And a lot of the jobs that are truly awful and nobody wants to do ... are bullshit jobs that don't actually need to be done in the first place.
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
382 points (97.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
2163 readers
34 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
"no one wants to flip burgers for 7.25!" No shit buddy, maybe your business shouldn't exist anymore
We could automate those jobs, yes, but then a lot of people would have no jobs at all.
In a society in which one's material needs are not tied to one's labour, this would not be a problem.
True, but we don't have that society, yet we do have the ability to automate a lot of people out of a job.
So you see the problem.
We must ban automation!
Nah, we need to ban jobs and force automation on everything
I see several. Most notably that we seem to keep winding up with leaders that want to enrich themselves rather than make thing better for everyone.
If we were providing basic needs to everyone, then it would not matter. Its so disgusting how many think "work" is the end all be all to existence.
And that is not saying people are lazy, but that they should not define their existence doing tasks for other people's benefit for the right to simply be.
And there would be jobs that need a person, but we as a society could and should be able to handle that. Some sort of "everyone does some sort of work age 25-30, when they are kind of "peak ability.". Or "You get a bit more if you want to work, but its not necesary.
That sort of thing.
"No one wants to cook our poisonous food while being paid the absolute minimum we can pay them to do it"
You don't say !?
"nobody wants to do this" = "I don't want to do this and I have no imagination"
Props to the original poster for being open-minded in their reaction
But treating people like people with needs and desires as well as dreams doesn't raise the bottom line! Cries in capitalism /s
Theres a steep irony in someone doing government controlled work idealizing a system where the work they do would likely not exist. Who exactly would be mandating/funding the existence, operation, or regular testing of a sewage plant in an anarchist society?
Society is poorly designed in the general sense, sure. It could be vastly improved and people could have more liberty wrt a lot of things. But left to their own devices people on average would not choose to mandate water treatment. Even if they somehow did, providing no central system of oversight for making sure that it happens would all but guarantee it doesnt get accomplished.
Its ridiculous how many people take critical aspects of society for granted and assume they would continue to exist in a world where everyone does whatever the fuck they want without any central planning or control. In many places around the world people already dont have access to fresh/clean water for this exact reason…
Look at the libertarian experiments that have all failed spectacularly, like Grafton, NH. Mfs couldnt even agree to not feed the bears or dispose of their trash appropriately. And that doesnt require some massive infrastructure project to accomplish. The greater good often necessitates protecting people at large from their own stupidity, otherwise your liberties are quickly diminished by your neighbor’s negligence
This feels like projection more than anything else.
There are tons of people who voluntarily do hard, unpleasant, or dangerous work because they care about the people around them. Volunteer firefighters. Mutual aid groups. Community search and rescue. The number of regular people who stepped up during disasters when official institutions failed is huge. The idea that nobody would bother maintaining water systems unless a central authority forced them to says more about how you see people than about how people actually behave.
You’re also mixing up anarchism with “no coordination.” Anarchism isn’t “everyone does whatever they want and society collapses.” It’s opposition to hierarchy and domination, not opposition to organization. Sewage plants and water treatment don’t exist because of some mystical power of the state. They exist because people need clean water. They require technical knowledge, cooperation, and systems of accountability. None of that logically requires a top-down ruling authority.
You brought up Grafton, NH, (I had to google this) but that doesn't look anything like anarchism. That looks more like a hyper-individualist, market-first version of libertarianism with almost no civic culture. Anarchism, especially in its socialist or syndicalist traditions, is built around collective responsibility and shared management. Those are very different things. “Nobody owes anyone anything” is not the same as “we organize ourselves without bosses.”
And on the clean water point: communities historically pushed for sanitation because cholera and dysentery were killing people. Public health measures often came from collective pressure long before centralized bureaucracies standardized them. People don’t need to be tricked into wanting potable water.
You say the greater good requires protecting people from their own stupidity. Maybe sometimes. But you seriously think centralization magically fix negligence? Flint, Michigan had a state. That didn’t prevent a water disaster. Bureaucracy can fail just as hard as decentralized systems, and sometimes with less direct accountability.
The real disagreement here seems to be about human nature. If you assume most people won’t lift a finger unless coerced, then yeah, anarchism sounds ridiculous. If you assume people are capable of organizing around shared needs when they actually have ownership and say over things, it becomes less far-fetched.
Ok, so you have people willing to work at the wastewater treatment plant. What happens when the Reverse Osmosis pump gives out? Costs $500,000 to replace. Whose going to pay for that? Wait, sorry I forgot we're in an anarchist society so supposedly no money (if there is money, add on a whole other layer of complexity to the following questions).
So who's going to build the pump? People willing to work at the pump factory? Ok, where do they get the materials to build it? I'm assuming none of this is local because logistically that's practically impossible, so who delivers the materials to them? The pump factory is unlikely to be next door to the wastewater treatment plant, so how is the pump delivered? Who is the specialist that installs the pump? Who makes sure it's done safely and correctly? Are there consequences if it's done in a way that doesn't result in clean water?
That's the thing, anarchism seems great whenever everything is working and everything is already in place. The moment something big breaks, anarchism just doesn't provide enough resources to get it fixed. We would need a post-scarcity society before we could move to something like that.
Again, you’re assuming complexity only works if there’s hierarchy and profit at the top.
Now I’m no hydraulics expert, but I’m pretty sure a reverse osmosis pump does not need a CEO to function. We have engineers, machinists, operators and logistics workers who coordinate their labor. For the last time, anarchism does not mean no organization. It means organization without concentrated ownership and coercive authority.
The way you frame this makes it sound like the only reason you’d ever lift a finger for anyone is if there’s a paycheck or someone above you making you. That’s not really a strong critique of anarchism. It’s more of a self report about how you see community.
Would you (or any other anarchist reading this) ever want to do an AMA? I have questions, but I imagine that asking them here would feel like dog-piling and I don't want to do that to you. I'm just curious and want to learn more. The last time I heard people take anarchism seriously, school teachers were quick to shut it down.
I have my own concerns and reservations, but I don't truly know how much of it exists from being stuck in an authoritarian society, and I simply haven't heard the solutions yet because of it. I've always been a skeptic, and I'm always looking for a new way to think about things, even things I don't necessarily agree with. I think a question-and-answer session could be quite enlightening.
I might not be able to go outside this authoritarian box and explore for myself, but an AMA would at least allow me (and others like me) to look out a window.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy
Why do you think sewage treatment plants exist in the first place? I’ll give you a hint, its not because people came together altruistically to build them (or even regulate that they need to exist).
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was signed because people, left to their own devices, self-destructively pollute their water supplies. That law mandated people couldnt dump shit in the water. It also was passed because state laws weren’t effective at stopping people from polluting the water
It wasnt enough, so there was the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. And then the Water Quality Act of 1965. And then the Clean Water Act of 1972, which provided funding to create sewage treatment plants, and mandated that all wastewater be treated to a certain standard. And even that wasnt enough, which is why we later invented the entire EPA, an entity dedicated largely to that one issue (among similar things).
None of that would have occurred without centralized authority, nor would have been necessary if a plurality of people were not inherently self destructive when left to their own devices. Anarchism is opposed to any central authority. Thereby, under the most basic logic, sewage treatment plants would be virtually guaranteed not to exist in an anarchical non-society society.
Giving people at large the benefit of the doubt about an issue they have repeatedly shown to fuck up for centuries is silly. And sewage treatment plants require centralization to be built and maintained.
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 was signed because people, left to their own devices, self-destructively pollute their water supplies. That law mandated people couldnt dump shit in the water. It also was passed because state laws weren’t effective at stopping people from polluting the water
It’s interesting that you quietly swap in “people” where history mostly shows industrial corporations dumping waste for profit.
Working class communities were not the ones lobbying to pour chemical sludge into rivers.
Most of the legislation you listed was not the state heroically saving humanity from itself. It was the state reacting to industrial capital externalizing costs onto the public. Central authority stepped in because private ownership plus profit incentives produced pollution at scale.
You’re treating absence of centralized state authority as if it means absence of rules, standards or coordination. That is not what anarchism argues. It argues against concentrated political authority. It does not argue against collectively enforced norms.
You cite centuries of people “fucking up.” A lot of that history is profit driven extraction protected by law, not spontaneous communal self destruction.
If anything, your examples show that concentrated power and profit incentives required constant correction. That is not a great defense of hierarchy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It wasnt enough
And then
And then
And even that wasnt enough
When will it be enough?
How do those engineers get their education? Do they find a mentor engineer? So for each engineering student you need an already engineer teacher?
Or would there perhaps be a school of engineering with a hierarchy to organize the engineering lectures so there could be more students per teacher?
But there's not only engineering. Perhaps we might also need medical schools, art schools, sewage maintaining schools. Maybe those schools might want to interact with eachother in order to provide consistent curriculums and aid students if they want to switch from one school to another. Perhaps we need a department of education to coordinate all this schools.
Maybe, like we arrived at the department of education, we might want departments for other matters. Look! A government!
Perhaps we need a department of education to coordinate all this schools.
Everyone in Lemmy is American, everyone knows that
I think that you should read about anarchism because you're so confused that it's difficult to explain where.
councils, working groups, community bodies, assemblies etc are all entirely compatible with anarchy.
It is not opposition to collectivism, indeed anarchism is (generally) deeply collectivist.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Its ridiculous how many people take critical aspects of society for granted and assume they would continue to exist in a world where everyone does whatever the fuck they want without any central planning or control. In many places around the world people already dont have access to fresh/clean water for this exact reason…
You have a very simplistic view of what an anarchist society could look like and it's rooted in the assumption that the only possible alternative to central planning is no planning. It's absolutely possible for people to organize access to clean water in a decentralized manner and I know this because it has been done repeatedly all over the world and throughout human history. In the places you're thinking of that do not have access to clean water it is often not the result of a lack of central planning, but directly caused by it, such as when a multinational corporation claims a community's water supply as its private property and restricts access.
Precisely. The original post shows there could still be labor willing to do the work, but it does does not address how that work would be funded. Even if the labor was free there are resources required to build and maintain that plant that are not free. Where do those resources come from?
Wait till you hear about the anarchist that loves going into the mines with toxic gases and all to get the resources for the sewage maintainer guy.
Let's see; keep things running by going into a mine and digging out something that is needed with the proper safety gear, or going into a mine and digging out something with only the safety gear your boss couldn't convince the the government to not require.
Such hard choices...
load more comments
(16 replies)
If it's necessary, someone will do it. If that can't be counted on, we're kinda fucked.
load more comments
(19 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
If you consider the Zapatista's anarchist, they are a federation of autonomous municipalities that do stuff like this (along with hospitals, schools, etc).
This is why I'm moving away from programming for a boss and am looking for jobs where I don't get the stress of countless meetings and project manager bullshit. I just want a nice job where I don't feel too much stress and make enough money to live decently. Then I can continue working on opensource projects as my hobby.
I really dislike all the "ceremonies" that seem to be involved in software development now. It's just so much useless ritual.
"We can discuss it at the stand-up".
If jobs end up not being done, it's because they have been deemed not necessary by the people. There are enough weird people to fill just about every niche, if filling that niche also allows them to live.
I like the sentiment but working at a sewage plant is way more interesting than a lot of jobs out there.
True, but there are a lot of people who love monotony. There are people out there who go to work all day and then come home and, as a hobby, grind some numbers on a screen in a video game.
It doesn't matter how boring it is or how much you think it sucks, somebody out there wants to do it.
And most of the jobs that suck so much we might not have enough people volunteer for them can just be abolished anyway. We don't need McDonald's.
I love monotony at work. I love being able to predict how much energy I need for a day and how much stress to expect.
You need some breaks, and a few different tasks to work on through the day (e.g. sweeping all day sucks but cleaning the same space each day is super chill).
I often feel like I'd be a legendary peasant lol, I love to work labour outside, then cook, and do handicrafts in the evening for mental stimulation.
Basically everything tedious in life can be enjoyable if nobody is expecting you to approach it as if you're a robotic arm on the assembly floor.
There is no job that someone somewhere doesn't want to do.
No one wants to be a fast food worker, not because it's a bad job per se, but because everyone knows it's bullshit that doesn't help anyone, and their managers are squeezing them to get the very last penny out of them.
You do almost exactly the same thing in a charity soup kitchen, except everyone there loves doing it so much they do it for free because it gives meaning to their lives, and the people managing the operation are nice.
It's all about context, it's all about the ambiance and the social aspects.
view more: next ›