this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
135 points (94.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
2368 readers
918 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Populism is a common phenomena. Anarchism is mostly a subject of discussion and arguments.
Anarchism is, as far as I can tell, a contradiction.
Equality and freedom are a core foundation of anarchy, right? Except, how do you enforce it when inevitably someone fails to respect others freedom and rights, if you reject any sort of hierarchy or control?
I'd really love to believe that everyone would be civically irreprehensible, but reality begs to differ.
They're the leftist libertarians. Instead of blindly believing in the free market self correcting, they blindly believe in the good will of civil society. Obviously neither has access to a history book.
Anarchists in fact DON'T believe in the goodwill of society. Which is why they're against all states, (even if the states are democratic).
Lemme ask you a question. Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else. I'm guessing you wouldn't support such an arrangement. Why? Because you don't trust the rest of the world to have the same values as you, the same way of life, etc. The world is deeply homophobic for example. The UN could immediately ban homosexuality. You wouldn't want that.
The UN is an organization, yes. Is it a state? No. Would the world be better if it was one state? No.
Try analysing using the same technique to lower and lower levels. What about a country? Imagine country X doesn't exist and instead, sovereign provinces in that country exist. They all want to make a deal to cooperate and further shared interests. Does giving up sovereignty over violence make sense as part of that deal? It almost always doesn't (in my opinion).
Take this further down to cities and towns in those provinces.
Sovereignty over violence makes sure that exit from a cooperation agreement is possible. If you remove the ability to exit, then well... you've essentially allowed yourself to be enslaved.
Ahh yes, humans are evil by nature, therefore we need to give some people power over others.
Individuals are usually good. Tribes are typically good to one another. Competing tribes are fucking ruthless.
Society is an attempt to string tribes together under agreed upon frameworks.
And anarchism doesn't contradict this. Anarchism does not mean no organisation. "Agreed upon frameworks" means consensual organisation. No anarchist is against this.
However, non consensual organisation, where an entity with monopoly over violence forces frameworks on "ruled" tribes and peoples is something that anarchism is meant to solve.