in_Hell

[–] strongarm@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

This looks really cool! Thanks.

Reminds me of the books by Rutger Breghman like Humankind

[–] Sausa@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks for the link to that book, it looks super interesting.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

has always

No.

(implied) human nature

No and fuck you

power is never relinquished willingly

Has been, could be, but won't be here. No.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Let's put it this way:

If someone held a gun to your head and told you to shut the fuck up, you would shut the fuck up.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ideonek@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I think that idea is that a healthy, well-balanced capitalism (with working competition and anti-trust law) would make this imposible. It's a good argument agains cronyism and other broken form of psudo-capitalims... which most reasonable poeople would agree are bad regardless on theier political aligments. Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

But the ability to accrue capital inherently enables one to buy out competitors. You need a massive regulatory apparatus to prevent this, and nearly everyone who self-identifies as a capitalist opposes this.

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

No if you have anti-trust law. In Europe state stopping someone from becoming to big is very normal. Do you remember that Microsoft was at risk of being forcebly splited into multiple companies over Internet Explorer being preinstaled? US just foritted those very needed state rights. There are plenty of capitalist that agree that regulations are needed. Some probleme are to big, and only state can fix them. No sain person is trying to fix global warning by deregulations. That's preaty much a prevailing opinion everywhere... outside US. But what's in US it's not capitalism. It's not even a rule of law at the moment it would seem.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What law prevents a nation from expanding its borders to include the entire earth as long as "might is right" remains unchecked in this world?

[–] ideonek@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

This part I don't get even as argument. What law would prevent one under socialism?

i understand the logic of "under capitalism -in theory - one could simply by every pice of land". I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I don't see how it makes a difference if the invader is a socialist or capitalist country.

might is right == capitalism seams reductive

load more comments (7 replies)

Right? Yeah we should still only be allowed to make or do stuff as the byproduct of a scam, we just shouldn't go over board with it.

I agree. The version of the philosophy of value where ownership is valued and labor is not, is just :violated by things like 'owning too much' and 'exploiting labor' and 'doing whatever you like with all the shit you own'.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'm sorry but this is a nonsense over thee top argument. This is the same as saying "do you support the rampant murdering of your opponents, and if you don't, why do you support anarchy?"

Everybody can make dumb statements like that.

Every system, be it communism, capitalism, anarchy or other can and will be abused. There will always be those trying to become a dictator type asshole, see Stalin, for example. The only way for any system to work well is to put laws in place to limit what cheaters can do. For capitalism that would be tax the shit out of he rich, anything over 10M in personal wealth should be taxed at 100%. There is no right for anyone to be extremely rich.

Capitalism has good parts and whether you like it or not, it's by extremely the most successful to move humanity forward . I have zero problems with a capitalist system that would work like this. Limit company sizes to 500 employees and a billion dollars max in value. Again, tax anything over thst at 100%.

This will get you loads of smaller companies that will have to compete for employees, it'll be easier to force them to obey the law.

This will get you a shit load of money in a government that can then use that for a socialist system that pays for free healthcare, free education, free housing, free great public transportation, etc.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

These are literally critical questions. I'm asking "what prevents it". If "nothing" prevents it then nothing prevents it and maybe we should try to figure out ways to prevent it before it becomes a reality because "nothing prevents it".

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Why would every landowner sell their land? What could be valuable enough to convince them? Maybe money and if they could keep their land like on an 80 year lease?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

How are "we" going to tax the rich when politicians spend 30% of their time seeking campaign contributions?

Every political viewpoint has a flaw but that doesn't mean people should not bring up the flaw.

Let people criticize all political ideologies and through discourse people can examine what is true and what they want in the future

Capitalism facilitates the rich getting richer. It controls political activity. Capitalism is not a system that allows wealth to be distributed from the rich to the poor.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

Forward towards what?

Yeah it's good that we can only gave nice things as the side effect of a scam, that everything must be based in exploitation, and the only check on that, which usually serves to maintain it, is a massive institution that exists for violence.

This all sounds great. Love it.

load more comments
view more: next ›