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.
Seeing someone "vaguelly left" unironically defending the extrajudicial murder of Rosa fucking Luxembourg was not in my bingo card.
Note that even Germany itself celebrates Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
Not surprised personally, it was an easy block a long time ago lol.
I think this sort of take is painfully common, I don't really get why even the weakest forms of lib propaganda are so effective at making their followers dismiss gigantic problems. It's the same thing that makes people think the democrats are okay actually, and it's why people here are okay with the prime minister doing insane shit like sentencing a species to extinction or actively advancing the rise of fascism...
Also fuck electoral democracy lol
Uh, basically its effective because the people convinced by the most pathetic and dubious of liberal propoganda are insecure cowards with normalcy bias and weak senses of identity, and, this is probably the most important part, significant levels of material/social privelege that they genuinely cannot concieve of themselves ever personally not having.
'Things couldn't actually get that bad, don't be ridiculous!'
And then go look at the vast majority of human history that shows no actually things being pretty bad for most people in complex civilized societies is the norm, we currently live in an exceptionally complex and fragile abberation to that baseline.
Their idea of 'progress' and 'progressivism' ... is faith based, literally not grounded in reality, a kind of secular religion of optimism.
When socioeconomic reality breaks down...
(ironically, usually significantly resulting from people like them ignoring all those messy details for too long),
... the faith based delusion becomes harder to maintain, they become despondent, catty and erratic.
..........
Case in point:
Heyyyy go look at all the American milquetoast liberal Democrat social media influencers that are currently freaking the fuck out with deceptive, rambling panicked monologues of HR-speak and/or 'how dare you, you bitch/bastard!', jilted high school lover level diatribes...
...over their own little dark money superpac Chorus getting exposed in the last 24hrs.
I guess thats only supposed to be fun when it happens to Tim Pool and Benny Johnson or w/e.
..........
There, thats my 'hot take' or w/e, apparently I do have more to say about all this... grrruggghh....
dark money superpac Chorus
first I'm hearing of this. would love to watch liberals freak out about it. would you provide some links?
https://www.wired.com/story/dark-money-group-secret-funding-democrat-influencers/
This is the article that broke the story, tons of big name, more or less Dem-Party-Line youtubers / tiktokkers are freaking out with response videos.
Looks like the article is more than 24hrs old, but in the last day-ish is when I've seen a bunch of those implicated... not taking it well.
I think you're pretty on point with the normalcy bias and general sense of privilege, but I'm less inclined to agree on the insecurity and weak sense of identity. Of course I'm likely speaking from an entirely different political context given I'm not from the US (committing the sin of assuming you are though, correct me if I'm wrong).
Even when those traits are present in liberals, I think they're generally symptoms rather than the cause. It's suprisingly easy for one to be disenfranchised and not realise; the neoliberal discourse tends to suppress unique identity in favour of assimilation/conformity and cowardice is a side effect of convincing people that the power to effect change lies solely in the ballot.
I suppose the intentional disenfranchisement is how that faith is maintained. I tend to view the ignorant liberal as a victim and I know first hand that they can get free, but it either takes a lot of time or something big that realigns their worldview with reality, quite often both.
There's a lot more I cut out from my comment, but the general gist is that the systems of oppression rely on abusive tactics to create class traitors, and it makes me sad to see the well meaning progressive oppose real change. "Soft on people hard on power structures" is a saying I keep in mind, although it's not a rule by any means and it doesn't excuse anyone's actions: we still have to fight against the liberals.
I am USAsian, your inkling was correct.
What I was trying to say was specific to those convinced by that most basic, placid, wholesome and ... obviously false upon any serious critical evaluation ... that kind of just fucking frollicking in the fields level naïveté, that kind of rhetoric.
Liberals are obviously capable of making more logically compelling and rhetorically moving slogans and arguments ... but I'm trying to focus on the most banal.
This type of shit is only convincing to ... hopefully you are familiar with 'Disney Adults'.
People who really do just base a massive amount of their personality off of a retreat into a dream world.
In my life, all the dumbest liberals I've known... have been Disney Adults, or something approximating that for some other... basically fandom.
You take that away, that consumerism enabled fantasy, and there's almost nothing to them other than being a nervous wreck.
........
You are of course not wrong about the ... sinister ways that neoliberalism creates and/or amplifies the conditions that make it more likely for people to be this way...
But I will freely admit this is personal, anecdotal, for and from me.
Anyway... in a weird way, these kinds of people would call themselves liberals or progressives or even leftists... but in actuality they are reactionaries of a kind, by way of escaping into nostalgia, always as a consistent behavior pattern in their own lives.
......
I hear you when you say you tend to view these people as victims.
But I have personally known and been fucked over by too many of these unstable idiots that lie, cheat, steal, break down and panic, at the worst possible times, and then they guilt trip you for noticing they did that, because they are in such inner turmoil that actually you should just give them endless leeway, emotional capacity, trust, material means, social favors, whatever.
They are not capable of holding themselves accountable for anything they do or believe, and because of this cowardice, they ruin those around them, mostly unintentionally.
Now just scale that up from a small social circle to... abdicating their responsibility to usefully give a fuck about their fellow human beings in this world.
They won't tell you they don't care, they do care.
They will tell you they are completely overwhelmed, and thus just do some token thing, because at least that gets them social credit with others like them.
Frankly, it sickens me.
I would more respect a completely apathetic or totally cynical and resigned person... they're more likely to have at least a stable personality and set of behaviors, less likely to actively do harm via naive good intentions.
........
I am at least self aware enough to realize I am probably not the best person to rely on for motivating or radicalizing such people, lol.
But perhaps a useful insight here can be my attempt at an elucidation of the average mental state of these people, such that effective means could be developed toward the aim of ... alleviating their condition.
Though I genuienly have no idea what that approach would be, neither in terms of something effective, nor ... generally morally acceptable.
In my own experience, it does unfortunately seem that, as you say, such people only have even a chance at a significant world view shift if something catastrophic happens to them personally.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think it's true that they are both victims and a huge problem that needs to be fought against. Progressive/liberal activism is a massive problem for one of my collectives and we're constantly suffering their attempts to undo every step forward.
I think I understand the "Disney adults" thing but that's not as common here in my experience. There's certainly an equivalent of it, but it's less dream world and more "I've got mine" reinforced by being completely separated from those who don't, rather than blindly ignoring reality. It's a product of having a relatively large and comfortable middle class and a culture of individuality 🤮.
I also don't really know how to push people to change, exposure to injustice works but I've only ever managed that when they've already started that process themselves. Get them involved in something that puts them in opposition with the state, like mainstream climate activism or something, and then provide more and more exposure to radical ideas and the suffering of those who aren't favoured by the state. The problem is they have to be willing to engage with it at every stage...
I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it's possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.
I do not primarily think of anarchism as a faith.
I primarily think of it as a body of theory and theories (and also very often creative works that develop and showcase those concepts) that is quite useful and accurate at describing, explaining and predicting the mechanics of the world around me, as it pertains to social/societal/economic/political/moral/historical dynamics and systems, that yes, also describes (or attempts to describe) more ideal goals or end states, methods of potentially achieving them.
Yes, I do have what you would perhaps call a 'faith' in the idea that a better world can be built, more fulfilling lives can be had... but I do not have some kind of unshakeable certainty that this will one day happen.
I will always believe that a form, or forms of these better worlds were always a possible path that could have been chosen... but not that that path ....was always inevitable, in the long run.
To me... that it to some degree, at some scale, in some sense... is a choice, is only a possibility, is not inevitable... that is what motivates me to make better choices, aimed toward increasing the liklihood of those better outcomes.
......
Rudolf Rocker:
... we should stop regarding social processes as deterministic manifestations of a necessary course of events.
Such a view can only lead to the most erroneous conclusions and contribute to a fatal confusion in our understanding of historical events.
I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal.
I am an anarchist because there is no such thing as a final goal.
Well said.
I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn't really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.
I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don't need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don't need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.
It's this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.
Well first, thank you for the compliment, and likewise, you are also skilled at conveying what you mean. =D
However... I would argue that you should consider taking the next step and abandon God and ... that kind of faith entirely... but I also would not demand that you do so.
I will try to explain what I mean by this.
.......
I am of the 'No Gods, No Masters' school of thought here.
I would describe my philosophy or ... opinion of faith as roughly absurdist/post-modernist:
Sure, faith can be 'real', in the sense that it operates as a kind of hypercharged placebo effect when we decide to make it 'real', in that we do genuienly seem to be biologically predisposed to some form of it, that it is obviously a huge part of our history...
But it isn't 'really real', in that... it is ultimately baseless, there is no evidence that the claims of any particular faith are....big T True, universally.
Faith is a lense, a tool, a construct, perhaps even a hyperreality... but it is ultimately a delusion, comforting though it may be.
Faith is belief without, or in spite of reason.
You are very aware that ... essentially you are still operating in the same, very 'big' mental framework of religion/god/faith, you've just shifted around the components of it, and that is very good, many people do something like this without even realizing that is what they have done, and this almost always leads to massive confusion for them later.
I would say you are staring into the void, the void has stared back into you... and you saw much of it, it changed you greatly... but there was still one aspect of it you would not allow yourself to see, one aspect of you that you did not allow it to destroy within you.
I ... want to say 'be brave, you can handle the full transformation... I believe in you that you can handle a more total reformation of your worldview'.
But the problem is that I know that many people just actually cannot handle that.
I have seen too many people in my own life suffer immensely from going through a more total deconstruction process.
I managed to come out the other end of it and would consider myself decently mentally and emotionally stable at the moment... but the process of deconstructing, of letting go of concepts ... yes it was painful.
I know others from my own life who have been destroyed by the attempt... I do not want to encourage serious harm to others generally, and I do not know you well enough to hazard a guess as to how you would fare, and it... would also seem to be me imposing my will over your own to fully insist that you do, especially as you have directly stated it brings you stability, purpose, sanguinity.
And then, for me, this becomes a sort of meta-paradox that kind of proves my point, that... boundless faith in people is not justified, because people have limits, those limits vary, and I cannot fundamentally 'know' them in advance with certainty... many people do not even know their own limits in advance... thus ... I am 'correct' in a way that is kind of useless in a person to person context.
..........
Hopefully that all makes some sense and I do not sound like Nietzche in his latter years, hahaha!
Basically, you and I see things differently on this subject... and I think that though our views are different, we both understand the other person's views are largely reasonable, we both have... concerns around the edges, so to speak.
Perhaps we are simply slightly different kinds of people... moving toward similar goals, in slightly different ways. =D
Hahaha, or maybe I've managed to just kill my own soul and you still possess one, ahahah!
That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.
I'm not that serious about religion. I wasn't raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren't usual and see what you come up with.
Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I've started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn't spread. I'm pretty isolated and so it's hard to trust in it as something real because I don't see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.
But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just "anarchy can exist if people try hard enough". And that's not baseless. pre-archy^1^ was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it's not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.
^1^: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a "civilisation".
At the end of the day what is and isn't rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.
And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I'm just here to discuss a topic I've thought about recently.
oh also: "No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves."
effective at making
They're not. They already want to, the propaganda provides an excuse. Liberaliam is dtanding steadfastly for the easiest most convenient thing to think/do that makes me change the least, that makes me feel the least guilty with the least effort (so like a curtain is usually good enough) etc.
It's why it's the most popular claimed ideology of people who believe in nothing.
I am fucking tired and have nothing to say other than:
Holy fuck, how does this drama keep getting worse.
Apparently its just mask off day, week, for a ton of turbolibs on lemmy.
Well that, and:
Happy Labor Day!!!
Enjoy your teeny tiny pathetic token of maybe, kind-of, barely misremembering a society with a violent, broad and organized labor movement at one point, Americans!
I need a history book and knowledge of all of Lemmy drama (which is pretty undocumented) to understand what's going on in this post 😭
i'm so confused, I just came out of my "subscribed" section after like a month to doom scroll and there's so much drama I missed
great post . well composed.
I needed context, and it was provided without asking.
There's a lot of extra context missing as well, as this brouhaha has been ongoing for a week or so, so all the "in-between dominoes" are missing but I can't be arsed atm. You can search my username and you'll find half a dozen threads in as many comms
Might need some more context for what they said linked on this one - seems like they're just advocating for not violently overthrowing a newly elected system of government in favor of a more right aligned one, but then my understanding of the german revolution starts to break down around when the eighth distinct faction got involved so who knows
i've had pug jesus blocked for a long time. i wish there was a mechanism for commenting to yourself why you did something for later reference. but here we are. i don't block individual users often so i must have been super frustrated with how they were generally conducting themselves
There's some frontends which provide user tagging.
It was probably that their responses and posts are everywhere. Kinda like Blaze. I don't use lemmy to mainline one person's perspective.
Y'all need to learn how to block people
In fairness like half the random meme posts are PugJesus because how terminal online they are.
He doesn't even mention Rosa Luxemburg?
You need to know history to understand what's happening when someone defends the actions of the SPD at the turn of the last century.
I did read up a bit, and the spartacists tried to overthrow the provisional government, to install a council republik, instead of a social democracy, and subsequently got their asses handed to them. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were captured and subsequently murdered by the freikorps.
Sounds to me like they just fought and lost. While killing Luxemburg and Liebknecht went too far, capturing them was justified. These two should obviously have been given a fair trial.
Did I miss anything?
Four empires with vassal states in eastern europe collapsed entirely in WW1. The Freikorps were monarchist and anti-republic paramilitaries that sought to restore the German Empire. Essentially if 'just fought and lost' is valid, the monarchists and imperialists fought and lost the war, and the dismantling of their Empire was part of the peace treaties that ended the war. But since those treaties were also with empires that collapsed...
The ending and aftermath of World War 1 is the uncompromising context for the entire interwar period.
Rosa Luxemburg, in fact, voted against the Spartacist Uprising and to participate in elections instead.
But that's inconvenient, so db0 doesn't care.
I've been noticing people on dot-world in the last year, particularly the mods, have really ramped up calling people tankies and making a big fuss about it. Back when I used my account there, Hexbear might as well have been Satan's personal instance for how it was discussed. Since I moved here (and can actually see them), it really seems quite overblown.
There's definitely shitty users all over, and maaaybe the more radical instances let people get away with more bad behavior, but certainly banning whole instances over shit like this is obvious mod abuse.
It's not like they run background checks on mods, literally anyone could infiltrate the positions and use their powers to sow dischord. I just don't trust this extreme "we must purge the far left, the anarchist, the communists, etc" turn in Lemmy moderation at all. Really stinks of old fashioned "First they came for the..." behaviors.
I’ve been noticing people on dot-world in the last year, particularly the mods, have really ramped up calling people tankies and making a big fuss about it.
Fascism has endless purity tests that eventually means no one can pass them.
I've been called a Tankie for wanting the DNC to support popular polices to win over people tricked by fascism.
I've been called a Russian bot for not liking racist polices set up by Republicans and kept around by Democrats.
They don't want you to question their motives. They love their billionaires, anyone who disagrees must be paid for the other guy's billionaires.
i hear you can get a nice nazi arm band
Where'd you hear that, pug? Ive never heard that. I assumed but I've never heard.
Just learning this now? They've long ago established they celebrate the murder of Luxembourg and Liebknecht. Big fan of the Freikorps.
Also genocidal chinese warlords and possibly the Bodo League IIRC. Pretty much any historical figure or event with a hefty leftist body count has gotten praise. I am surprised this is new to anyone who has been around.
Lol of course it's Pug.
Is this what this sub is about? I'm just seeing pitchforks against pugjesus and I gotta be honest, I do not give the smallest single solitary fuck about any of this, any of who we think is a lib or not on this tiny ass platform, any of the insane bullshit one of our brothers says to another, any of this petty online drama. I. dont. give. a. fuck. what a waste of time! I think i only subbed here because I was going for the main db0 subs but if this is what it's about then I'm sorry but i have zeeeeero interest in your petty online leftist bs squabbling. grow the fuck up and do something with your life where you can stop caring about this shit too because frankly I find it absolutely fuckin pathetic that you give any time of day to this
Well this sub is fluid. It's about laughing at stuff relevant from an anarchist perspective.
I edited my comment to something much more harsh. it comes from a place of compassion i swear
This is a massive turbolib take don't get me wrong, but I don't see Pug defending the murder of those two. They defended the recruitment of the Freikorps for the violent suppression of the uprising, which is also a shity turbolib take but not really the same thing.
I'm not quite sure what point Pug was trying to make (I think it's against violent coups as a form of socialist revolution), but they weren't criticizing Rosa here. They're appealing to her authority as a socialist figure to make their point.
I’m not quite sure what point Pug was trying to make (I think it’s against violent coups as a form of socialist revolution),
Not universally - but pointing out that Rosa Luxemburg herself was opposed to the coup attempt when there were reasonably democratic elections coming up that the KPD could've very easily made significant gains in.
If the reaction to "There are democratic elections coming up, and they look to be relatively fair and probably reflect the will of the majority" is "We need to take power by force before that can happen!", you've edged into some pretty fucking questionable territory. Combine that with the fact that the Spartacist Uprising explicitly modeled itself after the Bolsheviks in Russia, who had, the year before, dissolved a democratically elected and leftist legislature to seize power for themselves, and it becomes difficult to not see it as a form of early red fascism.
Disclaimer: I have nothing but disdain for the Bolsheviks/Communists, and believe there's a serious argument that they're just a branch of fascism with leftwing dressing. This argument is not coming from a place of ML sympathy.
You're misrepresenting/misunderstanding the cause of the Spartacist uprising. The uprising wasn't planned to prevent the democratic elections; it kind of just happened as some saw an opportunity where none existed and everyone jumped the gun. Also note that the KPD wanted to establish a council republic similar to what the Bolsheviks had set up, which was flawed but not inherently authoritarian; Bolshevik authoritarianism came through corruption of a democratic system with winning the war as their excuse. It's no coincidence that anti-Bolshevik uprisings would feature chants of "soviets without communists" in the tail end of the civil war. Point being: The uprising was a bad idea in hindsight, but you're seeing malice on the part of the KPD where there's none. The KPD, after being swept up by an uprising they did not plan but that had effectively started anyway, saw an opportunity to replace a form of democracy (parliamentary democracy) with what they considered a better form of democracy (council democracy); whether you agree with them on that or not, nothing about the uprising was fascist of the red or any other variety.