this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
173 points (93.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
2368 readers
1138 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
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.
It's basically a philosophy that says, "if humans would stop being cunts the world would be a good place."
Like, yeah, but have you met people?
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.
I don't get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
Yes, yes I would very much support that government. I don't see a point in "one armed forces" though, they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
Let's continue from here.
EDIT: About your note that anarchism doesn't believe in the goodwill of society: I said was that freedom and equality are core rights, I don't think you've corrected me on this, so the question stands on who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Hmm... Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women's rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I'm in Canada, and I wouldn't want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let's say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn't given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it's states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.
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.