this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
95 points (94.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
2796 readers
328 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.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
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
An interesting idea. Is someone more or less of the marxist if they are the marxist-leninist or are they less the Marxist than someone who says they are just Marxist?
Is a marxist-lenist-stalinist-maoist-thenextsomeone less of a Marxist than a marxist-lenist? How much of the principles and the heories are diluted or revised or pure? Is the Stalinist a revisionist, is it a revision if its a condition of the current needs and pragmatism? Does denouncing of crimes constitute revision? If someone calls themself a Stalinist and someone points to the secret speech as evidence of crimes, who is then the reactionary for the next comment?
Is the only "pure" Marxist then Marx at the exact moment of the death. Himself will have 'adjusted' the positions (revised?) as time goes towards.
I guess we're operating from different starting assumptions. If you think there can be a "pure" Marxism or Marx's theory is definitive, complete, or perfect, then I see how you could take issue with any modifications or additions to it.
If the demarcation of Marxism is to be so rigid, a theory more akin to a dogma, then I see how such disagreements might arise.
Unfortunately I don't think this kind of model, emblematic of organized religion, is how the vast majority of self-professed Marxist-Leninists conceive of it. So the line of thought which seems to run along parallel lines to religious theology is going to be ineffective.
The possibilities of Marx's purity or perfection of theory as put forth are hilariously ironic but I don't think they're serious, given how well known is for opposing idealism and organized religion in particular. I also think it might already have a cheeky name that echoes Christianity -- Orthodox Marxism.
I am sorry, this comment went in the different direction. Is there not a dogmatic critique of the cult of x? Stalin's successor was famously speech about the corrupting power of the individual. This was sharply rebuked by PRC as being revisionist. The interpretation of "orthodox Marxism" and revisions to ML. Cheeky. Would the USSR of the past not critique the PRC of today for its trade with the US or EU and lead to a soviet-sino split?
I lack the understanding of the mechanisms of PRC, USSR. I expect that they are at grass root very community driven. I also expect that dogmatic leadership can be a real problem, and my usual scared in enabling a ML which usually advocates for the vanguard, may turn into the board of public safety. The mechanism of recall or public shaming do little to remove the power of the threat of violence.
How will the corrupt be prevented from centralising the power and going against the interest of the common. In PRC we have seen purges of corruption, mayors hoarding bribed gold, billionaires exist, and Xi says they will achieve socialism beyond 2050. What trust can I put in the dogmatic to deliver a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Am I choosing between the shiniest of two turds? We do it because we must, but do I replace one master with another?